Cost Analysis of Forest Management Treatments in the Blackfoot Valley
Author: Jaiden Stansberry, National Center for Landscape Fire Analysis
Date: April 21st, 2025
Executive Summary
Forest management is a key practice in the public and private lands in the Blackfoot Valley of Montana. The cost of prescribing and implementing forest management treatments has little research and identified factors in the Blackfoot Valley of Montana. It is important to note that the pricing identified in this study serves as an average and variation in cost is expected depending on the treatment, and as timber and labor markets change. The intended use of the paper is to provide an understanding of the driving costs of forest management treatments and calculate a 2025 USD pricing to the treatments in the Blackfoot Valley. This paper is not intended to be used as a pricing sheet, but rather a broad understanding and snapshot of cost estimations in the Blackfoot Valley for forest management treatments as of the spring of 2025.
The treatments researched were harvesting, thinning, mastication, and prescribed fire. A national search of literature, studies, and economics to understand factors influencing the costs of forest management treatments. Following the national search, I derived USD amounts of western forest management costs with the specific treatments, however, pricing was limited in specific geographic locations like the Blackfoot Valley, so I turned to interviewing local managers, contractors, and organizations to develop a cost analysis specific to the Blackfoot Valley in Montana. In addition to the specified treatments, I included cost factors and pricing of road maintenance and timber hauling costs because of their necessity for forest management treatments. To determine an accurate cost analysis of these treatments, literature reviews of scientific papers, economic posters, and news articles were conducted. While the literature review provided a substantial basis describing the factors influencing cost estimations of forest management treatments, the data was not specific to western Montana and varied by region. Therefore, interviews with 24 land managers, foresters, and private contractors alongside 12 interviews with mills in or near the Blackfoot Valley were conducted. These local interviews heavily informed cost factors through local knowledge and understanding. The result describes driving factors of forest management treatment costs and local knowledge of treatment utilization in the Blackfoot Valley.
Background
Literature Review
The methods of this study included a national literature review to determine cost factors of forest management treatments, a more focused search to the western United States to derive pricing for treatments, and then interviews with local managers, foresters, and organizations to extract local costs of forest management treatments in the Blackfoot Valley, MT. I began my review with a search for the factors affecting the cost of fuel treatment nationally, across scientific papers, economic posters, and company websites. This search was not extensive and focused on broadly identifying factors affecting the pricing of forest management treatments. This search was conducted using Google Scholar and key words such as “estimating harvesting cost,” “forest management treatment costs,” “mastication costs,” and “economics of prescribed fire”, “forest operation cost”. I then used the chain of referral method to extract additional literary sources from the sources from the keyword search. The chain of referral recruits research on specific subjects by referencing research that cites the papers identified in my keyword searches. The factors I identified as a result of this literature review are known to influence costs for harvesting, mastication, thinning, prescribed fires, and roads in Table 1. Harvesting refers to the removal of merchantable timber. Mastication is the mulching or grinding of smaller trees in a forest stand to reduce horizontal fuels. Thinning describes a pre-commercial thin or general removal of smaller trees that is not delivered to a mill or sold. Prescribed fire refers to the treatment of fuels through broadcast or pile burning. The roads treatment includes the maintenance and building of roads in relation to implementing treatments. The road costs were included as their own treatment due to their necessity and high expenses in the process of implementing forest management treatments.
Table 1. Results of a national literature review on the driving factors of forest management treatments costs. The cost factors were sectioned by treatment type including harvesting, mastication, thinning, prescribed fire, and road maintenance.
|
Driving Factors of Treatment Costs Derived from National Literature Review |
|
|
Treatment Type |
Potential Cost Factors |
|
Harvesting |
Unit size12,14,20, location2,6,12, treatment requirements6,20, tree species and size class2,6, tree density and removal intensity2,6,12,14, slope2,6,12, access12, site preparation20, harvesting machine type1,2,12,14,20,21, logging equipment rate and maintenance1,10,12,20, processing6,21, loading6,21, skidding distance6,12,14,21, products and markets10, labor availability10,12, hauling cost6,21 |
|
Mastication |
Unit size3,13, residual stand density3,9,13,16, tree size13,16,18, slope3,6,13, size of end result material16,18, site access and conditions (i.e. proximity to standing trees, and topography consistency)13,16, equipment type3,16,18, labor availability18, ground conditions9 |
|
Thinning |
Unit size4, accessibility4, species4,6, density (trees per acres)4,6,18 size of trees4,6 slope 4,6, equipment type 4,6,18,20, wildland-urban interface 4,6, terrain4,6,18, treatment of residuals (piling, lop and scatter) 4,6,20 |
|
Prescribed Fire |
Unit size5,15,22, unit prep (handline, thinning) 15, slope5,22, aspect 5, season of burn22, elevation 5,6,22, access 5, proximity of resources to unit15, hours of labor 5, personnel15, ignition method15, fuel type 5, fire regime 5,6, fuel for equipment, uncertainty and complexity22, mop-up extent15, wildland-urban interface 5,6,15,22 |
|
Roads |
Type of road work (i.e. construction, maintenance)11, slope12, length23, time of year11, clearing/grubbing, grading20, seeding20, 23, excavation23, obliteration23, rebuilding or constructing drainage structures (dips, culverts)11,20,23. |
The costs derived in Table 1 are cost factors associated with management or ownership of a forest treatment. A contractor executing a forest treatment will have different cost factors associated with maintaining their business and equipment, but for the purpose of this paper, I will primarily focus on the costs associated with implementing forest management treatments.
The costs affecting each of the categories of forest management treatments are categorized into fixed costs and variable costs.1,20 The fixed costs account for the physical site characteristics of a unit, such as terrain, elevation, access, and fuel type/species. A large cost impact to fixed cost among all treatments is the slope, largely due to decreased productivity on steep slopes.2,3,6,13,22 However, Arriagada et al. (2008) suggests that while slope has a statistically significant impact on the total harvesting cost, the cost itself is only a 0.6% increase in harvesting cost when slope increases by 1%.2 The species can dictate the revenue generated from the treatment, if applicable during harvesting. These fixed variables cannot be changed within the selected unit, but can be managed through treatment prescription
The variable cost, or management variable, includes the costs associated with management decisions regarding the treatment prescription. This includes variables like unit size, removal intensity, season, and type of harvesting equipment. The unit size was identified as the most influential factors affecting the cost of treatments; generally, as unit size increases the cost per acre will decrease.2,6,15,16 The removal intensity refers to the amount (either in volume or trees per acre) that will be harvested from the site; a more intense removal will require more labor from harvesting equipment, but could result in an increased profit if merchantable. The designation of specific seasons in the prescription could increase the price of the treatment dependent on availability and access limitations (snow, fire, spring break-up). Additionally, the type of equipment is listed as a variable cost because managers can designate specific equipment for different effects and based on equipment limitations. The specific types, effects, and limitations of harvesting and mastication equipment are further outlined by the Forest Operations Equipment Catalog: Mulchers provided by the United States Forest Service, and the Best Management Practices (2011) by the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation.
