In 2003 British Columbia experienced a devastating fire season reminding us all of the social, economic and biological consequences of fire. The 2003 fire season was like no other in its impact on communities throughout B.C. The nine significant interface fires that occurred throughout the Southern Interior of the province highlighted the fact that we continue to push community development into those ecosystems most susceptible to frequent fire.

This past fire season has also heightened our awareness of the negative impacts of long-term fire exclusion and the resulting changes in stand structure, declining forest health, increased fire severity, productivity loss and the resulting negative impacts on air and water quality caused by severe fire. While management actions cannot reduce the probability of fire, mitigation strategies to reduce fuels in areas of identified risk, based on the best available science, may limit the impacts of fire and increase the probability of success in fire suppression efforts.

This report provides an overview of current forest policy and practices that impact the hazard and risk of fire faced by wildland-urban interface communities in British Columbia. The report outlines a strategic approach to dealing with the immediate hazard and risk problem and provides short, medium, and long-term policy and practice recommendations for areas at risk within and immediately adjacent to interface communities.

The authors of this report were engaged by Gary Filmon – Chair, Firestorm 2003 – Provincial Firestorm Review to provide an overview and recommendations on forest practices and policy as they apply to the terms of reference of the review, specifically:

- risk assessment processes for determining the potential for interface fires - to assess the methods used in determining what the risks might be from interface fires and how local governments and the province determine the response to fires threatening communities.

- mitigation strategies used for reducing the potential for interface fires, including the development of prevention strategies and hazard, risk and vulnerability assessments.

The following report on forest policy and practices, as they relate to fire management in British Columbia, attempts to provide an overview of the context and history, challenges, and potential options and arguments related to solving some of the complex problems associated with fire risk in the wildland-urban interface. The report also documents short, medium, and long-term recommendations and priorities that we recommend for consideration by the 2003 Firestorm Provincial Review.

Context and History – The Problem

The Province of British Columbia is dominated by a diverse landscape of terrestrial ecosystems, many of which have evolved under the influence of a historic fire regime. A fire regime refers to the nature of fire as it occurs over extended time periods and the prominent immediate effects of fire that generally characterize an ecosystem (Brown 2000). Fire regimes are typically described by frequency, magnitude (severity or intensity), extent, and seasonality (Agee 1993). Most short interval fire regimes (fire prone ecosystems) in B.C. can be described as one of the following: infrequent light surface fires (greater than 25 year return interval), frequent light surface fires (1-25 year return interval), infrequent severe surface fires (greater than 25 year return interval), and short return interval crown fires (25-100 year return interval) (Heinselman 1973).

The fire regime is primarily a function of the fire environment as defined by weather, topography and fuels. While weather and topography are critical components of the fire environment, the only component where human intervention has influence is the fuel. Since fuel influences the severity of fire, its consideration is a key element in understanding risk and potential damage. Weather is important in determining ignition potential and fire behaviour, while topography primarily influences fire behaviour.

Efforts to suppress fires in British Columbia have been ongoing for more than 100 years. Fire suppression was effective at controlling many fires in the first part of the century. However, it was not until the early 1940’s, when fixed wing aircraft became the cornerstone of fire suppression, that fire was largely controlled throughout the province. Today, the average success rate of initial attack, measured as the number of fires contained at less than four hectares, has been 94%. In 2003, one of the worst fire seasons on record, this number fell to 89%.

The late Dr. J. H.G. Smith recognized the risks to the wildland-urban interface and the potential for catastrophic fire damage more than 30 years ago (Taylor 2004). Compared with other parts of the world, including the U.S. and Australia, B.C. has been relatively fortunate in escaping significant damage related to wildland-urban interface fires. The current area estimate for the wildland-urban interface, within the Southern Interior of the province, is approximately 400,000 ha. This number is expected to grow as human development continues to push into those ecosystems most susceptible to frequent fire.

Historically in B.C., fuel management, specifically the use of prescribed fire, has been used for hazard abatement, wildlife habitat enhancement and as a silviculture tool used to prepare the site for planting. Up until the late 1980’s prescribed burning was a common forestry practice used throughout B.C (Figure 1). Environmental concerns related to smoke management and the risk of escapes prompted a significant decline in the area burned.

Similar to other jurisdictions, long-term fire exclusion appears to have contributed to the extreme fire behaviour experienced throughout the Southern Interior this past year. Long-term fire exclusion has been associated with a number of impacts including changes in stand structure, declining forest health, productivity loss, and the resulting negative impacts on air and water quality caused by severe fires.

The media and others categorized this past summer’s fires as a one in 50 or one in 100-year event. The Garnet Fire in Penticton (1994) and the Silver Creek Fire in Salmon Arm (1998), in combination with this past season, provide us with a warning that changes in the fire environment (weather and fuels) may be influencing both the frequency and severity of fire behaviour in many parts of British Columbia.

Policies and practices at all levels of government must be carefully reviewed to determine how we should respond to the fires of 2003. The size and scale of the problem is such that we must act strategically if we are to be effective in allocating human and financial resources to solving the problem. We must consider the influence of human activity and the complex network of static reserves that contribute to fire risk. The Okanagan Mountain Park Fire clearly demonstrated that a lack of consideration for fire in resource management can have devastating impacts on society and the environment. Management goals must be integrated with ecological principals and understanding if we are to successfully manage the fuels and fire risk in these types of environments.

Figure 1. Summary of the area burned for site preparation – broadcast and spot burning 19981/82 to 2001/02.

(Source Ministry of Forests – Forest Practices Branch).

If the province is unable to act swiftly to deal with the combined effects of rapid development of the most fire prone parts of the province, and the negative ecological effects of fire exclusion occurring within these same areas, then we can expect to see a significant growth in the area at risk and potentially more fires with consequences similar to those experienced this past summer.

Our success in dealing with the existing level of fire risk in B.C. will not be measured over the next five years. It will likely be measured over the next 15 to 50 years. It will take a considerable amount of time and resources to reverse the long-term impacts of fire exclusion.

Challenges

Developing a consistent approach to the management of fuels on public and private land

This past fire season highlights the need for private landowners, forest tenure holders, and government to adopt practices that enhance the long-term safety of interface communities. One of the primary factors contributing to wildfire threat is the extensive accumulation of fuel in many of our forest and rangeland ecosystems. These unnaturally high accumulations can be attributed to a number of practices including human settlement, forest resource, wildlife, biodiversity, and range management.

Human settlement and development often involves land clearing and biomass removal. Material can be removed from the site, burned in piles on-site, or as is often the case, material may be left to decompose (Figure 2). In developed areas fuels can include landscaping material, cultivated gardens, or simply unmanaged native vegetation. Significant fuel accumulations within municipal boundaries, and on recreational property, as well as concentrated wildland-urban interface developments within Regional Districts can all contribute to the fuel and fire risk. Since much of this land is owned privately, measures available to address this problem are limited.

Figure. 2. Fuel accumulations associated with development of a new subdivision north of Pemberton in the wildland-urban interface. Fuels were piled and left untreated in 2002.

Forest resource management activities directly affect the composition, arrangement, and quantity of fuels on a given site. Activities such as timber harvesting, pre-commercial thinning, spacing, pruning, herbicide application, and fire suppression, all have the potential to create fuel accumulations. Even prescribed fire, if improperly applied, can contribute to a fuel hazard if, for example, a large number of overstory trees are killed.

Fuel accumulations related to forestry activities occur in many parts of the province, both adjacent to and within wildland-urban interface communities. Ownership of the problem involves all levels of government and private landowners.

For the past 10 years the conservation of wildlife and biodiversity in B.C. has been focused on the creation of static reserves. Notable exceptions do occur where, for example, active management for ungulate species has involved the use of thinning and prescribed fire. Where large prescribed fires for wildlife management have occurred, fuel management is typically not a concern. This is particularly true of a number of areas in northeastern B.C. where wildlife burning has been practiced extensively. However, a static conservation approach, in fire prone ecosystems, often leads to high-risk fuel accumulations that cannot be aggressively treated. Dynamic processes such as insect attacks, diseases, drought, and windthrow result in tree mortality and fuel accumulations that, left unchecked, create significant risk to the structure and function of ecosystems. These conservation reserves typically occur on Crown land and are part of a broad-based provincial land management strategy to protect habitat and biodiversity. They include Provincial Parks and Protected Areas, Old Growth Management Areas, Wildlife Tree Patches, Identified Wildlife Management Areas, and Riparian Reserves. These reserves are important to the citizens of the province and require protection, but they must also be protected from catastrophic wildfire.

