Bluff Mesa Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Fire and ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...The Bluff Mesa Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Fire and Fuels Resource

Bluff Mesa Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project

Fire and Fuels Resource Report Prepared for: Mountaintop Ranger District San Bernardino National Forest

Prepared by: Barry Callenberger Fire and Fuels Specialist

February 2011

Fire and Fuels Resource Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 1

Background 1 Issues Addressed and Environmental Components Analyzed 2

3

6

6678910

13

131820

23

2324

38

40

46

49

Methodology for Analysis

Regulatory Direction

National Fire Plan Federal Policy Forest Plan Strategic Management Direction Program Strategies and Tactics Guidance for Designing Actions and Activities

Affected Environment

Fire Regime and Condition Class Fire History and Occurrence Existing Condition Fire Behavior

Environmental Consequences

No Action Alternative Proposed Action

References

Appendix A ‐ Fire Behavior Maps

Appendix B – Fire Behavior Modeling Descriptions

Appendix C – Big Bear Valley CWPP

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.


Introduction Background The Bluff Mesa Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Fire and Fuels Resource Report provides an assessment of the current condition of the project area, the desired condition under the San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan (LMP), and the potential effects of implementing the proposed action and the alternatives. Fire will occur within and around the project area as it has for centuries. Manipulation of live and dead fuels is a part of the fire triangle that can be effectively changed to modify fire behavior.

The Bluff Mesa Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project (BMHF) is located on National Forest System Lands within the Mountaintop District of San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF). The vast majority of the Bluff Mesa project area lies in Big Bear Place; however, the southeastern lobe of the project area, below the ridgeline, falls within San Gorgonio Place.

Big Bear City and Big Bear Lake are just north of the project area and have been designated as a “Community at Risk” from wildfire as defined in Federal Register 66(160) on August 17, 2001. Also within the project area are Forest Service public campgrounds and a private camp.

As defined by the SBNF Land Management Plan (LMP, Part 3 Southern California National Forests Vision; USDA Forest Service 2005) the project area is classified as wildland-urban interface (WUI). The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 defined WUIs as a variable width up to 1.5 miles from communities at risk or as defined in individual community fire protection plans. This forest plan further identifies a direct protection buffer (WUI Defense Zone) and an indirect protection buffer (WUI Threat Zone) that fall within the broader definition of WUI. A WUI Defense Zone is the area directly adjoining structures and evacuation routes that is converted to a less-flammable state to increase defensible space and firefighter safety. The WUI Threat Zone is an additional strip of vegetation modified to reduce flame heights and radiant heat. The Threat Zone generally extends approximately 1.25 miles out from the Defense Zone boundary. However, actual extents of Threat Zones are based on fire history, local fuel conditions, weather, topography, existing and proposed fuel treatments, and natural barriers to fire and community protection plans, and therefore could extend well beyond the 1.25 mile. The two zones together are designed to make most structures more defendable. The project area also fall with in the Mill Creek region of the Big Bear Valley Community Wildfire Protection Plan and is summarized in Appendix C

The project proposes to reduce wildland fire risk and improve forest health by creating fuelbreaks along the rim near the transition from montane chaparral and conifer forest, removing dead and dying trees, thinning overstocked stands, chipping and mastication of trees and shrubs, and piling and burning cut debris and broadcast burning. Proposed activities would occur within the next 10 years.

The Bluff Mesa proposed action is driven by the SBNF’s desire to provide an enhanced level of protection from wildfire for the communities and developments around Big Bear Lake. The recent conifer mortality that has affected the SBNF has created a wildfire hazard to these communities, by increasing the surface dead fuel loading, reducing the overall foliar moisture of the stand and limiting suppression success, by slowing fireline construction rates. The Bluff Mesa project area is characterized as a montane conifer forest dominated by ponderosa pine, Jeffrey

Bluff Mesa Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project 1


pine, black oak and canyon live oak. These systems were spatially identified as areas of high or potentially high understory densification and are at risk to stand replacing fires (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999).

In order to analyze the current fire risk and the expected reduction of the fire hazard due to the proposed action, several modeling methods are used. The proposed action is designed to reduce the level of active and passive crown fires relative to the existing condition and therefore provide a level of hazard mitigation to the improvements and natural resources located in and adjacent to the project area.

This report discusses the existing and desired conditions, and addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed alternatives relating to fire and fuels management. The analysis utilizes existing information from previous fuels reduction analyses, recent field surveys, spatial data, and modeling techniques.

Issues Addressed and Environmental Components Analyzed The current issues relevant to Fire and Fuels within the Bluff Mesa project area were developed based on internal review, fire behavior modeling, and external scoping comments from the public. The primary issues associated with the project relative to fire and fuels are described in the following paragraph.

Decades of fire suppression changed historic fire-return intervals, which has lead to the development of unnaturally dense stands of trees and the accumulation of brush and other flammable fuels in the forest types within the project area. Recent mortality due to insect, disease, and drought has contributed a large standing dead fuel component across the project area. Potential fire behavior from increased fuel loading on National Forest System lands adjacent to communities in the project vicinity threatens the defensible space efforts already completed on private lands. These areas adjoining the WUI are necessary for safe and effective tactical fire suppression operations. The Forest Plan defines two distinctive zones within the WUI. The WUI defense zone is direct protection buffer adjacent to structures and evacuation routes. Defense zone widths can be 300 to 1,500 in the forest types depending on vegetation conditions and topography. The WUI threat zone is an additional area up to 1.25 miles out from the defense zone. The two zones together are designed to make most structures defendable by increasing the success of suppression resources. Table 1 outlines the fire and fuels issues by WUI zone and the indicators analyzed for this report.



