Thompson-Nicola Regional District Fuel Hazard Management Strategy

Transcription

1 Thompson-Nicola Regional District Fuel Hazard Management Strategy _ Submitted to: : Terry Kress Emergency Services - TNRD FINAL - March 22, Submitted by: I -- John Davies, RPF Da\~es Wildfire Mana ement Inc Bruce Morrow, RPF Bruce l\iorrow Forest Consultin Ltd Mike Coulthard, RPF, RPBio Diamond Head Consulting Ltd NlU.f!..!l.!JJN -~ GIS Support Timberline Natural Resource Group Ltd

2 Table of Contents Intraduction 1 Major Communities 1 Electoral Area Delineation 1 Fuel Management Treatments 1 General Electoral Area Recommendations 2 Public Information Plan 2 First Nations Consultation 2 Map Interpretation and Utilization 3 Fire Behavior 3 Suppression Constraints and Ignition Risks 3 Values at Risk (Human and Natural).4 Implementation Strategy 5 Interface Fuel Hazard Assessment Rankings 7 Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area A 8 Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area B 9 Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area E 10 Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area 1 11 Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area J 12 Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area L 13 Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area M 15 Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area N 16 Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area 0 17 Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area P 18

3 1.0 Introduction Managing fuel hazards and the associated wildfire risk for an area as large and as ecologically diverse as the TNRD can be a daunting task. The TNRD contains varying levels of structural densities, social values on the land, fuel hazards, ecosystems, cultural values and features, and potential fire behavior. There is no one 'solution' for mitigating the wildfire risk that encompasses all the variability within the TNRD. The following management strategy covers as much detail to as small a scale as is allowed by CWPP funding. The next step in the process (not covered by CWPP funding) would be to develop treatment prescriptions for each interface polygon or area requiring treatment. 2.0 Major Communities A separate CWPP has been completed for Clinton, Kamloops, Merritt and Logan Lake and these communities were not addressed except where required along their boundary with the TNRD. The TNRD, when considering development permits adjacent to or in proximity of the boundaries of these communities, should work with the community to ensure these developments are abating the fire risk associated with the fuel hazard as has been addressed in the CWPP. 3.0 ElectoralArea Delineation To make the task of wildfire management over such a large area less intimidating, risk and mitigation recommendations have been addressed per electoral area. Electoral areas were chosen since they are already pre-determined areas, they are attended to by an elected official and they have set budgets from which to draw when considering mitigation risk treatments. 4.0 Fuel ManagementTreatments An interface fuel hazard assessment was performed for each interface area with a fire behavior rating greater than moderate. If ground-truthing determined that the GIS information was incorrect, or the hazard was low to nil, then the polygon was removed. These removed polygons should be reviewed once all other higher priority polygons have been treated. All other polygons were given a priority rating based on the interface fuel hazard assessment. Fuels management treatments should target the highest priority areas first. However, lower ranked polygons adjacent to high ranked polygons can be treated concurrently if there are economic benefits to doing so. Interface fuels treatment prescriptions should be developed by a qualified professional with an understanding of fire behavior, suppression and forest ecology. Prescriptions should be ecologically based and accommodate all natural and social values while still achieving interface fire risk reduction. Landscape level fuels mitigation outside the interface should be addressed in cooperation with the First Nations, MoFR, BC Timber Sales, or other major forest

4 2 licensees. Fuel hazard management in these areas is more appropriately addressed by timber licensees in consultation with the TNRD. 5.0 General ElectoralArea Recommendations The following are general recommendations that apply to all electoral areas. Treat interface polygons within electoral areas as prioritized. Amalgamating proximal polygons may be done to decrease planning and treatment costs All future developments, particularly those located within areas with high fire behavior should have to address the fuel hazard as per the directions of a qualified professional prior to development and building specifications should follow FireSmart guidelines as a minimum standard Ensure interface treatments are driven by interface protection objectives rather than timber objectives Consult with First Nations when considering abatement or risks around their reserves and cultural heritage resource values Work with licensees to abate interface fuels hazard through harvesting activities in conjunction with post-harvest slash abatement methods (prescribed burning, pile and buming, etc) 6.0 Public InformationPlan Prior to conducting interface treatments, the TNRD should implement a public information program. This would consist of holding public open houses for those communities that will be affected by interface treatments. Alternatively, an information sheet could be mailed to the homes or placed in the local paper. The information sheet should contain the following information: Location of treatments (with a map) Type of treatments (a description) Rationale behind the treatments A web link to the CWPP and Fuel Management Strategy Contact information for feed back A date and location for a public open house 7.0 First Nations Consultation For any areas in which the TNRD wishes to conduct fuel treatments, the appropriate First Nations should be consulted. A partnership with the affected First Nation may result in more funding access. Implementing fuel management would also assist First Nations with building skills and employment capacity within their community.

