Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Meeting Notes
Page 1 of 11
Meeting Notes
Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
May 17 & 18, 2004 – Bend, Oregon
PURPOSE OF MEETING (Jeff Blackwood)
Jeff Blackwood and Karen Shimamoto had discussions about fuels program with PNW Station
Director last winter at Forest Supervisor’s meeting. They wanted to ensure:
• there was a good science- management partnership
• available science is understood
• science community understands issues and needs of field personnel working with fuel
treatments
• integration of vegetation and fuel treatments
MEETING OBJECTIVES (Cindi West)
• Provide overview and synthesis of currently available models, tools, processes, for hazardous
fuel & vegetation treatment
• Promote interaction and discussion between science and management on key issues and
barriers managers face in planning and implementing fuel mgt treatments
• Discuss short-term/long-term needs and priorities of managers and identify opportunities for
science to assist
BOARD OF DIRECTOR’S ROLE (Doug Doust)
• BOD Charter provides oversight to Accelerating Vegetative Treatments to Improve Condition
• Emphasis is on acceleration of fuels treatment, strategic placement of resources, development
of strategies and elimination of barriers
• BOD represents regional leadership team & provides guidance to Executives who have
monthly check ins with Chief on fuel treatment accomplishments and condition class treatment
The BOD is working on:
• Sharing R2 regional strategy
• Communication strategy (flyers, videos, comm. plan)
• Development of Forest templates and strategies
• Process for sharing people and funds
• Discussing east-side vs. west-side issues
• Discussing reporting and achievement
SORO REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE AND NEEDS (Tim Rich)
Regional fuels committee meets twice a year. PNW Seattle Lab attends meetings. Group has
representatives from FS and BLM including field units. Now have included vegetation management in
scope of group. Group talks about research needs with PNW Station.
Needs:
• Need landscape oriented models not just stand level.
• Need support for corporate models.
• Data needed for some models is expensive and time consuming to compile.
• Many models are single function oriented. Need integrated models.
• Need standard data collection standards and techniques.
• Need to know where to treat.
• Technology transfer is needed. There are 2-3 national tech transfer specialists. Scientists
have been doing tech transfer as well.
Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Meeting Notes
Page 2 of 11
•
•
•
Fire regime condition class needs to be validated by research.
Need fine scale mapping of fire regime condition class. (FMPs and 5 yr implementation plans)
Lets avoid single function applications and single agency applications.
Barriers:
• Partnership with SORO and Seattle PNW Lab needs to be extended to include other labs and
vegetation management
• More interaction is needed
• Need research synthesis.
• Need central location and clearinghouse for information.
• Need to resolve discrepancies between models and conflicting science.
SUMMARY OF FOREST PERSPECTIVES AND NEEDS (Jeff Blackwood)
Jeff Blackwood summarized the comments submitted by FS and BLM units regarding barriers, shortterm and long-term needs for fuel and vegetation treatment. Additional items were added during
discussion.
Barriers:
• Consistency in funding from year to year is needed.
• Can’t plan for out-years with funds we have now. [Yo-yo situation]
• Critical for partners to know there will be consistency in funding and that workload is
sustainable.
• Training is needed. (eg. fire regime condition class mapping)
• Technology transfer of knowledge, experiences between neighboring forests and research.
• Need integrated approach to planning, implementing and tracking treatments.
• GIS staffing for analysis is needed. Local issue and regional issue. There have been some
recent organizational changes that affect our ability to respond to needs.
• Level of accuracy and availability of veg mapping is less than what is needed at field level.
Fuels mapping in some areas is ahead of veg mapping. We don’t have consistent fuel
mapping as a result.
• How are you going to know what to map until you know what models and tools you will be
using? Seems need to know what models you will be using before you can set standards.
• In some areas there is insufficient data to run models.
• National teams working on what level of mapping is needed to map FRCC–using FIA and
satellite imagery but will be 4 years out.
• Need better public message to improve credibility.
• How precise does the info have to be for our decisions?
• Where and how to locate treatments on the ground?
• We are so busy trying to catch up on getting fuel treatments that we are not thinking and
acting in an integrated fashion.
• We have not developed a standardized protocols for monitoring fuel treatments. This is
needed by scale and type.
• Treatments at the watershed scale conflicting with species needs at the landscape scale.
Need to bring NOAA up to speed and look at long-term short-term balance.
• Modeling and data for some situations such as Dry Ponderosa Pine types are too gross.(eg.