Table 1. Relevant Issues and Indicators

Issue Zone Indicator

Community Protection WUI Defense/ WUI Threat Zone

The ability of suppression resources to perform safe tactical operations and protection of structures The reduced potential for stand-replacing fires and increase the probability of successful suppression

Forest Health WUI Defense/ WUI Threat Zone

Reintroduction of historic fire regimes

Fire Behavior WUI Defense/ WUI Threat Zone

Change in fire type and fire intensity and tree and shrub cover and crown base height.

Methodology for Analysis Southern California generally has one long fire season that can span the entire year. Most fires occur during the hot, dry summers; many of the largest and most devastating occur in the fall during the Santa Ana winds. However, fires in the Bluff Mesa area during a Santa Ana would generally be pushed to the south or southwest, away from the developed area around Big Bear Lake. Our analysis was focused on fire simulations representing the 90th percentile weather conditions (the typical benchmark for this type of modeling); these conditions are indicative of hot, dry summer conditions. These conditions were agreed to for modeling by the San Bernardino DFMO Division Chief, David Kelly. Wind and drought conditions, such as those during fall 2003, would produce higher intensity fire than was modeled, but these conditions are not common.

General Sources of Information Sources of information for this analysis include: CalVeg; Field Inventory Analysis (FIA) plot data; landscape inputs derived from Fireshed Assessment; Fawn Skin RAWS station data historic fire occurrence data; Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP); 2003 aerial photos; walk-through exams

Weather Data Weather and ignition data was analyzed using FireFamilyPlus (FFP) a PC-based software system for summarizing and analyzing historical daily fire weather observations and computing fire danger indices based on the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS). This was used to analyze fires cause, fire occurrence, and 90th percentile weather. In all modeling scenarios the weather used is based on the Fawnskin Remote Automated Weather Station and Big Pine Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS). Archived weather data was analyzed using FFP. For all modeling scenarios the 90th percentile weather characteristics for temperature, relative humidity and winds are used. The 90th percentile weather conditions are typically used as the fire behavior benchmark for suppression funding and fire behavior in environmental documents and Forest Plans. Weather parameters used in the models represent the 90th percentile weather conditions (very high fire danger) for the area. These values were derived from the Fawnskin weather station site located near the project area. The weather station at Big Pine Flats was also analyzed due to its proximity to the project area. When averaged over time the two weather stations had almost identical outputs (plus or minus 1 percent); therefore, either one could have been used. Data used included the years 1970–2007 and dates from May 1 through November 30. This time period



represents when most wildfire ignitions occur on the district. Fuel moisture values assumed for modeling are identified in Table 2. These values are from the weather analysis performed by FFP for the 90th percentile weather and professionally validated by the local fire management personel.

Table 2. Fuel Moisture Values assumed for Modeling and Related Assumptions.

Parameter Value 1-hour time lag 3% 10-hour time lag 3% 100-hour time lag 7% 1,000-hour time lag 8% Herbaceous moisture 50% Woody moisture 60% 20-foot wind speed 25 mph*

Air temperature 82°F * 90th percentile wind speed for the area is approximately 14 miles per hour. However, because wind speed was considered a more critical factor concerning torching and spotting, a maximum range of 25 miles per hour was used.

Fire Behavior Modeling A fire behavior model, FlamMap3, was used to conduct a general fire behavior analysis over the project area to represent the current condition and to demonstrate the change in fire behavior type and flame length in Treatment Level 1, 2, 3a and 3b. Treatment Level 4 was not modeled because the treatment has no effect on fire behavior within Level 4 areas. FlamMap generates fire behavior data that are comparable across the landscape for a given set of weather and/or fuel moisture data inputs. The model is based on the application fuel models used in the Region 5 Fireshed Assessment and the new fuel model classification by Scott and Bergen (2005). FlamMap produces fire behavior values at every 30-meter square cell on a raster landscape that is generated in a GIS format. It allows the user to produce fire behavior maps for each attribute of fire behavior. It requires spatial inputs for fuels and topography from GIS in raster form.

Assumptions and variables used in the model include:

• Weather parameters used were based on 90th percentile weather and conversations with local fire and fuels experts

• Canopy cover and live-crown base height from the Forest provided Landscape files. This was further evaluated using the stand exam data collected in 2008 and 2009.

In order to analyze the current fire risk and the expected reduction of the fire hazard due to the proposed action, several modeling methods are used. The proposed action is designed to reduce the level of active and passive crown fires from the existing condition and therefore provide a level of hazard mitigation to the improvements located in and adjacent to the project area. The



primary modeling tool used to quantify change in fire behavior is FlamMap. One aspect of the model looks at the anticipated crown fire type based on stand characteristics, such as canopy cover and live-crown base height. FlamMap is constructed to allow for the evaluation of flame lengths across a landscape. The model was used to compare pre-treatment and post treatment flame lengths and crown fire potential.

FARSITE modeling was used to determine the effectiveness of the proposed fuel break in Treatment Level 1. The modeling results from FARSITE were used to determine potential for spotting and are part of the project record but not incorporated into this document. A more in-depth description of the fuel modeling is found in the appendixes.



Regulatory Direction Direction for fire and fuels management can be found in the SBNF Land Management Plan ((USDA Forest Service 2005a, 2005b, 2005c); The National Fire Plan, 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy (USDI/USDA 2001); National Fire Plan 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan (USDI/USDA 2002); Federal Wildland Fire Policy (USDI et al. 2001); Healthy Forests Initiative (2002); Healthy Forests Restoration Act (2003); and line officer direction.

National Fire Plan The National Fire Plan provides national direction for hazardous fuels reduction, restoration, rehabilitation, monitoring, applied research, technology transfer and established the framework for a 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. The four principle goals and implementation outcomes of the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy pertaining to the National Fire Plan include:

• Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression—Losses of life are eliminated, and firefighter injuries and damage to communities and the environment from severe, unplanned, and unwanted wildland fire are reduced.

