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 EA 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.
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 |
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 |
Franklin JF , Agee JK (2003) Forging a science-based national forest fire policy. Issues in Science and Technology 20, 59–66.
Grumbine RE (1994) What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8, 27–38.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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 |
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 |
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).