Post-treatment risk reduction in FNF high risk stands

Source habitat models for five species were used on the Okanogan and three were used on the Fremont:

Canada lynx (Okanogan only)
grizzly bear (Okanogan only)
pileated woodpecker
northern flying squirrel
Townsend's big-eared bat

Documentation of these models can be found in Wisdom et al. (2000b). The matrix tables provide information on whether or not a given cover type/structural stage combination is source habitat for each species. Two of the seven structural stages (stem exclusion - open canopy and old forest - single canopy layer) are omitted from some of the cover types in the tables, therefore some interpolation is required to assign these stages as source habitat or not. For example, in the interior ponderosa pine cover type (the only one to include all seven structural stages), stem exclusion - open canopy and stem exclusion closed canopy are the only stages that are not considered source habitat for the grizzly bear. Therefore, stem exclusion - open canopy is not considered source habitat for this species in the cover types where this stage is omitted. Appendix D shows the source habitats for all five species, including the assumptions that were made for some structural stages.

For the HSI models, LMS spatial and inventory stand attributes are used to calculate the HSI score for each stand for every combination of wildlife species, treatment, and time period. LMS stand attributes are used to calculate the cover type/structural stage for each stand for every combination of treatment and time period. An interface to LMS inventory files has been constructed to calculate whether or not each stand was source habitat based on its cover type/structural stage for every combination of wildlife species, treatment, and time period.

2.3 The Data

2.3.1 Current Vegetation Survey

Forest inventory data used in this project has been downloaded from the USFS's Region 6 Current Vegetation Survey (CVS) web site (URL http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/survey/). Since the 1930's, the U.S. Forest Service has been responsible for determining the extent, condition, volume, growth, and depletion of the Nation's forests on a periodic basis. CVS data collection locations with permanent plot clusters have been established on a 1.7-mile grid over all national forests in Region 6. Information available at the individual plot level includes inventory year, stand number, tree number, species, DBH, height, and crown ratio.

Conditions on the Fremont and Okanogan National Forests were represented, simulated, and analyzed using the Current Vegetation Survey (CVS) Occasion 1 data sets. Data for these national forests was collected during the period from 1994 to 1996. Re-measurements of many plots occurred during successive panels of CVS Occasion 2, but full re-measurement data was not available for both forests. As a result, CVS Occasion 1 data, with a base year of 1995, was selected to provide the forest inventory information used to undertake the simulation analysis required for this study. The 1995 data were "grown" forward within FVS for one growth period of five years to 2000 to bring data close to present time before treatment simulations were conducted.

The Fremont National Forest contains 601 total CVS plots. Plots with dominant species by basal area of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), or white fir (Abies concolor) were used in the analysis. Plots with other dominant species associated with higher-elevation long duration fire cycles or non-forested plots associated with grasslands, rocky outcrops, or water were not considered in this analysis. For the Fremont National Forest, 61 plots were dominated by juniper (Juniperus occidentalis). While these areas may well benefit from fuel reduction, presently there is no growth model for this species. For this reason the plots dominated by juniper were not used to conduct treatment response simulations. However, an estimate of available juniper biomass based upon representative volumes/acre is included in this report. Juniper harvests could augment feedstock supplies for biomass-to-energy projects and juniper removals are considered likely to reduce overall forest fire risk (Swan 2002). A total of 502 plots or 84% of the total plots for the Fremont National Forest (FNF) were selected as forested areas to be evaluated for treatment simulations.

A total of 663 CVS plots were available from the Okanogan National Forest. Plots used in the analysis were those in which the dominant species, determined by basal area, was ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), or western larch (Larix occidentalis). Plots with other dominant species associated with higher elevation long duration fire cycles and non-forested plots were considered not suitable and were removed from the data set used for this analysis. The number of plots used in the simulations for the Okanogan National Forest (ONF) was 413 or 62% of the total available CVS plots.

The selected 502 plots (FNF) and the 413 plots (ONF) from the CVS database were used to create two forest inventory datasets representative of the variety and distribution of forest age classes, densities, tree species, tree sizes, and crown characteristics present in the ONF and the FNF that would be subject to consideration for hazardous fuel reduction treatments. For purposes of conducting forest-wide simulations, the data from each plot has been assumed to represent the inventory of a one-acre forest stand. Subsequently, the simulated FNF will have a 502 acre "forest" and the simulated ONF will have a 413 acre "forest". To expand per acre volumes from CVS data for landscape inventory estimates, one would use 1849.6 as an expansion factor resulting from the 1.7 mile grid used to systematically distribute CVS sampling point locations. Harvest and growth simulations for these two "forests" will be conducted that have been designed to determine the relative performance of alternative fuel reduction strategies as assessed by a variety of metrics that include risk reduction effectiveness, economic performance, habitat displacement/creation, and carbon sequestration/release/offset.

2.3.2 Literature and Reports

An effort has been made to review pertinent elements of the scientific literature and various government reports in order to achieve several informational goals identified by the research team as important to the results of this project. In addition to general background information on the history and magnitude of wildfire risk associated with overstocked forests, other information including but not limited to logging and hauling costs, forest product types and values, Forest Service administration costs, Forest Service contracting authorities, community demographics and infrastructures, etc. has been assembled to best inform this investigation. It is the hope of the authors that referenced information collected as part of this project has broader educational utility to assist collaborative processes seeking better achievement of wildfire risk reduction.

2.3.3 Personal Interviews

Many individuals generously contributed information founded upon their professional and personal experiences. For example, operational cost estimates and log market reports provided by private contractors served to enrich the quality of cost data from other sources. Suggestions from local people on how to customize Forest Service contract offerings for increased efficiencies proved to be essential for better understanding of operational possibilities customized to local circumstances. The valuable insights provided to this project from personal interviews served to underscore a recurring theme in this project: solutions will likely be based upon integration of anecdotal and institutional knowledge that customizes treatment strategies to local conditions.

Table 2.1. Interviews

Sector	Fremont	Okanogan	Total
Forest Service	10	13	26
State	3	6	9
Mills	6	3	9
Contractors	11	8	19
Organizations	6	5	11
Total	36	34	71

 

2.4 Assessments of Initial Forest Conditions

2.4.1 Fire Risk Classification

High, moderate, and low fire risk was estimated for each CVS plot in the simulation dataset based on the Severe Crowning Index assessment from the Potential Fire Report produced by FFE. The Crowning Index indicates the estimated wind speed in miles per hour (mph) at 20 feet off the ground that would initiate an active crown fire assuming ignition of a surface fire. Assumptions required by the model include a temperature of 70 degrees Fahrenheit and 'very dry' moisture conditions (Crookston, Beukema et al. 2002). Results from the crowning index estimates for each stand were sorted into one of three risk classes. Lower wind speeds indicate greater risk. If the crowning index was less than or equal to 25 mph, then the plot was considered to be in the high fire risk category. Moderate risk stands were those with a Severe Crowning Index greater than 25 mph, but less than or equal to 50 mph. Low fire risk stands were those with a crowning index greater than 50 mph. Very young or clearcut stands function outside of the range of the model and subsequently record Severe Crowning Indices less than zero. To accommodate this model behavior, stands with a crowning index below zero are classed as low risk.

Table 2.2 Fire Risk Classifications

Fire Risk Classification	Severe Crowning Index
Low	> 50 MPH & < 0 MPH
Moderate	> 25 50 MPH
High	25 MPH

It should be noted that risk classifications are arbitrary thresholds useful and necessary for comparative analysis but that they may very well understate the risk at the margins. The word moderate properly segments a risk difference between high and low although the risk of a fire from wind speeds only slightly higher than 25 MPH might not be considered a moderate risk by many publics. It is in part for this reason that performance comparisons for treatment alternatives were reported in this investigation for high and moderate as separate risk classes and then combined as the total area to be considered for risk reduction treatments.

The initial 1995 fire risk distribution for the Fremont and Okanogan National Forests was reported as the percentage of CVS plots in each of the fire risk categories for 1995 prior to any treatment or growth simulation. Fire risk distribution was similarly reported for projected and treated plot inventories at each growth cycle. For purposes of simulations to demonstrate comparisons between treatment alternatives only the plots with high and moderate initial classification were treated. Low risk areas did not receive treatment simulations since treatments of low risk areas would logically be considered unnecessary or of low priority. While some low risk areas may experience increases in risk over time most low risk areas appear to be either very young small diameter forests or rangeland/forest interface with sparse distributions of forest inventories that are unlikely to require fuels reductions at the time of this study.

2.4.2 Forest Structure

Forest structure was determined using an approach utilized by the Business Bureau of Economic Research at the University of Montana in "A strategic assessment of fire hazard in Montana" (Fiedler et al. 2001). This canopy structure classification system identifies stands as being single-layered, two-layered, multi-layered, or scattered. Five potential layers could be present in a stand, based on a minimum amount of basal area in a diameter size class. The sapling size class required at least 5 square feet of basal area in trees with less than 5" DBH to be present. The pole, medium, large, and very large size classes included trees within a DBH range of 5-9", 10-15", 11-20", and greater than 20", respectively. These size classes required at least 10 square feet of basal area to be present to be considered as a canopy layer. Stands classified as single- and double-layered had one and two size class layers present, respectively. Multi-layered stands had more than two layers present. Scattered stands had no layers present and at least 25 square feet of basal area in the stand. Using this system, each plot was classified in 1995. The initial stand structure distribution for each landscape was determined as the percentage of plots in each category.

2.4.3 Forest Type

Forest type for the Fremont National Forest was determined based on criteria provided by the Sue Puddy, the Silviculturist at the Fremont National Forest. This classification system identified plots by dominant species and structure. The categories were Ponderosa Pine Closed, Ponderosa Pine Moderate, Ponderosa Pine Open, Ponderosa Pine Very Open, Juniper, Lodgepole Pine, Mixed Closed, and Mixed Open. Plots with at least 12 ponderosa pine trees per acre (TPA) with a DBH greater then 14" were classified as one of the Ponderosa Pine types. The canopy closure algorithm by Crookston and Stage (1999) was then used to distinguish Ponderosa Pine Closed (greater than 50% canopy closure), Ponderosa Pine Moderate (35-50%), Ponderosa Pine Open (25-35%), and Ponderosa Pine Very Open (less than 25%). Plots with greater than or equal to 70% of the TPA in juniper were classified as Juniper. The Lodgepole Pine forest type was defined by plots with greater than or equal to 50% of the total TPA in lodgepole pine and less than 15% of the total TPA in ponderosa pine trees with a DBH greater than 10". Plots in the Mixed forest types were classified as not meeting any of the above criteria. Mixed Closed plots had greater than 40% canopy closure. Mixed Open plots had less than or equal to 40% canopy closure. Forest type distribution for both the Fremont and Okanogan National Forests were reported as the percentage of plots in each structure type in 1995.

Forest type classifications for the Okanogan National Forest were used to sort the percentage of plots in Cold Dry, Dry, Mesic, and Moist conditions. Cold dry forests typically have mixed mortality fires in an elevation range from 6000-7200 ft. Dry forests have 7.5-50 year fire return intervals and are found from 1,200 to 5000 ft. Mesic forests experience weather driven catastrophic fire events every 100 or more years found in a wide elevation range from 1800-6000 ft. Moist forests are 100 to 300 year fire return interval found in mid elevations of 3000-4500 ft (Northeastern Cascades Late-Successional Reserve Assessment Team 1998). The forest type was determined using plot locations, which are UTM coordinates, for each CVS plot which were "joined" in the GIS with a forest type layer provided by John Townsley, the Silviculturalist at the Okanogan National Forest.

2.5 Growth, Treatment, and Wildfire Simulation

To analyze the relative effectiveness of alternate harvest treatment intensities on fire risk reduction and the subsequent economic results, four silvicultural prescriptions were developed to conduct harvest simulations for each CVS plot for the Fremont and Okanogan National Forests. A No-action simulation of growth without disturbance and a Wildfire simulation where all acres were ignited were conducted to represent opposite ends of a control spectrum to evaluate do nothing verses the consequences of potential fire disturbances verses effectiveness of the risk reduction treatments. The four harvest treatments were selected to span a range of removal intensities, removing various categories of trees from the very small to the very large and with both fixed and variable density targets. The treatment alternatives were selected, as well, to be readily comparable to simulation findings emerging from other fire risk reduction research projects. All harvest simulations growth projections were done using variants of FVS within LMS. The East Cascades (EC) Variant of FVS was used for the Okanogan inventories, and the South Central Oregon and Northeastern California (SORNEC) Variant of FVS was used for the Fremont inventories. Simulated treatments were conducted in 2000. Post-treatment inventories were grown forward to 2030 using 5-year growth simulation periods. A set of results were developed with and without ingrowth. Alternatives models included No-action (no treatment or disturbance within the study period), four different harvest treatments, and a wildfire simulation.

The six treatment prescriptions that were developed to investigate the response of different forest types to different treatment strategies include:

No-action (No action). This prescription assumes no harvest activities and no wildfire for the duration of the simulation period. While no wildfire seems an unrealistic expectation, this simulation is valuable to display increases in risk for the forest landscape over time.

Remove 9" and Under (9 and under). This prescription harvests all trees 9" in diameter at breast height (DBH) and smaller. This treatment represents an approach in use by the Forest Service and recommended by Babbitt and Glickman in 2000.

Remove 50% BA, From Below (Half BA). This treatment is a removal of half of the total basal area (BA)/acre by removing the smallest trees (thinning from below).

Leave 45 sqft BA, From Below (BA 45). This treatment is intended to simulate restoration of savannah-like conditions that are similar to what has been described in literature as the pre-settlement open-stand conditions that resulted from frequent but low wildfires (Agee 1993). In the FNF, all ponderosa pine were left standing, while in the Okanogan both ponderosa pine and western larch were favored as leave trees. In both cases, these species were selected for retention in order to help restore these forests to what is considered to be an open pre-settlement condition dominated by thick bark fire tolerant species. For an example of what BA 45 means as a management target consider that if trees are approximately 12" DBH then at BA 45 approximately 57 trees per acre (TPA) would be left after harvest. TPA = BA/DBH²*.005454

Remove 12" and Greater, From Above (12 and over). This treatment is to simulate harvest designed to maximize economic return by taking the largest and most valuable trees that are 12" DBH and larger. This practice was commonly known as "high grading" in the first half of the twentieth century. This simulation conservatively estimates the value of stand inventories at risk from wildfire.