DecAid)
• Cost effective treatments for smoke management Can’t get reliable approval to prescribe
burn. Need better treatments in order to avoid smoke issues.
• How available is retrospective data and information to tell us about current conditions and
future scenarios (decades not just years). What are the dynamics into the future?
Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Meeting Notes
Page 3 of 11
•
•
•
Lack of personnel with training to do analysis. Need management attention and support to
increase work force and plan for retirements. Retirements affecting institutional knowledge and
mix of skills.
Post burning mitigation (eg. Grazing).
Concern that invasives may increase with fuel treatments.
Short-term Needs:
• Need for consistent fuels mapping standards (both live and dead). Particularly problematic for
rangelands.
• Need to know what adjacent land owners are doing (tribal, private, other)
• Mapping WUI is needed
• Monitoring of vegetation mgt treatments. Need standard for reporting, methodology, and how
often re-treatment is needed.
• How do we track our accomplishments in a consistent manner?
• Need access to GIS tools and analysis
• Inconsistent fuel/vegetation mapping
• Setting standards for data
• Matching models/data is needed
• Insufficient info to run models
• Lack of integration
• Treatments at the watershed scale conflicting with individual species needs at the landscape
scale [bring along regulatory agencies NOAA, FWS, etc.]
• Some modeling levels and scales are too gross (for example, DecAID)
• Can’t get reliable smoke management approvals
• Urgency to do post-fire treatments overshadows the opportunities to learn
• Strong public message to improve credibility – match expectations to reality
• How precise does data really need to be?
• Lack of personnel w/ training, to make analyses
• Retirement and mix of professional expertise at field level
• Balance between workforce and expectations
• Effectiveness of post-fire fuel treatments
• Do fuel treatments/salvage have a beneficial ecological effect?
• Standardized protocol to monitor fuel treatment
• Cost effect treatments for smoke management
• How available is retrospective data to project ahead [decades]
• Where and how to locate treatments on the ground
• Information on post- burning mitigation [grazing & invasives]
• Way to integrate models at the implementation phase
• Understanding effects of seasonal burning (e.g. on migrating birds, etc)
• Learn from past successes [internal and external] and share that. Also new NEPA tools and
how the work
Long –Term Needs:
• Tracking and monitoring.
• Is the work being done effective in achieving desired conditions?
• Data management and integration is needed.
• How do we know when we are “there”? Learn from what we have done in the past.
• How do you know you have met goals and can move to another location?
• Need strategies for the biggest bang for the buck when we are doing treatments.
• How do good stewardship in addition to meeting targets?
• Need to project long-term effects of our actions.
Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Meeting Notes
Page 4 of 11
•
•
•
•
•
•
Need strategy to treat acres most effectively to try and affect the larger landscape. What
acres are the right acres? [rather than chasing a target]
Need tools and methodology to determine where to treat.
Consider training to consider fuel and long-term outlooks
Way to prioritize treatments over time – what acres are the right acres? How to get a greater
effect overall [tools and technology]
Modeling tools to integrate social and economic info in a comprehensive tool
Comprehensive process/tool to fold in multiple objectives and maximize effectiveness of
workforce/resources
UNDERSTANDING & MAPPING FUELS
FCCS (Roger Ottmar)
• FCCS tool is in JAVA. Prompts user for 7 questions and will locate fuel beds that might be
applicable for area.
• Is the FVS fire and fuel model going to use FCCS? Yes it will. ESSA is helping with design to
ensure it will work with FVS. Will relate to FOFEM, FETM, and CONSUME.
• Where has FCCS been used? What projects? Early version used for ICBEMP broad and mid
scale fuel beds assignments. This new version has not yet been applied. In process of beta
testing it.
• Is there a way to link FCCS to mapped data (eg. polygons)? Yes, you can use canned FCCS
fuel beds or customize them to local situation and relate them to a vegetation map.
• Assignment of FRCC and crosswalk with FCCS [quantitative]. Can make a table to crosswalk.
• Is there a correlation of overstory and mid story to crown bulk density? Yes there is.
• Can we assign FRCC to each fuelbed? Need to assign fuels to FRCC classes before a cross
walk could be made. Can be qualitative or quantitative description.
Fuel Mapping (Dan McKenzie/ JanetOhmann)
• Is FIA sufficient to make predictions over time?
o No – static plots can’t be used over time but is a good snapshot
o Need to use dynamic model over time [FVS]
• Can this method be used to determine what historical conditions were (pre-European)?
o In theory you could run the model backward. Probably not the best model to do this
• How many FIA plots are there on non-timber areas?
o Right now, the grid is run across the landscape, including all types. BLM has CVS;
being converted to FIA footprint
• Have you done sensitivity analysis? If there is a scale mismatch, you almost can’t validate it;
but analysis has been done at the scale the model was built.
