This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
AI)plication of Gr()\\'th alld Yield Models
Forest alld Project Plan.Jling
fOI·
Daniel M. Greene1
Abstract--This report summarizes how growth and yield
.models have been used for Forest and Project Planning In the
Rocl<y Mountain Region and lists future needs of Growth and
Yield Systems.
Growth and yield simulation models have been an integral
pa.rt of the Rocky Mountain Region Planni.ng Process since
development of the 1975 Timber J\fanagement Plans. At that
time or shortly after, the following computer programs to
compute yield tables were available from the Rocky J\lountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station:
1. PONYLD (Myers 1971)
stands and regenerated stands. R2GRO\\' was used to simulate existi.ng poletimber or sawtimber stands.
Currently the Grand l\fesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison
National Forest is undergoing a major re-analysis of their
Fore.st Plan due to a re.mand by the Secretary's Office.
RMYLD2, a major revisi.on to RMYLD, is being used. The use
of RJ\fYLD2 is significant in that the user may input a percent
of the stand that is stockable and average d,efect. RMYLD2
also includes a module for simulating the Aspen forest type.
2. LPMIST (l\lyers et al. 1971)
3. SPRYLD (Alexander et a1. 1975)
4. S\\'YLD2 (l\lyers et al. 1976)
These programs were designed to simulate even-aged,
managed stands. They were not designed to simulate existing
unmanaged stand~ that were already 80 to 120 years old.
In order to simulate older existing stands for development
of the Timber l\fanagement Plans, the Region developed an
"in-house" model; R2GRO\V (Greene and Gryczan 1975).
R2GRO\\' is a 2-inch diameter class mode.! for simulating
average growth of forest-wide condition classes. R2GROW
was used for simulating existing stands primarily due to the.
capability to match inventory volumes at the start of a simulation.
In 1977, the station combined the four separate computer
programs; PON)LD, LPJ\lIST, SWYLD2 and SPRYLD into
a single modular program entitled Rl\fYLD (Edminster
1978). RJ\IYLD was designed to simulate managed even-aged
stands of mostly pure species composition and is a whole stand
model.
Starting in 1979, RMYLD and R2GRO'" were the sale
growth and yield models used for the development of the.
current Rocky Mountain Region Forest Plans. RJ\fYLD was
used primarily for the simulation of existing seedHng or sapling
Forest Planning
Growth and yield simulation programs have been used in
the Roc.ky J\10untain Region primarily for the development of
the Forest Plans. In order to understand how these models fit
into the Forest Planning Process, it is necessary to understand
some of the components of the proc.ess. Major components
that will be. discussed are:
Forest Inventory Information
Identifying Forest Land Tentatively Suitable for
Timber Production
Deve.lopment of Timber Analysis Areas (Stratification)
Development of Pre.scriptions for each Ana.lysis
Area.
Development of Yield Tables for each Prescription
using RMYLD2 and R2GRO'"
Analysis of Alternatives and Scheduling using
FORPLAN
-1 Inventory and Plans Group, Timber Forest Pest and Cooperative Forestry Management, Rocky Mountain Regional Office located in
LakeWOOd, Colorado.
FORPLAN Outputs that are Dependent on the
Timber Yield Tables
45
Refer to figure 1 for an overview of the Forest Planning
process displaying where growth and yield models fit in. The
Grand l\1e.sa, Uncompahgre, and Gunni~;on National Forest
Plan is currently being re-analyzed and will be used as an
example of how growth and yield models are used in the forest
planning framework.
FOREST INVENTORY
R2RIS
JaSOUltC6 ]lInHfJIATIOJi
STAND
~)SAMPL
srsnJl
DATA
Inyenlory
A recent inventory has been completed for the Grand
l\1esa, tJncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Site
specific inventory information from various sources is stored
in R2RIS; Region 2 Resource 11lformation System (R2 FSH
6609.21). Tree data samples (sample plot or stand data from
the timber i.nventory) are stored on the Stand Support Tape
System (R2 FSH 2409.26d). The information was combined
from both sources into the RP A Data Base i.n order to generate
Forest Inventory Tables. The system is flexible so that the
i.nformation may be re-stratifi.ed as necessary to address the
i.ssues and concerns of managing the Forest. Refer to figure 2
for an overview of the inventory process.
SL'IC products of the inventory were:
1. Full implementation of the Resource Information
System (R2RIS) completed by Forest and District
staff.