• Reduce Hazardous Fuels—Hazardous fuels are treated, using appropriate tools, to reduce the risk of unplanned and unwanted wildland fire to communities and to the environment.

• Restore Fire-Adapted Ecosystems—Fire-adapted ecosystems are restored, rehabilitated and maintained, using appropriate tools, in a manner that will provide sustainable environmental, social, and economical benefits.

• Promote Community Assistance—Communities at risk have increased capacity to prevent losses from wildfire and the potential to seek economic opportunities resulting from treatments and services.

Federal Policy The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review was chartered in 1994 by the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to ensure that federal policies are uniform and programs are cooperative and cohesive. Following the Cerro Grande Fire of 2000, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman directed the Interagency Federal Wildland Fire Policy Review Working Group to review the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review and its implications. As a result, the 2001 Federal Fire Policy and its implementation are founded on the following Guiding Principles:

1. Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in every fire management activity. 2. The role of wildland fire as an essential ecological process and natural change agent

will be incorporated into the planning process. 3. Fire management plans, programs, and activities support land and resource

management plans and their implementation. 4. Sound risk management is a foundation for all fire management activities. 5. Fire management programs and activities are economically viable, based upon values

to be protected, costs, and land and resource management objectives. 6. Fire management plans and activities are based upon the best available science.



7. Fire management plans and activities incorporate public health and environmental quality considerations.

8. Federal, State, tribal, local, interagency, and international coordination and cooperation are essential.

9. Standardization of policies and procedures among federal agencies is an ongoing objective.

The Healthy Forest Restoration Act directs agency personnel to improve forest conditions though fuels reduction activities. The Healthy Forest Initiative provides administrative reform to aid in accomplishing this task.

Forest Plan

Forest Goals and Desired Conditions This section includes a discussion of forest goals and desired conditions relevant to fire and fuels (USDA Forest Service 2005a, pp. 19-49). The goals are responsive to both national priorities and the management challenges identified for the SBNF.

Goal 1.1: Improve the ability of southern California communities to limit loss of life and property and recover from the high intensity wildland fires that are a natural part of this state's ecosystem.

The desired condition is to have vegetation treated to enhance community protection and reduce the risk of loss of human life, structures, improvements, and natural resources from wildland fire and subsequent floods. Firefighters would have improved opportunities for tactical operations and safety near structures, improvements, and high resource values. By providing for defensible space, public and firefighter safety would be enhanced. Local jurisdictional authorities, citizen groups and the Forest Service would act together to mitigate hazardous fuel conditions in areas surrounding the urban interface, urban intermix, and/or outlying improvements.

Goal 1.2: Restore forest health where alteration of natural fire regimes has put human and natural resource values at risk.

The desired condition is to move forest fire regime conditions towards Fire Regime I. Before fire suppression, Fire Regime I (frequent, low severity fires) was prevalent in this forest type. Forests burned often because of seasonal, high-elevation lightning storms. Frequent fires produced a patchwork of small burns that constantly thinned stands, kept fuel loading low and encouraged the regeneration of shade-intolerant plant species. However, with the success of fire suppression, these forests now rarely burn, and when they do, they are more likely to burn as stand -replacing crown fires that cover a much larger area. They have moved from the historic Fire Regime I into Fire Regime II-IV. One way to return these forests to a less flammable condition with tree densities and species composition more like pre-suppression forests is to use mechanical treatments in combination with prescribed burning at shorter intervals.

Goal 1.2.1 - Reduce the potential for widespread losses of montane conifer forests caused by severe, extensive, stand replacing fires

The desired condition in the long term for the remaining unburned National Forest land is to: 1) create forests more resistant to the effects of drought, insect and disease outbreaks and stand-killing crown fires; 2) encourage tree recruitment that contains a species mix more like presettlement composition, (i.e., with a higher representation of shade-



intolerant species like ponderosa pine that have declined during the period of fire suppression), 3) re-create stand densities more like those of the presuppression era; and 4) encourage a stand structure that emphasizes large-diameter trees.

Goal 1.2.2: Reduce the number of acres at risk from excessively frequent fires while improving defensible space around communities.

The desired condition is that the vegetative structure would be maintained so fire intensity is low to moderate. Fuels would be modified so that fire behavior characteristics allow for effective, rapid, and safe fire suppression, decreasing the loss of key habitat components and large trees. Under extreme dry windy conditions, crown fires can develop regardless of the canopy base height. However, crown fires can be reduced in most situations by reducing the ladder fuels to have sufficient canopy base height. For this project, forested areas should have sufficiently high canopy base height to prevent most surface fires from shifting to the crowns under hot, dry summer weather conditions that have historically occurred within the project area. Vegetation flanking fuelbreaks would have fireline intensities that allow the South Big Bear and Skyline fuelbreaks to be used as strategic and safe locations to conduct suppression tactics.

Strategic Management Direction The SBNF is divided into a series of geographical units called “Places.” Each Place has its own character and the LMP describes a theme, setting, desired condition and program emphasis (USDA Forest Service 2005b). The vast majority of the Bluff Mesa project area lies in Big Bear Place; however, the southeastern lobe of the project area, below the ridgeline, falls within the San Gorgonio Place.

Big Bear Place Big Bear Place provides management emphasis at different levels for a variety of resources found within the project area. The following desired condition and program emphasis descriptions are pertinent to fire and fuels for this project as it applies to the Big Bear Place (USDA Forest Service 2005b, pp. 49-53):

Desired Condition: Big Bear Place is maintained as a rural, natural appearing landscape that functions as a recreation setting for water-oriented summer recreation and the surrounding mountains for winter sports activities. The valued landscape attributes to be preserved over time include the big-tree conifer forests to provide the alpine character, the lodgepole pine forests, and the rocky base of terrain providing numerous outcrops. Chaparral and forested areas are managed to provide fire protection for adjacent communities, recreation areas, and wildlife habitat. Habitat conditions for threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species are improving over time; invasive nonnative species are reduced.

