Thinning and Prescribed Fire and

Projected Trends in Wood Product

Potential, Financial Return, and

Fire Hazard in New Mexico

Roger D. Fight, R. James Barbour, Glenn A. Christensen, 

Guy L. Pinjuv, and Rao V. Nagubadi

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-605

June 2004
Roger D. Fight is a research forester, R. James Barbour is a research forest 

products technologist, Glenn A. Christensen is a research forester, and Guy L.

Pinjuv and Rao V. Nagubadi were foresters, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box

3890, Portland, OR 97208; Pinjuv is currently a doctoral candidate, University of

Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8020, New Zealand; Nagubadi is currently a post-doctoral fellow, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University,

Auburn, AL 36849.

Authors
Fight, Roger D.; Barbour, R. James; Christensen, Glenn, A.; Pinjuv, Guy L.;

Nagubadi, Rao V. 2004. Thinning and prescribed fire and projected trends in wood

product potential, financial return, and fire hazard in New Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-605. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 48 p.

This work was undertaken under a joint fire science project “Assessing the need,

costs, and potential benefits of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to reduce

fire hazard.” This paper compares the future mix of timber projects under two treatment scenarios for New Mexico. We developed and demonstrated an analytical

method that uses readily available tools to evaluate pre- and posttreatment stand 

conditions; size, species, and volume of merchantable wood removed during 

thinnings; size and volume of submerchantable wood cut during treatments; and 

financial returns of prescriptions that are applied repeatedly over a 90-year period.

Keywords: Wood products, thinning, fire hazard, financial return, New Mexico.

Abstract
This work was initiated under a Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP)-funded project,

“Assessing the need, costs, and potential benefits of prescribed fire and mechanical

treatments to reduce fire hazard.” We developed and demonstrated an analytical

method that uses readily available tools to evaluate pretreatment and posttreatment

stand conditions; size, species, and volume of merchantable wood removed during

thinning; size and volume of submerchantable wood cut during treatments; and financial returns of prescriptions that are applied periodically over 90 years. In this paper

we compare the potential mix of timber products recovered under two treatment 

scenarios applied in the state of New Mexico.

The treatment scenarios simulated here were not intended as solutions to the fuel

hazard problem per se. They are, however, representative of approaches that are 

currently being applied on the ground, and our intention was to illustrate (1) the use 

of existing tools to evaluate the effectiveness and cost of implementing these types of

treatments and (2) the likely results of repeated application of these treatments over

long timeframes. There are important policy issues associated with both parts of the

analysis. Our analysis suggests that none of the existing stands could be treated 

without a subsidy by using either of the prescriptions modeled here, and although 

the immediate effects on fire hazard are modest, they generally result in a substantial

reduction in fire hazard over time. Projections of repeated application of these treatments suggest that they could have unintended consequences. Neither option studied

provided for regeneration of stands, so age-class distribution would eventually become a problem in stands managed under either prescription. Our main conclusions,

therefore, are that (1) it is important to consider the long-term consequences of fuel

treatments, and (2) existing tools can provide useful information about the short- and

long-term effects of many proposed treatments.

A variety of silvicultural treatments can be modeled by using these methods. We

chose two for illustrative purposes: (1) thin from below to 9 in diameter at breast

height (d.b.h.) (TB9) with a minimum residual basal area, then burn 10 years after

thinning and every 20 years thereafter, then reevaluate for thinning every 30 years;

and (2) thin from below to 16 in d.b.h. (TB16) with a minimum residual basal area,

then burn 10 years after thinning and every 20 years thereafter, then reevaluate for

thinning every 30 years. The key findings follow.

• The initial effect of these prescriptions on fire hazard was modest, but over time,

fire hazard decreased substantially.

• There was a substantial long-term downward trend in the projected basal area

mortality expected from the prescribed burn treatments.

• The minimum basal area after the first thinning was 80 ft2, and basal area under

both treatments tended to stabilize near that level over time.

• There were few cases where any harvested volume from any thinning was considered merchantable.

• There were no cases where the harvested material could be expected to compensate for the cost of conducting the thinning either now or in the future, given existing markets for small (<9.5 in) logs. (If volumes removed from skid trails or cable

corridors were included in these calculations, the results might have been 

different).

The results suggest that both of the simulated prescriptions reduced fire hazard over

the long term with the TB16 prescription producing slightly more reduction in fire 

Executive

Summary

Findings
hazard. After several entries, treated stands in most cases approached the minimum

basal area of 80 ft2 required for second and future thinnings. In a few cases, the

diameter limit resulted in basal area building up in larger trees to more than 80 ft2.

In general, the TB16 treatment had about the same basal area but with fewer trees

per acre and a larger average stand diameter.

In terms of wood utilization, the analysis showed that both prescriptions produced

only small volumes of small trees from the first and subsequent entries. In many

cases, stands had too little basal area growth to qualify for stand treatments after the

initial thinning. These prescriptions universally had negative net returns, even without

considering the costs of a regular cycle of prescribed fire, so a substantial subsidy

would be required to implement them. If these prescriptions were widely implemented

and if industrial capacity were developed to use the wood removed under them, it

would be important to size processing plants and develop treatment schedules to

ensure a sustainable supply of raw material.

1 Introduction

2 Geographic and Forest Type Detail

2 Methods and Assumptions

4 Fire-Hazard-Reduction Treatments

4 Forest Vegetation Simulator Variants

4 Prescriptions

4 Effectiveness of Fire-Hazard-Reduction Treatments

5 Financial Analysis

5 Results and Discussion

5 Dry Mixed Conifers

10 Ponderosa Pine

14 Conclusion

15 Metric Equivalents

15 Literature Cited

17 Abbreviation and Acronym Glossary

18 Appendix 1: Cost and Log Price Assumptions

20 Appendix 2: Acreage and Number of Inventory Plots

21 Appendix 3: Average Initial Stand Characteristics

23 Appendix 4: Average Residual Stand Characteristics

28 Appendix 5: Average Volume of Utilized Trees

33 Appendix 6: Average Volume of Unutilized Trees

38 Appendix 7: Average Small-End Diameter of Utilized Logs

40 Appendix 8: Average Percentage of Volume of Utilized Trees, by Species

45 Appendix 9: Average Proportion of Stands by Net Value Category

Contents

1

This study was initiated with funding from the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) to

develop protocols for use in determining the magnitude of hazard-reduction treatment

needs, treatment cost, and associated benefits at a state level. The objectives of the

study are to (1) quantify existing stand conditions for major forest types in terms of

density, structure, and species composition, and prioritize stands by need for hazardreduction treatment; (2) develop and compare alternative cutting and prescribed 

burning prescriptions for reducing high-hazard conditions in major forest types; (3)

determine potential revenue from timber products generated from the hazard-reduction harvest treatments; (4) compare the future mix of timber products under alternative treatment scenarios; and (5) describe the potential for analyzing noncommodity

resources under treatment and no-treatment scenarios. This report demonstrates the

protocols developed under JFSP funding to analyze and illustrate trends in the longterm effects of repeated hazard-reduction entries in terms of the stocking, size, and

species mix of residual stands and the size and species mix of trees and logs that

might be removed and used for wood products.

New Mexico was selected as an example because recent forest inventories were

available, because the forest products industry in that state is in decline, and because

there currently are no mills capable of processing small logs. The New Mexico situation is in sharp contrast to that in Montana (see Barbour et al. 2004) where the forest

products industry is well established and has technological capability to process the

small-diameter logs expected from fuel-hazard-reduction treatments. That analysis is

being published separately.

If widely adopted, the types of treatments proposed to reduce forest fire hazards

could have implications for future forest conditions as profound as those from past

management practices—principally harvesting, grazing, and fire exclusion—that led to

the existing conditions. Changes of that magnitude have the potential to affect many

forest values such as fisheries, wildlife, timber and nontimber forest resources, environmental services, and amenities. Some of these changes likely will be considered

positive, whereas others likely will be considered negative depending on how the

resource in question is viewed relative to other resource values. It is neither our place

nor our intent to say which changes are more important or whether they are desirable

or undesirable. Our intent is to provide a set of protocols that use existing tools1 and

data2 available to analysts in federal, state, and private land management organizations. The interpretations we provide are intended as neutral examples illustrating

these protocols. Our protocols can be used to conduct analyses and display information about fire hazard, stand conditions, and removed materials. We anticipate that

these results also will be useful to decisionmakers who formulate fire management

policy and devise implementation strategies.

Introduction

1 For example, Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS), Fire and Fuels

Extension (FFE), Financial Evaluation of Ecosystem Management

Activities (FEEMA), Microsoft Access (The use of trade or firm

names in this publication is for reader information and does not

imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any

product or service), etc. (see “Methods and Assumptions” section).

2We use Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plot-level data, but

many types of stand-level data are adequate for these protocols.
2

This report is intended to supply information to a broad range of decisionmakers

involved with the forest fire-hazard issue including federal, state and private forest

land managers, planners, and others with an interest in policy related to the management of forests in the Western United States.

There are 10 forest types in New Mexico: aspen, juniper, pinyon/juniper, spruce/fir, 

dry mixed conifer, moist mixed conifer, riparian, oak, ponderosa pine/grass, and ponderosa pine/shrub. Because the same prescription would be used for both ponderosa

pine types, they were combined into one type for this analysis. A technical contact

team3 assisted us with this study. They suggested two forest types (ponderosa pine

and dry mixed conifer) as having high fire hazard, a priority for receiving hazardreduction treatments, and covering enough area to have a sufficient number of forest

inventory and analysis (FIA) plots to do the analyses. The maximum number of cases

for the New Mexico study is 16 (2 owner groups by 2 forest types by 2 slope categories by 2 hazard categories).

The objective of this analysis was to show the results of two stand treatment options

designed to reduce fire hazard both now and in the future. Evaluations include (1)

residual stand structure; (2) volume, size, and characteristics of merchantable trees

cut through time; (3) the volume and size of submerchantable (biomass) trees cut

through time; and (4) the financial feasibility of treatments. A detailed description of

our modeling techniques is given by Christensen et al. (2002).

