You are here: Home » Workshops » 

A Strategic Analysis Framework for Managing Forests under the Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak
Workshop #1

June 28, 2006

Developing Landscape Scenarios for the Cranbrook TSA


Attendees and Affiliation:

Don Morgan - MOFR

Fred Hovey - MOFR

Rob McCann - Consultant

Bill Adair - ILMB

Frank Wilmer - ILMB

Chris Stag - Tembec

Rob Neil - Nature Trust

Greg Utzig - Kutenai Nature Investigations Ltd.

Ken Streloff - Tembec

Steve Ostrander - Canfor

Marnie Duthie-Holt - Medi-For Forest Health Consulting

Bob Forbes - Nature Conservancy

Workshop Objectives:

Discuss general objectives of the project

Define the context of the Mountain Pine Beetle management problem

Determine modelling and data issues and requirements

Develop specific:

Questions to be answered

Conceptual models

Scenarios, values and indicators

Outline next steps for the project

Summary of Presentations and Discussions

Project Overview and Purpose (Presenter - Fred Hovey):

A Strategic Analysis Framework for Managing Forests under the Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak is a project funded by the British Columbia Forest Sciences Program (FSP Project M075025). Key players include members of the Ministry of Forests and Range (MOFR) Research Branch and independent consultants in conjunction with the several partners: Tembec, Canfor, The Nature Trust, and Nature Conservancy. The broad goal is to aid managers through a strategic analysis that compares historic management responses to Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) outbreaks with alternative management approaches that explicitly account for the inherent uncertainty in forest ecosystems. Specific objectives include:

1) provide an analysis framework to evaluate resource values and trade-offs concerning MPB outbreaks;

2) provide guidance to managers for addressing current MPB-impacted landscapes based on an evaluation of historic data on MPB outbreaks and forward projections of potential management responses; and

3) project potential future impacts of development activities such as recreation, livestock grazing and the harvest of non-timber forest products that may result from increased road development associated with salvage and sanitation harvesting.

Briefly, we propose to meet these objectives as follows:

1) Develop an analysis framework:

An analysis framework is a nested, iterative collaborative process that generates models and protocols to derive solutions to complex problems. The collaborative process is designed specifically to include stakeholders and experts in relevant fields, thereby maximizing the collective knowledge available to the project. Such analysis frameworks are an established methodology that has been applied to land use planning and MPB projects throughout British Columbia. We will use this framework to develop a set of stochastic, landscape-based models to aid understanding and communication of ecological and decision-rule uncertainty specific to management of the current MPB outbreak.

2) Historic MPB outbreak reconstruction:

The previous East Kootenay MPB outbreak that occurred in the late 1970's will be characterized by creating GIS data layers of the pre-outbreak forest and road network conditions and, on an annual basis, data layers reflecting management responses and conditions through the course of the outbreak. This retrospective analysis will permit us to contrast historic responses to MPB outbreaks with potential alternative management responses. It will also provide insights into the current MPB outbreak that enhance our understanding of ecological, forestry and societal responses to management interventions.

3) MPB outbreak and landscape change scenario planning:

Using the landscape-based models developed under Objective 1, and insights gained from Objective 2, we will develop a suite of scenarios that represent management actions designed to meet forest management objectives and societal values. Uncertainty about ecosystem response to management actions is an inherent feature but is often overlooked in traditional planning processes. Scenario planning and assessment is a systematic way of gaining insights into complex and uncertain futures. We will explore a range of potential futures by varying management actions and evaluating system responses within the stochastic, landscape-based models.

This project will generate two major products:

1) An analysis framework to support decision makers ability to assess timber and non-timber values, trade-offs, and interactions, with explicit accounting for uncertainty; and

2) A report that evaluates current policy, presents alternative options, and provides guidance to inform MPB-related decisions.

Our project will also be integrated with existing efforts to address multi-disciplinary questions concerning the MPB outbreak. We will directly link with BCFSP project Y062365-Y073365 on modelling grizzly bear habitat supply (F. Hovey) and will also link to other MPB projects in the following areas: Vanderhoof (C. Delong), Nadina (FSP LOI M07-5006 "Landscape Strategies for Mountain Pine Beetle Management: Some Stewardship Implications", D. Steventon), and the Cariboo-Chilcotin (K. Dufresne) as well as to local MPB projects conducted in our study area by the Nature Conservancy of Canada (R. Forbes, Cranbrook).

