SIMPPLLE/MAGIS
Landscape Level Fuel Treatment Scenario Analysis
Kenai Peninsula – SE Alaska
Joint Fire Sciences Project
2/4/04
Jimmie Chew
Greg Jones
Kirk Moeller
Rebecca McFarlan
Robin Silverstein
TREATMENTS............................................................................................................................. 4
FUEL TREATMENTS ON THE SOUTH KENAI ................................................................................... 4
FUEL TREATMENTS ON THE MIDDLE KENAI................................................................................. 5
FUEL TREATMENTS ON THE NORTH KENAI .................................................................................. 5
TOTAL LANDSCAPE RESULTS.............................................................................................. 9
FIRE PROCESS............................................................................................................................ 9
SOUTH KENAI: ................................................................................................................................. 9
MIDDLE KENAI: ............................................................................................................................. 13
NORTH KENAI:............................................................................................................................... 17
SPECIES...................................................................................................................................... 21
SOUTH KENAI: ............................................................................................................................... 21
MIDDLE KENAI: ............................................................................................................................. 22
NORTH KENAI:............................................................................................................................... 23
DENSITY..................................................................................................................................... 25
SOUTH KENAI: ............................................................................................................................... 25
MIDDLE KENAI: ............................................................................................................................. 26
NORTH KENAI:............................................................................................................................... 27
SPRUCE BEETLE PROGRESSION........................................................................................ 28
JFS – KENAI
2
Figure 1 & 2: Treatment zones in Kenai and Wildlife habitat zone. ............................................................ 4
Table 1: South Kenai treatment acreage and percent of the total landscape treated. ....................................... 5
Table 2: Middle Kenai treatment acreage and percent of the total landscape treated. ...................................... 7
Table 3: North Kenai treatment acreage and percent of the total landscape treated. ....................................... 8
Figure 3: South Kenai total average fire acreage per fire type from averages of 20 per scenario. ...................... 9
Figure 4: South Kenai total fire type percentages from averages of 20 simulations per scenario. ...................... 9
Figure 5: South Kenai stand replacing fire average acres per decade per scenario. ...................................... 10
Figure6: South Kenai No Action stand replacing fire probability. ............................................................. 10
Figure 7: South Kenai Scenario 3 stand replacing fire probability. ............................................................ 11
Figure 8: South Kenai total fire suppression cost per scenario, based on averages. ...................................... 11
Figure 9: South Kenai Stand Replacing Fire in the WUI and Wildlife zones. .............................................. 12
Figure 10: Middle Kenai total average fire acreage per fire type from averages of 20 simulations per scenario. 13
Figure 11: Middle Kenai total fire type percentages from averages of 20 simulations per scenario. ................. 13
Figure 12: Middle Kenai stand replacing fire average acres per decade per scenario. ................................... 14
Figure 13: Middle Kenai No Action stand replacing fire probability. ......................................................... 14
Figure 14: Middle Kenai Scenario 4 stand replacing fire probability.......................................................... 15
Figure 15: Middle Kenai total fire suppression cost per scenario, based on averages. ................................... 15
Figure 16: Percentage of stand-replacing fires in zones of the middle Kenai. ............................................. 16
Figure 17: North Kenai total average fire acreage per fire type from averages of 20 simulations per scenario. . 17
Figure 18: North Kenai total fire type percentages from averages of 20 simulations per scenario. .................. 17
Figure 19: North Kenai stand replacing fire average acres per decade per scenario. .................................... 18
Figure 20: North Kenai No Action stand replacing fire probability. ........................................................... 18
Figure 21: North Kenai No Action stand replacing fire probability. ........................................................... 19
Figure 22: North Kenai total fire suppression cost per scenario, based on averages. ..................................... 19
Figure 23: Percentage of stand-replacing fires in zones of the north Kenai. ................................................ 20
Figure 24: South Kenai dead white spruce simulation averages, per scenario per decade. ............................. 21
Figure 25: South Kenai white spruce simulation averages, per scenario per decade. .................................... 21
Figure 26: South Kenai hardwood simulation averages, per scenario per decade. ........................................ 22
Figure 27: Middle Kenai dead white spruce simulation averages, per scenario per decade............................. 22
Figure 28: Middle Kenai white spruce simulation averages, per scenario per decade. ................................... 23
Figure 29: Middle Kenai hardwood simulation averages, per scenario per decade. ...................................... 23
Figure 30: North Kenai dead white spruce simulation averages, per scenario per decade. ............................. 24
Figure 31: North Kenai white spruce simulation averages, per scenario per decade. .................................... 24
Figure 32: South Kenai woodland density simulation averages, per scenario per decade. .............................. 25
Figure 33: South Kenai closed density simulation averages, per scenario per decade. ................................... 25
Figure 34: Middle Kenai woodland density simulation averages, per scenario per decade. ............................ 26
Figure 35: Middle Kenai closed density simulation averages, per scenario per decade. ................................. 26
Figure 36: North Kenai woodland density simulation averages, per scenario per decade. .............................. 27
Figure 37: North Kenai closed density simulation averages, per scenario per decade. ................................... 27
Figure 38: Middle Kenai spruce beetle progression in timestep 1 and 2. ..................................................... 28
Figure 39: North Kenai spruce beetle progression in timestep 1 and 2........................................................ 29
JFS – KENAI
3
TREATMENTS
No action and four treatment scenarios for the South, Middle, and North Kenai areas of
southwest Alaska, were run using SIMPPLLE and MAGIS. Each scenario was represented by
twenty, five-decade, simulations, with fire suppression, and no extreme fire probability
incorporated.