Wildfire Simulation (Wildfire). This simulation is undertaken to demonstrate the levels of mortality for different stand inventories that might be associated with wildfire. The wildfire was simulated using the FFE extension within FVS. Burn conditions to be specified in the model were a temperature of 70 degrees Fahrenheit, a wind speed at 20 feet in the stand of 20 miles per hour, and nominal moisture levels of "very dry" (Crookston, Beukema et al. 2002).
All treatments and the wildfire simulation occurred in year 2000. The four thinning treatments modeled included a removal of all trees with a DBH less than or equal to nine inches (9 and under); a thin from below removing 50% of the original basal area (Half BA); a thin from below with a residual basal area target of 45 square feet favoring ponderosa pine and western larch (BA 45); and a removal of all trees with a DBH greater than or equal to 12 inches (12 and over).

Results were produced for each alternative with and without regeneration to simulate either controlled burn fuel removal or fire risk impacts associated with accumulating fuel loads from ingrowth. Simulations with regeneration were modeled to have a stocking level of 500 trees per acre 4 years after a treatment or wildfire. The distribution of species for the new seedlings was based on the distribution of species by basal area in the residual stand. No-action simulations received no regeneration. All simulations including No-action utilize FVS to "grow" existing inventories (including regeneration where applicable) forward through time to the end of the simulations period at 2030.

2.6 Analysis of Economics

Each of the four harvest alternatives were also analyzed to examine the positive or negative net revenue that resulted when estimated harvest and hauling costs were subtracted from the gross revenues from sale of estimated log yields. Interviews provided a range of primary data regarding local logging and hauling costs and log values by grade and species per thousand board feet (MBF). Secondary data was also gathered from available Forest Service documents and market reports that show the current market opportunities and trends of historic log prices. The collected cost information for operational costs/acre, and average log values/MBF that were incorporated into the economic evaluation of the treatment alternatives examined in this project are described later in the text. Within LMS, a bucking algorithm was used to optimize estimates of log segments that result from trees harvested in simulated silvicultural treatments. Estimated volumes of logs by grade and species from harvest simulations were multiplied by delivered log prices to estimate gross harvest revenue for each stand (plot). The gross and net revenue per acre were computed based upon subtraction of local logging and hauling costs from local market log values by species and grade. In some cases, effective fuel reductions required the removal of non-merchantable small diameter trees. Where this was the case an additional operational cost/acre referred to in this study as pre-commercial thinning (PCT) was charged against gross revenues to complete the economic analysis for each stand. The gross log value/acre minus the logging, hauling, and (PCT) costs equals net economic return per acre. Estimates of preparation, administration, and litigation costs to the USFS are not considered in this economic analysis but have historically been significant as noted in the USFS publication "The Process Predicament" (USDA Forest Service 2002).

2.6.1 Conversions

To utilize the specific logging costs, hauling costs, and log value estimates that were gathered from interviews and publications, some numbers required conversion from tons to thousand board feet. Forestry professionals from both National Forests were interviewed for the appropriate conversion factor to use. Weight to volume conversion factors are by nature variable due to water content in log, tree species, and time since the log has been felled. A conversion rate of 7 tons/MBF was agreed to be most generally representative and was selected to be used to convert some costs and values based on tonnage into $/MBF. Table 2.3 shows the range of conversion factors that resulted from local interviews (local interviews 2002).

Table 2.3. Tons per Thousand Board Feet (MBF) for Eastern Washington and Oregon

High	Low	Average
5.6	8.6	7

 

2.6.2 Logging and Hauling Costs

Nineteen logging contractors were interviewed in Oregon and Washington. These loggers were willing to share information on the logging equipment mixes that they have, the costs to log with their equipment, and the cost to haul the wood to the mill. The haul costs were assigned based on the interview results according to the average haul the loggers suggested for each forest. Harvest operations costs estimates collected from these contractors include both cable and ground based logging operations. Table 2.4 shows the high and low logging, hauling, and PCT costs per acre. These costs were assigned by calculating an average of all the high and low operations costs collected from contractors for each forest. These figures were used for economic valuation of thinning simulations for the FNF and ONF. The PCT costs are included to estimate the range of costs required to thin some of the non-merchantable stems in conjunction with the removal of any merchantable material. A low PCT cost of $300/acre and a high of $500/acre were used to simulate treatment of non-merchantable material as part of fuel reductions in any stand with greater than 200 TPA 6" in diameter or smaller. The interviews with contractors and USFS employees suggested 200 TPA, of submerchantable material as the threshold of when PCT costs become a realistic addition to logging costs. PCT costs include removal of submerchantable material to the road or landing. This material could be used as biomass fuel for energy generation, but has historically not been economically feasible to remove to a conversion site.

Table 2.4. FNF and ONF Low and High Logging, Hauling/MBF and PCT Costs per Acre

Harvest Type by Location	Low	High
Fremont Cable	$160	$246
Fremont Ground	$132	$217
Okanogan Cable	$210	$296
Okanogan Ground	$182	$267
Pre-Commercial	$300	$500

There is a high degree of variability in logging and hauling costs suggested by interview respondents. To demonstrate a representative range of potential operations costs, simulated harvest yields were analyzed for both high and low cost for the four thinning treatments. Interviews with many employees in the Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources, and Oregon Department of Forestry served to confirm contractor cost estimates and validate the range of costs per acre. Several factors including equipment, terrain, contract specifications, and density of stand are known to influence operation cost variability. In addition, many of those interviewed commented on their experiences logging for the USFS compared to logging on private land. Some contractors reported that higher operations charges were necessary to profitably operate on federal forests as opposed to private or state owned forest lands. Other contractors reported that as a result of unfavorable experiences with USFS contracts that they only work on private land now. Interview comments suggested that the many complicated factors regarding contract requirements for harvest activities on federal lands have made such operations difficult and expensive.

2.6.3 Mill Log Values

Logs that are removed during fuel reduction thinnings, can include a mixture of non-merchantable trees, pulp logs and sawlogs. Interviews with mills around the FNF and ONF were combined with log price market reports to estimate delivered log prices. Prices in this study are current as of August 2002. Table 2.5 shows the average prices by grade and species collected from nine mills and three regional log value reports.

Table 2.5. Regional Log Sort Values $/MBF Used for Economic Valuation

FNF Sorts	PP	DF	LP	RC	WP	ES	WF	GF	AF	WL	WH
Pulp	100	122	122				122
Hewsaw	452
Saw 4	400
Saw 3	530
Saw 2	575
Saw 1	625		270				300
ONF SORTS	PP	DF	LP	RC	WP	ES	WF	GF	AF	WL	WH
Pulp	100	100	100	100	100	100		100	100	100	100
Hewsaw	350	350	322	377	343	350		336	336	350	336
Saw 4	331			462
Saw 3	487			525
Saw 2	525	410	289	585	343	300		300	300	410	300
Saw 1	800	479	375	711	628	428		330	330	479	330

2.6.4 Net Revenue Calculation

Volumes of harvest were simulated for alternative thinning treatments and divided to estimate potential yield volumes by species and grade estimated by the bucking algorithm in LMS. Estimates of merchantable volumes of pulp and sawlogs were divided by species and grade. Each species and grade volume was multiplied by the assigned price per MBF. Gross estimated revenues from log sales were determined for each stand and for each treatment alternative by summing species and grade returns for each stand. Treatment costs were subtracted from gross revenue from log sales to determine net revenue. The average net revenues for each treatment type by risk class were calculated for comparison with risk reduction success resulting from each treatment alternative. Risk reduction and the associated economic results when compared for each treatment alternative are presented to offer dual measures of effectiveness. Such comparisons are valuable to foresters planning treatments for maximum risk reduction at least cost. Since harvesting and hauling contractor costs are subtracted from gross revenues, the resultant positive or negative net return from each treatment simulation may be considered indicative of either potential timber sale revenues (theoretical bid maximums in excess of operational costs in the case of a positive returns) or stewardship costs for risk reduction (while logs may not be profitable from a timber sale prospective they do have sufficient value to discount fuel reduction costs when included in a combined goods and services transaction). Neutral returns mean that the value of the logs harvested will cover the risk reduction treatment costs but do not have sufficient value to warrant a timber sale offering. In some cases foresters may want to combine treatments and stands such that the positive revenues available from one stand fuel reduction harvest can be used to offset the negative revenues associated with another stand fuel reduction harvest. This may be done to create a service contract that is cost neutral or a timber sale where the harvest value of some stands carries the cost of fuel reductions for other stands and still yields positive revenue.

2.6.5 Market and non-market values of fire risk reduction

Removal of small diameter trees to reduce hazardous fuel conditions is known to be costly. Large trees can be removed for their lumber and other product values as reflected in the market; however, the market value for the smaller logs is often less than the harvest and hauling charges. However, failure to remove small diameter logs results in the retention of ladder fuels that support the transfer of ground fire to crown fire and aggravate negative wildfire impacts to the landscape.

Unfortunately, the market does not automatically reflect the value of negative environmental consequences that result from crown fires. If the negative impacts that result from crown fires were fully reflected in the market, there would be high motivation to avoid them, providing the necessary incentive to remove high fuel loads in spite of the cost. There are many non-market values associated with reduction of fire risk that should be important to forest owners and to society at large. For example, the cost of fighting fire could and should be considered a cost of not removing high fuel loads. Similarly, there is the value of avoiding facility losses and fatalities. Communities value a lower fire risk and reduced smoke. Habitats for threatened and endangered species are valued by many publics but may be lost to wildfires. Fires reduce the carbon stored in the forest and the opportunity to produce long lasting pools of carbon stored in products. Fires prevent the use of biomass for energy conversion and green energy credits. Regeneration after fires is problematic and costs are high. Post-fire rehabilitation is needed to avoid serious erosion and water contamination from excessive sediment. Surface water consumed by overly dense stands could be saved for other uses such as salmon habitat, municipal reservoirs, and irrigation. There are also forgone rural economic development benefits from the taxes and rural incomes that result from fuel reduction harvest and utilization. Since economic activity in these regions has been in decline as a consequence of the policies to lower federal harvests, any reduction in unemployment has higher than normal leverage on state and local finances by lowering assistance costs.

There may be some negative impacts from fire risk reduction activities offsetting these benefits such as root damage to the trees that are being left in the overstory. These factors need to be considered as possible offsets to the benefits of lowering the risk of infestations and decease caused by high stand densities. A complete benefit cost analysis would attempt to determine the broader benefits and costs of fire risk reduction treatments.

The purpose of this study has been to assemble technical tools and methodologies to assist the design and management of fire risk reduction activities for integration of a suite of public values through strategies customized to local conditions. A review of available literature has been undertaken to develop estimates of non-timber market and non-market values to inform a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis of fuels reduction treatment alternatives.

 

3. CASE STUDY SITE DESCRIPTIONS

The Fremont National Forest (FNF) in Oregon and the Okanogan National Forest (ONF) in Washington were selected as study areas for this project. Both of these National Forests are located within the dry interior portion of the western United States. Both of these forests are thought to have had frequent fire return cycles, prior to European settlement, that created many areas that were dominated by open stands of ponderosa pine (Fremont National Forest 2003; Okanogan National Forest 2003). Both the FNF and the ONF contain substantial acreages of overstocked forests that are considered to be at risk from wildfire Table 3.1. Both National Forests have experienced destructive wildfires in recent years. The communities surrounding these two forests provide a variety of infrastructure options to remove fuel from overstocked stands. However, the logging, transportation, and processing of low value smaller wood has historically not been profitable. The rural communities surrounding these forests have experienced double-digit unemployment and economic declines due to job losses associated with reductions in federal timber harvest volumes. Individuals, organizations, and businesses from both areas demonstrated interest in this investigation and contributed valuable reference information through personal interviews. The citizens of these local Oregon (OR) and Washington (WA) communities appear eager to meet the challenge to remove the fuel from forests with a high fire danger.

Table 3.1. Acres in Initial Fire Risk Class for Forests on FNF and ONF

National Forest	High	Moderate	Low	Total
Fremont	284,838	436,506	207,155	928,499
Okanogan	216,403	369,920	177,562	763,885

3.1 Fremont National Forest

The FNF is in the south central dry interior of the state of Oregon. There are several rural communities surrounding the FNF boundary. The forest lies roughly between the towns of Lakeview, Klamath Falls and Bend, Oregon just north of the California/Oregon border (Figure 3.1). The majority of the 1,198,301 acres within the boundary of the FNF are in Lake County which is 8,359 square miles. The population of Lake County is 7,470 and neighboring Klamath County is 64,116 (US Census Bureau 2003). The town of Lakeview is at the Southeastern corner of the FNF close to the California border and has a population of 2,800 (Fremont National Forest 2003). Lake County has .9 people per square mile. The unemployment rate for 2002 was 8.7% and it was 10.4% in 2001. The high for the 1990's was an unemployment rate of 12.2% (Lake county 2003). "Lake County was also the only county in the state that experienced a net job loss during the 1990's" (Kauffman 2001).

The forest includes wildlife and tree species adapted to the climate and elevation variation from 5,000 to 7,000 feet with mild terrain on slopes roughly 40% and less. About half the FNF is a mixed open forest type; see Figure 3.2, with multi-structured canopies. See Figure 3.3 with Elevation Class Distributions.

Figure 3.1. Fremont National Forest Boundaries

 

Figure 3.2. FNF Forest Type Distribution

Figure 3.3. FNF Elevation Class Distribution

 

Figure 3.4. FNF Canopy Structure Distribution

Figure 3.5. FNF Dominant Species Distribution

Half of the forest plots have greater than 500 trees per acre (TPA). The basal area per acre (BA) ranges from less than 50 ft²/acre to over 250 ft²/acre. The most abundant quadratic mean diameter (QMD) class is four inches. See Figures 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8. The major tree species include ponderosa pine, juniper, lodgepole pine, and at higher elevations white fir. Most of these trees are adapted to summer drought and extreme temperature fluctuations due to the nature of the arid region (Fremont National Forest 2003). The 10-20 inches of average precipitation occur from the autumn through the spring and as a result the summers are dry and hot. Of the 502 plots on the FNF the fire risk distribution is 154 high, 236 moderate, 112 low risk. Figure 3.9 shows high (30.7%), moderate (47%), and low fire risk (22.3%) as a percentage of total forest of total forest acreage.

