CSFS Mission - Western Forestry Leadership Coalition

0 downloads 0 Views 6MB Size Report
Apr 30, 2013 - $180. Interior HFR Funding Allocation 2001-2013. $140. $160. WUI. $100. $120 o n $. $60. $80. Millio. Wildland. $20. $40. HFR funds cut. $0.

Putting Western Wildfire Risk Assessment Data to Use 

Set State objectives

Determine how information will be delivered or transferred

Calibrate WWA data to meet State needs

Objectives of CO-WRAP  Increase Awareness of Wildfire Risk  Provide Access to Information that will be useful in Mitigation and Planning  Inform Decision Makers

Adapting WWA Data  Renamed layers to match Colorado terminology  Created additional risk outputs  Adjusted “Response Function” assignments for Values-at-Risk layers  Recreated risk outputs  Adjusted class breaks

Adapting WWA Data

Adapting WWA Data  Smoothed the Flame Length  Urban Penetration  Updated WUI for 2012  Developed the Fire Intensity Scale (FIS)

Delivery System

Deliverables  Accessible web-based mapping tool  Risk Summary Reports  PDF maps  Links to technical assistance

Use of CO-WRAP Cohesive Strategy  Response to Wildfire Characteristic Flame Length Characteristic Rate of Spread Fire Type

Use of CO-WRAP Cohesive Strategy RMNP: Housing Density Adjacent to Park

 Restoration of Resilient Landscapes

Communities adjacent to treatments

Use of CO-WRAP Cohesive Strategy  Fire Adapted Communities

Community Wildfire Protection Plan


Western Forestry Leadership Coalition Intertribal Timber Council Update April p 30,, 2013 Denver, CO

National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy 

Phase 1: The Vision Guiding Principles  Collective Consciousness 

Phase 2: The Strategy National  Regional 

Phase 3: Ph 3 The Th Plan Pl off Action A i  Phase 4: Implementation 

Wildland Fire Awareness Escalatingg suppression pp costs,, decliningg fuel funding  13-year average suppression costs: 

DOI: $134.42/acre  FS: $747 $747.45/acres 45/acres (456% higher than DOI) 

13 year suppression statistics: DOI: 62.7% of acres burned, 23.3 % of costs  FS: 37.3% of acres burned, 76.8% of costs 


Rehab and HFR Funding Declines as Suppression Costs Increase $900




1,800 1,600




1,000 $400

Milliom $

Million $

1,200 $500

800 $300






$0 2008



Site Rehabilitation

Fuel Reduction



HFR funds cut 0 further in 2014


Th “S The “Suppression i Monster” M ” USDA & Interior

Gorte 2011

Interior HFR Funding Allocation 2001-2013 $180




Millio on $








$0 2001






HFR funds cut further in 2014 2013

80 million acres of National Forest in need of fuels treatment – Tidwell 2012

Let the wildland burn? DOI Wildland Fire Management 2012 & 2013 Budget Justification (Green Book), Wilent 2012

Where’s the Fire Hazard? Mortality/growth rate on US timberlands by ownership classification and region, 1953-2002

Two-thirds of the US forest health problem is on federal forest lands O’Laughlin and Cook 2003, Rummer et al. 2003

Source: National Fire Protection Association

It’s So Much More Than Fire It’s more than Forestryy  It’s more than Natural Resources  It It’ss Culture  It’s Economies  It’s Ecosystems  It’s adapting p g to Climate Change g 

Keyy ITC Issues IFMAT III  Anchor Forests  Tribal Forest Protection Act  Partnerships 

Independent Forest Management Assessment A t III Report due out prior to ITC symposium.        

Compare C Tribal T ib l managementt practices ti and d funding f di to t federal f d l land l d and private lands; Evaluate the condition of Indian forest lands; Review staffing patterns of the BIA and tribes; Critique timber sale administration procedures; Identify opportunities to reduce or eliminate procedures, rules and policies of the BIA; Determine the adequacy of forest land management plans in their ability to meet tribal needs and priorities; Determine minimum standards against which to measure the adequacy of BIA fulfillment of its trust duties; and Make recommendations for reform and funding needed to achieve “state of the art” Indian forest land management.

IFMAT III In addition,, special p emphasis p areas to review:  Infrastructure  Economic and Social Benefits of Indian Forests  Workforce Succession Planning: Numbers and skill k ll sets

IFMAT I and II “Tribal Forests provide working examples of sustainable land management that can serve as models for other land managers” Tribes are not ashamed to harvest timber to meet management objectives, bj i SSociety i tookk away fire and Tribes adapted

Anchor Forests:

A Strategy to Restore Forest Health Washington H lth in i EEastern t W hi t

“On the eastside, the combination of over-stressed, bug-killed bug killed forests, forests loss of processing infrastructure and ham-strung national forest managers has ground the forest industry to a halt halt…. It’s It s time for Washington to step up and create a system of anchor forests again… again ” 

Brian Boyle

j Anchor Forests Pilot Project FS Funded Pilot Project j for Eastern Washington (Yakama, Colville, Spokane, Coeur D' Alene,, Nez Perce))  Goal: Sustain and enhance infrastructure to market and process forest products  Sustain Healthy Resilient Landscapes, Economies and Communities 

