Planning Logging:

Two Case Studies on the

Queen Charlotte Islands, B.C.

59
Land Management
Report NUMBER

ISSN 0702-9861

September 1989

Ministry of Forests
SEQ 4375 JOB F2-001-010 PAGE-0004 TITLE PAGE ETC
REVISED 10APR00 AT 08:43 BY BC DEPTH: 60.06 PICAS WIDTH 44 PICAS
COLOR LEVEL 1

ABSTRACT

This report discusses the process of planning logging operations on steep, unstable terrain on the Queen Charlotte
Islands, British Columbia. The report describes the current logging planning process, its data requirements and methods
of data collection, and the results of a series of alternative logging plans prepared to minimize the potential for logging-
accelerated mass wasting. Recommendations are also made for improving the planning process through the amount and
quality of data required, evaluating alternative plans, and logging-system selection.
Intensive ground mapping on two watersheds provided data for the preparation of detailed logging plans. The
logging plans involved various combinations of equipment, including equipment that was in common use at thetime
(highlead, mobile yarding crane, and grapple), equipment that was less common (tower skyline), and equipment not yet
available (helicopter).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the following people for their assistance during the course of this study:
• Gary Marshall, Logging Superintendent, and Eugene Runtz, Forest Engineer, of CIPA Industries Ltd.
• Terry Dyer, District Manager; Ray Hanson, Operations Superintendent; and Russ Haas, Resource Officer,
Timber; of the Ministry of Forests, Queen Charlotte City.
• The members of the Technical Advisory Committee for the Fish/Forestry Interaction Program, and in particular
the Harvesting Sub-Committee.
• The following FERIC employees: Ray Krag, Pat Forrester, and Tony Wong for their conscientious collection of
data; Mike Nagy and Bob Breadon for preparation of early drafts; Jennifer Tan and Kristi Francoeur for
illustrating the text; and Kathi Patton for editorial assistance.
The authors would also like to thank the following individuals for reviewing drafts of this report.
• Steve Chatwin, Russ Haas, Robert Laird, and Rob Pollack of the Ministry of Forests.
• Les Powell, Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
• Vince Poulin, Fish/Forestry Interaction Program.
• Eugene Runtz and Gerry Johnston.
• Don Hoffman, Gerry Young, and Gilbert Brennenstuhl of Fletcher Challenge Canada Limited.
• Terry Rollerson and Paul Chapman of MacMillan Bloedel Limited.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 APPROACHES TO LOGGING-LAYOUT ON THE QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.1 Historical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.2 Timber Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.3 Levels of Current Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.31 Broad-level planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3.2 Logging operations planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.3 Comments on the planning process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3 INFORMATION REQUIRED TO PREPARE LOGGING PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1 Aerial Photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2 Topographic Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 Terrain and Stability Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.1 Slope stability classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4 Timber Inventory and Cruises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5 Knowledge of Road and Logging Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.6 Stream Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.7 Statistical Geographical Terrain Unit Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.8 Mathematical Modelling of Slope Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.9 Data Collection Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4 PREPARATION OF ALTERNATIVE LOGGING PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1 Description of the Planning Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2 Highlead-Yarding Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3 Skyline-Yarding Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.4 Helicopter-Yarding Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.5 Long Multispan Skylines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.6 Analysis of the Alternative Plans: Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.6.1 Timber harvested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.6.2 Roadconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.6.3 Yarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.7 Logging Costs and Log Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.7.1 Yarding and loading costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.7.2 Total logging cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.7.3 Log value, stumpage, and profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.7.4 Planning costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7 LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

v
 TABLES

1 Levels of planning on the Queen Charlotte Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2 Planning and development: Time required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 Information available before the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4 Timber volume: Phantom Creek and Hangover Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5 Slope-class distribution by area: Phantom Creek and Hangover Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6 Slope stability classification by area: Phantom Creek and Hangover Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7 Branch- and spur-road specifications applied to layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8 General specifications for yarding equipment applied to layout. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9 Timber harvested by each system: Phantom Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
10 Timber harvested by each system: Hangover Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
11 Road construction costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
12 Summary of yarding difficulty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
13 Yarding and loading costs: Phantom Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
14 Yarding and loading costs: Hangover Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
15 Logging costs additional to road-construction, yarding, and loading costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
16 Log prices and values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
17 Total cost, stumpage, and profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

FIGURES

1 Queen Charlotte Islands studysites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Comparison of mapdetails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3 Examples of terrain and stability maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4 Comparison of geotechnic maps produced at different scales and different levels of field work .. . . 12
5 Three basic stream or reach types found in areas of intensive mass wasting on the
Queen Charlotte Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6 Failures from road construction along Stream Type II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7 Checklist for highlead-yarding planning, Phantom Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8 Road-location alternatives for critical length along P/S-300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
9 Notes from assessment of alternative road locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
10 Yarding profiles derived from study areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
11 Checklist for mobile yarding-crane planning, Phantom Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
12 Checklist for tower-skyline planning, Hangover Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
13 Checklist for mobile yarding-crane planning, Hangover Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
14 Checklist for helicopter-logging planning, Phantom Creek and Hangover Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
15 Helicopter logging would be used to reduce cable-yarding disturbance on sensitive terrain . . . . . . . 32
16 Road lengths by stability classes intersected, Phantom Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
17 Road lengths by stability classes intersected, Hangover Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
18 Road lengths by Ministry of Forests construction category, Phantom Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
19 Road lengths by Ministry of Forests construction category, Hangover Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

vi
SEQ 4378 JOB F2-002-015 PAGE-0002 MAIN TEXT
REVISED 10APR00 AT 08:43 BY BC DEPTH: 59 PICAS WIDTH 44 PICAS
COLOR LEVEL 1

1 INTRODUCTION

This report discusses the process of planning logging in natural forests. It specifically deals with forest develop-
ment, the location of roads, and the layout of logging cutblocks in areas on the Queen Charlotte Islands that are subject
to mass wasting. It is based on information collected from industry and agency reports, studies conducted by the Forest
Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC) on the Queen Charlotte Islands, and discussions with personnel
actively involved with logging planning. Detailed field information about topography, soil, and timber was collected on
two demonstration areas, and sample logging plans were evaluated to determine the potential of using alternative
yarding systems to reduce landslides on logged areas.

The information presented here will assist industrial, environmental, and regulatory personnel to understand better
the requirements of the planning process. It also provides logging planners with a methodology and checklist with which
to analyze and review planning procedures.

This is the fourth in a series of reports prepared by FERIC for the Fish/Forestry Interaction Program (FFIP). In
1980, during the initial discussions with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of FFIP, FERIC concluded that
identifying sensitive forest sites and preparing good logging plans were essential if logging-accelerated mass wasting is
to be reduced. To demonstrate the importance of site identification and planning, FERIC suggested that case-study plans
be made of several areas that were scheduled for logging in the near future, thus enabling testing of a plan. Two areas
located on the southwest side of Graham Island within the Phantom Creek and Hangover Creek drainages were suited to
the study. Both were scheduled for logging; both contained difficult topography with sensitive sites; and both were large
enough to accommodate a variety of logging systems, including skylines and helicopters.

This report presents the results of the planning exercise only. Because of declining economic conditions within the
forest industry during the study period, the study sites were not logged. However, the field surveys undertaken provided
detailed data for evaluation of several planning approaches, and FERIC was able to achieve most of its objectives.

The purpose of this report is to:

1. describe the current logging planning process, its data requirements, and methods of data collection;

2. prepare plans that use alternative logging methods, and to compare the results of these plans to those developed
by the current process;

3. recommend improvements to the current logging-planning process, and to specify the amount and quality of
data required for planning logging sites on steep, potentially sensitive terrain.

2 APPROACHES TO LOGGING-LAYOUT ON THE

QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS

2.1 Historical Perspective

Until the 1970’s, logging on the Queen Charlotte Islands took place primarily on stable, lower-elevation
areas, and used the highlead system. At that time, planning staff were not aware of the consequences of
logging the steeper slopes and it was not until landslides occurred that the seriousness of the problem was
identified.

The prevention of mass wasting on the Queen Charlotte Islands is difficult. The area, which was recently
glaciated, has a high level of natural instability, as well as very steep slopes, high rainfall, and strong winds.
Roads must often be built across unstable areas to access merchantable timber on stable slopes. The timber
resource itself contributes to the difficulty. The Sitka spruce trees are extremely large and tall (many 2 m in
diameter and 70 m tall) and the logs are heavy (8 t). Felling tall trees on slopes requires room, and timber
SEQ 4379 JOB F2-002-015 PAGE-0003 MAIN TEXT
REVISED 10APR00 AT 08:43 BY BC DEPTH: 60.06 PICAS WIDTH 44 PICAS
COLOR LEVEL 1

edges must be protected to prevent damage from winds. These factors restrict the use of selective logging
techniques and result in large clearcuts. Large, heavy equipment and wide roads are necessary to harvest and
transport the logs. The low-quality understory and decadent over-mature trees in these forests produce a large
volume of logging debris, some of which may accumulate in gullies and add to the volume of material in
landslides.
The Queen Charlotte Islands are recognized as a unique area on the Pacific Coast, with special
environmental features. Public attitudes about the Islands affect the logging planning process. Since the
mid-1970’s, agency and industry planners have introduced methods to identify critical sites and have been
more selective in where and how to log.
Forest engineers and others involved in the planning process now have experience in planning logging
operations on terrain that is subject to slope failure. Many field layout people have worked actively with terrain
specialists to develop acceptable logging plans, and hence have improved their own ability to match logging
operations to the terrain. Specialists have also benefitted from working with industry and have become
increasingly effective in proposing solutions to localized problems. In addition, companies have introduced
new road-building techniques and logging methods. Companies now recognize the need to rehabilitate roads
and landings after use. All these measures have helped to reduce logging-related mass wasting on the Queen
Charlotte Islands. If the important timber resource remaining on steep slopes is to be fully used, however,
industry and government must agree on the intensity of planning; and agencies must be assured that mass-
wasting impacts on fish and the forest site will be limited to acceptable levels. Agency staff must also be
assured that the plan adequately considers all the resource values and that protection measures are
introduced where necessary.
Improving the planning process could further reduce logging-related landslides and help provide access
to more timber.

