Fire and Fuels Monitoring
USDA Forest Service
Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library
Group Monitoring and
Region 5 Ecology Program
PLAS Seminar
April 21, 2011
Kyle Merriam
Sierra Cascade Province Ecologist
Plumas, Lassen and Modoc National Forests
kmerriam@fs.fed.us
Colin Dillingham
HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader
HFQLG Fuels Monitoring Questions
1.What is the effect of treatments
on fire behavior and
suppression?
2.What is the trend in large fire
frequency?
3.What is the trend in severity of
large fires on acres burned?
Peterson Fire, Lassen NF
Pittville DFPZ
TREATED
Fire Spread
UNTREATED
Results: Peterson Fire
Severity by Treatment Type
0.9
0.8
0.7
Percent
0.6
Thin Only
0.5
Thin and Burn
0.4
Untreated
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Scorch
Char
Crown
Scorch
Variable
Mortality
Rich Fire, Plumas NF
Untreated
Kingsbury Rush DFPZ
Untreated
Treated
Heterogeneity of Fire Effects
Kingsbury Rush DFPZ after Rich Fire
Sugarloaf Fire, Hat Creek RD
Surface fuels
treated
Surface fuel treatment
not completed (but
was under contract)
Sugarloaf Fire, Hat Creek RD
Thin with surface
fuels untreated
Planned
underburn not
accomplished
Untreated
Dow Fire, Eagle Lake RD
Thin and Underburn
Untreated
Mastication
Slow rate of spread and low flame length –
successful for fire suppression. Fuels
concentrated on ground – high tree mortality
Antelope Complex, Plumas NF
Untreated
Treated
Antelope Border DFPZ–
Untreated Riparian Zones Burned at High Intensity
Moonlight Fire – Untreated Owl
and Goshawk Habitat
Moonlight Fire – Dailey and others
110
100
900
90
80
70
60
50
816
40
777
772
30
20
10
0
-10
N=
725
60
Untreated
58
29
Old Harvest
Salv & Mast
77
Com Thin
Thin & Burn
Treatment Category
Untreated
North and Hurteau
(2010): includes
12 sites in HFQLG
area
Mechanical Thin
R5 Ecology Program Analysis of Seven
Fires - Safford and others
Peterson 2008
Antelope Complex 2007
Rich 2008
American River Complex 2008
Milford 2009
Angora 2007
Piute 2008
Seven Fires Analyzed:
Severity Measures
1
0.9
0.8
Percent
0.7
0.6
0.5
Treated
0.4
Untreated
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Mortality
% Scorch
% Torch
Percent
Severity with transect position
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Crown Scorch
AmRiv
Antelope
Peterson
Piute
Rich
Height (m)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5
Transect Position
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Char Height
AmRiv
Antelope
Milford
Peterson
Piute
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5
Transect Position
Lesson Learned– Thin to reduce Ladder
Fuels and Surface Fuel Loading
Underburn
Biomass
Removal
Lessons Learned (cont.)
 Thinning including prescribed fire most
effective
 Retaining high surface fuels not effective
 Mastication treatments moderate fire
behavior but result in high mortality
 Treatments allow suppression forces to
focus on high priority areas
 Consider treatment options to protect
Riparian and PAC areas
Acknowledgements
Kathy Murphy and Pete Duncan
 Hugh Safford and R5 Ecology Program
 Scott Abrams, Ryan Bauer, Sid Beckman,
Ruby Burks, Dierdre Cherry, Scott Dailey,
Todd Decker, John Estes, Jo Ann Fites,
Robert Haug, John Holcomb, Jon Lamb,
Debbie Mayer, Jason Moghaddas, Sylvia
Mori, Malcolm North, Alicia Reiner, Bruce
Troedson, Jason Vermillion, Michael
Wintch

HFQLG Fuels Monitoring Questions
2. What is the trend in large fire
frequency?
3. What is the trend in severity of
large fires?
Fire Perimeter Mapping
Fire Size: QLG Area
Fire Size: California
CalFire-FRAP, draft 2010
Fire Severity Mapping
Fire Severity: QLG Project Area
Fire Severity: Sierra Nevada
All Forest Types
R2 = 0.465, P(lin.) = 0.006
70
100000
50
10000
40
Ha
% High Severity
60
30
1000
20
10
0
1982
100
1987
% High Severity
1992
1997
10Yr Moving Avg
2002
2007
Mapped Burned Ha
HFQLG Fuels Monitoring Questions
2. What is the trend in large fire
frequency?
• increasing
3. What is the trend in severity of
large fires?
• increasing
DFPZ Mapping
2008
2008
Questions
 Were
starts inside of DFPZs less likely
to develop into fires (5 acres or more)?
 Were
starts closer to DFPZs less likely
to develop into fires?
 Was
fire size related to start distance
from DFPZ?
Starts
400
350
39
300
250
Fire
200
307
150
100
50
0
32
Inside DFPZ
Outside DFPZ
No Fire
Start Distance from DFPZ
Start Distance from DFPZ (m)
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Fire
No Fire
Frequency (%)
Starts ≠ Fires
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Distance from DFPZ (m)
Start Distance from DFPZ (m)
Start Distance and Fire Size
14000
R² = 0.18, p<0.01
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1
2
3
Fire size (log acres)
4
5
Questions
 Were
starts inside of DFPZs less likely
to develop into fires?
◦ YES, starts inside DFPZS did not become fires
 Were
starts closer to DFPZs less likely
to develop into fires?
◦ YES, 33% of starts that did not become fires
were <500m from a DFPZ
 Was
fire size related to start distance
from DFPZ?
◦ YES, starts closer to DFPZS resulted in smaller
fires
Watershed Mapping

How does the amount of the watershed
treated affect the area burned?
Modeled Results
From Moghaddas et al. (2010)
Observed Results
20
Watershed Burned (%)
18
R² = 0.15, p<0.001
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
2
4
6
8
Watershed Treated (%)
10
12
Conclusions
1.Large fire frequency and severity is
increasing.
2.DFPZs can reduce fire severity and
extent at local and watershed
scales.
3.Can DFPZs reverse fire trends in
QLG area?
Climate Projections: Increased Fire
Lenihan et al. 2008
Future Opportunities?
◦ Fully implement DFPZ networks
◦ Reduce surface fuels in existing
treatments- underburning
◦ Utilize appropriate management
response for starts inside DFPZs