Table 1. Coverages created during the analysis process, either to do further analysis or as a product of analysis done.
Table 2. Table of coverages that have been modified.
Table 3. Prediction results from road inventoried and gradelined stream locations. The predicted number of stream crossings were tabulated from the field maps according to the number of streams that were predicted to cross a road. The actual number of streams that were crossed were noted and compared back to the field maps. Percent of prediction is the number of stream crossings divided by the predicted number of stream crossings.
Table 4. Slope classes used in the Shaw Johnson slope stability model. Low, Moderate and High are associated risks within each category.
Table 5. Conditions under which each piece of equipment can operate.
Table 6. Design terrain of each yarding system.
Table 7. System components.
Table 8. Daily cost rates for various harvesting systems
Table 9. Relevant statistics for North Hoodsport Planning Area settings.
Table 10. Adverse and favorable road grades
Table 11. Max. and Min. side slopes left/right.
Table 12. Comparison of distances for existing and planned roads.
Table 13. Amount of Pegged, Gradelined, Traversed, and Inventoried roads.
Table 14. Potential harvest options to be used in Case 1.
Table 15. Summary of results from the helicopter yarding alternative analysis.
Table 16. Long Span analysis data.
Table 17. Long span unit averages computed for Binkley production equation.
Table 18. Input data for Binkley production equation
Table 19. Results of Binkley production equation
Table 20. Number of road stationing associated with each long span area.
Table 21. DNR road cost estimates for the Hoodsport block
Table 22. Comparison of Active, Inactive, and Abandonment NPV costs.
Table 23. Economic comparison of Long Span and Conventional Yarding.
Table 24. Sample SNAP Growth Rate Decision Tree. Follow Passive Rate, CT Rate, and PCT Rate down the column until treatments indicate otherwise.
Table 25. Summary of period 1 road and harvest activities.
Table 26. Summary of period 2 road and harvest activities.
Table 27. Summary of period 3 road and harvest activities.
Table 28. Summary of period 4 road and harvest activities.
Table 29. Summary of period 5 road and harvest activities.
Table 30. Harvest volume goals and actual volumes achieved for each period.
Table 31. Harvest costs and revenue by period from SNAP
Table 32. Percentage of the landscape under management by period.
Table 33. Road use in miles by period.
Table 34. Values used in SEDMODL Road Use Category. Timber volumes were provided from SNAP and assigned a value within the sedimentation model.
Table 35. Sedimentation results for Periods 1-3. Road sediment is estimated in tons for delivery areas.
Table 36. The sediment delivery potential from two roads, K-17 and K-13, in tons of sediment per year. Within SEDMODL, two different road uses were analyzed, tank-trapped with no traffic and active with truck haul.
Table 37. DNR provided road costs.
Table 38. Utility values, u, for yarding distance and direction combined (From Schiess and Berg, 1996)
Table 39. Utility values, u, for yarding distance (three levels) and yarding direction (three levels) separately (from Schiess and Berg, 1996)
List of Figures

Figure 1. Harvest Planning Procedure. With time, the alternative analysis branch will become integrated within the flow of the entire analysis process.
Figure 2. Economic triangle demonstrating the relationship between objectives and economics.
Figure 3. Map of DNR’s structural stages.
Figure 4. Distribution of structural stage classes as a percentage of total acreage.
Figure 5. Map of dominant species.
Figure 6. Standing Scribner volume to 6" top (mbf) by structural class.
Figure 7. Distribution of total volume by species.
Figure 8. This is one portion of the slide area on the Jorsted road. The area in the picture has only dropped a few feet while other portions have disappeared completely.
Figure 9. The DNR DEM derived stream network atop the USGS DEM derived stream network for the Hoodsport planning area.
Figure 10. Legend for items mapped in stream figures.
Figure 11. FS-11 road inventoried stream crossings. Circled streams were identified during the inventory activity.