2.2 Timber Resource

The timber on slopes classified as unstable but loggable can be important to the forest industry and to the
province. The Forest and Range Resource Analysis Report (B.C. Ministry of Forests 1980) states ‘‘. . . operability
problems are crucial to the [Queen Charlotte TSA] wood supply. Because of slope instability, most of the volume on the
middle and upper slopes is not presently available.’’ However, Lewis points out that, ‘‘the most productive Sitka spruce
sites, which are among the most productive forest sites in the Province, are inextricably linked to active geomorphologi-
cal [mass wasting] processes of erosion and deposition.’’1
Most of the forest land on the Queen Charlotte Islands (Figure 1) is Crown owned. The land is managed by forest
companies through Tree Farm Licenses (TFL’s) and Timber Licenses, and by the Ministry of Forests through Timber
Supply Areas (TSA’s). Unstable forest land on the Queen Charlotte Islands has been identified and adjustments have
been made to the annual allowable cuts. Before 1982, inventory data were general and annual-cut calculations assumed
that all timbered areas, regardless of tree mix, quality, or accessibility, were harvestable. Today, 68 900 ha have been
removed from the TSA as either Environmental Protection Areas (EPA’s) or as Unstable, and this is 30% larger in area
than productive forest (53 400 ha).
However, the MOF estimates that 10% of the timber volume in the EPAs on the TSA may be available for logging,
provided logging methods that will not result in excessive environmental damage are used (Ministry of Forests 1982).
This could represent a volume of 3.8 million m3 to the industry.
The controversy surrounding logging of mid-slope areas overshadows the fact that the majority of areas designated
for cutting each year are stable.2 Acquiring approvals for cutting these areas is a relatively straightforward procedure;
however, generally more preparation work is required than for other areas on the British Columbia Coast.3

1 Lewis, T. 1979. The ecosystems of Lyall Island, Queen Charlotte Islands, B.C. Unpubl. report prepared for Western Forest Products,
Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.
2 R. Hanson, B.C. Min. of For., pers. comm., 1983.
3 J. Ronyecz, Western Forest Products Ltd., and D. Hoffman, Fletcher Challenge Canada Limited, pers. comm., 1983.

2
FIGURE 1: Queen Charlotte Islands study sites.
3
SEQ 4381 JOB F2-002-015 PAGE-0005 MAIN TEXT
REVISED 10APR00 AT 08:43 BY BC DEPTH: 60.06 PICAS WIDTH 44 PICAS
COLOR LEVEL 1

It is important to note that not all the area in the EPA’s is unsuitable for logging. Many withdrawals of land
were made as a result of agency and industry reaction to logging and fisheries confrontations. These
withdrawals could include areas of ‘‘stable’’ land. In addition, some of the best timber stands occur on or
around unstable areas and are often included within the withdrawn areas (Townshend 1981). Without this
high-value timber to balance logging costs, it may be uneconomical to log adjacent timber areas of marginal
value which occur on stable ground; or, the withdrawn areas may block access to the high-value timber.

2.3 Levels of Current Planning

‘‘Planning is the process of analyzing and evaluating the implications of potential future actions, followed
by the selection of a plan that can best realize desired goals. Planning is best summarized as the process of
forethought and strategy selection’’ (Montgomery 1976).
During planning, it is essential to distinguish clearly between areas of temporary timber deferment and
permanent withdrawal. Current plans are made and roads are constructed to harvest specific blocks of timber.
If at some later date deferred timber is released for cutting, these roads may be in the wrong place for
harvesting; therefore, it may be necessary to construct extra roads when logging restarts. Some of the present
environmental problems on the Queen Charlotte Islands were caused by a lack of overall or total-chance
planning. That is, individual cutblocks within large areas or watersheds were planned without reference to the
future cutting of the adjacent timber. In addition, changing timber values and demand resulted in changing
plans.
Planning, by definition, needs to be logical and systematic. Based on FERIC’s experience, there are six
basic steps to any logging planning process:
1. Defining the problem. How can an area be logged in a cost-effective and environmentally satisfactory
way?
2. Analyzing the problem. Set the objectives and the minimum goals and conditions that must be met.
3. Developing several solutions. These must fully satisfy the objectives before attention is given to
compromises, adaptations, and concessions.
4. Estimating costs and deciding on the best solution.
5. Converting the decision to effective action.
6. Reviewing the plan. This is done after the plan is in place so that feedback can be received on the
validity and effectiveness of the plan compared to the actual results.
Planning is carried out at various levels — from the overall management unit to the very site-specific
operational planning of a specific setting or group or settings (Toews and Brownlee 1981; Breadon 1983). To
ensure that timber is removed in an economical and environmentally sound manner, planning forest-harvest-
ing operations requires the collection of data, analysis of terrain conditions, and selection of the best options
for road and yarding layout superimposed on terrain conditions. The information is presented on a map
illustrating proposed road networks, yarding systems, and areas of site sensitivity.
In British Columbia, a referral system is used to process logging plans. This system is a process by which
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the Ministry of Environment (MOE) can input data and
express concern to the Ministry of Forests. However, the ultimate responsibility for forest management and
cutting permission resides with the Ministry of Forests. The DFO, through the federal Fisheries Act, can enact
measures that prohibit any person from undertaking an action that may destroy fish or fish habitat. This is a powerful
administrative tool that can be used to influence the final logging plan.
Table 1 shows the five levels of planning for TSA’s and the four levels for TFL’s undertaken in British Columbia. Planning
begins at a broad level and progresses through to detailed layouts for specific cutting areas.

2.3.1 Broad-level planning

Management Working Plans prepared for all TSA’s and TFL areas are long-term plans that balance the demands for
timber to the supply available. In the past, they often lacked detail concerning accessibility and economics.
4
 TABLE 1. Levels of planning on the Queen Charlotte Islands

Tenure Plan Purposes Who prepares Period Area of concern

TSA 1. Timber Supply Overall goals, MOF Regional Long-term Entire TSA
only strategies, and and District
policies. officesa

TFL 2. Management and Explains how the Forest Long-term The area of land
and Working Plans TFL and TSA objec- company a forest operator
TSA tives will be staff manages.
addressed.

3. Operability Long-term opera- TFL’s: Forest 10–20 years The overall area of
tional development company staff. forest land an opera-
combined with TSA: Forest tor expects to log
terrain stability company staff within the 10- to
analysis. plus MOF. 20-year period.
5

4. Development Operational mea- Forest 5 years Specific areas to be

Plan (5-Year) sures to develop company logged within the
Plan) and log the next staff next 5 years.
5 years of timber.

5. Cutting Detailed Forest 1–2 years Specific logging

Permits operational company areas.
specifications staff

a
Quota holders on the Queen Charlotte TSA review the proposed plan, whereas in other coastal areas quote holders actively participate in the preparation of plans. A quota holder
company or individual having the right to harvest timber from the TSA.
SEQ 4383 JOB F2-002-015 PAGE-0007 MAIN TEXT
REVISED 10APR00 AT 08:43 BY BC DEPTH: 60.06 PICAS WIDTH 44 PICAS
COLOR LEVEL 1

The Queen Charlotte Islands’ Forest District was the first area in British Columbia to use operability plans
which integrate long-term logging development plans with terrain-stability mapping. The operability plan is
prepared by industry forest engineers using terrain-stability and topographic maps, aerial photographs, and
field reconnaissance data. Preparing operability plans ensures that areas which require special systems and
consideration are identified before any adjacent development occurs. It is at this time that agencies can
incorporate specific caveats on how development affects fish habitat, water quality, wildlife habitat, and
scheduling.

2.3.2 Logging operations planning

The following discussion refers to the planning process followed by industry during this study period, i.e. 1981 to
1984.

Development plans, or five-year plans, are comprehensive operational plans. They state where and when a
company proposes to operate. The road network and logging areas are identified on 1:20 000 topographic maps. The
Ministry of Forests refers copies of the final plans to the MOE and DFO to review. Only areas approved on a
development plan can progress to the cutting permit stage. Agency staff use the plan in their site assessment and
inventory work.

A cutting permit must be obtained before a road can be constructed or timber felled. A separate road permit may be
obtained if only authorization for road construction is required. The cutting permit is a detailed operation plan for all the
roads and setting boundaries required within the permit area and is valid for a 1- to 3-year period. Before a permit is
issued, all roads and boundaries must be marked in the field and any special measures required (such as stream
protection) must be noted on 1:5000 topographic maps. In addition, a timber cruise must be completed to provide data
required for calculation of stumpage rates.

The Ministry of Forests refers cutting permit applications to the MOE and DFO for review and comments. The
review period can last up to 3 months, during which time field visits and discussions take place.

If agreement cannot be reached at the local level, issues may be raised to successive administrative levels within
the agencies and companies.