Once I identified the most significant cost factors of each treatment, I conducted a second literature search to estimate the treatment’s pricing within the study area of the state of Montana, and specifically the Blackfoot Valley, since the state of the harvests was one of the most statistically significant variables in harvesting cost per acre.2 The search was conducted through Google Scholar using the key words “forest management Montana,” “thinning forest treatments Montana,” “Blackfoot Valley, Montana forestry,” “forestry road construction Montana,” “mastication cost Montana,” and “prescribed fire cost Montana.” Once adequate initial articles were found using these key words, the chain of referral method was used to identify additional sources. I found few articles with pricing and many of the articles I did find were published 10-20 years prior to 2025. Many of the reports reviewed in determining cost factors listed prices for fuel treatment activities, but these prices were from states other than Montana and from times that would not reflect the current economy.10
However, there were articles, such as Hayes (2023) from the University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER), that had recent numbers of harvesting costs. It should be noted, that after an interview with the BBER, I learned that the harvesting cost numbers saw poor response rate (less than 15 out of 100-200 surveys), so most of the estimations are calculated on market assumption.29 For the purposes of this paper, I categorized harvesting equipment following the categories of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER); ground-based, cable, and cut-to-length.14 Each of these harvesting equipment styles lead to different expenses.10 For example, cut-to-length harvesting systems process slash in woods and includes processing as part of the harvesting cost, while ground-based systems like whole-tree harvesting process slash at the landing, and typically have a processing cost for dragging the slash out of the woods and managing the slash piles.2 The other listed treatments such as mastication and prescribed fire contained even fewer research articles in the Blackfoot Valley of Montana compared to harvesting. Dodson’s (2016) research contained pricing on mastication, however, it was exclusive to operations on a fire line. The US Forest Service created a Fuel Planning Prescribed Fire Cost sheet (2008) for prescribed fire with variables applicable to the Blackfoot Valley of Montana, but the most recent source was outlined as 1999, so it did not accurately reflect 2025 USD costs.
While limited numbers defining the cost of these treatments exist, the following are extractions of cost estimates. The search for Montana cost estimates had limited data, so if Montana pricing was not found, I used information from surrounding states to inform Table 2. Since the sources utilized used different factors to average their cost, compiling an average from all the resources identified in the paper would not result in an accurate interpretation of average cost of forest management treatments. Therefore, I relied on the four resources cited in Table 2 as average, minimums, and maximums, since they were consistent with their cost factors and their pricing was relatively near in proximity to the Blackfoot Valley of Montana.
The US Forest Service Prescribed Fire Costs (2004) utilized were only the conditions applicable to the Blackfoot Valley for broadcast burning (Table 2). Road costs were categorized into three categories typically seen on a forest treatment where road construction or maintenance are needed, however, more treatment options for road building and maintenance are available beyond the treatments listed for the purposes of this paper24 (Table 2).
Table 2. Cost estimation (USD) averages, minimums, and maximums from literature reviews of harvesting, mastication, thinning, and road treatments in Montana and surrounding areas.
|
Pricing for Forest Management Treatments (USD) |
|||
|
Treatment |
Average |
Min |
Max |
|
Harvesting |
|
|
|
|
Ground-based Systems |
$36.54 per green ton14 or $552 per acre2 |
$274 per acre2 |
$830 per acre2 |
|
Cut-to-length |
$48.25 per green ton14 or $699 per acre2 |
$348 per acre2 |
$1,050 per acre2 |
|
Cable Systems |
$55.72 per green ton14 |
-- |
-- |
|
Mastication |
$530 per acre13 |
$335 per acre13 |
$1,395 per acre13 |
|
Prescribed Fire |
|
|
|
|
2,000 ac, ponderosa pine 2,500 feet elevation 25 percent slope WUI Forest health Underburn Natural fuels |
$86 per acre22 |
-- |
-- |
|
200 ac, mixed conifer 3,000 feet elevation 15 percent slope No WUI Fuel reduction Broadcast burn Whole tree removal |
$174 per acre22 |
-- |
-- |
|
Thinning |
|
|
|
|
Machine piling and burning |
$735 per acre4 |
$271 per acre4 |
$1,199 per acre4 |
|
Machine thin, pile, and burn |
$970 per acre4 |
$492 per acre4 |
$1,448 per acre4 |
|
Hand piling and burning |
$1,291 per acre4 |
$574 per acre4 |
$2,008 per acre4 |
|
Hand thin, pile, and burn |
$1,570 per acre4 |
$808 per acre4 |
$2,332 per acre4 |
|
Road Treatment |
|
|
|
|
Grade Road |
$850 per mile24 |
$300 per mile24 |
$2,000 per mile24 |
|
Clearing and grubbing |
$5,500 per mile24 |
$4,000 per mile24 |
$7,000 per mile24 |
|
Cut and fill slopes |
$2,000 per mile24 |
$1,500 per mile24 |
$2,500 per mile24 |
Due to the pricing not being Montana specific, I turned to interviews with land managers, foresters, private contractors and mills around the Blackfoot Valley to determine an accurate range of prices for forest management treatments.
Interviews with Forestry Professionals
I conducted interviews to gather qualitative and quantitative data regarding the cost analysis of forest management treatments. The interviewees were selected due to their proximity and working relation to the forestry economy of the study area, the Blackfoot Valley, Montana. The initial interviewees were identified by Carl Seielstad and Beth Dodson, from the University of Montana forestry department. For subsequent interviewees, I utilized the snowball sampling method by asking interviewees for recommendations of individuals to contact regarding forest management treatments. The interviews included 24 interviews with public land managers, foresters, and private contractors, and 12 interviews with mills. The interviews were semi-structured, allowing the conversations to be geared toward the expertise of the interviewee. The three predominant themes in the interviews were costs associated with forest management treatments, factors that determined treatment costs, and a description of the forestry economy changes of the interviewee’s career. During the interviews, I gained access to literature and data sets that were not available when I began my literature review. Those data sets will be included in the following discussion. The forestry professionals elaborated on driving factors of forest management treatment costs. Many of the cost factors identified were repetitive from the literature review, but were still included in Table 3.
Table 3. Significant cost factors of harvesting, hauling, mastication, thinning, prescribed fire, and road treatments from interviews with forestry professionals associated with the Blackfoot Valley, MT.
|
Interviews: Significant Factors of Treatment Costs |
|
|
Harvesting |
Unit size26,27,33,34,40, type of equipment26,27,39, volume removed26,27,32, species harvest26,27,34, tree spacing26,27, skidding distance46, mobilization/number of entries46,47, nearest road to entry46,47, cost of labor45,46,47, fuel needed for machinery46,47, amount of pulp material removed26,27,29,32, haul costs26,27,32,33,34,38,41, proximity to Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) 26,29,38, and silviculture restrictions26,27,34. |
|
Hauling |
Mileage from the harvest site to the mill37, hourly wage of driver38,, diesel price37,46,47, miles per gallon of truck37,46,47, time it takes to get to the mill26,27,37, time to load and unload37, and number of loads in a day.37, 46 |
|
Mastication |
Unit size26,32,38,47, tree size (height and width)26,32, slope26,32,38,47, number of entries by logger32,38,47, continuity of mulching32, trees per acre26,32,38,47, fuel47, employees47, and machine costs47. |
|
Thinning |
Size of the unit26,27,35, type of contractors26,27,35, tree size (height and width)26,27 treatment of slash26,27,35, trees per acre26,27,35, WUI proximity35, steepness26,35, habitat type35, access to thinning site26,27,35, slope26,27, equipment used to thin26,27,30,31,35. |
|
Prescribed Fire |
Unit size25,26,27,43, fuel type25,26,27,35,43, complexity of burn25,26,27,43, slope36, resources needed27,28,30, preparation of unit25,26,27,43, degree of mop-up26,27,43, and fire consumption of fuels.27, 28, 44 |
|
Roads |
Time of year33,34, existing roads33,34,38, existing culverts30,31, material,38 reconstruction degree24, seeding34, spraying33,34, and equipment38. |
Harvesting
Harvesting, unlike the other forest management treatments outlined in this study, has the potential for creating revenue for landowners, potentially offsetting the cost of the treatment. The objective of the harvest will ultimately dictate the cost and potential profit. Factors that influence the cost of harvesting identified by forestry professionals include haul costs, residuals, type of equipment, species harvested, volume removed, tree spacing, skidding distance, mobilization/number of entries, the nearest road to entry, labor, fuel, silviculture restrictions, and proximity to WUI.32, 33, 38, 40
In the Blackfoot Valley, the most common harvesting equipment used are ground-based systems, such as a feller-buncher.38 Ground-based system’s average cost was $34.48/green ton (Table 4). The cut-to-length (CTL) system averaged $43.54/green ton, the tether system at $55.00/green ton, and the cable system at $57.39/green ton (Table 4). These costs are averages extracted from interviews of recent harvest costs or assuming a typical stand in the Blackfoot. A typical stand qualifies as an average DBH of 13 inches, 42 trees per acre removed, and an average of 800 feet from felling site to landing.14
Table 4. Average harvesting cost estimates of ground-based, cable, cut-to-length, and tether logging identified in interviews with forestry professionals in the Blackfoot Valley, MT.