Figure 12. The DNR DEM-derived stream network is shown in red and the Hydro layer stream network in purple. Three of the six stream crossings identified during the road inventory of the FS-14 that were not shown on the Hydro layer but were predicted by the new stream network.
Figure 13. The DNR DEM-derived stream network (red) over-estimates the actual number of streams by about 25 percent.
Figure 14. Mass wasting event on the Jorsted road delivering sediment to the stream network.
Figure 15. A Full ditch diverted water down a road bed, eroding the road surface and eroding into the fill slope, delivering sediment to the stream below.
Figure 16. Variables used for road width, level of road use and road surfacing as well as the variables used for soil properties and vegetation of the cutslope.
Figure 17. Estimated road and background sediment for Hoodsport planning area using the DNR provided hydro layer and existing roads.
Figure 18. Road delivery segments (shown in red) for the existing roads and the DNR provided hydro layer from SEDMODL. The output ArcView layer includes sediment amounts for each segment.
Figure 19. Estimated road and background sediment for Hoodsport planning area using the DNR derived stream network and existing roads.
Figure 20. Road delivery segments (shown in red) for the existing roads and the derived stream network from SEDMODL. The output ArcView layer includes sediment amounts for each segment.
Figure 21. Amended estimate for road and background sediment for Hoodsport planning area using the DNR derived stream network and existing roads.
Figure 22. A screen capture from ArcGrid showing the curvature, gradients, and landslides plotted against each other.
Figure 23. Shaw Johnson stability map for the Hoodsport planning area.
Figure 24. Stability map of wasting potential and headwaters of streams.
Figure 25. Distribution of estimated number of stands with 18 potential tail trees per acre (50' spacing) in 2" QMD classes for 1998
Figure 26. Distribution of estimated number of stands with 2 potential tail trees per acre (150' spacing) in 2" QMD classes for 1998
Figure 27. Distribution of estimated number of stands with 18 potential tail trees per acre (50' spacing) in 2" QMD classes for 2003
Figure 28. Distribution of estimated number of stands with 2 potential trees per acre (150' spacing) in 2" QMD classes for 2003
Figure 29. Number of RIU polygons on Hoodsport planning area with average tail tree rigging height of 50, 30, or 2 feet (ground level) based on 50 foot tail tree spacing for 1998
Figure 30. Number of RIU polygons on Hoodsport planning area with average tail tree rigging height of 50, 30, or 2 feet (ground level) based on 150 foot tail tree spacing for 1998
Figure 31. Number of RIU polygons on Hoodsport planning area with average tail tree rigging height of 50, 30, or 2 feet (ground level) based on 50 foot tail tree spacing for 2003
Figure 32. Number of RIU polygons on Hoodsport planning area with average tail tree rigging height of 50, 30, or 2 feet (ground level) based on 150 foot tail tree spacing for 2003
Figure 33. Distribution of average turn weights for RUI polygons from 30 - 100 years old assuming and average of 3.5 and 4.5 logs/turn
Figure 34. Distributions of average turn weights for trees harvested whole and processed in the woods assuming 3.5 logs or 3.5 trees per turn, on average.
Figure 35. A typical group of landings, profiles, and tailhold heights from the conventional PLANS analysis. Notice how the profiles meet in the middle, with slight overlap where possible.
Figure 36. Final setting boundaries for the North Hoodsport Planning Area.
Figure 37. The landing in the center of the image (red point) has three corresponding settings. However, each of these settings has a maximum of one corresponding landing. This is possible because the landing is on the top of a ridge (notice the contours).
Figure 38. Harvestable and Unharvestable settings in the North Hoodsport Planning Area.
Figure 39. Map identifying the six road systems within the DNR Hoodsport block.
Figure 40. One of the many streams located on the K-13 road. Without maintenance on this road, this stream has bypassed the culvert, adding more sediment from the road bed to the stream network.
Figure 41. Long-span view from the K-16 road. Using this harvesting alternative will reduce many sediment issues on the K-13 road.
