About This File:
This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Misscans identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some mistakes may remain.
SILVICULTURAL OPTIONS FOR
MANAGING YOUNG-GROWTH
P RODUCTION FORESTS
Blue Ridge Study Area Tour . October 6,
1999 Compiled by David D. Marshall Silvicultural Options for Managing Young-Growth Production Forests: Blue Ridge Tour October 6, 1999 Tour Outline
•
Introduction and Study Overview
•
Stop
•
Stop 2
Stand damage and soil disturbance
(Clearcut and Retained Overstory)
•
Stop 3
Stand history and the unmanaged future
(No Harvest)
•
Stop 4
Production costs and volume comparisons
(Patch Cutting)
•
Stop 5
Wildlife and visual resources
(Group Selection)
•
Discussion
1
Even-aged systems and historical perspectives
(Extended Rotation with Commercial Thinning)
Study Objective
To evaluate forest harvest practices and silvicultural systems that can be used in a
landscape management program to reduce the visual impacts of timber
management operations while maintaining a high level of timber production.
Silvicultural Options for Managing Young-Growth Production Forests: Blue Ridge Tour October 6, 1999 Tour Outline
•
Introductions, Shldy Overview and Stand Description
Tom Poch (DNR), Jeff DeBell (DNR), David Marshall (PNW), Bob Curtis (PNW)
•
Stop
1
. Thinning and Extended Rotations
Bob Curtis(PNW)
•
Stop
2
Clearcut and Two-aged -- Even-aged systems and historical
perspectives -- Stand and Soil Impacts
Bob Curtis (PNW), Leslie Brodie (PNW), Steve Reutebuch (PNW)
•
Stop 3
Unmanaged condition and stand history -- Laser Profiling
Bob Curtis (PNW) and Steve Reutebuch (PNW)
'
.
Stop
4
Small Patches -- Production costs and volume comparisons
Bob Curtis (PNW), Steve Reutebuch (PNW), Scott Robinson (DNR)
•
Stop 5 Group Selection -- Wildlife and visual resources
Bob Curtis (PNW), Todd Wilson (PNW), Gordon Bradley (UW)
•
Discussion
1
The Blue Ridge Study Area Silvicultural Options for Managing Young-Growth
Production Forests
Study Objective
To evaluate forestry practices and silvicultural systems that can be used to reduce the visual
impacts of harvesting operations while maintaining a productive forest for future generations.
The options were selected to represent a continuum
of forest cover (removed and retained) and
.
disturbance (intensity and frequency).
We hypothesize that each of the options evaluated is biologically and operationally feasible, that
all could be part of a managed, sustainable forest landscape, and would provide a different level
and mix of financial returns, wood production and non-timber values.
Cooperating Agencies
•
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
•
University of Washington, College of Forest Resources
•
•
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station
University ofIdaho, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences
Personnel Involved
WA State DNR
USFS PNW Research Station
Dean DeBell
TomPoch
Bob Curtis
Jeff DeBell
Steve Reutebuch
Jim LeJeune
Leslie Brodie
Scott Robinson
Roger Fight
University of Wash:ington
Andy Carey
Gordon Bradley
David Marshall
Todd Wilson
Anne Kearney
AI Wagar
University of Idaho
Leonard Johnson
3
Evaluations and Cooperators
Tree growth and stand development
Residual trees, logging damage, regeneration, understory vegetation
Curtis, DeBell, Marshall, Brodie, and Clendenen (PNW OFSL)
Economics and harvesting
Coordination
Fight (PNW PFSL) and Reutebuch (PNW SFSL)
Costs ofplanning, layout and administration
Robinson ( DNR)
Production rates and harvesting costs
.
Johnson (U ofIdaho) and Reutebuch (PNW SFSL)
Visual quality and public response
Evaluations and Coordination
Bradley, Wagar, and Kearney (UW)
Other Values
Songbird Surveys
Carey and team (PNW OFSL)
Inventory of wildlife trees (current and potential)
Carey and team (PNW OFSL)
SO ir Disturbance
Reutebuch (PNW SFSL) and Rummer (Album)
Soil and Site Productivity
several people and organizations interested
Remote sensing of terrain and stand structure
Terry Curtis ( DNR) and Reutebuch (PNW SFSL)
Expected near-term benefits
•
•
•
Joint participation in "adaptive management" approach
Experience with planning, layout, and harvests using alternative systems
Information on costs of sale preparation, compliance,and harvest and public
response to visual quality.
f
•
Expected long-term benefits
•
•
Information and experience will permit sound, defensible selection of options
Improved multi-purpose forest management
4
Silvicultural Treatments (Options) Applied The experimental design is six silvicultural treatments (options) randomly assigned
to 3 0-75 acre plots a d replicated at three different sites on the Capitol Forest.
o
1. Clearcut
-
a conventional and well understood, even-aged system that
dominates most production forestry in this region and will provide.a
quantitative assessment of the production of wood and non-timber
values for direct comparison with other treatments.
2.
Retained Overstory
-
a two-aged system that leaves approximately
15 trees per' acre in the overstory and resembles a shelterwood, but the
overstory (or a portion of it) w(;mld be retained through the next rotation,
providing large trees and high quality wood.
o
Q
o
3.
Small Patch Cutting - a system involving regeneration in patches
of 1.5 to 5 acres with surrounding area thinned as needed. 20% of the
total stand will be regenerated at 15 year intervals resulting in five age
classes over a 75-year period.
4. Group Selection - an uneven-aged system in which trees are cut in
groups occupying less than 1.5 acres (down to individual tree removals)
while maintaining the same average basal area as the patch cutting
treatment
(2). Regeneration harvest (cutting in groups to produce gaps)
will occur at 15 year intervals.
5. Extended Rotation with Commercial Thinning - using
repeated thinnings to maintain high growth rates for extended periods
and defers regeneration harvest (could use any of the above methods).
Eventually an understory of tolerant species will develop.
6. Extended Rotation without Thinning.- no harvesting option.
for comparison (defers regeneration harvest without management of any
kind).
All of the area in treatments 1 and 2, patches in treatment 3 , and openings greater
than 0.1 acres in treatment
4 were planted with Douglas-fir and western redcedar
seedlings. Competing vegetation will be controlled if and when needed to insure
.
survival and reasonable growth of planted trees.
5
.
View of the Six Treatments 1. Clearcut
2. Retained Qverstory
3. Small Patch Cutting
4. Group Selection
5. Extended Rotation with
6. Unthinned Control
Commercial Thinning
6
Clearcut
Patch Cuts
1.5-5 ac
Group
Selection
0-1.5 ac
Uniform
Retention
Deferred
Regeneration
Repeated
Thinning
Even-aged
Patchwise
Even-aged
Two-aged
Uneven-aged
7
No
Thinning
Even-aged
Extended
Rotation
(0·,· · ·
I"::
.
.. ..
" .".
•
.
STOP
Treatment
:, ..' 5
1
Extended Rotation with Commercial Thinning
- thinning to maintain high growth rates for
-
,:
extended periods and defer regeneration harvest.
Current information suggests thinni ng of vigorous Douglas-fir can maintain
high growth rates for extended periods up to stand ages well beyond currently
used rotation ages.
•
Produce current income and may produce large and high-value trees later.
•
Reduced visual and wildlife impacts.
•
May accelerate development of some older forest characteristics.
•
Has a higher harvesting cost and lower volumes per acre removed.
•
Allows postponing regeneration harvest while maintaining growth.
•
May eventually develop an understory of tolerant species (e.g. western
•
Any of four regeneration options (clearcut, retained overstory, patch cut or
hemlock, western redcedar, vine maple).
group selection) can be used at time of regeneration harvest.
Post-Harvest Stand (trees 5.6-inches and larger)
71
Trees per acre
192
ff of basal area per acre
22.3 fiches in diameter
8
STOP 2 Treatment
1
Clearcut
-
a conventional, even-aged system that
dominates most production forestry in this region.
Treatment 2
Retained Overstory
-
a two-aged system that
resembles a sheltetwood, but the overstory (or a
portion of it) would be carried through the next
rotation.
Clearcut
•
Wid ly used and well understood silvicultural system used in the Pacific
, Northwest.
•
Economically efficient (probably maximum yields and lowest harvest costs).
•
Provides excellent growing conditions for Douglas-fir.
•
Has a high visual impact and simple stand structure.
•
Will provide quantitative assessnients of wood and other values for direct
, comparisons to other silvicultural systems tested.
Two-aged
•
Maintains'partial forest cover over consecutive rotations and reduces visual
•
Retained overstory may produce large and high value trees, but may be
•
Develops layered structure, usually considered favorable to wildlife.
•
Understory may contain higher proportions of tolerant species.
•
Harvest cost very close to clearcut.
impacts of harvest.
susceptable to losses from windfall.
9
Post-Harvest (trees 5.6-inches and larger) for Two-aged Stand
16
Trees per acre
47
ftl basal area per acre
23.3
inches in diameter
Research Results (Topic 1)
Stand and Soil "Impacts from Logging
Logging Damage to Residual trees
Percent of Trees Damaged by Logging
70 I
60 I
50 I
i 40
:e 30 I
i 20
10 I
0 Clearcut 2 Aged
Logging damage to residual trees
-c
increased with volume removed
(chart).
•
Logging damage was primarily basal
bark removal and upper stem
damage with minor root damage.
•
Q.
The two-aged stand had high damage
I
I
I
.
--­
ill Ught damage
• Severe damage
primarily due to the time of year it
was logged (loose bark in spring)
Patch
Group Thinning
Moderate damage
and high volume removed.
Percent of Area in Skid Trails
25
Soil Disturbance
•
20
The area of soil disturbance
increased with the amolmt of
volume per acre removed.
•
e
Afea in skid roads and iandings
,
was not related to volume removed.
cr
I
I
I
1
I
151I
10
5
o
I
I
I
I
Clearcut 2-Age
Primary Skid Trail
10 Patch
I
Group Thinning
Secondary Skid Trail
STOP 3 Treatment 6
No harvesting.
•
This treatment defers the regeneration harvest decision.
•
Provides direct comparison to the extended rotation with commercial thinning
regune.
•
Provides a control (no harvest or management) treatment to assess non-timber
values for comparison with those produced ill conjunction with timber harvest
regunes.
Current Stand (trees 5.6 inches and larger)
112
Trees per acre 261
fe
per acre 20.7 inches in diameter
Stand History
1920's
1929
1971
Clearcut harvested and probably burned
Naturally Regenerated Commercially Thinned 11 STOP 4
. Treatment 3 Small Patch Cutting -
regime involving .
regeneration in patches of 1 .5 to 5 acres. Twenty
percent of the total stand area will pe regenerated
at 15 year intervals, resulting in five age classes
over a 75-year period.
-
•
Avoids large and highly visible harvest areas.
•
Will probably maintain less light tolerant species (such as Douglas-fir) in the
landscape.
•
Provide a balanced age distribution (tmeven-aged landscape).
•
Mixed habitat may benefit a wide range of wildlife species.
• .
Higher
•
harvest and road costs than in large, conventional clearcuts.
Long-term yields are expected to be similar to a clearcut.
12 Research Results (Topic 2) Sale Preparation, Compliance and Harvest Costs
Sale Preparation and Compliance Costs
1
0.6
•
lL
Costs (time spent) for sale layout,
marking (no marking cost in the
control) and compliance all
decreased with increased volume
removed.
Sale Layout Costs
--
I
--------�
0.4 \ 0;5 1
I
1
0.3
E 0.2 I I
0.1
I
o
.
Clearcut 2-Age
Patch
Group Thinning
ffim Layout (nomarking) O Compliance
Marking
Harvest Costs
Normalized Totai Harvesting Costs
•
•
Harvest costs decreased with an
increase in volume per acre
removed.
Most of the differences between
regimes is due to differences
piece size and volume per acre
removed.
50
-------
I
I
40 I
i I
j20 l
LL
30
o
10
o
13 !
I
i
!'
.
Clearcut 2-Aged
Patch
Group
Thinning
I
STOP 5 Treatment 4 -- an lmeveIi-aged system in
which trees are cut and regenerated in groups
occupying less than l. 5 acres at 1 5-year intervals.
The stand is also thinned at the same time .. The
average stand basal area after harvest is equal to
the patch cut treatment (3).
Group Selection
This regime will resemble the patch cut (treatment 2, stop 4) with similar total stand
basal area after cut, but with smaller size harvest groups.
•
Initial cut will resemble a thinning treatment but with scattered small opening
to establish new regeneration and release existing advance regeneration.
•
May reduce visual impacts compared to other regeneration harvest
treatments.
•
Increase harvest costs compared to other regeneration harvest treatments.
