This chapter will discuss the inputs and outputs of the SNAP program and how SNAP was used to schedule road construction and create a harvest plan for the North Hoodsport planning area. The SNAP program uses information from two GIS coverages and growth data provided by DNR to determine when roads should be constructed as well as when harvest units should be put up for bid. SNAP then attempts to maximize the value of wood at the mill my minimizing road construction, harvest, and haul costs.

SNAP uses two GIS coverages to analyze an area: a polygon coverage of the harvest settings, and a line coverage of the proposed road network. The polygon coverage was digitized into ArcInfo based on probable landing locations and reasonable external yarding distances. Into each of these setting polygons, 21 attributes were added:

• AREA The harvestable acreage of the polygon
• ENT1 The road node ID where timber will be harvested to for #1
• ENT2 The road node ID where timber will be harvested to for #2
• ENT3 The road node ID where timber will be harvested to for #3
• SIL1 Candidate silvicultural treatment #1
• SIL2 Candidate silvicultural treatment #2
• SIL3 Candidate silvicultural treatment #3
• STAT Used to hardwire a unit into a specific harvest period
• SPE1 Used to identify different species -- we used only Douglas Fir
• VOL1 Volume per acre of SPE1 in MBF
• SERS The current seral stage of the unit
• HAR1 Candidate harvest method #1 for the unit
• HAR2 Candidate harvest method #2 for the unit
• HAR3 Candidate harvest method #3 for the unit
• AYD1 Average Yarding Distance #1
• AYD2 Average Yarding Distance #2
• AYD3 Average Yarding Distance #3
• HVC1 Harvest Cost $/MBF Gross #1
• HVC2 Harvest Cost $/MBF Gross #2
• HVC3 Harvest Cost $/MBF Gross #3
• ATO1 An optional attribute used for adjacency

The road coverage was digitized onto the existing DNR TRANS coverage. The proposed roads were digitized from base maps, field maps, and survey notes, where possible. For each road arc, three attributes were added:

RDST The status of the road, existing, reconstruct, or new construction

MACL Maintenance class

FXOR Used to tell SNAP a fixed override cost for road construction

In addition to these factors, some variables were input directly into SNAP, including the average speed on the road.

SNAP models the ways in which stand volumes change over time based on a series of decision trees. The decision trees contain average annual growth rates for each scheduling period based on the age and operational history of each stand. SNAP has the option of performing certain user-specified silvicultural treatments based on the seral stage of each stand (the term seral stage is somewhat of a misnomer here as it refers to the age and operational history of a stand rather than its structure).

Stands that are never treated will increase in volume at the user-specified passive rate. When a silvicultural treatment is performed, the appropriate volume is removed from the stand inventory and the stand continues to grow along a new branch of the decision tree.

For example, in the following sample table (Table 24), SNAP may choose to do nothing or to perform a pre-commercial thin at seral stage "10-14". If no operation is performed, the stand volume will continue along the passive-rate branch, moving on to seral stage "15-19" and increasing at a rate of 7% in that period. If a pre-commercial thin is performed, 30% of the volume will be removed and the stand will thereafter grow along the PCT-rate branch. It will move on to seral stage "15-19 PCT," increasing at a rate of 11% in that period. This example is purely hypothetical, because pre-commercial thinning was not an option in the Hoodsport planning area.

SNAP has the option of performing other operations such as commercial thins and clearcuts in later seral stages. Clearcuts reset stands to the initial seral stage "0-4".

Table 24. Sample SNAP Growth Rate Decision Tree. Follow Passive Rate, CT Rate, and PCT Rate down the column until treatments indicate otherwise.

Seral Stage	Possible Treatments	Volume Removed	Passive Rate	CT Rate	PCT Rate	Next Stage
0-4	None	None	60%			5-9
5-9	None	None	20%			10-14
10-14	None, PCT	None, 30%	9% ---------	---------à	11%	15-19, 15-19 PCT
15-19	None, PCT	None, 30%	7% ---------	---------à	10%	20-24, 20-24 PCT
20-24	None, PCT, CT	None, 30%, 40%	6% ------à	9%	ß -----8%	25-29, 25-29 CT, 25-29 PCT
25-29	None, CT	None, 40%	5% ------à	8%	ß -----7%	30-34, 30-34 CT, 30-34 PCT
30-34	None, CT	None, 40%	4.5%----à	7%	ß -----6%	35-39, 35-39 CT, 35-39 PCT

13.3.1 Sources of Growth Rates

13.3.2 Limitations of SNAP Growth Modeling

Cost inputs into SNAP include road construction, harvest, and haul costs. Revenue is determined at the Mill.

13.4.1 Road Construction and Harvest Costs

13.4.2 Haul Costs

13.4.3 Mill Revenue

The STAT attribute in the settings coverage tells SNAP whether each polygon is harvestable or not. In Figure 57, light blue polygons are not harvestable. All other polygons are harvestable according to their varying restrictions. These no-harvest zones include riparian buffers, rock outcrops, and other types of leave areas. Some wetland buffers are included, but these are not all inclusive.

Figure 57. No Harvest areas are indicated in light blue. These areas include riparian buffers, rock outcrops, and various other no harvest units.

There are three spotted owl circles that impact the North Hoodsport planning area. The settings that are affected by these circles are displayed in Figure 58. Management in these areas was delayed for 10 years, bringing us through period 2. These settings were opened for management in period 3.

Figure 58. Three owl circles impact the North Hoodsport planning area. Settings affected by these owl circles were set on a management delay of 10 years.