Range management practices, grass seeding, and over grazing have contributed to the overall landscape-level fuel risk through alteration of species composition and the historic fire regime. A diverse mix of native grasses and shrubs has historically influenced grassland fires with a specific seasonal effect on fire occurrence. This means that many of the native species have been available as fuel for a fire during specific times of the year. The introduction of exotic grass species has greatly expanded the period of flammability of grassland ecosystems. An example is cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) (Figure 3) from the Russian steppe, which undergoes rapid spring curing and stays cured for much of the summer and fall. Native grasses are typically vulnerable in the spring when cheatgrass is available to burn. Over grazing of rangelands often results in the establishment of non-palatable exotic grasses, herb species, and/or native conifers. Tree growth expanding onto historic rangelands is described as a process called encroachment. Encroachment provides fuel loads that increase the potential for rapid fire spread. These rangeland practices occur on both private and Crown land grazing leases.

Figure 3. A vigorous stand of cheatgrass that has invaded a recently burned area in the Okanagan Valley. The dead shrub in the background is antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), which was killed by high-severity fire.

Developing appropriate practices to treat high-risk fuels and determining the scale at which treatments are effective

Mitigating any fuel hazard involves understanding the relationship between fuel, potential fire behaviour, and the ecosystem. Historic fire regimes contain a range of fuel characteristics including: loading, depth, arrangement, composition, and size. All of these attributes are affected by the frequency of fire and the productivity of the ecosystem. Some contemporary fire regimes have been altered substantially when compared to historic conditions. This is the result of reduced fire occurrence or of burn intensity and severity that exceed historic levels. Prolonged interruption of fires, especially in short return interval fire regimes, results in both an increase in fuel loading and a change in fuel characteristics. The classic fire exclusion example compares the historic condition of open ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests with light grass and needle fuels, to the contemporary dense forest with dead and dying Douglas-fir and deep accumulations of branches, needles, and duff on the forest floor. Fire in the historic condition has limited effects on the structure and function of the ecosystem when compared with structure mortality and reduction of site productivity that results from fire in the contemporary condition. Recognizing the historic and contemporary context of fuels relative to their effects on the ecosystem is therefore key to recognizing fire risk.

Knowledge of historic and contemporary fire effects on an ecosystem should be applied to mitigation of fuel hazards and the safe design of any human developments in fire prone ecosystems. Land management practices in the wildland-urban interface must consider the creation of fuels, the type and distribution of fuel, and recognition of a fuel hazard and its mitigation if we are to successfully protect the economic and social values of urban interface communities.

Treatment of fuels related to past practices requires a strategic approach that focuses treatment on the highest-hazard areas. Where the cost and feasibility of widespread fuel treatment is prohibitive, consideration should be given to altered suppression strategies such as pre-positioning of resources.

Build on the knowledge of the past decade recognizing ecological, economic, community, and public policy issues

Our collective knowledge from the past decade includes the experiences of several significant interface fires including the Garnet Fire in Penticton and the Silver Creek Fire in Salmon Arm; and yet these recent catastrophic events have had little perceived impact, as a catalyst for change, on ecological, economic, community, and public policy. Our ecological policies have included land-use and biodiversity planning conducted in the absence of consideration of fire as a threat to sustainability. With few exceptions, policies related to community development have poorly considered fire from a public safety perspective and have accelerated the expansion of the wildland-urban interface throughout many parts of the province. Our economic policies have been focused on relaxation of forest utilization standards that will result in higher fuel loadings in some ecosystems and an increased fire risk. In reviewing the events of the last decade, it is clear that it has been difficult to make meaningful changes related to fire management policy.

Are there different ways of doing things?

In comparing the fuel and wildfire hazard problems of the Southern Interior of B.C. and the western United States there are a number of similarities.. When comparing fire ecology and fuels between the two countries, these similarities are greater than when comparing the Southern Interior to the rest of Canada. The settlement histories of these regions of B.C. and the U.S. include the development of large numbers of communities and homes located within frequent fire regimes. This settlement pattern started in the mid-1800’s and continued into the early 1900’s. This rapid expansion into rural ecosystems continues today within frequent fire regimes of both countries. The historic and current fire regimes and fuel types, in the highest fire-risk ecosystems, are very similar. The fire problems that have plagued the western U.S. over the last two decades may just be starting to occur within the Southern Interior, with the potential for similar socio-economic and environmental consequences. There is much that we can learn from the U.S. response to the problem.

The U.S. approach to fire management has three key components: fire management organization, development of treatment options, and funding of treatments. In the area of fire management organization, the U.S. has found:

large, stand-alone suppression organizations are expensive to operate and do not necessarily result in reduced numbers of large fires or reduced costs associated with large fires (Large Fire Cost Reduction Action Plan, USDA Forest Service, USDI, National Association of State Foresters 2003),
fire suppression organizations at all levels need to be integrated with other land management agencies and groups to deliver a program of fire management, not a narrow program of fire suppression (An Agency Strategy for Fire Management, USDA Forest Service 2000),

Fuel treatments exposed to large fires in high-risk forest types, similar to those found in B.C., have shown some encouraging results. The U.S. has collected good empirical data on these treatments from a number of areas that have been exposed to large wildfires. The Americans have invested heavily in research to develop products and utilize biomass in smaller diameter stand types that contribute to fire risk. As part of fuel treatment operations, a large prescribed fire program has been developed that has withstood both legal and environmental challenges.

Until recently, funding of fuel reduction treatments in the U.S. was considered the greatest challenge. The initial reaction of the U.S. government to the fire problem was a large funding allocation with limited program goals and targets to guide the process. In many instances these funds were not effectively utilized. Quotas for area treated and dollars spent undermined any strategic and/or spatial prioritization of treatment. Fire managers treated a lot of area, but in review these areas were considered low-risk and in many instances the results of the treatments were uncertain and even dubious. The major problem with these initial expenditures was that the USDA Forest service, historically a risk-averse agency, was being directed to carry out high-risk projects with little or no incentive. The Congressional General Accounting Office in 2002 issued a report recommending that that fuel reduction funds appropriated by Congress be subject to a threat prioritization assessment. A follow-up to these latest concerns is the development and recent approval of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. This Act directs federal land management agencies to treat highest risk communities and provides annual appropriations ($750 million U.S.) to tackle this specific problem. The Act also provides support ($350 million U.S. per year) for research expenditures focused on biomass utilization.

Options and Arguments

The wildfires of 2003 present the Province of British Columbia with a range of management options and opportunities. It can be debated that what happened this past summer was an historical anomaly, an infrequent event and therefore not worthy of a significant shift in management direction. It could also be argued that what happened this past summer was yet another warning, similar to those of Penticton in 1994 (Garnet Fire) and Salmon Arm in 1998 (Silver Creek Fire), of future things to come. In B.C., there is still considerable debate within government and the forest research community relating to the idea that fire regimes have changed significantly and that risk reduction treatments are necessary. It is important to have perspective on the issue, considering available research, fire patterns in the western U.S., and most importantly the social, economic, environmental, and political risks associated with an approach that ignores the problem.

A status quo approach to managing this problem comes with considerable risks should interface fires of similar consequence occur again in the future. The costs of this year’s fire season have been significant and well publicized. Many related costs have not been documented including the costs of rehabilitation, lost tourism revenue, associated health costs, impacts on municipal water supplies, hydro distribution system repairs, and lost forest sector revenue.

A management response to increased fire risk and damage could be to increase levels of suppression spending in isolation of broader fire management concerns (interface expansion, ecology, and fuels). This approach has been extensively debated within the U.S. and was one of the first options investigated in response to destructive fires. While the response has been to increase some suppression spending at the state and local level, the foundation of the U.S. fire management strategy is the aggressive assessment and mitigation of fuels in high-risk areas.

An alternative to increased suppression spending is the application of an alternate tactical suppression response. For example, a modified tactical approach to fire suppression might consider allowing some wildfires to burn or to limit suppression actions. This type of response may not be socially acceptable, and may create unwanted smoke and/or other environmental concerns. However, options do exist for prioritizing wildfires for suppression based on risk, behaviour, predicted ecological effects, and location. This type of approach requires attention to detail in delineating distinct burn units under pre-written and approved plans. Clear objectives must be well established ahead of time, and once ignited a fire is actively managed and monitored for compliance with the approved plan. This type of program can be successfully implemented to meet a number of fire management objectives, however, applying this approach in B.C. would require a substantial shift in management philosophy and development of detailed plans and fire expertise. The greatest limitation to this approach is that there is low utility (high risk and no public support) in its application to interface fire suppression.

Limiting growth and development within the interface could be argued as an effective response to reducing interface fire risk; however this is not a practical solution to the problem and would not be acceptable to the public. The most practical option to pursue in effecting change related to interface fire management is through provision of land management regulations related to the allocation and development of Crown land. Currently there are limited or no restrictions on land development as they relate to fuels and wildfire hazards in the interface.

