We will continue to focus on efforts for "scaling up" wildfire adaptation this week with our discussion of landscape level management. Be prepared to talk about the various efforts implicated in our readings and think of how other policies and initiatives interact to influence landscape goals.
 |
| National Forest Foundation |
Consider how you could use landscape level initiatives or programs to advance fire adaptations in different regions. Make a comment on how collaborative parties should monitor success on these initiatives. Or describe the impact of efforts that cross land ownership boundaries.
Please have your comments uploaded by Monday at noon. That will give our discussion leads time to summarize your excellent points.
I look forward to our next discussion.
McIver et al. 2021
ReplyDeleteMcIver challenges that the wildfire suppression response (though can be catastrophic) doesn’t necessarily fall into that extreme disaster response anymore. The reason for this is that wildfire suppression at this point is painfully common and can oftentimes be predicted (at least in the terms of risk probability and severity). We need to stop acting surprised when wildfires come through and decimate communities that are surrounded by years of primed fuel loading yet not prepared. Like McIver says, there is a dependence of federal agencies to “bail out” communities in times like this in terms of personnel, resources, funding, etc. Similar to the idea of LCES and 10s and 18s we need to be less reactive and more proactive. How do we create budgets based on the possibility of risk? And how do you stick strictly to a budget when communities are at risk?
Kooistra et al. 2022
I had never heard of CLRFP before. Are CLRFP projects under the same NEPA requirements or are they CatEx? My forest uses the Wyden Amendment. I really liked how collaborative this CLRFP effort is. It reminded me heavily of articles earlier on in the semester discussing the shared responsibility and risk of multiple levels of agency to individuals. Cross boundary is a touchy subject that requires give and take and compromise. I think more emphasis needs to be put on community based programs, engagement, and accountability.
Abrams et al. 2020
Managing for resilient forests is critical, not just for the hopeful positive or neutral response to wildfire, but also for the proliferation of ecosystem components and functions. A common issue I have ran into is well illustrated here: “We’re on this path of, it seems like the mentality is everything needs to be longleaf, when the truth of the matter is longleaf was probably a large component, but loblolly [pine] is native too. Shortleaf [pine] is native to there. Hardwoods are native to there. Soft mast species are native to there. I guess my fear is that we jump on this train of one-species-driven and we talk this talk of being open-minded, but yet to me that’s putting blinders on us. It’s all about longleaf.” (FMNF_FS_09) We sit and preach about how monoculture yields monoculture and that biodiversity is the goal, yet we plant nothing but hundreds of acres of longleaf. Of course there are a ton of external pressures, such as these mentioned, “bureaucratic infighting, conflicting agendas, and limited budgets and are increasingly required to collaborate with groups that constantly question the integrity of the agency the managers represent.” Solely from my perspective and experiences, I think part of this issue is inherently woven into the creation of thousand and million acre forests. It is challenging to be intimate with the land at a zoomed, focus lens on a specific area or microhabitat when you only have so much funds, time, personnel, resources, etc to manage the entire forest. So to me, the solution lies in adaptive management and finding ways to balance targeted and holistic goals.
Abrams 2020
ReplyDeleteThe paper discusses how factors such as climate change and ecology need to be considered for managing resilient landscapes, as well as the associated difficulties. The first thing I considered are agencies that have historically focused on less objectives. For instance, wildfire suppression and management versus having considerations of climate change for future practices. With emerging considerations regarding more than initial agency goals, it can be overwhelming to adapt and may be a reason why public trust may lack when an agency begins tackling newer goals. Subsequently, I realized that if I were to conduct research or management on resilient landscapes, I would utilize various fields of expertise, such as GIS specialists and fire ecologists to acquire a holistic approach for addressing considerations.
Kooistra 2022
How can the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) and other wildfire policies be better aligned with one another to promote cross-boundary cohesion? I find that many of these policies share common goals via different means. Therefore, do you think it may be better to keep these policies separate or try to unify them and their efforts?
McIver 2021
The paper says that FEMA grants to states, local governments, and Native American Tribes for wildfire suppression accounted for an additional $117.3 million in 2020, down from $262.3 in 2018. Furthermore, none of these expenditures accounted for wildfire prevention. Considering this information in tandem with considerations that are gaining more support for managers to address (i.e. climate change), how can it be ensured that as considerations increase, funding does not decrease? In addition, how may funding be acquired for wildfire prevention versus only suppression? Perhaps a cost analysis?