|
Harvesting Cost Estimations ($/green ton) |
||||
|
Harvesting System |
Average |
Min |
Max |
n |
|
Ground-based |
$34.48 |
$25.00 |
$50.00 |
7 |
|
Cable |
$57.39 |
$50.00 |
$70.00 |
4 |
|
Cut-to-Length |
$43.53 |
$35.00 |
$53.50 |
5 |
|
Tether* |
$55.00 |
$55.00 |
$55.00 |
1 |
*Tether harvesting only had one estimation of cost, due to its infrequent use in the
Blackfoot Valley, MT.
During my literature review, the BBER identified costs for ground-based, cable, and cut-to-length systems. When speaking to interviewees, many expressed caution that the BBER costs of harvesting were lower than the actual cost. However, when comparing the averages in this study, the Blackfoot Valley Cost Analysis (BCVA), to the BBER’s, the ground-based and CTL harvesting system prices identified were lower cost estimations than the estimations provided by the BBER (Table 5). The contradictions between the data and consensus of harvesting experts show the variability of harvesting costs dependent on the cost factors identified.
Table 5. Average harvesting cost comparison between the cost estimations found in this study (BCVA) and those identified by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER) focusing on logging costs in Montana.
|
Comparison of Average Costs of Harvesting Systems ($/green ton) |
||
|
Harvesting System
|
BCVA 2025 |
BBER 2023 |
|
Ground-based (feller-buncher) |
$34.48 |
$36.54 |
|
Cable |
$57.39 |
$55.03 |
|
Cut-to-Length |
$43.53 |
$48.25 |
|
Tether |
$55.00 |
-- |
The volume of merchantable timber harvested during forest management treatments create cost from contracting the harvesting equipment but can generate revenue with the timber species and delivered log price. For example, in the Blackfoot Valley, a mature, premium Douglas-fir will result in a higher dollar per ton amount than a western larch.50 The type of wood product also controls the delivered log price, which will be discussed later in this paper. The tree spacing and skidding distance costs are associated with the fuel cost.38 If trees are spaced close together and near the landing, then there will be a smaller fuel price for the harvesting system to reach the timber, and for the skidder/yarder to relocate the timber to the log deck.38 Once a harvest reaches around 100-150 acres, the cost per acre significantly decreases, because the upfront costs of delivering equipment and running the machinery are dispersed over a higher yield of trees per acre, with the caveat that the profit is dependent on the species and density of timber removed.33 Vice versa, the most expensive harvesting comes from small 10–20-acre units because of the high cost of mobilization coupled with low stumpage removal.33
The number of entries or mobilizations is often determined by external factors like break-up or a pause in work for fire season.24 However, they can also be determined by the landowner, if the logger cannot harvest during certain times, like winter-only harvests, hunting season, elk calving, or species protection.26, 45 Clearly outlining objectives and trees per acre (TPA) or volume to be removed is crucial for cost effectiveness so the logger will not have to go back through the site to meet the correct prescription.38 Additionally, applying a short window to harvest in a bid can create an expensive harvest, because the logger will bring in more equipment or charge a higher rate to complete the project in time.34 Another strain on the cost of harvesting is the current lack of lowboys and drivers for the lowboys in the Blackfoot Valley.45 Lowboys are utilized to bring harvesting equipment to logging units, but they can be difficult to hire in the summer, since they are utilized to move logging equipment to wildfires for suppression use.45 Some loggers have their own lowboys and do not need to hire the equipment, this will significantly reduce the cost of mobilization.44
The primary harvesting system used in the Blackfoot Valley of western Montana is a feller-buncher with a stroke-boom delimber and whole tree skidding.36, 38, 41 Cable and tether systems are more expensive than ground-based systems but can harvest grounds with greater than 35% slope.32 There is a limited number of tether, cable, and cut-to-length near or in the Blackfoot Valley.45 While many land managers mentioned a recent demand and uptick in tether harvesting replacing cable harvesting, it was noted that tethering system use has not increased largely despite managers believing they are becoming more popular.45 In addition to standard harvesting contracts, many land managers utilize stewardship contracts; trading goods for services. Often in harvesting, the contractor will take the profit of the delivered logs and then complete projects like building roads or installing gates for the landowner until the price balances out.38
Discussion
Considering the results from both the literature review and interview process, the major factors determining timber harvest costs in the study area were the type of harvesting equipment, cost of hauling, and the volume removed.26, 27, 33, 38 Since the hauling cost can be extracted from the harvesting cost and calculated independently, I separated from the harvesting equation and it will be outlined in the hauling section of this paper. Additionally, the volume of the harvest varies by individual timber sale, so it will be discussed independently from the harvesting cost, which focuses on equipment costs, and is discussed during the delivered log price analysis. This leaves the type of harvesting equipment as the largest major cost in harvesting treatments.
To characterize harvesting cost, I separated costs by equipment used and quantified cost by dollar per green ton. I used green tons to capture costs compared to thousand board feet (MBF). While tonnage varies by moisture content of species and its specific gravity, green tons encompasses more wood products, such as pulp, and was used more frequently by loggers and land managers in interviews.
The data used in the cost analysis was collected from local timber harvest cost estimations and bid receipts from loggers, land managers, and private foresters. The identity of these sources was not disclosed in this paper to prevent an expectation of cost from services. It is important to note that the harvests included in the analysis were over 100 acres, so they surpass the cost break identified earlier in this paper from my interviews, so smaller projects can expect a higher per acre cost than those estimated here.
Conclusion:
Since the numbers I received during interviews are similar to the BBER’s, my recommendation for accurate harvesting cost estimations is to follow the BBER’s numbers as they update their costs for harvesting every other year. Their numbers will more accurately reflect the current harvesting market versus the current snapshot of Spring 2025 that I have recorded. Some reasons for lower estimations in this report could be the size of the units in the data collection and/or the systems are averaged and therefore the more expensive harvesting prices are mediated by the lower prices of harvests. The management variables identified in Table 3 will also affect the cost of harvesting, for example increased spacing and removal of pulp will require the removal of more material, and increasing the number of entries if equipment leaves for the summer or cannot harvest due to endangered species will increase the cost from required lo-boys.
Hauling
Hauling costs include the mileage from harvest site to the mill, hourly wage of the driver, diesel price, miles per gallon of the truck, time it takes to get to the mill (plus an hour for loading and unloading), and number of loads transported in a day (Table 3).37, 45 In 2024, Pyramid Mountain Lumber in Seeley, MT closed, closing the ponderosa pine market in Montana and extending the hauling time for merchantable timber to two or more hours outside of the Blackfoot Valley. The closure of this mill also resulted in surrounding mills having a higher log intake, pushing their decks to capacity and compelling loggers in the Blackfoot Valley to haul logs to out of state mills.32 In addition, Roseburg, a particle-board mill in Missoula, MT, also closed which greatly impacted market for pulp material in the Blackfoot Valley.