Fuel Treatments on the South Kenai
The south Kenai area included two types of fuel treatments, clearcut-with-reserves-plant in the
wildland urban interface (WUI) zone and clearcut-with-reserves in the general forest (LOG) zone
(figure 1). These fuel treatments were applied in five scenarios. Scenario 1, the no action
scenario, had no fuel treatments. Scenario 2 treated only in the WUI. Scenarios 3 and 4 treated
in the WUI and the general forest. Scenario 5 treated only in the WUI, but at a maximum level
possible. Scenarios 2 to 4 treated up to 19,520 acres in the WUI zone, as determined by taking
the percentage of the total WUI found in the South (~39%) times a management limit of 50,000
total acres treated in the WUI zone for all three areas combined. Scenario 5 treated the
maximum available WUI with no limits, which was 32,715 acres. Scenarios 3 and 4 treated up
to 25,148 acres of the general forest, also corresponding to the proportion of this zone found in
the south and a total limit of 50,000 acres. For scenarios 2 and 3 the risk of stand replacing fires
from SIMPPLLE no action simulation outputs was minimized to select where and when
treatments were applied. Scenario 4 was derived from the solution of scenario 3 followed by
minimizing for the acres of wildlife (based on brown bear habitat/essential diet requirements of
moose browse areas and salmon stream buffers) zone (figure 2) treated. Scenario 5 selected fuel
treatments based on the optimization of reducing fire risk in the WUI zone.
Figure 1 & 2: Treatment zones in Kenai and Wildlife habitat zone.
JFS – KENAI
4
Fuel Treatments on the Middle Kenai
The middle Kenai area included three types of fuel treatments, clearcut-with-reserves-plant in the
wildland urban interface (WUI) zone and clearcut-with-reserves in the general forest (LOG)
zone, and ecosystem-management-broadcast-burn in the national wildlife refuge (WILD) zone
(figure 1). These fuel treatments were applied in five scenarios. Scenario 1, the no action
scenario, had no fuel treatments. Scenario 2 treated only in the WUI. Scenario 3 treated in the
WUI, the wildlife refuge, and the general forest. Scenario 4 treated in the WUI and the general
forest. Scenario 5 treated only in the WUI, but at a maximum level possible. Prescribed burning
in the wildlife refuge was only included in scenario 3, at a level proportional to the amount of
refuge in this section with a 20,000 acre total limit. Scenarios 2 to 4 treated up to 9,780 acres,
proportional to the WUI in the middle with a total limit of 50,000 acres. Scenario 5 treated all
possible WUI acres totaling 18,775. Scenarios 3 and 4 treated up to 19,915 acres in the general
forest, corresponding to the proportion of this zone found in the middle and a total limit of
50,000 acres. The scheduling of fuel treatments followed the same optimization rules as found
in the south Kenai.
