United States
Department of
Agriculture
File Code:
Route To:
Subject:
To:
From:
Forest
Service
Plumas
National
Forest
159 Lawrence Street
P.O. Box 11500
Quincy, CA 95971-6025
(530) 534-7984 Text (TDD)
(530) 283-2050 Voice
Date:
January 18, 2011
FY 2010 Report on HFQLG Pilot Project Monitoring
Effects of the Pilot Project Fuel Treatments on Air Quality
Colin Dillingham, HFQLG Monitoring Coordinator
Pete Duncan, Plumas NF
The HFQLG Monitoring Plan addresses the following smoke management trend
questions. These questions are answered below based on monitoring data collected through
information provided by district offices within the HFQLG Pilot Project Area:
Question 9: Were provisions of the Smoke Management Plan implemented?
Question 26: Do prescribed fire activities meet air quality standards?
Question 27: Do prescribed fires create a nuisance in terms of air quality?
Question 9) Were provisions of the Smoke Management Plan implemented?
Smoke Management Plans (SMP) are prepared in coordination California Air Resources
Board, multiple counties (Lassen, Butte, Shasta, Butte, Tehama, and Plumas) and the Northeast
Air Alliance. In part, the purpose of the SMP is to describe methods used to mitigate smoke
related impacts to local and regional air quality.
The objective of this question is to determine if burns meet the provisions of Smoke
Management Plans (SMP) as defined in the California Air Resources Board Title 17 and the
EPA’s Interim Air Quality Policy. The monitoring protocol is to conduct post-burn evaluations
to assess adherence to SMP provisions for all burns.
In FY10 there were no reported violations of provisions of Smoke Management Plans for
prescribed burn activities implemented within the HFQLG Pilot Project Area. No Class I
Airsheds were impacted and the Forest Service received no formal smoke complaints. See Table
1 for a cumulative listing of smoke management plan compliance.
In summary, provisions of the Smoke Management Plan were implemented for
prescribed burn activities within the HFQLG Pilot Project Area.
Question 26) Do prescribed fire activities meet air quality standards?
The objective of this question is to determine if prescribed fire activities are in
compliance with air quality standards. The monitoring protocol is to assess adherence to Smoke
Management Plan provisions for burns utilizing data from Air Quality Management District
(AQMD) recorders and/or portable recorders to assess impacts to air quality at receptor sites.
In FY10, there were no reported violations of air quality standards due to prescribed burn
activities within the HFQLG Pilot Project Area. See Table 1 for a cumulative listing of air
quality standard compliance.
Caring for the Land and Serving People
Printed on Recycled Paper
Question 27) Do prescribed fires create a nuisance in terms of air quality?
The objective of this question is to determine if prescribed fire activities resulted in
official smoke complaints and/or resulted in prescribed burns being discontinued due to these
complaints. The monitoring protocol is to log the number of complaints (date, time, telephone
number, address and type of impact) and to track the number of projects discontinued due to
complaints about air quality resulting from prescribed burns.
Approximately 9,307 acres of prescribed burning were implemented across the HFQLG
Pilot Project Area in FY10 with no official complaints (Table 1). The absence of violations or
complaints in the past 4 years can be explained by implementation of an adaptive management
strategy outlined in the 2006 report to Congress. Extensive coordination and communication of
prescribed burn activities between ranger districts, air districts and the public was initiated to
address the large increase in smoke issues culminating in 2005. This included public contact,
which consisted of phone calls, press releases, door-to-door visits, and public information booths
set up near burn project sites to directly answer questions and address concerns from the public.
Land managers that conduct burning within the Northeast Air Alliance area (which the
Pilot Project is part of) coordinate burn activities via e-mail daily, notifying each of the of the
burn location, number of acres and duration. A smoke conference call also takes place on a daily
basis and involves the California Air Resources Board, local air district managers, meteorologists
from the Predictive Services Centers in northern and southern California, and prescribed burners.
The smoke call is used to exchange weather and prescribed burn information between all the
participating parties.
Table 1. Number of smoke management and air quality violations and complaints related to
HFQLG related burning activities.
# Violations of
# Violations of Air
Number of
Forest
Acres
Year
Smoke Mgmt Plans
Quality Standards
Complaints
Reporting
Burned1
(Question 9)
(Question 26)
(Question 27)
2001 Lassen
1,453
0
0
2
2002 Plumas
5,045
2
0
3
2003 Plumas
4,280
0
0
0
2004 All HFQLG
10,778
0
0
0
2005 All HFQLG
14,310
1
2
16
2006 All HFQLG
5,863
0
2
7
2007 All HFQLG
9,792
0
0
0
2008 All HFQLG
7,553
0
0
0
2009 All HFQLG
10,309
0
0
0
2010 All HFQLG
9,307
0
0
0
1
some acres are follow-up treatments to thinning treatments to achieve desired conditions. When burn acres are follow-up treatments,
they are not double counted on the “Acres Treated” table previously in the HFQLG Status Report to Congress.
Executive Summary
Air Quality and Smoke
The Forest Service monitors the effects of HFQLG prescribed burns related to air quality
and smoke. Approximately 9,307 acres of prescribed burning were implemented across the
HFQLG Pilot Project Area in FY10 with no reported violations of smoke management plans, air
quality standards and no official complaints (Table 1). The absence of violations or complaints in
the past 4 years can be explained by implementation of an adaptive management strategy
outlined in the 2006 report to Congress. Extensive coordination and communication of
prescribed burn activities between ranger districts, air districts and the public was initiated to
address the large increase in smoke issues culminating in 2005. This included public contact,
which consisted of phone calls, press releases, door-to-door visits, and public information booths
set up near burn project sites to directly answer questions and address concerns from the public.
This strategy has been shown to be very effective in addressing smoke management issues in the
HFQLG Pilot Project Area.
Table 1. Number of smoke management and air quality violations and complaints related to
HFQLG related burning activities.
# Violations of
# Violations of Air
Number of
Forest
Acres
Year
Smoke Mgmt Plans
Quality Standards
Complaints
Reporting
Burned1
(Question 9)
(Question 26)
(Question 27)
2001 All HFQLG
1,453
0
0
2
2002 Plumas
5,045
2
0
3
2003 Plumas
4,280
0
0
0
2004 All HFQLG
10,778
0
0
0
2005 All HFQLG
14,310
1
2
16
2006 All HFQLG
5,863
0
2
7
2007 All HFQLG
9,792
0
0
0
2008 All HFQLG
7,553
0
0
0
2009 All HFQLG
10,309
0
0
0
2010 All HFQLG
9,307
0
0
0
1
some acres are follow-up treatments to thinning treatments to achieve desired conditions. When burn acres are follow-up treatments,
they are not double counted on the “Acres Treated” table previously in the HFQLG Status Report to Congress.