What Are Anchor Forests? Large areas of land land, expected to remain in forest production

 A reasonable expectation for sustained wood commodity  production as a major management objective; and  Production levels sufficient to support economically viable  man fact ring processing and ork force infrastructure manufacturing, processing, and work force infrastructure within accessible transportation range; and  Long Long‐term term management plans, supported by inventory  management plans supported by inventory systems, professional staff, and geographic information  systems; and  Institutional and operational capacity for implementation.

g Categories of Anchor Forests Tribal Trust Lands  State Trust Lands

National Forest  Private Forests

Planning Areas for Anchor Forests

Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 Provides Tribes the right g to ppropose p and implement treatments to FS and BLM lands to reduce threats to Tribal lands, resources and values l  Only 6 proposals Implemented in 9 Years  Joint ITC/FS/BIA review of the how effective the act has been since passage.  Make recommendations to enhance utilization of TFPA 

g & Conclusions Findings The TFPA authority and implementation  y p process are not well understood   Tribes are reluctant to invest limited staff and  Tribes are reluctant to invest limited staff and resources to propose, prepare and pursue  TFPA proposals. No Guarantee of TFPA proposals.  No Guarantee of  Implementation   Effective formal agreements are often not in  Effective formal agreements are often not in place to institutionalize working relationships  

g & Conclusions Findings FS Understanding of government‐to‐ g g government relationships and agency trust  p responsibilities to Tribes is variable  FS Policy support and guidance regarding use  of the TFPA is unclear of the TFPA is unclear 

Recommendations Improve Understanding and Use of the TFPA p g  Strengthen Tribal‐FS Partnerships at the Local  Level  Promote Use of the TFPA  Pursue legislative authority to help FS  P l il i h i h l FS address administrative planning hurdles 

p ITC Partnerships Member Tribes  BIA  Academia: UW, UW SKC  FS OTR, S&PF, NFS 



y Who Shall Lead the Way? States and Tribes are the logical g local focal point for sound, active resource management.  Both manage land trusts with clear management objectives that include active management  Both apply treatments that consider broad resource values and objectives 

g g Tribes? So Whyy Engage Experience p Adapting p g to Change g that Bridges g Thousands of Years  Credibility that spans generations  Close Connection to the Land  Experience E B Balancing l Production P d Against A Values, Traditions and Biodiversity  They Are Here To Stay 

g Puttingg the Puzzle Together Develop p a uniform national, regional g and local vision for resource management  Recruit broad Tribal and State support pp  Recruit Key Partner support  Introduce a new National Resource Initiative to streamline procedures and treat more y and effectively y acres more efficiently  Get Control of Suppression and Invest in Proactive Treatments 

Cohesive Wildfire Strategy Northern Blue Mountain Pilot Project


Restoring and Maintaining Resilient Landscapes

Responding to Wildfire

Creating Fire Adaptive Communities

Blue Mountain Pilot Project Vision Landscapes

Northern Blue Mountain CWS Pilot 1. Strengthen interagency collaboration on fire suppression and management.

Responding to Wildfire

2. Develop interagency fire fighting capacity tiered to fire danger levels. 3. Develop interagency approach to fire severity staffing. 4. Develop a more comprehensive Fire Danger Operating Plan. 5. Explore joint funding of critical resources, protection exchanges.

Northern Blue Mountain CWS Pilot 1. Develop more comprehensive CWPPs.

Creating Fire Adaptive Communities

2. Develop “all agency” fire suppression plans for WUIs. 3. Utilize risk assessment models in developing an “all lands” approach to fuels treatment. 4. Accelerate fuels treatment in and around WUIs by improving economics of biomass . 5. Increase UAS of forest and wildfire management (prescribed and natural).

Northern Blue Mountain CWS Pilot

Restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes

1. Increase coordination and risk assessment modeling on private/public fuels treatment. 2. Improve efficiencies and economics of forest biomass removal and marketing. 3. Support large scale forest management projects on Federal lands. 4. Prioritize management of forests at risk of uncharacteristically severe fire. 5. Gain UAS for managed wildfire (prescribed and natural)

Northern Blue Mountain CWS Pilot

Restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes

Biomass Utilization: Why • Stretch fuel treatment $ • Increase local energy independence • Provide rural jobs • Decrease smoke in the air How • Foster market for biomass heat • Invest in project feasibility • Increase supply through collaboration • Connect suppliers to markets • Improve efficiency of biomass removal

Northern Blue Mountain CWS Pilot

Momentum is building…

1. Project leader is in place and coordinating actions. 2. Simulations are identifying areas for improving wildfire response. 3. Workshops and outreach on biomass feasibility reaching many partners and interested parties. 4. Additional fuels management projects leveraged and focused on CWS. 5. Border areas raised as top priority for fuels management focus. 6. Connections made with collaboratives for restoration and forest management within a context of CWS. 7. Summit meeting this month to continue raising awareness.

Challenges… 1. Prioritizing CWS actions into an already overflowing existing workload 2. Engaging all partners in a significant way in CWS efforts 3. Matching raised expectations with limited CWS funds 4. Fire by its nature in this geo-region creates conflict

Northern Blue Mountain | Cohesive Wildfire Strategy Pilot

Together, improving our readiness to respond to fire, and to create fire adapted communities and resilient landscapes.