HFQLG
Project Evaluation Form
Project Name: Hungry DFPZ and North Antelope DFPZ Project Type: DFPZ, Mechanical Thinning,
Biomass, Mastication and Underburn
Forest: Plumas Ranger District: Mt Hough Date: 29 October 2007
Attendance: 27 people
Agency- None
Public- Harry Reeves, Quincy Library Group (QLG); Frank Stewart, Counties QLG Forester and QLG; Bill
Wickman, QLG and American Forest Resources Council (AFRC); Sue Britting and John Preschutti, Sierra
Forest Legacy; Chad Hanson, John Muir Project; Linda Blum, QLG; Rich Fairbanks, The Wilderness Society;
Mike Yost, QLG.
USFS- Larry Craggs, Mt Hough Ranger District Fire Management Officer and Acting District Ranger; Ryan
Tompkins, Mt Hough District Silviculturist; Dave Evans, Lassen Forest Silviculturist; Angela Parker, HergerFeinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Implementation Team Assistant Team Leader; Colin Dillingham,
HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader; Jon Lamb, Beckwourth Ranger District Fire Ecologist; Coye Robbins, Almanor
Ranger District Wildlife Biologist; Bobette Jones, Ecologist on Lassen NF; Paul Stancheff, Plumas NF Vegetation
Management; Paula Shaklee, Sierra Nevada Research Center (SNRC), Pacific Southwest Research Station; Ross
Gerard, SNRC; Rachel Kussow, SNRC; Mason Werner, SNRC; Allan Stutz, SNRC; Claire Gallagher, SNRC;
Keith Perchemlides, SNRC; Jason Flaherty, Plumas-Lassen NF Webmaster; Dominic Cesmat, Eagle Lake Ranger
District.
Project completed by: Pew Logging (Hungry Thinning and Biomass) Date completed: 1999 - 2001
Hungry Mastication and underburning
2005 – 2007
North Antelope Thinning, Biomass, Underburn
1997 - 1999
Type of treatment and acres:
See Appendix 1 Field Trip Handout for details
Hungry 2010 Acre DFPZ
North Antelope 910 acre DFPZ
Resource
Area
Silviculture
Silviculture
Attribute
Objective
Residual Trees
Prevent damage to
residual trees
Tree Mortality
Reduce tree
mortality within
DFPZ during
wildfire
Source of
Objective
Silvicultural
prescription
Not a stated
objective in EA
Wildlife
Spotted Owl
Habitat/ and
untreated
landscape
Implement DFPZ
network to reduce
size of wildfire
Fuels
Surface Fuels
and ladder
fuels
Reduce fuel loading
to prevent wildfire
from reaching crown
EA
Safe DFPZ
Provide fire fighters
with a safe anchor
point to fight
wildfire
EA
Fire Fighter
Safety
EA
Degree
Met
Yes
Yes in
North
Antelope,
partial in
mastication
in Hungry
Irish, Davis,
Hungry
Fires -Yes:
Wheeler
Fires –
Somewhat:
Moonlight
– Not
significantly
Yes
Yes
Comments
Operator used “bump”
trees around residual
trees and removed them
last to protect residual
stand at Hungry Project.
Some damage noted in
North Antelope Project,
but not unreasonable
amount.
Excellent post-fire
survivorship in North
Antelope DFPZ where
biomass, thinning and
underburning had been
accomplished.
Masticated units with
high surface fuel loading
less consistent results.
The smaller fires were
kept small by utilizing
the DFPZ network, but
the Moonlight fire was
too large to be
significantly reduced by
the DFPZ network – long
range spotting jumped
constructed DFPZ except
in a few small areas of
fire.
All wildfires dropped
from crown fires to
ground, or were
prevented from
becoming crown fires in
treated stands.
Fire fighters were able to
use DFPZs for direct
attack, aerial attack and
burn out operations
Discussions:
The small fires in Hungry Mastication Unit 10 (Irish, Franks and Davis fire, totaling approximately 30 acres)
were kept small because of the DFPZ. Very limited fire fighting resources (about 10 firefighters the first
evening with an additional two 20-person crews the following day) were used to keep these fires small before
they got larger during a large lighting storm with 10- 13 small fires. The thinned canopy allowed fire retardant
to reach surface fuels and aided in suppression efforts. If the canopy had not been significantly thinned, the
retardant would have not reached the ground and these fires (specifically the Davis Fire) may have grown
much larger.
What were the effects to the Spotted Owl PACs in the Antelope Complex and Moonlight Fires? The group was
interested in knowing how the wildfires affected the PACs. An analysis was completed and is incorporated
into these notes as Appendix 2, attached below.
There was a discussion comparing the Goshawk PAC observed between stops 2 and 3 that was burned with
lower intensity and contrasted with the high intensity burn at the Spotted Owl PAC at stop 3. We discussed
the different burning conditions, and the drastic differences in results of two untreated PACs. There may be
instances that even treated stands will be lost during extreme fire behavior in specific topographical
situations.
Sue Britting and others discussed different fire effects from different burning conditions in relation to fire
weather. Some areas, even if built by todays design criteria may not be able to withstand fires burning under
95th or 99th percentile weather conditions. DFPZs are often built with 90th percentile fire weather as design
criteria, but events like Moonlight are happening on 95th or 99th percentile weather. Future NEPA
documents might be more helpful to the decision maker if they modeled all three levels of fire weather for
comparison purposes.
There was a detailed discussion regarding adaptive management in Spotted Owls PACs. Within the HFQLG
Pilot Project Area current legislation requires that “all spotted owl habitat areas and protected activity centers
designated under (the HFQLG Forest Recovery Act) will be deferred from resource management activities and
timber harvesting during the term of the pilot project”. Linda Blum explained why the QLG group was
hesitant to allow the Forest Service to treat spotted owl PACs during the development of the HFQLG
legislation. However, the QLG members present on the field trip indicated that they would like to see
treatment in the future. All field trip attendees that voiced their opinions indicated that some level of
management within PACs would be desirable in the future, including members of Sierra Forest Legacy, The
Wilderness Society, John Muir Project, Sierra Nevada Research Center and Forest Service Employees.
Chad Hanson discussed that low and moderate intensity wildfire and even when coupled with a mosaic of
high intensity wildfire has been shown to be beneficial to spotted owl habitat according to recent research. He
mentioned a few recent papers including –Franklin et al. 2000; and Olson et al 2004 (see Appendix 3 for
detailed citations).
Group selection ideas were discussed to manage PACs to mimic natural openings. Chad Hanson emphasized
that effects of wildfire might be drastically different than those created by management activities. But there
was tentative agreement that if high levels of down woody material and snags were left to mimic affects of
wildfire, it might be a future option.
There was considerable discussion about upper diameter limits in PAC and DFPZ management, but not much
agreement. Chad Hanson discussed some recent research that was available that indicates that thinning small
diameter material can prevent crown fires (Omi and Martinson 2002; Perry et al 2004)(see Appendix 3 for
detailed citations).
Bobette Jones discussed using a restoration approach to adaptive management rather than implementing
diameter limits. She suggested that we use the ecosystem processes that drove the forest to current conditions
to help us develop stand objectives. She suggested we ask ourselves how we can use restoration objectives to
manage the forest. A potentially useful website that discusses Ecological Restoration Models by the Ecological
Restoration Institute can be found at http://www.eri.nau.edu/joomla/
The group discussed using more prescribed fire to help make the DFPZs more effective. Folks agreed that a
final treatment of prescribed fire helps make the DFPZs more effective. There is a problem with smoke
management and getting significant landscapes treated with prescribed fire. Rich Fairbanks from the
Wilderness Society suggested that the HFQLG Pilot project attempt to use Wildland Fire Use more to
implement additional prescribed fire acres. His understanding is that smoke management is not considered
when the ignition source is “an act of god”.