2.3.3 Comments on the planning process

During the study, individuals within logging companies and agencies commented on the current planning process.
They generally agreed that the process works well for most areas, but that there are problems when difficult areas are
planned. The following is a list of the most common comments by group.

Industry representatives

• The detailed information that is necessary for planning logging operations on sensitive ground may eventually
be required from all areas (including non-sensitive terrain).
• Terrain and stability mapping may be used to reject logging plans without there being adequate field review.
• Detailed feedback from agencies may be unavailable or received too late to be incorporated in the initial
development.
• The required engineering layout is too detailed, and results in plans that lack flexibility. By the time additional
information becomes available from road construction or as the cutting areas are developed, the plans are
difficult to change.

Ministry of Forests

• Long-term planning (i.e., 20 years or more) that balances cutting areas for timber quality and accessibility is
lacking.
• Information submitted in cutting permit applications lacks detail.
6
SEQ 4384 JOB F2-002-015 PAGE-0008 MAIN TEXT
REVISED 10APR00 AT 08:43 BY BC DEPTH: 60.06 PICAS WIDTH 44 PICAS
COLOR LEVEL 1

Ministry of Environment and Department of Fisheries and Oceans

• Industry plans are too general and have been changed without consultation after agency staff have
undertaken detailed assessments.
• Submitted plans may not be realistic and cannot be carried out by the company or contractor.

These comments indicate that the planning process itself may not provide sufficient flexibility when
difficult sensitive sites are involved. All participants in the planning process want detailed information from the
other participants, but are reluctant to commit themselves in case new information becomes available during
the progress of the work.

The time required for planning and pre-logging development is given in Table 2.

Delays that may increase the time between planning and the beginning of yarding are:

1. Cutting permits that are not approved by the Ministry of Forests and referred back to the company for
changes.

2. Agency staff who do not have time to process applications or participate in field inspections.

3. Weather restrictions, such as summer dry period (fire hazard) and fall and winter rain storms, which
can prevent road construction or falling.

4. The presence of fish in watercourses which may restrict road construction activities to specific times
of the year.

TABLE 2. Planning and development: time requireda

Minimum Maximum
Phase (months) (months)

Planning phase

Layout, field work, and office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6+

Development plan preparation and approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 12+
Cutting permit application preparation, timber cruise, and approval . . . . . . . . . . 6 6+

Development phase

Road construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6+
Falling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6+

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18b 36+b

a This table refers to approval of 2- to 3-year development plan/cutting permits for a TFL and not for individual blocks
within a licence area. In some cases, individual blocks may be engineered, a cutting permit approved, and a road
constructed within 6 months.
b Plus time for amendments.

3 INFORMATION REQUIRED TO PREPARE LOGGING PLANS

FERIC reviewed sources and types of information currently used for logging planning, and experimented with
the quantity and quality of some additional basic information. It also examined some planning data that researchers
have suggested would aid in planning logging operations on sensitive terrain. This section discusses the results of
the information review. Table 3 summarizes the basic information that was available before FERIC’s field work.
7
 TABLE 3. Information available before the study

PHANTOM HANGOVER
Type of Type of
Date Scale Sourcea information Date Scale Source information

Aerial photography 1977 1:15 000 MOEP (MB) Black & white 1978 1:15 000 MOEP (CIPA) Black & white photographs
photographs 1981 1:10 000 FFIP Black & white photographs
1981 1:10 000 FFIP Colour photographs

Geological mapping 1968 1:250 000 (c) Rock formations 1968 1:250 000 (b) and (c)
500-ft contours and rock types 500-ft contours
Surficial geology 1978 1:20 000 MB Terrain 1979 1:20 000 4a Geotechnic
classification inventory
Rennell Sound

Topographic mapping 1:5 000 MB Topography & 1:5 000 CIPA Topography &
(1:400 ft) timber cover (1:400 ft) timber cover
8

25-ft contours 25-ft contours

Fish stream habitat 1978 1:20 000 MB Fishery habitat

inventory
a MOEP — B.C. Ministry of Environment and Parks
MB — MacMillan Bloedel Limited
CIPA — CIPA Lumber Company Ltd.
FFIP — Fish/Forestry Interaction Program
b Townshend (1979).
c Sutherland-Brown (1968).
SEQ 4386 JOB F2-002-015 PAGE-0010 MAIN TEXT
REVISED 10APR00 AT 08:43 BY BC DEPTH: 60.06 PICAS WIDTH 44 PICAS
COLOR LEVEL 1

3.1 Aerial Photographs

The aerial photographs used for producing contour maps for timber, terrain, and soil typing must be up-to-date
and of the highest possible quality.

3.2 Topographic Maps

The topographic map, at a scale of 1:20 000 or 1:5000, is the primary means of presenting all current logging
plans. Maps are used for field work and for preparing alternative plans. For decades, coastal logging maps (scale
1:4800) were made in combination with timber cruising by ground surveying. Today, aerial photographs are used to
prepare the contour maps that identify timber types. Good topographic maps can increase the effectiveness of
plans and reduce the need for field verification.
Field layout people generally compensate for any localized loss of map accuracy by field observation. If a
contour map is unreliable, it becomes a hindrance. The detail on topographic maps used in the study varied greatly
according to which individual or company prepared the map.
FERIC prepared detailed maps from ground surveys of the Hangover Creek and Phantom Creek study areas,
at a scale of 1:2500 with 5-m contours. Figure 2 shows the detail provided by the FERIC ground-based map as
compared to an industry aerial-photo map of the same area.
The advantage of ground mapping areas subject to mass wasting is that it provides a systematic examination
of several aspects of the area to be logged, including:
• local benches, obstacles, and rock outcrops that could be obscured by tree cover;
• creeks and gullies;
• soils and sensitive areas.
Ground mapping, however, also has some disadvantages:
• It is expensive and time consuming. The two-man FERIC crews mapped 12 ha/day (estimated cost $25/ha).
In addition, surveyed base lines are required and the map must be prepared and inked.
• Experienced field people who can recognize relevant features are required.
• Detail varies with different field crews, and information collected along and immediately adjacent to strips
was more accurate than details midway between strips.
New mapping techniques, such as automated laser contouring (Breadon and Nagy 1984), overcome the
limitations of cloud, shadow, and dense timber; but current high-quality aerial photography and optical plotting,
combined with skilled plotters/mappers, is still the best technique available.

3.3 Terrain and Stability Mapping

Information about bedrock geology, surficial material, and landforms is used to produce terrain and stability
maps (Figure 3). Terrain maps delineate the surficial geology and geomorphic processes, and not areas where a
landslide may occur. Stability maps are interpretations of the potential for failures to occur on various terrain units,
as a result of logging activities.
For example, the maps shown in Figure 4 are prepared by two different methods and both are accurate. The
MacMillan Bloedel map was prepared from aerial photographs by one expert in 2 days, and a terrain specialist took
1 day to field-check specific areas. The FERIC map took two experts 15 days to prepare, and also required
significant amount of field-mapping time.
Soil texture, soil depth to a consolidated layer, and soil moisture are used to assess slope stability. These
factors influence shear strength (Sidle, et al. 1985; Sauder, et al. 1987). Soil instability is assumed to increase as
soils become finer textured, as slope increases, and as soil moisture increases. This information is incorporated
with information on bedrock geology and landforms to produce terrain maps.
FERIC found that soil pits were useful for determining the variability in surficial deposits over a slope; and for
assessing road construction difficulty. Landslides were also examined to determine local site characteristics that
may indicate the potential for slope failure.
9
FIGURE 2: Comparison of map details. (A) Map prepared from aerial photographs (MacMillan Bloedel Map
Sheet 103F.039.1.3), and (B) map prepared from FERIC ground surveys.

10
FIGURE 3: Examples of terrain and stability maps. (A) Terrain map, and (B) slope stability ma
(Source: MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., Geotechnic and Terrain Stability Mapping, Map Sheet 103F/84
Ghost Creek. Revised December 31, 1978; Scale 1:20 000).

Factors that influence soil moisture include the length of drainage-collecting area above the unit, slope
gradient, permeable soil depth, aspect, soil texture, organic content, and depth of the humus layer. Localized areas
of increased soil moisture were potential indicators of consequent drainage channels (Swanston 1969) or filled
depressions (Dietrich et al. 1982). Both of these area types may be unstable if disturbed by road construction, road
maintenance, or yarding.
11
FIGURE 4: Comparson of geotechnic maps produced at different scales and different levels of field work.

12
 Soil moisture over relatively large areas can be identified on black and white aerial photographs with the use
indicators such as stand composition and location of the site within the landscape.
FERIC’s soil-moisture classification system used plant indicators and lushness of vegetation to detect relative
changes in soil moisture along the survey lines. At the time of FERIC’s surveys, the local Queen Charlotte Islands
vegetative indicators and their relationship to soil moisture were not extensively documented. Since that time, the
Ministry of Forests has developed an ecosystem classification for the Coastal Western-Hemlock biogeoclimatic
zone (Queen Charlotte subzone), and a large portion of the future operating area has been mapped.
The soil-moisture regimes identified from the survey were useful in determining potential road construction
problem sites and areas where yarding disturbance may interrupt groundwater drainage. The time required
assess the soil moisture at each plot was relatively short.
Most terrain mapping and slope stability interpretation is based on 1:20 000 mapping with field checking. The
smallest terrain unit mapped at this scale is about 4 ha (Ryder and Howes 1984). Terrain specialists undertake
bring terrain mapping up to a 1:5000 scale by field reviews of areas planned for development. Accurate boundaries
between units and the location of small potential failure sites can only be determined by field examination. Enlarging
a stability map to a 1:5000 scale without additional field work may result in misinterpretation, and give the
appearance of greater detail than the original data can support.

