Prescribed Fire & Fuel Treatment
Effectiveness & Effects
Monitoring Program
Fuels, Vegetation, and Wildlife Habitat
Fire and Aviation Management
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region
Volume I: 2003 Summary Report
Prepared by:
USFS Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team
Wildland Fire Specialists
Jo Ann Fites-Kaufman
Erin Noonan
Scott Dailey
Marian Kadota
Carol Ewell
Crystal Kolden
Nicole Vaillant
2003 Summary Prescribed Fire & Fuel Treatment Monitoring Report Vol. 1
Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team
CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1
Objectives ............................................................................................................................1
Products ...............................................................................................................................1
II. OVERALL DESIGN: SELECTION OF SITES & RESPONSE VARIABLES.........2
Response Variables..............................................................................................................2
III. PRELIMINARY RESULTS &WORK ACCOMPLISHED IN 2001-2003..................3
Work Accomplished ............................................................................................................3
Results .................................................................................................................................5
Ponderosa Pine/White Fir Sites .....................................................................................6
Fuel Load...............................................................................................................6
Crown Fuels...........................................................................................................7
Percent Cover ........................................................................................................8
Photographs ...........................................................................................................9
Yellow Pine Sites...........................................................................................................9
Fuel Load...............................................................................................................9
Crown Fuels.........................................................................................................12
Percent Cover ......................................................................................................13
Photographs .........................................................................................................14
Douglas-Fir/White Fir Sites.........................................................................................14
Fuel Load.............................................................................................................14
Crown Fuels.........................................................................................................15
Percent Cover ......................................................................................................17
Photographs .........................................................................................................17
Chaparral & Mixed Forest/Chaparral Sites .................................................................18
Shrub Decadence .................................................................................................18
Shrub Heights ......................................................................................................19
Percent Cover ......................................................................................................20
Photographs .........................................................................................................21
IV. PRE AND POST ONE-YEAR TREATMENT DATA.................................................22
Total Fuels .........................................................................................................................22
Small Downed Fuels..........................................................................................................23
Canopy Bulk Density.........................................................................................................23
V. FOREST MORTALITY .................................................................................................25
0
I.
INTRODUCTION
In 2001, Fire and Aviation Management of the Pacific Southwest Region of the USDA Forest Service
(Forest Service) commenced a fire effects and fuel treatment monitoring program. The primary purposes
of the monitoring were to quantify and evaluate the effectiveness of projects in meeting fire effects and
fuel objectives to vegetation and wildlife habitat. This is an identified part of the National Fire Plan. A
secondary purpose was to coordinate monitoring across other agencies in California already conducting
similar monitoring, including the National Park Service (Park Service) and California Department of
State Parks and Recreation.
An initial goal was to conduct a several year project to gain information on the feasibility, costs,
advantages, and disadvantages of conducting monitoring across the entire Region (addressed in Volume
II, Chapter IV of the detailed report). The project/program was modeled after the National Park Service
fire effects monitoring program because this is a well established program and the Forest Service would
like to coordinate and share data with other land management agencies (with little need to modify the
database). The focus of the program is on vegetation structure and composition for evaluation of changes
in dead and live fuels, soil cover and surface organic matter, plant species composition, and wildlife
habitat.
This annual report contains a summary of the objectives, design, and results to date (2001-2003). The
design is based upon collection of data before and after (prescribed and unanticipated wildland) fire and
mechanical application treatments.
Objectives
The objectives of the regional fire monitoring program include:
1) commencement of interagency coordination on fire effects and fuel treatment effectiveness
monitoring;
2) collection of baseline information on prescribed fire and mechanical fuel treatment effects on
fuels, wildlife habitat and vegetation composition and structure, and effectiveness of
treatments in achieving fuel objectives for application in future fire use planning;
3) evaluation and comparison of different surface fuel loading sampling methods to ensure
applicability to fire behavior modeling;
4) establishment of estimates on the cost and effort to derive results with different levels of
statistical confidence; and,
5) evaluation of the feasibility and utility of pooling data across the region.
Products
Information on the prescribed fire and fuel treatment monitoring program is presented in two written
volumes and a website (under development). The digital media contains photographs, individual plot
data and interactive maps. This document represents Volume I, an overview of the design and a
summary of results. The detailed report (Volume II) includes the overall design and protocol description,
preliminary results and work accomplished in 2001-2003, and adaptive management implications,
including statistical results tables.
1
At this time, there is not enough post treatment data to come to statistical conclusions to address
all the objectives for this annual report. With additional post treatment data being collected this
year, next year’s report will better address the goals and objectives of this project/program,
including more detailed analysis and provide more substantial implications for adaptive
management. Due to limited post fuel treatment data and available budget, the focus of this
year’s report is on fuels. Subsequent reports will include more comprehensive analysis of
overall vegetation structure and composition and wildlife habitat. Chapter III, of this report,
provides preliminary results of all projects to date. Chapter IV compares pre and post one-year
treatment for those vegetation types that had a large enough sample size to complete a graphical
statistical analysis.
II.
OVERALL DESIGN: SELECTION OF SITES & RESPONSE
VARIABLES
The goal is to conduct monitoring on one prescribed fire or other fuel treatment projects prior to
treatment on all National Forests throughout the Region. A long-term goal is to monitor post
treatment conditions at 1, 2, 5, 10 and 20-year intervals. The Forests were asked to provide one
or several candidate projects that would be treated in the current or following year. The
Regional Office requested projects have an initial focus on prescribed burning; vegetation types
or locations that are the highest priority for treatment in that bioregion; and, that would be the
most consistent for use in sampling statistics calculations. Project area locations included
mixed conifer, Douglas-fir and pine dominated forests and oak woodland and chaparral in
southern California forests. More recently, there has been an emphasis on evaluation of fuel
treatment effectiveness for all types of fuel treatments, including mechanical. Mastication has
been a particular recent emphasis since it is an increasingly used method in the wildland urban
interface, yet little is known about effects or fire behavior implications. The intent was to track
responses by major vegetation types rather than individual projects. This was the most cost
effective way to collect enough data to assess effects of treatments in a short time frame.
