SIMULATING THE IMPACT OF AREA BURNED ON GOALS FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT

1. 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

2. OBJECTIVES: ORIGINAL: Display an approach to examine assumptions for the level of hectares that will be burned by wildfire over a planning horizon.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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

6. Custer National Forest – Sioux Ranger District

7. Loss of 90 percent of forest stands from the two fires

8. 1870 2000 Recorded hectares of wildfire for the Bitterroot National Forest

9. 1870 2000 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. Do we use the disturbance process behavior associated with this period as the basis in future planning? 1950 1990

10. 1870 2000 Recorded hectares of wildfire for the Bitterroot National Forest Or do we plan using behavior that may be associated with cycles of drought? 2000 +

11. 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”

12. The model: Chew, Stalling, and Moeller 2004. Integrating Knowledge for Simulating Vegetation Change at Landscape Scales. West. J. Appl.For. 19(1)

13. Simulations used in this analysis Six different types of simulations Three levels Two levels Three levels No change

14. For other analyses can drop ? different types of simulations Three levels Two levels ? levels No change

15. Increased insect disease ? Or add / change Alternatives ? ? different types of simulations Three levels Two levels ? levels No change

16. 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

17. Long term sustained yield of Forest Products from lands managed for timber production 87,080 hectares

18. Current forest inventory:

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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)

22. 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.)

23. 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

24. Decade average simulated hectares of fire over a 300 year planning period. Two levels of treatments Quantify the impact mgt can have on disturbance processes May or may not have different assumptions about disturbance processes

25. Simulated insect and disease activity – total hectares over the 300 year planning period With treatments Includes root disease, mountain pine beetle, western spruce budworm,

26. 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

27. *Direct economic effects for each combination of climate, extreme fire probability, and treatment variables *Direct income effects specific to sawmills are the calculated income dollars based on timber volumes entering the system.

28. *Indirect/induced economic effects for each combination of climate, extreme fire probability, and treatment variables *Indirect/induced effects are dollars generated as a function of an operating sawmill such as building maintenance.

29. Comparison of direct and indirect benefits at decade 20

30. Increases in benefits from volumes harvest on suitable lands over no treatments does not equal or exceed the treatment costs. 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.

31. Decade average for simulated fire suppression costs over the 300 year planning period by level of treatments.

32. Simulated fire suppression costs of no treatments and two levels of treatments

33. Fire suppression costs of two levels of treatments In between years of extreme fire conditions, increased treatments tend to lower fire suppression costs

34. Fire suppression costs of two levels of treatments In years of extreme fire increased treatments do not always lower fire suppression costs

35. 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

36. Potential for Watershed Damage Number of decades where stand replacing fire is greater than 10 percent of drainage 2000+ for regional climate in cycles – no treatments

37. Potential for Watershed Damage Number of decades where stand replacing fire is greater than 10 percent of drainage 2000+ for regional climate in cycles – current level of treatments

38. Potential for Watershed Damage Number of decades where stand replacing fire is greater than 10 percent of drainage 2000+ for regional climate in cycles – increased level of treatments

39. Biological Diversity – potential old growth Percent of total landscape in size-classes that are potential old growth

40. Number of decades where potential old growth is greater than 7 percent of drainage Biological Diversity – potential old growth Can be displayed by watersheds no treatments

41. Number of decades where potential old growth is greater than 7 percent of drainage Biological Diversity – potential old growth Current level of treatments

42. Number of decades where potential old growth is greater than 7 percent of drainage Biological Diversity – potential old growth Increased level of treatments

43. 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

44. 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?