Hauling cost is best described as an equation that relies on a multitude of factors. Since there are a range of factors, the calculation is best completed on an individual sale and not as an estimation. The factors include the truck cost and fuel cost. The truck cost is determined by the total hours of the trip, plus an additional hour for loading and unloading the logs at the landing and mill, and the hourly rate of the driver. The fuel costs consists of the total miles driven, the miles per gallon of the hauling truck, and the current diesel cost per gallon.
|
Calculation for Hauling Cost (S. Koehn, 2025) $/ton = (Total cost per trip / tons per load) + bookkeeping cost* Total cost per trip = truck cost + fuel cost Truck cost = Total hours per trip + 1 hour** x $USD per hour of driver Fuel cost = ((Total miles driven / 2) / miles per gallon) x diesel cost per gallon *Bookkeeping costs are a fixed cost determined by the company/driver hauling **The one hour is added to the total hours per trip for the loading and unloading time |
Although the hauling cost is best estimated individually, I also determined an average estimation of hauling cost from interviewed foresters in the Blackfoot Valley to capture an estimation of the price. The average cost of hauling timber from the Blackfoot Valley, according to the information from my interviews, was $22.20/ton, with estimates ranging from $11/ton to $30/ton. Using an average truckload of 28 tons, this translates to a cost of hauling of $621.60 per trip. This estimation is an indication of the current market, but it cannot be customized to represent the dynamic costs of hauling.
Conclusion:
Since hauling costs vary widely depending on the hauling time from the harvest site to the mill, the hourly rate of drivers, and the cost of diesel, I would recommend using Scott Koehn’s formula to estimate hauling costs.
Roads
Road packages are typically included in a timber bid and can be incredibly costly depending on the degree of maintenance or construction needed. For example, a road may need improvement or construction before harvesting equipment can enter, it may require maintenance while harvesting, or the road may need blading after the harvest if it was torn up by the equipment in the process of pulling out the timber. In the interviews, I identified these factors that drive road costs: time of year, existing roads, existing culverts, road material, reconstruction, seeding, spraying, and equipment (Table 3).
In the Blackfoot watershed, road maintenance and temporary road projects are more common than new road construction due to the prevalence of existing road networks and the legal constraints on putting in a new road.34 Additionally, if a road in Montana was built before the 1980’s, it will likely need Best Management Practices (BMP) upgrades and maintenance.33 The time of year harvests occur also effects road costs. In months with heavy snowfall, roads will need to be plowed. In some cases, plowing a road will be cheaper than maintaining the condition of an exposed road, since the snowfall protects the road from rutting by machinery. However, some interviewees noted with consistent snowfall, the bill for plowing can be expensive than maintaining an exposed road.33, 34 One benefit in the Blackfoot Valley is its proximity to good road building materials in nearby Missoula, MT, so the closer to Missoula the less the cost of road materials.38 Listed in Table 6 below are the average USD per mile of common road maintenance performed in the Blackfoot Valley according to interviews with local land managers and contractors.
Table 6. Road maintenance cost averages, minimums, and maximums in USD/mile recorded from interviews with forestry professionals in the Blackfoot Valley, MT.
|
Road Maintenance Cost ($/mile) |
||||
|
Treatment |
Average |
Min |
Max |
n |
|
Maintenance/Reclaiming |
$2,222.67 |
$1,500.00 |
$3,168.00 |
3 |
|
Spot Blading |
$537.50 |
$300.00 |
$1,000.00 |
4 |
|
Reconstruction |
$5,235.83 |
$1,500.00 |
$7,920.00 |
6 |
|
Road Brushing |
$2,341.36 |
$686.40 |
$4,500.00 |
5 |
|
Construction |
$23,760.00 |
$23,760.00 |
$23,760.00 |
1 |
|
6-10' cut slopes |
$17,358.00 |
$13,596.00 |
$21,120.00 |
2 |
|
11-16' cut slopes |
$23,430.00 |
$20,460.00 |
$26,400.00 |
2 |
|
Obliterating Temporary Roads |
$4,097.36 |
$997.38 |
$7,509.31 |
5 |
Conclusion:
Road costs are variable and dependent on the treatment required for the harvesting site. The treatments listed above were the common treatments forestry professionals listed when asked about road costs during their interview. The Forest Service Northern Region (2011) document has more specific treatment and costs for Montana. That document also adds culvert costs and a step-by-step process for estimating road costs.
Thinning
Factors influencing the cost of thinning treatments identified during the interview process were the size of the unit, type of contractors, tree size (height and width), trees per acre, treatment of slash, whether additional pruning is required due to the site being within the wildland urban interface (WUI), site steepness, habitat type, access to the thinning site, and the equipment used to thin (Table 3). A thinning treatment can use a combination of hand-thinning, mechanical thinning, or both. Hand-thinning is when individual work through the treatment unit using a chainsaw to thin trees, and mechanical thinning refers to thinning by heavy equipment machinery. Thinned material, also known as slash, falls into three categories: lop and scatter, chip, or pile and burn. Burning of slash piles can be done by the landowner at little to no cost or can be contracted for a price.29 Lopping and scattering while a common forestry treatment in other regions of Montana38 is not a typical treatment option in the Blackfoot Valley, due to the increase fire risk associated with leaving fuel on the ground, especially near the WUI. Chipping is also not very common in the Blackfoot Valley during harvesting treatments but can be done near WUI areas. A thinning treatment can occur simultaneously with other forest treatments like harvesting, where the operator thins the unit while cutting merchantable timber. In this case, the treatment costs can be lumped together. For instance, the cost of mechanical piling can be included in the cost of harvesting, because the slash created from the merchantable timber will also need to be piled, though the cost of harvesting may be slightly higher with the added parameters.46
At 50-acres for hand-thinning, a cost break occurs where the cost per acre decreases significantly.29 The size of the unit influences the amount of work, but also the type of contractor that land managers can hire. If the site is over 50-acres, typically a non-local contract crew is brought in to thin, because the cost of bringing in a crew outweighs the cost of labor.29 Local private industries usually do the smaller projects, because it is accomplishable with the cost of labor, their manpower, and time frame before the fire season begins.35 Combining multiple small projects that are close together can also increase the size of the unit, justifying an out-of-state crew.38 Additionally, if there are trees larger than 6” DBH prescribed for removal, the cost per acre will skyrocket for thinning because it will take more time to complete.38 In general, as unit size increases the cost per acre will decrease.
Discussion
There are numerous options when thinning a forest stand, which makes capturing an accurate price estimation difficult. The best way to demonstrate an accurate reflection of the current costs was to ask interviewees for an average range of cost using trees per acre (TPA) as the variable. The ranges were measured in trees per acre because it is the most quantifiable unit for small diameter trees that are typically the target of thinning treatments. A 300-600 TPA unit was considered a low density unit, 600-1,100 TPA was considered medium, and 1,100+ TPA was considered high density (Table 7, Table 8). Some answers provided were receipts from thinning projects, and they were grouped into their respective categories considering TPA. The data was collected from interviewees in public land management and private contractors.
The treatments were divided into hand treatments and mechanical treatments (Table 7, Table 8). Mechanical treatments do not include the cost of thinning, because it is assumed to have been completed during a harvest. The estimations were collected from interviews with forestry professionals, private contractors, and land managers.
