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:
December 19, 2007
FY 2007 Progress Report on HFQLG Pilot Project Monitoring
Effects of the Pilot Project on Air Quality
Colin Dillingham, HFQLG Monitoring Coordinator
The HFQLG Monitoring Plan addresses the 6 following smoke management and wildfire
trend questions. These questions are answered below based on 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 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?
Question 9) Were provisions of the Smoke Management Plan implemented?
Smoke Management Plans (SMP) are prepared in coordination with multiple counties
(Lassen, Butte, Shasta, Butte, Tehama, and Plumas) and Northern Sierra Air Quality
Management District. 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 F.Y. 2007 there were no reported violations of provisions of Smoke Management
Plans in under burns and pile burns implemented within the HFQLG Pilot Project Area. No
Class I Airsheds were impacted and the Forest Service received no formal smoke complaints
during F.Y. 2007. In summary, provisions of the Smoke Management Plan were implemented
for under burn and pile burn projects 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
F.Y. 2007, there were no reported violations of air quality standards due to under burns and pile
burns within the HFQLG Pilot Project Area.
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 9,792 acres of under burning and pile burning were implemented across
the HFQLG Pilot Project Area in F.Y. 2007 with no official complaints (Table 1). In part, the
absence of complaints can be explained, in part, by coordination and communication of
prescribed burn activities between ranger districts, air districts, and 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 of the smoke. The smoke conference call also takes place on a daily bases
and involves the California Air Resources Board, the meteorologists from the Northern
California's Interagency Fire Weather Predictive Service Center, and prescribed burners across
the state of California. The smoke conference call is used as an exchange of weather information
and prescribed burn information between all the participating parties.
In addition, several districts reported extensive public contact, including phone calls, door
to door visits, and setting up public information booths near burn project sites to directly answer
questions and address concerns from the public. Districts reported that personal contact with
households in the immediate vicinity of the burn in conjunction with timely notification in local
media helped reduce smoke complaints, even when burning immediately adjacent to residential
neighborhoods. It is recommended that districts continue and enhance these practices as they
lead to more effective fuel treatments and increased public trust of fire as an essential
management tool. It is recommended that this work be supported at the Forest and Province
levels as needed.
Table 1. Total acres of under burning and pile burning and resulting smoke complaints for 20022007
Forest
Number of
Year
Acres Burned
Reporting
Complaints
2002
Plumas
5,045
3
2003
Plumas
4,280
0
2004
All HFQLG
10,778
0
2005
All HFQLG
14,310
16
2006
All HFQLG
5,863
7
2007
All HFQLG
9,792
0
Question 23: What is the trend in large fire frequency?
Methods: To evaluate fire trends within the HFQLG project area we used the 2006 fire atlas
developed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (2007). This GIS
data layer contains all fires over 10 acres and greater recorded on federal lands in California
since 1900. We obtained 2007 fire perimeters from the California Fire Alliance (2007). This
data set may not be complete and therefore 2007 data should be considered preliminary,
particularly mean fire size and the number of fires.
Trends in fire size, number of fires, and mean fire size were evaluated using simple linear
regression. More complicated evaluations of these variables using time series analysis will be
necessary to fully evaluate trends. The effect of climatic variables would be important to
evaluate in these analyses as well.
Results
Acres burned. Since 1900, the yearly average number of acres burned within the HFQLG
project area has ranged from zero to over 100,000 acres burned in 1999 (Figure 1). The
largest number of acres were burned during 1999, 2007, 1994, 1990, and 2000. Linear
regression indicates no significant linear trend in these data. However, more complex
analyses could reveal other patterns.
Figure 1.
Acres Burned Per Year 1900-2007
HFQLG Project Area
120000
100000
Acres
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
Year
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2. Number of fires. There have been 660 fires recorded within the HFQLG project area since
1900. The average number of fires recorded per year is 6, ranging from 0 to 38 (Figure 2). Again,
linear regression indicates no significant linear trend in these data. However, more complex
analyses could reveal other patterns.
