. . ob .
. .. . .
pm .— ,\I
I
u 0,. .v' ...
t- n0, “4... <.
. 1.5... . .h.\ 1
1 I .\ 0. U I l
.rll v 1 ¢
.V,.\. 1 . a A
..v. .‘v.
.Hunlt ' o «v
. . ..\r
|I..u|;llv lint-Ix)“.
I ‘I

‘v .. u n.
.. 1..
1.. I..‘
. n.....ku.. I
.Ib... ,' . .vln .
. I :1. I
1 v u
4 . n
; .... pl 0 .IV In
\ 1 - 11.4..- .
-c . p .
D . . . ,7, .
, ‘- .L.1|
tum... .rllx
v
.

I I ’
c-« v-
-»
«l .v. (‘1
\ 6 .1
.u » $1:

‘1
l

\I
\

:w-J‘V‘th." "
...( § ' _ ‘ ,.
"W11”. :

 

233.493....“ ...... . .
Vaughn: . - ..
1.
a v
. K
. -
:
.-. . -
.3 vv . u
..
v
. -

. a 1| . . 41“);- «NI-final“
. n . u . I . . $.th K1.
' l . .I
. . 1 A u
v 2| .. O \
_ .V .-
| I \I .0
.
. 5 .(oo .-
. \ .
0». up
I W t. .
‘1‘. 0:

v .
V ‘ . A}
I. 9
u . D
. n I u I
0. Q
.v" v. . - l
.
vs| ’
.1.
‘ I guru... .
ID
.10! ‘4. k \‘D'Qu
nit \0 utt‘lult'i n »l\l
I. BI“) .41. III- I
. n \I‘ ~ I ‘ o .v
. . . I"
I. 1 D .1 J Ir
0 . I .- 1 1.. o v
. . '9 . 0‘ it. 1 u
. \D c ‘ .a 11%.” O .Y o 1 .
I v > H rt . v0... . 2- v0. 9
!. A . 1:4...
\ .I 0 {JP . ~
. 1 - n
I I. v. v. ‘v u . . :
~. 0 o q, .4. c J-
o n . xi ‘0‘ 0 ‘ .
v . 4.. U‘ -. vx
. 1-1. H: H .
o ubl.‘ RICA—l: I H. .I
. ..\I... hrllvdv.
u it l‘l“ I
. q
I. o ‘ Iv! 1
. . i . .45 y
. . l I ~ I I
. . L| ..v.
.v. ‘3‘: v
Q I L - ‘ll I o

.DI II
| . In»
\
“III.
t I

u y. .- ....
u. y nnv ,.
a"
O - l A
y. ‘I‘ll'll'
\..I||H\l|\l\l\l El}!
.0 \‘lll‘lnl‘l.

. 1 I‘m! Dal II! . .
. ,IIanuurhn‘t‘ I)... -
QllrIn‘lul’l) l1. th‘rq
3 li‘llul

 

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIII

3 1293 10425 5413

 

 

 

__... -- In; him
I J u
I

1 g
f 1 -

.._- ,. 3.;

1'1:

1,? 'f'" “ '3.

l _'. “m 5‘. A I E

,. ”I

‘ ”'mfir, «1 arm-- '0' S‘-

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

FIRE EFFECTS APPRAISAL:
THE WISCONSIN DNR EXAMPLE

presented by

ROSS WILLIAM GORTE

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PH. Dojggreein Forestrx

W

Major professor

Date August 10,1981

0-7639

 

 

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
M

y

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES wiII
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

FIRE EFFECTS APPRAISAL:
THE WISCONSIN DNR EXAMPLE

By

Ross Ni11iam Gorte

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partiaT fquiTIments of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Forestry

1981

ABSTRACT

FIRE EFFECTS APPRAISAL:
THE WISCONSIN DNR EXAMPLE

By

Ross William Gorte

The goal of this study was to develop a new appraisal system for
the Wisconsin DNR. The Fuels and Effects Committee decided that use in
court was the overriding need, but the system would also be used in
fire management planning. Landowner effects were used when feasible,
but internal consistency was also a constraint. The Committee had veto
power, as well as frequent input, to assure acceptance. The procedures
selected may not be those chosen if theoretical accuracy was the sole
criterion, but the needs and constraints of the DNR were met.

Timber volume and values are from the Wisconsin severence tax
system, with mortality estimates based on crown or bark scorch. Crops
and facilities are assessed at fair market value. Negligible effects
were assumed on watershed. For wildlife, value was assumed to be
related to populations. The full impact is dependent on timber
mortality in important habitats, and expenditures are used for
valuation. Recreation use loss is use change times expenditures.
Ornamental tree loss depends on tree location, vigor, and size, on
species desirability, and on a basal area value. Effects on aesthetics
and environmental quality are assessed using descriptive terms,

relating fire severity and affected pOpulations.

Nine research tOpics are described which would improve the system
by broadening the data base or testing key assumptions. The final
chapter describes several recurring concerns and the steps from Committee
approval through expected statewide implementation by the spring of 1982.
The approved handbook is in the appendix, although a format change is

needed to meet state requirements.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation for the assistance by the
entire staff of the USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest
Experiment Station in East Lansing. Thanks go especially to Von
Johnson, whose desire for fire effects research prompted him to contact
Michigan State University and to provide the funding to study the
effects in a particular state. When Von left East Lansing, Dave
Baumgartner took over the necessary administration on the project
through its completion.

I'd like to thank the Wisconsin DNR for the Opportunity to develop
a new system for appraising the effects of forest fires. Many peOple,
especially members of the Fuel and Effects Committee, gave their time,
expertise, and support that made the new system acceptable. Thanks
also go to the professors at Michigan State who provided feedback to
make the system the best it could be. And thanks to Maxine Fay for the
excellent job of typing and proofreading the manuscript.

Finally, I'd like to thank my wife, Julie, for providing
thoughtful review and analysis, but especially for giving me

encouragement when the study bogged down.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 2. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Background and Problem Statement. . . . . . . . . .

0b .Iective O O O I O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O
AEEroaChO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O C

1v
v
1
6
6
7
8
Valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
CHAPTER 3. MARKET RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12
24
25
28
28

 

Timber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CroEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 4. NON-MARKET RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Environmental Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
CHAPTER 5. RESEARCH NEEDED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Market Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Non-Market Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
CHAPTER 6. IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
APPENDIX A: FIRE EFFECTS APPRAISAL HANDBOOK . . . . . . . 10-1
APPENDIX B: PERSONS INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION. 74
APPENDIX C: VOLUME PREDICTION AND DISCOUNT PERIOD . . . . . . .
DETERMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
APPENDIX D: SUCCESS INDEX CALCULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

 

 

 

 

 

iii

Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

Table

\OQNO‘UI-DwNH

l—‘D—‘H
Nib-'0
.0.

H
b

15.
l6.
17.

18.

LIST OF TABLES

Resource valuation models. . . . . . . . . .
Timber valuation models. . . . . . . . . .
Conifer scorch mortality data. . . . . .
Hardwood scorch and mortality data . . . . .
Wildlife and recreation use valuation model.
Wildlife use in Wisconsin. . . . . . . . . .
Small game pOpulation changes. . . . . . .
Estimated changes in waterfowl pOpulations .
Wildlife use, expenditures, and values .
Ornamental tree valuation models . . . . . .

Density classification system. . . . . . . . . . .

Density classes by age class for each timber

type.

Percentage of saplings occurring in each type. .

Number of saplings in each timber type . . .
Age class of merchantability . . . . . . . .
Acres, harvest, and nature study by county .

Calculated success index and map identification.

numbe r O I O O O O O O C O O O C O O O C O O
Success index group statistics . . . . . . .

iv

Page

13
18
22
31
38
42
44
47
SO
75
77
78
79
80
86

. 88
. 9O

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1.-- Conifer mortality estimator and data points. . . . . . 19
Figure 2.-- Hardwood mortality estimator and data points . . . . . .23
Figure 3.-- Maps of success indices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this study was to develop a new fire effects
appraisal system for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). The DNR Fire Management staff created the Fuels and Effects
Committee to oversee the development of a replacement for the current
appraisal system. The new system had to be as accurate as possible
within the contraints identified by the DNR Fuels and Effects
Committee. Initially, four constraints were preposed: (1) any college
graduate could use the system; (2) the appraisal could be included on
the fire report; (3) the time requirements could not be mudh greater
than the time used for the current system; and (4) the system should
yield relatively consistent results for different appraisers. In
addition to these constraints, the Committee frequently reviewed the
system to insure that it would be acceptable to the field personnel as
well as to DNR administrators.

The system that was produced by this study is presented in its
entirety in Appendix A. Although there are faults with the new system,
it is acceptable to, and has been accepted by, the field personnel and
the upper echelon of the DNR. This acceptance was demonstrated by the
field test in 1980 and the plans to implement the new system throughout
Wisconsin by 1982.

The new fire effects appraisal system is not perfect. One reason
is that many of the theoretical evaluation models whiCh exist are not
usable. For example, the present net value of a timber stand is
probably the best measure of its value, but the problems associated

with predicting harvest volumes, prices and dates reduce its accuracy.

2
The problems identified in the existing yield tables and the additional
data and computational requirements proved unacceptable to the DNR
Committee. Another problem with using some evaluation models is that
the necessary data is simply unavailable. In estimating the effects of
fire on wildlife, for example, gross expenditures may not be the most
desirable measure of value, but it was the only acceptable measure
which was available and consistent for all of the species groups and
for all sites in Wisconsin. Table 1 identifies the valuation models

considered, the method chosen, and the rationale for the selection.

 

There are also problems associated with the physical effects ,
predictions. Much of the research used for these estimates has been
extrapolated beyond the conditions examined in the studies. It has
been used because it at least provides a scientifically acceptable
methodology on which to build. For example, the hardwood mortality
predictors are based on data for an oak-hickory forest in Missouri. It
may be acceptable to apply the data to oaks in Wisconsin, but the
extrapolation to aspen and maple may be inappropriate. The problem,
however, is that there is no data available on the fire-caused
mortality of aspen, maple, birch, or other hardwoods. The question was
whether to use existing data beyond its relevant range, to use expert
opinion when available, or to ignore the effects. The decision was
made with support from the DNR Committee that extrapolating the
existing data was the most desirable Option. Ignoring the effects was
rejected as administratively unacceptable and expert opinion was
dismissed because of the innate bias (not necessarily intentional)
reflecting the "Smokey Bear Syndrome" of fires as unqualified

disasters.

3

 

 

Table 1.-- Resource valuation models.
Alternatives Method Chosen Rationale
Timber

1. Present Net Value

2. Current Value
3. Severance Tax Value

Crops

1. Market Value
Facilities

1. Use Value

2. Restoration Cost

Wildlife and Recreation Use

 

1. Willingness to Pay
a. Visitor Survey
b. Travel Cost
c. Consumers' Surplus
2. Alternatives
a. Market Value
b. Opportunity Cost
c. Alternative Sites
3. Expenditures
a. Cross Expenditures
b. Investment Cost
c. Market Value of Fish
d. GNP Effect
4. Other Methods
a. Value Added
b. Willingness to Sell
c. Valugyper User Day

Severance Tax Value
(merchantable timber)

Present Net Value
(immature timber)

Market Value

Restoration Cost

Gross Expenditures

1. Reduced data
requirements

2. DNR familiarity

3. DNR acceptability

l. Simplicity
2. DNR acceptability

1. DNR acceptability
2. Data availability

 

Aesthetics and Environmental Quality

 

Descriptive Terms

1. DNR acceptability

 

Ornamental Trees

. Timber Value
Property Value
Asset Value

Legal Value
Replacement Cost
Evaluation Formula

 

O‘mJ-‘wa-o

Evaluation Formula

1. Data availability

 

 

4

Most of the assumptions and extrapolations used in this study have
been identified. Chapter 5 addresses some of the key areas which need
additional research. While specific studies are not discussed, nine
broad categories are identified as fertile research fields. There is
enough information needed that dozens of scientists could spend their
entire careers improving the data just for the Wisconsin DNR.

The study was designed for practical application by the Wisconsin
DNR. The dominant requirement was to improve credibility as eXpert
witnesses in court, although the results of the system may be used for
other purposes. If the only goal of the system had been to improve
fire planning and/or to justify and adjust the fire program, a
different set of values may have been apprOpriate. A comparison of the
values used in the DNR study with comparable U.S. Forest Service values
may serve to illustrate this. The Forest Service values are from the
1980 update of the Resources Planning Act (RPA) program (USDA, 1980);
the values are for Region 9, the area from.Minnesota to Missouri to
Maryland to Maine and the lands in between. In timber, the values are
very similar since both systems use stumpage values; stumpage is a
market value and is, therefore, used uncritically for all timber
valuation. In recreation and wildlife, the values are less similar.
The RPA has a value of $3 for a recreation visitor day (RVD) on
developed sites, and between $7.25 and $10.50 per RVD for wildlife use.
The DNR values for recreation range from nearly $10 to $24 daily per
visitor group, while wildlife values are from 53¢ to over $25 per
hunter/observer-day. One must be careful comparing these values

because the user measurement is different for the two systems. In

5

addition, the values which are measured are quite different. The DNR
values are expenditures by users, whereas the RPA values are an
estimate of the value to the user in excess of the cost incurred to use
the resource. It would be easy to digress into a discussion of which
value is more correct or more proper, but such discussions have taken
place before and will undoubtedly occur again; a discussion in this
paper would have little impact on the debate. Expenditures were chosen
because it was more acceptable to the DNR Committee.

In conclusion, the DNR wanted a system which would improve its
credibility in appraising fire effects. The new system was designed
to meet that desire, and the DNR is comfortable that its needs have
been met. Others must be aware of potential problems that can occur

if the system and the results are extrapolated beyond their purpose.

CHAPTER 2. INTRODUCTION

Background and Problem Statement

 

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is required by
law to protect all state and private unincorporated lands in Wisconsin
from fire. This responsibility is limited in some parts of the state,
particularly the southern parts, by various mutual-aid agreements or
statutory authorities. Included in this protection requirement is the
task of assessing the effects of fires. These appraisals are a part of
the public record and hence are available to anyone. They have been
frequently used in insurance settlements and legal proceedings.

Some DNR personnel have expressed dissatisfaction with the current
appraisal system, particularly because of embarrassment in court due to
indefensible and unexplainable values. The current procedures were
develOped in 1938, and reflect the available knowledge and relative
resource values of the time. One problem is that immature stands are
appraised by applying a current stumpage rate to a dimensionless value,
determined from tables which include size class, stand density, site
class, and fire severity as variables. The problem is particularly
severe for plantations, where calculated losses are often less than
half of the original planting cost. A second major problem is that a
predetermined loss of one dollar per acre is assumed for recreation and
wildlife, and another dollar loss per acre is assessed for site
deterioration (Wisconsin DNR, 1976b). These values have caused many

problems for the DNR field personnel.

The Fire Management Staff in Madison was aware of the general
dissatisfaction and agreed that a new system was needed. The DNR Fuels
and Damage Committee (later renamed Fuels and Effects Committee) was
formed to address the problem; the members are identified in Appendix
B. The first meeting was in March, 1977. After discussing the current
system the DNR Committee agreed that they did not have sufficient
expertise to develOp a new system. Thus they decided to accept an
offer from the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment
Station, to fund a study on fire effects appraisal in Wisconsin.

A meeting was arranged for the DNR Committee to discuss the
problem with the Forest Service in November, 1977. Two uses of the
system were identified: (1) planning and evaluating the fire
organization, and (2) the appraisals that are used in court. It was
decided that the defensibility in court took precedence, when the two
needs were in conflict.

Objective

The objective of this study is to develOp a fire effects appraisal
system for the Wisconsin DNR that is as accurate and as consistent as
possible within the constraints set forth by the DNR Fuels and Effects
Committee. Accuracy is assessed by theoretical correctness, with
emphasis placed on those resources most affected by fire. The
constraints are: (1) it should be simple enough for a college graduate
(not necessarily a forester) to use; (2) it should be completed with
the fire report (within 30 days of the fire); (3) it should require no
more than an hour to complete for an average (1 acre) fire; (4) it
should provide results which would be fairly consistent for any given

fire, regardless of who made the appraisal.

8

Approach

Several appraisal techniques have been suggested over the

yearsil. One of the earliest was by Sparhawk (1925). He limited

himself to timber losses "not only because of the extreme paucity of
data (concerning other values), but also because the existing data

indicate that such damage is less than the probable error in

estimating damage to timber" (p 737). Craig et al (1945) made the

ifirst attempt to assess the effects of fire on all resources. Many

systems appraise damages by multiplying a value per acre times the

area burned. The Forest Service uses this procedure, with seven

rather broad value classes. The primary problem with this type of

system is that it permits no variance for fires of different

intensities. The most complete guide to fire effects appraisal was

developed by Crosby (1977). He sets forth techniques for evaluating

the effects on all resources, but the system is very detailed and

I: ime-consuming.

The new Wisconsin DNR system was set up to value changes in

physical outputs for various resources. Each resource element was

addressed independently, under the headings of market and non-market

resources. The literature was surveyed to identify fire-caused

Changes in resource outputs and to specify measurable variables that

COuld be used to predict those output changes. Values for each

resource element were then determined from existing information.

A! For a detailed discussion, see Julie K. Gorte and Ross W.
GOrte, Application of Economic Techniques to Fire Management - A

Status Review and Evaluation, USDA Forest Service General Technical
Report INT-53 (Ogden, UT: 1979), 26 pp.

9
The valuation methods that are available are discussed for each
resource element, followed by a discussion of the procedures selected
for use. Appendix A is the appraisal handbook, with the specific
procedures and appropriate numbers and tables included; the handbook is
presented in its entirety to give the reader a sense of the scope and
complexity of the system. Chapter 5 focuses on research needed to
improve the data base or to test some of the key assumptions in the
system. Chapter 6 addresses the recurrent concerns of the DNR and the 1
steps taken to get the system implemented state-wide.
Valuation : i
Anything that peOple want can be said to have value. In an
economic sense, value is defined as demand for a good or service being
greater than supply at a price of zero dollars (Gibbs, 1977). Although
this price is not always a market price, the economic concept of value
may still be used. For such non-market goods as wildlife, it is
necessary to derive values from the behavior of consumers or through
interview techniques.
This assumes that valuing non-market resources is necessary.
There may be many reasons for placing a value on these resources but in
general all relate to the same need: to know how much the resource is
worth relative to other resources so allocation decisions can be made
(Coomber & Biswas, 1973). There are many people who are opposed to
valuing non-market resources. Their reasons include that personal
Values defy objective evaluation and that valuing these resources is
too complex. Others argue that we should use social values rather than

economic values. Schuster (1977) claims that "the term 'social value'

10
is more often incorrectly used ... than it is correctly used", since
social values typically describe motivating forces or activities
(aesthetic pleasure, peace of mind, hunting) while economic values
describe benefits of activities. It is these economic values which
should and must be used to allocate resources.

The values affected by a fire depend on the objectives of the
evaluation. The change in gross state product may be the important
value for state lands, but it may not be relevant for a county or a
private citizen. The DNR tentatively identified two uses of the fire
effects appraisal: fire planning and court proceedings. The courts
use information on the effects on an individual landowner, but this may
not be apprOpriate for fire planning. If a fire, for example, caused
some campers to change from one campground to another, there might be
no effect on the total camping use in Wisconsin (if excess capacity
exists); however, the owner of the burned campground would feel a loss
from receiving fewer camping fees.

The DNR Committee decided that the effects on the individual
landowner took precedence over effects for planning. Even this did not
eliminate all problems. The question arose as to landowner objectives;
specifically, did a landowner have a timber loss even if he had no
plans or desire to sell timber? After more discussion, the DNR
Committee decided on potential landowner effects. Their basic reason
was that average landowner tenure is much less than most timber
rotation ages and that the landowner would probably experience some

effect on his property sale if the timber was burned regardless of his

 

11
plans or desires for harvesting. The DNR Committee also agreed that
consistency in variation was essential; this is particularly true within
a resource element, such as a consistent basis for jack pine and oak
timber, or for deer hunting and duck hunting. An imputed value for
non-market resources should be calculated if possible when market values

are available.

CHAPTER 3. MARKET RESOURCES

The marketable natural resources are those whiCh can easily be
bought and sold. The markets for these commodities determine prices
which then regulate production and consumption. For individual
landowners, who are the producers, any reduction in marketability or
volume of output resulting from a fire can be an economic loss.
Consumption may be unaffected, particularly if excess capacity exists.
The courts, however, are only interested in the effects on the
individual landowners. This chapter, therefore, focuses on those
resources for which the landowner could have an economic loss.

Timber
Methods Available

Any fire which kills trees potentially affects commercial timber
values. There are, however, several ways to measure sudh values,
depending on landowner objectives and the relationship among growth,
harvest and inventory on the owner's lands. Because of the potential
complexity of a system designed to accommodate all these factors, the
DNR Fuels and Effects Committee decided that the value change of the
burned stand, independent of the surrounding land, was the apprOpriate
measurement. Changes in stumpage values can be used as a proxy for
value change since they reflect the relative quality and availability
of timber supplies. There are basically three methods whiCh can be
used to obtain stumpage value Changes in Wisconsin, summarized in
Table 2.

Present net value is theoretically the most correct method, but it
requires predictions of future harvest date, price and yields. 0n
state lands, the future date can be from timber management plans. Such
plans, however, frequently do not exist for private lands, but DNR

12

13

Table 2.--Timber valuation models.

 

Alternatives Method chosen Rationale

1. Present Net Value Severance Tax Value 1. Reduced data

2. Current Value (merchantable timber) requirements

3. Severance Tax Value Present Net Value 2. DNR familiarity

(immature timber)

3. DNR acceptability

9M “Nu-M.»
I ' f V 9” A I A '

l4
rotation ages could be used as a rough guide. Predicting future prices
is difficult but assuming constant real prices is a possibility. A
real interest rate should be used in discounting, although the DNR uses
six percent for all analyses and would consider no alternatives.
Future yields can be estimated using the yield tables for Wisconsin
(Essex & Hahn, 1976), but the accuracy of the tables has been
questioned. DNR estimates show that actual growth is more than double
the yield table estimates, primarily because of intermediate
harvestslj. One administrative problem of using the present net
value method is the increase in field measurements which would be
required. Site index (age and height measurements) and volume by species
are needed, whereas only timber type, diameter class, and volume are
presently being recorded.

Current value, although theoretically less correct than present
net value, is simpler to apply. It also eliminates the problems
associated with predicting harvest date, prices and yields. However,
this method does assume no value for immature timber (seedlings and
saplings). This is particularly acute in stands that have had site
preparation, artificial regeneration, or other silvicultural
treatments. The problem of increased field measurements is the same as
with the present net value method.

The severance tax is a third alternative available in Wisconsin.
It was developed to eliminate the cost of cruising every stand of
timber which is offered for sale by any landowner. It is basically the

same as the current value method, but the field measurements are

‘

A! Personal communication with Harry W. Thorne, Staff
Assistant, Forest Management Section, Wisconsin DNR. Madison WI.
11/8/77.

15
greatly reduced. This method also has the flow of ignoring the
potential value of immature timber.
Procedures Developed

The technique selected for appraising the effects of fire on
timber is a combination of the severance tax value and the present net
value methods. The severance tax value will be used for all
merchantable timber, while the present net value will be used for
immature timber. Any salvage values which occur will be deducted from
the calculated loss.

The severance tax value method was selected primarily because of
its simplicity. While this method is theoretically less correct than
present net value, the predictions needed for calculating the present
net value reduce its accuracy. The present net value of immature
timber was used because the severance tax value assumes zero value for
such timber, and that assumption was unacceptable to the DNR. It is
necessary to estimate the volume and determine the discount period for
appraising the effects of fire on immature timber. The present net
value method requires estimates of harvest volume and harvest date, but
the procedures developed for the Wisconsin DNR differ somewhat.
Instead of using harvest volume and date, an estimate is made of the
volume and the age of a stand when it becomes merchantable. This
estimate is made by using the yield tables to calculate the
merchantable volume by age class for each timber type and comparing
those volumes to the average sapling density for each type. Average
sapling density was estimated using the number of sapling of each
species and the average volume of each species in each timber type.

The detailed procedures and necessary data are in Appendix C.

