Effects of Fuels Management in the Tahoe Basin………………………...3
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 Table of Contents Executive Summary: Effects of Fuels Management in the Tahoe Basin………………………...3 Introduction to the Effects of Fuels Management in the Tahoe Basin………………………….10 Vegetation Response to Fuels Management in the Lake Tahoe Basin…………………………42 Effects of Fuels Management on Future Wildfires in the Lake Tahoe Basin……………….….84 Soil and Water Quality Response to Fuels Management in the Lake Tahoe Basin…........…...116 Effects of Wild and Prescribed Fires on Lake Tahoe Air Quality………………….…….…....184 Wildlife Habitat and Community Responses to Fuels Management in the Lake Tahoe Basin…………………………………….…….225 Appendix A: Current Tahoe Basin Experimental and Modeling Studies of Fuel Treatment Effects…………………………………………………….….………..303 2 Executive Summary: Effects of Fuels Management in the Tahoe Basin 3 Introduction Decision makers and the public in the Tahoe basin are engaged in important debates regarding the tradeoffs between reducing the risk of severe wildfire, protecting and restoring ecological values, and wisely using economic resources. Efforts to reduce fuel hazards and restore natural ecological processes involve risks to resource values, but inaction carries the risk of severe wildfire in highly altered forest stands. Scientific investigation has an important role to play in helping to evaluate the tradeoffs involved in fuels management. To address this issue, the Pacific Southwest Research Station commissioned literature reviews on the effects of fuels treatments in the Tahoe basin on air quality, water quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife. The resulting papers and an associated on-line searchable database of publications address previous calls to make scientific information more available to guide decisions. The review papers considered the general effects of prescribed burning and mechanical harvest, as well as some specific treatment methods being applied or considered in the basin, including hand thinning, cut-to-length (CTL) treatment, whole tree removal (WTR), broadcast or understory burning, pile burning, chipping and mastication. Appendix A identifies many of the current research projects in the basin that will help to answer key questions about treatment effects. Setting for Fuel Treatments Distinctive Ecological Factors Affecting Fuel Treatments in the Basin The proximity of the wildland-urban interface to an ultra-oligotrophic lake compounds the inherent complexity of evaluating the effects of land management activities. The basin’s steep bowl-shape traps air and water pollutants and renders watersheds more vulnerable to soil erosion and severe wildfire behavior. Forest conditions have been dramatically altered by past harvests, subsequent regrowth, and reduction of natural fires. The forests closest to the lake and urban areas are also the most highly altered. The lake’s exceptional clarity has generated distinctive concerns about loading of very fine inorganic particles (clay and very small silt particles) and nutrients. More fine- textured, volcanic soils pose greater concerns than granitic soils. An objective of minimizing loading of fine particulates and nutrients to the lake has potential to conflict with efforts to reestablish a more natural fire regime, since treatments can mobilize fine sediments and nutrients. However, reestablishing forest conditions and a fire regime within the range of historic variability should, over the long-term, reduce influxes of sediment and nutrients that can result from severe wildfires, as well as nutrient release from forest floors. Because of weather constraints and limited treatment options, the operating season for forest treatments is relatively short, and opportunities for over-the-snow harvest are limited to small-scale, intermittent operations. Opportunities for such logging are particularly limited on the east side of the basin where there is less snow and poorer road access. Institutional Factors Affecting Fuel Treatments in the Basin Institutions in the basin appear to support both wildfire hazard reduction and ecological restoration, but tensions between are particularly prominent in policies regarding 4 treatment of steep slopes and wetland areas referred to as Stream Environment Zones (SEZs). Specialized practices and equipment requirements have been required for treatments in these sensitive areas, as well as to conduct treatments in urbanized areas. Typical costs for mechanical fuel treatments in the basin are several times higher than for areas elsewhere in the Western U.S., reflecting various factors including relatively less infrastructure for removing and processes forest products. However, benefits of fuels treatments in terms of avoided ecological impacts and property