This presentation focuses on potential improvements in the implementation of the National Fire Plan in Idaho. It touches upon three related “key points” in the National Fire Plan: hazardous fuels treatment, ecological restoration, and community assistance through forest biomass utilization. The author is a member of the Western Governors’ Association Forest Health Advisory Committee (WGA-FHAC) and was given an opportunity to explain this presentation to the Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WiFLC).

The WiFLC invited the WGA-FHAC to provide “stakeholder input” during its June 2007 meeting in Red Lodge, Montana. Although the University of Idaho is not a stakeholder in the same sense as other Idaho members of the WGA-FHAC (e.g., the Intermountain Forest Association and the Idaho Conservation League), many people in the state are affected by wildfires.

The WiFLC is an intergovernmental committee of federal, tribal, state, county and municipal government officials dedicated to consistent implementation of wildland fire policies, goals and management activities. The Council meets regularly to provide oversight and coordination of the National Fire Plan and the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. In 2002 the WGA-FHAC developed the original ten-year implementation plan for the National Fire Plan. This document was revised in December 2006, re-emphasizing the importance of the collaborative framework upon which the implementation plan is built.

The major points of this presentation can be stated in three quotations from an article in Fire Management Today by Jerry Williams.* Mr. Williams is a leader in the wildfire community who recently retired from federal service. The first of these three points, on this slide, is 1) the scale of fuel treatments needs to be stepped up to reduce wildfire losses, and these treatments must keep pace with forest growth to be effective over time.

The other two points are made on slides that follow: 2) fire management planning needs to be integrated with land and resource management planning, and 3) biomass utilization will be enhanced if federal land management planning can provide a stable long-term supply of biomass material.

The bar graph in the upper left corner depicts the record of accomplishment in fuels treatment and restoration activities on federal lands from 2000 to 2006 (source: http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/reports/documents/healthyforests/2007/healthy_forests_report_05142007.pdf).

 

The quotations are from an article in the Western Forester, a publication of the Society of American Foresters, by Doug Crandall. He has served on several congressional staffs, including the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health in the House of Representatives, and is currently Director of Forest Policy for the Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD (source: http://www.forestry.org/pdf/sept06.pdf).

Mr. Crandall recognizes that although the annual amount of acres treated or restored since 2000 has quadrupled, it is far short of what is needed to keep up with forest growth on federal lands. The author makes a similar point in a refereed paper: O’Laughlin, Jay, and Philip S. Cook. 2003. “Inventory-based forest health indicators: implications for national forest management.” Journal of Forestry. 101(2):11-17, abstract available online at http://www.cnrhome.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=69496.

In Idaho, approximately 12 million acres of forest lands need some kind of fuel treatment to restore historic conditions. Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is a measure of how much a forest has departed from natural wildland fire conditions. A west-wide assessment of potential biomass fuels conducted by the U.S. Forest Service identified 4.7 million acres of Class 2 and 3.3 million acres of Class 3 forest lands in Idaho.*

 

Approximately three-fourths of the forest land in Idaho is administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Using that same proportion means there are likely at least 6 million acres of Class 2 & 3 forest lands in Idaho’s national forests. In the last four years the U.S. Forest Service has treated, on average, about 150,000 acres of forest land per year in Idaho. Montana has even more forest lands at risk, and the Forest Service is treating less acreage than in Idaho.

The situation in Oregon is similar to that in Idaho and Montana, illustrated on the previous slide. Federal lands are not being treated to the extent they should be to reduce wildfire risks. In May 2007, Russ Hoeflich, state director for The Nature Conservancy in Oregon, gave a luncheon presentation at the annual meeting of the Western Forest Economists in Welches, OR.

The “bottom line,” according to Mr. Hoeflich of The Nature Conservancy, is that federal agencies in Oregon should be treating three to five times as much acreage as they currently are (source: http://www.masonbruce.com/wfe/2007Program/Hoeflich_1.pdf).