3.3.1 Slope stability classification

On the Queen Charlotte Islands, four systems are currently being used for slope stability analysis.
Each system has its own detailed harvesting prescription for the various terrain units. The variation
systems and prescriptions shows the variability in operating areas on the Queen Charlotte Islands, and
reflects the different uses industry has for the information. The number of field plots established to verify
typing varies according to the mapper and the contract negotiated.
At Hangover Creek and Phantom Creek, FERIC’s intensive ground surveys delineated spe-
cific rather than general areas of potentially unstable ground in a five-class system. In effect,
FERIC’s stability mapping refined basic mapping by undertaking the detailed field work needed
expand the scale accurately.
During FERIC’s reconnaissance and map layout, extensive areas of potential instability were
noted within areas previously defined as ‘‘stable’’ units, and areas of stable ground were found
‘‘unstable’’ units. This confirmed the importance of thorough field reconnaissance and the risk
becoming complacent with layout on ‘‘stable’’ terrain units.
Terrain stability mapping is particularly effective when the users understand the basic system
and know how the coding was derived. Currently, the operations people assist in the mapping, and
as a result terrain stability has become part of the basic information used for successful planning.
The cost of terrain stability mapping depends on the access available for field verification
photograph typing, the number of field plots required, and the experience of the terrain specialist.
On the Queen Charlotte Islands, terrain mapping costs have ranged between $1.11 and 4.30/ha.

3.4 Timber Inventory and Cruises

Timber inventories are determined by the analysis of timber type maps, which are made from aerial
photographs, and of data derived from sample plots of timber types and timber type maps.
FERIC undertook a detailed timber cruise of each of the study areas on a systematic plot basis
determine the requirements of timber-volume and timber quality information for layout and economic
analysis.
An experienced layout engineer can usually estimate the stand characteristics. However, where
specialized yarding methods are contemplated, this information may be supplemented or checked with
a field cruise. Tree sizes and timber quality are especially important when the use of yarding methods
considered. A helicopter-logging system requires the timber size to be matched to the helicopter’s carrying capacity
13
SEQ 4391 JOB F2-002-015 PAGE-0015 MAIN TEXT
REVISED 10APR00 AT 08:43 BY BC DEPTH: 60.06 PICAS WIDTH 44 PICAS
COLOR LEVEL 1

Skyline-yarding systems that can fully suspend logs over sensitive terrain or gullies must have adequate deflection
and be capable of supporting the heaviest and longest logs.
The justification for logging depends on the grade and value of the trees in relation to the extraction and
transportation costs. The timber values may be difficult to estimate in mixed stands, and cruise information may be
required.

3.5 Knowledge of Road and Logging Systems

During road location and logging layout, the road construction equipment and logging system must be matched
to the terrain. The planner must therefore understand how the systems operate, where each works best, and which
factors affect productivity and contribute to initiation of mass wasting. Conflicts and misunderstandings have occurred
in the past because proposed methods would not work in the designated terrain. All individuals involved in planning
and planning assessment should be encouraged to observe operations and to talk to loggers and construction
workers.

3.6 Stream Classification

A system of stream classification that indicates how landslide debris may affect a stream channel allows for the
assessment of potential landslide impacts. A simplified stream classification system was established by FFIP (Poulin
1981), based on three instability conditions that could exist within basins and lead to the introduction of debris and
sediment into a stream channel (Figure 5). These conditions are:
1. A landslide entering the steep headwall tributaries is assumed to have a high probability of initiating a debris
torrent that could affect the lower sections.
2. Landslides occurring on the slopes along the mid-portions of the stream will likely deposit debris into the
channel or along the bank (Figure 6).
3. Landslides occurring along the side slope adjacent to a flood plain will probably not enter the creek.
The classification lacks specific details but provides a systematic appraisal of landslide tracks that a planner can
use in conjunction with personal experience. Experience from other areas can be used to predict deposition areas and
the effects of landslide travel.

3.7 Statistical Geographical Terrain Unit Mapping

MacMillan Bloedel Limited and the Ministry of Environment (Sondheim and Rollerson 1985) have initiated work
on a mapping technique that incorporates data collected from landslide survey inventories and terrain mapping, and
assigns a probability of failure for specific terrain units (Rollerson 1984). The system has been developed on
Vancouver Island and has promise for the Queen Charlotte Islands.

3.8 Mathematical Modelling of Slope Stability

Organizations in the United States and Japan have designed several models that attempt to predict mathe-
matically the probability of a slope movement occurring either in natural timber or in areas disturbed by logging.
Generally, the models are based on methods of estimating limiting slope equilibrium and on soil deformation analysis
(Morgenstern and Sangrey 1978; Wu and Sangrey 1978).
FERIC reviewed several systems and discussed them with researchers who were working with specific models.
While the concept of mathematical modelling is a good one, there are a number of limitations. For the models to be
useful, engineering properties of soils and rock must be obtained by detailed soil sampling and laboratory analysis.
The resulting models are accurate for site-specific areas, and are costly to apply. Sirmon (1985), when summarizing
‘‘A Workshop on Slope Stability,’’ concluded that different degrees of reliability for landslide prediction exist, depending
on the failure mechanism, inventory levels, data type (rock, soil, climate), and past experience.
Mathematical models are used to sort through a large amount of complex data in an orderly manner, and to
produce consistent results.
14
FIGURE 5: Three basic stream or reach types found in areas of intensive mass wasting on the Queen
Charlotte Islands (Poulin 1981).
15
FIGURE 6: Failures from road construction along Stream Type II.

3.9 Data Collection Alternatives

If a good base map is available, a detailed systematic survey of a potential logging area is not required. However
additional detail for
for small critical
criticalareas
areas may be added by ground mapping. Specific data can also be collected during
the initial road location.
The time of year during which data are collected is also important. FERIC collected the field information for the
Phantom Creek and Hangover Creek study areas during the late spring, summer, and fall. During the dry summer
data collection was easier and, therefore, probably more accurate. However, detail was lacking on surface and
subsurface water flows, and indicator plants were used to note relative changes in soil moisture. During and after wet
weather, small intermittent watercourses were obvious and subsurface water patterns could be identified. This
information was useful in locating specific areas of potential instability, and in planning road drainage structures.
16
SEQ 4394 JOB F2-003-017 PAGE-0017 MAIN TEXT CONT
REVISED 10APR00 AT 08:43 BY BC DEPTH: 60.06 PICAS WIDTH 44 PICAS
COLOR LEVEL 1

4 PREPARATION OF ALTERNATIVE LOGGING PLANS

The preparation of more than one logging plan forces the planners to critically analyze and compare
alternative methods of harvesting the timber. The plan that best meets the overall objectives can then be
implemented.
The preparation of a logging plan is a complex task that requires the integration of a vast amount of data.
The detail proposed in the plan must be consistent with the accuracy of the data and map. Unrealistic plans based
on insufficient data are misleading and may provoke unnecessary controversy between planners and agencies. A
logging plan must not only resolve the physical problems of building roads and logging, but must also assess the
environmental effects and evaluate economic costs and values.
A plan must provide current logging layouts, and define the road access to timber beyond the current
development. It must also provide the transition between the longer-term development plan and the cutting
permit. The actual plan submitted for a cutting permit is often only a portion of an overall plan. The cutting
permit may appear to propose ‘‘second-best choices’’ when viewed alone, but these compromises may be
necessary to achieve the best plan for the total area.
Three logging plans were prepared for each of the ground-mapped areas, Phantom and Hangover Creeks. In
addition, the use of long-distance skylines was examined. Plans were prepared using the topographic map sheet
as a base. Stability and timber volume information was sketched on the base map, and roads, landings, and
setting boundaries were projected. Intensive mapping ensured that topographic detail was sufficiently accurate
for detailed layouts and critical analysis.
The proposed alternative plans for logging Hangover Creek and Phantom Creek are:
1. Highlead system — The primary highlead-yarding system would be supple mented by short-yarding
along the road right-of-way. This layout would use the most common logging systems available,
including the mobile yarding crane.
2. Skyline system — Skyline tower yarders and mobile yarding cranes would be used to maximum
advantage, and would be supplemented by the systems in the highlead layout. This layout would require
equipment that was more varied. It is expected that road lengths and landings would be reduced because
of the long-distance yarding capability of the yarders.
3. Helicopter system — Helicopter yarding was proposed for logging the upper and middle slopes,
supplemented by a mobile yarding crane and highlead yarding on the lower slopes.
In preparing plans for the Hangover Creek and Phantom Creek study, FERIC’s objectives were as follows:
• to develop as much commercially valuable timber as possible.
• to identify areas of marginally valuable timber and adjoining areas for future logging development.
• to minimize road lengths on mid-slopes.
• to take advantage of ridge-top roads.
• to minimize total logging cost.
• to minimize disturbance to Class III and IV stability-class terrain units.
• to avoid, as much as possible, road disturbance on stability Classes IV and V, and yarding disturbance on
Class V areas.

4.1 Description of the Planning Areas

Both the Phantom Creek and Hangover Creek areas would be difficult to log because they are characterized by
steep slopes, unstable sites, and areas of sub-merchantable timber. Table 4 shows the merchantable volume of
timber and species distribution. Phantom Creek contains only 373 m3/ha and Hangover Creek only 399 m3/ha,
because areas of scattered low-volume trees and scrub are included. This is typical of the Queen Charlotte Islands
forests, where roads are built through non-merchantable timber stands.
17
FIGURE 7: Chaecklist for highlead-yarding planning, Phantom Creek.

