forest management and disturbance - cif-ifc.org · cif technical workshop 2017 outline 1. ontario...

CIF Technical Workshop 2017

Forest Management and Disturbance

An Ontario Perspective


Outline 1. Ontario Context

a. Fire disturbance b. Forest policy and planning

2. Approaches to Bounds of Natural Variation a. Natural fire rates

b. Landscape milestones

3. Forest Estate Modelling Considerations a. Non-timber objectives b. Allowances for wildfire c. Spatial modelling

4. Special Investigations a. Simulated Replanning

b. Testing Model Results


Ontario Context


Wildfire in Ontario

General Notes - Less fire than prairie provinces - East and West different

Managed Forest Area - Protection - Average: 0.14% / year - East: < 0.2% / year - West: up to 0.87 % / year

CIF Technical Workshop 2017 2015 1985 1995 2005

EA Decision

CFSA Boreal Landscape

Guide

ESA

FMPM FMPM FMPM FMPM

Spatial

SFMM Spreadsheets

NBR

2025

Timber Mgt

C12

Natural Variation

New Fire Mgt


Approaches to Bounds of Natural Variation


Dealing with Disturbance

Driving Philosophy: Bounds of Natural Variation • Forest Management results in "natural" forest conditions • What's "natural"? Simulated Range of Natural Variation

Approaches • Ignore: • Replan: planning cycle , case-by-case • Represent: disturbance in models • FMP: Natural Benchmark Scenarios (1998 to ~2010) • Policy targets: based on SRNV modelling


Natural Benchmarks For each forest management plan, investigate …. No-harvest scenario + "natural" disturbance rates

• Need a model that represents disturbance • Results

Forest conditions, Preferred Habitat

• Use results to help establish targets Not all results possible with “protection” burn rates

• Fires: occurs in all age classes • Harvest: only operable age classes


"Policy Milestones"

In Boreal Landscape Guide

Milestones for each MU based on scientific approach • Landscape Modelling (by ecoregion)

Stochastic fire, weather, wind, natural aging and transition Multiple scenarios

• Landscape metrics for different forest types

• Historic records (surveyor notes)


Landscape Guide Milestones

Structure and Composition - Area by forest types • Direction: e.g., maintain in inter-quartile range • Short, medium, and long-term milestones

Pattern by forest types • Frequency distribution of size classes • Direction, wrt SRNV • Short, medium, and long-term milestones


FMP Manual

• Objectives based on milestones Meet the milestones and you're OK

• Identify areas where fire is beneficial

• Identify Contingency Areas In case regular harvest areas unavailable

• Case-by-case for large fires


Forest Estate Modelling Considerations


It's Not Just Wood Supply

What % of harvest level (area) is required to meet non-timber targets?

• Removing burned area: miss young forest targets now miss old forest targets in future

• Also have buffering effect


Modelling Challenge

where & what of fires is really important • Large fires in right forest types help achieve objectives

Challenging for FMP modelling • Most non-spatial models do not represent fire directly • SFMM does, but only as proportion • Spatial models do not incorporate disturbance


Special Investigations

1. Does re-planning mitigate impacts? 2. Testing a strategy under fire scenarios


Does Re-planning Mitigate Impacts?

• Ignoring and assuming an average rate are both wrong • 2008 Experiment to test


Rollover Analysis – Simulated Replanning

1. Woodstock model: long-term strategy 2. Stanley etc.: short-term spatial layout

Volume

Harvest Area

Old Growth



1. Woodstock model: long-term strategy 2. Stanley: short-term block layout 3. Spatial, random fire model



1. Woodstock model: long-term strategy 2. Stanley: short-term block layout 3. Spatial, random fire model 4. Update inventory to reflect

a. Period 1 harvest blocks b. Period 1 fires c. Aging of unaffected stands

5. Build new Woodstock model 6. Repeat …..

Random ⇒ replicate


Conclusion from Rollover Analysis

For fire rates in Ontario • Re-planning is sufficient

Harvest Volume

Old Growth


Testing a Solution (proof of concept)

How does a solution perform under different fire scenarios?

• Forest conditions • Forest activities

Pseudo-spatial


Approach

• Start with Base Model solution • Generate disturbance scenarios

By planning term For 100 scenarios Based on historic rates

Could modify for climate change, etc.


Continued

Scenario1 Randomly assign Burn Area to spatial zone(s)

Scenario2

…

Scenarion

# scenarios with BF > 30%


Model to test scenario

• Try to carry out same actions Harvest, renew, tend, deliver

• Set base model results as target Must allow deviation

• Goal programming model (penalties)

• Re-solving gives model recourse


100 Scenarios

Harvest Volume Projection

• 75% of scenarios feasible

Harvest Area Projection


Wrap-up

• Less fire disturbance than Alberta • Maintain or move toward natural forest condition

Bounds of natural variation Landscape level milestones

• Non-timber objectives are really important • Spatial modelling + Fire is really difficult • Investigations let us test direction


Thank-you

forest management and disturbance - cif-ifc.org · cif technical workshop 2017 outline 1. ontario...

Documents