Figure 3.6. FNF TPA Class Distribution

Figure 3.7. FNF QMD Class Distribution

Figure 3.8. FNF BA Class Distribution

Figure 3.9. FNF Risk Distribution

The results of risk analysis conducted with FFE indicate that 77.8% (390 plots/stands) of FNF is presently in a moderate to high risk condition with 30.7% (154 plots/stands) of the FNF considered to be high fire risk forests. There is 22.3% (112 plots/stands) of FNF in the low risk classification. The FNF has experienced destructive wildfires in recent years. In 2002 over 125,000 acres of the FNF burned due to wildfire (local interviews 2002).

In 2001 22 MMBF were harvested from FNF (local interviews 2002). There is one mill in Lakeview, Oregon. However, as many as 4 mills in the surrounding area receive logs from the FNF. The Fremont National Forest also has a sustained yield unit, and a network of local publics and non-profit organizations working to maintain forestry infrastructure.

3.2 Okanogan National Forest

The Okanogan National Forest (ONF) is located in north central Washington. In 2000, the ONF was merged with the Wenatchee National Forest to become the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Okanogan is the northern portion of what is now the Okanogan-Wenatchee NF. Figure 3.10 shows the original Okanogan National Forest boundary. The Okanogan National Forest consists of 1,226,550 acres total that are spread across four counties including Skagit, Whatcom, Okanogan, and Chelan counties. The population is most concentrated around the towns of Omak and Okanogan. Several of the other towns close to the forest include Oroville, Tonasket, Twisp, Brewster, Winthrop, Chelan, and Leavenworth. The population in 2001 for Okanogan County was over 20,100 and for Chelan County 67,000 (US Census Bureau 2003). The unemployment rate for the past ten years has been over 10% for Okanogan County. In 2000 it was 11% and 2001 it was 10.8%.

ONF is predominately a dry forest type. The ONF has some rugged terrain located from 3000 to 6000 feet in elevation. The Okanogan National Forest is dominated by multi-structured Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, and western larch with a QMD of less than 12". The BA per acre of the forest plots ranges from less than 25 ft²/acre to more than 200 ft²/acre. Tree densities for the majority of the forest plots range from 250 to 4000 TPA (See Figures below).

Figure 3.10. Okanogan National Forest Boundaries

 

 

Figure 3.11. ONF Forest Type Distribution

Figure 3.12. ONF Elevation Distribution

 

Figure 3.13. ONF Canopy Structure Distribution

Figure 3.14. ONF Dominant Species Distribution

Most of these trees in the ONF are adapted to summer drought; high summer temperatures of 90 degrees Fahrenheit are not uncommon (Okanogan National Forest 2003). The 20-40 inches average precipitation occurs from the autumn through the spring with summers that are dry and hot (local interviews 2002).

Figure 3.15. ONF TPA Class Distribution

Figure 3.16. ONF QMD Class Distributions

 

Figure 3.17. ONF BA Class Distribution

Figure 3.18. ONF Risk Distribution

Results of FFE analysis of the ONF data in Washington indicate that of the 413 stands total, 117 (28.3%) are classified as high risk, 200 stands (48.4%) are moderate risk, and 96 stands (23.2%) are low fire risk. There have been large fire years in the past decade in 2000 and 1994 on the ONF. The mills and infrastructure surrounding the ONF are further distances away from the forest as compared to the mills around the FNF. Subsequently, the haul distances and costs required to transport the wood to processing facilities are normally higher in the ONF than in the FNF. There are also a wider variety of species in ONF that, with fuel reductions treatments, may potentially be available for harvest yet may require long-distance hauling to a wide variety of mills. Federal harvest reductions have been more dramatic in the ONF than the FNF. Today the ONF harvest is only a fraction of a percent of the 10 year average reported in the 1989 Okanogan National Forest Plan. The total harvest on the ONF for 2001 was .1 MMBF. Whereas in 1989 the 10 year average harvest volume was 71 MMBF for the Okanogan National Forest (Okanogan National Forest 1989).

• Habitat increases over time for goshawks as No-action results in increases to basal area and QMD, both of which are important habitat considerations for goshawks.
  
  
• Habitat decreases for Lewis' woodpeckers as canopy closure increases.
  
  
• Habitat remains approximately stationary for white-headed woodpeckers and Williamson's sapsuckers in both high and moderate risk stands.
  
  
• Habitat for pileated woodpecker and northern flying squirrel increases slightly in high risk stands under No-action. In moderate risk stands, habitat for pileated woodpecker and northern flying squirrel is absent and does not appear over the 35 year period with No-action.
  
  
• Townsend's big-eared bat habitat decreases slightly in high risk forests as an increasing number of stands move into the stem exclusion stage. Habitat for Townsend's big-eared bat in moderate risk stands increases slightly with No-action as more stands move into the young forest stage.
  
  
• In general, No-action results in more habitat for closed-canopied, mature forest species (e.g. northern goshawk), while decreasing habitat for more open-canopied specialists (e.g. Lewis' woodpecker).

• The No-action treatment assumes no fires during the investigation period, however, No-action would likely result in catastrophic wildfire in many high and moderate risk stands.
  
  
• Habitat for species that prefer older forests such as the northern goshawk and Williamson's sapsucker disappears following the Wildfire simulation.
  
  
• Habitat for Lewis' woodpecker increases dramatically as a result of wildfire due to a post disturbance abundance of fire-created snags and substantial decreases in canopy cover.
  
  
• Habitat suitability for white-headed woodpecker increases slightly in moderate risk stands and decreases slightly in high risk stands following Wildfire. While Wildfire increases the number of snags available (which are desirable for white-headed woodpeckers), it also reduces the number of large ponderosa pines, a key habitat component of white-headed woodpeckers. The modeling result is that one factor equalizes the other for the high and moderate risks combined.
  
  
• Wildfire eliminates habitat for pileated woodpecker, northern flying squirrel, and Townsend's big-eared bat.

• Habitat suitability for northern goshawks varied considerably among thinning treatments, particularly in high risk stands. The 9 and under treatment increases habitat suitability beyond that of No-action, while Half BA results in habitat increases similar to No-action. Conversely, both the BA 45 and 12 and over treatments reduce habitat below that of No-action and, while both increase after initial declines following treatment, neither regains the habitat suitability comparable to No-action. For the FNF, the HSI model for northern goshawks requires a minimum basal area of 60 ft²/acre with a preferred habitat basal area of greater than 220 ft²/acre.
  
  
• Habitat for Lewis' woodpecker increased substantially under all three thin-from-below treatments due to decreases in canopy cover. The 12 and over treatment improved Lewis' woodpecker habitat to a lesser extent initially but habitat suitability declined rapidly following this treatment due to the re-closure of the overstory canopy.
  
  
• Habitat for white-headed woodpecker did not differ from No-action over time for the three thin-from-below treatments, however, the 12 and over treatment reduced habitat suitability because of the removal of large ponderosa pines.
  
  
• Habitat for Williamson's sapsucker was reduced by the thin-from-below treatments due to reductions in canopy cover. The 12 and over treatment, however, did not substantially reduce habitat suitability below that of No-action.
  
  
• Habitat suitability for pileated woodpecker is very low in both high and moderate risk stands and is not increased very substantially with any of the treatments.
  
  
• In high risk stands, northern flying squirrel habitat increases to its highest level using the 12 and over treatment due to the creation of some 'Understory Reinitiation' stage classifications for some stands. Initially, 12 and over reduces habitat below that of No-action, but over time it reaches nearly twice the level of No-action. All three thin-from-below treatments result in fewer habitats for northern flying squirrel than No-action. Habitat for northern flying squirrel is low in moderate risk stands and is not increased substantially with any treatments.
  
  
• Habitat for Townsend's big-eared bat after the 12 and over treatment remains very similar to No-action, while habitat declines to near zero for all the thin-from-below treatments in both high and moderate risk stands. This modeling determination is because these treatments result in most of the forest being classified together as the 'Stem exclusion' open canopy (SEO) condition.

• Including regeneration does not change the results for any wildlife species habitat evaluations under the Wildfire scenario.

• With regeneration, goshawk habitat is lower compared to the Below 9 treatment without regeneration because the quadratic mean diameter (QMD) is reduced by the addition of many small trees. The modeled assessment of goshawk habitat quality is dependent upon QMD with the preferred QMD greater than 16 inches. Goshawk habitat in high risk stands is lower in the Half BA treatment when regeneration is included compared to simulations without regeneration. In moderate risk stands, however, goshawk habitat, after the Half BA treatment, improves with the inclusion of regeneration. This is due to the fact that the regeneration adds needed basal area to the stands in order to meet the minimum goshawk habitat basal area requirement of 60 ft²/acre for the Fremont. The BA 45 treatment with regeneration results in increases of goshawk habitat in both high and moderate risk stands after the first decade for this same reason. The 12 and over treatment does not differ substantially with the addition of regeneration with respect to goshawk habitat suitability.
  
  
• In both high and moderate risk stands, habitat for Lewis' woodpecker declines slightly in the last decade of simulations due to an increased canopy cover caused by maturing regeneration.
  
  
• Habitat for white-headed woodpecker remains constant with or without regeneration
  
  
• The quantity of Williamson's sapsucker habitat resulting from treatments with regeneration differs from treatments without regeneration during the last three growth periods where habitat suitability increases slightly due to increases in canopy cover. Williamson's sapsucker habitat, however, remains below No-action for all the treatments even with regeneration.
  
  
• Habitat suitability for pileated woodpecker and northern flying squirrel did not change when regeneration was included. Habitat for Townsend's big-eared bat, however, differed dramatically when regeneration was included. In both high and moderate risk stands, the 12 and over treatment created an abundance of 'Young forest, Multi-story' stands when regeneration was included. 'Young forest, Multi-story' is source habitat for Townsend's big-eared bat. Habitat suitability using 12 and over is greater than No-action for both high and moderate risk stands when regeneration is included.
  
  
• The three thin-from-below treatments all improved Townsend's big-eared bat habitat substantially when regeneration was included; however only in moderate risk stands did habitat increases for thin-from-below treatments surpass No-action.

• Habitat increases over time for goshawks as No-action results in increases to basal area and QMD, both of which are important habitat considerations for goshawks.
  
  
• Habitat decreases for Lewis' woodpeckers as canopy closure increases.
  
  
• Habitat remains approximately stationary for white-headed woodpeckers and Williamson's sapsuckers in both high and moderate risk stands.
  
  
• Pileated Woodpecker habitat appears to be very rare (<5% of total possible habitat units) in both high and moderate risk stands and is never consequentially developed under any of the treatment scenarios; either with or without regeneration.
  
  
• Habitat for northern flying squirrel increases most dramatically over time under the No-action simulation in the high risk stands with increases that are less dramatic in moderate risk stands.
  
  
• Townsend's big-eared bat, Canada lynx, and grizzly bear habitats remain stable and abundant with No-action as more stands move into older forest structures.
  
  
• In general, No-action results in more habitat for closed-canopied, mature forest species (e.g. northern goshawk), while decreasing habitat for more open-canopied specialists (e.g. Lewis' woodpecker).

• The No-action treatment assumes no fires during the investigation period, however, No-action would likely result in catastrophic wildfire in many high and moderate risk stands. However, wildfire simulations for the ONF do not result in the near total stem mortality as experienced with the FNF. In some stands wildfire performs in similar fashion to a heavy thin-from-below management treatment. Small trees are removed/killed and large overstory trees are left as living residuals. Wildfires also create snags that can be important to wildlife such as woodpeckers.
  
  
• For northern goshawks, Wildfire reduces habitat below that of No-action in both high and moderate risk stands. Since the fire tends to kill the smaller trees the wildfire results produce goshawk habitat levels that are similar to the Half BA treatment simulation or about half of the level of No-action over time.
  
  
• Wildfire substantially increases habitat over No-action for Lewis' woodpeckers and white-headed woodpeckers by reducing canopy closure and creating new snags. In contrast to the Fremont, Wildfire on the Okanogan did not destroy many of large ponderosa pines. This is a habitat element considered very important for white-headed woodpeckers.
  
  
• Habitat for Williamson's sapsucker disappears following Wildfire. Wildfire removes too much canopy cover for Williamson's sapsuckers. The optimal range is 30-60% (Okanogan mean pretreatment = 36%). Additionally, Williamson's sapsucker requires soft snags, which are not created by wildfire. Wildfire removes the pre-existing soft snags and those new snags created by wildfire are not considered to be suitable for use by Williamson's sapsuckers.
  
  
• Wildfire reduces habitat for northern flying squirrel, Townsend's big-eared bat, lynx, and grizzly bear in much the same way that the under-thinning treatments result in habitat reductions. Lynx habitat does not decline substantially (it goes from 95% to 80% of total possible habitat units), while habitat for northern flying squirrel, Townsend's big-eared bat, and grizzly bear all decline to small fractions of levels present with No-action.

• Habitat suitability for goshawks varied considerably among thinning treatments, particularly in the high risk stands. The 9 and under treatment results in habitat suitability comparable to that of No-action, while Half BA and 12 and over result in reductions to habitat similar to those of Wildfire (about half the level of No-action over time). Conversely, BA 45 eliminates habitat due to the large basal area requirement for Okanogan forests to be considered goshawk habitat. Whereas 60 ft²/acre is the minimum basal requirement for the FNF to be goshawk habitat, 80 ft²/ac is required for the ONF and, to be considered preferred habitat, the forest must have a basal area of greater than 240 ft²/acre.
  
  
• Habitat for Lewis' woodpecker increased substantially under all three thin-from-below treatments due to decreases in canopy cover. The 12 and over treatment improved Lewis' woodpecker habitat to a lesser extent initially but habitat suitability declined rapidly following this treatment due to a loss of canopy openings as the forest grew.
  
  
• Habitat for white-headed woodpecker did not differ substantially from No-action over time as an effect of the thin-from-below treatments, while the 12 and over treatment reduced habitat suitability due to loss of large overstory ponderosa pines.
  
  
• Habitat for Williamson's Sapsucker was reduced by the thin-from-below treatments due to reductions in the degree of canopy closure. The 12 and over treatment, however, did not substantially reduce habitat suitability below that of No-action.
  
  
• Habitat suitability for pileated woodpecker is very low in both high and moderate risk stands and is not increased substantially with any of the treatments.
  
