PowerPoint Presentation

Managing Fire-prone Forests at the Landscape Scale:Challenges and Opportunities for Large Landowners in the FPF Study AreaSusan Charnley, USDA Forest Service Michelle Steen-Adams, University of New EnglandEmily Platt, Oregon State University

My talk today focuses on large land owners in our study area; these actors are important because their land owenrships together account for about 75% of the land there. What they do matters in terms of fire behavior and forest restoration

Today I will be presenting some of the findings from our research with LLOs in the FPF study area. I am presenting on behalf of 3 of our team members: MSA whose research has focused on the WS Res and the DNF; EP whose research also focuses on the DNF; and myself. My work has focused on the FWNF, ODF lands, and PC lands.1Landscape OutputsForest products, terrestrial biodiversity, wildlife habitat, landscape amenities, fire area, fire hazard, carbonOther Change ProcessesVegetation succession, fire behavior, housing expansionExternal DriversForest policies, marketsExternal DriversClimate change, population growthActorsUS Forest ServiceState of Oregon Corporate forest ownersTribesNon-industrial forest ownersHomeownersDecisionMakingVolume/area targetswith constraints and preferencesPersonal utility maximizationConservation Fire ProtectionHome-ownerForest ProductsSocial Networks GovernmentActionsCut trees,Reduce surface fuels,Firewise homes, Develop landLandscapeConditionGoing back to Toms introductory presentation, this slide shows the large actors that we have focused on in our project

This information will be used to predict future fire behavior and landscape conditions on large ownerships under different management scenarios2Research questionsWhat are the forest and fire management practices of large actors? What drives their management decisions?What are the challenges & opportunities for increasing forest resilience to fire at the landscape scale on large ownerships?

I am going to address these questions today by just giving you a small and select sample of findings in response to each question

The research questions that we just presented are designed to illuminate the social component of the Forests, People, Fire Conceptual model.

3Data sourcesIn-person interviews (n=116)Federal & state agency databasesDocument review

Im going to focus on 2 activities today: timber harvesting and hazardous fuels reduction activities

I havent analyzed all of the interview data yet, so the findings reported here are preliminary

Im also still trying to verify the accuracy of the data from USFS databases so dont focus so much on the actual numbers I give you today, but more on the patterns that they reveal wrt how fire and forest management varies across the forestNational Fire Plan Operations and Reporting System4Heterogeneous social landscape

This is a mixed ownership landscape; Im focusing on the green, red, and the light and dark blue

The large actors I will be discussing manage about 70% of the land base in our study area

Our study area is a mixed ownership landscape: diversity of actors, decision-making drivers, and management practices. Important point is that this heterogeneous social context sets up a diversity of feedback responses to landscape condition.

5U.S. Forest ServiceDeschutes National Forest3 Ranger Districts, 1.6 million acresFremont-Winema National Forest7 Ranger Districts, 2.3 million acres

So who are the large actor groups that we focus on? USFS lands account for nearly half of the lands in our study area (48%)6Oregon Dept. of ForestrySun Pass State Forest 20,804 acres Gilchrist State Forest 43,000 acres 25,000 adjacent acres managed by ODF

Klamath-Lake District 1.6 million acres protected for fire76,000 acres of state forest land owned in Klamath Co.Sun Pass State Forest 20,804 acres (acquired in 1940s)Gilchrist State Forest 43,000 acres (acquired in 2009)25,000 adjacent acres owned by The Conservation Fund & managed by ODFSmall, scattered tracts of land in Klamath County 12,461 acres acquired in 1930s & 1940s in lieu of taxes

Klamath Lake District has 2 units: Klamath and LakeviewODF manages about 100,000 acres in our study area (Klamath Co)

Gilchrist State Forest purchased from Fidelity in 2009; there was only enough state bond money to buy the 43,000 acre block25,000 acres owned by TCF was former Fidelity lands. The CF purchased it with the intent of selling it to ODF; they are just a holding company. Land managed currently by ODF. Will be bought when state gets the money.