5 3 8.0 Map Interpretation and Utilization As discussed in the CWPP. the GIS analysis was produced from incorporating the following four different layers: Fire Behavior Ignition Risk Suppression Constraints Values at Risk All four layers combine to produce a Final Wildfire Threat Analysis. The following sections describe how each of these four layers and the Final Threat Analysis can be utilized specifically for the district. Appendix A in the CWPP document should be referred to for the methodology of the threat analysis. 8.1 Fire Behavior The fire behavior layer is a function of forest type and the related potential fire behavior based on that type. This is one of the most important and useful layers. Consideration should be given to utilizing this layer as follows: Dense interface areas within 2 km of those areas with higher ranges of potential fire behavior should be considered for stand treatments that will reduce potential fire behavior. New developments that are proposed within areas of moderate or higher fire potential should be required to develop a fuel management strategy to ensure the future development will have a reduced risk from a wildfire. This would also apply to proposed developments within 2 km of these same areas. Settled. narrow side valleys with high fire behavior potential, particularly those with higher densities. may realize both a fire risk and an evacuation issue. Interface protection and treatment should be considered. and an evacuation plan developed where deemed necessary. Isolated lakeside resort developments should be addressed as the above side valleys. 8.2 Suppression Constraints and Ignition Risks Suppression constraints consider distance from roads/trails. water bodies and slope steepness. Other than establishing more access roads and natural water bodies or fire hydrants. it is difficult to positively affect those areas that demonstrate a high constraint to suppression. However. proposed new developments should consider developing water sources. such as artificial water bodies. particularly when a hydrant system isn't being installed. When developments are proposed for remote areas, the developer should demonstrate how they will deal with suppression constraints within and adjacent to their development to the satisfaction of qualified fire management professional or the TNRD Development Services.

6 4 Ignition risks are associated w~h roads, trails, recreational sites, transmission lines, railways and structures. Similarly, it is difficult to reduce ignition risk for some of these factors. However, the following should be considered: Transmission lines: work with BCTC to ensure that line assessments and tree maintenance are being conducted and implemented. This is particularly important for beetle kill areas adjacent to distribution lines in remote communities and side valleys with high beetle kill and greater than moderate fire behavior potential. Transmission lines are easy to discern on the maps from their linear and far reaching shape. The TNRD may wish to approach the railway companies to be kept informed of their grinding activities (or other operations that produce sparks) during the April to October time period. Railways generally follow river ways and the major highways and this places the track generally downslope of homes. This is particularly important where grasslands abut the rail way and forested slopes exist upslope. Recreational sites within the study area are a major concem for ignition risk during the fire season. Known recreational sites on the maps should be reviewed for fuel treatment around them to reduce the rate of spread from an ignition. Development permits for major construction projects within grassland and forested areas should be contingent on the developer or construction company having an adequate fire preparedness plan prepared by a qualified fire professional. 8.3 Values at Risk (Human and Natural) Values at risk address two aspects: human improvements and naturai values on the landscape. Human improvements are plentiful with structural density being extremely variable within the study area. There are major communities with very high neighborhood densities and remote lakeside cabin communities with low to moderate densities. The TNRD also contains vast wildland areas with minor scattered structures. These three types of areas have been labeled as per the following format: Dense Interface: Dense residential development (>10 structures/ha) bordering on large tracts of forested land or dense intermix developments adjacent to or within forested landscapes. Also, includes industrial activities and utilities. Remote Interface: Low to moderately dense interface «10 structures/ha) generally associated with commuter settlements or remote settlements such as lakeside communities or other resort-like settlements. Scattered Interface: Individual structures between larger developments, or isolated structures in wildland locations or very low density resort-like communities. The remote or scattered interface classifications do not infer any less importance than dense interface. The nomenclature indicates that the area is predominately oriented toward resort activities or remote living rather than towards dense neighborhood-style settlement.