  
• In both high and moderate risk stands, northern flying squirrel habitat remains below, but close to, No-action using the 12 and over treatment that results in the development of some 'Understory reinitiation' stand classifications. Initially, 12 and over reduces habitat below that of No-action, but over time it reaches close to the level of No-action. All three thin-from-below treatments nearly eliminate northern flying squirrel habitat.
  
  
• Habitat for Townsend's big-eared bat and grizzly bear using the 12 and over treatment remains very similar to No-action, while habitat declines to near zero under all thin-from-below treatments in both high and moderate risk stands. Lynx habitat declines by approximately 20% from No-action when the thin-from-below treatments are used (comparable with 'wildfire'). The 12 and over treatment maintains habitat at similar levels as does the No-action.

• Including regeneration does not change the results substantially for any of the HSI species (goshawk, Lewis' woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, Williamson's sapsucker) or for the northern flying squirrel under the 'wildfire' scenario. Over time, however, regeneration has the effect of moving stands from 'Stem exclusion, open canopy' (a stage commonly created by 'wildfire' on the Okanogan) to 'Young forest, multi-story'. The result is that habitat increases for lynx, grizzly bear, and Townsend's big-eared bat when regeneration is included in the wildfire simulation.

• With regeneration, goshawk habitat does not fare as well under most of the thinning treatments because QMD is reduced by the introduction of many small trees. Under the BA 45 scenario, however, goshawk habitat is increased slightly compared with no regeneration as a result of the addition of needed basal area provided by the young trees.
  
  
• In both high and moderate risk stands, habitat for Lewis' woodpecker does not differ substantially when regeneration is included.
  
  
• Habitat for both white-headed woodpeckers and Williamson's sapsuckers does not differ substantially when regeneration is included.
  
  
• Habitat suitability for northern flying squirrel did not change substantially when regeneration was included.
  
  
• Habitat for Townsend's big-eared bat, lynx, and grizzly bear, however, differed dramatically when regeneration was included. 'Young forest, multi-story' is source habitat for these species and including regeneration moves stands from 'Stem exclusion, open canopy' (a stage classification that commonly results from thinning treatments on the Okanogan) to 'Young forest, multi-story'.

• Information from the literature and the results of this investigation would indicate that northern goshawk habitat occurs in high and moderate risk stands and attempts to reduce fire risk with heavy thinning may decrease the quality of habitat for this species. Light to moderate thinning from below (e.g. 9 and under) may improve goshawk habitat in some stands, however. Goshawks require a relatively mature stand with high canopy cover and adequate flight space beneath the canopy. Goshawks also are thought to require large-diameter snags and logs that if retained in young managed forests could make these areas suitable as habitat. However, those management actions that maximize basal area while minimizing densities of small trees in the understory and midstory layers and retain large-diameter logs and snags appear to be best suited for goshawk habitat enhancement through management (Wisdom et al. 2000a 2000b).

• The No-action treatment for all risk classes stores more carbon in the forest, products, and displacement than all other treatment alternatives.
  
  
• Because the No-action alternative generates no products and because steel emits large amounts of carbon during the manufacturing process, when substitution is considered, all treatment alternatives result in less carbon released to the atmosphere than the No-action alternative. The No-action treatment assumes that there are no forest fires during the investigation period.

• Wildfire simulation represents the likely outcome for many moderate and high risk stands during the period of investigation.
  
  
• Wildfire simulation provides useful estimate of the carbon costs of wildfire. The carbon released to the atmosphere from wildfire is high for all risk classes, as the amount of carbon per acre at the end of the simulation period is significantly lower than the No-action or other treatment alternatives.

• In High risk stands, the 12 and over treatment removes the most carbon from the forest and stores the most in products. BA 45 removes nearly as much carbon from the forest but stores several MT/acre less in products. 9 and under removes the least from the forest and stores the least in products.
  
  
• In Moderate risk stands, the order remains the same as in High risk stands. BA 45 is nearly identical in carbon removed from the forest and carbon stored in products as the Half BA treatment.
  
  
• The amount of carbon in the forest after each treatment decreases until 2010 while decay is greater than growth, then increases through the remaining time period as regeneration becomes established.
  
  
• The growth model predicts a release of understory trees following the 12 and over treatment, causing significantly more biomass growth then the other treatments after 2010.
  
  
• If substitution is not considered, more carbon is stored during the simulation period in the No-action alternative.
  
  
• When substitution is considered, the treatments that generated the most long-term products provided the most substitution, therefore resulted in the least release of atmospheric carbon. In High risk stands there was a significant difference between each treatment: 12 and over resulted in the least carbon release, followed by BA 45, then Half BA, then 9 and under. In Moderate risk stands, the order was the same, but the Half BA treatment had very similar results to the BA 45 treatment.

• In High risk stands regeneration adds 2 to 8 MT/acre of carbon by 2030 among all treatment and wildfire alternatives
  
  
• In Moderate risk stands regeneration adds 2 to 6 MT/acre of carbon by 2030 among all treatment and wildfire alternatives
  
  
• Products and emissions are not affected by regeneration
  
  
• For the carbon analysis, regeneration has a minor impact on carbon stored in the forest, and an extremely small impact on carbon when substitution is considered.

Table 4.5. Average Metric Tons per Acre of Carbon in the Forest by Treatment for the FNF

	High Risk		Moderate Risk		High and Mod. Risk
Treatment	2000	2030	2000	2030	2000	2030
NoAction	45	64	23	36	27	41
Wildfire	43	6	21	3	25	4
9&Under	41	50	22	28	25	31
HalfBA	35	39	18	21	21	24
BA45	29	24	18	21	19	21
12&Above	27	38	15	22	16	24

 

Table 4.6. Average Metric Tons per Acre of Carbon in Products by Treatment from the FNF

	High Risk		Moderate Risk		High and Mod. Risk
Treatment	2000	2030	2000	2030	2000	2030
NoAction	0	0	0	0	0	0
Wildfire	0	0	0	0	0	0
9&Under	2	1	1	0	1	0
HalfBA	6	2	4	1	4	1
BA45	12	3	4	1	6	1
12&Above	15	4	8	2	9	2

 

Table 4.7. Average Metric Tons per Acre of Carbon in the Forest, Products, and Displacement by Treatment in the FNF

	High Risk		Moderate Risk		High and Mod. Risk
Treatment	2000	2030	2000	2030	2000	2030
NoAction	45	64	23	36	27	41
Wildfire	43	6	21	3	25	4
9&Under	42	51	22	29	25	32
HalfBA	39	42	21	23	24	26
BA45	36	30	20	23	23	24
12&Above	36	45	20	25	22	28

 

Table 4.8

Average Metric Tons per Acre of Carbon in Forest, Products, Displacement, and Substitution by Treatment in the FNF

	High Risk		Moderate Risk		High and Mod. Risk
Treatment	2000	2030	2000	2030	2000	2030
NoAction	45	64	23	36	27	41
Wildfire	43	6	21	3	25	4
9&Under	68	76	40	47	36	42
HalfBA	112	114	70	72	63	65
BA45	173	167	89	90	69	72
12&Above	214	224	132	139	115	121

Table 4.9. Average Increase in Metric Tons per Acre of Carbon with Regeneration

	High Risk	Moderate Risk	High and Mod. Risk
Treatment	2030	2030	2030
NoAction	0	0	0
Wildfire	3	3	3
9&Under	5	4	5
HalfBA	6	6	6
BA45	8	6	7
12&Above	2	2	2

 

4.5.2 Okanogan

The range of treatment alternatives developed and analyzed for fuel reduction effectiveness had differing impacts on carbon sequestration and storage. Results are presented for each risk class on the ONF at four progressive stages in the complete carbon analysis. The first two results for each risk class present the amount of carbon stored in the forest and in products minus harvesting and manufacturing emissions. The third result presents the amount of carbon in the forest and long-term products, plus the amount of potential carbon emissions displaced from producing energy by burning the short-term products to generate electricity as a substitute for natural gas. The last result in each set presents the carbon from the third stage plus the amount of potential carbon emissions displaced by substituting the long-term products for steel construction materials. All results are presented as average per acre metric tons (MT) of carbon after each cycle.

High risk stands in the ONF contained a mean of 38 MT of forest carbon per acre at the beginning of the simulation period. This was significantly more then the initial conditions for the Moderate risk stands, which contained 29 MT of carbon. The High and Moderate risk classes combined averaged 30 MT/acre before treatments.

4.5.2.1 No-action

• The No-action treatment for all risk classes stores more carbon in the forest, products, and displacement than all other treatment alternatives.
  
  
• Because the No-action alternative generates no products and because steel emits large amounts of carbon during the manufacturing process, when substitution is considered, all treatment alternatives result in less carbon released to the atmosphere than the No-action alternative. The No-action treatment assumes that there are no forest fires during the investigation period.

4.5.2.2 Wildfire

• Wildfire simulation represents the likely outcome for many moderate and high risk stands during the period of investigation.
  
  
• Wildfire simulation provides useful estimate of the carbon costs of wildfire. The carbon released to the atmosphere from wildfire is high for all risk classes, as the amount of carbon per acre at the end of the simulation period is significantly lower than the No-action or other treatment alternatives.

4.5.2.3 Treatments

• In High risk stands, the BA 45 treatment removes 1MT/acre more forest biomass than the 12 and over treatment but 12 and over results in more carbon in products indicating that several MT/acre removed by BA 45 must have been non-merchantable logs. The 9 and under treatment removes the least from the forest and stores the least in products.
  
  
• In Moderate risk stands, the 12 and over removed more carbon from the forest and stored more in products.
  
  
• The amount of carbon in the forest after each treatment decreases until 2010 while decay is greater than growth, then increases through the remaining time period as regeneration becomes established.
  
  
• The growth model predicts a release of understory trees following the 12 and over treatment, causing significantly more biomass growth then the other treatments after 2010.
  
  
• If substitution is not considered, more carbon is stored during the simulation period in the No-action alternative.
  
  
• When substitution is considered, the treatments that generated the most long-term products provided the most substitution, therefore resulted in the least release of atmospheric carbon. In High risk stands there was a significant difference between each treatment: 12 and over resulted in the least carbon release, followed by BA45, which was significantly different than Half BA, and 9 and under. In Moderate risk stands, the performance order was the same.

4.5.2.4 Regeneration

• In High risk stands regeneration adds 1 to 4 MT/acre of carbon by 2030 among all treatment and wildfire alternatives
  
  
• In Moderate risk stands regeneration adds 1 to 5 MT/acre of carbon by 2030 among all treatment and wildfire alternatives
  
  
• Products and emissions are not affected by regeneration
  
  
• For the carbon analysis, regeneration has a minor impact on carbon stored in the forest, and an extremely small impact on carbon when substitution is considered.
  

Table 4.10. Average Metric Tons per Acre of Carbon in the Forest by Treatment for the ONF

	High Risk		Moderate Risk		High and Mod. Risk
Treatment	2000	2030	2000	2030	2000	2030
NoAction	42	62	31	48	33	50
Wildfire	35	21	27	12	28	13
9&Under	34	40	27	33	29	36
HalfBA	32	37	24	27	25	27
BA45	26	26	22	24	23	25
12&Above	27	41	18	28	19	28

Table 4.11. Average Metric Tons per Acre of Carbon in Products by Treatment from the ONF

	High Risk		Moderate Risk		High and Mod. Risk
Treatment	2000	2030	2000	2030	2000	2030
NoAction	0	0	0	0	0	0
Wildfire	0	0	0	0	0	0
9&Under	4	1	2	1	2	1
HalfBA	5	1	5	1	5	1
BA45	9	2	6	2	7	2
12&Above	10	3	9	2	10	3

 

Table 4.12

Average Metric Tons per Acre of Carbon in the Forest, Products, and Displacement by Treatment in the ONF

	High Risk		Moderate Risk		High and Mod. Risk
Treatment	2000	2030	2000	2030	2000	2030
NoAction	42	62	31	48	33	50
Wildfire	35	21	27	12	28	13
9&Under	37	41	29	34	30	37
HalfBA	35	39	26	29	28	30
BA45	32	30	25	27	27	28
12&Above	33	46	24	32	25	33

 

Table 4.13

Average Metric Tons per Acre of Carbon in Forest, Products, Displacement, and Substitution by Treatment in the ONF

	High Risk		Moderate Risk		High and Mod. Risk
Treatment	2000	2030	2000	2030	2000	2030
NoAction	42	62	31	48	33	50
Wildfire	35	21	27	12	28	13
9&Under	78	83	53	58	54	61
HalfBA	95	100	80	83	88	90
BA45	141	139	97	99	105	106
12&Above	154	167	135	142	150	157

 

Table 4.14

Average Increase in Metric Tons per Acre of Carbon by 2030 by Treatment with Regeneration

	High Risk	Moderate Risk	High and Mod. Risk
Treatment	2030	2030	2030
NoAction	0	0	0
Wildfire	2	5	3
9&Under	4	4	4
HalfBA	3	3	3
BA45	3	4	3
12&Above	1	1	1

4.6 Market and Non-Market Values of Fire Risk Reduction

As a consequence of the large intense fires in the inland west over recent years, considerable public attention is being directed at addressing the question of how to reduce the hazardous fuel loads from the overly dense forests that characterize the region. Removal of the many small trees that make up these fuel loads is known to be costly. While large trees can be removed for lumber and other product values as reflected in the market, the market value for the smaller logs may be less than the harvest and hauling charges, resulting in a reduction in value for thinning operations that are needed to lower fire risk. However, failure to remove these small logs results in the retention of ladder fuels that support the transfer of any ground fire to a crown fire with destructive impacts to the forest landscape.

Unfortunately the market does not automatically reflect the costs of negative environmental consequences. If the negative impacts that result from crown fires were fully reflected in the market, there would be high motivation to avoid them, providing the necessary incentive to remove high fuel loads in spite of the cost. There are many market and non-market values associated with reduction of risk that should be important to forest managers and to society at large (Pfilf et al. 2002). For example, the cost of fighting fire could and should be considered a cost of not removing high fuel loads. Similarly, there is the value of avoiding facility losses and fatalities. Communities value a lower fire risk and reduced smoke. The United States Congress has historically placed a very high value on species protection (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service ESA 2003, USDA Forest Service NFMA 2003) yet irreplaceable habitats for threatened and endangered species may be lost when forests burn. Fires also reduce the carbon stored in the forest and the opportunity to produce long lasting pools of carbon stored in products. Fires consume biomass that otherwise could be used for energy conversion and green energy credits.