Program Emphasis: Community protection from wildland fire is of the highest priority, and will be emphasized through public education, fire prevention, and fuels management. Forest health projects will be implemented to remove dead trees and reduce stand density that will result in a more natural pattern of low intensity fires with frequent return intervals. In addition, these projects will focus on returning forest ecosystems to a more healthy condition. Reforestation projects will maintain tree diversity.



San Gorgonio Place San Gorgonio Place provides management emphasis at different levels for a variety of resources found within the project area. The following desired condition and program emphasis descriptions are pertinent to fire and fuels for this project as it applies to the San Gorgonio Place (USDA Forest Service 2005b, pp. 84-88):

Desired Condition: San Gorgonio Place is maintained as a naturally evolving and natural appearing landscape that functions as an alpine recreation setting containing wilderness and a wilderness portal. The valued landscape attributes to be preserved over time include the craggy silhouettes of the mountain peaks, the wind-carved alpine character, montane meadows, the ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, well-defined age-class mosaic in chaparral, the occurrence of rock outcrops, and natural appearing views from the scenic byway. Chaparral and forested areas are managed to provide fire protection for adjacent urban communities, recreation areas, and wildlife habitat, and to protect from type conversion to grass. Habitat conditions for threatened, endangered and sensitive species are improving over time. Habitat linkages are intact and functioning. Invasive nonnative plants are reduced over time.

Program Emphasis: Community protection from wildland fire is of the highest priority. It will be emphasized through public education, fire prevention, and fuels management in cooperation with city, county and state agencies. Forest health projects will be implemented to remove dead trees, reduce stand density and promote pre-fire suppression era fire return intervals. Reforestation projects will maintain forest diversity. Enhancement of plant and wildlife habitat and linkage corridors for threatened, endangered and sensitive species will be emphasized in all management activities. An active program of prescribed burning/fuelbreak maintenance is expected to result in quality deer winter/summer range. Wildlife corridors will be maintained or enhanced.

Program Strategies and Tactics In addition to the strategic management direction identified in the previous section, Appendix B of Part 2 of the SBNF Land Management Plan describes the detailed program strategies that the national forest may choose to make progress toward achieving the desired conditions and goals discussed in Part 1. The SBNF will prioritize which strategies will be brought forward in any given year using the program emphasis objectives, national and regional direction, and available funding. Lists of more specific tactics are included to help the reader understand what may be involved in implementing these strategies. The strategies listed in Appendix B are those the SBNF managers intended to emphasize in the first 3-5 years (2006 through 2008-2010).

Fire 1 - Fire Prevention Reduce the number of human-caused wildland fires and associated human and environmental impacts. Focus fire prevention programs on the urban interface, threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate and sensitive species habitat, vegetative areas threatened with type conversion, and areas of major recreation use

Fire 2 - Direct Community Protection Reduce the fire threat to communities using mechanical treatments, prescribed fire and herbicides. Identify and schedule for treatment the high-risk and high-value acres near



communities, including the installation of Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI) Defense and Threat Zone vegetation treatments. Highest priority should be given to those evacuation routes, Wildland/Urban Interface Community Defense and Threat Zones and communication site areas with substantial drought and insect-killed vegetation that present a significant threat to life and property in entire communities. Other general national forest priorities will be determined by a process such as fireshed assessment consistent with community protection plans.

Fire 3 - Fire Suppression Emphasis Improve wildland fire suppression capability when in proximity to communities or improvements. A full range of suppression strategies may be used elsewhere on the national forest. All human and natural ignitions will be suppressed using control, contain, confine strategies.

Fire 4 - Firefighter and Public Safety Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in every fire management activity. Integrate all fire management activities with those of other government agencies and conduct fire management activities in a cost effective manner.

Fire 5 - Fuelbreaks and Indirect Community Protection Maintain the existing system of roadside fuelbreaks and fuelbreaks along watershed boundaries to minimize fire size and the number of communities threatened by both fires and floods. Consider constructing new fuelbreaks on land outside of wilderness or other special designations.

Guidance for Designing Actions and Activities The LMP describes “design criteria” or the rules that must be followed in implementing actions or activities (LMP, Part 3 Design Criteria for the Southern California National Forests). The first category of design criteria are the LMP standards, which represent fundamental requirements that define the parameters applicable to specific actions or activities. The second category are the laws, policies, and other direction that may be applicable to proposed actions or activities.

Forestwide Standards Forestwide standards (USDA Forest Service 2005c, applicable to fire and fuels in the Bluff Mesa project area are shown in Table 3.

Existing Laws, Policies, and Other Direction The second component of design criteria is the portfolio of laws, policies, and other direction that affect the implementation of actions or activities (USDA Forest Service 2005c, Appendix A through K). Specific requirements defined in these laws, policies, and other direction that are relevant to fire and fuels in the Bluff Mesa project area are summarized in Table 4.



Table 3. Relevant Forestwide Standards Associated with Fire and Fuels in the Bluff Mesa Project Area

Standard Category

Standard No.

Standard

Vegetation Management

S4 Design fuelbreaks in forests to be open; averaging no more than 40 percent crown closure along the center corridor with an understory of grasses, forbs, and small shrubs. Thinning of forests should favor retention of large-diameter trees. Crown closure and understory vegetation increase gradually, moving from the inside toward the outside of the shaded fuelbreak.


S5 Treat all freshly cut live or recently dead conifer stumps with a registered fungicide to prevent the establishment of annosus root disease.