16

The problems of predicting prices and yields still exist but have been
reduced. The discount period has been shortened from the rotation age

to the time when a stand becomes merchantable, usually less than half

the rotation age. This shortened discount period reduces the errors
caused by assuming that the real stumpage price remains constant, and
it makes the discount rate less important. The problem of
11r1derestimating volume by using the yield tables is minimized because
In()8t intermediate harvests occur after the stand becomes merchantable.
1F11 is procedure does require numerous assumptions, and some researdh is
needed to improve the merchantable age predictions, as recommended in
Ch apter 5.

The effects on merchantable timber will be assessed using the

f o 1 lowing equation:

Average Average Predicted Acres
lLac>ss = Volume x Price By x Mortality x Burned
Per Acre District

The procedure for appraising fire effects on immature timber is
identical, except that the average volume per acre will be the

Predicted volume when the stand becomes merchantable and a discount

rate will be included.

Christmas trees pose a different problem since volume is not a

Ikelevant measure. The following equation will be used to assess the

effects of fire on Christmas trees:

Value Trees Acres
Loss = Per Tree x Per Acre x Burned

The field procedure requires a density estimate in trees per acre,

‘rather than volume per acre. "Mortality" is assumed to be 100 percent

Since almost any damage to the crown of the tree will render it

‘worthless as a Christmas tree.

17

The descriptions of the various values and the tables for volume

and price are in the handbook, Appendix A. The following discussion of

timber effects is separated into mortality and regeneration for conifer

and hardwood timber types.

T imber Effects

Conifer mortality is predicted in Figure 1, which was determined

from two linear regression lines. The equations for the lines are:
Equation 1: y = 1.386

4.
Equation 2: y = -75.826

.401 x for x5 57; r2
+

=- .66
1.758 x for x > 57; r2

= .73

where y is estimated mortality in percent and x is the percent of crown

scorched. The regressions used the data listed in Table 1, with the

equations being developed for scorch of 60 percent or less and for

scorch of more than 60 percent.

Two regression equations were used because no regression model

provided a mortality estimate of 100 percent for 100 percent crown

Seorch. While less than 100 percent mortality may be a better

I’eflection of the actual effects, it was unacceptable to the DNR
COtnmittee. Linear regression was chosen over other regression models

available, including the power model (y‘axb), the logarithmic model

(Y‘s-tb 1n x), and the exponential model (y=awbx). There are two

1‘eélsons for selecting the linear model. First, the linear regressions

yielded higher coefficients of determination than the other regression

mOdels, indicating that the linear model fit the data better than the

Others. The second reason is the administrative acceptability of the

ITesulting predictor; only the combination of two linear regressions

Provided an acceptable mortality prediction for 100 percent

 

18
crown scorch. The data in Table 3 are from.Methven (1971), for red and
white pine in southern Ontario, and from the Wisconsin DNR for red and

jack pine in Wisconsin.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3. -- Conifer scorch and mortality data.
Equation 1 Equation 2
Scorch Mortality Scorch Mortality
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
20 10 72.5 60
37.5 15 77.5 50
40 20 80 50
47.5 15 82.5 88
50 25 87.5 82
57.5 20 92.5 75
60 30 98 98
100 100

 

Results similar to those shown in Figure l have been reported in
Southern pine plantations (Bonninghausen, 1962). However, Figure 1 may
overestimate the mortality of the swamp conifer species because they are
less susceptible to heat damage than are the pine species (Weetman,
1956). Because relatively few fires occur in the swamp conifer types,
due to lower stand densities and higher moisture levels, and because
there is a lack of data on fire-caused mortality in swamp conifers, th
DNR Committee decided that the pine equations could be extended to all
conifer species.

Conifer regeneration is assumed to occur naturally. The following
are situations where natural regeneration will generally not occur: (1)
red pine stands, (2) jack pine stands under eight years old, and (3)
white cedar stands with a hardwood understory or with over 30 percent
other swamp conifer species. Regeneration is assumed to be unnecessary

in these stands if mortality is less than 50 percent. In those

19

100

 

90

80.

7O

60

50

4O

Predicted Mortality (percent)

30

'20

10

 

 

 

 

O 10 20 30 4O 50 60 7O 80 90 100

Crown Scorch (percent)

Figure l.--Conifer mortality estimator and data points.

20
situations when mortality exceeds 50 percent, a regeneration loss is
calculated and the value of the replacement timber type is estimated.
The exception to this rule is plantations since they are not the result
of natural regeneration.

Red pine is assumed not to regenerate naturally following fire
even though fire prepares an adequate seedbed for red pine. This is
based on the findings of Van Wagner (1970). Since red pine is often
succeeded by open field following fire, the timber value of the
replacement type is assumed to be zero.

Jack pine will not regenerate until it is eight years old.
Although it is a serotinous species and requires intense heat for
regeneration, jack pine usually doesn't bear cones until after its
seventh year (Cayford, 1970). Concern was eXpressed about the
replacement of jack pine by aspen following some major fires in
Wisconsinlj. Since aspen and jack pine often occur on similar
sites and aspen is a prolific seeder and sprouter (Horton & Hopkins,
1965), aspen is assumed to be the replacement timber type for jack pine
stands whidh do not regenerate naturally.

White cedar stands generally change to hardwood species if there
is a vigorous hardwood understory because most hardwoods sprout rapidly
after a fire (Little, 1963). The replacement timber type is the
understory timber type. If a white cedar stand whiCh has more than 30
percent other swamp conifer species (balsam fir, spruce, or tamarack)
is burned, it will regenerate to the predominant alternative timber

type, according to the management prescriptions for white cedar in the

 

1! Personal communication with Milton E. Reinke, State
Forester, Wisconsin DNR. Madison WI. 7/6/78.

21
Silviculture Handbook (Wisconsin DNR, 1977a). For example, if a burned
white cedar stand was 20 percent white cedar, 15 percent black spruce,
12 percent balsam fir, and 9 percent tamarack (36 percent other swamp
conifer species), the replacement type is black spruce.

It is assumed that natural regeneration either will occur or is
unnecessary in all other situations. The need for regeneration should
depend on the density of the residual stand, but 50 percent mortality
was assumed to simplify the calculations. Fifty percent was selected
arbitrarily, but deemed acceptable by the DNR Committee. The
assumption that natural regeneration will occur is supported by
research following prescribed burning (e.g. Ahlgren, 1963; Benzie et__
.31, 1973; Gysel g£_al, 1972), and Ahlgren (1959) reported that all
northern conifer species are capable of regenerating after wildfires.

Hardwood mortality is estimated from Figure 2. Since mortality is
predicted using bark scorch height, one would eXpect mortality to vary
with diameter. Accordingly, two curves were developed, depending on
diameter class; only two classes were used because of a lack of more
detailed data. The equations are:

For trees a 5" dbh: y = 49.248 + 4.911 x; r2 . .69
For trees < 5" dbh: y = 11.861 + 5.070 x; r2 - .75

where y is estimated mortality in percent and x is bark scordh height
in feet. The two regressions used the data in Table 4, from research
by Ralph Loomislf. As with conifer mortality, linear regression

was chosen over non-linear regression models because the linear model

resulted in higher coefficients of determination.

 

A! Personal communication with Ralph M. Loomis, Research
Forester, USDA Forest Service. East Lansing, MI. 7/78.

22

Table 4. -- Hardwood scorch and mortality data.

 

 

 

 

Scorch Mortality (percent) Scorch Mortality (percent)

(feet) =5" dbh 5" dbh (feet) =5" dbh 5" dbh
.25 63.6 25.0 7.0 76.9 45.3
1.0 34.8 2.4 8.0 86.6 76.7
2.0 60.5 11.7 9.0 100.0 43.5
3.0 68.8 20.7 10.0 -- 60.0
4.0 78.7 34.8 11.0 -- 50.0
5.0 64.4 43.5 12.0 -- 76.9
6.0 80.4 58.2 13.0+ -- 80.0

 

These regressions were develOped using data from an oak-hickory
forest in Missouri, and therefore may yield poor mortality estimates
for the aspen, white birch, and northern hardwood timber types.
However, no other data was available for develOping simple predictors.
The DNR Committee, recognizing the potential problem, began a study to
check predictions with actual mortality to assess the accuracy of the
curves, and will prepare new curves for other timber types if
necessary.

Live cull was assumed to be negligible. Live cull is damage to
trees which results in a reduction in timber quality or volume without
causing mortality. Concern about fire-caused live cull has been
expressedl/, but it was found to be relatively minor if the timber
was under 90 years old or less than 20 inches in diameter (Berry,
1969), while another researcher found no volume or quality loss in

saplings or poletimber if the trees survived (Loomis, 1974).

 

A! Personal communication with Gordon L. Landphier, Chief,
Fire Control Section, Wisconsin DNR. Madison WI. 6/28/79.

23

 

 

 

 

100
90
80
7o
‘5
8
5 60
3
a
'5 50
‘5 .
2
3 4o
*5
'6
2
°' 30
20
10.
X
0 I I 1 LA I J 1 IA

 

Bark Scorch (feet)

Figure 2.--Hardwood mortality estimator and data points.

24

Hardwood regeneration is assumed to occur naturally for all
hardwood timber types. The predominant hardwood species in Wisconsin
are maple, aspen, oak, and paper birch, all of which resprout following
fire (Ahlgren, 1959; Fennel & Hutnik; Vogl, 1970). Even the most
intense prescribed burns couldn't prevent aspen suckering (Horton &
Hopkins, 1965). Yellow birch is the only hardwood species which has
been identified as definitely a non-sprouter (Fennel & Hutnik, 1970).

Timber Values

 

The values prOposed are those calculated annually by the Wisconsin
DNR Timber Management Staff. The stumpage values are the weighted
average for each timber type in each district in Wisconsin. The
weighting system used is the average volume of eadh timber species in
the timber type for each district. Local stumpage prices for a
particular species will be used in pure stands, like plantations, but
not in mixed stands. The additional time needed for estimating volume
and mortality by species was considered to be too costly.

Christmas tree values are generally available from county
extension agents. These values include expected price and discount
rates which are apprOpriate for such commercial enterprises. By using
external values, rather than estimates of costs from the plantation
owner, the time required to obtain a present value per tree can be
reduced substantially.

Craps

Evaluating the effects of fire on crOps and forage is similar to
the timber evaluation, since timber is only a special kind of cr0p.
However, several factors combine to greatly simplify the procedure.

Most crops are harvested annually, thus eliminating the problem of

25

discounting future values. County agents generally have records
available for estimating yields and prices. The problem of predicting
mortality is also eliminated since few cr0ps can survive a wildfire.

The method to be used by the Wisconsin DNR is basically a
two-pronged approach. If the burned cr0p can be replanted in the
current year, the loss is the sum of the replanting cost and the value
of the reduction in the expected yield (the replanted crOp would
probably have a reduced yield due to a shorter growing season). If the
crop is not replantable, the loss is the value of the expected yield.

The first step is to determine if the burned crOp has already been
harvested. If all crOps on the burned site have been harvested, there
is no loss. If a crOp has not been harvested, then the loss for each
burned crop is calculated using the following equation:

Crop = Replanting x Acres + Yield x Price x Acres
Loss Cost Burned Loss Burned

The replanting cost is zero if the crOp cannot be replaced in the
current year. The yield loss and price information can be determined
from the farmer (a potentially biased source) or from the county
agent.

Facilities

 

The value of equipment or improvements generally lies in their
value in use. This is not limited to such income-producing equipment
as tractors, because the value of a vacation home, for example, lies in
its use, or at least its potential use. Fire can quite obviously
change the value by either eliminating or altering the use or potential
use of the equipment or improvement. Ornamental trees will be
discussed in Chapter 4 even though their primary value is as an

improvement.

26

The most common technique for estimating these losses is to
calculate the cost to restore or replace the equipment or improvement
affected by the fire. While this technique is the simplest to use, it
generally overvalues items which are in poorer condition. A more
correct technique would be to estimate the value of the use whidh would
be lost as a result of the fire if replacement did not occur. For
income-generating items this may be possible, but many improvements are
used for recreating. It would, for example, be very difficult to
calculate the use value of a vacation home.

The method to be used by the Wisconsin DNR is to estimate the cost
to restore the equipment or improvement to its pre-fire condition. In
some cases, this will be the additional maintenance required to restore
that condition. An example of this would be repainting a barn which
was blackened by the soot from a fire. Many cases, however, will
require replacement. To reduce the possibility of overvaluing worn
equipment and improvements, the replacement value will be restricted by
the pre-fire condition of the item. The replacement value for a 1959
pickup truck, for example, is the price of a 1959 pickup in similar
condition on a used-car lot, not the price of a 1980 pickup truck.

This technique provides an adequate estimate of value change if one
assumes that restoration or replacement will occur. If the item is
restored or replaced, it is likely that the future use value of the
item is more than the cost to restore/replace it. The DNR Fuels and
Effects Committee stated that it was administratively unacceptable to

determine if an item would, or should, be replaced or restored.

27

The field procedures require determining the equipment and
improvements which require added maintenance and then the items which
need to be replaced. An estimate of the pre-fire condition (excellent,
very good, good, fair, poor) is also made. In the office, the cost of
the required maintenance or the replacement is determined. Contractors
and used equipment dealers are useful sources, but professional
judgement will also be needed. Equipment loss is the sum of the costs

to replace or repair the burned items.

CHAPTER 4. NON-MARKET RESOURCES

Non-market resources are those which are not regularly traded in
established markets. The value of these resources generally cannot be
captured by individual landowners because of their inability to control
the use, like with sightseeing, or because the service is provided free
by the public landowners, like hiking. Since the courts are interested
primarily in the effects of fire on individual landowners, the value of
non-market resources is not relevant. However, because there can be a
fire-caused change in non-market values, such changes are relevant for
fire management planning. The new appraisal system will be used for
both court proceedings and fire planning, and therefore values for
non-market resources must be included but explicitly distinguished from
landowner effects; steps have been taken by the DNR to make this
distinction on their new appraisal reporting forms.

Fire effects on watersheds have been assumed to be negligible in
Wisconsin. A detailed literature review by Wells §£_al (1979) examined
the effects of fire on erosion and on water quality and quantity.

Their report indicated that the effects are only significant for very
intense fires on steep sIOpes with highly erodible soils. A USDA Soil
Conservation Service soil type map for the state showed that the
necessary combination of highly erodible soils on steep slopes was
virtually non-existant in Wisconsin.

Wildlife

Wildlife value is actually a catch-all term which includes several
values. PeOple use wildlife in different ways and value it for a
number of reasons. One of the most obvious of the wildlife values is

activity value (Brookshire et al, 1978). Activity value is associated

28

29
with firsthand use of the resource. It can be further subdivided into
consumptive and nonconsumptive use. Consumptive use means actually
taking wildlife out of the environment, as fishermen and hunters do.
Nonconsumptive users are those who engage in wildlife observation,
birdwatching, wildlife photography, and nature study. They do not
harvest animals.

A second type of wildlife value is Option value (Brookshire ££_§l,
1976). This category does not include users of the wildlife resource,
but those who value it because they may wish to use it in the future,
or wish to preserve it for the use Of their children. In other words,
they value the Option to use the resource, though they do not actually
use it at present.

Existence value is another wildlife value which, though simple to
conceptually separate from Option value, is difficult to measure
separately. Existence value is derived from peOple enjoying the
resource simply because it is there. They neither use wildlife nor
plan to use it, but value its continued existence.

Methods Available

According to neoclassical economics, the value of any good or
service is the product of price times the quantity purchased at that
price. The market, the interaction between producers and consumers,
determines the price and quantity purchased. It allocates goods and
services to those who are willing to pay the price (Gibbs, 1977).
Unfortunately, the market for the wildlife resource doesn't work
perfectly. The reasons for this include: wildlife is usually
considered common prOperty, belonging to the state and hence to all the

peOple; and wildlife is a "public good" where the uses of the resource

30
are not mutually exclusive. For example, the same area can be used for
deer hunting and birdwatching (Davidson £3 211 1966).

Several approaches have been taken in attempting to evaluate non-
market resources. Most of the research has been directed toward
recreation, especially for valuation of developed sites, but it is
equally applicable to wildlife since the activity and Option values of
wildlife are in reality recreation values. The approaches are
identified in Table 5, along with the selected uethod and the rationale

for the selection. Willingness to pay is the approach that has
had the most attention. It is the amount that peOple would pay in
order to use (or to have the Option to use or merely to have) the
wildlife resource. Most of the discussion has focused on how to
measure the willingness to pay. One technique suggested is to conduct
a visitor survey to directly ask the visitors how much the recreation
activity is worth (Hammack & Brown, 1974). The primary problems with
this approach are the potential for bias in the structure and
administration Of the questionnaire/interview and the questionable
relationship between how much peOple say they will pay and how much
they actually will pay (Beardsley, 1971; O'Connell, 1977). One study
in Wisconsin has shown that the amount for which people.gaig_they would
sell their use rights was twice as much as the actual amount necessary
to purchase their use rightslj. While this study dealt with the
willingness of peOple to sell their use rights (rather than willingness

to purchase the rights), it does illustrate the problems

 

A! Study conducted by Richard BishOp and Tom Heberlein of the
University of Wisconsin, Madison; reported by David Pritchard,
"$5.2-Million Value Put on Horicon Hunt," Madison (WI) Capital Times,
Wednesday, November 15, 1978.

 

31

 

 

Table 5. -- Wildlife and recreation use valuation models.

Alternatives Method Chosen Rationale

1. Willingness to Pay Gross EXpenditures 1. DNR acceptability
a. Visitor Survey 2. Data availability

b. Travel Cost

c. Consumers' Surplus
2. Alternatives

a. Market Value

b. Opportunity Cost

c. Alternative Sites
3. Expenditures

a. Gross Expenditures

b. Investment Cost

c. Market Value of Fish

d. GNP Effects
4. Other Methods

a. Value Added

b. Willingness to Sell

c. ValueAper User Day

 

inherent in such questionnaire or interview studies. Other researchers
have attempted to reduce this problem by instituting bidding for the
use rights (Brookshire g£_al, 1978).

Another technique for measuring willingness to pay has been called
the travel cost method. Originally suggested by Hotelling (1949), and
first applied by Trice and Wood (1958), this method requires
determining how much users pay in travel costs, and relating that to
the number of users. The value, then, is the product of the quantity
of use (number of users) times the difference between the amount peOple
would pay and the actual amount paid. Trice and Wood assumed that
people would pay as much as the tOp ten percent of the actual amounts
paid (i.e. the 90th percentile). This assumption has been severely
criticized. The other primary criticism focuses on the assumption of a

homogeneous population (Coomber & Biswas, 1973).

32

The third technique for estimating willingness to pay involves the
use of consumers' surplus. Consumers' surplus is the value (benefits
received) in excess of the amount paid. Usually consumers' surplus is
considered to be the total value over the amount paid, while monopolist
revenue is the maximum potential revenue that a nondiscriminating
monOpolist could receive (Coomber & Biswas, 1973). For either measure,
a demand curve is necessary. The two basic ways to estimate demand
curves are virtually identical to the direct measures of willingness to
pay. The first way is to estimate changes in use resulting from
changes in cost, using a survey or a bidding-type game (Randall, 1977;
Brookshire et a1, 1978). This, however, has the problems mentioned
earlier about the accuracy of survey methods. The other way, known as
the Clawson method, is to estimate demand by examining travel costs for
different geographical regions. The major problem with this method is
the assumption that differences in participation rates are the result
of difference in travel costs, i.e. the pOpulation has homogeneous
tastes and preferences (Clawson & Knetsch, 1966). Others have
suggested using all transfer costs rather than just travel costs (Brown
et a1, 1973). An additional problem with the Clawson method is that it
usually is more costly to apply (O'Connell, 1977).

The basic problem with using consumers' surplus, or any measure of
willingness to pay, is the noncomparability with other measures. When
comparing two investments, it is imperative to be comparing apples with
apples. A comparison with the benefits of one alternative measured by
consumers' surplus and the benefits of another measured in market
values could result in less-than-Optimal resource allocation

(Beardsley, 1971; O'Connell, 1977).

33

The alternatives approach is the second one that is frequently
used. One technique is to determine the market value of the resource
in question. In theory, this technique is acceptable, but the need for
either selling the resource or observing the sale of a comparable
resource makes it very difficult to use (Coomber & Biswas, 1973;
Knetsch & Davis, 1966). Another problem is that many non-marketed uses
have no analogy in the private sector.

Another technique for estimating the alternative value of the
resource is to identify its Opportunity costs. The potential value Of
the resource in other uses may, however, be a severe underestimate of
value, especially for unique resources. It is a measure of what is
given up, rather than what is received. The use of this technique for
the wildlife resource is more difficult, in general, because many
wildlife uses are compatible with and secondary to other uses on the
same site.

A third way to estimate the alternative value is to estimate the
costs of using alternative sites. However, this requires an accurate
assessment of the resources on the site being valued and on alternative
sites. By identifying the change in resources available on one site,
it is possible to estimate changes in use on all sites. This can be
valued by estimating changes in user costs (Talhelm, 1973).

Expenditures is a third basic approach to the valuation Of
non-market resources. The most common technique is to measure gross
expenditures. One advantage in this technique is that it is an
eXpressed willingness to pay, and therefore is more similar to market
price than any other measure (Coomber & Biswas, 1973). Another
advantage is the relative ease to apply this technique. There are,

however, many problems with this method. The gross expenditure method

34
includes all transfer costs. It does not measure benefits to the
owners or to the users, nor is it a measure of net or site benefits.
It also includes many secondary benefits (Coomber & Biswas, 1973;
Knetsch & Davis, 1966; O'Connell, 1977). Finally it is a measure of
the maximum dollar amount that could be redirected, rather than a
measure Of peOple's willingness to pay (Stevens, 1966a).

Another expenditure technique is to assume that the value of an
investment is equal to the cost to provide the recreational
opportunity. Under this assumption, all potential investments are
good, and the most desirable ones are the most costly (Trice & Wood,
1958; Stevens, 1966a). In spite of its inherent inadequacy, cost can
be used if a cost/use ratio is used as an allocative criterion
(0"Connell, 1977), but allocation decisions among different resources
may be impossible.

A third technique which is frequently mentioned but seldom used
is called the market value of fish. This asserts that the value of the
use is equal to the market value of the outputs produced for
consumptive use. However, as Stevens (1966a) points out, the output is
often the activity rather than the physical commodity (fishing, not
fish).

A fourth technique which can be included in the expenditures
approach is the GNP effect. This assumes that the value of a day in
recreation is the same as the value of the output of a day of work;
i.e. value per user day equals GNP per capita per day. This assumes
that all days are perfectly substitutable, and the problems with this
are obvious.

Several other approaches have been prOposed. One is to use value

added by use of the resource, rather than gross expenditures, leading

35

determine the willingness to accept compensation (to sell). This is
the same as willingness to pay, except that a different set of property
right is assumed (Randall, 1977). A third approach is to use a value
per user day, preferably from the fee at a comparable private site
(O'Connell, 1977). This can also be adjusted for political and social
pressures, and may therefore be a more acceptable measure of value
(Coomber & Biswas, 1973).

Procedures Developed

Of the possible techniques described above, the one selected for
use by the Wisconsin DNR is the gross expenditure method. There are
two reasons for using this technique. The first is that the values
which are derived using this technique are institutionally acceptable.
The DNR Fuels and Effects Committee agreed that the values determined
using eXpenditures are acceptable to the Wisconsin DNR. The other
reason for using expenditures is that it is the only measure of value
which is available for several different types of wildlife across the
state. Several studies have been conducted on the value of a specific
species or area (e.g. the geese on Horicon Marsh), but the only measure
available which is consistent for all wildlife types affected by fire
is expenditures.

Expenditures is not necessarily the correct measure of value, but
it does provide a consistent basis for analysis, and consistent values
are necessary for management planning (Schuster, 1977). It is
necessary to prevent comparing these measures with the marketable
values frOm timber and crOps, but these precautions have been
incorporated on the appraisal form. In addition, wildlife values have

been identified in Chapter 5 as an area needing more research.

36
The technique prOposed for evaluation of the effects of fire on
wildlife is based on changes in use and the relative success for
various wildlife uses on the burned site. The following equation will

be used to assess the effects of fire on each group of species

affected:
Loss or Full Success Use Wildlife
Benefit = Effect x Index x Change x Value

The specific equations and the apprOpriate tables and values for each
wildlife species group are in Appendix A, the appraisal handbook.