We used existing modeling tools and inventory data, linked in a way that allowed a

comprehensive analysis over a range of treatment options. Primary tools included the

Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) growth and yield model (Crookston 1990, Stage

1973), the Fire and Fuels Extension (FFE) model as part of FVS (Beukema et al.

1997, Scott and Reinhardt 2001), and the Financial Evaluation of Ecosystem

Management Activities (FEEMA) model (Fight and Chmelik 1998). Data were stored

in a Microsoft Access database, and a standard set of reports was developed within

the database. Use of these tools makes the analysis portable to anywhere in the

Western United States where an FVS variant with an FFE extension and a FEEMA

variant are available. The tools are familiar to, or can be readily learned by, forest

planning and analysis staff in federal agencies and most state or private organizations. Where they exist, other growth models, fire models, and financial models could

be substituted for those used in this analysis.

Measurements of current forest vegetation are from data collected by the USDA

Forest Service’s FIA Program as categorized and processed by cooperators and

reported in a companion study supported under the same JFSP project. Our methods

are general, however, and adequate data can be obtained from a variety of standexam or other stand-level data that are suitable for use as input data to FVS. An

important caveat here is that stand-level data comprise a statistically representative

sample of the vegetation population on the target landscape.

Geographic and

Forest Type Detail

Methods and

Assumptions

3 The technical contact team consisted of Regis Cassidy,

Southwest Region, USDA Forest Service; Sam Loftin, Los Alamos

National Laboratory; Hal Luedtke and Bev Schwab, Bureau of

Indian Affairs, Southwest Region; and Charlie Wicklund, State of

New Mexico, Forestry Division.
3

We examined 600 candidate plots with a sampling weight of approximately 6,600

acres each. When more than 50 plots were available for a given case,4 a sample of

50 plots was randomly selected to represent the area in that case. When fewer than

50 plots were available for a given case, all the plots were used in the analysis. Cases

with fewer than 10 plots were not included in the analysis because there were insufficient data to adequately represent potential variation. Alternatively, it is possible to

analyze all plots regardless of sample size and examine results for individual plots

rather than average results. We felt that this method would be tedious and not allow

us to provide a compact illustration of our methods. Individual analysts might, however, be interested in identifying plot conditions where the probability of some desired

outcome, such as financially viable activities, is high. In that case, analysis of individual plots might be desirable.

Fire-hazard rating is based on estimates of the crowning index for each decade 

provided by the FFE of FVS. Crowning index is the windspeed necessary to sustain 

a crown fire. It is calculated from the crown bulk density for the stand. The lower the

crowning index, the higher the probability that a crown fire will be sustained (Scott

and Reinhardt 2001). Crowning index values reported are after thinning (if called for)

and prescribed fire treatment.

Forest inventory and analysis data were converted into FVS input files, and a silvicultural treatment regime was simulated. The silvicultural regimes simulated in this 

analysis were intentionally kept simple to provide an uncomplicated illustration of the

protocols and to provide benchmark results that could be used to refine treatment

options. In other parts of this study, another more complex prescription was used, 

but it was not used in our analysis because we were unable to model it in FVS.5

For each harvest made in FVS, a list of cut trees was recorded and then imported

into the FEEMA model. The FEEMA model determined merchantability of each tree,

based on a minimum small-end diameter (SED) of 6 in inside the bark and a minimum log length of 8 ft for top logs and 16 ft for butt logs. This determined the logs that

had to be taken to the landing, but only logs 9 in and larger were assumed to have

sufficient market value to be hauled to a mill and utilized. Only logs 9 in and larger are

assigned a price, and therefore, only trees large enough to produce at least a 16-ft

log with an SED of 9 in are assigned a value. The FEEMA model tallied individual

logs and produced an output file summarizing volume by species, tree diameter at

breast height (d.b.h.), and log SED. These results were compiled in a database of

simulation output for all sample plots included in the analysis. Results from the 

simulations were calculated as the average of the FIA plots selected for each case

(50 or fewer as described above) weighted by the appropriate plot expansion factor

(the number of acres represented by a plot). Whole-tree stem volumes of biomass

(submerchantable) trees from 1 to 4 in d.b.h. were estimated by FVS. Stem volumes

of 4 to 14 in d.b.h. trees were estimated with FEEMA to a 2-in top, inside bark. We 

did not calculate biomass (total stem, limbs, and foliage) volume or weight for the

unutilized trees.

4Each case is the combination of ownership, forest type, fire 

hazard, and slope.

5By Fiedler, C.E.; Keegan, C.E. III; Woodall et al. 2001. A strategic

assessment of fire hazard in Montana, and a strategic assessment

of fire hazard in New Mexico. (Submitted under separate cover to

the JFSP Board, 3833 S. Development Ave., Boise, ID 83705).
4

Silvicultural prescriptions were developed in consultation with the technical contact

team. The objective was to cover a variety of treatment options. In general, a 

treatment can be a thinning, a thinning followed by burning (prescribed fire), or a

maintenance burn (prescribed fire) without a thinning. We used thinning treatments

that included thinnings from below to different diameter and basal area targets, 

followed by a prescribed burn. Thinning was simulated with FVS. Prescribed burning

was simulated by using the FFE model. Crowning index from the FFE model was

used as a surrogate for fire hazard. We segregated all plots into high, medium, and

low fire hazard based on crowning indices, which are expressed as windspeed, of

<25 mph (high hazard), 25 to <50 mph (moderate hazard), and 50+ mph (low hazard). For reporting purposes, output tables are labeled as “high” or “low” (moderate

plus low) fire hazard. This designation indicates the relative importance of treating

stands in the indicated crowning index classes for that forest type. Treatments in 

plots designated as low were deferred for one treatment simulation cycle (30 years).

The 2001 version of the central Rockies variant of FVS was used for all of New

Mexico. This version replaces the GENGYM stand-level growth model (Edminster et

al. 1991) with a distance-independent individual tree growth model similar to those

used in most other FVS variants.

Prescriptions are identical for ponderosa pine and dry mixed-conifer forest types. The

thinning reentry interval is 30 years with prescribed burning 10 years after the initial

thinning and repeated every 20 years thereafter. One prescription is a thin-from-below

to 9 in d.b.h., with a minimum residual basal area of 50 ft2/acre for the initial thinning

and 80 ft2/acre for subsequent thinnings (TB9). The second prescription is a thinfrom-below to 16 in d.b.h. with a minimum residual basal area of 50 ft2/acre for the 

initial thinning and 80 ft2/acre for subsequent thinnings (TB16). Stands that did not

have sufficient basal area to qualify for a thinning were reconsidered at the next thinning cycle (30 years). No prescribed burning was done until a thinning had occurred.

Linear regression analysis was used to identify trends in the long-term effectiveness

of treatments in reducing fire hazard. The regression tested for a time trend and a

treatment effect in the predicted crowning index. The dependent variable in these

regressions was the average predicted crowning index for the high fire hazard plots

for a given forest type and treatment. The independent variables were decades 

numbered from 1 to 10 and dummy variables for decade of treatment, and the decade

following treatment. Dummy variables have a value of one for data points that have

the attribute and zero otherwise. The model form was Y = a + b(decade) + c(decade

of treatment dummy) + d(decade following treatment dummy). Any of the three variables that were not statistically significant at the 5-percent level were deleted from the

model and the model was rerun. Results from this analysis helped determine whether

there was improvement in crowning index immediately after and, the decade following

entries; how crowning index changed between entries; and whether there was a longterm trend of improvement in crowning index.

A similar analysis was used to identify trends in the average potential basal area 

mortality expected from the prescribed burns. The dependent variable in these regressions was the average predicted basal area mortality (percentage) for a prescribed

burn in the high fire hazard plots for a given forest type and treatment.

Fire-HazardReduction Treatments

Forest Vegetation

Simulator Variants

Prescriptions

Effectiveness of FireHazard-Reduction

Treatments
5

The FEEMA model was used to rate the potential net revenue from thinnings. The

market conditions used represent a moderate lumber market with no market for chip

logs. With the limited forest products industry in New Mexico, even moderate prices

should be regarded as optimistic, at least in the near term, but useful in identifying the

relative financial feasibility of different cases. Although the pricing is done on a log

basis rather than the tree basis used in another part of the study, the prices are made

to be as comparable as possible (see footnote 5). Costs include cutting small trees

that are cut and treated in place as well as cutting trees that are used for products.

Costs of other harvest-related activities such as roads and environmental remediation, which can differ widely, are not included, nor were revenues associated with 

timber removed from skid trails or cable corridors accounted for. Ground-based equipment was assigned a lower cost than cable yarding systems. Stump-to-truck costs are

based on Hartsough et al. (2001). Ground-based equipment is assumed on slopes of

less than 40 percent. Hauling costs were $28 per 100 ft3 for all species and areas.

See appendix 1 (tables 1 through 3) for a full description of economic assumptions.

The total acreage and number of FIA inventory plots included in this analysis for the

dry mixed-conifer forest type are shown in appendix 2 (table 4). Dry mixed-conifer

plots were segregated by high fire hazard (<25 mph windspeed) and low/moderate

fire hazard (25+ mph windspeed). These two groups are referred to as high fire 

hazard and low fire hazard in all tables for this forest type.

Treatment effect on fire hazard—Regression analysis indicated both a time trend

(positive slope coefficient on decade) and a cyclical treatment effect (a positive 

coefficient on the decade following burning and a smaller negative coefficient on 

the decade following thinning) on average crowning index for both the TB9 and the

TB16 prescriptions in the dry mixed-conifer high fire hazard stands (fig. 1). It is not

Financial Analysis

Results and

Discussion

Dry Mixed Conifers

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 5 10 15

TB9

TB16

Average crowning index

(miles per hour)

Decade

TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.

Figure 1—Predicted average crowning index for high fire hazard dry mixed-conifer plots in New Mexico by

prescription.
6

surprising that thinning did not have a strong effect statistically because after the first

thinning, many stands did not qualify for any further thinning during the 10-decade

simulation period. Although the trends identified here are large, the regressions are

weak in explaining the total variation. It is probably unreasonable to draw conclusions

about the effectiveness of thinning versus prescribed fire treatments from this analysis. It is reasonable to conclude that the treatments in aggregate have a significant

effect on crowning index over time.