S7 There are extensive areas within and adjacent to the national forests of southern California meeting the definition of Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI) as described in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. WUI (as defined by the Act) is a variable width up to 1.5 miles from communities at risk or as defined in individual community fire protection plans. This forest plan further identifies a direct protection buffer (WUI Defense Zone) and an indirect protection buffer (WUI Threat Zone) that fall within the broader definition WUI. A WUI Defense Zone is the area directly adjoining structures and evacuation routes that is converted to a less-flammable state to increase defensible space and firefighter safety. The WUI Threat Zone is an additional strip of vegetation modified to reduce flame heights and radiant heat. The Threat Zone generally extends approximately 1.25 miles out from the Defense Zone boundary. Yet, actual extents of Threat Zones are based on fire history, local fuel conditions, weather, topography, existing and proposed fuel treatments, and natural barriers to fire and community protection plans, and therefore could extend well beyond the 1.25 mile. The two zones together are designed to make most structures more defendable. Following are the minimum and maximum widths for the WUI Defense Zone by general vegetation type: WUI Defense Zone Widths

Vegetation Min Width (ft) WUI Defense Zone

Max Width (ft) WUI Defense Zone

Grass 50 100

Chaparral 100 300

Forests 300 1,500


S8 Community protection needs within the WUI Defense Zone take precedence over the requirements of other forest plan direction, including other standards identified in Part 3 of the forest plan. If expansion beyond the 300-foot minimum width of the defense zone is needed due to site-specific conditions, projects will be designed to mitigate effects to other resources to the extent possible.

Fish and Wildlfie S17 In areas outside of Wildland/Urban Interface Defense Zones and fuelbreaks, retain soft snags and acorn storage trees unless they are a safety hazard, fire threat, or impediment operability.

Fish and Wildlfie S37 Design and manage fuel treatments to minimize the risk that treated areas will be used by unauthorized motorized and mechanized vehicles. Mitigate impacts where such use does occur.

Fish and Wildlfie S38

Avoid establishment of staging areas, helibases, base camps, firelines or other areas of human concentration and equipment use within threatened, endangered and proposed species suitable and occupied habitats and riparian areas to the maximum extent possible when suppression of wildland fire and human safety are not compromised.



Table 4. Relevant Additional Design Criteria Associated with Fire and Fuels in the Bluff Mesa Project Area

Category Reference Design Criteria

Fire Management FSM 5100 Fire Management (including Region 5 Supplements)

Fire Management FSM 5100 The National Fire Plan

Fire Management FSM 5100 The Federal Wildland Fire Policy (1995, 1998, and reviewed in 2001)

Fire Management -- California State Fire Law

Fire Management FSH 5109.18 Fire Management Analysis Planning Handbook

Fuels Management H.R. 1904 Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003

Fuels Management Appendix K to Part 3 of the SBNF Plan

Guidelines for Development and Maintenance of WUI Defense and Threat Zones

Air Resources -- Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires (1998) issued by EPA



Affected Environment Fire Regime and Condition Class The Forest Service has developed desired conditions within the framework of five major fire regimes that have been described for the United States (Schmidt et.al. 2002). In this classification, fire regimes are defined primarily by the frequency (average interval between fires) and fire severity (related to intensity). Generally, other elements of fire regimes such as season of burning, landscape pattern and size are not so heavily weighted in this classification. The regimes are as follows:

• Fire Regime I (0-35 years - low severity) • Fire Regime II (0-35 years - stand replacement) • Fire Regime III (35-100+ years - mixed severity fires) • Fire Regime IV (35-100+ years - stand replacement) • Fire Regime V (200+ years - stand replacement)

The primary Fire Regimes found in Bluff Mesa are Fire Regime I and Fire Regime IV as described in the Land Management Plan (Table 5).

Table 5. Fire Regime Acreages in the Bluff Mesa Project Area.

Fire Regime Acres I 1,312

IV 264 Urban 2 Water 22 Total 1,600

Fire Regime I (0-35 years - low severity) Forest Plan Goal 1.2.1 - Reduce the potential for widespread losses of montane conifer forests caused by severe, extensive, stand replacing fires.

Montane Conifer Forests. This is the primary vegetation type in Fire Regime I and is the primary habitat for 30 animal and 38 plant species of concern.

Over the last century, fire suppression has dramatically altered fire regimes of montane mixed-conifer, Jeffrey pine and ponderosa pine forests (collectively called montane conifer forests in this discussion) in southern California. Because fire suppression has been highly successful stopping fires when they are small in these forests, the majority have missed two or more cycles of low-to-moderate intensity fires that, in the past, would have regularly thinned them and reduced the accumulation of understory fuels that naturally develop between fires. As a result, many montane conifer forests now have tree densities that are much higher than they ever were historically. Stand overcrowding both has accelerated and aggravated drought-caused mortality, making montane conifer forests susceptible to widespread insect and disease outbreaks that, in combination with excessive fuel loading, has set the stage for more large-scale, stand replacing



wildland fires. A prime example is the recent multi-year drought that triggered widespread bark beetle infestations, which have killed drought-weakened trees over thousands of acres of montane conifer forests, especially in the Palomar, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains

Fire Regime IV (35-100+ years - stand-replacement) Forest Plan Goal 1.2.2 - Reduce the number of acres at risk from excessively frequent fires while improving defensible space around communities.

A variety of vegetation types and habitats are identified as being under the influence of Fire Regime IV.

Chaparral. These shrublands cover almost two million acres of National Forest System (NFS) land in southern California. The combination of California's Mediterranean climate, steep topography and a continuous fuelbed of shrubs covering thousands of acres guarantees that unsuppressed wildland fires will burn large tracts of land. However, it is important to note that high-intensity, stand replacing fires have burned chaparral for millennia, and except for areas of unusually high ignition rates at the urban interface or next to major transportation routes the interval between fires probably has changed little from prehistoric times. Thus, unlike montane conifer forests in Fire Regime I, fire sizes and intensities in chaparral generally remain within the natural range of variability.