The success index is, in general, a ratio of use per acre in a
county relative to the average use per acre in Wisconsin. The success
index for each species group in each county was calculated by dividing
the use per acre by the average in Wisconsin for that species group.
Thus, a success index of one indicates average use, while a two
indicates double the average and a point five is half of the average
use. For game species, the percentage of total harvest in each county
was used as a proxy for hunter use, while nature study participations
was used for non-game species use. The data used for develOping the
indices and maps showing the distributions are included in Appendix D.

This evaluation method assumes that wildlife values are related to
the quantity of use on a given site and the probability of success in
that use. Intuitively, the quantity of use will depend on the
probability of success if success is desired. This assumption has been
questioned in the literature. Wennergren g£_gl (1977) found that
hunter success was a primary determinant of site quality for big game
in Utah, but less than half of the backcountry fishermen in Washington
fished for reasons related to the catch (Hendee et al, 1977). Potter

et al (1973) found that nature, escapism and compansionship were the

37
primary reasons for hunting, but satisfaction related to hunting
success (e.g. harvest and trOphy display) did add to the value of the
hunting experience. In examining anticipated success, Stevens (1966b)
found a significant positive correlation between Changes in anticipated
success and changes in fishing effort.

Another major assumption is that use and probability of success
are directly proportional to animal pOpulations. This is neither
supported nor refuted in the literature, although it is intuitively
reasonable. One would expect an increase in a deer herd to result in a
higher probability for shooting a deer.

A third assumption is that probability of success on a burned site
is not related to the probability of success on nearby, substitute
sites. Intuitively, there is some pOpulation regeneration response to
changes in habitat conditions, but there is also probably a relocation
response, especially in the first year. There is no literature avail-
able to help in distinguishing these responses. Stevens (1966b) did
find that a change in anticipated success at a substitute site did not
affect salmon fishing at the site he examined. While there was
obviously no relocation of the salmon, his study does suggest that the
use of alternative sites is unaffected by use on the burned site. In a
DNR Committee meeting, a DNR wildlife biologist stated that his research
has shown there is little or no relocation response in deerlj.

Still, this assumption may result in a substantial overestimate of the
effects of fire on wildlife. These assumptions are very important in
the valuation of the effects of fire on wildlife, and researCh is

recommended in Chapter 5 to address this area.

 

1! Personal communication with Keith McCaffery, Wildlife
Biologist, Wisconsin DNR, Rhinelander WI. 7/26/79.

38
Wildlife Effects
The full effect of fire on wildlife use is the net Change in use
per acre for a fire with 100 percent mortality of the trees. This is
the total expected change in animal pOpulations (in percent) times the
average use per acre for Wisconsin. Table 6 shows the use of each

wildlife species group (National Analysts, 1975) and the average use

 

 

per acre.
Table 6. -- Wildlife use in Wisconsin.
Total Use Average
Species Group (thousands) Use Per Acre
Deer 6,034 .175
Rabbit 3,781 .110
Grouse 2,146 .062
Pheasant 2,825 .082
Waterfowl 3,339 .097
Non-Game 38,761 1.124

Area in Wisconsin: 34,483,200 acres

 

The total expected change in animal pOpulations is the expected
change by year, determined from the literature, discounted to the
present at six percent. The correct procedure for determining the
present value of future effects is to discount the value of those
future effects. If, for example, a fire causes the animal pOpulation
to increase to 200 percent over the pre-fire pOpulation in the first
year, to 125 percent over the pre-fire level in the second year, to 50
percent over the pre-fire level in the third year, and return to the
pre-fire level in the fourth year, the present value of the increases
is the sum of the value of the use times the increase in each year and

discounted to the present.

39

Mathematically, letting V be the value of the use and using an interest
rate of 6 percent, this is:

puv =2.oov +1.25v + 0.50v =v [£99 + _1_._;_5_ + 939}

(1.06) (1.06) (1.06) (1.06) (1.06) (1.06)

The advantage of the second equation is that the value of each use can
be updated annually to adjust for inflation, and can be changed when
new information becomes available. These are separated into value and
full effect in the appraisal equations so that the values can be
changed when appropriate.

There is no evidence in Wisconsin to support or refute the
assumption of constant values, but real values are probably increasing
with the general trend in increasing recreational participation
nationwide. If real values are increasing in Wisconsin, the results of
the appraisal will underestimate the actual effects.

The use change in the equation is a measure of acres burned at 100
percent mortality in the apprOpriate timber types. Since the full
effect is for 100 percent mortality, it must be reduced for fires of
lower intensity. It is assumed that the relationship between effects
and intensity is linear. This is unsupported in the literature,
although it is intuitively reasonable to expect a positive relationship
between timber mortality and the food and cover available for wildlife.
The function is assumed to be linear because it simplifies the
calculation and because there is no evidence to the contrary.

White-tailed deer is the predominant big game species in
Wisconsin. Moose are beginning to return to the state, but they are
still relatively rare. Since the effects of fire are generally
beneficial to moose, the assumption of no effect will probably cause a

slight underestimate of the benefits resulting from fire 3!.

40

The full effect of fire on deer is an increase of 3.86 hunter-days
per acre. This is the present net worth of a 3-fold increase in deer
populations for 10 years, multiplied by the average use of .175 hunter-
days per acre per year. The change in deer use is based on information
from a DNR wildlife biologistzj. This estimate is generally
supported in the literature, although some sources report higher
population increases. Vogl and Beck (1970) found deer use to be 2.8
times higher on the site eight years after a fire in northern
Wisconsin. In a study in oak in Pennsylvania, Ribinski (1970) reported
that a constant percent of available browse was consumed, regardless of
the amount of browse available. The burned sites showed a 16-fold
increase in browse and a 16-fold increase in browse consumed. Loomis
(1977) reported similar increases in available browse in his study of
an oak-hickory forest in Missouri. However, Dills (1970) found
increases in browse available of only three to six times the pre-fire
levels.

The use change associated with the full effect is limited to red
and jack pine plantations and to northern hardwoods and white birch.
Although aspen is the most important deer browse species (Vogl, 1967),
the use of aspen stands is unrelated to the age of the standél.

The increase in forage is related to crown Openings, which is directly

prOportional to mortality in pine plantations. The hardwood stands,

 

A! For more detailed information on the effects of fire on
moose, see David L. Spencer and John B. Hakala, "Moose and Fire on the
Kenai," Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings No. 3
(Tallahassee, FL: 1964), pp 11-33.

3! Personal communication with Keith McCaffery. 7/26/79.

31/ Ibid.

41
however, show little change in crown Openings until mortality is at
least 50 percentlj. A linear relationship between no effect at 50
percent mortality and full effect at 100 percent mortality was,
therefore, assumed for northern hardwoods and white birch, while the
pine plantations have an assumed linear relationship from no effect at
zero mortality to full effect at 100 percent mortality. The use change
was assumed to be negligible in all other types except the swamp
conifers, as discussed below.

There is also a size effect on deer pOpulations. McCaffery and
Creed (1969) found that deer use in forest Openings in northern
Wisconsin decreases as the size of the Openings increases. Since their
regression is based on Openings and only very intense fires cause
Openings (timber mortality of 100 percent), the size relationship must
be tempered. The area change, calculated by summing mortality times
acres burned for the apprOpriate timber types, is a more appropriate
measure to use than fire size£/.

A loss of deer habitat occurs if a conifer swamp is burned, since
cover is more restrictive than browse in winter habitat and conifer
swamps provide the most desirable cover (Wetzel §£_£&J 1975). Most
deer yarding occurs in these conifer swamps (Kabat g£_£g3 1953), so the
full effect of a fire in a swamp would be the temporary elimination of
deer use. The temporary period is 25 years if one assumes that stands
provide adequate cover when the trees reach about half of their

merchantable age.

 

if Personal communication with Keith McCaffery. 7/26/79.

3! Personal communication with Leslie W. Gysel, Professor,
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East
Lansing MI. 3/12/79.

42

Small game includes rabbits and upland game birds. These species
were grouped together to increase institutional acceptability, rather
than because of similarities in response to fire. Hence, the full
effect varies with the timber type (habitat) affected. Appendix A
shows the system before this change was made; separate effects for
rabbits, grouse, and pheasants are calculated in the handbook.

Table 7 shows the estimated changes in animal pOpulations and the
discounted sum. Grange (1965) reported that the snowshoe rabbit
population cycle in Minnesota followed the successional changes in the
forest. The pOpulation peaked at 1.5 to 800 times above mature forest

populations for the second through the fifth years of the cycle. On

Table 7. -- Small game population changes.

 

Years Rabbit Upland Bird
Since Fire Estimate Discounted Estimate Discounted
1 - 1.0 - .94 + 3.04 + 2.87
2 + 1.5 + 1.33 + 3.04 + 2.71
3 + 1.5 + 1.26
4 + 1.5 + 1.19
5 + 1.5 + 1.12
Total + 3.96 + 5.58

 

severely burned sites in Alberta, a one-year disappearance of rabbits
was reported (Keith & Surrendi, 1971). Jack pine, black spruce, aspen,
and white birch have been identified as the types which comprise the

predominant habitat for snowshoe rabbits (Grange, 1965).

43

Grouse includes sharptailed and ruffed grouse and Hungarian and
Chukar partridges because they have similar habitat requirements.
Quail have been included under pheasants. The increase of 304 percent
in the average of the increases in sharp-tailed grouse broods reported
by Kirsch and Kruse (1972). Two years has been identified as the
duration of fire-caused habitat improvement for prairie chickens, a
similar species (Chamrad & Dodd, 1972). Jack pine and aspen have been
identified as important in grouse habitat (Cayford, 1970) A], while
numerous authors have discussed the beneficial effects of fire in Open
fields for upland bird species, including pheasants and quail (e.g.
Hamerstrom, 1963; Komarek, 1971; Miller, 1963).

The full effect for the various timber types is the sum of the
animal pOpulation change times the hunter use for each species group.
Thus, open fields have an increase of .45 hunter-days per acre,
resulting from a 558 percent increase in pheasant pOpoulations times
.082 hunter-days per acre for pheasant and quail. Black spruce and
white birch have a full effect of .43 hunter-days per acre, from the
396 percent net increase in rabbit pOpulations times .110 rabbit
hunter-days per acre. The full effect for jack pine and aspen is .77
hunter-days per acre. This is the sum of the .43 rabbit hunter-days
per acre increase and .34 grouse hunter-days per acre, resulting from a
558 percent increase in the .062 hunter-days per acre for grouse.

The use change for small game is the product of mortality times
acres burned in the apprOpriate timber type. This is to reduce the
full effect for fires with less than 100 percent timber mortality. It

has been arbitrarily assumed that the relationship between timber

 

.1/ Aspen was added by the Wisconsin DNR Committee.
Rhinelander WI. 11/7/78.

44
mortality and effect is linear.

Waterfowl in Wisconsin includes geese, ducks, rails, coots, and
gallinules. The effects of fire on waterfowl is an increase of .30
hunter- days per acre. This is from the 315 percent increase in the
average use of .097 hunter-days per acre for waterfowl. Table 8 shows
the estimates and the discounted estimates for waterfowl. The increase
of 118 percent is a combination of increased nesting success and
increased numbers of nests. Kirsch and Kruse (1972) found a 58 percent
increase in nesting success on burned sites, and an increase in the

number of nests on the same site of 59.3 percent after the fire. The

 

 

Table 8. -- Estimated changes in waterfowl pgpulations.
Years Since Fire Population Estimate Discounted
1 1.18 1.11
2 1.18 1.05
3 1.18 .99
Total 3.15

 

increase in the number of nests was reduced to 38.5 percent because
adjacent unburned sites also showed an increase in the number of nests,
possibly indicating pOpulation increases from causes other than the
fire. The three-year period for the predicted effects is arbitrary.
While numerous authors have discussed the beneficial effects of fire on
desirable food plants (e.g. Givens, 1962; Bendell, 1974), none have
addressed the question of how long the effects last. The use change is
limited to open types within one mile of Open water, because most
waterfowl nest in Open fields and marshes, and feed primarily in

water-related ecosystems.

45

A loss to waterfowl occurs if the nests are burned. The full
effect is a one-year loss of the harvest of juvenile waterfowl, i.e.
birds born the preceding summer. In Wisconsin, 63.6 percent of the
annual harvest is juveniles (Jahn & Hunt, 1964). Thus, the full effect
is a loss of .06 hunter-days per acre (63.6 percent of .097 waterfowl
hunter-days per acre). A nesting index is needed to account for the
presence or absence of nests. Ward (1968) indicates that all waterfowl
nest from mid-May to the end of July, but mallards and pin-tails begin
nesting by mid-April. Since these two Species total 47.3 percent of
the ducks which nest in Wisconsin (March_g£_al, 1973), and since ducks
account for 69.6 percent of all waterfowl use (Wisconsin DNR, q), the
nesting index is .33 between mid-April and mid-May. From mid-May to
the end of July, the index is 1.00, and it is .00 the rest of the year.
The use change is again limited to marshes and Open fields within one
mile of Open water.

Non-game species include all animals which are not hunted. For
this study, non-game effects are limited to the effects of fire on
non-game birds for two reasons: most wildlife observation is
birdwatching, and the literature has contradictory reports concerning
small mammals. Specifically, two recent studies (Buech ££_gl, 1977;
Coble g£_gl, 1976) have shown significant short-term reductions in
small mammal pOpulations following fires, but other authors reported
short-term increase to such pOpulations (Ahlgren, 1966; White, 1960).

The full effect of fire on non-game birds is an increase of .20
observer-days per acre. The total effect is an 18 percent increase in
birds for one year. This is the average of increases reported by Bock

and Lynch (1970), a 28.6 percent increase in number of species present,

46
and Bendell (1974), only a 7.4 percent increase. Ahlgren (1963) found
such increases to last only one year following prescribed burning.

Rare, endangered and threatened species listed for Wisconsin
include many predatory species and several aquatic species of
amphibians and reptiles (Wisconsin DNR, 1975). The effects of fire has
been assumed to be negligible unless a particular species can be
identified as being directly affected. This was the limit that the DNR
Committee would accept. Generally, the assumption of negligible effect
is true. The aquatic species are unaffected, since water quality is
assumed to be unaffected by fire. The predators are either unaffected
or benefitted due to the generally beneficial effects of fire on game
and non-game species. Threatened gallinaceous birds, including the
prairie chicken, the yellow rails and the piping plover, are also
generally benefitted since they respond much like the upland game
birds. Kirtland's warblers have been identified in Wisconsin, but
sighting are very rare and scattered. It is unlikely that there is a
native population in Wisconsin.

Fish are assumed to be unaffected by fire. Fire-caused pollution
could influence fish populations by affecting other biota (Komarek,
1965), but such pollution has been assumed to be negligible in
Wisconsin, as previously discussed. In addition, stream temperature
changes have been reported as too small to affect trout pOpulations
(Helvey g£_§l, 1974).

Wildlife Values

 

The values used in assessing the effects of fire on wildlife are
listed in Table 9. The values are the expenditures made in Wisconsin

in 1975 for various types of hunting and for wildlife observation

47
(National Analysts, 1975), inflated to 1978 dollars using the Consumer

Price Index.

 

 

 

Table 9. -- Wildlife use, expenditures, and values.

Activity or Days Expenditures Expenditures 1978 Value

Species Group of Use 1975 Dollars 1978 Dollars Per User Day

----------- -millions- - - - - - - - — - -
Deer 6.03 121.71 158.19 25.39
Small Game 8.67 52.82 66.48 7.67
Waterfowl 2.61 28.51 35.89 13.75
Observations 38.76 16.34 20.56 .53
Recreation

 

Most resources affected by fire can be associated with a single
purpose, like timber or water. Recreation is different, however,
because it includes many uses, ranging from hunting to hiking, from
boating to sightseeing. Some of these uses are mutually exclusive at a
particular time, like hiking and boating, but others, like camping and
hunting, can be complementary. Other chapters have covered some of the
aspects of recreation use. Evaluation of the effects of fire on
wildlife-associated recreation is discussed earlier. The aspects which
will be covered in this section are the change in recreation use, other
than the use associated with wildlife, and the change in long-term
visual quality or aesthetics. The effects of fire on ornamental trees
is also covered, although they are really prOperty improvements, not
unlike a fence or a picnic table. The DNR Committee decided that

ornamentals should be included as a part of recreation.

48
Aesthetics

That beauty has value in our society is Obvious when one examines
the prices paid for some paintings and sculptures. The value of an
aesthetically pleasing view is shown by the crowds of visitors to such
beautiful parks as Yosemite and Yellowstone. While there is no
concrete evidence that a burned site is less desirable than an unburned
site, the usual reaction to Smokey Bear advertisements suggests that
fire, and the resulting burned site is undesirable. For a marketable
commodity, like
timber, this undesirable condition would be reflected in the price and
the quantity purchased, but price and quantity are not relevant
measures for aesthetic quality.

The technique selected for the DNR is to use a descriptive term to
identify the relative effect of the fire. It was decided that no
dollar value would be estimated for two reasons. First, because

' standardization of the value

"beauty is in the eye of the beholder,‘
might be impossible. The second and more important reason is that the
DNR Committee decided that any value would be unacceptable to the
"powers that be."

Several variables influence the relative effect of a fire on
aesthetics. The variables which will be used include the size of the
area burned, the aesthetic importance of the area, and the intensity
and duration of the effect. The size of the area burned is measured in
acres, using six arbitrary classes so that tables with discrete
categorizations of the relative effects could be developed.

Five recreation use classes were identified to rate the relative

aesthetic importance of the burned area. One criterion for selecting

49

the use class is the type of road from which the burned site can be
seen; the highest category is a site visible from a four-lane highway,
while the lowest category is a site which cannot be seen from any road.
The second criterion is the general recreational use of an area from
which the fire site is visible. Lakes with public access and developed
sites like campgrounds and picnic areas rate the highest category. The
middle class includes burned sites seen from any lake or lakeshore,
from moderately used trails or pathways, and from streams with moderate
fishing or heavy to moderate canoeing. The lowest category is used for
burned areas which cannot be seen from any road, trail, lake, or
stream.

The third variable considered is the intensity and duration of
the fire's effect. This will be measured by the average timber
mortality, using four arbitrary categories. If the fire is only in
non-timber types, the effect will probably be short-lived, as grasses
and most shrubs come back vigorously following fires. The effect was,
therefore, assumed to be negligible for fires with less than 19
percent average mortality. Although numerous authors have discussed
the beneficial effects of low-intensity fires on aesthetics (e.g. Fox,
1969; Papenfus, 1971; Perkins, 1971), the DNR Committee decided that
any assessment of aesthetic benefits to low-intensity fires would be
administratively unacceptable.

The aesthetic effects range from extreme damage to very heavy,
heavy, moderate, and light damage and to negligible effect, as shown
in the handbook, Appendix A. The effect for each combination Of
average mortality, acres burned, and recreation use class was
determined arbitrarily by the author with adjustment by the DNR

Committee.

50
Ornamental Trees

As described previously, ornamental trees are really improvements
which enhance the visual quality of a site. On developed recreation
sites, they should result in increased use, just like any other
improvements. However, ornamentals can affect the property value of a
vacation home, for example, and thus have value which is not strictly
limited to affecting income.

There are numerous methods available to calculate the value of an
ornamental tree, identified in Table 101/. One method is to
estimate the timber value of the ornamental, but selling timber is not

the reason (usually) for having ornamentals. Another technique is to

Table 10. -- Ornamental tree valuation models

 

Alternatives Method Chosen Rationale

 

Timber Value Evaluation Formula 1. Data availability
PrOperty Value 2. DNR abilities
Asset Value

Legal Value

Replacement Cost

Evaluation Formula

ambush—-
0

determine the property value change resulting from having (or losing)
an ornamental tree; the problem here is the need for an accurate
appraisal of the market value of the prOperty. A third way is to
estimate the asset value, usually done by municipalities by
capitalizing the annual maintenance costs; this, however, assumed the
ornamental is worth whatever is spent to keep it alive. The next
technique is the legal value, as defined by the courts, by the Internal

Revenue Service, or even by insurance companies; unfortunately, there

 

1! This discussion is based on Michael T. Lambur, Economic
Values of Urban Trees (unpublished manuscript, Michigan State
University, Department of Forestry).

51
is very little useful information available about these valuations.
Another method is to estimate the replacement cost, but it is nearly
impossible to replace burned ornamental with a tree identical to the
ornamental before it was burned, especially as the diameter increases.
The final method is the use of an evaluation formula. Several formulae
are available, with the basic value usually related to circumference,
diameter or basal area. The most widely used formula was develOped by
the International Shade Tree Conference (ISTC) in 1969. This formula
includes a basic value per square inch of basal area, a species factor
to account for the hardiness and desirability of the species, and a
condition factor to assess the health and desirability of the affected
ornamentals. It has been suggested that a location factor is also
important in determining the value of a specific tree (MF&PA, 1978).

The technique selected for the Wisconsin DNR is the ISTC
evaluation formula. Theoretically, the most correct technique would be
to estimate prOperty value changes, but this requires accurate prOperty
value appraisals. The DNR Committee rejected this as more than the
field personnel could handle. The ISTC formula appears to be as
accurate as the other techniques available, and it is widely used in
arboriculture and urban forestry. One additional advantage is that it
is simple to implement.

Ornamental loss is calculated by multiplying the cost by the
condition class and the location class for each ornamental whiCh is
killed. The condition class is a relative rating, between zero and
one, of the health, form, and vigor of the affected ornamental.
Location class is an assessment of the importance of the ornamental in
the landscape, from one for lone trees on an important site to zero for

trees that aren't ornamentals.

52

Replacement costs for shrubs and small trees are generally
available from nearby nurseries. Cost for larger trees is calculated
by multiplying the basic value by the basal area and the species
factor. The species factor for the various trees in Wisconsin was
determined as the average values for Michigan and Wisconsin (MF&PA,
1978; Wisconsin b) and is shown in Appendix A.

The base value used in Wisconsin is $16.77 per square inCh of
basal area. This is from the $9 per squre inch determined at the
International Shade Tree Conference in 1969, inflated to 1978 dollars
using the Consumer Index. This is the only value reported in the
literature surveyed.

Recreation Use

There are basically three values associated with recreation, as
described in the wildlife section. They include activity value, Option
value, and existence value. Activity value is the value of a
particular site for recreating, while Option value is associated with
the desire to maintain the possibility of recreating in a certain way
on a particular site. Existence value is the value of knowing that a
certain type of recreation on a specific site is available even with no
current or expected participation (Brookshire et al, 1978).

Recreation is considered a non-market service, because camping is
generally the only activity provided by the private sector. This is at
least partly because of the area needed for muCh recreation and many
private lands are too small to provide adequate facilities. Another
factor is that some important uses, like sightseeing, are virtually

impossible for a landowner to control or prevent.

53

There are several ways to measure the value of a non-market
commodity. Willingness to pay, measured by surveys or travel costs or
consumers' surplus, is one technique. Another is to calculate the cost
of alternatives, either the Opportunity costs of the existing site or
the additional cost to use a different site. The third technique
frequently suggested is to use expenditures, measured in one of several
possible ways.

The gross expenditures method is the technique selected for the
Wisconsin DNR. One reason is that the DNR Fuels and Effects Committee
felt that the values derived using this method were administratively
acceptable. Another reason is that gross expenditures is the only
measure which is available for many types of recreation. As discussed
earlier, consistency is very important in planning (Schuster, 1977).
Precautions have been taken on the appraisal reporting form to prevent
comparisons of recreation values with other values estimated in the
fire appraisal.

The valuation method is fairly simple and straightforward. Since
the available values are measured by user groups per day, it is
necessary to estimate the number of user groups lost and the length of
time affected. The user groups lost can generally be determined from
the records of the owner or manager. Only develOped recreation sites
were assumed to be significantly affected by fires. There is obviously
some judgement involved, but the DNR Committee felt that this was
acceptable due to the relatively rare occurrence of suCh circumstances.
Judgement is also involved in selecting the most apprOpriate use
category of those available. Only use lost during the current season

is included since recreational equipment and improvements are assumed

54
to be replaced or restored.

The values to be used in calculating the fire effects on
recreation use are listed in Appendix A. The values are the
expenditures made in Wisconsin in 1969 (Wisconsin DNR, 1969), inflated
to 1978 dollars using the Consumer Price Index.

