Science offers the Forest Service new approaches toward meeting its fuels reduction goals

To address the wildfire crisis in the places where it poses the greatest threat to at-risk communities, critical infrastructure, and natural resources, USDA Forest Service seeks to treat the “high-risk” acres in its landscapes over the next decade.

Photo Credit

USDA Forest Service, Wade Tinkham

Mechanical fuel reduction treatments are a part of the Forest Service's plan to address the wildfire crisis. 

Mechanical fuel reduction treatments are a part of the Forest Service's plan to address the wildfire crisis.

In support, a research team from the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station and Colorado State University set out to better understand where mechanical fuel reduction treatments are feasible, where there might be operational or administrative constraints, and how managers could overcome these constraints.

Expanding the footprint of fuel reduction and restoration treatments is critical to keeping up with growing wildland fire hazard, but lead author and Colorado State University graduate student, George Woolsey, says that the research team asked themselves the question:

What is the feasibility of meeting these fuel reduction treatment objectives?

Constraints and Opportunities

The researchers started by outlining the areas within each Wildfire Crisis Strategy landscape that have legal, operational, or administrative constraints to conducting mechanical fuels reduction treatments. Sites with such reduced potential for mechanical treatment include areas with slopes that are generally considered too steep for traditional treatment methods, areas with limited road access, and administrative reserves such as riparian areas and sensitive species habitat. Constraints in these areas could be overcome with increased funding, technological innovation, or policy changes, so this is where the researchers focused.

Co-author and RMRS research forester, Wade Tinkham, describes the motivation for the study: “This research project grew out of ongoing discussions between researchers and managers about strategies for treating steep slopes. It became clear that we did not know how much of the landscape could benefit from using technology that allows operations on steeper slopes.”

Tinkham and his co-authors soon recognized alignment between their work and an evolving agency focus on the Wildfire Crisis, saying, “as we started to evaluate this question, the Forest Service announced the Wildfire Crisis Strategy landscapes, which became a natural lens for a broader evaluation of treatment constraints.”

Photo Credit

USDA Forest Service, Wade Tinkham

Tethered logging systems can be used to help equipment operate on steeper slopes without degrading the soil. 

The results of their analysis suggest that it should be possible to mechanically treat 20-40 percent of high-risk area in each of these landscapes; however, the pathway for some landscapes may look different than the business-as-usual approach.

For some landscapes, the researchers found that adjusting investment and implementation strategies could significantly increase the area available for mechanical treatments. For example, operating on steeper slopes (grades up to 60 percent) and expanding temporary road networks would open enough acreage to meet the Wildfire Crisis Strategy treatment objectives on all but three of the 21 landscapes.

Steep-slope systems, such as tethered logging systems, can allow operators to safely conduct mechanical treatments in previously inoperable areas. While these tethered systems are more costly than non-tethered operations, they provide a tool for treating critical acres that might not be accessible by other fuel reduction strategies.

Mechanical Thinning is Only One Tool in the Forest Management Toolbox

The researchers hope that their results can help forest managers evaluate which type of management makes sense to use in each landscape, given the operational constraints present. The information from this research could also be used to optimize mechanical treatment design, especially when used with other planning frameworks like PODs.

The team emphasizes that their research evaluates only mechanical fuel reduction treatments, which represents just one set of tools available to managers. Tinkham clarifies, “As this data is considered by managers, it is important to consider how other tools like fuel breaks and prescribed fire can be used to extend and connect the footprints of these treatments.” Research consistently shows that integrating mechanical treatments with fire—prescribed burns or managed wildfire—is the most effective strategy for reducing fuel hazard and promoting future fire resilient forests at the landscape scale.

The authors also recognize that, in addition to science, place-based knowledge and collaboration will be necessary to implement management actions that effectively reduce fire hazard while also meeting local objectives.

The USDA Forest Service is working through a years-long, science-based roadmap for creating safer and more fire-resilient landscapes and communities, reducing wildfire risk to critical infrastructure and natural resources, and fostering strong collaboration across all lands.