Geology ReportsSearch

Geology topics

Matt C. Reeves

Publications and source records attributed to Matt C. Reeves.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Fuel treatments in shrublands experiencing pinyon and juniper expansion result in trade-offs between desired vegetation and increased fire behavior

Background Native pinyon ( Pinus spp.) and juniper ( Juniperus spp.) trees are expanding into shrubland communities across the Western United States. These trees often outcompete with native sagebrush ( Artemisia spp.) associated species, resulting in increased canopy fuels and reduced surface fuels. Woodland expansion often results in longer fire return intervals with potential for high severity crown fire. Fuel treatments are commonly used to prevent continued tree infilling and growth and reduce fire risk, increase ecological resilience, improve forage quality and quantity, and/or improve wildlife habitat. Treatments may present a trade-off; they restore shrub and herbaceous cover and decrease risk of canopy fire but may increase surface fuel load and surface fire potential. We measured the accumulation of surface and canopy fuels over 10 years from ten sites across the Intermountain West in the Sagebrush Steppe Treatment Evaluation Project woodland network ( www.SageSTEP.org ), which received prescribed fire or mechanical (cut and drop) tree reduction treatments. We used the field data and the Fuel Characteristic Classification System (FCCS) in the Fuel and Fire Tools (FFT) application to estimate surface and canopy fire behavior in treated and control plots in tree expansion phases I, II, and III. Results Increased herbaceous surface fuel following prescribed fire treatments increased the modeled rate of surface fire spread (ROS) 21-fold and nearly tripled flame length (FL) by year ten post-treatment across all expansion phases. In mechanical treatments, modeled ROS increased 15-fold, FL increased 3.8-fold, and reaction intensity roughly doubled in year ten post-treatment compared to pretreatment and untreated controls. Treatment effects were most pronounced at 97th percentile windspeeds, with modeled ROS up to 82 m min −1 in mechanical and 106 m min −1 in prescribed fire treatments by 10 years post-treatment compared to 5 m min −1 in untreated controls. Crown fire transmissivity risk was eliminated by both fuel treatments. Conclusions While prescribed fire and mechanical treatments in shrublands experiencing tree expansion restored understory vegetation and prevented continued juniper and pinyon infilling and growth, these fuel treatments also increased modeled surface fire behavior. Thus, management tradeoffs occur between desired future vegetation and wildfire risk after fuel treatments.

California, Nevada, Oregon, Utah

Rapid assessment of U.S. forest and soil organic carbon storage and forest biomass carbon sequestration capacity

This report provides results of a rapid assessment of biological carbon stocks and forest biomass carbon sequestration capacity in the conterminous United States. Maps available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture are used to calculate estimates of current organic carbon storage in soils (73 petagrams of carbon, or PgC) and forest biomass (17 PgC). Of these totals, 3.5 PgC of soil organic carbon and 0.8 PgC of forest biomass carbon occur on lands managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). Maps of potential vegetation are used to estimate hypothetical forest biomass carbon sequestration capacities that are 3–7 PgC higher than current forest biomass carbon storage in the conterminous United States. Most of the estimated hypothetical additional forest biomass carbon sequestration capacity is accrued in areas currently occupied by agriculture and development. Hypothetical forest biomass carbon sequestration capacities calculated for existing forests and woodlands are within ±1 PgC of estimated current forest biomass carbon storage. Hypothetical forest biomass sequestration capacities on lands managed by the DOI in the conterminous United States are 0–0.4 PgC higher than existing forest biomass carbon storage. Implications for forest and other land management practices are not considered in this report. Uncertainties in the values reported here are large and difficult to quantify, particularly for hypothetical carbon sequestration capacities. Nevertheless, this rapid assessment helps to frame policy and management discussion by providing estimates that can be compared to amounts necessary to reduce predicted future atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Open-File Report