The insurance industry can play a key role in the management of interface fire risk. Insurance access and rates are seen as a contributing solution, through the creation of incentives to mitigate interface risk and control of migration and development into the interface. Higher premiums will stimulate individual homeowners to more broadly consider risk and development in the interface and may be used as a deterrent for development of high-risk areas without proper consideration for fire. Insurance premiums can create incentives for homeowners to become independently proactive in reducing private property fuel hazards.

As discussed earlier, fuels management as part of a broader fire management strategy is an important element in reducing interface fire risk in the U.S.. Proactive mitigation has the greatest potential to reduce fire behaviour potential and resultant fire severity. Fuel treatments alone will not reduce the probability of fire but will increase the chance of suppression success, once a fire has started. While a number of treatment options exist, the end result must be a reduction in fire behaviour and severity if fuel treatments are to be deemed successful.

Is prescribed fire the magic bullet to solving all of our fuel and fire management problems within the interface? In short, the answer to this question is no. Prescribed fire should be considered as one of the available tools in the treatment toolbox. In many situations thinning alone may provide the safest, lowest risk and most cost effective fuel treatment. Prescribed fire should be considered in the broader context of all fire management options including policy, prevention, fuel mitigation and suppression.

Recommendations

Risk Reduction

The only element of fire behaviour (fuel, weather, and topography) that we can directly affect through management is fuel. Fuel hazard abatement can be achieved using a number of recognized strategies. These include prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, mechanical thinning followed by prescribed fire, mulching and chipping, and fuel removal from the site (Pollet and Omi 2002; Omi and Martinson 2002; Peterson et al. 2003; Rummer et al. 2003). Many of these fuel management treatments, and their related environmental, economic and social effects are the subject of a large U.S. research initiative referred to as the Fire and Fire-Surrogate Treatment Program (www.fs.fed.us/ffs). Any treatment that reduces the potential for high-intensity and high-severity fire is a good candidate for use. However, even though a specific treatment may deliver on the requisite level of fire behaviour reduction, it may not be socially, economically, or environmentally acceptable.

Two distinct types of fuel hazard need to be addressed: a) fuel hazards resulting from current and future land management activities and b) existing fuel hazards. The largest area of fuel reduction required within or adjacent to the wildland-urban interface is associated with fuels created through historic harvesting, silviculture, and fire suppression practices. With little potential for cost-recovery, the treatment of these fuel types will require a considerable financial commitment.

Fuel hazard reduction prescriptions must address three specific management goals: 1) treatments must reduce potential fire behaviour, 2) treatments must create a lasting treatment effect, and 3) all potential treatments must consider the broader social, economic, and environmental impacts. .

The treatment of existing fuel hazards in the wildland-urban interface will require an investment in research and operational trials to determine the most acceptable economic, social and environmental approach to remove or reduce complex fuel hazards.

Responsibility for Risk Reduction

The regulatory framework for determining a fuel hazard is currently contained within the Forest Fire Prevention and Suppression Regulations section of the Forest and Range Practices Act of BC. Schedule 7 of the Regulations outlines Fire Hazard Assessment that can be applied to fuel hazard issues within the wildland-urban interface.

Responsibility for current and future abatement of a fuel hazard, once identified, should be the responsibility of the party that created the hazard.

Responsibility for the abatement of fuel hazards resulting from historic practice and policy is the responsibility of the landowner.

Pilot Fuel Treatment Projects

The 2003 fire season has created a renewed interest in prescribed burning and fuel treatments in general. While there is a perception that fuel treatments will reduce the damage associated with catastrophic fire, there is poor understanding of where fuel treatments are effective, what size of treatment area is required, the timing and temporal effectiveness of treatments, the appropriate type of treatment (for example thinning alone, prescribed burning alone, combinations of thinning and burning) and the associated ecological and social impacts of treatments. Fuel treatments in isolation will not reduce the probability of fire; however they may improve suppression efforts if designed correctly, and at a scale large enough to impact fire behaviour. Complicating the fuel treatment issue is the decline of the provincial prescribed burning program in the 1980’s and the loss of capacity and expertise to successfully implement a large treatment program.

To overcome the uncertainty and capacity problem of developing a comprehensive fuel treatment program, it is recommended that a network of three to five pilot fuel treatment projects be selected (based on an approved community protection plan) in locations of known fire risk and within areas of problem fuel types. Pilot projects should be of practical size and scale within or in immediate proximity to high-risk wildland-urban interface communities. The focus of these pilots should be to produce meaningful, short-term results that can be used to guide incremental community hazard reduction projects. These small-scale pilot projects should be used to measure the social, economic, and ecological costs and benefits of fuel treatments. Pilots can also be used to advance larger-scale projects.

It is important that the province establish centers of excellence in the design, implementation, and effectiveness testing of fuel management strategies at several regional locations. These centers of excellence will provide the building blocks required to advance adaptive management science and knowledge and develop capacity. This type of approach will also limit the risk of failed treatments and expenditure of large sums of money on prescribed burning in the absence of proven results. This slower transition to developing a larger program will also minimize the risk of prescribed burning escapes.

Strategic Planning

The size and spatial scale of fire risk adjacent to and within numerous communities necessitates the development of a strategic plan to improve fire prevention, identify resource values, prioritize and mitigate wildland-urban interface risks, and assign protection priorities (based on threats to human life, property and resource values). This strategic plan should be coordinated provincially and developed by an interagency fire strategy team with membership from all levels of government. Where required, independent experts should support this team.

The development of the strategic plan should be focused on identification of those areas of the province where communities, infrastructure, and watersheds have the greatest potential to be impacted by large-scale fires. The identification of these areas should be based on consideration of both the probability and consequence of fire (values at risk). Allocation of funds and resources should be based on a risk profile evaluation that considers the combination of probability and consequence (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Risk approach applied to the quantification of probability and consequence.

Develop a Community Protection Plan

The first priority should be to stratify communities at a coarse scale for risk assessment based on the probability and consequence of fire in the wildland-urban interface. These areas should be identified as community protection zones that receive priority for funding, fire management planning, fuels mitigation, and protection priority. The following regions of the province encompass areas with high potential fire probability and/or high potential consequence based on population and development density.

Region 1 Southern/Central Interior – all wildland-urban interface communities east of the Coast Mountains to the Alberta border, and Prince George south to the US border.

Region 2 East Vancouver Island, Gulf Islands and Sunshine Coast – all wildland-urban interface communities of eastern Vancouver Island from Victoria to Campbell River, the Sunshine Coast from Gibsons to Powell River, and all of the Gulf Islands.

Region 3 Lower Mainland – all wildland-urban interface communities within the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley, and extending north from West Vancouver to D’Arcy at Anderson Lake.

Develop a Provincial Zonation Strategy

For the remainder of the province and for areas outside of identified community protection zones (high risk wildland-urban interface) identified above, a more comprehensive protection strategy is required that identifies different levels of fire protection priority based on values at risk. A sample zonation approach could be adopted as follows:

Critical Protection Zone – this zone delineates areas where life and property are threatened. This zone includes small communities, low structure density, and/or high resource values. These areas would receive priority protection status outside of community protection zones.

Full Protection Zone – this zone delineates areas with important resource values including water, timber supply, and other significant resources that require fire protection. All fires in this zone will receive full suppression and fire size will be minimized.

Limited Protection Zone –this zone delineates areas where resource values are low and risk of extensive fire damage is limited by regional climate and/or vegetation. Fires may be allowed to burn within this zone.

Time is of the essence and it is recommended that a provincial-level strategic plan with community protection and zonation strategies be completed within a one-year time frame.

Use Of The Best Available Planning Tools

Several analysis tools that provide strategic planning information have been developed and applied at landscape-level scales. Wildfire Threat Analysis (Hawkes and Beck 1997, Ohlson et. al. 2003) is a methodology that can be applied to determine meaningful provincial scale wildfire risk comparisons. These methods should be applied to develop a threat analysis to support development of community protection planning. For ecosystems of the province with low severity, high frequency fire regimes, other mapping applications (e.g. condition class – Blackwell et. al. 2003) have been developed to assess the temporal and spatial scale of hazardous fuel types. These applications should be expanded and used to support risk analysis planning efforts. Community protection planning should also involve robust testing of protection and mitigation strategies against predicted fire behaviour under extreme fire conditions using different fire behaviour models. It is important that the results of these analyses be provided to fire managers in the field, forest managers, municipalities, and regional districts. All analysis tools should be compatible with existing GIS and computer management systems.