Regeneration after fires is problematic and costly, and there can be other rehabilitation needed to avoid serious erosion and water contamination from excessive sediment. Water consumed by overly dense forests could be saved for other uses such as habitat, municipal reservoirs, and irrigation. There are also foregone rural economic development benefits from the taxes and rural incomes that would result from fuel reduction activities. Since economic activity in these regions has been in decline as a consequence of lower federal timber harvests, any reduction in unemployment has higher than normal leverage on state and local finances by lowering assistance costs.

In contrast, there may be some negative impacts from removing hazardous fuels such as root damage to the trees left in the overstory or compaction to soils in skid trails that could offset the benefits. These costs need to be considered as well as the benefits of lowering the risk of infestations and disease caused by high stand densities. A complete cost/benefit analysis would attempt to determine if the value of fire risk reduction treatments more than offsets their cost.

The purpose of this study is to assist the design and management of fire risk reduction activities that integrate a suite of public values with strategies customized to local conditions. Rather than attempt to estimate these values for each local community, this project provides a coarse estimate and methodology to assist in the consideration of the broad set of values associated with reductions of hazardous forest fuels. Once the range of values for consideration has been established, a methodology for cost assessment and appraisal can be refined for local situations as necessary.

4.6.1 Reduced fire fighting cost

Fire cost data is generally available, but it differs from year to year, from fire to fire, and from one location to another. The most costly efforts are likely to be expended when facilities or other assets are in the path of a fire. Fire cost data from the FNF and the ONF appear to agree: the larger the acreage of a fire event then generally the lower the average per acre cost. Large fires have other costs such as losses of habitat and timber resources that can be considered in addition to fire fighting expenditures. Averages of historic fire fighting costs can be used to estimate the future benefit of lowering fire risk through fuel reduction activities. While precise risk assessments are impossible, approximations of the value trade-offs associated with investments today to avoid future risks are useful.

Stands thinned to remove fuel loads have been shown to be unlikely to experience crown fires (Omni et al. 2002). Accounting for the value of that reduced risk exposure must take into consideration both the consequences of not thinning and when those consequences (costs) might occur. With limited knowledge about the probability of when a future fire might occur in a specific location, the savings of future fire-fighting costs must be discounted to an expected present value based upon either a reasonable estimated time to fire or based upon a distributed risk probability.

The present condition of forested areas at risk is a result a century of logging and fire suppression in forests that historically had short fire return intervals (Agee 1993, Powell et al 2001). In 1999, the U. S. General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report which concluded that "the most extensive and serious problem related to the health of national forests in the interior West is the accumulation of vegetation." The GAO estimated that 39 million acres of national forestlands were at high risk due to excessive fuel loads and that $12 billion would be needed between 1995 and 2015 to reduce excess fuel accumulations, an average expenditure of $725 million annually (GAO 1999). Since this 1999 GAO report, estimates of the acreage of forest considered at high risk have increased. In 2001, the Forest Service reported that 56 million acres of national forestlands were considered at high risk of catastrophic fire, primarily due to overcrowded trees (Powell et al. 2001). The challenge is to better understand the magnitude of this risk exposure and then to be able to translate that magnitude into a present value of risk that is useful for local as well as regional estimations of costs and benefit of fire risk reduction investments.

While analysis of data for this investigation has shown that very large areas of both the Fremont and the Okanogan National Forests (586,323 acres on the FNF; 721,344 acres on the ONF) are at high or moderate fire risk, no methodology has been offered to assess the temporal probabilities of when a forest fire might occur. Such a modeling exercise would be an extremely complex undertaking with output accuracy limited by the generous assumptions that would be needed to deal with multiple unknowns. On the other hand, it is reasonable to assume that at some time there will be a forest fire in high and moderate risk forests and that there is monetary risk associated with that inevitable event. We need estimates of the present value cost of fire risk exposure to understand the benefits of investments in fuels reductions today to reduce risk tomorrow. Creation of an output table that can be used to compare the relative magnitude of cost with the risk of ignition at different times could help define cost ranges. Present value calculations can be used to look at potential costs of future forest fires parametrically such that time, discount rate, and magnitude of event are definable variables readily customized for assignment of present values that fit a spectrum of local expectations. The calculations for two possible accounting approaches to assess the present value of future costs associated with fire in moderate to high risk classes are displayed in Figure 4.28. Method 1 is a calculation of the present (discounted) value of a fire fighting expenditure to be made at a known future date. Method 2 is a calculation that estimates the expected present value of a future fire fighting expenditure at an unknown time with an equal probability of risk for all years in a defined interval. For purposes of this approach, the risk of concern is the present forest condition and the time to fire. Additional risks/costs associated with post-fire re-burn or accumulation of future fuel loads from regeneration, while they are arguably real long term liabilities that add to forest management costs, are not considered for this valuation exercise.

In Table 4.15, cost estimates developed from the use of both methods are displayed. Fire fighting cost is assumed to be $1000/acre and the discount rate is 5%. These figures are offered here only as reasonable estimates. On the FNF and the ONF, the average cost/acre to fight forest fires has been over $1000/acre for the largest fires, and smaller fires can be much more costly (see Figures 4.21 and 4.22). An assumed inflation adjusted discount rate of 5% is common in financial analysis. Results from Method 1, the present value of a future cost at a specific time, show lower cost estimates than those of Method 2 because Method 1 assigns no value to risk probability that a fire could happen sooner than the specified time. Method 1 analysis shows that thinning a forest 30 years before it would have burned results in a present value savings of $231/acre. Considered another way this means that $0.23 is the present value saved today of every $1.00 of fire fighting cost that otherwise would have to be expended in thirty years. As the time to fire shortens, reductions from discounting decrease and the present value approaches the cost outlay. For example, if the forest fire would have occurred in 15 years instead of 30 years, the present value of the fire cost savings is $0.48 per $1.00 of fire fighting cost instead of $0.23.

Figure 4.28. Present Value Estimations of Future Fire Fighting Costs

 

Table 4.15

Parametric Present Value Estimations of Fire Risk Costs with Assumptions of $1000/acre to Fight Fire and 5% as the Discount Rate

 

Table 4.16

Present Value (PV)/acre of Theoretical WTP Annual Contributions from Households for Protection from Wildfire on the FNF and ONF (Note that PV is Less for FNF because of Less Population and More Acres at Risk)

4.6.6 Carbon credits

By international agreement, countries are attempting to lower carbon emissions (i.e. increase carbon sequestration) in order to slow down global warming. Forests play an important role as carbon is sequestered and stored in forests and wood products. Global carbon emissions can be reduced by biomass conversion to energy that reduces fossil fuel consumption. Wood products prevent carbon emissions by displacing the use of non-renewable, energy- intensive building products such as steel or concrete (Bowyer et al 2002). As demonstrated by carbon assessments for treatment alternatives in this investigation, carbon pools can be measured for any given treatment plan and compared to a No-action plan or a post fire scenario. The transition from a No-action alternative to a post fire alternative, using the FNF and ONF simulations as examples, is likely to result in an average release of 21.5 tons of carbon per acre (2000-2030) if the high and moderate risk forest burns. However, the alternative of thinning from below to 45 ft² basal area/acre (BA 45) has been shown to reduce the fire hazard effectively and at the same time provide a flow of wood products that displaces fossil fuel intensive products and energy while contributing to a cumulative carbon pool of as much as 80.5 tons per acre. Carbon markets are not well-developed but can be expected to grow with the value of carbon increasing as more emitters of carbon (primarily utilities) bid for carbon offsets. Some studies suggest the value of carbon will need to become much higher than $10/ton in order to reach future emission targets even though current prices are closer to $2. Even $4 per ton would result in an average carbon credit of $326 per acre for the BA45 treatment. If the carbon accounting rules took into consideration the likely impacts of fire risk reduction treatments, the discounted value would be $156.81/acre for high risk and $75.31/acre for moderate risk. However, the Kyoto protocol presently treats carbon flows in products beyond the forest as leakage. Even with this accounting convention, though, as long as the likelihood of fire is considered, the credit for just the carbon in the standing biomass could represent a discounted value of $41.37 per acre for high risk and $19.87 per acre for moderate risk.

The amount of potential carbon stored is also substantial. The difference between the total carbon stored under BA45 verses a wildfire could contribute 68 million tons of additional carbon by 2030.

4.6.7 Green energy credits

Like carbon credits, there are markets that credit green energy sources such that power purchasers pay a premium per kilowatt hour for power produced without fossil fuels and from renewable resources. This could be considered duplicatory with carbon credits and hence no credit is included in this investigation. However, there are emerging market opportunities with benefits for green power producers presently being developed through public utilities districts that may translate back to increased value for wood biomass from overstocked small diameter forests.

4.6.8 Electrical transmission cost reductions

Rural generated energy reduces the need for transmission lines. These cost reductions are likely to be regional-specific and perhaps smaller than many of the other benefits already noted. They could be quite important for some remote locations with a growing population. Rural generation plants also bring the additional benefit of economic development.

4.6.9 Regeneration and rehabilitation costs

Regeneration costs for commercially harvested forestland normally average $250 per acre (interviews 2002). Regeneration costs may be much higher and less successful after a hot forest fire (interviews 2002). Additional expenditures may be needed for rehabilitation activities to reduce erosion and protect water quality. Rehabilitation costs have been reported in the $0-$400 per acre range (interviews 2002). Increased regeneration costs and rehabilitation costs are likely to be site specific, hence for this valuation only an average regeneration cost

($250/acre) has been used to estimate present value of post-fire restoration investments ($120/acre for high risk areas and $58/acre for moderate risk areas).

4.6.10 Water quantity and quality

Dense, closed forest conditions result in lower water yields than forests with openings in the canopy (Covington1994). Research has shown that thinning forests increases snow pack water equivalency (SWE) and snowmelt runoff while decreasing water losses from evapotranspiration, resulting in increases in available ground and surface water (Troendle 1987, Shepard 1994, Stednick 1996). Increases in water yield from forested sites are proportional to the percentage of canopy removed by harvest (Macdonald 2002). Forest hydrologists have estimated that selective harvesting can result in 20%-40% increases of water yield from pre-harvest conditions and that these increases may last for decades (Troendle 1985, Swanson 1987).

Thinning of overstocked, forested areas at risk from wildfire can help insure future water quality as well as increase water availability. When significant precipitation occurs after a high severity forest fire, rapid surface runoff and peak flows may result in flash floods and erosion that can cause destruction to aquatic habitats and seriously affect water quality for human use (Newcomb and MacDonald 1991, Robichaud and Brown 1999, Scott 2001, Graham 2002).

Development of site-specific economic estimates for the contribution from hazardous fuels reduction treatments to increased availability of water quantities and protected water quality will be important for comprehensive assessments of the costs and benefits of fire risk reduction in overstocked forests. A valuation of estimated additional water yields summed with a valuation of an estimate of protected water quality will require a research effort beyond the scope of this investigation. However, scientists have agreed for some time that benefits can be real and consequential (Wilm and Dunford 1948, Oregon Forest Resources Institute 2000). For purposes of non-market assessments, this report will develop a conservative value estimate for water quantity and quality to be used as a placeholder until further research can better inform valuation decisions.

What is water worth? On the low end, irrigators in the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) in southern California have senior water rights on the Colorado River and get the water for free after paying a delivery charge of $15.50/acre-foot. An acre-foot is the equivalent of one acre of water one foot deep and is equal to 326,000 gallons. Recently the IID negotiated a sale of up to 200,000 acre-feet per year to the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) at the rate of $249/acre-foot. However, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) calculates its untreated water rate at $349/acre-foot (Imperial Irrigation District 2002). In Washington state, Kris Kauffmann, Professional Engineer and the principle consultant of Water Rights Incorporated, reports that an average selling price for irrigation water rights in eastern Washington is $500/acre-foot.

By comparison, Seattle water consumers pay for water purchased from Seattle Public Utilities in units of 100 cubic feet. There are 7.48 gallons in one cubic foot and 43,560 cubic feet in one acre-foot. In a progressive rate system designed to penalize heaviest users, Seattle residents a base rate of $2.35-$2.75/100 cubic foot (CCF) or $1025-$1199/acre-foot depending upon the billing season. As consumption increases, graduated rates rise to as high as $9.75/CCF or $4251/acre-foot (Seattle Public Utilities 2003).

Fish need water also. In 2000, the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) spent $405,000 to purchase water rights from a Walla Walla farmer so that the water might stay in the river (Associated Press 2000). At that time, DOE Director Tom Fitzsimmons announced that, "Buying water for fish is a key part of managing water in the 21^st century…Water has a price tag attached to it, even for fish."

In a study prepared by the Colorado State Forest Service entitled Proposing a Forestry Solution to Improve Colorado's Water Supply, authors used a value estimate of $100/acre-foot to calculate economic benefits from water yield increases associated with forest harvests. While admittedly future research will help refine this figure, $100/acre-foot will be used in this report to demonstrate the relative value of water availability increases from forest management. The value of protecting water quality is more elusive and for this report will be considered as part of the $100/acre-foot figure, insuring that this figure will be accepted as a conservative estimate of real value.

The Fremont National Forest (FNF) reports 10-20 inches of annual rainfall and the Okanogan National Forest (ONF) reports approximately twice as much annual rainfall of 20-40 inches. From the risk assessments conducted by this investigation, the high and moderate risk areas of the FNF are calculated to contain 721,344 acres. For the ONF the high and moderate risk areas are calculated to contain 586,323 acres. These are acres that for purposes of fire risk reduction simulations are considered eligible for treatment. If all acres considered at risk were treated on the FNF and ONF and resulted in 1 inch of annual precipitation (not lost from evapotransporation) being added to the available water supply then the volume of increased water would equal 60,112/acre-feet per year for the FNF and 48,860/acre-feet per year for the ONF. At $100/acre-foot the value of this increased water supply would be $6,011,200/year for the FNF and $4,886,000/year for the ONF. These calculations result in a conservative estimate of $8.33/risk-acre/year for the value of the increase to the local water supply from harvest. If this benefit of 1 inch of additional water exists for fifteen years until regeneration begins to result in reductions of available surface water, the present value of an $8.33/risk-acre/year benefit for 15 years is $86/acre.