•>
T e 'smaller openings may favor light tolerant species (e.g. western hemlock,
western redcedar, vine maple) and reduce the presence Douglas-fir and the
growth of all species.
•
The smaller and scattered openings may make intermediate treatments
(vegetation management and thinning) more difficult and expensive.
14 Research Results (Topic 3) Public Response and Use by Wildlife
Public Response
Visual preferences generally ranked similarly among students, Mountaineers,
foresters and small landowners. Differences among group preferences were
most pronounced where significant alteration of the forest were evident.
•
•
Enviromnentalists' impressions, whether they liked or disliked a scene,
tended to be much stronger than foresters
or fann foresters, with college
'
students being intennediate.
•
The least disturbance appeared to be more preferred initially.
•
Questions to be addressed are: (1) How will these perceptions change over
tune as the stands develop? ·Does the addition of infonnation about harvest
.
practices influence visual preferences?
"
{
,
"
,
g:--
dJ
3 5
.
3
c.. 2.5
.
'N'',If
: .
I
I
.
'"
\,
..
'
. .
;
,
.
'
.
':\' /:." \ f
.
:
/'
'
..
'
\.
.,
... ,
1:,
.
..
: :;
.
.... .
:
-«:
; '-:
3
" .. '.
!
:
.
,,\ ;
. .:
, ,." f
.
\. '+-/,!+./ . .. ':. \.+.'., '
;
I.: 9'
J.;
.
,
'
. '
.,'i. ,i
.
I
"
\
I
,
,
.
.
:
".
\: ",1..'
.
2 .... ' /i
.....
. Y)
:
,
'.
l
:
!
\;
Forest Scsnes
15
\\ i:2
," :
""""I
.,\.". .
,
"
r i-i
;1\ J'
": '1
\ / ; , :.\J
V\"",; ; ,I
:
\
:
!
:i.. /
.
;
,
-
II
....
-;I
...
. .
I
,
=' .'
.i."
.
-
.
.
Farm-Foreste:-
- MOlm:raineers
I'-------Dt-IR
A
Use By Wildlife (Birds)
Bird songs as an interpretive tool for public education and evaluation of forest
management alternatives
+
Birds are the most visual and vocal of all forest wildlife and have high aesthetic value for
much of the public. An interpretive program developed around the frequency and
diversity of bird songs may provid a valuable tool for public education of timber harvest
options.
•
Results from a series of listening surveys conducted during spring 1999,
suggest
differences in bird songs among treatments were large enough to be perceived
by the general public.
More species were consistently heard (per listening station) in the unthinned
•
control plot than in other treatments (Fig. 1 ) , and the fewest species consistently
heard was in the patch cut. The greatest number of birds (per listening station)
were heard in the control plot, and least in the clear cut plot.
Other studies have shown that in as little as 2-3 years after harvest birds
•
respond favorably to thinning. As under-story and mid-story habitat conditions
develop over time, we predict bird communities will respond with increased
abundance and species richness, though not equally among treatments.
1.30
1.20
1.10
Fig. 1 Mean number of forest bird
species heard per point per day in 6
treatment plots, Blue Ridge study area,
Capitol Forest, Washington, from 12
April to 1 1 June, 1999.
I/)
Q)
'0
1.00
Q)
0..
Cf) '0
:u ..Q
E
::J
Z
.90
.80
.70
.60
.50
16 Silvicultural Options for Managing Young-Growth Production Forests: Blue Ridge Tour Supplementary Material·
1.
Maps and photos
2.
Study description ................................................................. Pages 21 -24 3.
Stand Smnmaries .. ..................... ............ : ....................... , ..... Pages 25-27 4.
West Wood Road stand smnmary and projections ............... Pages 29-31 5.
Logging Damage ............. ......................... ........................... Pages 33-34 6.
Soil Disturbance report ....................................................... Pages 35-40 7.
Harvesting report ................................................................ Pages 41 -49 8.
Baseline information on public acceptance report ................ Pages 51-58 9.
Spring 1 999 bird surveys ..................................... ............... Pages 59-60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
Pages 1 9-20 1 0. . Test of laser profiling system report .................................... Pages 61 -64 17
Cooperative
R&D Project on Sil"icultural Options
USDA-FS PNW Research Station Washington State Department of Natural Resources Capitol Forest - - Blue Ridge Timber Sale (Block 1)
E-sooa
,
.\
\::
Township t6Nonh,. Range 04 Wesr., W.M.
,.'" SAF
cour irine:nr'f
.
indic:ued. by arrows: discussion stoPS indicated. bv ..rcled numbers.
..
'
19
-
1.
ooo
6
. The wood-producing roles'. of state, industrial, and
private: forests have become increasingiy important as .
. harvests. .from National Forest lands have declined.
The Washington Department of Narural. Resources
.. (D1\1R.) is one of-the largest non-rederal forest owners in the Northwest, and has a legally defined
management . objective
to
generate income' in
perpetuity for truSt beneficiaries, whiCh. consist of
educational and other state and county institutions.
Expaneling population, social changes, and related pressures and conflicts affect DNR as they do other
managers of production forests.
foreground visual.' effects md' will provlOe photographic images that can be used for graphic landscatJe simulations. Tre'.n:meotS are applied in harvest·units of 30 to 80 acres each.
The treatmentsare: (see .figures 1-<5) .
Visual effects of harvesting activities are major
considerations in management decisions, especially
along major travel routes and in areas with much
recrearional use. Desire to retain public support and
reduce conflicts have stimulated interest in and limited
application of a variety of altemative harvest practices
for which little or no: 'management experience or
research exists. Obligations to truSt beneficiaries
(DNR) or owners (ind trial and private) require that
managers consider fuianc:ial trade-offs and effects on
long-term forest producrivlty.
note describes a project being joindy installed on Capitol Forest. near Olympia by D:N'"R and Pacific
Northwest Research Station (pN-w). This is an
integrative effort designed to provide experience with
conrrastkg silvicultural sysrems and to evaluate the
biological, econorriic, and Visual effects associated with
alternative timber harvest patterns and management
regnne s
L
conventional even-aged svstem widely used 10 the. Northwest and elsewher . 2.
Retained Over:rw1)l-a two-aged system that resembles a shelterwood, but with the overwood carried. through the next
rotation to provide some large, high
qual1ty tr es.
3.
even-aged SYSTem
applied in· patches of 1-1/2 to 5 acres, '
with thinning TO main'tlin stand densicies
of RD40-RD60. 4.
Group selection-an uneven-aged system in whichireesare CUt in groups occupying lessthanr·l/2 acres, and regulation is by
volume rather than area.
5.
Extended Rotation with Cammm:iaL Thinning;
This
.
6.
. DESIGN:
':�:be project is a stand-level experiment that. also
provides components ror various assessments at the
landscape level. It compares six treatments in a
randomized block design with a planned minimum of
three replications. Treatments are designed to create
highly contraSting stand conditions. They will provide
comparative data· on biological resp9nses and
economic aspecrs; they will also pennit evaluation of
Clearr-.lt-a
v
.
'
Smail· Patch Cutting-an
advantage of the capacity of thinne d Dougias-fir to maintain high
growth rates for extended periods. It defers regene..--ation harvest which would evenru.ally be accomplished with any of .the above systemS. -cakes
Unthinned. Control
Individual trees or 'small areas are reserved -in all
treatments to meet specific requjrements for wildlife,
wetland, and riparian areas as defined in the DN'K's
habitat conservation plan.
Regenetation will be
primarily
planted
Dougias-fir,
with
some
supplementlIy natural regeneration.
e'Xcr!rpM ::Pr-tP>\:
ti CcJ-o;:; Cdr ..!.r'C1 J&"f. .-0. J..;:' WA.
G.>o[7ero.flV'C). Sj:Jrt'() /7'78, -'
'2..1 cF;<.J
i
View of Six Treatment
1. Clearcut
2. Retained Overstory
3. Small Patch Cutting
.' .
5. Extended Rotation with Commercial Thinning'
4. Group Selectio
6.
Unt'hinned Control, 8
future exploration of trad
STATUS
Layout of .the . first replicate:is complete. This:is a site .
. .II. stand. of natural origin, about .70 yeatS old, thlnned '
reducing conflicts.
gging Inc. ofMru:ysville, WA,
COMPARISONS::
The basic compariSons. include cree groWth and St21lq
'development, public : response to various harvest
'
practices using graphic. simulation and .public survey.
.
techniques liirvest. operation produ.criv:ity and
,
economic
assessments.
Stand
developmmt-A
Other
supplementarystudies are possiole.
of
grid
assessments· ' and
and'
growth
of
pem:laIlent
plots
planted
_and
.natural
regeneration. Tree and St21ld me:LSUrements at inrervals
of five years or less will provide mO!lIlarion on yields
and associated changes in stand·stIUCtlJ.I'e and species.
composition under the ciifferent regimes and gains or
losses in physical timber producri.on.
Pllbl;.':
response fa :,isua/ maractnisti.cr-The
·initial
objective of this p ortion of the study is to develop
conceproal.
pr ellminary
mociels
explaioing
how selected segments of me public perceive alternative patterns of timber harvesting. Selected groups will be asked to rate the attractiveness and accepTIlbility of photographs of timber harveSts similar to those at the srudy site and photos of general forest scenes, and to For s9me explain their.. reasons for such ratings.
groups, specific conrens will be
.detenninin g
-
perceptions.
how
people's
supplied as a basis for expectations
affect' lm eXtension o f the mtciy is expected to allow comparisons of the actual harvests, using both still photos and video and compute:: generated images. It
is lmporrant to undeIS12Ild how people's perception bf harvesting is affected by their existing knowledge and experience and how, perceptions mayor maynot be altered
by new info:o:nation or
other educational techniques. FutuJ:e work mayalso explore the issue of "acceptability"
relationships
Preference
(as distinct from
between
data
"preference'') and the these
combined
.
twO
with the
.
constructs. concurrent biological and e c onomic assessments will also pennit for
.
determine
will
for
values
ea ch
.silvicultur:al treatment unit'CostS' per unit of volume·
fqr each treatment will be compu d using' daily
equipment, labor,. and overhead' costs typical for
westside logging. A dailyrecord of machine -and labor
.hours is maintained and volume of each truck load is .
.tied to the.individual
Short-duration
trea ennmlt.
time- and motion srudies· ar
'conducred'at random
intervals .and used'tO verify the daily producri n data.
Dailyproduction fotmS are filled
ut by the
operator
of each piece of equipment, which. tie production to
the portion' of a unit logged
provides the basis for evaluation of condition and
growth of residual tre<'...s, unde!:StCry v oeration, and
suivival
.
costs:.-and 'product
production
. 'using. ground-based equipment throughout Cutting 1998. by
began in _>\pril and will be comple
.
L&oing production·.rf:udy-This
abo t 1971, .·on· relarively gentle ten:ain: Logging is being done byPacific
ffs - among confliCtiOg
objecrives and identification of· opportunities
00' any
.
given day.
Electronic data recorders· consisting of a GPS receiver
interfac:...<>d to a data. logger' are attached to selected
machines ror portions of the' season. These measure
hours of operation, where the machines have traVeled,
and how many logs were handled. Using data collected
from these
elecu:oruc systems, vehicle speed, load, skid
dist21lce, and .cvcle time can . be
comouted
and
for the· different
Truck scale ticketS provide
value' and volume. of logs. removed from each unit.
Post-harvest surveys will determine residual st21ld
rat s
prod crion
compared
sllvicultural treatments.
damage.
One interesting aspect of the harvesting study is which. machine evaluation of the acCUIaCY with
positions can be dete!:rnined using GPS under varymg canopy d6$ities.
The different unit
treatmentS . provide conditions from completelyclosed canopy to . neady completelybare ground.
Eamomicr-Economic components of the smdywill
.
evaluate
provide. the information :needed to
management' and production costs -and· revenues
associated with alternate
reiimes.
.
Early emph2s:is :is on costs and v.uues of the :first
harvest entry. Costs'include: (1) planolog, layout,'and
administration of sales; (2) costs. associated with the
logging
(3)' COstS' associated with
damage or distuibance from. harvesting
and. (4) costs. associated with .loss or
: operation;
tree/site/soil
operations;
postponement of revenue in- systems that .retain some
part of the existing St21ld. Ultimately, data collected from permanent plots on stand growth and yield and tree
quality will pe:m.it comparative evaluation
alternative regimes over an entire rotation.
of the
Supplementary stutjy of airborne !a.Jer mapping-The
sIDdy area is being used as a test site for an airbome
program. Planting and other stand trea1:l:qents will be lase.:: mapping system. Two questions will be assessed:
1) how accurately can the laser system measure
ground level under the six tre:J.tment canopy
conditions; and 2) Can the system. provide canopy
c.h2racteristics that correlate with stand inventory d2.ta.
