Simulation of long-term landscape-level fuel treatment effects on large wildfires
Mark A. Finney A E , Rob C. Seli A , Charles W. McHugh A , Alan A. Ager B , Bernhard Bahro C and James K. Agee D
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A USDA Forest Service, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, PO Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59808, USA.
B USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Western Wildland Environmental Threat Assessment Center, 3160 3rd Street NE, Prineville, OR 97754, USA.
C USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region – FAMSAC, 3237 Peacekeeper Way McClellan, CA 95652, USA.
D University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
E Corresponding author. Email: mfinney@fs.fed.us
International Journal of Wildland Fire 16(6) 712-727 https://doi.org/10.1071/WF06064
Submitted: 18 May 2006 Accepted: 6 September 2007 Published: 17 December 2007
Abstract
A simulation system was developed to explore how fuel treatments placed in topologically random and optimal spatial patterns affect the growth and behaviour of large fires when implemented at different rates over the course of five decades. The system consisted of a forest and fuel dynamics simulation module (Forest Vegetation Simulator, FVS), logic for deriving fuel model dynamics from FVS output, a spatial fuel treatment optimisation program, and a spatial fire growth and behaviour model to evaluate the performance of the treatments in modifying large fire growth. Simulations were performed for three study areas: Sanders County in western Montana, the Stanislaus National Forest in California, and the Blue Mountains in south-eastern Washington. For different spatial treatment strategies, the results illustrated that the rate of fuel treatment (percentage of land area treated per decade) competes against the rates of fuel recovery to determine how fuel treatments contribute to multidecade cumulative impacts on the response variables. Using fuel treatment prescriptions that simulate thinning and prescribed burning, fuel treatment arrangements that are optimal in disrupting the growth of large fires require at least 1 to 2% of the landscape to be treated each year. Randomly arranged units with the same treatment prescriptions require about twice that rate to produce the same fire growth reduction. The results also show that the topological fuel treatment optimisation tends to balance maintenance of previous units with treatment of new units. For example, with 2% landscape treatment annually, fewer than 5% of the units received three or more treatments in five decades with most being treated only once or twice and ~35% remaining untreated after five decades.
Additional keyword: fire modelling.
Acknowledgements
The current study was funded by the USA Joint Fire Sciences Program and the US Forest Service, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory. Special thanks to Nick Crookston for his willingness to make custom modifications to PPE for our uses and to Howard Roose with the Bureau of Land Management who also provided funding. We also thank Amber Mahoney, Jim Beekman, and Don Justice on the Umatilla National Forest for their assistance with data collection on the Mill Creek study site.
References
Agee JK (1996) The influence of forest structure on fire behavior. In ‘Proceedings of the 17th Annual Forest and Vegetation Management Conference’. 16–18 January 1996, Redding, CA. (Ed. J Sherlock) pp. 52–68. (Redding, CA)
Agee JK , Skinner CN
(2005) Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211, 83–96.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Anderson HE (1982) Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behaviour. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report INT-GTR-122. (Ogden, UT)
Arno SF , Brown JK
(1991) Overcoming the paradox in managing wildland fire. Western Wildlands 17((1)), 40–46.
Biswell HH, Kallander HR, Komarek R, Vogl RJ, Weaver H (1973) Ponderosa fire management: a task force evaluation of controlled burning in ponderosa pine forest of central Arizona. Tall Timbers Research Station Miscellaneous Publication No. 2. (Tallahassee, FL)
Blonski KS, Schramel JL (1981) Photo series for quantifying natural forest residues: Southern Cascades, northern Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-56. (Berkeley, CA)
Brackebusch AP
(1973) Fuel management: a prerequisite, not an alternative to fire control. Journal of Forestry 71, 637–639.
Brewer KC, Berglund D, Barber JA, Bush R (2004) Northern region vegetation mapping project summary report and spatial datasets. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. (Missoula, MT)
Brown RT, Agee JK , Franklin JF
(2004) Forest restoration and fire: principles in the context of place. Conservation Biology 18((4)), 903–912.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bunnell D (1998) Old growth lodgepole pine and the Little Wolf Fire. In ‘Proceedings of the 1994 Interior West Fire Council Meeting and Program’. 1–4 November 1994, Coeur d’Alene, ID. (Eds K Close, R Bartlette) pp. 155–160. (International Association of Wildland Fire: Fairfield, WA)
Cochran PH, Geist JM, Clemens DL, Clausnitzer RR, Powell DC (1994) Suggested stocking levels for forest stands of north-eastern Oregon and south-eastern Washington. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-RN-513. (Portland, OR)
Cooper CF
(1961) Controlled burning and watershed condition in the White Mountains of Arizona. Journal of Forestry 59, 438–442.
Cram D, Baker T, Boren J (2006) Wildland fire effects in silviculturally treated vs. untreated stands of New Mexico and Arizona. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Research Paper RMRS-RP-55. (Fort Collins, CO)
Crookston NL, Stage AR (1991) User’s guide to the parallel processing extension of the prognosis model. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-281. (Ogden, UT)
Crookston NL, Moeur M, Renner D (2002) User’s guide to the most similar neighbor imputation program Version 2. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-96. (Ogden, UT)
Deeming JE, Burgan RE, Cohen JD (1977) The national fire-danger rating system – 1978. USDA Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report INT-39. (Ogden, UT)
Fernandes PAM , Botelho H
(2003) A review of prescribed burning effectiveness in fire hazard reduction. International Journal of Wildland Fire 12, 117–128.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Finney MA (1998) FARSITE: Fire Area Simulator – model development and evaluation. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Research Paper RMRS-RP-4. (Ogden, UT)
Finney MA
(2001a) Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire growth and behavior. Forest Science 47, 219–228.