Fuels Mapping Q&A/Discussion
• Focus on mapping actual fuels and dialogue with managers to assess FRCCs
• Hard to state FRCCs now because of lack of frame of references
• FCCS are different from FRCCs; may be able to crosswalk the two
• Mapping does not now interface with plant association groups
• Fire potentials can calculate information for fire behavior models
• Validations with real fire and fire effects is needed
• Fuel classification and mapping enables, but does not accomplish, modeling events, such as
fires or the passage of time
• Need to assess condition classes. Each forest and agency is mapping things differently.
Need a standard way of mapping condition class.
• Forests need information on conditions 100 years prior to assess current FRCC. Some forests
have very good historic fire regime mapping.
Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Meeting Notes
Page 5 of 11
•
•
Is there an opportunity to calibrate the fuels? This seems to be the missing link. Is this part of
the FCCS? The core fire behavior models do not use real fuels at this time. The FCCS puts
real fuels onto the ground and the parameters that are associated with the models. Will assign
each fuel bed to fuel models in later version of FCCS.
Could GNN be used to build confidence in FCCS? Validation with real fire and fire effects is
needed. FCCS and mapping enables modeling events such as fires over time but does not
accomplish it.
TREATMENT DESIGN
Forest Structure (Dave Peterson)
• Usually work with 97th percentile at WO level (extreme). Change to that from 98th percentile
•
“Fire resilient” defined as avoiding flame length that reached the canopy
• You can compare various planting scenarios (down the road)
• Did project survey public to determine if they like drawings rather than photos.
o It would be difficult to find the photos necessary.
o Adding some photos my help in communication with public. Could also look at editing
photos to represent different conditions.
• Why aren’t more fuels showing up on ground? EnVision is limited to what it will display. Could
drape other data over drawings.
My Fuel Treatment Planner, and Other Economic Models (Jamie Barbour)
• BIOSUM-FIA needs info from fuel managers and planners. To do the work – 6 months
Fireshed Assessment (Berni Bahro)
R5 Process:
1. Delineate firesheds.
2. Select fireshed for assessment.
3. Decide where to treat and where not.
4. Describe existing conditions.
5. Identify opportunities and project proposals.
•
•
•
•
•
•
No agreement region-wide on data to be prepared; the Region provides the data. Uses forest
data if Forest wants to (and if it’s available)
More activity under HFRA than funding available
Can incorporate other vegetation management objectives into this model
Capture multiple benefits from changing FRCCs – the model can do that
Corporate database includes veg, fuels, FIA plots…all their FIA plots are map-based using
stratification. Surface fuels layer for CA developed by interagency group
NEPA alternatives “may or may not” [hope they are] be at the scales of magnitude as the left
side of triangle (NFMA analysis)
FUELSOLVE (John Lehmkuhl)
• Model considers other resources and constraints
• Optimization through mathematical model (David Ford)
• Optimization run on one test landscape (n=1)
• Short-term analysis (5 years); Model at this time will not predict outcomes into the future.
• Model applicable anywhere, including Westside
• Will this tool allow managers to look at and quantify options and trade-offs? Yes, tool is
designed to assess trade-offs and alternatives. Optimization part of model will weigh various
measures of success and compares these measures and ranks solutions.
Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Meeting Notes
Page 6 of 11
Treatment Design Q&A/Discussion
• Region 5 model – The R5 process results in a schedule of treatments by Forest designed to
meet targets and local needs and capabilities
• Evaluate ID teams’ scenarios against Finney’s model (Region 5)
• R5 presentation suggested that 20-25% of a landscape to have an affect on reducing fire
hazard. Is this applicable everywhere? No, the Finney model looks for optimum layout of
treatments on landscape but the pattern and amount will vary by vegetation type. The
percentage will vary. Mark Finney’s paper suggests 20-25% is optimum but there have not
been any empirical information to back this up.
o What is a good number to manage for? Sierra Nevada has a goal of 30-35% of
landscape to treat. This allows some “slop”. At landscape scale can mitigate and
adjust treatments. Re-treatment is needed in areas to achieve goals. There are
serious ecological considerations when planning treatments and re-treatment. Expert
knowledge is likely the best to determine target treatment rates for an area.
