Predicted Fire Behavior and Societal Benefits in Three Eastern Sierra Nevada Vegetation Types

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

Fire Ecology Vol. 5, No. 1, 2009 Dicus et al.: Predicted Fire Behavior and Societal Benefits doi: 10.4996/fireecology.0501067 Page 67 RESEARCH ARTICLE PREDICTED FIRE BEHAVIOR AND SOCIETAL BENEFITS IN THREE EASTERN SIERRA NEVADA VEGETATION TYPES Christopher A. Dicus1,*, Kenneth Delfino2, and David R. Weise3 1Natural Resources Management Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California 93407, USA 2Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California 93407, USA 3PSW Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Riverside, California 92507, USA *Corresponding author: Tel.: 001-805-756-5104; e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT We investigated potential fire behavior and various societal benefits (air pollution remov- al, carbon sequestration, and carbon storage) provided by woodlands of pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla) and juniper (Juniperus californica), shrublands of Great Basin sage- brush (Artemisia tridentata) and rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), and recently burned annual grasslands near a wildland-urban interface (WUI) community in the high desert of the eastern Sierra Nevada Mountains. Fire behavior simulations showed that shrublands had the greatest flame lengths under low wind conditions, and that pinyon-juniper wood- lands had the greatest flame lengths when winds exceeded 25 km hr-1 and fire transitioned to the crowns. Air pollution removal capacity (PM10, O3, NO2, etc.) was significantly greater in pinyon-juniper stands, followed by shrublands and grasslands. Carbon storage (trees and burned tree snags only) did not significantly differ between pinyon-juniper and burned stands (~14 000 kg ha-1), but will change as burned snags decompose. Annual C sequestration rates in pinyon-juniper stands averaged 630 kg ha-1 yr-1. A landscape-level assessment showed that total compliance with residential defensible space regulations would result in minimal impact to air pollution removal capacity and carbon sequestration due to a currently low population density. Our methodology provides a practical mecha- nism to assess how potential management options might simultaneously impact both fire behavior and various environmental services provided by WUI vegetation. Keywords: air pollution removal, Artemesia tridentata, carbon sequestration, fire behavior, Flam- Map, NEXUS, Pinus monophylla, UFORE, wildland-urban interface Citation: Dicus, C.A., K. Delfino, D.R. Weise. 2009. Predicted fire behavior and societal bene- fits in three eastern Sierra Nevada vegetation types. Fire Ecology 5(1): 67-78. doi: 10.4996/ fireecology.0501067 Fire Ecology Vol. 5, No. 1, 2009 Dicus et al.: Predicted Fire Behavior and Societal Benefits doi: 10.4996/fireecology.0501067 Page 68 INTRODUCTION Minimizing both destructive wildfires and loss of vegetative benefits are competing, yet Burgeoning population growth are affect- integral, objectives in the WUI. We sought to ing fire prone areas in southwestern ecosys- provide a simultaneous evaluation of potential tems. This trend further exacerbates difficul- fire behavior and various benefits provided by ties in fire management in the region, which the predominate woodland, shrubland, and has been complicated by a changing climate grassland vegetation types near Kennedy that has increased the length and severity of Meadows, California, USA, a WUI communi- fire season (Westerling et al. 2006), and by in- ty in the high desert of the eastern Sierra Ne- vasive species that can significantly alter fire vada Mountains in California. Further, we ex- regimes (Brooks et al. 2004). Because of plored how implementation of various defen- mounting suppression costs and private prop- sible space standards could potentially affect erty losses associated with fires in the wild- risk of home ignitions and loss of vegetative land-urban interface (WUI), there is an esca- benefits to the community. lating call there and throughout the western United States to significantly reduce vegeta- METHODS tion both around structures and across the landscape to mitigate the risk of homes burn- Study Area ing (Dombeck et al. 2004). Native vegetation, however, is more than Kennedy Meadows is an isolated, rural fuel for fire, providing various levels of tangi- community located at an elevation of ~1980 m ble and intangible benefits to society. For ex- in the eastern Sierra Nevada along the south ample, vegetation not only enhances commu- fork of the Kern River in the southeast corner nity attractiveness and subsequent value, but of Tulare County, California (36º01’26” N, also removes air pollution (Taha et al. 1997), 118º06’55 W). There are approximately 50 which regularly follows urbanization (Fenger permanent residents