Table 7. Hand thinning treatment cost estimation averages, minimums, and maximums in USD per acre in the Blackfoot Valley, MT. The treatments outlined are lop and scatter, thin and pile with no burning, thin and pile with burning, and limbing trees.
|
Hand Thinning Treatment Cost Estimation ($/acre) |
||||
|
Thinning Treatment |
Average |
Min |
Max |
n |
|
Lop and scatter |
|
|
|
|
|
300-600 TPA |
$202.33 |
$135.00 |
$300.00 |
9 |
|
600-1,100 TPA |
$336.67 |
$250.00 |
$400.00 |
3 |
|
1,100+ TPA |
$417.00 |
$300.00 |
$600.00 |
5 |
|
Thin and pile (no burn) |
||||
|
300-600 TPA |
$387.50 |
$300.00 |
$500.00 |
6 |
|
600-1,100 TPA |
$596.00 |
$350.00 |
$805.00 |
5 |
|
1,100+ TPA |
$755.00 |
$400.00 |
$1,000.00 |
6 |
|
Thin, pile, and burn |
||||
|
300-600 TPA |
$776.86 |
$450.00 |
$1,300.00 |
7 |
|
600-1,100 TPA |
$1,435.50 |
$1,350.00 |
$1,521.00 |
2 |
|
1,100+ TPA |
$1,649.71 |
$865.00 |
$2,204.00 |
7 |
|
Limbing Trees |
||||
|
light <6' |
$120.00 |
$120.00 |
$120.00 |
1 |
|
mod 6<x< 10' |
$270.00 |
$270.00 |
$270.00 |
1 |
|
heavy >10 ft |
$360.00 |
$360.00 |
$360.00 |
1 |
Table 8. Mechanical thinning treatment cost estimation averages, minimums, and maximums in USD per acre in the Blackfoot Valley, MT. The treatments outlined are lop and scatter, excavator piling, pile and burn, and hand-thinning-machine-pile.
|
Mechanical Thinning Treatment Cost Estimation ($/acre) |
||||
|
Thinning Treatment |
Average |
Min |
Max |
n |
|
Lop and scatter |
|
|
|
|
|
300-600 TPA |
$183.61 |
$64.80 |
$300.00 |
5 |
|
600-1,100 TPA |
$450.00 |
$400.00 |
$500.00 |
2 |
|
1,100+ TPA |
$800.00 |
$600.00 |
$1,000.00 |
2 |
|
Excavator piling |
||||
|
300-600 TPA |
$75.41 |
$25.00 |
$150.00 |
4 |
|
600-1,100 TPA |
$230.00 |
$150.00 |
$350.00 |
5 |
|
1,100+ TPA |
$525.00 |
$525.00 |
$525.00 |
1 |
|
Pile and burn |
||||
|
300-600 TPA |
$82.15 |
$22.42 |
$180.00 |
5 |
|
600-1,100 TPA |
$250.00 |
$200.00 |
$300.00 |
2 |
|
1,100+ TPA |
$335.00 |
$250.00 |
$420.00 |
2 |
|
Hand Thinning- Machine Pile |
||||
|
300-600 TPA |
$700.00 |
$700.00 |
$700.00 |
1 |
|
600-1,100 TPA |
$1,100.00 |
$1,100.00 |
$1,100.00 |
1 |
|
1,100+ TPA |
$1,500.00 |
$1,500.00 |
$1,500.00 |
1 |
Conclusion:
Mechanical treatments are commonly done when a harvest is taking place on the unit, because the equipment is already in the area. Often, the cost of mechanical treatment is included in the harvesting cost, so these numbers may be redundant or potentially less expensive than if the treatment was done separately from a harvest. A hand-thinning treatment is typically used in a pre-commercial thin, for aesthetics, or for hazardous fuel reduction. It is not usually considered if a commercial harvest is implemented simultaneously. The largest cost of thinning is the time it takes using a chainsaw to thin and the time it takes to pile. Using machines to pile instead of hand piling will reduce the time needed to accomplish the task. Slope and WUI were not included in these costs, but both would increase the cost of thinning, so even with a lower TPA, assume a higher bracket in cost per acre. The estimations provided serve as an understanding of the influences to thinning costs, but the actual cost of thinning will vary and may not reflect the cost quoted for a thinning unit.
Mastication
Mastication is a treatment used to reduce ladder fuels and thin a unit. The driving costs of mastication include unit size, tree size (height and width), slope, number of entries by logger, continuity of mulching, trees per acre, fuel, employees, and machine costs (Table 3). Like harvesting equipment, there are a lot of variations in mastication machines. The most common equipment used in Montana is the vertical shaft masticator, because it can work easily on slopes.24 However, there are some local loggers that have drum masticator heads or mini-excavator masticators that fit specific needs for treatments. The cost break determined by mastication unit size is around 100 acres, after this amount, the mastication cost will greatly decrease per acre.41
While the tree size and slope drive costs, they also determine machine limitations. A mastication machine cannot typically exceed 35% slopes or mulch anything larger than 5-6” DBH.26 Additionally, the density of tree regeneration will greatly affect the price. If the mastication occurs after a harvest, the density of the mastication material will decrease, because the harvesting equipment usually clips regenerative tree clumps as it saws harvestable material and knocks down regeneration as trees are skidded to the landing.47 The decreased density will decrease the cost per acre. If mastication occurs where aesthetic is a consideration for treatment, often the material will need to be mulched into finer chunks requiring multiple passes through masticator teeth. This increases the time required to mulch the material and will increase the cost per acre.
Discussion
Mastication costs were divided by the trees per acre treated, slope, and if masticating post-harvest. Alternatively, the type of machine could have been separated to define mastication, but due to low sample sizes, the equipment was lumped together to create a range from low, medium, and high average mastication costs. The range definitions were created based on brackets described by loggers and land managers. As mentioned, if a harvest occurred, the treatment would ultimately be cheaper because the TPA decreased during a harvest. For comparison purposes, assume the TPA is the TPA determined before treatment; therefore the post-harvest mastication would have a lower TPA at the time of mastication. The costs were derived from timber receipts and estimations from local land managers and contractors.
Table 9. Mastication cost estimation averages, minimums, and maximums by exclusively mastication treatment and post-harvest mastication treatment in the Blackfoot Valley, MT.
|
Mastication Costs ($/acre) |
|
|||
|
Mastication Treatment |
Average |
Min |
Max |
n |
|
Exclusively mastication (no harvest) |
|
|
|
|
|
0-200 TPA, <10% slope |
$550.00 |
$500.00 |
$650.00 |
4 |
|
200-1100 TPA 10<x<20% slope |
$747.98 |
$599.58 |
$975.00 |
3 |
|
1100+ TPA, 20%<x<35% slope |
$1,000.00 |
$550.00 |
$1300.00 |
6 |
|
Post-harvest mastication (pulp and merch out) |
|
|
|
|
|
0-200 TPA, <10% slope |
$353.57 |
$250.00 |
$500.00 |
7 |
|
200-1100 TPA 10<x<20% slope |
$583.41 |
$425.48 |
$900.00 |
6 |
|
1100+ TPA, 20%<x<35% slope |
$1,293.50 |
$750.00 |
$1598.00 |
8 |
An additional cost not included in the table is the final size of masticated material. If the landowner wants finely mulched material, usually because it is near a WUI area, then the cost of mastication will increase in each bracket.
Conclusion:
Mastication post-harvest is typically cheaper, due to the removal of pulp and merchantable before mastication and in the process, the harvesting equipment subsequently mulches material as it cuts the merchantable timber. The average mastication costs table is a good cost estimate of mastication costs in the Blackfoot Valley as of Spring 2025. However, as noted, the ranges between the averages were large, so the estimation will change based on the factors included in the treatment.