7 5 Each type of interface possesses different hazard issues. Dense Interface: These are generally located within community limits, water is readily available, access is generally easy, and structural fire protection is within close proximity. This type of interface, by definition, has the highest amount of interface at risk within a small unit area. In the TNRD, this interface is generally along the major river bodies, valley confluences or highways. Perimeter protection is the best means of offering protection to these types of interface and cosvstructure is at the lower end of the scale. Remote Interface: These are more isolated communities that usually occur around some type of water body and have a remote aspect to them. They may be outside the fire protection district or have a volunteer department. Hydrants may not be available for water and access to some areas may be restricted to fire suppression equipment, either through bridge load limits or road dimensions. As this interface type tends to be surrounded by vast wildland areas, approaching fires can be large and intense. Protection of this interface type may need to be more oriented towards a landscape level strategy that treats beyond standard FireSmart guideline distances. Scattered Interface: These scattered occurrences are more difficult to address as they tend to be poorly accessible, may lack adequate suppression resources, and are usually surrounded by vast areas of wildland. The cosvstructure of treating this type of interface is very high. This interface type may best be treated in partnership with a licensee or through the implementation of a temporary forest license or license to cut. The Interface Fuel Hazard Assessment reviewed all interface polygons with a fire behavior of moderate or greater. The final fuel hazard rating was used to rank interface areas for treatment. This ranking system should be used to prioritize interface areas for treatment and should serve to provide the TNRD with a starting point, and justification, for treating one area over another. However, it should be combined with the rational above for treating the densest areas first. The TNRD should begin with those polygons that were ranked as having the highest hazard from the Interface Hazard Polygon Assessment. But consideration should be given to joining together polygons within close proximity where cost effectiveness and protection can be increased. The Fuel Hazard Rankings for each electoral area are contained in section 10.0 of this document. 9.0 ImplementationStrategy The following steps are intended to provide some direction for fuel management work within the TNRD. Review the interface priority polygons and the CWPP with Protection Branch for their input and approval. Group polygons for treatment based on fuel hazard ranking, Protection input and budget. Begin public information sessions based on these areas of interest. Consultation with First Nations is strongly recommended where

8 6 into the process necessary. Move forward treatment areas where the local community(s) buy and are supportive. Have a qualified professional develop treatment prescriptions for polygons to be treated. Consider the following alternatives for the removed material: sending it to a milling or secondary remanufacturing facility; cogeneration, or composting facility; fire wood sales. Choose the option that provides the highest rate of retum or lowest overall cost. Recognize that timber harvesting operations are not funded by the UBCM or any of the other programs. Forest harvesting must be conducted outside any funding programs. All green attack trees should be bumt or otherwise appropriately treated within Beetle Management Units (BMU) that calls for beetle suppression. All of the TNRD has been designated as a Salvage BMU, no beetle control operations are being funded in this area. So generally green attack trees with active pine beetle larvae or adults do not need to be treated separately, especially in small treatment areas where the surrounding forest has additional beetle populations. As per section 2 of the Open Burning Smoke Regulations within the Environmental Act, attempt to find altematives to pile and bum whenever possible, noting that economics may dictate pile and buming as the most viable option. Prescribed burning can be the most efficient, cost effective and ecological appropriate treatment. This option should be considered, particularly for larger treatment areas and on steeper slopes where machine use is not allowed and hand labour is not cost effective. Prescriptions should have ecosystem restoration objectives rather than be strictly fuel management treatments. That is, prescriptions should account for all ecological attributes on the site including, but not limited to: the future condition of the stand, potential forest health issues, coarse woody debris and snag recruitment, invasive plant management, post-treatment stand regeneration, etc. Once prescriptions and plans have been drafted, the public should be informed of upcoming treatments, the desired future ecosystem condition and the extent of the treatment. Well experienced operators should be utilized to ensure the prescription is implemented properly. A project monitor should frequently review the projects to ensure they are being implemented correctly and to address operational or prescription issues as they arise. The monitor should be on site: at start-up, frequently at the beginning of the project to ensure compliance, and then as necessary to ensure compliance through to the projects end. A final review and report should be provided by the monitor at completion. The report should state clearly whether the intent of the plan was met on the site. Public feedback should be collected during and after the treatment to determine public support, to keep the public involved and informed, and to determine where improvements can be made in the mitigation process.

9 Interface Fuel Hazard Assessment Rankings The following tables provide the ranking system for all the interface polygons within the district. This information is included. with more detail, within the GIS database attached to the map products. Reference should be made to Appendix B of the CWPP for further descriptions and details of the definitions (indices, modifiers, etc). The overall Fuel Hazard Ranking is a measure of both the Risk and Consequences of a wildfire occurring. The overall ranking is classified as per the following categories: Overall Fuel Hazard Ranking Risk and Conse uence <50 - Low... L 50 -<65 - Moderate... M 65 - <80 - High H 80+-Ve Hi h VH The above categories apply to all the following tables.

