United States
Department of
Agriculture
File Code:
Route To:
Subject:
To:
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 17, 2007
FY 2006 Progress Report on HFQLG Pilot Project Monitoring
Effects of the Pilot Project on Air Quality
Colin Dillingham, HFQLG Monitoring Coordinator
Question 9) Were provisions of the Smoke Management Plan implemented?
The objective is to see 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 2006 there was one violation of the SMP that covered pile burning
on the Beckwourth District, Plumas NF. A “Notice to Comply” was issued that cited two items
in the SMP that covered the Mabie project that were not followed; 1) the piles were allowed to
creep, so they did not meet the requirement that piles completely burn within 24 hours and 2)
burning should create little or no impact on surrounding residents, businesses or persons.
No Class I Airsheds were impacted; however there were seven days that Smoke Sensitive Areas
(communities) were impacted by smoke from adjacent burns. The Forest Service received
seven smoke complaints; three of the complaints were based on health related issues.
Question 26) Do prescribed fire activities meet air quality standards?
The objective is to meet provisions of the SMP and air quality standards. The monitoring
protocol is to assess adherence to Smoke Management Plan provisions for all burns. Utilize data
from Air Quality Management District (AQMD) recorders and/or portable recorders to assess
impacts to air quality at receptor sites. An air quality monitor located in the City of Portola
recorded that National Ambient Air Quality Standards were exceeded for particulate matter 2.5
microns in size (PM 2.5) during four days in December that could partially be attributed to piles
that continued to creep after ignition on the Mabie project.
Question 27) Do prescribed fires create a nuisance in terms of air quality?
The objective of this monitoring question is to limit or reduce the number of prescribed burns
discontinued due to complaints. The monitoring protocol is to log the number of complaints
(date, time, telephone number, address and type of impact) and track the number of projects
discontinued due to complaints about air quality resulting from prescribed burns.
Approximately 5,900 acres in HFQLG projects were burned in 2006 and 7 complaints were filed,
2 of the 7 complaints were from Portola and associated with the Mabie pile burning, these 2
complaints resulted in not burning on 20 “Permissive Burn Days” due to local concern of smoke
impacts. The six Districts that conducted burning in HFQLG projects, reported a total of 153
days of burning. This number of burn days however is overstated, because it was reported as
number of day’s per/project, and it is common to be burning on a number of different projects on
one day.
Caring for the Land and Serving People
Printed on Recycled Paper
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Forest
Reporting
Plumas
Plumas
All
All
All
Acres Burned
Number of
Burn Days
Number of
Complaints
5,045
4,280
10,778
14,310
5,863
66
67
164
210
153
3
0
0
16
7
“Permissive
Burn Days”
that no
burning
took place
due to Air
Quality
Concerns
1
0
0
4
22
This table summarizes information collected to see if any trends are apparent. To date
information is not gathered that looks at the distance between burn projects and populated areas.
However, looking at the Plumas NF information only, when planning underburns in the
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), the forest should make additional efforts to notify neighbors,
businesses, and other interested parties of the need for underburn treatments and what to expect
in terms of smoke production when the burns are implemented. Since the National Fire Plan
emphasizes fuel reduction in the wildland urban interface, education and notification of
prescribed burn activities is essential and should limit the number of people that consider smoke
a nuisance when burning is necessary. Fuels personnel working on several districts within the
HFQLG Pilot Project area noted that dedicated efforts to communicate with the community
about burn projects prior to their implementation likely resulted in decreased complaints and
better overall public relations.
Coordination with the Northeast Air Alliance and neighboring forests is now standard protocol
during prescribed burn season. During 2006 the land managers that conduct burning within the
Northeast Air Alliance area (which the Pilot Project is part of) have followed the operating
guidelines that were produced last January in an effort to reduce the likelihood of wide spread
cumulative smoke impacts like those that occurred in October of 2005. The Northeast Air
Alliance noted success of this program in during the winter, 2007 Northeast Air Alliance
Meeting. Although the same favorable burning conditions did not develop this year as they did in
2005, these procedures may have reduced the potential for cumulative impacts with at least one
situation (Almanor District deferred one burn due to plans on adjacent units).