Figure 2.
Fire Number from 1900-2007
HFQLG Project Area
40
35
30
20
15
10
5
0
19
00
19
03
19
06
19
09
19
12
19
15
19
18
19
21
19
24
19
27
19
30
19
33
19
36
19
39
19
42
19
45
19
48
19
51
19
54
19
57
19
60
19
63
19
66
19
69
19
72
19
75
19
78
19
81
19
84
19
87
19
90
19
93
19
96
19
99
20
02
20
05
Number
25
Year
Mean fire size. The mean size of each fire recorded within the HFQLG project area since 1900
is depicted in Figure 3. During 1994, 2000, and 2007, the mean number of acres burned per fire
was over four orders of magnitude larger than in any other year since 1900. However, data for
2007 may be incomplete. Linear regression indicates a significant increase in mean fire size over
this time period, although only about one quarter of the variation in mean fire size is explained
by year (R2=0.262, P=0.006). More complex statistical analyses, particularly multivariate
methods that evaluate the influence of co-variables such as climate, could reveal other patterns.
Figure 3.
Mean Fire Size 1900-2007
HFQLG Project Area
35000
30000
Acres/Fire
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
19
00
19
03
19
06
19
09
19
12
19
15
19
18
19
21
19
24
19
27
19
30
19
33
19
36
19
39
19
42
19
45
19
48
19
51
19
54
19
57
19
60
19
63
19
66
19
69
19
72
19
75
19
78
19
81
19
84
19
87
19
90
19
93
19
96
19
99
20
02
20
05
0
Year
Conclusions
Based on this preliminary analysis, it appears that although fire number and the number of acres
burned within the HFQLG project area has not increased significantly since 1900, mean fire size
does exhibit a statistically significant linear increase over time. However, to fully evaluate these
patterns additional statistical analysis will be necessary, and important factors such as climate
will have to be included as covariates. This type of analysis could be completed but would
require additional time.
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 has 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. Recent findings by Miller et al. (2007) indicate
that region wide, fire severity seems to be increasing in low to mid-elevation vegetation types.
Recent large, high severity fires in the Pilot Project Area (Stream, Boulder, Wheeler, and
Moonlight) lend support these findings.
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), and Boulder Complex (2006) have all
been referenced in prior years to address this question and the reports are part of the Pilot Project
Record. In 2007, 3 wildfires (Wheeler, Moonlight, and Calpine Fires) impacted several fuel
treatment areas. Preliminary findings on the effects of treatments on fire behavior and
suppression on these fires is summarized below.
Wheeler Fire, Moonlight Fire, and Calpine Fire (2007)
In 2007, two large fires (the Wheeler Complex and the Moonlight Fire) occurred on the
Mount Hough Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest. The Antelope Complex burned
23,430 acres, with over half of the area burning with high severity. The Moonlight Fire burned
over 65,000 acres, including several thousand acres of private timberland, with over 60% of the
area burning under high severity. During the Antelope Complex, a Rapid Response Fire Team
(AMSET) was dispatched to the fire and was able to record extensive data during and after the
fire. This information is summarized and available on the HFQLG website
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/hfqlg/ or available upon request (Fites et al. 2007); the executive
summary of this report is reproduced below:
Wheeler Complex Fire (Mount Hough Ranger District):
Executive Summary: Wheeler Complex Fire Behavior, Suppression, Fuel Treatments, and
Protected Areas
Background
¾ The lightning-ignited Antelope Fire Complex burned more than a total of 23,420 acres
starting July 5, 2007 on the Plumas National Forest.
¾ The fire burned through areas treated for fuel hazard reduction, untreated areas, and
areas protected for California spotted owl and goshawk habitat (Protected Activity
Centers and home range core habitat), as well as Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas.