 

The second point from Jerry Williams’ article effectively moves fuels treatment from the province of fire management to the broader arena of land and resource management. Decisions about federal land management take place in a policy environment featuring a two-tiered planning process in which the managers are required to involve the public before acting. The two tiers are as follows:

1) Landscape-scale planning is done formally in land and resource management plans prepared according to laws requiring long-term (10-15 year) comprehensive plans. These plans provide an opportunity for managers to work with the public to develop land-use maps and determine the priority of management activities.
2) Project-level planning, which is governed by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requirements to analyze the impacts of proposed actions. This is where managers convert plans into on-the-ground actions.

Fire management planning does not currently fit within these processes. The fire management plan for a national forest is not part of the land and resource management plan. Although prescribed fire events are usually subject to NEPA analysis, neither fire suppression activities nor wildland fire use (“let it burn”) events are subject to NEPA analysis. As a result no collaboration with stakeholders occurs. Suggestions for incorporating wildfire risk assessment into the two-tiered land and resource management decision processes are offered in the following two-page outline, with an additional page of references.

Planning Approach for Reducing Wildfire Risks on Federal Lands
Jay O’Laughlin, Professor and Director
Policy Analysis Group, College of Natural Resources
University of Idaho, Moscow; 208-885-5776; jayo@uidaho.edu
DISCUSSION DRAFT – June 19, 2007

Introduction. During a conversation in May 2006 with Elaine Marquis Brong (BLM state director for Oregon and Washington at that time), she opined that although an array of planning tools exists for helping federal land managers reduce wildfire risks, no one had put all the pieces together. I accepted the challenge to try to assemble the tools in a management planning and decision-making context consistent with policy requirements. This draft outline is the result.

Risk-based Approach. A guiding principle: “Sound risk management is the foundation for all fire management activities” (USDA/USDI et al. 2001, 2003). Risk assessment can help identify, prioritize, and support implementation decisions for management actions, especially through the collaborative process by which the National Fire Plan is implemented (O’Laughlin 2006).

Planning Tools. Several tools are capable of supporting landscape and project level planning approaches for reducing wildfire risks. Some of these are decision support tools presented at a July 2006 national conference on threat assessment applications for forest and rangeland management. The tools outlined below could provide the glue to hold the pieces of the puzzle together in the current policy and planning environment. This discussion draft outlines what could be done. (Several new tools are featured in a USDA Forest Service General Technical Report scheduled for publication in September 2007; see References Cited section on page 3.)

A. National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) or Federal Lands Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)

 

1. Determine desired future forest (or rangeland) condition via interaction with stakeholders
2. Identify and prioritize sub-watersheds (~20,000 acres) for management, usingLANDFIRE data in a logic framework and decision model (Hessburg, Reynolds, et al.2007, in press)
3. Use forest inventory and analysis (FIA) data and appropriate forest growth model(s) to project future forest inventory, perhaps with several management scenarios
4. Identify forest growing stock volume “gap” between current conditions and desired future conditions
5. Identify and describe “gaps” for overstocked stands in terms of a schedule for timber and/or forest biomass to be removed
6. “Levelize” the amount of timber and/or forest biomass that will be made available over the 10-15 year life of the plan to help private contractors and entrepreneurs develop and finance plans for resource utilization (see Mater 2006)
7. Amend required land and resource management plan to reflect results from this analysis
   

B. Fire Management Plan

1. Based on above analysis, amend fire management plan (FMP) for the planning unit to identify areas where wildland fire use (WFU) may be an appropriate management response

C. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

1. For proposed fuel treatment projects, engage stakeholders using SPOTS approach (strategic placement of fuel treatments; see SPOTS website at NIFC 2006 and/or summary in O’Laughlin 2007).
2. Design fuel treatment project to attain desired forest condition by removing vegetation (timber and/or forest biomass)
3. “Levelize” the amount of timber and/or forest biomass over time using CROP (Coordinated Resource Offering Protocol) approach (see Mater 2006)
4. Describe project objectives in terms of end results desired
5. Use fire return interval as the minimum planning horizon (this will ensure that a fire will occur and preclude the need to develop fire probability scenarios)
6. If fish species protected by the ESA are present, a minimum 100-year planning horizon isneeded the ensure that decisions supported by short-term considerations do not result inlong-term problems (Rieman et al. 2003)
7. Interact with stakeholders to determine resources at risk (i.e., what do people care about?)
   - Describe risks under current conditions, using either quantitative data and models or qualitative expert-based approach
   - Describe additional risks posed by management actions
   - Describe risk reduction benefits from proposed management actions
8. Develop risk assessment diagram(s) with and without proposed management action
   - See Ager and Finney (2007, in press)
   - See O’Laughlin (2007, in press)
9. As may be appropriate, use Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) and otherHealthy Forest Initiative (HFI) tools (see field guide, USDA-FS/USDI-BLM 2004)
10. As may be appropriate, develop stewardship contract to attain end results
    - Use 10-year planning horizon wherever feasible to help contractors and wood utilization entrepreneurs secure adequate financing to remove hazardous fuels and use biomass to manufacture products and provide heat, power, and transportation fuels