and 176 structures in the 1999). Further, vegetation sequesters and community, which range from high-value stores atmospheric carbon, which many be- homes to abandoned trailers. Vegetation with- lieve to be a leading cause in global climate in and immediately surrounding the communi- change (Solomon et al. 2007). ty consists of three primary types: woodlands Thus, land managers are beset with the consisting largely of single-leaf pinyon pine paradox that vegetation is both a liability and (Pinus monophylla) with a small component of an asset to residents living in the WUI. Unfor- California juniper (Juniperus californica); tunately, fuels management is sometimes ac- shrublands dominated by Great Basin sage- complished with little regard to the impact to brush (Artemisia tridentata) and rabbitbrush the multiple societal and environmental bene- (Ericameria nauseosa); and annual grasslands fits that vegetation provides. However, sus- with prolific pinyon pine and juniper snags that tainable land management necessitates recog- resulted from the Manter Fire, which occurred nizing various tradeoffs when modifying veg- in 2000. etation (Dicus and Zimmerman 2007), under- The only documented record of fires burn- standing that post-treatment vegetative compo- ing in the area include the Manter Fire, which sition and structure will influence both poten- burned ~30 000 ha (including 712 ha in the tial fire behavior and benefits such as absorb- Kennedy Meadows community), and the 2003 ing stormwater runoff, removing air pollutants, Michael Fire, which burned ~120 ha east of and sequestering and storing C (Dicus 2008). the community. However, a mosaic of young- Fire Ecology Vol. 5, No. 1, 2009 Dicus et al.: Predicted Fire Behavior and Societal Benefits doi: 10.4996/fireecology.0501067 Page 69 er pinyon-juniper stands, usually less than 20 with standard fuel model loadings, descrip- ha, are readily visible in the surrounding tions, and photo guides (Ottmar et al. 2000, mountains, indicative of extensive past fire ac- Scott and Burgan 2005). We designated pin- tivity in the area. The Manter Fire is especial- yon-juniper woodlands as TU1 (low load, dry ly singed into the conscience of Kennedy climate timber-grass-shrub), shrublands as Meadows’ residents because it was a large, GS2 (moderate load, dry climate grass-shrub), high-intensity, high-severity crown fire that and burned areas as GR1 (short, sparse dry cli- destroyed eight homes in the southern portion mate grass). of the community. Further, the post-fire land- All geographic information system (GIS) scape has shown minimal vegetative regrowth data necessary for landscape-level simulations to date, which, while not abnormal in pinyon and for calibration of weather inputs were sup- pine (Wangler and Minnich 1996), serves as a plied by the Southern Sierra Geographic Infor- constant reminder of the potential threat of mation Cooperative (A. Birkholz, Sequoia and wildfire to the community. Kings Canyon National Parks, unpublished data; hereafter SSGIC). Elevation was ob- Field and Modeling Methods tained from a Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Slope and aspect files were then derived from We installed three randomly located 0.0405 the DEM with ESRI® ArcMapTM (version 9.1). ha plots in each of the primary vegetation types We converted fuel models, canopy cover, and (pinyon-juniper, shrubland, and burned areas canopy base heights in the original data layer that are now grasslands with standing snags) as necessary to reflect field measurements and to collect data pertinent to both fire behavior observations. All gridded raster data layers simulations and vegetative benefit calculations. were 30 m × 30 m. We avoided minor features such as localized Weather, wind, and fuel moisture parame- rock outcrops and bogs. Tree data collected ters utilized in fire behavior simulations were included species, diameter at breast height, to- intended to reflect a scenario similar to that ex- tal height, and height to base of the live crown. perienced in the 2000 Manter Fire. Existing Shrub data included species, canopy height, documentation of the Manter Fire included canopy width, and percent dead. Snag data in- general ranges of temperature, relative humid- cluded species, diameter at breast height, and ity, and winds; a specific National Fire Danger height. All trees and snags found in plots were Rating System Burning Index (BI); and a fire greater than 1.4 m and were thus sampled for progression map (S. Williams, Sequoia Na- diameter at breast height. We also made ocu- tional Forest, personal communication). We lar estimates of overstory canopy coverage therefore used a multi-step process to generate (percent of plot occupied by trees and by and then calibrate specific weather, wind, and shrubs) and ground cover (percent of plot
Recommended publications
  • Sustaining America's Urban Trees and Forests

