Fire Mitigation, Fire Mitigation, Prescription Burning - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Fire Mitigation, Fire Mitigation, Prescription Burning Prescription Burning

and and

Post Post-

• fire Treatments: the

fire Treatments: the BAER process BAER process

ESPM 134 Spring 2008 ESPM 134 Spring 2008

Nice Fireline! 00% Hose Lay! Skilled Firefighters! Forest in desperate need of fire! Fabulous Handtools!

FLAMES

Blodgett News: Blodgett News:

• They

They’ ’re still in prescription & permit re still in prescription & permit

• They still don

They still don’ ’t know exactly what we t know exactly what we’ ’re going re going to burn, but we to burn, but we’ ’re going to try Saturday re going to try Saturday

• Remember: heavy boots if you want to play with

Remember: heavy boots if you want to play with fire fire

• You

You’ ’re going to get re going to get smokey smokey… …bring a change of bring a change of clothes clothes

Where we’re going:

Concepts in Fire Mitigation The how & why’s of setting up and

executing prescribed fire

Russell Research Station Example Yosemite National Park Examples

Why, and hows, of post-fire treatments

Reducing Fire Hazards in Forests: Mitigation

We know that fire once was a very frequent event in

the forests of the western US

Areas subject to fires every 5 to 25 years

Fire absence, for various reasons, has modified:

Forest Structure Forest Processes This has altered what were once primarily frequent, low to

moderate intensity fire regimes

Increased density of small shade tolerant tree species Higher surface fuels loadings Increased horizontal and vertical fuels continuity All of these reasons increase the chances of a sever fire out

• f normative ranges of variability

Reducing Fire Hazards in Forests: Mitigation

High severity stand replace fires are

appropriate for many forest types

Lodgepole Knobcone Pine Bishop Pine However, most species adapted to

frequent low-moderate intensity fire regimes are unable to successfully regenerate after large high-severity events

Reducing hazards in forests

• We, as managers, cannot reduce the potential of high severity

fires everywhere simultaneously

• A procedure is required that prioritizes areas
• Four-step process:
• Assess fire hazards, including

Wildland fuels Topography (Slope, Elevation, Aspect)

• Assess ignitions, weather, and climate
• Assess ecosystem values:

Wildlife habitat Timber Rare, threatened and endangered species Watersheds The political wildcard: Wildland Urban Interfaces (WUI’s)

• Assess differing spatial relationships of different fuels treatments

Reducing hazards in forests

• First three assessments
• GIS systems can be used to perform these assessments

Topographic identification of areas of interest

• Fuels Models: FARSITE, BEHAVE, ARCFUELS, etc

How those areas might burn given modern, or future, fuels

• Fourth Step:

Investigate how successful different staila and temporal combinations

• f fuels and silvic treatments can reduce severe fire potentials

Areas previously identified as high hazard, high risk or high value can

be treated first

Spatial arrangements can be evaluated by modelling, experimental

treatments

• SPLATS: Strategically Placed Land Area Treatments
• SPOT: Strategic Placement of Treatments
• FSS: Fire Surrogate Studies

Desired Future Conditions

All depends of land management goals Heavily dependent on:

Knowledge of past forest conditions Comparison of relatively undisturbed

forests

Other Stuff:

Climate projections, land use, encroaching

urbanization, etc.

Fuels Treatments

Fuels Rearrangement:

Transport

Move somewhere else - expensive

Fuels Modification

Alter the surface arrangement

Piles, windrows Mastication, chipping

Alter the stand structure

Shelterwood & Shaded Fuelbreaks DFPZ; Defensible Fuel Profile Zones

Prescription Burning

DFPZ’s

Fuels Modification: Chipping SBNF 2003

Prescription fire

• Wildland Fire

burning under specific, pre- defined conditions that will accomplish specific planned

• bjectives: hence

the term ‘Prescribed fire”

Prescription (Rx) Treatments

5 groups:

Low-moderate consumption, low-moderate

intensity

Low consumption, high severity patches High consumption, low-moderate intensity High consumption, high intensity Prescription crown fires

Low-moderate consumption, low-moderate intensity

Winter or early spring Large fuels will not burn (no time to dry out) Burns mainly fine fuels Burning may occurring during:

