Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Breakout Groups -- Flip Chart Notes
Page 1 of 7
Breakout Groups -- Flip Chart Notes
Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
May 18, 2004 – Bend, Oregon
Group 1: Regional/Subregional
1a. What info, tools, training or products would assist with how much to treat?
•
•
•
Sideboards + bounds for HRV + DFC
•
•
•
•
•
•
A
“How much” is determined by objectives
Need to have agreed-upon priorities – regional set of criteria? (Needed? R6 decided
against)
Put resources where most needed, as determined at regional scale (not Forest x Forest)
(“top down”)
Long-term solution(s) vs. stop-cap crisis mode
Regionally applied standards could end up discriminating against some communities
Much of problem is political, which can’t be addressed with training
Can also aggregate Forest needs to determine regional total to treat (“bottom up”)
Nature of treatment and where also needs to be addressed
Need knowledge of historical /current condition, and agreement on desired future
condition (DFC)
o At different scales
o Standardized veg layer – current
 Needs funding/support at Regional level
 Cover types and structural stages
o Historical veg layer – agreed upon
o These need to be Regional products, since local expertise no longer available
o Needs to be stand level, not just 30M pixel or grid data
o Potential veg layer (PAGs = Regional standards), plus fire regime layer
o “Viable ecosystems” = example on Ochoco NF of developing DFC
o Map of FRCCs
Setting priorities – How much?
• Consequences of “no action” need to be factored into priority-setting at Regional level
• Consider practical/operational capabilities (constraints [e.g. burning windows], funding,
personnel)
•
One approach: Summarize criteria Forests have used in their 5-year plans – evaluate at
A
Regional level – are we targeting the right locations?
o Summarize/compile all current legislation + direction; clarify/refine as needed
(e.g. WUIs not yet defined [ODF/DNR/State responsibility to designate
“communities at risk”])
•
a.
Region could synthesize existing models (FETM, VDDT, TELSA, FCCS,…) and
recommend which would be preferred/recommended under different situations
o Individual Forests or zones can no longer afford to “roll their own”
o Need collaborative (mgmt-research) and interdisciplinary approaches/models;
also those that work outside the FS
o Rather than independent efforts, use teams or “centers of excellence” or
enterprise teams to conduct analyses
In long term
A
Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Breakout Groups -- Flip Chart Notes
Page 2 of 7
Group 2A – Landscape Level
Action Items:
1. Clarify goal – FRCC vs. fire behavior
2. B.O.D. – Broad and consistent direction fro setting treatment priorities (process)
3. Unbiased brokerage – Models, data selection/use
Background Notes (Group 2A):
*
*
*
•
Field is confused -- is priority for treatment driven by FRCC or change in fire behavior?
•
Models seem to be driven by behavior
•
How to integrate with habitat needs, aquatics, wildlife, plants
•
Need for agreement of common data set/geographic mapping or a front end that can
modify a common data set to populate each model
Consider all layers needed for FARSITE to be able to model fire behavior
•
*
*
*
*
•
Research could provide “rules of thumb” i.e. treat where (south, access, FR, etc.), rather
than a model
•
Need a framework for expectations for tradeoffs to use to develop a hierarchical process,
i.e. CWD vs. risk, cover
•
There is a need for consistent objectives across large areas
•
•
Forest plan revisions!
Alignment of resources and priorities
•
Need consistent, broad general direction for timber, veg, fuels program. Need to get
beyond WUI, so what is next 2nd, 3rd priority?
•
Community plans
•
Choosing among models
o Too many models!
o
o
o
o
•
Remember what the question is and know which model answers it – that we have
the data for
Need the unbiased broker – PNW as an institution may be able to do this
Need a group of researchers and practitioners to get together and make
recommendations for a given set of data and questions
Need to know what critical values at risk, and how fires burn in your area
Remember, we are trying to restore fire dependent ecosystems relative to HRV, stand
structure, density and fuel loading. Look at whole picture of functioning ecosystem and
what drives characteristic vs. uncharacteristic fire, and characteristics of past local fires
Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Breakout Groups -- Flip Chart Notes
Page 3 of 7
•
•
Landscape vs. WUI
What is the goal? Reduce suppression? Damage? Size?
