Managing nature-based solutions in fire-prone ecosystems: Competing management objectives in California forests evaluated at a landscape scale
California’s cap-and-trade compliance offset market incentivizes forest managers to maintain elevated carbon stocks. It provides these incentives without enforcing standardized fire mitigation practices despite many projects being located in fire prone regions. Here, we evaluated the difference betw...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022-10-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Forests and Global Change |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2022.957189/full |
| _version_ | 1797986280861073408 |
|---|---|
| author | Claudia Herbert Barbara K. Haya Scott L. Stephens Van Butsic |
| author_facet | Claudia Herbert Barbara K. Haya Scott L. Stephens Van Butsic |
| author_sort | Claudia Herbert |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | California’s cap-and-trade compliance offset market incentivizes forest managers to maintain elevated carbon stocks. It provides these incentives without enforcing standardized fire mitigation practices despite many projects being located in fire prone regions. Here, we evaluated the difference between management actions in California forests that participated in the carbon offset market versus those that engaged with state programs to reduce wildfire risk via fuel reduction treatments. Using remotely sensed data from the California Forest Observatory and the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer, we compared the vertical forest structure and vegetation canopy trends on forest offsets with forests that are receiving fuel treatment. We found California forests managed for carbon under the Improved Forest Management (IFM) program by the California Air Resources Board had higher levels of biomass than forests managed for fire risk reduction as indicated by 2016 lidar-estimated fuel loads. In addition, IFM-participating forests did not reduce their fuel loads between 2016 and 2020, whereas lands receiving grants for fuel management did, indicating that on average, the IFM projects were not engaging in fuel reduction efforts. However, despite the differences in fuel management between IFM projects and active fuel treatments, we found that both types of management saw a declining trend in vegetation greenness between 2015 and 2021. While declining greenness is expected of active fuel treatments associated with vegetation removal, such a trend in the case of IFM indicates additional wildfire risk. Managing forests for long-term carbon storage and sequestration requires consideration of fire risk mitigation. Given the little evidence of fuel reduction in the first decade of IFM projects implementation we question whether the century-long duration of carbon stocks in these offsets is realistic. We recommend that policymakers reevaluate the incentives directed at carbon stock preservation or expansion to better encompass the growing wildfire risk in California. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T07:31:12Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ea68ada090034c4ab17d24bef8dd4220 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2624-893X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T07:31:12Z |
| publishDate | 2022-10-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Forests and Global Change |
| spelling | doaj.art-ea68ada090034c4ab17d24bef8dd42202022-12-22T04:36:53ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Forests and Global Change2624-893X2022-10-01510.3389/ffgc.2022.957189957189Managing nature-based solutions in fire-prone ecosystems: Competing management objectives in California forests evaluated at a landscape scaleClaudia Herbert0Barbara K. Haya1Scott L. Stephens2Van Butsic3Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United StatesGoldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United StatesDepartment of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United StatesDepartment of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United StatesCalifornia’s cap-and-trade compliance offset market incentivizes forest managers to maintain elevated carbon stocks. It provides these incentives without enforcing standardized fire mitigation practices despite many projects being located in fire prone regions. Here, we evaluated the difference between management actions in California forests that participated in the carbon offset market versus those that engaged with state programs to reduce wildfire risk via fuel reduction treatments. Using remotely sensed data from the California Forest Observatory and the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer, we compared the vertical forest structure and vegetation canopy trends on forest offsets with forests that are receiving fuel treatment. We found California forests managed for carbon under the Improved Forest Management (IFM) program by the California Air Resources Board had higher levels of biomass than forests managed for fire risk reduction as indicated by 2016 lidar-estimated fuel loads. In addition, IFM-participating forests did not reduce their fuel loads between 2016 and 2020, whereas lands receiving grants for fuel management did, indicating that on average, the IFM projects were not engaging in fuel reduction efforts. However, despite the differences in fuel management between IFM projects and active fuel treatments, we found that both types of management saw a declining trend in vegetation greenness between 2015 and 2021. While declining greenness is expected of active fuel treatments associated with vegetation removal, such a trend in the case of IFM indicates additional wildfire risk. Managing forests for long-term carbon storage and sequestration requires consideration of fire risk mitigation. Given the little evidence of fuel reduction in the first decade of IFM projects implementation we question whether the century-long duration of carbon stocks in these offsets is realistic. We recommend that policymakers reevaluate the incentives directed at carbon stock preservation or expansion to better encompass the growing wildfire risk in California.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2022.957189/fullwildfireforest carbonfuel managementImproved Forest Managementoffsetsremote sensing |
| spellingShingle | Claudia Herbert Barbara K. Haya Scott L. Stephens Van Butsic Managing nature-based solutions in fire-prone ecosystems: Competing management objectives in California forests evaluated at a landscape scale Frontiers in Forests and Global Change wildfire forest carbon fuel management Improved Forest Management offsets remote sensing |
| title | Managing nature-based solutions in fire-prone ecosystems: Competing management objectives in California forests evaluated at a landscape scale |
| title_full | Managing nature-based solutions in fire-prone ecosystems: Competing management objectives in California forests evaluated at a landscape scale |
| title_fullStr | Managing nature-based solutions in fire-prone ecosystems: Competing management objectives in California forests evaluated at a landscape scale |
| title_full_unstemmed | Managing nature-based solutions in fire-prone ecosystems: Competing management objectives in California forests evaluated at a landscape scale |
| title_short | Managing nature-based solutions in fire-prone ecosystems: Competing management objectives in California forests evaluated at a landscape scale |
| title_sort | managing nature based solutions in fire prone ecosystems competing management objectives in california forests evaluated at a landscape scale |
| topic | wildfire forest carbon fuel management Improved Forest Management offsets remote sensing |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2022.957189/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT claudiaherbert managingnaturebasedsolutionsinfireproneecosystemscompetingmanagementobjectivesincaliforniaforestsevaluatedatalandscapescale AT barbarakhaya managingnaturebasedsolutionsinfireproneecosystemscompetingmanagementobjectivesincaliforniaforestsevaluatedatalandscapescale AT scottlstephens managingnaturebasedsolutionsinfireproneecosystemscompetingmanagementobjectivesincaliforniaforestsevaluatedatalandscapescale AT vanbutsic managingnaturebasedsolutionsinfireproneecosystemscompetingmanagementobjectivesincaliforniaforestsevaluatedatalandscapescale |