SIMULATING THE IMPACT OF AREA
BURNED ON GOALS FOR SUSTAINABLE
FOREST MANAGEMENT
Original work
presented at
Jimmie Chew, RMRS
Christine Stalling, RMRS
Barry Bollenbacher, Region One
OBJECTIVES:
ORIGINAL:
Display an approach to examine assumptions for the level
of hectares that will be burned by wildfire over a planning
horizon.
OBJECTIVES:
CURRENT:
An approach to examine the concept of sustainability for
a number of resources. An approach that can also provide
input; levels of constraints, goals, and desired future
conditions that can be used within other models.
(SPECTRUM, MAGIS)
An approach to help quantify the level of resources and
the desired future conditions, that can be set as realistic
goals for sustainable management.
An approach that is spatially explicit and incorporates the
occurrence of disturbance processes.
The following slides help to stress the need to include
these two components.
On a total of 3,520,779 hectares
of land allocated to the production
of forest products, the following
has burned in wildfires from
2000 - 2003
Northern Rocky Mountains- Forest Service Totals
Number of
plantations
2,044
Hectares of fire Total hectares
within plantations of production
lands with fire
21,531
243,135
Custer National Forest – Sioux Ranger District
Loss of 90 percent
of forest stands
from the two fires
Recorded hectares of wildfire for
the Bitterroot National Forest
200000
hectares
160000
120000
80000
40000
0
1870
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
decade
9
10 11 12 132000
14
Recorded hectares of wildfire for
the Bitterroot National Forest
The period of 50s through 90s is being referred to
as an unusual cool and moist period.
hectares
200000
Do we use the disturbance process behavior associated
with
this period as the basis in future planning?
160000
120000
80000
40000
0
1870
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
decade
9
10 11 12 132000
14
1950
1990
Recorded hectares of wildfire for
the Bitterroot National Forest
200000
hectares
160000
120000
80000
Or do we plan 40000
using behavior that may be
associated with cycles of drought?
0
1870
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
decade
9
10 11 12 132000
14
2000 +
Approach
Apply a spatially explicit, stochastic, landscape level simulation model using
different assumptions on the frequency of drought cycles and the probability
of extreme fire behavior.
May not what this part?
Compare differences in:
- vegetation inventories, harvest and economic benefits on lands
allocated for timber production
- hectares of insect and disease activity
- fire suppression costs by level of treatments
- potential watershed impact - hectares burned within drainages
- potential for old growth vegetation conditions
- hectares of stand replacing fire within a wildland urban interface
Above just an example of “indicators”
The model:
SIMulating
Patterns and
Processes at
Landscape
scaLEs
Chew, Stalling, and Moeller 2004. Integrating Knowledge for Simulating
Vegetation Change at Landscape Scales. West. J. Appl.For. 19(1)
Simulations used in this analysis
Simulation
label
time
Six different
types of
simulations
No
change
Regional
climate
Two
levels
Probability of
Extreme fire
Treatment
level
Three
levels
Three
levels
For other analyses can drop
Simulation
label
time
? different
types of
simulations
Regional
climate
Two
levels
No
change
Probability of
Extreme fire
Treatment
level
Three
levels
?
levels
Increased insect
Alternatives ?
disease ?
Or add / change
Simulation
label
time
? different
types of
simulations
Regional
climate
Two
levels
No
change
Probability of
Extreme fire
Treatment
level
Three
levels
?