Figure 42. Road failure on the Wes Road, along the northernmost stream crossing requiring a bridge. The red line indicates the approximate location of the road grade, which has failed and is now down below in the stream. Steep upslope conditions along the failure plane will not allow for the reparation of this segment.
Figure 43. Looking ahead on gradeline from top of rock outcrop at 44+00
Figure 44. Rock outcrop at Station 39+00
Figure 45. Percent road grade histogram for the Hoodsport block.
Figure 46. Percent side slope histogram for the Hoodsport block.
Figure 47. Map of Table 13
Figure 48. Helicopter Alternative case 1. The planned road will be eliminated if a helicopter system is used. Otherwise, a bridge will be required to cross the stream before the road enters the Case 1 settings.
Figure 49. The thick red lines represent roads that would be decommissioned if the Case 2 settings were selected for helicopter systems rather than the conventional systems. Notice that there are no stream crossings in the roads to be decommissioned, so the environmental impact of the existing roads is minimal.
Figure 50. Helicopter alternative settings are highlighted in yellow. Notice the five distinct groups that have been analyzed in detail. Groups are labeled counterclockwise from the top down heli1 through heli5.
Figure 51. Alternative Long Span Analysis areas within the Hoodsport DNR block.
Figure 52. Hanging to the edge of a RMZ with partial suspension.
Figure 53. Hanging to the edge of a RMZ with full suspension.
Figure 54. Hanging across a RMZ and yarding to the edge of the RMZ.
Figure 55. Yarding over an RMZ with full deflection.
Figure 56. Comparing long span and conventional setting boundaries.
Figure 57. No Harvest areas are indicated in light blue. These areas include riparian buffers, rock outcrops, and various other no harvest units.
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.
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.
Figure 60. Road and harvest schedule based on SNAP analysis, 1999-2004.
Figure 61. Road and harvest schedule based on SNAP analysis, 2004-2009.
Figure 62. Road and harvest schedule based on SNAP analysis, 2009-2014.
Figure 63. Road and harvest schedule based on SNAP analysis, 2014-2019.
Figure 64. Road and harvest schedule based on SNAP analysis, 2019-2024.
Figure 65. Harvest volume goals vs. actual harvest volumes by period.
Figure 66. Road use by period. Road decommissioning was not considered here, so the overall road use increases by new construction values. See
Figure 67. Final road pattern at the end of the 25 year planning horizon.
Figure 68. Roads used for truck haul during period one of the SNAP results. Roads that are used are shown in black with the sediment delivery portions shown in red.
Figure 69. Roads used for truck haul during period two of the SNAP results. Roads that are used are shown in black with the sediment delivery portions shown in red.
Figure 70. Roads used for truck haul during period three of the SNAP results. Roads that are used are shown in black with the sediment delivery portions shown in red.
Figure 71. Number of active, inactive and total miles open for periods 1-3.
Figure 72. Total miles of open roads (shown in the bars) and sediment delivery from these roads (shown in the line) shown for each period.
Figure 73. Road use classified by volume of timber hauled over the roadway during the next five periods. Roads in white were never used or built during the 25-year planning period
Figure 74. NE corner of planning area. Roads of concern are located in the upper left corner with no stream crossings and upper right corner with 11 stream crossings.
Figure 75. The K-17 road shown in grey with sediment delivery segments shown in red.
Figure 76. The K-13 road shown in gray with sediment delivery segments shown in red.
Figure 77. Cost graph of road maintenance options.
Figure 78. Final road system for the 25 year schedule developed by the UW.
Figure 79. Roads used during period 1 only.
Figure 80. Roads used in period 2 only.
Figure 81. Roads used during period 1 and 5 only.
Figure 82. Roads not used for 15 years.
Figure 83. Untreated clump at 250 tpa.
Figure 84. Leave tree clump thinned to 140 tpa with 120 ft² of basal area.
Figure 85. Dispersed retention of 8tpa
Figure 86. Leave tree strategies for Five Flags Timber Sale
Figure 87. Untreated leave tree area with 30' wide yarding corridor