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
Links
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
NIFC
Rehab and HFR Funding Declines as Suppression Costs Increase $900
2,000
FLAME Act
$800
1,800 1,600
$700
1,400
$600
1,000 $400
Milliom $
Million $
1,200 $500
800 $300
600
$200
400
$100
200
$0 2008
2009
2010
Site Rehabilitation
Fuel Reduction
2011
2012
HFR funds cut 0 further in 2014
Suppression
Th “S The “Suppression i Monster” M ” USDA & Interior
Gorte 2011
Interior HFR Funding Allocation 2001-2013 $180
$160
WUI
$140
Millio on $
$120
$100
Wildland
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0 2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
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
NASF,
CWSF, WFLC
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
Current
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.
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor