Hazardous Fuel & Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Field Level Perspective
May 2004
1. What are your current data, information and analytical needs for designing and
implementing hazardous fuel and vegetation treatments?
Siuslaw-We are in the process of mapping our fuel condition classes and fire regimes on the
forest. We are in need of mapping our WUI boundaries in GIS and establish a Structure Location
Layer in GIS.
COFMS- Currently we use remotely sensed satellite data extensively to model veg conditions
affecting fire behavior and prescribe veg. treatments accordingly. We also use actual and proxy
data to feed fire behavior models with reasonable success. With a few notable exceptions, our
capabilities are not data or analysis tool or methods driven. We lack sufficient out-year planning
capability to truly build multi-year plans. These are NEPA, fiscal and time issues primarily.
COFMS needs a fuel model map that will import into FARSITE/FLAMAP. Currently Och and
Des have them, but BLM does not. In conjunction with that, there needs to be a relatively easy,
consistent way to update the fuel model map to reflect treatments, wildfire, and the change of
fuels due simply to the passage of time. Landfire may do this.
GIS data layers are needed for FARSITE input that provides height to live crown base, tree
height, and crown bulk density. These layers are currently considered "optional" data for
FARSITE to run, but play a very important role in predicting crownfire behavior in FARSITE.
These "optional" themes will enable construction of the landscape file for FARSITE that the new
Fire Program Analysis Presuppression Module (replacement for NFMAS) will then be able to
import directly. The above will also likely play a role in phase two of FPA which will address
extended attack, large fire, rehab, and prevention - a complete fire program analysis tool!
Up-to-date effectiveness monitoring data is needed for both veg and fuels treatments.
Analysis needs have increased since the implementation of the centralized IRM organization.
Training is needed for GIS applications as well as analysis tools such as Farsite, FRCC, FVSFFE. Prineville District BLM needs better veg data.
Pomeroy RD- . Pomeroy would benefit from some direct involvement with the monitoring and
determination if we are accomplishing our objectives portion of the program. We have for years
performed before and after plots in our prescribed fire areas, collected considerable data and
photos but have yet been able to devote the time or attention to producing any product from the
data. I would be very willing to have the research community review our current data and
monitoring program. I would also be willing to provide an interested party with the five to 6
cubic feet of photos and data and see if they could produce some useful results.
Umatilla NF - We need fuels vegetation layer for adjacent (other ownership) lands. There is no
doubt that a good current veg layer is needed. We apparently can get them via remote sensing
which is essential given the scope of our fuels program today. We can not afford the time or
money to do these type of surveys to collect info we need. But the question is what do we do
with veg layers? If we have the needed info we can compare current vegetation with historic
vegetation? eg where is juniper now versus where it was 50 years or 100 years ago? We can then
hopefully make a judgement about what we should do about juniper. So veg can be used to help
determine historic range of variation.
1
Better historic layers would be nice but can they be developed? Is there a process for this
comparison using GIS?
What will stands develop into based on various treatments or non treatments. I know work is
being done in this area but it needs to be usable and not something run by an analyst but
something a GS 9 fuels tech can do. Where should ponderosa pine or Douglas fir be compared to
where it is? What should we do with white fir? How much is too much? (I asked this question of
research when the Bend Silviculture lab was still in existence.)
What we need is fuels info. We need remote sensing of fuels loading (live and dead) and a
process for converting that to either current fuel models or custom models. Again I know work is
being done but we need it sooner rather than later. How do we get the remote sensing to give us
fuel models or loadings? We can run behavior predictions on them if we have the skills to use
FARSITE. We need to move that technology down to the fuels arena faster and with less
technical knowledge on the part of the user.
We need to be able to model fire behavior and fire effects over time and as stands change. We
could then compare treatments or non-treatment. Data needs to be current. The scale needs to be
flexible. 1 kilometer pixels don't cut it for project level planning.
We need to know the effects of fuels and fire on Lynx and on numerous other species that we are
now about to be handed via a new regional foresters sensitive species list. We need this displayed
over time so that we can look at current versus long term effects.
Fire history layers combined with fire effects. How do fires effect loadings and fuel models over
time after a prescribed burn or fuels. I know we have lots of data but do we have any models that
can be run on any data that we currently have by GS fuels techs? How do we get them the
training they need to run the models when we get them built?
So what if we decide to machine pile and burn what effect will that have on a stand over time?