Key Discussion Points:

- several key stakeholders and decision makers are not at this workshop, notably First Nations, forest district staff, and BC Timber Sales

- spruce bark and pine beetle both have occurred simultaneously/sequentially and spruce bark beetle harvest has impacted landscape greatly - focusing only on MPB may fail to generate how future landscapes will look

- before 1970's cutting strategies were completely different - we need to look at harvesting strategies prior to the MPB outbreak that occurred in the late 70's and early 80's

- oldest first was the harvesting strategy until approximately the 90's with the exception of forest health issues, however, MPB has been a dominant feature in forest management on the Cranbrook TSA for the past 25 years

- the harvesting pattern in the White River was to harvest the spruce and then the pine in response to beetles and this has resulted in all second growth stands in the White River - will impact some approaches to 'standing up the trees' for the retrospective analysis

- it may be informative to look at old timber maps for forest age classes that are susceptible to beetles - as an example, the Elk Valley did not have beetles until age classes advanced

The Strategic Analysis Framework (Presenter - Don Morgan):

The analysis framework is a tool-set designed to support natural resource management decisions with respect to mountain pine beetle outbreaks. Broadly, decision support systems seek to express the probability and utility (a quantitative value that reflects socio-economic, political or management interests) of various potential outcomes to alternative decisions, and lead to an appropriate decision being made. This process typically requires an supportive framework that encourages an assessment and articulation of the management problem and available options, develops a conceptual understanding of the ecosystem leading to formal models of causality, identifies possible outcomes to decisions, assigns probabilities and utilities to these outcomes (risk assessment), and specifies the manager's risk attitude (risk management). In its full expression, decision support is an iterative process that embraces the principles of adaptive management. The Strategic Analysis Framework will provide the tools and outputs necessary to support decision making in MPB-impacted landscapes, however, the scope of the project stops short of assigning utilities to outcomes, addressing the risk attitude of managers or recommending actual decisions. These activities are the prerogatives of the project's clients.

Decisions in natural resource management must be made in spite of the inherent complexity, uncertainty and variability of ecosystems:

1) Complexity:

Ecosystems are heterogeneous, complex networks characterized by nonlinear and transient processes and multiple interactions among individuals, species and abiotic factors. Multi-disciplinary approaches are required to understand and manage ecosystems and simplifying abstractions (such as models) should focus on the major factors of causality and primary agents of change on the landscape.

2) Uncertainty and variability:

Uncertainty and variability are differentiated on the basis of their ramifications to decision making. Uncertainty is a lack of knowledge about system parameters stemming from sampling errors and biases (parameter uncertainty), or about relationships among system parameters due to our limitations in observing the real world (model uncertainty). Often, such uncertainty can be reduced through additional research. Uncertainty, however, can also arise from difficulties in quantifying and comparing social values and preferences (decision-rule uncertainty).

Variability refers to true differences among individuals or ecosystem parameters and processes over space and time. True variability can not be reduced with additional research but can be better understood.

Uncertainty and variability invoke different treatment and interpretation in decision making. In model construction, uncertainty about parameters or causal relationships is often addressed through elicitation of expert judgment whereas the variability of parameters or relationships may be addressed by theoretical or empirical frequency distributions. For decisions made under uncertainty, the true risk associated with the decision is unknown because the expected outcome may not actually occur. For decisions made under variability, the expected outcome may not be optimal for all individuals or for an ecosystem across space and time.

To address these issues and to enhance the communication and acceptability of decisions, the analysis framework can be viewed as a set of components that support a series of processes. On the components side there are:

People:

The framework brings together three broad groups of people: 1) decision-makers and stakeholders such as forest district staff and representatives of First Nations, local communities, industry, recreationists, and non-government organizations; 2) topic experts such as forest managers, biologists, entomologists and forest ecologists who provide expertise across multiple disciplines; and 3) the core modelling team of GIS experts, and timber and habitat supply analysts.