Tne area is being mapped both before and after
carried out by DN"R as part of on-going operarional programs: Evaluation procedures are plaoned so that rolnimum mtinteoaUce and analyses can be done within expected
SciennstS
created
education
and
of
Wishington
USFS
Center and '
Oregon State University are invoIved in
. tlie airbome
by differen t
prof essional training On the
and with inajor
responsibility· for evaluations of visual effects· and Remote
Sensing
Applications
'laser mapping trial.
approaches' to. regeneration harvest With rime, the
projecr will also provide ' opportunities for public
and
university
production costs. Tne DNR Photogrammetty Section, The planned. netWork o£ harvest uruts will establish a
highly accessible showcase of· sllvicu1tural options, environments
from
University of Idaho are participatin
DEMONSTRATION' VALUE:
the
funding levels of the Sllvirulture· Team of the Olympia Forestry Sciences Laboratory. harvesring ope...rations.
illustrating
The projecr is bcing :insnIled on Capitol
fundlng.
Forest ne:Ir Olympia,. as part of the DNR's timber sale Tne
advantages
relatively large size
of treatment. units should provide opporrunicies for furore research on wildlife and other ecologiC1l. questions, in addition to the
disadvantages associated with each' regime.
primary.
focus
on
reconciling' wood
production,
.economic returns, and aesthetic values. We hope to PARTNERS:
am:acr addiri nal parmers and funds to evaluate these This project was developed jointly by DNR managers
and P:N-W research scientists. We tried to design the future aspectS :
ormation even project to 'survive md yield useful
during lows in the cycles of pol itical interest and Cantacts for additional infonnation:
98195-2100
206-685-D883
Seattle, WA
Dem DeBell
or Robert Curtis
Paciii.c Research Station
3625-93rd Avenue SE .
Olvrnpla, WA 98512
360-956 2345
Washington.
Resources
Department
of
.
Natural .
Ol-vm-pia, WA 98504-7018
. 360-753-5348, :
.
em:ril: JDEB490@WADNRGOV Ev.:uuations:
Gordon Bradley
College of Forest.Resource
.
Harvest
Costs
Leonard Johnson
College of.· Forestry,
Range Science
for
Forest
System
Univecitr ofWasliingron· Seattie, WA 98195-2100.
206-543-4710;. .
email sxeutebu@u.washin.gton.edu. Airborne
and GPS
Laser'
Mapping
Trial
Trials: Forest Resources Divlsion
Box .352100
Caope::tetiv
Engineering
Box 352100
206-S43-D389
PO Box 47018,
VISual
Paciii.c Res eru:c.h. Station
AlWagar
Center for Urban. Horticulture
Box 354115
Univenity ofWashingron
Seattl.e, WA 98195-4115
Forestry'Sciences Laborat ory Jeff DeBell. Steve Reutebuch
Universitr ofWashIDgton.
Silviculture:
Steve R.eutebnch.
Wildlife
Pacific Research:Station
CooperatiVe . for
Fprest·.
and
Engineering
University of Idaho .
Box 352100 208-885-6600
. Seattle, WA 98195-2100
Mos coW', ill 83844-1132
Univ
ofWashington
. ,
.
206-543-4710, email sxeutebu@u.washington.edu .
.
System
.
: ftlf7. t,.;:\dnrtour.wcd
i
1
: Blue Ridae ReaL #1-Summarv of Der
ac:-e stand statistiCs.
"Trees 5.0"+ eV6 volumes
i
iScecies
i #1. C/earc:..Jt I
16010ts 37.5i
41.4.1
j Other Conifer
I Hardwood
0.6i
10.6 1
i OFir
IWHemloc
16 oiots
! Other Conifer
iHardwood
! I otal. all soecies
!
!OFir
! #3. Patch cut
lWHemloc!<
260lots
lather Conifer
i Hardwood
iTotal. all soecies
1 #-i,GrouD selec:ion i OFir IWHemlock
190iots
i Other Conifer
: Hardwood
I #5. Continued
thinnina
16 Dlots
i '#6. No treatment
in
114 . 1 :
8 3901
11.6 i
20671
0.5i
14.2
11.6i
14.2!
5501
19.1 !
226.91
"
21.1 ;
ft3
191
110271
9
1897i
171
801 1
505i
104361
1
8
9 23 1
202.2 .
24.i!
30.4.;
1.91
11
'
10.1 :
401
7.1 !
12.91
3201
117241
111291
8647!
8281!
2181 i
2023i
1571
1431.
322!
, .113061
3011
107481
2.2,I .01,
106991
102311
13.8:
607!
9.9:
107 1
552!
20.8:
11565i
10 96 i
20 ?:
114531
10915i
8.0:
52!
10.5i
371
7.81
.
1Si
117.51
240.81
19AI
57.31
177.6:
33.3:
43.3;
3.5:
23. S : I '
2 -I
4.6i
, .......I'
.
_
78.71
220.0;
121 :
12.6:
5.31
2.81
.... :J ,i
;:
IORr
105.91
lWHemloc!<
5.31
j Other Conifer
1 Hardwood
! TotaL all soedes
I
IORr
1.6 i
16.31
15.5i
15.5i
16.1 !
6.:; !
97.9i
101.6i
"
"
, 20.8
,
..,).::1
11.0i
239!
235.0!
1.91
0 .91
17.01
13.9!
93801
15411
14311
321
287! .
I
861
1531
,2si
9
331
301
129.1 i
9 01
781 !
7171
254.9i
1
123231
116951
40.31
147.0;
25 9!
75131
IWHemlocx
50.01
1 Other Conifer
1201
1 Tota!. all scecies
ft3
83.11
I I otal. all soedes
I Hardwood
2.2.1 i
by-tarn
ICV6
'CVTS
:QMO
!WHemlock
1
i
i#2. Two-aaed i BE:=ORE CUT
i
i BNacre
ITPA
ft2
173.5i
! Total. all soedes
1
I
!
65.31
iOFir
08/04/991
9.71
11201
90.1 i
122!
11 ?
261 ?!
.
.
..
18.2!
13.7·
14.oi
20.7:
7207l
48981
46211
4581
4131
501 !
5181
13427!
127591
Notes: 1.
This summary represents averages of sample plots over the
treatment area that did not sample roads or wildlife leave areas.
2.
Values for patch cuts and group selection treatments are averages
for the whole treatment area and have not been adjusted for cut
areas.
25
(
-
,
1
.
: Blue Ridae reol. #1. Summary of oer acre stand statistics.
Trees 5.6".:. CV6 volumes bv tam
A....:.I1:.t ...;
....______
..:...
....:.!:...
A:.:..
.. F....:.I..:::
t: :!..:...C
:::.. .: U
::T
:..
.!__
__·....:.
_______
; #1. Clearcut
16 Diets
I SDedes
iTPA
IORr
,
I
!WHemloci< 1 Other Conifer
\
I Hardwood
I.
ITotal. aU soedes
'-"
Iwo-aoed IWHemlocx
16 Dims
1 Other Conifer
I Hardwood
! Total. all soedes·
: ORr
IWHemioci<
i Other Conifer
I Hardwood
r-' .
. ! lotal. all soedes
,,-,.. t...::rCUD se.Io. ,lon ! ORr A
.......
19
alotS
01
01
01
01
O!
01
Oi
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
0:
?" -I
_.j.1
. .;"
'#6. No trearmem
! .
14.71
4.4.91
??36!
0. 6 i
21431
18.i
601
56,
0.31
1.2i
0.2!
01
01
01
01
01
1S.6i
46.61
23.31
2300!
??031
25.3i
6a06i
1 114 1
53331
1052:
35;
33:
39041
11.5 i
1.01
0.61
52.51
li1.S i
137: 1 i
2:.31
1:
0.8i
_
c.I
.
.
18.4.:
1'".j.:-';
1l':"".0:
-'
4'
. 1
""'j
...u:• .
31
291
160.1 !
£.. w.
... ,...
......... ,....,
1187'
74A.7
I.J.J.O I
'24.3:
Ol·
COL.
,.... "71t::""·i
0""....,
J""",",
.... ,
01
01
01
01
01
01
Oi
1 Toral. all soedes
42.6!
134.2:
2 4. 0 1
Oi
6644:
6366;
!OFir 68 . 1 1
189.11
0.6;
t..L..:::
0.2!
7.01
934.4.:
894T
0.61
0.6;
! Other Conifer
.: : .
01
01
!WHemioci<
16 alots
iCV6
i'
0.6 1
i Other Conifer
I Harewood thinnina
'CVTS
ai.!dn!::.
SV-32
....:
velumes by ,arif
1.11
iWHemlocx
. #5. Cominuec
i
,
01
I
. #3. Patch cut
26 aims
.::...:=. 6
...;.C
. :=.V
__
01
I
IORr
QMO
i B.AJacre
1
?
1".-.
r e:..:e: s....:.
:.:..:
. 5:...
"_
.
...
I Hardwood
! Total. all soec:es
iOFir
IWHemiock
i Other Conifer
! Hardwood
; Total. aU soedes
1 .91
2.6i
10.3.
..,,.. .... ,
1..i;
15.8;
??:31
94881
192.lii
40.31
50.01
12.01
147.61
11.2!
14.6i
112.01
261 .2 !
20.7!
C.I
-I,
12.2
31
13. .!:
71.31
90.1 :
151
25.91
18.2'
...
7'
Iv.' .
12(:
13;
01
11
13:
119 !
9081 !
7513
7207:
4898i
4621
i
458:
4131
557:
1342T
5181
12759i
Notes:
1. This summary represents averages of sample plots over he
treatment area that did not sample roads or wildlife leave areas.
2. Values for patch cuts and group selection treatments are averages
for the whole treatment area and have not been adjusted for cut
areas.
--'
------- -----� ------�--,--
: Slue .Ridae reo!. #1. Summ arY of oer ac
e stand statistics. Trees 5. 6
"
+
CV6 volumes by tam;
: I rees 1.6"+
; AMOUNT REMOVE)
i
:TPA
: Soec:es
! # . Clearcut
ORr
16 olots
41 . .d.J
0.6i
0.5j
11.6 I
10.61
11.61
11.4..11
lORr
68.41
!WHemlock
24.11
: Other Conifer
: Hardwood
i
; Tota!. all soec:es
! ;¢:2. Two-aoed
16 D lots
!
Other Conifer
!Harawood
! Total.
: #3. Paten CUt
26 alots
all soecies
17!
14.2!
5501
505i
226.91
19.11
110271
104361
157. 31
20.51
75871
7236;
29.2!
14.91
14811
137.4.1
0.8!
9.61
351
,
281
7.81
7.1 i
12.91
3201
287!
101.91
194.2!
18.71
94241
89261
20.41
20411
19481
9701
!
I
·WHemlock
21.81
22.01
13.6i
1066;
.
0.1,
16.4:
1251
16.21
2861
268i
70.9:
16.9i
3519/
33001
86 ..4.!
20.7l
381
12.01
1.4..1 ,
!
.i070 1
soecies
: #. G ra u o selection 'ORr
: Other Conifer
'Harewood
I etaL all
soecies
4.01
45.41
11.0 I
5.31
5.5i
59.01
37.81
. ORr
IWHemlocl<
' Other Conifer
; Hardwood
iTota!. all
soecies
i ORr
:WHemloc!<
: Other Conifer
Hardwood
Totai.
-1
1 .1
37.1 :
'WHemlock
; #B. No treatment
18971
191
40.5;
. TotaL all
16 alots
20671
17.9\
j Harciwood
. #5. . Continued
! thinnina
1.6\
14.2!
: ORr
; Other Conifer
19 Diats
! SA/ace . i QMO
!C\lTS
ICV6
in
ft2
ftA
I
ft3
22.11
173.5i
65.31
83901
80191
37.5;
'WHemiod<
Voiumes by tam
all soecies
4.71
2 .0:1
- I
{
SAO!
2.3:
9. S !
3.6;
11 .0 :
11':"'1
'V \ ,
104.8i
18.01
921
.4.630i
c,1
14.91
2109!
19681
1.7;
8.11
491
7?!
6541
A-I
<is
.
14.41
14. .4.;
0.31
7Ai
13.5i
57.81
62.5i
14.1 i
1.01
S92!
115 i
,
I.
1071
2835i
I
I. "
01
01
01
OJ
OJ
Oi
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
86:
I "",i.
... -
I
L.I
II
598!
2614.1
0;
O!
O!
01
01
Notes:
1.
This summary represents averages of sample plots over the
treatment area that did not sample roads or wildlife leave areas.