For purposes of our project, focus on Sun Pass and Gilchrist (both blocks)7Private Corporate Forest Ownershaving > 25,000 acresJWTR 600,000 acres (since 2006)Cascade Timberlands (Fidelity)196,000 acres (since 2005)Collins Pine63,000 acres (since 1930s)Resource Land Holdings60,000 acres (since 2011)J Spear Ranch Co.36,000 acres (since the early 1950s)

These different private owners have different sized holdings; and they have held land for different lengths of time

Most of the private corporate forest lands in the study area have changed hands over time; big players in the past were Crown Pacific, Weyerhauser

Q: Should Jeld Wen be up here? Separate category, or have they sold off everything?

J Spear : re acreage, interview says 34,000 and 22,000 in diff places; Keiths data = 27,000; FSC 2009 report gives figures cited above (19,805 ranchlands, 14,275 timberlands + 52 ac in power line easement)

Collins & J Spear have been around for a long time, are family owned companies, and both have FSC certification

JWTR bought land previously owned by US Timberlands (TIMO) for 10 years (who managed it the same as it is being managed now, only now they only have to produce 1/3rd the revenue as previously), Weyerhauser, Jeld-Wen before that. 1/3rd Lake Co, 2/3rd Klamath Co

Cascade Timberlands land was formerly Crown Pacific land; when Crown Pacific went broke at the end of 2004, the creditors got together and created Cascade Timberlands. Fidelity National Finance had a partial interest in that, and went on to create Fidelity National Timber Resources, Inc. Timberlands are in Deschutes, Klamath, and Lake Counties

RLH land was previously the personal ranches and grounds of Dick Wendt, who owned Jeld Wen Windows and Doors, which went to auction before he died. They were managed differently than other former Jeld Wen lands; just lightly harvested until the economic recession. Virtually all of it is in Lake County. 85% ponderosa pine, no lodgepole, the rest Doug Fir, White Fir, incense cedar

Our focus in this project is on private industrial owners who own a minimum of 10,000 ha of land (just under 25,000 acres)There are 5 of them, and the vast majority of their land holdings are in Lake and Klamath counties

RLH /RLF = a limited liability company/REIT that invests in agricultural, timber and mining properties in the U.S. to build portfolios of resource-rich real estate to produce current income and realize potential for long-term appreciation

8TribesWarm Springs Reservation640,000 acres256,000 acres commercial timberlandEstimated 1,100 residences (as of 2002)Former Klamath Tribes reservation forest (part of Fremont-Winema NF)

I wont be talking about tribal lands because another member of our team focused on tribal lands; she couldnt be here today

Tribal actors are also important large actors in our study area: the Warm Springs Tribes whose large reservation lies in the northern extent of our study areas; and the Klamath Tribes, who cooperatively manage together with the FWNF their former reservation lands that are now part of the that NF91) What are the forest and fire management practices of large actors?

Important for feeding the model

Highly variable both within and between actor groups101ry Forest ManagementGoalsPrimary forest management goals vary by forest owner

WS = balanced/integrated objectives including timber revenue, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, biodiversity

Klamath Reservation Forest = Area of the Fre-Win NF that was formally Klamath Tribes Researvation lands

Deschutes: Recreation would be the next priority down11Timber ManagementFWNFDNFPCODFWSThin from belowHHH-MOverstory removal--HLLSelective cut single & group--HHLClearcut(shelterwood, seed tree)-LLLHStand improvement--HHM/HSalvageLMHLMUneven aged management dominant among all landowners except WS where theres a moratorium on cutting ponderosa pine-dominant stands; do clearcutting in mixed con stands, hemlock, lodgepole, doug fir/pondo

Even aged treatments focused on the lodgepole pine stands and entail clearcutting

Thin from below for variable density = USFS; PC do this in plantations and might think of it as PCT or chip woodOverstory removal = selective removal of big trees for various purposesSingle & group tree selection is how several PC owners described what they doSalvage is irregular and refers mainly to post-fire; when fire does occur, USFS salvages some, PC salvages a lotClear cut in lodgepole on PC and ODF landsStand improvement = light harvest with the main goal of growing trees bigger so that they have commercial value in the future; this occurs on lands that have been heavily harvested in the past. Manage for health and to grow trees for the future. ODF doing this on Gilchrist SF, PC owners doing this esp. if they care about the land as a real estate investment.

DNF: On slide 11, I added data. I'm not sure what is meant by stand improvement. If this is increased resistance to insects and disease, I would put medium. If it's salvage after the fact, I would put low. Also on this slide, I put low for clear-cutting because there is some (shows up in the timber data) but very little, so it would be fine not to include it too.

