SIMPPLLE/MAGIS
Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis
Gila Reserve District
Joint Fire Sciences Project
9/22/03
Jimmie Chew
Greg Jones
Rebecca McFarlan
Robin Silverstein
Kirk Moeller
Chris Stalling
Janet Sullivan
Gila Reserve District JFS project includes 5 individual spreadsheets (one per scenario) and 1
comparison spreadsheet, which also includes the main graphics. The comparison spreadsheet
includes decade averages of the twenty simulations along with the standard deviation for
processes, vegetation, size-class, density, and fire suppression values (non-discounted). In
addition the comparison spreadsheet includes fire size values, total fire values, treatment values,
and treatment plus fire value graphics.
Four treatment scenarios within the Gila landscape were run using SIMPPLLE and MAGIS. In
addition to the four scenarios a “No Action” scenario was also run for comparison purposes.
Each scenario is represented by twenty simulations over five decades and was run with fire
suppression and no extreme fire probability.
Fuel treatment scenarios include the following acreage. Please note infeasible treatments of
Shelterwood-Seedcut are due to the treatment logic not allowing shelterwood-seedcut adjacent to
seedling sapling stands. This is a visual constraint that applies to any final harvest.
Table 1 – Treatments totals per scenario
SCENARIO 1
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Ecosystem-Management-Thin-Underburn
3173
0
0
0
286
3459
1%
Ecosystem-Management-Underburn
16811
19984
19984
19984
19984
19984
3%
Precommericial-Thinning
15602
0
15602
0
15602
15602
2.6%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
35586
19984
35586
19984
35872
39045
6.5%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
Sheterwood-Seedcut
Total
Infeasible Shelterwood-Seedcut
SCENARIO 2
% of Landscape
1
2
3
4
5
Total
% of Landscape
Ecosystem-Management-Thin-Underburn
2560
0
0
0
4563
7123
1%
Ecosystem-Management-Underburn
17419
19979
19979
19979
19979
19970
3%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
9991
9757
9404
9606
9372
48130
29970
29736
29383
29585
33914
75223
12.5%
Infeasible Shelterwood-Seedcut
0
253
571
379
642
1845
0%
SCENARIO 3
1
2
3
4
5
Total
% of Landscape
Ecosystem-Management-Thin-Underburn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
Ecosystem-Management-Underburn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
15602
0
15602
0
15602
15602
0
0
0
0
0
0
15602
0
15602
0
15602
15602
0
0
0
0
0
0
Precommericial-Thinning
Sheterwood-Seedcut
Total
Precommericial-Thinning
Sheterwood-Seedcut
Total
Infeasible Shelterwood-Seedcut
2.6%
0%
2.6%
SIMPPLLE/MAGIS - Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis - Gila Reserve District
2
0%
SCENARIO 4
1
2
3
4
5
Total
% of Landscape
Ecosystem-Management-Thin-Underburn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
Ecosystem-Management-Underburn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
Precommericial-Thinning
Sheterwood-Seedcut
Total
Infeasible Shelterwood-Seedcut
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
9948
9797
9300
9485
9496
48026
8%
9948
9797
9300
9485
9496
48026
8%
0
224
696
539
527
1986
0%
Except for the Shelterwood cuts, the other treatments repeat on the same acres across decades.
Thus the “Total” in Table 1 is not a sum across all decades.
Each fuel treatment scenario utilized areas of risk within the Gila Reserve District landscape, that
were developed from No-Action SIMPPLLE simulations. Risk is an interpretation of mixed
severity fire within the wildland urban interface (wui) and the wildlife zones. Mixed severity fire
was used instead of stand replacing fire due to most of the tree species being in the moderate
resistant category to fire impacts. The risk of mixed severity fire was adjusted for zones
depending on the scenario. For scenario 1, wui zones were given a value of 100 plus the risk
value (1 to 50) and owl and goshawk zones were given a value of 50 plus the risk value. This
allowed for risk in wui zones having highest priority and the wildlife zones next highest. For
Scenario 2, only wui zones were given an extra 100. For scenario 3, only goshawk or owl
wildlife zones were given an extra 50 and both goshawk and owl zones were given an extra 100.