Finney MA (2001b) Spatial strategies for landscape fuel treatment. In ‘Proceedings Workshop on Tools and Methodologies for Fire Danger Mapping’. 9–14 March 2001, Vila Real, Portugal. (Eds J Bento, H Botelho) pp. 157–163. (Universidade de Traz-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Departamento Florestal, Qunta de Prados: Vila Real, Portugal)
Finney MA (2002a) Use of graph theory and a genetic algorithm for finding optimal fuel treatment locations. In ‘Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Forest Fire Research’. 18–23 November 2002, Luso-Coimbra, Portugal. (Ed. DX Viegas) (Millpress: Rotterdam, Netherlands)
Finney MA
(2002b) Fire growth using minimum travel time methods. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32((8)), 1420–1424.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Finney MA (2004) Landscape fire simulation and fuel treatment optimization. In ‘Methods for Integrated Modeling of Landscape Change. Interior Northwest Landscape Analysis System. Ch. 9’. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-610. (Eds JL Hayes, AA Ager, JR Barbour) pp. 117–131. (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR)
Finney MA
(2005) The challenge of quantitative risk assessment for wildland fire. Forest Ecology and Management 211, 97–108.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fischer WC (1981) Photo guide for appraising downed woody fuels in Montana forests: grand fir–larch–Douglas-fir; western hemlock–western red cedar; and western red cedar cover types. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report INT-96. (Ogden, UT)
Graham RT (2003) Hayman fire case study. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-114. (Ogden, UT)
Graham RT, Harvey AE, Jain TB, Tonn JR (1999) The effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behaviour in western forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-463. (Portland, OR)
Graham RT, McCaffrey S, Jain TB (2004) Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-120. (Fort Collins, CO)
Helms JA
(1979) Positive effects of prescribed burning on wildfire intensities. Fire Management Notes 403, 10–13.
Hirsch K, Pengelly I (1999) Fuel reduction in lodgepole pine stands in Banff National Park. In ‘Proceedings of the Joint Fire Science Conference and Workshop. Crossing the Millenium: Integrating Spatial Technologies and Ecological Principles for a New Age in Fire Management’. 15–17 June 1999, Boise, ID. (Eds LF Neuenschwander, KC Ryan, GE Gollberg, JD Greer) pp. 251–256. (University of Idaho: Moscow, ID)
Hirsch K, Kafka V, Tymstra C, McAlpine R, Hawkes B, Stegehuis H, Quintilio S, Gauthier S , Peck K
(2001) Fire-smart forest management: a pragmatic approach to sustainable forest management in fire-dominated ecosystems. Forestry Chronicle 77, 357–363.
Martin RE, Kauffman JB, Landsberg JD (1989) Use of prescribed fire to reduce wildfire potential. In ‘Proceedings of the Symposium on Fire and Watershed Management’. 26–28 October 1988, Sacramento, CA. General Technical Report PSW-109. (Tech. Coord. NH Berg) pp. 17–22. (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: Berkeley)
McRoberts RE, Reams GA, Van Deusen PC (2000) Proceedings of the First Annual Forest Inventory and Analysis Symposium. 2–3 November 1999, San Antonio, TX. General Technical Report NC-213. (USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station: St Paul, MN)
Miller C, Landres PB, Alaback PB (2000) Evaluating risks and benefits of wildland fire at landscape scales. In ‘Proceedings of the Joint Fire Science Conference and Workshop. Crossing the Millenium: Integrating Spatial Technologies and Ecological Principles for a New Age in Fire Management’. 15–17 June 1999, Boise, ID. (Eds LF Neuenschwander, KC Ryan, GE Gollberg, JD Greer) pp. 78–87. (University of Idaho: Moscow, ID)
Pollet J , Omi PN
(2002) Effect of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in ponderosa pine forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire 11, 1–10.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Reams GA, McRoberts RE, Deusen V, Paul C (Eds) (2001) Proceedings of the Second Annual Forest Inventory and Analysis Symposium. 17–18 October 2000, Salt Lake City, UT. General Technical Report SRS-47. (USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Asheville, NC)
Reinhardt E, Crookston NL (Tech. Eds) (2003) The Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-116. (Ogden, UT)
Scott JH, Burgan RE (2005) Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set of fuel models for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-153. (Fort Collins, CO)
Scott JH, Reinhardt ED (2001) Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface and crown fire behavior. USDA Forest Service Rocky, Mountain Research Station, Research Paper RMRS-RP-29. (Fort Collins, CO)
Skinner CN, Chang C-R (1996) Fire regimes, past and present. In ‘Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress. Vol. II’. pp. 1041–1069. (Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California: Davis, CA)
Smith JK, Fischer WC (1997) Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of northern Idaho. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report INT-GTR-363. (Ogden, UT)
Stephens SL
(1998) Evaluation of the effects of silvicultural and fuels treatments on potential fire behavior in Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management 105, 21–35.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
van Wagtendonk JW (1996) Use of a deterministic fire model to test fuel treatments. In ‘Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress. Vol. II’. pp. 1155–1167. (Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California: Davis, CA)
van Wagtendonk JW, Sydoriak CA (1987) Fuel accumulation rates after prescribed fires in Yosemite National Park. In ‘Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Fire and Forest Meteorology. Vol. 9’. 21–24 April 1987, San Diego, CA. pp. 101–105. (American Meteorology Society: Boston, MA)
Weaver H
(1943) Fire as an ecological and silvicultural factor in the ponderosa pine region of the Pacific slope. Journal of Forestry 41, 7–15.
Wykoff WR, Crookston NL, Stage AR (1982) User’s guide to the Stand Prognosis Model. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report INT-133. (Ogden, UT)