Initially, a minimum of three plots were randomly placed within each project unit selected. A
sample size of three replicates was chosen for the fuels treatment monitoring program because
it provides the minimum needed to compute statistics for a project. In 2003, the protocol was
modified to collect surface fuels data across six plots, instead of three, to better represent
variability within units. Data are summarized by dominant vegetation type. Future analysis will
summarize data by dominant vegetation and treatment types (i.e., prescribed fire, mechanical).
Response Variables
All aspects of vegetation, excluding non-vascular plants (e.g., lichens and mosses) were
monitored; including, fuel configuration and amount, vegetation density, size, cover, and
species composition (Table 1). Based upon key management issues, additional measurements
(from the National Park Service protocol) were included (e.g. tree canopy cover).
2
Table 1 - Monitoring Response Variables
Resource Addressed
Response
Variable
ground and
surface fuels
herbs and
grasses
shrubs
tree density, size
and crown bulk
density
predicted fire
behavior
III.
Plant
Species and
Community
Response
Fuels
Wildlife
Habitat
Soil Quality
Standards
tons/acre by size &
depth
x
x
x
cover by species
x
x
x
x
x
x
Measure
cover, height, and %
dead by species
stem density & size
(chaparral only)
density by dbh and
species
height to live crown and
crown height
overstory tree cover
snag density, dbh
flame length
rate of spread
fire type
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
PRELIMINARY RESULTS &WORK ACCOMPLISHED IN 2001-2003
Work Accomplished
A total of 36 projects have been sampled, to date, across 17 National Forests, including 129 pretreatment monitoring plots and 28 post-treatment plots. Table 2 summarizes the projects studied from
2001-2003. Nearly all projects were in vegetation or fuel types that are National Fire Plan priorities.
They represent lower elevation vegetation found in wildland urban interfaces. Yellow pine
(ponderosa, Jeffrey and coulter pine), Douglas-fir/white fir, chaparral/mixed forest chaparral, and
ponderosa pine/white fir vegetation types have more than one project represented. Table 2 further
describes the dominant vegetation types and the majority of tree species (vegetation sub-type) that
compose each type per project. This means that statistical analysis will be possible representing broad
trends in the region by vegetation/fuel type for those vegetation types with enough post fuel treatment
data. Projects are not referred to by name because sample design was not developed to assess
individual projects.
3
Table 2 - Summary and Status of Prescribed Fire Monitoring Projects from 2001-2003.
Forest
Angeles
Cleveland
Cleveland
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Inyo
Inyo
Klamath
Klamath
Lassen
Lassen
Los Padres
Los Padres
Los Padres
Mendocino
Mendocino
Modoc
Modoc
Plumas
Plumas
Plumas
San Bernardino
San Bernardino
Sequoia
Shasta-Trinity
Sierra
Sierra
Six Rivers
Six Rivers
Stanislaus
Stanislaus
Tahoe
Tahoe
Tahoe
Tahoe
Project Name
Angeles-02 post1
Cleveland-01a
Cleveland-01b*
Eldorado-02
Eldorado-03
Eldorado-01
Inyo-02
Inyo-03*
Klamath-01
Klamath-02 post1
Lassen-02
Lassen-01 post2
Los Padres-01
Los Padres-03
Los Padres-02 post1
Mendocino-03
Mendocino-02 post1
Modoc-02 post1
Modoc-03
Plumas-03
Plumas-02
Plumas-01 post2
San Bernardino-03
San Bernardino-01
Sequoia-02
Shasta-Trinity-02 post1
Sierra-02 post1
Sierra-01
Six Rivers-02
SixRivers-01
Stanislaus-01
Stanislaus-02
Tahoe-01a
Tahoe-01b post1
Tahoe-01c post2
Tahoe-03
Establish
Treatment Type
ment Year
2002
wildfire
2001
prescribed burn
2001
Prescribed burn
2002
prescribed burn
2003
mechanical
2001
prescribed burn
2002
prescribed burn
2003
mechanical
2001
prescribed burn
2002
prescribed burn
2002
prescribed burn
2001
prescribed burn
2001
prescribed burn
2003
prescribed burn
2002
prescribed burn
2003
mech & rxburn
2002
prescribed burn
2002
prescribed burn
2003
mech & rxburn
2003
mech & rxburn
2002
prescribed burn
2001
prescribed burn
2003
mechanical
2001
wildfire
2002
prescribed burn
2002
prescribed burn
2002
prescribed burn
2001
prescribed burn
2002
prescribed burn
2001
prescribed burn
2001
mech & rxburn
2002
prescribed burn
2001
Mech & rxburn
2001
mech & rxburn
2001
mech & rxburn
2003
mech & rxburn
Dominant Vegetation
Type
chaparral
chaparral
Oak Woodland
Douglas-fir/white fir
Ponderosa pine/white fir
Douglas-fir/white fir
Yellow Pine
Red fir/Jeffrey Pine
Douglas-fir/white fir
Ponderosa pine/white fir
Ponderosa pine/white fir
Yellow Pine
chaparral
chaparral
Yellow Pine
Ponderosa pine/white fir
Yellow Pine
Yellow Pine
Yellow Pine
Ponderosa pine/white fir
Douglas-fir/white fir
Douglas-fir/white fir
Yellow Pine
Yellow Pine
chaparral
Ponderosa pine/white fir
Yellow Pine
Yellow Pine
Douglas-fir/white fir
Douglas-fir/white fir
Yellow Pine
Ponderosa pine/white fir
Douglas-fir/white fir
Douglas-fir/white fir
Yellow Pine
Douglas-fir/white fir
Vegetation Sub-Type
chaparral
chaparral
Coastal Sage/Riparian Oak
Douglas-fir-Black Oak
Ponderosa Pine - White fir
