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.
California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is one of the most important policies to develop and deploy low-carbon and carbon-negative fuels. Yet, because the LCFS is designed to deliver the lowest-cost carbon intensity (CI) reductions possible in the transportation fuel system, it may fail to deliver technologies that would be poised to offer deeper decarbonization or other ancillary benefits to California's people and environment. We contemplate administrative changes to the LCFS to further stimulate the commercialization of promising low-carbon and carbon-negative fuels. To do so, we examine promising technical pathways, their barriers to commercialization, and recent administrative actions by the CA Air Resources Board (ARB) under the LCFS to promote novel lower-carbon fuels. We propose three actions that ARB could undertake to promote commercialization within existing authorities. To commercialize low-carbon and carbon negative fuel, including those derived from forest residue feedstocks, ARB could: (1) embrace the most up-to-date science regarding lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, (2) create additional, targeted incentives for very low-carbon or carbon-negative fuels through a volumetric technology carve-out or credit multiplier, and (3) ensure that the LCFS stimulates the best-performing fuels across a variety of sustainability parameters.
Using regression-based, bootstrapped equivalence tests, and remeasured inventory plot data from thousands of plots across California, we found that the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS), as typically used out-of-the-box, overpredicts carbon sequestration in live trees that remain alive ten years later by 27%, on average. We found FVS growth prediction sensitive to forest type and FVS variant, with the largest overpredictions occurring in stands within the North Coast variant, growing on the lowest site class, having ages that are unknown or between 50 and 100 years, and that are within governmentally designated reserved areas or on national forests. Direction and magnitude of errors are related to the stand attributes; these relationships point the way towards opportunities to improve the underlying growth models or calibrate the system to improve prediction accuracy. Our findings suggest that forest managers relying on out-of-the-box FVS growth models to forecast carbon sequestration implications of their management of California forests will obtain estimates that overstate the carbon that can be sequestered under light-touch or caretaker management, potentially leading to management decisions that fail to deliver the expected carbon sequestration benefits—a failure that could take a long time to recognize.
Communities looking to improve fire protection may consider incorporating landscape features that ‘buffer’ the effects of a fire between developed and undeveloped lands. While landscapes such as golf courses, vineyards, or agriculture are already being considered part of this buffer zone, few empirical studies demonstrate causally how well these different landscape features operate as a fire buffer. This research selects golf courses as an example of a possible buffer landscape and proposes methods to test if this buffer alters fire severity and limits fire spread. Using propensity score matching and multiple linear regression, we demonstrate golf courses that burned in California between 1986 and 2020 had a predicted 49% reduction in fire severity relative to otherwise similar vegetated land. This reduction in fire severity is regionally dependent, with the effect of golf course buffering landscapes most pronounced in the North Bay region. For limiting fire spread, golf courses function similarly to hardscaped land uses such as airports, suggesting that irrigation and vegetation management can be effective in creating desired buffering qualities. These methods suggest that artificially created irrigated green zones act as effective buffers, providing de facto fuel breaks around communities, and can be reproduced for other potential buffering landscape features. This study does not advocate for the use of any specific anthropogenic landscape feature, but rather highlights that community-based fire hazard reduction goals could be attained through considering landscape features beyond fuel reduction manipulations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.