Page 1

MODELING IN SUPPORT OF REGIONAL LEVEL MPB MANAGEMENT AND THE INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR IMPROVED DECISION MAKING Ted Gooding: Presentation to FRI April 25, 2012


Topics 2

   

Analysis Model description Results and learning Closing the planning loop

The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012

Government of Alberta


Industry Questions 3

   

How long to we have? What will be the impacts of MPB? What actions will reduce MPB impacts? What are the costs and benefits of potential actions? Desire for decision-making to be supported by analysis.

The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012


Supporting Analysis 4

  

Conducted under extreme time constraints Used existing information and datasets Construct a model to support decisions using:  MPB

expertise – SRD and CFS  Harvesting expertise – industry  Analysis expertise – The Forestry Corp.  

Multi-discipline solution Funded under the FRIAA MPB program

The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012


Modeling 5

The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012

Government of British Columbia


Model Design 6

  

Landscape scale Spatial at the stand level Annual steps for 20 years Track individual pine trees  Built

upon SRD’s work  Identify infested trees  Predict new infested trees from green:red and SSI  Distribute infested trees within a 1 km radius  Add optional MPB in-flights The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012


Pine Tree Tracking 7

For each polygon:  Gray

pine trees (non-merch)  Gray pine trees (merch)  Red attack pine trees (non-merch)  Red attack pine trees (merch)  Green attack pine trees  Non-attacked pine trees  Pine tree size  Other conifer volume  Deciduous volume The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012


Conceptual Flow Diagram 8

Loop Through Years 1-20 Loop Through Sustained Yield Units Loop Through Managed Landbase Sort by Infected Stands, Harvest Priority and Connectivity Level II Harvest Action

Clearcut Harvest Action

Loop Through Total Landbase Sort by SSI Level I Action

The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012

In-Flight Action

MPB Spread Action


Data Requirements 9

  

  

Timber supply landbase files or AVI Stand and stock tables, yields SSI Green:red ratios SRD’s MPB DDS datasets Infested tree locations  Gray

attack  Current year’s red attack  Green attack The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012


Scenario Assumptions 10

  

    

MPB growth and distribution rates In-flights Planned activities Conifer AAC levels by FMU Percent of harvest from infested stands Shelf life Sorting rules Zones – harvesting and control Level 1 rules and budget

The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012


MPB Online – Project Tab 11

The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012


MPB Online – Scenario Status 12

The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012


MPB Online – Reports 13


Results 14 Photo: Ray Hilts

The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012


Yearly Comparisons - Central 15

New Infested Trees - Central Region 6,000,000

2009 Survey Data 2010 Survey Data 2011 Survey Data

5,000,000

Number of Trees

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012

6

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Years


Compare – Regional No Harvest 16

New Infested Trees - 2011 Central, Grande Prairie, North-west Regions 6,000,000

Central Region - No Harvest 2010 Survey Data GP Region - No Harvest NW Region - No Harvest

5,000,000

Number of Trees

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012 Years


Compare – No Harvest & Control 17

New Infested Trees - 3 Regions in 2011, No Harvest vs Harvest & Level 1 6,000,000

Central Region - No Harvest Central Region - Harvest and Level1 GP Region - No Harvest GP Region - Harvest and Level1 NW Region - No Harvest NW Region - Harvest and Level1

5,000,000

Number of Trees

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012

6

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Years


Learning – MPB Dynamics 18

   

Harvesting and single tree control have a similar effect in reducing impact Greatest control impact when combined Controlling MPB requires a sustained effort Greater impacts on small populations Difficult to integrate MPB control and harvest planning timelines Good survey information is critical

The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012


Decisions Supported 19

How long do we have and where should we cut?  Years

to death map  Volume killed map 

Should we chase the beetle or consider single tree control?  Volume

saved  Percent of harvest that is gray or green  Control costs  Harvest dispersal and access costs

The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012


Closing the Planning Loop 20

The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012

Government of British Columbia


Closing the Planning Loop 21

How good are the model predictions? Does predicted = observed? Initial conditions have a large impact

The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012

Photo: Manning Diversified Forest Products


Closing the Planning Loop 22

Compare model predictions to observed Green = 2010 predicted Red = 2011 observed

The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012


23

2009 Red Trees

The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012


24

2010 Red Trees

The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012


25

2011 Red Trees

The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012


Conclusions 26

 

Model assists with landscape level decisions Targeted harvesting and individual tree removal both can slow MPB spread but are most effective when combined Generating consistent initial starting conditions will improve forecasting Hoping to gain some insight from the other presenters

The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012


27

Questions?

Photo: Ray Hilts

The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012


Mpbep 2012 04 prsnttn modelinginsupportregionallevelmpbmgmt  

http://foothillsri.ca/sites/default/files/null/MPBEP_2012_04_Prsnttn_ModelingInSupportRegionalLevelMPBMgmt.pdf

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you