Fuels, Fires, and Future Forests Restoring and sustaining resilient forests with an eye on benefits to economies and communities Hal Salwasser Dean, College of Forestry, Oregon State University SmallWood 2004 Sacramento, CA, May 19, 2004

What is a healthy landscape? Works the way it is supposed to work as stated in relevant policies and plans High quality water – clean, fishable, swim able Water quantities & timing sustain ecosystems, people – natural hydrologic function Resilient ecosystems – “handle” normal fires, droughts, storms, insects & diseases

Where does fire fit? Fire is a natural recycling, renewal process Altered fire regimes exceed range of healthy conditions Fire will occur: how, when, where, with what ecosystem consequences?

Is our current wildland fire situation healthy?  190 million acres of federal land at mod to high risk of uncharacteristic fire  70 million acres of all forestland at risk to increased insect and disease mortality  Warming climate increases severity of drought stress, increases risk to fire, insects, diseases  Invasive weeds increase fire risk

Fires create multiple threats, growing each year Biodiversity Watershed integrity Aesthetics, invasive species Air quality, global climate Water quality, quantity, timing of flows Community, economic resilience Human lives, property Financial liabilities

Forest and rangeland health: wicked problems Fuels predictable, fires not Insects, diseases exacerbated by climate Invasive weeds follow disturbance Endangered species, fires conflicting risks Climate changes plant competition Population growth/sprawl – WUI effects Public resources sapped to fight fires Social fragmentation/polarization

What are our options? Keep/put fires out – increasing costs and risks Let fires burn – huge costs and risks Put fire back in thru R x -- feasible in only some watersheds w/o pre-treatments Integrated strategy – best option in many watersheds, essential in some

What is an integrated strategy? Assess landscape-scale priorities – not WUI only Target actions/treatments strategically Prep places, landscapes to restore resiliency, for return of fire Return fire or fire surrogates to maintain desired conditions for health Monitor and research Communicate, learn, adapt

What will it take? Financial resources Integration of sciences – social, physical & biological -- with management Common vision for active collaboration, communication – community engagement Bias for boldness – risks increase with inaction Commitment to bust barriers

Does science have all the answers? No way!

Can we get there without science? No way!

Myths and realities High intensity fires are natural; only some are Cutting trees increases fire risk; it depends on what trees are cut and what is done with slash Fires should be left to burn; only where potential damage to ecosystems or property is low R x fire is effective by itself; only in rare cases w/o pre-treatments Just fire safe homes and urban interface; won’t help if crown fire is headed your way

Problems with traditional solutions Short-term focus, too timid, risk avoidance Narrow focus along disciplinary lines Science/technology can’t fix social problems Obsession with process and law Dominance of federal agencies

Busting the barriers Create federal-state-community-university partnerships: Adaptive Management Teams Take strategic, landscape-scale approach, balance short and long-term risks Focus on results over process; streamline processes for action Use technology to improve effectiveness, efficiency Give resources to the performers Generate $$ from biomaterials to help pay for work Monitor, communicate, learn and adapt

What about after the fires? Decision tree – Is policy/plan clear on direction for area in question? If no, messy gridlock – Will nature deliver what policy/plan calls for? If yes, work is through – Are restoration interventions needed? What kind? Where? How frequent is the need? – How to pay for restoration work? Federal appropriations – but federal discretionary $$ declining Revenues generated from by-products of restoration work

What about after the fires? Biscuit Burn – 400,000 acres; 220,000 have >75% trees dead – < 5-year window for reforestation from 2002 Cost increases each year -- $250 - > $1,000/acre Success decreases each year due to competition > 5 years, inaction results in decades of shrub land on most intensely burned areas, vulnerability to future fires, insects – < 5-year window for biomaterials salvage ~ 20% annual decline in economic value of dead trees – Emergency? 2 years ago maybe, now its just a disaster playing itself out

Hull Mountain story Rapid reforestation using all tools, timber dominant goal Delayed action w/o all tools, timber not dominant goal Need other options if hastened regrowth of diverse, complex conifer dominated forests that retain structural legacies yet at reduced risks from future fires, invasive species and insects is the goal

Roles for land grant universities Research – Risk reduction strategies, effects on fire behavior – Post-fire restoration options – Biomass and small wood utilization, product innovations – Decision making tools, risk assessment, e.g., Nov ’03 Conf. – Monitoring protocols Education – Degree, certificate programs, short courses Outreach – Public awareness, understanding, e.g., reports, conferences – Adaptive management teams, technical assistance – Policy options, legislative assistance, e.g., NFP, HFRA