Environmental Qualipy

 

There are many aspects of the environment which can be affected by
fire. These include water quality, soil stability, air quality and
life and limb. Most aspects, like water and personal property, have
been discussed previously. Human life won't be covered because death
is a rare occurrence in forest fires in Wisconsin, as well as the
reluctance of the DNR to placing a specific value on a human life.

The air quality values which can be influenced are related to the
desire for clean air. Since the primary pollutants are carbon dioxide
and particulates, there is little health risk attributed to forest
fires (Cooper, 1971; Hall, 1972). However, the particulates can cause
problems such as soiling clothes and dirtying windows. Smoke can also
cause the "Smokey Bear Syndrome", the fear associated with fires
(Papenfus, 1971).

The technique selected for the DNR is to use a descriptive term to
identify the relative effect of the fire. It was decided that no
dollar value would be determined for two reasons. First, the ability
of the field personnel to estimate changes in visibility, costs
associated with the soot, and increases in fear is severely limited.
Second, and more important, the DNR Committee felt that the arbitrary
nature of any value attached to such effects would obscure any meaning

the relative descriptions would have in their planning.

55

Several variables are to be determined in the field. One
important variable is atmospheric stability, since this is the primary
influence on the time needed for smoke dispersal (Schroeder & Buck,
1970). Another is the volume of smoke produced. Based on the
experience of the DNR Committee, smoke volume depends mostly on the
size Of the fire and on the duration of smoke production. Thus, a peat
fire with a relatively small size may produce a large volume of smoke
whereas a large grass fire may produce much less. The smoke index, an
ordinal measure of smoke volume, is the product of fire size and smoke
duration.

The third variable considered is the pOpulation which is affected
by the smoke. Five population use classes were identified to rate the
relative importance of the use areas affected by the smoke. These
classes generally depend on the size of the city or town in whiCh the
smoke can be detected, although highway size and recreation importance
can also influence the classification.

The effects range from extreme damage to severe, heavy, moderate,
and light damage and to negligible effect, as shown in Appendix A. The
effect for each combination of smoke index, pOpulation use class, and
atmospheric condition was determined artibrarily by the author with

adjustment by the DNR Committee.

CHAPTER 5. RESEARCH NEEDED

Many assumptions have been made in the develOpment of the DNR Fire
Effects Appraisal Handbook. Some are extrapolations from existing
research beyond the relevant ranges of the studies. Other assumptions
have been based on field experience or intuitive logic, without
explicit analysis. Research is needed to test the key assumptions and
to provide information which can be used to improve the accuracy of the
system. The following discussion of research tOpics is separated into
market and non-market resources.

Market Resources

 

Timber Mortality and Cull

This may be the most important research tOpic. Mortality
estimates affect non-market resource values, specifically aesthetics
and wildlife, as well as timber values. The data used to develop the
conifer mortality predictors are from prescribed fires in red and white
pine stands in southern Ontario and from wildfires in red and jack pine
stands in Wisconsin. There is insufficient data available to determine
if the various conifer species are affected differently, or if tree
size (height or diameter) has an affect on the mortality predictions.
There is the implicit assumption that crown scorch is the best
predictor of mortality. The hardwood mortality curves were derived
from an oak-hickory forest in Missouri. Research is needed to
determine if the curves are apprOpriate for oaks in Wisconsin and
whether the predictions are applicable to other hardwood timber types.
Bark scorch has been assumed to be an adequate predictor, since it is
the measure used in the Missouri oak-hickory study. Live cull, damage
to volume or value without mortality, has been assumed to be

56

57
negligible, while this assumption is based on existing research, there
is literature to the contrary (e.g. Burns, 1955; Kuenzel, 1936).
Immature Stand Valuation

Many assumptions were made in the procedure used for valuing
immature timber. Most involve data derived from researCh on the
Wisconsin timber supply (Essex & Hahn, 1976; Spencer & Thorne, 1972).
Several adjustments were needed to balance with the field eXperience of
the DNR Committee members. Research is needed to provide an empirical
basis for predicting volume and the age at which that volume is
reached.

Timber Stand Regeneration

There are two questions on this tOpic which need to be addressed.
The first is whether the effects of fire on regeneration need to be
assessed. The effects on plantations were assumed to be zero, since
natural regeneration and timber plantations are mutually exclusive;
however, wildfire could cause an increase in the costs of site
preparation and the increase would be attributable to the fire. In
addition, preliminary estimates indicate that the values involved in
natural regeneration are usually less than one-tenth, and often less
than one percent, of the damage to the existing stand. Since the
procedures for estimating regeneration loss and replacement value are
rather lengthy and complicated, it may not be worthwhile to appraise
these effects.

The second question for regeneration research is when regeneration
is needed and what type of regeneration occurs. This researCh is only
important if the values involved are significant enough to be appraised.

The procedures develOped for the Wisconsin DNR assume that regeneration

58
will occur when it is needed except for fires in red pine stands, young
jack pine stands, and some white cedar stands. Regeneration is assumed
to be necessary, but with a timber type change, in these stands with
over fifty percent mortality. Research is needed to determine the
conditions in all timber types when regeneration becomes necessary.
Research is also needed to establish the timber type and the density of
the regeneration. The new system assumed that regeneration is usually
the same timber type (with the exceptions noted) and the same density
as the existing stand.

Non-Market Resources

 

Wildlife Valuation

The major assumption in the wildlife appraisal section is that
human use, and therefore value, varies proportionally with changes in
wildlife use of the burned site. Research has suggested that there is
a positive correlation between wildlife pOpulations and human value,
but the specific relationship has not been identified for any animal
species or for any particular site. Another important assumption is
that wildlife use of the burned site is unrelated to use on adjacent
sites. While there would seem to be some relocation in use patterns, it
was stated that the effect was negligible for deenll, the species
one would expect to show the greatest change in use patterns. This is
obviously an area which needs to be examined.

Even if research indicates that human use is directly proportional
to wildlife populations and that there is no relocation effect, there

are still several assumptions upon which the appraisal system is based.

 

.1/ Personal communication with Keith McCaffery. 7/26/79.

59
One is that all population responses identified in the literature are
for very intense fires (100 percent timber mortality) for the "average"
site in Wisconsin. Another assumption is that there is a linear
relationship between no effect at zero timber mortality and full effect
at 100 percent mortality (except for deer in northern hardwoods and
white birch). A third assumption is that the identified habitat
(timber) types are affected identically, and there is no effect on any
other cover type. Research is needed either to verify the relationship
between timber mortality and pOpulation response to fire in various
cover types or to establish some other measurable independent
variable.
Recreation Use

It was assumed that changes in use at developed recreation sites
could be determined, while changes in dispersed recreation use would be
negligible. The method for estimating use change at developed sites
may be adequate, especially since fires at developed sites are
relatively rare (none in the two years of testing). Research is
needed, however, to assess the changes in dispersed use. Intuitively,
some uses are unaffected, like sailing and canoeing, while many uses
like hiking may be damaged and others, blueberry picking for example,
may be benefitted.

Non-Market Values

Expenditures was the value measure used in Wisconsin because it
met the needs of the DNR: it was a consistent measure for several types
of use that varied by type of use affected. The studies used for
determining wildlife and recreation expenditures, however, were

conducted by different groups for different purposes, and therefore may

60
not be comparable. Also, as discussed earlier, expenditures may not be
a desirable measure of value. Research is needed to establish a
consistent basis for valuing all non-market resources.
Ornamental Trees

There are at least three areas needing research for ornamental
assessment. One is to determine the value of an ornamental tree; the
ISTC value is acceptable, but the rationale for the base value was not
discussed in the literature surveyed. Another research tOpic is in
defining ornamental trees; the description used was determined
arbitrarily, although it satisfied the DNR Committee. A third area is
determining the probability of an ornamental being killed or losing
some of its value as an ornamental. The assumption used is that a tree
will die if the timber mortality predictors indicate over a fifty
percent expected mortality in a timber stand; if the tree is not
expected to die, there is no effect on its ornamental value.

Aesthetics and Air Quality

The table for rating the relative effect of wildfires on
aesthetics and environmental quality were develOped in an arbitrary
manner. The classes used for fire size, mortality, use, and smoke
volume were determined arbitrarily. The descriptions of the effect
were also arbitrary, although they correspond with the categories used
in the National Fire Danger Rating System. Research is needed to
provide a more consistent and objective basis for evaluating the
effects, and preferably to determine value Changes which at least

correspond with the recreation and wildlife values.

CHAPTER 6. IMPLEMENTATION

There were several concerns which arose during the develOpment of
the system that had to be considered. The most important concern
throughout the develOpment centered on resource values, especially the
relative sizes of timber and wildlife values. There was a general
awareness that a distinction between market and non-market goods was
necessary, but it was not discussed explicitly in the first few
meetings. However, after several discussions, the DNR Committee
unanimously agreed that a statement concerning the non-comparability of
values must accompany any and all benefit and loss estimates. In
addition, some training of DNR personnel was considered necessry to
help them understand the difference.

Another concern was the potential loss resulting from fire-induced
type conversions, particularly in relation to the change from jack pine
to aspen following one large fire in central Wisconsin. The concern
was satisfied by including the regeneration loss and replacement value
for certain stand conditions. The DNR Fuels and Effects Committee had
found that the values involved probably did not justify the effort
expended to calculate them, but concluded that they would only be able
to eliminate the procedure when they could prove the insignificance of
the values.

A third question which was raised more than once was the
occurrence of cull in hardwoods. Research has shown that fires can
cause scars without killing the trees, but some evidence indicates that
multiple fires are necessary for significant scarring. The DNR
Committee decided to accept the assumption of negligible cull while
initiating a study to analyze this assumption.

61

 

62

The effect of fires on rare and endangered species was discussed
at several Committee meetings. There was a desire to at least consider
such effects. After discussing a prOposal for appraising such effects,
the DNR Committee decided to exclude the specific approach. The
general feeling was that any specific statements would be indefensible,
unless the individual were a wildlife eXpert, and that it could be
argued that rare and endangered species were a part of the non-game
species.

The fire effects appraisal system was approved by the DNR
Committee at a meeting on August 29 and 30, 1979. During the meeting,
two major tasks were assigned to help get the system instituted. The
first task was to get the approval of the state forester and the fire
control staff for a test of the system during the 1980 fire season.
This test was to include about a dozen peOple, selected so as to cover
the entire range of timber types and experience in Wisconsin. Other
factors in the selection were the ability of persons to handle the
added work of applying both systems and their willingness to critically
analyze the system. Preliminary selections were made at the August
meeting. The participants are listed in Appendix B. The second task
was to present the prOposed system at the annual staff meeting in
Madison in late October. This step was deemed necessary to head off
Opposition.

Several more meetings were arranged during that August session.
The DNR Committee agreed to meet in early November to prepare the
training program for the dozen participants. The tOpics for
instruction were divided among the Committee members. Another meeting

was set for late January for a dry run of the training program with the

63
training scheduled for late February.

The training meeting was held in Tomahawk, Wisconsin, on March 4
through 6, 1980. The meeting Opened with a background and history of
the development, followed by the presentation of the new system. There
were a lot of questions, but none that had not been raised by the DNR
Committee during the develOpment. On the final day, a comparison of
the expected timber effects using the old and new systems was made.
Finally, the rules for testing the system were specified. Each
participant was to use both systems for the 1980 fire season. At least
30 days after the fire, each was to return to the fire site to check
the mortality prediction. Lastly, each person was asked to critically
evaluate the system, and be prepared to discuss changes and
improvements at the planned autumn meeting.

The DNR Committee meeting for reviewing the system took place on
November 5 and 6, 19801]. The focus of the meeting was the wild-
life section. There was some dissatisfaction with this section,
although there were few specific suggestions for improvement. One
change which was prepared too late for inclusion in the test was the
replacement of the rabbit, grouse, and pheasant effects by the small
game effect, as presented in this paper. While the change in calcula-
tions is minor, the DNR Committee felt it would increase the
administrative acceptability of this section. One specific problem
which was raised is that the pheasant effects may be grossly

overestimated; apparently a substantial portion of the pheasant harvest

 

l! The observations on this meeting are from personal
communication with Gene Miller, Wisconsin DNR Fuels & Effects Committee
member. 11/12/80

 

64
is from a "put-and-take" Operation. The proposed solution is to reduce
the full effect by the percent of the harvest which is from the native
population.

One major complaint was the amount of time required on the
wildlife effects. The primary example was that the non-game effect was
less than one dollar for every fire in the test. The DNR Committee
responded that some calculations may be eliminated when there is enough
evidence to suggest that the effect is negligible, and the non-game
effect appears to be negligible. In addition, the Committee decided to
substantially rewrite the handbook to simplify the procedures and to
meet Wisconsin printing requirements.

Another criticism focused on the size of the calculated benefits.
Part of this problem was related to pheasants, as noted above, but much
of it resulted from the selection of the participants. About 80
percent of the fires in the test were in the southern half of the
Wisconsin although most of the fires that the DNR suppresses are in the
northern half, which has much lower waterfowl and pheasant success
indices. The Committee has suggested that the commitment to a fair and
reasonable wildlife appraisal could be improved by increasing
field-level cOOperation with the Wildlife Division. Contact would be
made by a Committee member early in 1981.

There were two complaints about the timber effects section. One,
particularly from the southern areas, was that the system seemed to
ignore timber quality losses for surviving trees. The Fuels and
Effects Committee responded with the existing state-Of-the-arts

information on live cull, and promised further study, but no Specific

65

tasks or responsibilities were identified. The other complaint was the
valuation of immature plantations. Several participants asked if
replacement costs could be used, even after being shown that
replacement costs were often lower than the calculated loss. One
suggestion was to include both on the fire report, but this will
undoubtedly lead to summing them, and therefore, to substantially
overstating timber losses. The response to this request was left Open.
The question of site clearing costs was also raised. I had earlier
told the DNR Committee that any costs which exceeded normal site
preparation costs were legitimate fire-caused losses, but no consistent
method for estimating this exists. The DNR Committee decided to look
further into the possibility of estimate site clearing costs.

There was some dissatisfaction with the "adjective values" used in
aesthetics and environmental quality. Following the discussion, the
DNR Committee decided to continue with that structure. The
participants agreed that was probably the best alternative available,
even though it was not particularly satisfying to them.

The Committee was pleased with the overall response to the new
system. Their major concerns were the acceptability of the system and
the accuracy of the mortality predictors. Though there was some
dissatisfaction with the system, most agreed that it was an improvement
over the existing system and should be implemented. The mortality
checks conducted by the group appear to be reasonably close to the
predictors. The new data will be added to the existing data and new

curves will be drawn, but the feeling is that the changes would be

66
minor. One problem is fire running up the bark of white birch trees;
this causes very high bark scorch without a correspondingly high
mortality rate. Further research on this problem, and on all the
mortality estimates, is planned.

The handbook will be substantially rewritten from the form
presented in Appendix A. The handbook and the necessary forms will be
finalized by October, 1981, so that they can be printed and distributed
during the winter. Training sessions will probably be conducted
throughout Wisconsin prior to the 1982 spring fire season, when the new

fire effects appraisal system will be implemented state-wide.

LIST OF REFERENCE S

m

fi—‘_'~ _, ___._-___

LIST OF REFERENCES

Ahlgren, Clifford E. 1959. "Some effects of fire on forest
reproduction in northeastern Minnesota." Journal Of Forestry
57(3): 194-200.

 

1963. "Some basic ecological factors in prescribed burning
in northeastern Minnesota." Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference
Proceedings No. 1. Tallahassee, FL: 143-49.

 

. 1966. "Small mammals and reforestation following prescribed
burning." Journal of Forestry 64(9): 614-18.

 

Beardsley, Wendell. 1971. "Bias and noncomparability in recreation
evaluation models." Land Economics 47(2): 175-80.

 

Bendell, J. F. 1974. "Effects of fire on birds and mammals." in
Fire 8 Ecosystems. T. T. Kozlowski & C. E. Ahlgren, eds. New York:
Academic Press. pp 73-138.

 

Benzie, John W., Silas Little, & R. F. Sutton. 1971. "The northeast
and boreal region." Journal of Forestry 71(3): 154-58.

 

Berry, Frederick A. 1969. Decay In The Upland Oak Stands Of Kentucky.
Broomall, PA: USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-126. 16 pp.

Bock, Carl E. 8 James F. Lynch. 1970. "Breeding bird pOpulations of
burned and unburned conifer forest in the Sierra Nevada."
The Condor 71(2): 182-89.

Bonninghausen, R. A. 1962. "The Florida Forest Service and controlled
burning." Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings No. 1.
Tallahassee, FY): 43-63.

Brookshire, David 8., Larry S. Eubans, & Alan Randall. 1978. Valuing
Wildlife Resources: An Experiment. Draft. Laramie, WY: USDA
Fish & Wildlife Service Office of Biological Services and University of
Wyoming.

 

Brown, William G., Faris H. Nawas, & Joe B. Stevens. 1973. The Oregon
Big Game Resource: An Economic Evaluation. Corvallis, OR: Oregon
State University Agricultural Experiment Station. 110 pp.

67

L-r‘dr...\-L-A..—.

68

Busch, Richard R., Karl Siderits, Robert E. Radtke, Harold L. Sheldon,
& Donald Wising. 1977. Small Mammal Populations After A Wildfire
In Northeast Minnesota. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service
Research Paper NC-151. 8 pp.

 

 

Burns, Paul Y. 1955. Fire Scars And Decay In Missouri Oaks.
Columbia, MD: University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment
Station Bulletin 642. 8 pp.

 

Cayford, J. H. 1970. "The role of fire in the ecology and
silviculture of jack pine." Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference
Proceedings No. 10. Fredericton, NB: 221-44.

 

 

grazing for prairie chicken habitat manipulation in the Texas
coastal prairie." Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedingg
No. 12. Lubbock, TX: 257-76.

Chamrad, Albert D., & J. D. Dodd. 1972. "Prescribed burning and !

 

Clawson, Marion & Jack L. Knetsch. 1966. Economics Of Outdoor
Recreation. Baltimore, MD: John HOpkins University Press for '
Resources for the Future. 328 pp.

 

 

Coble, Daniel W., Alfred L. Gardner, Fant W. Martin, Vincent H. Reid,
James H. Selgeby, & Daniel A. Thompson. 1976. Evaluation Of
Impact Of 1976 Seney Wildfire. Administrative draft.

Ft. Collins, CO: USDA Fish and Wildlife Service. 47 pp.

 

Coomber, Nicholas H. & Asit K. Biswas. 1973. Evaluation Of
Environmental Intangibles. Bronxville, NY: Genera Press. 77 pp.

 

 

Cooper, Charles F. 1971. "Effects of prescribed burning on the
ecosystem." Prescribed Burning Symposium Proceeding_. Charleston,
SC: USDA Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. pp.
152-59.

 

Craig, R. B., B. Frank, G. L. Hayes, & G. M. Jamison. 1945. Fire
Losses And Justifiable Protection Costs In The Southern Piedmont Of
Virginia. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service Appalachian Forest
Experiment Station. 27 pp.

 

 

Crosby, John S. 1977. A Guide To The Appraisal Of Wildfire Damages,
Benefitsl And Resource Values Protected. St. Paul, MN: USDA
Forest Service Research Paper NC-142. 44 pp.

 

Davidson, Paul, F. Gerald Adams, & Joseph Senaca. 1966. "The social
value of water recreation facilities resulting from an improvement
in water quality: The Delaware estuary." In Water Research. Allen
V. Kneese & Stephen C. Smith, eds. Baltimore, MD: Johns HOpkins
University Press for Resources for the Future. pp. 175-211.

 

Dills, Gary G. 1970. "Effects of prescribed burning on deer browse."
Journal of Wildlife Management 34(3): 540-45.

 

69

Essex, Burton L. 8 Jerold T. Hahn. 1976. Empirical Yield Tables for
Wisconsin. ST. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service General Technical
Report NC-25. 23 pp.

Fennell, Norman F. 8 Russell J. Hutnik. 1970. Ecolqgical Effects Of
Forest Fires. Unpublished manuscript. East Lansing, MI: USDA
Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station. 84 pp.

 

Fox, Kel M. 1969. "Prescribed fire as a tool for increase water
yield." Proceedings Of The Symposium On Fire Ecology And The
Control And Use Of Fire In Wild Land Management. Tucson, AZ:
Arizona Academy of Sciences. pp. 66-68.

outdoor recreation use." Outdoor Recreation: Advances In
Application Of Economics. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service ‘
General Technical Report WO-2. pp. 98-104. i

Gibbs, Kenneth C. 1977. "Economics and administrative regulations of l

Givens, Lawrence S. 1962. "Use of fire on southeastern wildlife ;
refuges." Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings No. 1. 8.
Tallahassee, FL: 121-26 I

Grange, Wallace, 1965. "Fire and tree growth relationships to snowshoe
rabbits." Tall Timbers Fire Ecolpgy Conference Proceedings No. 4.
Tallahassee, FL: 111-25.

Gysel, Leslie W., John H. Cooley, 8 Forest Stearns. 1972. "Timber and
wildlife implications of pine conversion methods on poor oak
sites." Journal of Forestry 70(5): 272-74.

 

Hall, J. Alfred. 1972. Forest Fuels, Prescribed Fire, And Air
Quality. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 44 pp.

Hamerstrom, F. M., Jr. 1963. "Sharptail brood habitat in Wisconsin's
northern pine barrens." Journal Of Wildlife Managgment 27(4):
793-802.

Hammack, Judd. 8 Gardner Mallard Brown, Jr. 1974. Waterfowl and
Wetlands: Toward Bioeconomic Analysis. Baltimore, MD: John
Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future. 352 pp.

Helvey, J.D., A. R. Tiedemann, 8 W. B. Fowler. 1974. "Some climatic
and hydrologic effects of wildfire in Washington state." Tall
Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedingp No. 15. Portland, OR:
201-22.

 

Hendee, John G., Roger N. Clark, 8 Thomas E. Dailey. 1977. Fishing
and Other Recreation Behaviour At High-mountain Lakes In
Washington State. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Research Note
PNW-304. 27 pp.

 

Horton, K. W. 8 E. J. Hopkins. 1965. Influence Of Fire On Aspen
Suckering. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Department of Forestry
Publication No. 1095. 19 pp.

70

Hotelling, Harold. 1949. Leter of reply in The Economics Of Public
Recreation: An Economic Study of the Monetary Evaluation of
Recreation In The National Parks. Washington, DC: USDI National
Park Service Land and Recreational Planning Division. 2 pp.

 

Jahn, Laurence, R. 8 Richard A. Hunt. 1964. Duck And Coot Ecology And
Management In Wisconsin. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Conservation
Department (DNR) Technical Bulletin No. 33. pp. 105-39.

 

 

Kabat, Cyril, Nicholas E. Collias, 8 Ralph C. Guettinger. 1953. Some
Winter Habits Of White-tailed Deer And The Development Of Census
Methods In The Flag Yard of Northern Wisconsin. Madison, WI:
Wisconsin Conservation Department (DNR) Technical Wildlife Bulletin

NO. 7. 31 pp. ;

 

Keith, Lloyd B. 8 Dennis C. Surrendi. 1971. "Effects of a fire on a
snowshoe hare population." Journal of Wildlife Management 45(1):

 

 

16-26. i

I

. . . l

Kirsch, Leo M. 8 Arnold D. Kruse. 1972. "Prairie f1res and wildlife." ~

Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings No. 12. Lubbock, TX: f
289-303.

Knetsch, Jack L. 8 Robert K. Davis, 1966. "Comparisons of methods for
recreation evaluation." In Water Research: Allen B. Kneese 8
Stephen Smith, eds. Baltimore, MD: John HOpkins University Press
for Resources for the Future. pp. 125-42.

 

Komarek, E. V. 1965. "Fire ecology: Grasslands and man." Tall Timbers
Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings No. 4. Tallahassee, FL:
169-220.

. 1971. "Effects of fire on wildlife and range habitats.
Prescribed Burning Symposium Proceedingg. Charleston, SC: USDA
Forest Service Southeastern Forest EXperiment Station. pp. 46-52.

 

Kuenzel, John G. 1936. Decay In Fire-scarred Trees in Mixed Upland
Hardwood Stands on the Shawnee Purchase Unit in Southern Illinois.
Columbus, OH: USDA Forest Service Central States Forest Experiment
Station. 28 pp.

