Hazardous Fuels and Vegetation Treatment Processes and Tools
Under Development by R5, PNW Research Station and RM Research Station
1. Tool Name : “FUELSOLVE” - Optimizing Fuel Solutions and Ecological Values in Landscapes
2. Brief Description of Tool : Tries to optimize both amount & pattern of fuel treatments, and the
persistence of ecological features from wildfire, such as late-successional forest. It uses current
condition in short-term simulation period, i.e., does not model forest growth. Basically, helps design
& evaluate fire-safe landscapes based on fuel, fire, & ecological criteria. A separate, but linked,
landscape condition assessment tool called NOCLAMMS by Hessburg et al. was planed to be
integrated as an initial pre-optimization step in the process to provide an ecological evaluation of the
project landscape’s deviation from baseline historical conditions based on ICBEMP mid-scale
analysis. An ABGR series model is available, but development of the necessary “dry forest” (PIPO,
PSME series) version of NOCLAMMS is postponed until funds are available more funding.
3. Scale Tool is Applicable: Landscapes of <50,000 acres. Designed for watershed-scale analysis.
Ranger District project-level application
4. Analyst Requirement: Medium – Requires a mid-level analyst or GIS specialist in order to run the
model or tool or make it usable for local situations
5. Data Inputs: Moderate. Requires: ignition data; map of zones low to high probability of ignition
used to “start” wildfires, and worst-case fire weather data; identify stands to protect, i.e. not treat;
FARSITE fire model stand data for elevation, aspect, slope, fuel model, stand height, height to live
canopy, canopy bulk density , etc.; and, treatment details of stand structure modification (e.g.
silvicultural practices, prescribed burning, & spatial patterns of fuel treatments (random, adjacent to
protected stands, etc.); and, choice of evaluation criteria (e.g., simulated wildfire size, intensity,
effects, LSF amount & connectivity (other fire or ecosystem values can be added in later
development).
6. Model Outputs: Maps of options & wildfire and ecological evaluations, and text data on evaluation
criteria for treatment combinations.
7. Application of Model for Fuel Treatment work: Planning of fuel treatment and vegetation
management projects and forest planning efforts (e.g. scenario planning, prioritization, describing
desired future conditions, fire effects modeling).
8. Linkage to Other Models/Tools: FARSITE, abbreviated version. FlamMap alternative to
FARSITE. FCCS fuel characterization & fire indices (crowning, fire spread rate, and fire effects).
Others to be explored.
9. Partners: PNW Research Station, Eastside Forest Health Restoration Team, Wenatchee: John
Lehmkuhl, Paul Hessburg, Dave Peterson, Ross Kiester, Peter Singleton. College of Forest
Resources, University of Washington: Jim Agee, David Ford, Doctoral Research Associates
Disclaimer: The views in this report (presentation) are these of the author(s) do not necessarily represent the views of the
Forest Service.
10. Current Status:
* May/June 2004: Begin 1-yr funded effort for prototype development.
* Oct. 2004: Progress report. Model building, early simulations for pilot landscape on Leavenworth
Ranger District, Oka-Wen NF, design complexity options for prototype.
* Feb. 2005: Working model of treatments & effects on response variables.
* June 2005: Final of prototype & implementation options.
11. Training Availability: Pending completion of prototype in June 2005. Application workshops
anticipated for Version 1, during summer of 2005.
12. Example of Model/Tool Application: In development now, so no example available. Model goal is
to allow fuel planners, fire staff, wildlife biologists, other ’ologists, regulators, & public to: (1) plan &
evaluate the area & spatial pattern of landscape-level fuel treatment alternatives, potential wildfire
futures, & ecological effects on a key protected resource (e.g. spotted owl habitat or locations); and,
(2) identify preferred alternative to maximize fuel treatments & protect resources based on “best
available science”.
Schematic of optimization process:
Management Action
Optimizer
(3) Select specific
combination of
treatments
(7) Use this result to
“evolve” towards a
better combination
of treatments.
(6) Has combination
of stand treatments
done better than
previous
combinations?
(4) Apply fire
model multiple
times
(5) Calculate
assessment criteria
for this combination
of treatments
(1) Define a wide
range of possible
stands treatments
(2) Select forest
features to preserve
& define
assessment criteria
STOP when criteria
have been achieved
or no improvement
can be obtained.
Disclaimer: The views in this report (presentation) are these of the author(s) do not necessarily represent the views of the
Forest Service.