10 8 Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area A Spread Crowning Fire Fire Wildfire Structures Fuel Rate Potential Intensity Behavior Behavior Structure Priority Area Plot at Risk Hazard Ranking Index Ind~\X I~~;: Modifier Total ~~ti~~ (25) Rating (35) (25 (15) a a VH 2 a a H 3 a a H 4 a a H 5 a a H 6 a a H 7 a a H 8 a a H 9 a a H 10 a a H 11 a a H 12 a a H 13 a a H 14 a a H 15 a a H 16 a a H 17 a a H 18 a a M 19 a a M 20 a a M 21 a a L 22 a a L Overall Fuel Hazard Ranking <50 - Low... L 50 -<65 - Moderate... M 65 - <80 - High H VeN Hiah VH

11 Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area B Priority Area Plot Spread Crowning Fire Fire Wildfire Structures Fuel Rate Potential Intensity Behavior Behavior Structure at Risk Hazard Index Index Ind:: Modifier Rating Total (25) Rating (25) (35) (25 (15' 1100\ Ranking 1 b b M 2 b A M 3 b A M Overall Fuel Hazard Ranking <50 - Low... L 50 -<65 - Moderate... M 65 - <80 - High H Va'" Hinh VH

12 Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area E Priority Area Plot Spread Crowning Fire Fire Wildfire Structures Fuel Rate Potential Intensity Behavior Behavior Structure at Risk Hazard Index Index Modifier I~~;: ~~ting Total 125) (25) Rating 1351 (15' 100) 1 e a VH 2 e a VH 3 e a VH 4 e a VH 5 e a VH 6 e a VH 7 e a VH 8 e a H 9 e a H 10 e a H 11 e a H 12 e a H 13 e a H 14 e a H 15 e a H 16 e a H 17 e a M 18 e a M 19 e a M 20 e a M 21 e a M 22 e a M 23 e a M 24 e a M 25 e a M 26 e a M 27 e a M 28 e a M Ranking OverallFuel Hazard Ranking <50 - Low...L 50 -<65 - Moderate...M 65 -<80 - High H Verv Hiah VH

13 Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area I Priority Area Plot Spread Crowning Fire Fire Wildfire Structures Rate Potential Intensity Behavior Behavior Structure at Risk Rating Total ]~~ex I~:;\X I~~ex M~1~er Fuel Hazard 25) 25) 1100) (25) Rating 1 a VH 2 a VH 3 a H 4 a H 5 a H 6 a H 7 a H 8 a H 9 a M 10 a M 11 a L 12 a L Ranking Overall Fuel Hazard Ranking Risk and Conse uence <50 - Low...L 50 -<65 - Moderate...M 65 -<80 - High H 80+ -Ve Hi h VH

14 Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area J Priority Area Plot Spread Crowning Fire Fire Wildfire Structures Fuel Rate Potential Intensity Behavior Behavior Structure at Risk Hazard I~~;; I~~ex I~~ex M~1ifier Rating Total (25) Rating ) (100\ 1 J a VH 2 J a H 3 J a H 4 J a H 5 J a H 6 J a H 7 J a M 8 J a M 9 J a M 10 J a M 11 J a M 12 J a M 13 J a L Ranking Overall Fuel Hazard Ranking Risk and Conse uence <50 - Low...L 50 -<65 - Moderate...M 65 -<80 - High H Ve Hi h VH

15 Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area L Priority Area Plot Spread Crowning Fire Fire Wildfire Rate Potential Intensity Behavior Behavior Structures Fuel Structure at Risk Hazard (25) Rating I~~;,x I~~;\X Ind:~ M~1~er ~~ting Total (25 100' 1 L a VH 2 L a H 3 L a H 4 L a H 5 L a H 6 L a H 7 L a H 8 L a H 9 L a H 10 L a H 11 L a M 12 L a M 13 L a M 14 L a M 15 L d M 16 L a M 17 L d M 18 L a M 19 L a M 20 L a M 21 L a M 22 L d M 23 L a M 24 L a M 25 L d M 26 L a M 27 L a M 28 L d M 29 L a M 30 L d M 31 L a M 32 L a M 33 L a M 34 L d M 35 L a M 36 L a M 37 L a M 38 L a M 39 L a M 40 L a M 41 L a M 42 L a M Ranking