    Sustaining America's Urban Trees and Forests

    United States Department of SSustainingustaining AAmerica’smerica’s Agriculture Forest Service UUrbanrban TTreesrees andand ForestsForests Northern Research Station State and Private Forestry General Technical DDavidavid J.J. NNowak,owak, SusanSusan M.M. Stein,Stein, PaulaPaula B.B. Randler,Randler, EricEric J.J. GreenGreenfi eeld,ld, Report NRS-62 SSaraara JJ.. CComas,omas, MMaryary AA.. CCarr,arr, aandnd RRalphalph J.J. AligAlig June 2010 A Forests on the Edge Report ABSTRACT Nowak, David J.; Stein, Susan M.; Randler, Paula B.; Greenfi eld, Eric J.; Comas, Sara J.; Carr, Mary A.; Alig, Ralph J. 2010. Sustaining America’s urban trees and forests: a Forests on the Edge report. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-62. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 27 p. Close to 80 percent of the U.S. population lives in urban areas and depends on the essential ecological, economic, and social benefi ts provided by urban trees and forests. However, the distribution of urban tree cover and the benefi ts of urban forests vary across the United States, as do the challenges of sustaining this important resource. As urban areas expand across the country, the importance of the benefi ts that urban forests provide, as well as the challenges to their conservation and maintenance, will increase. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the current status and benefi ts of America’s urban forests, compare differences in urban forest canopy cover among regions, and discuss challenges facing urban forests and their implications for urban forest management. Key Words: Urban forest, urbanization, land Lisa DeJong The Plain Dealer, Photo: AP management, ecosystem services Urban forests offer aesthetic values and critical services.
  • Urban Forestry Manual

    Urban Forestry Manual

    URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction _______________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Purpose _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 Objectives __________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 Definition of Terms _____________________________________________________________________________ 3-6 Standard of Care __________________________________________________________________________________ 6 Tree Care Management ________________________________________________________________________ 6-7 Tree Care Procedures _________________________________________________________________________ 8-17 Arboretum & Botanic Garden _______________________________________________________________ 17-18 Utility, Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Repairs ________________________________________________ 19-20 New Development and Construction ______________________________________________________ 21-25 Tools and Staffing ___________________________________________________________________________ 26-27 Jurisdiction/Governing Authority __________________________________________________________ 27-29 Tree Donation Program _____________________________________________________________________ 30-31 Glendora’s Protected Trees _____________________________________________________________________ 32 List of Approved and Undesirable Trees ___________________________________________________ 33-35 FAQ’s __________________________________________________________________________________________
  • Partners in Progress

    Partners in Progress

    Partners in Progress CALIFORNIA Final Report 1 Table of Contents California ReLeaf....................................................3 Selection by the US Forest Service......................4 ARRA Sub-Grant Recipients California Urban Forests Council..........................5 The City of Chico....................................................6 Community Services & Employment Training.....7 Daly City.................................................................8 Friends of Oakland Parks......................................9 Friends of the Urban Forest................................10 Goleta Valley Beautiful.........................................11 Hollywood/LA Beautification Team....................12 Koreatown Youth and Community Center.........13 The Los Angeles Conservation Corps.................14 North East Tree....................................................15 Our City Forest.....................................................16 The City of Porterville..........................................17 Sacramento Tree Foundation..............................18 Tree Fresno...........................................................19 The Urban Corps of San Diego County...............20 Urban Releaf.........................................................21 2 alifornia ReLeaf works statewide to promote Calliances among community-based groups, individuals, industry, and government agencies, encouraging each to contribute to the livability of our cities and the protection of our environment by planting and caring for trees. California
  • Urban Forest Assessments Resource Guide

