Hazardous Fuels and Vegetation Treatment Processes and Tools
Under Development by R5, PNW Research Station and RM Research Station
OUTLINE FOR DOCUMENTATION OF MODELS/TOOLS
1. Tool Name : My Fuel Treatment Planner (MyFTP)
2. Brief Description of Tool : MyFTP calculates and presents cost and revenue information on fuel
treatment scenarios. The target audience includes District and Forest level staff and their counterparts
in the BLM who often have little background in timber management or sales. Those familiar with
timber sale planning might find the tool a useful first step in the planning process. It is designed to
deal with a limited set of scenarios and requires little resource background and minimal data. Default
values are presented for many of the data items.
3. Scale Tool is Applicable: MyFTP is intended for use at the project or stand scale but it could also be
used at the landscape and broad scale to analyze typical or average conditions.
4. Analyst Requirement: A low level of analyst support is required to use this tool.
5. Data Inputs: MyFTP requires two pieces of input data 1) a cut tree list (from a stand exam or
imported from FVS after the import utility is developed) and 2) product (log and chip) prices, which
are available from the R6 Natural Resources website. The analyst also provides information on what
is to be done with the cut trees – logs, chips, unutilized; slope, unit size, skidding/yarding distance,
pretreatment fuel load, minimum top for utilized trees, log prices and a few other optional items.
6. Model Outputs: The analyst creates a scenario then visits the various calculators within the model
that are relevant to the scenario to complete the analysis: 1) harvesting cost, 2) hauling cost, 3)
mastication cost, 4) prescribed fire, and economic impacts on local economies.
7. Application of Model for Fuel Treatment work: The model is intended for the early stages of
project planning and stimulating discussion within ID teams about what is and is not feasible given
available budgets.
8. Linkage to Other Models/Tools: MyFTP will import data from FVS
9. Partners: PNW Research Station, Southern Research Station, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
WO Fire and Aviation Management.
10. Current Status: MyFTP is in the beta testing phase and should be available for general use by the
end of FY04.
11. Training Availability: Training will be made available to interested parties during FY05 through an
enterprise team.
12. Tool Contact: Roger Fight
Disclaimer: The views in this report (presentation) are these of the author(s) do no necessarily represent the views of the
Forest Service.
13. Example of Model/Tool Application:
Summary output from My Fuel Treatment Planner is organized to focus on two key issues of interest to
fuel treatment planners. On the left of lines 12-21 potential costs and revenues of a fuel reduction
treatment are summarized. On the right of those same lines the biomass of cut trees is accounted for to
show the effect of the treatment on fuel loading. In the lower left corner the net revenue and log volume
are shown for a treatment area of 250 acres.
The upper part of the figure shows where the data came from within the model to produce the results in
the lower part of the figure. Within the application the buttons at the top can be clicked to go back to the
area where these inputs were entered. This allows the user to review results, go back to review and
modify the input data, and then return to the summary results to see the effect of the new input data on the
results.
Disclaimer: The views in this report (presentation) are these of the author(s) do no necessarily represent the views of the
Forest Service.
OUTLINE FOR DOCUMENTATION OF MODELS/TOOLS
1. Tool Name : VERSTRA (Valuation of Ecosystem Restoration STRAtegies)
2. Brief Description of Tool : VERSTRA was designed to read FVS cut tree lists associated with a
given management scenario and determine their product potential. The gross value of products is then
merged with information on individual polygons to derive access and net value or cost of an operation
(gross product value – logging costs – hauling costs). Another version of VERSTRA assigns a cut tree
list to management activities imposed by the state-transition model VDDT, then similarly determines
the net value of potential products and the logging and hauling costs associated with utilizing the
removed material. Both versions produce an output file with indices of accessibility, product
potential, revenue potential and an integrated utilization index that can be displayed visually on a GIS.
3. Scale Tool is Applicable: VERSTRA was designed to help assess landscape implications of
management activities and policies on the scale of 100,000-500,000-ac watersheds, although smaller
and larger areas could also be accommodated.