Scenario 4 involved only the risk values. MAGIS then assigned treatments based on minimizing
the adjusted risk values.
Figure 1 – Gila Reserve District Risk Map based on mixed severity fire
SIMPPLLE/MAGIS - Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis - Gila Reserve District
3
SIMPPLLE/MAGIS - Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis - Gila Reserve District
4
TOTAL LANDSCAPE RESULTS:
Processes:
The analysis indicates that treatment scenarios did not significantly alter the total fire acreage
from the no action alternative on the current landscape. Figure 2 shows the average stand
replacing fire for 20 simulations over five decades. Figure 3 shows the averages by fire type per
scenario. Scenario 3 represents the lowest acreage, 209,454 acres, and scenario 1 represents the
highest value, 298,430 acres. Figure 4 shows the percentage by type of fire.
Figure 2 – Average stand replacing fire over 5 decades per scenario
Gila - Stand Replacing Fire
Averages for Five Decades
100000
Acres
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1
NA
2
SCN1
3
De cade
SCN2
4
SCN3
5
SCN4
Figure 3 – Total fire acreage per fire type
Gi la - To t a l F i re o v e r F i f t y Y e a rs
3 50 0 0 0
300000
2 50 0 0 0
S RF
200000
MSF
15 0 0 0 0
LS F
10 0 0 0 0
50 0 0 0
0
NA
S CN1
S CN2
S CN3
S CN4
SIMPPLLE/MAGIS - Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis - Gila Reserve District
5
Figure 4 – Total fire acreageby percent of fire type
G il a - P e rc e nt a g e o f F i re f o r F i f t y Y e a rs
10 0 %
90%
80%
70 %
60%
S RF
50 %
MSF
40%
LS F
30%
20%
10 %
0%
NA
S CN1
S CN2
S CN3
S CN4
Although fire acreage totals did not show a considerable difference fire size classes depicted a
change from one scenario to the next particularly in the 10 to 99, 100 to 299, and 1000+ acre
fires as seen in Table 2 and the following three graphs.
Table 2 – Fire size class totals over 5 decades
5 DECADE TOTALS - FIRE SIZE CLASSES
0 to 0.25
0.26 to 9
10 to 99
1297
71
804
NA
1298
70
708
SCN1
1339
75
723
SCN2
1294
78
792
SCN3
1310
58
705
SCN4
100 to 299 300 to 999
37
87
29
70
37
88
19
85
42
97
1000+
119
117
112
103
129
Figure 5 – Total fires in the 1000+ fire size class over 5 decades
Gila - Total Fires for 5 Decades
in the 1000+ Acre Class
140
120
100
80
1000+
60
40
20
0
NA
SCN1
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SIMPPLLE/MAGIS - Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis - Gila Reserve District
6
Figure 6 – Total fires in the 100-299 acre fire size class over 5 decades
Gila - Total Fires for 5 Decades
in the 100 - 299 Acre Class
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
100 to 299
NA
SCN1
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
Figure 7 – Total fires in the 10-99 acre fire size class over 5 decades
Gila - Total Fires for 5 Decades
in the 10 - 99 Acre Class
900
850
800
750
10 to 99
700
650
600
NA
SCN1
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
Scenario 3 although it treats the smallest percent of the landscape does display a drop in number
of fires in the largest three fire size classes. However it seems to come with an increase in ¼
acre to 100 acre fire size classes. Corresponding changes in fire suppression costs are not seen.
This is probably due to the limitations we currently have in the way we capture fire suppression
costs, figure 8.
SIMPPLLE/MAGIS - Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis - Gila Reserve District
7
Figure 8 – Non-discounted suppression cost averages per scenario
Gila - Total Fire Suppression Cost over 5 Decades
$30
$25
Millions
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
NA
SCN1
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
Probability maps of the entire district and a closer look at areas where treatments were done can
be used to show a difference in both types of fire and their probabilities.
