SIMFOR habitat modeling in the Invermere

1
SIMFOR habitat modeling in the Invermere
Enhanced Forest Management Pilot Project.
Eric Valdal, GIS Analyst, EFMPP Ralph Wells,
Research Analyst, CACB - UBC
2
OBJECTIVES
1. To evaluate habitat impacts of harvest
scenarios in the Invermere EFMPP study area. 2.
To evaluate habitat in the Pilot study area. 3.
To develop quantitative approaches to habitat
analysis for selected species.
3
Approaches

• Identify species Goshawk, CNB, songbirds.
• Develop quantitative methods for habitat models.
• Utilize existing databases for stand structure
  projections.
• Incorporate natural disturbance in harvest runs.

4
Quantitative Approaches to Habitat Modeling
5
Habitat Attributes
Species - Habitat Relationships
Treatments Harvest Schedule Natural Disturbance
Maps Summary Data
Field Evaluation
GIS Processing
GIS Processing
Maps Tables, Figures
6
The Habitat Modeling Niche in theInvermere EFMPP
Harvest Scenarios
Habitat Impacts
FSSIM Analysis. Basecase harvest
scenario. Current management.
Habitat Impacts determined by the Forest
Ecosystem Specialist, MOE Invermere . A
comparison of the habitat impacts resulting from
the two management scenarios.
Strategy 98 harvest scenario. Based on
enhanced forest management. Desired Management.
7
Habitat Impacts Determination
Peter Holmes Invermere FES, MOE

• Habitat Modeling Trends.
• Goshawk
• Cavity Nesters
• Songbirds
• Maps, Graphs over space and through time.

Local knowledge
8
Habitat Modeling Inputs I
Disturbance
Colours represent decade of disturbance.

• Harvest Schedules
• Fire (Alpine)
• Pine Beetle
• DRA

Harvest Schedule
Operability Line
Alpine Fire
Operability Line
9
Modeling Inputs II (Goshawk Nesting Project)
Data to form Species-Habitat Relationships. (Stand
level)
Data to track Habitat Attributes over a large
area. (Strategic, i.e. LU, District)

• Literature Review
• Utzig and Gaines 1997
• Review of existing Goshawk
• research for attribute selection.
• Quantitative Nesting Inventory
• Marlene Machmer refined the
• Lit. review attribute criteria,by
• locating and and assessing 16 nest sites.
• Data from three other nest sites
• have been added.

• Forest Cover Database
• Cruise Database
• TRIM

10
Scaling Up Attributes(Goshawk Nesting)
Inventoried Stand Level Attributes
Attributes Modeled
Assumptions

• Very Large Trees
• Large Trees
• Crown Closure
• Canopy Complexity
• Slope
• Proximity to Water Source
• Aspect
• Large Snags
• CWD
• Patch Sizes

• Very Large Trees
• Structure
• CWD
• Snags
• Slope
• Aspect
• Patch Size (GIS)

11
Goshawk Attributesas inserted into SIMFOR

• Slope
• static attribute map
• Aspect
• static attribute map
• Structure
• supply curves by AU
• Very Large Trees (critical)
• dynamic attribute maps (projected ages through
  time, with harvest disturbance considered).

12
Very Large Tree Attribute(Goshawk Nesting)

• The Very Large Tree attribute was addressed in
  two parts
• 1. Single Layer Stands
• 2. Multiple Layer Stands
• This attribute was scaled up by determining
  which Age Classes (by Stand AU) had a
  sufficient number of trees gt50cm dbh. to
  qualify as a candidate. This was done by
  analyzing the IFD Cruise database.

13
Very Large Tree Attribute Criteria 50cm. Dbh
and greater Good 20 stems\ha. plus Mod. 10-20
stems\ha. Low. 5-10 stems\ha. Analysis Units
were chosen to qualify at the ageclass that they
reached 10 stems per ha.
Cruise database Analysis
Stems gt50cm. Dbh per ha.
Stems gt50cm. Dbh per ha.
Stems gt50cm. Dbh per ha.
14
Large Tree Attribute - Multi Story Stands

• Some nests have been discovered in young stands
  i.e. The Forest Cover Map says Ageclass 4.
• These stands used for nesting (particularly in
  the IDF and MS) tend to have large vets which the
  goshawks are nesting in.
• This over story tree layer can be mapped with the
  existing forest cover database.