In an effort to minimize air quality impacts to populated areas the Northeast Air Alliance
(NEAA) developed a “Pre-Burn Communication Operating Plan” last winter. The operating
plan was followed for two burn seasons since its development and will likely minimize
occurrence of cumulative smoke impacts within the Pilot Project area. One component of the
operating plan that has not been fully developed on the Plumas, Tahoe and Lassen National
Forests is the Public Education and Awareness Strategy. Currently, each District progressively
notifies and educates the public on a project-by-project basis, but the Forests have not yet
achieved the full vision fire managers feel is possible.
Action Item 1 – Forest Public Information Officers should work with fire managers to
develop a strategy as outlined in the NEAA operating plan.
Every under burn should be seen as an opportunity to help the public understand why a
fuel treatment is being implemented; these opportunities give the agency a chance to listen to
concerns and adapt practices where feasible. Several districts within the HFQLG Pilot Project
Area have reported that making direct contact with the public via phone, personal visits, posters,
and the newspaper for specific burn projects has helped limit the number of complaints and
provided an excellent informal forum for public education. Fuels personnel noted that in addition
to general newspaper and flyer notifications, it was important to identify and contact individual
members of the public who may have concerns about a specific underburn project. In particular,
these members of the public include businesses or event coordinators who expect clear skies at
the time of their event, persons who have expressed concerns about smoke in the past, have
personal health concerns, or who are responsible for the care of someone who may be sensitive
to increased exposure to smoke. Public meetings focused on planned under burns have had
limited attendance; it may be better to focus efforts on contacting neighbors by phone, door-todoor, and, if necessary, post a Public Information Officer in a visible location near the under
burn itself while it is being implemented. It has been suggested that a brochure be developed for
the fuel treatment/prescribed fire program. One example of a prescribed fire education brochure
is included with this report.
Action Item 2– Explore other methods of biomass removal and disposal in the WUI
•
•
•
Green fire wood sales focused on small material in the WUI.
Encourage small scale biomass chipping and hauling operations
Work with the City of Portola and the Northern Sierra Management District to analyze
benefits of an air current burner for use in Sierra Valley.
Explore options for small, community level biomass plants through the USDA “Fuels for
Schools” (http://www.fuelsforschools.org/) or similar program.
An attachment is provided that shows type of burning by project in 2006.
LOU ANN CHARBONNIER
Fuels Officer
JASON MOGHADDAS
Fire Ecologist
United States
Department of
Agriculture
File Code:
Route To:
Subject:
To:
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:
November 17, 2006
FY 2006 Progress Report on HFQLG Pilot Project Monitoring
Effects of the Pilot Project on Wildland Fire
Colin Dillingham, HFQLG Monitoring Coordinator
The following monitoring questions relate to what effect the vegetation management activities
authorized under the HFQLG-FRA have on wildland fire.
Question 23: What is the trend in large fire frequency?
Question 24: What is the trend in severity of large fires on acres burned?
Question 25: What is the effect of treatments on fire behavior and suppression?
Overview – Two of these three questions would be best answered after at least 25 years from the
time the Pilot Project has been completed. The third question on the effectiveness of treatments
on fire behavior and suppression should be evaluated each time a wildland fire is influenced by
one of the vegetation management activities authorized by the HFQLG-FRA.
Status and Suggestions:
Question 23: What is the trend in large fire frequency? All fires greater than 10 acres exist on a
GIS layer that is updated on an annual basis. In 2036, all fires greater than 100 acres that
occurred from 1985-2010 should be compared to fires greater than 100 acres that occurred from
2011 to 2036. This analysis should also include analysis of weather and suppression resources
for the same time periods. Most likely it will be necessary to contract this analysis.