Active breeding seasons Plant growth seasons Times where soils are more negatively impacted

Water

Low consumption, low intensity: Russell Research Station November 2006

Low consumption, high severity patches

“Jackpot” burns:

Usually after rains, snow Ignition difficult

Wet fine, 1 hr, 10 hour fuels Once ignited, large classes fuels are consumed

Jackpots, Piles, Windrows

Jackpot Burning: Russell Research Station, April 2007

High consumption, low- moderate intensity

Autumn, prior to seasonal precipitation Low fuel moistures required Intensity controlled by ignition, firing

patterns, weather

High consumption of live & dead fuels Labor intensive

High Consumption., low-moderate intensity Tuolumne Grove 10/2005 NPS

High Consumption., low-moderate intensity Tuoloumne Grove 10/2005 NPS

High consumption, high intensity

Autumn before seasonal precipitation Low fuel moistures Ignitions are for intensity:

Big strips Center firing Heli-torch

Maximizing flame lengths…

High Intensity High Consumption, Tamarack Flat 10/05

Prescription Crown Fires

Fires in Chaparral, Knobcone Pine, Red

Pine, Lodgepole Pine, etc

Stand-replacement crown fires Must be appropriate for the vegetation

type

Difficult to plan & execute..but very

important

Rx Crown Fire, Cow Mountain 2005

Prescription fires

What is takes:

Decision for management action The Actual Prescription:

A specific application of fire, during very specific

weather, fuels conditions

Smoke Impact Environmental Impact Statement? Manning Equipment

Cooperators

Air Quality Management Districts Adjoining Suppression Forces, Area of Responsibilty

Rx Fire: Case Studies: Russell Research Station & Yosemite National Park

Effective fuels reduction in plantations of the

Russell Experimental Station (RES)

Fire-Safe University Property

Those little 8000 sq ft ‘starter castles’ in the

LaMorinda metropolitan area…staring at the Oakland fire scenario

Training

ESPM 181, 134 Co-operators Training

YNP: acknowledgement of dangerous fuels

build-up, Major recreation & visual resource

Land Management Decision

Center for Forestry (C4F) needed to

acknowledge the need for management, after that:

Designate Forest officer for oversight Designate Incident commander – Site

representative

Permitting

• In our case, controlled by:
• BAAQMD:
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District
• Contra Costa County
• Contra Costa Fire & Cooperating Fire districts, structure protection
• 911: need to be informed of burn ops.
• Agriculture Permit Division: Burn Permits
• CALFIRE
• The all-important Law Enforcement 5 Permit: the actual permission to ignite
• Wildland Fire Unit Standby, Structure Protection
• BAAQMD controlling agency variable:
• Air pollution holds the trump card…
• Boils down to size, and what’s burning:
• < 10 acres
• > 10 acres
• Native or Non-native vegetation

BAAQMD

Regulates all burning;

Major limitation to all operations in California

Regulations vary by air basin; San Joaquin Valley is

strictest re: forest Rx fire (most Sierra Nevada forests, YNP, SNP all have to deal with these guys)

Smoke Management Plan

Requires Environmental Impact Statement Required on: Any burn from May 1 to October 31 Any burn over 10 acres Any burn in native vegetation, including WFU Any non-training burn

BAAQMD:

November 1 to April 30:

Burning in less than 10 acres of non-native

vegetation can occur without Smoke Plan

RES:

Regulation 5 exemptions used:

• < 10 acres

Plantation, non-native vegetation suite Training

RES Calendar:

• Convincing C4F that prescribed fires can be included in management:

May to December 2005

• Actual decision to proceed with burn permitting: December 2005
• Contact (Everett) of regulating agencies: January 2006
• Fuels Vegetation Workup start
• Final C4F ‘nod’ for equipment, manning: February 2006
• ICS
• Equipment Committal
• Manning Committal
• Fuels (181)
• March 2006:
• Felling
• Line construction
• Equipment relocation (PPE, hose, handtools)

What really happens:

• March 2006: record month with most days with measurable

precipitation in East Bay records (not total amount record, though)

• April 2006:
• Standby

Rotate to stand down if conditions don’t improve by 15 April

• Gear up for November application:
• Add 2-3 acres in the target
• Not too unusual:
• PW03: Western Yosemite National Park burns:

Planned since mid-1990s Permitted 1998, pending limits by SJAQMD Partially ignited 2001, 2003, shut down by SJAQMD Partially ignited 2005, seasonal shutdown Partially ignited, 2006, 2007, 2008

Finally! November 2006

Tuolumne Grove, Gin Flat & Tamarack RX Fires 10/2005: ten years in the planning…

Post-fire restoration

Needed to address severe fire effects Needed to deal with human population

after-affects

Why mitigate post fire effects?