16 14 43 L g M 44 L d L 45 L a L 46 L a L 47 L d L 48 L a L 49 L a L 50 L d L 51 L a L 52 L g L 53 L d L 54 L a L 55 L a L 56 L d L 57 L a L 58 L g L 59 L a L 60 L d L Overall Fuel Hazard Ranking Risk and Conse uence <50 - Low... L 50 -<65 - Moderate... M 65 - <80 - High H Ve Hi h VH

17 Thompson NicolaRegionalDistrict -FuelHazard Management Strategy Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area M Priority Area Plot Spread Crowning Fire Fire Wildfire Structures Rate Potential Intensity Behavior Behavior at Risk I~::dex Index Index M71~er ~~ti~~ (25) Structure Total Fuel Hazard Rating 25) (35) (25) a VH 2 0 a VH 3 0 a H 4 0 a H 5 0 a H 6 0 a H 7 0 a H 8 0 a H 9 0 a H 10 0 a H 11 0 a H 12 0 a H 13 0 a H 14 0 a H 15 0 a H 16 0 a M 18 0 a M 19 0 a M 21 0 a M 22 0 a M 20 0 a M 23 0 a M 24 0 a M 25 0 a M 26 0 a M 27 0 a M 28 0 a M 17 0 a M 29 0 a M 33 0 a M 31 0 a M 30 0 a M 32 0 a M 34 0 a M 37 0 a L 35 0 a L 36 0 a L Ranking Overall Fuel Hazard Ranking Risk and Conse uence <50 - Low...L 50 -<65 - Moderate...M 65 - <80 - High H Ve Hi h VH

18 Thompson Nicola Regional District-Fuel Hazard Management Strategy Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area N Priority Area Plot Spread Crowning Fire Fire Wildfire Structures Fuel Rate Potential Intensity Behavior Behavior Structure at Risk Hazard Ind:)x Modifier Total 1~~;;l~g;\x ~~ti~~ (25) (25 (15) Rating 100 Ranking 1 n a VH 2 n a VH 3 n a H 4 n a H 5 n a H 6 n a H 7 n a H 8 n a M 9 n a M 10 n a M 11 n M 12 n a M 13 n a M 14 n a M 15 n a M 16 n a M 17 n a M 18 n a M 19 n a L 20 n a L 21 n a L 22 n a L Overall Fuel Hazard Ranking Risk and Conse uence <50 - Low... L 50 -<65 - Moderate... M 65 - <80 - Hi9h H Ve Hi h VH

19 Thompson Nicola Regional District -Fuei Hazard Management Strategy Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area 0 Priority Area Plot Spread Crowning Fire Fire Wildfire Structures Fuel Rate Potential Intensity Behavior Behavior Structure at Risk Hazard Index Index Index Modifier Rati~~ Total (25) (35) (25) (15) (25) Rating ( a VH 2 0 a VH 3 0 a H 4 0 a H 5 0 a H 6 0 a H 7 0 a H 8 0 a H 9 0 a H 10 0 a H 11 0 a H 12 0 a H 13 0 a H 14 0 a H 15 0 a H 16 0 a M 18 0 a M 19 0 a M 21 0 a M 22 0 a M 20 0 a M 23 0 a M 24 0 a M 25 0 a M 26 0 a M 27 0 a M 28 0 a M 17 0 a M 29 0 a M 33 0 a M 31 0 a M 30 0 a M 32 0 a M 34 0 a M 37 0 a L 35 0 a L 36 0 a L Ranking Overall Fuel Hazard Ranking Risk and Conse uence <50 - Low...L 50 -<65 - Moderate...M 65 -<80 - Hi9h H Ve Hi h VH

20 Interface Treatment Priority Electoral Area P Priority Area Plot Spread Crowning Fire Fire Wildfire Rate Potential Intensity Behavior Behavior Structures at Risk I~~;,x I~~;,x I~~;,x M~1ifier ~~ti~~ (25) 15) 100 Structure Total Fuel Hazard Rating 1 p a VH 2 p a VH 3 P a VH 4 P a H 5 p a H 6 P a H 7 P d H 8 P a H 9 P a H 10 P a H 11 p a H 12 P a M 13 P a M 14 P a M 15 P a M 16 P a M 17 P a M 18 P a M 19 P a M 20 P a M 21 p a M 22 P a M 23 P a M 24 P a M 25 P d M 26 P a M 27 P d M 28 P a M 29 P a M 30 P a M 31 P a M 32 P a M 33 P a L Ranking Overall Fuel Hazard Ranking Risk and Conse uence <50 - Low...L 50 -<65 - Moderate...M 65 - <80 - High H 80+-Ve Hi h VH