Elsevier

Forest Ecology and Management

Volume 256, Issue 12, 10 December 2008, Pages 1997-2006
Forest Ecology and Management

Review
Objectives and considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior western United States

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.09.016Get rights and content

Abstract

Many natural resource agencies and organizations recognize the importance of fuel treatments as tools for reducing fire hazards and restoring ecosystems. However, there continues to be confusion and misconception about fuel treatments and their implementation and effects in fire-prone landscapes across the United States. This paper (1) summarizes objectives, methods, and expected outcomes of fuel treatments in forests of the Interior West, (2) highlights common misunderstandings and areas of disagreement, and (3) synthesizes relevant literature to establish a common ground for future discussion and planning. It is important to understand the strengths and limitations of fuel treatments to evaluate their potential to achieve an objective, develop sensible fire management policies, and plan for their effective use. We suggest that, while the potential of fuel treatment to reduce wildfire occurrence or enhance suppression capability is uncertain, it has an important role in mitigating negative wildfire effects, increasing ecosystem resilience and making wildfire more acceptable.

Introduction

It is generally accepted that past management practices including the successful suppression of many wildland fires in some western United States ecosystems over the last 70 years have resulted in excessive accumulations of surface and canopy fuels which have, in turn, increased the potential for severe fires (Brown and Arno, 1991, Mutch et al., 1993, Kolb et al., 1998, Keane et al., 2002, Stephens and Ruth, 2005). Because productivity exceeds decomposition in most of the West, surface fuels tend to increase in the absence of disturbance. In most coniferous forests, canopy fuels also increase and become more available without disturbance as more shade-tolerant trees become established in the understory and overstory (Keane et al., 2002). Many scientists and natural resource agencies suggest extensive fuel treatments to reduce the possibility of severe and intense wildfires that could damage ecosystems, destroy property, and take human life (USDA Forest Service, 2000, GAO, 2003a, GAO, 2003b). However, there are a number of misconceptions and misunderstandings about fuel treatments and their use as a panacea for fire hazard reduction across the United States (Finney and Cohen, 2003, Franklin and Agee, 2003). This paper reviews some common misunderstandings about fuel treatments and discusses ecological and managerial realities. It is important to understand the strengths and limitations of fuel treatments so that they can be properly applied and their potential for achieving management objectives can be realized. We have synthesized relevant literature to establish a common ground for fuel treatment planning. We suggest that the primary objective for treating fuels is to make wildfire more acceptable, that is, less severe, rather than to reduce wildfire extent or make it easier to suppress.

In this paper we focus on forested ecosystems in the western United States. Many of the ideas presented here may apply to areas and other vegetation types, such as rangelands, where some fuel treatment work takes place.

The term fuel treatment, as used in this paper, describes any mechanical, silvicultural, or burning activity whose main objective is to reduce fuel loadings or change fuel characteristics to lessen fire behavior or burn severity (National Wildfire Coordinating Group, 2006). Examples include mastication (e.g., flailing, chipping, and breaking), thinning, raking, and, of course, prescribed fire used separately or in concert with the mechanical treatments (Graham et al., 2004, Agee and Skinner, 2005). Fuel treatments are usually implemented at the stand level, but an increasing number of agencies are conducting landscape-level fuel modification activities, especially as wildland fire use applications (Black, 2004). Fuels, as discussed here, are the live and dead surface and canopy biomass that are burned in wildland fire. Surface fuels include downed, dead woody biomass and live and dead shrub and herbaceous material (DeBano et al., 1998). Canopy fuels are aerial biomass primarily composed of tree branchwood and foliage, but also including arboreal mosses, lichens, and hanging dead material (e.g., needles and dead branches) (Scott and Reinhardt, 2001, Reinhardt et al., 2006). We recognize that fuel treatment objectives and design may differ between wildland and wildland–urban interface (WUI) areas (Radeloff et al., 2005) with fuel treatments in wildland areas mostly designed to mitigate the effects of large, severe wildfires and to restore fire-prone ecosystems. Wildland is considered to be an area in which development is essentially non-existent, except for roads, railroads, powerlines, and similar transportation facilities. Structures, if any, are widely scattered, while WUI is the zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels (National Wildland Fire Coordinating Group, 2006). The WUI area presents a special challenge to fuel treatment programs because it often contains lands with a variety of ownerships (both public and private) and objectives. Management of these boundary areas often attempts to reduce potential property loss as well as restoring or maintaining ecosystems. Prescribed fire and wildland fire use are the primary fuel treatment methods in wildland settings with a greater emphasis on mechanical fuel reduction treatments in WUI areas.

Planned fuel treatments, whether mechanical or prescribed fire, are only one part of a comprehensive fire management program that includes other tools such as wildland fire use. Wildland fire use is the management of naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific prestated resource management objectives (http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fireuse/index.html).

Section snippets

Objectives for treating wildland fuel

In general, fuel treatments are designed to alter fuel conditions so that wildfire is less difficult, disruptive, and destructive. However, implicitly and explicitly, managers, the public, special interest groups and policy makers often assume different specific objectives for fuel treatments. These differences in expectation can lead to polarization of what could be a non-divisive issue. In this section, we attempt to clarify some common misconceptions. While a number of authors provide

Other considerations for treating wildland fuel

Fuel treatments can involve a variety of strategies, including prescribed fire, thinning, and mechanical treatment of surface fuel, alone or in combination. Fuel treatment projects also involve decisions about placement, including the strategic placement of fuel treatments to accomplish as much as possible with limited resources. Specific fuel treatment needs vary with land use, current conditions, and the ecology of the site. In this section we outline the most pressing needs for enlightened

Treating fuels in the face of climate change

The world’s climate is changing, making increased resilience of forest stands an even more important goal. The effect of climate change on fire regimes remains somewhat uncertain, but many reports suggest that climates will become warmer and drier over the next century due to increased atmospheric carbon from anthropogenic sources, and the consequences of this change will be to increase (1) length of fire season, (2) severity and frequency of drought, (3) lightning ignitions, (4) amount of

Conclusions

Fuel treatment is an important management tool for reducing fire hazard. However, confusion exists as to the purpose and potential effectiveness of fuel treatment activities. We feel that fuel treatments should be used to reduce fire severity and intensity instead of fire occurrence. We also believe that fuel treatments should attempt to increase ecosystem resilience, especially in wildland settings. The range and variation of historical stand and landscape composition and structures should be

References (102)

  • C.D. Allen et al.

    Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective

    Ecological Applications

    (2002)
  • S.I. Apfelbaum et al.

    Ecological restoration: a practical approach

  • W.L. Baker

    Restoration of landscape structure altered by fire suppression

    Conservation Biology

    (1994)
  • Barbour, R.J., Fight, R.D., Christensen, G.A., Pinjuv, G.L., Nagubadi, R.V., 2004. Thinning and prescribed fire and...
  • J.S. Baron

    Rocky Mountain Futures: An Ecological Perspective

    (2002)
  • A.H. Berry et al.

    The effect of the wildland–urban interface on prescribed burning costs in the Pacific Northwestern United States

    Journal of Forestry

    (2004)
  • W.C. Bessie et al.

    The relative importance of fuels and weather on fire behaviour in subalpine forests

    Ecology

    (1995)
  • Black, A., 2004. Wildland Fire Use: The “Other” Treatment Option. Environmental Consequences Fact Sheet 6, Fuels...
  • Brookings Institution, 2005. The Mega-Fire Phenomenon: Toward a More Effective Management Model....
  • J.K. Brown

    Fire regimes and their relevance to ecosystem management

  • J.K. Brown et al.

    The paradox of wildland fire

    Western Wildlands

    (1991)
  • R. Brown

    Thinning, Fire and Forest Restoration: A Science Based Approach for National Forests in the Interior Northwest

    (2000)
  • R.T. Brown et al.

    Forest restoration and fire: principles in the context of place

    Conservation Biology

    (2004)
  • R. Brown et al.

    Restoring Forests and Reducing Fire Danger in the Intermountain West with Thinning and Fire

    (2000)
  • D.E. Calkin et al.

    Modeling fuel treatment costs on Forest Service lands in the western United States

    Western Journal of Applied Forestry

    (2006)
  • Cleaves, D.A., Haines, T.K., Martinez, J., 1999. Prescribed burning costs: trends and influences in the National Forest...
  • J.D. Cohen

    Preventing disaster: home ignitability in the wildland–urban interface

    Journal of Forestry

    (2000)
  • Cohen, J.D., 2000b. What is the wildland fire threat to homes? Thompson Memorial Lecture, April 10, 2000. Northern...
  • J.D. Cohen

    A brief summary of my Los Alamos fire destruction examination

    Wildfire

    (2000)
  • J.D. Cohen

    Wildland–urban fire—a different approach

  • Cohen, J.D., 2003. An examination of the Summerhaven, Arizona home destruction related to the local wildland fire...
  • J.D. Cohen

    Relating flame radiation to home ignition using modeling and experimental crown fires

    Canadian Journal of Forest Research

    (2004)
  • W.W. Covington et al.

    Restoring ecosystem health in the ponderosa pine forests of the southwest

    Journal of Forestry

    (1997)
  • L.F. DeBano et al.

    Fire’s Effect on Ecosystems

    (1998)
  • D.A. Dellasala et al.

    Beyond smoke and mirrors: a synthesis of fire policy and science

    Conservation Biology

    (2004)
  • M.P. Dombeck et al.

    Wildland fire policy and public lands: integrating scientific understanding with social concerns

    Conservation Biology

    (2004)
  • Fall, J., 1998. Reconstructing the historical frequency of fire: a modelling approach to developing and testing...
  • Fiedler, C.E., Keegan, C.E., 2003. Treatment effectiveness in reducing crown fire hazard in fire-adapted forests of New...
  • Fiedler, C.E., Keegan, C.E., Woodall, C.W., Morgan, T.A., 2004. A strategic assessment of crown fire hazard in Montana:...
  • M.A. Finney

    Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire growth and behavior

    Forest Science

    (2001)
  • M.A. Finney et al.

    Expectation and evaluation of fuel management objectives

  • M.A. Finney et al.

    Stand- and landscape-level effects of prescribed burning on two Arizona wildfires

    Canadian Journal of Forest Research

    (2005)
  • M.D. Flannigan et al.

    Climate change and wildfire in Canada

    Canadian Journal of Forest Research

    (1991)
  • M.D. Flannigan et al.

    Forest fires and climate change in the 21st century

    Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change

    (2005)
  • Forest Service

    A Strategic Assessment of Forest Biomass and Fuel Reduction Treatments in Western States

    (2003)
  • J.F. Franklin et al.

    Forging a science-based national forest fire policy

    Issues in Science and Technology

    (2003)
  • J.S. Fried et al.

    FIA BioSum: applying a multi-scale evaluation tool in Southwest Oregon

    Journal of Forestry

    (2003)
  • D.J. Ganz et al.

    The post-burning response of bark beetles to prescribed burning treatments

  • GAO [U.S. General Accounting Office], 2003a. Forest service fuels reduction. Report GAO-03-689R. U.S. General...
  • GAO [U.S. General Accounting Office], 2003b. Additional actions required to better identify and prioritize lands...
  • Cited by (278)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text