DNR provided a five year action plan to be incorporated into the SNAP analysis (See Figure 59). Except for the three sales affected by the owl circles, each of DNR’s planned sales was hard-wired to be harvested during the first period. It is interesting to note that the DNR planned sales actually return a higher net present worth than an unrestricted SNAP analysis returns. However, this is due to the fact that the DNR action plan harvests more than the 15,000 MBF set as a goal for period 1.

Figure 59. The five-year action plan provided by DNR. Yellow sales were hard-wired for harvest in period 1. Pink units were within the owl circles, so harvest was not allowed for the first two periods.

The following five maps show the landscape at five year intervals over the next 25 years. Each map shows the roads that are constructed during that time period as well as the specific harvest units that are put up for sale. To comply with the HCP and FPA, adjacency and maximum harvest acreage constraints were set. The maximum adjacent harvest area was set at 100 acres, according to the HCP requirements. Based on the FPA, adjacency was defined as units younger than 5 years that share more than 200 feet of common boundary.

13.8.1 Period 1: 1999-2004

13.8.2 Period 2: 2004-2009

13.8.3 Period 3: 2009-2014

13.8.4 Period 4 2014-2019

13.8.5 Period 5 2019-2024

The harvest volume goals for the North Hoodsport Planning Area increase by 10,000 MBF for each period. In period 1, the goal is 15,000 MBF, and it was easily exceeded by the DNR five-year action plan, even with the complications of the owl circles. The goals were met in each period, concluding with 53,500 MBF in period 5. See Figure 65 and Table 30 for a comparison between the harvest goals and the actual volumes harvested.

Figure 65. Harvest volume goals vs. actual harvest volumes by period.

Table 30. Harvest volume goals and actual volumes achieved for each period.

	Period 1	Period 2	Period 3	Period 4	Period 5
Harvest Volume Goals (MBF)	15,000	25,000	35,000	45,000	55,000
Actual Harvest Volumes (MBF)	22,731	24,719	34,701	44,399	53,500

The costs in Table 31 are from the SNAP analysis. An annual inflation rate of 1% is assumed for all costs. The mill price of wood is assumed to grow at 3%. Therefore, the costs and prices in period 5 are 2021 dollars, the middle year of the period. The first period costs are in year 2001 dollars. Costs in the Hoodsport planning area are relatively low due to the large amount of existing road and the easy terrain.

Table 31. Harvest costs and revenue by period from SNAP

Period	Volume (MBF)	Harvest ($/MBF)	Haul ($/MBF)	Construction ($/MBF)	Total Costs ($/MBF)	Mill Price ($/MBF)	Stumpage ($/MBF)
1	20731	84.01	38.31	13.90	136.22	538.35	402.14
2	24719	108.72	39.40	17.03	165.15	624.09	458.95
3	34701	54.59	41.29	1.61	97.49	723.50	626.01
4	44399	86.70	57.61	4.96	149.27	838.73	689.45
5	53500	135.06	63.65	3.97	202.68	972.31	769.64

The percentage of the landscape that will be managed over time is shown in Table 32. This 25-year plan manages approximately 40% of the landscape. The amount of area being managed increases for each of the first three periods. However, in period four, the managed area begins declining. This is the time when growth rates for the timber catch up with the increasing harvest volume goals indicated by DNR.

Table 32. Percentage of the landscape under management by period.

Period	Managed Area (Acres)	Management as a %	Total Management of the landscape as a %
1	730	7%	7%
2	880	8%	15%
3	1040	10%	25%
4	740	7%	32%
5	700	7%	39%

In Figure 66 and  

Table 33

Figure 66. Road use by period. Road decommissioning was not considered here, so the overall road use increases by new construction values. See  

Table 33

Table 33. Road use in miles by period.

Road status	Period 1	Period 2	Period 3	Period 4	Period 5
Existing inactive	24.1	29.2	34.3	28.2	33.7
Existing active	16.3	15.8	16.4	23.2	21.3
New construction	4.6	5.7	0.7	3.6	2.8
Totals	45	50.7	51.4	55	57.8

Figure 67 is a representation of the road system for the Hoodsport planning area at the end of the 25-year planning horizon. This includes both planned and existing roads. Four categories were used to differentiate between planned and existing roads, and used and non-used roads. Existing non-used roads, displayed in red, are potential candidates for decommissioning. These are discussed in more detail in Chapter 14.

Figure 67. Final road pattern at the end of the 25-year planning horizon.

Based on the SNAP analysis, DNR’s proposed harvest goals over the next 25 years for the Hoodsport planning area are feasible. The result of this harvest plan will be increasing revenue for every 5-year period over the next 25 years. The standing timber volume increases for every period as well, suggesting that revenue will continue to increase beyond the 25 year planning horizon. The accuracy of this plan is only as good as the accuracy of the input data, but we are relatively confident in the accuracy of our inputs. Many of these were provided directly by DNR, and others were based on reasonable assumptions.

The owl circles impacting the western half of the landscape will not be overly limiting for the next 10 years. However, after that time, it will be necessary to harvest within those areas to meet the harvest goals.

Manke Lumber’s inholding in the northern part of the planning area is also an issue of interest. If possible, this land and timber should be acquired within the next 15 years. If this is not possible, the harvest schedule beyond 2014 must be re-analyzed.

In any case, the harvest and transportation plan for the next 10 years allows for necessary habitat considerations and revenue production. Due to changing political and social conditions, the final 15 years of the plan will probably change in time, but DNR now has a large head start on any necessary future analysis.