21
FIGURE 8: Road location alternatives for critical length along P/S-300.

22
23
SEQ 4402 JOB F2-003-017 PAGE-0025 MAIN TEXT CONT
REVISED 10APR00 AT 08:43 BY BC DEPTH: 60.06 PICAS WIDTH 44 PICAS
COLOR LEVEL 1

Skyline logging could be used at yarding distances of 330–600 m. It offers full-suspension capability over gullies
or potentially sensitive terrain where there is sufficient ground clearance. The particular skyline system chosen would
be left to the yarding crew. A live skyline (gravity) would work for some of the uphill yarding areas, and slackline or
North Bend would work for all the remaining areas. Yarding cranes with interlocked winches and a dropline carriage
could also be used as a skyline system.
As with the highlead plans, the final skyline plan is a compromise among economic, operational, and environ-
mental requirements. Where they would produce better results, highlead and grapple yarders would be used to
supplement the skyline yarders. Figures 11, 12, and 13 are checklists that were prepared for assessing the potential
for various skyline systems.
The road layout plans for the Phantom Creek skyline layout resulted in the re-routing and shortening of the main
road, and the elimination of a spur road. The cutting boundary up to the ridge would extend slightly towards the
northeast corner. Road location would be similar to that for the highlead because of the restricted access up the slope.
The Phantom skyline layout would produce more timber than the highlead layout because it would access the
northeast quarter. The cutting boundary would be adjusted during field location so that yarding disturbance of sensitive
terrain and exposure to prevailing storm winds are minimized. This layout isolates 5 ha of timber in the lower north-
west corner. The terrain is too rugged for road access and deflection is not available for cable yarding.
The skyline layouts of the Hangover Creek plan show only a few good skyline landings. A marginal deflection of
5% is available over most of the skyline settings. It is assumed good tailholds would be available; they would need to
be verified before actual logging would start. The greatest benefit of the skyline layout is its potential to improve lift by
extending the skyline to a tailhold that takes advantage of natural ridges or breaks. In addition, the road network that
would access the upper slopes would develop a large number of good highlead and mobile yarding-crane settings on
the lower and mid slopes.
Road access to the Hangover upper slope is restricted because of the deep gullies, rock outcrops, steep side
slopes, and sensitive terrain. Any road development to upper slopes would require some construction across steep
Class V sites. Also, yarding disturbance to sensitive sites could not be avoided by using full suspension, because the
necessary deflection is often not available.
The outside boundary of the Hangover skyline layout is extremely irregular and would require field checking to
minimize windfall.

4.4 Helicopter-Yarding Plans

Helicopter logging plans indicated that road lengths and potential yarding disturbance over sensitive terrain would
be kept to a minimum. While helicopter logging has been undertaken on slopes on the British Columbia coast and in
the U.S. Pacific Northwest, none had been undertaken on the Queen Charlotte Islands during the course of the study.
The detailed helicopter layout demonstrated the problem of balancing helicopter logging with conventional cable
systems.
Helicopter settings were proposed to log timber that would normally be accessed by a road built through unstable
terrain (primarily on the mid-slopes), or to remove timber that would be too difficult to yard by conventional means.
Figure 14 provides the checklist of points used to consider the proposed helicopter logging plan, and to evaluate
adjacent conventional logging settings.
Yarding small, isolated timber patches by helicopter would be economical only if a sufficient volume of wood were
available to offset set-up costs. Once the economic viability is assured, smaller areas can be re-examined to see if
conventional yarding could be replaced.
It was proposed that the helicopter be used to yard logs out of the gullies where the conventional cable systems
could not easily reach, and in areas of difficult yarding on unstable slopes (Figure 15). This localized use of the
helicopter to yard out the ‘‘difficult’’ portions of conventional settings is an important advantage of helicopter logging.
For a large portion of the Phantom Creek plan, it was proposed that the few high-value trees be selectively
logged by helicopter while the majority of the trees, which are of low value, be left standing. It was assumed that this
would help maintain a stable slope by ensuring a living root network.
25
FIGURE 14: Checklist for helicopter-logging planning, Phantom Creek and Hangover Creek.
30
FIGURE 15: Helicopter logging would be used to reduce cable-yarding disturbance on sensitive terrain.
32
SEQ 4410 JOB F2-003-017 PAGE-0033 MAIN TEXT CONT
REVISED 10APR00 AT 08:43 BY BC DEPTH: 60.06 PICAS WIDTH 44.01 PICAS
COLOR LEVEL 1

At Hangover Creek, the distance to a suitable, sheltered, water-drop zone would be beyond the 1.5- to 2.0-km
optimum flying distance; therefore, land-based drops were planned. Areas suitable for large central landings are
available or the logs could be unhooked in windrows beside a road.
The plan for helicopter logging the Hangover area demonstrates the interaction between road development,
conventional yarding, and helicopter yarding. Helicopter logging was proposed for the high-value timber on the steep
mid- to upper slopes where road and yarding disturbance could initiate failures directly into gullies, and where tower-
skyline yarding would be difficult.
The area suitable for helicopter logging in the Hangover study site would require a considerable amount of road
to develop the low-value timber on the lower slopes. It is difficult to determine where cable yarding should cease and
helicopter logging should begin. The average cost of cable logging is less than that of the helicopter, but after the
helicopter has moved to a site and the landings are prepared, the marginal cost of logging additional volume may be
less than extending the roads for more cable logging.

4.5 Long Multispan Skylines

The feasibility of using long European-type skylines, such as the Wyssen to yard distances to 1500 m was
assessed by the plotting of sample deflection lines. These systems were found to be impractical for either the
Phantom Creek or Hangover Creek areas. Because of the shape of the terrain, large areas of timber would be
inaccessible to the skylines unless more truck roads were built. These roads would be located along the corridors
identified in the highlead or skyline plans and would reduce the need for longline yarding.

4.6 Analysis of the Alternative Plans: Results

4.6.1 Timber harvested

Tables 9 and 10 show the timber that would be harvested by each system and each machine type in the two study
areas. The total volume of wood harvested by a combination of skyline, yarding-crane, and highlead methods compared to
yarding crane and highlead alone (conventional system), would be 24% more for Phantom Creek and 2% less for
Hangover Creek. The reduction in volume for Hangover Creek would occur as a result of terrain features that would restrict
road access to a portion of the area, and thus preclude the possibility of using the extra yarding-distance capability of the
skyline yarder. Helicopter yarding combined with the grapple and yarding crane would recover 55% more timber at
Phantom Creek than conventional yarding would, and 13% more timber at Hangover Creek.

4.6.2 Road construction

Figures 16 and 17 show the road lengths to be constructed through the stability classes for each system. In Phantom
Creek, the use of the helicopter would almost eliminate the need to build roads on unstable terrain, and the skyline would
require less road length than the highlead would. In the Hangover plan, the differences would follow the same pattern but
would not be so pronounced. Naturally, it would be possible to eliminate all roads in both areas by using the
helicopter exclusively, but this would be at greatly increased costs. It is not possible to eliminate all the
roads in unstable terrain when highlead or skylines are used because it is necessary to cross unstable terrain
to access adjacent timber.
Figures 18 and 19 indicate the construction difficulty. Once again, the helicopter at Phantom Creek
eliminates all the difficult road building.
Table 11 shows a summary of the road construction costs derived from the 1986 Ministry of Forests
Coast Stumpage Appraisal Manual. These costs are provided for comparison and do not represent the
actual costs incurred by any of the cooperating companies. The details of the cost calculations are available
from FERIC on request.
Table 11 also shows how the road lengths and total costs of roads vary with each system. On the
Phantom Creek plan, the unit cost of the roads required for the skyline would be slightly higher than that of
the highlead because it would be necessary to build difficult roads to access suitable landings. Most of the
roads in the helicopter system would be required to access a landing away from the public road.
33
SEQ 4411 JOB F2-003-017 PAGE-0034 MAIN TEXT CONT
REVISED 10APR00 AT 08:43 BY BC DEPTH: 60.06 PICAS WIDTH 44 PICAS
COLOR LEVEL 1

TABLE 9. Timber harvested by each system: Phantom Creek

Highlead plan Skyline plan Helicopter plan

Area Volume Area Volume Area Volume
(ha) (m 3) %a (ha) (m 3) %a (ha) (m 3) %a

Grapple . . . . . . . . 15.7 6 484 17 20.6 8 508 18 3.4 4 097 7

Highlead . . . . . . . 49.0 23 372 60 15.7 7 025 15 14.4 8 292 14
Yarding crane . . . 21.1 8 140 23 27.8 11 673 25 0.0 0 0
Skyline . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0 0 41.9 20 079 42 0.0 0 0
Helicopter . . . . . . 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 114.9 45 486 79
Total . . . . . . . . . 85.8 b 38 996 100 106.0 47 285 100 132.7 47 875 100

a Percentage of total volume logged by individual systems.

b The total areas vary because the individual systems access different stands and different terrain.

