The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views

Every fire season it seems like news stories tend to quote a variety of scientists, including climate scientists, but not so much social scientists. Which in a way is odd, because the journalists always ask them questions like “what should be done?” and “what are the barriers?” which social scientists have studied across the West for decades (at least). I’m going to highlight some of these over time, and hopefully we at least will then be familiar with some of their work by next fire season. We can observe the nature and culture of communities that the studies examine; their location and physical/biological/ecological context; their proximity to universities and other scientific institutions, and other elements of interest that may influence the scientists’ findings. TSW and other folks are encouraged to send me links to such studies.

First I’ll start with this post on Catrina Edgeley and Melanie Colavito’s work in Flagstaff. This article was originally posted on the Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network Blog and is reproduced here with their permission. They are social scientists with the NAU Ecological Restoration Institute. I first heard about this work via a presentation Catrina gave at the SAF Convention last fall. I appreciate how they condensed their work for accessibility. The Museum fire was started by contractors’ equipment working on a fuels reduction project, so the scientists studied how that influenced peoples’ ideas about fuel treatments.

How can we harness public support for restoration and wildfire risk reduction?

Based on our survey data, high public support for active forest management seems likely to continue. How can we capitalize on this “window of opportunity” moving forward?

*Incorporate and continue community-approved approaches. Familiarity with the rationale and need for existing management activities like FWPP have built confidence in collaborative approaches. That is no small feat and took several decades to achieve in the Flagstaff area. However, now that it has become ingrained in community culture, the community is more socially resilient to fire events when they do occur. Acknowledging local support for, and continuing to invest in, collaborative approaches will be key to maintaining momentum for forest management in Flagstaff.

Collaborative community-based approaches and building trust is significant.

*Demonstrate what you’ve learned from past fires (and how you’ve implemented those lessons) to build trust. The last page of our survey allowed respondents to provide additional comments they thought might be relevant to our study. Many long-term Flagstaff residents commented that once the Museum Fire began, they clearly saw lessons learned implemented from the Schultz Fire. While newcomers and more skeptical respondents asked how professionals would use takeaways from the Museum Fire moving forward. Transparency about how a fire event advances local wildfire response within agencies and governments is key to building confidence and opening an inclusive conversation about local fire adaptation. Successful efforts to create transparency in Flagstaff have included Coconino County and Forest Service employees speaking directly with the public about changes to decision-making processes, mailing fact sheets that document updates and changes on public land to adjacent private property and acknowledging agency and organizational limitations before, during and after fire. Highlighting specific partnerships that have emerged after fire was often well-received and celebrated by members of the public in Flagstaff.

Are we headed for an abstraction knock-down with the 2012 Planning Rule requiring managing National Forests for “ecological integrity” and states like California promoting “resilience”? I bolded the FS goals below. Note that with regard to PB, CALFIRE, among other things,  will “increase support for workforce development and training programs, and evaluate options to address liability issues for private landowners seeking to conduct prescribed burns for the private insurance market.” I just posted the summary below, so there may be other FS contributions in the main document.

****************************************

In January the State of California came out with:

The Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan is designed to strategically accelerate efforts to:
» Restore the health and resilience of California forests, grasslands and natural places;
» Improve the fire safety of our communities; and
» Sustain the economic vitality of rural forested areas.

To meet these goals, the following will need to be achieved:
Scale-up forest management to meet the state and federal 1 million-acre annual restoration target by 2025.
» The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and other state entities will expand its fuels management crews, grant programs, and partnerships to scale up fuel treatments to 500,000 acres annually by 2025;
» California state agencies will lead by example by expanding forest management on state-owned lands to improve resilience against wildfires and other impacts of climate change; and
» The USFS will double its current forest treatment levels from 250,000 acres to 500,000 acres annually by 2025.

Significantly expand the use of prescribed fire across the state:
» CAL FIRE will expand its fuels reduction and prescribed fire programs to treat up to 100,000 acres by 2025, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks) and other state agencies will also increase the use of prescribed fire on high-risk state lands;
» The USFS, in partnership with CAL FIRE, tribal governments, and other agencies will seek to establish a Prescribed Fire Training Center to provide training opportunities for prescribed burn practitioners and focus training efforts on western ecosystems;
» CAL FIRE will also establish a new tribal grants program, increase support for workforce development and training programs, and evaluate options to address liability issues for private landowners seeking to conduct prescribed burns.” for the private insurance market;
» The USFS will significantly expand its prescribed fire program to attain its 500,000-acre target for forest treatments by 2025.

Reforest areas burned by catastrophic fire:
» The USFS will develop a restoration strategy for wildfire impacted federal lands and CAL FIRE will partner with the California Office 6 January 2021 of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and other federal, state, and local agencies to develop a coordinated strategy to prioritize and rehabilitate burned areas and affected communities. These ecologically-based strategies will focus on silvicultural practices that increase carbon storage, protect biodiversity, and build climate resilience.

Support communities, neighborhoods, and residents in increasing their resilience to wildfire:
» CAL FIRE will significantly expand its defensible space and home hardening programs and launch a new program building upon the Governor’s 35 Emergency Fuel Break Projects by developing a list of 500 high priority fuel breaks across the state. This list will be continuously updated.                                    
» The California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) will expand its Regional Forest and Fire Capacity (RFFC) Program to all high-risk areas throughout the state and increase local and regional governments’ capacity to build and maintain a pipeline of forest health and fire prevention projects.