Premier Lake
Forest Cover Age classes (rank 1)
15
Layer 2 ageclass (Vets)
Layer 1 ageclass
Premier Lake
Premier Lake
16
Stand Dither by Ageclass and Crown Closure

• Stands with vertical structure
• can contribute to the large
• tree attribute
• Stands contribute when the
• understory is at least 61 yrs and
• the overstory is at least 101 yrs.

Premier Lake
17
Goshawk Nesting Results
Mapping Spatial and Temporal Differences...
Basecase Year 1
Basecase Year 40
Stork Creek
18
Goshawk Nesting Results

• given assumptions, NOGO nesting habitat is
  increasing through time.
• There may be spatial differences in NOGO habitat
  between the two harvest strategies.

19
Habitat Association I Habitat Relationships -
Songbirds

• Regression models developed in collaboration with
  Kari Stuart-Smith for selected neo-tropical
  migrants (MS and ESSF zones).
• e.g.
• ln(ocwa count) -1.198 - 0.141(LCONOVER)
  0.0085(SHCOVER) 0.0486 (HEIGHT) 0.0088
  (REGENDEC) 0.0034(REGENCON) 0.0066(REGENPL)
  0.202(REGENSP)
• ln(wiwa count) -2.776 0.0025(ELEV) 0.0149
  (ASPSLO) 0.0096 (ALLSNAGS) 0.281(MNLAYERS)
  0.050 (HEIGHT)

20
Habitat Association II Habitat Attributes
21
OCWA - MS Strategy 98
22
OCWA - MS Strategy 98
23
Habitat Supply Habitat Relationships - CNB
24
Habitat Attributes Nesting (Year 1)
Source Forest Cover Data Species fields
25
Habitat Attributes Nesting (Year 1)
Western Larch - Potential Nesting / Foraging
26
Foraging (Year 1)
DRA
MPB
27
DRA model ITG Fd, Lw, Pl Code 8415-15,
8315-15 (AGECLASS,HT_CLASS,STK_CLASS,CROWN_CL_CLAS
S, AND SITE INDEX)
MPB model (Shore and Safranyik) S P x A x D x
L S - susceptibility P - percent susceptible
pine BA A - age factor D - density factor L -
location factor
28
Western Larch Nesting/Foraging - Strategy 98
29
Last Words I

• 1. Model predictions are hypotheses.
• test of inventory to project structure
• test of knowledge about habitat relationships
• 2. Field verification is an essential next step.

• 3. Strategic vs. Tactical applications
• Quantitative habitat evaluations (Strategic
  planning - i.e. TSR).
• ID Patches important for habitat (Tactical -
  i.e. LU planning).
• Confidence will improve as models are tested and
  refined.

30
Last Words II
Species - Habitat Relationships

• research and data synthesis - appropriate for
  scaling up

Habitat Attributes

• stand level data - scaling issues from cruise to
  fip inventory
• limitations (i.e. cwd, understory vegetation).
• stand structure implications of disturbance
  (i.e. MPB, DRA).

Treatments

• accurate spatial harvest modeling will sometimes
  be important.
• cannot ignore natural disturbance.

• Teamwork - biologists, GIS support, planners
• setting objectives getting results

31
Modeling Toolbox
Last Words III
Relative Time Spent(i.e. Goshawk Modeling)

• GIS
• Arc\Info, Pamap
• SIMFOR
• Access relational database setup, maps
• Generic Database
• FoxPro, Access
• Programming Tools
• Perl, SQL
• Statistical Tools
• SAS

Scaling up refers to the process of selecting
indicator attributes to represent many related
stand level attributes.
32
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge
Forest Renewal B.C. funding provided by the
Invermere Forest District Enhanced Forest
Management Pilot Project
Greg Anderson for support of the project
Fred Bunnell for support and helpful comments
Russ Hendry for providing the harvest schedules
Emile Begin for discussions on MPB and DRA
modeling
Arnold Moy and Susan Paczek of CACB for database
development and assistance in model runs