Fuels Planning: Science Synthesis and

Integration

Environmental Consequences Fact Sheet: 4

Wildlife Responses to Fuels

Treatments: Key Considerations

United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

Research Note

RMRS-RN-23-4-WWW

December 2004

Fuels planning: Science synthesis and integration, an interagency research/management

partnership to support the Ten-Year Fire Plan,

led by Russell T. Graham, RMRS, and Sarah M.

McCaffrey, NCRS.

Synthesizing

Scientific Information

for Fire and Fuels

Project Managers

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

Environmental Consequences

Team Leader

Elaine Kennedy Sutherland

USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Missoula, MT

David Pilliod

USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Aldo Leopold Wilderness

Research Institute

Missoula, MT

Conceptualizing the Problem

Managers face a difficult task in predicting the effects of fuels treatments on

wildlife populations, mostly because information on how animals respond to

fuels treatments is unavailable or does not exist. Often, existing information on

treatment effects on species is ambiguous, due to the natural variability that

exists in animal populations from different locations and to the difficulty in setting up valid field experiments. When information is unavailable or ambiguous,

it can be difficult to know how to proceed with a planned treatment.

Key Considerations

Despite this scarcity of information from studies, predictions of effects may be

possible after considering aspects of an animalís ecology and then using available information in a conceptual framework. The context of an animalís ecology

Northern flying squirrel (photo credit: Kate

Schick).

should include:

1. Species distribution and abundance

2. Migratory and dispersal characteristics

3. Habitat requirements and preferences

4. Potential responses to changes in habitat

Species with common habitat requirements

may respond to fuels treatments in a similar

manner. Groups of species can be organized

taxonomically (for example, all woodpeckers) or behaviorally (for example, cavity

nesting birds). Evaluating treatment effects

on groups of species rather than individual

species is advantageous when species-level

information is sparse.

1. Species distribution and abundanceó

If a species is broadly distributed regionally,

then any local effects in a project area may

be inconsequential to species viability,

whereas a species with a limited distribution warrants special consideration. Given that a fuels treatment does not alter

habitat to the point that it is no longer suitable, an abundant species should be

more resilient to negative treatment effects than a rare species.

2. Migratory and dispersal characteristicsóLikewise, a species that is abundant outside of the project area is more likely to colonize a treated stand than

will a rare species. This response depends on speciesí dispersal capabilities, as

well as treatment area size, shape, edge characteristics, habitat quality, and landscape setting.
The Fuels Planning fact sheets are based on preliminary findings. Information from fact sheets will be synthesized in an upcoming publication.

Environmental Consequences Fact

Sheets

Look for fact sheet topics from the Environmental Consequences

Team including information about the effects of fire behavior and

alternative treatment strategies, Wildlife Response Model, weed responses, riparian systems, soil erosion, restoration objectives, treated

spaces, the Fire Effects Information System (FEIS), and the First

Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM).

Fuels Planning: Synthesis and Integration

This fact sheet is one in a series being produced as part of a larger

project supported by the USDA Forest Service to synthesize new

knowledge and information relevant to fire and fuels management.

Fact sheets address topics related to stand structure, environmental

impacts, economics, and human responses to these factors. Information in the fact sheets is targeted for the dry forests of the Inland

West, but is often applicable across broad regions of the country.

For more information, please visit our Web site at:

www.fs.fed.us/fire/tech_transfer/synthesis/synthesis_index

3. Habitat requirements and preferencesóSpecies

require specific habitats to survive and reproduce. Meeting critical habitat needs in the project area may include

ensuring perpetuation of characteristics important for

breeding, producing, and rearing of young, feeding, refuge from predators, and protection from inclement environmental conditions. Some species will meet all their

habitat requirements within the project area, whereas

other species will use the project area for only part of

the year or part of their life cycle.

4. Potential responses to changes in habitatóDepending on which habitat elements (for example, down

wood) are affected by a fuel treatment, species may or

may not respond to habitat changes from fuels treatments. Most fuel treatment effects change over time,

and thus species responses will also change over time.

For example, down wood may be consumed in a prescribed fire, but 5 and 10 years later, fire-killed trees

could result in greater amounts of down wood than pretreatment levels.

The Wildlife Response Model

A more formal way to conceptualize potential responses

to changes in habitat does exist, even if species information is sparse. The Wildlife Response Model (the topic

of a companion fact sheet in this series) is a computerbased tool designed to help managers understand how

fuel treatment activities will alter wildlife habitat.

The Wildlife Response Model uses ecological information from scientific studies and expert opinion to show

how changes in key wildlife habitat elements in a forest

stand can influence a species use of that stand for reproduction, food acquisition, and shelter from predators and environmental extremes. The advantage of this

tool is that it does not rely solely on the few experimental studies designed to answer questions regarding fuels

treatment effects, but draws on life history characteristics and known habitat associations. The Wildlife Response Model was developed by David Pilliod and

M. Elena Velasquez.

Boreal toad (photo credit: David Pilliod).