Fuel Treatments on the North Kenai
The north Kenai area included three types of fuel treatments, clearcut-with-reserves-plant in the
wildland urban interface (WUI) zone and clearcut-with-reserves in the general forest (LOG)
zone, and ecosystem-management-broadcast-burn in the national wildlife refuge (WILD) zone
(figure 1). These fuel treatments were applied in five scenarios. Scenario 1, the no action
scenario, had no fuel treatments. Scenario 2 treated only in the WUI. Scenario 3 treated in the
WUI, the wildlife refuge, and the general forest. Scenario 4 treated in the WUI and the general
forest. Scenario 5 treated only in the WUI, but at a maximum level possible. Prescribed burning
in the wildlife refuge was only included in scenario 3, at a level proportional to the amount of
refuge in this section with a 20,000 acre total limit. Scenarios 2 to 5 treated 7,175 acres in the
WUI zone, the maximum available for treatment. Scenarios 3 and 4 treated 2,115 acres in the
general forest. The scheduling of fuel treatments followed the same optimization rules as found
in the south Kenai.
Spreadsheets containing scenario averages and standard deviations for processes, species, sizeclasses, densities, and fire suppression costs will be provided on a CD.
The following tables show the overall treatment acreage totals and the percent of the landscape
treated per scenario.
Table 1: South Kenai treatment acreage and percent of the total landscape treated.
SCN2
FEASIBLE TREATMENT
CLEARCUT-RESERVE-PLANT
CLEARCUT-RESERVE
INFEASIBLE TREATMENT
DECADE 0
DECADE 1
DECADE 2
DECADE 3
DECADE 4
DECADE 5
0
19500
12560
0
0
0
28930
0
0
0
0
0
DECADE 0
DECADE 1
DECADE 2
DECADE 3
DECADE 4
DECADE 5
CLEARCUT-RESERVE-PLANT
0
0
625
0
0
0
CLEARCUT-RESERVE
0
0
0
0
0
0
SCN3
JFS – KENAI
5
FEASIBLE TREATMENT
CLEARCUT-RESERVE-PLANT
CLEARCUT-RESERVE
DECADE 0
DECADE 1
DECADE 2
DECADE 3
DECADE 4
DECADE 5
0
19500
12730
0
0
0
28930
25145
23210
23095
23880
11310
DECADE 0
DECADE 1
DECADE 2
DECADE 3
DECADE 4
DECADE 5
CLEARCUT-RESERVE-PLANT
0
0
425
0
0
0
CLEARCUT-RESERVE
0
0
1065
1765
1030
0
DECADE 0
DECADE 1
DECADE 2
DECADE 3
DECADE 4
DECADE 5
0
19520
12805
0
0
0
28930
24860
25015
23650
23685
7115
INFEASIBLE TREATMENT
SCN4
FEASIBLE TREATMENT
CLEARCUT-RESERVE-PLANT
CLEARCUT-RESERVE
INFEASIBLE TREATMENT
DECADE 0
DECADE 1
DECADE 2
DECADE 3
DECADE 4
DECADE 5
CLEARCUT-RESERVE-PLANT
0
0
390
0
0
0
CLEARCUT-RESERVE
0
0
260
1455
1545
775
DECADE 0
DECADE 1
DECADE 2
DECADE 3
DECADE 4
DECADE 5
0
32715
0
0
0
0
28930
0
0
0
0
0
SCN5
FEASIBLE TREATMENT
CLEARCUT-RESERVE-PLANT
CLEARCUT-RESERVE
INFEASIBLE TREATMENT
DECADE 0
DECADE 1
DECADE 2
DECADE 3
DECADE 4
DECADE 5
CLEARCUT-RESERVE-PLANT
0
0
0
0
0
0
CLEARCUT-RESERVE
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Acreage
% Landscape
Total Acres in South Kenai
339965
SCN2 Total Treatment over 5 decades
32060
9
SCN3 Total Treatment over 5 decades
138870
41
SCN4 Total Treatment over 5 decades
136650
40
SCN5 Total Treatment over 5 decades
32715
10
JFS – KENAI
6
Table 2: Middle Kenai treatment acreage and percent of the total landscape treated.