References Cited
Ager, Alan, and Mark Finney (2007, in press). “An actuarial approach to modeling wildfire risk.” Conference paper, Advances in Threat Assessment and Their Application to Forest and Rangeland Management, Boulder, CO, July 18-20, 2006.*

Hessburg, Paul, Keith Reynolds, and others (2007, in press). “A decision-support system for evaluating wildland fire danger and prioritizing vegetation and fuels treatments.” Conference paper, Advances in Threat Assessment and Their Application to Forest and Rangeland Management, Boulder, CO, July 18-20, 2006.*

Mater, Catherine (2006). “Coordinated Resource Offering Protocol (CROP) and central Oregon: a case study in woody biomass supply and utilization – doing it right!” PowerPoint presentation at National Bioenergy and Wood Products Conference II, Denver, CO. Available online at http://www.nationalbiomassconference.org/presentations/Mater.pdf

National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC 2006). “Strategic placement of treatments (SPOTS): using a strategic placement of treatments to maximize the effectiveness of fuel and vegetation management with integrated landscape design.” National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. Available online at http://www.nifc.gov/spots/index.html

O’Laughlin, Jay (2007, in press). “Ecological risk assessment to support fuels treatment project decisions.” Conference paper, Advances in Threat Assessment and Their Application to Forest and Rangeland Management, Boulder, CO, July 18-20, 2006.*

O’Laughlin, Jay (2006). “Forest health, risk assessment, and the National Fire Plan.” Pages 41-52, in Perspectives on America’s Forests: Multiple Perspectives on the National Report on Sustainable Forests-2003 [U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Report FS-766]. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters. Available online at http://www.safnet.org/periodicals/multipleperspectives

Rieman, Bruce, Danny Lee, and others (2003). “Status of native fishes in the western United States and issues for fire and fuels management.” Forest Ecology and Management 178: 197–211.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, and other agencies (USDA/USDI et al. 2001). Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Geological Survey; U.S. Dept. of Commerce; U.S. Dept. of Defense; U.S. Dept. of Energy; Environmental Protection Agency; Federal Emergency Management Agency; and National Association of State Foresters. Available online at http://www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/history/index.htm

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and U.S. Dept. of the Interior (USDA/USDI 2003). Interagency Strategy for the Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service; and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available online at http://www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/pdf/strategy.pdf

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management (USDA-FS/USDI-BLM 2004). The Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act Interim Field Guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Report FS-700. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/hfi/field-guide/

Jerry Williams’ third point is about the creation of markets for dealing with biomass removal. As a policy principle the Secretaries of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and the Interior have agreed to “support the utilization of woody biomass byproducts from restoration and fuels treatment projects wherever ecologically and economically appropriate and in accordance with the law” (source: http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/WoodyBiomassUtilization/products/documents/BiomassMOU_060303_final_web.pdf).

Regarding the affordability of hazardous fuels treatment, a working hypothesis is that the alternative to not removing accumulated fuels is larger, more intense fires with more severe effects than if treatments were done. Firefighting costs saved from not having to deal with large problem fires need to be built into the analysis, as do other benefits such as modified sediment regimes and effects on water bodies and reduced emissions of not only greenhouse gases but also the fine particulate matter in wildfire smoke that is correlated with human respiratory problems and premature deaths. Although the creation of tax incentives is beyond the realm of what federal land management agencies can do on their own, there are mechanisms, such as stewardship contracting, that agencies could use to provide guaranteed supplies of woody biomass materials.