Can we compare the stands with one that had not treatment and one that was prescribed burned
20 years down the road. What vegetation will be present? what are the fuels loading and what is
the expected fire behavior. These would be great tools to use in developing community
protection plans and displaying outcomes at public meetings.
What are the effects of lop and scatter, jack pot burning, leave top attached yarding and all of the
other treatments we use versus stand health? The debate of fuels left on site a nutrient capital
goes on and on. If we leave what are the consequences if we have a fire? What are the on the
stand and the soils if it burns. What is the probability it will burn? And if so when?
Can we automate the process of designing fuels breaks to reduce fire behavior(SPLATS) (Mark
Finney work in FARSITE). Can we get the technology into the hands of fuels folks?
We have come along way with fuels consumption and smoke modeling. But we still produce
smoke? How much is too much? Are the states and EPA's numbers right. What are the
consequences to the environment over time if we are always trading off a lack of Rx fire in order
to reduce smoke? Can we really compensate by crushing, hauling, mowing or chipping?
Okanogan/Wenatchee - Most important - placement of restoration treatments on the landscape so
they are most effective to prevent (restrict) fire movement across the landscape.
2
Where we have had big fires - issue of re-burn ie: how much wood fiber do we need to remove to
reduce burn severity? What kinds of restoration activities do we need to send the landscape on
the right trajectory to reduce return to the previous condition class.
Fremont/Winema & Lakeview – We need a consistent vegetation map for the two forests and the
BLM. The two forests are on separate projections, which create problems when combining the
forest information. We are exploring the options for tools to analyze the forests and design
appropriate treatments. Our Forest Service GIS group is working on a common map base for the
forests. We are exploring the options for obtaining a consistent remotely sensed vegetation layer
for the forests and BLM. We need to have consistent data and definitions between the Forest
Service and the BLM.
We currently have a number of projects which have completed NEPA, from which we will select
the treatment areas in the next year to two years.
3
Hazardous Fuel & Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Field Level Perspective
May 2004
2. What are the barriers or obstacles to accomplishing your unit’s targets for designing and
implementing hazardous fuel and vegetation treatments?
Siuslaw - We are in the process of getting ahead of the curve during our planning process. The
concern is older sales with the NEPA work completed that do not address the HFRA language.
Under burning and aggressive fuels treatment may have not been addressed during the initial
planning effort on all units. We may need to amend these EAs to address this issue.
COFMS- Currently, we have NEPA clearance issues on numerous units on the Ochoco and
Deschutes National Forests. Implementation of fuels and veg treatments are obstructed by a lack
of environmental clearance and litigation. These circumstances make it difficult to design a
program of work and manage toward it. Multi-year project planning and program development is
further disrupted by substantial target increases in fire dependent ecosystem restoration work.
Continued emphasis and practice at integration of efforts between fuels and veg. management
functions is needed particulary in out-year project planning, integrated treatment efforts,
community planning and updates to soon to be developed Fire Strategies.
There is a problem with terminology and the confusion caused by the misuse of terms.
Specifically, hazard and risk. Hazard as used in the context of wildland fire refers to fuels. Risk
is the potential a fire might start based on human activity. Would like to see an effort put forth to
educate people in natural resource agencies just what they're talking about when they use these
terms.
We would like to see more involvement from fire and fuels personnel in the initial identification
of what fuel treatment really means when talking about "hazardous fuels reduction". We all
accept (well, most of us) that fire is going to happen on a vegetated piece of ground sooner or
later. I believe what needs to happen before deciding on a treatment is to first decide what kind
of fire behavior is acceptable, beginning from an firefighter and public safety point of view. This
is where the fire and fuels people should be out in front, defining the acceptable parameters. Then
the effects of the fire on the lands ability to recover should be examined. Then, fuels treatments
can be planned.
Planning and NEPA are key stages where there is not sufficient skilled workforce to respond to
the increase in hazardous fuels programs. Smoke management is also an issue. Outdated Forest
plans also contribute to poor focus on what resource objectives are. Budget is a concern for both
implementation and planning. Especially for high cost per acre treatments for restoration of
condition classes 2 and 3. Develop snag and down wood conditions that recognize the role of fire
in the ecosystem, not just on species habitat needs.