• FUELSOLVE would give the opportunity to treat different % of the landscape and test
alternatives. FUELSOLVE evaluation of a “broke” landscape based on landscape and
ecological characteristics. [fuels, insects, disease – also economic, social]
• Make tools and techniques more transferable for ID team use
• Note how Data Quality Act may affect the choice of tools and techniques
• What tools or models are available that are currently being used by the field units?
o My Fuel Treatment Planner is being used and tested by FS and BLM. Training is being
developed by Enterprise Team.
o There are many models that are available and being used. Summary is in the
background section of notebook (FOFEM, FVS, FRCC, etc).
o The ID Teams at the local District or zone are key to determine what models/tools
should be used at the local level based on data, analyst requirements and capabilities.
The Team needs to learn together and determine best tools to use.
• Different model for technology transfer is needed. Need better methodology to transfer tools
and models to ID Teams.
EVALUATION
FETM (Mark Schaaf)
• In FETM, what length of time is required for treatment effects to be fully realized? For most
recent analyses, 20-30+ years were required to see maximum treatment benefits.
• FETM is the only model that directly uses FCCs. Is it linked to the new FCCS system? No,
FCCs are currently manually input into FETM (user may assign custom FCCs or use the FCCs
from ICBEMP)
• FETM is not currently integrated with FCCS, but could evolve to that point.
• How much time is required to implement the model on a Forest? FETM requires 2-3 days of
workshop time to characterize FCCs (including stand data) and disturbance effects. Then 2-3
weeks at less intensive level to characterize fire history and to populate the model with data.
In calendar time, it is typically 3-6 month effort.
• Where has the model been used? FETM has been used in Alaska, Florida, Alabama, Utah,
California, Montana, New Mexico, the Upper Grande Ronde River Basin (Oregon), and in the
Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness. WEN/OKA/COL are currently using FETM in
tandem with VDDT for their Forest Plan Revision. Richy Harrod, Fire Ecologist, is taking lead
on FETM.
• How does FETM calculate fire effects? FETM calculates fire size, consumption, and
emissions using other integrated model (CONSUME, BEHAVE, NFDRS calculations, etc.).
Other landscape models use more subjectively based inputs (mean probabilities). VDDT does
not compute fire sizes or emissions, but FETM-calculated fire sizes and emissions can be fed
to VDDT. We have done this on several recent studies.
Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Meeting Notes
Page 7 of 11
State & Transition Models -- VDDT + TESLA (Miles Hemstrom]
• What amount of resources would it take to apply VDDT and TELSA to model various
scenarios? WEN/OKA/COL are using VDDT for plan revision. Has taken 2 people moderate
amount (3-4 months) of time to develop initial models. Blue Mtns also using VDDT for plan
revision. ÎModerately time and resource intensive
• VDDT is especially appropriate for large landscape analysis [at the Forest Plan level]
• Other models can be run to augment expert input into VDDT
• TELSA can map over time in a spatial context
• How do you peer review VDDT? It has been peer reviewed and published by ICBEMP as well
as by ESSA. There are several papers in Conservation Biology on sagegrouse that used the
VDDT model results. Can use FVS, FLAMMAP and FARSITE to help calculate transitions.
• The key is the information used to populate model transitions. Can use expert opinion coupled
with literature information and other models (e.g. FVS, FETM) to support transition times and
pathways.
• Does TELSA track spatial context over time? Yes, will map alternatives over time period.
Model uses contagion.
Prioritizing Fuel Treatments (Sam Sandberg)
• Map data: Current data, photo series, expert knowledge
• What scale does this process apply to? Fremont-Winema project (8.2 million acres and down)
• Probably use EUI for some information on this project
• Be strategic in treatment of landscape to maximize results. Use spatial statistics
• Estimate for Fremont-Winema project 15-20 months (end of FY05). Currently determining
workloads.
• For a fall follow-on workshop, will results be available from test areas? Will take until end of
FY05 to complete all steps. Two thirds of work will be done by Forest and rest by PNW FERA.
By fall will have some preliminary results.
Evaluation Q&A/Discussion
• VDDT + FETM are conceptually similar. FETM could help calibrate VDDT, and they inform
each other. Each has their own strengths – FETM is stronger in fire, VDDT stronger in
Westside. VDDT may be stronger to link with other models. Major difference is how they treat
fire.
• Do not intend to make FETM spatial. Could be quasi-spatial w/TESLA
• VDDT and TELSA might be linked to FCCS so we can predict vegetation under scenarios and
look at potential fuel loading.
