FOREST SERVICE
 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
'4 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
^ US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SILVICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
AND NON-POINT
POLLUTION ABATEMENT:
A Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis Procedure.
                    EPA-600/8-77-018
                    November 1977

-------
                RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology.  Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:

      1,  Environmental  Health Effects Research
      2  Environmental  Protection Technology
      3.  Ecological Research
      4.  Environmental  Monitoring
      5.  Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
      6.  Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
      7.  Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
      8.  "Special" Reports
      9.  Miscellaneous Reports

This report has been assigned to the "SPECIAL" REPORTS series. This series is
reserved for reports targeted to meet the technical information needs of specific
user groups. The series includes problem-oriented reports, research application
reports, and executive summary documents.  Examples include state-of-the-art
analyses, technology assessments, design manuals, user manuals, and reports
on the results  of major research and development efforts.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                   Silvicultural Activities and
                Non~Pbint Pbllution Abatement:
          A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Procedure.
                Authored by a Committee  of Scientists of  the
          United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Robert  McDonald, Denver, Colorado 	 Coordinator
  Greg  Alward, Fort Collins, Colorado 	 Economics
  William Arlen, Asheville, North Carolina	
  Randy Perkins, Wenatchee, Washington	\ Silviculture
  Glen  Parham, Tallahassee, Florida 	
  Leland Fansher, Denver, Colorado	Engineering
     Ecoregion descriptions were authored by Dr. Robert Bailey, U.S. Forest
Service,  Ogden, Utah.

     Prepared under Interagency Agreement No.  EPA-IAG-D6-0660  with the
Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Athens,  Georgia 30605.  Project officers were
Lee Mulkey,  ORD, EPA, Athens, Georgia 30605, and Michael A. Barton, USDA,
Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 20250.
                               NOVEMBER 1977
           FOREST SERVICE                    I O \ OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
           U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE          15S2Z ' ENV(R0NMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                         %«o^c"

-------
                                  DISCLAIMER

     This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Research Laboratory,
Athens, Georgia, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policles of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
                                     i i

-------
                                   FOREWORD

     Environmental protection efforts are increasingly directed towards
preventing adverse health and ecological  effects associated with secific
compounds of natural or human origin.  As part of the Laboratory's research on
the occurrence, movement, transformation, impact, and control  of environmental
contaminants, "fhe Techn6logy Development and Applications Branch develops
management or engineering tools for assessing and controlling adverse
environmental effects of non-irrigated agriculture and of silviculture.

     SiIvicultural activities that disturb surface soil and cause accelerated
rates of erosion are associated with  increased  sediment  loads that adversely
affect water quality in a watershed.  This report assesses the  erosion
potential of common si  IvicuItural practices and  provides  a method to  identify
costs related to the.control of this  non-point  source of  pollution as  an  aid
to forestry managers and water quality planners.
                                             David W. Duttweiler
                                             Director
                                             Environmental  Research  Laboratory
                                             Athens, Georgia
                                      i  i i

-------
                                     PREFACE

      The passage of  the Water  Pollution  Control  Act  Ammendments  of  1972
 requires that  actions  be taken to  control  sources  of  pollution that  affect  the
 nation's waters.  One  of the areas of  concern  is the pollution resulting  from
 non-point sources.   Non-point  source pollution  arises  from  several categories
 of  land  use, one of  which includes si Ivicultural activities.  Within this
 category,  a major  concern is the water quality  changes  associated with
 sedimentation  that can result  when si IvicuItural activity  disturbs the surface
 soil  and causes  accelerated  rates  of soil  erosion.

      In  order  to formulate non-point pollution  control  strategies and plans,
 it  is  necessary  that the water quality planner  be  able  to  recognize  the
 potentials for pollution associated  with specific  activities.  The planner
 must  also be able  to identify  the  costs  of controlling  the  sources of
 pollution and  place  these costs in perspective.

     This report stems  from  these  two basic requirements:

         .A broad  level   assessment  of the erosion potential  associated with
         common  si IvicuItural  activities  on a nation-wide basis;

         .A methodology  to identify costs  associated with erosion control  in
         order to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of  erosion control
         practices.

     The assessment of   erosion  potential   is intended to facilitate the
 identification of potential  erosion problems associated with commonly used
si Ivicultural   activities.  This is presented  as a series of regionalized
tables.  The tables describe the commonly applied siIvicultural  activities and
rank them relative to erosion potential.

                                     i v

-------
     The method for cost-effectiveness analysis is presented by discussing the
basic concepts of cost-effectiveness analysis and their application to erosion
control  problems.  Examples are provided that illustrate applications of the
method.

     The non-point pollution phenomenon is extremely complex and to fully
describe the relationship between erosion and water quality is beyond the
scope of this report.  The report is intended to present information that is
useful  for gaining a perspective on the erosion potential of si Ivicultural
activities and to describe a method that can be used for cost-effectiveness
analysis of erosion control practices.

     The user of this report must recognize that the erosion potential
assessment is not intended to be used as a mandate for change  in si Ivicultural
practices or as the specification of site-specific "Best Management
Practices."  Because of the broad nature of the assessment, much of the
site-specific siIvicultural information about erosion potential is  lost  in the
aggregation.

     The cost-effectiveness methodology relies on  input data that are external
to this report.  The subject data are dependent on highly variable
environmental and operational  conditions and must be supplied by competent
technicians.  The method assumes that the precision of the  input data is
compatible with erosion control goals.  It further assumes that the goals are
known and that the costs associated with erosion control are at least equal to
the benefits.

-------
                                   ABSTRACT

     This report focuses upon erosion that contributes to non-point source
pollution occurring  in forested environments as a result of si IvicuItural
activities.  Specifically, the document discusses three topics:   (1)
si IvicuIturaI  practices that are currently being applied throughoijt the United
States, with indications of how these practices may affect the rqte of
erosion, (2) a method for determining the cost-effect Ivenes^ of  erosion
controls that could mitigate or prevent the adverse effects of si 1vicuItural
practices, and (3)  examples applying the described method for economic
analysis using information presented in (1).  The informatlpn and outlined
method are Intended for forest managers and water quality planners to enhance
analysis and improve decisions concerning the reduction of non^polnt pollution
probI ems.
                                     v i

-------
                                   CONTENTS
Foreword	   i i i
Preface	    iv
Abstract	    vi
Figures	viii
Tables	    ix

    1 .  Introduction	     1

    2.  Si IvicuItural  Practice and Erosion Potentials	     6

    3.  Basic Concepts of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 	    27
        Define objectives 	    31
        Establish alternatives	    31
        Assessment of effectiveness and costs 	    32
        Analysis	    44
        Conclusion	    50

    4.  Applications of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 	    53
        Review of the steps	    55
        Example 1:  Cost-effective analysis applied to control
          selection on a single site	    63
        Example 2:  Choice of preventive erosion control for mechanical
          site preparation in the South	    83
        Example 3:  Large area analysis	    87

References	103
Bibliography	105
Glossary	•  . .   107

-------
                                     FIGURES

Number                                                                 Page

  1  Report contents compared with management objectives  	     2
  2  Ecoregion 2100:   humid warm-summer continental
       (Lake States and Northeast)	    11
  3  Ecoregion M2100:  humid warm-summer continental
       (Columbia  forest)  	    14
  4  Ecoregion 2200:   humid hot-summer continental  	 .  .    16
  5  Ecoregion 2300:   humid subtropical	    18
  6  Ecoregion 2400:   humid maritime  	    20
  7  Ecoregion 2600:   mediterranean	    22
  8  Ecoregion 3100:   semi arid steppe	    24
  9  Ecoregion 2500:   prairie	    26
10  Relationship of cost-effective analysis to
      resource allocation and decision-making 	    29
11  A simple cost-effectiveness model 	    45
12  An illustrative example of the tabular display	    46
13  An illustration of a choice criterion	    48
14  Cost-effectiveness flowchart  	    53
15  Cross section of  a roadbed	    64
16  Total cost for erosion control  for access activities	    76
17  Total cost curves for all  activities	    79
18  Total cost for erosion control   	    81
19  Tabular display	    86
20  Program costs	   102
                                     VIII

-------
                                    TABLES
Number                                                                 Page

 1   Classification of Control  Methods,  with Examples	      4
 2  Major SiIvicuIturaI  Activities and  Access Practices
      in Ecoregion 2100  (Lake  States and Northeast)  	     12
 3  Major Si IvicuIturaI  Activities and  Access Practices
      in Ecoregion M2100 (Columbia Forest). ...  	     15
 4  Major SiIvicuItura I  Activities and  Access Practices
      In Ecoregion 2200	     17
 5  Major SiIvicuItura I  Activities and  Access Practices
      In Ecoregion 2300	     19
 6  Major Si I vicuItura I  Activities and  Access Practices
      In Ecoregion 2400	     21
 7  Major SiIvicuItura I  Activities and  Access Practices
      In Ecoregion 2600	     23
 8  Major Si IvicuIturaI  Activities and  Access Practices
      In Ecoregion 3100	     25
 9  Estimated  Erosion from Source Areas 	     65
10  Erosion Control  Alternatives	     66
11   Total System Effectiveness of Controls	     68
12  A Standard Accounting Framework Applied to Control  11  	     70
13  Multi-period Costs Attributable to  Erosion Control
      for Water Pollution Abatement 	     71
14  Summary of Erosion Control Alternatives 	     73
15   Total Costs of  Erosion Control  for  Access Activities	     75
16  Cost-Effectiveness Alternatives for All Forms of
      Erosion  Control 	     78
17  Total Cost Relationship to Effectiveness Levels 	     80
18   Regional  Stratification 	     88
                                     i x

-------
19  Erosion Control Strategies	    90
20  System Effectiveness of Strategies	    91
21  Total  Costs for Region	    93
22  Summary of Alternative Strategies 	    94
23  Marginal  Analysis 	    97
24  Alternatives Ranking	    99

-------
                                   CHAPTER 1

                                 INTRODUCTION

     This report is intended to be a tool for both water quality planners and
forest land managers who deal with the problem of non-point source pollution,
and more specifically, erosion as an indicator of pollution.  Clearly,
management goals may vary widely among users of this report.  Forest managers,
for example, have a set of goals that extend beyond the control  of non-point
water pollution; water quality planners, on the other hand, may be directing
their attention solely upon pollution abatement.   In either case, this report
is intended to serve both classes of users although emphasis is placed on
pollution abatement to the diminution of other goals.

     Figure 1  shows how the contents of this report  interface with overall
management strategies.  It furnishes information which when integrated with
overall objectives  in management provides a perspective on the role of erosion
control.  Once this integration has been achieved, a method for cost-
effectiveness analysis is provided as a tool to assist  in attaining the
objectives.

     There are three objectives for this report.   This report: (1) broadly
summarizes current  si Ivicultural practices in the  United States;  (2)  indicates
the erosion potentials associated with these practices; and (3) presents  an
economic model (cost-effectiveness) for  determining the most appropriate
controls for reducing erosion.

-------
                    Non-point pollution aspects
                    of silvicultural management
                             Erosion
                               potential

                             Silvicultural
                               activities
                                                         Contents of this report
         Information
                           Management
                           objectives in-
                           cluding erosion
                           reduction
                            Erosion
                            hazards
                           Alternative
                           mitigative or
                           preventive
                           controls
                                                             Perspective
                                          Cost-
                                          effective-
                                             ness
                                               analysis
                                                             Decision tool
    Most probable
    conditions
    without erosion
    control
Reduced
erosion
impact
Figure 1,  Report contents compared with management objectives.

-------
     (1 )  Si IvicuIturaI  systems (including access practices) as they are
currently applied throughout the United States are summarized (see Tables 2
through 8).   This is not a presentation or implication of "best management
practices."  The purpose is simply to transfer information to the user which
will sensitize him to the current operational  techniques of si IvicuItural
management.  It  is broadly based and describes these activities by region
while maintaining a national perspective.

     (2) Si Ivicultural activities, including access practices, currently
applied are evaluated to assist planners In Identifying erosion potentials.
The evaluation Involves ranking the activities that could contribute to
non-point pollution (see Tables 2 through 8).   Wide diversity exists in the
expertise with which these activities are formulated and carried out as well
as the environmental  conditions within which forest managers operate.  The
evaluations reflect these variables.

   The report deals with silviculture in its broadest sense:  the art and
science of cultivating forest crops and the establishment and growth of
forests.  Activities pertinent to silviculture—harvesting practices, logging
systems, slash disposal, Intermediate cultural treatments, and the
establishment of access—are discussed, as are the major si IvicuIturaI
systems—clearcut, seed tree, shelterwood and selection.  (Refer to the
glossary for extended discussions of these important terms.)

     Each of the si Ivicultural systems and the activities related to them
interface with the natural  environment in ways that could result In non-point
pollution from accelerated erosion and mass wasting.  Cutting intensities,
understory and soil disturbances, and time Intervals between activities on a
site are major factors influencing the rate of soil loss.  However,
sllvlcultural  practices can be amended by altering the quantity, nature, or
time of the erosion phenomena and thus contribute to non-point pollution
reductIon.

-------
      Controls can be described as "preventive" or "mitigative" according to
 the mode of application.  Preventive controls apply to the pre-implementation
 phase of an operation.  These controls  involve stopping or changing the
 activity before the soiI-disturbing activity has a chance to occur.
 Mitigative controls include vegetative or chemical measures or physical
 structures which alter the response of the soil disturbing activity after it
 has occurred.  Table 1  illustrates some of the major characteristics of the
 two types of controls and provides some examples.

               TABLE  1.   CLASSIFICATION  OF  CONTROL  METHODS  WITH  EXAMPLES
               Mitigative
             Preventive
A.   Surface  protection:

     1.  Access:   Seeding,  mulching,
        riprap,  or mat on  cut-and-fill
        slopes

     2.  Timber harvest:  Maintenance of
        vegetative cover;  distribution
        of slash

     3.  Cultural  treatments:   Seeding;
        planting; fertilization

B.   Flow diversion and energy:

     1.  Access:   Berms above cut
        slopes;  benches on cut slopes;
        checkdams in ditches;  drop
        structure at culvert ends;
        water bars on road surface;
        flow diversion from potential
        mass failures or at mid-slope

     2.  Timber harvest:  Buffer strips;
        water bars on skid trails

     3.  Cultural practices:  Plowing,
        furrowing, bedding

C.  Access design modification
A.  System design and maintenance

    1.  Access:  Minimize cuts and
        fills, roadway widths and
        slopes; control road density

    2.  Timber harvest:  Minimize soil
        compaction from equipment
        operation; use site-compatible
        log removal system; control
        harvested volume within a
        watershed; limit harvest on
        unstable slopes

    3.  Cultural treatments:  Minimize
        re-entry disturbances; fire
        control

B.  Timing:

    1.  Access:  Closure of temporary
        roads; limited access; closure
        during adverse conditions

    2.  Timber harvest:  Limit
        operation during adverse
        climatic conditions; site
        preparations  during favorable
        conditions

    3.  Cultural  treatments:  Inten-
        sive and number of thinnings


-------
     (3)  A final  objective is to present a method for economic evaluation.
Several  choices may be available for preventing or mitigating erosion.  The
question  then becomes: Which of these is "best"?  Cost-effectiveness analysis
is provided as one solution to the problem.
    The following chapters have been developed to meet the three objectives
stated above.  Chapter 2 contains information describing current si IvicuItural
practices found throughout the country; erosion potentials these activities
entail are also described.  The chapter is intended primarily as a source of
information to planners and managers, both as a description of erosion-related
si IvicuItural activites and as a information reference for persons conducting
a cost-effectiveness analysis of erosion controls.

     Chapter 3 presents basic concepts underlying cost-effectiveness analysis,
with emphasis upon applications of the method to erosion-reduction problems  in
silviculture.  A definition for cost-effectiveness analysis and a comparison
with other forms of economic analysis are presented initially.  Following this
is a step-by-step discussion of the method used to conduct a cost-effective-
ness analysis.  This chapter should serve both as an  introduction to cost-
effectiveness analysis for the novice and as a reference to those conducting a
current analysis.

     The  last chapter  illustrates procedures for applying cost-effectiveness
analysis  to  erosion problems  in silviculture.  It begins with a review of the
major steps  in the method, along with major  information requirements and
suggested  information  sources.  Following this, examples are presented that
illustrate cost-effectiveness analysis  in different situations.  Reference  is
made to  information presented  in Chapter 2.

      Finally, glossary and  literature cited  sections  are presented.  The
glossary  contains definition to words  and phrases used throughout the text.
The  literature cited  section contains references to the major source documents
referred  to  in the preparation of the text.

-------
                                   CHAPTER  2
                 SILVI CULTURAL PRACTICES AND EROSION  POTENTIALS

    Erosion  is a natural phenomenon.   It  is the process which gradually
removes soil and rock from a site by various agents  Including wind and water;
In the case of mass wasting, gravity is the major agent.  The rate of erosion
is the consequence of physical site characteristics, biotlc features and the
hydrologic cycle.  These include the type of soil materials, topography,
macro- and micro-climatic conditions and the density and distribution of
vegetation.  The observed rate of erosion results from the Interaction of all
these factors.

    Man's activities often disrupt this complex interaction.  In the case of
silviculture, this might occur by removing  the protective cover of trees, thus
exposing the forest floor to the erosive energy of precipitation.  Two related
but distinct concepts need to be discussed  In terms of surface erosion—
erosion potential and erosion hazard.  Both are pertinent to evaluating
si Ivlcultural management systems.

     Erosion hazard Is directly associated  with physical site characteristics.
Energy from radiation, precipitation, gravity or flowing water provides the
effective force for erosive action.   In forested environments energy Inputs
are dissipated by the vegetative cover or the litter layer, for example.  The
degree to which a site could respond, In the absence of these modifying agents
can be viewed as the erosion hazard.   The erosion potential is the extent to
which  management activities affect the modifying factors or site

-------
characteristics themselves.  Thus, erosion hazard is an inherent property of
the site while erosion potential relates to the effect of siIvicuItural
activities upon that site.

     It becomes clear that the relationships between rate of erosion and
siIvicuItural activities are complex and depend upon various environmental
conditions and the extent or Intensity of si Ivicultural actions.  In the
following discussion attention is focused on erosion hazard in a regional
context and erosion potential in terms of various activities.
     Relating the various environments occurring throughout the United States
to siIvlcultural management requires an aggregation of information to a
manageable scale.  Such Information has been prepared by Bailey (1976) in the
form of a map which organizes and interprets inventories of the Nation's  lands
and resources, taking into account both biotlc (flora and fauna) and abiotic
(climate, soils and land-surface form) factors.  The map delineates
"ecoreglons" which are similar with respect to broad ranges of environmental
parameters.  Bailey's format provides a convenient basis for discussing both
erosion potential and erosion hazard, for identifying vegetation types, and
for discussing related siIvlcultural activities.