White Fir - Mixed Conifer
Jeffrey pine
Red fir - Jeffrey Pine
Douglas Fir-Canyon Live Oak
Ponderosa Pine - White fir
Ponderosa Pine - White fir
Ponderosa Pine-Black Oak
Big Pod Ceanothus Chaparral
chaparral
Jeffrey pine
Ponderosa Pine - White fir
Ponderosa Pine - Black Oak
Ponderosa Pine
Ponderosa Pine
Ponderosa Pine - White fir
White fir - Douglas-fir
White Fir - Black Oak
Coulter Pine
Coulter Pine-Black Oak
Chaparral/Oak woodland-grassland
Ponderosa Pine - White fir
Ponderosa Pine
Ponderosa Pine - Black Oak
Douglas-Fir-Black Oak
Douglas-Fir-Tan Oak
Ponderosa Pine
Ponderosa Pine – Black Oak
Douglas-Fir- & Ponderosa Pine Mcn
Douglas-Fir- & Ponderosa Pine Mcn
Douglas-Fir- & Ponderosa Pine Mcn
Douglas-fir
Status as of 2003
1st year re-measure
Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment
1st year re-measure
Pre-treatment
2nd year re-measure
Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment
1st year re-measure
Pre-treatment
1st year re-measure
1st year re-measure
Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment
2nd year re-measure
Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment
1st year re-measure
1st year re-measure
Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment
1st year re-measure
2nd year re-measure
Pre-treatment
*Cleveland-01b and Inyo-03 projects have a unique vegetation type for this report. They have been combined with other vegetation types.
4
Projects by Dominant Vegetation Type
Chaparral/Mixed Forest
Chaparral
17%
Ponderosa Pine/White
Fir
22%
Yellow Pine
33%
Douglas-fir/White fir
28%
Figure 1 - The percentage of projects (from 2001-2003) by dominant vegetation type addressed in this
report.
Results
This report contains results after the third year of the fire effects and fuel treatment monitoring
program. Data are presented below by dominant vegetation type for all years of the fire effects
and fuels treatment monitoring program, which includes 36 projects (Table 2). Eleven of these
projects have been partially or entirely treated. This includes eight forested projects treated with
prescribed fire, two forested projects treated with mechanical and prescribed fire, and one
chaparral project, burned by wildfire. The eleven projects are composed of a total of 28 pre and
post one and/or two-year treatment plots.
In projects that received treatment, not all plots measured during pre-fuel treatment were modified
by post fuel treatment. Only those plots that received treatment were re-measured. The results
shown in this Chapter represent project data.
Where possible, the results documented in the following pages are divided into forest vegetation
types and chaparral vegetation types. However, in two projects (Eldorado-03 and Mendocino-03),
the results for both are presented in two vegetation types (i.e., ponderosa pine/white fir and mixed
forest/chaparral) to facilitate comparison across all vegetation types.
The Cleveland-01b (oak woodland) and Inyo-03 (red fir/Jeffrey pine) projects do not fit into the
four major vegetation types analyzed in this annual report. Until more projects are included in
these two vegetation types, Cleveland-01b is included in chaparral and mixed forest/chaparral and
Inyo-03 is included in ponderosa pine/white fir vegetation types.
5
The heights to live canopy results, shown below, were produced using GAMMA, a program used
by the Region 5 Planning Analyst, and based upon the Forest Vegetation Simulator, Fire & Fuels
Effects Module (FVS FFE source code circa 2001). A key difference between GAMMA and
FVS is that GAMMA incorporates crown fuels from hardwoods, such as black or live oak. A
recent limitation to the underlying crown fuel calculations for both programs is that they are not
always sensitive to changes in crown conditions from fuel treatments that result in increased
canopy base height of individual trees. Modifications to improve this sensitivity to changes in
crowns from fuel treatments are underway. In the mean-time, these limitations can sometimes
result in an estimate of increased crown fuels post-treatment even though trees have been removed
or especially crown heights increased from prescribed burning or pruning. Future reports may
contain modified estimates of crown fuels due to incorporation of any improved programming.
Additional data is represented in the detailed annual report (Volume II).
Some of the data displayed in the graphs below (and in Volume II) provide preliminary trends, but
should not be viewed as conclusive. This is due to the small sample size of treatment plots.
Ponderosa Pine/White Fir Sites
The ponderosa pine/white fir types are composed primarily of Pinus ponderosa (ponderosa pine)
with a mix of Abies concolor (white fir), Calocedrus decurrens (incense cedar), or Quercus
kelloggii (black oak) in the understory. Ponderosa pine/white fir projects collectively include
eight projects with two projects (Klamath-02 and Shasta-Trinity-02) that have pre and post
treatment data.
Pre and post one-year data are further described in Section IV, Pre and Post One-year Treatment
Data, of this report.