There was a discussion regarding prescribed fires centering on cost, and usefulness. In general the group felt
that prescribed fires were good treatments and would reduce the effects of wildfires. However, the ability to
underburn untreated, thick stands of mixed conifer forests is limited by dollars, personnel and smoke
management issues. The reality that we are only treating approximately 30% of the DFPZ network with
prescribed fire indicates that underburning untreated stands is not very feasible. In some stands, light
underburns will kill substantial amounts of the total fuel profile and therefore make it more available for
consumption during a wildfire. In essence, a single underburn can make some stands worse than no
treatment at all.
Shortcomings and Successes:
The Hungry DFPZ was used to stop the Hungry Fire, Irish Fire, Davis Fire, Moonlight Fire and Wheeler Fire.
This strategically located DFPZ has been used to fight 5 wildfires in 2 years. Due to extreme fire weather,
portions of the DFPZ were burned over due to long-range fire spotting high fire intensity. The DFPZ may
have been more useful if it had been wider (suggested one mile wide) rather than ¼ mile wide. QLG
members countered that it would be better to get a complete network of narrower DFPZs first, and then start
treating the landscape between the DFPZs.
The North Antelope DFPZ, even without significant fire fighting resources, was able to successfully have a
wildfire burn through it without extensive mortality. A portion of the North Antelope DFPZ was used to stop
the forward progression of the Moonlight Fire.
Follow up actions:
Monitoring spotted owl response to the wildfire was recommended by field trip participants.
Acting District Ranger: __/s/ Larry Craggs_________________ Date:
11/9/2007_____
Appendix 1. Field Trip Handouts
Hungry and North Antelope Projects
Mt Hough Ranger District
Monitoring Field Tour Agenda
October 29, 2007
9:00 Meet at Mt Hough Ranger District Office parking lot
Introduction of Project Participants/ Safety Discussion/Ground Rules
9:10 Load Up and Leave for Project
10:40 Stop 1 Unit 10 of Hungry Mastication Project adjacent to untreated stand – Explanation of
how the masticated unit was used to help fight the “Davis Fire”, a 26-acre fire that was part of
the Antelope Complex in July 2007. Limited initial firefighting resources available (7 person
helitack crew, 2 engines, 1 dozer). Adaptive Management Discussion – what could we have
done differently, biomass removal versus mastication?
11:10 Stop 2 Hungry Mastication Project Site (Unit 10) affected by 4 wildfires in 2 years – used to
stop Hungry Fire in 2006, to stop Davis Fire in July 2007, used to anchor burn out of Wheeler
Fire in July 2007 and used to anchor burn out operation for Moonlight Fire in September
2007.
On drive to stop 3, observe mastication on east (right) side of road 27N09, untreated area on west side of
road. Radiant heat from wildfire together with residual fuels from mastication killed plantation trees in
treated area. Note the Goshawk Protected Activity Center on the west side of Hungry Creek. The
Moonlight Fire burned in a mosaic here as it backed down the ridge from Eisenheimer Peak and Kettle
Rock and the PAC was not lost.
11:50 Stop 3 Spotted Owl Protected Activity Center – discuss loss of habitat – can we make Spotted
Owl PACs more fire resilient and maintain high quality spotted owl habitat?
12:15 Lunch
Drive through Beatty Private land burned by Moonlight Fire and observe salvage logging in progress.
13:30 Stop 4 North Antelope DFPZ, review DFPZ, discuss burn out and fire intensity, long-range
spotting, DFPZ width.
14:00 Stop 5 North Antelope DFPZ, observe direct attack hand fire line, discuss fire intensity.
14:30 Leave project area and return to Mt Hough by 16:00.
Hungry Project EA
Project Objectives and Prescriptions
The Hungry Project was planned as part of the 1995 Forest Health Pilot Project to demonstrate some of the
concepts envisioned by the Quincy Library Group. Mastication project was funded with HFQLG funds.