Figure 2 shows the analogous comparison for the predicted average basal area 

mortality resulting from prescribed burns. The effect on potential basal area mortality

is almost the same for the two prescriptions. In both cases there is a time trend (a

negative coefficient on decade) and an effect in the decade following the decade in

which prescribed burning is done (a negative coefficient on the decade following 

prescribed fire). The potential basal area mortality begins relatively high, over 40 

percent, for both ponderosa pine and dry mixed-conifer stands in New Mexico. By the

end of the simulation period, however, it is only about 10 percent. This result suggests

that by the 10th decade of the simulation, both prescriptions create stand conditions

where trees are relatively resilient to low-intensity fires.

Initial stand summary—When paired by owner and slope, the initial stand conditions

for high and low fire hazard cases differ in that low fire hazard stands clearly have

larger trees. Basal areas and numbers of trees per acre do not exhibit a consistent

pattern of differences (fig. 3).

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0

TB9

TB16

Average basal area mortality

(square feet per acre)

Decade

TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.

5 10 15

Figure 2—Predicted average basal area mortality for high fire hazard dry mixed-conifer plots in New

Mexico by prescripion.
7

Figure 3—Initial stand conditions for dry mixed-conifer plots in New Mexico: basal area, number of trees per acre, and quadratic mean diameter, reported by gentle slope low or high fire hazard (GSLH or GSHH) and steep slope low or high fire hazard (SSLH or SSHH).

GSLH

GSHH

SSLH

SSHH

Forest Service land

Basal area Trees per acre

Basal area (square feet per

acre) and trees per acre900

600

300

0

GSLH

GSHH

SSLH

SSHH

Forest Service land

Quadratic mean diameter

(inches)

900

600

0

GSLH

GSHH

SSLH

SSHH

Other land

Basal area Trees per acre

Basal area (square feet per

acre) and trees per acre900

600

300

0

GSLH

GSHH

SSLH

SSHH

Other land

Quadratic mean diameter

(inches)

900

600

0

Figure 4—Residual conditions projected for dry mixed-conifer plots on gentle and steep slopes with high fire hazard on lands other than

national forests in New Mexico (average values for thinned plots only): basal area, number of trees per acre, and quadratic mean diameter, 

by prescription.

2000

2030

2060

Gentle slope, high fire hazard

Basal area Trees per acre

Basal area (square feet per

acre) and trees per ace200

150

100

0

50 2090

2000

2030

2060

Gentle slope, high fire hazard

Quadratic mean diameter

(inches)

20

10

0

2090

2000

2030

2060

Steep slope, high fire hazard

Basal area Trees per acre

Basal area (square feet per

acre) and trees per ace200

150

100

0

50 2090

2000

2030

2060

Steep slope, high fire hazard

Quadratic mean diameter

(inches)

20

10

0

2090
8

Residual stand summary—The residual stand summary shows conditions after thinning for thinned stands only. It is important to understand that after the first thinning

occurs (year 2000 for high fire hazard stands and 2030 for low fire hazard stands),

many stands are never thinned again because they do not reach 80 ft2 of basal area.

The residual stand summaries beyond that period generally represent less than a

third of the total stands for that case. Thinned stands show basal area stabilizing at

around 80 ft2 (the required minimum for second and all future thinnings) whether it

started above or below that level. The number of trees per acre tended to fluctuate

depending on the amount of regeneration and the effects of thinning and prescribed

fire. Quadratic mean diameter tended to increase except in those cases where large

pulses of regeneration cause the average basal area per tree to drop (app. 4). Two

examples that cover most of the range in residual stand characteristics are shown in

figure 4.

Basal areas do not generally reach extreme levels under repeated entries of either

the TB9 or TB16 prescription in this forest type, and as a result, insects and disease

outbreaks would probably not be of as widespread a concern for cases in New

Mexico as they are for some of the cases in Montana (Barbour et al. 2004).

Merchantable volume by diameter-at-breast-height class—Data for average 

volume removed of trees 10 in d.b.h. and larger are reported in appendix 5 (tables 

14 and 15). Three of the low fire hazard cases had one or more plots that produced

small volumes of merchantable timber under the TB16 prescription during the first

thinning (<450 ft3). Three of the high fire hazard cases also had one or more plots

that produced small volumes of merchantable timber under the TB16 prescription during the first thinning (<250 ft3/acre): Two of high fire hazard cases on lands other than

national forests, and one or more plots that yielded small volumes of merchantable

timber in the second thinning cycle (<450 ft3/acre). No merchantable timber removal

was projected from any of the other cases. Although these volumes have been

labeled “merchantable,” that does not mean that they could be sold as a timber sale.

The financial results indicate that such small volumes would not likely result in a 

positive net value to a purchaser.

The low yields of saw logs result from a combination of stand conditions, the type of

prescriptions, and the utilization standard. Prescriptions that create generally more

open conditions or involve group selections would yield greater quantities, and in

some cases, larger diameter saw logs than the thin-from-below prescriptions simulated here. The market for small saw logs is, however, limited in New Mexico and indeed

in the entire Southwest (Larson and Mirth 2001), so it is not clear whether such logs

would find purchasers even if they were available6 (Temple et al. 1999). Much of the

existing capacity in the Southwest was established to process larger and older pine

logs than would be expected from most restoration treatments, and in their survey 

of the existing industry, Mater Engineering (footnote 6) listed only one sawmill that 

purchased logs in the 9-in-diameter range and none that used smaller logs. They did

identify several users of house logs who purchase logs down to 8 in SED and 8 ft

long, but it is unlikely that these manufacturers could use substantially larger volumes

of these short, small-diameter logs than they already do.

6 Mater Engineering. 1998. Final report: phase I business plan

development for the Grand Canyon Forest Partnership. Corvallis,

OR: Mater Engineering. [Pages unnumbered]. On file with:

Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208.
9

Stem biomass volume of trees 1 to 10 in diameter at breast height—The 

volumes of small trees that need to be removed to implement the prescriptions in 

the first thinning cycle are not large. They are typically 30 to 300 ft3/acre for the TB9

prescription and 50 to 300 ft3/acre for the TB16 prescription. These volumes tend to

be distributed over all diameter classes with greater volumes being in the classes

above 7 in d.b.h. This is an encouraging result for those interested in trying to find

uses for currently submerchantable material (see LeVan-Green and Livingston 2001)

because it means that more of the volume that might potentially be removed is in size

classes that approach current merchantability standards than in the very small classes. Less encouraging is that at 50 lbs/ft3, these volumes would have less than 8

green ton per acre (green ton is 2,000 lbs of undried biomass material). That is far

below the concentrations of commercial biomass that energy producers such as 

those in northern California look for in financially viable biomass energy harvest treatments.7 Figure 5 shows a case that is on the high end of the range. Volumes are typically much less after the initial thinning. In addition, many stands are not thinned at all

after the initial thinning because they do not build up the 80 ft2 of basal area required

to qualify for a subsequent thinning. Details for all cases are found in appendix 6.

Average small-end diameter of removed logs—The TB9 prescription does not 

produce any logs that are considered merchantable. Log SED increases over time 

for the TB16 prescription increasing from about 6.5 to 9.6 in. There are, however, few

cases that yield merchantable log volumes in successive entries (app. 7). Progress

has been made recently in identifying alternative uses for small logs, e.g., structural

round wood (LeVan-Green and Livingston 2001, Wolfe and Hernandez 1999), but

markets are poorly developed.

7 Jolley, S. 1995. Stand structure changes resulting from biomass

harvesting in natural forests of northern California. 21 p.

Unpublished report. On file with: Wheelabrator Shasta Energy

Company, 20811 Industry Road, Anderson, CA 96007.

Figure 5—Projected unutilized cut volume in trees 1 to 10 inches diameter at breast height from dry

mixed-conifer plots on lands other than national forests in New Mexico on gentle slopes with high fire 

hazard, by diameter class and prescription. Unutilized volume (cubic feet per acre)

300

200

100

0

TB9 TB16

Prescription

1 to 4 inches 4 to 7 inches 7 to 10 inches

TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
10

Percentage of volume removed by species—Harvests ranged from mostly ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws) to mixtures that included over half

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco). White woods were typically an

insignificant component. There were so few cases where merchantable timber was to

be harvested that it was not possible to identify patterns in the species mix over time

(app. 8).

Financial analysis—There were no instances in this analysis where thinnings would

yield a positive net return when valued for conventional solid wood products. None 

of the TB16 or TB9 cases showed a net return in the plus or minus $100-per-acre 

category. In most cases, the net return for both regimes fell in the -$500- to -$100-

per-acre category. This included the cost of slashing and treating trees less than 4 in

d.b.h. and the cost of skidding or yarding other unutilized trees to a landing. It does

not include the cost of prescribed fire that occurs 10 years after the first thinning and

on a 20-year cycle thereafter (app. 9).

The total area and number of FIA plots included in this analysis for the ponderosa

pine forest type are shown in appendix 2. Ponderosa pine plots were segregated by

high fire hazard (<25 mph windspeed) and low/moderate hazard (25+ mph windspeed). These two groups are referred to as high fire hazard and low fire hazard in all

tables for this forest type.

Treatment effect on fire hazard—Regression analysis indicated both a time trend

(positive slope coefficient on decade) and a cyclical treatment effect (a positive 

coefficient on the decade following burning) on average crowning index for both the

TB9 and the TB16 prescriptions in the ponderosa pine high fire hazard stands (fig. 6).

It is not surprising that thinning did not enter the equation because after the first 

Ponderosa Pine

Figure 6—Predicted average crowning index for high fire hazard ponderosa pine plots in New Mexico by

prescription.

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 5 10 15

TB9

TB16

Average crowning index

(miles per hour)

Decade

TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.

80

90
11

thinning, many stands did not qualify for any further thinning during the simulation

period. Although the trends identified here are large, the regressions are weak in

explaining the total variation. It is probably unreasonable to draw conclusions about

the effectiveness of thinning versus prescribed fire treatments from this analysis. It is

reasonable to conclude that the treatments in aggregate have a significant effect on

crowning index over time.

