Costs of Landscape
Silviculture for Fire and
Habitat Management
Issue
Understanding how silvicultural
treatments affect various
landscape objectives in fireadapted ecosystems.
? Landscape Silviculture ?
Treatments applied to a stand but
evaluated collectively for many stands
over an entire area (aka a landscape)
Study Location
WA
MT
O
R
ID
W
Y
N
V UT
CO
CA
AZ
NM
ND
SD
National Silviculture Workshop
2001
Landscape Description
Fslscape.shp
10ofms
10secc
10seoc
10si
10ur
10yfms
11secc
11ur
11yfms
13secc
13seoc
13si
13ur
13yfms
18secc
(1:12,000 photo interpretation 1995)
N
Methods
•Simulate forest structure with FVS over 30 years
with and without treatments
•Optimize treatment schedules to evaluate
tradeoffs in FTR and LSF structure
0
•Evaluate effects of financial constraints on the two
landscape objectives
•Evaluate how wood removals contribute to
covering treatment costs
Stand Types
0.05%
cool/moist
TSHE
Ø
Ø
Vegetation
type
(0.07%)
(2.3%)
(1.83%)
Ø
Ø
(21%)
(0.25%)
Ø
cool/moist
ABLA
cool/moist
PSME/ABGR
warm/dry
PSME/ABGR
Ø
(2.3%)
Ø
(4.3%)
(0.3%)
Ø
Ø
(7.4%)
(2.3%)
(4.6 %)
(50%)
(2.3%)
SI
SEOC
SECC
UR
YFMS
Structure class
(3.4%)
OFMS
Data
Strata = 15
Simulation units = 330
Sample plots = 327
Owl sites = 6
(6070 hectares)
Landscape Trends- no Rx
90
80
% Gotchen reserve
70
LSF
highfire
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2001
2011
year
2021
Simulation (3 Rx, 30 yr)
ProtectRx
RestoreRx
ReduceRx
Optimization
1500 ac; mixed Rx,
some LSF
Tradeoffs
All ac; mixed Rx
FTR
FTR
1500 ac; mixed Rx
750 ac; mixed Rx
+
750 ha; 10” dbh Rx
No ac or Rx
+
LSF
LSF
17000
Finances
No LSF
Constraint
Total FTR
16500LSF
Constraint
16700 LSF
Constraint
17000 LSF
Constraint
Strict LSF
Constraint
None
$0
$0.5M
$1.0M
$1.45M
$1.5
+
Total LSF
+
Treatment Mixtures
no$ no null values
1600
1400
1200
unconstrained NPV
acres treated
1000
RestoreRx
800
ProtectRx
ReduceRx
600
Restore Rx
400
200
0
Decade1
Decade2
Decade3
time
0$ no null
700
Protect Rx
600
breakeven NPV
hectares treated
500
400
RestoreRx
ProtectRx
ReduceRx
300
200
100
0
Decade1
Decade2
Decade3
time
1.5M constraint no null values
1600
1400
1200
1000
RestoreRx
acres treated
$1.5 million NPV
ProtectRx
ReduceRx
800
600
400
200
0
Decade1
Decade2
time
Decade3
Reduce Rx
Trees “cut” (Breakeven NPV)
Diameter distribution (breakeven)
Number of trees cu
DF
GF
PP
LP
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
<7"
7-16"
2001
16-22"
<7"
7-16"
2011
16-22"
<7"
7-16"
2021
16-22"
Volume “harvested”
Volume by diameter class (breakeven)
breakeven
Thousand cubic fee
<7"
7-16"
16-22"
80
60
40
20
0
2001
2011
2021
Volume by diameter class (1M)
<7"
Thousand cubic fee
earn $1M
7-16"
16-22"
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2001
2011
2021
Tree diameter x age
DBH = -0.212 + 0.194 AGE
R2 = 0.66, MSE= 5.88, p < 0.0001
n= 579 (Abies grandis)
District Decision (ROD 2004)
Integrated Resource Contract
• Timber Sale + Stewardship Contract
Appraised timber value (lump-sum)
-haul costs, logging and road maintenance
-brush disposal (per/acre)
-K-V
=net value (minimum bid)
Implementation Headaches
•Bidder risk aversion
•Marking guidelines
•Per acre treatment costs
•Newness of contract and
appraisal process
•Stewardship projects tied to
appraisal value
Summary
•
Fire threat (FT) increased over 30 years
without treatment
•
Fire threat reduction (FTR) was more a
function of the number of acres treated
than it was a function of treating LSF
•
Increasing NPV requirements imposed
increasing costs on the reserve objectives
of FTR and LSF
•
In landscape treatments that generated
revenue to offset implementation costs
wood volume came mainly from 7-16”
grand fir
Summary
•
The potential conflict between owl habitat and fire
management in the Gotchen LSR was related to the
acreage goal for LSF structure (ca. 40%).
•
Approach could be used for other non-market objectives
that can be defined structurally
For more information:
Susan Stevens Hummel shummel@fs.fed.us
Cooperators: Drs. Jim Agee, Jamie Barbour, David
Calkin and the USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot
National Forest and Mt. Adams Ranger District
Landscape Planning