Largely because human populations in southern California have increased exponentially in the last fifty years, urban development has expanded unchecked into fire-prone wildlands. An unwanted outcome of this growth is that chaparral fires increasingly pose a major threat to life and property, as was made abundantly clear by the fires of October 2003 and other fires in recent years. Indeed, most homes lost in the recent fires resulted from high-intensity fires spreading into urban areas from surrounding chaparral.

The desired condition for chaparral is to establish a diversity of shrub age classes in key areas near communities to improve the effectiveness of fire suppression operations. Adequate defensible space around communities could greatly reduce the risk of structure loss, as well as improve safety for residents. Thus, at the urban interface there will be a management emphasis on direct community protection. This could be accomplished in at least two ways: (1) by removing or heavily modifying shrublands immediately adjacent to populated areas (Wildland/Urban Interface Defense Zones); and (2) by strategically creating blocks of young, less flammable vegetation near the interface areas. Both types of fuels' modification could significantly slow or even halt the rate of fire spread into urban areas. To complement these management activities, local building codes and land use zoning need to ensure that homes at the urban interface are constructed of non-flammable exteriors and that communities are designed in ways that minimize their exposure to shrubland fires. The primary role of the Forest Service is to address the vegetation management side of the equation on public lands and to work closely with local and state agencies in their efforts to reduce losses.

In addition to protecting urban areas, strategically placed blocks of young chaparral around certain forest types (e.g., montane conifer and bigcone Douglas-fir forests) could be used to reduce the risk of crown fires. For example, burning chaparral around montane conifer forests (a key habitat of California spotted owl) could reduce tree mortality in wildland fires.



An example of the discrepancy between a current fire regime and the desired regime is provided by montane conifer forests. Before suppression, Fire Regime I (frequent, low severity fires) was prevalent in this type. Forests burned often because of seasonal, high-elevation lightning storms. Frequent fires produced a patchwork of small burns that constantly thinned stands, kept fuel loading low and encouraged the regeneration of shade-intolerant plant species; however, with the success of fire suppression, these forests now rarely burn, and when they do, they are more likely to burn as stand replacing crown fires that cover a much larger area. They have moved from the historic Fire Regime I into Fire Regime V. The management goal is to return these forests to the historic Fire Regime I. One way to return these forests to a less flammable condition with tree densities and species composition more like presuppression forests is to use mechanical treatments in combination with prescribed burning at shorter intervals.

In sharp contrast to the above example, fire regimes of small areas of vegetation that are growing near the urban interface need to be managed with community protection as the primary objective. In these locations, portions of chaparral that historically burned in Fire Regime IV would be moved into Fire Regime I. To protect life and property, these types would be managed (e.g., cleared, prescribe burning etc.) away from the historic regime to make them less flammable.

A national Condition Rating System has been developed that links fire regime to existing vegetation by evaluating the degree to which a vegetation type has departed from its ideal regime. The greater the departure, the greater the risk fire poses to the functioning of the ecosystem. For example, in the past, montane conifer forests in Condition Class 1 burned frequently and at lower intensities; however, when forests burn at increasingly longer intervals relative to the historic range, then the risk of high-intensity, stand replacing fires also increases. These fires then threaten to radically change or significantly alter ecosystem structure and functioning. In contrast to the montane conifer forest example, other vegetation types like coastal sage scrub (especially at the urban interface) are threatened by fires that burn at shorter intervals (higher frequency) than they did historically. Areas that repeatedly burn within a relatively short time can convert to vegetation types like annual grasslands that are resilient to frequent fires.

The three Condition Classes are as follows:

• Condition Class 1 - Fire regimes are within a historical range (1910 to present), and the risk of losing key ecosystem structure and function is low. Vegetation attributes (e.g., species composition and structure) remain intact and operate within the historic range.

• Condition Class 2 - Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historic range. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by one or more return intervals (either increased or decreased) and the risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate. Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from their historic averages resulting in moderate changes to one or more of the following attributes: fire size, intensity and severity, and landscape pattern.

• Condition Class 3 - Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their historical range. Fires have departed from historic frequencies by multiple return intervals. Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from their historic range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high resulting in significant changes to one or more of the following fire regime attributes: fire size, intensity, severity, and landscape pattern.



A map of condition classes for the Bluff Mesa project area is provided in Figure 1. The acreage in each condition class is shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Bluff Mesa Condition Class Acreages.

Condition Class Acres 1 347 2 111 3 1,140

Urban 2 Total 1,600

Finally, SBNF managers are challenged to offer a safe forest environment in potentially dangerous situations. Human safety is always the first priority of national forest managers. The Forest Service faces a huge challenge in southern California and most of the western United States to emphasize fuel treatments that result in defensible space in Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI) areas.

Management challenges related to fire include:

• Working with other agencies, communities, and property owners to develop 'community defense zones' that allow firefighters to stay on-the-ground and defend homes and property more safely. The challenge is a long-term one that requires years of work to complete the vegetative treatments necessary to defend the communities. Another facet of the same challenge is to maintain the defensible conditions over time.

• Reconciling the need to manage areas at risk where threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, sensitive species live.

• Reconciling the need to manage areas at risk where significant heritage resources are located, as well as areas of concern for tribes and Native American communities.

• Increased fire frequency (most often the result of human causes) that has resulted in the loss of native plant species or conversion to an unnatural mix of vegetation. Management challenges will also include increased erosion potential and downstream flooding from burned areas.

• Based on the severity of the situation, the United States Congress recently placed the Angeles, Cleveland, and San Bernardino National Forests on the nation's 10 Most Fire-Threatened Forests list (California Fire Alliance).

• Allowing fire to play a more natural role in an unnatural environment.