     The ecoreglon descriptions appearing on the map pages have been largely
adapted from Bailey's classifications that appear in Ecoreglon Descriptions
(To Accompany Map of Ecoregions of the United States) (in press).   Some areas
In the continental United States were not characterized (the Mojave-Sonoran
desert south of the Rocky Mountains, for example) because little or no
siIvlcultural activity takes place.  Descriptions of some factors  (fauna, for
example) that Bailey considers were not Included, again because they are not
directly pertinent to a discussion of non-point pollution abatement, or to
sMvicultural activities In general.

-------
      The use of ecoregions or the ecoregion system does not imply that this is
 the only applicable land classification system.   Bailey's ecoregion system is
 relatively new and largely untested in  an operational  sense.   However, since
 erosion response to siIvicultural activities arises from the  complex
 interaction of many environmental factors, it was concluded that  a
 classification system that encompasses  this concept should be employed.

     The remainder of this chgpter is structured  around seven  major ecoregions.
 Each is discussed separately.  Included is a map which delineates the areal
 extent  of  the ecoregion  together  with a brief narrative describing the major
 characteristics related  to the environment and silviculture.

      In addition to the  map and its narrative, a table is presented which
 relates each major siIvicultural  type within the ecoregion to harvesting
 paractice,  logging system,  slash  disposal, intermediate cultural  treatment,
 and access.   Each element of the  array  contains  a brief summary of the
 individual  practices which  are currently being employed.   For example, the
 currently  applied methods for slash disposal  in  the white pine type would  be
 noted,  along with an indication of  the  frequency or generality of  use.  The
 information  contained here  is not intended to be prescriptive, but reflects
 the current  situation.   Little siIvicultural  activity  occurs  in Ecoregion
 2500.   For this  reason,  no  table  for Major SiIvicultural  Activities and Access
 Practices  in Ecoregion 2500 has been  includgd.   Refer  to  adjacent  areas for
 required information.

     Access  activities are  only indirectly related  to  specific forest  types.
 However since  these  activities  are  closely correlated  with  geographic
 characteristics  and  harvesting  activities/cultural  treatments, a discussion  of
 common  access  practices typical of  the  ecoregion  itself  is  included in each
 table.

     A summary of siIvicultural techniques  is presented at the bottom of the
table to provide  a short review of the  information contained  above.  Major
activities are emphasized.

-------
     The principal  basis for presenting the information on current
si IvicuItural methods is to indicate where problems of erosion might arise,
not  to identify "best management practices."  This objective is accomplished
by using a scale which indicates the relative severity of erosion potential
for  these activities.  Silviculture activities are ranked relative to
themselves, not in comparison to other erosion-causing activities like
construction or agriculture, for instance.  Similarly, the indications for
erosion potentials relate to the ecoregion only—not to comparisons between
ecoregions.  Dark green highlighting is used to signify an activity or
practice that could present significant erosion problems; light green
highlighting denotes a somewhat lower or moderate  potential.  The lack of
color highlighting is an indication that  little or no erosion potential should
generally be expected.

     The purpose of this technique is to emphasize where problems couId arise
in the application of si IvicuItural management, rather than to indicate where
problems presently occur.   Similarly, specification of high erosion potential
for  an activity does not preclude the opportunity for mitigation to the extent
that the activity may have little or no erosion impact. The  inherent
variability of environmental conditions within any ecoregion is large.
Combined with the range of alternative management strategies which can alter
these conditions, the task of producing a quantitative, objective estimate of
erosion impacts is substantial—especially at the indicated geographic scale.

     The reader must not reach unwarranted conclusions from the information
presented on erosion potentials.  For example, clearcutting  is often rated as
having a relatively high erosion potential when compared with selection
cutting.  The conclusion that selection should be preferred over clearcutting
as an erosion reduction practice need not follow.  There are other factors to
take into account.  For example, the regeneration prescription for the desired
forest type may require even-aged management as opposed to uneven-aged.
Second, when considered with other management goals, the harvest system should
be economically efficient—just as clearcutting often  is.  Third, openings
caused by smaller clearcuts or selection cuttings may require a more extensive
road network—often  identified as a major source of erosion.  Trade-offs

-------
between reduced harvest impact and access impacts must be included in the
evaluation.  In perspective, the erosion potential specification is only to
identify and focus on possible problems rather than mandate changes in
management.

     The premise for evaluating the various activities in terms of the
potential  scale  included a  number of factors:  Field surveys were conducted to
sample activities  in each ecoregion.  Forestry researchers from both private
industries  and public agencies were consulted for  information about current
practices  and  problem areas.  As a result, the scaling is a reflection of
judgment based on  present knowledge and the expertise of many individuals.

     A detailed  literature  search on the  state-of-the-art status of
si IvicuIturalIy-related erosion knowledge was not conducted due to the
existence  of  several current  sources (for example, the EPA reports,  Forest
Harvest, Residue Treatment, Reforestation & Protection of Water Quality.  1976
and Non-point  Water Quality Modeling  in  Wildland Management;  A
State-of-the-Art Assessment (Volume  I—Text)  1977.

      A concluding  paragraph is  presented  at  the  bottom of each  table which
 reviews  erosion  potentials  that arise  from  si IvicuItural  management  in  each
 ecoregion.  This review discusses the  major  practices which  contribute  to
 erosion potentials and indicates  the individual  activities  that contribute to
 the rating.  Again, this  information comes  from  a diversity  of  sources.

      To provide quantitative assessments of wh ich si IvicuIturaI  operations
 create greater erosion potentials is beyond both the purpose and scope of this
 report.  Most erosion potentials created by si IvicuItural operations are
 site-specific and  should  be dealt with on a site-specific basis.  When applied
 to specific situations, general rules will  frequently be unworkable, ineffec-
 tive, or both.  Hence, this report is not intended to present blueprints, but
 to  identify problems.  Solutions to these problems  will  require the planner
 and forest manager to apply their experience and  ingenuity to ^peci flc si teg.
                                       10

-------
               M 2100
                      Figure  2. Ecoregion 2100 (After Bailey 1976).

                HUMID WARM-SUMMER CONTINENTAL (LAKE STATES AND NORTHEAST)
      This region occupies about 367,800 square miles, or 11.1 percent, of the total land mass in the United States.
Most of the area has low relief, but rolling hills and low mountains occur in many places. Lakes, poorly drained
depressions, morainic hills, outwash  plains, and other glacial features are characteristic as a result of Pleistocene
glaciation. Elevations range from sea level to 4,000 feet with a few isolated peaks of more than 5,000 feet.
      Polar continental air masses on the north and maritime or continental tropical air masses on the south create
strong seasonal temperature contrasts. There are four to eight months of over 50° F. The warm summer has an average
temperature in which the warmest month is below 71.6° F. Rainfall is ample at all times, but distinctly greater during the
summer.
      Soils vary greatly from place to place and include peat, rrtarl, clay, silt, sand, gravel, boulders and various
combinations of these materials. Alfisols and Spodosols (Podzols) are strongly leached but with an upper layer of
humus. Cool temperatures inhibit bacterial activity which would normally destroy organic matter in tropical regions;
these soils are deficient in calcium, potassium, and magnesium and are, in general, acid in chemical nature. These are
not highly productive for crop farming, but well suited to the growth of conifers.
      Conifer and mixed conifer deciduous forest extend throughout the ecoregion. Vegetation is characterized as
"transitional"  between the boreal forest and deciduous forest zone. Forests are made up of either mixed stands of a few
coniferous species, or an arrangement in which pure deciduous forest exists where there is a favorable habitat and
good soils, and pure coniferous forest exist on less favorable habitats with poor soils.
                                                  1 1

-------
 PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
 PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
               M 2100
                     Figure 3. Ecoregion M2100 (After Bailey 1976).

                      HUMID WARM-SUMMER CONTINENTAL (COLUMBIA FOREST)
      The Columbia forest occupies about 45.300 square miles, or 1.4 percent, of the total land mass in the United
States. It consists of steep rugged mountains which rise to over 9,000 feet and have local relief in excess of 3,000 feet.
Most of the region has been glaciated.
      This ecoregion is characterized as a "highland" province, separate from that of Ecoregion 2100 (Lake States and
Northeast)  It represents a special problem in classification in that, as with all mountain regions, the middle and upper
slopes do nofhave the same climate as their adjacent lowlands; however, they do have the same climatic regime as the
lowlands. In this particular warm-summer continental region having a humid climatic regime, valley bottoms are
humid and  the montane zone is the lowest zone present. The coldest month is below 32°F and warmest is below
71.6° F. Rainfall is adequate throughout the year, but summer tends to be dry because Westerly air masses bring the
summer dry climate of the Pacific Coast inland across the area. Theeffect is a distinct climatic grad ient from both north
to south and east to west.
      Soils are Alfisols, Spodosols, and Inceptisols. A variety of igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks form
mountain masses. In comparison with other parts of the Rocky Mountains, however, shallowness and stoniness of
soils play a relatively minor part in forest  distribution. In the foothills of the Rockies and to the south of the glacial
borders, loess and volcanic ash have been deposited on the slopes, thus helping to form the soils.
      Effect of the climatic gradient in this region is reflected in both the flora and vegetation types. Mixed coniferous-
deciduous forest predominates, with Douglas-fir forest and cedar-hemlock-Douglas-fir forest being the major forest
types.
                                                 1 4

-------
 PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
               M  2100
                      Figure 4. Ecoregion 2200 (After Bailey 1976).

                                 HUMID HOT-SUMMER CONTINENTAL
      This region occupies about 367,800 square miles, or 11.1 percent of the total land mass in the United States. The
land-surface form in this region is rolling, though some parts are nearly flat; in the Appalachian Mountains there is high
relief up to 3,000 feet. The northern areas have been glaciated, but not the southern.
      This ecoregion shares the same characteristics as Ecoregion 2100 except it is more moderate with a strong
annual temperature cycle and cold winters and a hot summer; the warmest month is above 71.6°F. Precipitation is
markedly greater in summer months. Because temperatures are warm, the soils are rich in humus and moderately
leached.
      Soils are Alifsols, Spodosols and Inceptisols. They are rich in humus and moderately leached as to have a
distinct, light-colored leached zone.
      Forest vegetation is deciduous, with a dense canopy in summerwhich produces a thick litter layer. Lower layers
of small trees and shrubs  are not well  developed. Common trees of the deciduous forests are oak, beech, birch,
hickory, walnut, maple,  basswood, elm, ash, tulip tree, sweet chestnut and hornbean. In the more poorly drained
habitats, the deciduous forest consists  of such trees as alder, willow, ash and elm and many shrubs. Pines readily
develop as second-growth vegetation where the forests have been cleared.
                                                 1 6

-------
 PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
               M  2100
                      Figures.  Ecoregion 2300 (After Bailey  1976).

                                        HUMID SUBTROPICAL
      This region occupies about 408,000 square miles, or 12.3 percent, of the total land mass in the Un ited States. It is
characterized largely by low relief (less than 300 feet), but some parts are gently rolling. In the lower coastal plains the
streams are sluggish; in the upper coastal plains, they range from swift to turbulent. In some areas, there are many
marshes and swamps.
      This area is characterized as  a temperate rainy climate with hot summers. The average temperature of the
warmest month is over 71.6°F. Rainfall is ample, but distinctly greater during the summer; even the driest summer
month receives more than 1.2 inches of rain. Thunderstorms are especially frequent in the summer.
      Soils of the moister, warmer parts of the region are strongly leached red-yellow soils related to the Oxisols and
Ultisols (Latosols) of the humid tropical and equatorial climates. Rich in iron and aluminum oxides, these soils are poor
in many plant nutrients essential for successful agricultural production. Soils of the cooler parts of the region are
similar to those found in Ecoregion  2200 (Alfisols, Podosols).
      Vegetation of the outer coastal plain, is characterized by temperate pine,  pine-hardwood, hardwood and
wetland forests. There are also large areas of loblolly and slash pines and bald-cypress, butthisvegetation represents
forms in excessively dry or wet habitats. The climax vegetation is conifer-oak forest. There is a well developed strata of
vegetation that in  different  places may include mosses, ferns,  palms, shrubs  and herbs.  The inland  area  is
characterized by summer green deciduous forest like that described in Ecoregion 2200.
                                                  18

-------
 PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
                M 2100
                      Figure 6.  Ecoregion 2400 (After Bailey  1976).

                                           HUMID MARITIME
      This region occupies about 76,000 square miles, or 2.5 percent, of the total land mass in the United States. It
consists of a series of steep, rugged mountains, but in places there is a narrow coastal plain. Mountains along the coast
rise to 5.000 feet above sea level and have local relief of 1,000 to 3,000 feet. The interior Cascade Range consists of high
mountains 8.000 to  9.000 feet in altitude, surmounted at intervals of 5 to 85 miles  by volcanoes of much higher
elevation. Much of the region has been glaciated, especially in the northern portion.
      This maritime West Coast climate is characterized as rainy with warm summers. Average temperature of the
warmest month is under 71.6° F, but at least four months average 50° F or more. Precipitation is considerable (30 to 150
inches or more)  but is well distributed throughout the year, although there is a distinct reduction during  summer
months. Cooler air temperatures reduce evaporation and produce a very damp, humid climate with much cloud cover.
The small annual temperature range makes for mild winters and relatively cool summers.
      Soils of this climate are the Alfisols, Spodosols, and Inceptisols; they are of a strongly leached type and acid in
nature. Bacterial activity is slow because of the cool temperature, and organic matter is not consumed readily, forming
conifer surface deposits. Bases are removed because organic acids from decomposing vegetation react with  soil
compounds.
      These dense conifer forests are primarily montane in character. Douglas-fir, western hemlock, western red
cedar, and spruce grow on the coastal ranges of the Pacific northwest. Shrubs of many kinds are well developed in and
around the forest.               x
      The humid conifer forest  changes in southwestern Oregon due to the fact that amabilis fir is replaced by
redwood. In northwestern California, redwood is the characteristic tree of the fog belt. Associated with it are Douglas-
fir and other conifers. These are perhaps the densest of all  coniferous forests, with the world's tallest trees. In the
higher mountains a well marked subalpine belt is present.
                                                  20

-------
 PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
               M  2100
                      Figure 7.  Ecoregion 2600 (After Bailey  1976).

                                           MEDITERRANEAN
      The topography of this region is greatly varied, for it includes the Coast Range along the Pacific Ocean, the
plains of the central valley of California, and the glaciated Sierra Nevada range Elevation ranges from sea level to over
14,000 feet. This region occupies about 86,300 square miles, or 2.7 percent, of the total land mass of the United States.
      This area is subject to alternate wet and dry seasons because it is located in the transition zone between the dry,
West Coast desert and the wet, West Coast climate. It is  characterized as a temperate, rainy climate with dry, hot
summers and summer droughts.
      Soils of this climate are not readily subject to classification. Reddish chestnut (Alfisols, Mollisols) and reddish
brown soils (Aridisols), typical of the semiarid climate, are present.
    The presence of a wet winter and a dry summer is unique among climate types and results in distinctive natural
vegetation of hardleafed evergreen trees and shrubs — sclerophyll forest. Various forms of sclerophyll woodland and
shrub are also  typical. The vegetation must be able to withstand severe summer drought.  Ecologic zones are
exceptionally well marked. Grassland covers the floor of the larger valleys; a zone of oaks and chaparral occupies the
hills and lower mountains; the montane and subalpine belts together include conifer forests of the higher mountains;
and the alpine zone is the treeless area above timberline.
                                                  22


-------
 PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
                M 2100
                       Figures. Ecoregion 3100 (After Bailey  1976).

                                           SEMIARID STEPPE
      This ecoregion occupies about 911,200 square miles, or 27 9 percent, of the total land mass in the United States
It is characterized by flat and rolling plains, tablelands of moderate to considerable relief, high elevation plateaus.
interior basins, high rugged, glaciated mountains rising steeply from semiarid plains, mtermontane depression having
floors less than 6,000 feet in altitude, and volcanic mountains
      This  region is associated with a semiarid continental  climate regime in  which, despite  a  summer  rainfall
maximum, evaporation exceeds precipitation on the average. The steppe is a transitional belt surrounding the desert
and separating it from humid climates beyond. Winters are cold and dry; summers warm to hot. In mountainous areas,
precipitation in winter is greater than in the plains areas
      Soils of this region are dominantly Mollisols, Aridisols and Alfisols, but timbered areas have many Inceptisols
(Brown Forest, Gray-Brown Podzolic, Chernozem). The dominant soil  process in this area  is calcification, with
salinization on the poorly drained soils. Humus content is relatively sparce wherever vegetation is sparse Soils often
contain an excess of precipitated calcium carbonate and are very rich in bases
      There are all gradations of vegetation into both semidesert and woodland varieties In the plamsareas are many
species of short, bunched, prairie grasses (including alkali-tolerant ones), scattered  xerophtic shrubs (sagebrush, for
example) ana  low trees. Ground coverage  may be small and much bare soil  exposed  Mountainous areas are
characterized as alpine tundra; trees absent In the subalpine area. Englemann spruce and subalpine fir predominate,
with aspen and lodgepole pine. In the montane areas are ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir
                                                  24

-------
 PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
                M  2100
                       Figure  9. Ecoregion 2500 (After Bailey 1976).

                                                PRAIRIE
      The North American Prairie consists of smooth to undulating plains with low relief (less than 300 feet), but some
areas are hilly. Elevation ranges from sea level to 2,000 feet. The northern part has been glaciated. Theecoregion
occupies about 511,000 square miles, or about 15.5 percent, of the total land mass in the United States.
      This area lies on the more arid western side of the humid continental climates, and with decreasing latitude
extends over into subtropical climates. The temperature characteristic of the climate corresponds to those of adjacent
humid climates. However, in summer air and soil temperatures are high, so that on uplands, soil moisture is not
adequate for tree growth, and deeper water sources are beyond the reach of tree roots.
      Soils of this region are Mollisols and Alfisols (Chernozem, Chestnut and Brown soils). The soil process
associated with prairie vegetation is calcification and results in soil profiles characterized by thick, dark-brown A and 8
horizons. Grass roots penetrate these soils deeply Bases brought to the surface by plant growth are released upon the
surface and restored to the soil, thus perpetuating soil fertility.
      The natural vegetation of the prairie consists of tall grasses comprising the dominant herbs, and subdominant
(orbs (broad-leaved herbs). Trees and shrubs are almost totally absent but may occur in valley or other topographic
depressions as forest or woodland patches.2


2This ecoregion has  not  been characterized by silvicultural type, and therefore it has no ecoregion table that
accompanies it. For a discussion of silvicultural types that do occur in this ecoregion, see the appropriate ecoregion
tables.
                                                  26

-------
                                   CHAPTER 3
                 BASIC CONCEPTS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

     The objective of this chapter Is to outline the basic concepts of
cost-effectiveness analysis.  These concepts form the general method for
conducting an analysis.   Individual applications of the method may require
more detailed and rigorous procedures to fit specific characteristics of any
single analysis.