    Urban Forest Assessments Resource Guide

    Trees in cities, a main component of a city’s urban forest, contribute significantly to human health and environmental quality. Urban forest ecosystem assessments are a key tool to help quantify the benefits that trees and urban forests provide, advancing our understanding of these valuable resources. Over the years, a variety of assessment tools have been developed to help us better understand the benefits that urban forests provide and to quantify them into measurable metrics. The results they provide are extremely useful in helping to improve urban forest policies on all levels, inform planning and management, track environmental changes over time and determine how trees affect the environment, which consequently enhances human health. American Forests, with grant support from the U.S. Forest Service’s Urban and Community Forestry Program, developed this resource guide to provide a framework for practitioners interested in doing urban forest ecosystem assessments. This guide is divided into three main sections designed to walk you through the process of selecting the best urban forest assessment tool for your needs and project. In this guide, you will find: Urban Forest Management, which explains urban forest management and the tools used for effective management How to Choose an Urban Forests Ecosystem Assessment Tool, which details the series of questions you need to answer before selecting a tool Urban Forest Ecosystem Assessment Tools, which offers descriptions and usage tips for the most common and popular assessment tools available Urban Forest Management Many of the best urban forest programs in the country have created and regularly use an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) to define the scope and methodology for accomplishing urban forestry goals.
  • Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values, San Francisco’S Urban Forest

    Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values, San Francisco’S Urban Forest

    United States Department of Agriculture Assessing Urban Forest Forest Service Eff ects and Values Northern Research Station Resource Bulletin NRS-8 San Francisco’s Urban Forest Abstract An analysis of trees in San Francisco, CA reveals that this city has about 669,000 trees with canopies that cover 11.9 percent of the area. The most common tree species are blue gum eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and Monterey cypress. The urban forest currently stores about 196,000 tons of carbon valued at $3.6 million. In addition, these trees remove about 5,200 tons of carbon per year ($95,000 per year) and about 260 tons of air pollution per year ($1.3 million per year). The structural, or compensatory, value is estimated at $1.7 billion. Information on the structure and functions of the urban forest can be used to improve and augment support for urban forest management programs and to integrate urban forests within plans to improve environmental quality in the San Francisco area. The Authors DAVID J. NOWAK is a research forester and project leader, ROBERT E. HOEHN III, is a biological sciences technician, DANIEL E. CRANE is an information technology specialist, JACK C. STEVENS is a forester, and JEFFREY T. WALTON is a research forester with the Forest Service’s Northern Research Station at Syracuse, NY. Acknowledgments We are grateful for the contributions of Alexis Harte, UFORE project coordinator; Leslie Bandy, survey coordination; Karin Avila, Sarah Cobey, Maria D’agostino, Rachel Freund, Meleana Judd, Lorraine Maldague, Jennifer Mar, and Kelly Palomera, surveyors. Published by: For additional copies: USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service 11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road Delaware, OH 43015-8640 February 2007 Fax: (740)368-0152 Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us Executive Summary Trees in cities can contribute signifi cantly to human health and environmental quality.
  • The Emergence of the Wildland- Urban Interface Concept

    The Emergence of the Wildland- Urban Interface Concept

    The Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) is a common story line in many of today’s wildfire events. The WUI concept was formally introduced in 1987 Forest Service Research budget documents but was not acknowledged as a major component for federal fire management until the 2000 National Fire Plan. Although the 1987 introduction was meant to increase research focus on demographic factors influencing fire and other resource management, its California roots can be traced to post-World War II civil defense concerns about fire and water. The author offers a personal perspective on why the WUI concept was promoted by the Forest Service at an inauspicious time for fire research. The Emergence of the Wildland- Urban Interface Concept n January 27, 1987, President Ronald Reagan gave his sixth State of the Union address. Reagan’s speech was not well received.1 Forest Service O Research—and Fire Research in particular—had suffered through six years of the Republican president’s budget request reductions. Although these proposed reductions were partially offset by targeted (i.e., “ear- aged 51,805 fires and 2,021,846 acres burned and supported the mark”) restorations by the Democrat-controlled Congress, Forest argument that the “fire problem was solved.”2 This assumption Service research funding continually eroded. Fire activity in the would be reinforced by fire statistics that showed no discernible previous four years of the Reagan presidency (1983–86) had aver- upward trend. With the exception of the Yellowstone Fires in BY WILLIAM T. SOMMERS 12 FOREST HISTORY TODAY | FALL 2008 F. E. DUNHAM, U.S.
  • Urban Forestry Management Plan