Figure 1. Bluff Mesa Condition Class Map.



Fire History and Occurrence The SBNF has a dramatic wildfire history, including an extensive history of large fires. In the fall of 2003, the combined southern California fires were considered the most costly natural disaster in California history, consuming over 743,000 acres, destroying 3,600 homes, causing 22 deaths, and costing hundreds of million dollars to fight.

Based on GIS analysis, large wildfires have surrounded the project area and in some cases burned into the project boundary. In 1970, the Bear Fire burned 53,100 acres destroying 51 homes and 11 structures, burning just to the southwest of the project area and into a part of the project area. The Willow Fire burned 63,481 acres to the northwest of the project boundary, destroying 12 homes in Apple Valley. Most recently, the Old Fire (2003) burned 91,389 acres, destroying 520 homes and causing the evacuation of the Mountaintop communities. Less then 1 percent of the project area has burned since 1906. No fires have started in the project area. Figure 2 displays fire history for the larger fires (approximately 100 acres or larger) in the project area and vicinity.

The extreme wildfire history in southern California is a result of a unique combination of climate, vegetation, and people. These three factors periodically combine to produce wildfires of enormous size, obviously resulting in tremendous social and economic impacts. These large, fast moving, and intense fires put the public, fire fighters, and property at risk while consuming large areas of natural resources.

The Mountaintop Ranger District represents a combination of the former Big Bear and Arrowhead Ranger Districts, and has a significant history of small fire activity. FFP identifies 3,829 recorded fires between 1970 through 2009 in the Arrowhead/Big Bear data base (Figure 3). A total of 251,675 acres were consumed over this 38-year period. Only 29 of these fires exceeded 100 acres. Of these 29 fires, none were within the project area of the BMFH project. Most fires occurred from May through October (see Figure 3 for monthly fire occurrence). The number of fires since 1995 have decreased but the number of acres burned have dramatically increased, mostly due to the increase in fuel loading as a result of dead or dying trees.

The project area is heavily used by recreationists year-round. It is likely that use of the mountain area will continue to increase, and development below in the San Bernardino Valley will continue expanding into the foothills and chaparral. Risk of ignitions is likely to remain the same or increase as more people live in and use the “wildlands” of the national forest.



Figure 2. Bluff Mesa Project Area Fire History Map (larger fires only).



Figure 3. Fire history summary for the Mountaintop (former Arrowhead and Big Bear) Ranger Districts, 1970-2009 (from FireFamily Plus).

Notes: Fire Size Classes A = 0–0.2 acre B = 0.3–9.9 acres C = 10–99.9 acres D = 100–299.9 acres E = 300–999.9 acres F = 1,000–4,999.9 acres G = 5,000 acres plus Fire Cause Class 1 is lightning; 2–9 are various human causes. “Fires per fire day” is the number of fires burning on any day with wildfires. Thus, of the 2798 days experiencing one or more wildfires during the 1970 to 2009 time period, there were 2112 days with only a single fire.

Existing Condition Fire Behavior The existing condition presented in Tables 7 and 8 uses typical fire behavior descriptors to display the existing fire behavior in the project area. Table 7 shows that approximately 77 percent of the analysis area under 90th percentile weather would be some type of crown fire. Fire type can be described with four types. The first type is a surface fire, which burns only the fuels at or near the surface without torching the trees above—this is the desired condition. The second type is the passive crown fire, which torches out individual or small groups of trees as the surface fuels burning under them provide the convective heat to ignite the above-ground fuels. The third is the active crown fire in which fire is spread from tree to tree in conjunction with the convective heat of the surface fuels burning under them. The fourth is the running crown fire—this is a very rare occurrence in which the fire is spread from tree to tree independent of the burning surface fuels. This type of crown fire requires extreme weather conditions and contiguous heavy tree canopy and this fire type was not modeled nor is it used in this document.



Table 7. Existing Condition described by Fire Type under 90th Percentile Weather

Fire Type Acres Percent of Area Surface Fire 371 23%

Passive Crown Fire 637 40%

Active Crown Fire 591 37%

Total 1,600 100%

Table 8 shows that approximately 77 percent of the project area would have flame lengths exceeding 10 feet and 55 percent of the project area would have flame lengths exceeding 22 feet under similar weather conditions. Map 1 in Appendix A provides a map of projected fire types within the project area under 90th percentile weather conditions and Map 3 presents a map of projected flame lengths under those conditions.

Table 8. Existing Condition described by Flame Length 90th Percentile Weather

Flame Length in Feet Acres Percent of Analysis

area 4 to 10 370 23%

11 to 21 342 22%

Greater than 22 887 55%

Total 1,600 100%

Under the existing condition, fire behavior modeling suggests that, should a wildfire occur during very high fire danger conditions (90th percentile weather), control would most likely exceed the capability of hand crews. Currently, and as vegetation becomes denser, more trees die and fall, and fuels accumulate, fireline intensity and the ability to suppress fire in these stands will become increasingly more difficult. Indirect suppression strategies would need to be employed resulting in a greater area burned. Given the existing condition modeled fire behavior, fuels must be modified before prescribed burning could be safely and successfully applied to the project area without the likelihood of fire moving into the crowns and causing substantial mortality. Table 9 presents a description of suppression implications related to different flame lengths.



Table 9. Fireline Intensity Interpretations.

Adjective Rating

Flame Length (feet) Suppressions Implications

Low 0–1 Fire will burn and spread; however, very little resistance to control and direct attack with firefighters is possible.

Moderate 1–3 Fire spreads rapidly, presenting moderate resistance to control but can be countered with direct attack by firefighters.

Active 3–7 Fire spreads very rapidly, presenting substantial resistance to control. Direct attack with firefighters must be supplemented with equipment and/or air support.

