Constraints on Mechanized Treatment Significantly Limit Mechanical Fuels Reduction Extent in the Sierra Nevada

With air quality, liability, and safety concerns, prescribed burning and managed wildfire are often considered impractical treatments for extensive fuels reduction in western US forests. For California’s Sierra Nevada forests, we evaluated the alternative and analyzed the amount and distribution of constraints on mechanical fuels treatments on USDA Forest Service land. With the use of current standards and guides, feedback from practicing silviculturists, and GIS databases, we developed a hierarchy of biological (i.e., nonproductive forest), legal (i.e., wilderness), operational (i.e., equipment access), and administrative (i.e., sensitive species and riparian areas) constraints. Of the Sierra Nevada Bioregion’s 10.7 million acres in USDA Forest Service ownership, 58% contains productive forest and 25% is available to mechanical treatment. National forests in the southern Sierra Nevada have higher levels of constraint due to more wilderness and steeper, more remote terrain. We evaluated different levels of operational constraints and found that increasing road building and operating on steeper slopes had less effect on increasing mechanical access than removing economic considerations (i.e., accessing sites regardless of timber volume). Constraints due to sensitive species habitat and riparian areas only reduced productive forest access by 8%. We divided the Sierra Nevada Bioregion into 710 subwatersheds (mean size of 22,800 acres) with 25% Forest Service ownership as an approximation of a relevant management planning unit for fire or “fireshed.” Only 20% of these subwatersheds had enough unconstrained acreage to effectively contain or suppress wildfire with mechanical treatment alone. Analysis suggests mechanical treatment in most subwatersheds could be more effective if it established a fuel-reduced “anchor” from which prescribed and managed fire could be strategically expanded. With potential future increases in wildfire size and severity, fire policy and forest restoration might benefit if mechanical thinning is more widely used to leverage and complement managed fire.

[1]  Carl N. Skinner,et al.  Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments , 2005 .

[2]  Charles W. McHugh,et al.  Simulation of long-term landscape-level fuel treatment effects on large wildfires , 2006 .

[3]  David Saah,et al.  Modeling hazardous fire potential within a completed fuel treatment network in the northern Sierra Nevada , 2013 .

[4]  Klaus H. Barber,et al.  Stewardship and fireshed assessment: a process for designing a landscape fuel treatment strategy. , 2007 .

[5]  Scott L. Stephens,et al.  Simulating Fire and Forest Dynamics for a Landscape Fuel Treatment Project in the Sierra Nevada , 2011, Forest Science.

[6]  Malcolm P. North,et al.  Stand structure, fuel loads, and fire behavior in riparian and upland forests, Sierra Nevada Mountains, USA; a comparison of current and reconstructed conditions , 2011 .

[7]  Danny C. Lee,et al.  Assessing risks to spotted owls from forest thinning in fire-adapted forests of the western United States , 2005 .

[8]  Mark A. Finney,et al.  A computational method for optimising fuel treatment locations , 2006 .

[9]  S. Stephens,et al.  The Effects of Forest Fuel-Reduction Treatments in the United States , 2012 .

[10]  James M. Omernik,et al.  THE MISUSE OF HYDROLOGIC UNIT MAPS FOR EXTRAPOLATION, REPORTING, AND ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT 1 , 2003 .

[11]  Robert E. Keane,et al.  Objectives and considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior western United States , 2008 .

[12]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  An Alternative Incentive Structure for Wildfire Management on National Forest Land , 2005 .

[13]  Martha A. Williamson,et al.  Factors in United States Forest Service district rangers' decision to manage a fire for resource benefit , 2007 .

[14]  P. Fulé,et al.  Do thinning and/or burning treatments in western USA ponderosa or Jeffrey pine-dominated forests help restore natural fire behavior? , 2012 .

[15]  Susan I. Stewart,et al.  The wildland-urban interface in the United States based on 125 million building locations. , 2005, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[16]  S. Stephens,et al.  Opportunities for Improved Fire Use and Management in California: Lessons from Western Australia , 2013 .

[17]  W. Romme,et al.  Expansion of the US wildland–urban interface , 2007 .

[18]  Scott L. Stephens,et al.  An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Sierran Mixed-Conifer Forests , 2012 .

[19]  T. Spies,et al.  Conserving Old‐Growth Forest Diversity in Disturbance‐Prone Landscapes , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[20]  L. Campbell,et al.  Historical and contemporary distributions of carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA , 2005 .

[21]  B. C. Ward,et al.  Simulating landscape-scale effects of fuels treatments in the Sierra Nevada, California, USA , 2011 .

[22]  Robert W. Malmsheimer,et al.  Forest service land management litigation 1989-2002 , 2006 .

[23]  R. Neilson,et al.  Climate change effects on vegetation distribution, carbon, and fire in California , 2003 .

[24]  R. J. Gutiérrez,et al.  Evaluating the Efficacy of Protected Habitat Areas for the California Spotted Owl Using Long-Term Monitoring Data , 2012 .

[25]  D. Theobald.  Landscape Patterns of Exurban Growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020 , 2005 .

[26]  S. Stephens,et al.  FEDERAL FOREST‐FIRE POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES , 2005 .

[27]  R. Neilson,et al.  Response of vegetation distribution, ecosystem productivity, and fire to climate change scenarios for California , 2008 .

[28]  Scott L. Stephens,et al.  Challenges and Approaches in Planning Fuel Treatments across Fire-Excluded Forested Landscapes , 2010, Journal of Forestry.

[29]  J. Long,et al.  Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range , 2014 .

[30]  M. North,et al.  Fire history of coniferous riparian forests in the Sierra Nevada , 2010 .

[31]  J. Long,et al.  Synopsis of emergent approaches , 2014 .

[32]  Estimating Trend in Occupancy for the Southern Sierra Fisher Martes pennanti Population , 2013 .

[33]  John D. Bailey,et al.  Estimating Regional Wood Supply Based on Stakeholder Consensus for Forest Restoration in Northern Arizona , 2011, Journal of Forestry.

[34]  Bruce R. Hartsough,et al.  The economics of alternative fuel reduction treatments in western United States dry forests: Financial and policy implications from the National Fire and Fire Surrogate Study , 2008 .

[35]  Andrew J. McMahan,et al.  Restoration of fire in managed forests: a model to prioritize landscapes and analyze tradeoffs , 2013 .

[36]  Nicole M. Vaillant,et al.  A comparison of landscape fuel treatment strategies to mitigate wildland fire risk in the urban interface and preserve old forest structure , 2010 .

[37]  M. Finney.  Design of Regular Landscape Fuel Treatment Patterns for Modifying Fire Growth and Behavior , 2001, Forest Science.

[38]  J. Varner,et al.  Impediments to prescribed fire across agency, landscape and manager: an example from northern California , 2012 .

[39]  Scott L. Stephens,et al.  Using Fire to Increase the Scale, Benefits, and Future Maintenance of Fuels Treatments , 2012 .