Little, S. 1964. "Fire ecology and forest management in the New Jersey
pine region." Tall Timbers Fire Ecolpgy Conference Proceedings No.
2, Tallahassee, FL: 35-59.

Loomis, Robert M. 1974. Predicting The Losses In Sawtimber Volume And
Quality From Fires in Oak-Hickory Forests. St. Paul, MN: USDA
Forest Service Research Paper NC-104. 6 pp.

 

March, James R., Gerald F. Marty, 8 Richard A. Hunt. 1973. Breeding
Duck Populations and Habitat in Wisconsin. Madison, WI: Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin NO. 68. 37 pp.

 

71

McCaffery, Keith R. 8 William Creed. 1969. Significance Of Forest
Openings To Deer In Northern Wisconsin. Madison, WI: Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin No. 44. 104 pp.

 

 

Methven, Ian R. 1971. Prescribed Fire, Crown Scorch, And Mortality:
Field And Laboratory Studies On Red And White Pine. Chalk River,
Ontario: Canadian Forest Service Petawawa Forest Experiment Station
Information Report PS-X-31. 10 pp.

 

 

Michigan Forestry and Park Association. 1978. Michigan Tree Evaluation

 

Guide. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Department of
Forestry. 19 pp.

Miller, Howard A. 1963. "Use of fire in wildlife management." Tall
Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings No. 2. Tallahassee, FL:
19-30.

 

 

 

National Analysts. 1975. The 1975 National Survey Of Hunting, Fishing
And Wildlife-Associated Recreation: Wisconsin. Washington, DC: USDI
Fish 8 Wildlife Service. 83 pp.

 

O'Connell, Paul F. 1977. "Economic evaluation of non-market goods and
services." Outdoor Recreation: Advances In Application Of
Economics. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service General Technical
Report WO-2. pp. 82-90.

 

Papenfus, Robert. 1971. "Prescribed burning from the tourism point of
view." Prescribed Burning Symposium Proceeding_. Charleston, SC:

USDA Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. pp.
64-66.

 

Perkins, Carroll J. 1971. "The effects of prescribed burning on outdoor
recreation." Prescribed Burning Symposium Proceeding . Charleston,
SC: USDA Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. pp.
59-67.

 

Potter, Dale R., John C. Hendee, 8 Roger N. Clark. 1972. "Hunting
satisfaction: Game, guns, or nature?" Thirty-Eighth North American
Wildlife And Natural Resources Conference Transactions: 220-29.

 

 

Randall, Alan. 1977. "Evaluating non-market goods and services: Some
conceptual considerations." Symppsium on Evaluation of Non-market
Goods. San Diego, CA: 25 pp.

 

Ribinski, Robert F. 1970. The Effects Of Forest Fires On_9uantity And
Quality Of Deer Browse Production In Mixed Forest In Central
Pennsylvania. Unpublished M.S. Thesis. State College, PA:
Pennsylvania State University. 64 pp.

 

 

 

“77%.: ”T. -.~.;

72

Schroeder, Mark J. 8 Charles C. Buck. 1970. Fire Weather.
Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service Agricultural Handbook 360.
pp. 49-67.

 

Schuster, Ervin G. 1977. "Investment analysis: Problems and prospects
in recreation, wildlife, and fishery management." Outdoor
Recreation: Advances in Application of Economics. Washington, DC:
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report WO-2. pp. 133-39.

Sparhawk, W. N. 1925. "The use of liability ratings in planning
forest fire protection." Journal Of Agricultural Research 30(8):
693-762.

Spencer, John 8., Jr., 8 Harry W. Thorne. 1972. Wisconsin's 1968
Timber Resource - A Perspective. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest
Service Resource Bulletin NC-15. 80 pp.

 

Stevens, Joe B. 1966a. "Recreation benefits from water pollution
control." Water Resources Research 2(2): 167-82.

. 1966b. "Angler success as a quality determinant of spOrt
fishery recreational values." Transactions Of The American
Fisheries Society 95(4): 357-62.

 

Talhelm, Daniel R. 1973. "Defining and evaluating recreational
quality." Thirty-Eighth North American Wildlife And Natural
Resources Conference Transactions: 20-28.

Trice, Andrew H. 8 Samuel E. Wood. 1958. "Measurement of recreation
benefits." Land Economics 34(3): 196-207.

 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1980. A Recommended Renewable
Resources Prngram -- 1980 Update. Washington, DC: USDA Forest
Service FS-346. pp 01-021.

 

Van Wagner, C. E. 1970. "Fire and red pine." EF11 Timbers Fire
Ecology Conference Proceedings No. 12, Fredericton, NB: 211-19.

Vogl, Richard J. 1967. "Controlled burning for wildlife in
Wisconsin." Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings No.6.
Tallahassee, FL: 47-90.

. 1970. "Fire and the northern Wisconsin pine barrens." Tall
Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings No. 10. Fredericton,
NB: 175-209.

Vogl, Richard J. 8 Alan M. Beck. 1970. "Response of white-tailed deer
to a Wisconsin wildfire." American Midland Naturalist 84(1):
270-73.

Ward, Peter. 1968. "Fire in relation to waterfowl habitat of the
Delta marshes." Tall Timbers Fire Ecolpgy Conference Proceedings
No 8. Tallahassee, FL: 255-67.

 

73

Weetman, G. F. 1956. Controlled Burning As A Silvicultural Tool.
Revised draft. Montreal, Quebec: Pulp and Paper Research Institute

of Canada Research Project IR-W109. 26 pp.

Wells, Carol G., Ralph E. Campbell, Leonard F. DeBano, Clifford E. Lewis,
Richard L. Fredriksen, E. Carlyle Franklin, Ronald C. Forelich, 8
Paul H. Dunn. 1979. Effects Of Fire On Soil: A State-Of-Knowledge
Review. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service General Technical

Report WO-7. 34 pp.

Wennegren, E. Boyd, Herbert H. Fullerton, 8 Jim C. Wrigley. 1977.
"Quality values and determinants for deer hunting." Journal of

Wildlife Management 41 (3): 400-07.

Wetzel, John F., James R. Wambaugh, 8 James M. Peek. 1975. "Appraisal
of white-tailed deer habitats in northeastern Minnesota." Journal

Of Wildlife Management 39(1): 59-66.

White, James E. 1960. "Small mammal populations in relation to the
burning of ground cover." Bulletin Of The Ecological Society Of

America 41(4): 121.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1969. Wisconsin State Park
And Forest Visitor Survey: Summer 1968. Unpublished report;

Madison, WI. 18 pp.

. 1975. Endangered Animals In Wisconsin. Unpublished report;
Madison, WI. 10 pp.

. 1977a. 2431.5: Silvicultural And Forest Aesthetics Handbook.
Madison, WI: DNR Manual. 144 pp.

. 1977b. 4305.1: Individual Forest Fire Report Handbook.
Madison, WI: DNR Manual. 27 pp.

. a. Wildlife Managment - Workload Analysis. Unpublished
report. Madison, WI. 3 pp.

. b. Shade Tree Appraisal: 1969 Values. Unpublished report.
Madison, WI. 5 pp.

APPENDIX A

Ewan-LL! bait} 1.1.1 ...arl’

FIRE EFFECTS APPRAISAL HANDBOOK

Table of Contents

 

CHAPTER 10 - FIELD MEASUREMENTS

Equipment Needs
Timber
Non-Timber
CrOps

Equipment
Recreation

Environmental Quality

CHAPTER 20 - OFFICE CALCULATIONS

D131,

Wildfire Effects on Timber

Step 1 Merchantable Conifers

Step 2 - Immature Conifers

b.)
I

Step Christmas Trees

Step 4 Merchantable Hardwoods

Step 5 - Immature Hardwoods

Step 6 Total Wildfire Effects on Timber
Wildfire Effects on Crops
Wildfire Effects on Equipment and Improvements
Wildfire Effects on Wildlife

Step l-a - Deer Benefits

Step l-a - Deer Losses

Step 2 - Rabbit Habitat

Step 3 - Grouse Habitat

Step 4 - Pheasant Habitat

Step S-a - Waterfowl Benefits

1/nn

PAGE

10-1
10-2’
10-3
10—3
10-3
10-64/

10-6

20-1
20-1
20-3
20-5
20-6
20-6
20-7
20-8
20-9
20-9
20-10
20-10
20-11
20-11
20-11

20-12

(Cont'd)

fifi

 

FIRE EFFECTS APPRAISAL HANDBOOK - Table of Contents (Cont'd)

Step S-b - Waterfowl Losses

Step 6 - Non-Game Birds

Step 7 - Total Wildfire Effects on Wildlife
Wildfire Effects on Recreation

Step 1 - Effects on Aesthetics

Step 2 - Effects on Use of Developed Recreation Sites
Wildfire Effects on Environmental Quality

Summary

CHAPTER 30 APPENDICES
APPENDIX A

Table l - Cover Types in Wisconsin

Table 2 - Size and Density Classes for Wis. Timber Types
APPENDIX B

Figure l - Conifer Mortality

Figure 2 - Hardwood Mortality

Appendix C
Table 1 - Stumpage Values
Table 2 - Success Index by County
Table 3 - Effects on Aesthetics

Table 4 - Species Factors for Ornamental Trees

Ut
I

Table Effects on Environmental Quality
'APPENDIX D

Sample Flow Chart

Sample Field Measurements Worksheet

Sample Office Calculations Worksheet

APPENDIX E

Glossary of Terms

PAGE

20-12
20-12-
20-13
20-13
20-13
20-14
20-15

20-15

30-1

30-2

30-3

30-4

30-5
30-6
30-8
30-9

30-12

30-13
30-14

30-15

 

Rev. 1/80

Fire Effects Appraisal Handbook

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Field Measurements - Chapter 10

“7'"- ”77‘7"-“

Equipment Needs

The following equipment is needed to make field measurements for this
appraisal system. These items should be stored in the ranger's truck.

1. Tatum

2. Handbook

3. Supply of field worksheets

4. Bitterlick stick or prism

5. Cloth tape

6. Diameter tape

7. Ax or fin saw .
8

Increment borer

Rev. 1/80 -1

‘1- 5.... “-..—......

Step 1.

Step 2.

Step 3.

Rev. 1/80

TIMBER

Identify overstory cover types on the burned area.

A. For each type, select the appropriate symbol from column 2
of Cover Type, Table l in Appendix A, and record it under -
Cover Type. If more than one species occurs, select the
dominant one, using the definitions listed in Cover Type
Table l.

B. Record the size class and density class for each overstory
timber type, using the categories in Size-Density Table 2
in Appendix A.

NOTE:

1. Use the lower size class whenever an overstory stand
is composed of more than one size class, unless over
75 percent of the trees are in the higher class.

 

2. If the stand is a plantation, mark a "P” in front of t
the timber type. If it is a Christmas tree plantation, i
mark "CP".

3. Plantations in immature size class (0-5") are in
density class 4 unless poorly stocked; then use
class 3.

4. Christmas tree plantations must be recorded by tree
species, average tree age, and number of trees per acre.
Record trees per acre under Density Class.

C. Enter the acres burned for each type under Acres Burned.

Identify understory cover types on the burned area. I£_there is
an understory present, record timber type, size class, density
class, and acres burned as for overstory types. Record each
understory timber type on the line directly below the overstory
type it is associated with and draw loop connecting the two lines.

Determine scorch for each burned timber type. Scorch is very
important in determining timber loss. Additional time should be
spent obtaining this figure for high value timber, large acreages,
or when other circumstances warrant a more accurate figure. Trees
estimated should be in the same diameter class as the cover type.

If an understory is present, determine a separate estimate for those
trees. If one portion of the cover type sustained a higher amount
of scorch than the remainder, consider treating the two portions as

'separate timber types.

A. For each conifer stand, estimate the average percent of crown
scorch and record under Scorch. Crown scorch is the amount
of needles discolored. Estimate at least 4 representative
trees separately and average together. If scorch varies
drastically, estimate more than 4 trees. Trees with all
needles consumed are 100 percent.

10-2

Step

Step

Step

Step

Step

Step

Step

Step

D a"

3.

1/Rn

(Cont'd)

B. For each hardwood type, estimate the maximum height of
bark scorch in feet. Bark scorch is the amount of bark
that is discolored; at leasc 4 representative trees should
be measured and their maximum heights should be averaged.
Record under Scorch.

For each immature stand (0-5"), determine the average age of the
trees in the stand; round to the nearest 5 years. Record under
Age.

For each merchantable stand in density class 4, estimate the
volume per acre and record under Volume.

NON-TIMBER

 

Identify each non-timber type on the burned area, according .
to the definitions in Cover Type Table l in Appendix A. Select i
the appropriate symbol and record it under Cover Type; record

the acres burned under Acres Burned.

 

Add the total non-timber acres burned and the total timber acres
burned, and record under Total Acres Burned. ‘.

CROP

Identify each crop type on the burned area. Record each under
Crop and enter area burned for each crop under Acres Burned.

Determine if each of the burned crops has been harvested in the
current growing season. ‘3; the crop ngs_been harvested, record
a "yes" under Harvested. Examine nearby unburned crops or ask
the farmer or a neighbor to determine if the crop has been harvested.

E UIPMENT

Determine all equipment and improvements which require replace-
ment or additional maintenance. Was the equipment/improvement
insured? By what company? What was the cost when new? List

each with an estimate of its condition before the fire. The
general condition should be determined from the condition of

other nearby pieces of the same type of equipment, with adjust—
ment based on the knowledge of the owner or manager. If the piece
was unique on the site, or if all such pieces burned, the estimate
should be based on the judgment of the owner or manager.

EQUIPMENT - Step 1. (Cont'd)
The following condition classes should be used:

Excellent - virtually brand new

Very Good - fairly new, but with some evidence of wear

Good 8 worn, but still working well

Fair - well worn, but still working

Poor - still working, but obviously needing replacement

If the item is basically junk/scrap metal, about how much
does it weigh? Finally, devote effort commensurate with
values; i.e., if values are high, do a lot of digging. If
low-not too much.

RECREATION

 

Step 1. Determine which Recreation Use Class is affected by the fire.
Select the highest class in which the fire can be classified.
Record under Use Class.

Recreation Use Class

A: Fire site can be seen from a 4-1ane highway, OR from a
lake with a public assess, 93 from a developed recreation
site (campground, public beach, picnic ground, etc.).

B: Fire site can be seen from any state or federal highway,
OR from any lake with boating access, OR from heavily
fished streams, OR from heavily used trails or pathways.

C: Fire site can be seen from any paved road, Q§_from any
lakeshore (where the lake is at least 1 acre), QR from
any stream with a moderate amount of fishing or with heavy
or moderate canoe use, QR from any moderately used trail
or pathway.

D: Fire site can be seen from any road or trail 95 from any
permanent stream.

t: Fire site cannot be seen from any road, trail, lake or
stream.

-Step 2. Determine all ornamental trees which are killed (all hardwoods
' less than 5"; hardwoods 5" or more with scorch height of 8' or
more; conifers with crown scorch of more than 70 percent).

A. The condition of each tree should be estimated, using the
knowledge of the owner or manager. The following condition
classes should be used:

 

RECREATION - Step 2.

Step 3.

Rev. 1/80

1.00

0.75 =

0.50 =

0.25 =

Record

(Cont'd)
Condition Class
A well formed tree, with no visible defects.

An aesthetically pleasing tree, with some visible
defects (like dead branches), but in very good
health.

A nice looking tree, with visible defects (like
dead branches or basal scars) and adequate
health.

O
D

An acceptable tree, but in rather poor health.

the appropriate value under Condition Class.

The location of each burned ornamental tree should be
recorded using the following location classes:

1.00 =

0.75 a

0.50 a

0.25 =

Record

Location Class

A tree which is standing alone on a lakeshore, OR
in a developed recreation site (campground, public
beach, etc.), QR_in the front yard of a home.

A tree which is standing in a small group on a
lakeshore, QR_in a developed site, QR near a home.

A tree which is standing near the forest edge
arOund a lake, OR a developed recreation site, 95

a home; it must be within 100 yards of the lake,
site, or home and within 10 feet of the forest edge.

A tree which is visible from a lake, a developed
recreation site, or a home, but which is definitely
a part of the forest (along the edge); it must be
within 100 yards of the lake, home, or recreation
site.

the appropriate value under Location Class.

Determine the diameter (at breast height, if possible) and

record

under Diameter.

For each developed recreation site, estimate the number of
visitor groups which would have used the burned site during the
remainder of the season (from the time of the fire until December 31).
This should be related to the number of campsites, picnic sites,
trails, etc. which will be closed to use. The use of each site can
be determined from the records of the owner or manager. Record the
estimate under Visitor Groups Lost.

1045

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Step 1. Determine if the atmosphere is in a stable or unstable condition.
' Record under Atmospheric Condition.

A. Stable - The clouds, if any, are flat and tend to be thin
and wispy (cirrus); smoke columns flatten out and tend not
to rise very far; if there are any winds or precipitation,
it is steady; visibility is poor (hazy conditions).

B. Unstable - The clouds are very puffy like thunderheads
(cumulus); smoke columns rise very high and dissipate;
winds and precipitation tend to be strong and gusty
(showery); if it is clear, the visibility is very good
(no haze or fog).

Step 2. Determine the length of time in hours (or fraction of hour if
less than one hour) that the fire is producing a significant amount
of smoke in the Population Use Class you have chosen for the fire.
Times from the fire report can be used to assist this estimate.
Record under Smoke Duration.

Step 3. Determine the Population Use Class which is affected by the fire.
Select the highest class possible. Record under Population Use
Class.

Population Use Class

A: Smoke can be detected (seen or smelled) within a city of
more than 100,000 people.

B: Smoke can be detected (seen or smelled) within a city of
more than 10,000 people.

C: Smoke can be detected (seen or smelled) within a city or town
of more than 1,000 people, 93 on a 4-1ane highway, QR at a
developed recreation site (campground, boat launch, picnic
area, etc.).

D. Smoke can be detected (seen or smelled) within a town of at
least 100 people, QR on any paved road, 93 at any moderately
used recreation site (fishing streams, lakes, trails, etc.).

E: Smoke cannot be detected (seen or smelled) within any town of

100 people or more, NOR from any paved road, NOR at any
moderately used recreation site.

Fire Effects Appraisal Handbook

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Office Calculations - Chapter 20

Rev- /80

Step 1.

A.

WILDFIRE EFFECTS ON TIMBER

 

Effects on Merchantable Conifers (except Christmas trees).

Determine Current Loss for each conifer timber type.
Use the formula:

 

(l) (2) (3) (4)

Current Loss = Volume x Price x Mortality x Acres Burned

Calculate using numbered definitions of terms below and
record under Current Loss. For natural PR stands with
mortality exceeding .50, see part B. below. For 9 stand
with mortality exceeding .50 find either a hardwood under-
story 23 more than 30 percent of the stand in other swamp
conifers, see part C. below. For all other cases,
Regeneration Loss 3 0 and Replacement Value = 0.
Loss and record under Loss, using the formula:

 

 

Calculate

Loss = Current Loss + Regeneration Loss - Replacement Value

1. Volume is from the table below using the size class
and density class recorded in the field. If volume was
measured directly in the field, that volume may be used
if it represents the stand better.

 

 

Size Class Units Density Class
I'll '1! O! 7 fl
5-9" Cords a/ 16.5 10.0 5.0 0.0
9-15" MBF a/ 6.7 3.7 1.8 0.0
15"+ _ MBF a/ 10.2 6.4 2.8 0.0

a/ Volume was estimated in the field.

2. Price for each timber type is listed by district in
Stumpage Values, Table l in Appendix C. For each
plantation or pure species stand with considerable
loss, contact the Area-Forester for the current
market price for the species. If there are explicit
restrictions on timber harvesting (like wilderness
areas or developed campgrounds), then the price is $0.00.

3. Mortality is determined from Conifer Mortality, Figure 1,
Appendix B. Round off to 2 decimal places and record
under Mortality.

4. Acres Burned was recorded in the field.

 

Red Pine (PR) Regeneration Loss and Replacement Value.

(a) (b) (C) (d)

1. Regeneration Loss - Volume x Price x Periodic Rate x Acres Burned

(a) Volume is from the table above using size class
15"+ and the density class recorded in the field
(if the stand was density class 4, the volume is
13.7 MBF).

WILDFIRE EFFECTS ON TIMBER - Step 1, B. (Cont'd)

2.

NOTE:

(b) Price for PR sawtimber is listed by discrict
in Stumpage Values, Table l in Appendix C.

(c) Periodic Rate is .00069 - the rate which ~
corresponds with the rotation age of natural
red pine (130 years).

(d) Acres Burned was recorded in the field.

Replacement Value . $0.00.

Return to where you were Page 20-1 for merchantable
conifers and Page 20-3 for immature conifers.

White Cedar (C) Regeneration Loss and Replacement Value.

1.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Regeneration Loss 3 Volume x Price x Periodic Rate x Acres Burns

(a) Volume is from the table below using the density
class from the field.

Density Class
units 1!!! 1'! I! I O

MBF 9.7 6.7 3.7 1.8 0.0

(b) Price for C sawtimber is listed by district in
Stumpage Values, Table l in Appendix C.

(c) Periodic Rate is .003 - the rate which corresponds
with the average rotation age of white cedar (100 years).

(d) Acres Burned was recorded in the field.
(a) (b) (e) (d)

Replacement Value - Volume x Price x Periodic Rate x Acres Burns

(a) Volume is from the following table using the size class
which is appropriate for the replacement timber type.

(1) Replacement Timber Type: I; the stand is
more than 30 percent other swamp conifer
species, the replacement timber type will
correspond to the predominant species. For
example, if the stand has 15 percent black
spruce, 12 percent balsam fir, and 9 percent
tamarack, the replacement timber type will be
black spruce (BS). '2; the stand is less than
30 percent other swamp conifer species, then
replacement type will be the same as the
understory type.

(2) Size Class is 5-9" for all conifer replacement
timber types and 5-11" for all hardwood types
except NH, O, and SH. For these, the size
class is 15"+.

WILDFIRE EFFECTS ON TIMBER - Step 1, C. (Cont'd)

Size Class

 

 

5—9" or 5-11" 15"+
Volume 10.0 6.4 ‘
Units Cords MBF

(b) Price for the replacement timber type is
listed by district in Stumpage Values,
Table l in Appendix C.

(c) Periodic Rate is the rate from the table below.
which corresponds with the rotation age of the'
replacement type. Each type is listed next to

'its average rotation age. This value can be
used if the correct rotation age for the site is

 

 

 

unknown.
Rotation Periodic Rotation Periodic
Species Age Rate Species Age Rate
30 .211 T,SH 100 .0030
A 35 .150 110 .0016
40 .108 120 .00092
45 .078 125 .00069
EB 50 .057 PW 130 .00051
55 .042 140 .00029
BW 60 .031 150 .00016
70 .017 l60 .000089
80 .0095 175 .000037
SB, SW 90 .0053 200 .0000087

(d) Acres Burned was recorded in the field.

 

NOTE: Return to where you were (Page 20-1 for merchantable
conifers and below for immature conifers).

Step 2. Effects on Immature Conifers (except Christmas trees).

A. Determine Current Loss for each coniferous timber type.
Use the formula:
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Current Loss 8 Volume x Price x Mortality x Acres Burned x (5)
Discount Rate

 

Calculate using numbered definitions of terms below and record
under Current Loss. For natural PR stands with mortality
exceeding .50, see Step 1, Part B. on Page 20-1 . For 9 stand
with mortality exceeding .50 £21 either a hardwood understory
g£_more than 30 percent of the stand in other swamp conifers,
see Step 1, Part C. on page 20-2. For natural Pl stand with
mortality exceeding .50 and an age of less than 7 years, see
Part B following. For all other cases, Regeneration Loss 8 O,
and Replacement Value = 0. Calculate loss and record under
Loss. Use the formula:

 

 

Dov 1/Rn -1

WILDEIRE EFFECTS ON TIMBER - Step 2 (Cont'd)

Loss - Current Loss + Regeneration Loss - Replacement Value.

1.

Volume is the predicted volume from the table
following which corresponds to the timber type and
density class.

