|
Fire Chronicle #25
|
Laura McCarthy, Forest Trust
|
May 13, 2004 13:02 PDT
|
FIRE CHRONICLE: Stories of the National Fire Plan
Number 25
May 13, 2004
AGENCIES IMPLEMENT PROMISING NEW SCIENCE-BASED ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
The federal land management agencies are accountable to Congress and the
public for reducing the ecological hazards of uncharacteristic wildfire
and the risks of wildfire to communities. Accountability of programs and
activities is a goal of the National Fire Plan and a goal of the Western
Governor’s Association in their 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. The
General Accounting Office, however, published several reports in
2001-2003 disparaging the federal agencies’ lack of progress in
developing a system to inform Congress about changes in fire risk after
appropriated funds are expended.
The interagency Wildland Fire Leadership Council, composed of federal,
state, tribal and local agency leaders, responded to the need for
greater accountability by selecting the “fire regime condition class”
framework to measure changes in forest conditions. Congress had already
named the framework in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003,
requiring that “monitoring and assessment shall include a description of
the changes in condition class, using the Fire Regime Condition Class
Guidebook or successor guidance, specifically comparing end results to
(A) pretreatment conditions; (B) historical fire regimes; and (C) any
applicable watershed or landscape goals or objectives…”
Fire regime condition class was originally developed by USDA Forest
Service scientists at the Rocky Mountain Research Station as a tool for
“providing national-level data on the current condition of fuel and
vegetation.” This tool is used to estimate the degree of departure of
forest conditions and fire regime return intervals from historic norms.
The research station scientists used this approach to develop
coarse-resolution data indicating the degree of departure for the nation
as a whole.
Concurrently, two prototypes of the “Landfire” project were implemented
in Utah and Montana. Landfire was designed to develop medium- and
fine-resolution data and fire regime condition class maps that could be
used for regional, state, and project-level planning and monitoring.
After the methods and results of the first iteration of fire regime
condition class were published in 2002, the scientists then outlined a
new 5-year project to expand implementation of Landfire nationwide.
The scientists who developed the fire regime condition class concept
never anticipated that policymakers would want to use the method as the
basis for a national system to monitor changes in forest conditions. But
with the new Healthy Forests Restoration Act in place, the scientists
are now busily transforming their existing data and coarse methods, and
developing new data for use by managers on finer scale applications.
The use of fire regime condition class to set priorities and monitor
changes requires measurements at multiple scales. The new Landfire
project will develop medium-resolution data through remote sensing and
ecological modeling. The data are about 70% accurate, which is
sufficient for landscapes of 10,000 acres or more and for use with
FARSITE, the most widely used fire behavior model. The Landfire project
is designed as a one-time investment, with periodic re-measurement to
ensure accuracy. Completion of the lower 48 states is expected in 2008,
and of Alaska and Hawaii in 2009. The Wildland Fire Leadership Council
has endorsed Landfire as an interagency priority and will soon approve
its charter and budget.
A finer set of data is field-based and is collected through
site-specific assessments of fire regime condition class in watersheds
and other project-scale landscapes. The assessments are developed
through a scientific process -- rigorous and replicable -- that managers
are now learning to perform. Local forest managers on federally
administered lands have been directed to use fire regime condition class
immediately. For example, land management units were required to include
condition class assessments with their requests for FY2004 project
funding, and their FY2003 accomplishment reports need to include the
condition class of treated areas. These directives will generate
pressure on managers to conduct the scientific assessments quickly, and
in many places, without funding to cover the extra work.
Agency scientists have developed three methods for collecting the
field-based data and are now traveling across the country with a
“train-the-trainers” workshop to build forest managers’ capacity to
assess condition class. All methods are based on comparisons of
vegetation, fuels and fire regime conditions to ecologically-based
reference conditions. Results can be used to prioritize treatments to
restore ecological conditions, or in conjunction with other assessments
such as of risk of wildfire in the wildland-urban interface, to
prioritize treatments for community protection.
The methods include a “scorecard,” “standard method,” and “standard
method with 100% validation.” The scorecard method is the quickest but
least reliable. To ensure reliability, its results must be validated
using the standard method. The standard method with 100% validation
yields the most accurate result and establishes a good baseline for
monitoring, but requires extensive ground truthing. Managers may
perceive that the scorecard method is most expedient. Yet use of the
scorecard without adequate ground truthing may result in errors that,
when aggregated nationally, may limit the accuracy and utility of fire
regime condition class data.
The scientists who are working tirelessly on fire regime condition
assessments face many challenges as they refine and implement a
comprehensive, ecologically-based, accurate, and usable reporting
system. Policymakers want the system in place “yesterday” making
scientific review and revision of the methods problematic. Policymakers
have also misinterpreted fire regime condition class as being relevant
and reportable at the stand (or fuel treatment) scale, and as being
useful as a measure of risk to communities in every ecosystem type. Both
of these erroneous expectations have confounded its implementation.
Field managers also want the system to be easy to use, quick to apply,
and accessible to their personnel. The scientists, who are responsible
for ensuring the accuracy of condition class assessments, face a
difficult situation. The Congress and agency leaders can help by setting
realistic timelines, valuing accuracy over expediency, understanding
appropriate applications of the concept, and facilitating the successful
implementation of Landfire.
FIRE CHRONICLE is edited by the Forest Trust. Laura McCarthy, Forest
Protection Program Director, wrote this issue. The Forest Trust welcomes
your comments, stories, and observations about how the national fire
plan is being implemented (just send a reply message and it will go to
the list moderator). To subscribe to FIRE CHRONICLE go to
http://www.topica.com/lists/firechronicles/ or send an email message to
lau-@theforesttrust.org.
PAST ISSUES OF FIRE CHRONICLE can be downloaded from
http://www.theforesttrust.org/forest_protection.html#fire
1. 2002 Fire Plan Appropriations will Benefit from 2001 Experience
2. Wildland-Urban Interface Definition a Barrier to Accountability
3. Stewardship Blocks: Innovative Tool Brings Fire Plan Benefits into
Community
4. Youth Training Needed for Fire Plan to Benefit Local Workforce
5. Grants Get National Fire Plan Money into Communities
6. Collaborative Forest Restoration Program Creates New Solution to
Gridlock
7. Permits Regulate Prescribed Burning on Private Land
8. Accountability Remains a Key Issue for National Fire Plan
9. National Partnership Advances Landscape-Scale Forest Restoration
10. Poor Communities Most Threatened By Wildfire
11. A New Model to Fire-Proof Forest Homes
12. Consensus Over Fuel Reduction Treatment Dissolves
13. Wildland Urban Interface Definition Needed for Effective Policy
14. Funding Gaps Prevent Completion of Hazardous Fuel Reduction
15. Agencies Propose to Streamline Environmental Review for Hazardous
Fuel Reduction Treatments
16. National Fire Plan Provides Economic Opportunity for Rural Residents
17. Bark Beetles Heighten Wildfire Concerns
18. Small And Local Businesses Cite Barriers To Reaching National Fire
Plan Goals
19. Federal Report Fuels Public Debate Over Healthy Forests Act
20. New Report Evaluates Efficacy Of Fuel Reduction Treatments
21. Slow Progress to Set Treatment Priorities for National Fire Plan
22. Better Accounting of Fuels Reduction is Needed
23. Scientists Tell Agencies: “Salvage of Dead Pinyon Pine may be
Counterproductive”
24. Policy Evaluation: The State of the National Fire Plan
|
|
 |
|