Fuel Treatment: Implement a Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ) as a part of an extensive fuel treatment
network that is effective in reducing the potential size of wildfires, providing fire suppression personnel safe
locations for taking actions against a wildfire.
Prescription:
Thin stands mainly from below using both ground based and skyline yarding systems.
Harvest trees less than 30 inches dbh; Retain 40% canopy closure averaged over the project area.
Retain 3-4 of the largest snags per acre and 10 tons per acre of the largest logs of all decay classes.
Follow up treatments, including grapple/hand piling and burning, under burning or a combination of
those methods would be implemented to reduce and rearrange excessive surface fuels. Utilize variable
spacing of leave trees, including clumps and small openings. Within Streamside management zones
maintain 50% of the existing basal area in trees greater than 16 inches dbh.
Hungry Project Statistics:
EA selected alternative (predicted) Actual (approximate)
DFPZ (mech harvest acres)
2,010 ac
GS (acres)
Volume (Sawlogs – mbf)
0 ac
5 - 10 mmbf
N/A
4.5 mmbf
Biomass Volume
37,428 tons
44,100 tons
Hungry Project EA
Pre-Treatment Conditions
The absence of frequent low-intensity fire that is characteristic of the mixed conifer forest type allowed shade-tolerant
white fir and incense cedar to become well established, and the number of trees per acre exceeded 400. This created an
understory “fire ladder” and surface fuel loading conditions that would readily carry ground fire to the tree crowns. The
drought of the late 1980’s and 1990’s in combination with fir engraver beetles caused many of the white fir to die. The
dead fir trees created an excessive fuel load.
Post-Treatment Conditions
Trees removed were live trees that were dying or that contributed to the canopy closure and the fuel ladder. Post harvest
fuel treatments were accomplished by hand thinning, machine piling, hand piling, underburning and mastication. In
addition, removal of excessive existing dead fuels (old logging slash, down logs and standing snags), so that when a
wildfire did occur, the damage to the forest and watershed would be reduced.
Canopy cover and structural diversity was modified to meet project objectives. Fuel ladders and ground fuels were
reduced and fire resilience was improved. Large diameter ponderosa pine health has been improved by giving additional
growing space. Large woody material and snags were maintained in some locations. Small diameter surface fuels were
removed during surface burns.
Estimated Volume (thousand board feet)
Species
Ponderosa Pine
Sugar Pine
White fir
Douglas-fir
Incense Cedar
Total
Sawlog
597
0
3352
84
126
4,159
Biomass
415
67
4887
202
271
5,842
Total
1012
67
8239
286
397
10,001
Sawlog defined as greater than 9.9 inches at 4.5 feet.
The biomass removed was enough to produce 30,000 megawatts of electricity, which would power 30,000 homes for
one month.
North Antelope Project EA
Project Objectives and Prescriptions
The North Antelope Project was signed under the authority of the 1995 Rescission Act (Public Law 104-19)
and was not funded as part of the HFQLG program of work. It does represent a DFPZ that is similar to those
created as part of the HFQLG DFPZ network.
Fuel Treatment: Implement a Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ) to reduce fuel hazard and promote
healthy forest conditions. Primary objectives were to reduce the probability of crown fire and to implement
a strategically located DFPZ to aid fire fighters in the control of wildfires.
Prescription:
Thin stands mainly from below using ground based yarding systems. Remove 3 – 10 inch dbh ladder
fuels. Harvest trees less than 30 inches dbh; Retain 40% canopy closure averaged over the project
area. Retain no snags in the primary DFPZ zone and 2 snags per acre in the secondary DFPZ zone.
Retain 10 tons per acre of the largest logs of all decay classes. Follow up treatments, including
machine and hand piling and underburning, to reduce and rearrange excessive surface fuels.