SCN2
FEASIBLE TREATMENT
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENTBROADCAST BURN
DECADE 0
DECADE 1
DECADE 2
DECADE 3
DECADE 4
0
0
0
0
0
CLEARCUT-RESERVE-PLANT
0
9155
9200
420
0
CLEARCUT-RESERVE
0
0
0
0
0
FEASIBLE TREATMENT
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENTBROADCAST BURN
DECADE 0
DECADE 1
DECADE 2
DECADE 3
DECADE 4
0
18545
20285
9745
0
CLEARCUT-RESERVE-PLANT
0
9600
8725
450
0
DECADE 5
0
0
0
SCN3
CLEARCUT-RESERVE
0
19740
19565
19595
19270
INFEASIBLE TREATMENTS
0
0
0
190
245
FEASIBLE TREATMENT
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENTBROADCAST BURN
DECADE 0
DECADE 1
DECADE 2
DECADE 3
DECADE 4
0
0
0
0
0
CLEARCUT-RESERVE-PLANT
0
9780
8610
385
0
DECADE 5
0
0
700
40
SCN4
CLEARCUT-RESERVE
0
19915
19385
19645
19560
FEASIBLE TREATMENT
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENTBROADCAST BURN
DECADE 0
DECADE 1
DECADE 2
DECADE 3
DECADE 4
0
0
0
0
0
CLEARCUT-RESERVE-PLANT
0
18775
0
0
0
CLEARCUT-RESERVE
0
0
0
0
0
DECADE 5
0
0
840
SCN5
Total Acreage % Landscape
Total Acres in North Kenai
393275
SCN2 Total Treatment over 5 decades
18775
2
SCN3 Total Treatment over 5 decades
146220
37
SCN4 Total Treatment over 5 decades
98120
25
SCN5 Total Treatment over 5 decades
18775
5
JFS – KENAI
7
DECADE 5
0
0
0
Table 3: North Kenai treatment acreage and percent of the total landscape treated.
SIMULATION #20
SCN2
FEASIBLE TREATMENT
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENTBROADCAST BURN
DECADE 0
DECADE 1
DECADE 2
DECADE 3
DECADE 4
DECADE 5
0
0
0
0
0
0
CLEARCUT-RESERVE-PLANT
0
7175
0
0
0
0
CLEARCUT-RESERVE
0
0
0
0
0
0
FEASIBLE TREATMENT
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENTBROADCAST BURN
DECADE 0
DECADE 1
DECADE 2
DECADE 3
DECADE 4
DECADE 5
0
320
0
0
0
0
CLEARCUT-RESERVE-PLANT
0
7175
0
0
0
0
CLEARCUT-RESERVE
0
2115
0
0
0
0
FEASIBLE TREATMENT
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENTBROADCAST BURN
DECADE 0
DECADE 1
DECADE 2
DECADE 3
DECADE 4
DECADE 5
0
0
0
0
0
0
CLEARCUT-RESERVE-PLANT
0
7175
0
0
0
0
CLEARCUT-RESERVE
0
2115
0
0
0
0
FEASIBLE TREATMENT
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENTBROADCAST BURN
DECADE 0
DECADE 1
DECADE 2
DECADE 3
DECADE 4
DECADE 5
0
0
0
0
0
0
CLEARCUT-RESERVE-PLANT
0
7175
0
0
0
0
CLEARCUT-RESERVE
0
0
0
0
0
0
SCN3
SCN4
SCN5
Total Acreage % Landscape
Total Acres in North Kenai
217760
SCN2 Total Treatment over 5 decades
7175
3
SCN3 Total Treatment over 5 decades
9610
4
SCN4 Total Treatment over 5 decades
9290
4
SCN5 Total Treatment over 5 decades
7175
3
JFS – KENAI
8
TOTAL LANDSCAPE RESULTS
FIRE PROCESS
South Kenai:
The South Kenai portion of the simulated landscape consisted of a total of 339,965 acres, 4041% of which were treated in Scenarios 3 and 4, and 9-10% was treated in Scenarios 2 and 5.
The following graphs indicate that Scenario 3 and 4 had a significant impact on the total amount
of fire received over 5 decades, the total percent of fire received, the amount of stand replacing
fire received over five decades, the fire probability within the South Kenai area, as well as with
the fire suppression costs (figures 1-6).
Figure 3: South Kenai total average fire acreage per fire type from averages of 20 per scenario.
South Kenai Total Fire from Simulation Averages
25000
Acres
20000
15000
SRF
MSF
10000
LSF
5000
0
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SCN5
Figure 4: South Kenai total fire type percentages from averages of 20 simulations per scenario.
South Kenai - Total Fire Simulation Average Percentiles
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
SRF
MSF
LSF
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
NA
SCN2
SCN3
JFS – KENAI
9
SCN4
SCN5
Figure 5: South Kenai stand replacing fire average acres per decade per scenario.
South Kenai - Stand Replacing Fire
Simulation Averages
6000
5000
NA
Acres
4000
SCN2
3000
SCN3
SCN4
2000
SCN5
1000
0
1
2
3
Decade
Figure6: South Kenai No Action stand replacing fire probability.