4. Analyst Requirement: Analytical requirements for VERSTRA are low. The user simply specifies an
input file that must be in FVS format and the output file that the polygon-level information will be
written to.
5. Data Inputs: The user must provide a cut tree list in FVS format. Other data are stored in text files,
but can be changed by the user to account for local differences in log prices, logging costs, hauling
costs, and stem taper.
6. Model Outputs: For each polygon within the study area, VERSTRA writes a line containing the
polygon number, CVS plot number representing the polygon, total cubic volume, total chip log
volume, board foot volume, gross revenue, and net revenue.
7. Application of Model for Fuel Treatment work: The primary application of the model is to assess
the cost or revenue associated with treatments allocated on a subject landscape. These treatments can
be fuels treatments, stand density reductions, timber harvest, or any other activity that involves
removal of trees.
8. Linkage to Other Models/Tools: VERSTRA was designed to be an integral part of LVS (Landscape
Visualization System) developed as part of INLAS (Inland Northwest Landscape Analysis System). It
also links to FVS and VDDT/TELSA if tree lists can be generated.
9. Partners: Oregon State University and the Pacific Northwest Research Station.
10. Current Status: The model is currently being tested in the context of both LVS and VDDT/TELSA.
11. Training Availability: No training currently planned, but user’s manual will be produced.
12. Tool Contact: Doug Maguire, Forest Science, Oregon State University;
doug.Maguire@oregonstate.edu; 541-737-4215.
13. Example of Model/Tool Application:
Disclaimer: The views in this report (presentation) are these of the author(s) do no necessarily represent the views of the
Forest Service.
VERSTRA LOGIC MODEL
Polygon
vegetation type
Forest?
NO
Non-forest
YES
Tree list for
each polygon
Utilizable
material?
NO
No utilization
potential
YES
Utilization
prohibited
YES
Limited utilization
potential
YES
Administrative
classification
Administrative
restriction?
NO
Terrain and soils
information
Operational
restrictions?
NO
Strong utilization
potential
VERSTRA SAMPLE OUTPUTS
Disclaimer: The views in this report (presentation) are these of the author(s) do no necessarily represent the views of the
Forest Service.
Hazardous Fuels and Vegetation Treatment Processes and Tools
Under Development by R5, PNW Research Station and RM Research Station
OUTLINE FOR DOCUMENTATION OF MODELS/TOOLS
14. Tool Name : FIA BioSum
15. Brief Description of Tool : This framework, which combines and integrates publicly available, offthe-shelf models like the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS), the Fire and Fuels Extension (FFE), and
STHARVEST, with forest inventory plot data and digital representations of road networks to facilitate
simulation of landscape-scale implementation of a wide range of fuel treatments, the costs of
implementation, the fire hazard reduction achieved, the mix of merchantable and non-merchantable
sized wood products that would be generated by fuel treatments, and helps identify “hot spots” of
potential accumulation of woody material that could merit consideration as sites for constructing
processing facilities. Nearly any objective function and constraint set can be specified to analyze fuel
treatment feasibility from nearly any perspective. Results are an unbiased representation of the fuel
reduction opportunities, costs and yields for entire forested landscape, thanks to the reliance on FIA
plots, which are a statistically representative sample of all forest types and conditions on all
ownerships.
16. Scale Tool is Applicable: Broad-scale, forested landscapes on the order of 10,000 square miles and
larger.
17. Analyst Requirement: A high level of analyst sophistication and experience is required to utilize the
current (circa May 2004) version of this tool; efforts are underway to make it accessible to mid-level
analysts. Even then, users will need to be familiar with generating prescriptions in FVS, interpreting
outputs from FFE, and (optionally) carrying out standard geoprocessing activities with Arc/Info via
execution of AMLs in Grid and Arc environments if detailed, realistic representation of haul costs is
desired.