Fuel Load
The average surface fuel loading for small downed fuels (litter and 0-3” diameter) for the projects
in this vegetation type was 9.5 (range: 6.4-16.2) tons per acre pre-fuel treatment. Klammath-02
and Shasta Trinity-02, had an average small downed fuel load of 8.1 (range: 7.9-8.2) tons per acre
pre fuel treatment and 3.4 (range: 2.9-4.0) tons per acre post fuel treatment (Figure 2). Of the two
projects treated in this vegetation type, the mean total fuel load was reduced by 58% for small
downed fuels.
The average surface fuel loading for large downed woody fuels (greater than 3” diameter) for the
projects in this vegetation type was 17.2 (range: 6.1-32.4) tons per acre pre-fuel treatment.
Klammath-02 and Shasta Trinity-02 had an average large downed woody fuel load of 12.2 (range:
6.6-17.7) tons per acre pre-fuel treatment and 5.0 (range: 3.0-7.1) tons per acre post fuel treatment
(Figure 2). Total fuel load was reduced by 59% for large downed fuels for the two projects treated
in this vegetation type. Looking at Table 2, the Inyo-03 project is dominated by Abies magnifica
(red fir) and Pinus jeffreyi (Jeffrey pine) tree species. This may be one reason the 1000 hour fuels
(greater than 3” diameter) are higher for this project site.
6
Surface
Fuels
(tons/acre)
Surface Fuel Loading by Size (0-3" & >3")
Ponderosa pine-White fir Sites
0-3"
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
>3"
32
o-t0h-0o stn1-0 2-03- 03 02 t1 2 *
d
o
a
a
or m 2 pss ecin aisnity-posu s-0o -03
EldKlaath-0Land oPlum
Tr - 02 sla ny
m Me s tai-nit y ta ni I
a
l
a
r
S
K
Shta -T
s
a
Sh
0-3"
Project Forest - Year
Established
(*red fir/jeffrey pine site)
Figure 2 - Surface fuel loading by size (0-3” & >3” diameter) for Ponderosa pine and white fir dominated
sites. 0-3” fuels include litter weights predicted from regressions on litter weight.
Crown Fuels
Figures 3 and 4 provide graphs showing canopy data. Height to live canopy is computed by
applying a running mean along the length of a tree canopy. The mean must equal or exceed a 75pound threshold in order to compute a height to live canopy value, similar to the method
employed in the Forest Fire Extension of the Forest Vegetation Simulator. If stand data failed to
meet the 75–pound minimum threshold, then height to live canopy would not be computed.
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Post1
Pre
El
do
Kl rad
M am o
en a - 0
d o th 3
ci -0
Sh
P
as lu no- 2
0
m
ta
- a 3
St Tri s-0
an nit 3
is y-0
la
u 2
In s-0
La yo- 2
ss 03
en *
-0
2
Height to Live
Canopy (ft)
Height to Live Canopy: Ponderosa pine/White fir
Project
(* red fir/jeffery pine site)
Figure 3 - Height to live canopy for ponderosa pine/white fir, calculated using the same method as the
FVS-FFE extension with a 75-lb minimum threshold (Scott and Reinhardt, 2001).
7
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
Post1
Pre
El
do
r
K ad
M lam o-0
en a 3
do thSh P cin 02
as lu o-0
ta ma 3
St Trin s-03
an ity
is -0
la
us 2
In -02
y
La o-0
ss 3*
en
-0
2
Canopy Bulk
Density (kg/m3)
Canopy Bulk Density: Ponderosa pine/White fir
Project
(* red fir/jeffery pine site)
Figure 4 - Canopy bulk density (kg/m3) for ponderosa pine/white fir.
Percent Cover
Two projects, Klamath-02 post1 and Shasta Trinity-02 post1, represent pre and post one-year
treatment data and show changes in percent cover as a result of prescribed fire. Both projects
indicate trends where mean grass and herb cover decreased one-year post treatment. The absence
of mean tree cover for the Shasta-Trinity-02 post1 project indicates that these data are not
available and does not mean that tree cover was 0% for the post measurement (Figure 5).
Percent Cover (%)
Ponderosa Pine - White fir
mean tree
mean dead shrub
250
mean live shrub
200
mean herb
mean grass
150
100
50
El
do
ra
do
-0
3
Kl
am
at
Kl
ham
02
at
h02
po
st
1
La
ss
en
-0
M
2
en
do
ci
no
-0
3
Pl
um
Sh
as
as
-0
3
t
Sh
aTr
as
i
ni
ta
ty
-T
-0
rin
2
ity
-0
2
po
st
St
1
an
is
la
us
-0
2
In
yo
-0
3*
0
Project (*red fir/jeffrey pine site)
Figure 5 - Vegetation cover (%) by layer for Ponderosa pine-white fir dominated projects.
8
Photographs
Figure 6 shows pre and post treatment (prescribed burn) photos taken in a ponderosa pine/white fir
vegetation type.
Figure 6 - Pre and Post photo pair, Klamath-02 Project, Klamath National Forest. Pre-treatment and oneyear post-treatment photographs.
Yellow Pine Sites
These sites are composed of primarily ponderosa pine and Jeffrey pine with some Pinus coulteri
(Coulter pine) in the southern California projects. Twelve projects are included in the yellow pine
data with six projects having pre and post treatment data (Lassen-01, Los Padres-02, Mendocino02, Modoc-02, Sierra-02, and Tahoe-01c).
Fuel Load
The average value for small downed fuels (litter and 0-3” diameter fuels), for all projects within
this vegetation type, is 11.4 (range: 5.4-17.8) tons per acre pre fuel treatment. The average value
for small downed fuels for the six projects treated within this vegetation type is 10.6 (range: 3.67.7) tons per acre pre fuel treatment and 5.2 (range: 3.6-7.7) tons per acre post one-year fuel
treatment (Figure 7). For the six treated projects, the average small downed woody fuels were
decreased by 51% for the yellow pine vegetation type.