AREA
X
STAND
TABLE
AA
X AA
C> DATARPABASE <
FOREST INVENTORY - NET NFS AREA = 2,952,251
Grand Mesa, Gunnison and Uncompaghre National Forests
Non Forest
28.7%
2. Up-to-date district stand maps completed by Forest and District Staff.
FOREST PIJANNING
Forest Land
71.3%
.
SUMMARY OF FOREST LAND X FOREST COVER TYPE
Grand Mesa, Gunnison and Uncompaghre National Forests
BOO
700
600
SOD
(ExisliD/I Stands)
FORPLAN
y~
:cl~
IS.::J M-ACRES
400
/ASQ
300
200
~ LTSYC
100
Suitable Acres
AA
Be
cw
DF
GO
LP
PJ
Figure 2.~-()verview of the Rocl(y Mountain
process.
Figure 1.--0verview of forest planning pmcess as it relates to growth
and yield models.
46
pp
SF
I~egion
forest Inventory
with the FORPLAN computer model. Yield tables need to be
developed for all of the tentatively suitable acres.
"Tentatively suitable lands, identified in accordance
with the process set forth in FSH 2409.13-21, are a
fixed input to the forest planning model in the establishment and evaluation of benchmarks and alternatives" (FSH 2409.13).
The following tabulation displays the tentatively suitable
ac;res for the Grand l\1esa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison
National Forests Plan Re-analysis.
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison Nati.onal Forests
land capable., avaiHible and te.ntative.ly suitable for timber
production.
"All RIS sites on the Forest are currently mapped
on USGS qua.ds. The. RIS maps will be the framework for all maps completed for the reanalysis."
(Grand Mesa, Gunnison, and Uncompahgre NFs,
Draft Addendum to Planning Action 2).
3. Per acre stand tables for each forest cover type and
stand size dass completed by the Regional Office.
4. A set of tables displaying total acres, total board
and cubic feet volumes, etc. for each forest type
and tand siz.e class c.ompleted by the Re.gional
Office.
.
5. A permanent set of field ~amples stored on a forest
stand support tape for post stratification into forest conditi.on dasses.
Criterion
Area-Acres
Non-Forest
-Non-forest land
-Water
Subtotal
6. An updated RPA data base merging per acre data
from field samples with total areas from R2RIS.
The use of the R2RIS and fi~ld sample data is summarized
as follows (Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison, Draft
Addendum to Planning Action 2, l\,fay ~987):
"New timber inventory data will be used. This new
timber data provides the site specific on-the-ground
analysis required by Deputy Assistant Secretary
Douglas Vl.l\1acCleery's decision on July 31,1985. It
also provides the link between the linear program
allocations and multiple use benefits, which are
considered later in thi.s study.
Capable Forest Land Withdrawn From Timber Production
-National Wilderness Preservation System
·Research Natural Areas
(1) GothiC
(2) Escalante
-Wilderness Study Area
(1) Fossil Ridge
-Further Planning Area
(1) Recommended Portion of Cannibal Plateau
-Administrative Sites
-Campgrounds
-Cultured Areas
Subtotal
Since the Plan was issued, the "Resource Information
Syste.m" (RIS) has become the standard data base for
the Rocky l\10untain Region. Forest Service Handbook-FSH 6609.21- displays information and coding
structure for the Forest's data base. IUS provides
specific resource information for each land unit or
site on the Forest.
Forest Land Incapable of Producing Industrial Wood
Not PhYSically Suited
-Restocking within 5 years cannot be assured
-Irreversible Resource Damage
-Inadequate Response Information
Subtotal
Unsuitable Total
RIS will be used in the analysis area (AA) identification process, for determining land not appropriate
for timber production, for effects analysis, and for
monitoring.
837,294
10,515
847,809
269,116
231
33,535
6,801
2,471
7,412
400
320,038
417,613
Total Net Forest Acres
8,911
41,223
1,751
51,891
1,637,351
2,952,251
Tentatively Suitable Land for Timber Production
1,314,900
At this point the acres of the Forest that must have
associated yield tables developed using growth and yield
models has been narrowed down. Refer to figure 3 for a
graphic display of Tentatively Suitable Lands identified by the
re-analysis of the Grand l\iesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison
National Forests.
Mter the basic inventory tables were completed, the forest
generated area totals for each timber analysis area (AA-forest
cover type and condition class) from the R2RIS data base. For
each of these analysi.s areas, a single average per acre stand
table was generated from the Stand Support Tape Syste.m
(Timber Inve.ntory) using the VARGEN computer program.