4.6.11 Regional economic benefits

Rural communities, which are most at risk from forest fires, are often economically depressed. While fighting fires will induce some economic activity, much of that benefit goes to imported labor with little positive local impact. Fires also hinder some rural economic activities such as tourism and recreation. Fire risk reduction treatments, however, when scheduled over time, produce positive and sustainable contributions to the economies of local communities. Since many of these communities have lost jobs through the reduced sale of federal timber, the economic development aspect of thinning can be important.

The Freemont National Forest website quotes a harvest to jobs conversion estimate of 8 direct employees per million board foot of harvest and another 16 employees for indirect impacts. In order to convert this into economic activity and tax receipts, this report uses similar estimates tied to a Washington State model (Conway 1994) that were further customized to thinning treatments in Lippke et al. (1996). While the direct and indirect employment impacts are almost identical to the Freemont estimates, the Conway model shows nearly equal impacts broadly distributed to the non-rural parts of Washington State while also providing estimates of the benefits to the Gross State Product which can be extended to tax receipts. A typical thinning treatment of 1 acre each year could generate dynamic direct and indirect impacts of .04 rural employees, $386 State and Local tax receipts (at 11% of State Product) and $664 Federal Receipts (at 19% of State Product including some federal/state transfer duplication). If the government incentivizes fuel reduction treatment programs, much of this investment is recoverable to the Treasury from tax collections. In contrast the untreated acres that result in fire cause a much larger government expenditure (net of the tax collections) on fire fighting economic activity created with little benefit to the local communities. Estimated state and local tax receipts of $386/thinned acre will be used here as a measure of the public economic value generated from forest thinnings to reduce hazardous fuel loads.

4.6.12 Summary of Market and Non-Markets Values of Fires Risk Reduction

While the values assigned to the benefits listed below in Table 4.17 can rightly be considered coarse estimates, they have been shown to be legitimately defensible and intentionally conservative. These figures suggest that the benefits of fire risk reduction are of high value and generally of much higher value than any market losses resulting from thinning to reduce the fire risk.

Table 4.17. Summary of Total Values/Acre Estimations of Benefits Associated with Fire Risk Reductions

Stakeholders seeking to gain common understanding of the complexities implicit in present forest circumstances towards comparative evaluations of potential alternative management outcomes will benefit from emerging analytical capabilities such as have been presented in this project. Analysis created today is an investment in the monitoring and evaluation capability of tomorrow. However, reasonable information expectations must be established such that process is not stalled by excessive caution (Barnard 2003). Decisions must be made based upon best available information. Monitoring the results and learning from experience (adaptive management) will help inform future management choices (Lee 1999).

4.8.2 Ineffective public involvement

A profoundly important and universally available communication technology with application in public forest planning processes is the world wide web. The Forest Service spends millions of dollars each year on publication costs for plans, reports, environmental impact statements, etc. that are sent by mail for public comment. Add to this expense, additional costs and time delays for postal services. As an example, the National Forest tracked costs on a fire recovery project in the Bitterroot National Forest and found that printing and mailing costs for just this one project exceeded $100,000 (U.S. Forest Service 2002).

Currently there is no standardized Forest Service web strategy. Subsequently each forest presents its own web page with highly variable and sometimes disappointing levels of utility. An agency mandated by law to be extraordinarily communicative should avail itself of an opportunity to utilize the most significant advancement in communication since the invention of the printing press. Less expensive and more timely public involvement can be achieved by the development of standardized web sites for every National Forest. Web sites offer low cost instanteous delivery of voluminous documents for public comments, as well as scientific research findings, electronic mapping services, recreational information, forest fire advisories, video conferencing of public meetings, and much more. Interactive web capabilities could provide stakeholder groups and interdisciplinary teams an opportunity to be more involved with public process with less cost and time. Mosely reported (2002) that a lack of interdepartmental communication, especially between planning, timber, and procurement staff, created an institutional barrier within the Forest Service that led to confusion and conflict. Web based communication formats help to standardize problematic dialogues and assure that professionals and publics alike are on the same informational page. Better informed people are likely to be more cooperative process participants.

The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR) has a timber purchasers committee which functions in an advisory capacity to the state timber sale program. If the Forest Service launches a credible program that is adequate to substantively reduce fuel load accumulations in the inland west, harvesting companies and industry associations report willingness to collaborate in an advisory capacity on development of successful thinning projects. Better business-to-customer communication between the agency and harvesters interview respondents suggest could be beneficial. For example, all contract loggers and mill representatives, that were interviewed, reported that the unreliability of Forest Service cruise information occasionally results in minimum bid levels for timber sales that are unreasonable. Forest Service personnel complain that, after lengthy and expensive planning processes, they are frustrated when timber sales don't receive a minimum bid. For harvest activities that are primarily intended as fuels reduction treatments, purchasers suggest that the timber that is to be removed be sold on a per acre basis or folded into service contracts. This is another area where the internet could be helpful to facilitate better agency/service-provider information exchange. Advertisement and bid of Forest Service contracts could reasonably be conducted from web sites as well.

Other concerned community groups interviewed as part of this project expressed similar interest in assisting planning towards protecting forested environments while creating local economic opportunities. Both the FNF and the ONF have active citizen groups willing to work towards better conditions for their respective communities. However, if equitable opportunities for public involvement in Forest Service planning process are to be achieved then such process must proceed in a timely manner to implementation. Small businesses and citizen volunteers can not reasonably be expected to participate in long and protracted planning processes that produce few opportunities.

4.8.3 Management inefficiencies

With increasing emphasis on harvesting small diameter forests, tree-marking has become expensive both in time and paint (Mosely 2002). Employees have complained about the undesireable health and environmental side-effects that may accompany the use of tree paint. Harvesters report that operational constraints and hazards are inadvertantly created by pre-selection of take trees. Foresters that spend time marking trees are not available to perform other duties that burden the short-handed Forest Service workforce. Comments from harvesters and Forest Service personnel indicate agreement that cost saving will be achieved if the Forest Service reduced its use of agency personnel to mark trees in thinning treatments. The alternative is to have operator selection of take trees to achieve a designated silvicultural outcome. The WA DNR reports success after ten years of experience with operator selection. Both the Associated Oregon Loggers and the Washington Contract Loggers Association have implemented accredited logger training programs that provide harvesters with sufficient ecological and silvicultural training to operate on Certified Private Forestlands. Both organizations have expressed eagerness to work with the Forest Service to make appropriate additions to these training programs such that harvesters could be qualified to select take trees and meet contract density targets for federal fuels removal treatments. The technological capabilities to model forest conditions that are presented in this report for the benefit of the Forest Service planning process could also be very valuable as educational tools for harvester training programs. University programs such as the Rural Technology Initiative could be available to help with design of silviculture short courses. An educational partnership between the Forest Service and harvester associations could also help to broaden the pool of prospective bidders on federal service contracts; reducing costs and distributing local opportunities. The Forest Service, using new stewardship authority granted by Congress, recently has begun experimentation with operator selection (designation by description) within some Stewardship End Result Contracting pilot projects.

4.8.4 Stewardship Contracting

Stewardship End Result Contracting is a new Forest Service contracting authority that creates greater ability (beyond the traditional constraints of timber sales and service contracts) for the development of innovative forest management projects. Stewardship contracts might include prescribed burning, road maintenance or reclamation, watershed or stream restoration, pre-commercial thinning, thinning to remove hazardous fuels for fire prone forests, or other modifications of vegetation to achieve land management goals (U.S. Forest Service 2003). This new
authority may prove especially valuable for dealing with marginal value small diameter thinning projects that are designed to reduce fuel loads.

Many rural communities have experienced economic decline due to severe reductions in federal harvest volumes. Over the last decade, many timber purchasers and harvesting companies have either gone out of business or have found work in state or private forests. If consequential risk reduction is to occur in the inland west, a program of sufficient magnitude and duration will be needed to inspire the confidence necessary to support investments to rebuild rural harvesting and manufacturing infrastructure. Opportunities are being assessed for utilization of non-merchantable logs as feedstock to fuel biomass-to-energy cogeneration facilities but rural investors will need to be assured that business opportunities associated with a federal program of fuels reductions are real. Service contractors and timber sale purchasers report that expanded contract flexibilities in areas such as bonding requirements, scope of projects, and duration of contracts could be helpful. Best value contracting and multi-year contracts are new Stewardship End Result Contracting authorities that may hold promise for response to these suggestions (Kauffman 2002, Pinchot Insitute 2002).

A recent examination of awarded federal contracts revealed that urban companies get most of the work from Forest Service stewardship activities that take place in rural areas (Mosely 2001) in spite of federal Small Business Set-Asides and Hub Zones programs that are designed to assure that rural businesses benefit from preferential contracting opportunities. Forest Service experiments with work contracts that contain Goods for Services packaged into a service contract are reported to result in more small and local contractors bidding on work projects. Goods for services contracts provide the Forest Service with the ability to include some merchantable timber in a service contract such that the cost of the stewardship activity is discounted by the value of any recoverable log sales revenues. Under such circumstances unlike traditional timber sales the small operator benefits from new ability to compete with large companies because of low up-front cost of bidding (Kauffman 2002).

When the economic costs of hazardous fuels reductions are greater than the market returns from harvested log sales, the recoverable value of the logs can be used to discount the cost of the fire risk reduction activity. The resulting combination of harvest contracts with restoration activities minimizes operational impacts to the forest environment by limiting equipment to one entry rather than two. Economic benefits to the Forest Service may be substantial as well. For example, the recent combination of one timber sale with a service contract into a stewardship project is estimated by the contracting officer to have saved the Forest Service $850,000 over the price of two single purpose entries (Bird et al. 2000). Further savings result from reductions to administrative costs when projects are combined. One NEPA process is required to be completed rather than two. Harvested values applied directly to treatment activities mean no loss from government overhead as would occur if revenues were returned to the general fund only to be sent back to the Forest Service as a stewardship appropriation. Several areas of activities may be combined into one long term contract where the value of the harvestable trees from one area carries the costs of fuel removals in another area. In some cases, the Forest Service is able to conduct restoration activities in areas that without goods for services contracting opportunities would otherwise not be treated (Kauffman 2002). The extended length of the contract helps the small business by providing an enduring work opportunity. Goods for Services is a new contracting authority that has been reported to allow multiple value trade-offs (Pinchot Institute 2002).

Stewardship end result contracting has been mandated by Congress to be accompanied by the design of a multiparty Monitoring and Evaluation Process to review the pilot projects. In July 2000, the Pinchot Institute was awarded the contract for development and implementation of the Multiparty Monitoring and Evaluation Program. Several reports have been completed by regional teams that synthesize accountings from local teams and analyze the effects of regional conditions and circumstances:

The objectives, as specified by Congress, are to consider:

• The potential impact of greater collaboration in land management;
• The potential for new authorities to facilitate project implementation; and
• The potential for stewardship contracts to meet the needs of local communities.

A recommendation of this report will be that this list be expanded to include an additional objective: consider the relative achievement of the environmental, economic, and social goals as declared as objectives by each project. Stewardship end result contracting programs need to be judged for short- and long-term results. The long-term lessons from collaboration and restoration may not be apparent for years but will provide essential information for management improvements in the future. The Pinchot Institute has recommended that funding, training, and technical support for both agency and multiparty stewardship monitoring efforts are essential (2002). Technologies presented within this report could provide useful support for such a program.

However, the Forest Service is being asked to do more with less. A lot more; from 1992 to 2000, according to the National Academy of Public Administration, the number of Forest Service employees fell by 23% (USDA Forest Service 2002). While the backlog of forest acres considered overstocked and at high risk from forest fire is increasing yearly (2-3% per year), funding available for forest density management dropped by 55% from 1988 to 2000 (Powell et al. 2001). A demographic analysis of regional employees indicates that in the years from 2000 to 2005, 35% of the certified Forest Service silviculturists in the Pacific Northwest Region will be eligible to retire. The Forest Service is experiencing progressive skills erosion in the workforce that logically increases the rate of work backlog. This same Forest Service report recommends that the Pacific Northwest Region should enter into a cooperation education program to develop a qualified recruitment pool for needed new hires (Powell et al. 2001). The technological capabilities and philosophical approaches to analysis, as presented in this report, have been designed to deliver educational benefit and to inform critical thinking as applied to management planning of fire-prone dry-site forests in the inland west. These skills will be essential for future Forest Service employees.

Another pilot contracting authority being tested by the Forest Service is called Receipt Retention. Receipt retention may provide the opportunity to address the challenges of limited resources represented by a shrinking skilled work force as well as those of monitoring and evaluation such as have been presented in the two previous paragraphs. Through receipt retention, the Forest Service has been given the ability to retain portions of the receipts at the local level from the sale of commercial products, such as timber, to be held for later reinvestment in non-revenue producing stewardship activities. For decades the Forest Service has managed similar trust funds for road maintenance, regeneration establishment, brush control, etc. (e.g. Knutson-Vandenberg Fund, the Brush Disposal Fund, and the Salvage Sale Fund). However, most of these funds were required to be reapplied to the project areas from which the commercial material had been harvested. New authorities give greater flexibilities for broader discretionary use (U.S. Forest Service 2002).

A combination of annual appropriations and retained stewardship receipts should be used to establish a trust fund for long term educational partnerships between the Forest Service and universities of natural resource sciences in the involved states. Institutions of higher learning have established skills in training deliveries and are neutral providers of emerging science and technology. Many university faculties have long-term research relationships with the Forest Service through many years of collaboration. Students supported by the Forest Service scholarships would commit to post college service much like the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) program that has been utilized successfully by the armed forces. While in college students would work under faculty supervision to collect data and participate in analysis to monitor and evaluate stewardship activities. Project partnerships with students, faculty, Forest Service professionals, community organizations, and rural harvesters will facilitate healthy cross-fertilization to encourage innovative and collaborative problem solving while supplying the National Forest with a future source of skilled workers and establishing a long-term strategy to monitor and evaluate the results of stewardship activities. Training of current personnel and interested publics in the use of the technologies presented in this report should begin immediately so that regional programs for fuel reduction treatments receive timely benefit.