JFS – KENAI
10
4
5
Figure 7: South Kenai Scenario 3 stand replacing fire probability.
Figure 8: South Kenai total fire suppression cost per scenario, based on averages.
South Kenai - Fire Suppression Totals
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
Timestep-5
$5,000,000
Timestep-4
$4,000,000
Timestep-3
$3,000,000
Timestep-2
$2,000,000
Timestep-1
$1,000,000
$0
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
JFS – KENAI
11
SCN5
The average percentage of stand-replacing fire in the wui and wildlife zones are shown in figure
3. The four fuel treatment scenarios reduced the level of stand-replacing fires in the wui
compared to the level in the no action scenario by over 80%, showing the hazard reduction focus
on the WUI zone is very effective. Scenario 5, which treated the most acres, showed the lowest
percentage of stand-replacing fires. Scenarios 3 and 4 treated outside the WUI zone and showed
a slight decrease in stand-replacing fires. Scenarios 3 and 4 showed the lowest percentage of
stand-replacing fires in the wildlife habitat zones (moose browse areas and salmon stream
buffer). Scenario 4 was modeled to reduce clearcut-with-reserve logging in wildlife areas, which
showed a slight increase in stand-replacing fires compared to scenario 3.
Figure 9: South Kenai Stand Replacing Fire in the WUI and Wildlife zones.
1.4
1.2
1
na
scn2
0.8
scn3
0.6
scn4
scn5
0.4
0.2
0
wui
wildlife
JFS – KENAI
12
Middle Kenai:
The Middle portion of the Kenai landscape totaled 393,375 acres. Again we see a significant
impact on the reduction of fire from Scenario 3 which treated the most acreage 146,220 acres
over five decades, 37% of the landscape, followed by Scenario 4 at 98,120 acres and 25 % of the
landscape. The following figures 7 – 9 depict this impact. Although we do not see a significant
change in stand replacing fire probabilities between the no action scenario and scenario 3, as
shown in figures 10 and 11, but then again we see a change in fire suppression costs in figure 12.
Figure 10: Middle Kenai total average fire acreage per fire type from averages of 20 simulations per scenario.
Middle Kenai Total Fire from Simulation Averages
3000
2500
Acres
2000
SRF
1500
MSF
LSF
1000
500
0
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SCN5
Figure 11: Middle Kenai total fire type percentages from averages of 20 simulations per scenario.
Middle Kenai - Total Fire Simulation Average Percentiles
100%
80%
60%
SRF
MSF
40%
LSF
20%
0%
NA
SCN2
SCN3
JFS – KENAI
13
SCN4
SCN5
Figure 12: Middle Kenai stand replacing fire average acres per decade per scenario.
Middle Kenai - Stand Replacing Fire
Simulation Averages
600
500
NA
Acres
400
SCN2
300
SCN3
SCN4
200
SCN5
100
0
1
2
3
Decade
Figure 13: Middle Kenai No Action stand replacing fire probability.
JFS – KENAI
14
4
5
Figure 14: Middle Kenai Scenario 4 stand replacing fire probability.
Figure 15: Middle Kenai total fire suppression cost per scenario, based on averages.
Middle Kenai - Fire Suppression Totals
$900,000
$800,000
$700,000
$600,000
Timestep-5
Timestep-4
$500,000
Timestep-3
$400,000
Timestep-2
$300,000
$200,000
Timestep-1
$100,000
$NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
JFS – KENAI
15
SCN5
The average percentage of stand-replacing fires in the middle Kenai area is given in figure 4.
The four fuel treatment scenarios showed a large reduction in stand-replacing fires in the WUI
zone. Surprisingly, scenarios 3 and 4, which treated the same level within the WUI zone as
scenario 2, had a higher percentage of stand-replacing fires in the WUI while treated additional
acres outside the WUI. Scenario 3, the only scenario to treat the WILD (national wildlife refuge)
zone, seemed to reduce the level of stand-replacing fires in the refuge, however, scenario 5, with
no treatments outside the distant WUI zone, inexplicably reduced fires to the same level. In the
wildlife habitat, stand replacing fires were reduced most in scenarios 3 and 4, with scenario 4
again, as in the south Kenai, showing an increase in stand-replacing fires in the wildlife habitat.
Figure 16: Percentage of stand-replacing fires in zones of the middle Kenai.