North Antelope Project Statistics:
EA selected alternative (predicted)
DFPZ (mech harvest acres)
965 ac
GS (acres)
Volume (Sawlogs – mbf)
0 ac
1 mmbf
Pre-Treatment Conditions
An understory “fire ladder” and surface fuel loading conditions that would readily carry ground fire to the tree crowns.
The drought of the late 1980’s and 1990’s in combination with fir engraver beetles caused many of the white fir to die.
The dead fir trees created an excessive fuel load.
Post-Treatment Conditions
Harvest operations and fuel treatments reduced surface fuel loading and “fire ladder” fuels to a level that would
prevent a crown fire. The expected low intensity fire would allow for direct attack by fire fighters during wildfire
events.
Appendix 2. – Preliminary Spotted Owl PAC analysis as requested during field trip. This analysis may be
refined with additional aerial photograph or remote sensing interpretation. These results are not considered
final. Prepared by Gary Rotta, Mt Hough District Wildlife Biologist and Chris Collins, Wildlife Biologist on
Mt Hough Ranger District Wildlife Biologist, 29 Oct 2007.
Post Wildfire Spotted Owl Habitat Assessment
Antelope Complex and Moonlight Fire
Existing Post Fire Condition for Owl PAC’s
In 2007, two large stand replacing fire events occurred in the northeast portion of the Plumas National
Forest, Mt. Hough Ranger District.
In July, the Antelope Complex burnt approximately 23,000 acres; over 13,000 acres were burned with high
fire severity and 4,800 acres burned under moderate severity (High fire severity is defined as >50% basal
area of conifer vegetation killed). Approximately 50% of this fire occurred on the Beckwourth Ranger
District.
In September the Moonlight Fire burned approximately 65,000 acres; 31,000 of NF burned at high severity.
Consequently, areas experiencing high severity fire have resulted in a deforested condition characterized by
relatively large areas of standing dead trees and habitat considered unsuitable for nesting and foraging
spotted owls.
The Antelope Complex burnt within 6 spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs) as well as portions of
Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs) supporting each of the six PACs. A total of four PACs were entirely
burnt and experienced a high percentage of the PAC area deforested by high severity fire (Table 1)*
Table 1: Preliminary Spotted Owl PAC/HRCA Fire Severity Analysis – Antelope Complex
PAC
Total Acres
PL073
PAC
HRCA
PL106
PAC
HRCA
PL201
PAC
HRCA
PL167
PAC
HRCA
PL198
PAC
HRCA
661**
698
total
1,359
392
550
total
941
453
743
total
1,193
386
686
total
1,072
356
861
total
1,217
Total High Severity
Acres
%
496
75%
487
70%
983
284
73%
529
96%
813
367
81%
688
93%
1055
13
3%
207
30%
220
353
99%
846
98%
1,199
72%
86%
88%
20%
99%
*Pac PL287 was only slightly burnt and will remain within the PAC network system (no acres of high severity, two acres moderate
severity for less than 1% of the PAC/HRCA burned and is not itemized in Table 1).
**PL073 PAC boundaries were adjusted in 2002 after the Stream Fire and then adjusted again after a nest site was discovered in
2003. These adjustments resulted in the larger than normal PAC size reported above.
Using the PAC replacement procedure methodology described in SNFPA 2004 ROD, Appendix A page 37,
for each PAC impacted by fire, a 1.5 mile circle centered on the PAC was delineated and suitable habitat
mapped and evaluated.
•
•
At this time, it appears as if there is 1) insufficient suitable habitat and/or 2) non-contiguous blocks of
“suitable” habitat for designating a PAC within the 1.5 mile radius circle for PACs PL073, PL106,
PL198 and PL201. In addition, there is not enough habitat available to have a supporting HRCA for
any of these PACs. Due to this evaluation, no replacement PACs will be designated at this time.
PACs PL073, PL106, PL198 and PL201 are to be removed from the Plumas owl network; they are no
longer PACs. Removal results in a net loss of four owl PACs/HRCAs from the Plumas Network.