Models:

Models are simplifying but imperfect abstractions of the real world that help to 1) define problems, 2) convey understanding of concepts and relationships, 3) characterize responses to management actions, and 4) evaluate management actions. Within the analysis framework, the Cranbrook Landscape Model (CLM) simulates stochastic landscape dynamics with an integrated suite of sub-models of natural (insect outbreaks, wildfire) and anthropogenic (forest harvesting) processes that are responsible for change on the landscape

Scenarios:

Scenarios typically represent management alternatives that are simulated on the landscape. More broadly, they are rule-sets that define how stochastic sub-models of ecosystem change are invoked (e.g., harvesting sub-model) or which sub-models are invoked (e.g., global warming sub-model). In ecological applications, management actions (e.g., forest harvesting) themselves are often drivers of change on the landscape in conjunction with natural agents (e.g., wildfire) of change. Scenarios represent a means to explore uncertain and variable futures, address the attendant risk associated with potential management actions in such futures, and permit us to explore if certain decisions are more robust to future uncertainties and system variability than others.

Indicators:

Indicators are output variables (e.g., volume of fibre flow; number, amount or density of a specific habitat attribute such as snags) of the scenarios that describe the condition of identified values (e.g., economic stability; ecological diversity) deemed to be of social, economic, cultural or ecological importance by decision makers and stakeholders.

Enabling Technologies:

A variety of enabling technologies are utilized within the framework such as 1) data manipulation and management tools (GIS; databases); 2) input / output analysis tools (statistical analysis packages; spreadsheets); 3) reporting tools (word processors; graphics packages); and 4) the Spatially Explicit Landscape Event Simulator (SELES) which is a model building tool that provides a language for specifying models of landscape dynamics and a simulation engine for running the models. SELES' raster-based approach is spatially and temporally explicit, it can represent stochastic processes and therefore can incorporate uncertainty and variability, and its modular approach to model development supports representation of complex systems.

On the processes side there are:

Problem definition, management options definition, conceptual model specification:

All groups, but in particular decision makers and stakeholders define 1) the scope of the problem; 2) the information requirements to address the problem; 3) the socio-economic, cultural, and ecological values and associated indicators; and 4) the range of available management options or decisions to explore as potential solutions. All groups, but in particular topic experts specify conceptual models of ecosystem change: forest ecology (growth, succession, disturbance); human activities (forest harvesting, road building, settlement, tourism and recreation, agriculture and grazing); external forces (weather, climate change).

Scenario development:

Scenarios are defined by decision makers and stakeholders to represent management options (by utilizing management levers built into the models) and their interactions with forest ecology and external forces.

Model building:

Formal models of natural and anthropogenic sources of landscape change are specified and verified by the domain experts. For models of anthropogenic-induced change, which often represent management options, appropriate management levers must be built in. The process stresses that model building meets the needs of managers (e.g., the right management levers are incorporated into the models) and adapts to the decision making process.

Model Implementation:

The core modelling team conducts simulation experiments with the scenarios. Initial state layers of the landscape are updated with the landscape event models to produce resultant or output layers.

Analysis and documentation:

The core modelling team queries the output layers for indicators and in conjunction with topic experts conducts summary analyses and prepares reports.

Key Discussion Points:

- other models such as Patchwork and Woodstock Stanley are available as alternatives to SELES, but SELES has more capabilities

- TELSA, for instance, is a fine grained model but at the TSA level a raster-based model in computationally more efficient

- additionally, the provincial MPB model is built in SELES as well as the Nadina and Vanderhoof project models

- SELES is convenient because many sub-models are already developed and it is also vetted by MOF for timber supply modelling

- as an example of the indicator component SELES will output those factors that are important for grizzly bears - these may serve as inputs to habitat supply models such as Bayesian Belief Networks or may be summarized in other ways such as road density maps

The Cranbrook Landscape Model (Presenter - Don Morgan):

Doubts and suspicions about the usefulness of models have many sources. For instance, common approaches to modeling include development of a research model and then 1) assuming that improved understanding from the model will find its way into management applications, or 2) subsequently proposing management applications for the model. Both approaches risk ignoring the needs of managers and often the model fails as a communication tool so necessary for successful implementation of models. Development and application of the CLM, within the analysis framework, stresses a collaborative approach that links science to management needs, adapts to the decision-making process, involves and informs stakeholders, provides relevant and timely information, and increases understanding among participants.