     Cost-effectiveness analysis  Is an economic model that applies to specific
types of problems and can be used  In decision-making.  The proper context for
applying It, and the inputs (I.e., measures of effectiveness and costs), are
the essentials for successful application of the model.

     The use of cost-effectiveness analysis assumes that there are alternative
ways of reaching an objective, each alternative requiring certain resources
and producing certain results (ARINC Research Corporation 1970).  A key
characteristic of cost-effectiveness analysis is that the objective can be
reached by more than one single system or program.  Thus, the purpose of the
analysis Is to determine the "best" system or program for meeting the
objective.
                                      27

-------
     An example will  illustrate these  ideas more fully.  Suppose a forest
manager is charged with developing a program to reduce non-point source
pollution from erosion caused by si Ivicultural activities.  The objective  is
erosion reduction; and the manager has several options for meeting it,
including the choice of harvest system, equipment employed, intensity of
management, etc.  Cost-effectiveness analysis will provide him a model to  deal
with evaluation of those options contributing to meeting the goal.

     Specific conditions for using cost-effectiveness analysis need to be
discussed.

     First, this kind of analysis  is an attempt to mjnimize dollar costs
subject to a performance requirement (which may or may not be measurable in
dollar terms) or, conversely, to maximize some measure of output subject to a
budget constraint (Washington Operations Research Council 1967).  A conclusion
that could be drawn is that cost-effectiveness analysis can result in economic
suboptimlzation; that is, because the analysis deals only with cost and not
the relationship between cost and revenues, there is no basis for evaluating
the efficiency of the solution.

     In the case of non-point source erosion controls, cost-effectiveness
analysis can be used to examine alternative sets of controls to determine  a
"least-cost" solution subject to a performance standard.   The emphasis is
placed upon the relationship between the value of resource inputs (outlays or
opportunity costs) and the indicators of program outputs (effectiveness).  The
benefit or revenue ledger plays a subordinate role, especially with regard to
external  benefits or alternate operating scales, because these benefits are
either unquantif lable or only indirectly quantifiable in the context of a
single unit of measure (e.g., dollars).

     This does not mean that benefits may not exist.  Implementation of
pollution abatement may result in management changes which improve
productivity or increase regional  income, for example.  The point is that
cost-effectiveness analysis deals only with changes in input costs and output
performance, not costs and benefits which, when evaluated using models like
                                     28

-------
benefit-cost or internal  rate of return,  provide information  relating  to
economic efficiency.  Further, it would be incorrect to concjudg  that  the  pet
cost of pollution abatement Is equal  to the cost of  Input  resources  as used  in
the cost-effectiveness model.

     Second, cost-effectiveness analysis  is not resource allocation, which is
concerned with the allocation of resources (time, manpower,  money,  etc.) among
competing uses.  The distinction is illustrated in Figure  10.
      SELECTION OF
      BEST SYSTEMS
   FOR INCORPORATION
          INTO
  RESOURCE ALLOCATION
                                   RESOURCE
                                  ALLOCATION
                                     COST-
                                 EFFECTIVENESS
                                    ANALYSIS
    SPHERE OF
-DECISION-MAKING
             Figure 10. Relationship of cost-effectiveness analysis to resource
             allocation and decision making (after Kazanowski 1968, p. 117).
     To continue the discussion of the forest manager, if his objective is to
determine the extent to which he should concentrate his resources on erosion
control as opposed to thermal problems (as well as reducing non-point water
pollution In general) he has moved from the area of cost-effectiveness
analysis to resource allocation.
                                      29

-------
      These are separate kinds of analyses  applied to  different situations.
 However,  in some  Instances the two analyses can be  used  in conjunction, as
 schematically shown  in the figure above.   In this case the decision might
 Include the determination of the best erosion control strategy (cost-
 effectiveness analysis) in light of the total program for water pollution
 reduction (resource analysis).

      In summary,  cost-effectiveness analysis is an effective model for
 economic analysis of alternative erosion controls for si  IvicuItural activities
 given the following conditions:

      1.  There Is a specified performance  level  (erosion  reduction standard)
 set as a goal  toward which the effectiveness of  a control can be  measured.
 Cost-effectiveness analysis is predicated on the specification  of  this goal.

      2.  The  benefits of  erosion  control  arise  largely from preventing
 off-site diseconomies or  externalities  relative  to  si IvicuItural objectives
 and are characteristically "public  goods."  These  benefits  (monetary or
 Intangible) are  Implicitly assumed  to be  valued  by  society  at least as much
 as  the  cost of the control  and are  not  explicitly enumerated.

      3.   The unit  for siIvicuItural management has  a specified  level of output
 (wood products, for  example) measured as  revenues or benefits.  Since  cost-
 effectiveness analysis  deals only with costs, the benefit side  (in  terms of
 production) must remain relatively  fixed as a point  of reference during
 analysis.

     4.  The focus of attention is on the changes In cost of  controlling
erosion to Improve water quality and the relationship between resource  inputs
and output performance, not on the economic efficiency of the entire
operation.
                                     30

-------
     The method  for cost-effectiveness analysis  Involves  a  set of  activities
performed  in sequence;  its execution  Is  a  process.   Following  is a description
of each of the steps  In the process  in the order they  generally occur  although
the  Idiosyncrasies of any  Individual  application may alter  the sequence.

STEP 1.  DEFINE  OBJECTIVES

     Identification of goals and definition of objectives  Is the most
Important aspect of any analysis.  Problem Identification  is critical  to
defining the appropriate tool  for analysis.  Although  specific objectives of
cost-effectiveness analysis of erosion controls may  vary  with alternate
applications of  the model, the basic  objective can be  stated as—meeting a
specified level  of erosion control for non-point pollution  abatement  in a
least-cost manner.  The minimum  level of effectiveness  Is generally assumed to
be an expression of a standard.

 STEP 2.  ESTABLISH ALTERNATIVES

     The second  step entails determination of feasible erosion control
strategies.  This Is a process of integrating the objectives of si Ivicultural
management with the response by the site via Its biological and physical
attributes, and the available mitigative or preventive techniques  for
controlling erosion.  Each of these conceptual  strategies should meet or
exceed the erosion control objective.

          A meaningful comparison of  alternatives requires the strategies to
be significantly dlsslmilar so that a cost-effectiveness evaluation Is
warranted.  Slight variations are not necessarily separate alternatives.
Developing alternatives often calls for novel or innovative ideas, and In many
cases an erosion control strategy will consist of a number of Individual
control  practices.  When comparing two such strategies composed of many of the
same controls,  focus should be on the cost-effectiveness of the dlfferences
between the two, with the similar aspects taken as equal and, therefore, not
constituting a basis for making a decision.
                                     31

-------
    The  feasibility of various erosion controls frequently depends upon the
 scale of operation, the stage of the operation, and environmental conditions.

     For example, small scale si IvicuItural operations are typically somewhat
 restricted  in the availability of capital equipment; this  in turn reduces
 harvesting options.   In this case, then, erosion control opportunities arise
 largely  from proper design and execution of activities.  On the other hand,
 large scale operations, measured in such terms as volume, acreage, or expense,
 characteristically have greater access to capital goods and planning
 expertise.  This broadens the range of erosion reduction options available.

    The  stage of the siIvicuItural operation also influences alternatives
 available for erosion control.  The pre-implementation phase Includes many
 options  in the form of preventive measures.  In contrast, operations which are
 currently on-going seldom present any but mitigative options.

     Land type and precipitation patterns encompass most of the environmental
 conditions that  influence the application of erosion controls.  Local
 variations may be significant and the site of the si Ivicultural operation
 should be evaluated in terms of local  environmental  conditions.

 STEP 3,  ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS AND COST

     Once the various control strategies have been defined, both their costs
and effectiveness must be determined.   These two measurements should be broad
enough to encompass the range of factors needed to evaluate each strategy.
Their measurement may be simple or complex depending upon the complexity of
the problem or  the expertise of the user.  This discussion focuses on the
various attributes to be considered when measuring or  evaluating both costs
and effectiveness.   Specific procedures for estimating either costs or
effectiveness depend largely upon individual situations and should rely upon
external  assistance by technicians.
                                      32

-------
Step 5A;  Effectiveness

     Erosion is a complex process; its intricacies and the aberrations caused
by si IvicuItural management are in the realm of hydrologists and soil
scientists and are beyond the scope of this report.  However, in order to
conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of erosion controls, it is necessary to
define the information needed about the process.   In the context of this
report, effectiveness should embody a measurement of on-site soil loss as it
relates to water quality. In some cases this may be directly quantifiable.  In
others, various attributes may need to be used as  indicators of  increased
erosion; these generally arise from cause-effect relationships, and include
the percent removal of forest canopy, degree of soil disturbance, number of
miles of road, and so forth.  Effectiveness can be a relative measure such as
the percent reduction of the probable erosion without controls to the
predicted erosion with controls, or it can be an absolute measure like
kilograms of soil  loss per hectare per year.

System effectiveness—

     At this point in the discussion  it becomes useful to develop the concept
of "system" effectiveness.  The effectiveness of most erosion controls,
notably mitigative ones, is measured at the source.  For example, installing
water bars may be 80-percent effective in reducing erosion from  skid trails  in
certain conditions.  However, the  impact of si Ivicultural management, a set of
activities which interacts with the environment in many ways,  is usually
considered on an area basis—hence the concept of  non-point source pollution.
The point is, the measurement of a control's effectiveness should be
representative of  its contribution to the reduction of management impact
rather than to a single source.

     To illustrate, suppose a forest manager has conducted an appraisal of the
impacts that are likely to occur from a si Ivicultural operation.  He has
determined that skidding logs to  landings will contribute to approximately 20
percent the  impact of the entire operation, the installation of  the road
system will account for about 50 percent of the entire  impact,  and other
                                     33

-------
activities will account for the remaining 30 percent of the  impact.

     Previous research has shown that  In these conditions water bars will
reduce skid trail erosion by about 80 percent; and that proper Installation of
culverts, ditches, and energy dlssipators In the course of road construction
should reduce Its Impact by 50 percent.  (This type of analysis should extend
to all major activities and their Impacts.)

     On the basis of partial effectiveness alone, water bars would appear to
be more effective In reducing erosion than would modifications in road design.
However, In terms of system effectiveness, or by taking all  activities, their
respective Impacts and the effectiveness of reducing these Impacts by applying
controls, road design modifications become more effective than water bars.
This can be shown by using the simple relationship:

                               (L,) x (CA> = EI
where
          L]  = partial  effectiveness of control number 1  for reducing
                 the erosion Impact of activity A;

          C/\ = contribution of activity A to total project Impact;

          Ej  = system effectiveness of control  number 1.

In this example,  the calculations are:
          80% X 20$ = 16$  system effectiveness for water bars
                           (or potential  erosion reduced  by 16$);

          50$ X 50$ = 25$  system effectiveness for road  design
                            modifIcatIons(or potential  erosion reduced by
                            25$).

     Time and system effectiveness—

     Time may also be Important when evaluating effectiveness.  To Include
                                     34

-------
time in the analysis, a slight redefinition of system effectiveness is needed.
This requires estimating the total project  Impact over the planning period
(e.g., over a number of years) and also determining the portion of the total
impact that occurs in each time segment (e.g., annually).

     To Illustrate, refer again to the example above Involving water bars on
skid trails.  Partial effectiveness  Is 80 percent although the contribution of
the skidding activity Is 20 percent of the total Impact of silviculture.  Now,
suppose this evaluation applies on ly to the first year of an operation that
will continue over a period of 4 years.  Further suppose, of the total project
impact that occurs during the 4 years, only 10 percent of It occurs in the
first year.  By redefining system effectiveness of an erosion control  In terms
of the reduction  In total Impact that occurs over a number of years, the
normalization formula becomes:
            x (lt) = E1ft

where

           L1 ,t = partial effectiveness of control number  1  in year t;

           C/\,t = contribution of activity A to the project  Impact that
                    occurs in year t;

           If   .= portion of the total project  impact that occurs  In year t;

           El,t = Vear "*" effectiveness of control  1 for reducing total
                    Impact.

For year 1 in the example, the calculations are —

           (80$) x (20%) x (10$) = 1.6$.
                                       35

-------
Given the  conditions  in  the example,  placing water bars on skid trails in the
first year of  operation  will  reduce the total  4-year impact on erosion by 1.6
percent, assuming  weather  conditions  are similar  over  all  years.

      If the  estimates  are  extended  to each  of  the 4 years, the following
tabulation can  be  developed.

           Year    L1>t     CA,t       It      El,t

        t  =    0       80       20       10      1.6

               1        50       30       40      6.0

               2       40       20       30      2.4

               3       30       20       20      1.2

                                            £ =  11.2$
     Total system effectiveness of  an erosion control over time, then,  is
equal to the sum of the annual effectiveness measures.   In this example, total
system effectiveness of water bars  on skid trails  is  11.2 percent; this
control would reduce erosion  impact occurring over 4  years by  11.2 percent.

     If time preference Is  important to the monetary  aspects of erosion
control decisions, discounting can  be applied to the  annual values (see the
section "Cost"  in this chapter for  a discussion of discounting).

     This example presents a simple approach to determining the effectiveness
of erosion reduction techniques; its purpose, though, illustrates the concept
of system effectiveness which must  be incorporated into the analysis in order
to make these measurements commensurable with project costs.  Only when the
data are normalized in this fashion Is It correct to  speak of
cost-effectiveness criteria for evaluations.
                                       36

-------
     Many other factors could be taken into account when considering various
aspects of effectiveness measurements.  Some will be subjective and depend
upon judgment or experience while others can be fully quantified.  The major
consideration is that the measurement of effectiveness must contain the
information that is relevant to the criteria upon which the decision will
eventually be made.

Step 3B;  Cost

     As a definition, cost is the measure of what must be given up in order to
achieve something.   Cost estimates need not be accurate to the last dollar,
but an  informed decision requires that cost information be accurate enough to
be comparable to the measures of effectiveness.  Frequently the actual and
exact costs and effectiveness figures will  not be known.  A probable range,
however, can frequently be agreed upon.  Thus the cost and effectiveness
components can be expressed in most probable ranges such as costs: $35-$50,
the probability of cost being within this range is 90 percent (e.g., 10
percent of the time the costs will  be higher or lower).

    Application and performance of erosion controls are closely linked to
on-site characteristics.  Similarly, the relevant costs used in evaluating
controls are those directly linked to the si IvicuIturaI activies on the site.
Indirect costs stemming from erosion control which occur "off-site" (for
example, loss of regional income or unemployment) are beyond the scope of this
cost-effectiveness analysis method.

     Costs can generally be classified into two distinct groups—outlays or
opportunity costs.
                                     37

-------
Step 3B1 :  Outlays-

     Outlays are the total money expenditures necessary to achieve a specified
 level of erosion control.  Outlays can be classified in various ways.
 Identifying (a) the total  incremental costs due to erosion control, (b) the
 portion of this  increment  that  is composed of separab I e or traceable costs,
 and  (c) the Joint costs of the  increment is the most useful procedure.

      Incremental costs  are the  relevant costs for evaluating erosion controls
 that are  related to non-point source  pollution.  As an example of  determining
 incremental costs  (following  a  discussion by Kemper and Davis  1976), assume a
 gross classification  of management  costs  including harvesting, access, and
 cultural  treatment costs. The  computation  for  the net cost of erosion control
 becomes :

                      C =  (Hj  -  Hs)  + (Aj  -  As)  + (Tj - Ts)
 where,
      C = the net or  incremental cost of erosion control;
      H- = harvesting costs  including erosion controls;
      H  = costs of commonly used harvesting practices;
      A- = costs of  including erosion controls to access;
      A  = costs of  providing "standard" access;
      T- = costs of  cultural treatments  including erosion controls;
       T   =  costs  of  commonly  used  cultural  treatments.

  Actual  applications of  this technique will  likely  require  greater
  disaggregation  among costs.
                                       38

-------
     Separable and joint costs for erosion control should be  identified only
for the  i ncremental costs that arise  in si Ivicultural management as a result
of  increased pollution abatement efforts.  This focuses the analysis on the
two major objectives—erosion control and  silviculture.  These costs are
identified to facilitate cost accounting procedures.   In this way costs can be
allocated to their sources, such as  labor, materials or equipment.

    Separable costs can be directly traced to outputs—in this discussion, the
output Is erosion control.  To illustrate, suppose an area that has been
harvested is seeded with grass so that a protective cover is quickly
established.  The purpose of this activity is solely to reduce erosion and
protect water quality until the forest crop becomes established.  The cost
(incremental to "usual" si IvicuItural management) of seeding the area,
composed of the labor, equipment, and materials used, can be separated from
the other siIvicultural expenses.  This total value is the cost of erosion
control.

     Joint costs are somewhat different.  These costs are not directly
traceable to any specific outputs—expenses are incurred that produce more
than one output.  Thus, the use of labor to produce erosion control may also
produce another beneficial output, and the link between the costs and the
individual  outputs may not be directly traceable.

     For example,  suppose an access road is modified as a result of pollution
abatement activities.  Some construction expenses arise because the road
itself must be protected from erosion.  Other expenses are due to water
pollution abatement.  Although it may be possible to identify the separable
costs for erosion  control  in general, it may be difficult if not impossible to
separate the expenses directly related to erosion control  for the purpose of
water quality protection from the costs of protecting the road prism.   This is
a case of joint costs.
                                     39

-------
     The difficulty with joint costs stems from the problem of Identifying a
realistic total cost figure.   If the entire joint costs for erosion control
were charged to pollution abatement in the example above, the total costs for
pollution abatement would be overstated.  Conversely, if joint costs were not
included, the total cost would be understated.  Since the true total cost of
erosion control for water pollution abatement  includes some portion of the
joint costs, and yet the proportion is not directly separable, an  additional
method  is needed to allocate the joint costs between the two outputs.

      Several methods have been suggested.  These  include  (a) relative  sales
value of  production,  (b) physical measurements of  output,  and  (c)  average  unit
cost  method (Backer and Jacobson  1964).   Since there are  no  direct revenues
generated by erosion control,  method  (a)  will  not  apply  here.  Method  (c)  does
not involve directly tracing  costs  to specific outputs but rather  calculates a
unit  cost for  the  production  In general  (in  the  example.  It  would  simply be  a
unit  cost for  erosion  control).  It is suggested here  that method  (b)  be used
to allocate joint  costs for erosion control.