2.
Values for patch cuts and group s lection treatments are averages
for the whole treatment ar a and have not been adjusted for cut
areas.
WEST WOOD ROAD STAND
-
Management Activity Summary
Site Preparation: Pile & Burn
Planted:
2-0,2-1, 1-2 s tock
19 72
Brush Control: Aerial & Hand. Dates unknown
PCT:
1985 12x12
Conunercial Thinning:
Removals:
3,7 60
61
Value:
1994.
tons or
Purchaser select. Tractor.
522Mbf
tons per acre or
7349bf
$14.80 per ton. $55,648.00 total
WO R K MAP M a p Ty p e : Section
Map R e q u es t o r : ANGUS B R O D I E
D a t e : 08/11 /99
Job I D : 79166
Laye rs : F M U , P O CA, TRANS, HYD R O , T O P O , I NY
P lS : T1 6R04W S e c 23
T l 6R04W
Scale 1 : 1 2000
Conlour Interval 40 l e e l
1
1
[ np u t D a t a ,= i l e : C ; \DN R 1 MPSG\ r r i sda t a \c ap i t o l \e- l i ne . da t
S e n q r;o 08- 1 2 - 1 9<1'1
Eri er i ng
cr
g r owth and y i e l d: 1 0 : 5 9 : 57
r/4. r Y
STAND AGe= 25
Sf'
- -
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
10.0
11 .?
8. 1
DF
DF
OF
OF
of
13.9
15.3
33 . 2
12.9
OF
\.IH
Ht
T /A
OSH
66
- - -- -
13
42
TAR I F
74
76
T2
115
605
741
23
5
30
29
2B
27
26
20
30
T2
31
3
0
2
28,
32
5
2
1
_ . _-- - - - - _
MORTAL I TY
MORTAL I T Y
3 , 370
-----
-
-
f , q f a.1
!.4
1 80
- - - - - - - - - - - iO TA
2 , 53 0
1 0 , 383
-- - -------------
ATE FOR O F I S . 1 0 TREES/AC/YR .
ATE FOR '.JH I S . 1 0 TREES/AC/YR .
- - - - -- - - - - - - -
Ccmmerc i a l
-
- - - -- - - -
-
----- --- - --
ih i nn i ng occured too
operationa l Tar i f data were not used.
l a t e . Th
(Model se l ects trees to be th i nned. '
T H I NN I NG AT AGE
COMMER CIA
8 E ;ORE iH I N N I NG
SP
OF
\.IH
DSH
17.
20 . ?
17.4
T/A
SA
°
21 1
°
8 , 44 1
14
1 24
212
8 , 455
1 24
40
-- - - - -
SV5 - 3 2
CV4
3 7 , 852
66
37,918
OBH
RO
-
- - --- -- - -
-
- ----- - -------
----------
SV5 - 3Z
SA
, TIA
-
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
\J H
__ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
o
---------- - - - - - -
35
14.6
50
, 06 1
3
7/ +90
13
; , 664
7, 503
o
!. 1
35
14.6
20 . 9
0
12.2
15.2
18.0
20 . 9
23 . 5
43 . 7
20 . 9
T/A
l.7
0
41
SA
TAR I F
fi t
40
1 08
111
1 14
117
37
t.O
120
1 08
.30
47
1 , 221
1 4°
2
0
0
a
a
STAND AGE::
T Ift..
------------- -----
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
DF
\.IH
12.4
1 5 . t.
18.3
21 .3
23 . 9
44 . 3
21 .3
- ---
2
18
34
31
3
0
a
fit
-- - --- --
1 08
111
1 14
1 17
120
1 23
110
--
' 520
620
a
0
0
t3
t. l
TAR I F
-
<:;
----7:5m-- roTA
.---- 1----i:
35
DBH
SV5-32
30
!.
'
AFTER T H I NN I NG
SP
r:J4
a
38
37
______________________ _
_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _____
14.6
-- - --
t.3
40
39
38 '
38
30
41
-
6A
--- ---
2
24
62
CV4
-
------- -
79
a
97l.
2 , 53 7
3 , 04 0
423
89
1
1 76
7 , 1 42
7S
11
3
SV5 32
-
. -- -- - -
-
338
4 1 75
1 0 ; 506
1 3 , 78B
1 , 90 4
455
6
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
18.9
'
89
3 1 , 170
iOTAL
STAND AGE: 60
SP
OSH
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
IIH
15 . 7
19.8
23 . 5
27 . 2
30 . 4
53 . 2
28 . 5
T/A
0
18
34
31
3
a
a
D
- -
11
o
--
- - - - -
--
S/MSF
Ht
146
150
, l SI.
lsa
1 63
167
1 40
·- - - - --- 2 3-- - - - - - ---- - --
TAR I F
SA
53
50
49
47
47
38
r. 7
0
39
1 02
1 23
17
t.
a
329
284
613 ,
- - - - - ------ ---- ------------ ----------------
--- 9-- --- 1 5----- 2--------7----- -- -298- --i:js
24
2
a
0
a
a
-- - ---
_---- - - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - ----- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - _ .
SO
STANO AGE: 40
REtIOVEll
:
--
TO NS
r:J4
SV5 -3Z
26
1'26
2 , 045 , to , 1 64
5 , 292 26 , 095
6 , 270 3 1 , 253
4 , 590
86 0
1 62
925
a
IJ
�---- - -;86--- i :6;5 ---
:iS3- -
TOTAL
i1
1f. flj
'0
510
1 15
124
33
95
1 27
.-- - - - ---------
{"1t)
386'
2 , 95 1
2 , 871
866
. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
11 .5
50
R Ll
--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
68
70
36
SVS - 3 2
r:V4
SA
I§
LOG G I NG DAMAG E C O D ES
Live Bra n c h B reakage Fel l ing damage to major branches
Severity
1 - 5 maj o r branches b roken
more than 5 m ajor branches broken
R oot Dam age Usually caused by skidding
S everity
S upport
Support
Support
Support
.
roots
roots
roots
roots
damaged
damaged
damaged
damaged
on
on
on
on
1 side of tree
2 sides of tree
3 sides of tree
4 sides of tree
Basal Bark Removal Debarking with i n first 1 .3 m (4.51) above the ground
·
Severity I I
Length
< 0.5 m « 1 .5')
0.5 - 0.9 m (1 .5 - 2.9')
1 .0 - 1 .4 m (3.0 - 4.41)
1 .5 - 1 .9 m (4.5 - 6.01)
.
> 2.0 m (>6.0')
Severity I
C i rcumfere nce
<1 0% of c i rcumference
1 0 - 25% of circumference
26 - 50% of circumfere nce
5 1 - 75% of circumference
76 - 95% of circumference
>95% of c i rcumference
Upper Bole Damage
Severity
1/2
3 m vertical stripe, 1 side only
> 3 m vertical stripe , 1 side only
vertical stripes on 2 o r more sides
-
B r o ken Top Caused by Loggi ng
Severity
Leader o r tip missing (top 1 - 3 nodes missing)
25% or less of croWn missing (but > 3 nodes)
26 - 50% of crown missing
> 50% of crown missing
Leade r o r stem broken , but still attached and alive
Excessive Lean or Bend (Caused by Logging)
Uprooted (Caused by Loggi ng), down but alive.
33
Root D amage
Live B ranch Breakage ·
% of Sam pled Trees
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
o
�----�
% of Sam pled Trees
16
14
12
10
+-------�
+------4
+-----�
8 +-------�--_4
2-Age
Patch
==
Group
-=
==
Comm Thin
I2iJ 1 -5 Major Branches Broken
6 +-----�-----4
4 +---2 -h-...,..,-­
O +-
>5 Major Branches Broken
50
40
40
2-Age
_r
Patch
(EJ 1 side
Group
--
-Comm Thin
2 sides . 3 sides
)
Upper Bole D amage
0/0 of Sam pled Trees B asal Bark Removal 0/0 of Sam pled Trees .-------,
30
30
20
20
10
0
.------,
10
2-Age
Patch
Group
Comm Thin
< 1 0% circum 111 1 0%-25% circum
11 26%-50% circum
o
U2-Age
Patch
L_ GroupLr_l1
Comm Thin
EZ] 1 /2 -3 M, 1 Side
111 >2 sides
3+ M, 1 side
Soil Disturbance Survey
1 99 8 Blue Ridge DNR S ale: Alternative Silviculture Options Study
The study area is located about
15 miles southwest
of Olympia, Washington, on land owned by
the Dep artment of Natural Resources (DNR) . The topography of the site is gently rolling, with
1 0 to 3 0 percent, although some short hill sections have
50 percent. Elevation varies from about 1 000 to 1 ,300 feet. The entire area is
most of the area having a slope from
slopes up to
mappe d as having the O lympic soil series. The Olympic series consists of very deep, well­
drained soils that oc.cur on b enches, hillsides, and broad ridgetops. These soils formed in
residuum and colluvium derived dominantly from basalt. They are classified as silty clay loams,
silt loams, and clay loams. DNR forest soil management interpretation guidelines (see table
b elow) allow ground skidding on these soils if conditions are not excessively wet. The entire
area was harvested without shutdowns due to wet conditions; however, equipment was moved to
avoid particularly wet areas during p eriods of heavy rainfall.
S ummary of Forest Soil Management Interpretations for Olympic clay loam.
l
Rating
Category
S lope S tability
Stable
Natural
Stable
Disturbed
Timber Harvest
Logging System Limitation
Moderate
Compaction Potential (Moist)
High
Displacement Potential (DrylMoist)
Low
Puddling Potential (Wet)
High
Erosion Potential
Medium
Regeneration
Dro ught Potential ·
Low
Plant Competition
Severe
Windthrow Potential
l
Low
.
·
Taken from State S oil Survey, Report for the Central Area, Forest Land Management
Division, State of Washington Department of Natural Resources, approx.
1983 .
The O lympic soil series has a medium erosion potential rating on slopes of 0 to
30 percent, the
predominate slope class for the study area. Surface erosion can be significant, and extensive
erosion can occasionally occur on skid trails if the. soil surface is heavily disturbed. The series
also has high puddling and compaction potentials. The high puddling potential indicates that
water puddling occurs during wet soil conditions after equipment traffic has destroyed soil
structure by compression and shearing. This results in an impermeable surface that ponds water.
The soil will not support equipment when wet. Puddling results in loss of productivity due to
restricted air and water movement in the soil. The level of compaction increases with increasing
passes of equipment and is sensitive to soil moisture conditions.
1
35 The site is covered with 70-year-old second-growth forests that naturally regenerated after the
original forest was clearcut and burned in the early part of this century. The overstory is
primarily Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) with
small components of red alder (Alnus rubra), and western redcedar (Thuja pUcata).
Each of the 5 treated areas of the Blue Ridge sale was intensively surveyed to detennine the
amount of surface soil disturbance. No compaction or bulk density measurements were made. A
line-transect survey method was used in which parallel transect lines were run across each unit at
66 feet spacing. The lines were run either North/South or EastIW est, depending on the shape of
the unit (see Fig. 1 ). Along each transect line, at regular distances of-either 33 or 25 feet (larger
units were sampled at 33ft spacing along the transects), soil disturbance was yisually assessed at
each sample point and assigned a disturbance Classification. The c1earcut, 2-age, commercial
thinning, and group selection units were completely surveyed. Only the western half of the patch
cut unit was surveyed due to the large size of the unit. The control unit was not surveyed at this
time. The survey was conducted in early November 1 998, several months after harvest.
Approximately 800·points were assessed in each surveyed unit.
The disturbance claSses were:
•
Undisturbed--no evidence of machine or log movement over the area.
•
Disturbe d with litter in place--litter was still in place with evidence o f machine movement
over the-area. Typically showing machine tread marks.
•
S oil exposed and litter removed--bare soil visible. Could be from machine or log
movements.
•
Litter and soil mixed--s oil . and litter layers were mixed together by machine or lOR
movements.
•
S oil exposed with rutting over 4 inches deep--are as where machine had created si !p1ificant
ruts.
•
N o n s o il--stumps , logs, rocks . .
•
Missing::-.:; area covered by slash or debris piles.
•
Newly deposited litter- areas that had been completely covered during the logging operation
with fresh needles, leaves, and fine branches, totally obscuring underlying litter/soil
conditions.
The following table shows the percentage of each harvest unit that was found to be in each of
. the
soil disturbance classes.
Di::lturbance Class
Undisturbed Litter in place
Soil Exposed
Litter/Soil Mix
Exposed > 4 in
Nonsoil
Missmg/Slash .