Abrams ’20:
ReplyDeleteForest plans represent a 10-20 year vision, have 3-4 year revision periods, and these revision periods are offset across the US. As a result, each forest’s plan revision occurs in a unique management climate. It seems like a true wicked problem - how to manage a forest with the best science, in accordance with political pressures or mandates of the time, in an economically viable way, and in a way that will serve the needs of the public. No clear answer and difficult for managers at the forest level to try and navigate.
McIver ’21:
The large federal firefighting “machine” coupled with a disaster/crisis mindset leads to large levels of spending, and often waste, during fire season. Part of the article addresses the increasing pressure to stop putting federal dollars toward protecting homes at the community level. I think if more local-level wildland crews were stood up in areas with a high level of WUI, federal responsibility and spending in these places would decrease significantly.
As an example of what this would look like:
A few years ago I did a season as an employee of a local fire department’s wildland division, on an NWCG-certified wildland fire module. My season there has come to mind quite a bit in the class when we’ve discussed the need for local knowledge/context. The module went available nationally for wildland fire assignments and also completed thinning projects and neighborhood fuels reduction as part of the local CWPP.
Having a local fire department with both structure and wildland divisions is incredibly useful for communities with high WUI. Interestingly, the fire department also profited (i.e. similar to a contract crew) by sending our module out on national assignments. In this case, the wildland module had a strong relationship with the local structure fire department (same employer), had a solid foundation in wildland fire response (national assignments), and was highly trusted by the local community (neighborhood chipping program, association with local FD).
Kooistra ’22:
The article mentions uncertainty of federal funding year to year. Do you think the way CFLRP is designed is sustainable? What do you think the selected landscapes will look like 20+ years down the road?
Abrams - How important is the use of scientific data and partnerships with outside organizations for improving an angency's ability to manage forests? How does this compare to the importance of having political support?
ReplyDeleteMclver - How can we prevent that changes in federal funding priorities influence the long-term sustainability and success of different initiatives? What strategies can organizations implement to reduce dependence on federal support?
Mclver - What policy changes or funding ideas could help states balance wildfire suppression with prevention and preparedness? Since each place has different policies and history, is there a policy change that could work everywhere?
McIver:
ReplyDeleteIt seems like it would be useful if data on wildfire spending was consistently tracked and made accessible so different parties (including people operating at different levels of government) could use it to analyze, plan, and allocate resources. I would be interested to see this data for wildfire recovery expenditures as well. Is there a precedent for states to systematically collect and share data on natural disaster spending across phases (e.g. mitigation, response, recovery)? I think it would also be useful to have data on expenditures at the local and county levels.
Abrams:
How will things change under political pressure from the current administration?
Koostria et al.
It sounds like establishing and maintaining a robust forest products industry is a challenge for many areas. I would be interested to understand the impacts of CFLRP projects on forest products industries and local economies; has progress been made to find new markets for small diameter trees and brush? Would the impacts of CFLRP projects on local forest products industries be long-term, or only last as long as CFLRP funding is provided?
Abrams:
ReplyDeleteAbrams states, "Administration changes result in the 2012 plan to be “a thing of the past”". Would it be wise to develop forms of constitutions for government agencies so important plans like the 2012 plan would not be a "thing of the past". I feel that having a constitution of sorts would reduce the miscommunication and disorganization that comes from policy and administration change while.
Mclver:
"However, event frequency and cost increases resulting in increasing claim amounts or more frequent claims, which has been the case for wildfires, may lead insurers to respond by raising premiums or reducing coverage." Is this a case of a negative feedback cycle? I ask because it seems like there is no money to do management, some money for covering fire damage, but fires still occur causing (usually) extensive damage, but results in insurances increasing their premiums and not paying because there was no management done. How can this cycle be broken?
Kooistra:
"More in-depth and longitudinal research highlighting the challenges, successes, and other outcomes of CFLRP projects will be important for adapting and improving the program through targeted resources and investments." To accurately see the successes, challenges, and other outcomes, how large of a study area would be needed? How much time would be necessary to see the outcomes from the implementation of the CFLRP projects? In a perfect world where all resources are at your disposal, how would you design this study?