 

5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

 

Investigation of Alternative Strategies for Design, Layout, and Administration of Fuel Removal Projects has provided parametric examination of treatments that reduce fire risk, including their costs, market values, non-market values, and contracting issues. Specific examples are intended for use to customize strategies for a wide range of forest, infrastructure and market conditions. The information is also intended to be useful in training Forest Service professionals, and harvest operators on how to design and layout fuel reduction treatments. Some of the findings from the investigation of the two case study forests are worthy of summary:

• Greater than 75% of both forests was found to be in moderate to high fire risk classifications.
• Generally the 9 and under treatment did not result in sufficient fuels removal to substantively reduce risk in most stands but in some stands with certain diameter distributions this treatment could be used successfully.
• The Half BA and the BA 45 appeared to be the most effective treatments for fire risk reduction.
• BA 45 resulted in the highest percentage of targeted species (ponderosa pine and western larch) after treatments. BA 45 had the best overall fire risk reduction performance.
• The 12 and over treatment produced the greatest revenues but performed poorly for risk reduction.
• Wildfire destroyed almost everything on the FNF but left surviving stems on the ONF.
• The economic performance of the Half BA and BA 45 treatments indicates that many stands may be treated at little or no cost with thinning of some stands resulting in a positive net return.
• Wildlife results were mixed and sometimes counterintuitive. Treatment planning for wildlife will need to be customized to local conditions. For example, wildfire simulations might indicate that controlled burning to reduce fuel loads may have utility for the ONF where modeling results shows some trees survive wildfire but controlled burning may be inadvisable on the FNF where modeling results indicate that wildfire produces total mortality.
• The negative atmospheric carbon consequences of wildfire are significant. No-action (without fire) results in the greatest carbon storage in the standing forest but standing forest carbon is not as large as the magnitude of carbon not released to the atmosphere as a result of substitution.
• Substantial market and non-market values that are not usually accounted for when fire risk reductions are evaluated, justify increases in investments to reduce fire risk.
• There are sufficient volumes of non-merchantable materials in at-risk areas of both the FNF and ONF to warrant consideration of development of cogeneration facilities.
• 71 interview respondents offered valuable comments and suggestions on potential contracting improvements.
• Emerging technologies and contracting innovations are available to help the Forest Service reduce operational costs and delays.

This report also demonstrates how an integrated forestry software package can assist federal agencies and other interested users gain greater efficiencies in planning fire risk reduction treatments to achieve multiple values with less conflict and less cost. The Landscape Management System (LMS) provides a sophisticated user-friendly software environment from which professional and public users with little training can participate in analysis of complex data to better understand the consequences of management alternatives. The results from case study analysis of two National Forests, presented in this report, demonstrate that fire risk can be effectively reduced while creating and protecting other environmental, economic, and social values. These results also brought out some strategic considerations for effective use of technology and for future work towards expanding these developing technical capabilities.

• Analytical technologies can help us with what we do know.
  • Based upon available data, in the case of this project the CVS data, we can test the behaviors of alternative strategies. Results help users understand the spectrum of alternative options and the gradient of likely outcomes. This information helps to inform field choices and communicate those choices to interested publics.
  • CVS data offers a valuable representation of forest conditions but is very coarse resolution. By analyzing CVS data we gain operational efficiencies when knowledge from simulations serves to focus attention on areas of critical interest (in this case highest fire risk). From high risk areas the focus can be narrowed further to high risk areas in the wild/urban interface where the most urgently critical areas for treatment might logically exist. In these areas better data may be needed to assist decision-making but investments in data collection can be minimized when focused on the precise type and location of need rather than broadcast as part of a much more expensive sampling strategy.
  • Use of LMS and other tools can help the Forest Service to better understand and communicate what will be the likely consequence of No-action.
    
    
• Analytical technologies can help us to discover what we don't know.
  • An example of unexpected discovery from this investigation can be found in the wildlife habitat modeling section. When habitat models were examined, the robustness, especially, in this case, of the ICBEMP source habitat models, came into question.
  • Future work is needed to develop and validate wildlife models that are necessary to better inform management decisions. As landscape simulations from this investigation have demonstrated; No-action is not always a safe habitat default. Forest managers must juggle harvest treatments to produce multiple values that necessarily include wildlife habitat. Some areas may need to be heavily thinned as fire breaks to protect other areas that may be at risk but are not treated because of special habitat considerations. Other areas may be treated as part of restoration activities to combine risk reduction with creation of older forest structures. Other areas that are not of special concern may be treated primarily to reduce risk and provide habitat for wildlife that prefer open structures. Planning landscape changes over time will necessitate better wildlife habitat models.

A primary objective of this report has been to develop and demonstrate an integrated forestry software package that can assist federal agencies and other interested users to gain greater efficiencies in planning fire risk reduction treatments to achieve multiple values with less conflict and less cost.

The Landscape Management System (LMS) provides a sophisticated user-friendly software environment from which professional and public users with little training can participate in analysis of complex data to better understand the consequences of management alternatives. The LMS has been in development under the direction of Dr. Chadwick D. Oliver and Dr. James B. McCarter for more than 10 years as part of the Landscape Management Project at the University of Washington, College of Forest Resources in partnership with the USDA Forest Service. New capabilities and operational refinements are added regularly such that the sophistication of LMS is constantly expanding to stay compatible with other evolving software applications, to meet user demands, and to increase speed and user-friendliness. LMS has been developed to be compatible with other federally developed forestry programs such as SVS, Envision, FVS, and FFE. LMS is being used by many public and private forest landowners and managers and is the only software of its caliber that is distributed to the public at no charge. LMS has proven to be a uniquely positioned investment in the provision of technical support to all interested parties with an eagerness to better understand forest management planning.

The Rural Technology Initiative (RTI) was created in 2000 as a partnership between the University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, and Washington State University, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, to aid in the transfer of technology for managing forests for increased forest products and environmental values in support of rural forest-resource based communities. An advisory board representing rural constituents and community groups supports and guides RTI activities. RTI staff, faculty, and supported graduate students have extensive expertise in forestry modeling capabilities and development of technology-based training modules for delivery to rural communities. RTI is uniquely positioned to disseminate study findings through its network of tribes, consultants, WSU Extension agents, landowners, community organizations, public lands foresters, and industrial associations. RTI has developed a technology delivery system through UW, WSU Extension, Community Colleges, and Satelite Learning Centers to continue training and outreach activities long after project completion. Technology trainings, in analytical capabilities demonstrated in this investigation, could be conducted by RTI personnel and made available to federal agency personnel for a host of interested government, community, small private and industry interests. Trainings in available technologies for forest management could produce lasting process improvements and maximize benefits of federal investments in forestry modeling technologies.

WORKS CITED

 

• Agee, J.K. (1993). Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington D.C.: Island Press. 493 pp.
  
  
• Arno, S.F. (2000). Fire in Western Forest Ecosystems. In: Brown, J.K., Smith, J.K. (Eds.), Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Flora (Pp 97-120). (RMRS-GTR-42: vol. 2). USDA Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr42_2.html
  
  
• Associated Press. (2000 November 29). DOE buys water rights to protect fish. Seattle Times. http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com
  
  
• Associated Press. (2003 May 9) EPA drops formula placing less value on seniors' lives. Seattle Times, p. A8. http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/web/
  
  
• Babbitt, B. & D. Glickman. (2000). Managing the impacts of wildfires on communities and the environment: A report to the President. http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/nfp/president.shtml. 35pp.
  
  
• Barnard, J. (2003). Northwest Forest Plan faulted by one of its authors. Seattle Times. http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com.
  
  
• Beukema et al. (2002). Fire and fuels extension to FVS. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest Range and Experiment Station.

• Beukema, S.J., D.C. Greenough, C.E. Robinson, W.A. Kurtz, E.D. Reinhart, N.L. Crookston, J.K. Brown, C.C. Hardy, & A.R. Stage. (1997). An introduction to the fire and fuels extension to FVS. In: R. Teck, M. Moeur, & J. Adams (Eds.), Proceedings of the Forest Vegetation Simulator Conference, 1997 February 3-7 (Pp. 191-195). Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest Range and Experiment Station.
  
  
• Bird, S.R.; C.M. Morismith, B. Hathaway, T. Barry. (2002). Costing for combined service contract/timber sale projects. http://www.fs.fed.us/bluemountains/pubs.htm
  
  
• Birdsay, R.A. (1992). Carbon storage and accumulation on United States forest ecosystems. (GTR WO-59).USDA Forest Service.
  
  
• Blair, G.S., and G. Servheen. (1993). Species conservation plan for the White-headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus). USDA Forest Service (R-1) and Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game.
  
  
• Bonneville Power Administration Fish and Wildlife Program. (1999). Bonneville Power Administration Fish and Wildlife Budget Tracking Report, End of Year, Fiscal Year 1999. http://www.efw.bpa.gov/EW/FISCAL/Quarterly/99Q4.pdf
  
  
• Bosworth, D. (2001). Statement to the subcommittee of forests and forest health. Committee on Resources. US House of Representatives. Washington D.C. http://www.fs.fed.us
  
  
• Bosworth, D.N. (2003). FY2003 Budget Justification. USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C. http://www.fs.fed.us/
  
  
• Bowyer, J., D. Briggs, B. Lippke, J. Perez-Garcia, J. Wilson. (2002). Life cycle environmental performance of renewable industrial materials: CORRIM Phase I Interim Research Report. CORRIM Inc. 400pp. http://www.corrim.org
  
  
• Bozek, M.A., M.K. Young. (1994). Fish mortality resulting from delayed effects of fire in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Great Basin Nat.: 54, 91-95.
  
  
• Buchanan, J., W. Keye. (1997). How do you want your smoke? California Forests, July/August 1997. California Forestry Association.
  
  
• Buhl, K.J., S.J. Hamilton. (1998). Acute toxicity of fire-retardant and foam-suppressant chemicals to early life stages of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytsha). Environmental Toxicology Chemicals 17, 1589-1599.
  
  
• Bull, E.L., S.R. Peterson, and J.W. Thomas. (1986). Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. (Research Note PNW-444) Portland, OR: USFS PNW Research Station.
  
  
• Burdick, J. (2002). Email correspondence 2/10/02. Assistant Fire Staff in Fire Planning for Okanogan & Wenatchee National Forest.
  
  
• Camp, A.E. (1995). Predicting late successional fire refuging from physiography and topography. Ph.D. diss., University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 137pp.
  
  
• Conway, R.S. (1994). The forest products economic impact study: Current conditions and issues. Prepared for: WFPA, WADNR, WADTED. Seattle WA: Dick Conway & Associates. 39pp.
  
  
• Cooper, C.F. (1960). Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of southwestern pine forests since white settlement. Ecol. Monogr, 129-164.
  
  
• Courtmanche, J. (2002). LMS software: Changing the face of forest management. The Journal of the School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 3-7. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
  
  
• Covington, W.W. (1994). Historical and anticipated changes in forest ecosystems of the inland West of the United States. Journal of Sustainable Forestry: 2(1/2), 13-63.
  
  
• Crockett, A.B., Jr. (1975). Ecology and behavior of the Williamson's sapsucker in Colorado. Ph.D. diss., University of Colorado, Boulder. 126pp.

• Crookston, N.L. (1990). User's guide to the event monitor: Part of prognosis model version 6. (GTR INT-275). Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.
  
  
• Crookston, N.L., S.J. Beukema, and C. E. Robinson. (2002). User's guide in the fire and fuels extension to forest vegetation simulator: Chapter 3. (RMRS-GTR-000). Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
  
  
• Desimone, S.M. (1997). Occupancy rates and habitat relationships of Northern Goshawks in historic nesting areas in Oregon. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 78pp.
  
  
• Fiedler, C. E., C. E. Keegan III, C. W. Woodall, T. A. Morgan, S. H. Robertson, J. T. Chmelik. (2001). A strategic assessment of fire hazard in Montana. Joint Fire Sciences Program Report. University of Montana. Missoula, MT. http://www.bber.umt.edu/forestproducts/pdf/MTfiresreport.pdf
  
  
• Finn, S.P. (1993). An analysis of Northern Goshawk nest stands in Okanogan County, Washington. Washington Department of Wildlife Report, Ephrata, WA.
  
  
• Franklin Associates. (1998). Combustion of wood in industrial boilers. SimaPro5 Lifecycle Assessment Software Package, version 36, 2001.
  
  
• Fremont National Forest. (2003). Interviews with Norm Michaels and Mike Evans and website research. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/fremont/
  
  
• Garrett, K.L., M.G. Raphael, & R.D. Dixon. (1996). White-headed Woodpecker. The Birds of North America. 252, 1-23.
  
  
• Gedney, D.R.; D.L. Azana, C.L. Bolsinger, & N. McKay. (1999). Western Juniper in Eastern Oregon. (General Technical Report. PNW-GTR-464). Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service. PNW Research Station. 53pp.
  
  
• Gholz, H.L., C.C. Grier, A.G. Campbell, & A.T. Brown. (1979). Equations for estimating biomass and leaf area of plants in the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Forest Research Lab, Oregon State University,
  
  
• Government Accounting Office. (1999). Western national forests: A cohesive strategy is needed to address catastrophic wildfire threats. (GAO/GCED-99-65). http://www.gao.gov/. 62pp.
  
  
• Graham, R.T., ed. (2002). Interim Hayman fire case study analysis: Executive summary. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Pp. 1-19.
  
  
• Han, H., H.W. Lee, L.R. Johnson, R.L. Folk, T.M. Gorman, J.M. Hinson, & G.R. Jackson. (2002). Economic feasibility of small wood harvesting and utilization on the Boise National Forest: Cascade, Idaho City, Emmett Ranger Districts (pp.62). Department of Forest Products, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho. Moscow, ID.
  
  
• Hann, W.J. et al. (1997). Landscape dynamics of the basin. In: Quigley, T.M.; S.J. Arbelbide, (Technical eds.), An Assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (pp. 337-1055). (Gen tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405). Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station.
  
  
• Hill, B.T. (1998). Western national forests catastrophic wildfires threaten resources and communities. (GAO/TRCED-98-273). http://www.gao.gov. 25pp.
  
  
• Hopkins, W.E. (1981). Ecology of White Fir. In: Oliver, C.D., & R.M. Kenady (Eds.), The biology & management of true fir in the Pacific Northwest, symposium proceedings 1981 February 24-26 (Pp. 35-41). University of Washington, College of Forest Resources & USDA Forest Service PNW Station: Seattle-Tacoma, WA.
  