Prescribed Fire
Prescribed fire costs are influenced by the unit size, fuel type, complexity of burn, slope, resources needed, preparation of unit, degree of mop-up, and fuel consumption (Table 3). The fuel type, size, slope, and fuel consumption largely increases the complexity of a prescribed fire. A grass fire on a flat surface with a road lining a 10-acre unit will have less complexity and resources needed than a 100-acre burn on variable slopes surrounded by handline, natural barriers, and roads. Additionally, in Missoula County, airsheds can increase costs by limiting the number of days a burn can occur. Often a prescribed fire coordinator will not know until the day of if their airshed permit can be approved, and many managers must account for extra time in their budget if the airshed permit is not approved.39 The type and number of resources on the burn will increase costs. Many natural resource agencies can aid each other in burns via programs or coalitions designed to increase partnership. Private firefighters can be hired with certain skillsets or equipment with a cost per hour or day. Generally, the more acres treated the cheaper the cost, until the fire’s complexity increases which will increase the cost.
Discussion:
While all forest treatments have an assortment of factors, prescribed fire was more difficult to assess, because not all resources or factors can be treated in the same units. Prescribed fire was split into two tables; total cost per acre determined in interviews and an itemized cost for burn preparation, burn day, and mop-up.
The prescribed fire total cost per acre was collected from six professionals citing multiple operational receipts for previous burns. Two data points were eliminated from the set, because they were outliers that were misconstruing the data. These numbers were $126.98/acre, which excluded partner contribution costs, and $3,847/acre for a small prescribed fire. With these numbers included, the average cost per acre was $812.00/acre. Removing these points aided in creating a more accurate representation at $476.28/acre (Table 10). The cost per acre includes preparation, burn day operations, and mop-up costs.
Table 10. Estimation of average cost (USD per acre) of prescribed fire (broadcast burning) treatments in the Blackfoot Valley, MT.
|
Average Cost per Acre of Prescribed Fire |
|
|
Preparation, Burn Day, Mop-up |
$476.28 |
Furthermore, the $476.28/acre seems a more accurate estimation of prescribed fire cost paired with an interview with Michael Schaedel and Cindy Super. During the interview, we outlined a cost estimation of a theoretical 100-acre prescribed fire. For the burn preparation, we assumed $2,000 as the cost for a burn plan and $8,000 for fire preparation, including handline, brushing, and any other necessary unit preparation; for a total of $10,00. We anticipated three Type 6 engines, a water tender ($14,000/day), and a 10-person crew ($5,000/day), estimating $19,000 on the day of the burn. We assumed the burn day would be followed by two mop-up days with 5 people ($2,500/day) and one engine ($3,5000/day) for a total of $12,000/day and then three patrol days with one engine ($7,500 total). This would equate to around $19,500 for the mop-up operations. The total prescribed fire cost would be $48,500 for a 100-acre burn, concluding approximately $485/acre. This cost was rounded to $500/acre to account for fuel for ignitions and other excluded burn day costs.
The Lolo National Forest also provided a cost table of what a prescribed fire may cost given a certain acreage, the time of year, and the hours worked (Table 11). The underburn cost per acre is specifically for fuels in the Slash-Blowdown fuel characterization. These rates do not include planning and preparation of the burn plan and unit, burn fuel, or patrol post-mop-up.
Table 11. Lolo National Forest average cost per acre for prescribed fire underburns in 2025. The underburns are characterized by time of year, size of organization, and size of the unit.
|
Activity Fuels Underburn Spring/Fall ($/acre) |
||||||||||||
|
Small Spring Org |
Medium Spring/Fall Org |
Large Spring/Fall Org |
||||||||||
|
Length of Day (hours) |
10 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
10 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
10 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
|
Unit Size |
||||||||||||
|
<10 ac |
$842 |
$993 |
$1,144 |
$1,896 |
$1,420 |
$1,676 |
$1,879 |
$2,187 |
$1,715 |
$2,034 |
$2,239 |
$2,674 |
|
10-20 ac |
$421 |
$497 |
$572 |
$648 |
$710 |
$838 |
$939 |
$1,094 |
$857 |
$1,017 |
$1,120 |
$1,337 |
|
20-40 ac |
$21 |
$248 |
$286 |
$324 |
$355 |
$419 |
$470 |
$547 |
$429 |
$509 |
$560 |
$669 |
|
40+ ac |
$168 |
$199 |
$229 |
$259 |
$284 |
$335 |
$376 |
$437 |
$343 |
$407 |
$448 |
$535 |
|
Small - 1 day mop-up with same org |
Medium - 1 day mop-up with same org |
Large - 1 day mop-up with 3/4 org |
||||||||||
Following the total cost per acre of prescribed fire, I created an itemized cost sectioned by burn preparation, burn day, and mop-up. The burn preparation includes a burn plan, unit preparation, and handline costs (Table 12). The unit prep is a catch-all that includes digging line, pulling fuels from the line, cutting fence and hazard felling (Table 12). The handline was calculated using the Lolo National Forest estimation of cost. Not all resources available for burn day support were listed, but I identified resources commonly seen on prescribed burns in the Blackfoot Valley from interviews and personal experience. The mop-up resources are a recommendation of the typical resources contracted, however, if additional resources were needed, the cost of those resources can be assumed to be the same as those on the burn day and can be added in the mop-up cost. It is important to note here that when collecting costs for an itemized list of prescribed fire costs, the cost of personnel and equipment are a slightly discounted price, because many organizations I spoke with have good working relationship with local contractors.
For burn day preparation, I interviewed local land managers and utilized a Forest Service prescribed fire costing sheet from the Lolo National Forest to estimate handline construction. The burn plan and unit prep were estimated from managers that contract burn plans and unit preparation due to lack of resources in their organization.
Table 12. Itemized average estimation of prescribed fire costs. The costs are differentiated into prescribed fire preparation (USD per plan), prescribed fire unit preparation (USD per acre), and handline preparation (USD per mile).
|
Average Cost for Prescribed Fire Burn Preparation |
|
|
Preparation |
$/plan |
|
Burn plan |
$2,000.00 |
|
Unit preparation |
$/acre |
|
low |
$50.00 |
|
high |
$250.00 |
|
Handline with 15-ft fuel break |
$/mile |
|
easy |
$5,280.00 |
|
moderate |
$7,920.00 |
|
hard |
$11,880.00 |
|
extreme |
$15,600.00 |
The average costs during the operations of a prescribed fire were derived from local land managers that contract firefighters and private fire contracting organizations (Table 13). The resources outlined are common resources needed in the Blackfoot Valley during a prescribed burn, but will vary depending on the complexity of the unit. Each engine resource is assumed to be equipped with 1 Engine Boss (EB) and 2 firefighters (FF).
Table 13. Itemized estimation of average costs of prescribed fire resources on the day of the burn in the Blackfoot Valley, MT. The costs are divided into USD per hour and USD per day.
|
Average Cost for Prescribed Fire Burn Day Operations |
|
|
Resource |
$/hour |
|
Burn Boss |
$75.00 |
|
Type 7 UTV (2FF) with Pump |
$225.00 |
|
Type 4 Engine (1EB + 2FF) |
$250.00 |
|
Type 6 Engine (1EB + 2FF) |
$250.00 |
|
Resource |
$/day |
|
5-Person Firefighting Module |
$2,433.33 |
|
10-Person Firefighting Module |
$4,833.33 |
|
4-wheeler and spot tank |
$1,500.00 |
|
UTV Fuel Mule (1FF) |
$1,500.00 |
|
Water Tender |
$3,500.00 |
|
Skidgen |
$3,500.00 |
Mop-up was split into its own section, because the intensity of mop-up can vary based on the size and the complexity of the prescribed fire (Table 14). On smaller or less complex burns, mop-up can be completed on the day of the burn using the resources available and may not be needed for the following sequential days. However, larger or more complex burns may require an engine visiting the burn site and extinguishing heat that could threaten containment. This could require additional days of resources, which constitutes its own category.