      Application of  the cost allocation method based on  measurements of
outputs requires that the output units be specifically identified.  As
 previously shown,  the effectiveness of reducing accelerated erosion can be
  sed to compare alternative controls.  A similar measure could be developed
 for road prism protection as  well.  The joint costs could then be allocated on
 the basis  of the  ratio of the two  effectiveness measures.

      To  illustrate, suppose that for the joint costs  Incurred in  the  example,
 erosion  controls  for the road protection are  estimated to be  80-percent
 effective  while the estimated effectiveness  for water pollution abatement Is
 40 percent.   The  ratio of  the two  effectiveness measure  is  2:1, which suggests
 that two-thirds of the joint  costs should be  borne  as a  cost  of road
 protection while  one-third of the  joint  costs is  due  to  pollution abatement.
 By employing  this method the portion of  joint costs can  be  Identified and
 added  to separable costs  to  obtain a total  cost figure  that can be used In
 cost-effectiveness analysis.
                                        40

-------
 Step 3B2:  Opportunity Costs--

     Opportunity costs present the second aspect of costs.   In economics  it  is
considered appropriate to define costs  in terms of the value of alternatives
foregone when achieving something (Bannock, Baxter, and Rees 1972).   If the
prices for the alternatives reflect their value, these costs are  identical to
outlays and should be treated as such.   If the value for the alternatives are
not reflected by their prices, as in the case of "public goods" (for  example,
water quality values affected by timber harvest), the opportunity cost
measures the real sacrifice involved in the decision.

Step 3C:  Time as a Major Component of Cost and Effectiveness—

     Measurements for costs to this point have dealt with the static  case;
that is, time has not been thoroughly discussed.  In order to evaluate
long-term strategies for controlling erosion, the analytical framework must
account for the effectiveness and costs that will exist In each time  segment
over the planning period.  To accomplish this, two conditions must be met:
first, the analyst must be able to estimate both effectiveness and costs for
each time period as far into the future as the plan dictates.  Second, a
method must be available for weighing the importance of future costs  or
effectiveness relative to their occurrence in the immediate future.

Stream of costs and effectiveness—

     To satisfy the first condition, estimates of cost and effectiveness can
be made for each time period in the same fashion as outlined above.   For each
discrete time period (month, year, etc.) costs incurred and effectiveness
gained can be estimated.  These can, in turn, be arrayed to illustrate the
stream of costs and effectiveness which will  be encountered over time.  For
example, the cost estimates for two erosion controls over time might  look like
that shown in the tabulation below.   Once the data are arranged in this
manner, the second condition can be pursued.
                                     41

-------
                                      Year
                             1234

            Control  X      $100      $10       $5      $0

            Control  Y         0       100        10        5


Discounting  (the calculation of  present value)—

     The procedure  for dealing with costs that occur  In the future and the
weighing of  these against the present is well established  in economic
analysis.   In fact, it is an economic axiom that costs incurred  in the present
are weighed  more heavily than the  same costs  that might occur at some future
date.  Further, there  is an  inverse relationship between the weight placed on
costs and the length of time between the present and  the future date in
question.  This relationship is  the basis of  discounting or the calculation of
present value.

     For example, if the choice  is to pay equal costs  now or next year, the
money could  be placed  in a bank  to earn interest until next year and then be
used to pay  for the cost of  control.  Thus the rate of bank deposit interest
would be a measure of the real  value foregone (an "opportunity" cost) if the
control  costs were paid in the present rather than next year.  Extensive
literature exists concerning the debate on the choice of an appropriate
discount rate (see Haveman and Margolis 1977).  It will simply be noted here
that the analyst should choose a discount rate that adequately reflects the
relevant opportunity costs in his temporal  analysis.

     To illustrate an application of discounting,  refer to the tabluation for
the stream of costs for control  X, shown above.  In the current year costs
amount to $100,  $10 for the next year, $5  for the third year, and no costs
encountered  in the last year.

     By utilizing the discount  formula,

                                     42

-------
           Present value of costs
                              f     100    ,     10    ,     5          0
                                  (1+0. 5)1   (1 + .05)2   (H.05)3
                           = 95.24 + 9.07 + 4.32 + 0.00
the present value of these costs amount to $108.63 at a discount rate of 5
percent.  To compare the costs of controls when costs are distributed over
time, the present value of costs are the only indices that should be used.
These can be compared with discounted values for effectiveness when obtained
as previously outlined.

Step 3D  Choice of analysis technique—

     The measurement of costs and effectiveness is conducted in the evaluation
of each alternative.  Once completed the analyst must make the choice between
one of two approaches to cost-effectiveness analysis:  fixed-cost or
fixed-effectiveness.  The choice must be made because cost-effectiveness
analysis is used to evaluate the contribution of a program to a specified
goal—either a budget constraint or a requisite level of effectiveness.  The
choice  is non-trivial because both effectiveness and costs represent many
variables as noted above.

     The fixed-cost method usually relates to the objective of operating
within a budget constraint.  Effectiveness indices may include many factors,
each evaluated with respect to the constrained  level of cost.  The alternative
which produces the greatest degree of effectiveness given the fixed cost  is
usually preferred.
                                     43

-------
      The fixed-effectiveness procedure is essentially the converse.  A
 specified level of effectiveness is sought and alternatives are evaluated to
 determine the least-cost given this restriction.   This wiI I  be the method most
 often employed in evaluation of erosion controls.   Given the desired level of
 erosion reduction in any one time frame,  the least-cost control is sought.  It
 is still important,  however, to remain sensitive to the choice between the two
 methods.

 STEP 4.  ANALYSIS

      Analysis of  the candidate programs for erosion control  can proceed in
 various ways.  The procedure employed often depends upon the specificity of
 the information available to make decisions and upon the relative magnitude of
 differences  between  the candidate strategies.  There are basically two methods
 which  are used to organize and analyze cost and effectiveness information.
 These  are (a) the model  approach which relies to a large extent upon
 mathematical  relationships and (b)  the tabular display method which is
 somewhat more subjective but also more versatile (Kazanowski  1968).  Either of
 these  methods,  or some  modification,  can  be employed in the  analysis of
 erosion control programs.   Each has its merits and the choice between either
 the model  approach or the  tablular  display method  largely depends  upon  the
 situation.  Major commitments  of resources,  easily quantifiable evaluation
 criteria,  small differences  between alternatives and  the availability of
 analytical expertise characterize situations where the development  of a model
 would  likely  be warranted.   In  other  cases where more  subjective criteria
 become  important  it may  be that the tabular  format will  more  adequately serve
 as the  analysis tool.

 Model Approach

     The model approach  is generally used  when the differences between choices
are small, parameters of costs and effectiveness are easily quantifiable and
other factors affecting choices are relatively unimportant or essentially
 identical among the alternatives.  To develop a model, estimates of costs and
effectiveness are made for each alternative.  These estimates should  include
                                    44

-------
disaggregated costs for elements (labor, equipment, materials, etc.) as well
as annual estimates for both costs and effectiveness.  This information can be
used later Fn project planning when the chosen control will be implemented.
Both effectiveness and cost measures are then reduced to total value indices
(present value If discounted) and these values represented in a coordinate
system.  The candidate programs can then be readily plotted using the
estimated value of each index as shown for strategies A through D (see Figure
11).
                           i i.
                                         AB
                   ADDED
                  DOLLAR
                   COSTS
                                  SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS
                       Figure 11. A simple cost-effectiveness model.

     This simple example of the approach shown  for  illustrative  purposes only,
could easily be modified to incorporate more complex  analysis.   For  example,
various aspects of either costs or effectivenes (or both)  could  be represented
by functional relationships or equations and  incorporated  into a
multidimensional model rather than the graphical two-dimensional  model  shown
above.  Further, uncertainty over estimates could be  introduced  through the
use of statistical measures of probability or dispersion.   It may also  be
helpful to  incorporate costs disaggregated by activity  or  their  effects of
change over time.   In sum the model approach provides a broad range  of
analytical opportunities  if the conditions for  its  application are met.

     The greatest  advantage to using  the model  approach is that  many choices
can be analyzed at once and with  rapidity.  However,  there are also  serious
drawbacks  in the method.  First,  models tend to be  rigid,  in that assumptions
concerning  various relationships  are  initially  made,  either implicitly  or
explicity.   If an  alternative subsequently requires analysis that conflicts
with these  assumptions, the model  itself may  require  modification, often at
the cost of the time  and money.   Second* a serious  disadvantage   is the
                                      45

-------
necessity  for  simplifying assumptions.  Both  effectiveness and costs must be
quantified and often expressed in a functional  manner.   Third, it is Iikewise
necessary  that the measures be commensurable.   Aspects  of  the evaluation
criteria that  are  not easily measured must either  be  discarded or further
assumptions must be made about their  imputed  values.  Considerable testing of
the model  may  be required to validate the relationships among variables and
their sensitivity  to changes.

Tabular Display

     An alternate  approach for analyzing choices  involves  the use of a tabular
display.   By using this method, factors that  affect decisions are not
restricted to  being quantifiable or commensurable.  Figure 12 illustrates two
tabular arrays.  The array shown in (a) displays the  basic components of the
table.  Decision variables are listed across the top  of  the table while
alternative strategies to be considered are  listed vertically.  Information
can be entered  into the table either  in a numerical or  narrative  format.
STRATEGIES
1
2
3
COSTS



EFFECTIVENESS



                                 (a) The basic tabular form

en
HI
C3
STRATE

1
2
3
COST COMPONENTS

DOLLAR COSTS
CAPITAL
NVEST.




OPERATING
COSTS
EQUIPT




LABOR




If





0^
£§
mm





SPECIAL
SKILLS




>-
>-
PPORTUN
COSTS
O








CHANNE




                          (b) A more detailed table (after Kazannwuki, IHfiM)

                        Figure 12. An illustrative example of the tabular display.
                                     46

-------
     The table shown In (b) is an embellishment of the basic array.   Here,
costs are decomposed into dollar (outlay) costs for various activities or
components,  opportunity costs, and into special requirements or other
considerations.  Likewise, effectiveness measures could be disaggregated to
show the aspect of erosive action that is modified.  Obviously, the  possible
modifications to the format are numerous and can be responsive to specific
situations.

     The tabular display relies more on judgment by the analyst than does the
model approach with its strict mathematical relationships.  There is, of
course, the  possibility for subjective bias, but if a consensus among several
decision-makers is used, this outcome should be minimized.   In comparison, the
tabular display method mitigates many of the criticisms given the model
approach.  Although it  is  less objective, the tabular display also allows
greater versatiIity for dealing with unquantifiable criteria like aesthetics
which often  enter the decision.

STEP 5.  MAKING A CHOICE

     With the completion of the preceding steps, the choice of the preferred
strategy for controlling erosion must still be made.   In order to do this, a^
firmly established criterion  (or criteria)  for choice must be used.   The vital
role this criterion plays  in cost-effectiveness analysis  is  best  illustrated
by expanding upon an earlier example.

     Consider the fixed-effectiveness model shown  in Figure  13.  Four
alternatives for erosion control  (A-D) have been  identified, evaluated, and
subsequently plotted on the graph.  A fifth alternative, a combination of A
and B,  is also considered.  The minimum  level  of effectiveness that  is
acceptable has also been  identified and  is  shown by the broken  line.   The
objective is to determine  which of the alternatives  is most  cost-effective.
                                      47

-------
  ADDED
  DOLLAR
  COSTS
                                                     MINIMUM LEVEL OF
                                                ACCEPTABLE EFFECTIVENESS
                   SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS

          Figure 13. An illustration of a choice criterion.

    Deductive reasoning provides some inlfial assistance.  First of all, any
alternative which does not provide the mfrfimum effectiveness, or which  lies to
the left of the broken line, can be eliminated from consideration.  Similarly,
option AB  is  inferior to C and need not be considered further because although
both C and AB provide the same level  of effectiveness, AB costs more.  The
choice reduces to a selection between C and D with neither being clearly
superior.  This is where a specific criterion for choice is needed.
     A criterion is a rule or standard which can be used to rank alternatives
and to choose the most promising.  In other words, it is a way to weigh costs
against effectiveness.  When using a model like the one shown in this example,
the most prevalent criterion employed is the cost-effectiveness ratio, which
is, in fact, a measure of marginal cost.

     Returning to the example,  the ratio can be illustrated by constructing
rays from the origin to the points on the graph representing the alternatives.
Angles 1 and 2 represent the cost-effectiveness ratios.   The smaller the angle
the greater the "cost-effeetiveness" of the alternative.  In this case the
choice would be control  program C.  This choice of course implies that there
is no budgetary constraint and that the objective is to minimize the ratio of
costs to effectiveness.   If, however, there had been a limit on the amount of

-------
additional costs that could be incurred so that it precluded the choice of  D
or AB on the basis of excess cost, the choice of C would have been obvious. As
suggested above, this method is equivalent to choosing the alternative which
minimizes the marginal cost of erosion control.

     As one last point suppose that the cost-effectiveness difference between
two alternatives is not very large, and/or given the probability approach,
they may be reversed in a ration ranking.  It will be desireable then to pick
the alternative that has the greatest potential for greater effectiveness at
the lower cost.  Refer again to Figure 13.  Although C is preferable to D for
the given minimum acceptable effectiveness it cannot achieve as great
effectiveness as D.  If a decision was made to increase effectiveness at a
later time, a cost solution greater than D would probably occur; i.e., the AB
solution.  Alternative D therefore presents an option for greater efficiency,
and would be viable if the probabilities of cost between C and D overlapped.

    A choice criterion applied in the case of the tabular display method is
somewhat different than that used for the model approach.  Since not all the
information in a tabular display can be quantified, a cost-effectiveness ratio
cannot be calculated.  In this case, criteria concerning how  information
should be structured can be employed that will lead to a solution.

     Returning to the sample table shown  in Figure  12(b), the various factors
underlying evaluations are  listed across the top of the array.  To form a
basis for making a choice,  it  is suggested that these factors be arranged  in
decreasing order of importance from  left to right.  The alternative erosion
control strategies should also be  listed  in order, vertically, beginning with
the strategy which meets the most  important (first) criteria to the greatest
extent, and so forth.  By arranging the table  in this manner a number of
alternatives can be evaluated and the best two or three  identified.  The
ultimate selection  is then generally based on a judicial evaluation with
reference to the requirements of the situation and the objective of erosion
control (Kazanowski 1968).
                                      49

-------
     By relying upon clearly stated objectives and requirements developed In
   lier steps, the possibility for subjective bias should be minimal.   That
is  given the goals of the analysis and the criteria to evaluate alternatives,
there should be little disagreement about the solution.
ear
     By following the steps outlined above and by using good quality
 information, the recommended choice for controlling erosion will be
 economically expedient.   Even  so,  it  is advisable to undertake two final
 tasks.   It  is  always a good  idea to re-examine the recommended program to
 assure  its  technical feasibility.  This  Is highly  important because of the
 wide  variety of  environmental  conditions  encountered  in si Ivicultural
 operations.  Second, the entire process  (Steps  1-5) should be documented.
 This  provides  the  decision-maker with  a  record  of  the  assumptions,
 limitations,  and conclusions the analyst  encountered  while producing  his
 recommendation.   These two final tasks round out the  entire procedure for
 cost-effectiveness analysis.

 CONCLUSION

      Cost-effectiveness  analysis,  as discussed  in this chapter, has
 demonstrated  its usefulness for helping choose between alternatives that
 control erosion.   It  is  certainly not the only economic model that Is
 applicable to this kind  of evaluation; even  so.  It includes basic economic
 principles, and although it can be readily  adapted to many circumstances by
 modifications,  the basic structure will  not change.

       Some  of  the  limitations  of the  cost-effectiveness technique should be
  identified.   (1)  ln  some cases, reliance upon  the ratio  between costs and
  effectiveness as  the  sole criterion  for  choice Is unwarranted.  This stems
  from the fact that in the use of  ratios, the actual  magnitude  of the numerator
  and denominator tends to be Ignored.  Even  so, If magnitudes are arbitrarily
  r ited  a selected alternative may be biased because of the limitation.
     es where  ratios present the greatest problems are those  that Involve risk.

-------
 The magnitude of  what  Is  being risked has a  bearing on •'he acceptability of
 the risk.   The  use of  ratios  ignores the effect of the magnitude of the risk,
 and hence  its acceptability.

      (2) Examples that have been used throughout this chapter to illustrate
 that  certain aspects of cost-effectiveness analysis have been site-specific  in
 their application.  This  is not  intended to  imply that cost-effectiveness
 analysis can only be applied to a geographic area of high resolution.
 Site-specific examples have been used to illustrate +he close link between
 man's activities and the  response by the environment,  larger scale
 applications are well within the realm of cost-effectiveness analysis.  In
 fact, when  very  large geographic areas are considered, col-effectiveness
 analysis may be one of a  very few models that could be used.

      As the geographic scale becomes larger, data regarding the environment
 and its response to manipulation tend to become more imprecise.  Data are
 aggregated  and specific responses are lost to average measures.  In this case,
 uncertainty becomes a more important factor  in both cost and effectiveness
measurements.  The cost-effectiveness model  can certainly accomodate this,
although the complexity of the estimating procedures is greatly increased and
the precision of the estimates reduced.

     As the scale of application increases,  more tools may be. needed to
facilitate  analysis.  Multivariate statistical techniques may become valuable
as cost or effectiveness estimating devices.  Large numbers of alternatives
may lend themselves to analysis by optimization techniques like linear
programming.

      (3) A  final comparison between a site-specific application  of  cost-
effectiveness analysis and one that is conducted for a larger area  can be
made.   Applications involving large areas focus more upon determination of
cost-effective programs of erosion controls and their scheduling rather than
determination of the most cost-effective control  among individual alternative
controls.  As the shift In emphasis is made from evaluation of individual
controls on a site-specific basis to programs of  controls at a regional  basis.
                                     51

-------
the assumption must be made that the alternatives being evaluated are
cost-effective.  That is, when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of programs,
the assumption is made that the controls that comprise the program have been
previously subjected to cost-effectiveness evaluations.
      In retrospect, this chapter has presented a method for conducting a
cost-effectiveness evaluation of erosion controls.  The method has been geared
to the specific requirements of conducting evaluations in forested
environments.  The procedure is not a compendium of all aspects of
cost-effectiveness analysis, nor is it intended to be one.  It has been
presented here in an effort to provide an adequate guide for conducting a
cost-effectiveness evaluation and to suggest ways to deal with potential
problems.  (The reader is referred to the various texts listed in the
bibliography for specific or technical problems that may not have been
included here.)

     Finally, the application of the technique need not be overly complex to
arrive at a good decision.  As Kazanowski (1968, p. 139) puts it, it is
"...preferable to use simple, understandable techniques to arrive at an
acceptable near-optimum recommendation that is implemented rather than to use
esoteric techniques to define a precise optimum recommendation that runs the
risk of being relegated to dust-gathering because the responsible
dec is ion-maker(s) can neither follow nor comprehend the rationale underlying
the techniques employed."
                                      52

-------
                                   CHAPTER 4
                  APPLICATIONS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

     The previous chapter developed the basic concepts of cost-effectiveness
analysis.  This information was presented as a series of steps performed  in
the application of the method.  These steps are shown in Figure  14.