1. The high turnover rate in the USFS, is a redundant limiting factor in meeting long-term management objectives. Abrams et al. (2020) is one of many case studies to present findings that allude to shortfalls in agency capacity to manage for resilient landscapes. How might existing bureaucratic structures amplify this negative feedback?
ReplyDelete2. Will the current focus on short-term, risk-averse policies, particularly those aimed at avoiding legal consequences, be viewed in the future similarly to how we now view suppression policies from the past?
3. Accounting for only 12% of suppression cost, what role should the federal government play in wildfire management? Is the federal government responsible for contributing to the collective good, without benefit? Dare I say - is the federal government free riding off residential and state investment?
4. How might a return to heavy suppression and logging practices challenge the implementation of forest plans that emphasize adaptive management protocols?
McIver et al. 2021 and Abrams et al. 2020
ReplyDeleteGiven the current political standings in terms of funding allocation changes, staffing shortages, etc. countrywide paired with existing agencywide staffing shortages, how can we insure funding for wildfire suppression is and remains adequately funded regardless of political upheaval, funding changes, etc.? Seeing as both states and federal government is responsible for finances regarding wildfire, how might we insure that enough is also set aside for mitigation and suppression? Particularly since this paper breaks things down by (western) state, how might states and communities with less access to/capacity for/investment in grants and other external funding prepare themselves in case the federal government lessens their financial coverage for wildfires in the future?
Additionally, I found it interesting that Alaska was included in the study (McIver) of western states fire suppression financing when they manage fire suppression (and in turn mitigation, prevention, response, and public opinion) so vastly differently from the other states.
Lastly, climate change impacts and the need for ecological restoration are highlighted (in the Abrams study) as keys to resilient landscapes. These topics (among many others) are on the current “hit list” as contentious topics under the current administration. How might this affect our use of and response to them as factors, strategies, impacts, etc. when managing for resilient landscapes? Also consider this conundrum in regards to grant funding, publishing efforts, etc…..
Kooistra et al. 2022
In response to the statement “ Ensuring consistent funding and leadership commitment, aligning policies across scales, supporting collaboration, encouraging innovation to support restoration and local economies, and using adaptive monitoring approaches are needed to facilitate the success of programs like CFLRP.”, there is much more work to be done. Consistent funding is currently tumultuous, leadership commitment (and proactive response, actionable outcomes, etc) is a revolving door in many land management agencies and doesn’t always include a proper handoff between replacements at various scales of management/leadership, and adaptive management isn’t embraced at the scale it needs to be to encourage widespread collaboration (due to a number of factors including personnel beliefs, lack of cohesion or communication throughout units/agencies/departments, single objective bias (favoring one over multiple or compromise), etc. This is all possible, but it is definitely an undertaking not entirely addressed in this paper.
I apologies for my delay. A super rare tornado/storms messed up our internet.
ReplyDeleteAbram’s 2021:
I certainly aligned with the findings in this paper. The findings of needed a better stream lined system, less red tape, more holistic views, and more adaptable plans. The part where they mentioned NEPA basically needing an update with all of the new knowledge we’ve gained in ecology & environmental management. Also, regarding the point of focusing on one species and basically running into the issue of “can’t see the forest for the trees”. Once there is a universal update to the data/information that it level across all of the agencies, then managers can use that as foundations knowledge tool manage their areas of expertise. Some areas would not be able to ignore the fact that over planting of one species to bring it back from extirpation needs more finesse as to not hinder other native species in the process.
Kooistra 2022:
This paper was a bit to digest. Though, it had several heavy suggestions, that if implemented would greatly improve interagency cooperation and a landscape view restoration. Which, would yield a better outcome for all. The paper real stressed the hang ups that are or could hinder the CFLRP initiatives. There defiantly needs to be a permant way to fill/provide funding, which could prove difficult with the current governmental initiative to skink government with in tern could shrink funding, therefore putting more importance on private fundraising…
McIver 2021:
Can we reduce federal support to areas that have rampant wildfires but refuse to use or don’t have plans for prescribed fire management? Would that be ethical for the land/home owners in those states to do so? Funding has always been an issue, maybe its time to get states to take a more proactive approach to appropriate land management.