Question 24: What is the trend in severity of large fires on acres burned? In 1999 the Region
began the Landscape Level Fire Monitoring program that will quantify the number of acres
burned at different severity levels by fire and vegetation types. In addition to mapping severity
of all fires greater than 1,000 acres, the Regional program also mapped severity for all fires
greater than 100 acres from 1984 to 1999 for certain areas in the Sierra Nevada’s. The Adaptive
Management Services Enterprise Team published a Draft report on this “Sierra Nevada Fire
Severity Monitoring 1984-2004”, in April of 2006. This report contains analysis of nine fires
that have occurred within the Pilot Project area and should be utilized when this question is
ultimately answered. In addition, Kyle Merriam the Province Fire Ecologist has begun
documenting the effects of fire severity and fuels treatment on the Boulder Fire (Plumas NF,
2006), which will become part of the Pilot Project record when complete.
Question 25: What is the effect of treatments on fire behavior and suppression? Within the Pilot
Project area the Dow Fire (Eagle Lake Ranger District, Lassen National Forest, 1999), Cone Fire
(Blacks Experimental Forest, Lassen National Forest, 2002) and the Stream Fire (Mt Hough
Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, 2001) have all been referenced in prior years to address
this question and the reports are part of the Pilot Project Record.
Caring for the Land and Serving People
Printed on Recycled Paper
In October of 2006, Jason Moghaddas, Pete Duncan and Scott Abrams (Mt Hough District,
Plumas National Forest) completed a report on the effects fuel treatment had on suppression
efforts on the Boulder and Hungry fires that occurred in June of 2006. This report is part of the
Pilot Project record. The following is the summary from the report.
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 untreated 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.
At this time there is no formal monitoring protocol established to study the effectiveness of fuel
treatment and fire behavior. I suggest each Forest in the Pilot Project area request the Rapid
Response Fire Team (AMSET) to conduct real time monitoring any time a fire that exceeds the
complexity of a type 3 incident and has the potential to burn any vegetation management
activities implemented as part of the HFQLG-FRA.
Additionally, I recommend that a protocol similar to that developed by the Rocky Mountain Area
Coordinating Group be used to evaluate effectiveness of treatments on smaller fires.
LOU ANN CHARBONNIER
Fuels Officer
CC: Mike Holmes
Gary Fildes
Kyle Merriam
Allan Setzer
Jason Moghaddas
Scott Abrams
Pete Duncan
2006 Key Points
Fire/Fuels and Air Quality
Three wildland fires that burned in 1999 (Dow Fire), 2001(Stream Fire) and 2002
(Cone Fire) have been previously reported as burning at lower fire intensities
when they burned into fuel reduction areas similar to those being implemented
under the HFQLG Forest Recovery Act. Benefits noted from these fires burning
at lower intensities were reduced mortality within the treated stands and improved
suppression opportunities. In 2006 the presence of recently completed Defensible
Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZs) aided in the suppression efforts of both the Boulder
and Hungry Fires again due to lower fire intensities within the treated DFPZs.
Since the beginning of the Pilot Project the Plumas National Forest received two
notices for non-compliance with air quality regulations while implementing
HFQLG fuel reduction projects. A Notice of Violation was issued for the
underburning on the Greenflat project and was reported in last years monitoring
report. The Greenflat project was not within the wildland urban interface (WUI),
the air quality impacts to communities was a result of accumulation of smoke
from a number of prescribed burns being conducted on the Plumas, Lassen and
Tahoe National Forests as well as the Lassen National Park.
A Notice to Comply was issued for handpile burning on the Mabie project that
lies within the WUI areas of Sierra Valley. Smoke from the pile burning in
addition to residential burning and wood stoves lead to an exceedance of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM 2.5.
In an effort to minimize air quality impacts to populated areas the Northeast Air
Alliance (NEAA) developed a “Pre-Burn Communication Operating Plan” last
winter. The operating plan was followed for two burn seasons since its
development and will likely minimize occurrence of cumulative smoke impacts
within the Pilot Project area. One component of the operating plan that has not
been fully developed on the Plumas, Tahoe and Lassen National Forests is the
Public Education and Awareness Strategy. Currently, each District progressively
notifies and educates the public on a project-by-project basis, but the Forests have
not yet achieved the full vision fire managers feel is possible.