12Fire & fuels managementFWNFDNFPCODFWSFull fire suppressionXX

XXXWUI priorityXX-XXPres. FireML--HBurn slash/ pilesLLHLHMech. removalHHHHMBy-product of timber man.--HH-Fuel breaks--HM-WS: Do multi-stage treatments on single sites; USFS goal also, burns usually take place following mechanical treatments

All practice full fire suppression (true for Deschutes?)

FW: Data regarding fuels treatments from 2006-2012 indicate that about half of treatments are mechanical involving thinning or biomass removal; are prescribed fire; the rest are other forms of mechanical (ie mastication,) or machine piling and burning after mechanical removals. Preference is to treat mechanically, then go in and burn, but sometimes they just use prescribed fire.

ODF:

Emphasize integrated fuels and forest management treatments

DNF: For fuels reduction, I wasn't comfortable rating activities as low, medium, or high importance without having time to look back at the data. Sorry about that. It just seemed like I was being too subjective when I tried to do it. Also, while most of the time I think characterizing fire suppression as "full" on the Deschutes is accurate, there was a recent exception with a fire on the Sisters District due to safety considerations.

132) What drives decision-making by large actors?Actor DecisionsPoliciesSocial NetworksInstitutionsLandscape DynamicsFireVegetationBiodiversityEcosystem Services?1?2External DriversPolicyMarketsClimate Change?3Lets go back to another figure that Tom showed at the beginning of the session

I just provided some examples that describe actor decisions, ie what they do on the ground in terms of management. That in turn has different landscape outcomes; Regarding how actor decisions influence landscape dynamics, we will see examples of this in Emilys talk when she provides a demonstration of the Envision modelSo I am to give some examples now of how landscape dynamics feedback to influence actor decisions; and of how external drivers also influence actor decisions14Landscape dynamicsLegacies of past management Old plantationsHeavy harvesting of medium & big treesPerceived fire risk on neighboring landsUSFS & NPS perceived as threat by neighborsFire historySalvageLow priority for fuels treatments

2 Neighbors take actions to treat along borders with the USFS because they perceive threat15Policy driversEast side screensNo trees >21 dbh can be harvested without a forest plan amendmentNorthwest Forest PlanWS Integrated Resources Management Plan ProcessTribal Council approval-Natural Resources specialist proposal to ensure balanced management approach

WS: NR managers develop proposals for managing resources; must be approved by the tribal council. Tribal council can reject components that are not viewed as being consistent with tribal values. So, are ensuring that forest man policy on the reservation is consistent with tribal values.Natural resource specialists are employees of the tribe, not BIA; self-determination in tribal man began in mid-80s when the tribe took BIA to court; 1991 is when the first IRMP was approved. WS was first tribe to develop ttheir own IRMP

Slide 16 could be edited to capture some important policy drivers on the DNF that came up in interviews and include Northwest Forest Plan, Forest Management Plan, Budgets and targets (structural, not amount of money), and CFLR.

16MarketsDisappearing markets causing one PC owner to liquidate timberPrices affect harvest levels and types by PC owners who must generate a fixed revenueLack of biomass markets limits removal of non-merch and sub-merch material

173) What are the challenges & opportunities for increasing forest resilience to fire at the landscape scale on large ownerships?

Need a landscape perspectivenot easy

Going back to a point Tom made in his introduction scientists, land managers, and policy makers have for the most part come to agree that in order to increase the resilience of fire-prone forests to fire, we need to take a landscape perspective

This means planning forest restoration treatments at the landscape scale and implementing them at multiple scales, which in mixed ownership landscapes like the FPF study area, calls for planning and implementing treatments across forest ownership boundaries, with different actors working together in a coordinated way to reduce fire risk on the landscape and restore more resilient conditions

I think my talk today has provided some insight into some of the reasons that it isnt easy to approach forest resatorstion with a landscape perspective18ChallengesDifferent forest management objectives & practicesDifferent approaches to fire risk reductionPotential loss of processing infrastructureUncertain & insufficient chip & biomass markets

1 Diff forest man objectives like

2 For example, feds use prescribed fire and think its important to return fire to the landscape; state and PI dont want to use prescribed fire

Heterogeneity among actors poses a challenge for collective action

6 - Public perception to fuels management/ social legacies of historic forest harvestThats one thing weve tried to tell forestry and we try to tell the public: its not a timber sale. Its fuels management. Were thinning out the forest so we dont have large catastrophic fires on the reservation. It was tough to pass at first.