0.16
0.14
0.12
na
0.1
scn2
0.08
scn3
0.06
scn4
scn5
0.04
0.02
0
wui
wild
JFS – KENAI
16
wildlife
North Kenai:
The North portion of the Kenai Peninsula shows the least amount of change between scenarios
due to the limited amount of acreage treated. All of the scenarios treated approximately the same
percent of acreage 3-4% of the landscape during the first decade, hence we do not see a
significant change in the following figures 13-18.
Figure 17: North Kenai total average fire acreage per fire type from averages of 20 simulations per scenario.
North Kenai Total Fire from Simulation Averages
9000
8000
7000
Acres
6000
5000
SRF
4000
MSF
3000
LSF
2000
1000
0
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SCN5
Figure 18: North Kenai total fire type percentages from averages of 20 simulations per scenario.
Total Fire Percentiles for North Kenai over 5 Decades
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
SRF
MSF
LSF
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
NA
SCN2
SCN3
JFS – KENAI
17
SCN4
SCN5
Figure 19: North Kenai stand replacing fire average acres per decade per scenario.
Acres
North Kenai - Stand Replacing Fire
Simulation Averages
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SCN5
1
2
3
Decade
Figure 20: North Kenai No Action stand replacing fire probability.
JFS – KENAI
18
4
5
Figure 21: North Kenai No Action stand replacing fire probability.
Figure 22: North Kenai total fire suppression cost per scenario, based on averages.
North Kenai - Fire Suppression Totals
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
Timestep-5
$2,000,000
Timestep-4
Timestep-3
$1,500,000
Timestep-2
$1,000,000
Timestep-1
$500,000
$0
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
JFS – KENAI
19
SCN5
Fuel treatments in the north Kenai showed a less significant reduction of stand-replacing firesin
the WUI zone then in the other two areas (figure 5). Fuel treatments in the WILD zone seemed
to increase stand-replacing fires in the north. Fuel treatments in wildlife habitat showed slight
reductions in stand-replacing fires in a similar pattern as in the other two areas but to a much
lesser degree.
Figure 23: Percentage of stand-replacing fires in zones of the north Kenai.
0.7
0.6
0.5
na
0.4
scn2
scn3
0.3
scn4
0.2
scn5
0.1
0
wui
wild
JFS – KENAI
20
wildlife
SPECIES
South Kenai:
Through SIMPPLLE’s treatment logic the acres treated with Clearcut with Reserves and
Clearcut with Reserves and Planting dead white spruce polygons were replaced with either
hardwood species or white spruce. Again Scenario 3 and Scenario 4 treated the most dead white
spruce therefore depicting a sizeable decrease in dead white spruce and an increase in hardwoods
and white spruce on the landscape, figures 19-21.
Figure 24: South Kenai dead white spruce simulation averages, per scenario per decade.
Acres
South Kenai - Dead White Spruce
Simulation Averages
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SCN5
0
1
2
3
4
5
Decade
Figure 25: South Kenai white spruce simulation averages, per scenario per decade.
South Kenai - White Spruce
Simulation Averages
50000
Acres
40000
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SCN5
30000
20000
10000
0
0
1
2
3
Decade
JFS – KENAI
21
4
5
Figure 26: South Kenai hardwood simulation averages, per scenario per decade.
South Kenai - Hardwood
Simulation Averages
120000
100000
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SCN5
Acres
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Decade
Middle Kenai:
The Middle portion of the Kenai Peninsula, like the Southern portion, through treatments
decreased the acreage of dead white spruce while increasing both white spruce and hardwood
acreage. Again we see a difference between scenarios particularly Scenario 3 and Scenario 4 due
to percent treated, figures 22-24. Note that the Middle Kenai portion has less white spruce and
dead white spruce acreage than the South portion of the Kenai Peninsula.
Figure 27: Middle Kenai dead white spruce simulation averages, per scenario per decade.
Middle Kenai - Dead White Spruce
Simulation Averages
120000
100000
Acres
80000
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SCN5
60000
40000
20000
0
0
1
2
3
Decade
JFS – KENAI
22
4
5
Figure 28: Middle Kenai white spruce simulation averages, per scenario per decade.
Middle Kenai - White Spruce
Simulation Averages
30000
25000
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SCN5
Acres
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Decade
Figure 29: Middle Kenai hardwood simulation averages, per scenario per decade.