Municipal/Regional District Level Fire Planning

Municipalities within fire prone areas must formally adopt the FireSmart (Partners in Protection 2003) standard for community protection for both private and public property. The FireSmart approach has been adopted by a wide range of governments and is a recognized template for reducing and managing fire risk in the wildland-urban interface. The most important components of the FireSmart approach are the adoption of the hazard assessment systems for wildfire, site and structure and the proposed solutions and mitigation outlined for vegetation management, structure protection, and infrastructure development. At a minimum, this standard should be applied to all new subdivision developments.

Forest Practices and Policy

The following section on forest practices and policy describes land management issues that require consideration in the protection of the wildland-urban interface. Policies and practices recommendations described below should be applied specifically to high-risk wildland-urban interface communities. While similar consideration should be given to Crown land outside the wildland-urban interface, this issue is outside the scope of the terms of reference for this review.

The 1995 Ministry of Forests (MOF) reorganization and consolidation of the Protection Branch separated land management and forest protection functions within the MOF. This reorganization resulted in an efficient and effective fire suppression organization. However, this separation of land and fire management policy and practice has resulted in a significant reduction in the consideration for, and the integration of, fire management into the land management decision-making process. This has resulted in a number of issues that can be summarized as follows:

Forest Act

Annual Allowable Cut (AAC)

The annual allowable cut sets the available harvest volume for a given tenure holder (TFL, woodlot, and/or TSA). The goal of any tenure holder is to maximize the economic value of AAC apportioned to a given license, while at the same time conforming to social and environmental standards applied in the Forest and Range Practices Act and other related legislation.

On Crown Land, one of the most effective fuel management strategies is the removal of hazardous fuel types by timber harvesting. Often these hazardous fuel types are composed of low quality and/or low volume forest stands that are marginal or uneconomic harvest opportunities. Regardless of the quality and volume of wood available in these high hazard stand types, the volume harvested contributes to the AAC of a given license. This policy is considered a disincentive to proactive fuel and fire management.

The Ministry of Forests should amend AAC determinations in fire prone ecosystems to encourage hazard reduction treatments in marginal and uneconomic stand types within the wildland-urban interface. Marginal and uneconomic harvest opportunities focused on community fire protection should not be considered part of the annual harvest quota.

Payments to Government (Stumpage)

The treatment of hazardous fuel types within the interface, as discussed above, are often marginal economic opportunities and there is little incentive for a given licensee to harvest in these areas. The addition of stumpage (the crown rent for timber) to the basic cost of harvest often negates economic viability of operating in these low quality stand types. The difficulty of this situation is compounded by the complexities of the softwood lumber agreement and perceived stumpage related subsidies. The move to an auction based stumpage system may provide opportunities to deal with this problem.

In the short term, where there is an identified fire risk to a community, and where there is limited economic capacity to carry out a hazard reduction treatment after stumpage has been levied, the crown should develop a methodology to reduce the amount of stumpage paid (potentially to zero) as an incentive to encourage the harvest of high risk fuel types.

Forest Practices Code of B.C.

The following section outlines recommendations related to the Forest Practices Code. British Columbia is in a transition to a results-based forest practices code governed by the Forest and Range Practices Act. Since the new legislation has not been fully enacted the section headings below follow the existing Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act

Strategic Operational Planning

A number of Regional Land Use Plans and Local Resource Management Plans (LRMP’s) have been developed for the province, yet few of these plans address fire management in a meaningful way, considering the impacts on ecosystems, and the relationship to other forest management activities. Environmental guidelines associated with a number of these plans are in conflict with sound fire management policies. For example, within fire-prone ecosystems, the retention of coarse woody debris and high stand densities for ungulate winter range has the potential to create contiguous areas of hazardous fuel. Additionally, fire behaviour, fire effects and fire sustainability are not adequately considered in the delineation of forest reserves such as Old Growth Management Areas (OGMA’s), riparian reserves, and wildlife tree patches (WTP’s).

Fire management considerations must become part of land management decision-making. Fire related considerations must be better integrated and more carefully considered in all land use planning. It is recommended that approved and existing Land Use Plans and LRMP’s be reviewed and amended as required to incorporate fire management considerations. Fire managers must be available to influence and participate in land management planning.

Timber Harvesting

1. Waste and Utilization

Standard timber utilization requirements are currently enforced for each of the different tenure types. Standard timber utilization requirements for tree species, stump height and diameter, log top diameter, log length, and log quality (or grade) are established and maintained for all Crown timber, taking into account social, environmental, and economic factors associated with timber harvesting. Modified timber utilization requirements are at the discretion of the District Manager. The standard timber utilization requirements may be modified on a site-by-site basis. Generally, such modifications will require more stringent timber utilization requirements. These waste and utilization standards greatly influence the quantity of harvest slash that remains on site after the completion of logging operations which, in turn, influences the associated fire risk.

It is recommended that standard timber utilization requirements within and adjacent to the wildland-urban interface be reviewed and revised as necessary, in fire prone ecosystems, with greater consideration for surface and stand-level fire hazard.

Silviculture

1. Stocking Standards

During the mid to late 1980’s there was considerable public concern and debate associated with reforestation standards and practices during a period characterized by a sympathetic administration. The response to public concerns was the development of regional stocking standard guidelines based on the provincial biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification. These initial guidelines were developed using professional judgements with limited data analysis to support the process. In 1995 the Forest Practices Code converted these stocking guidelines to binding legal standards when included in an Operational Plan (Forest Development Plan or Silviculture Prescription). On December 17, 2002, streamlining amendments to the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act and regulations came into effect, which provides more flexibility in the application of stocking standards. How these recent Forest Practices Code amendments will influence reforestation policy is at this time uncertain.

The original stocking standards assumed a management objective of production of coniferous sawlogs. Subsequently, they have evolved to include a range of management objectives including management of broadleaf species, uneven aged stand management, and grizzly bear management.

In general, the process of setting stocking standards is based on management objectives from a higher-level plan and/or landscape unit plans (TFL Management and Working Plans, Resource Management Plans, and Timber Supply Area objectives) for the area in question. If these standards are different than the suggested guidelines, a rationale must be attached. Based on this information, the District Manager approves or rejects the application. When approved by the District Manager, the standards are legally enforceable.

The objective and application of stocking standards is to ensure that harvested areas of the province are appropriately and adequately stocked with a new forest. In theory the system contains enough flexibility for foresters to deal with stand and forest level issues and is a sound forest management policy. However, in fire prone ecosystems, as forest level plans have not adequately addressed the issue of fire management (and the tradeoffs of objectives between timber production, other resource issues and forest health), and/or prescribing and reviewing foresters do not adequately understand these issues, there has been limited consideration for stocking standards as they relate to fire. The Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan is one of the only plans where there has been adequate consideration for stocking standards as they relate to fire management. In many areas of the province our goal to achieve full stocking has inadvertently increased the number of trees in these ecosystems, which historically were more open and contained fewer trees, resulting in a significant increase in fire risk. The application of stocking standards has influenced both reforestation practices (the number of trees planted) and harvesting practices (Drybelt Douglas-fir – regeneration protection). As outlined above, higher tree densities are also contributing to forest health problems in some circumstances.

It is recommended that the stocking standards (regeneration policies) and harvesting practices (regeneration protection) applied in fire prone ecosystems be reviewed and amended where these policies and practices are contributing to forest health problems, fuels and fire risk. These revised stocking standard guidelines should deal with tradeoffs between management objectives (i.e. timber production versus forest health and community protection).

2. Spacing Slash

Spacing is defined as the cutting of undesirable trees within a young stand to reduce competition among the residual trees. The cut trees (slash) are usually not removed from the site. The objectives of spacing are varied and can include any of the following:

· control density to meet tree growth objectives

· meet biodiversity and wildlife habitat resource objectives

· maintain or enhance forest health

· manage species composition and stand structure

· increase stand value.

The practice of spacing in British Columbia as a silviculture tool saw limited application, primarily for research, in the 1960’s and 1970’s. A global recession and incentives to create employment during the early 1980’s resulted in broader use of spacing as an acceptable silviculture tool for stocking control. Since that time, the area treated by spacing has steadily increased, reaching levels in the 1990’s that exceeded 40,000 hectares per year (Figure 5). Recent changes to the Forest Practices Code and reductions in silviculture funding may result in a decline in the area spaced, however this practice has resulted in large areas of contiguous surface fuel throughout many parts of the province. Within fire prone ecosystems and even in some of the drier parts of the coast (CDF and CWHxm ecosystems), these high surface fuel accumulations are considered a serious fire hazard (Figure 6). The period of risk is variable, lasting between 10 to 20 years, and is dependent on climate.

Figure 5. Summary of total area spaced on Crown land from 1981 to 1998.

Figure 6. Accumulations of surface fuels associated with spacing slash.