Figure 7 shows the analogous comparison for the predicted average basal area 

mortality resulting from prescribed burns. The effect on potential basal area mortality

is almost the same for the two prescriptions. In both cases there is a time trend (a

negative coefficient on decade) and an effect in the decade following the decade in

which prescribed burning is done (a negative coefficient on the decade following 

prescribed fire). There is also a small positive effect (increasing potential mortality) 

in the decade following thinning for the TB9 prescription, but it is small enough that

the predicted points fall almost on top of each other. The potential basal area mortality

begins relatively high, over 40 percent, for both ponderosa pine and dry mixed-conifer

stands in New Mexico. By the end of the simulation period, however, it is only about

10 percent. This result suggests that by the 10th decade of the simulation, both prescriptions create stand conditions where trees are relatively resilient to low-intensity

fires.

Initial stand summary—On steep slopes, the low fire hazard plots have lower basal

area composed of a smaller number of trees with a higher average diameter (fig. 8).

This is similar to what we found in a companion study for Montana (Barbour et al.

2004). This pattern is not apparent on the gentle-slope plots where there are no 

obvious differences between low and high fire hazard plots.

Figure 7—Predicted average basal area mortality for high fire hazard ponderosa pine plots in New Mexico

by prescription.

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 5 10 15

TB9

TB16

Average basal area mortality

(square feet per acre)

Decade

TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
12

Figure 8—Initial stand conditions for ponderosa pine plots in New Mexico: basal area, number of trees per acre, and quadratic mean diameter, reported by gentle slope low or high fire hazard (GSLH or GSHH) and steep slope low or high fire hazard (SSLH or SSHH).

GSLH

GSHH

SSLH

SSHH

Forest Service land

Basal area Trees per acre

Basal area (square feet per

acre) and trees per acre900

600

300

0

GSLH

GSHH

SSLH

SSHH

Forest Service land

Quadratic mean diameter

(inches)

10

5

0

GSLH

GSHH

SSLH

SSHH

Other land

Basal area Trees per acre

Basal area (square feet per

acre) and trees per acre900

600

300

0

GSLH

GSHH

SSLH

SSHH

Other land

Quadratic mean diameter

(inches)

10

5

0

Figure 9—Residual conditions projected for ponderosa pine plots on gentle and steep slopes with high fire hazard on national forests in

New Mexico (average values for thinned plots only): basal area, number of trees per acre, and quadratic mean diameter, by prescription.

2000

2030

2060

Gentle slope, high fire hazard

Basal area Trees per acre

Basal area (square feet per

acre) and trees per ace200

150

100

0

50 2090

2000

2030

2060

Gentle slope, high fire hazard

Quadratic mean diameter

(inches)

20

10

0

2090

2000

2030

2060

Steep slope, high fire hazard

Basal area Trees per acre

Basal area (square feet per

acre) and trees per ace

150

100

0

50 2090

2000

2030

2060

Steep slope, high fire hazard

Quadratic mean diameter

(inches)

20

10

0

2090
13

Residual stand summary—In the simulation, basal area did not always accumulate

over time in response to repeated low thinnings. In two of the three high fire hazard

cases, the prescriptions reduced basal area to the minimum of 80 ft2/acre by the 

second thinning then kept it at that level through all subsequent entries. In the other

case, basal area increased between each of the first three entries then declined.

The results for high fire hazard stands on national forests are shown in figure 9.

Other stand characteristics varied fairly consistently over the simulation. Trees per

acre generally declined with each subsequent entry, and quadratic mean diameter

generally increased, but occasionally there was a large pulse of regeneration that

greatly increased trees per acre (app. 4).

Merchantable volume by tree diameter-at-breast-height class—Data for average

volume removed of trees 10 in d.b.h. and larger are reported in appendix 5 (tables 16

and 17). No volume from the TB9 prescription is considered merchantable in our

analysis, and only logs that come from trees greater than 10 in d.b.h. in the TB16 prescription are counted as merchantable. As a result, few cases produced merchantable

volume. Three of the low fire hazard cases produced small volumes (<475 ft3/acre) of

merchantable timber under the TB16 prescription during the first thinning. Two of the

high hazard cases also produced small volumes (<110 ft3/acre) of merchantable timber under the TB16 prescription during the first thinning. One high fire hazard case on

national forest land also yielded a small volume (<60 ft3/acre) of merchantable timber

in the second thinning cycle. No merchantable timber is removed from any of the

other cases. Although these volumes have been labeled “merchantable,” that does not

mean that they could be sold as a timber sale. The financial results indicate that such

small volumes would not likely result in a positive net value to a purchaser.

Figure 10—Projected unutilized cut volume in trees 1 to 10 inches diameter at breast height from ponderosa pine plots on national forests in New Mexico on steep slopes with high fire hazard, by diameter

class and prescription. Unutilized volume (cubic feet per acre)

150

50

100

0

TB9 TB16

Prescription

1 to 4 inches 4 to 7 inches 7 to 10 inches

TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
14

Stem biomass volume of trees 1 to 10 in diameter at breast height—In most

cases, there was no volume cut in either the TB9 or TB16 prescription after the first

thinning. Cut volumes in the first thinning were generally less than 200 ft3/acre and

often much lower than that (app. 6). An example of unutilized volumes for the steep

slope, high fire hazard, national forest case is shown in figure 10. More volume is cut

in the 7- to 10-in d.b.h. class under the TB16 prescription than the TB9 prescription

because 10-in d.b.h. trees are sometimes removed in the TB16 prescription. These

findings parallel what was found for the dry mixed-conifer stand type.

Although trees in the 4- to 10-in diameter range are not considered merchantable in

this analysis, considerable research effort is being expended in trying to find ways to

process this type of material to partially or wholly offset the costs of fuel-reduction

treatments (Barbour 1999, Larson and Mirth 2001, LeVan-Green and Livingston 2001,

Lowell and Green 2001, Wolfe and Hernandez 1999). Even so, there are currently

only limited markets for logs less than 10 in SED (see footnote 6, Temple 1999).

Average small-end diameter of removed logs—As with the dry mixed-conifer 

stand type, the TB9 prescription does not produce any logs that are considered 

merchantable. Log SED increases over time for the TB16 prescription, increasing 

from about 6.6 to about 7.5 in (app. 7). There are, however, few cases that yield 

merchantable log volumes in successive entries (app. 7). Progress has been made

recently in identifying alternative uses for small logs, e.g., structural roundwood

(LeVan-Green and Livingston 2001, Wolfe and Hernandez 1999), but markets are

poorly developed.

Percentage of volume removed by species—Ponderosa pine was the dominant

species removed from the six cases where saw logs were produced, accounting for

74 to 100 percent of the volume. In these cases, most of the remaining volume was

distributed equally among white woods and Douglas-fir (app. 8). The value of this

material for forest products depends on the age and growing conditions of these

stands. Larger and older pine with few scattered branches could yield high-value

appearance-grade lumber; however, smaller and younger pine does not produce

good-quality structural lumber (Erikson et al. 2000, Willits et al. 1996) or veneer

(Willits et al. 1997).

Financial analysis—There were no instances in this analysis where thinnings would

yield a positive net return when valued for conventional solid wood products. With one

minor exception, none of the TB16 or TB9 cases showed a net return in the minus to

plus $100-per-acre category. In most cases, the net return for both regimes fell into

the -$100 to -$500 category. This includes the cost of slashing and treating trees less

than 4 in d.b.h. and the cost of skidding or yarding other unutilized trees to a landing.

It does not include the cost of prescribed fire that occurs 10 years after the first thinning and on a 20-year cycle thereafter (app. 9).

This report demonstrates the use of existing tools and database manipulations to

evaluate fire hazard treatments for large landscapes. The data needed to conduct

these analyses are available from the USDA Forest Service FIA Program for most

forested areas in the United States. Finer scale analyses also can be performed by

using these analytical methods if a systematic inventory is available.

Conclusion
15

The thin-from-below regimes used in this analysis do not produce any noteworthy 

volume after the first thinning. In addition, volume that is produced from the first 

thinning is mostly unmerchantable because of the structure of the existing wood products industry in New Mexico. Even if markets were available for the smaller material

removed during thinning treatments, average per-acre volume yields are low. This

may make it difficult to site and supply wood-processing facilities that require large

volumes to operate economically.

Our results do, however, suggest that in most cases, the thin-from-below regime in

combination with regular prescribed burning does reduce fire hazard over the long

term and does not result in an accumulation of basal area that might lead to insect 

or other forest health problems. Broad application of these treatments likely would be

limited by both fire hazard and wildlife considerations. For example, although some of

our treatments create stands that would be a component of suitable habitat for the

northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles), goshawks and many other important wildlife

species require a landscape composed of a variety of stand conditions (Reynolds et

al. 1992). Additionally, treatments that leave fewer trees would provide greater fuelreduction benefits. This suggests that a broader range of prescriptions than we dealt

with should be considered for a broad-scale fuels management program.

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Acres (ac) 0.41 Hectares

Inches (in) 2.54 Centimeters

Feet (ft) .3048 Meters

Square feet (ft2) .093 Square meters

Cubic feet (ft3) .028 Cubic meters

Cubic feet per acre (ft3/acre) .06997 Cubic meters per hectare

Square feet per acre (ft2/acre) .229 Square meters per hectare

Miles per hour (mph) 1.61 Kilometers per hour

Pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft3) 16.03 Kilograms per cubic meter

Tons per acre (t/acre) 2.24 Tonnes or megagrams per hectare

Barbour, R.J. 1999. Relationship between diameter and gross product value for small

trees. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual wood technology clinic and show. Atlanta,

GA: Wood Technology and MillerFreeman. 27: 40-46.

Barbour, R.J.; Fight, R.D.; Christensen, G.A.; Pinjuv, G.L.; Nagubadi, R.V. 2004.

Thinning and prescribed fire and projected trends in wood product potential, 

financial return, and fire hazard in Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-606.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 78 p.