• FCCS does not yet run polygons in batch mode; may add that in future
• Consider data standards for use between models. We do have a set of data standards
available now. All models run off of cover types and structural stages that are standard
• FCCS, VDDT + FETM were developed to work together
BREAKOUT GROUP REPORTS
Group 1 – Regional/Subregional Level
1.a. Forest Planning & FMPs: What information, tools, training or products would assist with
determining how much to treat?
DATA:
•
•
Consistent seamless current vegetation layer
o Needs funding/support at regional level
o Needs to be stand level; not just 30 M pixel or grid
Historical vegetation layer
Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Meeting Notes
Page 8 of 11
•
•
•
o Go back to 100 yrs
Potential vegetation layer (PAGs=regional standards) plus fire regime layer
Viable ecosystems process (Ochoco NF) may help with desired conditions.
Map of FRCCs
CRITERIA
• Criteria for setting priorities
• Evaluate at regional level if targeting
• Summarize and compile all legislation that directs actions
MODELS
• Need synthesis of all available models so can determine what fits at the regional and local
level.
• Need cadre of folks with expertise with various models. Could be one team to help whole
region.
COLLABORATION
• Collaboration between managers and research on models and tools is needed.
• Integrated models are needed.
1b. List & prioritize potential action items to address needs.
• Develop data for historical and current conditions (current & historical veg, potential veg,
FRCCs)
• Region synthesize existing models and recommend which to use under different situations
• Develop regional set of criteria for fuel treatments
• Could summarize Forest criteria for 5 year plans and evaluate at regional level – are we
targeting right locations?
Group 2A – Landscape Level
2.a. Strategic placement of treatments on the landscape: What information, tools, training or
products would assist with determining where to treat?
• How to integrate with habitat needs, aquatics, wildlife, plants
• Field is confused—is priority for treatment driven by FRCC or change in fire behavior?
• Need for consistent objectives across large areas
• Need consistent, broad general direction for timber, veg, fuels program. Need to get beyond
WUI, to 2nd and 3rd priority areas.
• Finish community plans
• Too many models; need unbiased broker to evaluate all
2b. List & prioritize potential action items to address needs.
• Need clarification of goals (is FRCC the metric or changing condition class the goal)
• Need to identify consistent direction on how to set priorities (BOD)
• Need unbiased evaluation of tools, models, data selection, & processes for fuel treatment
design
Group 2B – Landscape Level
2.a. Strategic placement of treatments on the landscape: What information, tools, training or
products would assist with determining where to treat?
Questions to answer
• What landscapes to treat and what areas within landscapes to treat
• Defining scale or size (eg. HUC, or ecoregions, firesheds)
• What are relevant issues (eg. WUI, wildlife habitat, aeshetics)
Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Meeting Notes
Page 9 of 11
Tools Needed
• Guidelines on percentage of landscape to treat
• Ecological benefit ranking
• Common approach for efficient implementation but with flexibility
• Method to evaluate tools (Dichotamous key ?)
• Display results for internal/external needs
• Need method to compare alternatives
• Map conditions quickly
• Vegetation and disturbance projection models
• Models to grow shrubs and grasses
• Needs from Management (Action Items)
2b. List & prioritize potential action items to address needs.
• Commitment to long-term vegetative data maintenance
• Data for large scale landscapes
• Data for stand level prescriptions
• Science based synthesis and recommendation ID Team on what to use (advisory group)
• Scientists
• Management
• Line officers
• Practitioners
• R6 expert applications team (eg. R5) to work with Forests/Districts ID Teams and interface
with scientists
• Help field with analysis and use of models
• Showcase example of how to do it
Group 3 – Project Level
3.a. Project level design: What information, tools, training or products would assist with determining
how to treat & design of treatments?
• Need good vegetation data
• Need computer and software support for use of models
• Need habitat requirements for species
• Will RO support MSN or collecting data to feed MSN?
• Access to analysts to help with statistics, running models, and manage data
• Want consumer reports for models – unbiased report (including practitioner)
• Need to know which models have been peer reviewed
• Need easy to use models
• Need to involve all resources in treatment design.
3b. List & prioritize potential action items to address needs.
• Data
o Support and implement MSN region-wdide with appropriate field data collection
strategy and computer and software support
• Have research define quantifiable habitat requirements for key species at a landscape level
(5th HUCs)
• Working access to analysts who are knowledgeable in statistics & applied natural resources
• Unbiased “consumer reports” for models and tools
Group 4 – Assessment of Treatments
4.a. At what level (scale) do we assess the effectiveness of fuel and vegetation treatments?