Pomeroy RD- This is not the research related, but the biggest proble we are currently
experiencing is lack of funding. During 2004 we received 1/5 of the budget we have had during
the previous 3 years and the result was not good. All resources were put down and many of our
planning and implementation projects put on hold. Any creativity that may have been brewing
was quickly replaced with an uncontrollable sense of loss. We currently have only enough fuels
financial support to maintain a MINIMAL program let along develop anything that will involve
or require assistance from the research community.
Umatilla NF- ESA, roadless limitations, public support, smoke management, workforce,
competition for resources as we all burn at once.
4
Okanogan/Wenatchee - Smoke approval - if we have to design smaller units to reduce impacts to
air quality, they will be more costly, time burning will be increased. Planning time for the project
will be longer. A reliable long-term funding source is also needed so we don't have to keep
adjusting our organization every year because the budget has been cut or increased.
Fremont/Winema & Lakeview - Our primary obstacle for accomplishing burning is the burning
window. This tends to be a short period for us in most years, we were fortunate this year to have
an extended spring window. If we had more funding, we could accomplish more mechanical
treatments, which have a much larger window of operation.
We will need to have sufficient funding to plan both at the forest level to determine areas on a
gross basis into which we will put our efforts, and at the project level were there are a number of
surveys and planning efforts needed to adequately analyze for NEPA.
Our people need further training in order to evaluate the models available, and to use those
models in analyzing and designing treatments.
5
Hazardous Fuel & Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Field Level Perspective
May 2004
3. What are your long-term (3-5 years) data, information and analytical needs for designing
and implementing hazardous fuel and vegetation treatments?
Siuslaw - Our vegetation treatment activities will be tied to our thinning program in LSRs. Our
data, information and analytical needs will be addressed during the sale planning NEPA process.
We are currently using the language in the HFRA as our guiding principles.
COFMS - Central Oregon Forests appear to be in good shape at present and for the near future for
vegetation modeling. We have global vegetation data, several models available to us. Data to
support Fire models is somewhat lacking but specific needs depend on the models used for fire
planning. A plethera of models exist, enough to pick a family of tools for mainstream use. It
appears we need more support in the integration of the results of various models used to assess
the situation in a given landscape.
Since we are in a program ramp up mode (resulting from the Chief's initiative to increase fuel
treatment accomplishment) our biggest need is to restore depleted fuels and veg treatment shelfstock.
Long term we will need to refresh the vegetation and fuels data we use to model and analyze
landscape conditions. Detailed gis maps of communities that interface with wildland areas
(Deschutes County has just completed such an effort with outstanding results!!) . When
combined with fuels data mentioned above, this will help planners better identify initial attack
strategies and identify fuel treatment patterns that will best protect communities, Also, a
nationally accepted process that identifies and analyzes risk, rates and ranks areas relative to each
other within the planning area (a national forest for example) to provide managers with
information to make tough decisions. Of course RAMS is already out there and does this, but it is
not being utilized anywhere near to the extent it could/should be. This program could, at the very
least, provide a base to work from for developing an acceptable, repeatable, defendable method
for rating and ranking areas for fuels treatments.
Develop landscape level goals addressing desired condition for vegetation and fuels. Increase
funding for TES surveys, archeology surveys and implementation of higher cost restoration
treatments. Develop a strategy to identify and treat hazardous fuels within wildland-urban
interface. Develop a comprehensive monitoring plan for hazardous fuels and vegetation
treatments.
Pomeroy RD- If the budget improves and we are able to continue with the development of an
active fuels treatment program then I do believe the opportunities for assistance and involvement
with the research community are endless. As stated in question number one, we are lacking
results studies from the burning conducted to date, and probably overall, we are lacking a solid
and defendable process for determining when we accomplish our results .More definitive
information on the best time of year to conduct landscape burning in relation to Veg Response
and mortality would also be nice. If budgets do not improve, I do not believe we will require
much in the way of assistance.
Umatilla NF - Accurate fuels vegetation layers that are usable at the project level.
6
Okanogan/Wenatchee – Need records on where we have done treatments and how it changed the
condition class. Updated fuel model maps that show FCC. Need the present fire behavior models
to handle FCC data..
Fremont/Winema & Lakeview - Our long term needs are similar to our short term needs; we
need to have adequate GIS layers and databases to analyze our forests and range lands. We also
need the commitment and training to do this adequately. We need better information on the
ground conditions, including vegetation conditions and dead fuel loading, that is difficult to
impossible to obtain through remote sensing.
7