Prescribed Fire Evaluation – Mount Robson Provincial Park

Prepared by:

B.A. Blackwell & Associates

Compass Resource Management Ltd.

Vancouver, B.C.

Prepared for:

Gail Ross

Ecosystem Section

Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection

Prince George, B.C.

March 2003

Introduction

Mount Robson Provincial Park (the 'Park') is a Class A park located on the west slope of the Rocky Mountains along the Alberta-British Columbia border, adjacent to Jasper National Park. Established in 1913, the Park covers an area of 219,534 ha and includes variants of the Alpine Tundra (AT), Englemann Spruce-Subalpine Fir (ESSF), Sub-boreal Spruce (SBS), and Interior Cedar Hemlock (ICH) biogeoclimatic zones. Along with Jasper and Banff National Parks, Mt. Robson Provincial Park has been designated a World Heritage Site by the United Nations Environmental, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

Key features of the park include world class climbing and hiking opportunities and important habitat for a wide range of species including ungulates, caribou, grizzly bears and large number of migratory and resident birds. The park also contains a strategic road and rail travel corridor that links British Columbia to Alberta.

During the construction of the railway line through the Park in 1913-1915 much of the Travel Corridor was burned. This, coupled with successful forest fire suppression since the 1940s, has produced large stands of even-aged forests that are slowly maturing. This fire created a uniform age-class distribution that is not considered representative of historic composition and structure of the forests within the park. Historically forests within these sub boreal ecosystems contained large areas of early seral forests.

As identified in earlier planning documents (Blackwell et. al 1996 and Blackwell 2000) there are three inter-related ecosystem management issues that need to be addressed:

1. Seral Stage Distribution: The fire of 1913-1915 created an even aged forest over a significant area within the main valley and travel corridor through the park. This has been further complicated by effective fire suppression that has maintained this distribution. (Figure 1)

2. MPB Hazard: Since 1996 it has been well documented that the forests created by the 1913-1915 fires are currently susceptible, and will increase in susceptibility to Mountain Pine Beetle (Blackwell et. al 1996). Since 1997 Mountain Pine Beetle has been active in the Swift Current drainage along the western boundary of the Park. Over the past two years this infestation has increased in size and spread into the main Robson valley into the vicinity of Moose Lake. Localized incidence of the beetle has been identified as far east as Yellowhead Lake and there is significant risk that the beetle will cross into Jasper National Park over the next one to two years.(Figure 2)

3. Fire Hazard: As part of the Ecosystem Management Plan fire hazard within the park was assessed (Figure 3) and associated fire management strategies were identified. This exercise resulted in delineation of three management zones (Figure 4):

- Suppression zone – all fires are suppressed

- Prescription Zone – fires allowed to burn under prescribed conditions, and

- Natural Zone – all wildfires evaluated and if they meet park objectives are allowed to burn.

In designated areas within the park prescribed fire can be an effective tool for addressing the inter-related issues identified above. In particular, prescribed fire can be used as a tool to alter the seral stage (age class) distribution to reduce the area susceptible to Mountain Pine Beetle and the resulting fire hazard associated with large-scale tree mortality. Changes in seral stage distribution associated with prescribed fire reduces the need for costly single-tree beetle treatments and reduces the probability of unplanned, large scale, catastrophic wildfires that may create negative consequences to resources both within and adjacent to the park.

The purpose of this project was to identify, evaluate and prioritize sites within Mount Robson Park that are suitable for prescribed burning.

Planning Process

The planning process centered around two workshops of the Mount Robson Ecosystem Working Group in January and April 2003. The first workshop involved a general review of the site evaluation approach, a discussion of the screening and evaluation criteria, and a preliminary identification of potential burn locations. The second workshop involved a detailed review and evaluation of six individual potential burn locations, the development and evaluation of new combined site locations, and the development of final working group recommendations. Working Group participants included:

BC WLAP Environmental Stewardship Section
BC Ministry of Forests
Parks Canada, Jasper National park
AB Ministry of Forests, Forest Health Section
Natural Resources Canada – Canadian Forestry Service
McGregor Model Forest

Potential Prescribed Burn Sites

A total of six sites were identified as potential areas for prescribed burning (Figure 5). These sites were selected based on a preliminary analysis of forest cover (i.e., % pine), stand age and burn feasibility. Table 1 provides a brief synopsis of each area, and Attachment 1 provides digital orthophotos with proposed burn boundaries outlined.

Table 1: Summary of Potential Prescribed Burn Sites
Site	Area	Forest Cover (% pine)	Average Stand Age
Swift Current	Prescription = 2,187 ha Contingencies (1&2) = 330 ha	56 %	158 yrs.
Moose Lake	Prescription = 1,867 ha Contingencies (3&5) = 747 ha	53 %	113 yrs
Moose River	Prescription = 2,041 ha Contingencies (4&6) = 947 ha	66 %	128 yrs
Yellowhead West	Prescription = 3,100 ha Contingencies (6) = 645 ha	69 %	112 yrs
Yellowhead South	Prescription = 3,735 ha Contingencies (7&8) = 4,774 ha	40 %	149 yrs
Upper Fraser	Prescription = 4,695 ha Contingencies (8) =2,978 ha	31 %	256 yrs

Description of Evaluation Criteria

Seven criteria were used to evaluate the overall costs and benefits of each prescribed burn location.