These average per acre tables were used as input to the Growth
and Yield Models for developing yield tables for each applicable prescription.
Analysis Areas
Lands tentatively suitable for timber production were subdivided into timber analysis areas. These ana.lysis areas are
expected to respond similarly to management practices in
order to develop yield tables that are responsive to issues and
concerns. Timber Analysis Areas defined for the. Grand Mesa,
Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest Plan Re-analysis are:
Tentatively Suitable Lands
Part of the Analysis Area identification process is to
determine lands that are te.ntativel.y suitable for the production of industrial wood products. These acres will be analyzed
47
Aspen Forest Cover Type
Ponderosa Pine Forest Cover Type
1. Conifer Invaded Aspen-Seedling/Sapling (MIX7)
1. Nonstocked (PP6)
2. Conifer Invaded Aspen-Poletimber (MIX8)
2. Seedling/Sapling (I)P7)
3. Conifer Invaded Aspen-Sawtimber (MIX9)
3. Pole timber (PP8)
4. Predominately Aspen-Seedling/Sapling (AA7)
4. Sawtimber (PP9)
5. Predomi.nately Aspen-Poletimber (MIX8)
Spruce Fir and Douglas-fir Cover Types
6. Predominately Aspen··Sawti.mber (l\lIX9)
1. Nonstocked (SF-DF-6)
7. Self Regenerating Aspen (SELF-R)
2. Seedling/Sapling (SF-DF-7)
Lodgepole Pine Forest Cover Type
1. Nonstocked (LP6)
3. I)oletimber ($F-DF-8)
2. Seedling/Sapling (LP7)
4. Sawtimber (SF-DF-9)
3. Poletimber (LP8)
4. Sawtimber (LP9)
Refer to figure 4 for a graphic display of timber analysis
areas developed for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and
Gunnison Re-Analysis.
5. Mistletoe Infected (LPMIS)
6. Stagnated (LPSTAO)
.
TENTATIVELY SUITABLE FOR TIMBER PRODUCTION I'rescriptions
Grand Mesa, Gunnison and Uncompaghre National Forests
l\fanagement prescriptions which could be applied to
address the. issues and concerns are· de.veloped for e.ach timber
analysis area.
Non Forest
28.7%
Not Capable
14.1%
"Develop management prescriptions, includi.ng timber production functions, on a per acre basis for all
forest land that is identified as tentatively suitable. In
accordance with 36 CFR 219.27, inte.grate all prescriptions for tentati.vely suitable lands to meet one· or
more resource emphases and i.ntensities for a unit of
land. Complete prescription development before
evaluating benchmarks and forest plan alternatives to
ensure consideration of an adequate range of prescriptions in meeting forest plan objectives" (FSH
2409.13).
Withdrawn
10.8%
Not Phys Suited
1.8%
Tentative Suited
44.5%
Each prescripti.on is simulated using a RJ\{YLD2 or
R2GRO\V. Following is a sample Management Area Prescription for uneven-aged manageme.nt: (Grand l\iesa, Uncompahgre, and GunnisonNFs, Draft Addendum to Planning
Action 2)
TENTATIVELY SU ITABLE X FOREST COVER TYPE
Grand Mesa, Gunnison and Uncompaghre National Forests
~.-----------------------------~
500
l\lanagement Area Prescription 7F
400
ISS! M-ACRES
300
200
J\ianagement emphasis is on wood-fiber production
and utilization of large roundwooc1 of a size and
quality suitable for sawtimber. The harvest method
by forest cover type is group selection in Engelmann
spruce-subalpine fir. Release and weed oc.c.urs to
harvested areas.
100
ASPEN
LODGEPOLE
PONDEROSA
Provide for uneven-aged sawtimber production on
si<)pes less than 40%.
SF-OF
Figure 3.--Forest land tentatively suitable for timber pl'Oduction.
