Register      Login
International Journal of Wildland Fire International Journal of Wildland Fire Society
Journal of the International Association of Wildland Fire
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Integrating fuel treatment into ecosystem management: a proposed project planning process

Keith D. Stockmann A F , Kevin D. Hyde B , J. Greg Jones C , Dan R. Loeffler D and Robin P. Silverstein E
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Ecosystem Assessment and Planning, Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, Federal Building, 200 E Broadway, POB 7669, Missoula, MT 59807, USA.

B Collins Consulting for USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Federal Building, 200 E Broadway, POB 7669, Missoula, MT 59807, USA. Email: kdhyde@fs.fed.us

C Rocky Mountain Research Station, Human Dimensions Unit, 200 E Broadway,POB 7669, Missoula, MT 59807, USA. Email: jgjones@fs.fed.us

D College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812,200 E Broadway, POB 7669, Missoula, MT 59807, USA. Email: drloeffler@fs.fed.us

E Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, USDA Forest Service,5775 W US Highway 10, Missoula, MT 59808, USA. Email: rsilverstein@fs.fed.us

F Corresponding author. Email: kstockmann@fs.fed.us

International Journal of Wildland Fire 19(6) 725-736 https://doi.org/10.1071/WF08108
Submitted: 20 June 2008  Accepted: 6 January 2010   Published: 17 September 2010

Abstract

Concern over increased wildland fire threats on public lands throughout the western United States makes fuel reduction activities the primary driver of many management projects. This single-issue focus recalls a management planning process practiced frequently in recent decades – a least-harm approach where the primary objective is first addressed and then plans are modified to mitigate adverse effects to other resources. In contrast, we propose a multiple-criteria process for planning fuel-treatment projects in the context of ecosystem management. This approach is consistent with policies that require land management activities be designed to meet multiple-use and environmental objectives, while addressing administrative and budget constraints, and reconciling performance measures from multiple policy directives. We present the process borrowing from the Trapper Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project example to show the logic for conducting an integrated assessment of ecological and natural resource issues related to multiple management scenarios. The effects and trade-offs of the no-action scenario and proposed action alternatives are evaluated relative to silviculture, disturbance processes (including fire behaviour), wildlife habitat, noxious weeds, water quality, recreation and aesthetics, and economic contributions. Advantages and challenges of this project planning approach are also discussed.


References


Ager A, Finney M, McMahan A (2006) A wildfire risk modeling system for evaluating landscape fuel treatment strategies. In ‘Fuels Management – How to Measure Success’. (Eds PL Andrews, BW Butler) USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Research Paper RMRS P-41, pp. 149–162. (Fort Collins, CO)

Arno S (2000) Fire in Western Forest Ecosystems. In ‘Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora’. (Eds JK Brown, JK Smith) USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2, pp. 97–120. (Ogden, UT)

Ascough JC, Maier HR, Ravalico JK , Strudley MW (2008) Future research challenges for incorporation of uncertainty in environmental and ecological decision-making. Ecological Modelling  219, 383–399.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Beder S, Hosle V, Kaiser M, Kemelmajer De Carlucci A, Kinzig A, van der Sluijs J (2005) ‘The Precautionary Principle.’ (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Paris)

Brans JP , Mareschal B (1994) PROMCALC & GAIA: a new decision support system for multicriteria decision aid. Decision Support Systems  12, 297–310.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Congressional Research Service (1994) ‘Ecosystem management: status and potential.’ Senate Print 103-98. (US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC)

Finney M (2006) An overview of FlamMap fire modeling capabilities. In ‘Fuels Management – How to Measure Success: Conference Proceedings’, 28–30 March 2006, Portland, OR. (Eds PL Andrews, BW Butler) USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Proceedings RMRS-P-41, pp. 213–220. (Fort Collins, CO)

Forman RTT (1995) ‘Land Mosaics: the Ecology of Landscapes and Regions.’ (Cambridge University: Cambridge, UK)

Franklin JF , Agee JK (2003) Forging a science-based national forest fire policy. Issues in Science and Technology  20, 59–66.
General Accounting Office (2002) Severe wildland fires: leadership and accountability needed to reduce risks to communities and resources. United States General Accounting Office, Report GAO-02–259. (Washington, DC)

General Accounting Office (2005) Wildland fire management: important progress has been made, but challenges remain to completing a cohesive strategy. United States Government Accountability Office, Report GAO-05–147. (Washington, DC)

Gercke DM, Stewart SA (2006) Strategic placement of treatments (SPOTS): maximizing the effectiveness of fuel and vegetation treatments on problem fire behavior and effects. In ‘Fuels Management – How to Measure Success’. (Eds PL Andrews, BW Butler) USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Research Paper RMRS P-41, pp. 185–192. (Fort Collins, CO)

Grumbine RE (1994) What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology  8, 27–38.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) Mitigation – Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Cambridge University: Cambridge, UK)

Jakeman AJ , Letcher RA (2003) Integrated assessment and modelling: features, principles and examples for catchment management. Environmental Modelling & Software  18, 491–501.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Nazzaro RM (2006) Wildland fire management: update on federal agency efforts to develop a cohesive strategy to address wildland fire threats. US Government Accountability Office, Report GAO-06–671R. (Washington, DC)

Ohlson DW, Berry TM, Gray RW, Blackwell BA , Hawkes BC (2006) Multi-attribute evaluation of landscape-level fuel management to reduce wildfire risk. Forest Policy and Economics  8, 824–837.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 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)

Sessions JG, Reeves K, Johnson N, Burnett K (1997) Implementing spatial planning in watersheds. In ‘Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century: the Science of Ecosystem Management’. (Eds KA Kohm, JF Franklin) pp. 271–279. (Island Press: Washington, DC)

Skroch M (2005) Ecosystem management and its role in linking science, policy, and management. In ‘Connecting Mountain Islands and Desert Seas: Biodiversity and Management of the Madrean Archipelago II’. (Eds J Gottfried, B Gebow, L Eskew, C Edminster) USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Research Paper RMRS P-36. (Fort Collins, CO)

US Congress (1960) Multiple-Use and Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. 16 USC 528–531.

US Congress (1969) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 USC 4321–4347.

US Congress (1976) National Forest Management Act of 1976. 16 USC 1600.

US Congress (2003) Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. 16 USC 6501–6591.

US DOI and USDA Forest Service (2006) Protecting people and natural resources: a cohesive fuels treatment strategy. The Forest Service Management Response to the General Accounting Office, Report GAO/RCED-99–65. (Washington, DC)

USDA Forest Service (2008) Final Environmental Impact Statement: Trapper Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project, Bitterroot National Forest. (Darby, MT) Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/bitterroot/projects/ [Verified 20 July 2010]

Walker WE, Harremoes P, Rotmans J, van der Sluijs JP, Janssen P, Krayer MBA , Krayer von Krauss MP (2003) Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model based decision support. Integrated Assessment  4(1), 5–17.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR , Swetnam TW (2006) Warming and earlier spring increases western US forest wildfire activity. Science  313, 940–943.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |

Yaffee SL (1999) Three faces of ecosystem management. Conservation Biology  13, 713–725.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |




A The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 specifies that compliant planning documents consider both a no-action alternative and a reasonable range of action alternatives to analyse environmental consequences of potential actions (42 USC 4321–4347). The National Forest Management Act of 1976 mandated extensive planning to promote effective and efficient conservation of forest resources and to resolve forest management controversies (16 USC 1600).