Action Item 1 – Forest Public Information Officers should work with fire
managers to develop a strategy as outlined in the NEAA operating plan.
Every under burn should be seen as an opportunity to help the public
understand why a fuel treatment is being implemented; these opportunities give
the agency a chance to listen to concerns and adapt practices where feasible.
Several districts within the HFQLG Pilot Project Area have reported that making
direct contact with the public via phone, personal visits, posters, and the
newspaper for specific burn projects has helped limit the number of complaints
and provided an excellent informal forum for public education. Fuels personnel
noted that in addition to general newspaper and flyer notifications, it was
important to identify and contact individual members of the public who may have
concerns about a specific underburn project. In particular, these members of the
public include businesses or event coordinators who expect clear skies at the time
of their event, persons who have expressed concerns about smoke in the past,
have personal health concerns, or who are responsible for the care of someone
who may be sensitive to increased exposure to smoke. Public meetings focused on
planned under burns have had limited attendance; it may be better to focus efforts
on contacting neighbors by phone, door-to-door, and, if necessary, post a Public
Information Officer in a visible location near the under burn itself while it is being
implemented. It has been suggested that a brochure be developed for the fuel
treatment/prescribed fire program. One example of a prescribed fire education
brochure is included with this report.
Action Item 2– Explore other methods of biomass removal and disposal in
the WUI
•
•
•
•
Green fire wood sales focused on small material in the WUI.
Encourage small scale biomass chipping and hauling operations
Work with the City of Portola and the Northern Sierra Management
District to analyze benefits of an air current burner for use in Sierra
Valley.
Explore options for small, community level biomass plants through the
USDA “Fuels for Schools” (http://www.fuelsforschools.org/) or similar
program.
HFQLG Project
Type of Burn (Piles Burner (FS or
or Underburn?)
Contractor)
Humbug
Crystal/Adams
Last Chance
District Piles
Red Clover
BCK Totals
Hand piles
Hand piles
UB
Hand/Machine piles
UB
Contract
Contract
Contract
FS
FS
Hungry
Deanes piles
Guard piles
PG&E Piles
Mt. Hough Piles
Dancehouse piles
MTH Totals
Brush Creek DFPZ
Brush Creek DFPZ
FRD Totals
Underburn
Piles
Piles
Piles
Piles
Piles
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
UB
Pile
Firestorm
FS
Underburn
Underburn
Underburn
Piles
FS
FS
FS
FS
Underburn
FS
Plumas Totals
Wiley - HC
Blacks Ridge-HC
Pittville-HC
DFPZ Handpiles-HC
Hat Creek Totals
Eagle Lake Totals
Warner-ALM
Almanor Totals
No HFQLG burning
Lassen Totals
Various(WFHF)
Zingira RX
Borda RX
S'Ville Totals
Pilot Project Totals
MP,HP
UB
UB
FS
FS
FS
Total Acres Burned
2006
Number of Days
Impact to Class I
Impacted Smoke
Airsheds (Yes or No)
Sensitive Area1
Number of Days
Burned
Number of
Complaints2
Type of Complaint3
Number of Days
Number of Days
Exceeded National
Shut down by AQMD and/or State Ambient
Air Quality Standards
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
2
0
0
20
2
216
480
656
702
203
2,257
12
10
20
20
10
72
No
No
No
No
No
0
0
1
4
0
5
0
0
1
1
0
2
265
15
15
3
1
1
300
55
10
65
5
1
1
1
1
1
10
2
1
3
No
No
No
No
No
No
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2,622
85
120
298
959
300
1,677
2
3
6
3
14
0
0
245
245
4
4
1,922
18
505
522
292
1,319
30
10
10
50
5,863
153
No
No
health
health
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
21
2
No
No
No
No
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
2
2
4
4
2
No
No
No
Percent Compliance
with SMP
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
Yes
Yes
Yes
7
7
22
2
95%
Health/annoyed
Smoke
Yes
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 un-treated 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.