 

 

Timber Density Predicted Merchantable
Type Class Volume Age
Plantations A 23.0 20
3 16.5- 20
PR & PJ 3 16.5 25
2 10.0 25
l 5.0 25
PW 3 16.5 35
2 10.0 35
l 5.0 35
PS & C 3 10.0 35
2 5.0 35
1 5.0 65
SB & T 3 , 10.0 65
2 5.0 65
1 0.0 --

Price for the burned trees is listed in Stumpage
Values, Table l in Appendix C. For plantations

or pure species stands with considerable loss,
contact the Area Forester for the market price of
the burned species. 3; there'are explicit restric-
tions on timber harvesting (like wilderness areas
or developed campgrounds), then the price is $0.00.

Mortality is determined from Conifer Mortality,
Figure 1, Appendix B. Round off to 2 decimal places
and record under Mortality.

Acres Burned was recorded in the field.

Discount Rate is the rate from the table following
which corresponds to the discount period.

a. Discount Period - Merchantable Age - Current
Age. If the discount period is negative,
Discount Rate - 1.0.

b. Merchantable age is listed in the table above.

c. Current age was recorded in the field

WILDFIRE EFFECTS ON TIMBER - Step 2 (Cont'd)

 

Step 3.

Rev. 1/80

B.

 

 

Discount Discount Discount Discount
Period Rate Period Rate
0 1.00 35 .13
5 .75 4O .10 -
10 .56 45 .07
15 .42 50 .05
20 .31 55 .04
25 .23 60 .03
30 .17 65 .02

Jack Pine Regeneration Loss and Replacement Value.
(a) (b)' (C)
1. Regeneration Loss = Volume x Price x Periodic Rate x (d)
Acres Burned

a. Volume is from the table below using the density
class recorded in the field.
Density Class

 

 

 

Units "ll I" II I O
Cords 23.0 16.5 10.0 5.0 0.0'

b. Price for PJ is listed by district in Stumpage
Values, Table 1 in Appendix C.

 

c. Periodic Rate is .042 - the rate which cor-
responds with the average rotation age of jack
pine (55 years).

 

d. Acres Burned was recorded in the field.
(a) (b)
2. Replacement Value = 10.0 x Price x Periodic Rate x (c)
Acres Burned

 

a. Price for Aspen (replacement timber type) is listed
by district in Stumpage Values, Table 1 in
Appendix C.

b. Periodic Rate is .150 - the rate from the table
below which corresponds with the average rotation

age for aspen on sandy soils (35 years).

c. Acres Burned was recorded in the field.

Effects on Christmas Trees

A.

Determine Current Loss for each Christmas tree plantation.
Use the formula:
(1) (2) (3)

Current Loss = Value x Trees per Acre x Acres Burned

Record under Current Loss and under Loss for each species.

20-5

“a .-'-“““““‘"_'3.

WILDEIRE EFFECTS ON TIMBER - Step 3 (Cont'd)

Step 4.

Step 5.

n--- 1Ion

1. Value per tree can be determined from an external
source, such as a claims office of an insurance
company or a county extension agent. Usually only
tree species and age will be necessary. Record
under Price.

2. Trees Per Acre was recorded in the field under
Density Class. Record under volume on office
worksheet.

3. Acres Burned was recorded in the field.

Effects on Merchantable Hardwoods.

A.

Determine Current Loss for each hardwood timber type.
Record under Current Loss and under Loss for all timber
types. Use the formula:

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Current Loss - Volume x Price x Mortality x Acres Burned

1. Volume is from the table below using the size class
and density class recorded in the field. If volume
was measured directly in the field, that volume may
be used if it represents the stand better.

Density Class

 

 

 

Size Class Units "" "' " ' 0
5-11" Cords ‘a/ 16.5 10.0 5.0 0.0
ll-lS" MBF a/ 6.7 3.7 1.8 0.0
15"+ MBF a/ 10.2 6.4 2.8 0.0

a/ Volume was estimated in the field

2. Price is liSted in Stumpage Values, Table 1 in
Appendix C by district. 3; there are explicit
restrictions on harvesting (like wilderness areas or
developed campgrounds), then the price is $0.00.

3. Mortality is determined from Hardwood Mortality,
Figure 2 in Appendix B. Round to 2 decimal places
and record under Mortality.

4. Acres Burned was recorded in the field.

Effects on Immature Hardwoods.

A.

Determine Current Loss for each hardwood timber type.
Record under Current Loss and under Loss for all timber
types. Use the formula:

WILDFIRE EFFECTS ON TIMBER - Step 5 (Cont'd)

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Current Loss = Volume x Price x Mortality x Acres Burned x (5)
Discount Rate

1. Volume is the predicted volume in the table below
using the density class recorded in the field.

Density Predicted Merchantable

 

 

Timber Type Class Volume Age
NH, 0, A, a. 3 16.5 25"
Bw 2 10.0 25‘

l 5.0 25

SH 3 16.5 35

- 2 10.0 35

l 5.0 35

2. Price for each timber type is listed in Stumpage
Values, Table 1 in Appendix C by district. ‘lf there
are explicit regulations restricting harvest (like
wilderness areas or developed campgrounds), then the
price is $0.00.

3. Mortality is determined from Hardwood Mortality,
Figure 2, Appendix B. Round to 2 decimal places and
record under Mortality.

4. Acres Burned was recorded in the field.

 

5. Discount Rate is the rate from the table below which
corresponds to the discount period.

 

a. Discount Period 8 Merchantable Age - Current Age.
If the discount period is negative, Discount
Rate 336‘ [MO

b. Merchantable Age is listed by timber type in the
table above.

c. Current Age was recorded in the field.

 

 

Discount Discount Discount Discount
Period Rate Period Rate
0 1.00 20 .31
5 .75 25 .23
10 .56 .30 .17
15 .42 35 .13

Step 6. Total Wildfire Effects on Timber.

-A. Sum the columns listed below for all cover types and
record in the Total row under the appropriate heading.

Rev. 1/80 -7

WILDFIRE EFFECTS ON TIMBER - Step 6 (Cont'd)

Step l.

01".

1/nn

1. Acres Burned. NOTE: Only for the Oversrory types.

2. Current Loss.

3. Regeneration Loss.

4. Replacement Value. -
5. Loss.

Determine Average Mortality and record under Average
Mortality. Use the formula:
(1) (2)
Average Mortality = Total Mortality / Total Timber Acres Burned

 

1. Total Mortality is the sum of Acres Burned times Mortality
for each overstory timber type. I
2. Total Timber Acres Burned was recorded under Acres

 

Burned in the total row.

' .fl'T'_—".’ ‘3“

WTLDFIRE EFFECTS ON CROPS ' [

Effects on Crops.

A.

Determine Crop Loss for each crop, using the formula:

(1) (2) (3)
(Replanting Cost) (Yield Loss x Price)
Crop Loss = +
’( x Acres Burned) ( x Acres Burned)
(4) (4)

‘3; there is a "yes" under Harvested, eliminate part A. and
proceed with part B. Record crop loss under Crop Loss.

1. Replanting Cosc: Determine from the farmer or a
neighboring farmer if the crop is replantable this
year. If it is replantable, then determine the
replanting cost per acre from the farmer or his
neighbor. If it is 222 replantable, then replanting
cost is $0.00. Record the replanting cost under
Replanting Cost.

2. Yield Loss: Determine the yield loss per acre from the
farmer, a neighboring farmer, or an external source such
as a county extension agent or a local insurance company,
and record under Yield Loss. The yield loss will be the
expected yield per acre if the crop is 325 replantable
this year, or the difference between expected yield for
the burned crop and for the replanted crop, if the crop
can be replanted.

3. Price can be determined from one of the sources mentioned
above. Record under Price.

4. Acres Burned was recorded in the field.

10-9

WILDFIRE EFFECTS ON CROPS Step 1 (Cont'd)

B. .If there is a "yes" under harvested, then Crop Loss is
$0000.

WILDFIRE EFFECTS ON EQUIPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS

 

Step 1. Effects on Equipment and Improvements.

A. Determine Eqpipment Loss, using the formula:

 

Equipment Loss 8 the sum of Cost
Record under Equipment Loss.

1. Cost: For each piece of equipment which is affected
by the fire, as listed in the field, determine the
Cost associated with it. For those requiring only
additional maintenance, Cost is the cost of the ad-
ditional maintenance (like the cost of repainting a
shed). If the equipment was destroyed, use the
insurance value whenever possible. When such are
unavailable, use the market price of a similar piece
of equipment in similar condition. If used equip-
ment of that type is not regularly bought and sold,
use the market price for a new piece. Multiply the
price for the new piece by the condition value, listed

 

below: 1
Condition Condition Value
Excellent 1.00
Very Good .80
Good .60
'Fair .40
Poor .20

Record the cost for each affected piece of equipment
under Cost.

Forest products should be included in this section.

WILDFIRE EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE
Step 1. Effects on Deer Habitat

A. Determine Benefit and record under Deer Benefits. Use
the formula:

Benefit = Full Effect (3.86) x Success Index x Use Change x
Expenditures ($25.39)

 

Rev. 1/80 20-9 l

WILDFIRE EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE - Step 1 (Cont'd)

1. Success Index is listed by county for deer in
Success Index, Table 2 in Appendix C.

 

2. Use Change 3 Area Change x Size Effect

 

 

a. Area Change is the sum
of Area Index times -j——. --~j-
Acres Burned for the -..".e_.-.__

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

timber types listed _”_f?75“:' ': ', '_55
below. Area Index is __g -—' , ' ,Afip‘
from Figure 3, at right._flg _._—- '_' L 2",.
NOTE: This applies to 1:; -30— . T.
overstory timber types ::m- _ be' $?
from field sheets only. --s..._._t‘ ..... Q'q. <-
'—‘¢-——725—-- - -—-h—~ ~
05‘ ° - .
(1) BW - White Birch -ea ‘
(2) NH - Northern :_—-_—’r00__'_-._ _-____.-ld _H .
Hardwoods r00». —-'25——-——' 30..._ p73 -. —LO
. fingering. ; ; :7“...
(3) PJ - Jack Pine - rigfiaméeimdex :2:

 

plantations only , .-.",._- ___-

 

(4) PR - Red Pine - plantations only

 

b. Size Effect is from the table below, using
Affected Area.

 

Affected Area = Average Mortality x Total Timber
Acres Burned

Round off to 1 decimal place.

 

 

Affected Size Affected Size
Area - Acres Effect Area - Acres Effect
0.0 - 1.9 1.00 10.0 - 14.9 .34
2.0 - 2.9 .77 15.0 - 19.9 .25
3.0 - 3.9 .68 20.0 - 24.9 .19
4.0 - 4.9 .61 25.0 - 34.9 .11
5.0 - 5.9 .56 35.0 - 44.9 .04
6.0 - 7.9 .49 45.0+ .00

8.0 - 9.0 7 .43

B. Determine Loss and record under Deer Losses. .Use the formula:

Loss 3 Full Effect (2.24) x Success Index x Use Change x
Expenditures ($25.39).

1. Success Index is listed by county in Success Index,
Table 2, Appendix C.

 

Rev. 1/80 20-10

 

WILDFIRE EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE - Step 1 (Cont'd)

 

2. Use Change is the sum of Acres Burned times Mortality
for each of the types listed below. NOTE: This
applies to overstory timber types only. '

 

a. FS - Fir-Spruce c. T - Tamarack
b. SB - Black Spruce d. C - White Cedar

Step 2. Effects on Rabbit Habitat.

A. Determine Benefit and record under Rabbit Benefits. Use the
formula:
(1) (2)
Benefit = Full Effect (.43) x Success Index x Use Change x
Expenditures ($7.67)

1. Success Index for rabbits is listed in Success Index,
Table 2, Appendix C.

 

2. Use Change is the sum of Acres Burned times Mortality for
each burned stand of the types listed below. NOTE: This
applies to overstory timber types from field sheets only.

 

a. SB - Black Spruce c. A - Aspen
b. PJ - Jack Pine d. BW - White Birch
Step 3. Effects on Grouse Habitat.

A. Determine Benefit and record under Grouse Benefits. Use the
formula: '

Benefit - Full Effect (.34) x Success Index x Use Change x
Expenditures ($7.67).

1. Success Index is listed for grouse by county in
Success Index, Table 2, Appendix C.

 

2. Use Change is the sum of Acres Burned times Mortality
for each burned stand of the types listed below.
NOTE: This applies to overstory timber types from
field sheets only.

 

a. A - Aspen b. PJ - Jack Pine
Step 4. Effects on Pheasant Habitat.
A. Determine Benefit and record under Pheasant Benefits. Use

the formula:
(1) (2)
Benefit = Full Effect (.45) x Success Index x Use Change x
Expenditures ($7.67)

1. Success Index is listed for pheasants by county in
Success Index, Table 2, Appendix C.

 

Rev. 1/80 ‘ 11

WILDFIRE EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE - Stepgé (Cont'd)
2. Use Change is the Acres Burned for all F0 (Open
Fields).
Step 5. Effects on Waterfowl Habitat.
A. Determine Benefit and record under Waterfowl Benefits.
Only calculate a benefit if fire occurs on open fields

within one mile of a lake or stream. Use the formula:

Benefit - Full Effect (.30) x Success Index x Use Change x
Expenditures ($13.75).

1. Success Index for waterfowl is listed by county in
Success Index, Table 2, Appendix C.

 

2. Use Change is the sum of Acres Burned in the cover types
listed below.

 

a. FO - Open Fields b. M - Marsh

B. Determine Loss and record under Waterfowl Losses. Only
calculate a loss if a fire occurs on open fields within one
mile of a lake or stream.

(1) (2)
Loss 8 Full Effect (.06) x Success Index x Nest Index x
(3)
Use Change x Expenditures ($13.75).

1. Success Index is listed for waterfowl in Success Index,
Table 2, Appendix C.

 

2. Nest Index is listed below by date:

 

 

From ‘19 Nest Index
January 1 April 14 0.00
April 15 May 14 0.33
May 15' July 31 1.00
August 1 December 31 0.00

3. Use Change is the sum of Acres Burned in the cover
types listed below.

 

3. F0 - Open Field b. M - Marsh

Step 6. Effects on Non-Game Birds.

A. Determine Benefit and record under Non-Game Benefits.
Only consider acres burned in timber when calculating
benefits to non-game species. Use the formula:
(1) (2)
Benefit = Full Effect (.20) x Success Index x Use Change x

Expenditures ($0.53)

 

4.

WILDFIRE EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE - Step 6 (Cont'd)

Step 7.

Step 1.

Success Index for non-game birds is listed by
county in Success Index, Table 2, Appendix C.

Use Changg = Average Mortality x Total Acres Burned

 

in timber types.

Total Wildfire Effects on Wildlife

A.

Add the benefits calculated above, and deduct any losses.
Record under Total Wildlife Effect.

WILDFIRE EFFECTS ON RECREATION

Effects on Aesthetics.

A.

From Aesthetics, Table 3, Appendix C, determine Effect on
aesthetics. Record under Aesthetics Effect.

1.

3.

Average Mortality was recorded in the Timber Effects
Section. NOTE: If_average mortality is less than
.18, record "negligible effect" under Aesthetics
Effect. For fires in non-timber cover types (F0,
FC, M), record "negligible effect" under Aesrhetics
Effect. -

 

Acres Burned was recorded under Acres Burned in the
Total row of the Timber Effects Section.

 

Use Class was recorded in the field.

Determine Ornamental Loss and record under Ornamental
Loss. Use the formula:

Ornamental Loss 8 sum of Tree Loss

1.

Tree Loss = Condition Class x Location Class x Cost.
Record next to each burned ornamental under Tree
Loss. NOTE: If more than one tree of that species,
size, condition, and location was burned, multiply
Tree Loss by the number of such trees. '

a. Condition Class was recorded in the field.

b. Location Class was recorded in the field.

 

c. Cost: For all shrubs and evergreens, determine
the replacement cost of each dead bush; these
costs are generally available from nurseries,
claims offices of insurance companies, and the
like. For all trees, use the formula:

Cost 8 .79 x Species Factor x (Diameter)2 x $16.77

“a “n mmwer-va mun-...”..vw

WILDFIRE EFFECTS ON RECREATION - Step 1 (Cont'd)

Step 2.

1 [on

(1) Species Factor is from Species Factor,
Table 4, Appendix C. Tree species are
listed alphabetically by scientific names;
all conifers are lisred firSt.

 

(2) Diameter was recorded in the field.

Effects on Use of Developed Recreation Sites.

A.

Determine Use Loss and record under Use Loss. Use the
formula:

Use Loss 8 Visitor Groups Lost x Value

1. Visitor Groups Losr was recorded in the field based
on the records or judgment of the owner or manager.

2. Value is from the following table, using the Use
Category which is most appropriate for the
recreation site.

 

Use Category Value
Sightseeing $23.79
Camping 22.64
Fishing 21.14
Picnicing 17.31
Boating 14.29
Hiking 13.71
Swimming - 9.65
‘n_14

“‘4 u din-n in”. cit-um
‘0
I

Step 1.

Rev

WILDFIRE EFFECTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Effects on Environmental Quality.

A. From Environmental Table 5, Appendix C, determine Effect

on environmental quality. Record under Environmental
Quality Effect.

1. Atmospheric Condition was recorded in the field.

2. Smoke Index 8 Total Acres Burned x Smoke Duration.
Round to one decimal place.

a. Total Acres Burned was recorded on the field
worksheet under the Timber Effects Section.

 

b. Smoke Duration was recorded in the field.

3. Population Use Class was recorded in the field.

SUMMARY

Landowner Losses: Social Effects:

1 Ion

Timber Wildlife
Crops Recreation Use
Equipment Aesthetics Effects

Ornamental Trees Environmental Quality
Effects

‘10. we‘re-pm m... man”
‘1
|

R can

lRfl

APPENDIX

9“-.-.L~’

“a“ - - 4"
h. .

APPENDIX A

 

 

TABLE 1. COVER TYPES IN WISCONSIN

Timber Type Symbol

White Pine PW '
Red Pine PR
Jack Pine PJ
Fir-Spruce ‘FS
Black Spruce SB
Tamarack T
White Cedar C
Aspen A
White Birch BW
Oak 0
Swamp Hardwoods SH
Northern Hardwoods NH
Open Field F0
Cultivated Field FC

Marsh M

Raw 1 an

Definition

 

More than 50% pine with more white pine
than red or jack pine.

More than 50% pine with more red pine
than white or jack pine.

More than 50% pine with more jack pine
than white or red pine. a
:

Swamp border or upland types with
predominantly balsam fir or spruce.

More than 50% swamp conifers with more
black spruce than other species. i

More than 50% swamp conifers with more
tamarack than other species.

More than 50% swamp conifers with more
white cedar than other species.

More than 50% aspen.
More than 50% white birch.

Dominated by red, white, or black oak and
associated°species.

More than 50% swamp hardwood species; ash,
red maple, American elm, etc.

More than 50% northern hardwood species;
sugar maple, yellow birch, beach, etc.

Non-timbered grasslands, pastures and
upland brush.

Non-timbered cropland.

Non-timbered marsh, bog, muskeg or
lowland brush.

m

I
.1

a... ‘

I
.-&-'

APPENDIX A

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 2. SIZE AND DENSITY CLASSES FOR WISCONSIN TIMBER TYPES
Diameter
Size Class Hardwood Conifer
\

Seedling & Sapling 0-5" 0-5"

Poletimber 5-11" a/ 5-9" b/

Small Sawtimber 11-15" a/ 9-15" b/

Large Sawtimber 15"+ a/ 15"+ b/

NOTE: Use the lower size class whenever a stand is 3
composed of more than one size class unless ;.
at leaSt 75 percent of the trees are in the
higher size class.

a/ Sawtimber size classes are for only NH, 0, SH; __
for all other hardwood types, poletimber diameter "
is 5"+. F
b/ Sawtimber size classes are for only PW, PR, C;
for all other conifer types, poletimber diameter
is 5"+.
Size Units
Class oer Acre "" "' " ' 0
0-5" Trees t/ 700+ 400-699 100-399 0.0-99
5-9" d/ Cords 20.0+ 13.1-19.9 7.0-13.0 3.1-6.9 0.0-3.0
9-15" d/ MBF 8.5+ 5.0-8.4 2.5-4.9 1.2-2.4 0.0-1.1
15"+ MBF 12.0+ 8.5-ll.9 4.4-8.4 1.3-4.3 0.0-1.2
-- BA 150+ 86—150 51-85 21-50 0-20
c/ This density class is to be used for plantations only.
' d/ For hardwood stands, these size classes are 5-11" and 11-15".
Rev - 1/80 )-2

 

 

 

oddd dldJ‘ 44414 14“ 4411 1‘11 .11 4144 11“ 3411 ‘4111 441 1111 4441 <4|11 1111 11111411

100

 

 

 

9O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ivtilll’l lllll--. ..--II-. ...... 40.1! . .I. A- I .l .l... L

 

II.‘ IF:

 

:I\|

 

.rllll"l‘l3ln’l.l.l|'v

50
( percent )

40
own Scorch

 

 

 

 

‘
Q

n
U

50

 

 

 

.1 Tltf TIIIITTIT1H|FT

CONIFER MORTALITY.

ALLA L11! '11! 1411 IIIILIL 11]! u: 1LI' 11H LLLulIm'l L14' '1"

20

 

 

1T3; TI.

 

1".

 

 

 

APPENDIX B
FIGURE 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

hbbb bub? bbbP burp PE LP? Pb». supp bub) phbbLh-P b-DL DP»? DE Dth FPFL beP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.00

6

5
.4C’
.3
.20
.H}

9
.80

ssnannwoz.

10
1/80

 

 

00
Rev.

MORTAL I‘I‘Y

APPENDIX B

FIGURE 2.

HARDWOOD MORTALITY.

 

1.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E Immature (I 3
.90 ’ *
: f
: ._“ __- _______' i
30 : /

O ’ K / :l
r l/ / -
E E / / 2
.70 : ' ,~ f/ZA j
(Z _ ___, -. ___,,% 1
: ,Z// ' C/r Merchantabler i
I l
.501PZ// i

r / .
.40: z/ ; l
: - 1/// 5 .
.3 [A E
/ 1
/ 1
.2 = / f
. 1/ r
V :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.:c_ j
' 1
I i
r J
.00

Rev. 1/80

 

 

 

Scorch

 

Height

 

10

 

12

(fest)

 

 

1#

 

'r ..f- "T
“W

 

We?

APPENDIX C .

TABLE 1. STUMPAGE VALUES (from Forest Crop Law Withdrawal Data (1979-80)

Forest Type NC NW. WC EM, 8 & SE

 

 

 

POLETIMBER STANDS-AVERAGE VALUE PER CORD W

PW 5.98 5.58 5.19 6.55 4.57
PR 7.84 7.35 7.09 . 9.00 6.01
PJ 10.63 .ll.78 12.35 12.66 9.23
FS 4.77 3.77 3.80 5.26 3.65
SB 6.36 5.08 5.21 7.10 4.84
T 4.59 4.31 4.31 4.91 4.19'
c 4.12 3.65 3.70 4.28 3.63
NH 3.46 2.19 2.77 3.87 2.81
0 3.35 2.70 3.02 4.18 2.62
0x 3.20 2.65 2.94 3.99 2.51
SH 3.51 2.33 2.86 3.84 2.91
A 4.42 3.05 3.14 5.88 3.11
BW 3.56 2.59 2.79 4.32 2.59
SAWTIMBER STANDS-AVERAGE VALUE PER MBF sssnemssssasssssewsy
PW 54.14 43.11 43.13 43.03 54.44
PR 52.23 42.83 40.91 38.35 52.35
c 26.85 25.73 25.46 26.62 26.74
NH 49.43 i 36.36 42.72 48.96 45.54
0 51.85 43.91 54.23 62.67 60.72
SH 38.69 32.71 34.74 38.96 38.55
Rev. 1/80 30—5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APP EIIDIX C

TABLE 2. success INDEX BY COUNTY.