New litter 2-Age
10.7
20.9
1 1 .8
14.9
0.5
10.1
6.6
24.5
Clearcut
1 1.1 16.1
16.5
14.4
1 .3
7.0
7.2
26.4
2
3b
.Grillu2 35.3
1 7.2
1 1 .2
1 1 .6
1 .0
7.1
3.8
12.8
Patch
29.2
19.0
1 2 .7
17.8
1.1 5.3 2.9 12.0
Thin 36.4 14.5 12.1 9.5
0.9 5.5
3 .9
1 7.2
A contingency table analysis of the data was conducted to detennine significant differences
between the percentage of disturbance classes in each treatment area. The following major
differences were found at the
•
•
•
•
•
95% confi.dence level:
The commercial thinning, group selection, and p atch cut units had significantly higher
percentages of the undisturbe d class when comp ared to the other units.
The clear cut and 2-age units had significantly higher p ercentages of the n ewly dep osited
litter class when compared to the other units. The 2-age unit had a significantly higher percentage of the disturbed with litter in place
class when compared to the other units.
The clear cut had a significantly higher percentage o f the soil exp osed and litter removed
class when compared to the other units.
The clearcut, 2-age, and patch cut units ha,d significantly higher percentages of the litter
and soil mixed class when compared to the other units.
•
No significant differences between units were found for the p ercentages of the soil exposed
with rutting class . .
P ercent Area in Skid Trails and Processing Areas
In addition to detennining percent area disturbed in each treatment unit by disturbance class,
percent area occupied by primary and secondary skid -trails, processing areas, and log decks was
also of interest. The table below s ummarizes the results for this aspect of the study. Total area
1 6 . 6 p ercent (patch cut Unit) to 2 1 . 7 p ercent
(thinning unit) . These results are comparable to tho s e obtained by S tokes et al. (1995) for group
in primary and secondary skid trails ranged from
selection and clearcut harvest methods using manual felling and articulated rubber-tired skidders .
Their results indicate that total area in skid trails averaged
1 4. 6 for group selection units and 22.4
percent for clearcut units. Total process/deck area was relatively the same for all units, ranging
from
4.5 to 6.5 percent. The total area that was heavily traveled (Le. trails, processing and deck
28. 1
areas) was very similar for all units ranging from 2 1 .2 p ercent in the patch cut unit to
percent in the thinning unit.
Percent of each unit that contains each location category. Treatment
Commercial
Location
Primary trail
.Thinning
1 2 .3
9.4
2 1 .7
Total
Process/deck area
6.5
S econdary trail
Total Obs.
775
Group
Selection
Patch Cut
2-Age
9.6
8.4
1 8.0
6.0 1 0.0
6.6
16.6
4.5
1 1. 6
93
20.9
5.5
885
850
785
3
31
.
Clearcut
1 0.9
8.5
1 9.4
6.3
769 DISCUSSION
Selection ofthe harvesting equipment and operating methods was not dictated by research needs·.
The equipment and methods selected were the result of standard timber sale practices of the.
Washington DNR. It should be noted that soil disturbance could be considerably different if a
different array of equipment, operating in a·different fashion, were employed. For instance, if
cable chokers had been used, rather than a grapple, the tractor may have been able to . avoid
traveling over much of the area. If the hydraulic shovel had not been used to blllCh for the
tractor, disturbance may have been lower in the c1earcut, 2-age, and patches in the patch cut unit.
. Use of designated skid trails in all units would have concentrated disturbance in the skid trails.
Unfortunately, it was not possible to alter the equipment mix and operating methods for this
study.
general, as removal intensity increased the percentage of undisturbed area decreased. The
thinning unit had the highest percentage of llndisturbed area, while the 2-age and c1earcut units
were similar with the least amount. The clearcut, 2-age, and small clearcut patches in the patch
cut unit all had high volumes oftimber removed. To accomplish this, more machines passed
over the units more times. More slash was generated, requiring piling by the loader, and in some
areas, redistribution over the area by the tractor. Because the clearcut and 2-age units had the
most slas1l; on the ground after harvest these units both had the highest percent area in the
missing class.
In
The summary revealed that the 2-age unit had the highest percentage of area disturbed with litter
in place. This is most likely a result of the machine oper tors' efforts to avoid damage to
residual trees. Although most of the trees were felled, bunched and skidded, care was taken to
not hit or scrape the residual standing trees with either logs or equipment. This required the
machiries to concentrate their traffic more in the area betWeen residual trees, only traveling near
residual trees once or twice to pick up logs near them. This concentration of machine travel is
also reflec;te. , in the higher percent area in skid trails (20.9) in the 2-age unit, even though there
were no d · ygnated skid trails.
;-
c'
There was not a clear general trend of increasing area of soil exposed and litter removed as
removal intenSIty increased. The clearcut unit and small clearcut patches in the patch cut unit are
. similar with the highest percentage for this class. The 2-age Unit had a low percentage for this
class and was similar to the group selection and commercial thinning. This is a result of more
area being lightly traveled to avoid tree damage instead ofbeing repeatedly traversed with
associated loss of the litter layer.
Percent area with 'litter and soil mixed was also highest on units with the highest removal inten­
sities. The clearcut and 2-age units were similar in amount of area for this class. Surprisingly,
·
the patch cut unit had the highest percentages of litter and soil mixed, both in the portions that
were only thirmed and in the small clearcut patches .. One possible explanation for this may be
related to the feller-buncher operators' abilities. In about half of the area sampled in the patch
cut, a new feller-buncher operator was being trained. 1J1is new operator was much less adept at
positioning the machine and bunching trees in corridors. As a result, there may have been more
impacts both from feller-buncher travel and from poor positioning of trees for extraction.
4
39 general, the percent area in newly deposited litter (fine needles and branches from limbs and
tops) increased as removal intensity increased. The c1earcut unit had the highest percentage for
this class, followed by the 2-age unit. This newly deposited litter should protect the soil surface
from erosion caused by rain impact and over-land flow.
In
The amount of area containing ruts greater than 4-inches with soil exposed was low and similar
in magnitude across all units. This result is a combination of two factors: displacement potential
and use of wide tracks. The overall harvested area has a low displacement potential from timber
harvesting activities. This soil characteristic, along with the use of wide-tracked harvesting
equipment, resulted in little rutting.
Soil comp action is a major concern among land managers because it is directly related to
reduced tree growth. Although soil bulk density was not measured iri this study, past experience
has shown that areas with the highest amount of compaction are usually primary skid trails and
processing/deck areas. Percent area in skid trails and decks is not a direct measure of soil
compaction; however, it IS an indication of heavy equipment traffic usually associated with
higher levels of compaction. In this study, total percent area in these high traffic classes was not
correlated with volume of timber removed. Despite removing much more volume per acre from
the clearcut and 2-age units, the skid trail assessment revealed that all unit&were fairly similar in
the percentage of total area in skid trails and decks. Percent area in these classes was probably
influenced not only by the harvest method but also by the unit topography. The skid trail
assessment revealed that the thinning unit had the highest percentage of area in skid trails. This
unit had a very steep area at its north end. This feature prohibited the tractor from skidding trees ·
located in the northern portion of the unit directly to the top of the unit. Instead, the tractor was
required to skid trees across the unit along a gentler route. This resulted in long skid trails within
the unit, and consequently in more skid trails per unit area. It should be noted that assignment of
each harvest treatment to each unit was random and not based on equipment constraints.
Therefore, skid trail occurrence and frequency would most likely have been lower if the thinning
unit had occurre d in an area with gentler terrain. However, the thinning harvest method (i. e.
bunching to corridors) cop.centrated travel within corridors by creating defacto skid trails.
Results from this study characterize soil disturbance resulting from one harvest entry into the
units. Future silvicultural management dictates· that the thinning, group selection, and p atch cut
units will be treated again before the clearcut and 2-age units are thinned for the first time.
Depending on the recovery rate of the soil, these multiple entries into the units could have a
cumulative impact on soil compaction, particularly if machine traffic is repeatedly concentrated
in the same corridors.
Report prepared by:
Steve Reutebuch
USDA Forest Service
PNW Research S tation
Seattle, Washington
Ph: 2 06-543-47 1 0
Email: sreutebu@u.washington.edu
John Klepac
USDA Forest Service
Southern Research Station
Auburn, Alabama
Ph: 334-826-8700
Email: jk1epac/srs_auburn@fs.fed.us
o
Figure 1 . Map of Blue Ridge harvest units showing appt'oximate locations of soil d isturbance survey transects.
6
c () J , ) () I . ( .I I / I () I '1 1 I d L I () I I
-cl wser
. J11\LL
LfL _C )_(!e_ l !.!
{:! ! {:_ _ !-_ :hs
" - 1 "'
l l ' - 2G ' - J ' - J '
. --2L-- - F l H- --U5"-:-1
5" -. -·------17 '-=-2G -=-J ,
9-2 rm
'l
m
G
r-=1IT'
z'-:J
-::
1
-Ju
-'
--..
I.
"JG
-1
J
-F
-,
--J-'
snms'OrITiiiiIJerCompiil1Y
i
--r-'-F
i
IT'ElT
l-'
·
-z
r-..
l
i
U
Pac lTie-Ti Ger
-liEil- --5 "-=-r'.l-· ----1 7 · - zG" -:-;H l-=tl J '
ITillll ierVelieerG
ftolll ierVel1eer
1
-1 i[jf ' -U"-=--n:;--- ----17 I-:2G '::'�Fl T_=tiJ
- -2U-U-1 iEil- ----r Z "scoUllmGer
I. -- -lr-=-zz '-=-z6-=-5u'::'J1 '::'jyn- --;jU, 12 '-'"
fiacTfTc-nGer
-9- - HUr-' -UE'TlTEY1u
---Hc--5::-"'-"
---i(P-=-Z
U
'
- 3Zr-::-;Ji)'-=l u T--- 26He-leuLumber
-2URiJ ili ierVeneer
. --11- -M- --ij",17 t-=-ZGt-=-;H J'T
U
Uilkv i 1 le- ful-estProJiiCLS -12- - itA - ll rrCy-- === -=- -12'-i.
P
,_
__ . __ _
Ha l ll i er Veneer
scoLLTillluer
._
___
_____
.
_ _
Cos l: s As s oc i a ted w i th Sa l e :
l .o!l<J I I 1Y 1 500 . 000 . lJO
l I;) u l I l lY t 22 . OOO . (JU
5co l I llY 29 , UOU _ 1J1J
\·le l g h I I lY 1 2 7 . 0 0U . nu
Hfl VellUp. lo the S l:ille 1 2 . 7 IJO . IJOO . U ()
____ ___
P,-e c e I 1 L age o f L I llie
pre f e r r e d _ el1yt" vlll S ljle l
!x-------- I
9 6- n
I3U j x
9G-
95 G:t
9M
ox
9r Ux .
96 ux
9' - Ut
J l ut
57 iii
--99 U%
C o opero.tive
Pl'1-'7VIDNK Project o n
Silvicultura.I Optio ns Cap im l Fo rest - Blue Ridge Timber Sale (Block I) Sale Preparatio n and C o mp liance Activities (DNR) Sale Preparatio n
,
Hours
,. ,:".... .'. .
1
I
47
I
I
1 48
"
TOLa! .:vffiF Removed
T 01:21 .-\re:! Eours/tvffiF
Hours/Ac:e , ,
'
"
I
I
·1
1
',-
1 ,986
45
0.06
1 .04
Patel:!
Two-aged
Cle3IcU!
1
I
I
I
1 ,5 9 1
- ..,
)
OJ] 2.84
I
I
I
,
i
I
I
I
I
I
Sde::ion
216
1 .264
68
o e ..,
- 1J ... ,
I
I
I
I
I
Sale P:epararion (S uiJtotal - fill Silvicnltural Options)
C o mp lianc e (Other ilian Roads)
yfeerings and Paper Work
Compliance)
Grand Tomi
:\DDro:Cmare
.. . Cog....s .-\5sociared wirh Sale Preoaration and Comnuanee:
Pre-;; ararion - S 1 7,OOO.OO
CotGpliance - S5,OOO.OO
...
....
Comm.
Tninning:
I
I
I
)
S ummarY of Tim e Spent on Preparation and Com pliance
Roads (Layout. Engi..neering, and
I
Grouo
Cutting
130
,
1
595
I
I
2.6
I
I
0.37
I
r
3.9 1
-
IT?
J '!"
39
0..+5
2.S7
I Tom Hours
I
I
I
I
1
I
703
.!. I O
- "
240
215
1434
Harvesting Methods and Costs
1998 Blue Ridge DNR S ale: Alternative Silviculture Options Study
Silvicultural Treatments
Six silviculrural treatments were laid out as shown in Figure 1. Harvesting of five of the units
was conducted from April to September of 1998. The units received the following treatments:
•
Control--no harvesting was prescribed. The area will be allowed to grow, unthinned, for an
additional 60-70 years.