The objective of the CLM is to develop a spatially and temporally explicit landscape scale model that can:

1) represent forest harvesting and timber supply, road construction, secondary human activities (recreational activities) and natural disturbances (wildfire, forest pathogens); and

2) that can generate model outputs (indicators) that represent the status or condition of identified socio-economic, cultural or ecological values or that serve as inputs to complementary models of habitat supply.

As a precaution it is noted that the CLM is a strategic-level model and not intended to generate precise spatial arrangements of disturbances and integrates in a general way 1) natural and anthropogenic disturbances, and 2) timber supply and habitat supply.

The primary CLM is complete and is based on the SELES Spatial Timber Supply Model (STSM). The STSM was built in collaboration with the Forest Analysis Branch and has been previously applied to timber supply reviews for Fraser and Strathcona, land use planning (North Coast, Morice, Haida Gwaii), spotted owl recovery team decision support, and MPB assessment (Morice Lakes, Kamloops). The most recent initiative with respect to application of the STSM to the Cranbrook TSA was to "align" the model with the results of Timber Supply Review (TSR) 3 generated by the aspatial FSSIM model. The goal of this alignment was to generate a timber supply model that is consistent with current policy and that can reproduce the aspatial base case for comparative purposes.

Primary sub-models of the CLM from the STSM include:

Forest growth sub-model:

Inventory sub-model:

Harvesting sub-model:

Roading sub-model:

Forest disturbance sub-models include:

Fire sub-model:

MPB sub-model:

MPB management sub-models include:

Planning sub-model:

Single Tree Treatment sub-model:

Forest Harvesting sub-model:

Shelf-Life sub-model:

Key Discussion Points:

- the provincial MPB model will probably be tweaked with a location factor to account for susceptibility differences (rate of spread) due to topographic differences between plateau and mountain landforms

- the Flathead and Elk Valleys may act as smaller versions of central plateau however due to continuous pine stands and flat wide valleys

- the landscape model for this project will use the TSR3 coverage as a raster input

- projection lengths for the simulations will be up to 800 years, but typically we look only at about the first 350 to 500 years as per TSR analyses

- a major missing piece of the CLM is height classes and VQOs

- projections should incorporate other western bark beetles

- most forestry mainlines are already in place in the Cranbrook TSA and very little tweaking of the road input layer will be required

- that every drainage in Cranbrook is roaded - not only forestry roads but also many mining roads exist

- road use traffic volumes must include recreational vehicle use

- Greg Utzig's road analysis used total traffic volumes to generate classifications

- if possible, we should include the various access management plans (some of which are legally mandated) into the model - however it is a very complicated situation in Cranbrook

- for the Shelf Life Model it is important to note that the shelf life varies from site to site

- distance to manufacturing site along with topography are important determinants of Shelf Life - remote areas are likely to end up as non-recoverable losses

- Brad Hawkes and Bob Gray have researched the fire history in area - we need to be careful if using NDTs to parameterize the fire disturbance sub-model as the same NDTs in and out of the Rocky Mountain Trench have different dynamics

Historic MPB Outbreak in the Cranbrook TSA (Presenter - Marnie Duthie-Holt):

MPB has been, and continues to be, a significant threat to the Cranbrook TSA since pine leading stands compose 46% of the commercial forest cover. Historical data indicates that a significant MPB outbreak has occurred approximately every 10 years and 2 such major outbreaks have occurred on the TSA since the early 1980's. The first of these outbreaks occurred in the Flathead area in the late seventies and early eighties and peaked at 18,000 ha in 1981. The second outbreak occurred in the South Country and Trench area and peaked in 1991 at 8,530 ha. In response to beetle outbreaks, a 5-year master salvage plan was established for the TSA. Under this annual agreement 70% of licensees annual cut was targeted towards bark beetle control between 1980 and 1997. Licensees received an uplift to the AAC from 1991 to 1993 to increase their ability to salvage beetle killed timber.