TABLE 10. Timber harvested by each system: Hangover Creek

Highlead plan Skyline plan Helicopter plan

Area Volume Area Volume Area Volume
(ha) (m 3) %a (ha) (m 3) %a (ha) (m 3) %a

Grapple . . . . . . . . 42.4 23 461 17 37.7 19 945 14 23.2 12 853 7

Highlead . . . . . . . 146.0 85 624 62 45.9 27 076 19 11.5 6 878 4
Yarding crane . . . 49.8 28 484 21 60.2 32 078 23 97.7 65 003 37
Skyline . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0 0 09.8 61 874 44 0.0 0 0
Helicopter . . . . . . 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 138.2 92 579 52
Total . . . . . . . . . 238.2 b 137 569 100 234.6 140 973 100 270.6 177 313 100

a Percentage of total volume logged by individual systems.

b The total areas vary because the individual systems access different stands and different terrain.

TABLE 11. Road construction costs

Phantom Creek Hangover Creek

Road Total Unit Road Total Unit
length cost cost length cost cost
Major system (m) ($) ($/m) (m) ($) ($/m)

Highlead . . . . . . . . 4 100 273 000 66.79 13 860 962 000 69.43

Skyline . . . . . . . . . . 3 690 249 000 67.60 9 670 631 000 65.24
Helicopter . . . . . . . 520 29 000 56.15 7 010 441 000 62.93

In the Hangover plan, the use of a skyline yarder would eliminate the high costs involved in crossing
major gullies in the highlead plan. This would substantially reduce both the total cost and the unit cost of
the road. The road length and cost may seem excessive in the helicopter plan, but it would be necessary to
access timber on easy terrain suitable for less expensive systems of logging.
34
 Developing the alternative plans raised the following points:
1. The natural road corridors would be limited on the upper and mid-slopes, thereby reducing
flexibility in making road location changes.
2. Relatively few good natural landings occur along the mid- and upper slopes.
3. The fewer the landings, the fewer alternatives available in road location.
4. The natural road corridors would develop a significant volume of timber suited to conven-
tional yarding systems.
5. Proposed locations are trade-offs between natural slope breaks (benches and landings),
environmental concerns, and construction costs.
6. The road system required to develop landings for tower skylines would not be easy
locate. Also, the cost per kilometre of construction would be relatively high because natural
slope breaks are not available and gullies would have to be crossed. However, total costs
could be reduced because less road would be required.

4.6.3 Yarding
Table 12 summarizes the yarding difficulty over stable and unstable ground for the proposed plans.
The Hangover and Phantom sites have similar proportions of their areas in difficult and moderate yarding
categories. However, significantly more of the higher instability classes are estimated to be disturbed
the Hangover area than on the Phantom area. The reason is that Hangover Creek has twice the area
higher instability than Phantom Creek. The helicopter plans have a higher proportion of areas with a good
yarding chance than do the highlead and skyline plans. However, if only conventional equipment is used,
the highlead plans would have a higher proportion of their area having a good yarding chance, compared
the skyline plan. In addition, the proportion of disturbed area having potential for slope failure would
negligible for the helicopter plan at Hangover and Phantom, and for the highlead and skyline plans
Phantom. It would be greatest for the Hangover skyline plan.

TABLE 12. Summary of yarding difficulty

Total
Yarding difficulty Good a Moderate b Moderate Difficult c Difficult area

Potential for slope failure None Some d High e Some High

Phantom Creek
Highlead (ha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 15 3 5 1 86
(%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 17 3 6 1 99
Skyline (ha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 16 3 12 1 103
(%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 16 3 12 1 101
Helicopter (ha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 6 <1 4 <1 135
(%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 4 0 3 0 100

Hangover Creek
Highlead (ha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 20 24 3 5 239
(%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 8 10 1 2 99
Skyline (ha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 23 24 14 17 235
(%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 10 10 6 7 100
Helicopter (ha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 16 4 3 <1 271
(%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 6 1 1 0 100

a
Generally concave slope; good deflection or lift.
b
Straight slope; may require 2- to 5-m backspar to provide clearance for rigging.
c
Ground lead and possible convex slope; requires 5- to 10-m backspar to provide deflection.
d
No significant stability problems exist.

37
 The potential for unfavourable yarding in the Hangover skyline plan is caused by the broken terrain.
Skyline corridors with favourable deflection are limited but it is possible to build an intensive road
network. The roads reduce the need for the skyline system and ensure that highlead logging operates within
its limits and cross-slope yarding is minimized.
The following observations were made during the development and analysis of the alternative logging
plans:
1. Trade-offs were continually required among good landing locations, good yarding, and truck road
locations.
2. Ground clearance may be insufficient to suspend logs fully over the majority of sensitive sites,
even with the use of backspars. Backspars could improve clearance at the back of settings, but not
at the midpoints of long yarding roads.
3. Tower-skyline yarders with long-distance yarding capabilities have a greater potential than
highlead yarders for reducing truck road lengths. They do not necessarily improve yarding chance
or reduce yarding disturbance, largely because of the need for good deflection. Also, longer
yarding roads necessitate hauling more logs over the same ground; this would increase areas
disturbance around the landing. Skyline towers cannot be readily moved to improve yarding
deflection.
4. To increase deflection, tailholds are often required to be well outside the actual setting boundaries.
This would result in some actual yarding distances being two-thirds of the total line length.
benefit of the skyline yarder is that it would have the cable capacity to reach these tailholds.
Tailholds would have to be prelocated. Stumps in previously logged settings may have rotted and
have insufficient holding strength. The selection of some ridges and swamp areas as boundaries
would have to be carefully examined in the field to determine if the stumps would be sufficient for
anchors or if there would be suitable rock exposed for rock anchors.
5. No one yarding system is satisfactory for logging all the timber. For example, relatively extensive
road development would be required to access the settings for skyline logging. A significant
portion of the area would then have road spacing more suited for highlead or yarding-crane
operations, rather than for longer-reach skylines.
6. Every setting will have some difficult yarding. Leaving isolated blocks of timber, which are then
exposed to blowdown, is one option. Or, yarding could be extended, with the risk of decreasing the
productivity and increasing the potential for yarding-induced slope movements. In reducing
possible yarding disturbance to sensitive terrain, the theoretical optimum yarding distances were
seldom realized in any of the plans.

4.7 Logging Costs and Log Values

4.7.1 Yarding and loading costs

Tables 13 and 14 show the ranges of yarding and loading costs for each machine and system for the
two study areas. The road costs from the previous section are added to show the combined cost and amount
of money involved. Note that felling and bucking costs are not included. These costs were compiled
FERIC and do not represent the actual costs incurred by any of the co-operating companies. These costs
include allowances for the ownership and operation of machines, but do not include interest on investment,
supervision, or administration. Details are available from FERIC.
The ranges in yarding and loading costs are not related to major delays or shutdowns; rather, they
result from variations in daily productivity due to differences in logging chance. It was assumed that all the
machines would work 200 days per year. The effect of major delays, however, should not be overlooked.
Yarding cranes, skyline machines, and helicopters are very expensive to purchase and, therefore, shut-
downs will affect their average annual operating cost more than will shutdowns of the highlead machines.

38
TABLE 13. Yarding and loading costs: Phantom Creek

Highlead plan Skyline plan Helicopter plan

Range Range Range
Machine type $/m 3 $/m 3 $/m 3

Grapple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.57 5.57 5.57

Highlead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.57–20.07 9.75–20.25 9.48–19.99
Yarding crane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.62–11.83 9.97–12.18 —
Skyline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 14.47–25.61 —
Helicopter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 39.01–39.01
Average yarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.94–11.61 11.05–17.89 32.63–33.66
Realistic estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.58 15.43 33.10
Road cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.02 5.27 0.50
Estimate roads & yarding . . . . . . . . 17.60 20.70 33.60

TABLE 14. Yarding and loading costs: Hangover Creek

Highlead plan Skyline plan Helicopter plan

Range Range Range
Machine type $/m 3 $/m 3 $/m 3

Grapple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.57 5.57 5.57

Highlead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.39–19.90 9.42–19.93 9.76–20.26
Yarding crane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.25–12.46 9.99–12.20 9.69–11.90
Skyline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 14.32–25.45 —
Helicopter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 39.01–39.01
Average yarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.92–15.91 11.16–18.56 24.70–25.92
Realistic estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.90 15.53 25.31
Road cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.00 4.47 2.49
Estimate roads & yarding . . . . . . . . 19.90 20.00 27.80

The variations in productivity and the resulting ranges in cost reflect yarding distance, tree size, and
terrain. The highlead has a large range because this system will operate under a variety of conditions,
including strongly convex slopes. Under difficult conditions, the productivity falls but the machine will
continue to operate. The yarding crane, on the other hand, cannot operate when there is insufficient
deflection, so costs are more uniform. Skyline systems are highly productive on well laid-out settings, but
they are subject to serious operational delays. The time taken for changing yarding roads, rigging
backspars, and securing tailholds can vary from hours to days. Experienced crews are essential to reduce
these delays. Terrain features have little effect on helicopter or grapple yarding as the units operate only
where they are effective.
The realistic estimated cost is a weighted average that takes logging difficulty and system used into
consideration. The logging chance for each setting or cutting area in this study was assessed and the
productivity estimated at good, moderate, or poor. The estimate was based on field data collected during
the study period on other similar settings (Sauder and Wellburn 1987). Individual setting costs were
calculated according to standard machine operating and ownership costs and the estimated productivity
The total costs, including roads, show only a slight difference in the ranges for highlead to skyline.
This is not surprising, because the skyline required less road, and a well-operated skyline will operate
efficiently. On the other hand, skyline costs are less predictable than those for highlead, so there is more
chance that a skyline will operate in the high-cost range. This is reflected in the realistic, estimated logging
costs for Phantom Creek, where the skyline-logged timber would be inaccessible to the highlead.
Hangover Creek, all the timber accessible to the skyline would also be accessible to the highlead, so the
reduction of high-cost roads required for the highlead would balance the higher cost of the skyline.