OBJECTIVE




ALTERNATIVES



AS

COSTS


EFFECTIVENESS

SESSMENT OF COSTS AND EFFECTIVENESS



ANALYSIS




CHOICE

                       Figure 14. Cost-effectiveness flowchart.
     This chapter Illustrates how, with the assistance of  some  specific
procedures, the cost effectiveness method presented  in the preceding  chapter
can be used to choose erosion controls for si Ivicultural activities.   First,  a
brief review of each step  in the flowchart orients the user to  the
requirements of an application—what kinds of  information  are needed  and  where
                                      S3

-------
they can be obtained.  Second,  examples are presented which give the user an
opportunity to see how the steps are executed and to note some of the
I Imitations.
                                       54

-------
REVIEW OF THE STEPS
Step  1.  Define the Objectives

OBJECTIVE




ALTERNATIVES



AS

COSTS


EFFECTIVENESS

SESSMENT OF COSTS AND EFFECTIVENESS



ANALYSIS




CHOICE

     This step defines the objective of the analysis toward which performance
can be measured and  in the pursuit of which costs are  incurred.  This requires
famlltarity with si IvlcuItural activities themselves and their erosion
Impacts.  In addition, a definition of the framework within which decisions
will be made (applicable standards, regulations, budget levels, etc.) should
be noted.

    Another important component is determination of the scale at which the
analysis will  be conducted.  As geographic scale increases to include a
variety of environments, the objective and attendant information will become
more general to reflect the increase in variation.

Information needs—

     1.  Performance of alternative controls (effectiveness) is measured
relative to the objective.  Thus,  the objective must be specified in a manner
that lends Itself to measurement.

     2.  The objective should reflect the geographic scale at which the
analysis will  be undertaken.
                                      55

-------
     3.  The objective should reflect both institutional  and environmental
cons(derations.

Information sources—

     1.  Legislation, regulations,  and policies relating  to water quality from
Federal, State,  and local  government agencies (e.g., the  Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of  1972, state water quality standards, local  erosion
control ordinances).

     2.  Technical  assistance from  government agencies,  universities, research
centers, private industry, and professional societies (e.g., the U.S. Forest
Service, Soil  Conservation Service, extension agents.)
                                      56

-------
    Step  2.   EstabIish  Alternatives
OBJECTIVE
             ALTERNATIVES


AS

COSTS

SESSMENT OF COSTS

EFFECTIVENESS

AND EFFECTIVENESS



ANALYSIS




CHOICE

         Output  from this  step defines the opportunites for control  that are
    available for attaining the objective.  On a small  scale, opportunities arise
    by employing individual  mitigative and preventive controls.  At  a larger
    scale,  opportunities involve combinations (strategies or programs) of controls
    that  incorporate variations in environmental  conditions.

         Alternatives investigated are limited only by the prowess of the analyst,
    and the time and money available to him.  Choices should not be  limited to
    "business as usual."  All  opportunities for reducing erosion should be
    investigated.

    Information  needs—

       1.   To identify opportunities for controlling erosion, information should
    be obtained  about the  si IvicuItura I  activities and the environmental
    conditions within which they will  take place.  This information  includes
    current siIvicultural  practices, proposed activities, and the manner in which
    the activities interact with the environment.

         2.  Environmental variations that represent opportunities for reducing
    erosion should be identified.
                                         57

-------
 Information sources—

     1.  Forestry-related technicians including foresters, hydrologists,
engineers, extension agents.

     2.  Research organizations like universities, government research
 institutes, professional societies.

     3.  Technical  literature, (e.g., Water Resources Research, Journal  of
Forestry, Journal of SoiI  and Water Conservation,  Land Economics).

     4.  New technology, (e.g., trade journal  reports on new products, U.S.
Forest Service Experiment Station Reports.)
                                    58

-------
Step 3.  Assessment of Costs and Effectiveness

OBJECTIVE




ALTERNATIVES



AS

COSTS


EFFECTIVENESS

SESSMENT OF COSTS AND EFFECTIVENESS



ANALYSIS




CHOICE

     This step is integral to the successful application of cost-effectiveness
analysis.  Choices are made almost exclusively on the basis of the attributes
measured in this step.  Therefore, they must Include the range of Information
relied upon to produce a decision.

     Measuring effectiveness of a control requires technical procedures and
expertise.  These technical procedures are beyond the scope of this report.
It is stressed that the measurements of effectiveness must be commensurable
with the objective so that performance can be calculated.

     Methods for cost assessment were presented  in the previous chapter.  The
required index of cost must include the total cost of erosion control related
to non-point source pollution abatement.   In terms of management cost,  It  Is
the  Increment to total costs that can be related to erosion control, beyond
"usual" operations.  These costs are composed of outlays and opportunity costs
and may occur over time as we 11.

Information needs—

     1.  Whenever  It  is possible, the  Incremental erosion control costs
Incurred for the purpose of abating pollution should be  distilled from  other
costs that arise from siIvlcultural management.
                                      59

-------
     2.  To obtain a total  erosion control  cost,  both joint and separable
costs must be identified in the accounting framework.  Allocation of costs to
factors of production (labor, equipment, materials, etc.) Is also useful
information and should be accounted.

     3.   If there are commitments over time, the stream of costs should be
reduced to present value.

     4.   Opportunity costs are  important components of total costs  and  should
be  included.

      5.   Performance should  be  measured  as  system  effectiveness  to  assure
commensurabiIity  with  costs  and the objective.

 Information  sources—

      1.  For information on  the effectiveness of controls refer  to specialists
 such as foresters, hydrologists, and engineers who are familiar  with the
 various techniques for evaluating erosion controls in the forested
 environment.

      2.  Cost-estimating guides can be obtained by referring to  private
 contracting and consulting firms, professional societies, libraries, and
 government agencies (USDA Forest Service, State highway departments, county
 extension agent,  among others).
                                       60

-------
Step 4.  Analysis

OBJECTIVE




ALTERNATIVES



AS

COSTS


EFFECTIVENESS

SESSMENT OF COSTS AND EFFECTIVENESS



ANALYSIS




CHOICE

     Analysis uses the  information obtained  in previous steps and evaluates it
with regard to the objective.  The form which the analysis takes depends on
the information that  is included in the decision criteria.  If information is
quantifiable, the model approach is a good choice.   If information is less
rigorously defined and  includes subjective evaluation factors, the tabular
display becomes more  applicable.  Choice between the fixed-cost or
fixed-effectiveness models depends upon the framework within which the
objective was defined.  Extensions of analysis to include statistical cost
estimating procedures or sensitivity analysis, for example, are at the
discretion of the user.

Information needs—

     1.  Information on costs and effectiveness as well  as the objective must
be reviewed to determine the best approach (model or tabular).

    2.   Review constraints on budget or performance (or  both).

    3.   Additional  decision criteria should be reviewed.

Information sources—

     Refer to previous steps.
                                     61

-------
Step 5.  Choice

OBJECTIVE




ALTERNATIVES



AS.

COSTS


EFFECTIVENESS

5ESSMENT OF COSTS AND EFFECTIVENESS



ANALYSIS




CHOICE

   The final step involves choice of the most cost-effective control(s).  As
described in the previous chapter, some alternatives can be intuitively
eliminated,  while the choice between remaining alternatives may require a
criterion to rely upon.  Following a choice. It Is advisable to review the
selected alternative for technical feasibility.

Information  needs—

     If a choice criterion Is used (such as a ratio or a preference
consensus),  the criterion Itself and how it applies to decision-making should
be explIcitly stated.
                                     62

-------
EXAMPLE 1.   COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS APPLIED
  TO CONTROL SELECTION ON A SINGLE SITE

     Construction and maintenance of access roads to si IvicuItural  operations
in the lodgepole pine type of the central  Rocky Mountains can involve erosion
hazards,  but controls can be applied to these activities that reduce erosion
and protect or improve water quality.

Step 1.  Define Objective

     A si IvicuItural  operation was proposed for a lodgepole pine stand.  The
forest manager evaluated the site and  its relationship to the surrounding
environment; he consulted with water quality planners and reviewed  local
regulations.  As a result, he concluded that the erosion-control objective was
to reduce the total  expected erosion impact over the next 4 years by 40
percent.   This will  keep the project impact well within the acceptable  limits
throughout the duration of the project.

     In steps 2-5 of this example access activities are examined and
erosion-reduction measures which must  be employed to meet the objective with
controls on Iy on access activities  are determined.  Step 6  expands  the
analysis to determine cost-effective alternatives for al I erosion-control
practices.

Step 2.  Define Alternatives

     Consultation with the road  construction engineer yielded a description  of
the access  activity  and the  erosion hazards  involved.  On this  site,  road
sections occurred predominately  on  50-percent  side  slopes (Figure  15).   The
running  surface  was  14 feet,  with a 2-percent  outslope.  Most road
construction  was to  be completed in the first  year,  harvesting  and  site
treatments  throughout the  following 3  years, with project completion in the
fourth year.

                                     63

-------
                                     CUT SLOPE
Figure  15.   Cross section of a roadbed,
                64

-------
Step 2A.  Estimate Erosion from Major Source Areas—

     With respect to the access activity on this site, erosion could occur on
the fill slope, the cut slope, and the road surface.  Estimates by the
engineer for the erosion from these areas over the planning period are shown
in Table 9.

                TABLE 9.  ESTIMATED EROSION FROM SOURCE AREAS*


A.
B.
C.
Source Area


Cut Slope
Road Surface
Fill Slope
Year
1

75
25
90
2
— Tons
60
25
80
3
per mi le —
40
25
80
4

25
25
50
Total


200
100
300
     *NOTE:  These figures are exemplary only and are not intended to be
representative of any area.
                                     65

-------
Step 2B.  Determine Appropriate Erosion-Control  Practices—

     As a result of their knowledge about both the site and  the erosion
hazards, the engineer and forest manager were able to determine erosion-
control practices best suited to mitigating specific erosion hazards (Table
10).
                    TABLE 10.   EROSION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
                  A.  Surface erosion from cut slope^
                       1 .   Grass seed
                       2.   Grass seed and fertilizer
                       3.   Grass seed, fertilizer, mulch
                       4.   Grass seed, fertilizer, jute mat

                  B.  Surface erosion from road surface
                       5.   Close road between uses
                       6.   Close, seed, fertilize
                       7.   Gravel the surface
                       8.   Asphalt surface on base

                  C.  Surface erosion from fi I I  slope^
                       9.   Grass seed
                      10.   Grass seed and fertilizer
                      11.   Grass seed, fertilizer, mulch
                      12.   Grass seed, fertilizer, jute mat
 Cut slope and fill  slopes are 1:1  and 1-1/2:1, respectively (see Figure 16,
 p. 76).
                                     66

-------
Step 3.  Assessment of System Effectiveness

Step 3A.  Calculate Local Effectiveness of Alternative Controls—

     Partial  effectiveness of individual  controls were estimated by the forest
manager who consulted the engineeer, computer models of erosion processes,
past records, and an evaluation of specific site conditions.  Partial
effectiveness estimated were made for each year of the 4-year period and they
refer to the effectiveness of the control  for reducing erosion on the local
source, i.e., the cut slope (this information is shown in Table 11, p. 68).
                                     67

-------
         TABLE 11.  TOTAL SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTROLS*
Calcu I at ion:
Alternati vest
A. Cut Slope
1
2
3
4
B. Road Surface
5
6
7
8
C. Fill Slope
9
10
11
12
(Step 3A) x
Partial
Effect! venessf

10
20
30
50

15
25
80
98

20
40
75
90
(Step 3B) x
Local Source
Contr i but ion§

33
33
33
33

17
17
17
17

50
50
50
50
(Step 3C) =
Act! v i ty
Contr i butioMI

75
75
75
75

75
75
75
75

75
75
75
75
(Step 3D)
System
Effectiveness

2
5
7
12

2
3
10
12

8
15
28
34
*  All  figures in percent.
t  Numbers refer to alternative controls shown in Table 10.
t  Total  effectiveness over the 4-year period.
§  Based  on estimated 150 tons/mile/year for a road section divided among
    the cut slope, fill  slope, and road surface.
^|  Proportion of total impact due to access activities.
                                68

-------
Step 3B.  Estimate Percentage Contribution of Erosion on Single Source
  Area to Total  Contribution of Erosion of All  Source Areas—

     Erosion from any single source,  (i.e., cutslope), must  be computed in
relation to erosion from all source areas, e.g.,  cut slope + road surface +
fill slope (see Table 11, p. 53).   For example, total erosion over the 4-year
period for cut slopes was 200 tons/mile (see Table 9).  For  all areas, it was
600 tons/mile.  Therefore, the percentage contribution of erosion from the cut
slope to erosion from all source areas was 33 percent, or 600/200.

Step 3C,  Estimate Contribution of Activity to Total Project Impact—

     Normalizing these estimates to a measure of system effectiveness requires
an estimate of the contribution of the local source to the total impact of the
project.  Table 8 in Chapter 2 suggests that in Ecoregion 3100 roads  involve
the greatest hazard, although the absolute share due to this activity Is not
indicated.  This can only be evaluated by an investigation of site conditions
for the area where the si Ivicultural  activity  is proposed.

     By evaluating the site conditions and comparing them with other
sllvlcultural  operations  in similar conditions, the  impact due to access
activities over the planning period were estimated to be:
                                      Year                             TotaI
1
30*
2
20$
3
15$
4
10$
   Access        30$           20$           15$           10$        £=75
Thus, the impact of access activities were estimated to account for 75 percent
(e.g., 30 + 20 + 15 + 10) of the total erosion impact over 4 years.  No
discounting was applied to effectiveness values (see Table 11, p.68 )•
                                     69

-------
Step 3D.  Calculate System Effectiveness—

     With information gathered from Steps 3A through 3C, calculations to
determine system effectiveness were carried out (see Table 11).  For example,
Control 2 has a 5-percent system effectiveness; this was calculated 20% x 33$
x 15%.

Step 4A.  Assessment of Costs

     A standard accounting framework was used to develop each of the total
cost estimates.  In this case the framework is shown with entries for one of
the controls (Table 12).

         TABLE 12.   A STANDARD ACCOUNTING FRAMEWORK APPLIED TO CONTROL 11
Unit Cost Units/Mi le =
of road
Direct Costs
Hydroseed and Mulch

Labor
Man hours $8.00 8

Materials
Seed (cwt) 26.00 8
Fertilizer (ton) 72.00 1-1/4
Mulch (ton) 150.00 3

Equipment and Overhead
Hydroseeder (hr) 70.00 4
Overhead (hr) 65.00 4

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
TOTAL JOINT COSTS
TOTAL COSTS

$64.00
$64.00

208.00
90.00
450.00
748.00

280.00
260.00
540.00
1 ,352.00
422.00
1 ,774.00
                                     70

-------
     A total  discounted cost value must also be determined (Table 13).  This
requires that the costs be estimated for each time period so that discounting
can be applied.  Costs were derived using a standard cost estimating yuicu tor
road construction.  They represent costs attributable to erosion control  for
water pollution abatement.  Total cost figures appearing in Table 14, p. 73
are the discounted values from each time period.  A discount rate of 7 percent
was appIied .

                 TABLE 13.  MULT I-PERIOD COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO EROSION CONTROL
                         FOR WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Control Year: 1234
A.




B.




C.




Cut Slope
1
2
3
4
Road Surface
5
6
7
8
Fill Slope
9
10
11
12

$ 172
287
747
5,853

$375
890
8,000 $200 $200 200
30,500 200 200 200

409
682
1,774
13,896
Total Cost*

$ 172
287
747
5,853

306
726
8,525
31,025

409
682
1 ,774
13,896
     *Cost per mile of  road  discounted  at  7  percent.
                                     71

-------
Step 4B.  Determine Best Combination of Erosion Controls

     Table 10 (p. 66) shows the individual controls that apply to different
areas, but combinations of these controls could also be applied and should
themselves be considered alternatives.  All possible combinations of controls
could feasibly be enumerated.   In order to reduce the combinations that
required analysis, two steps were taken:

     (1)  It was noted that the controls applied to any single area (i.e., cut
slope) were generally combinations themselves (i.e., grass seed, fertilizer
jute mate; grass seed and fertilizer).  Thus any combinations of controls
could only include one choice from the set of controls that apply to any
area—for example, only one of the four controls that apply to the cut slope
sould be included in a combination of controls.

     (2)  In order to reduce the number of combinations needing evaluation,
any combination of controls that was less than 40-percent effective was not
enumerated;  nor any controls that were greater than 45-percent effective.

     Since effectiveness and cost figures were estimated, it was assumed that
the values for combinations were additive.  That is, a combination of controls
1  and 5, for example, would have a cost of $478 with an effectiveness of 4
percent.  Table 14 summarizes the control  alternatives, including possible
combinations their costs and effectiveness.
                                     72

-------
    TABLE  14.   SUMMARY  OF  EROSION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative—
A. Cut Slope
1
2
3
4
B. Road Surface
5
6
7
8
C. Fill Slope
9
10
11
12
D. Combinations
12 + 7
12 + 3
11+4
11+8
12+6+3
12+6+2
12+5+3
12+5+2
11 +8+2
11+8+1
11+7+3
11+7+2
11 + 7 + 1
11+6+1
Cost/Mi le

$ 172
287
747
5,853

306
726
8,525
31,025

409
682
1 ,774
13,896

22,421
14,643
7,627
32,799
15,369
14,909
14,949
14,489
33,086
32,971
11,046
10,586
10,471
8,353
System Effectiveness

2%
5
7
12

2
3
10
12

8
15
28
34

44
41
40
40
44
42
43
41
45
42
45
43
40
43
Ratio ($/$x100)

86
57
107
488

153
241
853
2,585

51
45
63
409

510
354
191
820
349
355
348
353
735
785
245
246
262
194
Numbers refer to alternatives listed in Table 10,
                           73

-------
Step 5.  Analysis and Choice

Step 5A.  Calculate Cost-Effectiveness Ratios—

     To determine the most desirable control strategy In terms of the
objective, cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for each control and
control combination.  These are derived by dividing costs by effectiveness.
(Ratios are shown in Table 14.)

Step 5B.  Determine Best Alternative For Reducing
     Erosion for Specificed Level of Effectiveness

     Using the lowest ratio as the criterion, the best choice for reducing
erosion by 40 percent was:
     Control  11:  grass seed, fertilizer, and mulch on the fill  slope
plus
     Control  4:  grass seed, fertilizer, and jute mat on the cut slope.