Beukema, S.J.; Greenough, D.C.; Robinson, C.E.; Kurtz, W.A.; Reinhardt, E.D.;

Crookston, N.L.; Brown, J.K.; Hardy, C.C.; Stage, A.R. 1997. An introduction 

to the fire and fuels extension to FVS. In: Tech, R.; Moeur, M.; Adams, J., eds.

Proceedings of the Forest Vegetation Simulator conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT373. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain

Research Station: 191-195.

Metric

Equivalents

Literature Cited
16

Christensen, G.A.; Fight, R.D.; Barbour, R.J. 2002. Simulating fire hazard reduction,

wood flows, and economics of fuel treatments with FVS, FEEMA, and FIA data. In:

Crookston, N.L.; Havis, R.N., comps. Proceedings of the second Forest Vegetation

Simulator conference. Proc. RMRS-P-25. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 91-96.

Crookston, N.L. 1990. User’s guide to the event monitor: part of prognosis model

version 6. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-275. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 21 p.

Edminster, C.B.; Mowrer, H.T.; Mathiasen, R.L.; Schuler, T.M.; Olsen, W.K.;

Hawksworth, F.G. 1991. GENGYM: a variable density stand table projection 

system calibrated for mixed conifer and ponderosa pine stands in the Southwest.

Res. Pap. RM-297. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 32 p.

Erikson, R.G.; Gorman, T.M.; Green, D.W.; Graham, D. 2000. Mechanical grading 

of lumber sawn from small-diameter lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, and grand fir

trees from northern Idaho. Forest Products Journal. 50(7/8): 59-65.

Fight, R.D.; Chmelik, J.T. 1998. Analysts guide to FEEMA for financial analysis of

ecosystem management activities. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL–GTR–111. Madison, WI:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 5 p.

Hartsough, B.R.; Zhang, X.; Fight, R.D. 2001. Harvesting cost model for small trees

in natural stands in the interior Northwest. Forest Products Journal. 51(4): 54-61.

Larson, D.; Mirth, R. 2001. Projected economic impacts of a 16-inch tree cutting cap

for ponderosa pine forests within the greater Flagstaff urban-wildlands. In: Vance,

R.K.; Edmonton, C.B.; Covington, W.W.; Blake, T.A., comps. Ponderosa pine

ecosystems restoration and conservation: steps toward stewardship. Proceedings of

a conference. Proc. RMRS-P-22. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 154-160.

LeVan-Green, S.L.; Livingston, J. 2001. Exploring the uses for small-diameter trees.

Forest Products Journal. 51(9): 10-21.

Lowell, E.C.; Green, D.W. 2001. Lumber recovery from small-diameter ponderosa

pine from Flagstaff, Arizona. In: Vance, R.K.; Edmonton, C.B.; Covington, W.W.;

Blake, T.A., comps. Ponderosa pine ecosystems restoration and conservation: steps

toward stewardship. Proceedings of a conference. Proc. RMRS-P-22. Fort Collins,

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station: 161-165.

Reynolds, R.T.; Graham, R.T.; Reiser, M.H.; Bassett, R.L.; Kennedy, P.L.; Boyce,

D.A., Jr.; Goodwin, G.; Smith, R.; Fisher, E.L. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the Southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep.

RM-217. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station. 90 p.

Scott, J.H.; Reinhardt, E.D. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models 

of surface and crown fire behavior. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-29. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 59 p.
17

Stage, A.R. 1973. Prognosis model for stand development. Res. Pap. INT-137.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station. 32 p.

Temple, R.; Gagnon, P.; Harrington, S.; Bailey, J. Kim, Y-S; Larson, D.; Zipse, B.

1999. Assessment of forest resources and communities in the Four Corners 

region: synthesis report. Res. Syn. Rep. 11. The Forest Trust. 194 p.

http://publications.theforesttrust.org/download/pdf/4cornerexec.pdf

Willits, S.; Barbour, R.J.; Tesch, S.; Ryland, D.; McNeel, J.; Fight, R.; Kumar, S.;

Myers, G.; Olson, B.; Mason, A. 1996. The Colville study: wood utilization for

ecosystem management—preliminary results of study of product potential from

small-diameter stands. Res. Pap. FPL-RP-559. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 11 p.

Willits, S.A.; Lowell, E.C.; Christensen, G.A. 1997. Lumber and veneer yields from

small-diameter trees. In: Barbour, R.J.; Skog, K.E., eds. Role of wood production in

ecosystem management. Proceedings of the sustainable forestry working group at

the IUFRO Division 5 conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-100. Madison, WI:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory: 73-79.

Wolfe, R.W.; Hernandez, R. 1999. Trussed assemblies from small-diameter round

timbers. In: Walford, G.B.; Guant, D.J., eds. Proceedings of Pacific timber engineering conference. Rotorua, New Zealand. Forest Research Bulletin. 212: 251-256.

d.b.h.—diameter at breast height

FEEMA—Financial Evaluation of Ecosystem Management Activities

FFE—Fire and Fuels Extension

FIA—Forest Inventory and Analysis 

FVS—Forest Vegetation Simulator

JFSP—Joint Fire Science Program 

QMD—quadratic mean breast-height diameter 

SED—small-end diameter of logs

TB9—thin-from-below to 9 inches d.b.h. with a minimum residual basal area

TB16—thin-from-below to 16 inches d.b.h. with a minimum residual basal area

Abbreviation and

Acronym

Glossary
18

Cost assumptions are for harvesting, hauling, and treating unutilized trees. Groundbased harvesting systems are assumed for gentle slopes (<40 percent). Cable 

systems are assumed for steeper slopes. Harvesting costs used differ by tree size

and volume per acre that is harvested. An average hauling cost of $28 per hundred

cubic feet was used for all cases. The market conditions used represent a moderate

lumber market with no market for chip logs. Because of the tendency for high-cost

wood to be the last supply to enter the market in good times and the first supply to

leave the market in bad times, there are bound to be periods of lower prices where

net revenues will be significantly more unfavorable than we report (see tables 1

through 3).

Appendix 1: Cost

and Log Price

Assumptions

Table 1—Harvesting costs

Tree diameter at Volume harvested (cubic feet per acre)

breast height 400 700 1,000 1,500

Inches -----------Dollars per 100 cubic feet-----------

Gentle slope:

6 83 81 79 76

8 74 72 71 68

10 66 64 62 59

12 57 55 53 50

14 48 46 44 41

16 48 46 44 41

Steep slope:

6 172 134 123 114

8 162 125 113 104

10 153 115 104 95

12 143 109 94 85

14 136 106 89 82

16 134 103 86 78
19

Table 2a—Costs for treating 

unutilized trees by slashinga

Number of trees Dollars per acre

<300 105

300 – 1,000 225

1,000 – 2,000 250

>2,000 280

a Cost of slashing and treating trees less 

than 4 inches diameter at breast height.

Table 2b—Costs for treating 

unutilized trees by yardinga

Slope Dollars per 100 cubic feet

Gentle 80

Steep 130

a Cost of skidding/yarding unutilized trees 

greater than 4 inches diameter breast height.

Source: Data were provided (8-8-2001) by 

Bureau of Business and Economic Research, 

University of Montana.

Table 3—Log prices for New Mexico

Douglas-fir Ponderosa

Small-end diameter and larch White fir pine

Inches -----------Dollars per 100 cubic feet--------

9.6 112 109 112

12.6 165 159 167

16.6 226 226 240

Source: Developed from data provided (8-8-2001) by the Bureau of Business and Economic

Research, University of Montana.
20

The number of forest inventory plots and the number of acres that they represent for

each case (a combination of forest type, ownership, fire hazard, and slope) for which

we report results are shown in tables 4 and 5.

Appendix 2:

Acreage and

Number of

Inventory Plots Table 4—Acreage and number of inventory plots for the dry mixedconifer forest type in New Mexico

Land type Acres Number of plots

National forest land:

Steep slope, high fire hazard 368,876 50

Gentle slope, high fire hazard 505,578 50

Steep slope, low fire hazard 58,726 10

Gentle slope, low fire hazard 72,912 12

Subtotal 1,006,092

Other land:

Steep slope, high fire hazard 163,233 23

Gentle slope, high fire hazard 249,426 38

Steep slope, low fire hazard — <10

Gentle slope, low fire hazard 60,462 10

Subtotal 473,121

Total 1,479,213

— = not available.

Table 5—Acreage and number of inventory plots for the ponderosa 

pine forest type in New Mexico

Land type Acres Number of plots

National forest land:

Steep slope, high fire hazard 124,169 20

Gentle slope, high fire hazard 622,272 50

Steep slope, low fire hazard 66,952 10

Gentle slope, low fire hazard 765,147 50

Subtotal 1,578,540

Other land:

Steep slope, high fire hazard — <10

Gentle slope, high fire hazard 522,877 50

Steep slope, low fire hazard — <10

Gentle slope, low fire hazard 309,587 42

Subtotal 832,464

Total 2,411,004

— = not available.
21

Average basal area, average trees per acre, and average quadratic mean diameter

were all calculated for trees 1 in diameter at breast height and larger. The standard

errors for each variable also are reported. It is important to recognize that these data

represent average stand conditions, and it is not possible to calculate the third variable from the other two as can be done for a single stand (see tables 6 through 9).

Appendix 3:

Average Initial

Stand

Characteristics

Table 6—Average initial stand characteristics for the dry mixed-conifer forest

type in New Mexico, national forest land

Year Measure BAa TPAb QMDc

Ft2/acre No. Inches

1998 Gentle slope, low hazard Mean 85 351 7.8

SEd 8 71 .7

1998 Gentle slope, high hazard Mean 46 403 4.0

SE 7 113 .7

1998 Steep slope, low hazard Mean 73 247 8.4

SE 14 69 .9

1998 Steep slope, high hazard Mean 37 252 4.1

SE 6 71 .7

Note: values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross-referenced.

a BA = basal area.

b TPA = trees per acre.

c QMD = quadratic mean diameter.

d SE = standard error (+/-).