  
• Imperial Irrigation District. (2002). http://www.iid.com/water/transfer.html
  
  
• Kauffman, M. (2001). The USDA Forest Service national stewardship pilot projects in the Pacific Northwest: The FY 2001 Report of the Pacific Northwest Regional Multi-party Monitoring and Evaluation. Hayfork, CA: The Watershed Research and Training Center. http://www.pinchot.org/pic/cbf/PNW_regional_FY01.PDF
  
  
• Kauffman, M. (2002). The FY 2002 report of the Pacific Northwest Regional Multi-party Monitoring and Evaluation Team. The Watershed Research and Training Center. http://www.pinchot.org. 33pp.
  
  
• Keegan, C.E. III; D.P. Wichman, D.D. Van Hooser, T.M. Gorman, F.G. Wagner, P.E. Polzin, & A.L. Hearst. (1997). Idaho's forest products industry: A descriptive analysis, 1979-1996. University of Montana, Bureau of Business and Economic Research. Pp.22-45.

• Lake County Resources Institute. (2003). http://www.lcri.org/
  
  
• Landry, C.J. (2003). The cost of salmon recovery: Are we getting what we pay for? (Working Paper WP03-02 PERC). Bozeman, Montana. http://www.perc.org/publications/percreports/june2003/salmon.html
  
  
• Laverty, L., J. Williams. (2000). Protecting people and sustaining resources in fire-adapted ecosystems, a cohesive strategy. USDA Forest Service publication. 85pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/
  Lee, K.N. (1999). Appraising adaptive management. Conservation Ecology 3(2). http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3/index.html
  
  
• Lippke, B., J. Sessions, & A.B. Carey. (1996). Economic analysis of forest landscape management alternatives: Final report of the working group on the economic analysis of forest landscape management alternatives for the Washington Forest Landscape Management Project. Special Paper 21, CINTRAFOR, College of Forest Resources, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA. 157 pp.
  
  
• Lippke, B., & R. Conway. (1994). Report to the Wildlife Committee of the Washington Forest Practices Board. Olympia, WA.
  
  
• Local interviews. (2002):
  
  
• Forest Service: Woody Woodell, Sue Puddy, Norm Michaels, Richy Harrod, Michael Daugherty, Jody Perose, Frank Puddy, Doug Coon, John Townsley, Tom Ketchum, Arlo VanderWoude, Chris Anderson, Brad Flatten, Jan Flatten, Bob Gibbs, Dave Azuma, Mike Evans, Richard Stubbs, David Eitner, James Burdick, Myrna Duke, John Daily and Sally Estes.
  
  
• State land managers: Washington Department of Natural Resources-John Calhoun, Dave Christenson, George Shelton, John Tweedale, Roy Henderson, Judy Cline, Oregon Department of Forestry-Ed Scheink, John Brown, John Pellissier.
  
  
• Private land managers: Whiskey Creek, Collins Pine, Hampton tree farms, Boise Cascade
  
  
• Mills: Fremont Sawmill, Crown Pacific, and 7 mills who wished to remain nameless.
  
  
• Contractors: Brandeberry Logging Inc., John Lass Logging, Vargas Timber Cutting, Dave Harmon Logging, M & L enterprises, John Shepard Logging, Yankee Group, Bill Neubert Logging, Holly Mountain Resources, 11 contractors who wished to remain nameless.
  
  
• Industry, Environmental and Local Organizations: Ecosystem Workforce Program-Charles Spencer and Cassandra Moseley, Sustainable Northwest: Marcus Kauffman, Okanogan Communities Development Council-Mike Ferris, Lake County Resources Initiative-Jim Walls and Bill Duke, Defenders of Wildlife-Rick Brown, American Forest Resource Council-Chuck Burley, Oregon Associated Loggers-Jim Giessinger, Washington Contract Loggers Association-Bill Pickell, Chelan County PUD-Brett Bickford.
  
  
• MacDonald, L.H. (2002). Effects of changes in Colorado's forests on water yields & water quality. Colorado Water. Vol. 18, No. 5: 6-8.
  
  
• Mangan, R. (1999). Wildland fire fatalities in the United States: 1990-1998. (9951-2808-MTDC). USDA Forest Service. 14pp.
  
  
• Manriquez, A.C. (2002). Carbon sequestration in the Pacific Northwest: A model. M.S. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 167pp.
  
  
• Mansfield, D. (2000). Snail darter is no longer in danger of extinction. Appalachian Focus Environmental News. News-Sentinel. Knoxville, Tennessee. http://www.appalachianfocus.org/_enviro1/00000011.htm.
  
  
• McCarter, J.B. (1997). Integrating forest inventory, growth and yield and computer visualization into a landscape management system. In: R. Teck, M. Moeur, and A. J. (Eds.), Forest Vegetation Simulator Conference (pp. 159-167). Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.
  
  
• McCarter, J.B. (2001). Integrating forest inventory, growth and yield, and computer visualization into a landscape management system. Ph.D. diss., University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
  
  
• McCarter, J.B., J.S. Wilson, P.J. Baker, J.L. Moffett, & C.D. Oliver. (1998). Landscape management through integration of existing tools and emerging Technologies. Journal of Forestry 96: 17-23.
  
  
• Mclain, W.H. (1996). Logging utilization, Idaho, 1990. (INT-RB-86) Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station Research Bulletin.

• McGrath, M.T. (1997). Northern Goshawk habitat analysis in managed forest landscapes. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 125pp.
  
  
• Michaels, N. & M. Evans. (2003). Fremont National Forest interview 2/25/03. in Lake County, Oregon.
  
  
• Milne, K.A., & S.J. Hejl. (1989). Nest-site characteristics of white-headed woodpeckers. Journal of Wildlife Management 53: 50-55.
  
  
• Minshall, G.W. & J.J. Brock. (1991). Observed & anticipated effects of forest fire on Yellowstone stream ecosystems. In: Keiter, R.B., M.S. Boyce (Eds.), Greater Yellow Stone Ecosystem: Redefining America's Wilderness Heritage (pp. 123-135). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  
  
• Mosely, C. (2002). A survey of innovative contracting for quality jobs and ecosystem management. (PNW-GTR-552). Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service. 36pp.
  
  
• Mosely, C. & S. Shankle. (2001). Who gets the work? National forest contracting in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry 99(9), 32-40.
  
  
• Newcombe, C.P. & D.D. MacDonald. (1991). Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 72-82.
  
  
• Northeastern Cascades Late-successional Reserve Assessment Team. (1998). An assessment of the Northeastern Cascades late-successional reserves. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region. Okanogan National Forest.
  
  
• Norton, G., Secretary of the Interior. (2002). Fire, Forests, and the Department of the Interior. http://www.doi.gov/fire/firepresentation.pdf
  
  
• Okanogan National Forest. (1989). Final environmental impact statement, Land and Resource Management Plan, Okanogan National Forest. Okanogan, WA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.
  
  
• Okanogan National Forest. (2003). http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/okanogan/
  
  
• Omi, P.N., & E.J. Martinson. (2002). Effect of fuels treatment on wildfire severity. Joint Fire Sciences Program Report. http://www.cnr.colostate.edu/FS/westfire/FinalReport.pdf
  
  
• Oregon Forest Resources Institute. (2000). Drinking water and forestry: How a healthy forest ecosystem helps keep streams clean and water quality high. OFRI Special Report. http://www.oregonforests.org
  
  
• Pfilf, R.J., J.F. Marker & R.D. Averill. (2002). Forest health and fire: An overview and evaluation. Chantilly, VA: National Association of Forest Service Retirees. http://www.fxs.org/NAFSRforesthealth.pdf
  
  
• Pinchot Institute. (2002). Inland Northwest Regional Monitoring and Evaluation Team for: The Stewardship End Result Contracting Demonstration Project Annual Report. http://www.pinchot.org
  
  
• Powell, D.C., V.A. Rockwell, J.J. Townsley, J. Booser, S.P. Bulkin, T.H. Martin, B. Obedzinski & F. Zensen. (2001). Forest density management recent history and trends for the Pacific Northwest Region. (R6-NR-TM-TP-05-01). USDA Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/
  
  
• Pyne, S.J. (1982). Fire in America: Cultural history of wildland and rural fire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 654pp.
  
  
• Pyne, S.J. (1997). America's fires: Management on wildlands and forests. Durham, NC: Forest History Society. 54pp.
  
  
• Riebsame, W.E. (1997). Atlas of the new west: portrait of a changing region. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 192pp.
  
  
• Robichaud, P.R. & R.E. Brown. (1999). What happened after the smoke cleared: Onsite erosion rates after a wildfire in eastern Oregon. In: Olsen, D.S., J.P. Potyonder (Eds.), Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association Specialty Conference, Wildland Hydrology, Bozeman, Montana, (pp. 1-9).
  
  
• Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association. (2003). http://www.rmiia.org
  
  
• Rummer, J.P; D. May, W.D. Sheppard, D. Ferguson, W. Elliot, S. Miller, S. Reutebuch, J. Barbour, J. Fried, B. Stokes, E. Bilek & K. Skog. (2002). A strategic assessment of forest biomass and fuel reduction treatments in western states. USDA Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/research/infocenter.html

• Scott, J.H. & E.D. Reinhardt. (2001). Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface and crown fire behavior. (Research Paper RMRS-RP-29). Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
  
  
• Seattle Public Utilities. (2003). 2003 Residential Rates for Drinking Water. http://www.cityofseattle.net/util/services/rates/rates_res2003.htm
  
  
• Shepard, J.P. (1994). Effects of forest management on surface water quality in wetland forests. Wetlands 14, 18-26.
  
  
• Sousa, P.J. (1982). Habitat suitability index models: Lewis' woodpecker. (FWS/OBS-82/10.32). U.S. Dept. of the Interior Fish and Wild Service. 14pp.
  
  
• Sousa, P.J. (1983). Habitat suitability index models: Williamson's sapsucker. (FWS/OBS-82/10.47). U.S. Dept. of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 13pp.
  
  
• Stage, A.R. (1973). Prognosis model for stand development. (Research Paper INT-137). Odgen, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
  
  
• Stednick, J.D. (1996). Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. Journal of Hydrology 176, 79-95.
  
  
• Stewart, J.L. (1988). Forest insects and disease research: What is needed? Presentation to Western Forestry and Conservation Association Pest Committee, Seattle, WA.
  
  
• Swan, L. (2002). Medford, OR: USDA Forest Service.
  
  
• Swanson, R.H. (1987). Applying hydrologic principles to the management of sub-alpine forest for water supply. In Management of sub-alpine forests building on 50 years of research. Procedures: Technical Conference, Silver Creek, Co. July 6-9, 1987 (pp79-85). (GTR-RM-119). Fort Collins, CO:USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Station.
  
  
• The Office of the President. (2002). Healthy forests: An initiative for wildfire prevention and stronger communities. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/healthyforests/toc.html
  
  
• Troendle, C.A. (1987). The potential effects of partial cutting and thinning on streamflow from subalpine forest. (Research Paper RM-274). Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest & Range Exp. Station. 7pp.
  
  
• Troendle, C.A. & R.M. King. (1985). The effect of timber harvest on Fool Creek Watershed, 30 years Later. Water Resource Bulletin, 21(12), 1915-1922.
  
  
• TSS Consultants. (2002). Prineville, Oregon market area wood fuel availability assessment. Rancho Cordova, CA. http://www.tssconsultants.com
  
  
• United States National Interagency Fire Center. (2002). Wildland fire statistics. http://www.nifc.gov/stats/wildlandfirestats.html
  
  
• US Census Bureau. (2003). Oregon and Washington statistics. http://www.census.gov/
  
  
• USDA Forest Service. (2002). The process predicament: How statutory, regulatory, and administrative factors affect national forest management. http://www.fs.fed.us. 40pp.
  
  
• USDA Forest Service. (2003). The National Forest Management Act. Washington D.C. http://www.fs.fed.us/forum/nepa/nfmalaw.html
  
  
• USDA Forest Service. (2003). Stewardship end result contracting. notice of interim guidelines: Opportunity for public comment. Federal Register Vol.68 no. 124, 38285-38288.
  
  
• USDA Forest Service SW Region. (1995). Final environmental impact statement for amendment of forest plans. Albuquerque, New Mexico.
  
  
• USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (1995). Recovery plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl, Volume 1. Albuquerque, New Mexico.
  
  
• USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2003). Endangered Species Act. Washington D.C. http://endangered.fws.gov/esaall.pdf
  
  
• USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (1980a). Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP). (ESM 102). Washington, D.C.: Division of Ecological Services. 123pp.

• USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (1980b). Standards for the development of Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models. (ESM 103). Washington, D.C.: Division of Ecological Services.
  
  
• USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2001). Habitat suitability index models: Species index. http://www.nwrc.gov/wdb/pub/hsi/hsiindex.htm
  
  
• Van Dyck, M. (2000). Keyword reference guide for the forest vegetation simulator. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, WO-TM Service Center.
  
  
• Weber, W.C. & S.R. Cannings. (1976). The White-headed woodpecker. In: British Columbia. Syesis 9, 215-220.
  
  
• Western Governors Association. (2001, 2002). Western Governors Association: A collaborative approach for reducing wildland fire risks to communities and the environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan. http://www.westgov.org/
  
  
• Wilm, H.G. & E.G. Danford. (1948). Effect of timber cutting on water available for stream flow from lodgepole pine forest. In: Technical Bullitin 968, 43. Washington D.C.: USDA Forest Service.
  
  
• Winter, G. & J. Fried. (1998a). Valuing the social and economic impacts of fir at the urban-wildland interface: A statistical summary of survey responses. Web posted: gregwpacificrim.net.
  
  
• Winter, G. & J.Fried. (1998b) (submitted). Theoretical validity of contingent values for protection from wildland fire. Land Economists.
  
  
• Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy & M.R. Eames. (2000a). Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. In: General technical report PNW-GTR-485, Volume 1 - Overview. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
  
  
• Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy & M.R. Eames. (2000b). Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. In: General technical report PNW-GTR-485, Volume 3 - Appendices. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
  
  
• Wykoff et al. (1982). Forest vegetation simulator model. Fort Collins, Colorado.
  
  
• Xu, W., B.R. Lippke, & J. Perez-Garcia. (2003). Valuing biodiversity, aesthetics and job losses associated with ecosystem management using stated preferences. Forest Science.