39
 The helicopter costs would be higher for both areas, but particularly for Phantom Creek.
helicopter could log almost all the Phantom area, but this would not be accompanied by any less
expensive conventional logging, which would bring the overall costs down.

4.7.2 Total logging costs

Table 15 shows the approximate value of the other costs that should be added to the road construction,
yarding, and loading costs, to determine the total cost of the logs delivered to the Vancouver log market.

TABLE 15. Logging costs additional to road construction, yarding, and loading costs a

Range
Logging phase $/m 3

Falling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.00–4.00
Hauling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.00–7.00
Road maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00–1.50
Booming and sorting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.00–5.00
Barging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.00–8.00
Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00–2.00
Crew services and administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.00–10.00

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.00–37.50
Realistic estimate 33.00

a Source: Pers. comm. with industry managers, 1985.

Falling costs are affected by the size of the timber, the terrain, and the distance the fallers work from
road. Hauling costs are affected by the efficiency of loading, the hauling distance, and road conditions.
Booming and sorting costs are affected by the number of sorts. Logs may be fully or partially sorted on the
Queen Charlotte Islands or at destination after barging. Crew services include supervision and crew
transportation. Administration includes accounting, management, insurance, taxes, and interest charges.
Stumpage charges payable to the provincial government were based on logging costs and log values
during the study period. These charges are not included in Table 15. This report assumes that stumpage and
profit would share the return from the difference between cost and value.

4.7.3 Log value, stumpage, and profit

Table 16 shows what the log values would have been during the study period. The total delivered value
of logs from the Phantom Creek area decreased 30% from $3.623 million in 1980, to $2.535 million
1984, and logs from the Hangover Creek area decreased 25% from $10.752 million to $8.102 million in the
same period. Since that time, log prices have increased so that the 1988 value would have been higher than
in 1980.
Table 17 shows what the total cost less stumpage and profit would have been for the years 1984 and
1988. In 1984, all operations would have lost money before payment of minimum stumpage. In 1988,
because of an increase in log market prices, each operation, regardless of the machines used, would have
paid stumpage and made a profit.
Tables 16 and 17 show that the log price is the major economic factor affecting logging on the Queen
Charlotte Islands. All plans must be flexible enough to permit the forest companies to log the difficult
high-cost areas when prices are up, and to let them move to the lower-cost areas when the prices are down.

40
TABLE 16. Log prices and values

Log prices ($/m3)a Log prices ($/m3) Log prices ($/m3) Log prices ($/m3)
Cedar Hemlock Spruce Yellow-cedar
Grade % 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 % 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 % 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 % 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988

F 2b 80 64 111 100 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 180 149 115 154 306 2 255 128 181 191
H 25 59 53 94 64 91 24 77 53 48 50 75 25 70 55 57 74 136 25 127 85 138 157
I 18 55 43 89 59 73 20 72 51 46 48 65 14 63 51 51 49 83 18 81 51 74 85
J 44 38 38 81 55 54 45 66 49 29 36 40 38 37 31 30 30 40 44 40 37 34 59
X 11 0 0 10 8 17 11 35 26 19 30 24 11 29 25 20 26 27 11 0 0 9 8
Avg/m3 42.97 38.99 78.48 53.7 64.7 66.43 47.83 35.86 41.1 51.64 65.17 53.3 48.79 58.1 100.51 59.03 49.27 67.39 85.21 145.33
Vol–P . . . . . . . 431 27 598 14 648 11 823
Vol–H . . . . . . 17 265 76 637 54 210 20 088

Sum Volume
Phantom . . . . . 54 500
Hangover . . . . 168 200

Average by year ($/m3) Total value by year ($ thousands)

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988
Phantom. . . . 66.47 49.54 46.51 55.34 85.20 3 623 2 700 2 535 3 016 4 644
Hangover . . . 63.93 48.86 48.17 53.14 79.92 10 752 8 218 8 102 8 938 13 443

a Source: Truck Logger Magazines.

b Source: FERIC cruise.
TABLE 17. Total cost, stumpage, and profit

Alternative plan
Highlead Skyline Helicopter
$/m 3 $/m 3 $/m 3

Phantom Creek

Road, yarding, and loading costs 17.60 20.70 33.60

Additional costs 33.00 33.00 33.00
Total delivered cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.60 53.70 66.60

Value of delivered logs 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.51 46.51 46.51

Available for stumpage & profit (loss) . . . . . . . . . (4.09) (7.19) (20.09)

Value of delivered logs 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.20 85.20 85.20

Available for stumpage and profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.60 31.50 18.60

Hangover Creek

Roads, yarding, and loading costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.90 20.00 27.80

Additional costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.00 33.00 33.00

Total delivered cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.90 53.00 60.80

Value of delivered logs 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.17 48.17 48.17

Available for stumpage & profit (loss) . . . . . . . . . (4.73) (4.83) (12.63)

Value of delivered logs 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.92 79.92 79.92

Available for stumpage and profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02 26.92 19.12

4.7.4 Planning costs

The intensive planning and detailed process for data collection outlined in this report are now
common use on the Queen Charlotte Islands. High-quality topographic maps are supplemented by field
examination and terrain stability maps. Alternative logging plans are prepared and compared, rather than
the first seemingly workable plan being selected. Cooperation with the agencies has improved so that
information and advice is available when it is required.

The planning process requires an investment in capital for mapping and inventory, and an investment
in manpower for field work and plan preparation. While the initial costs for mapping may appear high, the
costs are minor when converted to a cost per cubic metre logged. For example, topographic mapping costs
between $1.90 and 2.15/ha, and terrain mapping costs between $2.25 and 4.30/ha. Assuming an average
volume of 400 m 3/ha for the areas mapped, the overall cost of topographic and terrain mapping is between
$0.01 and 0.02/m 3. Although ground-mapping the study areas is significantly more expensive than using
aerial photographic methods, its cost of $25.00/ha translates into only $0.06/m3. Considering that roads are
estimated to cost between $5.00 and 7.00/m 3 on the highlead and skyline-yarding plans, and that estimated
yarding costs range between $5.50 and 39.00/m 3 for all plans, the costs associated with planning appear
be minimal. The lack of experienced layout people is probably a greater limiting factor.

The savings that can result from good planning include less road construction, easier road mainte-
nance, increased yarding efficiency, and fewer delays, costs, and clean-ups resulting from mass wasting.
These benefits far exceed the relatively small increase in planning costs necessary to achieve these results.

42
SEQ 4445 JOB F2-004-015 PAGE-0043 MAIN TEXT CONT
REVISED 10APR00 AT 17:20 BY BC DEPTH: 60.06 PICAS WIDTH 44 PICAS
COLOR LEVEL 1

5 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Planning must follow a logical process whereby specific problems are clearly identified; a problem analysis is
undertaken to set objectives and goals; several solutions are developed; costs and environmental objectives are
used to determine the best solution; the best solution is converted into action; and the plan is reviewed after
execution. These planning steps should be followed when plans to log steep, unstable terrain are being
developed.
Following a clearly identified planning process will help to:
• instill confidence and trust among individuals;
• identify clearly the type and quality of data required;
• establish a schedule acceptable to all parties for developing, submitting, and reviewing plans;
• provide clearly understood criteria for rejecting proposed development; and
• ensure there is full commitment to execute the plan.

Recommendation
For each proposed harvesting area, the phases of the planning process should be clearly identified, to ensure that
responsibilities are assigned and sequences are followed.

2. A practical logging plan can be prepared only when sound data describing the terrain, soils, and forests are
available.
The collection of detailed information should not only aid logging layout, but also provide data for
comparing alternative plans. The experience of the field engineers who lay out the roads and the yarding
settings, and the agency personnel who review the submitted plans, will determine the level and type of
information required. Generally, the less familiar planners are with an area, the more assistance and data they
will require.
Careful consideration must be given to the type and quantity of data that can be collected, to the most efficient
way to collect it, and to how the data are to be analyzed.
Every effort should be made to use the data for other purposes as well (e.g., for stumpage appraisal), in order to
reduce duplication of surveys and maximize the efficient use of field personnel.

Recommendation
The type and amount of data collected for each proposed harvesting area should be agreed upon by the industry
and agencies at the earliest possible stage in the planning process. The need for the data should be evaluated
before to field reconnaissance.
Then, mapping methods that provide more accurate representation of topographic features should be
investigated.
Research should continue on how harvesting steep slopes affects site, terrain, and non-forest resources.

3. Good topographic and site stability information is required so that accurate logging plans can be prepared and
their potential to meet environmental concerns can be assessed.

Recommendation
Topographic and terrain mapping must be undertaken at a scale that is compatible with operational
planning, and at a standard that ensures there will be compatibility between maps. As a minimum standard,
FERIC recommends a scale of 1:20 000 for development maps, and 1:5 000 for operability, stability, and
layout maps. Field-layout personnel should use soil and vegetative characteristics to assess localized
terrain stability, and should collect additional information when they are in the field.
43
4. Individual cutting permits and operability plans form part of an overall forest development plan.
minimize the length of road constructed and to improve the efficiency of logging, the planner must
consider the timber adjacent to the proposed area and possibility of future access through it. The planner
must know whether timber areas excluded from logging are temporarily deferred or permanently with-
drawn. Temporarily excluded areas should be included in the long-term development plan.