18. Data Inputs: 1) Standard FIA inventory plot, condition and tree data, including at least fuzzed plot
locations. 2) A complete road network for the study area (precise connectivity not required) attributed
with road speed classes (3-5 classes are sufficient). 3) Land ownership/designation/status GIS layers
and decision rules that determine which acres may be treated, which areas can host processing
facilities, and over which areas fuel treatment yields may be transported. 4) A set of standardized fuel
treatments that can be broadly applied, within the FVS framework; these can vary by forest type. 5)
Either a set of potential processing sites at which biomass or merchantable wood processing facilities
may be considered for construction or a set of rules for generating such locations. 6) Objectives and
constraints to be applied either heuristically or via an optimization framework (e.g., treat all acres
where torching index and crowning index can be improved from below 15 to above 15 mph, and pick
the treatment for each acre that maximizes net revenue, but only if net revenue is greater than -$200
per acre).
19. Model Outputs: Area treated, total net revenue (or cost), amount of biomass and merchantable sized
material that would arrive at each simulated processing site; the best prescription associated with each
inventory plot, and the amount of hazard reduction achieved.
20. Application of Model for Fuel Treatment work: The model can be used to identify promising
locations to build biomass-fired electrical generation plants and conventional wood processing
facilities. The model can be used to assess the costs/revenues of treating broad landscapes under a
Disclaimer: The views in this report (presentation) are these of the author(s) do no necessarily represent the views of the
Forest Service.
variety of assumptions, objectives and scenarios. The effectiveness and economic attractiveness of
numerous alternative prescriptions can be compared and evaluated with respect to a large,
representative sample of the forested landscape. National Forests, ecoregions and even whole states
can be compared and contrasted with respect to the scope of current fuel hazard, the extent to which
fuel treatments can pay for themselves, and the extent to which fuel treatments can be expected to
bring about genuine hazard reduction.
21. Linkage to Other Models/Tools: Framework integrates FVS, FFE, STHARVEST, FIA data; may
ultimately be linked with GNNfire to produce wall-to-wall maps of fuel treatment effects (e.g., hazard
reduction in every pixel).
22. Partners: Jeremy Fried, Glenn Christensen, Dale Weyermann, Bruce Hiserote (FIA); Jamie Barbour
(FSD); Roger Fight (HNRI); John Szymoniak (PSW Riverside Fire Lab); Marlin Johnson, Jerry Payne
(Region 3)
23. Current Status: Proof of Concept essentially complete. Analysis for northern California and western
Oregon complete and being documented in a research paper; analysis for states of Arizona and New
Mexico well underway with initial results due in June, 2004. www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fia/biosum for more
info and links to PDFs of two proceedings articles in submitted status.
24. Training Availability: Not currently available; users manual anticipated in winter 2005, followed by
training sessions if interest warrants.
25. Tool Contact: Jeremy Fried, jsfried@fs.fed.us
26. Example of Model/Tool Application: See attached example.
Disclaimer: The views in this report (presentation) are these of the author(s) do no necessarily represent the views of the
Forest Service.
FIA BioSum Example Analysis for Central Oregon, Southwest Oregon, and Northern California
We used FIA BioSum to look
at the potential to site a
biomass fired power plant in
central Oregon, southwest
Oregon, or northern
California.
We considered 8 different scenarios:
1. Maximize Net Revenue (Max NR)
2. Maximize Net Revenue and always make money
(Max NR, NR+)
3. Maximum improvement in torching index (Max TI
chg)
4. Maximum improvement in torching index, always
make money (Max TI chg, NR+)
5. Maximize merchantable timber (Max Merch)
6. Maximize merchantable timber and always make
money (Max Merch, NR+)
7. Minimize merchantable timber (Min Merch)
8. Minimize merchantable timber and always make
(Mi M h NR+)
We found that depending on location and
policy scenario the study area could provide
enough biomass (tops, limbs, and trees less
than 7 inches in breast height diameter), to fuel
a 50 megawatt power plant. In addition each
of these scenarios would produce a different
amount of merchantable timber.
Disclaimer: The views in this report (presentation) are these of the author(s) do no necessarily represent the views of the
Forest Service.