1. Modeling the Risk (Consequences & Benefits) of Wildland Fire
Erin Noonan-Wright
NRSM 532
May 9, 2016

2. Problem
The current policy clearly states that wildland fire analysis will carefully consider the long-term benefits in relation to risks both in the short and long term:
“Fire, as a critical natural process, will be integrated into land and resource management plans and activities on a landscape scale, and across agency boundaries. Response to wildland fire is based on ecological, social, and legal consequences of fire. The circumstances under which a fire occurs, and the likely consequences on firefighter and public safety and welfare, natural and cultural resources, and values to be protected dictate the appropriate management response to fire.”
1995/2001 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Federal Land Management Agencies that manage wildland fire can only really quantify short-term risks only.
Missing short-term & long-term benefits and long-term risks

3. Define the Question
How to objectively define “beneficial fire” in space and time
Space: wildfire ignition, landscape scale
Time: 1 year post fire; 10 years post-fire; 100 years post-fire

4. Beneficial Fire A benefit to whom? Things to consider:
People
Benefit as defined from an objective (from a land management plan)
Things to consider:
A short term inconvenience (smoke, vegetation looks bad, snags) for a long term benefit regarding forest health, resilience and longevity.
There are long-term gains when we don’t eliminate disturbance from the landscape
How are long-term gains quantified? As long-term values (water, food, economy)

5. Decision-Making flow chart Ecological Risk flow chart
Benefits
Consequences (short/mid-term)
Mid-term < 10 year
Long-term < 100 year
Short-term < 1 year
Is a wildfire allowed to burn to achieve a resource objective?
Fire burns & is monitored
Minimal smoke to communities, Minor loss of values/infrastructure impacted
Existing or Potential vegetation returns with vigor
Existing or Potential vegetation returns with vigor
Is fire beneficial?
YES
YES
YES
Planned and unplanned ignitions can be used to achieve resource mnmt goals
Line officer and Fire Manager allow fire to burn (i.e. risk is commensurate with values) NO NO
Blue Sky Smoke Modeling
FVS-FFE ArcFuels
Fire BGC
Spatial Data Set
More than 50% of fire severity is outside of historic range for that area/veg type
Loss of life occurred
Document
More than 50% of fire severity matches regime type
Patchiness and flora and fauna diversity appear to increase
Patchiness and diversity are maintained with lower intensity disturbance events
Sit 209 Report
Relative Risk Assessment
qualitative
2009 Guidance for Implementation of Fed W. Fire Mnmt Policy
Watersheds no longer provide services (water, food)
7-dy FSPRO and Values at Risk Table (Expected Value)
Quantitative
BARC/MTBS or MODIS*
Fire Regime Group
Vegetation Disturbance, EVT, Forest to Faucets data
Fire Effects Info Sys
Fire frequency is high enough to facilitate type conversion
YES
BARC or MODIS*
Fire Regime Group
FVS-FFE + Fragstats
Fire BGC + Fragstats
YES
Erosion, mud flow, debris flows are prevalent resulting in ecosystem degradation, loss of property
Fire Effects Info Sys
Risk decreased (conditional Net Value Change)
Forests are less flammable; more resilient (depending on PVT, less tree density, higher NPP)
Late successional species (flora and fauna) are stabilized
Forest Service Manual, Handbooks, and Interims allow for obj. for resources
Does the LRMP allow for the use of fire to achieve resource benefits?
MTBS Fire Severity/BARC
Mean Fire Return Interval
YES
Recreation infrastructure (roads, trails) are no longer viable
Invasive species dominate post-fire flora and fauna
Forest-level LRMP
Local data from the home unit within xx time frame
FSM 5130, 5140
Local data from the home unit within xx time frame
Vegetation Disturbance, EVT
Fire BGC or FVS-FFE ArcFuels NO
FVS-FFE ArcFuels
WFDSS, Strategic Objectives
Wildfire Hazard Potential,
Ecology
Society

6. Thompson, M. Stonesifer, C. , Hovorka, M. and R. Seli. 2013
Thompson, M. Stonesifer, C., Hovorka, M. and R. Seli Developing Strategic Response Categories for Fire Management Units. Fire Management Today 73 (1):

7. Example – Three Day Fire
Low potential for large fire spread
Low Relative Risk
A simple analysis like the one presented here can be useful to communicate preliminary fire severity and possible effects, considering the limitations of using unverified BARC data.

8. EVT + BARC (Severity)

9. Proportion of EVT by Severity
Most willows recover quickly from low severity fires, sending up new shoots from root crowns. Surviving plants may produce abundant seeds (Innes 2015). 38% of the willows on the Three Day Fire burned with low to no severity.
Willows burned about 51% with moderate severity; and 22% unburned to low; 16% with low severity. Only 12% of the willows burned with high severity.
Fig 8. Pie charts summarizing EVT SAF/SRM vegetation types by BARC classes (unburned to low , low, moderate, and high). The triangle summarizes willow including the Western North American Boreal Mesic Scrub Birch-Willow Shrubland and Alaska Arctic Mesic-Wet Willow Shrubland EVT class names.