Future #3 – Resilient Landscapes

Real Change is Possible

* Dept. of Education required the ecological benefits of fire to be part of the science core curriculum K – 12.


* Universities added requirement to their undergraduate core curriculum that required credits in an environmental awareness or ecosystem management course that recognized fire’s role and benefits across our landscapes.


* Corporations have adopted landscapes by funding and promoting positive ecological benefits across all landscapes. Stockholders are supportive because more monies are available based upon the tax benefits realized from the federal and state/county levels.


* Corporation encourages and supports employee participation (by paying them in volunteering/ participation in FAC like events) that resulted in private funding and partnership in making local and regional scale changes and lowering fire risk to personal and state/federal property.


* Congress changed expectations requiring appropriate federal agencies and programs to consider (fire) landscape resiliency in all budgeting activities. (This is similar to executive orders that require considerations for a changing climate and/or limiting GHG).


* WFLC needed to change its name and charter due to the dedication and strategic leadership demonstrated by bureau and department leadership of incorporating CS into our everyday networks and business.


* Land management programs required to inform how (all) funding helps their landscapes in becoming (fire) resilient. Since this occurred, fire risk is reduced in a meaningful way.


* Agency Administrators yearly rating criteria or EPAP’s consistently are being scored the highest rating in addressing fire concerns because large landscape prescribed fires and treatments, across all lands, have replaced the damaging wildfires on a meaningful scale.


* Fire management funding has been proactive in rewarding those participants who demonstrate commitment to treating landscapes in fire resiliency. Lands in healthy conditions are rewarded by maintaining the capacity and project funding to maintain and expand the lower fire risk. The old way of business was putting the money into high-risk areas regardless if they demonstrated changes or not and land managers were “punished” by losing their budget to areas where high fire risk was not or could not be reduced in a meaningful way.


* Prescribed fire is demanded by our public in all seasons to meet ecological needs of the landscape due to the changed regulations by EPA. EPA finally realized the trade-offs between wildfire smoke and prescribed fire; how prescribed fire is a better option for carbon sequestration, and the avoided impacts to water quality and soil erosion.



0 votes
Idea No. 70