The Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant Program

Effectiveness Assessment and Program Overview

Brett Wolk, Chad Hoffman, Claire Griebenow, and Tony ChengJanuary 14th, 2015, Front Range Roundtable LR Team Meeting, Lakewood, CO

Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO970-491-8055, brett.wolk@colostate.edu

Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant Program

2013 Colorado State Assembly authorized $9.8 million from general funds for fire mitigation.• Non-federal lands in Colorado• 50-50 match required (25% hard match)• Vegetation Management – Very Flexible– Large fuel breaks– Defensible space– Egress/Ingress– Equipment and Infrastructure

26

47

28

29 & 30 36

31

32

35

38

33 & 34

45

44

43

4241

52

51

50

49

48

27

46

39

40

Fuel Break

Roadside

D-space

Equipment/Other

All WRRG Awards Through September 2014

5337

18

22 64

25

24

16

17

1914

23

2120

1013

5

2

815

1211

7

1

93

53

54

55

56

5758

59

60 61

62

6364

65

66

6768

6970

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant Program

The Future of the WRRG Program

– Hearing Tomorrow!!

Colorado Forest Restoration Institute Role in the WRRG Program

• Additional effectiveness assessment – more than a quick walk through and pictures.

• Purpose: To inform the DNR and fire/forestry practitioners about fuel hazard mitigation effectiveness and ways to improve future treatments.– Audience:

• State/Politicians• Stakeholders and managers

Monitoring and Assessment Goals:

Education and Outreach…

Effectiveness Assessment Strategy

Pre and Post Treatment Fuels Measurements

47

36

31

44

43

51

49

27

39

Fuel Break

Roadside

D-space

Equipment/Other

WRRG Awards With CFRI Fuels Assessment Plotsas of September 2014

22 64

25

24

17

1914

5

2

9

3

Predicts relative fire hazard from 0 (low fire hazard) to9 (high).• Peer reviewed.• Free.• Easy to use and

interpret results.• Comprehensive fuels

assessment.• Applicable across

vegetation types and geography.

Fuel Characteristic Classification System FCCS

Fuels Characteristic Classification System Fire Potential Ratings (0-9)   Pre Post

Surface Fire Behavior Potential 3 3 Summary surface fire behavior potential, calculated as the maximum of spread

potential and flame length potential scaled to an index between 0-9.

  Reaction potential 2.1

2.1 Approximates the potential reaction intensity (energy released per unit area and time).

  Spread potential 3.5

3.3 Proportional to the no-wind rate of spread in surface fuel (distance per unit time).

  Flame length potential 2.1

2 Proportional to fireline intensity or flame length.

 

Crown Fire Potential 3 1 Weighted average of crown fire subpotentials.

  Crown fire initiation potential

1.7

1.6 Potential for fire to reach canopy layer.

  Crown-to-crown transmissivity potential

4.5

0 Potential for fire to carry through a canopy.

  Crown fire spreading potential.

2.9

1.5 Relative index of crown fire rate of spread.

 

Available Fuel Potential 2 1 Sum of fuel loadings in all combustion phases scaled to an index between 0-9.

  Flame available fuel potential

1.1

0.8 Sum of fuel loadings available for the flaming phase of combustion (in units of 10 tons/acre).

  Smoldering available fuel potential

0.4

0.4 Sum of fuel loadings available for the smoldering phase of combustion (in units of 10 tons/acre).

  Residual available fuel potential

0.3

0 Sum of fuel loadings available for the residual smoldering phase of combustion (in units of 10 tons/acre).

Pre vs. Post Treatment• Surface Fuels• Herbaceous• Shrubs• Trees

Accomplishments to date:• Round 1 and 2 funding only.• 38 of 52 grants with at least 1

site visit.• 21 of 52 grants with plots.

32 treatment units with plots.• ~270 pre-treatment plots

statewide.

