incorporating landscape fuel treatment modeling into the forest vegetation simulator
DESCRIPTION
Incorporating Landscape Fuel Treatment Modeling into the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Robert C. Seli Alan A. Ager Nicholas L. Crookston Mark A. Finney Berni Bahro James K. Agee Charles W. McHugh. Study Objectives. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Incorporating Landscape Fuel Treatment Modeling into the Forest Vegetation Simulator
Robert C. SeliAlan A. AgerNicholas L. CrookstonMark A. FinneyBerni BahroJames K. AgeeCharles W. McHugh
Study Objectives
• What effect does the spatial arrangement of fuel treatments have on large fire growth.
• How does the arrangement change over time.
Study SitesSite Area FVS polygons FVS variant Blue Mountains, WA 54,600 ha 5,752 Blue Mtn. (BM) Sanders County, MT 51,700 ha 9,699 Inland Empire (IE) Stanislaus Nat’l Forest, CA 40,500 ha 7,754 Western Sierra (WS)
Simulation System
• FVS for simulating forest changes and treatments over time.
• Treatment Optimization Model using topologically optimal logic to select stands for treatment.
• A fire growth simulation model.
Three Major Components
Compute Priority
Selects stands for treatment
CustomPPE-FFE
Controls the entiresimulation
MakeNew
Activities
Adds FVSactivitieson the fly
Custom PPE-FFE
• FFE was added to PPE, • PPE changed to implement trial activities for
every stand and pause,– transfer trial activity results to ComputePriority.exe, – wait for ComputePriority.exe to pass stands selected
for treatment.
• When ComputePriority.exe terminates PPE schedules stands for treatment.
• PPE calls MakeNewActivities.exe and accepts any new FVS activities.
Custom PPE-FFE
Compute Priority• Stand values into FARSITE landscape files.
– Scott & Burgan fuel model logic• Selects cells for FVS trial activities• Converts selected cells back into stands.
Make New Activities
• Created new activities for PPE-FFE, random wildfires in our simulation.– SIMFIRE– FLAMADJ
Results 1Prospect Creek, MT
0.2 Treatment Fraction
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
FVS cycle (10 yrs.)
Rel
ativ
e sp
read
rat
e
No Treatment
Random400m800m1600m
Results 2Prospect Creek, MT
800m Maximum Treatment Size
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
FVS cycle (10 yrs.)
Rel
ativ
e sp
read
rat
e No Treatment
0.10.20.30.40.5
Treatment Fraction
Complete Results
Discussion
• Data requirements
• Need for Scott & Burgan fuel models– Lack of understory vegetation dynamics
• Complexity of process– Skills needed– Computer requirements
• 10,000 stand limit in PPE