Important events and responses to MPB outbreaks on the TSA since the mid-nineties include:

Since the 1980's it has been noted that the average number of infested stems per beetle infestation has been steadily declining. At the height of the 1981 infestation there were >7,500 infested stems/infestation compared to only 250 infested stems/infestation in 1991. These numerous small infestations are more challenging to manage than fewer, large infestations and the potential for rapid beetle population expansion remains.

Current MPB management activities and initiatives include:

Key Discussion Points:

- past MPB outbreaks were often coupled with no access resulting in few opportunities for suppression activities; many highly susceptible areas today have good access and suppression activities can be conducted

- heavy use of helicopter assisted single tree suppression is occurring in the Peace

- single tree suppression and prescribed burns will be increased and will also be applied to parks

- beetle management units along BC-Alberta border will receive more funding for suppression activities and the potential spread of MPB from the Crows Nest pass north is a candidate for single tree suppression activities

- non-commercial stands will be suppression treated now

- new susceptibility maps are in the process of being completed

- suppression activities delay beetle infestation so that stands live longer - spreads out salvage activities. Also living stands may benefit from natural events such as cold winters that also help to temporally spread out attacks and rates of spread.

- an additional response to MPB has being to do mixed-species planting

- it is important to determine why previous MPB attacks ended - host depletion (density dependent) or cold winter temperatures (density independent)

- MPB populations extend south to Mexico so we may be able to look at southern outbreaks to assess how climate change impact may affect MPB spread locally

Resilience Management and Scenarios (Presenter - Don Morgan):

Current management of forests relies on the TSR process which implicitly assumes that the future is similar to the past rather than being uncertain. Under this assumption disturbances are temporally homogeneous, occur only in the THLB, are directed towards oldest stands first followed by stands above minimum harvest age (i.e. younger stands are not disturbed), and do not influence or need to be accounted for in management constraints. Resilience management approaches are closely aligned with adaptive management which itself is a formal approach to addressing uncertainty by encouraging learning from management actions and accommodating change in management based on the ecosystems response. Adaptive management stresses the identification of uncertainties and treats management interventions as experiments to test understanding of ecosystems.

Resilience management, in recognition of the role that humans play in the natural environment, treats ecosystems as linked 'social-ecological' systems (SES). In contrast to the traditional definition of engineering resilience as a measure of how rapidly a system recovers from a disturbance, in a SES, ecological resilience is a consideration of how much disturbance is required to change an ecosystem into an alternate regime (often referred to as a stable state). This concept requires a fine distinction between the terms 'state' and 'regime'. A state is a time dependent measure and denotes the values of a suite of system variables. A regime is a configuration or set of states that are consistent with a basic structure or function of the ecosystem. For instance, a fire maintained pine forest moves through a set of states depending on where it is in the fire cycle - although dynamic, it is in the same regime. A decrease in the fire return time, however, that changes the pine forest to a grassland represents a new regime - the basic structure or function of the ecosystem has changed.

This approach to resilience is founded on the concept of non-linear processes from which arise multiple regimes that the ecosystem may exist in. Movement from one such regime to another requires crossing thresholds that define points where a precipitous change occurs in some ecosystem property or quality. In keeping with the concept of regimes, an ecosystem (or SES) is dynamic and undergoes four general phases that define the 'adaptive cycle': growth, conservation, release, and reorganization. Growth and conservation represent long periods of predictable changes and the accumulation of capital; release and reorganization are brief periods of destruction or collapse where accumulated capital is lost and novel recombinations can occur. Adaptive cycles occur at multiple but connected and interacting scales of space and time with larger and more slowly changing adaptive cycles determining the conditions of smaller and faster cycles.

Through the investigation of the dynamics of complex SESs resilience management seeks to develop guidelines and principles to assess resilience and support sustainable development. A focus is placed on the 'adaptive capacity' of SESs that itself is dependent on 1) genetic and biological diversity and landscape heterogeneity and 2) the ability of social systems to learn and retain knowledge and experience, to be flexible in problem solving, and to incorporate the interests of stakeholders. High adaptive capacity equates with an ability for a SES to re-configure itself after disturbance while maintaining valued ecosystem services and the processes these services are dependent on. To manage a SES for high adaptive capacity requires an understanding of alternate regimes and the thresholds of the driving variables, an understanding of the system state's trajectory, and the ability to alter ecological or socially determined (e.g., economic) thresholds. A focus is also placed on the transformability of SESs such that a system currently in an undesirable regime can be moved to a more desirable one.