The average value for large downed fuels (greater than 3” diameter) is 12.5 (range: 1.2-25.2) tons
per acre pre-fuel treatment for all projects within this vegetation type. The average value for the
large downed fuels for the six projects treated in this vegetation type is 14.5 (range: 4.9-25.2) tons
per acre pre-fuel treatment and 8 (range: 1.4-21.5) tons per acre post one-year fuel treatment
9
(Figure 7). The average large downed woody fuels were decreased by 45% for the yellow pine
vegetation type.
Post measurements of surface fuel loads may exceed pre-treatment fuel loadings depending upon
the type and status of the treatment. For instance, mechanical treatments combined with prescribed
fire, or pole and tree snags that fall to the ground two to five years after the prescribed fire, may
contribute to higher surface fuel loading. Furthermore, sometimes pre-treatment fuel loadings are
representative of all plots of a project while post measurements may represent only one or two
plots. This is an artifact of the treatment schedule where only part of a unit or project may be
treated in any one year. The Lassen-01 project is an example of this scenario whereby the fuel
loading is higher in the post one treatment (Figure 7). This is due to a combination of different
sample sizes (3 plots represent pre-treatment fuel loading while 2 plots represents post fuel
loading) for the post treatment re-measurements.
10
Surface Fuel Loading by Size (0-3" & >3") Yellow Pine Dominated
Sites
30
Surface Fuels
(tons/acre)
25
20
15
10
0-3"
>3
5
0
2
-0 -01st1 st2 02 t1 2 t1
o
2 t1
y n o o - s -0
In sse1 p1 p res po ino pos c-0 os c-03 -01 -03 01 02 t1 1 c 1
o o - - s 0
o p
d 2
0
t 2
Laen- n-0Pa s-0 doc-02 od 02 odordin din rra rra po us- -01 os ost
e
r
e
e
p
ss ss os dre en ino Moc M na na Si Sie -02 isla ho 1c c p
1
a
La La LPa Mdoc od Ber er
rra tan T e-0 e-0
B
M
e
n
s
i
S
n
o
n
h ho
S
Lo Me
Sa Sa
Ta Ta
0-3"
Project Forest - Year Established
Figure 7 - Surface fuel loading by size (0-3” & >3” diameter) for yellow pine (ponderosa, Jeffrey and coulter) dominated sites, including pre
and post treatments. 0-3” fuels include litter weights predicted from regressions on litter weight.
11
Crown Fuels
A summary of canopy fuel measurements for yellow pine vegetation types, such as height to live
canopy (feet) and canopy bulk density (kg/m3), are shown in Figures 8 and 9. Pre and post oneyear data are further described in Section IV, Pre and Post One-year Treatment Data, of this
report. Similar to the ponderosa pine/white fir canopy graphs, height to live canopy may not be
displayed for some projects if the tree data failed to meet the 75-pound threshold necessary for
the computation of this value.
Height to Live Canopy: Yellow Pine Dominated
Post 2
10
8
Post 1
Pre
6
4
2
0
La
ss
Lo
s I enM Pa ny 0
en d o 1
do re -02
s
Sa
M cin -02
Sa n B M odo o-0
n er od c- 2
Be na o 02
rn di c-0
ar no 3
d Si ino 01
er -0
St Si ra 3
an er -0
is ra 1
Ta lau -02
ho s-0
e- 1
01
c
Height to Live
Canopy (ft)
12
Project
Figure 8 - Height to live canopy for yellow pine (ponderosa, Jeffrey, and coulter pine) calculated using
the same method as the FFE-FVS extension with a 75-lb. minimum threshold (Scott and Reinhardt,
2001).
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
Post 2
Post 1
Pre
La
ss
Lo
s I enM Pa ny 0
en d o 1
do re -02
s
Sa
M cin -02
o
o
Sa n B M do -02
n er od c-0
Be na o 2
rn din c-0
ar o 3
d Si ino 01
er -0
St Si ra- 3
an er 01
is ra
Ta lau -02
ho s-0
e- 1
01
c
Canopy Bulk
Density (kg/m3)
Canopy Bulk Density: Yellow Pine Dominated
Project
Figure 9 - Canopy bulk density (kg/m3) for yellow pine.
12
Percent Cover
Percent cover for grasses, herbs, dead and live shrubs and trees are shown in Figure 10. Six
projects have data for pre and post treatment (Lassen-01, Mendocino-02, Modoc-02, Los Padres02, Sierra-02, and Tahoe-01c). The Los Padres-02, Mendocino-02, and Modoc-02 projects show
a post one-year increase in herbaceous cover. Generally, tree cover did not drastically change
compared to pre and post year treatment measurements. Data show a reduction of approximately
18% (range: 0.25–34%) tree cover after prescribed fire or mechanical treatments, which is often
contributed to the mortality of poles and small trees (Table 3 in Chapter V, Forest Mortality, in
this document).
Yellow Pine Dominated
250
mean tree
mean dead shrub
mean live shrub
mean herb
mean grass
150
100
50
0
In
yo
-0
La La
s
ss se 2
en n
La -01 -01
ss
en pos
t1
-0
1p
Lo Lo
os
s sP
t2
Pa a
d
dr
re
es s
-0 -02
2
M
po
M
en en
st
d
1
do o
ci cin
no o
-0 -02
2
po
st
M
1
M
od od
o
oc c
-0 -02
2
p
Sa M ost
1
n
od
B
Sa er ocna 0
n
3
Be din
orn
01
ar
di
no
-0
Si
3
er
ra
-0
1
Si Sie
er
rra
ra
-0 -02
St 2 p
o
a
Ta nis st1
ho la
e us
Ta -01 -01
ho c p
eo
01 st1
c
po
st
2
Percent Cover (%)
200
Project
Figure 10 - Vegetation cover (%) by layer for yellow pine (ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine, Coulter pine)
dominated projects.
