HFQLG
Project Evaluation Form
Project Name: Antelope Border DFPZ – post Boulder Fire___ Project Type: _DFPZ, Commercial Harvest and
Service Contract
Forest: __Plumas
Ranger District: Mt Hough
Date: _24 August 2006____
Attendance:
Agency – Darrel Wilson (Chairman, Butte County Firesafe Council), Calli Jane Burch (Butte County Fire Safe
Council), Ed Chambeau (Butte County Fire Safe Council), Jerry Hurley (Plumas Fire Safe Council), Richard
Church (UC Santa Barbara), Ross Gerrard (UC Santa Barbara).
Public – Harry Reeves, Pat Terhune, George Terhune, Frank Stewart, John Sheehan, Michael Jackson, Bill
Wickman and Linda Blum, Quincy Library Group.
Zury Dominguez – Venezula University
Industry Representatives – Randy Pew (Pew Forestry); Randall Cowley (Collins Pine); Tom Downing (Sierra
Pacific Industries)
USFS – Rob MacWhorter (Deputy Forest Supervisor), Chris O’Brien (Acting District Ranger), Terry SimonJackson (Planning Staff), Scott Abrams (Fuels), Jason Moghaddas (Fire Ecologist), Gary Rotta (Wildlife
Biologist), Molly Fuller (Ecosystem Manager), Ryan Tompkins (Silviculturalist), Peter Stine (PSW Research
Station), Colin Dillingham (HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader), Kurt Winchester (HFQLG Team Leader), Angela
Parker (Assistant HFQLG Team Leader), Tamara Schmidt (HFQLG Public Affairs), Linda Kanski (HFQLG
Management Analyst), Timothy Evans (Sierraville RD), Jeff Leach (Sierraville RD), Bruce Troedson (Sierraville
RD), Kyle Merriam (Province Ecologist)
Project completed by: Timber Harvest Contract and Service Contract and contract burning
Date completed: majority of mechanical thinning was completed by 2003, the hand thinning, pile burning and
under burning was completed by 2005.
Type of treatment and acres:
The Antelope-Border DFPZ consisted of 2,100 acres north and east of Antelope Lake.
There were 1,100 acres of mechanical thinning with variable spacing silvicultural prescription to provide bald
eagle habitat close to Antelope Lake and more even spacing along the 27N60 road above the lake.
In addition, 478 acres were chainsaw thinned and burned and 366 acres were under burned only.
The primary objectives of the project were 1) to reduce probability of future crown fires by using thinning and
prescribed burning to remove 90% of fuel ladders; 2) reduce potential spread of crown fires by reducing canopy
cover to 40%; 3) reduce potential for high intensity surface fire; and 4) contribute to economic stability of rural
communities by generating economic activity, income and employment.
Post-Treatment Boulder Complex Fire – June 25, 2006
The Boulder Complex fire tested the DFPZ in a real world wildfire situation. See the attached narrative for a
detailed description of the fire effects and effectiveness of the DFPZ.
Resource
Area
Fuels
Attribute
Objective
Source of
Objective
Degree Met
Ignition of
crown fire
Prevent ignition of
crown from surface
and ladder fuels.
HFQLG
Fuels
Spread of
Crown Fire
Reduce canopy to
40% of below to
prevent spread of
crown fires.
HFQLG
yes
Fuels
Surface Fuel
loading
Residual fuels would
not exceed 5
tons/acre
HFQLG FEIS
yes
Aquatic
resources
RHCA
management
Protect RHCA with
no treatment buffer
AntelopeBorder EA
No treatment
implemented,
wildfire
burned
intensely in
RHCA.
Soils/
Hydrology
Soil Cover
Maintain 50% litter
cover
AntelopeBorder EA Soils
Input
Yes, Good
needle cover
in areas
without
canopy
consumption.
Soils
Compaction
Mitigate compaction
by ripping skid trails
AntelopeBorder EA Soils
Input
Compaction
mitigated but
ripped skids
appear
eroded
Heritage/
Botany
No issues
discussed
yes
Comments
Although crown fire
occurred in the fire area,
the crown fire did not
initiate from within a
DFPZ. Small trees 5-16
dbh and shrub canopy
cover were reduced
between pre- and posttreatment plot data.