Scenario development and analysis is an important component of resilience management as scenarios represent:

Key Discussion Points:

- resiliency management is applicable to sustainable forest management planning (SFMP) and we should refer to SFMPs for Tembec and Canfor to aid in determining output indicators for biodiversity issues such as old growth representation, patch sizes, riparian areas and condition

- Ministry of Tourism is also looking at limits of acceptable change

- public values may be constrained with respect to resiliency planning and management as often, public input to conservation-oriented organizations' management activities stress an emphasis simply on protection

- traditional application of MPB models have directed to 'what can we do to maintain the cut' and scenarios should include other options that may have a short term impact on timber supply but promote other ecosystem services and values

- scenario results from this project may serve to inform TSR4 and SFMPs of licensees, guide AAC uplifts, provide insights to ameliorate inconsistencies in fibre flow, and link to initiatives such as 1) the provincial caribou modelling which is assessing disturbance impacts on ecosystems, 2) species at risk (caribou, badgers, tailed frogs, bears, bull trout), 3) the Southern Rocky Mountain Management Plan's monitoring activities for access management and Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs) among others, 4) the Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan, and 5) High Conservation Value Forests (HCVF) identified by Canfor

Scenario Elements and Relationships (Group Discussion):

General interests expressed by workshop participants that influence scenario planning include:

Development of scenarios is constrained by two factors: 1) a relatively small number of scenarios, in addition to a baseline scenario, can be addressed because each scenario requires multiple simulations to account for stochastic processes; and 2) each scenario, while incorporating MPB management options and impacts to fibre flow, must be relatively simple with respect to other ecological services and values. This latter point will result in an inability to fully realize the full implications of beetle management and may therefore result in management strategies that can not be implemented because they violate other regulations, needs or expectations. Models and scenarios, however, are not intended to dictate management strategies but rather to provide insights that aid decision making.

The major elements that are desirable to incorporate into scenarios include:

Agricultural expansion:

Ongoing expansion of agricultural activities in major valley bottoms and the potential for expanded livestock grazing resulting from expanded forestry road networks due to MPB salvage and sanitation harvesting may have significant impacts on some valued ecological services such as wildlife populations.

Expanded settlement:

Expanded settlement impacts may stem from agricultural expansion (rural settlements) and also from population increases in major centers within the recreational user zone. Although population levels within the Cranbrook region have declined, population levels have increased in Albertan communities (notably Calgary) that are within the recreational user zone.

Access management and increased recreational activities:

Recreational use has increased in the Cranbrook region by 1000% over the last decade with substantial increases in ATV and snowmobile use that greatly increase access into backcountry areas. The compounding effects of expanded road networks due to MPB management and the increasing population base within the recreational user zone should be explored.

Recreational quality of experience:

Managing resources with respect to 'quality of experience' for recreationists is rarely been addressed in scenario planning. In addition to viewscapes, opportunities to view wildlife and experience wilderness solitude are important values.

Mixed species planting:

Scenarios could explore the costs and benefits of mixed species planting (rather than pine) around communities and tourist installations to reduce susceptibility to MPB. Similarly, scenarios could explore more extensive mixed species (e.g., fir and larch) planting to replace pine-dominated stands.

Probability of cold winters:

The primary function of beetle suppression activities is to delay MPB thereby keeping trees alive longer to create options for smoothing out future fibre flow. Cold winters that suppress beetles can greatly augment the impacts of suppression management. Incorporating the uncertainty of weather (an external force) events into the scenarios would provide insights into probable outcomes of beetle suppression management and mid-term timber supply.

Fire sub-model modifications:

In addition to recognizing that fire dynamics differ between NDTs in and out of the Rocky Mountain Trench, the fire sub-model could be made responsive to pine stands killed by MPB.