Table 14. Itemized estimation of average costs of prescribed fire resources during mop-up after a prescribed fire in the Blackfoot Valley, MT. The costs are divided into USD per hour and USD per day.
|
Average Cost for Prescribed Fire Mop-Up |
|
|
Mop-Up Resources |
$/day |
|
Type 4 Engine (1EB + 2FF) |
$3,500.00 |
|
5-Person Firefighting Module |
$2,433.33 |
|
Post-Fire Monitoring Resources |
$/day |
|
Type 4 Engine (1EB + 2FF) |
$3,500.00 |
Conclusion:
For burns under 40 acres, the best resource for estimating costs is from the Forest Service table, noting that the cost will likely be higher because burn preparation is unaccounted. However, for larger burns, the estimation created through conversation with Schaedel and Super and the determined total average cost per acre in Table 10 provide an accurate estimation. The itemized cost is a useful resource to adjust the need for resources on a specific burn. However, note that the burn day operation pricing will also likely be slightly higher than the averages listed, because the data set included discounted prices to aid organizations in accomplishing their work.
Mills and Materials
Upon initial research of local mills and their products, the BBER publishes a Montana Quarterly Log Prices report, and Northwest Management also creates a similar Quarterly Log Market Report. The Montana Quarterly Log Prices displays the average price per MBF and the current demand for each species in sawlog and veneer products. The Northwest Management Quarterly Log Market Report displays the current species and price range of delivered logs prices ($/MBF). After reviewing these sources, I decided to interview Montana and Idaho mills to understand the current market from their perspective.
After a harvest occurs and the logs are hauled, the delivered log price is where the loggers make their profit. Firstly, the species and size of the timber harvest will determine what product can be made. Each mill has its own forest product, and so it is not uncommon for loggers to send different materials to different mills.26 With the caveat that logger can typically get a better price for their timber if they send the premium material along with the lesser quality material, compared to sending the different quality material to different mills.26
In Montana, especially around the Blackfoot Valley, large mills are far and few between, so there is little option to choose between mills for the best price for the logs, as would be done in a competitive market. Often, the choice of mill is the closest to the harvest site, as long as they have the capacity to take the logs. Hauls to large mills from the Blackfoot Valley are between 1.5-3 hours one way, which limits the amount of material that can be delivered in a day. As mentioned, another issue with choosing a mill is the capacity of the mill. The need for supply depends on the demand for wood products. When construction and demand for wood products slows, log decks fill and the mill can no longer buy timber, further decreasing options for the logger.
Currently in the Blackfoot Valley, the most desired product is mature Douglas-fir with minimal sweep and heart check for the product of peelers (Table 15). For mature wood, the next product would be studs/saw logs (Table 15). Douglas-fir is the preferred species for this product, but for a slightly lower price, mills may buy western larch, spruce, and lodgepole (Table 15). Prices will vary based on the quality of the timber sold to the mill; if the mill gets premium logs along with less desirable ones, they are bought at often a better price than if just selling the premium to one mill and undesirable logs to another.26
Lodgepole also has its own market in post and pole mills. These mills typically take a minimum of 3” DBH and a maximum 8” DBH lodgepole pine for their wood products. Depending on the mill, some may offer a higher price if the logger cuts the timber to length, but this is not always the case. Some mills may take western larch for post and pole, but many do not because it degrades the machines and cracks after it is sold. I was unable to contact any cedar mills, but this is also a high paying product.46 However, there are few cedar mills in Montana, so most of this product may need to be hauled into Idaho.
Since the shutdown of Pyramid Lumber Mill in Seeley, Montana, the ponderosa pine market has little to no market value. Ponderosa pine is not used for construction lumber due to its warp and longer drying time, so it has little value other than chips. Most mills that make wood products, in addition to chips, only take local chipping material, otherwise they would have too great an influx of chipping material. Often the delivered price of chipped material just barely covers the cost of hauling the chips to the mill.
Twelve mills were contacted in western Montana and northern Idaho. The mills ranged from post and pole to lumber mills. The mills remain anonymous in this study to protect their pricing. It is important to note that these were generic prices from contacted mills. Without timber cruise data, the pricing cannot be specified, and so the mills reported averages and high-end prices for high-quality timber.
Table 15. Snapshot of Average Delivered Log Prices in March of 2025 in the Blackfoot Valley, MT. The product outlined are studs, peelers, poles, cut-to-length poles, and chipped material.
|
Delivered Log Prices (March 2025) |
|||||
|
Product |
Average |
Min |
Max |
n |
Species (Preferred) |
|
Studs |
$70.60 |
$60.00 |
$83.00 |
5 |
Douglas-fir, spruce, western larch, fir |
|
Peelers |
$96.25 |
$80.00 |
$110.00 |
4 |
Douglas-fir |
|
Poles |
$72.00 |
$65.00 |
$80.00 |
5 |
Lodgepole, western larch |
|
Poles (CTL) |
$78.33 |
$70.00 |
$85.00 |
6 |
Lodgepole, western larch |
|
Chip |
$32.00 |
$32.00 |
$32.00 |
1 |
Ponderosa pine, non-saw logs* *no burned logs |
Conclusion:
Prices for forest products vary based on supply and demand of the forest products market. Since the market changes regularly the best way to determine the delivered log price and demand for species is to review the quarterly reports from the BBER and Northwest Management. These entities gather the most current information on the sawlog and veneer markets in Montana. However, these reports do not show prices for all forest products like post and pole and chips. Calling sawmills around the area is the best way to determine what they are paying for delivered logs, because it will change with fluctuations in the market.
Timber Economy
One of the biggest takeaways of this project was understanding the current timber market in Montana. Every forestry professional I interviewed agreed that the cost of labor and equipment has exponentially increased, and while delivered log prices have increased, it is not at the same rate as the cost of labor and equipment. The increased labor costs combined with slowly increased delivered log prices means the profit from timber harvesting has diminished over the years.
Over the last year near Missoula, Montana, two mills have shut down. The first was Pyramid Mountain Lumber located in Seeley, Montana and Roseburg in Missoula. Pyramid was one of the only mills in Montana with a market for ponderosa pine. Following its closure, loggers have limited options (if any) to sell ponderosa pine, which is an abundant species in the Blackfoot Valley. This has a lot of implications for fuels treatment projects, because without a place to send ponderosa pine, the cost of harvesting the species can be too great for many landowners. Additionally, the loss of Pyramid means that the log yards of the surround mills increased, which seems beneficial, but this has filled their log yards quickly. When a log yard is full, fewer logs are purchased, leaving loggers to haul their logs even further. Roseburg was a particleboard plant, that largely dealt with the residuals of mills. Without a close place to send residuals, many mills must allocate funds to send their residuals farther away.
When discussing the current market during the interviews, I gained insight into the current market and the increasing cost of labor. In the Spring 2025 market, many log decks in mills surrounding the Blackfoot Valley were filled. The cost of equipment has increased dramatically. A piece of equipment that was $640,000 was $800,000 two and half years later.46 Additionally, most equipment now requires DEF, and it takes about 2-3 weeks for a machine to go through 300 gallons of DEF adding to the cost of equipment.46 The mills try to keep the delivered log price stable, because lumber prices fluctuate often and if the mills reacted to the fluctuations constantly it would be difficult for loggers to estimate a profit with delivered log prices.46 On the landowner side, public agencies are seeing more “no bids” on harvesting units than they have before.41 This reflects how the market is not as competitive and loggers cannot make a large profit as they once could.