48
ANALYSIS AREAS X ASPEN CONDITION CLASSES
ANALYSIS AREAS X LODGEPOLE P. CONDITION CLASSES
Grand Mesa, Gunnison and Uncompaghre National Forests
Grand Mesa, Gunnison and Uncompaghre National Forests
200
100
175
150
75
125
ISSl M-ACRES
ISSl M-ACRES
100
50
75
50
25
25
MIX7
MIXB
MIX9
M7
MB
M9
SELF-R
LP6
LP7
LPB
LPg
LPMIS
LPSTAG
ANALYSIS AREAS X PONDEROSA P. CONDITION CLASSES
ANALYSIS AREAS X SF and OF CONDITION CLASSES
Grand Mesa, Gunnison and Uncompaghre National Forests
Grand Mesa, Gunnison and Uncompaghre National Forests
~.---------------------------~
75
400
300
50
ISSl M-ACRES
ISSl M-ACRES
200
25
100
PP6
PP7
PPB
ppg
SF-DF-6
SF-DF-7
SF-DF-8
SF-DF-9
Figure 4.--Tlmber analysis areas.
Growth and Yield
The area generally will have a mosaic of fully stocked
stands that follow natural patterns and avoid straight
lines and geometric shapes. Management activities
are not evident or remain visually subordinate along
Forest arterial and collector roads and primary trails.
In other portions of the area, management activities
may dominate in foreground and mi.ddleground, but
harmonize and blend with the natural setting.
The Forest Inventory field samples were stratified by
timber analysis areas (timber type and condition class) to
generate a single per acre stand table for each condition dass.
These provide the basic input for growth and yield models and
the development of yield tables.
"Per acre yield tables will be developed for timber and other
resources where the objective of vegetation treatment is to
provide the associated multiple-use benefits. The yield tables
represent production responses to management activities for
such resources as range, timber, wildHfe, recreation, and
water" (Grand .l\iesa, Gunnison, and Uncompahgre, Draft
Addendum to Planning Action 2, May 1987).
In general, R2GRO\\' is used for older existi.ng stands and
RM"'xLD2 is used for regenerated stands or younger established stands. However this is not a "hard and fast" rule since
sometimes R.l\fYLD2 is used for mistletoe infected older
existing stands, etc. SeveraJ. different prescriptions and harvest methods may be model.ed for each analysis area. Refer to
figure 5 for a ge.neralized flowchart of the use of growth and
yield programs in the Rocky .l\fountain Region's forest planning process.
Roaded-natural recreation opportunities are provided along Forest arterial and collector roads. Semiprimi.tive motorized recreation opportunities are
provided on those local roads and trails that remain
open.
Growth and yield models have to be flexible in order to
simulate the different outputs expected from even-aged
management versus uneven-aged management systems and
thinning versus not thinning, etc. Sometimes models have to be
applied that were not designed for a particular application.
For example, even though RMYLD2 is an even-aged stand
model, this uneven-aged system might be simulated with the
assumption of even-aged groups.
49
Each prescription for timber analysis areas is modeled
using R2GRO\V or Rl\1YLD2 to develop per acre yield tables
for timber and other outputs to be used in FORPLAN (Forest
Planning l\10del). The yi~ld tables develope.d for the r~.gener ..
ated stands using Rl\1YLD2 focused on the vegetation cover
type since condition class is not as much of a factor for
regenerated stands. A single regenerated stand table is used
for several. existing stand conditions. Refer to figure 6 for an
example yield table generated by the Rl\1YLD2 program.
S
REGENERATED LODGEPOLE PINE - THIN AT AGE 30
~
Grand Mesa, Gunnison and Uncompaghre National Forests
'T 4000 ,---------------------~
I
M3500
B
Em
R
2500
C 2000
U
B 1500
Forplan
I
C 1000
FORPLAN is the computer model that was used for the
de.velopment of 1110st of the current Forest Plans.
V 500
0
L 0
"The Forest Planningl\10del (FORPLAN) will be the
required primary analysis tool for the Forest Plans.
The FORPLAN model is a linear programming
package for resource allocati.on and activity scheduling, with linkages to prqgram planning'." (lJSFS
\Vashington Office letter of December 3, 1979, file
designation 1920).
U
M
E
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
STAND AGE
Figure 6.~-Sampfe yield table generated by RMYLD2. Precommerclal
thinning and clearcut in the lodgepole 1)lne forest type.
pahgre, and Gunnison, Draft Addendum to Planning
Action 2, l\1ay 1987)
Timber, range and other vegetation analysis areas are
further refined by other identifiers relating to issues, concerns
and opportunities prior to FORPLAN analysis:
The si.'"{ levels of analysis area identi.fiers are Proclaimed
Forest, understory condition of forage for livestock, slope
class, road access, vegetation cover types, and vegetation
condi.tion class.