For any new spacing project in fire prone ecosystems, within or adjacent to a wildland-urban interface, it is recommended that all spacing slash be either removed from the site or piled and burned on site to mitigate the surface fuel hazard near potential ignition sources (e.g. roads and trails).

For areas that were previously spaced in fire prone ecosystems, within or adjacent to a wildland-urban interface, it is recommended that these areas be assessed for hazard and abatement.

3. Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire has been identified by many stakeholders in the province as a beneficial tool for resolving fuels and wildfire threat within the interface. However, two issues have plagued the practice: 1) inconsistent funding of burn programs, and 2) failure of prescribed burns to meet stated objectives (fires escaped, burned too hot, didn’t consume enough material, etc.). These issues are seen as significant impediments to the widespread acceptance and use of prescribed fire in B.C.

Prescribed fire is constrained by two types of objectives: 1) the area objective (keeping fire impacts limited to a predetermined area), and 2) the ecological objectives (ecologically appropriate, attainable and compatible, tied to long-term management goals, part of integrated resource planning, quantitative, measurable, and monitored). Meeting burn objectives is dependent on well-trained and qualified burn teams. The proposed MOF burn boss qualification system does not adequately provide training in the disciplines of fire ecology, fire behaviour, and prescribed fire ignition operations. Making accurate and timely predictions of fire behaviour and fire effects are key to safely and effectively carrying out successful prescribed burns.

Multiple benefits to fuels and wildfire hazard reduction in the dry forests of B.C. can be achieved with an expanded provincial prescribed fire program that utilizes both public and private resources. However, the knowledge, experience, and ability to deliver on such a program is currently limited in B.C. In order to rapidly build the capacity to safely and effectively carry out prescribed fire, the province must consider the following:

· Adopt for use in B.C. the prescribed fire position training curriculum similar to that developed by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (http://www.nwcg.gov/) in Boise, Idaho;

· Adopt for use in B.C. a process similar to the National Interagency Incident Management System (http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/operations/niims.shtml) Task Book position practicum system;

· Set standards for prescribed burn team position qualification and certification based on the above noted curriculum and practicum;

· Investigate for use in B.C. the numerous prescribed fire and fire behaviour decision aids developed for use in similar fuel types in the U.S;

· In the interim, until a larger trained and qualified workforce is established, develop regional prescribed fire teams made up of qualified employees from the government, industry, and private sector.

The government must also set clear standards for burn plan contents. These should include a clear presentation of the fire environment and fire behaviour necessary to meet the burn objectives, and how the objectives will be monitored. The burn plan and monitoring results will then form the basis for any post-activity audit.

Tools developed in Canada for the prediction of fire behaviour and fire effects have focused almost entirely on either clear-cut slash situations or stand-replacement fire. These tools and decision aids require significant improvement in accuracy and/or resolution to improve prescribed fire planning and prediction.

In many of our fire prone ecosystems the appropriate type of burning required for fuel hazard reduction involves burning under standing trees (understory burning). In the U.S., understory burning is carried out on the majority of the 4.7 million hectares burned each year using prescribed fire. In order for the province of British Columbia to rapidly build its capacity to safely and effectively use understory prescribed fire in the dry forest types, we should investigate and adapt U.S.-developed fire behaviour and fire effects prediction decision aids for use in B.C.

4. Fire Rehabilitation Practices

The removal of organic matter from the soil surface by wildfire often creates an erosion hazard that can result in negative environmental consequences. It is therefore important to stabilize the soil to reduce the erosion potential. The recommended practice for post-fire rehabilitation in British Columbia is to broadcast a seed mix of grasses and legumes (Soil Rehabilitation Guidebook 1997). Typically this seed is composed of an agronomic mix of non-native grasses supplemented with nitrogen fixing legumes such as clover. This broadcast seeding approach, although effective in stabilizing the soil, increases the probability of native plant displacement, increases the potential for the spread of noxious weeds, and most importantly, in a very short period of time (within one year), can create a hazardous surface fuel complex with high potential rates of spread (Figure 7).

Figure 7. A recent photograph (2003) of an area within the 1994 Penticton Garnet Fire. Note the density of grasses and the accumulation of dead surface fuel that contribute to a high surface fire hazard within this wildland-urban interface community.

Within wildland-urban interface communities it is recommended that post-fire rehabilitation be guided by prescriptions and practices that adequately consider the ecological and future fire hazard implications of broadcast seeding. Improved guidelines and planning are required to implement sound rehabilitation treatments for large areas disturbed by fire. Rehabilitation should be more focused and target only those areas where there is a high risk of environmental damage. More consideration should be given to the development of native seed mixes that minimize the spread of noxious weeds and reduce the overall surface fire hazard.

Forest Health

Long-term fire exclusion is changing the structure and function of forests in fire prone ecosystems of British Columbia. In the absence of fire, forests in many parts of the Province are getting older and/or denser, resulting in greater competition for moisture and nutrients. The by-product of older forests and higher levels of competition is an increased susceptibility to insects and pathogens causing mortality and unnatural fuel accumulations.

A case in point is the current Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic in the central portion of the Province. Historically, many of the pine stands now being attacked by the current beetle outbreak were destroyed by fire. Through fire suppression practices, these forests have aged and become more susceptible to beetle attack. The Canadian Forest Service estimates that the proportion of interior pine stands susceptible to Mountain Pine Beetle in 1910 was approximately 18%. Current inventory projections indicate that by 2010 the proportion of forest inventory susceptible to Mountain Pine Beetle will exceed 55%.

The fuel accumulations associated with this outbreak and a number of other forest health problems (outbreaks of defoliating insects, dwarf mistletoe, root rot, and bark beetles) prevalent throughout many parts of the province have the potential to contribute to catastrophic fires in the future.

Forest health and associated fuel accumulations have the potential to impact interface fire hazard throughout large areas of the Province. Interface fire planning needs to consider appropriate landscape and stand-level treatments to protect communities where forest health and fuel accumulations may impact fire risk. The primary short term objective of community protection in areas affected by landscape level forest health problems should be the development of fuel break networks and/or enhancing existing natural fuel breaks (roads, rivers, deciduous fuel types) that buffer and protect communities from fires associated with insect or pathogen attack.

On the broader forest health issue, the Ministry of Forests must develop a strategic approach to management of the fire exclusion and forest health problems in affected areas of the province if we are to minimize fire risk to other important forest related resources.

Compliance and Enforcement

Enforcement of Sections 79 and 80 of the Forest Practices Code dealing with fire hazard assessment and abatement are the responsibility of the Compliance and Enforcement Branch within the Ministry and Forests. A review of the contraventions in Compliance and Enforcement Annual Reports for 1997 to 1999 (latest versions are unavailable) shows a total of 43 contraventions related to fire prevention over a three-year period. Many of these contraventions were related to suppression obligations, indicating that there have been very few actions related to hazard assessment and abatement. This is likely a result of the poor integration discussed above as well as a lack of awareness, skill, and training related to fuels assessment within the Compliance and Enforcement Branch.

Within identified wildland-urban interface zones it is recommended that the Ministry of Forests, specifically Compliance and Enforcement, more strictly enforce relevant sections of the Forest Practices Code related to Division 2 – Fire Use and Prevention, in particular Sections 79 and 80 related to the assessment and abatement of hazardous fuels.

It is recommended that Compliance and Enforcement staff receive specific training in the assessment and abatement of hazardous fuels as they relate to the wildland-urban interface.

Education

Prevention

A significant number of problem fires from the 2003 season were caused by careless human ignitions within interface communities. This suggests that British Columbia is not meeting its obligations to educate citizens on the dangers of living and working within these areas of high fire risk and the need for mitigation. This is similar to other jurisdictions throughout North America.

It is recommended that all levels of government increase efforts to inform and educate the public on the issue of wildland-urban interface fires. Fire prevention should be focused on ignition prevention and the mitigation of losses when ignition occurs. There are several areas where prevention efforts could be improved, which include:

· The need to increase and broaden the prevention program mandate related to human ignitions. The existing prevention program is focused on the protection of forests from fire. In addition to forest protection, the relationship between careless human ignitions and impacts on people’s lives, health, and economic well-being needs to be strengthened.

· Increase and broaden the current public information program outlining the risks associated with the wildland-urban interface. Provide more information on property assessment, mitigation, and structure protection. Additionally, educate the public on what is and is not feasible to protect with fire fighting resources.