13
Photographs
Figure 11 shows pre and post fuel treatment (prescribed burn) photos taken in a yellow pine
vegetation type.
Figure 11 - Pre and Post photo pair, Lassen-01 Project, Lassen National Forest. Pre-treatment and oneyear post-treatment photographs.
Douglas-Fir/White Fir Sites
These sites are dominated by Psuedotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir) and/or white fir projects. Ten
projects are included in the Douglas-fir/white fir data with two projects that have pre and post
treatment data (Plumas-01 and Tahoe-01b).
Fuel Load
The average value for small downed fuels (litter and 0-3” diameter fuels) is 10.2 (range: 5.815.7) tons per acre pre-fuel treatment for all projects within this vegetation type. The average
value for small downed fuels in the two treated projects is 12.8 (range: 12.1-13.5) tons per acre
pre-fuel treatment and 4.5 (range: 3.5-5.6) tons per acre post fuel treatment (Figure 12). The
mean small downed woody fuels were decreased by 65% for the Douglas-fir/white fir vegetation
type for the two treated projects.
14
The average value for large downed fuels (greater than 3” diameter) is 14.9 (range: 2.8-29.9)
tons per acre pre-fuel treatment for the 10 projects within this vegetation type. The average
value for large downed fuels for the two treated projects is 20.0 (range: 16.8-23.2) tons per acre
pre-fuel treatment and 8.9 (range: 3.2-14.6) tons per acre post fuel treatment (Figure 12). The
mean large downed woody fuels were decreased by 56% for the two treated projects within the
Douglas-fir/white fir vegetation type.
50
Surface Fuels - Tons per acre
45
Surface Fuel Loading by Size (0-3" and > 3")
Douglas-fir and white fir Sites
40
> 3"
35
0-3"
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2
o-0 do-0 h-01 -01 02 01
d
at
as as- rs- s-02 01a 01b 03
o ra o ra
Eld Eld Klam PlumPlum Rive iver hoe- hoe- hoeR Ta
Ta
Ta
Six Six
Pre
Post 1
Figure 12 - Surface fuel loading by size (0-3” & >3” diameter) for Douglas-fir and white fir dominated
sites. Two projects have pre and post treatment fuels. 0-3” fuels include litter weights predicted from
regressions on litter weight.
Crown Fuels
Post measurements for crown fuels measured in 2003 show that height to live canopy tends to
increase after treatment (Figure 13). Canopy bulk density ranged from 0.09-0.10 kg/m3 for all
projects in the Douglas-fir/white fir vegetation types (Figure 14).
15
Height to Live Canopy: Douglas-fir/White fir
Height to Live
Canopy (ft)
25
Post2
20
Post1
15
Pre
10
5
El
do
Kl rad
am o
Pl at h 02
um -0
P a 1
Si lum s-0
x
a 1
Si Riv s-0
x er 2
R siv 0
Ta ers 1
h -0
Ta oe- 2
ho 01
a
Ta e-0
1
ho b
e03
0
Project
Figure 13 - Height to live canopy for Douglas-fir/white fir, calculated using the same method as the
FFE-FVS extension with a 75-lb. minimum threshold (Scott and Reinhardt, 2001).
0.12
Post2
0.1
Post1
Pre
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
El
do
r
Kl ado
am 0
Pl ath 2
um - 0
Pl as 1
Si um -01
x
R as-0
Si i ve 2
x
R rs-0
iv
1
Ta ers
ho -02
Ta e-0
ho 1a
e
Ta -01
ho b
e03
Canopy Bulk Density
(kg/m3)
Canopy Bulk Density: Douglas-fir/White fir
Project
Figure 14 - Canopy bulk density (kg/m3) for Douglas-fir/white fir.
16
Percent Cover
Figure 15 is a graphic representation of the vegetation cover in the Douglas-fir/white fir projects.
The two post-treatment projects are noted (i.e., Plumas-01 post1 and Tahoe-01b post1).
Douglas-fir - White fir
mean tree
250
Percent Cover (%)
mean dead shrub
200
mean live shrub
mean herb
150
mean grass
100
50
R
iv
er
s01
Si
x
R
iv
er
s02
Ta
ho
eTa
01
ho
a
e01
b
po
st
1
Ta
ho
e03
as
-0
2
Si
x
Pl
um
po
st
1
as
-0
1
as
-0
1
Pl
um
Pl
um
-0
1
at
h
Kl
am
do
-0
2
El
do
ra
El
do
ra
do
-0
1
0
Project
Figure 15 - Percent cover for Douglas-fir/white fir projects.
Photographs
Figure 16 shows pre and post treat ment (prescribed burn) photos taken in a Douglas-fir/white fir
vegetation type.
Figure 16 - Pre-Post photo pair, Plumas-01 Project, Plumas National Forest. Pre-treatment and 2nd year
post-treatment photographs.
17
Chaparral & Mixed Forest/Chaparral Sites
Chaparral and mixed forest/chaparral vegetation type plots do not follow the same methodology
as the forest vegetation type plots. Consequently, data for surface fuels are not collected. The
emphasis of sampling chaparral is capturing the structure, decadence, and cover of the dominant
shrub and herbaceous vegetation types. The mixed chaparral plots often have an overstory of oak
woodlands or coniferous species with a dense understory of shrubs, which are not adequately
sampled with traditional methods. These projects are sampled differently from forested plots to
capture the shrub component more thoroughly.