SIMPPLLE/MAGIS - Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis - Gila Reserve District
8
Figure 9 - No Action stand replacing fire probability and closeup area
SIMPPLLE/MAGIS - Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis - Gila Reserve District
9
Figure 10– Scenario 2 stand replacing fire probability and closeup area
SIMPPLLE/MAGIS - Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis - Gila Reserve District
10
Figures 9 and 10 are typical of the results of this analysis. We see very little difference in fire
probabilities between all the scenarios. Part of the reason for seeing no difference can be the
impact that fire suppression has within SIMPPLLE. Fire suppression is equally effective within
all the scenarios. The only way one would see a difference is if acres of a vegetative type was
changed so that instead of getting SRF it would get either MSF or LSF. Most of the treatments
applied in these scenarios did not make that type of difference or they were applied to a cover
type that would get MSF or LSF even without the treatment. The lack of a difference in
vegetation change was due in part to the limitations of the starting inventory. The stands thinned
and underburn or just underburned did not show any understories to begin with that the treatment
removed. However, to try and quantify the changes in fire activity that are the result of making
changes in the vegetation pattern we ran another series of simulations with SIMPPLLE. The
Gila Reserve District with the vegetation represented as the result of five decades of applying
treatments for each scenario was used as a starting point. Single decade simulations were made
without fire suppression to get the maximum impact of how the changed landscape would
respond to fire. Analysis of this set of twenty, one-decade simulations for each scenario also
showed no significant differences between scenarios.
This result is consistent with analysis in other landscapes in other geographic areas. In order to
see a difference at the landscape scale a very large percent of the landscape must be treated. The
cumulated acres treated over the five decades as shown in Table 1 represent a very minor part of
the landscape.
The following figures are from the simulations without fire suppression after the treatments have
been made. Depending on the scale of the y-axis, the figures can display a difference in total
fire., Compare figure 11 with figure 12 and figure 13 with figure 14.
Figure 11 – Post treatment total fire averages for 1 decade without fire suppression
Gila - Total Fire Post Treatment over 1 Decade without Fire
Suppression
600000
500000
Acreage
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
NA
SCN1
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
Figure 12 – Post treatment total fire averages for 1 decade without fire suppression – enhanced scale
SIMPPLLE/MAGIS - Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis - Gila Reserve District
11
Gila - Total Fire Post Treatment over 1 Decade without Fire
Suppression
558500
558000
Acreage
557500
557000
556500
556000
555500
555000
NA
SCN1
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
Figure 13 – Post treatment total stand replacing fire averages for 1 decade without fire suppression
Acres
Gila - Post Treatment over 1 Decade without Fire Suppression
Stand Replacing Fire Acreage
200000
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
NA
SCN1
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
Figure 14 – Post treatment total fire averages for 1 decade without fire suppression – enhanced scale
Gila - Post Treatment over 1 Decade without Fire Suppression
Stand Replacing Fire Acreage
190000
189000
Acres
188000
187000
186000
185000
184000
183000
182000
NA
SCN1
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SIMPPLLE/MAGIS - Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis - Gila Reserve District
12
The probability maps created with no fire suppression look somewhat different from the maps
with fire suppression since most of the area does have a high probability, thus a dark color.
Looking at an area in the proximity of treatments (figure 16) and comparing the same are from
no action (figure 15) does display areas with a small change in the probability of total fire.
Figure 15 – No Action total fire probability 1 decade post treatments and closeup area
SIMPPLLE/MAGIS - Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis - Gila Reserve District
13
SIMPPLLE/MAGIS - Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis - Gila Reserve District
14
Figure 16 – Scenario 2, 1 decade post treatment total fire probability and closeup area
SIMPPLLE/MAGIS - Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis - Gila Reserve District
15
The following series of graphs display very little difference between alternatives for changes in
vegetation attributes. As discussed earlier, this is due to a number of reasons; the type of cover
types the treatments were assigned to and the starting inventory descriptions. The types of
treatments and the types of plant communities they are applied to do not result in very significant
changes. The shelterwood-seedcut is the most significant changing to seedling-sapling
structutes. The increase in poles shown in Figure 19 is a result of this increase to seedlingsapling.