    Urban Forestry Management Plan

    [URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN] A plan to sustainably, holistically and efficiently manage Bozeman’s urban forest to realize the full expanse of benefits urban trees can provide 1 Acknowledgements: Mitch Overton: Director of Parks and Recreation Bozeman Bozeman Tree Advisory Board The Bozeman Citizenry Jamie Kirby: Montana DNRC This document was funded by an urban forestry program development grant from the State of Montana - Department of Natural Resources & Conservation – Urban & Community Forestry Program Gallatin Tree Care, February 2016 Bozeman Urban Forestry Management Plan 2 Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 4 History and People .................................................................................................................................... 6 Process and Plan Development ................................................................................................................. 7 Climate and Environment ......................................................................................................................... 7 Population Dynamics ................................................................................................................................ 8 Value of Urban Forest ..............................................................................................................................
  • US Urban Forest Statistics, Values, and Projections

    US Urban Forest Statistics, Values, and Projections

    J. For. 116(2):164–177 RESEARCH ARTICLE doi: 10.1093/jofore/fvx004 Copyright © 2018 Society of American Foresters urban & community forestry US Urban Forest Statistics, Values, and Projections David J. Nowak and Eric J. Greenfield U.S. urban land increased from 2.6% (57.9 million acres) in 2000 to 3.0% (68.0 million acres) in 2010. States value of services provided by urban forests with the greatest amount of urban growth were in the South/Southeast (TX, FL, NC, GA and SC). Between 2010 across the nation. Research on urban forests and 2060, urban land is projected to increase another 95.5 million acres to 163.1 million acres (8.6%) with 18 over the past several decades has advanced our states projected to have an increase of over 2 million acres. Overall, there are an estimated 5.5 billion trees (39.4% understanding of this resource and its impact tree cover) in urban areas nationally that contain 127 million acres of leaf area and 44 million tons of dry-weight on society. These impacts include many eco- leaf biomass. Annually, these trees produce a total of $18.3 billion in value related to air pollution removal ($5.4 system services and costs associated with veg- billion), reduced building energy use ($5.4 billion), carbon sequestration ($4.8 billion) and avoided pollutant emis- etation in close proximity to people, many of sions ($2.7 billion). States with greatest annual urban forest values were: Florida ($1.9 billion), California ($1.4 which remain to be quantified. These services billion), Pennsylvania ($1.1 billion), New York ($1.0 billion) and Ohio ($971 million).
  • Urban Forestry Program, Five-Year Plan

    Urban Forestry Program, Five-Year Plan

    URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM FIVE YEAR PLAN ADOPTED JANUARY 2017 URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM ACKNOWLEDGMENTS MAYOR KEVIN L. FAULCONER CITY OF SAN DIEGO CITY COUNCIL Funding for this project has • District 1: Barbara Bry been provided by the California • District 2: Lori Zapf Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund • District 3: Chris Ward through the California Department • District 4: Myrtle Cole of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), Urban and Community Forestry • District 5: Mark Kersey Program. • District 6: Chris Cate • District 7: Scott Sherman • District 8: David Alvarez • District 9: Georgette Gómez COMMUNITY FORESTRY ADVISORY BOARD • Anne Fege – Chair • Chris Drayer – District 3 • Stephen Lamprides – District 4 • Rachele Melious – District 5 • Vince Mikulanis – District 7 • Troy Murphee – District 9 • Devon Boutte – Landscape Architect • Robin Rivet – Certified Arborist • Jake Sibley – Non-Profit Organization INLAND URBAN FORESTRY GROUP CITY OF SAN DIEGO STAFF • David Graham, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Mayor’s Office • Mike Hansen, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief of Policy, Mayor’s Office • Jeff Murphy, Director, Planning Department • Tom Tomlinson, Assistant Director, Planning Department • Alyssa Muto, Deputy Director, Planning Department • Jeremy Barrick, Urban Forestry Program Manager, Planning Department • Melissa Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department • Lara Gates, Community Development Specialist IV, Planning Department • Nancy Graham, Senior Planner, Planning Department • Lesley Henegar, Senior Planner, Planning Department • Sergio
  • Urban Forest Ecology