There is only one pre and post one-year project (Angeles-02) that was burned in a wildfire. The
remaining projects in this vegetation type represent pre-burn treatment data. Cleveland-01b is an
Oak woodland vegetation type; however, there is only one project in this vegetation type and
little data is presently collected so this project has been included in the chaparral and mixed
forest/chaparral vegetation types.
Shrub Decadence
Chaparral decadence was highest for the Cleveland and Los Padres projects (Figure 17). Average
chaparral decadence for all projects was 15% (range: 2-31%). The mixed forest/chaparral plots
had a lower average value for decadence (4.5%), as shown in Figure 18, compared to the pure
stands of chaparral.
Percent Decadence (%)
Chaparral Decadence: Pure Chaparral
35
% dead
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Los Padres-01 Cleveland-01a
Angeles-02
Project
Angeles-02
post1
Los Padres-03
Figure 17 - Shrub decadence (% of stems or cover) for chaparral plots. Cleveland-01b is an Oak
Woodland, so this project was not included in the graph.
18
Chaparral Decadence: Mixed Forest / Chaparral
35
%dead
Percent Decadence (%)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Eldorado-03
Sequoia-02
Project
Figure 18 - Shrub decadence (% of stems or cover) for mixed forest/chaparral plots. Mendocino-03 data
was not calculated for chaparral decadence.
Shrub Heights
Shrub heights in feet are expressed as 75th and 90th percentiles (Figures 19 and 20). The 75th
percentile means that 75% of all the shrubs sampled are below the height that corresponds with
the 75th percentile, leaving a remaining 25% that are equal or taller than the specified height.
The 90th percentile follows the same ideology. The 75th percentile shrub heights are similar for
both the chaparral and mixed forest/chaparral projects with averages of 5.3 feet and 5 feet,
respectively. However, the 90th percentile data differs by one foot with averages of 6.1 feet for
chaparral and 7.2 feet for the mixed chaparral stands.
Chaparral Height: Pure Chaparral
12
75%
90%
Height, in feet
10
8
6
4
2
0
Angeles-02
Angeles-02
post1
Los Padres03
Los Padres- Cleveland-01a Cleveland-01b
01
Project
Figure 19 - Shrub heights (feet) expressed as 75th and 90th percentiles for chaparral plots. Cleveland-01b
is Oak Woodland but was included in chaparral vegetation type.
19
Chaparral Height: Mixed Forest / Chaparral
12
75%
90%
Height, in feet
10
8
6
4
2
0
Eldorado-03
Mendocino-03
Sequoia-02
Project
Figure 20 - Shrub heights (feet) expressed as 75th and 90th percentiles for mixed forest/ chaparral plots.
Percent Cover
Percent cover for both pure chaparral and mixed forest/chaparral stands are displayed together
(Figure 21). Compared to other forest vegetation type projects, percent cover for live shrub is
much higher. Angeles-02 post1 cover is approximately 10% the cover before the wildfire
(Angeles-02). The Cleveland-01b, Mendocino-02, and Sequoia-02 projects are mixed, resulting
in higher tree cover compared to the pure chaparral projects.
ve
la
nd
-0
1b
Lo
s
Pa
dr
es
-0
3
Se
qu
oi
a02
El
do
ra
do
-0
3
M
en
do
cin
o03
Cl
e
ve
la
nd
-0
1a
Cl
e
es
-0
2
An
ge
l
An
ge
l
po
st
1
250
200
150
100
50
0
es
-0
2
Percent Cover (%)
Chaparral/Mixed Forest Chaparral
Projects
tree
dead shrub
live shrub
herb
grass
Figure 21 - Vegetation cover (%) by layer for chaparral and oak woodland/chaparral dominated projects.
20
Photographs
Figure 22 shows pre and post treatment (wildfire) photos taken in a chaparral & mixed chaparral
vegetation type.
Figure 22 - Pre and Post photo pair, Angeles-02 Project, Angeles National Forest. Pre-treatment and oneyear post-wildfire photographs.
21
IV.
PRE AND POST ONE-YEAR TREATMENT DATA
The comparison between pre and post one-year treatment data was grouped into two dominant
vegetation types: yellow pine and ponderosa pine/white fir. The Douglas-fir/white fir and
chaparral vegetation types did not have a large enough sample size for pre treatment and post
one-year treatment data, at this time, for inclusion into this analysis.
For graphs represented below, the data are displayed with box plots. Box plots show the median,
interquartile range, outliers, and extreme cases of individual variables. The center horizontal line
denotes the median, the upper and lower boundaries of the boxes are the 25th and 75th percentiles
and the upper and lower horizontal lines are the maximum and minimum values, except where
values exceeded twice the standard deviation. The latter values are shown individually.
Total Fuels
Total Fuels (1-100 hour & litter) tons per acre
Surface fuel loading includes 1-100 hour fuels and litter weights in tons per acre. Fuel loading
was lower for the two vegetation types in the post one-year re-measurements (Figure 23).
25
20
15
10
STATUS
5
PRE
0
POST1
N=
20
20
5
Yellow pine
5
Ponderosa/white fir
Vegetation Type
Figure 23 - Pre and one-year post total surface fuels including all 1-100 hour and litter in tons per acre.
Vegetation types are yellow pine; and ponderosa pine and white fir.
22
Small Downed Fuels
Small downed (one hour) surface fuels are less than 0.25” in diameter, including litter. Small
downed fuels are important for the propagation of fire spread during prescribed and wild fires.