Developing Sampling Methods for FCCS Inputs

Preliminary

Results

Pre-Treatment

Post-Treatment

Pre-Treatment

Post-Treatment

FCCS Fire Potential Ratings (0-9)

  Pre Post

Surface Fire Behavior Potential 4 3

  Reaction potential 2.1 2.1

  Spread potential 3.6 3.3

  Flame length potential 2.1 2.0

Crown Fire Potential 3 2

  Crown fire initiation potential 2.5 2.4

  Crown-to-crown transmissivity potential 4.3 0.0

  Crown fire spreading potential 2.8 2.1

Available Fuel Potential 2 2

  Flame available fuel potential 0.9 1.5

  Smoldering available fuel potential 0.7 0.3

  Residual available fuel potential 0.0 0.2

Ponderosa Pine

SURFACE FIRE BEHAVIOR

Pre Post

Fireline reaction intensity (BTU/ft2/min):

708 708

Rate of spread (ft/min):

3.4 3.0

Flame Length (ft):

1.1 1.0

Overall Preliminary Conclusions For WRRG Effectiveness Assessment

• Clear objectives = better mitigation.• Most current treatments focus on reducing

crown fire hazard, and are successful at that objective when aggressive.

• Surface fuels and slash disposal is a barrier to fire mitigation success.– Many treatments do not change and/or increase

surface fuel quantity and continuity.

Objective: Reduce wildfire hazard

through vegetation management.

Shared Treatment Goals:

– Tree’s Survive Post Fire.

– Reduce Post Fire Erosion.

– Increase Fire Suppression Safety and

Effectiveness.

WRRG Program Goals

Are Fire Hazard Mitigation Goals Met?

Mitigation Goal:

Tree’s Survive Post Fire

Reduce Post Fire Erosion

Increase Fire Suppression Safety and Effectiveness

Objective: Reduce wildfire hazard through vegetation

management.

Are Fire Hazard Mitigation Goals Met?

Mitigation Goal: Crown FireHazard

Tree’s Survive Post Fire Maybe

Reduce Post Fire Erosion Maybe

Increase Fire Suppression Safety and Effectiveness

Yes

Objective: Reduce wildfire hazard through vegetation

management.

Are Fire Hazard Mitigation Goals Met?

Mitigation Goal: Crown FireHazard

Surface FireHazard

Tree’s Survive Post Fire Maybe No

Reduce Post Fire Erosion Maybe No

Increase Fire Suppression Safety and Effectiveness

Yes Maybe

Objective: Reduce wildfire hazard through vegetation

management.

1. Utilization Opportunities

2. Prescribed Fire

SOLUTIONS

Why Should Roundtable Care?

• Lots of work on private lands. Landscape Scale.

• Private Lands becoming receptive to monitoring and LEARNING.

• WRRG monitoring program has created hunger for information.– Efficient and effective treatment methods.

Opportunities for Learning Exchange

Private• Negotiate individual tree

removal with homeowners.• No NEPA – opportunity for

innovative techniques, also continue to repeat failures.

USFS• Negotiate landscape

treatments with public groups.• NEPA moderates management

– slows advances, but ensures minimum best practices.

Thanks!

Options for Woody Slash Disposal

• Mastication• Chipping• Slash pile burn• Broadcast burn• Leave branches on site (lop and scatter)• Pay to have it hauled out (stewardship contract)• Find a buyer• Give away for free

All options have ecologicalbenefits and drawbacks

County Number of Grants Amount AwardedAlamosa 3 $59,100.00

Archuleta 2 $86,410.00Boulder 11 $2,227,745.19Chaffee 1 $10,000.00Clear Creek 3 $119,850.00Conejos 1 $2,400.00Costilla 3 $136,243.00Denver 2 $168,000.00Douglas 5 $660,125.00El Paso 9 $884,105.00Garfield 2 $49,650.00Gilpin 1 $204,992.00Grand 1 $300,000.00Huerfano 3 $369,400.00Jefferson 13 $1,120,301.00La Plata 8 $617,640.00Larimer 7 $405,280.00Las Animas 2 $368,860.00Mineral 1 $9,000.00Montezuma 1 $22,800.00Montrose 1 $12,353.00Ouray 2 $68,302.00Park 2 $353,333.00San Juan 1 $50,935.00Summit 3 $267,500.00Teller 1 $1,000,000.00

Rounds 1-3 County Breakdown