Middle Kenai - Hardwood
Simulation Averages
60000
50000
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SCN5
Acres
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1
2
3
Decade
4
5
North Kenai:
The North portion of the Kenai Peninsula has the least amount of dead white spruce compared to
the South and the Middle, therefore treatments were minimal and the difference between
scenarios seemed limited. From the figures the amount of dead white spruce decreased due to
treatments in decade one but then began to increase from decades 2 through 5. Scenario 3 and 4
show the least increase followed by scenarios 2 and 5, figure 25. White spruce increased at
approximately the same acreage per decade for four treatment scenarios, figure 26.
JFS – KENAI
23
Figure 30: North Kenai dead white spruce simulation averages, per scenario per decade.
North Kenai - Dead White Spruce Simulation Averages
10500
10000
Acres
9500
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SCN5
9000
8500
8000
7500
0
1
2
3
4
5
Decade
Figure 31: North Kenai white spruce simulation averages, per scenario per decade.
North Kenai - White Spruce Simulation Averages
14000
12000
Acres
10000
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SCN5
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
1
2
3
Decade
JFS – KENAI
24
4
5
DENSITY
South Kenai:
Through SIMPPLLE’s treatment logic density values particularly for the dead white spruce
closed density when treated will automatically move to the woodland density. And as seen with
the fire process and species, the densities from closed to woodland show a considerable shift for
scenario 3 and scenario 4 in the South portion of the Kenai Peninsula, figures 27 and 28 depict
this.
Figure 32: South Kenai woodland density simulation averages, per scenario per decade.
South Kenai - Woodland Density
Simulation Averages
120000
100000
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SCN5
Acres
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Decade
Figure 33: South Kenai closed density simulation averages, per scenario per decade.
South Kenai - Closed Density
Simulation Averages
250000
Acres
200000
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SCN5
150000
100000
50000
0
0
1
2
Decade
3
JFS – KENAI
25
4
5
Middle Kenai:
The Middle portion of the Kenai Peninsula, like the Southern portion, depicts a change in density
values from closed to woodland. Open density values rose considerably post treatment for
scenario’s 3 and 4 while the closed density decreased. Scenario’s 2 and 5 were approximately
the same in acreage per decade for woodland and closed due to the limited acreage treated. No
action proved to be the least in the woodland density and approximately the same with scenario 2
and 5 in the closed density. Refer to figures 29 and 30.
Figure 34: Middle Kenai woodland density simulation averages, per scenario per decade.
Middle Kenai - Woodland Density
Simulation Averages
140000
120000
Acres
100000
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SCN5
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Decade
Figure 35: Middle Kenai closed density simulation averages, per scenario per decade.
Middle Kenai - Closed Density
Simulation Averages
300000
250000
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SCN5
Acres
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0
1
2
Decade
3
JFS – KENAI
26
4
5
North Kenai:
The North portion of the study area density values for the woodland and closed densities for all
scenarios including the no action show only a slight difference. The difference is mainly
between the no action having the least amount of woodland density acreage and the most amount
of closed density acreage and all of the scenarios. The acreage is almost the same per decade per
scenario for the woodland and the closed densities, figures 31 and 32.
Figure 36: North Kenai woodland density simulation averages, per scenario per decade.
North Kenai - Woodland Density
Simulation Averages
80000
70000
Acres
60000
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SCN5
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Decade
Figure 37: North Kenai closed density simulation averages, per scenario per decade.
North Kenai - Closed Density
Simulation Averages
160000
140000
Acres
120000
NA
SCN2
SCN3
SCN4
SCN5
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0
1
2
Decade
3
JFS – KENAI
27
4
5
SPRUCE BEETLE PROGRESSION
To capture the interaction between the spruce beetle process, fire process, and treatment process
SIMPPLLE incorporated the Spruce Beetle Expert System into the SIMPPLLE system. The
basis behind the system is that if there was a fire process, spruce beetle occurrence, or treatment
in a polygon there is a higher chance that surrounding polygons will be infected with spruce
beetle in the following decade. The Middle Kenai and North Kenai spruce beetle progression
map shows high and medium spruce beetle polygons, stand replacing fire polygons as well as
treatment polygons for timestep 1 or decade 1 along with the progression of spruce beetle both
high and medium in time step 2 or decade 2, figures 33 and 34.
Figure 38: Middle Kenai spruce beetle progression in timestep 1 and 2.
JFS – KENAI
28
Figure 39: North Kenai spruce beetle progression in timestep 1 and 2.
JFS – KENAI
29