simulating the impact of area burned on goals for sustainable forest management jimmie chew, rmrs...
TRANSCRIPT
SIMULATING THE IMPACT OF AREA BURNED ON GOALS FOR SUSTAINABLE
FOREST MANAGEMENT
Jimmie Chew, RMRSChristine Stalling, RMRSBarry Bollenbacher, Region One
Original work presented at
OBJECTIVES:
ORIGINAL:
Display an approach to examine assumptions for the level of hectares that will be burned by wildfire over a planning horizon.
OBJECTIVES:
An approach to help quantify the level of resources and the desired future conditions, that can be set as realistic goals for sustainable management.
CURRENT:
An approach to examine the concept of sustainability for a number of resources. An approach that can also provideinput; levels of constraints, goals, and desired future conditions that can be used within other models. (SPECTRUM, MAGIS)
An approach that is spatially explicit and incorporates theoccurrence of disturbance processes.
The following slides help to stress the need to include these two components.
Number of plantations
Hectares of fire within plantations
Total hectares of production lands with fire
2,044 21,531 243,135
Northern Rocky Mountains- Forest Service Totals
On a total of 3,520,779 hectaresof land allocated to the production of forest products, the followinghas burned in wildfires from2000 - 2003
Custer National Forest – Sioux Ranger District
Loss of 90 percentof forest standsfrom the two fires
Recorded hectares of wildfire for the Bitterroot National Forest
0
40000
80000
120000
160000
200000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
decade
hec
tare
s
1870 2000
0
40000
80000
120000
160000
200000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
decade
hec
tare
s
1870 2000
Recorded hectares of wildfire for the Bitterroot National Forest
1950 1990
The period of 50s through 90s is being referred toas an unusual cool and moist period.
Do we use the disturbance process behavior associatedwith this period as the basis in future planning?
0
40000
80000
120000
160000
200000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
decade
hec
tare
s
1870 2000
Recorded hectares of wildfire for the Bitterroot National Forest
2000 +
Or do we plan using behavior that may be associated with cycles of drought?
Approach
Apply a spatially explicit, stochastic, landscape level simulation model usingdifferent assumptions on the frequency of drought cycles and the probability of extreme fire behavior.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
May not what this part?
Above just an example of “indicators”
SIMulatingPatterns andProcesses atLandscape
scaLEs
The model:
Chew, Stalling, and Moeller 2004. Integrating Knowledge for SimulatingVegetation Change at Landscape Scales. West. J. Appl.For. 19(1)
Simulationlabel
time Regionalclimate
Probability ofExtreme fire
Treatment level
Simulations used in this analysis
Nochange
Six differenttypes of simulations
Threelevels
Threelevels
Twolevels
Simulationlabel
time Regionalclimate
Probability ofExtreme fire
Treatment level
For other analyses can drop
Nochange
? differenttypes of simulations
Threelevels
?levels
Twolevels
Simulationlabel
time Regionalclimate
Probability ofExtreme fire
Treatment level
Or add / change
Nochange
? differenttypes of simulations
Threelevels
?levels
Twolevels
Increased insectdisease ? Alternatives ?
Long term Sustained Yield of Forest ProductsWater QualityBiological Diversity – Old GrowthProtection of Structures
For the original work we utilized SIMPPLLE outputto look at the following indicators of sustainability:
This should serve as an example of how SIMPPLLE outputcould potentially be utilized to address a number of indicators
Long term sustained yield of Forest Productsfrom lands managed for timber production
87,080 hectares
Size class Total Bitterroothectares (638,194)
Managed for productshectares (87,080)
Seedling/sapling 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
Current forest inventory:
Acres of large and very-large size classes available for harvest at a rate of 1 percent per year whileaccommodating other resource values
Average yield of 57 cubic meters per hectare
Assumptions made for quantifying potential harvest levels on lands managedfor timber products:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31
simulation decade
pe
rce
nt
of
su
ita
ble
la
nd
very-large
large
medium
pole
ss
The resulting inventory as impacted by disturbances couldbe the basis for input into SPECTRUM, or without usinganother model a spreadsheet approach linking volumes (yieldtables) to the inventory could be used for deriving timber volumes.
Assumptions made for quantifying potential harvest levels on lands managedfor timber products:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31
simulation decade
pe
rce
nt
of
su
ita
ble
la
nd
very-large
large
medium
pole
ss
Non declining potential harvest levels based available inventories from the simulations (difference based onwhatever changes one wants in the simulations instead ofwhat is shown in the below legend)
0100200300400500600700800900
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29decade
cub
ic m
eter
s
50s-90s
2000+ cycles
2000+ cycles -5%
2000+ cycles -10%
Treatments consist of underburning, thinning and underburning and regeneration harvest.
Yearly treatments for two levels (treatment levels can be those thatrepresent a range of alternatives, investments, etc.)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
current increased
hec
tare
s burning
thinning and burning
regeneration harvest
Locations of accumulated treatmentsfirst 100 years – currentlevel of treatments
Treatments are applied spatially within SIMPPLLE, prioritiescan be set for areas, vegetation conditions, and disturbance processprobabilities
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
1870-2002
50s -90s
2000 +cycles
2000+cycles- 5%
2000+cycles- 10%
current upper
hec
tare
s
Decade average simulated hectares of fireover a 300 year planning period.