Develop a comprehensive program to assist private forest landowners, who own more than 40 percent of the state’s forested lands:
» CAL FIRE will coordinate the implementation of several grants and technical assistance programs for private landowners through a unified Wildfire Resilience and Forestry Assistance Program.

Create economic opportunities for the use of forest materials that store carbon, reduce emissions, and contribute to sustainable local economies.
» The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is leading the development of a comprehensive framework to expand the wood products market in California and will partner with CAL FIRE, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GoBiz), the USFS, and the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (iBank) to draft a market development roadmap and catalyze private investment into this sector.

Improve and align forest management regulations:
» The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (BOF) is leading the expansion of a new online permitting tool and permit synchronization initiative to provide a one-stop shop for permits from several agencies and will use the California Vegetation Treatment Program (CalVTP) to streamline project planning and environmental review.

Spur innovation and better measure progress:
» CAL FIRE and the USFS, in coordination with the USDA California Climate Hub, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and other agencies, will seek to establish a Forest Data Hub to coordinate and integrate federal, state, and local reporting on forest management and carbon accounting programs, and serve as a clearinghouse for new and emerging technologies and data platforms.
This strategy will also be integrated into the state’s efforts to combat climate change through the following actions:
1.   Scale-up forest thinning and prescribed fire efforts to reduce long-term greenhouse gas emissions and harmful air pollution from large and catastrophic wildfires;
2.  Integrate science-based climate adaptation and resiliency strategies into the emerging state-wide network of regional forest and community fire resilience plans;
3. Drive forest management, conservation, reforestation and wood utilization strategies that stabilize and increase the carbon stored in forests while preserving biodiversity and revitalizing rural communities;
4. Improve electricity grid resilience; and
5. Promote sustainable land use.

The webinar is from 11-12 Pacific and features a presentation of their (PPIC is the Public Policy Institute of California) research paper, a panel discussion, and questions and answers. Here’s the link to the webinar information and registration. The study (found here) has some interesting charts and graphs. I picked a few to highlight below. There’s an interesting interactive map, but I couldn’t copy it here.

Here are their findings:

Last summer, California and the US Forest Service (USFS) jointly agreed to significantly increase two important management approaches—mechanical thinning and prescribed fire—over the next five years. In January, the Forest Management Task Force released California’s first action plan for forest health. State funding for improving forest health has increased since 2019, and the governor’s 2021‒22 budget proposes to continue this trend.

As policymakers and forest managers take steps to accelerate the pace, understanding the scale and scope of recent management efforts can provide useful guidance. Yet until now there hasn’t been a comprehensive picture of how private, state, and federal entities have managed forests. To fill this gap, we did a basic accounting of management efforts in mixed-conifer forests in the Sierra‒Cascade region over the past decade.

Here are four takeaways:

*Forest management is not scaling fast enough to meet forest health objectives. Experts suggest that reducing the spread of severe wildfires requires strategically treating and maintaining approximately 20‒30% of forests on the landscape. Forest managers have treated around 16% of the region’s mixed-conifer forests over the past decade. Management levels vary across the region, with only 8 of the 24 watersheds meeting or exceeding this target (Figure 1c). The pace has been considerably faster on lands owned by the private sector and non-federal agencies (28%) than on federally owned lands (11%).

*Timber harvest has been the main management approach. Though its primary purpose is to harvest logs, some timber harvest techniques also reduce wildfire risk and improve resilience to drought and pests. More than two-thirds of the 912,000 acres managed over the past decade used timber harvesting (Figure 2). The practice was more prevalent in northern watersheds, where private forest ownership is more common. The costs and benefits of different management approaches—timber harvest, mechanical thinning, and prescribed burning—should be at the center of discussions about which to use where.

*Management approaches vary based on ownership. Nearly 90% of acres managed on private forests were harvested (Figure 3). By contrast, federal forests had a more diversified management portfolio, and timber harvest accounts for less than half of managed acres on these lands. In absolute terms, USFS carried out three times more mechanical and prescribed burning treatments compared to private and other public landowners in the region.

*The pace of management has been flat. Although the share of non-timber management has increased, the overall pace of management has remained relatively stable over the past decade—at around 90,000 acres annually (Figure 4). One likely explanation: public funding sources that support management have also been stagnant over this period. The pace should pick up once new state funds for forests reach the ground.

As forest managers and policymakers chart a course to improve forest health, improving our overall understanding of past management activities is essential. Our analysis helps provide a clearer picture of forest management accomplishments and gaps—which can in turn help set priorities for allocating scarce management resources. Yet the technical challenge of even basic accounting of these activities remains immense. Data sets that make accounting possible have different levels of quality and collection standards. Improving the accuracy, completeness, and comparability of data collected on forest management across the headwater region will be critical for evaluating progress toward meeting goals for forest health.

It’s kind of interesting to me that the data we need doesn’t seem to exist, and yet… so much funding seems to be going to various satellite imaging efforts. Maybe it’s time for the western FIA’s to start a Fire-Related Forest Vegetation data effort.. they already have the history of working with stakeholders, States and Tribes and dealing with privacy issues. A bipartisan unity-building effort? After all, everyone likes good data!