Structure is not described in any of the initial plant communities. We are thinning and
underburning many stands, which implies that understories do exist. However the description
that SIMPPLLE has to work with before and after a treatment is the same. Type of fire and fire
spread in SIMPPLLE is dependent upon logic that uses structure information that is not in the
initial inventory.
Vegetation:
Figure 17 – Pinyon Juniper averages over 5 decades per scenario
Gila - Pinyon Juniper
Averages for Five Decades
260000
Acres
250000
240000
230000
220000
210000
200000
0
1
2
3
4
5
Decade
NA
SCN1
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SIMPPLLE/MAGIS - Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis - Gila Reserve District
16
Figure 18 – Douglas fir averages over 5 decades per scenario
Acres
Gila - Douglas-fir
Averages for Five Decades
34600
34400
34200
34000
33800
33600
33400
33200
33000
0
1
2
3
4
5
Decade
NA
SCN1
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
Figure 19 – Grass averages over 5 decades per scenario
Gila - Grass
Averages for Five Decades
100000
Acres
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
De cade
NA
SCN1
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
Size-class:
SIMPPLLE/MAGIS - Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis - Gila Reserve District
17
Figure 19 – Pole averages over 5 decades per scenario
Gila - Pole
Averages for Five Decades
80000
70000
Acres
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Decade
NA
SCN1
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
Density:
Figure 20 – Density 2 (15-39% Canopy Cover) averages per scenario
Gila - Density 2
Averages for Five Decades
460000
Acres
440000
420000
400000
380000
360000
340000
0
1
2
3
4
5
Decade
NA
SCN1
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
WILDLIFE AND WUI ZONE RESULTS :
The fuel treatment scenarios were set up to compare treating for wildlife, for wui and general
logging. Scenario 1 treated both wildlife and wui zones. Scenario 2 treated wildlife zones with
general logging. Scenario 3 treated wui zones only. Finally, scenario 4 only had general
logging.
SIMPPLLE/MAGIS - Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis - Gila Reserve District
18
Wui zone
Scenarios 1 and 3 applied precommercial-thinning treatments in wui zones. The treatments did
not affect the acres of stand replacing fires in the wui. Figure 21 shows the average acres of
stand replacing fire per decade across twenty simulations in wui zones for all scenarios.
Scenarios 1 and 2 do appear to show a reduction in the acres of stand replacing fire, but the
differences are not significant.
Figure 21. Acres of stand replacing fire in wui zone.
acres of stand
replacing fire
5500
5450
5400
5350
5300
5250
no
action
1
2
3
4
scenario
Wildlife zones
Scenarios 1 and 2 were designed to apply fuel treatments to the wildlife zones of Mexican
spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) PACs (protected activity centers) and northern goshawk
(Accipiter gentiles atricapillus) foraging areas. The treatments included ecosystemmanagement-underburn in wildlife zones where density was low and ecosystem-managementthin-and-underburn in wildlife zones where density was high and size class was not very-large
(old growth). The results of applying these fuel treatments in all scenarios did not significantly
affect the average acres of stand replacing fires.
SIMPPLLE/MAGIS - Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis - Gila Reserve District
19
Figure 22. Acres of stand replacing fire in the goshawk zone.
acres of stand
replacing fire
Goshawk zone
820
815
810
805
800
795
790
785
no
action
1
2
scenario
3
4
In the owl zone, scenario 2 showed a 9% increase in stand replacing fire (Figure 23) and
scenario 4 also showed an increase of 5% . These differences although they may be within the
range of variability of the simulations, are associated with the type of treatment applied. The
shelterwood seed cut, even though the seed trees were not removed, converted the stands into a
seedling / sapling size class. If a fire event occurs within this size class it is a stand replacing fire
event. The original pre harvest stand as described by the inventory would have gotten only a
mixed severity fire. Until the harvest stands grow beyond the seedling / sapling size this increase
in stand replacing fire would not be unexpected.
Figure 23. Acres of stand replacing fire in the owl zone.
acres of stand
replacing fire
Owl zone
470
460
450
440
430
420
410
400
no
action
1
2
3
4
scenario
SIMPPLLE/MAGIS - Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis - Gila Reserve District
20