Crown fire did not carry
through DFPZ, although
heat scorch from
adjacent intense heat
did cause some
mortality is some areas.
Initial canopy
measurements indicate
stands were below 40%
canopy cover prior to
treatment.
Wildfire produced 1-3 ft
flame lengths within
treated DFPZ. Pre- and
Post-treatment
monitoring plots in
units indicate that fuels
were reduced from
greater than 10
tons/acre to less than 5
tons/acre. Post-wildfire
plots indicate less than 1
ton/acre.
Consensus by all folks
present that fuel
reduction should be
implemented in the
RHCA. No treatment
resulted in stand
replacing fire event
within RHCAs.
Some adjacent
untreated units that had
canopy burned had no
ground cover and
expected negative
impacts from winter
runoff.
Too much ripping was
conducted in this
Granitic soil type with
soils that are not easily
compacted.
Shortcomings and Successes: Implementing HFQLG DFPZ project in the Antelope Lake area allowed firefighters
to aggressively fight and suppress this wildfire. See attached document for detailed information.
Follow up actions: None
Acting District Ranger: ___/s/____Molly Fuller______________________ Date: ___8/26/06________
Boulder Complex Fire Behavior, Suppression Action, and Severity
Jason Moghaddas, Fire Ecologist
Scott Abrams, Battalion 25
Pete Duncan, Battalion 24
Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
10/10/2006
• Scope of this Brief:
This brief provides a preliminary assessment of overall fire severity within fuel treatments and in untreated areas on the Boulder Complex. Secondly, this brief provides preliminary documentation of how fuel
treatments were used for suppression actions. The discussion in this brief focuses primarily on the “Boulder”
and “Hungry” fires. The other fires within the Boulder Complex were relatively small and were not directly
affected by fuel treatments. Information in this brief is taken from the Boulder Complex Incident Narrative
(Norcal Team 1, 2006), the Boulder Complex Burned Area Emergency Response Report (BAER Report
2500-8), as well as interviews with on scene fire management personnel. It is important to note that extreme
local wind conditions experienced on the Boulder Fire exceeded 20 miles per hour for at least two days.
These wind speeds exceeded the design 90th percentile windspeeds of ~10 miles per hour. The Boulder
Complex will be further analyzed using updated fire severity maps as part of a separate study.
• Antelope Project Purpose and Need (USDA 2000)
1. Reduce the Probability of future crown fires by using thinning and prescribed burning to
remove at least 90% of fuel ladders
2. Reduce the potential spread of crown fires by reducing canopy cover to 40%
3. Reduce potential for high severity surface fire
4. Contribute to economic stability of rural communities by generating economic activity,
income, and employment
5. Implement the Record of Decision for the HFQLG-FRA EIS
In addition, the HFQLG EIS, Appendix J, (USDA 1999) states that within fuel treatments:
“Suppression efficiency would be improved under this strategy by creating an environment where
wildfires would burn at lower intensities and where fire fighting production rates would be increased
because less ground fuels and small diameter trees would need to be cleared for fireline construction or
backfiring (removing the fuels under controlled burning conditions prior to the wildfire reaching the DFPZ).
Aerial retardant application would also be more efficient under this strategy because the open canopy would
allow the retardant to penetrate and be more effective at slowing fire spread in the light surface fuels.”
• Overall Fire Behavior and Severity
The Boulder Fire origin was near a ridgeline above the headwaters of the north branch of Lost Creek.
On June 25th, thunder cells moving though the Antelope Lake Area causing erratic, strong winds. These
winds pushed the fire down slope for 1.8 miles towards Antelope Lake in 40 minutes (>200 chains per hour).
Over the next few days (6/26, 6/27) gusting winds were reported over 20 miles per hour on the Boulder Fire
and at the Pierce R.A.W.S. Station. During these wind events, flame lengths exceeding 5 feet along with
torching and long distance spotting were reported. Crews could not attempt direct suppression actions
during these high wind events. Areas burned under these windy conditions had high mortality (>75%
mortality) of conifers.