This combination was 40-percent effective over 4 years and had a total
discounted cost of $7,627 per mile of road.

     A sensitivity analysis is another means of showing how responsive total
costs are to various levels of erosion-control effectiveness.  To facilitate
analysis, the most cost-effective control(s) was determined for cost-
effectiveness levels 5 through 55 percent at 5 percent Increments.  This
analysis Included:  (1) determining which controls or combinations met the
effectiveness level, for example, 5 percent (see Table 14); and (2) evaluating
these alternatives on the basis of their respective cost-effective ratios  (see
Step 5A or Table 14) to determine the cost-effective choice.  The results of
these analyses are shown In Table 15.  Using 5 percent Increments Is purely
illustrative of a sensitivity analysis procedure.  It should be noted that  In
this example although access activities account for 75 percent of the project
impact, a maximum of only 58 percent of the impact could be mitigated using
the controls available, and at a cost per mile of $50,774.
                                     74

-------
TABLE 15.  TOTAL COSTS OF EROSION CONTROL FOR ACCESS ACTIVITIES
A 1 ternative
2
10
10
10+2
11
11 + 1
11+3
11+4
1 1+7+3
11+7+4
12+7+4
12+8+4

Step 3D
Approximate
Level of System
Effectiveness
5*
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
58 (maximum
possible)
Step 4A
Total Cost
per mi le
of need
$ 287
682
682
969
1774
1946
2521
7627
11046
16152
28274
50774

                             75

-------
     Figure 16 Is a graph of  the Information  shown fn Table  15.   This cost
curve shows erosion control costs for access  activities on this  site for
various  levels of erosion  impact reduction  when  cost-effective alternatives
are used.



I
1
I
g
s
I



$55.000 .
50.000 -
45.000 -
40.000 .
35.000 -
30.000 .

29.000 -
20.000 .
15,000 -
10.000 -
5.000 -

;
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
//

f 	 ! 	 r i i i i i i i
6 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
                                   Percent level of effeeti«ene»
            Figure 16. Total cost for erosion control for access activities.
                                     78

-------
Step 6A.  Expand Analysis to Determine Cost-Effective Alternatives for All
  Erosion-Control Practices

   At this point the analysis was expanded to include not only access
activities, but analysis of erosion control alternatives for harvest and
cultural treatments as well.  To determine the best strategy for the harvest
area as a whole, it would be possible to simply include the controls for
harvest and cultural treatment activities as further alternatives that could
be combined with access controls.  The analysis could then proceed as outlined
above for access activities only.

     In this case,  the analysis was done a little differently.  The most
cost-effective controls for various levels of effectiveness were determined,
but for access, harvest, and cultural  treatment activities separately.  These
results appear  in Table 16  (note that costs are now comparable on a per acre
basis).
                                     77

-------
       TABLE 16.  COST-EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVES FOR ALL FORMS OF EROSION CONTROL
Step 6A
A. Access
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
B. Harvest**
1.
2.
C. Cultural
1.

Step 6A
Level of
Effec-
tiveness
*
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
58

5
10
Treatments**
5

Step 6A*
Total
Cost

$ 1.32
3.20
3.20
4.54
8.32
9.12
11.82
29.79
51.78
75.71
132.53
238.00

43.00
56.00

2.00

Step 6B
Marginal
Cost

$ 1.32
1 .88
	
1.34
3.78
.80
2.70
17.97
21.99
23.93
56.82
105.47

43.00
13.00

2.00

Step 6B
Rank

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
15

12
13

5

 *Cost per acre of harvested area; it was assumed that these were 3 miles
  of road per section (640 acres) of harvested area.
**Harvest activities were estimated to account for 15 percent of the
  total  four-year Impact; cultural treatments for 10 percent.
                                 78

-------
     Just as a total cost curve  relating costs to various levels of
effectiveness was developed  for  access controls only (see Figure 16), three
curves were developed showing  total  costs for each of three activities.  This
is shown  in Figure  17,  and was developed using the information from Table  16.

Figure 17.  Total Cost  Curves  for  AI I  Activities.
                   $200 .
                   $100 -
                   J50 -
                              Harvest
                          Cultural treatments
                         5  10  15  20  25  30  35  40  45  50  55  60
                                Percent level of effectiveness
     Using this kind of  information,  a sensitivity analysis can be  undertaken
to determine a cost-effective  strategy for erosion control In general,
including control possibilities  for all three kinds of activities.

Step 6B.  Calculate Marginal Costs  for All Erosion-Control Alternatives
In Order to Rank Alternatives

    The marginal cost, or  the  additional  cost at an increment of  5-percent
effectiveness, were calculated for  each alternative.  The alternatives  from
all activities were then ranked  In  order of increasing marginal cost  (with  the
rule that alternatives from  any  activity must be sequential—i.e.,  alternative
5 for access must come before  alternative 6).  The last column  in Table  16
shows this ranking.
                                      79

-------
 Step  6C.   Estimate Total  Costs  in  Relationship  to  Levels  of  Effectiveness

      Using the ranking  (Table  16),  a  final  table can  be constructed to  show
 the strategy  as  it relates  to various  levels of effectiveness.  Table 17 shows
 the  levels of strategy  effectiveness  (cumulative effectiveness), the costs of
 the strategy  (cumulative  cost),  and the  alternatives  that comprise the
 strategy  for  a level of effectiveness.

           TABLE  17.  TOTAL  COST  RELATIONSHIP TO EFFECTIVENESS LEVELS
Step 6C Step 6C
Rank Alternatives


1 (A-1)
2 (A-2)
3 (A-3)
4 (A-4)
5 (C-1)
6 /A R ^ -i. f f"*» 1 ^
\ r\ *s j • \ \s i /
1 (A-6)+(C-1)
Q (r\~//'(O**I/
9 (A-8)+(C-1)
10 (A-9)+(C-1)
11 (A-10)+(C-1)
12 (A-10)+(C-1 )+(H-1 )
13 (A-10)+(C-1 )+(H-2)
14 (A-11 )+(C-1 )+(H-2)
15 (A-12) + (C-1)-KH-2)
Step 6C
Cumulative*
Cost

$ 1.32
3.20
3.20
4.54
6.54
10.52
11.12
13.82
31.79
53.78
77.71
120.71
133.71
190.53
296.00
Step 6C
Cumulative
Effectiveness
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
73
Cumulative total of marginal costs.
                                     80

-------
      The information  In the table can be transferred to a  graph  to Illustrate
the  total  cost relationship  in  effectiveness levels.  This is  shown In Figure
18.
                 I
                 I
                 o
                 §  150
                        T	r	\	1	1   i	1	1	1	1	r	1	i	1	r	
                        5   10  15  20  25  30  35 40  45  50  55 60  6$  70  75
                                  Percanl Itval of •ff«ctiv*r»s*
                       Figure 18. Total cost for erosion control.

     As shown  by the curve, a maximum of  73  percent of the erosion  impact  of
the project  could be reduced by applying  the most effective controls,  although
this would cost  about $296 per acre.  The graph clearly Illustrates how  costs
Increase with  higher levels of control.   Notably, costs begin to escalate
dramatically above a 40 percent reduction.
                                      81

-------
SUMMARY

     This example has shown, first, how Individual  controls can be evaluated.
Second, it demonstrates how controls can be combined Into further alternatives
and how a cost-effective choice can be made from all of these in relation to
one siIvicuItural activity.  It has also displayed an application of
sensitivity analysis relating total erosion-control costs to various levels of
control.  Finally, the example has illustrated how a cost-effective choice can
be made for controls relating to all  activities in a siIvicultural  operation.
                                      82

-------
EXAMPLE 2:  CHOICE OF PREVENTIVE EROSION CONTROL
  FOR MECHANICAL SITE PREPARATION  IN THE SOUTH

     This example applies cost-effectiveness analysis to a situation in which
not all cost or effectiveness measurements can explicitly be made.
Opportunity costs not directly measurable in dollar terms are included in the
analysis, and to accomodate these a tabular display is used.  Further
difficulty In determining the portion of total costs due to erosion controls
necessitated the use of only management costs—a problem that can often be
encountered.

Objective

     Some sort of mechanical site preparation is usually required to establish
a well-stocked plantation with superior trees.  Erosion rates can be high
during some mechanical site preparation procedures, and the main control will
be that of maintaining or creating vegetative ground in the treated area, plus
leaving a streamside management zone.  The type of mechanical site preparation
is governed by both the tree species to be planted and the size and amount of
residual stand after clearcutting.   In this example, loblolly pine is being
planted in the upper coastal plain in an area having a residual hardwood stand
of about 6 inches in diameter.  The  landowner wants to establish a
we 11-stocked plantation with minimum investment and he needs to cut the
present erosion rate  in half—to approximately 6 tons per acre per year.  The
6-ton erosion rate coupled with a streamside management zone that is
90-percent effective will reduce erosion to acceptable levels.

Alternatives

     The landowner has several alternatives to choose from, but some of them
have environmental tradeoffs.  He can choose from two commonly used site
preparation treatments:  (1) To fell  the residual hardwoods with a KG shearing
blade, rake the debris into a windrow and burn it (which would affect air
quality), and machine plant at a cost of $90 an acre.  With this procedure the
erosion rate is expected to be about 13 tons per acre per year; or (2) To
                                     83

-------
shear, rake and windrow, disk, and machine plant at a cost of $112 per acre,
with erosion reduced to  10 tons per acre per year.

     Neither of these alternatives meets the 6-ton criteria however; as a
consequence the usual site preparation treatment must be modified.  This will
lead,  in turn, to other  alternatives:

     (3) To shear, rootrake and windrow, machine plant, and seed with grass at
a cost of $110 per acre  and an expected erosion rate of 4 tons per acre per
year.  However, costs will remain relatively high and there will be some
reduction in tre» seedlings survival and reduced timber yields per acre.

     (4) To shear and hand plant provided planting crews are available; and
during the second year,  release spray with herbicides for a total cost of $66
per acre (present value).  The erosion rate is expected to be approximately 3
tons per acre per year.  However, there is a tradeoff between erosion control
and introduction of herbicides into the forest environment which could, in
turn, have a water quality impact.

     (5) To shear, chop, burn, and hand plant would cost $81 per acre with
erosion expected to be 3 tons per acre per year.  Prescribed burning, as wfth
release spraying, minimizes the vegetation that competes with seedlings.
However, burning would impact air quality and some ash could enter the stream.

     (6) A final  alternative would be to use the seed-tree harvesting
system—scarify the soil, use hand injection of herbicides to kill the
residual  hardwood and thin the natural regeneration at the age of 4 to 5
years.   Trade-offs include (a) the dead hardwoods left standing would
adversely affect aesthetics and (b) the resulting stand of pine would not be
of superior tree stock, resulting in a 20- to 25-percent reduction in
production.   The erosion rate would be about 3 tons per acre, and the
treatment would cost (at present value) $65 per acre.
                                     84

-------
     All of the above alternatives are technically possible provided that hand
planting crews, spray equipment, and mechanical site preparation equipment are
available.  But in many areas hand planting cannot be used because of the
scarcity of labor crews.

     Analysis in this case utilizes the tabular display (Figure 19).
Alternatives are presented in descending order of preference, depending upon
subjective weights placed upon the various aspects of effectiveness and costs,
based on the judgement of several individuals.  In this case, the preference
rankings are not entirely related to dollar costs.  An important consideration
is in the trade-offs indent!fied for each alternative.  The preferred
alternative is shown as number  (1).

     As a matter of contrast to the alternatives presented, on hardwood stands
less than 4 Inches in diameter, a simple drum chop and hand planting could
have been used, followed by release spray at a cost of $54 per acre and an
erosion rate of 1 ton per acre per year.  This demonstrates that the size of
the residual stand has a marked  impact on site preparation treatment, the
resulting erosion rate, and the cost of tree planting.  With the use of
prescribed burning during the rotation, future plantations could be
re-established using this type of treatment or something similar in  intensity,
because the hardwoods will be kept small enough that a light treatment can be
used.   Intensely prepared sites are the result of two factors:  Forest stands
now contain large hardwoods and many more forest stands are being brought
under management.
                                     85

-------
STRATEGIES
(1) Shear, hand plant and
release spray Kith herbicide
in the second year
(2) Shear, chop and burn, and
hand plant
(3) :"eod tree harvest, scarify
soil, hand injection of
hardwoods, fhln at 4-5 years
W Shear, root-rake, windrow,
seed with grass, machine
plant
(5) Fell hardwoods with a KG
blade, rake into windrows,
burn, machine plant
(6) S.'mar, rake, windrow, disk,
machine plant
COSTS
Cost per acre'
$ 06
81
65
110
90
112
L 	 	
Special Requirements
a) Planting crews
t>) Spray equipment



Special equipment
needud
Special equipment
needed
Trade-offs
Herbicide use
Burnfnq may affect
air
a)Uns!qhtly dead
Ire-PS
b)No superior troe
c)^f-nucf*d yields by
70-25 percent
a^FUfduced seedling
surv i va 1
b)Reduced timber
yield
a)Ai r qua 1 i ty
affected
b)Si ze of residual
trees 1 imit Ing

EFFECTIVENESS
tons/acrefyear
3
3
3
4
13
10
'present value discounted at 7%
                                                   Figure 19. Tabular Display.
                                                            86

-------
  EXAMPLE 3.  LARGE AREA ANALYSIS

     This example uses cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate erosion-control
strategies that apply to extensive areas.  This is in contrast to the previous
two examples which determined a cost-effective strategy for reducing erot;cn
in an area generally homogenous with respect to erosion response to manageme-.t
activities.  As scope of analysis broadens in a geographic sense,
environmental variety increases and erosion responses to si Ivicultural
management may differ.  For example, within a river basin of several thousand
acres, a number of forest types can occur, and si Ivicultural  management in
each will likely produce different erosion responses.

   Cost-effectiveness analysis applied to large areas shifts its emphasis from
choice between individual controls for specific areas to choice between
erosion control strategies that apply to entire segments of a region.  Example
1  produced an erosion control strategy for given conditions in the central
Rocky Mountains.  On a large area basis, this strategy would become only one
of the many alternatives relating to other sites.  In general, the  problem at
the large scale is one of evaluating alternative strategies, made up of
cost-effective combinations of individual controls, which can be combined to
produce a cost-effective erosion reduction program.

Step 1.  Determine Objective

   This analysis applies to a region in the Southeast, roughly corresponding
to a large river basin.  (The data presented in this example are crude and are
not intended to be representative of any specific area.)  The region
encompasses portions of two ecoregions (2200 and 2300), several forest types
and two physiographic zones.  SI IvicuItural management takes place throughout
the region although the erosion  Impacts differ.
                                      87

-------
    In this case, a regional agency (such as a State Water Quality Division or
a Regional Council of Governments) instructed the analyst to evaluate
erosion-control strategies that could be applied throughout the region In a
cost-effectiveness analysis framework to determine a set of programs
corresponding to various levels of erosion reduction.  Specifically, the
objective included two steps:  (1) determine cost-effective programs for
effectiveness  levels of 25 and 45 percent on a region-wide basis, and (2)
indicate the total costs of these programs.

Step 2. Identify Alternative Strategies

Step 2A.  Stratify the Region —

   To identify alternative strategies, the region was stratified into areas.
This was done so that each strategy would be representative of an area in
terms of erosion control costs and effectiveness.  Stratification was
accomplished on the basis of two features:  (1) physiographic characteristics
and (2) forest types.  With reference to local information and to Chapter 2 of
this report, the system in Table 18 was developed.
                      TABLE 18.  REGIONAL STRATIFICATION
                         1.  Mountains
                               a.  Yellow Pine
                               b.  Virginia Pine
                               c.  Oak-Hickory

                         2.  Piedmont
                               a.  Loblolly-Shortleaf Pine
                               b.  Oak-Hickory
                                      88

-------
Step 2B.  Identify Strategies for Each Area--

   Strategies for each area were identified with the help of foresters and
hydrologists familiar with local conditions.  The following procedure was
used:

   (1)  Tables in Chapter 2 were used to determine erosion potentials
        associated with each forest type and for various siIvicuItural
        activities in each area.

   (2)  Cost-effective strategies were developed in response to these
        potentials.   In some cases, cost-effectiveness analysis was used to
        identify the best combinations of controls for an area.  (See
        Example 1 for details of these procedures.)

   (3)  Three estimates were made for each strategy corresponding to  three
        levels of effectiveness.  These were generally a  low, medium, and
        high level representing approximately 20-, 40-, and 60-percent
        local effectiveness.  (See Example 1 for details of this procedure.)

As a result of this procedure, the alternatives shown  in Table  19 were
identified.  The table shows, for example, that for the oak-hickory type found
in the mountains a cost-effective strategy with primary control emphasis on
access and harvest activities can reduce erosion impact  in  that type  by
approximately 20 percent when applied at a relatively  low  level.  By  incurring
higher costs, the same strategy could increase  Its  local effectiveness to 40
percent.  Thus, for each forest type  in the two physiographic areas there is
one erosion control strategy which can be applied at any of three  levels.
Each of these levels  represents an alternative although a higher level for a
strategy  includes the  lower  levels.
                                     89

-------
               TABLE  19.   EROSION CONTROL  STRATEGIES
   Area
Strategy
  Level  of
Effectiveness^
1 .  Mounta i ns

   a .   YelIow Pi ne
Access-CuIturaI
treatment
   b.   Virginia Pine   Access-Cultural
                       treatment
   c.   Oak-Hickory     Access-Harvest
2.  Piedmont

   d.   Loblolly-       Cultural  treatment-
       Short leaf Pine  Harvest
   e.   Oak-Hfckory     Access-Harvest
   1. Low
   2. Medium
   3. High

   4. Low
   5. Medium
   6. High

   7. Low
   8. Medium
   9. High
                          10, Low
                          11. Medium
                          12. High

                          13. Low
                          14. Medium
                          15. High
 Entries indicate the major emphasis of controls comprising
 the strategy.

"Approximate values are
      Low = 20%
      Medium =  40/K
      High = 60%
                            90

-------
Assessment of Costs and Effectiveness;
  Step 3.  Estimate System Effectiveness

   In order to normalize local values into measurements reflecting the system
effectiveness of various strategies on a river basin scale, an estimate was
required of the relative proportion that siIvicultural  management in each of
the areas made to the total erosion impact within the basin (Table 20).
                    TABLE  20.   SYSTEM  EFFECTIVENESS  OF  STRATEGIES
Area Acres1 ^T Y A^er"ative
Shared X Strategy =
1 . Mounta i n
a. Yel low Pine 20,000 20% 1.
2.
3.
b. Virginia Pine 15,000 15 4.
5.
6.
c. Oak-Hickory 5,000 5 7.
8.
9.
2. Piedmont
a. Loblol ly- 35,000 35 10.
Shortleaf Pine 11.
12.
b. Oak-Hickory 25,000 25 13.
14.
15.

