mpbep 2012 04 prsnttn modelinginsupportregionallevelmpbmgmt
DESCRIPTION
http://foothillsri.ca/sites/default/files/null/MPBEP_2012_04_Prsnttn_ModelingInSupportRegionalLevelMPBMgmt.pdfTRANSCRIPT
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
Analysis
Model description
Results and learning
Closing the planning loop
2
Government of Alberta
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
Industry Questions
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.
3
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
Supporting Analysis
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
4
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
Modeling 5
Government of British Columbia
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
Model Design
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
6
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
Pine Tree Tracking
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
7
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
Conceptual Flow Diagram
Loop Through Years 1-20
Loop Through Sustained Yield Units
Loop Through Managed Landbase
Sort by Infected Stands, Harvest Priority and Connectivity
Loop Through Total Landbase
Sort by SSI
Level I Action MPB Spread ActionIn-Flight Action
Clearcut Harvest ActionLevel II Harvest Action
8
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
Data Requirements
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
9
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
Scenario Assumptions
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
10
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
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
Photo: Ray Hilts
Yearly Comparisons - Central
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Nu
mb
er o
f T
rees
Years
New Infested Trees - Central Region
2009 Survey Data2010 Survey Data2011 Survey Data
15
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
Compare – Regional No Harvest
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Nu
mb
er o
f T
rees
Years
New Infested Trees - 2011 Central, Grande Prairie, North-west Regions
Central Region - No Harvest
2010 Survey Data
GP Region - No Harvest
NW Region - No Harvest
16
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
Compare – No Harvest & Control
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Nu
mb
er o
f T
rees
Years
New Infested Trees - 3 Regions in 2011, No Harvest vs Harvest & Level 1
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
17
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
Learning – MPB Dynamics
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
18
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
Decisions Supported
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
19
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
Closing the Planning Loop 20
Government of British Columbia
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
Closing the Planning Loop
How good are the model
predictions?
Does predicted =
observed?
Initial conditions have a
large impact
21
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012 Photo: Manning Diversified Forest Products
Closing the Planning Loop
Compare model
predictions to
observed
Green = 2010
predicted
Red = 2011 observed
22
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
2009 Red
Trees
23
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
2010 Red
Trees
24
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
2011 Red
Trees
25
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
Conclusions
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
26
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
27
The Forestry Corp., April 25, 2012
Questions?
Photo: Ray Hilts