Table 7—Average initial stand characteristics for the dry mixed-conifer forest

type in New Mexico, other land

Year Measure BAa TPAb QMDc

Ft2/acre No. Inches

1999 Gentle slope, low hazard Mean 98 285 9.0

SEd 14 66 .7

1999 Gentle slope, high hazard Mean 119 836 5.8

SE 8 109 .3

1999 Steep slope, high hazard Mean 113 686 5.9

SE 9 84 .3

Note: values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross-referenced.

a BA = basal area.

b TPA = trees per acre.

c QMD = quadratic mean diameter.

d SE = standard error (+/-).
22

Table 8—Average initial stand characteristics for the ponderosa pine forest

type in New Mexico, national forest land

Year Measure BAa TPAb QMDc

Ft2/acre No. Inches

1998 Gentle slope, low hazard Mean 39 397 2.8

SEd 7 110 .5

1998 Gentle slope, high hazard Mean 42 379 3.8

SE 7 101 .6

1998 Steep slope, low hazard Mean 75 223 9.3

SE 9 46 .9

1998 Steep slope, high hazard Mean 118 872 5.6

SE 10 126 .4

Note: Values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross-referenced.

a BA = basal area.

b TPA = trees per acre.

c QMD = quadratic mean diameter.

d SE = standard error (+/-).

Table 9—Average initial stand characteristics for the ponderosa pine forest

type in New Mexico, other land

Year Measure BAa TPAb QMDc

Ft2/acre No. Inches

1999 Gentle slope, low hazard Mean 68 241 8.8

SEd 6 47 .5

1999 Gentle slope, high hazard Mean 37 274 3.8

SE 6 80 .6

Note: values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross-referenced.

a BA = basal area.

b TPA = trees per acre.

c QMD = quadratic mean diameter.

d SE = standard error (+/-).
23

Average residual stand characteristics are intended to provide resource managers

with an idea of the composition and structure of residual stands after each thinning

entry. These summary statistics were generated with output from the Forest

Vegetation Simulation growth model simulations from the individual forest inventory

and analysis plots included in each case. Average basal area, average trees per acre,

and average quadratic mean diameter are averages of plot-level results weighted by

the expansion factor (the area represented by a plot) for the plot. Trees less than 1 in

diameter at breast height were eliminated from this analysis to give a more meaningful representation of the overstory stand conditions.

The major focus of this analysis was to project the types of raw materials that might

be produced from various cutting treatments. As a result, only plots where thinnings

were applied in any given entry are included in the analysis presented for residual

stand conditions. This makes the information reported in this appendix consistent with

the other results included in this report. It is relatively simple to alter the Microsoft

Access reports to include any combination of plots so the tables and appendixes

could include all plots, only the unthinned plots, or only the thinned plots as is 

reported here (see tables 10 through 13).

Appendix 4:

Average 

Residual Stand

Characteristics
24

Table 10—Average residual stand characteristics projected for the dry mixed-conifer forest type in New Mexico, national

forest land

Year Rxa Measure BAb TPAc QMDd BA CUTe BAb TPAc QMDd BA CUTe

Ft 2/acre No. Inches Percent Ft 2/acre No. Inches Percent

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9f Mean 92 75 15.1 29 101 87 14.6 24

SEg 5 4 .4 5 12 7 .8 6

TB16h Mean 56 26 20.4 56 60 39 18.2 53

SE 3 3 .9 4 4 9 1.5 5

2060 TB9 Mean 93 174 13.7 10 113 292 14.1 5

SE 8 110 3.9 9 16 241 4.6 5

TB16 Mean 80 942 4.0 17 80 383 15.6 7

SE — — — 1 393 10.4 7

2090 TB9 Mean 80 660 4.7 11 98 404 12.8 4

SE — — — — 17 378 8.0 4

TB16 Mean 88 24 25.9 0 80 809 4.3 7

SE — — — — — — — -—

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 Mean 76 165 12.5 24 68 148 11.6 25

SE 6 41 1.0 3 6 42 .9 4

TB16 Mean 60 133 12.7 34 60 137 12.1 31

SE 4 42 1.0 4 5 43 1.0 5

2030 TB9 Mean 82 179 11.0 14 82 122 12.2 25

SE 2 72 3.1 3 2 38 2.5 10

TB16 Mean 80 109 14.9 16 80 96 15.4 21

SE 1 54 4.2 6 1 34 2.7 6

2060 TB9 Mean — — — — 80 300 7.0 35

SE — — — — — — — —

TB16 Mean 80 20 27.3 4 80 301 7.0 35

SE — — — — — — — —

2090 TB9 Mean 83 69 17.0 8 80 79 15.3 12

SE 2 26 2.6 3 1 24 2.4 3

TB16 Mean 82 56 18.3 6 80 63 16.4 7

SE 2 20 1.9 2 1 13 1.3 2

Note: values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross-referenced.

a Rx = treatment.

b BA = basal area.

c TPA = trees per acre.

d QMD = quadratic mean diameter.

e BA CUT = percentage of total basal area harvested.

f TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

g SE = standard error (+/-).

h TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
25

Table 11—Average residual stand characteristics projected for the dry mixed-conifer forest type in New Mexico, other

land

Year Rxa Measure BAb TPAc QMDd BA CUTe BAb TPAc QMDd BA CUTe

Ft 2/acre No. Inches Percent Ft2/acre No. Inches Percent

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9f Mean 98 77 16.1 18 — — — —

SEg 10 14 .9 3 — — — —

TB16h Mean 64 31 19.6 42 — — — —

SE 6 1 1.0 7 — — — —

2060 TB9 Mean 118 67 18.5 2 — — — —

SE 9 10 1.2 1 — — — —

TB16 Mean 89 66 19.5 1 — — — —

SE 7 34 5.0 1 — — — —

2090 TB9 Mean 102 55 18.5 5 — — — —

SE — — — — — — — —

TB16 Mean 81 22 26.1 1 — — — —

SE — — — — — — — —

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 Mean 82 104 12.9 36 78 87 13.1 39

SE 6 13 .5 2 7 7 .6 3

TB16 Mean 72 86 14.1 44 59 60 14.6 51

SE 6 14 .9 3 5 7 .8 4

2030 TB9 Mean 103 91 16.4 6 129 132 13.3 8

SE 6 20 1.3 3 46 12 3.1 8

TB16 Mean 97 86 16.9 13 80 84 15.8 25

SE 7 25 1.3 4 1 54 5.2 8

2060 TB9 Mean 107 137 16.4 5 174 92 18.6 2

SE 8 56 2.2 3 — — — —

TB16 Mean 103 111 17.9 6 — — — —

SE 11 64 2.5 4 — — — —

2090 TB9 Mean 92 63 18.9 7 91 75 16.8 2

SE 4 16 1.8 3 7 30 2.2 1

TB16 Mean 84 43 21.1 9 80 52 19.2 8

SE 3 9 1.5 3 1 18 3.3 7

Note: values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross-referenced.

a Rx = treatment.

b BA = basal area.

c TPA = trees per acre.

d QMD = quadratic mean diameter.

e BA CUT = percentage of total basal area harvested.

f TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

g SE = standard error (+/-).

h TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
26

Table 12—Average residual stand characteristics projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in New Mexico, national

forest land

Year Rxa Measure BAb TPAc QMDd BA CUTe BAb TPAc QMDd BA CUTe

Ft 2/acre No. Inches Percent Ft 2/acre No. Inches Percent

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9f Mean 84 101 13.1 41 95 76 15.7 18

SEg 7 11 .7 5 7 8 .7 3

TB16h Mean 56 60 15.4 59 55 27 20.4 51

SE 3 11 1.2 3 4 4 1.3 4

2060 TB9 Mean 93 416 12.2 13 105 58 18.2 0

SE 8 341 3.1 8 14 10 .3 —

TB16 Mean 80 1,078 3.9 29 — — — —

SE 1 422 .9 4 — — — —

2090 TB9 Mean 80 239 12.7 8 89 39 20.6 0

SE 1 233 6.1 7 — — — —

TB16 Mean 80 1,000 3.8 1 — — — —

SE — — — — — — — —

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 Mean 67 147 12.1 28 82 82 13.8 33

SE 5 45 1.1 4 9 8 .7 4

TB16 Mean 61 136 12.5 33 74 69 14.6 40

SE 5 46 1.1 5 10 9 .7 4

2030 TB9 Mean 81 154 11.7 17 113 102 16.0 2

SE 1 57 2.3 3 13 33 2.1 1

TB16 Mean 80 111 14.1 16 106 97 17.1 5

SE 1 40 3.2 5 18 45 2.9 3

2060 TB9 Mean — — — — 142 70 19.3 3

SE — — — — 12 7 .2 1

TB16 Mean 80 20 27.3 4 152 76 19.2 2

SE — — — — — — — —

2090 TB9 Mean 86 76 16.2 9 129 51 21.7 4

SE 2 20 1.9 3 21 10 .4 2

TB16 Mean 81 64 16.8 9 105 41 22.5 3

SE 1 15 1.5 2 18 10 1.9 2

Note: values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross-referenced.

a Rx = treatment.

b BA = basal area.

c TPA = trees per acre.

d QMD = quadratic mean diameter.

e BA CUT = percentage of total basal area harvested.

f TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

g SE = standard error (+/-).

h TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
27

Table 13—Average residual stand characteristics projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in New Mexico, other land

Year Rxa Measure BAb TPAc QMDd BA CUTe BAb TPAc QMDd BA CUTe

Ft 2/acre No. Inches Percent Ft 2/acre No. Inches Percent

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9f Mean 87 73 15.3 17 — — — —

SEg 4 5 .5 2 — — — —

TB16h Mean 58 34 18.4 40 — — — —

SE 2 2 .6 3 — — — —

2060 TB9 Mean 102 97 15.0 15 — — — —

SE 12 32 2.8 14 — — — —

TB16 Mean 80 725 4.5 38 — — — —

SE — — — — — — — —

2090 TB9 Mean 80 735 4.5 11 — — — —

SE — — — — — — — —

TB16 Mean 83 534 16.4 0 — — — —

SE 3 491 13.3 — — — — —

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 Mean 65 116 11.9 31 — — — —