•
Important to get going – this will be an adaptive process
•
Don’t let targets get in the way of treating the right acres
*•
Finish community plans
Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Breakout Groups -- Flip Chart Notes
Page 4 of 7
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)
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
Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Breakout Groups -- Flip Chart Notes
Page 5 of 7
Group 3 – Project level
3a. What info, tools, training or products would assist with how to treat and design
treatments?
1) Data
Support and implement MSN region-wide w/ appropriate field data collection strategy
and computer and software support
2) Have research define quantifiable habitat requirements, for key species, at a landscape
level (project 5th HUC)
3) Working access to an analyst who is knowledgeable in stats, applied natural resources
4) “Consumer reports” for models (unbiased)
Background Notes (Group 3):
• Training in decision making first
• Consumer report of models (unbiased)
•
What question are we trying to answer…what is the best model to use
•
•
Needs to be spatially explicit
Share anecdotal experience
•
Commit time and $$ to training
•
Good field data (and interchangeable data)
•
•
Use common data sources
Quick, flexible and efficient models – easy to use
•
Consistent look and feel to models (Microsoft approach)
•
Post-fire treatment model
•
Visual tools (Like Envision, LMS) for public and internal understanding
•
Field time and resources to get info
•
Assumptions used in models need to be documents
•
Need to know if the model has been peer-reviewed
•
•
Info about wildlife viability/habitat requirements
Calibration to local conditions
•
Access to an analyst/real time computer support
•
Will RO support (strategies and $$) MSN (collecting data to feed MSN)?
•
Validate models as they come out and share the info
•
Remember to involve all the resources (especially your silviculturist!
Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Breakout Groups -- Flip Chart Notes
Page 6 of 7
Group 4 – Assessment Scale
4a. At what level (scale) do we assess the effectiveness of fuel and vegetation treatments?
•
Spatial – At least two levels: Stand & landscape
o
o
Stand level may be more appropriate for WUIs or, for example, SO nest sites,
OG, etc.
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 fuel and vegetation treatments (e.g. modeling,
monitoring, mapping)?
•
Landscape: Non-WUI
o
Expand beyond just measuring “resiliency” (focus: Non-WUI areas)
 “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 CCs across landscape
Background Notes (Group 4):
4a.
• Stand
•
•
Landscape
<FireMon.>
o
Fuel loading (green and dead)
o
Spp. Composition (not just overstory)
o
Height of live crown
o
Structure
o
Condition class (site specific/realistic) (NFPORS reporting requirement)
Hazardous Fuel and Vegetation Treatment Workshop
Breakout Groups -- Flip Chart Notes
Page 7 of 7
•
o Hydrologic response/”soil quality” measure (e.g. bulk density, nutrient status)
Need: Simple, non-time consuming ways to measure
o
Clear objectives to help define “effectiveness”
o
Monitoring needs/requirements
•
•
Move from monitoring fuel loading, etc. but focus (FR 1&2) on “resiliency”
May be different in WUI vs. fire-dominated landscapes
•
Focus on ecological AND actual hazard
•
How can we account for “entries” (number and effect on hydro function, invasive spp.
etc.
•
Stand
•
o
o
What kind of attributes does a Class I, 2, 3 have?
Aggregate across landscape
o
Q: Is the treatment program large enough (fast enough) to be effective? E.g.
growth/carbon assessment
 Consider “stand” level more for WUI
Landscape (need to define = “anything bigger than a stand”
o
CC may not be appropriate at stand level, but is the measure we use to
communicate w/ Congress. B/c we can do treatments that reduce risk but may
not change CC? More applicable/appropriate at landscape level
4b. How do we track…
• Has to do with distribution of CC
o
o
Tabular sense
Spatial sense (need accounting system that is spatial)
•
Stratify by FS and CC and be able to get adequate sample? ($$/people limitations)
•
•
Falls apart at landscape level
Ability to hold up in court? Representative sample?
•
Landscape: Many FR types. Stratify by CC – ld attributes?
o
Focus: FR 1, 2, 3 vs. 4, 5
o
o
Are we trying to characterize the landscape in total or only a portion?
Multi-dimensional: What info will allow us to get what want done?
o
Need coord w/modelers on data needs?
o
Need quick assessment team immediately post-fire to assess resiliency – did the
stand survive?