19ChallengesDifferent decision-making frameworks Limited experience w/cross-boundary treatments & ALMIn-migration of new publicsPublic perception of fuels management/ social legacies of historic forest harvest

1 Diff forest man objectives like

2 For example, feds use prescribed fire and think its important to return fire to the landscape; state and PI dont want to use prescribed fire

Heterogeneity among actors poses a challenge for collective action

6 - Public perception to fuels management/ social legacies of historic forest harvestThats one thing weve tried to tell forestry and we try to tell the public: its not a timber sale. Its fuels management. Were thinning out the forest so we dont have large catastrophic fires on the reservation. It was tough to pass at first.

20Commonalities

Recognize the problemDesire to reduce fire riskDesire to protect forest assetsDesire to maintain and build markets and infrastructure to make treatments economicalWillingness to collaborate

How to move forward?21Creating incentives and building capacity for collective action is a key strategy for reducing fire risk at the landscape scale

Key question: How to incentivize & build capacity to engage in collective action?

I will turn to my case now to address this question, and suggest that the answers have application for fire risk management elsewhere in the western US.22Make good science availableProvides information needed to strategically plan effective forest restoration treatments at the landscape scale

Good science can provide a foundation for planning and developing strategies to effectively restore forests and change fire behavior23Build social networks & strengthen information flowsSharing information, ideas, adviceWorking partnershipsTrust building

Strong social networks facilitate information flows, communication, and trust building24Support local institutions that emerge for collaborative landscape-scale restorationCollaborative Forest Landscape Restoration ProgramPrescribed Fire CouncilsFire Learning NetworksInformal

These can be avenues for collective action

Many started as ways to get social agreement around, and resources for, federal land management; they can also be avenues for collective action at the landscape scale25Support creative problem solving: Adapting to markets and funding through multi-stage hazardous fuels reduction projects1) Mechanical Thin

2) Commercial logs and pulp

The HFR projects start with a mechanical thin. Remove commercial logs and pulp. Pile and burn remaining slash. Consider mowing or mastication of brush and saplings. Then broadcast burn. Forest products revenue offsets project costs. (example sites: Hehe Butte, Sidwalter Flats, Triangle, Walford.) We are planning for more in the future. (Wolf, 5/13/14). Markets are an important external driver: without market for the commercial logs and pulp, the critical funding source is lost.Multi-stage projects encourage integration/collaboration between the forest and fire managers

Creative, practical problem-solving that bridges fuels and forest management departments: Hazard Fuels Reduction, multi-stage treatments We started gettin all these ideas of different ways we can make these projects more cost-effective and thats why we said, Okay, we wont sell that (e.g., chipping thinned fuels). In our eyes, in fire management if we thin out there and we pile up and burn it, were completing our objectives. Were eliminatin a risk, but the timber is not paying for anything. We gotta try to figure out a way to be [cost-] effective...

26Address market barriersDevelop diverse local markets for biomass, chips, logsMaintain and expand local wood processing infrastructure

This addresses 2 important variables for collective action:

Decrease the costs of managementEncourages longer-term commitment to place by landowners to lower discount rates27Policies, education & outreach to address barriers to independent & collective actionFederal Internal bureaucratic processesPublic concerns about smokeInsufficient resourcesPrivate corporateFinancial liability for escaped fireLack of financial assistanceLack of personnel to monitor prescribed fireTribalLimited & decreasing fundingPublic perceptions of fuels reduction projects

Collective action wont overcome all of the barriers to independent action; factors that are barriers to both must be addressed

Policy/education/outreach etc. could overcome some of these barriers

Need grant/financial assistance programs for private corporate entities to help them do needed fuels reduction of non-merch and sub-merch material and other management activities unrelated to timber production that dont produce a financial return (RAC/ARRA were past sources but have gone away)28Thank you!Contact informationscharnley@fs.fed.usEmily.Platt@oregonstate.edummsteenadams@fs.fed.usAcknowledgmentsMembers of the FPF ProjectKendra Wendel, research assistant

29