Public Education

Many of British Columbia’s diverse forest and grassland ecosystems have evolved under some form of fire regime. With a growing urban population, public education is a priority given the limited awareness of natural disturbance regimes and changes to these regimes associated with human settlement and development. As the urban population continues to move into the wildland-urban interface for recreation, retirement, and/or quality of life, the collective understanding of disturbance processes that define these regions of the province has lagged. For many, fire remains a highly destructive force that can and should be controlled at all costs. A comprehensive message is needed that clearly articulates the desired balance of suppressing potentially destructive fires while simultaneously increasing the use and understanding of ecologically beneficial fire (USDA/USDI 2000). Public education focusing on the role of fire in B.C.’s ecosystems is considered critical if we are to successfully deal with B.C.’s interface fire risk.

The fire environment should be part of the provincial elementary and secondary school curriculums province wide (similar to the U.S.’s Fireworks program). The curriculum should include components of fire physics, the natural role of fire, fire ecology, and fire management.

The government’s fire suppression and prevention message should change, to reflect a broader fire management message. Fire management includes suppression and prevention as well as the controlled use of fire to meet natural resource management objectives.

Training and Skills

Our ability to effectively identify and treat a fuel hazard is limited by a lack of trained, skilled people who a) understand how fuel characteristics relate to fire behaviour, and b) can implement a fuel reduction prescription while meeting complex ecological, social, and economic constraints. The use of prescribed fire to reduce fuel accumulations was widely practiced in the province until the mid-1980’s. Reasons for the interruption of fire use include social constraints due to smoke emissions, ecological issues associated with burn effects in certain ecosystems, and political concerns over the number and size of escaped burns. The effective use and application of prescribed fire requires the creation of a highly skilled workforce with advanced knowledge of fire ecology, fire behaviour, fire effects, and the consequences of poorly designed and implemented projects.

The mechanical treatment of fuel hazards is less constrained by the need for advanced training but is still reliant on the need for skilled practitioners. Much fuels work can be done that involves the use of traditional technology (mechanical and manual techniques), however, the use of new machine technology focused on altering the characteristics of the fuel (bundling, chipping, masticating), will require more advanced training.

Our post-secondary educational institutions, especially those teaching natural resource management, should be encouraged to develop curriculums in fuels management. These curriculums should include training and skill development in all aspects of fuels management, including prescription development, operations, implementation, and effectiveness monitoring.

The government should set minimum qualifications for all persons involved in the application of prescribed fire (including planning, operations, and monitoring). The government should adopt a comprehensive program of prescribed fire training, qualification, and certification. Qualifications and certification programs from other parts of the world should be considered in this process with particular emphasis on those of the United States and Australia.

In conjunction with the biomass utilization strategy (below), training in the use of advanced fuel altering equipment should be made available at the technology school level

Research

Research and Development

The 2003 fire season has raised many questions related to the ecological, social, and economic consequences of fire on communities. These questions all require timely answers if we are to maintain the safety, economic well being, and environmental quality of the Province. The fuel types and ecosystems affected in B.C. and southwest Alberta this past summer are more similar to those found in the northwest U.S. than to those found in the rest of Canada. Over the past two decades devastating fires in this region of the U.S. have provided incentives to embark on a significant fire management research and development program. Many of the results of this work are now becoming available.

A short-term priority should be focused on collaboration with Alberta and U.S. fire management agencies to determine the state of knowledge and perceived gaps in knowledge on fire management in the wildland-urban interface inclusive of fuels, forest health, and wildfire threat issues in fire prone ecosystems. Based on this collaboration, a priority research plan and program should be developed. This program should be closely integrated with partners in Alberta and the U.S. to limit duplication of effort and ensure that key research issues are addressed.

Small Diameter Tree (SDT) Treatments

Determining the extent and characteristics of fire prone small diameter forest types is only the first step in addressing this issue. Treatment options are extremely limited. The wood characteristics do not meet the profile of many traditional forest products produced in B.C., chipping and use in pulp products is limited by high chipping and hauling costs, thinning and harvesting costs cannot be captured in the sale of the material, prescribed fire is not an option because it isn’t precise enough to thin these stands and consume excess quantities of fuel at the same time, and the few positive economic uses of the material (firewood, post and rails, landscaping ties) use too little of the province-wide supply to be a realistic solution to the problem. The scale of this problem in the U.S. (200 million hectares), where treatment issues are similar, has made this a research priority focused on the utilization of this small diameter material. These researchers have found the following potential products from SDT:

· Dimension and non-dimension lumber

· Engineered wood products

· Glued-laminated timber

· Structural roundwood

· Wood composites

· Wood fiber products

· Wood fiber/plastic composites

· Pulp chips

· Compost, mulch

· Energy

· Bio-fuel

It is recommended that a proportion of the Forest Innovation Investment - Wood Products and Markets research funding over the next 10 years be allocated to develop products and markets for small diameter, interior Douglas fir and ponderosa pine. Research into the use of small diameter trees in non-traditional forest products markets such as energy and bio-fuel should be encouraged.

Other Related Issues

Provincial, Municipal and Local Governance Structure

The potential for forest fires to spread to the urban wildland interface has been a concern for fire managers in B.C. for more than 30 years. Although interface fires are a widely recognized management concern, the responsibility and authority for mitigation of fire hazard and risk have been clouded by inconsistencies in land management coordination between local and higher levels of government. Local bylaws (e.g. tree cutting restrictions), building codes, management of green spaces, and industrial activities and hazards, summarize only a few of the problem areas that may contribute to fire risk at municipal and local levels of government.

The current structure of provincial, municipal, and local governance must be strategically aligned such that the authority, regulations, and standards of land management are consistent to ensure community protection from wildfire. The mandate of different levels of government throughout the Province is varied and complex, yet with regard to fire protection and related land management practices there is a need to integrate and strengthen this mandate. All levels of governance must be consistent in the application of regulations and standards that relate to community protection from wildfire. Across all jurisdictions and levels of government, measures to mitigate fire risk must meet a consistent and universal standard.

Mandate of the Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection

Under the Environmental Stewardship Division of the Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection, the Parks and Protected Areas Branch is responsible for the management of approximately 12% of the land base in British Columbia. Many of British Columbia’s Parks are within or adjacent to the wildland-urban interface. Although the agency manages a significant portion of the Province, its mandate and resources dedicated to fire management are limited. Similar to other areas of the Province, particularly fire prone ecosystems, there is a growing forest health and fuels problem that poses significant fire risk to both parks and protected areas as well as to the adjacent wildland-urban interface. Admirably, the Ministry has developed fire management plans in areas of concern and has tried, although unsuccessfully for a host of reasons, to foster prescribed burning and fuels treatments in a number of areas. Comprehensive burn prescriptions have been developed in Tweedsmuir, Mount Robson, and areas of the Okanagan but these prescriptions have either failed or not been executed due to limited availability of resources. Typically, the division relies on the Ministry of Forests or contract resources to conduct much of this work. Limitations in funding, resource availability, environmental concerns, and a weak mandate to manage fire have stalled or stopped the execution of plans and prescriptions.

The 2003 Okanagan Mountain fire highlighted the need for fire management in parks. The park had an approved fire management plan that addressed the risk of fire to the park and surrounding areas and recommended prescribed burning and fuels treatments in specific areas of the park, yet for many reasons these were not implemented. The size and scale of these proposed treatments, relative to the greater problem, were not likely to have altered the results of the Okanagan Mountain Park Fire. However, this emphasizes the need to place a high priority on fire management

The Parks and Protected Areas Division requires a strong legislative mandate, funds and resources to carry out land management activities related to fire management, including fire education and prevention, fire planning, ecological restoration, fire and fuels treatments, and rehabilitation. The Division has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Ministry of Forests Protection Branch. If the Ministry of Forests is unable to provide the required support and expertise (outlined in the MOU) to implement a fire management program, then Parks should develop this expertise internally or in cooperation with the private sector.

Public education on the role of fire in ecosystems should be a requirement throughout all levels of government, but no agency has a better opportunity to do this than the B.C. Parks and Protected Areas Branch. The public needs to better understand that forests are living, dying, dynamic systems that are periodically disturbed by fire and that these system will not remain static in perpetuity. Additionally, an education mandate within the Park system could improve the public’s understanding of fire effects on vegetation, air and water quality, and forest health. A review of National Park Policy shows, for all the same reasons outlined above, that fire is a key component of park management objectives. Ecosystem restoration and related fire management activities are a cornerstone in the management of Banff, Jasper and Kootenay National Parks, not to mention other National Parks across the country. The B.C. Parks system should develop a similar mandate.

Funding Issues

Availability of funding for stand-alone fuel reduction projects and programs has been an ongoing issue for several years. Some fuel abatement projects and research have been carried out in recent years, under a number of programs including ecosystem restoration, wildlife habitat enhancement, and range improvement. These types of projects have suffered from a number of administrative impediments, including:

· The annual timing of grants is tied to government fiscal year end (March 31^st/April 1^st). Critical spring burning windows often do not overlap with spending requirements prior to fiscal year end;

· Funding is tied directly to current fiscal year – there is currently no mechanism to carryover funds into subsequent years when projects have a greater chance of success;

· Funding is strictly tied to individual projects not programs – there is currently no ability to build a consistent annually funded program;

· Available funding is inconsistent from year to year;

· Planning, as a project component, is often not funded; typically funding sources provide funds for operations only.