Two levels of treatments
May or may not have different assumptionsabout disturbance processes
Quantify the impact mgt can have on disturbanceprocesses
Simulated insect and disease activity – total hectares over the 300 year planning period
0
40000
80000
120000
160000
200000
normal warmdry
warmdry 5%
wd-10 wd-10-curr
wd-10-ul
hec
tare
s
Includes root disease, mountain pine beetle, westernspruce budworm,
With treatments
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
*Direct income effects specific to sawmills are the calculated income dollars based on timber volumes entering the system.
*Direct economic effects for each combination of climate, extreme fire probability, and treatment variables
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
50s - 90s Warm Dry + 10% extremeprob, no trt
Warm Dry + 10% ext.prob., current fuels
Warm Dry + 10% ext.prob., upper limit fuels
Mil
lio
ns
30 Years
200 Years
*Indirect/induced effects are dollars generated as a function of an operating sawmill such as building maintenance.
*Indirect/induced economic effects for each combination of climate, extreme fire probability, and treatment variables
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
50s - 90s Warm Dry + 10% extremeprob, no trt
Warm Dry + 10% ext.prob., current fuels
Warm Dry + 10% ext.prob., upper limit fuels
Mil
lio
ns
30 Years
200 Years
Decade average hectares of fire
Percentdecreasein fire
Directbenefit in dollars
Percentchange
Indirectbenefit indollars
Percentchange
2000+Cycles – 10%
93,350 1,471,659
1,517,207
2000+Cycles –10%Current
83,995 - 10 1,788,346
+22 1,843,695
+22
2000+Cycles – 10%Increased
69,186 -26 1,918,746
+23 1,978,131
+30
Comparison of direct and indirect benefits at decade 20
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.
Total benefits in dollars
Treatment costs in dollars
Difference in decadebenefits
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
Increases in benefits from volumes harvest on suitable lands overno treatments does not equal or exceed the treatment costs.
11500000
12000000
12500000
13000000
no treatments current upper level
do
llar
s
Decade average for simulated fire suppression costsover the 300 year planning period by level of treatments.
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29
decade
do
llar
s no treatments
current
upper level
Simulated fire suppression costs of no treatmentsand two levels of treatments
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29
decade
do
llar
s no treatments
current
upper level
Fire suppression costs of two levels of treatments
In between years of extreme fireconditions, increased treatments tendto lower fire suppression costs
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29
decade
do
llar
s no treatments
current
upper level
Fire suppression costs of two levels of treatments
In years of extreme fireincreased treatments do notalways lower fire suppression costs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000+ cycles - 10% current treatments increasedtreatments
per
cen
t
Potential for Watershed Damage
Percent of decades from the 300 year simulations where the percent of watersheds in stand replacing fire is greaterthan 10 percent
2000+ for regional climate incycles – no treatments
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000+ cycles - 10% current treatments increased treatments
perc
ent
Number of decades wherestand replacing fire isgreater than 10 percentof drainage
Potential for Watershed Damage
2000+ for regional climate incycles – current level oftreatments
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000+ cycles - 10% current treatments increasedtreatments
per
cen
t
Number of decades wherestand replacing fire isgreater than 10 percentof drainage
Potential for Watershed Damage
2000+ for regional climate incycles – increased level oftreatments
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000+ cycles - 10% current treatments increased treatments
perc
ent
Number of decades wherestand replacing fire isgreater than 10 percentof drainage
Potential for Watershed Damage
Biological Diversity – potential old growth
Percent of total landscape in size-classes thatare potential old growth
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31
decade
pe
rce
nt
of
tota
l la
nd
sc
ap
e
2000 +
current
increased
no treatments
Can be displayed by watersheds
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 4 7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
decade
pe
rce
nt
of
tota
l la
nd
sc
ap
e
2000 +
current
increased
Number of decades wherepotential old growth isgreater than 7 percentof drainage
Biological Diversity – potential old growth
Current level of treatments
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 4 7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
decade
pe
rce
nt
of
tota
l la
nd
sc
ap
e
2000 +
current
increased
Number of decades wherepotential old growth isgreater than 7 percentof drainage
Biological Diversity – potential old growth
Increased level of treatments
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 4 7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
decade
pe
rce
nt
of
tota
l la
nd
sc
ap
e
2000 +
current
increased
Number of decades wherepotential old growth isgreater than 7 percentof drainage
Biological Diversity – potential old growth
Hectares that have a probability of stand replacing fire greaterthan zero within the wildland urban interface in the BitterrootFace portion of the landscape
Protection of structures:
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2000+ 2000+ currenttreatments
2000+ increasedtreatments
hec
tare
s
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?
For any other analysis using SIMPPLLE to address sustainability of resources the following items may apply - depends on the specificsof the analysis objectives.