•
Clearc1it--all of the merchantable and unmerchantable trees were cut. The area will be
replanted and managed as an even-aged stand on a 60-year rotation schedule.
•
Two-age--basal area was reduced by 81 percent1 1eaving approximately 1 6 large dominate
and co-dominate overstory trees per acre. The area will be underplanted with a mixture of
D ouglas-fir, western hemlock, and redcedar. The residual overstory trees will be allowed to
grow for 60-70 years.
•
Thinning:--basal area was reduced by 26 percent, leaving approximately 7 1 trees per acre.
The unit will be repeatedly thinned by a similar amount every 1 5 years for 60-70 years.
•
Group selection with thinning--basal area was reduced by 41 percent, leaving approximately
45 tr es per acre. The area was first marked as a regular thinning unit, and then small,
scattered areas (up to 1.5 acres) were marked to create openings over approximately 20
percent of the unit. The openings will be planted with a mixture of Douglas-fir,western
hemlock, and redcedar. A similar treatment will be applied every 1 5 years.
•
Patch cut with thinning--approximately 20 percent of the unit was clearcut in four large,
scattered patches (1 .5-5 acres in size). The remaining area surrounding these patches was
thinned. For the entire unit (patches and thinned areas combined), the basal area was reduced
by 31 percent,leaving approximately 53 trees per acre. For the areas that were only thinned,
the basal area was reduced by 14 percent, leaving approximately 6 6 trees per acre. The
patches will be planted with Douglas-fir. A similar treatment will be applied every 1 5 years.
Volume
harvested from each of the six units.
Net Volume Harvested
(MBF/ac.)
0
Control
44. 1
Clearcut
30.6
2-Age
8.3
Thinning
13.0
Group Selection
18.7
Patch Cut
Treatment
1
'
43
Figure 1 .
Figure
199 7 aerial photo showing pre-hruyest conditions and unit boundaries
of the six
silvicultural treatment areas.
2. Computer-generated simulation of the residual canopy after all harvest treatments are
applied to the study area.
Harvesting Methods and Equipment
One of the most fortuitous aspects of this study was the similarity of all the units with respect to
soils, stand conditions, and topography. In addition, all of the units were harvested dUring the
same year by a single contract logging crew using the same array of equipment. The track width
and ground pressure of each harvesting machine is given in the table below, along with a list of
the harvesting units in which each machine was used.
2
44-
All trees were marked before harvesting operations began. A Timbco 1 445,-B feller-buncher was
used to mechanically fell most trees up to 3 0 inches in diameter. Oversized trees were manually
felled after the feller-buncher had cut an area. Most skidding was completed with a D5H
Caterpillar tractor fitted with a grapple. (A newer Model 527 tractor was used for the last few
weeks of skidding). Whenever possible, trees were skidded as whole trees to the roadside. A
Koehring 6644 hydraulic shovel, fitted with a grapple, was used to bunch for the tractor in the
clearcut unit, 2-age unit, and the large patches in the patch cut unit. A Caterpillar 320, fitted with
a Waratah processing head, was used to delimb, buck, and deck logs at processing sites along
roadside. The,maj ority of the area was skidded downhill or cross-slope. A brief description of
the harvest' method used in each unit is given below. Coulter (1999) gives a more detailed
analysis of the harvesting operations for each unit.
Track width and ground pressure of equipment used in each harvesting unit.
Machine
Timbco 44S-B feller-buncher
Caterpillar D5H tractor
with Esco grapple
' I Caterpillar 527 tractor
with Esco grapple
Caterpillar 320
with processor head
Caterpillar 325 log loader
Koehring 6644 hydraulic shovel
with grapple
,
Track Width
(in.)
24
24
Ground
Pressure (psi)
79
7.3
24
8.8
28
28
32
.
I
I
All units
All units except Thinning
Thinning unit only
. 8. 1
6.8
8.0
Harvest Units
All units
I
I
All units
Clearcut and 2-age units
Patches in Patch Cut unit
I
Clearcut Unit Harvesting Method--All trees in the unit up ,to approximately a 30-inch stump­
diameter were mechanically felled by the Timbco feller-buncher. The operator felled trees so
that they were well aligned for extraction by the Caterpillar tractor. However, due to the large
tree size, the feller-buncher operator did not attempt to bunch felled trees into convenient turns
for the Caterpillar tractor. After the feller-buncher had completed its work, a faller then
. manually felled oversized trees.
The Koehring shovel, fitted with a grapple, was then used to build turns for the tractor. This
turn-building operation entailed picking up felled trees and aligning their butts so -that the tractor '
could easily back up and grab the tum with its grapple. The shovel operator would also buck a
40-foot log from the ends of very large trees that were too large for the tractor to skid as whole
trees. In areas that were within about 1 5 0 feet o fthe road; the shovel 'would simply swing trees
'
to the roadside for processing, eliminating the need for skidding with the tractor.
1
The use of commercial names is for the convenience o f the reader and does not imply any
endorsement by the USDA Forest Service.
3
45 Once the tractor had picked up a turn, the operator would skid the load of trees to a roadside
processing area and then drop the load. The tractor would then drive the machine in reverse b ack
out to the shovel to pick up another turn. The tractor arid the bunching shovel were not limited to
designated skid trails; therefore, each machine traversed most of the unit.
At the roadside processing area, the Caterpillar 320 processor immediately delimbed and bucked
the turns and stacked the logs along the roadside. Usually within hours; a Caterpillar 3 2 5
hydraulic l o g loader sorted an d loaded the processed logs onto trucks at roadside. After the unit
had been skidded, the lo ader walked through the area to pile slash.
The feller-buncher, shovel, tractor, and loader all traveled through most of the unit. The
processor stayed within about 50 feet of the roadside.
Two-age Unit Harvesting Method--The 2-age unit was felled, bunched, skidded, processed,
loaded out, and slash piled in approximately the same manner as the clearcut unit; however,
more care had to be used to avoid damage to the residue stand. The Koehring shovel could not
swing long pieces through a large arc because of the 50-foot spacing between residual trees. The
residual trees also restricted the travel paths of equipment within the unit area.
The feller-bup.cher, shovel, tractor, and loader all traveled through most of the urut. The
processor stayed within about 50 feet of the roadside.
Thinning Unit Harvest Method--The thinning unit was felled with the. feller-buncher, with
oversized trees manually felled. However, once a tree was severed from the stump, the operator
kept the tree in a vertical position. He .then carrie d the tree to the nearest skidding corridor and
laid the tree in the corridor with the butt-end toward the direction of skidding. In some instances,
when the tree was very large or the ground was steep, this careful positioning of the tree for
skidding was not possible. Because the thinning was from below (i.e. predominately smaller
trees were thinned), the feller-buncher could effectively handle and bunch a larger percentage of
the stems th
in :units with heavier cuts. The Koehring shovel was not used in the thinning unit
because the residual stand spacing was too tight to allow it to operate without excessive stand
damage. The tractor op erator skidded predominately along the corridors established by the
feller-buncher, taking care to minimize damage to residual trees. The trees were processed into
logs and loaded at roadside using the equipment and machines as in the other units. B ecause
only 8 .3 thousand board feet
(MBF) per acre were removed, the log loader only piled' slash on or
around the processing areas, not in the interior of the stand. Due to the steepness of the
topography, much of the unit was skidded sideslope
. to avoid pulling loads uphill, resulting in
longer skidding distances.
The feller-buncher and tractor traveled through most of the unit, with the tractor staying within.
the thinning corridors. The processor and loader stayed within approximately 50 feet of the
.
roadside.
Group Selection Unit Harvest Method--The group selection unit was very similar to the thinning
unit; however, small opening (up .to 1 .5 acres) were cut throughout the unit. The openings were
.
cut concurrently with the thinning of the rest of the unit. The small group openings were not
4
40
large enough to accommodate the shovel, so the tractor bunched and skidded the trees unassisted.
Due to the presence of a small stream, skid distances had to be increased in much of the unit
The feller-buncher and tractor traveled through most of the unit, with the tractor staying within
thinning corridors. The processor and loader stayed within approximately 50 ft of the roadside.
P atch Cut Unit Harvest Method--The p atch cut treatment was a combination of the c1earcut and
the thinning treatment. Four large patches ( 1 . 6-5 .2 acres) were first clearcut using the same
techniques and equipment as were used in the c learcut unit. The only differences were that the
. patches were much smaller than the clearcut unit, and in two of the patches, the logs had to be
skidded through the thinned portion o f the unit to roadside for processing. The remaining areas
b etween the patches were harvested using the same methods
as
were used in the thinning unit.
The fel ler-buncher and tractor traveled through those sections ofthe unit that were only thinned,
with the tractor staying within the thinning corridors. The feller-buncher, shovel, tractor, and
loader all traveled through the p atches that were c1earcut. The processor stayed within about 5 0
feet of the roadside.
Salvage Logging Operation--It should b e noted that during the soiLdisturbance survey, a tracked.
lo g loader was conducting a salvage operation in the area. This operation consisted of the loader
picking out pulp chunks from the slash piles and from along the roadside. ' The loader was not
allowed to travel more than 200 feet from the road. This salvage operation had already been
completed at the time of the disturbance sUrley in the patch cut, group selection, and thinning
units, but not in the clearcut or 2-age units. It appeared that the disturbance caused by this salvage operation was relatively minor because the loader only traveled
roadside where disturbance was already.very high. in areas near the Obs erved Harvesting C osts
Leonard Johnson and Keith Coulter conducted extensive time and motion studies of the
, operations
in all units except the 2-age stand. Based on these studies, the following observed
costs p er MBF were computed for each unit:
. Equipment
FellerBuncher
Crawler
Shovel
Processor
Total
Unit
1
Unit 2
Unit
3'
Unit 4
Unit S
2-Age
Patch and
( 1 6 tpa)
Thin
$ 12.76
$ l 3 .7 8 '
$ 1 2.93
$25.76
$2 1 .28
$2 1 04
Clearcut
Group and
Thin
Thin
'.
$ 8 . 85
$ 9 .5 01
$ 1 9 .42
$2 1 .90
$ 1 0.77
1 0.77"
$ 1 .46
0
$9 .5 9
9.59­
$ 1 4.48
$ 1 4.33
$ 1 4.26
$43 . 64
$48.30
$61.99
$56.58
'
$41 .97
.
0
EstImated fellmg and skidding costs usmg the production tIme data collected electromcally
, 2
(Reutebuch et al., 1999). .
Shovel and Processor costs are assumed the same as in the c1earcut unit.
'
All costs are $I1v1BF S cribner.
5
+"1
,
Normalized C omp arative Harvesting Costs
In many situations
the observed cost differences between harvest units were not due to the
silvicultural system (opening or thinning), but to machinery capacities, skid distance, and a
combination of machinery efficiencies as affected by delays. F Qr comparison purposes the costs
were also computed by normalizing those variables that were'not directly related to the
silvicultural treatment. Specifically, the average machine travel distances, terrain slope, and
delays due to maintenance and bottlenecks in the processing stream were normalized, while the
other variables (e.g. piece size and pieces per turn) that were related to silvicultural treatment
were set to those observed.
Two other factors related to machine usage were found to affect production and costs. First, it
was found that the use of the shovel to bunch for the crawler (in the c1earcut, 2-age, and large
patches in the patch-cut unit) resulted in higher costs than if the shovel was not used. This was
because the high hourly machine rate of the shovel was not offset by greatly increased
production of the crawler due to shovel bunching. Second, the processor did not have sufficient
, capacity to keep up with the production rate of the tractor skidder and therefore caused serious
delays (averaging about 30% of the total scheduled machine time). Below is a table of
comparative .costs'per :MBF by silvicultural treatment in which these variables have been
nornialized and the delays caused by insufficient processor capacity are evenly varied (10% and
3 0% of scheduled machine hours). Note that an estimate of costs assuming no bupching with the
shovel is also provided.
