SW Fire CLIME Vulnerability Assessment Tool Webinar August 20, - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SW Fire CLIME Vulnerability Assessment Tool Webinar August 20, 2018 Megan M. Friggens meganfriggens@fs.fed.us

SW Fire CLIME Team: Andi Thode, NAU (PI) Landscape Impacts Anne Bradley, TNC Windy Bunn, NPS of Fire and Climate Zander Evans, Forest Guild Don Falk, UA Change in the William Flatley, UCA Pete Fule, NAU Southwest : A Megan Friggens, RMRS Dave Gori, TNC Science- Shaula Hedwall, USFWS Management Robert Keane, RMRS Rachel Loehman, USGS Partnership Jack Triepke, USFS Craig Wilcox, USFS Larissa Yocom, USU

Objectives 1. Synthesize current knowledge of fire-climate dynamics 2. Assess vulnerability of SW ecosystems (e.g. mixed conifer vs. ponderosa pine) to shifts in climate and fire regimes 3. Model climate-fire-vegetation interactions with FireBGCv2 and LANDIS-II 4. Determine whether management actions can reduce ecosystem vulnerability under a range of future climates SW Fire CLIME

Activities • Literature Review • Manager-Scientist workshops • Modeled projections for SW ecosystems under different climate-fire-management scenarios (Loehman et al. 2018) • Framework to measure vulnerability of ecosystems under different climate-fire- management scenarios

Why vulnerability assessments? Exposure Sensitivity e.g. climate changes, flood • Designed to identify and Response to exposure event evaluate how and why something is negatively impacted by disturbance Impact Adaptive Capacity • Used to prioritize actions Potential for loss of Ability to cope with resource impact and identify opportunities • Provide guidance under Vulnerability uncertain futures Degree to which resource is susceptible to adverse effects (IPCC 2007) SW Fire CLIME

SW Fire CLIME

Additional Considerations • Tool needs to be able to provide information for a wide variety of situations using a variety of data sources • Indicators to measure exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity must be reliable • Definition of negative must be consistent but flexible • Recognize not all change is negative • Framework needs to incorporate impacts of management actions SW Fire CLIME

Climate Response 1. Simple additive system Intrinsic Response Exposure based on core fire, (fire regime) ecosystem and fuel Sensitivity indicators 2. Desired Future Conditions Response Management (DFC) are used as baseline Adaptive Ecosystem 3. Response based system Recovery capacity impacts that considers change and nature of that change: Response can be positive or Ecosystem Vulnerability negative (Potential departure from DFC) SW Fire CLIME

INTRINSIC SENSITIVITY AND ADAPTIVE CAPACITY EXPOSURE Framework Response to Fire Regime and Core Intrinsic Sensitivity and Climate Change Scenarios Change Adaptive Capacity 1. Fire Season Length Ecosystem Components Components 1. Current Departure in Fire 1. Species Survivorship 2. ERC Regime 3. Drought Frequency/Duration 2. Species Recruitment 2. Historic Management 3. Erosion and Debris Flows 4. Average Summer Temp X + Regime 4. Species Composition 5. Relative Humidity 3. Drought Sensitivity 6. Snowpack or SWE 5. Stand Structure 4. Ecotone 5. Invasive plants Response to Climate Change 6. Dispersal Limited Fuel Components 7. Fuel or Weather limited 1. Size High Severity 1. Fuel Loading regimes Patch 2. Fuel Continuity 8. Project declines under 2. Fire Frequency 3. Fuel Structure climate change 3. Soil Burn Severity 9. Other disturbances 4. Annual Area Burned EXTRINSIC ADAPTIVE CAPACITY: Vulnerability EFFECT OF MANAGEMENT scores - Treatment X Fuels Component Adjusted Treatment Vulnerability Effectiveness Treatments X Fire Regime Scores Component Scores Treatment X Ecosystem Component

DEMO

The Fire CLIME Vulnerability Assessment Tool Outputs With these outputs users can: • Identify climate-driven changes in • Impact scores: individual fire regime components • Fire regime components • Link fire regime shifts to ecosystem • Ecosystem components • Fuel components impacts • Uncertainty/Confidence • Incorporate climate uncertainties scores for all responses • Compare across ecosystems, • Vulnerability and Impact treatments Score before and after • Prioritize areas of concern Treatment

Veg Type 2 Veg Type 1 Veg Type 1 Climate Climate Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Climate Climate Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Trtmnt 1 Trtmnt 1 Trtmnt 1 Compare Vegetation Compare Vulnerability Under Vulnerability Different Climate Scenarios Veg Type 1 Veg Type 1 Climate Climate Scenario 1 Climate Scenario 2 Scenario 1 Trtmnt 1 Trtmnt 2 Trtmnt 1 Trtmnt 2 Trtmnt 1 Trtmnt 2 Compare Treatment Impacts on Vulnerability Under Different Compare Treatment Impacts Climate Scenarios on Vulnerability

Example 1: Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer Ecosystems in the Jemez Mountains • Literature Based Case Study ->Stephanie Mueller • Warm-dry future climate trajectory (CCSM4 CMIP5 RCP 4.5) with average global increase in temperature of 1.8°C (2100) and increased aridity and periods of drought in the Southwest (Collins et al., 2013). • Three treatment inputs based on the 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Southwest Jemez Mountains Landscape Restoration Project on the Jemez Ranger District (USDA Forest Service, 2015). • Time period (outcome date): 2050

Trt 3 Weight – Management RCP 8.5 Trt 2 Weight – Desired Condition Weight – Climate Change Mixed Conifer No Weight Trt 1 Trt 3 Weight – Management RCP 4.5 Trt 2 Weight – Desired Condition Weight – Climate Change No Weight Trt 1 Trt 3 Weight – Management RCP 8.5 Trt 2 Weight – Desired Condition Weight – Climate Change Ponderosa Pine No Weight Trt 1 Trt 3 Weight – Management RCP 4.5 Trt 2 Weight – Desired Condition Weight – Climate Change No Weight Trt 1

Treatment Variations Duration Desired Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatments Date No RX fire alternative. Mechanically treat Mechanically treat same No action alternative. No This work will be ~29,900 acres of PIPO 29,900 acres and change to current done over 8-10 ecosystem; prescribed masticate slash material management. Minimal years or until 2050 fire on ~77,000 acres to or lop and scatter on mechanical thin (~900 objective are reduce post-thin slash; site; reduce prescribed acres); prescribed fire on met additional prescribed fire fire by 41% to minimize ~18,400 acres. on non-treated areas smoke emissions

Change in Vulnerability Scores for Fire Regime Difference in Vulnerability Scores for Non-Treated and Components under Untreated and Non-treated Treated Ecosystem and Fuel Components Landscapes 20.0 20 15.0 15 Decreasing Vulnerability 10.0 10 5 5.0 0 0.0 -5 -5.0 -10 -10.0 -15 -15.0 -20 -20.0 Size of high severity Fire Frequency Soil Burn Severity Annual Area Burned patch Original Trt1 Trt2 Trt3 Original Trt 1 Trt 2 Trt3 Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 No action alternative. No change to current Mechanically treat approx. 29,900 acres of fire- No RX fire alternative. Mechanically treat same management. Mechanical thin of approx. 900 adapted PIPO ecosystems and use prescribed fire 29,900 acres and masticate slash material or acres of PIPO and use prescribed fire on on approx. 77,000 acres to reduce post-thin slash. lop and scatter on site. approx. 18,400 acres.