    Urban Forest Ecology

    62 Rowntree: Concepts in Urban Forest Ecology URBAN FOREST ECOLOGY: CONCEPTUAL POINTS OF DEPARTURE by Rowan A. Rowntree In this special issue of the Journal of Arboriculture, the field of urban forest ecology is substantially advanced by a set of studies conducted in Sacramento, California, the capital of the largest, most urbanized, and one of the fastest-growing states in the U.S. Sixteen years ago in the introduction to the first textbook on urban forestry, Grey and Deneke (1978) recommended that cities should soon employ "the concept of integrated urban forest ecosystem management." In the years since this suggestion, most cities barely have been able to keep up with pruning and removal, let alone manage their resource as an ecosystem. It is even more difficult to embrace an ecological approach when it is perceived—as it is by many—that urban forestry lacks intellectual roots in ecology. Yet there is almost half a century of thoughtful, scholarly, scientific writings that are the natural antecedents to contemporary urban forest ecology. This introduction to the special issue illustrates the evolution of the ecological view in urban forestry and discusses several useful concepts that have emerged. Abstract. The ecological view in urban forestry evolved on the environment, man might learn to change from diverse roots beginning over 100 years ago and is the face of he earth in rational, constructive fash- currently expressed in formal programs of research and ion" (Thomas 1956a, p. xxix). Indeed, in 1847, practice. Among the most useful concepts in urban forest ecology are structure, function, diversity, dominance, he praised Vermont farmers for filling "with light mosaic-gradients, and ecosystems.
  • Capitalization of Environmental Amenities and Wildfire in Private Home Values of the Wildland Urban Interface of Northwest Montana, USA

    Capitalization of Environmental Amenities and Wildfire in Private Home Values of the Wildland Urban Interface of Northwest Montana, USA

    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2008 Capitalization of Environmental Amenities and Wildfire in Private Home Values of the Wildland Urban Interface of Northwest Montana, USA Kyle Matthew Stetler The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Stetler, Kyle Matthew, "Capitalization of Environmental Amenities and Wildfire in Private Home Values of the Wildland Urban Interface of Northwest Montana, USA" (2008). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 1256. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/1256 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CAPITALIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AMENITIES AND WILDFIRE IN PRIVATE HOME VALUES OF THE WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE OF NORTHWEST MONTANA, USA By Kyle Matthew Stetler B.A. Economics, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, 2006 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Forestry The University of Montana Missoula, Montana Spring 2008 Approved By: Dr. David A. Strobel, Dean Graduate School Dr. Tyron J. Venn, Chair Department of Forest Management Dr. Doug Dalenberg Department of Economics Dr.Woodam Chung Department of Forest Management Stetler, Kyle Matthew, M.Sc., May 2008 Forestry The Capitalization of Environmental Amenities and Wildfire in Private Home Values in the Wildland Urban Interface of Northwest Montana, USA Committee Chair: Dr.
  • Re: Ecosystem Analysis for the Grouse Mountain Area

    Re: Ecosystem Analysis for the Grouse Mountain Area

    City of North Vancouver URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Technical Report DIAMOND HEAD CONSULTING LTD. Prepared for: Prepared by: City of North Vancouver Diamond Head Consulting Ltd. 141 West 14th Street 342 West 8th Avenue North Vancouver BC V7M-1H9 Vancouver BC V5Y-3X2 January 2007 City North Vancouver Urban Forest Management Plan – Technical Report i Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Methodology................................................................................................................. 2 3.0 Natural Areas Management Objectives................................................................... 3 4.0 Overview........................................................................................................................ 4 4.1 Terrain............................................................................................................................. 4 4.2 Terrestrial Ecology ........................................................................................................ 4 4.3 Stand Types.................................................................................................................... 7 4.3.1 Deciduous Forests............................................................................................................ 8 4.3.2 Mature Mixed Coniferous/Deciduous Forests................................................................. 8 4.3.3 Mature Coniferous Forests