Equipment
Unit 1
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 2
Clearcut
Clearcut
2-Age
2-Age
wi shovel
!1O shovel
wi shovel
no shovel
Feller-Buncher
$ 13 .48
$ 13 .48
$ 14.56
Track Skidder
$8,48
$8.48
$ 1 1 .09
$ 1 1 .09
Shovel
$7 .7 1
$0.00
Processor
$6.05
$6.05
$35 .72
$ 3 8 .3 3
Unit 3
Patch
, Cnit 3
Patch
Cnit 4
Unit 5
Group
Thin
and Thin
and Thin
'and Thin
$ 1 4.56
$21 .40
S21 .40
5 2 1 .21
$20.03 '
$9 .33
$9.33
$ 1 1.60
5 10.32
5 1 6 .53
$17.81
$ 12.20
$ 12.20
$ 1 5.33
5 13 .63
S2 1 .63
$23 .66
$7.71
$0.00
$4.06·
SO.OO
SO.OO
$0.00
$6.05
$6.05
$7.79
37.79
58.06
$8.17
$28.01
$37.64
$29.93
544.84
$39.51
$45.80
$46. 01
. $30.62
$40.52
$32.8 1
$48.58
542.82
550.90
$5 1 . 86
0%
34%
64%
64%
wi shovel , no shovel
( 1 0% WFP)
Track Skidder
(30% WFP)
Total (10% WFP")
Total (30% WFP')
% Cost Increase
above Clearcut
28%
7% '
60%
41%
without shovel and
with 10% WFP
1
percentage of scheduled machine hours spent waiting for the processor (WFP) 2 assumes the shovel was used to move about 33% of the unit volume. All costs are $fMBF Scribner. The observed ptocessor delay averaged about 30% over all units. To reduce proc,e ssor delays to 1 0%, the use of a processor with higher capacity would be required. This would most likely increase the processor costs slightly. 6
C onclusions
The observed costs were lowest for the clearcut unit ($41.97 per NffiF) and highest for the group
selection unit ($61 .99 per NlBF). However, when variables unrelated to silvicultural treatment
are normalized (30% wait for processor, 5% ground slope, 366 ft skidding distance and 5 %
maintenance delays), the clearcut ($3 8 . 3 3) an d 2-age ($40.52) were the lowest cost, the patch-cut .
($48 .58) was in the middle, and the group-selection ($50.90), and thinning ($5 1 . 86) were the
highest costs.
The shovel was the highest cost piece of equipment used in the harvesting operations. It was
found that bunching by the shovel allowed the crawler to skid loads at a rate that exceeded the
capacity of the processor. This resulted in large delays at the landing. Even 'in the units where
the shovel was not used, the crawler's production rate usually exceeded the processor's capacity.
If the harvesting equipment mix was optimized (i.e., the processor capacity increased ( 1 0%
delays waiting for processor (WFP) and the shovel not used to bunch), then the clearcut (S2 8 . 0 1
per MBF) would have the lowest cost. The 2-age ($29.93) would be about 7 % higher. The
p atch-cut ($3 9.5 1 ) would be about 41 % higher. The group-selection ($45 .80) and thinning
($46. 0 1 ) would be about 64% higher.
References
Coulter, K. M. 1999. The effects of silvicultural treatments on harvesting production and costs.
MS thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID: 1 1 3p.
Reutebuch, S. E.; Fridley, J. L.; Johnson, L. R 1999. Integrating realtime forestry machine
activity with GPS positional data. Paper No. ,99-5037. 1 999 ASAE .
ual International
Meeting. -Amer. Soc. Of Agric. Eng., St Joseph, W. 1 8p. "
,
C ontacts:
Steve Reutebuch
USDA Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Research Station
,Seattle, Washington
Ph: 206-543 -4710
Email: sreutebu@u.washington.edu
Leonard Johnson
University of Idaho
Forest Products Department
Moscow, Idaho
Ph: 208-885-6600
7
50 Progress Report throu gh Octo ber 3 1 , 1998, PNW96-80881 '
D evelop Baseline Information fo r Examining Public Acceptance of
Alternative Timber Harvest Patterns at Capitol Forest
Gordon A Bradley, Anne R Kearney, and 1. AIail W C!3I
Introduction
Public discomfort with dearcutting, es'p ecially in large, rectangular patches, has
prompted land management agencies to ,s e ek alternatives. To explore the biological; economic,
and public 'preference consequences of-such alternatives, the Washington Department ofNatural
Resources (Dl'l"R), P acific Northwest Experiment S tation of the US Forest Service (PNW), and
the College of Forest Resources at the University of Wasbington (CFR) are onducting a
coordinated s et of studies at Capitol Forest. On this DNR area near Olyn;lpia, stands that are
predominantly 70-year-old Douglas-fir have received 6 treatments-clearcut:, patch cut, group
selection, 2-aged
(shelterwood), and heavy tbinn.in g harvest patterns plus a control area. left
without harvesting. The CFR portion of this srudy, with progress to date reported here, is to
examine public reaction to these alternative harvest patterns.
S tep s taken to date include collecting flproxyll photographs, conducting prelimjnary tests
of preference among s elected group, analyzing the results of these preliminary tests, and
photo grap hing the treatment areas both before and after harvests
were
made.
"Proxy" Photographs
B ecause our study of publi c
reactions began well before harvests were made of the study
area, photographs (35 mm slides) of similar harvest patterns from other areas were collected.
Photos from existing :files were much less useful than we had hoped., with most ofthem taken for
other p urposes at angles and s cales that did not represent the visual effects of harvesting very
wen. We therefore made several trips to phot o graph stands at Capitol Forest, CFR's Pack Forest
(near Eatonville), and elsewhere. augmentIDg the co llection borrowed from files. .
From this augmented collection, we selected slides representing the planned harvest
treatments and as free as possible from such exrran.eous elements as prominent debris. misshapen
trees, or unusuaI lighting. To check on our j udgments, we asked Dean DeBell and Robert Curtis
(both of PNW) and Jeff DeBell (DNR) to identify the treatment represented by each slide and tell
how wen it represented such treatment. We , are comfortable that the selected slides represent the
1 This proj ect is funded by the USDA Forest S ervice Pacific Nonhwest Research Station's
Sciences Laboratory and by the PNW Seattle Forestry Sciences Laboratory.
(PNW) Olympia Forestry
Yne main variables not controlled in these proxy slides are
,
h
the amount oftime since arveSt the time of year, and the amount of " greening up" that had
- occurred.
study
treatments quite reasonably.
to be an important consideration in peopleJs
Because suitability for wildlife would s
.rating of timber harvest acceptability, we also asked CFR Professors (of wildlife) S tephen D .
West and David A
lvianUwal to rate each slide for habitat quality.
Their immediate question
was
"HaBitat for what? Different crearures have different requirements. II Generally, however, they
told us that habitat quality increases 1) with the amount of the shrubs and ground cover present
to provide food and shelter for wildlife (with areas having mostly bare ground being the least
desirable) and 2) with structural diversity (as when a multi-layered canopy is created).
Developing and Pre-Testing
a
Survey Form
A survey "form (ApPendix A) uSJ.TIg a 5-point Likert scale was developed. As pan of its
development, the form was pre-te sted on undergraduate students in an impact assessment class at
the University of Washington.
Preliminary Preference Tests
_After developing and pre-testing the survey form, we scheduled data collection wiLh the
Levvis County Farm Foresters on October 27, 1997; the Olympia Chapter of the Mountain e ers
on De c ember 1 1 , 1997; and DNR personnel in the Olympia area on December 1 1 , 1 997.
.AJthough selected somewhat appornmisrically, these groups repres ent people likely to have quite
c ontrasting attitudes toward timber harvesting.
FOJ: the fann foresters and mountaineers, the format was to provide a program, in each
case for tHeir evening meeting. At the beginning of the prog:ram, those attending were provided
survey forms, shown slides of alternative harvest patterns, and asked to rate their level of .
preference for each scene. Following the survey, Gordon Bradley, Anne Kearney, and .AJ Wagar
gave
an
illustrated talk on aesthetic treatmens af forested landscapes, including an overview of
research in this
area.
Results and Preliminary Distribution
A comp arison of preference ratings, by group (Figure 1 ), shows thaI while there is
a
substantial amoUnt of overlap in tenns how the groups respond to different harvest techniques, there are areas of differences as well. In general, these differences were most pronounced and - the other tWo groups (DNR and Farm Foresters). Pre-tests done
- between the Mountaineers
on student groups showed that students' preference ratings were very similaito the
Mountaineers ' ratings. These dam suggest that forestry expertS may come to view scenes
differently from others as a result of their experience.
2
5 2-
4.55
•
-t
+lI --++-------------:,---------------7t------------- . I
I
t ---- / · l'
\ 1.}I1\ j :'
i :' \
/. \
I \: i.!.+ \
•
'r
..,...
--
._
----
!----- A
j:
,
. ----
l: t
f: t
--.
••
, /.
/S - I.
\ /:"-- \;,IJ././ / '·· .·i\+!!
+'i-:-} V./tW! · "":":":-- ---- '
2 +----------- -------- ------ -',
.it
i
l
m ·
.) .,
i
t
2.5 +----+
.
., .'f-
..
.
--'ri-..
'
i
!
. .. .... . . . Farm
-F oreste -
- 51 ok
-
D1'IR
.'
_I
F-orest Sames
Figure L Preference ratings, by group.
.
All three groups gave high preference ratings to control scenes which were "natural" in
appearance, shoWing iittle human interventlon. Likewise, there was little difference in the
groups' ratings on scenes showing a very high degree of manipuiation, such as a clearcut: the
groups uniformly gave these types of scenes low ratings.
Where differences were found, they were typically for scenes where harvesting was
evident but where trees remained. Depending on the background and stance of the viewer, these
s c enes may be viewed as· "good implementations ofbarvesring technique" or as '·overly
manipulated landscapes." For instance,
a
scene depicting a group selection harvest along mth a
significant amount of woody debris was rated low by the Mountaineers and moderately high by
a scene which showed new growth in a patch cut but was marked
lines was also rated low by the MountaineerS and mode...'1rteiy high by the
the other 2 groups. Likewise,
by straight harve
other 2 groups.
. These results caution forestry professionals against assuming that otherS will react to
harvest practices the same way that they do. Results of the preliminary preference tests have
been shared thJ;ough presentatio ns to the DNR, other forestry professionals, and the academic
community.
3
53
tmtaineers
On-Site and
Aerial Photographs
Prior te harvestin g, a complete set of on-site p.hoto graphs were taken in July of 1 997 from
treatment-plot center markers on all plots established by PNW. An additional set of photographs
was taken following the harvests and f!om the same points on July 23 and Octobe r 1 , 1 9 9 8 .
Because th e study site is relatively fl at, aerial photographs (low-angle oblique) were
desiied that would simulate vieW'S as they might appear from across a small valley. Further, it
was desirable that these photos be taken from known points, permitting re-photo graphing at
various times in the future. The best option fod1ying to specific and repeatable photo points
appeared to be by using a helicopter with differential GPS, which corrects out the errors
intentionally introduces into standard civilian GPS by the Department ofDefense. Stephen
Reutebuch (PNVl) provided a computerized fiy-over of the study area, permitting us to define
desired photo points by x and y c o ordinates and ,altitude, and the photos were taken from a GPS­
equipped helicopter on Septem ber 1 4, 1998. Appendix B lists the helicopter photo points and
s ummarizes some ofthe challenges encountered in trying to obtain precise GPS locations.
FOREST PREFERENCE SD VEY
thiS s:uryey! The purpose of thiS research ' is to explore' how
difTerent fo rest man'agement p ractices. All answe:r:s Will be strictly c o nfidentiaL
Thank you fo r taking time to complete
p eople view
Please indicate how much you like each scene by circling the appropriate number b elow:
Not
1Il
1) ,
.
.
.
--.: v ri- - '
mlidl
.
4
1
2
:3
1
2
:3
1
z
:3
1
2
:3
"
1 "
2
3
.4
7)
1
:2
3
"
8)
1
:2
3
4 --
.
9)
1
2
3
S:
1 0)
1
4 .'
2
:3
4
5
11)
1
2
:3
4
5
12)
1
2
3
4
5
13)
1
:2
:3
4
5
1 4)
1
2
:3
4
5
1)
3) 4) ,
, 5)
6)
1 5)
S·
5
.
5
2
3'
4
5
2
3
4
5
11)
1
2
3
4
5
:2
3
4
5
, 19)
1
2
:3
4
5
20)
1
:2
3
"
5
21)
1
2
:3
4
5
1
2
3
"
5
23)
1
2
3
4"
5
2
1
2
:3
,4
5
2.5)
1
2
3
,4
5
26)
1
2
:3
4
5
27)
1
2
:3
4
5
2
:3
4
5
23)
.
.
_.- . .
.
.
.
"
.
..
.
-',
.
.
.
"
'
,
.
_
, ' _ . . . ..... ,
'.
5
..
1
22)
.
'4 ' "5 - "-:-'. . .
1 6)
1 8)
- --
'S
_4 . . 5 '
_. .
..
29)
1
2
3
4
5
30)
1
'2
:3
4
5
n
1
:2
:3
4
5
32)
1
2
:3
4'
5
. .
.
.