losses may counterbalance the exceptionally high treatment costs. Prescribed burning following hand treatments has been applied on steep slopes where mechanical treatment is not feasible due to mechanical limitations or concerns about soil disturbance by heavy equipment. While hand crews have be en a preferred treatment in sensitive areas such as steep slopes and SEZs, this treatment is restricted to small diameter trees due to issues of safety and logistics. Hand treatment also creates large numbers of piles that have to cure for long periods before being burned. A recent study of the Angora fire attributed some areas of high severity burns to an insufficient level of fuel reduction, which may have resulted from limitations on mechanical treatments on steep slopes. Because of these concerns, agencies are interested in other equipment options that could improve access to remote areas, lower treatment costs, allow for greater reduction in fuels, and reduce the backlog of burn piles. There is a knowledge gap concerning the use of mechanical equipment on steep slopes in the basin. Effects of Treatments on Resource Values Wildfires in areas with high fuel loads can burn at moderate to high severities, which can increase nutrient availability, expose bare soils, form persistent hydrophobic soil layers, and export sediment and nutrients downstream and into the air, which in turn threaten lake clarity and human health. Fuel reduction treatments, particularly mechanical treatments, can reduce crown fire potential by reducing ladder fuels. Treatments can also reduce potential wildfire severity by reducing surface fuels. If treatments result in high amounts of surface fuels that are not followed by removal or burning, subsequent wildfires could result in more severe impacts to soils and vegetation. There is a particular lack of knowledge about the effects of fire in SEZs within the basin. Better understanding of the thresholds at which fire enters or is retarded by SEZ condition is needed to predict fire behavior and effects in riparian areas. The natural fire regime in many riparian areas is not well-established, although there is ongoing research in the Tahoe Basin to address that knowledge gap (see Restoration and fuel treatment of riparian forests in Appendix A). There is a need to assess the optimal amount of organic matter present to balance the risks of erosion and formation of water repellent layers. Research is presently underway to determine optimal targets for reducing fire hazard while minimizing erosion rates (see Balancing fuel reduction, soil exposure, and erosion potential and Integrated decision support for cost effective fuel treatments under multiple resource goals in Appendix A). The WEPP model, which estimates both erosion and deposition on hillslopes, requires parameterization and validation for the Tahoe Basin; such efforts are currently in progress (see Sources and transport of fine sediment (WEPP modeling) and Predicting nutrient and sediment loading from prescribed fire using WEPP in Appendix A). 5 Prescribed Broadcast and Understory Burning The papers recommend expanded use of prescribed fire for purposes of ecological restoration and fuel reduction, particularly in sensitive areas such as steep slopes and SEZs. Soil and Water Quality Prescribed burns are typically designed to burn at low severity. Low temperature prescribed fire is not likely to result in significant nutrient or sediment runoff over unburned conditions. Effects of prescribed fire on soil structure are likely to be minimal given the low temperatures typically achieved. Prescribed fire can affect soil biota and chemistry but it is not likely that effects are detrimental to ecosystem functioning. Water repellency produced by low or moderate severity fires is usually less persistent than that produced by high severity fires. Promoting patchy burns should reduce potential for runoff by avoiding creation of continuous hydrophobic layers. There is a knowledge gap regarding nutrient release and hydrophobicity in undisturbed soils versus soils subjected to prescribed fire practices in the basin. Research projects are currently underway to investigate these soil processes (see Nutrient emissions from prescribed fire in Appendix A). Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Because prescribed fire typically kills fewer large trees than thinning, it has more limited effects on fuel loads, transmittance of light to the understory, and key attributes of wildlife habitat. However, prescribed fire may result in a more substantial and longer- lasting reduction in cover of some shrubs than does thinning. Prescribed fire tends to have neutral or positive effects on herbaceous cover, growth of shade-intolerant species and species that depend on fire to germinate, early seral and ground-associated bird species and