Fuel loading in this category is similar across all vegetation types when comparing pre and post
one-year data, with the greatest variation in the yellow pine type (Figure 24).
Small fuels (0-.25") tons per acre
20
PNF01
10
MNF02
0
N=
20
20
STATUS
5
Yellow pine
PNF01
Pre
TNF01b
Post1
5
Ponderosa/white fir
Vegetation Type
Figure 24 - Average one hour surface fuels, including litter, measured in tons per acre for pre and post
one-year re-measurements. Vegetation is grouped into yellow pine and ponderosa pine/white fir.
Canopy Bulk Density
Canopy fuels data, such as height to canopy base and canopy bulk density, are summarized by
dominant vegetation type. There are 19 pre and post plots used to compute canopy bulk density;
however, only 3 plots were used to compute the ponderosa pine/white fir values (Figure 25). At
this time, graphs should be viewed as possible general trends, but more conclusive data will not
be available until more projects are re-measured in the future. The data show that canopy bulk
density is higher for the ponderosa pine/white fir projects, which may be due to greater
productivity of these sites resulting in more trees per acre. Furthermore, canopy bulk density
decreased after post treatment, with the greatest decrease for the ponderosa pine/white fir types.
23
Canopy Bulk Density (kg/m3)
.2
MNF02
SNF02
SNF02
.1
STATUS
Pre
0.0
N=
Post1
19
19
3
Yellow Pine
3
Ponderosa/white fir
Vegetation Type
Figure 25 - Canopy bulk density (kg/m3) for pre and post one-year measurements. Data are grouped by
yellow pine and ponderosa pine/white fir.
Preliminary trends indicate that height to canopy base is higher for yellow pine vegetation types
compared to ponderosa pine/white fir (Figure 26). An unequal number of pre and post plots for
the yellow pine data occurred due to the computation of height to canopy base using a 75-pound
threshold. Height to canopy base increased after post one-year treatment with the greatest
difference shown for the yellow pine sites.
24
Height to Canopy Base (ft)
40
LNF01
30
TNF01c
20
STATUS
10
Pre
0
N=
Post1
19
16
3
Yellow pine
3
Ponderosa/white fir
Vegetation Type
Figure 26 - Height to canopy base in feet for pre and post one-year measurements. Data are grouped by
ponderosa pine/Jeffrey pine and ponderosa pine/white fir.
V.
FOREST MORTALITY
Tree mortality (by species and diameter class) was computed for eight pre and post one-year
treatment projects (Table 3). The highest mortality occurred in the seedling class followed by the
pole class (dbh 0-6”). Data are presented as percent mortality with the number of trees that
contributed to percent mortality in parentheses.
25
Lassen01
Yellow pine
Doug-fir
Lassen01
Yellow pine
Ponderosa
100 (1)
Yellow pine
Sugar pine
100 (3)
Lassen01
Yellow pine
Black Oak
100 (12)
100 (1)
Douglas-fir/white fir
Doug-fir
Plumas01
Douglas-fir/white fir
Ponderosa
38 (4)
DBH > 30"
DBH 24-30"
DBH 18-24"
DBH 12-18"
DBH 6-12"
7 (1)
17 (1)
Lassen01
Plumas01
DBH 0-6"
Seedlings
Species
Dominant
Veg Type
Project
Name
Table 3 - Seedling, pole, and overstory mortality. Data are showed at percent mortality with the number
of trees in parentheses.
17 (1)
100 (1)
100 (1)
Plumas01
Douglas-fir/white fir
Sugar pine
100 (38)
Plumas01
Douglas-fir/white fir
Red fir
100 (16) 50 (1)
Plumas01
Douglas-fir/white fir
Inc. Cedar
100 (8)
Plumas01
Douglas-fir/white fir
Black Oak
Klamath02
Ponderosa pine/white fir Ponderosa
100 (1)
58 (6)
4 (1)
Klamath02
Ponderosa pine/white fir Red fir
99 (400) 54 (6)
7 (1)
Klamath02
Ponderosa pine/white fir Inc. Cedar
99 (15)
13 (1)
17 (1)
100 (1) 17 (1)
20 (1)
17 (1)
100 (1)
Los Padres02 Yellow pine
Jeffrey pine
90 (5)
Los Padres02 Yellow pine
Sugar pine
100 (1)
Mendocino02 Yellow pine
Doug-fir
100 (4)
Mendocino02 Yellow pine
Ponderosa
100 (5)
Mendocino02 Yellow pine
Black Oak
88 (57)
2 (1)
11 (1)
25 (2)
Shasta_Trin02 Ponderosa pine/white fir Ponderosa
100 (3)
Shasta_Trin02 Ponderosa pine/white fir Red fir
100 (27) 100 (2)
Shasta_Trin02 Ponderosa pine/white fir Inc. Cedar
100 (71) 100 (1) 50 (1)
Shasta_Trin02 Ponderosa pine/white fir Black Oak
64 (9)
Tahoe01c
Yellow pine
Doug-fir
100 (21) 50 (7)
Tahoe01c
Yellow pine
Ponderosa
50 (1)
Tahoe01c
Yellow pine
Inc. Cedar
100 (5) 50 (7)
Tahoe01c
Yellow pine
Black Oak
Tahoe01c
Yellow pine
Cany. Liveoak 100 (19)
33 (1)
70 (3)
50 (1)
25 (1)
50 (3)
50 (1)
50 (1)
Tahoe01c
Yellow pine
Tan Oak
100 (4) 75 (5)
Modoc02
Yellow pine
Ponderosa
100 (3)
Modoc02
Yellow pine
W. Juniper
17 (1)
50 (1)
26
50 (1)