PL167 will remain as a PAC within the Plumas Network. As mentioned earlier PL287 will remain as
a PAC.
The impact of the Moonlight Fire on spotted owl PACs/HRCAs is still being determined. But preliminary
estimates based on severity maps indicates that approximately 20 Spotted Owl PACs burned on average over
75% of their area at high severity (Table 2).
Table 2: Preliminary Spotted Owl PAC Fire Severity Analysis – Moonlight Fire
PAC
PAC Acres
Total High Severity Acres
(>50% BA burned)
PL005
PL006
PL041
PL042
PL043
PL044
PL071
PL107
PL122
PL123
PL125
PL126
PL199
PL229
PL253
PL262
PL263
PL284
PL286
PL303
TOTAL
345
316
360
417
316
387
383
290
322
301
499
457
396
323
359
409
326
314
423
321
260
308
203
353
314
360
209
164
266
300
397
439
209
126
225
409
326
213
62
317
7,264
Pac % Burned at
High Severity
Total PAC % Burned
(includes <50% BA
burned
100
100
99
100
100
100
94
99
100
100
100
100
98
98
100
100
100
100
30
100
75
98
56
85
99
93
54
57
83
100
80
96
53
39
63
100
100
68
15
99
5,460
75%
Appendix 3 – Literature citations mentioned by Chad Hanson of the John Muir Project during the field trip.
Several field trip attendees requested the citations in more detail, and Chad Hanson provided the following
detailed citations.
1) Wildland fire effects which render habitat unsuitable for spotted owls (i.e., higher severity fire patches) render it
suitable for spotted owl prey species, which depend upon patches of montane chaparral and downed logs, and the mix
of these habitat attributes results in optimal conditions for reproduction and survival of owls:
Franklin, A.B., D.R. Anderson, R.J. Gutierrez, and K.P. Burnham. 2000. Climate, habitat quality, and fitness in
northern spotted owl populations in northwestern California. Ecological Monographs 70: 539-590. Hanson, C.T.
2007. Post-fire management of snag forest habitat in the Sierra Nevada. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at
Davis. Davis, CA.
Olson, G.S., E.M. Glenn, R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, J.A. Reid, P.J. Loschl, and W.J. Ripple. 2004. Modeling
demographic performance of northern spotted owls relative to forest habitat in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife
Management 68: 1039-1053.
2) Recent scientific studies have found that precommercial thinning of sapling and pole-sized trees only (up to 8-10
inches in diameter) effectively reduces fire severity. See, for example:
Omi, P.N., and E.J. Martinson. 2002. Effects of fuels treatment on wildfire severity. Final report. Joint Fire Science
Program Governing Board, Western Forest Fire Research Center, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Available from http://www.cnr.colostate.edu/frws/research/westfire/finalreport.pdf . (Found that precommercial
thinning of trees under 8 to 10 inches in diameter reduced potential for severe fire - Chad Hanson said his email
communication with the authors confirmed that trees removed were of this small size class).
Perry, D.A., et al. 2004. Forest Structure and Fire Susceptibility in Volcanic Landscapes of the Eastern High Cascades,
Oregon. Conservation Biology 18: 913-926 (crown fire potential prevented--even under the most extreme conditions-through thinning of trees less than 20 cm dbh (8 inches dbh) and subsequent controlled burning of slash).
More specifically, on page 921 of Perry et al. (2004), it is stated that, for three of the plots, there was approximately 20
square meters per hectare (about 87 square feet per acre) in trees over 55-60 cm dbh (i.e., over 22-24 inches in
diameter). This is the equivalent of about 27 trees per acre 24 inches in diameter in these three plots. Perry et al.
(2004) found that, on ALL fourteen plots (including the three plots described above), “thinning trees of <20 cm dbh [8
inches dbh], coupled with controlled burning to reduce logging slash, would prevent torching (fire moving from the
ground into the crowns) on all plots, even under extreme fire conditions (low fuel moisture and 80-kph winds)”.