Industry funded integrated fuel reduction programs (i.e. prescribed fire for silvicultural purposes), have been constrained by a number of issues including concern for liability, environmental regulations (i.e. smoke management), existing high hazard conditions in operating areas, lack of expertise, and cost.

The government must provide the forest industry with incentives to begin treating post-harvest fuels within the wildland-urban interface. Providing incentives should be a short-term priority focused on new forest management activities undertaken in 2004.

A continuous well-funded fuel abatement program is required to deal with the considerable backlog of fuel problems within and immediately adjacent to the wildland-urban interface. A program should be established that is tied to long-term, integrated plans with measurable results. The fuel management program must provide a timely application and funding approval process that is sensitive to the issues discussed above.

Assessment Of Problem Forest Types

Previous provincial assessments of “problem forest types” have focused on sites containing either low volume and/or poor quality wood. These forest types were targeted because of their potential for high future economic gain with some initial investment. A great deal of research into products, markets, and treatment technology has been applied to this issue in recent years. Similar to stands classified historically as “problem forest types”, over-stocked, small-diameter stands of interior Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine, resulting from fire exclusion, are at the core of the fuels and wildfire hazard issue. Within these types, other conifer species such as lodgepole pine, western larch, western red cedar, and western hemlock, may appear as minor cohorts but the predominant species are Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine. These sites are problematic because they have very little to no economic value, occur on low productivity sites, constitute a significant forest health risk due to site induced stress, and occur in and around many wildland-urban interface communities in B.C.’s interior. If left untreated, these forests will continue to contribute to the significant fuels and wildfire threat facing many of B.C.’s rural communities.

Little is known of the spatial extent of this “problem forest type”, its composition, volume, and stand and tree characteristics. Given the hazard and risks associated with these fuel types within and adjacent to wildland-urban interface communities, the Province should develop an inventory capturing the extent and characteristics of this problem forest type on both private and public land within and adjacent to wildland-urban interface communities.

Synopsis of Recommendations

1.0 Risk Reduction

1.1 Clarify the responsibility for current and future abatement of a fuel hazard. Once identified, it should be the responsibility of the party that created the hazard. S/1[1]

1.2 Clarify the responsibility for the abatement of fuel hazards resulting from historic practice and policy. It should be the responsibility of the landowner. S/1

1.3 Establish a network of three to five pilot fuel treatment projects (based on an approved community protection plan) in locations of known fire risk and within areas of problem fuel types. Pilot projects should be of practical size and scale, with the focus on producing meaningful, short-term results that can be used to guide incremental community hazard reduction projects. These small-scale pilot projects should be used to measure the social, economic, and ecological costs and benefits of fuel treatments. S/1

2.0 Strategic Planning

2.1 Develop a strategic plan to improve fire prevention, identify resource values, prioritize and mitigate wildland-urban interface risks, and assign protection priorities (based on threats to human life, property and resource values). This strategic plan should be coordinated provincially and developed by an interagency fire strategy team with membership from all levels of the government. S/1

2.2 Focus the development of the strategic plan on identification of those areas of the Province where communities, infrastructure, and watersheds have the greatest potential to be impacted by large-scale fires. This should be based on consideration of both the probability and consequence of fire (values at risk). Allocation of funds and resources should be based on a risk profile evaluation that considers the combination of probability and consequence. S/1

2.3 Develop a Community Protection Plan. The first priority should be to stratify communities at a coarse scale for risk assessment based on the probability and consequence of fire in the wildland-urban interface. These areas should be identified as community protection zones that receive priority for funding, fire management planning, fuels mitigation, and suppression. S/1

2.4 Develop a Provincial Zonation Strategy. For areas outside of identified community protection zones (high risk wildland-urban interface) develop a comprehensive protection strategy that identifies different levels of fire protection priority based on values at risk (e.g. Critical Protection Zone, Full Protection Zone, Limited Protection Zone). M/1

2.5 Utilize state-of-the-art strategic planning tools to determine meaningful provincial scale wildfire risk comparisons. An example is the Wildfire Threat Analysis (Hawkes and Beck 1997, Ohlson et. al. 2003) that can be applied to develop a threat analysis to support development of community protection planning. S/1

2.6 For community protection planning, incorporate robust testing of protection and mitigation strategies against predicted fire behaviour under extreme fire conditions using different fire behaviour models. The results of these analyses must be provided to fire managers in the field, forest managers, municipalities, and regional districts. M/2

2.7 Municipalities within fire prone areas must formally adopt the FireSmart (Partners in Protection 2003) standard for community protection both for private and public property protection. At a minimum, this standard should be applied to all new subdivision developments. S/1

3.0 Forest Practices and Policy

The following policy and practices recommendations apply specifically to high-risk wildland-urban interface communities:

3.1 The Ministry of Forests should amend AAC determinations in fire prone ecosystems to encourage hazard reduction treatments in marginal and uneconomic stand types within the wildland-urban interface. Marginal and uneconomic harvest opportunities focused on community fire protection should not be considered part of the annual harvest quota. M/1

3.2 The Crown should develop a methodology to reduce the amount of stumpage paid (potentially to zero) as an incentive to encourage the harvest of high risk fuel types where there is an identified fire risk to a community, and where there is limited economic capacity to carry out a hazard reduction treatment. M/1

3.3 Ensure that fire management considerations become part of land management decision-making. Approved Land Use Plans and LRMP’s should be reviewed and amended as required to incorporate fire management considerations. Fire managers must be available to influence and participate in land management planning. M/1

3.4 Review standard timber utilization requirements within and adjacent to the wildland-urban interface and in fire prone ecosystems, and revise as necessary with greater consideration for surface and stand-level fire hazard. S/1

3.5 Review stocking standards (regeneration policies) and harvesting practices (regeneration protection) applied in fire prone ecosystems and amend where these policies and practices are contributing to forest health problems, fuels and fire risk. Revised stocking standard guidelines should deal with tradeoffs between management objectives (i.e. timber production versus forest health and community protection). M/2

3.6 For new spacing projects in fire prone ecosystems within or adjacent to a wildland-urban interface, all spacing slash should either be removed from the site or piled and burned on site to mitigate the surface fuel hazard near potential ignition sources (e.g. roads, and trails). S/2

3.7 For old spacing projects in fire prone ecosystems within or adjacent to a wildland-urban interface, assessments should be made for hazard and abatement near potential ignition sources. M/2

3.8 Expand the provincial prescribed fire program utilizing both public and private resources: M/1

· Adopt for use in B.C. the prescribed fire position training curriculum similar to that developed by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group in Boise, Idaho;

· Adopt for use in B.C. a process similar to the National Interagency Incident Management System Task Book position practicum system;

· Set standards for prescribed burn team position qualification and certification based on the above noted curriculum and practicum;

· Investigate for use in B.C. the numerous prescribed fire and fire behaviour decision aids developed for use in similar fuel types in the U.S.;

3.9 The Ministry of Forests must set clear standards for burn plan contents. These should include a clear presentation of the fire environment and fire behaviour necessary to meet the burn objectives, and how the objectives will be monitored. S/1

3.10 Tools developed in Canada for the prediction of fire behaviour and fire effects require significant improvement in accuracy and/or resolution to improve prescribed fire planning and prediction. M/2

3.11 Investigate and adapt U.S.-developed fire behaviour and fire effects prediction decision aids for use in B.C. in order to rapidly build the Province’s capacity to safely and effectively use understory prescribed fire in the dry forest types. M/3

3.12 Within wildland-urban interface communities, post-fire rehabilitation should adequately consider ecological and future fire hazard implications of broadcast seeding. Rehabilitation should be more focused and target only those areas where there is a high risk of environmental damage. More consideration should be given to the development of native seed mixes that minimize the spread of noxious weeds and reduce the overall surface fire hazard. M/2

3.13 Consider appropriate landscape and stand-level treatments to protect communities where forest health and related fuel accumulations may impact fire risk. The primary short term objective of community protection in areas affected by landscape level forest health problems should be the development of fuel break networks and/or the enhancement of existing natural fuel breaks (roads, rivers, deciduous fuel types) that buffer and protect communities from fires associated with insect or pathogen attack. M/1

3.14 The Ministry of Forests must develop a strategic approach to management of fire exclusion in areas of the province affected by forest health problems in order to minimize fire risk to other important forest related resources. S/1