The following R2RIS data base components are considered necessary for the re-analysis and the ones flagged with
and asterisk (*) were used to define FORPLAN analysis areas
(Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison, Draft Addendum to Planning Action 2, l\1ay 1987):
"Each analysis area will be defined by six levels of
attributes with respective categories. Each land unit
or site displayed in the resource date base (RIS) will
be assigned to a specific analysis area based upon that
land unit's unique characteristi.c.s. The analysis area
acres are an aggregation of the acres of each land unit
from the data base (IUS)." (Grand Mesa, Uncom-
GROWTH AND YIELD SIMULATIONS
ANALYSIS AREAS
PP6 PP7
80
PP8
r - - - - - - _~
STAND
Component Name
Description
Location
Site
Area Acres
"'Slope Percent
Aspect
Elevation
Watershed
County
"'Ownel'shlp
"'land Use Class
Map and data base identifier
Map and data base identifier
Area of each site (stand)
Describes the majority of site
Direction the site faces
To the nearest 100 feet
Identifies watershed site is in
County site is located in
National Forest admin., etc,
Forest land, nonforest land,
water
Wilderness, Non-Wilderness,
etc.
Big Blue Wilderness, etc.
Range Allotment site is in
Range suitability and type
Timber suitability
ROS Classes (inventoried)
Vela Classes (inventoried)
Summer & Winter Flange
Administrative Site, etc.
Miles
Ecological Condition
Ecological Trend
SprucE~/fir, Lodgepole Pine, etc,
Sawtimber, poletimber! etc.
Mistletoe Infection Rating
Forest Condition Classes
Special Kind
l
Special Unit Codes
Range Allotment
"'Range Component
Timber Component
R4~cmation 0pp0l'tunity Spectrum
Visual Quality Objective
"'Gam4~ Rang4~ Type
Othel' Site Types
*R4)ad Acces!~ Class
"'Flange Conditic,n
"'Flange Trend
"'Forest Typ4~
*Sta.l1d Siz4~ Class
)
*Mi!~tletoe
Figure 5.--0verview of the use of RMYlD2 a.nd R2GROW fOl' forest
planning in the Rocky Mountain Region.
"'Fol'est Option Field
50
PROJECT PLANNING
F orplan Outputs
Yield tables are used in the model depending upon prescriptions and alternatives selected by the model The
FORPL•.t\N outputs mostly related to the growth and yield
proje.ctions are Allowable Sale Ouantity (ASO), Long Term
Sustained Yield Capacity (LTSYC) and the final suitable
acres. ASQ is defined as follows:
FOREST PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
INVENTORY
"The quantity of timber that may be sold from the
area of suitable land covered by the Forest Plan for
a time period specified by the plan. This allowable
sale quantity (ASQ) is usually expressed on an annual
basis as the average annual allowable sale quantity."
(FSl\f 1900)
(R2RIS
ANALYSIS AREAS
ALTERNATIVES
OUTPUTS
L TSYC is defined as follows:
"The highest uniform wood yield from lands being
managed for timber production that may be sustained, under a specified management intensity,
consiste.nt with multiple-t1se objectives." (36CFR
219.3)
(SIMULATIONS OR CANNED)
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Figure 7 .~-Overvlew of the use of growth and yield models for project
planning In the Rocky Mountain Region.
" ... a quantity which can be. removed from such forest
annually in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis ..."
(National Forest Management Act of 1976)
site specific data available for the project area in consideration.
Even though more data is available, growth and yield
simulations are generally not done to the level of precision that
they were for the Forest Plans. Often, "canned" growth and
yield simulations are referred to suc.h as the "Book Process"
(Managing Forested Lands For Wildlife, Colorado Division of
~Ti.ldlife, 1984), or runs previously made. representing various
condi.tion classes on a District or Forest.
In any case, alternatives are tested and outputs a.re based
on current or past growth simulations and a.n Environmental
Analysis is always made which will result in one of three
documents:
Table 1 displays timbe.r outputs for the current Forest
Plans in the Rocky Mountain Re.gion.
Project
STAND EXAM)
I'lanninl~
Projects plans are tiered to the Forest Plan and implemented based on the Forest Plan Impleme.ntation Schedule.