20$
40
60
20
40
60
20
40
60 -

20
40
60
20
40
60
System
: Effectiveness

4%
8
12
3
6
9
1
2
3

7
14
21
5
10
15
  Average number of acres  undergoing siIvicultural management  annually.
 2
  Percentage share of total si IviculturaI erosion  impact occurring  within
  the total area.
                                      91

-------
   Two steps were taken to  accomplish  this:

   (A)  The number of  acres managed  for  silviculture  were estimated  for each
        area.  And an  estimate  for each  area  was  made for the average annual
        erosion per acre due to siIvicultural management.

   (B)  The products of these two values were then translated Into
        percentages reflecting  the relative share of  the river basin erosion
        occurring in each area.

   These relative shares are shown in  the column  "Relative Share" in Table 20.
The table shows, for example, that approximately  60 percent of the
silviculture-related erosion within  the  basin occurs  in the Piedmont Area
(e.g., 25 + 35 percent), 40  percent  in  the Mountain  Area, and 35 percent  in
the loblolIy-shortleaf pine type.

Assessment of Costs and Effectiveness:
  Step 4.  Estimate Total  Costs for the Region

   In Table 21 three cost estimates were made for every strategy corresponding
to the three levels of local effectiveness.   (Please  note:  Only one strategy
for each type is shown In Table 21.)
                                     92

-------
                    TABLE  21.  TOTAL COSTS FOR REGION
Area Acres* Alternative

1. Mountain
a. Ye I low Pine 20,000 1.
2.
3.
b. Virginia Pine 15,000 4.
5.
6.
c. Oak-Hickory 5,000 7.
8.
9.
2. Piedmont
d. Loblol ly- 35,000 10.
Short leaf 11.
12.
e. Oak-Hickory 13.
14.
15.
Unit
Cost/Acre


$ 2.50
15.00
90.00
3.00
10.00
40.00
20.00
40.00
60.00

5.00
20.00
130.00
3.00
15.00
35.00
Step 4
Total Cost
( I n thousands)

$ 50
300
1800
45
150
600
100
150
350

175
700
4550
75
375
875
^Average number of acres annually undergoing  active  si IviculturaI
 management.
                                  93

-------
     Table 22 summarizes  the  information pertaining to  the  alternative
strategies.
                 TABLE 22.  SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
Step 2A
Area

1. Mountains
a . Ye 1 1 ow
Pine

b. V irginia
Pine

c. Oak-
Hickory

2. Piedmont
d. Loblol ly-
Shortleaf

e. Oak-
Hickory

Step B Step 2B Step 3 Step 4
. .- . Percent Percent ,- . . „ .
An Erosion , - . Total Cost
~ , , -, . Level of System r n
Control Strateqy r,, ,. ._,, ' . For Region
Effectiveness Effectiveness


Access-Cul tura 1 1 .
treatments 2 .
3.
Access-Cultural 4.
treatments 5.
6.
Access-Harvest 7.
8.
9.

Cultural 10.
treatments-Harvest 1 1 .
12.
Access-Harvest 13.
14.
15.


Low (20^)
Medium (40$)
High (60%)
Low (20?)
Medium (40%)
High (6C£)
Low (20?)
Medium (40$)
High (60$)

Low (20?)
Medium (40$)
High (60$)
Low (20?)
Medium (40$)
High (60$)


4?
8
12
3
6
9
1
2
3

7
14
21
5
10
15
( in thousands)

$ 50
300
1800
45
150
600
100
150
300

175
700
4550
75
375
875
                                      94

-------
    Erosion-control cost estimates were made on an annual average per acre
basis (Cost per acre x Number of acres = Total cost).  That is, the estimates
were intended to reflect the average annual cost per acre of applying the
erosion-control strategy to si IvicuItural management within the area.  The
costs depended largely upon controls selected to comprise the strategy and
their individual costs.  Again,  cost estimates were made by persons familiar
with local conditions.  In addition, reference was made to cost estimates by
Federal  and State agencies and private forestry companies In the region.

   Because the objective of the analysis is to determine the most
cost-effective programs for the region as a whole, it was required that system
effectiveness (Step 3) be compared with total incremental costs (Step 4).
Cost estimates are based on a unit cost  (i.e., si IvicuItural type).  Because a
different number of acres are undergoing active siIvicultural management  in
each unit in each year, to obtain a total cost for erosion control requires
that the total erosion control cost for each area and siIvicultural unit
within it be determined.  Thus,  the product of the unit cost (in Table 21, for
example, 2.50 per acre in the Yellow-Pine type) and the number of acres
affected (20,000 acres) will yield the total cost for each area ($50,000),
shown also in Table 23.
                                       95

-------
Ana lysis and Choice

   Since the objective could not be reached with the application of a single
erosion-reduction strategy in one area only, the regional program was made up
of strategies that affected various areas within the region.  Thus the program
was composed of strategies affecting different areas, although the intensity
at which they were applied could differ from area to area.

Assessment of Costs and Effectiveness;
  Step 5.  Determine Marginal Costs and Effectiveness
  for Each Level of Strategy

   Marginal analysis was used to evaluate the strategies and determine how
they should be combined to produce a cost-effective program.  To begin, the
marginal cost and marginal  effectiveness values for each level of each
strategy were determined (Table 23).
                                    96

-------
                        TABLE  23.  MARGINAL ANALYSIS
Step 5
. A 1 ten-
Area ,.
nati ve
Cost
Total Marginal
Cost Cost
Step 5
Effect! veness
System Margina
Step 6
Margi na 1 *
, C/E
Ratio
( in thousands)
1 . Mounts i n
a. Ye I low Pi ne 1 .
2.
3.
b . V i rg in ia Pi ne 4.
5.
6.
c. Oak-Hickory 7.
8.
9.
2. Piedmont
d. Loblolly- 10.
Shortleaf Pine 11 .
12.
e. Oak-Hickory 13.
14.
15.

$ 50
300
1800
45
150
600
100
150
300

175
700
4550
75
375
875

$ 50
250
1500
45
105
450
100
50
150

175
525
3850
75
300
500

4
8
12
3
6
9
1
2
3

7
14
21
5
10
15

4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
1

7
7
7
5
5
5

12.5
62.5
375.0
15.0
35.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
150.0

25.0
75.0
550.0
15.0
60.0
100.0
^(Marginal  Cost) ^ (Marginal  Effectiveness) = Ratio
                                     97

-------
   To  illustrate, Alternatives 1 through 3 refer to the application of a
single erosion-control strategy to the yellow pine forest type  in the
mountains.  Alternative 1  is a low level of control, while Alternatives 2 and
3 are more  intensive applications of the same strategy to obtain greater
erosion control.

   Marginal cost will be defined here to refer to the addition to total cost
that reflects a higher level of erosion control.  Thus, the marginal cost of
Alternative 1  is $50,000, or the "additional" cost of obtaining 4 percent
system effectiveness.  For Alternative 2, the marginal cost is $250,000
($300,000 - $50,000) and for 3 it is $1,800,000.

   Marginal effectiveness  is calculated in the same fashion.  For the  first
three alternatives, the marginal  effectiveness values are all  a constant 4
percent.

   The marginal value for each strategy must be calculated in the same manner.

Analysis and Choice;
  Step 6.  Determine Cost-Effectiveness Ratios

   To determine the most cost-effective program based upon a desired level of
erosion-control effectiveness, the alternatives should be ranked in order of
increasing marginal cost-effectiveness ratios (see Table 23).   The marginal
cost-effectiveness ratio is the quotient of the marginal cost and marginal
effectiveness values.

Analysis and Choice;
  Step 7.  Rank Alternatives In Order of Cost-Effectiveness Ratios

   Based upon these ratios, the alternatives for this example have been ranked
in increasing order and are shown In Table 24.  (See also Step 5B of Example
1.)
                                     98

-------
 TABLE 24.  ALTERNATIVE RANKINGS
Step 7
Rank

1.
2.*a.
b.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11. *a.
b.
12.
13.
A 1 ternati ve

1
4
13
10
5
14
2
11
15
7
8
6
9
3
12
Marg ina
Cost
(X1000)
50
45
75
175
105
300
250
525
500
100
50
450
50
1500
3850
Cost
I Total Cost
Cumu I at? ve
(X1000)
50
95
170
345
450
750
1000
1525
2025
2125
2175
2625
2775
4275
8125
EFE
Marginal
Effectiveness

4
3
5
7
3
5
4
7
5
1
1
3
1
4
7
Step 8
Cumu I ati ve
System
Effectiveness

4
7
12
19
22
27
31
38
43
44
45
48
49
53
60
*At this rank, two alternatives have the same marginal ratio.
                                   99

-------
Analysis and Choice:
  Step 8.  Determine Cumulative System Effectiveness

   Once alternatives have been ranked (Step 1, Table 24 above), cumulative
system effectiveness must be determined.  These values are obtained by adding
together the marginal effectiveness values (Table 24 above) for each of the
alternatives with higher ranking.  For example, Alternative 5 has a cumulative
system effectiveness of 22, or the sum of values of all the alternatives
ranked above it  (i.e., 4 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 3 = 22).

Analysis and Choice:
  Step 9. Determine Program that Meets Desired Level of Effectiveness

   To determine  the program that will meet a desired level of effectiveness,
such as the 25-percent level  specified in the objective, reference  is made to
the Table 22.  A system effectiveness of 27 percent can be obtained by
utilizing the alternatives with the first five rankings.  This includes
Alternatives 1,  4, 13, 10, 5, and 14.  The program, composed of alternatives
relating to levels of intensity for strategies, is:

     Alternatives   Strategy intensity	Area	    	^^
           1              Low             Mountains—Yellow pine

           5              Medium          Mountains—Virginia Pfne

          10              Low             Piedmont—Lob loI Iy-Short leaf

          14              Medium          Piedmont—Oak-Hickory
   The reason Alternatives 4 and 13 do not appear in the above tabulation is
that they are included in Alternatives 5 and 14 (5 refers to an alternative
which is a medium level  intensity application of strategy 2—simply an
extension of Alternative 4, and similarly for Alternatives 13 and 14).  This
program would be approximately 27 percent effective for controlling erosion
                                    100

-------
within the river basin at a total cost of $750,000.

     Using similar logic, to obtain a 45-percent level of effectiveness, the
most cost-effective program would be:

      Alternative	Strategy intensity	Area
2
5
8
11

15
Med i urn
Medium
Med ium
Med ium

High
Mountain — Yellow pine
Mountain — Virginia pine
Mounta in — Oak-H i ckory
Piedmont — Loblol ly-
Shortleaf
P i edmont — Oak-H i ckory
This program would be approximately 45 percent effective and cost $2,175,000
annua My.

     To show how responsive program costs are to  increasing  levels of erosion
control, Figure 20 was developed from Table 24.   It  illustrates how the higher
levels of control are increasingly more expensive.  The figure also shows that
by  implementing all strategies at their highest  level of effectiveness, a
maximum of 60 percent of the expected erosion could be controlled in any year.
                                      101

-------
                     $8.000 -
                     7.000 J
                     6.000 J
                     5,0004
                  £  4.000 -|
                  o
                  s
                  5
                  »  3.000-1
                     2.000 J
                     1,000 J
                              10  15  20  25  30  35  40  45  50
                                   Percent level of syitem effectiveness

                              Figure 20. Program costs.
    To conclude this example, one major  limitation should be noted.  The  total
costs associated with the various  levels  of  effectiveness embodied  in the
alternative  programs are the costs only  for  controlling erosion.  This
analysis was conducted investigating  silviculture on a regional basis—in a
region where silviculture may comprise a  significant segment of the economy.
Evaluating only the incremental costs of  erosion  control  does not account for
economic ram if feat tons throughout the rest of  the economy—changes  in the
relative prices of wood products,  improved efficiency in production, or
employment changes, for example.  These  Impacts can only be estimated by  using
a general equilibrium model.  Even so, cost-effectiveness analysis provides a
good evaluation of on-site costs.
                                     102

-------
                                  REFERENCES

ARINC Research Corporation.  1970.  Reviewers' guide for cost-
     effectiveness analysis study.  J_n_ USDA For. Serv., Manage. Notes
     33:13-22.  [Originally from Guidebooks for systems analysis/cost-
     effectiveness. 1969.  This guidebook was produced for the U. S. Army
     Electronic Command, Fort Manmouth, New Jersey, and was written under
     contract by the ARINC Research Corporation.3

Backer, Morton and Lyle Jacobson.  1964.  Cost accounting:  a managerial
     approach.  678 p.  McGraw-Hill  Book Co.,  New York.

Bailey, Robert G.  [In press.]  Ecoregion descriptions (to accompany map
     of ecoregions of the United States).  USDA For. Serv,, Ogden, Utah.

Bailey, Robert G.  1976.  Ecoregions of the United States, {One-page
     map).  USDA For. Serv., Ogden, Utah.  [In cooperation with the USDA  Fish
     and WlIdlife Serv.]

Bannock, G.,  R.  E. Baxter, and R. Rees.  1972.  A dictionary of economics
     427 p.  Penguin Books, Ltd.,  Middlesex,  Engl.

Committee for Economic Development.  1971.   Improving federal  program
     performance.  86 p.  Res. and Policy Comm., Comm.  Econ. Anal.,  New York.

Ford-Robertson,  F. C., ed.  1971.  Terminology of  forest  science,  technology,
     practice and products.  349 p.  Soc. Am.  For., Wash., D.  C.

Haveman, Robert  H., and Julius Margolis,  eds.   1977.  Puu'ic expenditures
     and policy  analysis.  2d. ed.  612 p.   Rand-McNally  P. j!.  Co.,  Chicago.
                                     103

-------
Kazanowski, A. D.  1968.  A standardized approach to cost-effectiveness
     evaluations,  p. 113-150.   J_n_ Cost-effectiveness:   the economic
     evaluation of engineered systems.   J.  Morley English,  ed.   John Wiley  and
     Sons, New York.

Kemper, Robert E., and Lawrence S. Davis.   1976.   Costs of  environmental
     constraints on timber harvesting and  regeneration.  J. For.  74(11):
     754-761 .

Schwarz, Charles F., Edward C.  Thor,  and Gary H.  Eisner.  1976.  Wildtand
     planning glossary.  USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech.  Rep. PSW-13.   252 p.   USDA
     For. Serv., Pacific Southwest For.  and Range Exp.  Stn., Berkeley,  Calif.

Soc. Am. For.   1958.  Forestery terminology:  a glossary of technical terms
     used in forestry.  3d. ed.  97 p.   Soc. Am.  For.,  Washington.

U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency,  Region X.   1976.  Forest  harvest,
     residue treatment, reforestation and  protection of water  quality.   EPA
     910/9-76-020.  273 p.

U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency and  USDA Forest Service.   1977.
     Non-point water quality modeling in wildland management:   a
     state-of-the-art assessment (vol.  1—text).   EPA-600/3-77-036.   146  p.

Washington Operations Research CounciI .   1967.  Cost-effectiveness
     analysis:  new approaches  in decision-making.  T.  A. Goldman, ed.   23! p.
     Praeger Publishers, New York.
                                     104

-------
                                 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ashraf, Muhammad, and Robert L.  Christensen.   1974.   Economic  costs of
     water quality protection on dairy farms.   Water  Resour. Bull.
     10(2):318-327.

Conn, Elchanan.  1972.  Public expenditure analysis  with  special
     reference to human resources.  157 p.  Lexington Books, D.  C. Heath  and
     Co.,  Lexington, Mass.

Crews, James E.  I973.  Establishing priorities in mine drainage
     reduction:  a cost-effectiveness approach.  Water Resour. Bull.
     9(3):567-576.

Jacobs, James J., and John F. Timmons.  1974.   An economic analysis  of
     agricultural  land use practices to control water quality.  Am.  J.   Agric.
     Econ.  56(4):79l-798.

Jones, J. 0., ed.  1972.  Land use planning:  the methodology  of choice.
     47 p.  Commonw. Board Agric. Econ.,  Oxford, Engl.

Krueckeberg, Donald A., and Arthur L. Silvers.  1974.  Urban  planning
     analysis:  methods and models.  486 p.  John Wiley & Sons, New  York.

Little, A. D.  1968.  Cost-effectiveness in traffic  safety.  167 p.
     Praeger Publishers, N. Y.

Miller, W. L., and H. W. Everett.   1975.  The economic impact of controlling
     non-point pollution  in  a hardwood  forestland.  Am. J. Agric. Econ.
     5(4):576-583.
                                     105

-------
O'Connell, Paul  F.,  and Harrey  E.  Brown.   1972.   Use of  production functions
     to evaluate multiple use treatments  or  forested watersheds.  Water
     Resour. Res. 8(5) : 1188-1198 .

Seller, Karl, III.  1969.  Introduction to systems  cost-effectiveness.
     108 p.  Wiley-Interscience,  New York.
                                    106

-------
                                  GLOSSARY

     Sources for most of the terms defined in this glossary include Bannock,
Baxter, and Reed's A Dictionary of Economics; Ford-Robinson's (editor)
Terminology of Forest Science, Technology Practice and Products; SAP's
Forestry Terminology; and Schwarz, Thor, and Eisner's WiIdland PIanning
Glossary.  A few definitions have come from the EPA report, Forest Harvest,
Residue Treatment, Reforestation and Protection of Water Quality.

Aerial logging:  See "Logging systems—aerial."

Balloon  logging:  See "Logging systems—aerial."

Benefit-cost analysis:  A technique which attempts to identify and evaluate
     the social costs and social benefits of investment projects.   The
     difference between benefit-cost analysis and ordinary investment
     appraisal methods  is the stress on the social costs and benefits.

Broadcast burning:  Allowing a controlled fire to burn over a designated area
     within well-defined boundaries, for reduction of fuel hazard, as a
     si Ivicultural treatment following harvesting or thinning, or both.

Broadcast seeding:  Sowing over a wide area, especially by hand although this
     kind of seeding also includes airplane and helicopter seeding, and
     manually operated "cyclone" seeding.

Brush  hook:  A  heavy slashing tool used  in much the same way as an axe and
     having a  wide blade, generally curved.
                                     107

-------
Burning—pile:  Commonly referred to as "pile and burn."  This involves
     piling the slash after lopping and subsequently burning the individual
     p!les.

Burning—spot:  A modified form of broadcast burning in which only the larger
     accumulations of slash are fired and the fire confined to these spots.

Burning—swamper:  Otherwise known as progressive burning.  This is a burning
     of the slash as it is piled.

Cable  logging:  See "Logging systems—cable logging."

Clearcutting:  See "Si Ivicultural practices."

Controlled burn:  (1) The planned application of fire to natural  fuels,
     residue  left on a site after a logging operation and other slash, with
     the intent to confine it to a predetermined area.   (2) Any deliberate
     application of fire to an area where control is exercised In some
     particular respect.