Patch size:

Scenarios should not be constrained by patch size limitations but should look at large patches or even entire drainages in a "get in, get out" strategy. It is noted, however, that this approach has never worked - the infrastructure after harvesting always remains and what is required is better access control to make this strategy a reality. We should, however, in our scenarios be able to show that access control is beneficial.

Impacts to ungulates:

Some consideration of ungulates such as impacts of disturbance on winter range impacts due to winter beetle suppression activities should be incorporated into scenarios. It is possible that linkages to ungulate projects could be established through the generation of output indicators for them (this would not be a core component of the project). Additionally, caribou recovery scenarios that explored fire and beetle suppression in the fringes around caribou-occupied areas would be useful. In this sense different beetle management strategies could explore potential impacts to caribou.

Watershed level impacts - intact watersheds, water quality:

Through integration with the provincial watershed atlas an assessment of how many watersheds are intact could be conducted and would be of interest to conservation groups. Also water quality (Equivalent Clearcut Area and riparian area integrity) in specified watersheds could be considered. Note that riparian is defined as low, subhygric sites with spruce cover. Within riparian zones, pine occurs on dry sites that typically burn and is subject to harvest unless there are sediment destabilization issues.

Trench restoration:

Impacts of the Rocky Mountain Trench Restoration Plan that is removing offsite lodgepole pine should be considered. Some previous beetle infestations were initiated in the Trench's lodgepole pine stands and these previously pure pine stands came back as mixed (pine and other species) stands. Upon removal of the pine component, the stands are expected to fill in with higher densities of these other species. In terms of Analysis Unit (AU) shifts, mixed stands upon pine removal should shift to an AU representative of the remaining species.

Impacts to mountain tourist lodges:

Different harvesting scenarios and impact assessments should be conducted around mountain tourist lodges (and popular trails) that will be affected by visual quality of the landscape. It is expected that recreational/tourist installations will suffer economic impacts of MPB salvage activities and VQOs could be extended to these installations rather that just to around highways and towns. (Note that VQOs will be an indicator that is reported on for all scenarios.)

Small scale salvage/sanitation:

Small scale salvage/sanitation activities that result in many small cutblocks directed at beetle control could be explored. The intent of the harvesting is to aggressively deal with beetle attack so that MPB can be delayed and trees are kept alive longer. This creates options to harvest more evenly with respect to fibre flow. Logistic problems for licensees to do this type of control stem from appraisal issues with respect to whether the higher costs of this harvesting approach will be recognized. If the higher costs are not recognized then licensees must put in larger blocks but this results in more green tree harvest and impacts to mid-term timber supply. In some cases, licensees will need an AAC uplift otherwise they will be required to leave beetle attacked stands which leads to more attack.

Optimized ecological values:

Examples of ecological values are OGMAs, HCVF, riparian areas, caribou fringes, and grizzly habitat. How to optimize the representation of these values in MPB-impacted landscapes could be examined in "what do you leave" scenarios.

Operability line:

Stands susceptible to beetles occur above the operability line (i.e., 40% slopes) and may contribute to the spread of outbreaks or act as outbreak initiation sites. The harvesting of stands above the operability line but not replanting them (due to poor soils) could be explored. An additional benefit would be the possibility of creating more berry habitat for bears; however, access management should also be considered so as not to create attractive sinks for bears.

MPB suppression activities:

Growth-suppressed stands (high density dog hair pine) are susceptible to beetles but are not commercially harvestable. The trade-offs between conducting suppression activities in these stands versus no suppression with concomitant potential for beetle outbreak initiation or contribution to the spread of outbreaks could be investigated.

Climate change:

Recent projections of global warming suggest that average global temperatures will rise by 2 - 6oC by 2100 and may result in atmospheric conditions (temperatures and carbon dioxide levels) outside the range that most species evolved under. Great uncertainty exists in parameterizing models of ecological change due to global warming although significant shifts in biogeoclimatic zone boundaries, concomitant changes in fire dynamics, and shifts in species ranges are expected. Although highly speculative, incorporation of global warming impacts with respect to MPB outbreaks, biogeoclimatic zone boundaries and fire dynamics that may occur within the projection period of scenarios is of interest.