Project plans are not another level of planning, but instead an
extension of the Forest Planning Process with more detailed
Table 1.--Rocky Mountain Region forest plans. 1
1. Environmental Impact Statement
Average Annual
Suitable
Acres
ASO
ASO
LTSVC
LTSYC
(M-acres)
(MMCF)
(MMBF)
(MMCF)
(MMBF)
360
476
582
465
381
470
473
7.4
7.0
7.6
7.2
7.7
10.2
5.3
28.4
35.0
25.7
36.1
36.4
40.7
25.2
16.2
21.0
12.8
17.5
12.2
19.2
27.3
62
105
43
88
57
77
131
Refer to figure 7 for a diagram of the project planning
process.
COLORADO
3207
52.4
227.5
126.2
563
Bighorn
Black Hills
Medicine Bow
Shoshone
266
10:34
448
86
3.9
35.1
5.9
2.5
15.1
152.1
28.4
11.2
7.6
40.0
16.9
3.5
29
173
81
15
WYO./S. OAK.
1834
47.4
206.8
68.0
298
REGION 2
5041
99.8
434.3
194.2
861
The existing growth and yield models have been used for
the curre·nt round of Forest Planning, but are weak in many
areas (fig. 8). RMYLD2 cannot simulate uneven-aged stand
structures, mixed species stands or long rotation ages. In
addition, it is difficult to matc.h the inventory of existing stands
usi.ng RM:YLD2. R2GR()~T ca.nnot handle mixed species
stands or long rotation ages, and is not capable of simulating
regenerated stands. R2GRO~T also lac.ks researc.h validation
and is c.urrently out-dated.
Arapaho/Roosevelt
Gm/UnclGun
PikelSan Isabel
Rio Grande
Routt
San Juan
White River
2. Environmental Assessment
3. Categorical Exclusion
Growth and Yield System Needs
1"Forest Plan Timber Facts," U.S. Forest Serl/ice, Rocky Mountain Region, April 8, 1987.
51
For the future, we need a com plete growth and yield system
for the Rocky l\lountain Region (Region 2 &: Rocky l\lountain
Station Forest Growth and Yield System Development and
Implementation Plan, February 13, 1985). This plan includes
phasing out R2GROW and replacing it with a new model built
by the Rocky l\lountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
This new model will be a Ge·ne.ralized Growth and Yield
l\lodel (GENGYl\I). GENGYM is proposed to be a I-inch
diameter dass model designed to simulate growth and yield of
even-aged, une.ven-aged, and irregular structured forest
stands of pure or mixed species composition.
Rl\IYLD2 is expected to still have use i.n the future since
it is a whole stand model and is more economical and efficient
than a diameter class or individual tree model for some
applicati.ons. In addition, RMyiJ)2 simulations can be made
based on data that is stored in the R2RIS data base. Data
requirements for diameter class (e.g. GENGYM) or individual tree models (e.g. PROGNOSIS) require the use of tree
data files (Forest Inventory Fi(~l.d Sample Data).
Refer to figure 9 for a summary of the Rocky l\lountain
Region needs for a complete growth and yield system that will
. handle mixed species and uneven-aged ma.nagement.
One. of the needs listed is to monitor the results of models;
"Do we really get the expected results from thinning that were
simulated'!" Where thi.nning occurs will be tracked in the
R2RIS data base. However, a monitoring plan for the expected growth increases, mortality losses, etc. for planned
treatments has not been designed for the region. This would
probably involve the use of permanent plots established in
areas before and after treatments which are expensive. We
have the tools to measure many types of permanent plots and
store data, but they are currently being utilized for continuous
inventory samples which are not established to reflect various
treatments.
LIMITATIONS OF EXISTING MODELS
RMYLD2
(Whole Stand Model)
- U nevenaged Stand Structures
- Mixed Species Stands
- Long Rotation Ages
- Match Existing Stand Inventory
R2GROW
(Diameter Class Model)
- Mixed Species Stands
- Long Rotation Ages
- Regenerated Stands
- Research Validation
Figure
B.~-Limitatlons
of R2GROW and RMYLD2.
GROWTH AND YIELD SYSTEM NEEDS
Capability to Project the Development of Stands
in All Forest Cover Types
Provision for Updating Existing Inventories
Simulation of Both Even and Unevenaged
Silvicultural Systems
Simulation of No Action as Well as Applicable
Management Alternatives
Simulation of Natural, Noncatastrophic Mortality,
Bark Beetle Mortality, and Growth Loss
from Defoliation and Diseases
Summary
Growth and Yield models play an important role in the
Forest and Project Planning Process. Without them various
prescriptions and alternatives cannot be adequately tested.