Based on observations during and after the fire, flame lengths and fire intensity were lower within the
Antelope Fuel Break on the Boulder Fire. High resolution burn severity maps show greater than 90%
mortality within fuel treatments between the northern edge of the fuel treatments to the intersection with road
27N19Y. Initial post burn reconnaissance confirmed high mortality in this portion of the area, though dead
needles are still attached to the limbs. In the adjacent untreated area, immediately east of the treatment
boundary, needles are “blown off” limbs, indicating a much higher intensity fire in this area. Within the
Antelope fuel treatment south of road 27N20Y, severity is relatively lower (10-50%) than adjacent untreated
areas that burned with high severity (>75%).
The Border Fuel Treatments along the Wemple Cabin road (27N60) were used for a burn out
operation. During this burnout (see discussion on effects of treatments on suppression actions, 900 acres
were burned using a backing fire over a 3 day period (07/01/2006-07/04/2006). Within the burnout area, fire
severity was approximately 70% low and 30% moderate or high. The burnout area was used to contain the
south and southeastern flanks of the Boulder fire. The northern edge of the fire impacted the Hallet Project
(overstory removal and underburned- completed in 1999). The main fire impacted the Hallet Project as a
crown fire, but due to previous treatments, specifically underburning, the fire behavior transitioned to a low
intensity ground fire. Within this area, flame lengths were generally less than 3 feet with a relatively low rate
of spread and easily contained by fire fighters.
On the Hungry Fire, similar weather conditions occurred as described for the Boulder Fire as these
fires burned simultaneously. Most notably, on the Hungry Fire, the Hungry Underburn, which was
completed 06/04/2006 (last patrol date 06/22/2006) was used to hold the southern edge of the Hungry Fire.
It is important to note that extreme local wind conditions experienced on the Boulder Fire were outside
the typical 90th percentile windspeeds of ~10 miles per hour. Even with extreme winds, and based on initial
assessments, the fuel treatments in the Boulder and Hungry fires did the following:
1) Reduced fire severity, particularly along the Antelope Lake Road south of Road 27N19Y
2) Increased needle retention in treated areas burned under high severity when compared with untreated
areas. These needles have already begun to fall and provide ground cover.
3) Enhanced opportunity for conducting a safe, low severity burnout along Wimple Cabin Road with
decreased chances of torching and spotting.
4) The Hallet Project was ignited by the Boulder Fire, though containment in this area was relatively
easy due transition from a crown fire and low (<3 feet) flame lengths.
5) The Hungry Underburn was used to safely contain the southern edge of the Hungry Fire
6) Created conditions where flame lengths remained below 4 feet in some areas, allowing direct
suppression action by hand crews.
• Influence of Fuel Treatments on Fire Suppression Activities
Antelope Border DFPZ: Used for burnout along Wemple Cabin Road
Once fire was established in the Antelope Creek drainage, steep and rocky terrain made it difficult to build direct
fireline. The fact that the DFPZ along the 27N60 Road was in place and completed (to the extent
permitted by existing guidelines) allowed for flexibility in planning suppression actions. The fire team
elected to use indirect suppression methods, along the road and fire out the line. This provided
firefighters with a safer environment in which to work. Using the road allowed for enhanced safety for
firefighters and made it easier to identify, locate and suppress any spot fires, which resulted from the
burnout operation. Having the DFPZ located on both sides of the road allowed fire fighters to more easily
“hold” the top of the underburn. A few spot fires were ignited in the treated area above the underburn
but were easily contained by fire fighters in the area. During the burnout, untreated riparian areas
resulted in a slowing of burnout operations and had a greater amount of spotting and torching when
compared with treated areas.
The team had the decision space to work in, because of the DFPZ, to conduct the burnout operation
under more benign environmental conditions. This reduced the spotfire probability, and increased the
probability of the largest trees surviving. Since there was insufficient heat to get fire into the crowns of the
larger trees, fewer embers crossed the 27N60 road, which was being used as the fireline. The lower surface
fuel loading in the treated areas kept flame lengths low and manageable, and enabled suppression forces to
conduct the burnout during a longer “window of opportunity”.