 

 

Deer Rabbit Grouse Pheasant Waterfowl Non-Game
Northwest
Ashland .48 .00 1.27 .00 .20 .36
Barron .48 .25 1.80 .24 .53 1.24
Bayfield .75 .00 .70 .OO .20 1.2a
Burnett 1.17 .‘O 1.80 .00 1.08 1.24
Douglas .16 .00 1.80 .00 .20 1.24
Iron .16 .OO .19 .OO .20 2.49
Polk 1.17 .23 1.80 .24 .53 2.49
Price .73 .00 .70 .00 .20 1.24
Rusk .75 .25 .19 .00 .20 .08
Sawyer .48 .00 1.23 .00 .20 4.28
Taylor .45 .00 .70 .OO .20 .03
Washburn .73 .00 .19 .00 .20 4.25
West Central
Buffalo 2.52 .25 .70 .24 1.74 .08
Chippewa .48 .25 1.30 .24 .20 .05
Clark 1.17 .23 .70 .24 .20 .03
Crawford 1.17 .23 1.80 .24 3.01 .63
Dunn .'° .25 .70 .64 .63 .63
Eau Claire 1.17 .23 1.23 .64 .20 .08
Jackson 2.32 .63 3.23 .64 .20 .36
La Crosse 1.17 .63 1.80 .64 3.01 1.24
Monroe 1.17 .25 1.23 .24 .20 .OC
Pepin 1.17 .63 .19 .24 1.05 .06
Pierce .4' .25 1.23 1.62 .63 .36
St. Croix .16 .25 1.23 1.62 .63 .36
Trempealeau 1.73 .25 1.50 1.62 .20 .36
Vernon 1.17 .63 1.23 .24 1.74 .05
North Central
Adams 2.32 1.61 1.30 .0 .63 .3;
Forest .43 .00 3.23 .00 .20 1.2;
Juneau 1.75 .23 1.23 .24 1.74 .33
Langlade .73 .23 .70 .CO .20 .36
Lincoln 1.17 .25 3.23 .00 .30 .35
Marathon 1.17 1.61 1.50 .24 .65 .03
Oneida 1.17 .00 1.30 .00 .55 2.49
Portage 1.75 .63 1.3 .24 .53 .05
Vilas .75 .00 1.30 .00 .33 4.23
Wood 2.32 .63 1.80 .00 1.08 .08

Dan 1 Inn

“fl*“““'“emm7

APPENDIX C

 

 

TABLE 2. SUCCESS INDEX BY COUNTY (CON'D).
Deer Pabozt Grouse Pheasant Waterfowl Non-Game
£35; Michigan
Brown .16 3.03 .19 .64 1.0 .63
Calumet .45 3.03 .00 1.62 1.74 .05
Door .73 .23 .00 1.62 .20 4.23
Florence .43 .00 .70 .00 .20 2.49
Keewaunee .7 1.61 .19 1.62 .63 .05
Manitowoc .73 1.61 .00 1.62 1.08 .36
Marinette 1.17 1.61 .70 1.62 .20 1. 4
Menominee 1.17 .23 .70 .64 .63 .08
Oconto 1.17 .00 .70 1.62 .63 .63
Cutagamie 1.17 3.03 .00 .64 .63 . 6
Shawano 1.17 .63 1.30 .64 .63 .36
Waupaca 2.3 1.61 .70 .64 .63 .63
Waushara 2.32 .63 1.60 .64 .63 .36
Winnebago .25 3.03 .00 2.03 3.01 .55
Southern
Columbia 2.52 .63 .19 2.33 3.01 2.29
Dane .48 1.61 .00 1.62 1. 8 1.24
Dodge .16 3.03 .00 3.72 7.13 .03
Fond du Lac .43 3.03 .00 3.72 7.1: .08
Grant .15 .25 .19 .2“ .55 035
Green A .16 3.03 .00 3.72 .20 .08
reen Lake 2.32 1.61 .00 3.72 7.13 1.2;
Iowa 1.73 .23 .70 .64 .6, .63
Jefferson .16 1.61 .00 2.53 7.13 .36
Lafayette .16 3.03 .00 2.83 .20 .36
Marquette 2.32 .23 .19 1.62 3.01 1.24
Richland 1.17 1.61 1.23 .00 .20 .03
Rock .16 6.18 .00 3.72 1.08 .35
Sank 1.73 1.61 .19 .64 .63 2.49
Southeast .
Kenosha‘ .16 6.18 .00 1.62 1.05 4.23
Ozaukee .16 .63 .00 3.72 1.05 .63
Racine .15 5.18 .00 1.52 1.74 1.24
Sheboygan .43 1.61 .19 3.72 1.06 .63
walworth .16 6.18 .00 1.52 1.33 4.23
Washington .48 1.61 .19 2.83 .63 .36
Yankesha .16 6.18 .00 2.33 .63 .63
Rev- 1/90 \.'7

‘lflfi”‘"’7*~”E§E§'
- D

APPENDIX C

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 3. DAMAGE EFFECT ON AESTHETICS
Part A. Fire with Average Mortality between .00 and .18
For all Use Classes and all fire sizes, the effect is Negligible.
Part B. Fire with Average Mortality between .72 and 1.00
- Use Class
Acres A B C D E
0.0-1.0 High High High Moderate Moderate
1.1-5.0 High High High High Moderate
S.l-20.0 Very High Very High High High Moderate
20.l-lO0.0 Extreme Very High Very High High High
lOO.l-500.0 Extreme Extreme Very High Very High High
500.l+ Extreme Extreme Extreme Very High Very High
Part C. Fire with Average Mortality between .43 and .71
Use Class
Acres A B C D D
0.0-1.0 Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low
l.l-S.O High Mederate Moderate Moderate Low
S.l-20.0 High High Moderate Moderate Low
20.l-lO0.0 Very High High High Moderate Moderate
lOO.l-SO0.0 Very High Very High High High Moderate
500.l+ Extreme Very High Very High High Moderate
Part D. Fire with Average Mortality between .19 and .42
Use Class
Acres A B C »D E
0.0-1.0 Low Low Low Negligible Negligible
Effect Effect
l.l-S.O Moderate Low Low Low Negligible Effect
5.1-20.0 Moderate Moderate Low Low Negligible Effect
20.l-lO0.0 High Moderate Moderate Low Low
lOO.l-SO0.0 High High Moderate Moderate Low
SOO.l+ High High High Moderate Low
Rev. 1/80 30-8

 

'J

0-3

APPENDIX C

ABLE 4. SPECIES FACTORS FOR

 

Part A. Conifers

Common Name

Balsam Fir
the: Firs

Eastern Red Cedar
Larch; Tamarack
Spruce
Eastern Whit
Scotch (Scot
Red Pine
Jack Pine

Austrian Pine
Ponderosa Pine

Douglas-fir
Cedar

Hemlock

Part B. Hardwoods

Cannon Name

Mapl s:
Suger Maple
Black Maple
Special variet

Red Maple
Norway Maple
Japanese Maple
Paperbark Maple
Sycamore Maple
Silver Maple
Boxelder

Horsechestnut; Buckeye
Tree-of-Heaven; Ailanthus
European Alser
Serviceberry; Shadblow

Birch

Hornbeam

CFJUHETTAL TREES .

Scientific Name

Abies balsamea
Abies spp.

Juniperus virginiana
Larix pp.

Picea spp.

Pinus strobus
P. sylvestris
P. resinosa

P. banksiana
P. nigra
P. ponderosa

Pseudotsuga eenziesii

Thuja opp.

e ‘ I
Soien.ifio Name

Acer 53;.
A. saccharun
A. nigrum

ies of red 2 Norway maples
Small tree maples like Anur maple, hedge maple,

(D
r,-
(I
O
v

A. rubruz

A. platanoides

A. palnatum

A. griseum

A. pseudoplatanus
A. saccharinum

A. negundo

Aesculus spp.
Ailanthus altissima
Alnus glutincsa
Anelanchier app.

Betula spp.

Carpinus spp.

1
1

0
U] \n \H \J

O O C.) \n

o—J—J—A —-‘
O . O o O .

N m \u \H ‘0

m \u C)

'0
U1

‘1

U1

('1 (') L) ()

_.’

...)

O O
0 c)
(J

O \n \n \n O 0 0 0

 

APPENDIX C

TABLE 4. SPECIES FACTORS FOR ORNAMENTAL TREES.

Part B. Hardwoods (Con'd).
Common Name

Hickory

Catalpa

Hackberry

Eastern Redbud

American Yellow-wood
Dogwood

Turkish Hazelnut

Hawthorn
Special Varieties

Russian Olive
Beech

Ash
Special Varieties

Ginsko
Honeylocust
Thornless Honeylocust
Special Varieties
Kentucky Coffeetree
Walnut
Panicled Goldenrain Tree
American Sweetgum
Tuliptree
' Osage-orange
Magnolia

Apple; Crabapple

Scientific Name
Carya spp.
Catalpa spp.
Celtis opp.
Cercis canadensis
Cladrastis lutea
Cornus spp.
Corylus colurna

Crataegus spp.

Elaeagnus angustifolia
Fagus spp.

Fraxinus spp.

Gingkc biloba - male

' - female

Gleditsia triacanthos

Gymnocladus

Juglans spp.
Koelreuteria paniculata
Liquidanbar styraciflua
Liriodendron tulipifera
Maclura pomifera
Magnolia spp.

Malus opp.

Special Varieties (like Flowering Crabapple)

Mulberry
Black Tupelo

n-.. 1/Qn

Morus spp.

Nyssa sylvatica

10-1 n

Species

Factor

.73

\n

o
\1

o
C)
(3

0
\n
O O

O
x) \n N
‘Jl 0 ‘J1

o
\n
U

Q
\J
\n

.30

 

APPENDIX C

TABLE 4. SPECIES FACTORS FOR CENAMENTAL TREES.

Part B. Hardwoods (Con'd).

Connon Name
American HOphornbeam
Sourwood
Corktree
Planetree; Sycamore
Peplar
Cherry:
Black Cherry
Pincherry
Special Varieties
Other Cherries
Pear
Oak
Locust
Willow
Sassafras
Japanese Pagoda Tree
Mountain Ash

Japanese Lilac Tree

Linden
Basswood

Elm

Japanese Zelkova

Scientific Name

Ostrya virginiana
Oxydendrum arboreum
Phellodendron spp.
Platanus spp.
POpulus

Prunus Spp.

P. serotina
P. pennsylvanica

Pyrus spp.

Quercus spp.

Robinia spp.

Salix spp.

Sassafras albidum

Sophora japonica

Sorbus spp.

Syringe anurensis Japonica

Tilia spp.
T. anericana

Ulnus spp.

Zelkova serrata

\u \n O O

lu -J \u \n

o
\M
O

1.30

  

-.- [Au-Em..- Aug: ' snap—nu.
. ._

‘Eflfif'

 

APPENDIX C
TABLE 5..

Part A.

Smoke Index

 

0.0-1.0

l.lel0.0

lO.l-lO0.0

lOO.l-lOO0.0

1000.1-10,000.0

l0,000.l+

Part B.

Smoke Index

Atmospheric

 

0.0-1.0
l.l-l0.0

10.1-ioo.o

lOO.l-lOO0.0

1000.1-10,000.0

10,000.l+

Rev. l/80

DAMAGE EFFECT ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Atmospheric Condition is Stable

Population Use Class

 

 

A B C D E
Very High High Moderate Low Negligible
Effect
Very High .High High Moderate Negligible
Effect
Very High Very High High Moderate Low
Extreme Very High High Moderate Low
Extreme Very High High High Low
Extreme Extreme Very High High Moderate
Condition is Unstable
Population Use Class
A B C D E
High Moderate Low Negligible Negligible
Effect Effect
High Moderate Low Low Negligible
Effect
Very High High Moderate Low Negligible
Effect
Very High High Moderate Low Negligible
Effect
Very High Very High High Moderate Negligible
- Effect
Extreme Very High High Moderate Low
30-12

”J

FIRE EFFECTS APPRAISAL HANDBOOK
FLOW CHART

Start with the first line and complete all calculations before proceeding
to the next.

CHAPTER 10 - FIELD MEASUREMENTS
CHAPTER 20 - OFFICE CALCULATIONS

 

I. TIMBER
Merchantable Conifers? If yes, do Step 1, Page 20-1.
Immature Conifers? If yes, do Step 2, Page 20-3.
Christmas Trees? If yes, do Step 3, Page 20-5. ;

tab/e
m Hardwoods? If yes, do Step 4, Page 20-6.

unvnainvv ,
Marshaaeebié Hardwoods? If yes, do Step 5, Page 20-6. i

Timber Types? If yes, do Step 6, Page 20-7.

 

 

 

 

II. CROPS?

If yes, do Page 20—8.

 

 

III. EQUIPMENT?

 

If yes, do Page 20-9.

 

 

IV. WILDLIFE (For Timber Types Use Overstory ONLYIE)
NH, BW, PR or PJ plantation? If yes, do Step l-a, Deer Benefits, Page 20-10. '
FS, SB, T, C? If yes, do Step l-b, Deer Losses, Page 20-10.
SB, PJ, A, BW? If yes, do Step 2, Rabbit Benefits, Page 20-ll.
A, PJ? If yes, do Step 3, Grouse Benefits, Page ZO—llz
F0? If yes, do Step 4, Pheasant Benefits, Page 20-ll.
F0, M? If yes, do Step 5, Waterfowl Benefits and Losses, Page 20—12.
Cvér'ai‘i‘VY
Step 6 - Non-Game Benefits, Page 20-12. n'mbef Types ally.

Step 7 - Wildlife Total, Page 20-13.

 

 

 

V. RECREATION

 

Step 1 - Aesthetics Effect, Page 20-13.

Ornamental Trees? If yes, do Step l—b, Page 20-13.

 

Developed Recreation? If yes, do Step 2, Page 20-14.

 

 

 

VI. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

 

Step 1 - Page 20-15.

 

FIRE EFFECTS APPRAISAL HANDBOOK

FIELD MEASUREMENTS WORKSHEET

 

FIRE #' DATE COUNTY

 

TIMBER - List understory, if present, on line directly under overstory. (Page lOfZ)

Timber Overst. Plant. Size Dens. Acres Scorch
T e es/no es/no Class Class Burned ft. or Z A e* ' Volume**

 

NON-TIMBER - Open Fields (F0) or Marsh (M) (Page 10-3)

Cover Type Acres Burned

 

TOTAL ACRES BURNED
(Overstory Timber + Non-Timber + Crop)

 

 

 

 

 

 

CROP - Cultivated Fields (FC) (Page lO-3)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Harv.? Replant. Yield
Crop Acres Burned (yes/no) Cost Loss Price
E UIPMENT (Page lO-3)
Type of
E ui at No. Condition Price

 

RECREATION (Page 10-5)

 

 

Ornamental Cond. Loc.
Trees No. Diameter Class Class
Recreation
Use Class
Visitor

 

Groups Lost

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (Page 10-6)

Atmospheric . Smoke POpulation
Condition Duration Use Class

 

 

* Note: Age for immature (O-S) trees only.

**Required for merchantable density class 4 only, or if measured for other
merchantable stands.

Rev. 1/80 30_14

U

‘. n
.-. b—b—«

FIRE EFFECTS APPRAISAL HARJBUUK - OFFICE CALCULATIONS kunasntnT

....- w '3

 

 

 

 

FIRE I DATE COUNTY
I. TIMBER (Immature Stands Only)
Timber Mor- Acres Disc. Current Regen. Replace.

Volume x Price x talit x Bu Rate - Loss + - V -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

h.
OVERSTORY TOTAL TOTALS ' '
AVERAGE MORTALITY ' fig\\\\ 3.
REGENERATION LOSS REPLACEMENT VALUE f’
Timber Per. Acres Regen. 1 Per. Acres Replace. ’
Type Vol. x Price x Rate x Burned - Loss Vol. x Price x Race X Burned - Value i
I 1 7 I I 1 F 1 l
l i 1 I 1 1 1 L j 1
II. CROPS III. EQUIPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Replant. Acres) (Yield Acres .
. Crop LCostgf x Burned, + Loss x Price x Burned . Loss Iteg No. x Cost - Loss

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL 1 I

IV. WILDLIFE Success Use;{" Benerit (+)
x Chan e x Constant 8 or s -

 

 

- “Deer Benefits

Deer Losses

iabbit Benefits
Grouse Benefits
Pheasant Benefits
Waterfowl Benefits
Waterfowl Losses
Non-Game Benefits

 

Nest Index . TOTAL

Timber Acres Area
Type Burned x Index I

l
i

 

 

 

 

 

 

V. RECREATION

_ TOTAL: 1. .iij
Aesthetics effectg H Area 51;; Use

Ornamental Trees Change x Effect x Change

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spec. I Cond. Lac. 3}

Const. x Fact. x Dia.2 x Genet. 8 Cost Species No. x Class x Class x Cost - Loss
.99 ‘8 I2.” I
:79 IQEQD

€79 Igggyz i
‘ TOTAL H _J

 

 

Visitor Groups Lost x Value 8 Recreation Use Loss" d

'I. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Atmospheric Condition Population Use Class
Smoke Duration Environmental Quality

Smoke Index Effect H "u

 

 

FIRE EFFECTS - GLOSSARY

AFFECTED AREA (For deer benefits only) The effective size of the opening
created by fire.

AREA CHANGE (For deer benefits only) The effective area of habitat
which receives the full increase in deer use.

AREA INDEX (For deer benefits only) An index that relates timber
mortality to timber types that affect deer.

ATMOSPHERIC CONDITION An estimate of the relative stability of the atmosphere.

AVERAGE MORTALITY The average percent of trees killed by the fire in all stands
weighted by the acreage in each stand.

BARK SCORCI—I The amount of bark that is discolored by fire. Measured as
a maximum height in feet from the ground to the top of the
bark scorch.

CONDITION VALUE An estimate of the percent 'of useful life remaining in the
affected piece of equipment or improvement.

COVER TYPE A tract of land characterized by the predominance of one or
more key plant species. Cover types include timber and
nontimber types as well as crops.

CROP LOSS A combination of replanting costs and yield losses; depending
on the circumstances, may be both or one of the two.

CROWN SCORCH The amount of needles discolored fy fire. Measured as a
percent of the total needles present before the fire.

CURRENT LOSS The current value of the trees killed by the fire.

DISCOUNT RATE The factor which discounts the expectedvalue of a currently

immature stand from the merchantable age to the present.

EQUIPMENT CONDITION
VALUE An estimate of the percent of useful life remaining in the
affected piece of equipment.

... .‘I' V'QW‘MJ 1'5th
l’
A

 

EQUIPMENT LOSS
FULL EFFECT
LOCATION CLASS
MERCHANTABLE AGE
MORTALITY

NEST INDEX
OVERSTORY

PERIODIC RATE

POPULATION USE CLASS

PRESENT NET WORTH (PNW)

' RECREATION USE CLASS
REGENERATION LOSS
REPLACEMENT TIMBER
TYPE

REPLACEMENT VALUE

REPLANTING COSTS

SMOKE INDEX

The sum of the cost of each affected piece of equipment,
or improvement.

The net change in use per acreif resource is completely _

 

distroyed. A constant for each year.

A rating of the relative importance of the tree in the land-
scape; this defines whether a tree is ornamental or not.

The age at which the majority of the average Stand of that
timber type will be greater than S" dbh.

..
. ‘ “

wt ’,. 1.

v

The amount of cover type killed by the fire. Measured as
a decimal fraction of the total type.in the fire.

A number that indicates what percentage of waterfowl are
nesting during a period of the year.

 

The timber Species or group of Species which constitutes
the uper crown canopy of a forest.

The factor which discounts all future timber harvests.

A relative rating of the number of people affected by the
smoke from a fire.

Discounted future value or value today of all future income.

A relative rating of the visibility (amount of use) of the
burned site. '

The present net worth (PNW) of all future timber harvests
of the burned timber type.

The timber type which will regenerate on the burned site, if
the initial type does not regenerate itself.

The present net worth (PNW) of all future timber harvests
of the replacement timber type.

The costs necessary to reestablish a crop.

ouAu'rrrY
A relative rating of them of smoke produced by the

fire.

SMOKE DURATION

STUMPAGE VA LUE

SUCCESS INDEX,

TIMBER TYPES

TOTAL MORTALITY
TREE CONDITION CLASS
UNDERSTORY

USE CHANGE

YIE LD LOSS

The length of time that a fire produces a significant amount
of smoke.

The value of timber standing in the woods to the landowner if

he sold it for harvest. Values in Table 1 of Appendix A are
adjusted to reflect presence of other timber species in the
timber type.

Recent hunting success in a particular county as compared

to the whole State, sightings are used for non -game species.

A constant for each year by county by species.

A tract of land characterized by the predominance of one or
more key tree Species.

As used in Timber section - the sum of acres burned times
mortality for each overstory timber type in the fire. .

A relative assessment of the form and vigor of the
ornamental tree.

The timber Species or group of species which is distinct
from and below the overstory.

The change in use of the habitat by species.

The quantity of crop that can't be harvested because of the

fire; the expected yield/ acre if the crOp can't be replanted durin

the current year.

 

APPENDIX B

.. 1.4.4.53

 

\fiJ-‘UJNH
.e

bWNt—d

N I—‘
o e

O‘m-I-‘th—n
. O I

74

PERSONS INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT

DNR Fuels & Effects Committee Members

 

Fred Axelrod, Chairman, Wausaukee

Duane Dupor, Liaison, Madison

John Grosman, Woodruff (left committee 7/79)
Lon LaBumbard, Spooner (left committee 4/79)
Gene Miller, Barnes (joined committee 11/78)

Associated DNR Personnel

 

Milt Reinke, State Forester, Madison

Gordon Landphier, Chief, Fire Control Section, Madison
Bill Martini, Fire Suppression Specialist, Tomahawk
Chuck Mueller, Forest Inventory Supervisor, Tomahawk

Non-DNR Personnel

 

Van Johnson, Project Leader, US Forest Service (until 11/78)
Dave Baumgartner, Economist, US Forest Service (since 2/79)
Al Simard, Project Leader, US Forest Service (since 4/79)

PERSONS INVOLVED IN IMPLEMENTATION

DNR Committee (Training Instructors)

 

Fred Axelrod, Wausaukee 3. Duane Dupor, Madison
Gene Miller, Barnes 4. Larry Forden, Bowler

DNR Implementation Test Participants

 

Terry Gordon, Wausaukee 7. Marshall Ruegger, Dodgeville

Walt Gyllander, Florence 8. Lawrence Schmitt, Boscobel

D. Jerabek, Spooner 9. Michael Sohasky, Summit Lake

Robert Oxnem, Wise. Dells 10. Barry Stanek, Gordon

Paul Pendowski, Wise. Rapids 11. Richard Thorbjornson, Spooner

Tom Roberts, Green Bay 12. Richard Wojciak, Poynette

 

 

APPENDIX C

75

VOLUME PREDICTION AND DISCOUNT PERIOD DETERMINATION

It is necessary to estimate the volume and determine the discount
period for appraising the effects of fire on immature timber. Most
procedures require estimates of harvest volume and harvest date, as
discussed under the present net value method. The procedures which
follow are somewhat different. The predicted volume is the volume when
the stand becomes merchantable, and the discount period is the difference
between the current age and the age when the stand becomes merchantable.
The following describes the information and procedures used to develOp
the estimates.

For each age class in each timber type described in Appendix A, the
cubic volume in the existing yield tables (Essex & Hahn, 1976) was
converted to cords per acre by dividing the cubic volume by 80 cubic feet
per cord (see the assumptions discussed below). For example, the jack
pine type has a total of 381.36 cubic feet in the 21-30 age class, this
was converted to 4.8 cords per acre (381.36/80). The volume was

classified according to Table 11 and recorded in Table 12.

Table 11. -- Density classification system.

Density»Class
f.

 

Size Units "" "' ' O

 

Merchantable Cords 20.0+ 13.1-19.9 7.0-13.0 3.1-6.9 0-3.0
Saplings Trees - 700+ 400-699 100-399 0-99

 

The percent of each tree species which occurs in each timber type
was calculated by dividing the cubic volume in each type by the total

cubic volume for that species in all types; Table 13 shows these

 

 

76
percentages. As an example, 76.8 percent of all jack pine saplings
occurred in the jack pine type; this was calculated by dividing the
cubic feet of jack pine in the jack pine type (490.96 cubic feet) by
the total volume of jack pine in all timber types (639.58 cubic feet).
In the red pine type, there was a 8.6 percent of all jack pine
saplings, calculated by dividing the volume of jack pine in the red
pine type (55.26 cubic feet) by the total jack pine volume (639.58

cubic feet).l/

 

A! These are the sum of the jack pine volume per acre for the
three youngest age classes (0-10, 11-20, and 21-30) in the jack pine
type, all 12 types, and the red pine type, respectively (Essex & Hahn,
1976).