levels
For the original work we utilized SIMPPLLE output
to look at the following indicators of sustainability:
Long term Sustained Yield of Forest Products
Water Quality
Biological Diversity – Old Growth
Protection of Structures
This should serve as an example of how SIMPPLLE output
could potentially be utilized to address a number of indicators
Long term sustained yield of Forest Products
from lands managed for timber production
87,080 hectares
Current forest inventory:
Size class
Seedling/sapling
Total Bitterroot
hectares (638,194)
Managed for products
hectares (87,080)
58,682
18,309
Pole
224,130
22,708
Medium
287,191
41,395
Large
48,248
2,862
Very-large
19,943
1,806
Assumptions made for quantifying
potential harvest levels on lands managed
for timber products:
Acres of large and very-large size classes available
for harvest at a rate of 1 percent per year while
accommodating other resource values
Average yield of 57 cubic meters per hectare
100%
80%
70%
very-large
60%
50%
large
40%
pole
30%
ss
medium
20%
10%
simulation decade
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
0%
1
percent of suitable land
90%
Assumptions made for quantifying
potential harvest levels on lands managed
for timber products:
The resulting inventory as impacted by disturbances could
be the basis for input into SPECTRUM, or without using
another model a spreadsheet approach linking volumes (yield
tables) to the inventory could be used for deriving timber volumes.
100%
80%
70%
very-large
60%
50%
large
40%
pole
30%
ss
medium
20%
10%
simulation decade
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
0%
1
percent of suitable land
90%
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
50s-90s
2000+ cycles
2000+ cycles 5%
decade
29
25
21
17
13
9
5
2000+ cycles 10%
1
cubic meters
Non declining potential harvest levels based available
inventories from the simulations (difference based on
whatever changes one wants in the simulations instead of
what is shown in the below legend)
Treatments consist of underburning, thinning and
underburning and regeneration harvest.
Yearly treatments for two levels (treatment levels can be those that
represent a range of alternatives, investments, etc.)
60000
hectares
50000
40000
burning
30000
thinning and burning
regeneration harvest
20000
10000
0
current
increased
Locations of accumulated treatments
first 100 years – current
level of treatments
Treatments are applied
spatially within SIMPPLLE, priorities
can be set for areas, vegetation
conditions, and disturbance process
probabilities
Decade average simulated hectares of fire
over a 300 year planning period.
Two levels of treatments
Quantify the impact mgt can have on disturbance
100000
processes
hectares
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
18702002
50s 90s
2000 + 2000+ 2000+ current
cycles cycles cycles
- 5% - 10%
May or may not have different assumptions
about disturbance processes
upper
Simulated insect and disease activity –
total hectares over the 300 year planning period
With treatments
200000
hectares
160000
120000
80000
40000
0
normal
warm
dry
warm
dry 5%
wd-10
wd-10curr
wd-10-ul
Includes root disease, mountain pine beetle, western
spruce budworm,
Assumptions in Economic
Analysis
• Analysis based on today’s dollars
• Costs were not discounted
• No expected change in technology
A more detailed analysis could be linked to the
SIMPPLLE output
Millions
*Direct economic effects for each combination of climate,
extreme fire probability, and treatment variables
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
30 Years
$1.50
200 Years
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
50s - 90s
Warm Dry + 10% extreme
prob, no trt
Warm Dry + 10% ext.
prob., current fuels
Warm Dry + 10% ext.
prob., upper limit fuels
*Direct income effects specific to sawmills are the calculated income dollars
based on timber volumes entering the system.
Millions
*Indirect/induced economic effects for each combination
of climate, extreme fire probability, and treatment
variables
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
30 Years
$1.50
200 Years
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
50s - 90s
Warm Dry + 10% extreme
prob, no trt
Warm Dry + 10% ext.
prob., current fuels
Warm Dry + 10% ext.
prob., upper limit fuels
*Indirect/induced effects are dollars generated as a function of an operating
sawmill such as building maintenance.
Comparison of direct and indirect benefits at decade 20
Decade
average
hectares
of fire
Percent
decrease
in fire
2000+
93,350
Cycles – 10%
2000+
Cycles –10%
Current
83,995
2000+
69,186
Cycles – 10%
Increased
Direct
benefit in
dollars
Percent
change
1,471,659
Indirect
benefit in
dollars
Percent
change
1,517,207
- 10
1,788,346
+22
1,843,695
+22
-26
1,918,746
+23
1,978,131
+30
Increases in benefits from volumes harvest on suitable lands over
no treatments does not equal or exceed the treatment costs.