Antelope Border DFPZ Eastern Boundary: Used for control lines/contingency
The Border DFPZ allowed for flexibility in choosing at which point the counter fire operation would turn down
the hill towards the lake. Once this operation was completed, there was a complete firebreak around the
fire. After one burning period, mop up was initiated, and the threat of fire spread was greatly reduced.
A one-blade wide dozer fireline was constructed from the 60 Road down to the lake along a small
spur ridge that was located in the area, treated in 2001 or 2002. Since this area had been thinned and
underburned, it was safe and easy to construct the dozer line along the spur ridge. In addition, since the
dozer line was located within the treated unit, if the fire had spotted across this relatively narrow line, there
were a couple of areas, from which contingency lines could have been placed that also provided a safe
environment.
Hallet Project: 8-9 year old overstory removal and burn treatment (burned 1997): Used for handline
construction
The western portion of the Boulder Fire migrated into the old Hallet Project area. This project was an
overstory removal followed by underburning and completed in the mid-90s. Although there was some
regrowth of brush as well as places where mortality from the previous underburn had fallen to the forest
floor, the fire behavior transitioned to a crown fire to a low intensity ground fire (flame length <3 feet with
low rate of spread) to the extent that suppression crews were able to safely construct about a mile of direct
handline from the top of the western flank of the fire down to the lower lake road. Had this area not been
treated, the probability of the wildfire spotting across the Boulder Creek drainage and establishing itself on
the south side of Wildcat Ridge would have greatly increased.
Hungry Underburn Anchorpoint
With regard to the Hungry Fire, a 237-acre underburn was completed just 3 weeks prior to the
lightning fire. The treated unit was located southwest of the point of origin of the lightning fire. The Incident
Commander was able to utilize the treated area as a safety zone and as a safe anchor point for suppression
operations on the 650-acre wildfire. In addition, since such a large unit was previously treated, fewer
firefighters and other resources were needed on a significant portion of the perimeter of the fire.
Summary
Overall, fuel treatments in the Boulder Complex met stated Purpose and Need of reducing probability
of future crown fire and high severity surface fire. Fuel treatments which were exposed to extreme winds
(>20 MPH) during on June 26th did incur high mortality (>75 % of basal area killed). This result is not
unusual considering that gusting windspeeds greatly exceeded design windspeeds on June 26th and 27th. In
addition, an extreme amount of radiant heat was blown towards the fuel treatment from adjacent un-treated
areas as they burned, resulting in increased severity within fuel treatments. Driving along road on the east
side of Antelope Lake, one can clearly see areas of high severity (>75% basal area killed) in untreated stands
immediately adjacent to areas of low to moderate severity in treated stands.
With respect to suppression actions, fuel treatments along the Wemple Cabin Road allowed for a safe
implementation of a low severity burnout operation. The Hungry Underburn allowed for relatively easy
containment of the south edge of the Hungry Fire using fewer resources. The portions of the Boulder Fire
burning within the Hallet underburn were relatively easy to contain with limited resources due to low (<3
foot) flame lengths. In these areas, the fuel treatments improved suppression efficiency as stated in the
HFQLG-EIS, Appendix J (USDA 1999).
The Type II Team assigned to the Boulder Complex had local knowledge of existing fuel treatments.
This knowledge facilitated the use of these treatments for suppression tactics. This underscores the need for
districts to be able to quickly provide GIS based, updated spatial information about fuel treatment locations
to incoming fire teams so that the treatments may be used more efficiently to contain fires, potentially
reducing overall fire severity and suppression costs.
References
BAER (Burned Area Emergency Response) Report 2500-8. 2006. Boulder Complex Fire Initial 2500-8
Burned Area Response Report. Signed by Bernard Weingardt, Regional Forester, on July 14, 2006.
Northern California ICT 1. 2006. Boulder Complex Incident Management Report. June 27-July 6, 2006.
Incident Number CA-PNF-000371.
USDA.1999. Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recover Act: Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Appendix J. Lassen, Plumas, & Tahoe National Forests.
USDA. 2000. Antelope-Border Defensible Fuel Profile Zone. Environmental Assessment. Plumas National
Forest, Mt Hough Ranger District.