SE 5 20 1.1 4 — — — —

TB16 Mean 56 101 12.4 38 — — — —

SE 4 21 1.1 5 — — — —

2030 TB9 Mean 82 162 11.6 25 — — — —

SE 2 74 3.0 10 — — — —

TB16 Mean 80 162 9.6 24 — — — —

SE 1 29 .9 21 — — — —

2060 TB9 Mean 80 300 7.0 35 — — — —

SE — — — — — — — —

TB16 Mean 80 114 20.5 14 — — — —

SE 1 133 9.6 15 — — — —

2090 TB9 Mean 84 62 16.3 12 — — — —

SE 4 13 2.2 5 — — — —

TB16 Mean 82 53 17.3 7 — — — —

SE 2 7 1.2 3 — — — —

Note: values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross referenced.

a Rx = treatment.

b BA = basal area.

c TPA = trees per acre.

d QMD = quadratic mean diameter.

e BA CUT = percentage of total basal area harvested.

f TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

g SE = standard error (+/- ).

h TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
Resource managers who plan and conduct fuels mitigation treatments and contractors who bid on the treatments need information on the merchantable volume and

size of trees removed during treatments. The tables included in this appendix summarize average cubic-foot volume harvested per acre, with standard errors in parentheses (see tables 14 through 17). Processing output for all trees 10 in diameter at

breast height and larger through the Financial Evaluation of Ecosystem Management

Activities (FEEMA) model generates the data for these tables. Merchantable volume

is calculated by summing all logs that FEEMA recovered from each tree up to a 6-in

top. All values are stand averages weighted by plot expansion factors. All tree species

are combined. Cases where less than 50 cubic feet of material was removed are left

blank because this amount of volume is considered insignificant and including it

makes the output in later appendixes (e.g., app. 7 and 8) confusing.

28

Appendix 5:

Average Volume

of Utilized Trees
29

Table 14—Average volume of utilized trees projected for the dry mixed-conifer

forest type in New Mexico, national forest land

Diameter at breast height (inches)

Year RXa Measure 10 to 16 10 to 16

Cubic feet Cubic feet

per acre per acre

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9b Mean — —

SEc — —

TB16d Mean 326 443 

SE 40 58

2060 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — —

SE — —

2090 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — —

SE — —

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean 59 —

SE 28 —

2030 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — —

SE — —

2060 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — —

SE — —

2090 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — —

SE — —

a Rx = treatment.

b TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

c SE = standard error (+/-).

d TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
30

Table 15—Average volume of utilized trees projected for the dry mixed-conifer

forest type in New Mexico, other land

Diameter at breast height (inches)

Year RXa Measure 10 to 16 10 to 16

Cubic feet Cubic feet

per acre per acre

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9b Mean — —

SEc — —

TB16d Mean 293 —

SE 43 —

2060 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — —

SE — —

2090 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — —

SE — —

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean 81 232

SE 25 65

2030 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean 136 404

SE 53 132

2060 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — —

SE — —

2090 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — —

SE — —

a Rx = treatment.

b TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

c SE = standard error (+/-).

d TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
31

Table 16—Average volume of utilized trees projected for the ponderosa pine 

forest type in New Mexico, national forest land

Diameter at breast height (inches)

Year RXa Measure 10 to 16 10 to 16

Cubic feet Cubic feet

per acre per acre

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9b Mean — —

SEc — —

TB16d Mean 127 474 

SE 38 56

2060 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — —

SE — —

2090 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — —

SE — —

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — 103

SE — 39

2030 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — 57

SE — 57

2060 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — —

SE — —

2090 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — —

SE — —

a Rx = treatment.

b TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

c SE = standard error (+/-).

d TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
32

Table 17—Average volume of utilized trees projected for the ponderosa pine

forest type in New Mexico, other land

Diameter at breast height (inches)

Year RXa Measure 10 to 16 10 to 16

Cubic feet Cubic feet

per acre per acre

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9b Mean — —

SEc — —

TB16d Mean 256 —

SE 5 —

2060 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — —

SE — —

2090 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — —

SE — —

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean 69 —

SE 33 —

2030 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — —

SE — —

2060 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — —

SE — —

2090 TB9 Mean — —

SE — —

TB16 Mean — —

SE — —

a Rx = treatment.

b TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

c SE = standard error (+/-).

d TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
Volumes for trees in the 3- to <4-, 4- to <7-, and 7- to <10-in diameter at breast height

classes are reported in this appendix. These biomass volumes are total tree volume

estimates taken directly from the Forest Vegetation Simulation model. Unutilized tree

volumes are reported to provide information on the total amount of biomass that

needs to be processed to accomplish the fuel-reduction treatments. New technologies

might provide alternative uses for these trees so information on their volume may be

useful for planning (see tables 18 through 21).

33

Appendix 6:

Average Volume

of Unutilized Trees
34

Table 18—Average volume of trees cut but not unutilized, by diameter class projected for the dry mixed-conifer forest

type in New Mexico, national forest land

Diameter at breast height (inches)

Year Rxa Measure 3 to 4 4 to 7 7 to 10 Total 3 to 4 4 to 7 7 to 10 Total

- - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - -

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9b Mean 2 32 73 107 4 60 57 122

SEc 2 11 27 20 3 34 26 26

TB16d Mean 2 32 117 151 4 60 76 141

SE 2 11 30 17 3 34 27 20

2060 TB9 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

TB16 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

2090 TB9 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

TB16 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 Mean 0 13 24 37 0 40 71 111

SE — 8 16 17 — 16 28 28

TB16 Mean 0 13 39 52 0 40 89 129

SE — 8 24 24 — 16 35 34

2030 TB9 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

TB16 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

2060 TB9 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

TB16 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

2090 TB9 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

TB16 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

a Rx = treatment.

b TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

c SE = standard error (+/-).

d TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
35

Table 19—Average volume of trees cut but not unutilized, by diameter class projected for the dry mixed-conifer forest

type in New Mexico, other land

Diameter at breast height (inches)

Year Rxa Measure 3 to 4 4 to 7 7 to 10 Total 3 to 4 4 to 7 7 to 10 Total

- - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - -

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9b Mean 4 25 49 79 — — — —

SEc 3 12 25 20 — — — —

TB16d Mean 4 25 84 113 — — — —

SE 3 12 40 34 — — — —

2060 TB9 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

TB16 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

2090 TB9 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

TB16 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 Mean 12 130 135 277 20 134 108 262

SE 4 20 21 17 8 24 27 25

TB16 Mean 12 130 168 310 20 134 151 305

SE 4 20 29 4 8 24 38 26

2030 TB9 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

TB16 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

2060 TB9 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

TB16 Mean — — 1 1 — — — —

SE — — 1 1 — — — —

2090 TB9 Mean — — — — — 1 1 1

SE — — — — — 1 1 1

TB16 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

a Rx = treatment.

b TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

c SE = standard error (+/-).

d TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
36

Table 20—Average volume of trees cut but not unutilized, by diameter class projected for the ponderosa pine forest type

in New Mexico, national forest land

Diameter at breast height (inches)

Year Rxa Measure 3 to 4 4 to 7 7 to 10 Total 3 to 4 4 to 7 7 to 10 Total

- - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - -

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9b Mean 3 19 48 70 2 25 85 113

SEc 3 10 22 22 1 13 16 14

TB16d Mean 3 19 75 97 2 25 120 147

SE 3 10 34 34 1 13 21 14

2060 TB9 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

TB16 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

2090 TB9 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

TB16 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 Mean 2 40 33 75 9 79 85 172

SE 2 28 21 33 4 21 22 9

TB16 Mean 2 40 47 89 9 79 116 203

SE 2 28 27 37 4 21 32 19

2030 TB9 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

TB16 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

2060 TB9 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

TB16 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

2090 TB9 Mean — — — — — — 1 1

SE — — — — — —1 1

TB16 Mean — — — — — — 2 2

SE — — — — — —1 1

a Rx = treatment.

b TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

c SE = standard error (+/-).

d TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
37

Table 21—Average volume of trees cut but not unutilized, by diameter class projected for the ponderosa pine forest type

in New Mexico, other land

Diameter at breast height (inches)

Year Rxa Measure 3 to 4 4 to 7 7 to 10 Total 3 to 4 4 to 7 7 to 10 Total

- - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - -

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9b Mean 3 27 54 84 — — — —

SEc — —— — — —— —

TB16d Mean 3 25 83 110 — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

2060 TB9 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

TB16 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

2090 TB9 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

TB16 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 Mean 0 38 73 111 — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

TB16 Mean 0 38 93 131 — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

2030 TB9 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

TB16 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

2060 TB9 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

TB16 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

2090 TB9 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

TB16 Mean — — — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —— —

a Rx = treatment.

b TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

c SE = standard error (+/-).

d TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
38

Information on average saw log size is reported in this appendix. These data provide

mill owners with information on how the size of logs generated from fuel-reduction

treatments might be expected to change over time. Tables 22 and 23 show the 

average small-end diameter (SED) of logs removed during treatments by entry.

The SEDs of individual logs are output from Financial Evaluation of Ecosystem

Management Activities (FEEMA) weighted by volume and plot-expansion factors. The

minimum diameter log included in FEEMA output is 6 in. Because a 9-in tree will not

yield a 16-ft log with a minimum 6-in SED, there is no volume or average log size

reported for TB9 treatments. All tree species are combined.