¾ During the fire’s first two days, with limited suppression resources, it encompassed more
than half of its final total burned area. This included a large area that burned with
extreme fire behavior as combustion from the fire interacted with the atmosphere—
creating a column that climbed to more than 25,000 feet and collapsed.
Key Findings
¾ Treated areas had significantly reduced fire behavior and tree and soil impacts
compared to untreated areas.
¾ Treated areas were utilized during suppression along several flanks of the fire for both
direct attack with dozers and handcrews, as well as for indirect attack with burn
operations.
¾ Treated areas that burned during the first two days—when suppression resources were
limited and fire behavior more uniformly intense—had reduced fire effects compared to
untreated areas. In some areas, these treated sites had moderate to high severity
effects.
¾ A Defensible Fuel Profile Zone treated area provided a safe escape route for firefighters
when the column collapsed and two other escape routes were cut off by the fire.
¾ Observations of fire behavior during the first two days suggest that large untreated areas
allowed the fire to build momentum and contributed to increased fire behavior (rate of
spread and intensity). Thus, the influence of these untreated areas made it more likely
that suppression resources could be overwhelmed, treated areas could be threatened
and their effectiveness in thwarting fire spread and intensity diminished.
¾ Satellite imagery reveals that protected areas (owl and goshawk nest stands) had
significantly greater tree severity compared to untreated or treated areas. A majority of
the larger blocks of untreated areas contained these concentrations of owl and goshawk
habitat protected areas.
Recommendations
¾ Consider treating a larger portion of landscapes to effectively reduce the likelihood of
fires gaining momentum and increasing in behavior to a point where suppression and
nearby fuel treatments become less effective.
¾ Consider treating protected areas to enable these sites to withstand subsequent fire with
lesser effects and prevent them from contributing to greater and increased fire behavior
across the adjacent landscape.”
Moonlight Fire (Mount Hough Ranger District):
Detailed post fire measurements have not yet been completed on the Moonlight Fire.
Preliminary information based on fire severity maps, field observations, and discussions with on
the ground fire personnel, areas which had been treated under the Wilcox, North Antelope, and
Hungry Projects with combinations of under burning, mastication, and commercial thinning had
overall lower flame lengths and reduced fire severity and facilitated safe suppression of this fire.
Further documentation of fire effects in these treatments is on-going
Calpine Fire (Sierraville Ranger District):
On June 23, 2007, the day before the Angora Fire began; a fire was reported on the
Sierraville District near the community of Calpine. Fire crews responded to the fire which was
burning in an area that had previously been thinned and under burned. Based on preliminary
reports, it appears that this treatment reduced fire intensity enough to facilitate safe suppression
activities. In spite of the high wind and extremely dry conditions, the fire was still safely
contained at approximately 50 acres. An evaluation of fuel treatment effectiveness in the Calpine
Fire is on-going and should be available by summer of 2008.
References:
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2006. Fire perimeters. Sacramento,
California, USA: http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata/select.asp. Accessed: December
1, 2007.
Fites, Jo Ann, Campbell, Mike, Reiner, Alicia, and Decker, Todd. 2007. Fire Behavior and
Effects Relating to Suppression, Fuel Treatments, and Protected Areas on the Antelope
Complex, Wheeler Fire. Fire Behavior Assessment Team (AMSET), August, 2007, 41p
Miller, Jay D. and Safford, Hugh D. 2007. Spatiotemporal trends in fire severity and
heterogeneity in the Sierra Nevada, California, 1984–2004. Abstracts, Ecological Society
of America & Society for Ecological Restoration Joint Meeting. August 5-10th, 2007.
http://eco.confex.com/eco/2007/techprogram/P3617.HTM
Prepared By:
Jason Moghaddas, Fire Ecologist, Mount Hough Ranger District
Kyle Merriam, Province Ecologist & HFQLG Pilot Project Area Fuels and Vegetation
Management Specialist