Cost

An expected cost for each site was developed prior to the workshop in conjunction with MoF staff. These costs took into consideration the fixed and variable costs for the prescription area, as well as the additional variable costs that might occur should the fire enter into the contingency area or become an escape fire. There was debate in the workshop regarding the magnitude of all initially proposed costs with some participants feeling the costs should be higher and others feeling they should be lower. However, all participants agreed that the relative difference in costs between sites was accurate and hence suitable for workshop evaluation and comparison purposes. Refined cost estimates will be developed.

Biodiversity

To gauge the potential benefits across sites from a biodiversity perspective, an age class distribution index was developed. The index calculates the potential improvement in landscape-level age class distribution by setting mature seral stage areas back to early seral stage areas, particularly in the SBS BEC zone (see Figure 1). For each site, a weighted area index score was calculated both pre & post fire using the weights assigned in Table 2, and the final rating is calculated as a percent improvement across all identified sites and contingency areas (Table 3).

Table 2: Age Class Distribution Index Weights
Age Weighting		BEC Weighting
Early	1	SBS	1
Mid	0.25	ESSF	0.5
Mature	0	ICH	0.25
Old	1

Table 3: Summary of Biodiversity (Age Class) Improvement Potential

Mountain Pine Beetle Management

To gauge the potential benefits across sites from a mountain pine beetle (MPB) management perspective, a hazard reduction potential criterion was calculated. This criterion calculates the potential improvement in using fire to return areas of extreme and high MPB hazard ratings to low ratings (see Figure 2). The total area of extreme and high MPB rating in each area was identified and reported as a percentage of the total extreme and high rated area in the entire park (Table 4).

Table 4: Summary of MPB Hazard Reduction Potential

Fire Hazard Management

To gauge the potential benefits across sites from a fire management perspective, a hazard reduction potential criterion was calculated. This criterion calculates the potential improvement in using fire to return areas of high and moderate fire hazard ratings to low ratings (see Figure 3). The total area of high and moderate fire rating in each area was identified and reported as a percentage of the total high and moderate area across all identified sites and contingency areas (Table 5).

Table 5: Summary of Fire Hazard Reduction Potential

Social

A social impact rating for each site was developed in the workshop to take into account the relative differences across sites in terms of smoke management, visual quality impact, public safety risk and other social considerations. A simple rating scale of 0 – 10 was used with 0 being the worst and 10 being the best.

Strategic Value

A strategic value rating for each site was developed in the workshop to take into account other relative benefits across sites that were not yet accounted for in the biodiversity, MPB and fire management criteria. This rating captures the strategic value of overall site location relative to park boundaries; overall burn size considerations, etc. A simple rating scale of 0 – 10 was used with 0 being the worst and 10 being the best.

Major Escape Risk

A major escape risk rating for each site was developed in the workshop to take into account the relative risk across sites. A simple rating scale of 0 – 10 was used with 0 being the worst and 10 being the best.

Summary Results

Two rounds of evaluation were conducted in the workshop. In the first round, a summary table of results for all individual potential burn site locations was first reviewed (Table 6). A thorough discussion of these results led workshop participants to screen out the Swift Current, Yellowhead South and Upper Fraser sites as inferior options with generally higher costs and lower benefits.

Table 6: Workshop Summary of Round One Evaluation

A second round of evaluation ensued in which three new combination options were assembled from the original sites and adjacent contingency areas (Table 7). In this second round, the expected costs were estimated from the original site estimates taking into account the greater cost efficiencies that can be achieved by burning larger areas. The MPB, fire hazard and biodiversity percent ratings were assembled using spreadsheet models and project databases of results for each burn site and contingency area. Finally, the relative social, strategic value and major escape risk ratings for each new combination area were developed again by workshop participants.

The three combined alternatives developed were:

1. Moose River + 4&5

Area = 2,860 ha

Expansion of the original Moose River site to incorporate contingency areas 4 and 5.

2. Moose River to Moose Lake

Area = 5,620 ha

Combination of the original Moose River and Moose Lake sites along with contingency areas 3, 4, 5 and 6.

3. ALL

Area = 8,700 ha

Combination of the original Moose River, Moose Lake and Yellowhead West sites along with contingency areas 3, 4, 5 and 6.

A fourth alternative of “Do Nothing” was discussed and added into the final evaluation of options in order to complete the picture.

Table 7: Workshop Summary of Round Two Evaluation

Final Recommendations

§ The Working Group decided to recommend Option 2 as the best balance of all costs, benefits and risks. A briefing note will be developed by agency staff highlighting the benefits of the recommended option and incorporating a formal cost estimate.

§ Working group members committed to collaborating on the implementation as follows:

- Ministry of Forests – Provide funding support, assistance in burning planning, site preparation, and burn implementation. Protection Branch to provide resources as available during the fire season.

- Jasper Nation Park – Provide trained suppression crew, medium helicopter with buck as available during the fire season.

- Alberta Forest Service – carry forward a request for funding support to Management within the Alberta Forest Service.

- WALP Environmental Stewardship – Provide funding support, contract administration and services, logistical coordination, communications, and support staff where required.