2
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”.
3
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
4
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 untreated 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.
5
PreventingFireW/Firefor WEB
7/6/99
11:26 AM
Page 1 (1,1)
Preventing
Fire
with
Fire
How do we do it?
Fire has
Three Faces that
save: our wildlands
our resources
our selves...
Our forests and grasslands
are in danger.
In many places, they are vulnerable to large
destructive fires. Today we realize that fire has
three faces:
fire
prevention
Fire Prevention
Fire Suppression
Human carelessness will
never be an acceptable
cause of fire. We will always
need to heed Smokey Bear.
Wildfire threatens people,
private property, watersheds,
wildlife habitat, and our
valued scenic and
recreational
resources.
Smokey Bear
educates children
about preventing
human caused
fires.
These fires
must be - and
are - put out.
Home
threatened
by wildfire.
Wildfire
Our wildland firefighters’ goal is to protect life,
natural and cultural resources, and property.
fire
suppression
Thanks to our courageous men and women
firefighters, loss of life and damage to property
and resources from wildfires remain low.
prescribed fire
For most of this century our society viewed fire as
an absolute enemy. We depended on our public
wildland agencies to eliminate all fire from the
environment.
With the
Three Faces of Fire
Bureau of Land
Management
Oregon/Washington
Forest Service
Pacific Northwest
Region
But without low-intensity fires, some of our
wildlands have grown overcrowded and explosive.
Dead wood and dry brush cover the ground.
Destructive insects and weeds invade. New growth
is strangled and wildlife is threatened.
Therefore, today, we understand fire’s vital
ecological role. We realize the important interplay
of these three faces of fire.
Even so, our wildlands are now more vulnerable
to large, destructive fires that destroy the life of
our forests and grasslands and endanger
communities.
We must reduce the number of unplanned,
destructive wildfires.
Today, with more people building homes in
wildlands, fire prevention efforts are even
more critical. When natural or human caused
fires ignite and spread, these homes - and
people’s lives - are in harms way.
There is a solution:
Prescribed
Fire...
Firefighters put out
grassland fire.
PreventingFireW/Firefor WEB
7/6/99
11:27 AM
Preventing
Fire
with
Fire
How do we do it?
Page 1 (2,1)
Fire has
Three Faces that
save: our wildlands
our resources
our selves...
Our forests and grasslands
are in danger.
In many places, they are vulnerable to large
destructive fires. Today we realize that fire has
three faces:
fire
prevention
Fire Prevention
Fire Suppression
Human carelessness will
never be an acceptable
cause of fire. We will always
need to heed Smokey Bear.
Wildfire threatens people,
private property, watersheds,
wildlife habitat, and our
valued scenic and
recreational
resources.
Smokey Bear
educates children
about preventing
human caused
fires.
These fires
must be - and
are - put out.
Home
threatened
by wildfire.
Wildfire
Our wildland firefighters’ goal is to protect life,
natural and cultural resources, and property.
fire
suppression
Thanks to our courageous men and women
firefighters, loss of life and damage to property
and resources from wildfires remain low.
prescribed fire
For most of this century our society viewed fire as
an absolute enemy. We depended on our public
wildland agencies to eliminate all fire from the
environment.
With the
Three Faces of Fire
Bureau of Land
Management
Oregon/Washington
Forest Service
Pacific Northwest
Region
But without low-intensity fires, some of our
wildlands have grown overcrowded and explosive.
Dead wood and dry brush cover the ground.
Destructive insects and weeds invade. New growth
is strangled and wildlife is threatened.
Therefore, today, we understand fire’s vital
ecological role. We realize the important interplay
of these three faces of fire.
Even so, our wildlands are now more vulnerable
to large, destructive fires that destroy the life of
our forests and grasslands and endanger
communities.
We must reduce the number of unplanned,
destructive wildfires.