Recommendation

Reasons for deferring or rejecting the logging of specific stands of timber should be carefully documented.

5. A full evaluation of the logging plans for the Hangover Creek and Phantom Creek areas could only
undertaken if the study areas are logged. However, the preparation of alternative logging plans demon-
strated several points:

• The final plan was a compromise among several individual plans, which met various economic,
engineering, and environmental objectives.

• Preparing at the outset specific plans that met the environmental and economic concerns allowed
objective evaluation of the alternatives.

• The final plans were not necessarily operational and more field work would be required for
implementation.

• Through the use of a variety of yarding methods, the potential to reduce soil disturbance and mass
wasting is greater than occurs with plans that follow a single-system approach to development.

• Having a team of planners with different experiences and approaches was a significant factor
allowing the development of good alternative plans.

• The most feasible plans were those that matched road and yarding systems to the topography.

Recommendation

The preparation of alternative logging plans should be made before compromises are made.

6. No one harvesting plan is clearly superior to the others. In the study watersheds, the combined highlead-
yarding plans would have the greatest proportion of their road lengths within sensitive terrain. However
the combined skyline plan would have a greater proportion of sensitive area disturbed by yarding. On the
plan proposed for the Phantom study area, the total area of sensitive site disturbed by skyline yarding
would be less than that for highlead yarding. However, a greater length of roads on the skyline plan would
be on sensitive sites.

For the skyline settings, the choice of a suitable landing forced the road location into difficult construction
areas, or good landings were simply not available. The road system for the mobile yarding crane would
conform better to the natural topography. For all systems, the choice of road access up and along the steep
slopes would restrict the location of most landings.

The helicopter offers potential to reduce logging disturbance to sensitive sites. However, there must
sufficient timber volumes and values to justify the costs. Plans for helicopter logging should be made
conjunction with the conventional logging plans for adjacent areas. This will enable the planner
eliminate difficult and expensive conventional yarding operations and their associated spur roads. This
timber would then be left for the helicopter. A concern is that the reduced road access to upper portion
areas could increase tree-planting and forestry costs.

44
SEQ 4447 JOB F2-004-015 PAGE-0045 MAIN TEXT CONT
REVISED 10APR00 AT 17:20 BY BC DEPTH: 60.06 PICAS WIDTH 44 PICAS
COLOR LEVEL 1

7. The cost and economic analyses showed that fixed costs are affected in a narrow range by factors such as
tree size, terrain, and logging system. Log values, which are determined by outside market forces, fluctuate
over a wide range and have a major effect on the return available for stumpage and profit. During the study
period, the value of the timber in the Phantom Creek area in 1984 was 30% below its 1980 level. The value
increased again in 1988. Changes in log values can be sharp and unpredictable.

Recommendation
Logging planning on the Queen Charlotte Islands must be flexible enough so that difficult, high-cost areas
can be logged when markets are high and lower-cost areas can be logged when prices are low.

6 CONCLUSION
The logging methods used by the forest industry on the Queen Charlotte Islands have changed during the
past 8 years. Whereas highlead yarding systems were once the most common, mobile yarding cranes now
dominate. Individuals responsible for planning have a better understanding of the consequences of disturbing
steep slopes, and they are interested in logging these sites in an environmentally satisfactory manner. More
information, such as stability mapping and landslide surveys, is available for planning. This information is
more accurate than it was in earlier years, and is in a form that logging planners and managers can understand.
This study, however, shows there is still a need to refine logging-equipment usage, to try different systems,
and to ensure equipment is properly matched to the terrain.

45
SEQ 4448 JOB F2-004-015 PAGE-0046 MAIN TEXT CONT
REVISED 10APR00 AT 17:20 BY BC DEPTH: 60.06 PICAS WIDTH 44 PICAS
COLOR LEVEL 1

7 LITERATURE CITED
Bourgeois, W.W. 1975. Geotechnic inventory of a portion of Louise Island, Queen Charlotte Islands. Report
prepared by MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., Forestry Division, Nanaimo, B.C.
Breadon, R.E. 1983. Timber development planning for the British Columbia Interior: the total-chance
concept. Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada, Handb. No. 4. Vancouver, B.C.
Breadon, R.E. and M. Nagy. 1984. Impressions of a laser contour mapping system: Tongass National Forest,
Alaska. Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada, Interim Rep. IR-413-1. Vancouver, B.C.
B.C. Ministry of Forests. 1980. Forest and range resource analysis technical report. Inf. Serv. Branch,
Victoria, B.C.
. 1982. Queen Charlotte timber supply area report, Prince Rupert Forest Region. Victoria, B.C.
. 1986. Coast appraisal manual. Valuation Branch, Victoria, B.C.
Dietrich, W.E., T.D. Dunne, N.F. Humphrey, and L.M. Reid. 1982. Construction of sediment budgets for
drainage basins. In Proc. Sediment Budgets and Routing in Forest Drainage Basins. F.J. Swanson, R.J.
Janda, T.D. Dunne, and D.N. Swanston (editors). U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv., Pac. NW For. Range Exp.
Stn., Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-141. Portland, Oreg.
Montgomery, J.M. Inc. 1976. Forest harvest, residue treatment, reforestation and protection of water quality.
U.S. Environ. Protection Agency, Rep. No. EPA-910/ 9-76-020. Seattle, Wash.
Morgenstern, N.R. and D.A. Sangrey. 1978. Methods of stability analysis. In Landslides: analysis and control,
Special Rep. 176. R.L. Schuster and R.J. Krizek (editors). Transportation Research Board, Commission
on Sociotechnical Systems, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
D.C.
Muniz, S. 1985. Speaker No. 1, Panel No. 2. In Proc. Workshop on Slope Stability: Problems and Solutions in
Forest Management. D.N. Swanston (editor). U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv., Pac. NW For. Range Exp. Stn.,
Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-180. Portland, Oreg.
Poulin, V.A. 1981. Fish/forestry interaction research program, Queen Charlotte Islands 1981 working plan.
Compiled and edited for Fish/Forestry Interaction Program Technical Advisory Committee. B.C. Min. of
For., Victoria, B.C.
Rice, R.M., R.B. Thomas, and D.J. Furbish. 1984. Social influences on innovation in the avoidance of
logging-related landslides. A paper presented at the IUFRO Symp. on Effects of Forest Land Use on
Erosion and Slope Stability, May 7–11, 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Rollerson, T.P. 1984. Terrain stability study: TFL 44. Land Use Planning Advisory Team, Woodlands Services
Division, MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., Nanaimo, B.C.
Ryder, J.M. and D.E. Howes. 1984. Terrain information: a user’s guide to terrain maps in British Columbia.
B.C. Min. Environ., Victoria, B.C.
Sauder, E.A., R.K. Krag, and G.V. Wellburn. 1987. Logging and mass wasting in the Pacific Northwest with
application to the Queen Charlotte Islands, B.C.: a literature review. B.C. Min. For. Lands, Land Manage.
Rep. No. 53; and Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada, Special Rep. No. SR-45, Vancouver,
B.C.
Sauder, E.A., and G.V. Wellburn. 1987. Studies of yarding operations on sensitive terrain, Queen Charlotte
Islands, B.C. B.C. Min. For. Lands, Land Manage. Rep. No. 52; and Forest Engineering Research
Institute of Canada, Special Rep. No. SR-43, Vancouver, B.C.
Schwab, J.W. 1981. Slope stability and erosion hazard assessment, Skeena West Planning Area. B.C. Min.
For., Research Section, Smithers, B.C.
Sidle, R.C., A.J. Pearce, and C.L. O’Loughlin. 1985. Hillslope stability and land use. Water Resources
Monogr. Series No. 11, Am. Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.
46
SEQ 4449 JOB F2-004-015 PAGE-0047 MAIN TEXT CONT
REVISED 10APR00 AT 17:20 BY BC DEPTH: 60.06 PICAS WIDTH 44 PICAS
COLOR LEVEL 1

Sirmon, J. 1985. Status of knowledge — reliability of techniques — direction for improved decision
making. In Proc. Workshop on Slope Stability: Problems and Solutions in Forest Management. D.N.
Swanston (editor). U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv., Pac. NW For. Range Exp. Stn., Gen. Tech. Rep.
PNW-180, Portland, Oreg.
Sondheim, M., and T. Rollerson. 1985. Quantitative definitions of stability classes as related to post-logging
clearcut landslide occurrence. In Proc. 9th B.C. Soil Science Workshop. B.C. Min. Environ, Victoria,
B.C.
Swanston, D.N. 1969. Mass wasting in Coastal Alaska. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv., Pacific NW For. Range
Exp. Stn., Research Paper PNW-83, Juneau, Alaska.
Toews, D.A.A. and M.J. Brownlee. 1981. A handbook for fish habitat protection on forest lands in British
Columbia. Land Use Unit, Habitat Protection Division, Dep. Fish. Oceans, Vancouver, B.C.
Townshend, R.B. 1979. Geotechnic report: Rennell Sound, Queen Charlotte Islands. Report prepared for Q.C.
Timber Ltd. (C.I.P.A. Ind. Ltd.), Vancouver, B.C.
. 1981. Geotechnic report: Davidson, Cave, and Hains Creeks, Queen Charlotte Islands. Report
prepared for C.I.P.A. Ind. Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.
Wu, T.H. and D.A. Sangrey. 1978. Strength properties and their measurement. In Landslides: analysis and
control. Special Rep. 176. R.L. Schuster and R.J. Krizek (editors). Transportation Research Board,
Commission on Sociotechnical Systems, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D.C.

47