Waterman Canyon, Christmas Eve 2003

• Two months after ‘Old’ Fire,

October 2003

• 34 Years, 1 month after

Panorama Fire

• Ryegrassed by CDF &

USFS

• Waterman Canyon has a

slide, in one form or another, within a year of every fire since 1932

• Other Hillslope scenarios

very similar throughout the western US

Most of southern California (and huge portions of

Bay Area flatlands) are built on alluvium from surrounding hills

Large % derived during post-fire storm events

Harrison Canyon Catchment Basin (1983) & Spring Creek Debris Flow (1999). Both San Bernardino County, both are from USGS SCAMP director Doug Morton.

B.A.E.R.:

Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation

Formal Authority: 1974

Originally for

1) Threat Reduction, 2) Soil & Water Loss, 3) Water Control & 4) Water Quality

Reassessed 1998:

Addition assessment for needs concerning:

Evaluation of Run-off control Minimization of Downstream post-fire effects Assess impacts on ecosystems’s ability to recovery Compare Hillslope v. Channel mitigation effects Assess economic, social and environmental costs & benefits

(including no treatment)

Treatment Transfer: How can one successful treatment be

employed elswhere

Identification of information gaps

Process:

BAER initiates during Type 1 project fire

events (Type 1: BIG fires)

Requested by Type 1 Overhead

Own Authority On request by Area-of-concern managers

(usually Forest level)

Team is in-place well before ‘containment &

control’; begins immediately on soil & water rehabilitation, usually during suppression activities

Staff

Team Leader (just like a Type 1 Incident

Commander)

Disciplines:

Hydrology Soils Timber Management Wildlife Engineering Range Management Archaeology Fire Management Geology

BAER

Primary Objectives:

Health & Human Safety Watershed Stabilization

Both fire-affected area & downstream Should address both alluvial & colluvial mass movement

Secondary ‘Big’ question:

Is there any treatment that could be performed

which will significantly increase the ecosytem recovery?

BAER

Limited to rehab work and ‘significant

improvement over natural recovery’

For instance:

Cannot build new facilities with BAER $ (but

you can repair old ones)

Cannot alter long-term silvicultural goals (but

can provide for some seeding, if ‘significant improvement’ is indicated)

Can’t set up tasked, event-specific research

BAER

GTR-63 (General Technical Report) provides:

Fire effects review How to acquire & analyze data How to describe results of assessment &

monitoring

Discusses BAER assessments & treatment

effectiveness

Makes conclusions regarding BAER process Makes recommendations about BAER process

Hillslope Treatments (“First line of defense”):

Broadcast seeding, including grasses

Exotics: cheap, fast growth Natives: Expensive (20x to 50x), slow growth Most BAER treatments are shying away from inexpensive

seeding, but Private, County & State agencies (except CDF) not.

Mulching Contour trenching Contour felling of fire-killed trees Fencing & contour check-dams Lopping & scattering of slash Hay, straw wattles, Jute meshing, etc

Channel Treatments

Within any ‘order’ stream Check dams:

Logs Hay Bales Rock Dams, Rock Cages, Weirs Tend to fill w/ debris

Road Treatments

Target: increase the water and

sediment ‘capabilities’ of roads & road structures

Culverts Outsloping Overflows Crossings Bridges

Example: Willow Fire (SBNF 1999)

BAER Team identified, addressed:

Slope erosion problems

Meadows Streams With Chubb, Trout populations North Face (Steep Terrain) Check Dams & Trenching

Some Reseeding

Atriplex & Artemesia populations a concern NO GRASSES (Even the haybales were suspect…RT&E species

problems)

Remember:

• Smokeys awesome,

but fire is your friend!