Many of the alternative outputs in the development of the
Forest Plan are directly related to the models such as Allowable Sale Quantities, or Long Term Sustained Yield Capacities.
There i.s sti.ll along way to go in the development of models.
rvIodel results have not been monitored, current models do not
display statistical variances for ea.ch simulati.on period, and
most models are weak in estimating mortality. Before models
are used to any great extent for Project Planning they will have
to become more "user friendly." l\lost current models were
bui.lt for the Fort Collins Univac. Computer.
Accounts for Establishment of Natural Regeneration
Simulation of Either Individual Stands
or Stratum Averages
Compatibility with Stand Data Collection and Printout
Allow for Different Merchantability Standards
Provide Linkage to Other Output Models
Monitoring
Figure 9.-Rocky Mountain Region needs for a complete growth and
yield system.
52
Greene, Daniel M., Gryczan, Edward P. 1975. R2GROW.
Unpublished documentation of 2-inch diameter class
growth and yield model for existing stands. USDA Forest
Service, Rocky 1\lountain Region, Lakewood, Colo.
For systems to be responsive to the needs of District
Foresters they need to be re-written for the Data General
Computers (DG) currently i.nstalled in District Offices or for
persona.l computers (PC).
The R1\IYLD2 program has been modifie.d to run on a
"Personal IBl\1 compatible computer" or the "Data General
Computer" by the Rocky 1\lountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. GENGYM will be developed strictly for the
"DO" or "I'C." It is expected that this is the direction growth
and yield models will take in the future.
Managing Forested Lands for Wildlife, DeVeloped in cooperation with USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Region, Published by Colorado Division of \Vildlife, 1984.
Myers, Clifford A. 1971. Field and computer procedures for
managed-stand yield tables. USDA For. Servo Res. Pap.
R1\I-134, 20 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort
Collins, Colo.
I
Literature Cited
Myers, Clifford A., Frank G. Hawksworth, and James L.
Stewart. 1971. Simulating yields in managed, dwarf mistletoe-infested lodge.pole pine stands. USDA For. Servo Res.
Pap. RM-134, 20 p. Rocky 1\1t. For. and Range Exp. Stn.,
Fort comns, Colo.
Alexander, Robert R., Wayne D. Shepperd, and Carleton B.
Edminster. 1975. Yield tables for managed stands of
spruce-fir in the central Rocky Mountains. USDA For.
Servo Res. Pap. RM .. 134, 20 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range
Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.
Edminster, Carleton 8., 1978. C~mputa:tion of yield tables for
even-aged and two-storied stands. USDA For. Servo Res.
Pap. R1\I-199, 26 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stll.,
Fort Collins, Colo.
Edminster, Carleton H., Greene, Daniel M. 1984. Forest
growth and yield system development and implementa··
tion plan. USDA For. Servo letter file des. 2410/2470.
Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, Colo.
Forest Management Act of 1976, Public Law 94-588 94th
Congress, S. 3091 October 22,1976.
Forest Planning 1\lodel, December 3,1979, USDA For. Servo
letter file des. 1920. Washington Office.
Forest Plan Timber Facts, April 8, 1987, USDA For. Servo
letter file des. 1920/2410. Rocky 1\10untain Region,
Lakewood, Colo.
Grand 1\1esa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests.
l\.lay, 1987. Draft Addendum to I'lanning Action 2, Forest
Land and Resource l\.lanagement Plan. USDA Forest
Service SO, Delta Colo.
Myers, Clifford A., Carleton B. Edmi.nster, and Frank G.
Hawksworth. 1976. S\VYLD2: Yield tables for eve.n-aged
and two-storied stands of southwestern ponderosa pine,
including effects of dwarf mistletoe. USDA For. Servo
Res. Pap. Rl\.I-134, 20 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp.
Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.
National Forest System Land and Resource l\.ianagement
Planning, September 30, 1982. Federal Register, USDA
Forest Service, 36 CFR Part 219. Silvicultural Examination and Prescription Handbook. Issued 1972. STAGE2:
Forest Service Handbook, FSH 2409.26d, Rocky l\.1t. .
Regional Office, Lakewood, Colo.
Timber Resource Planning Handbook. 1985. Forest Service
Handbook, FSH 2409.13, Washington Office.
Total Resource Information Handbook. 1982. R2RIS: Forest
Service Handbook, FSH 6609.21, Rocky Mt. Regional
Office, Lakewood, Colo.
53