Cost-effectivesnesS analysis:  A comparison of the cost or resource inputs
     with the performance of program outputs as they relate to a specific
     goali  This analysis is used when the benefits of  the program are
     largely unquantiffable.

Crawler tractor:  See "Logging—crawler tractor."

Cross slope:  Slope of the road bed.

Cut-and-fi11:  The process of earth moving by excavating part of an area and
     using the excavated material for adjacent embankments or fill areas.

Cut slope:   See "Road structure terms."
                                     108

-------
Design speed t  Speed determined for design and correlation of the physical
     features of a road that influence vehical operation.  Maximum safe
     speed.

Discounting (present value):  A method for weighting effectiveness or costs
     that occur In future time periods against those that occur in the
     immediate future.  The relative importance given to future costs or
     effectiveness depends upon the discount rate.  The discounting
     relationship for future costs would be:
where
        C(o) = the present value of all future costs
        t    = the measure of time  (months, years)
        n    = total  number of time Intervals
        r    = the discount rate

Discounting  for effectiveness can proceed  in the  same manner.

Drainage dip:  A  dip  in  the road surface which runs  at  a  slight  angle  to  the
     cross  section of the road, thus  allowing water  to  drain off  the road
     surface.
          efficiency,1  Considered  most  simply,  sconomic  efficiency  is  achieved
      When the  Value of  what  is  produced  by  any set  of resources  exceeds  by
      as much as  possible  the  value  of  the resources; or when  the least
      valuable  set  of  resources  Is utilized  in  producing any particular
      worthwht le  output k
                                      109

-------
tconomic suboptimization:  As used in the text, it refers to the possibility
     for calculating a least-cost solution which, when compared with
     benefits, may not be truly efficient.

End hauling:  Hauling of excavated material (dirt) from a "cut" area to a
     "filI" area.

Erosion, accelerated:  Erosion much more rapid than normal  erosion, natural
     erosion or geologic erosion, and occurring primarily as a result of the
     influence of the activities of man, or in some cases,  of other animals
     or natural catastrophes that expose bare surfaces.

Even-aged management:  The actions that will  result in a forest, crop, or
     stand composed of trees having no or relatively small  differences  in
     age.

Even-aged stand:  A forest stand composed of  trees having no, or relatively
     small, differences  in age.  By convention the maximum difference
     admissible is generally 10 to 20 years,  though with rotations of less
     than 100 years differences up to 25 percent of the rotation period may
     be admissible.

Fill slope:  See "Road structure terms."

Ground  lead:  "See Logging, ground lead."

Harvesting practices:  In this report, specifically in the ecoregion
     tables, this term is used to mean cutting systems.  The systems are
     clearcutting, seed tree, selection, and  shelterwood.

High lead:  "See "Logging, high lead."

Insloped surface:  See "Road structure terms."
                                     1 10

-------
Intermediate cultural  treatments:   See  "Intermediate cutting."

Intermediate cutting:  -Any removal  of trees from a regular crop or stand
     between the time  of  its formation  and  the harvest  cutting.

Internal  rate of return:   That rate of  interest which,  when used to discount
     cash flows associated with an  investment project,  reduces  its net
     present value to  zero.

InterpI anting:   Setting  young trees among existing forest growth,  planted
     or natural.  May  include the planting of land partly occupied by
     brushwood  or scrub.

Jammer:   There  are many  kinds of high lead equipment—portable  steel  towers,
     mobile shovel yarders or mobile loggers which are  track mounted, and  the
     jammer—either track or wheel  mounted and equipped with a  steel  or wood
     boom.  These units come with either a one- or a two-drum winch.  Jammer
     logging is limited  to uphill  yarding of clearcuts.

Logging—crawler tractor:  Used for  logging and normally equipped with a
     winch and  wire rope.  When yarding on steep, swampy, rocky or difficult
     terrain, the tractor can be located on stable terrain, and the winch
     used to skid logs a short distance to the tractor. Various attachments,
     primarily arches  and sulkies, have been developed for tractors which
     reduce the degree of contact between  log and ground.

Logging,  ground-lead (low-lead cable logging):  A method for transporting
     logs from the stumps to a collecting point by dragging them along the
     ground with a powered cable passing through a block fastened close to
     ground  level.

Logging,  high-lead:  A method  for transporting  logs  from the stumps to a
     collecting point by  using a powered cable, passing through a block
     fastened high off the ground, to lift the  front end of the logs clear of
     the ground while dragging them.
                                     1 1 1

-------
Logging—rubber-tired skidder:  A tractor developed  during  the  1950's

     specifically for logging,  Rubber-tired wheel  skidders have the

     advantage of greater speed over crawler tractors,  but  the  disadvantage

     of Iimited traction.



Logging systems:
                                                    LOGGING SYSTEMS WITH
                                                 OPTIMUM YARDING DISTANCES
                                                         ANDSLQPe
                                                  (From EPA Report 010/9-76-020,
                                                   adapted from USFS Qlosaary
                                                  of Cable Logging Terms, 1969)
                                     12

-------
 Logging systems—aerial:  A system for hauling timber from the stump to a
      collecting point which employs aerial means of transportation—e.g.,
      balloons or helicopters.

 Logging systems—balloon;  See "Logging systems—aerial."

 Logging systems—cab|e logging:  Cable systems are designed to yard logs
      from the felling site by a machine equipped with multiple winches
      commonly called a yarder.  Cable logging is highly  efficient for  logging
      steep rough  ground on which tractors cannot operate.  Some cable  systems
      can  operate  in any direction upslope, downslope, and along the contour.
      Cable systems  could  be classified as either high lead,  skyline and
      balloon.

  Logging  systems—full  suspension:   See "Logging sysfems-v-skyl ine"  and
      "Logging  systems—aerial."

 Logging systems—?skyIine:   "Skyline  logging"  is  a particular  type of cable
      'ogglng.   A method for  transporting  logs  from stumps to  collecting
      points that uses  a heavy  cable  stretched  between high points (such  as  in
      tall  trees braced  with  guy lines)  to function as an  overhead track  for a
      load  carrying  trolley.  Logs are  lifted up  by cables pr  other  devices
      attached  to the trolley and  powered  pables  are used  to move  the load
      back  and  forth along  the  main cable.

Lop and scatter:  Lopping  the  slash created by primary conversion and
      spreading  it more or  less  evenly over the ground without burning.
     Primary conversion is the  first stage of converting timber Into any kind
     of product.  It comprises  the tppping, trimming,  laying off, baring,
     cross-cutting,  and Initial sawing up, hewing, pr cleaving of a felled or
     fa I I en tree.

Lopping:  Chopping branches, tops, and small trees after  felling, into
      lengths such that the resultant slash will  Iie c|psg to the ground.
                                     113

-------
Mass movement:  Downslope, unit movement of a portion of the land's
     surface—i.e., a single  landslide or the gradual simultaneous, downhill
     movement of the whole mass of loose earth material on a slope face.

Mass-wasting:  A general term for any of the variety of processes by which
     large masses of earth material are moved downs lope by gravitational
     forces—either slowly or quickly.

Outs I oped surface:  See "Road structure terms".

Partial equilibrium analysis:  The analysis of the determination of
     equilibrium conditions for a small part of the economy.

Regeneration—artificial:  Artificial reproduction is obtained either by
     planting young trees or by applying seed, sometimes called "direct
     seeding."

Regeneration cutting:   (1) Any removal of trees Intended to assist
     regeneration already present or to make regeneation possible.  (2)
     "Regeneration cutting" applies generally to the logging stands of
     rotation age or greater, and stands below rotation age which cannot
     economically be held any longer because of poor stocking,  health,
     thrift, quality, or composition.  (3) "Regeneration cutting" applies to
     a I I  cutting in virgin stands and to a I I  cutting in cutover stands where
     the overwood components of the stand are over rotation age.

Regeneration—natural:  Natural  regeneration is obtained from seedlings which
     originate by natural  seeding or from sprouts.  Natural regeneration
     following harvesting requires a source of viable seed.  Seedbed
     preparation for natural  regeneration Is often accomplished by logging
     and  slash disposal.  However, in many cases deliberately-planned
     additional  site preparation work Is also needed.
                                     114

-------
Release cutting:   (1) Freeing  a  tree,  or  group  of  trees,  from more immediate
     competition by cutting, or  otherwise eliminating, growth that is
     overtopping or closely surrounding them.   (2) Three principal operations
     come under this  classification:  (a)  Treatments to free desired growing
     stock trees from over-story vegetation;  principally, scrub trees, brush,
     and vines that  inhibit their growth  or desirable development, (b)
     Treatments to prevent development of brush and trees that threaten to
     overtop  desired  growing stock trees, (c)  Removal cf grass, weeds, or
     brush from around  individual  seedlings or  small  trees to release them
     from competition for soil moisture,  shade, or smothering as under matted
     grass or weeds.  (3) Cutting an  immature stand to free the crop trees
     from excessive competition  by removing the excess of an undesired age
     class (such as a young age  class  which because of excessive numbers  is
     competing severely with an  older  but desired regulated age class).
Road  structure  terms:
                   '/VQ
            ROADBED
THRU CUT
         THRU CUT SECTION
                          THRU CUT
                                                OUTSLOPED 1-LANE ROAD
 THRU FILL
             ROADBED
                            THRU FILL
         THRU FILL SECTION
                                                 INSLOPED 1-LANE ROAD
                                      1 15

-------
Rubbei—tired  skidder:   See "Logging—rubber-tired skidder."

Scalping:   Paring  off  low  and  surface vegetation, together with  most  of  its
      roots, to  expose  a weed-free  soil  surface,  generally preparatory to
      sowing or  planting thereon.   Done in  spots  only.

Scarification:   To break up  the surface of the topsoiI  In order  to expose
      mineral  soil.

Sediment:  Solid material, both mineral and organic, that Is  in  suspension,
      is being transported, or  has  been  moved  from Its site of origin  by air,
      water, gravity, or  ice  and has come to rest  on the earth's  surface
      either above  or below sea level.

Seed  tree:  See  "Si I vicultural practices—seed tree.'1

Selection:  See  "SiIvicuItural practices—selection,"

Shelterwood:  See  "Si IvicuItural  practices—shelterwood."

Silviculture:  Generally, the science and art of cultivating (i.e., growing
     and tending) and managing forest crops for profit based on a knowledge
     of si I vies.  More particularly, the theory and practice of controlling
     the establishment, composition, constitution, and growth of forests.

Si Iviculture—"dearoutting:  (I) Removal of virtually all the trees, large or
     small,  in a stand in one cutting operation.   This is the meaning of
     "clegrcutting" In its narrowest sense and in Its usage  as a technical
     term of silviculture,   The true elearcutting method lays bare the area
     treated and leads to, the establishment of an even-aged  stand.  (2)  The
     term "elearcutting" is also  loosely applied  to any  type  of  cutting  in
     which all the merchgntable timber  is  cut and all  trees  that cannot  be
     utilized  profitably are left,   This broader  usage of  the term Is
                                       116

-------
       technically  incorrect  but is  so common  that  it  is  sometimes  prudent  to
       speak of  clear-cutting  in  the  si Ivicultural method  sense  as "complete
       clear-cutting."

 Silviculture—clear-cutting  system:   A si IvicuItural system  in which all the
       trees are cleared over a  considerable area at one  time.  Regeneration is
       generally artificial, but natural regeneration is  sometimes possible by
       seeding from the air, from adjacent stands, or from seed and/or the
      ground.

 SiIviculture—seed tree:  (I) A tree purposely left standing at the time of
      cutting  in a forest, for the purpose of producing seed for regeneration
      of  trees  in the cut-over area.  (2) A tree selected, and  often reserved,
      to  be a  source of seed for collection.

 Si IvicuIture--seed tree system: (1) Removal  in one cut of the  mature timber
      from  an area, save for  a small  number of seed bearers left  singly  or  in
      small groups.  (2)  A regeneration cutting where the planned source of
      the new stand is  from seed existing  on,  or to be  produced by,  trees
      standing on the cut-over area.   The  cutting removes all the mature
      timber except for  the number of  seed trees which  are needed to provide
      seed  for reproducing the stand.

     A cutting which leaves the number of seed  trees needed to provide  the
     optimum amount of seed required  to restock, but not overstock, the  area.

Silviculture-deselection cutting:  Removal of mature timber, usually the
     oldest or largest trees, either as single  scattered trees or small
     groups at  relatively short intervals, commonly 5 to 20 years,  repeated
     indefinitely,  by means of which the continuous establishment of natural
     reproduction  Is encouraged and  an uneven-aged  stand  is maintained.
                                     117

-------
Silviculture—selection system:  An uneven-aged si IvicuItural  system in
     which trees are removed individually, here and there, from a large area
     each year.  Regeneration is mainly natural and the timber crop ideally
     alI  different ages.

Silviculture—shelterwood cutting:  Cutting which leaves enough trees to
     provide about half shade or more on the ground.  In some places, more
     trees than are needed to provide shade for reproduction must be left in
     order to prevent wlndthrow.

Silviculture—shelterwood system:  Even-aged si Ivicultural systems in which
     (in order to provide a source of seed and/or protection for regenera-
     tion) the old crop is removed in two or more successive "shelterwood
     cuttings," the first of which is ordinarily the seed tree cutting and
     the last is the final cutting, any intervening cuttings being termed
     removal cuttings.

Skidding:  A loose term for hauling loads by sliding, not on wheels.  A
     timber may slide more or less wholly along the ground (ground skidding);
     or with its forward end supported (high-load skidding); or even wholly
     off the ground—sliding along a cable—during its main transit (aerial
     skidding).

Skyline logging:  See "Logging systems—sky Iine."

Slash:  The residue left on the ground after timber cutting and/or
     accumulating there as a result of storm,  fire or other damage.  It
     includes unutilized logs, uprooted stumps, broken or uprooted stems,
     branches, twigs,  leaves, bark, and chips.

Species—associate:  Otherwise known as accessory species.  A species of less
     value than the principal species but sometimes useful In assisting the
     development of the latter and liable to influence in some degree the
     method of treatment.  Both accessory and  secondary species are
     collectively termed associated species.
                                      118

-------
Species—principal:  The species to which the silviculture of a mixed forest
     is primarily directed, eithei  for its (or their) economic or protective
     value.  Please note, a species intrinsically of higher economic value
     than another may be less economically important because of its lower
     frequency of occurrence and therefore, not the principal species.

Species—secondary:  A species of inferior quality and/or size, and of
     relatively little or no si Iv(cultural value, associated with the
     principal species.

Tree injection:  A deliberate introduction, by pressure or simple absorption,
     of a chemical—generally a watei—soluble salt in solution—into the
     sapstream of a living tree.  Purposes include, to kill the tree or to
     prevent or control disease or infestation.

Thinning:  Cuttings which are made in immature stands to stimulate growth of
     the remaining trees in order to increase the total wood yield.

Thinning—commercial:  Commercial thinning Is practiced on older stands for
     which the thinned trees have marketable value as pulpwood, poles,
     saw logs, etc.  The objective of commercial thinning  is to provide more
     desirable tree spacing and to concentrate growth on the remaining trees
     as a means of increasing total yield of wood.   It nearly always  improves
     the general quality of the stand.  The age at which stands are thinned
     is determined both by tree growth rate and market demand for specific
     types of wood products.  In contrast to precommercfal thinning,
     commercial thinning requires entry  into stands with  logging equipment
     for removal of felled trees.

Thinning—precommercial:  The basic objective of precommercial thinning  is to
     increase merchantable yield by concentrating productivity of the site
     into few stems per acre.  Such thinning  is also valuable for control of
     mortality due to  insects and disease.  Precommercial  thinning  is
     accomplished either with chemicals or by mechcnical methods primarily
     powersaws.
                                      119

-------
 Thru  cut:   See "Road  structure terms."

 Thru  fill:   See "Road structure terms."

 Turnout:  Double lane section  along  a single  lane  road  which  allows  passage
      of two vehlcals  traveling In opposite  directions.

 Understory:   The trees  and other woody species  growing  under  a more  or  less
      continuous cover of  branches and foliage formed collectively by the
      upper  portions of  adjacent trees and other woody growth.

 Uneven-age  management:  The course of actions involved  in maintaining a
      forest  or  stand, composed of Intermingling trees that differ markedly  in
      age.

 Uneven-aged  stand:  A forest stand composed of  Intermingling  trees that
      differ  markedly  in age. By convention^ a minimum range of 10 to 20 years
      in generally accepted, though with rotations of less than 100 years, 25
      percent of  the rotation period may be the  minimum.

 Water bar:  A ridge made across a hill road to  divert water to one side.

 Yarder:  A machine equipped with multiple winches used  in the cable  logging
      system.

Yarding:   The operation of hauling timber from the stump to a collecting
     point.

YUM yarding  (yarding unmerchantable  material):  A practice of yarding the
      larger  size classes of residues from recently logged units.
     Unmerchantable material  is yarded during or following log removal  and
     piled at the landing.  In some  instances, especially designed cable
      logging systems are used to yard residues.
                                     120

-------
                             TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                       (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO.
 EPA-600/8-77-018
                                                  3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOr+NO.
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
                                                  5 REPORT DATE
Silvicultural Activities  and Non-point Polluticjn
Abatement:   A Cost-effectiveness Analysis
Procedure       	
                                     November  1977  issue date
                                   6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
                                                  8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Forest  Service
U.S.  Department of Agriculture
Washington,  DC  20250
                                   10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                                     1BB770
                                   11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

                                     IAG No, EPA-IAG-D6-0660
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Research  Laboratory—Athens,  GA
Office  of Research and  Development
U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
Athens,  GA  30605
                                   13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                     Final
                                   14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                     EPA/600/01
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
       This report focuses upon erosion  that contributes  to non-point
source pollution occurring in forested  environments  as  a result of  silvi
cultural activities.   Specifically,  the document discusses three topics:
 (1)  silvicultural practices that are currently being  applied throughout
the  United States with indications of how these practices may affect  the
rate of erosion,  (2)  a method for determining the cost-effectiveness  of
erosion controls that could mitigate or prevent the  adverse effects of
silvicultural practices,  and  (3) examples applying the  described method
for  economic analysis using information presented in  (1).  The informa-
tion and outlined method  are intended for forest managers and water qual
ity  planners to enhance analysis and improve decisions  concerning the
reduction of non-point pollution problems.
17.
                           KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                                       b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C. COSATI F;ield/GrOUp
DESCRIPTORS
  Non-point pollution
  Silviculture
  Costs
  Pollution control
                                                  48D
                                                  68D
                                                  98D
 3 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
 RELEASE TO PUBLIC
                        19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
                            UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
    130
                        20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                            UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                      121
                                           *U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1978-778-5«9 / 314

-------