5'5
OVER -7
ts, please indicate the eJ:tent to which you agree or
ard to public fo
With
fo llowing stateD}ents.
Use the
S lT'oIl giy
D
StroogIy
' avec '
3
4
5
X
5
X
X
4
5
3
4
5
V'
."l..
, 1
2
3
4 ' 5
V'
A
1
2
2
3
5
5
1
1
2
J
4
.4
4
2
3
5
5
1
2
")
...,
...
2
...
"
I. , -
3
3
.., '
3
3
4
4
X
X
X
X
v
."l..
5
"
"
SarYl!sting timber is preferable to devel op in g the forest (e.g., housing
,
3
..,
4
4
5
3
3
4
4
5
5
3
4
5
c:�
erall eJ:perience d o you bave with
J
X
5
X
X
developments)
'
ForestS should be managed for visual quality
Forest management should b e based on human benefits
X
The way me forests are managed is out of my central' v
.r..
.,.;.
v
,
;.,
a gre:at deal
o{ aperi=c:e ,
5
5
2
2
3
3
4
4
-5 '
r
3
4
5
1
2
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
4
5
1
1
1
,2
'trongiy agre1:
interests of future generations, even ii it means forgoing shon-ta:n economic
5
4
2
=
, ,
4
4
1
5
Tunber harvesting js usually the best ;NaY to' enhance other multiple uses
Forests should be ma.naged for recreation use
It is im'portant to manage forests for local employment It is important to manage forests for environme:rtal quality
The forest is a public trust which shouLd be carefully managed to protect the
3
:J
1
•••
Management offo
is not n
ed T.ae hdth of forests would be berter if no cutting were'alloWed Timber harvesting is a ncce3SaIY part afforest :management
In managing forests, more 3Itemlon should be given to preserving nature for
its own sak'e ratherthan producing goods
TlIIlb er harvesting on fores-..s shoul be cresse:d
I
am interested in how forests are managed
I haven't thought much about forest management Use the following s cale: 1 = no experience
No
rlcna!
3 = neutral
returns
How much
I
4
.••
Don'tkno,., ,
L 2
1 2
2
I
'
1 2
.1
c
following scale: 1 '= strongiy disagree
disag e with 'the
3
5
Fores-..s in genera!
each of the following?
•••
3 = some
Conservation issues in general General forest management Forest economics Wildlife'and habitat Timber harvesting Forest recre:mon Forest aesthetics .••
5 = a great'deal of e p-erienc e
How comforta ble ";'ouId
I
vcry
=tomhlc 1
2
3
4
5 ,
1
1
21
3
3
4
4
5
5
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
S
1
2
3
4
S
1
2
1
be e..'t:piaining each of the following to a neighbor or friend?
Use the-foJIowing scale:
Not st .1..il
={oru.bk.
r
you
...
....
1.
1 ' 2
5
TIle problems
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
4
4
5
5
4
5
2
3
,'cry
cootldent
..
.
associated with ,tim.ber harvesting The impacts of timber harvesting on wiidlife The economic aspects oftimber harvesting The aesthetic aspects of timber harvesting What biodiversity is. Use the fallowing sc:de: 1
Not :i t ill
C1l n1".d c nt
. -.
The concept o "'forest health", How much confidence do you have in how
.
.. "
5
.
3 = 'Som ewhat ... 5 = very comfortable
Why an area might be cI
,
Why some areas of the forest are btim
" What a "selective cut' is Wbat " ecosystem ma..nagemd is How public fores-..s are managed
How private fures-..s are Ill.aIl2.ged '
4
3
3
1
...
4
4-
2
not .at s.ll comfortable
Why cutting of trees i done at aU
The benefits oftimber hax:vesting
4
1
=
5
S
3
3
3
3
1
=
not
each 'oftbe following grouP3' lrumages forests?
t all confident
•••
3 = somewhat
.••
5
=
very cllniident
Don't kilo",
Z
3
4
5
3
4
2
3
4
5
5
X
Washington Depat:tment ofNatural·Resources (DNR) 2
X
2
3
4
5
X
Llrge timber companies X
l
United StaLes Forest Servi9! S rnail landowners , OVER -7-
Ple.3!!e answ.er the following questions abou t yourself.
'
Sex: _M _
' F
Age: '_ less than,10
_'20:-29
_
"
30 39
_
.
-
"
,
-
4:0-49
5 0-59
,_
,_
,
60-69 _70+
'
_,_ "
_
.
' "
. ',
Mere o you live (nearest toym, state)? ___________________
How long have you been'at your current residence?
_
. _ less tban 1 Year _ 1 .5
6 1'0
1 1 15 .
.
'
How would y u describe where you currently live?
.
_
-
_
-
_
, '_
Suburban area
'
-
Rnral area,
'- ', -- ..
ye s
.
..
.
30
30+. years
-. .
Where yo grew up?
'7 - . :
, _
area-
-
':.
Small town
are3'. ' Other: ___________
________
_
�2
,
Suburban area Small t
Are you retired?
_
,
---- ---- ' .- ---.:...:.:.:.. Uman
Uman area
Other:
?:29
' .
_
. ,
.
no
Are you affiliated with any land management or enWonmen
organizations (if yes, p lease list)? _-:--__
_
\'Vhat type ofworic do you do (9r di you do)? _
_____-.;..._____________
_
Ifyou wori: (or woriced, ifr tired) outside the home
..• What is (or was) your primary place of emplo
ent?
________________
'
Wb.at is (or was) your jo b title ? _______________________
Please check the highest level of education you have obtained: .
__
__
_
, __
' __
Some high school
High school d egree
Some college
College degree Some graduate l evel srudi,es : Advanced degree
__
If you have an und
duate or adyan
degree, what area is it in? ____________
_
THANK yo:ur . 58
B i rd
s o n gs as an i nterp retive too l i n public ed ucati o n a n d evaluati o n of. fo rest
management alternatives Our objectives were to determine if bird calls and songs differed sufficiently betWeen treatments such
that they might be useful in:
(1 ) interpretive p rograms on forest management,
(2) pu blic evaluation of forest management alternatives, and
( 3) assessing the relative ecological value of forest management altematives.
The first step in
eeting these o bjectives was to gather and analyze bird community data:
We made 5 1 0 visits to 34 count station s and used a 40 meter fixed-radius point-count method to
estimate abu ndance and d iversity of forest bird commu nities in 6 treatment plots
We cou nted 1 070 birds representing 31 year-round resident species and 11 neo-tropical migrant
species; 90% were identified by song or call.
Total number of species ranged from 1 3 in the clear cut plot to 26 in the commercially thinned
plot.
.. Abundances among species were less evenly distributed (fewer s pecies comprised a majority of
the popu lation) in the clear
cut and two-age plots than in the group ,seleGt or commercially
.
th in ned plots.
Our resu lts s uggest differences in bird songs among treatments are large enough to be
perceived by the general public. For example, the g raph below illustrates that a person who
stops to listen for birds wou ld, on average, hear twice as many different species at a point in the
control plot than at a point in the patch cut plot (Fig. 1 .).
E arly response to treatments « 1 yr after harvest) included reduced bird abundance (assuming
the control stand is representative 0f pre-treatment conditions; Fig. 2) and changes in commun ity
composition . D ifferent species responded differently to treatments (Fig.3).
1 . 30 1 .20 II)
<l)
·u
<l)
a.
(J)
'0
t
.0
E
::I
Z
1.10
1 . 00
.90
.80
.70
.60
.50
Fig. 1 . Mean number of forest bird
species heard per point per day in 6
treatment plots, Blue Ridge study
area, Capitol Forest, Wash ington, from
1 2 Aprtl - 1 1 June, 1 999.
3.50
Fig. 2. Relative abundance (mean
number of birds per point per d ay) in 6
treatment plots, Blue Ridge study area,
Ca pitol Forest, Washington, from 12 April
to 1 1 June, 1999.
3.00
QJ
<.J
c:
<Il
:;
.0
-<
QJ
. :::
rn
Qi
a::
2.50
2.00
1 . 50
1 .00
1 .4
Fig . 3. Relative abundance (mean
number of birds per point per day) of
.Winter wrens and Orego n juncos, an
example of different species
demonstrating a different response to
treatments.
1 .2
Q)
u
c
CO
:J
.0
CO
Q)
.2:
ro
Qj
a::
-g
1 .0
.8
.6
.4
.2
Winter wren
[2] Oregon junco
0.0
60 Test of Laser Profiling System on the D "R 2nd Growth Harvesting Units
Cooperators :
Terry Curtis
Steve Reutebuch
PNW Research Station
Washington State DNR
Forest-Systems Engineering Cooperative
Resource Mapping Section
S eattle, Washington
Olympia, Washington
206-543 -47 1 0 F ax: 206-685-3 0 9 1
Email: sreutebu@u.washington.edu
Ph:
Ph:
360-902- 1 2 1 0
Email: terry.curtis@wadnr.gov
Joe Means
Paul Greenfield
OSU
USFS--RSAC
Geometronics S ervice Center
Corvallis, OR
Phone
UT
Ph: 801 -975-3662
541 -750-73 5 1 Fax 5 4 1 -7 5 0-7329
Salt Lake City,
meansj @ccmail. orst. edu
greenfield--'paul/woJsac@fs.fed.us
B ackground :
.
.
The above listed cooperators are interested in testing the accuracy of a new laser profiling system
for collecting detailed digital terrain models. The area on which the first installation of the
S ilvicultural Alternatives for Harvesting 2nd Growth would .be an ideal test area because it will
Within Sections 22 and 23,
T 1 6N, R4W , are located stands from about age 5 through. to 68. After the harvesting treaUllents
are completed in 1 998, there will also be a wide range of residual canopy conditions in the area
have a wide variety of canopy cover conditions and age classes.
(clearcut, moderate uniform thinning, 2-aged stand, large patch cuts, and small group selections,
along with a control area with no change in canopy closure.)
The new laser profiling system claims to have an elevational accuracy of less than 1 meter. It
also can be used to record either the ground level or the canopy level, which may make it useful
for some stand structure measurements. There are
2 maj or objectives of this study:
l --evaluate how well the laser mapping system works for producing ground level digital
The 2
(22 & 23) have everything from recent clearcuts to 70 year-old second growth forests.
elevation models (DEMs) under a wide variety o f forest canopy cover conditions.
section's
2--evaluate how well the laser mapping system characterizes forest canopy types.
acres of the area were logged during the spring/summer of
clearcut, some evenly thinned, some cut in patches, etc.
1 998 .
.
About
400
Some of the area was
By mapping both the ground and
canopy both b e fore and after the · lo gging, w e hope to ·discover correlations benveen the
canopy DBMs and the changes in forest canopy structure.
If successful, this type of work
could be a maj or use of the system in the future.
6(
08/09/99
Approach
The 2 sections were laser mapped at an agreed upon resolution (probably
the ground surface and a
a
10 m x 10 m
grid for
5 X 5 grid for the canopy Dfu\1) in the winter of 1 997-98 under leaf'-Off
conditions . The laser system does not work well over full-canopy hardwoods.
The same area was again laser mapped at the same resolution in the winter of
1998-99 after all
units were harvested. Both ground-level and canopy-top data were collected at both times. This
should allow us to see how well the system picked up changes in canopy conditions.
The laser mapping contractor supplied the post-processed DEM data georeferenced to
WGS-84
and ungridded, post-processed data points also in WGS-84.
The - area was also photo graphed with a standard aerial mapping camera with
scale o f 1 : 1 2 ,900
an
12" lens at a
in both 1 997 b efore harvest and again in 1 999 after all units were harvested.
The DNR Photogrammetry unit will construct a digital elevation modeJ of the
area
from the post­
harvest photos at the same resolution as the laser profile data.
An alyses :
The photogramm etrically derived DEM will be compared with the two ground-level laser­
derived DEMs to determine under what canopy conditions the laser system performs accurately.
In areas of dense canopy, the photogrammetric DEM may not be accurate; therefore, additional
ground points will be collected using ground survey methods after harvesting is completed.
The photogramm etric DEM will be subtracted from the pre-harvest laser canopy-level D EM to
get
an
estimate of canopy structure. This canopy structure information will then be compared to
ground inyentory data to see if any strong- correlations are present. This same procedure will be
£sing the post-harvest laser canopy-level DEM.
c6nducted
.
..
2
6 2..
08/09/99
Airborne laser mapped ground 20-ft contours for T l 6N,
Preharvest in
1998.
R4W, Sec. 22 & 23 through canopy.
Airborne laser mapped canopy surface (20-ft contours) for T l 6N,
Preharvest in
1 998.
3
R4W, Sec. 2 2 & 23 .
· 08/09/99
64