77

Table 12. -- Density classes by age class for each timber type.

Age Timber Types

Class PJ

0-10 0
11-20 0
21—30 '
31—40 '
41-50 '
51-60 "'
61-70 "
71-80 -1/
81-90 -
91-100 -
101—120 -
121+ -

Saplings

PW

....o

U)
or:

- 'OO - - -OOOOO

 

 

Age
Class

"O
L.

0-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
81-90
91-100
101-120
121+

-..---n-noo

Saplings

Timber Types

FS
0
I

I

O

[I
I!
III
Ill!
ll
'1!

 

I] A dash means there were no sample plots in

this age class.

 

 

 

78
Table 13. -- Percentage of saplings occurring in each type.
No. of Timber Type
Tree Species Saplingg PJ PR PW FS SB C T 0 SH NH A BW
1]

White Pine 73.6 1 9 65 6 2 1 2 1 3 7 2 1
Red Pine 107.3 4 76 13 _2_ 3 - - 1 1 * 2
Jack Pine 266.1 77 9 2 1 - - * 6 1 * 4 *
White Spruce 39.0 - 6 - 75 - 4 - - 7 1 7 -
Black Spruce 176.1 - 1 - 17 51 12 15 - 1 - 1 2
Balsam Fir 522.3 - 1 - 68 3 7 2 - 5 6 4 4
Hemlock 31.0 - - - 35 - - 4 - 5 38 3 15
Tamarack 96.8 - - - 2 32 5 51 * 5 - 2 3
White Cedar 192.2 - - 2 10 1 80 - - 2 1 1 3
White Oak 127.1 * - - - - - - 72 3 5 6 14
Select Red Oak 121.1 2 5 - 1 - - - 53 1 20 6 12
Other Red Oak 157.5 14 12 - - - - — 61 * 0 5 2
Hickory 65.5 - - - - - - - 75 1 14 2 8
Butternut 5.3 - - - - - - - 6O - 22 2 17
Ash 319.8 - - - 13 - - - 1 62 16 5 3
Balsam P0plar 10.0 - - - 29 - - - - 12 14 24 21
Cottonwood 0.7 - - - - - - 24 76 - - -
Black Walnut 1.1 * 1 2 3 - 9 - 6 39 32 4
Yellow Birch 91.4 - - - 24 - - - - 19 36 4 17
Hard Maple 1038.9 - 4 - 15 - - - - 8 66 6 1
Soft Maple 894.7 - 1 - 9 7 - 2 8 25 35 6 7
Beech 14.7 - - - - - - - - - 100 - -
Basswood 319.8 - - - - - - - 11 3 78 4 3
Paper Birch 385.8 1 1 1 8 2 19 3 5 4 10 7 38
Bigtooth Aspen 140.7 3 - - - 23 - - 23 5 ll 27 8
Quaking Aspen 921.5 2 6 3 10 5 3 3 3 5 13 42 5

 

A! Number of saplings

3! An asterisk denotes less than .5 percent.

in millions (Spencer & Thorne, 1972).

Tun-11...,» arable-sarcasm» why... I-

r“ p,

 

 

 

79
Table 14. Number of saplings in each timber type.
Timber Type

Spec ies PJ PR PW FS SB C T 0 SH NH A BW
Wh. Pine 1 l] 7 47 4 1 * 2] 2 1 2 5 2 1
Red Pine 5 81 14 * 3 * - 1 1 * 2 1
Pine 204 23 3 - - 1 15 2 * 11 l
W. Spruce - 2 - 29 - 2 - - 3 l 3 -
B. Spruce - 2 - 30 89 21 27 - 1 - 2 4
Hemlock - - r 11 - - 1 - 2 12 1 5
Tamarack - - - 2 31 5 50 * 4 - 2 3
W. Cedar - - 4 19 2 155 - - 3 2 1 5
B. Fir - 2 - 357 14 34 9 - 29 30 23 24
White Oak 1 - - - - - - 91 4 6 7 18
Select R0 3 6 - 1 - - - 64 1 24 7 15
Other R0 22 19 - - - - - 95 * 9 7 3
Hickory - - - - - - - 49 1 9 1 5
Butternut - - - - - - - 3 - 1 - 1
Ash - - - 40 - - - 5 197 52 15 10
B. Poplar - - - 3 - - - - 1 1 2 2
Cottonwood - - - - - - - * 1 - - -
B. Walnut - r r - - * - - * * - -
Y. Birch - - - 22 - - - - 17 33 4 16
H. Maple - 37 - 153 - - - - 83 689 61 16
S. Maple - 55 - 81 62 - 21 70 222 309 57 64
Beech - - r - - - - - - 15 - -
Basswood - - - 1 - - - 18 5 125 7 5
P. Birch 3 5 4 31 8 71 12 20 16 39 28 147
B. Aspen 4 - - - 32 - - 32 7 16 38 11
Q. Aspen 20 54 26 92 45 24 32 28 49 125 386' 42
TOTAL 263 243 100 879 287 312 155 492 651 1503 667 398
Area 3] 728 310 178 628 236 302 222 2665 1558 3522 366 554
Trees/Ac. 361 784 562 1400 1216 1033 698 185 562 427 182 718

 

A! Number of saplings in millions, except for trees per acre.

3! An asterisk denotes between 100,000 and 500,000 trees.

2! Thousand acres in the timber type (Spencer & Thorne, 1972).

Jetw‘

-P"_ ”fin-VJ"

 

f ...r'w'
' 1.3.1.»
I

80

The number of saplings of each species in each timber type was
then calculated by multiplying the percent of each species in each
timber type by the number of saplings of each species. Table 14 lists
the calculated number of saplings in each timber type. The number of
trees in each timber type were summed to get the total number of
saplings by timber type.

The average number of trees per acre was calculated by dividing
the total number of saplings in each timber type by the total acres in
that type. This is shown in the last row of Table 14. An example of
this calculation is the average trees per acre for the jack pine type
(361), calculated by dividing the total of 263 million saplings in the
jack pine type by the 728 thousand acres in the type. The number of
trees per acre was classified according to Table 11 and recorded in
Table 12. The youngest age class at which the sapling density class is
the same as the merchantable density class was identified and listed in
Table 15. For example, the jack pine type has a sapling density class
of ' (one-prime); the youngest age class in which the merchantable
density class is ' is the 21-30 age class.

Table 15. -- Age class of merchantability.

 

Adjusted Timber Adjusted
Timber Age Class Age Class Type Age Class Age Class
PJ 21 - 30 21 - 30 T 51 - 60 61 - 70
PR 41 - 50 21 - 30 O 21 - 30 21 - 30
PW 31 - 40 31 - 40 SH 31 - 40 31 - 40
F8 61 - 70 61 - 70 NH 31 - 40 21 - 30
SB - - - 61 - 70 A 11 - 20 21 - 30
C 81 - 90 61 - 70 BW 51 - 60 21 - 30

 

Some of the merchantable age classes were judged to need

adjustment. Some of the density classes for the merchantable and

81
sapling age classes were very close to the cutoff between classes.
Based on the experiences of the DNR Committee membersll, the
merchantable age class for aspen (A) was lengthened. Similarily,
northern hardwoods (NH) is more like oak (0) than indicated, and hence
the merchantable age class was shortened. Other adjustments made were
to shorten the merchantable age in white birch (BW), white cedar (C),
and red pine (PR), and to ignore the predictions for tamarack (T).
Tamarack was assumed to be the same as black spruce (SB).

Another adjustment was needed because black spruce, and hence
tamarack, does not become merchantable. To adjust for this, the
expected density class was reduced and a merchantable age class
identified. Another adjustment which was made was to reduce the
density class and shorten the merchantable age, when possible, for the
two other swamp conifer types, fir-spruce (FS) and white cedar. Due to
the slow growth of these types, this adjustment will result in a higher
loss estimate, and thus was deemed desirable by the Committee.

Finally, an adjustment was needed to handle plantations because
the growth rate and densities in plantations differ substantially from
natural stands. The predicted volume, 23 cords per acre, is from the

"" (four-prime). The merchantable age of

average for density class
20 was selected because it was deemed reasonable by the DNR Committee,
and it resulted in a present net value which roughly corresponds with

reported costs for planting and site preparation in the Northeast, as

reported by Benzie et a1 (1973).

 

A! Meeting of the Wisconsin DNR Fuels and Effects Committee.
Rhinelander, WI. 7/24/78.

-?’
Ema-1m,

 

”nag; -.

82

There are several assumptions which are necessary for this
procedure. The first is that there are 80 cubic feet of pulpwood per
cord. In Wisconsin, softwood pulpwood roundwood products averaged 78.9
cubic feet per cord in 1967, while hardwood pulpwood roundwood products
averaged 79.0 cubic feet per cord (Spencer & Thorne, 1972).

The second assumption is that the percent of saplings of a given
species is directly proportional to the cubic volume per acre in the
three youngest age classes. Restated, this assumes that the average
cubic volume per tree for an aspen sapling in the jack pine type is the
same as the average cubic volume per tree for an aspen sapling in the
oak and the aspen types. This does not assume that each species grows
equally well in each timber type, but only that the volume is
prOportional to the number of stems in the type.

A third assumption is that the number of saplings in a given
timber type divided by the acres in that type yields an average density
for a sapling stand in that type. This assumption is probably the
weakest step in the procedure, and at least one of the reasons that the
adjustment were needed.

Another assumption is that the earliest merchantable density class
is acceptable. The accuracy of these tables has been questioned (see
present net value), and it was suggested that one of the sources of
error was intermediate harvests. By using the earliest merchantable
age class, this source of inaccuracy may be substantially reduced. The
problem of stand density is solved by using only the average for
Wisconsin. This, however, brings up the problem of extrapolating from

the average stand. It has been assumed that stands of different

 

83

densities react similiarly. For example, Table 12 shows that a jack

pine stand in density class will be a merchantable jack pine stand of

density class when it is 21 to 30 years old. It is assumed that a

density class sapling stand will become a density class

merchantable stand when it is between 21 and 30 years old.

APPENDIX D

 

84
SUCCESS INDEX CALCULATION
It is necessary to calculate a success index for each wildlife
species group in each county. Since there is no data on hunter use by
county for the game species, the success index for each species group
is based on the percent of the total animal harvest in each
countylj, from the Wildlife Division of the DNR. The non-game
group is based on weekend nature study participations in eaCh county,
estimated by the DNR Recreation Division. The following steps describe

the procedures used to deve10p the success index for each species in

 

each countyzj.

For each county, the percent of the species group harvested
(number of weekend participations in nature study) was divided by the
number of acres in the county, from Table 16. The result was divided
by the average percent harvest (nature study participations) per acre
for the state, 2.90 x 10"6 per acre (3.756 per acre), and recorded
in Table 17.

The success index for each county was averaged with other counties
of similar success indices. The grouping was done by an arbitrary
selection, using observed breaks in the distribution for each wildlife
group. Table 18 gives the number of counties in each group
(Frequency), the weighted average index (Index), and range (Low to

High). Figure 3 shows the site distribution of the index for each

 

A! No hunter success data were available for Menominee County,
so the success indices were determined using the indices from the
neighboring counties (Oconto, Shawano, Langlade). If 2 counties had the
same index, Menominee's index was the same. If all 3 were different,
Menominee's was the median index.

2! Where the procedures for non-game Species differ from the
procedures for the game species, the differences are noted in
parentheses.

85
species group. The counties were grouped together in order to have data
from more than one observation. The DNR Committee plans to recalculate
the success indices as more data becomes available from the Wildlife
Division.

The success index for each group (Index in Table 18) is the weighted
average for each group. It was calculated by summing the harvest percent
(nature study participations) for each county in the group, dividing by
the area in all of the counties in the group, and then dividing by the

statewide average of 2.90 x 10"6 per acre (3.756 per acre).

 

 

 

 

 

 

86
Table 16. -- Acres, harvest,#and nature study by county.
Percent of Harvest Nature

Acres Phea- Water- Study
County_ (000) Deer Rabbit Grouse sant fowl Days
Northwest
Ashland 664 .76 .00 2.28 .00 .55 1065
Barron 553 .89 .18 2.62 .42 .65 2303
Bayfield 934 1.95 .00 2.12 .00 .88 6174
Burnett 538 1.95 .00 2.76 .00 1.76 2824
Douglas 835 2.19 .00 3.92 .00 .81 3124
Iron 478 .31 .00 .40 .00 .19 5037
Polk 596 1.72 .38 3.31 .11 1.30 4583
Price 806 1.68 .00 1.16 .00 .15 2787
Rusk 580 1.20 .05 .54 .00 .34 0
Sawyer 806 1.24 .00 3.11 .00 .65 10294
Taylor 624 1.06 .00 1.35 .00 .44 188
Washburn 523 1.33 .00 .23 .00 .01 6280
West Central
Buffalo 455 2.85 .12 1.10 .38 2.56 143
Chippewa 652 .62 .16 3.19 .51 .40 366
Clark 781 3.00 .73 1.41 .42 .15 281
Crawford 364 1.26 .43 2.24 .21 3.63 997
Dunn 546 .77 .62 1.31 .75 1.00 1486
Eau Claire 414 1.35 .40 1.41 .76 .36 200
Jackson 639 5.29 1.34 6.44 1.00 .41 661
La Crosse 289 1.03 .45 1.61 .34 1.98 1408
Monroe 586 2.13 .36 1.94 .57 .28 13
Pepin 150 .50 .41 .06 .06 .44 0
Pierce 378 .64 .26 1.40 1.40 .61 597
St. Croix 470 .32 .22 1.86 1.86 1.12 757
Trempealeau 470 2.24 .59 2.27 2.27 .43 604
Vernon 513 1.42 .91 1.88 .15 2.52 225
North Central
Adams 413 2.80 1.40 2.72 .00 .74 678
Forest 644 .90 .00 6.19 .00 .50 2488
Juneau 495 2.73 .48 1.66 .50 2.48 1190
Langdale 548 1.22 .20 .82 .00 .54 768
Lincoln 571 2.13 .62 4.74 .00 .37 829
Marathon 1015 3.04 3.96 5.22 .51 2.32 430
Oneida 712 2.12 .00 3.34 .00 .92 5667
Portage 516 2.42 1.33 2.54 .51 .86 0
Vilas 555 1.38 .00 3.71 .00 1.20 9213
Wood 516 3.28 .78 3.14 .00 1.57 335

 

‘7 h. 5.“

87

Table 16. (Continued).

 

 

 

Percent of Harvest Nature

Acres Phea- Water- Study
County (000) Deer Rabbit Grouse sant fowl Days
Lake Michigan
Brown 335 .25 2.83 .16 .70 1.06 737
Calumet 212 .30 2.37 .00 1.26 1.04 0
Door 315 .59 .25 .00 1.18 .10 7521
Florence 312 .47 .00 .67 .00 .00 2819
Keewaunee 211 .47 .93 .03 .91 .44 44
Manitowoc 378 .74 2.40 .00 1.58 1.27 411
Marinette 882 3.41 3.19 1.74 3.13 .05 4013
Menominee 1] 230 132
Oconto 641 2.05 .00 1.62 2.37 .93 1271
Outagamie 406 1.23 3.41 .00 .65 .79 456
Shawano 588 2.62 .90 2.74 .86 1.48 778
Waupaca 481 3.48 2.98 .87 1.14 1.04 1093
Waushara 401 2.82 .65 1.84 .55 .65 527
Winnebago 287 .42 2.70 .00 2.33 3.03 675
Southern
Columbia 497 3.74 .77 .23 3.92 4.19 5159
Dane 767 .97 5.15 .00 3.74 2.69 3105
Dodge 569 .48 4.60 .00 8.04 12.23 0
Fond du Lac 464 .59 4.17 .00 6.41 8.93 269
Grant 734 .35 .87 .52 .73 1.54 747
Green 374 .12 2.96 .00 5.46 .22 128
Green Lake 227 1.44 1.01 .00 5.52 5.10 904
Iowa 488 2.60 .59 .99 1.24 1.11 1317
Jefferson 361 .31 1.16 .00 3.52 7.36 552
Lafayette 412 .14 3.81 .00 3.20 .05 524
Marquette 291 2.98 .01 .13 1.60 2.22 1301
Richland 373 1.56 2.00 1.22 .00 .21 0
Rock 461 .18 7.12 .00 8.41 1.24 726
Sauk 538 2.72 1.88 .30 1.29 .64 5856
Southeast
Kenosha 174 .04 5.58 .00 1.04 .64 2489
Ozaukee 151 .10 .29 .00 1.89 .51 499
Racine 216 .04 4.29 .00 1.17 .95 932
Sheboygan 323 .52 1.68 .10 6.88 .91 635
Walworth 356 .14 4.96 .00 1.57 .96 7759
Washington 275 .26 .90 .01 2.00 .62 406
Waukesha 355 .20 6.03 .00 2.95 .65 849

 

1! No hunter success data are available for Menominee county.

 

 

 

 

 

88
Table 17. -- Calculated success index and map identification number.
Small Game
Map Water- Non-
County ID # Deer PJ,A 38153 F0 fowl Game
Northwest
Ashland 1 .394 .428 .000 .000 .285 .430
Barron 2 .555 .663 .112 .262 .403 1.553
Bayfield 3 .720 .283 .000 .000 .326 1.772
Burnett 4 1.251 .641 .000 .000 1.129 1.409
Douglas 5 .904 .586 .000 .000 .334 1.003
Iron 6 .224 .104 .000 .000 .136 2.825
Polk 7 .995 .834 .220 .064 .753 2.063
Price 8 .718 .180 .000 .000 .062 .927
Rusk 9 .714 .135 .030 .000 .203 .000
Sawyer 10 .531 .482 .000 .000 .280 3.426
Taylor 11 .586 .270 .000 .000 .242 .081
Washburn 12 .877 .055 .000 .000 .009 3.221
West Central
Buffalo 13 2.160 .360 .091 .288 1.941 .084
Chippewa 14 .328 .665 .085 .270 .210 .151
Clark 15 1.322 .431 .322 .188 .065 .096
Crawford 16 1.195 1.030 .408 .199 3.446 .735
Dunn 17 .486 .550 .392 .474 .628 .730
Eau Claire 18 1.124 .638 .333 .633 .304 .129
Jackson 19 2.853 1.719 .723 .539 .221 .277
La Crosse 20 1.230 1.039 .538 .406 2.370 1.308
Monroe 21 1.254 .549 .212 .335 .168 .006
Pepin 22 1.146 .650 .940 .138 1.009 .000
Pierce 23 .584 .615 .238 1.279 .559 .424
St. Croix 24 .235 .597 .161 1.365 .822 .432
Trempealeau 25 1.642 .878 .432 1.664 .312 .344
Vernon 26 .954 .847 .611 .101 1.693 .118
North Central
Adams 27 2.335 1.566 1.167 .000 .621 .440
Forest 28 .482 1.199 .000 .000 .268 1.035
Juneau 29 1.900 .621 .334 .348 1.728 .644
Langdale 30 .768 .267 .126 .000 .337 .376
Lincoln 31 1.286 1.275 .374 .000 .223 .389
Marathon 32 1.033 1.500 1.345 .173 .787 .114
Oneida 33 1.027 .586 .000 .000 .445 2.135
Portage 34 1.618 1.182 .889 .341 .572 .000
Vilas 35 .858 .835 .000 .000 .748 4.452
Wood 36 2.190 1.091 .521 .000 1.051 .174

_ - w _...
' h' "
'hi

 

 

89

Table 17. (Continued).

Small Game

 

 

 

Map Water- Non-
County ID # Deer PJLA BWiSB F0 fowl Game
Lake Michigan
Brown 37 .257 1.916 2.910 .720 1.094 .589
Calumet 38 .487 2.543 3.846 2.045 1.694 .000
Door 39 .646 .175 .274 1.292 .106 6.405
Florence 40 .520 .268 .000 .000 .000 2.426
Keewaunee 41 .767 .986 1.518 1.486 .726 .056
Manitowoc 42 .676 1.398 2.192 1.443 1.156 .292
Marinette 43 1.333 1.042 1.247 1.224 .019 1.220
Menominee 44
Oconto 45 1.103 .316 .000 1.275 .498 .532
Outagamie 46 1.045 1.849 2.898 .552 .668 .301
Shawano 47 1.536 .918 .528 .504 .869 .355
Waupaca 48 2.496 1.590 2.138 .818 .744 .610
Waushara 49 2.423 .929 .559 .473 .562 .352
Winnebago 50 .505 2.071 3.247 2.802 3.640 .631
Southern
Columbia 51 2.597 .399 .534 2.722 2.907 2.786
Dane 52 .436 1.477 2.316 1.682 1.208 1.086
Dodge 53 .291 1.779 2.788 4.872 7.349 .000
Fon du Lac 54 .438 1.977 3.099 4.763 6.638 .155
Grant 55 .164 .349 .409 .343 .722 .273
Green 56 .111 1.739 2.724 5.028 .205 .092
Green Lake 57 2.192 .980 1.537 8.401 7.759 1.070
Iowa 58 1.838 .519 .417 .877 .788 .724
Jefferson 59 .296 .981 1.538 3.362 7.029 .410
Lafayette 60 .117 2.036 3.192 2.681 .041 .341
Marquette 61 3.529 .063 .012 1.895 2.631 1.198
Richland 62 1.442 1.587 1.848 .000 .193 .000
Rock 63 .135 3.394 5.320 6.284 .928 .422
Sauk 64 1.742 .838 1.204 .826 .410 2.917
Southeast
Kenosha 65 .079 7.050 11.052 2.060 1.268 3.834
Ozaukee 66 .228 .422 .662 4.314 1.171 .886
Racine 67 .064 4.375 6.858 1.871 1.516 1.159
Sheboygan 68 .555 1.182 1.792 7.340 .969 .527
Walworth 69 .135 3.061 4.798 1.518 .931 5.837
Washington 70 .327 .726 1.130 2.512 .779 .396
Waukesha 71 .194 3.741 5.864 2.869 .636 .642

 

 

 

 

90

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 18. -- Success index group statistics.
Range
Group Index Frequency_ Low High Symbol
Deer
.16 14 .064 .296
.48 15 .327 .586
.75 9 .646 .877
1.17 19 .904 1.536
1.75 5 1.618 1.900
2.52 9 2.160 3.529
Small Game: PJJA
.27 18 .055 .431
.59 15 .482 .726
.94 14 .834 1.091
1.40 10 1.182 1.590
1.90 9 1.719 2.453
3.94 5 3.061 7.050
Small Game: BW,SB
_' .00 14 .000 .000
.25 20 .012 .432
.63 11 .521 .940
1.61 13 1.130 2.316
3.03 8 2.726 3.846
6.18 5 4.798 11.092
Small Game: F0
.00 19 .000 .000
.24 13 .064 .348
.64 12 .406 .877
1.62 14 1.224 2.060
2.83 6 2.512 3.362
5.72 7 4.314 8.401
Waterfowl
.20 24 .009 .337
.65 22 .403 .869
1.08 11 .928 1.268
1.74 5 1.516 1.941
3.01 5 2.370 3.640
7.13 4 6.638 7.759
Non-Game
.08 19 .000 .174
.36 17 .273 .440 ~'
.65 11 .527 .886
1.24 12 .927 1.772
2.49 6 2.063 2.917
4.28 6 3.221 6.405

 

 

“Wait“? 1: -“"_ 'f‘F‘-m¢_'

91

[lirflrirdnanu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V “W
.k
u
a
M
M w
2
7487mmlwls
a 5 016
w 4 % 7I7|_9
4 4
8 0 3 6
2 47 555%
nu — Aw mw 7! Qu
as OJ :4 cu
3 .1
53 flfi4~m526
3 1 5
32 N 5
36(4
6 3 96
2 8O
8 56
a nu 9.
9 6%
6
3 09 .1021
1 4852
112
2
4
3
1/
M2

0

NON-GAME

a
0

.'.\7~:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maps of success indices.

Figure 3.--

92

a SMALL GAME: PJ,A r{SMALL GAME: BW,SB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. o. ' ' O . " . [OT
0 O. o . . . . . . .
o.. . 0 o o o ‘ A a O
o 0“. 0 d ... . . O. o.- o...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

r1" SMALL GAME: F0

WATERFOWL

 

Figure 3.-- (Continued).

 

HICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES
1|HI11111111111111|||||11||1||1|1||H1||11111
31293104255413