Appendix 7:

Average SmallEnd Diameter of

Utilized Logs
39

Table 22—Average small-end diameter of utilized logs projected for the dry mixed-conifer forest type in New Mexico 

Entry: 1a Entry: 2b Entry: 3c Entry: 4d

TB9e TB16f TB9e TB16f TB9e TB16f TB9e TB16f

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Inches - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

National forest land:

Steep slope, high fire hazard — 6.5 — — — — — —

Gentle slope, high fire hazard — 6.8 — — — — — —

Steep slope, low fire hazard — — — 8.0 — — — —

Gentle slope, low fire hazard — — — 7.6 — — — —

Other land:

Steep slope, high fire hazard — 6.7 — 8.6 — — — 9.6

Gentle slope, high fire hazard — 6.3 — 7.5 — 7.9 — 8.6

Steep slope, low fire hazard — — — — — — — —

Gentle slope, low fire hazard — — — 7.6 — — — —

Note: blank entries for average diameter indicate no logs with small-end diameter >5 inches harvested.

a Entry date 1: 2000 for high fire hazard stands, 2030 for low fire hazard stands.

b Entry date 2: 2030 for high fire hazard stands, 2060 for low fire hazard stands.

c Entry date 3: 2060 for high fire hazard stands, 2090 for low fire hazard stands.

d Entry date 4: 2090 for high fire hazard stands.

e TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

f TB16 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

Table 23—Average small end-diameter of utilized logs projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in New Mexico 

Entry: 1a Entry: 2b Entry: 3c Entry: 4d

TB9e TB16f TB9e TB16f TB9e TB16f TB9e TB16f

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Inches - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

National forest land:

Steep slope, high fire hazard — 6.5 — 7.6 — — — 6.6

Gentle slope, high fire hazard — 6.9 — — — — — 8.2

Steep slope, low fire hazard — — — 7.7 — — — —

Gentle slope, low fire hazard — — — 6.8 — — — —

Other land:

Steep slope, high fire hazard — — — — — — — —

Gentle slope, high fire hazard — 6.6 — — — — — —

Steep slope, low fire hazard — — — — — — — —

Gentle slope, low fire hazard — — — 7.4 — — — —

Note: blank entries for average diameter indicate no logs with small-end diameter >5 inches harvested.

a Entry date 1: 2000 for high fire hazard stands, 2030 for low fire hazard stands.

b Entry date 2: 2030 for high fire hazard stands, 2060 for low fire hazard stands.

c Entry date 3: 2060 for high fire hazard stands, 2090 for low fire hazard stands.

d Entry date 4: 2090 for high fire hazard stands.

e TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

f TB16 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
40

Information presented in this appendix provides estimates of the species mix of logs

removed during various treatment entries. The average percentage of volume in each

of the three main groups, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and white woods, is displayed.

Calculation is based on the average merchantable harvest volume (cubic feet/acre)

from Financial Evaluation of Ecosystem Management Activities (FEEMA), weighted

by the expansion factor (see tables 24 through 27).

Appendix 8:

Average

Percentage 

of Volume of

Utilized Trees,

by Species
41

Table 24—Average percentage of log volume by species projected for the dry mixed-conifer forest type in New Mexico,

national forest land

Douglas Ponderosa White Douglas Ponderosa White

Year Rxa Measure fir pine woodsb fir pine woodsb

- - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - -

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9c Mean — — — — — —

SEd —— — — — —

TB16e Mean 43 53 4 40 52 8

SE 13 16 1 16 21 3

2060 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

2090 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean 8 92 0 — — —

SE 4 46 — — — —

2030 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

2060 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

2090 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

Note: blanks indicate no harvested volume.

a Rx = treatment.

b White woods = all other species.

c TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

d SE = standard error (+/-).

e TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
42

Table 25—Average percentage of log volume by species projected for the dry mixed-conifer forest type in New Mexico,

other land

Douglas Ponderosa White Douglas Ponderosa White

Year Rxa Measure fir pine woodsb fir pine woodsb

- - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - -

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9c Mean — — — — — —

SEd —— — — — —

TB16e Mean 46 35 19 — — —

SE 16 12 7 — — —

2060 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

2090 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean 68 29 4 68 11 21

SE 21 9 1 23 4 7

2030 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean 55 45 0 97 0 3

SE 39 32 — — — —

2060 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

2090 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

Note: blanks indicate no harvested volume.

a Rx = treatment.

b White woods = all other species.

c TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

d SE = standard error (+/-).

e TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
43

Table 26—Average percentage of log volume by species projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in New Mexico,

national forest land

Douglas Ponderosa White Douglas Ponderosa White

Year Rxa Measure fir pine woodsd fir pine woodsd

- - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - -

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9c Mean — — — — — —

SEd —— — — — —

TB16e Mean 6 83 11 9 88 4

SE 2 34 5 3 33 1

2060 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

2090 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — 15 74 11

SE — — — 7 33 5

2030 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — 0 100 0

SE — — — — — —

2060 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

2090 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

Note: blanks indicate no harvested volume.

a Rx = treatment.

b White woods = all other species.

c TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

d SE = standard error (+/-).

e TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
44

Table 27—Average percentage of log volume by species projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in New Mexico,

other land

Douglas Ponderosa White Douglas Ponderosa White

Year Rxa Measure fir pine woodsd fir pine woodsd

- - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - -

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9c Mean — — — — — —

SEd —— — — — —

TB16e Mean 1 96 2 — — —

SE 1 17 1 — — —

2060 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

2090 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean 8 92 0 — — —

SE 4 46 — — — —

2030 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

2060 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

2090 TB9 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

TB16 Mean — — — — — —

SE — — — — — —

Note: blanks indicate no harvested volume.

a Rx = treatment.

b White woods = all other species.

c TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

d SE = standard error (+/-).

e TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
45

Data presented in this appendix provide information about the extent to which the

thinning treatments have sufficient value to be self-financing as timber sales. The net

value estimates are based on a moderate market for lumber and no market for chip

logs. The range of net value, and the recognition that few if any stands will have a 

positive net value from thinning under any foreseeable circumstances, is the important

result. Because these results involve calculations involving economic assumptions for

which standard errors are unknown, standard errors are also unknown for these

results, and therefore none are reported (see tables 28 through 31).

Appendix 9:

Average

Proportion of

Stands by Net

Value Category

Table 28—Average proportion of stands by net value per acre category projected for the dry mixed-conifer forest type in

New Mexico, national forest land 

-$1,000 to -$500 to -$100 to $100 to -$1,000 to -$500 to $100 to $100 to

Year Rxa -$1,000 -$500 -$100 $100 $500 -$1,000 -$500 -$100 $100 $500

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9b 0 0.25 0.75 0 0 0.25 0.38 0.38 0 0

TB16c .08 .50 .42 0 0 .38 .50 .13 0 0

2060 TB9 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

TB16 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

2090 TB9 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

TB16 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 0 .17 .83 0 0 .14 .29 .57 0 0

TB16 .04 .26 .70 0 0 .33 .14 .52 0 0

2030 TB9 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

TB16 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

2060 TB9 — — — — — — 0 1.00 0 0

TB16 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

2090 TB9 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

TB16 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

Note: proportion is the proportion of stands in net value categories within each type, year, and treatment.

a Rx = treatment.

b TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

c TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
Table 29—Average proportion of stands by net value per acre category projected for the dry mixed-conifer forest type in

New Mexico, other land 

-$1,000 to -$500 to -$100 to $100 to -$1,000 to -$500 to $100 to $100 to

Year Rxa -$1,000 -$500 -$100 $100 $500 -$1,000 -$500 -$100 $100 $500

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9b 0 0.10 0.90 0 0 — — — — 0

TB16c 0 .40 .60 0 0 — — — — —

2060 TB9 0 0 1.00 0 0 — — — — 0

TB16 1.00 0 0 — — — — —

2090 TB9 0 0 1.00 0 0 — — — — 0

TB16 0 0 1.00 0 0 — — — — 0

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 .22 .44 .33 0 0 .40 .30 .30 0 0

TB16 .33 .39 .28 0 0 .60 .15 .25 0 0

2030 TB9 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

TB16 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 .50 .50 0 0

2060 TB9 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

TB16 0 0 1.00 0 0 — — — — —

2090 TB9 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

TB16 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

Note: proportion is the proportion of stands in net value categories within each type, year, and treatment.

a Rx = treatment.

b TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

c TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.

46
47

Table 30—Average proportion of stands by net value per acre category projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in

New Mexico, national forest land 

-$1,000 to -$500 to -$100 to $100 to -$1,000 to -$500 to $100 to $100 to

Year Rxa -$1,000 -$500 -$100 $100 $500 -$1,000 -$500 -$100 $100 $500

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9b 0.10 0.24 0.67 0 0 0 0.22 0.78 0 0

TB16c .14 .33 .52 0 0 .11 .78 .11 0 0

2060 TB9 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

TB16 0 0 1.00 0 0 — — — — —

2090 TB9 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

TB16 0 0 1.00 0 0 — — — — —

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 .05 .15 .80 0 0 .25 .45 .30 0 0

TB16 .10 .15 .75 0 0 .40 .35 .25 0 0

2030 TB9 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

TB16 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

2060 TB9 — — — — — — 0 1.00 0 0

TB16 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

2090 TB9 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

TB16 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

Note: proportion is the proportion of stands in net value categories within each type, year, and treatment.

a Rx = treatment.

b TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

c TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
48

Table 31—Average proportion of stands by net value per acre category projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in

New Mexico, other land 

-$1,000 to -$500 to -$100 to $100 to -$1,000 to -$500 to $100 to $100 to

Year Rxa -$1,000 -$500 -$100 $100 $500 -$1,000 -$500 -$100 $100 $500

Gentle slope, low hazard Steep slope, low hazard

2030 TB9b 0 0.09 0.91 0 0 — — — — —

TB16c 0 .26 .71 .03 0 — — — — —

2060 TB9 0 0 1.00 0 0 — — — — —

TB16 0 0 1.00 0 0 — — — — —

2090 TB9 0 0 1.00 0 0 — — — — —

TB16 0 0 1.00 0 0 — — — — —

Gentle slope, high hazard Steep slope, high hazard

2000 TB9 .05 .32 .63 0 0 — — — — —

TB16 .11 .37 .53 0 0 — — — — —

2030 TB9 0 0 1.00 0 0 — — — — —

TB16 0 0 1.00 0 0 — — — — —

2060 TB9 0 0 1.00 0 0 — — — — —

TB16 0 0 1.00 0 0 — — — — —

2090 TB9 0 0 1.00 0 0 — — — — —

TB16 0 0 1.00 0 0 — — — — —

Note: proportion is the proportion of stands in net value categories within each type, year, and treatment.

a Rx = treatment.

b TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.

c TB16 = thin from below to 16 inches diameter at breast height.
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle

of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of

wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation

with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests

and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly

greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room

326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-

9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider

and employer.

USDA is committed to making its information materials accessible to all USDA 

customers and employees.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Website http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

do NOT detach label