Total
benefits in
dollars
Treatment
costs in
dollars
Difference in
decade
benefits
2000+
Cycles – 10%
2,988,866
2000+
Cycles – 10%
current
3,632,062
2,045,960
634,196
2000+
Cycles – 10%
increased
3,896,900
16,556,300
908,034
Treatment costs are only for the burning and thinning over the whole forest.
Benefits from harvest volume are only from the land managed for timber production.
Decade average for simulated fire suppression costs
over the 300 year planning period by level of treatments.
13000000
dollars
12500000
12000000
11500000
no treatments
current
upper level
Simulated fire suppression costs of no treatments
and two levels of treatments
25000000
no treatments
15000000
current
10000000
upper level
5000000
decade
29
25
21
17
13
9
5
0
1
dollars
20000000
Fire suppression costs of two levels of treatments
25000000
no treatments
15000000
current
10000000
upper level
5000000
29
25
21
17
13
9
5
0
1
dollars
20000000
decade
In between years of extreme fire
conditions, increased treatments tend
to lower fire suppression costs
Fire suppression costs of two levels of treatments
25000000
no treatments
15000000
current
decade
29
25
21
17
5
0
13
5000000
9
upper level
In years of extreme fire
increased treatments do not
always lower fire suppression costs
10000000
1
dollars
20000000
Potential for Watershed Damage
Percent of decades from the 300 year
simulations where the percent of watersheds
in stand replacing fire is greater
than 10 percent
30
percent
25
20
15
10
5
0
2000+ cycles - 10% current treatments
increased
treatments
Potential for Watershed Damage
30
2000+ for regional climate in
cycles – no treatments
percent
25
20
15
10
5
0
2000+ cycles - 10%
current treatments
increased treatments
Number of decades where
stand replacing fire is
greater than 10 percent
of drainage
Potential for Watershed Damage
30
2000+ for regional climate in
cycles – current level of
treatments
percent
25
20
15
10
5
0
2000+ cycles - 10% current treatments
increased
treatments
Number of decades where
stand replacing fire is
greater than 10 percent
of drainage
Potential for Watershed Damage
2000+ for regional climate in
cycles – increased level of
treatments
30
percent
25
20
15
10
5
0
2000+ cycles - 10%
current treatments
increased treatments
Number of decades where
stand replacing fire is
greater than 10 percent
of drainage
Biological Diversity – potential old growth
percent of total landscape
Percent of total landscape in size-classes that
are potential old growth
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2000 +
current
increased
1
4
7
10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31
decade
2000 +
4
3
current
increased
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
7
10
4
2
1
0
1
percent of total landscape
Biological Diversity – potential old growth
8
7
6
5
decade
Number of decades where
potential old growth is
greater than 7 percent
of drainage
Can be displayed by
watersheds
no treatments
2000 +
4
3
current
increased
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
7
10
4
2
1
0
1
percent of total landscape
Biological Diversity – potential old growth
8
7
6
5
decade
Number of decades where
potential old growth is
greater than 7 percent
of drainage
Current level of treatments
2000 +
4
3
current
increased
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
7
10
4
2
1
0
1
percent of total landscape
Biological Diversity – potential old growth
8
7
6
5
decade
Number of decades where
potential old growth is
greater than 7 percent
of drainage
Increased level of treatments
Protection of structures:
Hectares that have a probability of stand replacing fire greater
than zero within the wildland urban interface in the Bitterroot
Face portion of the landscape
2500
hectares
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2000+
2000+ current
treatments
2000+ increased
treatments
For any other analysis using SIMPPLLE to address sustainability of
resources the following items may apply - depends on the specifics
of the analysis objectives.
Additional analysis needed:
-Additional spatial fitting of fuel treatments with SIMPPLLE
is needed.
-Remake the simulations letting the system schedule
harvest on suitable lands by watersheds (add scheduling
constraints by watershed).
-Test the assumption of 10 % level of harvest per decade.
-Do we include the non-market values for resources other
than forest products?
-Do we try to take into account the impacts and costs
of the infrastructure that goes with each treatment
level?
-Do we include looking at the use of wildland fire as
a treatment option?