• Spatial – At least two levels: Stand & landscape
Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Meeting Notes
Page 10 of 11
•
•
o Stand level may be more appropriate for WUIs or, for example, SO nest sites, OG, etc.
o Landscape: Diversity within is important
Temporal – Consider maintenance vs. conversion (e.g. WUI, non-WUI)
Track progress toward long-term goals (“milestones”)
4b. How will we track the effectiveness of our fuel treatments (eg. Modeling, monitoring, mapping)?
• Landscape: Non-WUI
o Expand beyond just measuring “resiliency” (focus: Non-WUI areas)
o “Resiliency” may apply to fire-adapted. There may be a similar (but different) measure for
other ecosystems
• Use existing model(s) [e.g. FARSITE] and link to fire effects models. Simulate/describe effects
spatially
• Determine what creates (defines) resiliency
• Be able to display distribution in a spatial and tabular sense AND what it means for the
behavior of fire
o This may be a component of CC…i.e. how “out of whack” the landscape is vs. how “out of
whack” the stand is.
o Goal: Mosaic of condition classes across landscape
Discussion on Group Reports
Is there something missing from list of priorities?
• Need to talk about needs from holistic interdisciplinary approach
• Need to include rangelands and consider interagency approach
• Need to be able to communicate models, treatments and outputs to public in manner they can
understand and support
• Address other agency lands (including shrubs and brush) - FS, BLM, USFWS, BIA, DOE
• Take into consideration the community and social aspect
• Developing and maintaining databases (vegetation data). Needs to be corporate rather than
district databases (corporate standards, collected and maintained [keep current] at the district
level)
• Use Regional data to supplement local data not yet collected
• Carefully define “landscape” at spatial, and temporal, scales
• Spatially-explicit data is needed at the project level
• Funding does not seem to match the mission.
o We need multi-year ecosystem based funding.
• Need funding for development and maintenance of corporate vegetation databases. Keep
current.
o Not FIA type data
o Corporate standards maintained at a district level
o New data needs to be collected continually
o Could have regional data developed and then update at local level.
• Need ecosystem analysis and not fuel treatment projects analysis.
BIN LIST
• Are we organized enough in Region 6 to decide how the tools will be used?
• ESA consultation regulations are problematic. How integrate need to protect habitat and meet
targets and treatment needs?
• Need to build parternship with consulting agencies. How balance short-term/long-term risk.
• Riparian strategies limit our ability to treat areas. Is too difficult to do treatments in riparian
areas due to process and consultation. Is there science to help us?
• New administrative tools are being challenged. There is conflicting science. How do fuels
folks implement NEPA and withstand challenges.
• Do we fully understand implication of no action alternatives (no treatments)?
Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Meeting Notes
Page 11 of 11
R6 PRIORITIES
• Fuels/veg management
• NWFP
• Invasives
• Range
• Fire restoration
• Access (OHVs)
• Aquatics
SUMMARY AND CLOSING
Key messages from workshop (Jeff Blackwood)
• Need consistency in planning of fuel treatments and data
• Holistic and interdisciplinary approach
• Predictability of outputs
• Commitment to interagency process
Recommendations (Jeff Blackwood)
• Improving linkage between unit ID teams, models and science community
o Need consumer report and evaluation
• Consistent approach to planning fuel treatments
• Are we organized to deal with effectively sharing knowledge internally and externally?
• Monitoring and tracking of effectiveness of fuel treatments
• Need consistent mapping of vegetation for forest and rangelands
• Integration at regional and local offices
o We talk about it but are we really doing it
o Not just a fire issue
• Determine how to get best bang for buck and communicate this effectively with publics
Action items (Cindi West)
• take key recommendations into a decision framework and take to leadership at regional and
station level
• report back next steps
• share meeting notes on web
• expand regional working group to include regional fire, planning and resource staff
representatives (Tom Husey, Tim Rich, Louisa Evers, and someone from Cal Joyner’s staff)
Synthesis (Cindi West)
• Will synthesize key models, tools and processes
• Will look at consumer guide approach
Closing remarks (Karen Shimamoto)
• We are trying to meet targets but want to treat the right acres.
• Need a strategy to effectively treat at the landscape level and regional level
• Field wants the region to help set up consistent process
• Will coordinate with Fuels BOD to meet mission.
•m (e.g. R5) to work with Forests/Districts ID teams and interface with scientists
•Show case example