Today, with more people building homes in
wildlands, fire prevention efforts are even
more critical. When natural or human caused
fires ignite and spread, these homes - and
people’s lives - are in harms way.
There is a solution:
Prescribed
Fire...
Firefighters put out
grassland fire.
PreventingFireW/Firefor WEB
7/6/99
11:29 AM
Page 2 (1,1)
Before Prescribed Fire
Prescribed Fire
For decades our land
managers have used this
“face of fire” to restore our wildlands to their balanced health.
With prescribed fire, low-intensity flame is
applied by trained experts to clear ground of
dangerous fuels like dead wood and brush. Or, if
a natural fire starts with conditions that are
exactly right, and there is an environmental plan
in place - experts can treat it as a prescribed fire.
•
Decades of dead wood buildups
threaten the forest
•
Combustible materials could
trigger large, destructive
wildfires
•
Unplanned fire could
endanger resources and human
safety
Low-intensity fire.
•
After prescribed fire has done its work.
This low-intensity fire is vital to the life cycles
of our forests and grasslands. There’s no
question that prescribed fire can save
wildlands and resources.
Prescribed fire is just one tool we have to help
restore balance to our ecosystems. It is a very
effective tool and occurs only under prescribed
environmental conditions.
Here’s what you can do:
•
Learn more about your forests and
grasslands.
•
Discuss the issues of prescribed fire with
your family and friends.
•
Contact your local U.S. Forest Service or
Bureau of Land Management office
if you have questions.
Field Offices are listed under U.S.
Government in your local phone book
or
visit our website(s):
After Prescribed Fire
Use of driptorch
to start
prescribed fire.
Yes, fire has many faces.
It is a natural and vital element in our
forests and grasslands.
Through our wise use of fire
we will realize a future where fire
plays a necessary role in our wildlands’
cycle of life.
Planned low-intensity
fire has removed
dangerous dead wood
buildups
•
Forest retains its natural
health
•
Threat of intense and
harmful wildfire is gone
• Forest Service - www.fs.fed.us/r6
• Bureau of Land Management www.or.blm.gov
Native plants return quickly after fire.
PreventingFireW/Firefor WEB
7/6/99
11:30 AM
Page 2 (2,1)
Before Prescribed Fire
Prescribed Fire
For decades our land
managers have used this
“face of fire” to restore our wildands to their balanced health.
With prescribed fire, low-intensity flame is
pplied by trained experts to clear ground of
angerous fuels like dead wood and brush. Or, if
natural fire starts with conditions that are
xactly right, and there is an environmental plan
n place - experts can treat it as a prescribed fire.
•
Decades of dead wood buildups
threaten the forest
•
Combustible materials could
trigger large, destructive
wildfires
•
Unplanned fire could
endanger resources and human
safety
Low-intensity fire.
•
After prescribed fire has done its work.
This low-intensity fire is vital to the life cycles
of our forests and grasslands. There’s no
question that prescribed fire can save
wildlands and resources.
Prescribed fire is just one tool we have to help
restore balance to our ecosystems. It is a very
effective tool and occurs only under prescribed
environmental conditions.
Here’s what you can do:
•
Learn more about your forests and
grasslands.
•
Discuss the issues of prescribed fire with
your family and friends.
•
Contact your local U.S. Forest Service or
Bureau of Land Management office
if you have questions.
Field Offices are listed under U.S.
Government in your local phone book
or
visit our website(s):
After Prescribed Fire
se of driptorch
start
escribed fire.
Yes, fire has many faces.
It is a natural and vital element in our
forests and grasslands.
Through our wise use of fire
we will realize a future where fire
plays a necessary role in our wildlands’
cycle of life.
Planned low-intensity
fire has removed
dangerous dead wood
buildups
•
Forest retains its natural
health
•
Threat of intense and
harmful wildfire is gone
• Forest Service - www.fs.fed.us/r6
• Bureau of Land Management www.or.blm.gov
Native plants return quickly after fire.