3.15 The Ministry of Forests, specifically Compliance and Enforcement Branch, should more strictly enforce relevant sections of the Forest Practices Code related to Division 2 – Fire Use and Prevention, in particular, Sections 79 and 80 related to the assessment and abatement of hazardous fuels. M/1

3.16 Compliance and Enforcement staff must receive specific training related to the assessment and abatement of hazardous fuels as it applies to the wildland-urban interface. S/1

4.0 Education and Training

4.1 All levels of government should increase efforts to inform and educate the public on the issue of wildland-urban interface fires. Fire prevention should focus on ignition prevention and the mitigation of losses when ignition occurs. M/2

4.2 Increase and broaden the prevention program mandate related to human ignitions. The existing prevention program is focused on the protection of forests from fire. In addition to forest protection, the relationship between careless human ignitions and impacts on people’s lives, health, and economic well being needs to be strengthened. M/2

4.3 Increase and broaden the current public information program outlining the risks associated with the wildland-urban interface. Provide more information on property assessment, mitigation, and structure protection. Additionally, educate the public on what is and is not feasible to protect with fire fighting resources. S/1

4.4 A comprehensive public education message is needed that clearly articulates the desired balance of suppressing potentially destructive fires while simultaneously increasing the use and understanding of ecologically beneficial fire. Fire management includes suppression and prevention as well as the controlled use of fire to meet natural resource management objectives. S/1

4.5 Make the fire environment part of the provincial elementary and secondary school curriculums Province wide (similar to the U.S.’s Fireworks program). The curriculum should include components of fire physics, the natural role of fire, fire ecology, and fire management. L/3

4.6 Encourage post-secondary educational institutions teaching natural resource management to develop curriculums in fuels management. These curriculums should include training and skill development in all aspects of the field including prescription development, operations, implementation, and effectiveness monitoring. L/3

4.7 The government should set minimum qualifications for all persons involved in the application of prescribed fire (including planning, operations, and monitoring). The government should adopt a comprehensive program of prescribed fire training, qualification, and certification. Qualifications and certification programs from other parts of the world should be considered in this process with particular emphasis on those of the United States and Australia. S/2

5.0 Research

5.1 Collaborate with Alberta and U.S. fire management agencies to determine the state of knowledge and perceived gaps in knowledge on fire management in the wildland-urban interface, including fuels, forest health, and wildfire threat issues in fire prone ecosystems. Based on this collaboration, develop a priority research plan and program. This program should be closely integrated with partners in Alberta and the US to limit duplication of effort and ensure that key research issues are addressed. S/1

5.2 A proportion of the Forest Innovation Investment - Wood Products and Markets research funding over the next 10 years should be allocated to products and markets for small diameter, interior Douglas fir and ponderosa pine. Research into the use of small diameter trees in non-traditional forest products markets such as energy and bio-fuel should be encouraged. S/1

6.0 Other Related Issues

6.1 The current structure of provincial, municipal, and local governance must be strategically aligned such that the authority, regulations, and standards of land management are consistent to ensure community protection from wildfire. M/1

6.2 All levels of governance must be consistent in the application of regulations and standards that relate to community protection from wildfire. Across all jurisdictions and levels of government, measures to mitigate fire risk must meet a consistent and universal standard. L/1

6.3 The Parks and Protected Areas Division requires a strong legislative mandate, funds, and resources to carry out land management activities related to fire management, including fire education and prevention, fire planning, ecological restoration, fire and fuels treatments, and rehabilitation. If the Ministry of Forests is unable to provide the required support and expertise (outlined in the MOU) to implement a fire management program, then Parks should develop this expertise internally or in cooperation with the private sector. M/1

6.4 The government must provide the forest industry with incentives to treat post-harvest fuels within the wildland-urban interface. Providing incentives should be a short-term priority focused on new forest management activities undertaken in 2004. M/1

6.5 A continuous, well-funded fuel abatement program is required to deal with the considerable backlog of fuel problems within and immediately adjacent to the wildland-urban interface. A program should be established that is tied to long-term, integrated plans with measurable results. The fuel management program must provide a timely application and funding approval process that is sensitive to the issues discussed above. M/1

6.6 Given the hazard and risks associated with problem fuel types, the Province should develop an inventory capturing the extent and characteristics of this problem forest type on both private and public land within and adjacent to wildland-urban interface communities. L/1

Table 1. Implementation ranking of recommendations (refer to numbered recommendations)

Priority	Time Frame
Priority	Short term	Medium term	Long term
1	1.1 2.5 4.3 1.2 2.7 4.4 1.3 3.4 5.1 2.1 3.9 5.2 2.2 3.14 2.3 3.16	2.4 6.1 3.1 6.3 3.2 6.4 3.3 6.5 3.8 3.13 3.15	6.2 6.6
2	3.6 4.7	2.6 3.5 3.7 3.10 3.12 4.1 4.2
3		3.11	4.5 4.6

References

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Blackwell, B.A., R.W. Gray, R.N. Green, F.F. Figel, T.M. Berry, D.W. Ohlson, and B. Hawkes. 2003. Development and implementation of a regional scale assessment of forest fuel conditions in southern British Columbia. FII contract report.

Brown, J.K. 2000. Chapter 1: introduction and fire regimes. in: J.K. Brown and J. Kapler Smith (edits.). Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. U.S. Department of Agriculture,. Forest Service General Technical Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT.

Forest Practices Code of BC Act. 1995. Forest Fire Prevention and Suppression Regulation.

Forest Practices Code. 1997. Soil Rehabilitation Guidebook.

Hawkes, B.C., J. Beck, and W. Sahle. 1997. A wildfire threat rating system for the MacGregor Model Forest. Final report submitted to the MacGregor Model Forest Association. Canadian Forest Service Project 3015, Victoria, B.C.

Heinselman, 1973. Fire in the virgin forests of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Quat. Res. 3:329-82.

Ohlson, D.W., B.A. Blackwell, B. Hawkes, and D. Bonin. 2003. A Wildfire Risk Management System An Evolution of the Wildfire Threat Rating System. Proceedings 3rd International Wildland Fire Conference and Exhibition. Sydney Australia. October 3-6, 2003.

Omi, P.N., and E.J. Martinson. 2002. Effects of fuels treatment on wildfire severity. Final Report to the Joint Fire Science Program Governing Board. Boise, ID.

One Hundred Eight Congress of the United States of America. 2003. Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. Washington, D.C.

Partners in Protection, 2003. FireSmart: protecting your community from wildfire. Partners in Protection, Edmonton, Alberta

Peterson, D.L., Johnson, M.C., Agee, J.K., Jain, T.B., McKenzie, D., and E.D. Reinhardt. 2003. Fuels planning: managing forest structure to reduce fire hazard. Second International Wildland Fire Ecology and Fire Management Congress and Fifth Symposium on Fire and Forest Meteorology. 16-20 November, 2003 Orlando, FL. American Meteorological Society.

Pollet, J., and P.N. Omi. 2002. Effect of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in ponderosa pine forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 11:1-10.

Rummer, B., and others. 2003. A strategic assessment of forest biomass and fuel reduction treatments in western states. A report to the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, research and Development, and Western Forestry Leadership Council. Washington, D.C.

Taylor, S.J. 2004 Managing interface fire risk is a shared responsibility. In FORUM Magazine -January/February issue. A publication of the Association of Forest Professionals, pages 21-22.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. An agency strategy for fire management. Report from the National Management Review Team. Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service, USDI, National Association of State Foresters. 2003. Large fire cost reduction action plan. Report to the Federal Fire and Aviation Leadership Council, Washington, D.C.

USDA/USDI. 2000. Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Review Report. www.fs.fed.us/land/wdfirex.htm.

About B. A. Blackwell & Associates Ltd.

We are Canadian forestry consultants dedicated to providing high quality, cost-efficient professional forestry and environmental management services. We have diverse experience in a range of forest management disciplines and are at the forefront of Canadian forestry and forestry practice in BC.

We are based in North Vancouver and Williams Lake, BC. For more information about us please visit http://www.bablackwell.com.

Wildfires and Forest Fire Management

We have helped develop BC forest fire threat analysis and its application within various regions. Our Wildfire Risk Management System has been applied by local and regional governments, BC Parks, forest companies in BC and Alberta, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in Alaska.

[1] Implementation rank (S=short term, M=medium term, L=long term; 1=high priority, 2=medium priority, 3=low priority.

Submitted by

B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd. R.W. Gray Consulting Ltd.

3087 Hoskins Road 6311 Silverthorne Road

North Vancouver, BC Chilliwack, BC

Canada V7J 3B5 Canada V2R 2N1

Submitted to

January 2004

Table of Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

Priority

Time Frame

About B. A. Blackwell & Associates Ltd.

Wildfires and Forest Fire Management