The reduction of mills, leading to farther hauls and less competition, has driven the slowly rising costs of delivered log prices compared to the sky-rocketing cost of labor for logging. This study only reflects the current snapshot of the market, however, it appears that the market has been trending this way for some time.
WORKS CITED
(1) Ackerman, P., Belbo, H., Eliasson, L., de Jong, A., Lazdins, A., & Lyons, J. (2014). The COST model for calculation of forest operations costs. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 25(1), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/14942119.2014.903711
(2) Arriagada, R., Cubbage, F. W., & Abt, K. L. (2006). Estimating timber harvesting costs for fuel treatment in the West: Preliminary Results https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/econ/disturbance/biomass/attachment03.pdf
(3) Barbour, J., & Fight, R. (2004). Mastication treatments and costs. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs/rmrs_rn020_01.pdf
(4) Barker, J., Voorhis, J., & Crotty, S. M. (2025). Assessing costs and constraints of forest residue disposal by pile burning. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 7, Article 1496190. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2024.1496190
(5) Berry, A. (2002). Factors affecting the costs of fuels management: An analysis of the FASTRACS database (Graduate thesis No. 2309). University of Montana. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/2309
(6) Biesecker, R., & Fight, R. (2006). My fuel treatment planner: A user guide (General Technical Report PNW-GTR-663). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr663.pdf
(7) Bureau of Business and Economic Research. (2025). Montana sawlog and veneer log price report. University of Montana. https://www.bber.umt.edu/pubs/forest/prices/sawlog2024q1.pdf
(8) DNRC (2011). Montana forestry best management practices. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forestry Division. https://dnrc.mt.gov/_docs/forestry/FinalBMP_VersionForWeb10_1_15.pdf
(9) Dodson, E. (2016). Cost, production, and effectiveness of masticated fireline. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station.
(10) Dodson, E., Hayes, S., Meek, J., & Keyes, C. R. (2015). Montana logging machine rates. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 26(2), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/14942119.2015.1069497
(11) Forestry Road Construction and Maintenance. (2024). American Forest Management. https://www.americanforestmanagement.com/news/forestry-road-construction-and-maintenance
(12) Germain, R., Regula, J., Bick, S., & Zhang, L. (2019). Factors impacting logging costs: A case study in the Northeast, US. The Forestry Chronicle, 95(1), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc2019-005
(13) Halbrook, J., Han, H.-S., Graham, R. T., Jain, T. B., & Denner, R. (2006). Mastication: A fuel reduction and site preparation alternative. In W. Chung & H.-S. Han (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Council on Forest Engineering Conference (pp. 137–146). Coeur d’Alene, ID.
(14) Hayes, S., Morgan, T., & Niccolucci, M. (2023). Estimating harvesting costs. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana. https://www.bber.umt.edu/pubs/forest/prices/LoggingCostPoster2023.pdf
(15) Hesseln, H. (1999). The Economics of prescribed burning: a research review. Forest Science. 46(3), 322-334.
(16) Jain, T., Sikkink, P., Keefe, R., & Byrne, J. (2018). To masticate or not: Useful tips for treating forest, woodland, and shrubland vegetation (General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-381). USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
(17) Larson DS, Mirth R. A case study on the economics of thinning in the wildland urban interface. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 2004;19(1):60-65. https://weblib.lib.umt.edu:2443/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/case-study-on-economics-thinning-wildland-urban/docview/198660837/se-2.
(18) Mitchell, D., & Smidt, M. (2019). Costs of mechanical fuel reduction treatments. In S. Manzello (Ed.), Encyclopedia of wildfires and wildland-urban interface (WUI) fires. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51727-8_139-1
(19) Northwest Management. (2025). 1st quarter log market report 2025: Inland Northwest market report. Northwest Management, Inc. https://northwestmanagement.com/services/timber-market/
(20) Rummer, B. (2008). Assessing the cost of fuel reduction treatments: A critical review. Forest Policy and Economics, 10(6), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2008.01.001
(21) Townsend, L., Dodson, E., Anderson, N., Worley-Hood, G., & Goodburn, J. (2019). Harvesting forest biomass in the US southern Rocky Mountains: Cost and production rates of five ground-based forest operations. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 30(2), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/14942119.2018.1563851
(22) USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. (2004). Fuels Planning: Science Synthesis and Integration; Economic Uses Fact Sheet 08: Prescribed Fire Costs. Res. Note RMRS-RN-20-8. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 2 p. https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/7844
(23) USDA Forest Service Northern Region. (2011). Temporary road cost estimating: Cost estimating guide for road construction. USDA Forest Service. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5279261.pdf
APPENDIX
Appendix A. List of interviewed individuals for the cost analysis for forest management treatments in the Blackfoot Valley.
Subject Matter Experts
(24) E. Dodson, University of Montana Professor of Forest Operations, personal communication, February 26, 2025.
(25) G. Farinholt, Prescribed Fire Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, personal communication, February 26, 2025.
(26) M. Schaedel, Forester, The Nature Conservancy, personal communication, March 3, 2025.
(27) C. Super, Forester and Prescribed Fire Coordinator, Blackfoot Challenge, personal communication, March 3, 2025.
(28) S. Scott, Forest Economist, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, personal communication, March 3, 2025.
(29) S. Allen, Forest Management Supervisor, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, personal communication, March 4, 2025.
(30) M. Wiederman, Forest Service Regional Appraiser, Region 1, United States Forester Service, personal communication, March 4, 2025.
(31) C. Sorenson, Regional Economist, Region 1, United States Forest Service, personal communication, March 4, 2025.
(32) F. Maus, Lubrecht Forester, University of Montana, personal communication, March 5, 2025.
(33) J. Parke, Forester, Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, personal communication, March 10, 2025.
(34) K. Johnson, Forester, Missoula Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, personal communication, March 10, 2025.
(35) D. Poole, Fire Management Specialist, Missoula Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, personal communication, March 10, 2025.
(36) J. Fothergill, Forester, Missoula Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, personal communication, March 10, 2025.
(37) S. Kuehn, Retired Pyramid Forester, personal communication, March 11, 2025.
(38) E. Hoberg, Owner and Forester, Quality Forest Management, personal communication, March 11, 2025.
(39) A. Helena, Unit Manager, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, personal communication, March 12, 2025.
(40) K. Carpenter, Clearwater Forester, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, personal communication, March 17, 2025.
(41) K. Rantzow, Forester, Missoula Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, personal communication, March 26, 2025.
(42) B. Crystal, Field Forester, Natural Resource Conservation Service, personal communication, April 1, 2025.
Private Contractors:
(43) Private Contractor 1, personal communication, February 26, 2025.
(44) Private Contractor 2, personal communication, April 1, 2025.
(45) Private Contractor 3, personal communication, March 26, 2025.
(46) Private Contractor 4, personal communication, March 19, 2025.
(47) Private Contractor 5, personal communication, March 4, 2025.
Mills:
(48) Mill 1, personal communication, March 4, 2025.
(49) Mill 2, personal communication, March 4, 2025.
(50) Mill 3, personal communication, March 4, 2025.
(51) Mill 4, personal communication, March 4, 2025.
(52) Mill 5, personal communication, March 4, 2025.
(53) Mill 6, personal communication, March 5, 2025.
(54) Mill 7, personal communication, March 10, 2025.
(55) Mill 8, personal communication, March 11, 2025.
(56) Mill 9, personal communication, March 12, 2025.
(57) Mill 10, personal communication, March 12, 2025.
(58) Mill 11, personal communication, March 12, 2025.
(59) Mill 12, personal communication, March 25, 2025.