Very Active

7–15 Fire spreads very rapidly, presenting extreme resistance to control. Indirect attack may be effective. Safety of firefighters in the area becomes a concern.

Extreme >15 Fire spreads very rapidly, presenting extreme resistance to control. Any form of attack will probably not be effective. Safety of firefighters in the area is of critical concern.



Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative

Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change from the existing conditions in the short term. Current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No fuels management activities would be implemented to accomplish project goals, which would be in violation of the current Forest and National policies that direct the forests to provide protection of the natural resources and private property. Road maintenance and repair and trail maintenance and repair would continue.

Over a period of years in the absence of any kind of human-caused or natural disturbance, indirect effects would occur from the natural progression of forest growth and change. Vegetation conditions, canopy base height, fire behavior, fireline intensity, and fire type would persist and worsen. As a result, fire behavior would make it difficult to control even small fires under severe (90th percentile) weather conditions.

Over time in the montane conifer forest type, more fine fuels would accumulate as trees continue to die due to insects, disease, and the effects of drought. This would serve to increase the continuity of surface fuels, feeding fire behavior, and increasing rate of spread and flame length. Branch wood from dead trees would fall and accumulate on the ground also adding to fire intensity. High flame lengths and fireline intensities would directly affect the ability to effectively suppress fires in a cost-effective and safe manner. Risk of loss or damage to private property from wildfire would remain high.

There would continue to be an increase in the number of understory trees, particularly white fir. Fire types would trend more toward active crown fires as average canopy base height lowers in many stands. The number of understory trees would increase allowing surface fires to transition into the tree crowns, which could develop into sustained, active, crown fire. No progress would be made towards reducing the risk of catastrophic fire.

Cumulative Effects No cumulative effects would occur with the selection of no action alternative. Several other vegetation management projects have occurred in and adjacent to the analysis area. These projects have created areas with forest conditions that are more resistant to adverse effects of drought, insects, and disease, and have enhanced recruitment of trees into the large-tree category by favoring growth of dominant trees. In addition, the Forest Service is proposing similar treatments on additional acres in the Big Bear and Santa Ana Watershed areas in the near future. The no-action alternative would not contribute to the overall fuels reduction strategy, improve forest conditions or lead to large tree recruitment in the project area in combination with other past, ongoing or future projects.

However, over a period of years, the lack of fuels treatment in the project area would contribute to a greater risk of high-intensity fire in the general area around the project area, including the communities near Big Bear Lake and the private property near Bluff Lake. Thus, no action could contribute to cumulative effects on forests, habitat, property, and human health in the event of a wide-scale catastrophic fire and the associated emergency fire fighting activities.



Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction This alternative would not comply with the Forest Plan or the National Fire Plan direction, which was identified at the beginning of this document. The selection of this alternative would violate the Fire Management direction found in both of the plans

Proposed Action The proposed action was designed to respond to the concerns identified in the Affected Environment. It also responds to the National Fire Plan and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. Under the proposed action, the entire project area would be treated by one of eight treatment levels. To meet the primary purposes of providing for firefighter safety, community protection, and reducing the potential for stand-replacing fires, the proposed action includes the creation of a shaded fuelbreak at the top of the ridge along roads and trails near the edge of Bluff Mesa and the creation of narrower shaded fuelbreaks along several internal roads within the project area. Outside of these shaded fuelbreaks, the potential for stand-replacing wildfire would be decreased by reducing tree densities and removing excess surface fuels, while at the same time maintaining essential forest structure required by wildlife.

In addition, some roads would be decommissioned while others would be converted from unauthorized roads to system roads. The treatments are shown in Figure 4. Larger-scale maps of the proposed action are contained in the project planning record. A summary of the treatments is provided below. Treatments are defined in terms of treatment objective and desired condition and presented in a comparative format in Table 10.




Figure 4 Proposed fuel treatments within the project area (refer to Table 10 or treatment descriptions).


Table 10. Description of Treatment Levels Treatment level, WUI zone, and Fire Behavior

Objective

Width/ location

Vegetation Type

Hard Snag Retention

Down Wood Retention

Desired Shrub Canopy Cover

Desired Stand Structure & Cover

Conifer Forest 0 snags; hazard trees would be removed

0 logs/acre (except soft and rotting logs)

An average of 10% or less shrub cover

The desired condition is an open structure averaging no more than 40% crown closure with an overstory featuring large diameter trees with 20-foot spacing between individual tree crowns (or groups of trees) and an understory of grasses, forbs and small shrubs. Canopy base height averages 10-15 feet or greater.

Treatment Level 1

Defense zone (85 acres)

Fire Behavior Objective: Reduce flame length to 4 feet or less under 90th percentile1 weather conditions.

Shaded fuelbreak 200 ft. wide, along edge of Bluff Mesa

Montane Chaparral

Same as above

Same as above Same as above The desired condition is scattered trees emerging from discontinuous patches of chaparral. The canopy base height is 12 feet or greater or up to 50% of the tree height, whichever is less.

Conifer Forest 5 of the largest hard snags per 5 acres; hazard trees would be removed

3 downed logs per acre (minimum 12 inches diameter, or the largest available, and 60 linear feet).

An average of 10% or less shrub cover.

The desired condition is an open structure averaging 40 to 50% crown cover with an overstory featuring large diameter trees with 10- to 20-foot spacing between individual tree crowns (or groups of trees) and an understory of grasses, forbs and small shrubs. Canopy base height averages 10 to 15 feet.

Treatment Level 2

Defense zone (245 acres)

Fire Behavior Objective: Reduce flame length to 4 feet or less under 90th percentile1 weather conditions.

100 ft wide along both sides of strategic internal roads (important as secondary fire-fighting zones and as escape routes) and 200 feet wide along both sides of Treatment Level 1. Montane

Chaparral Same as above

Same as above Same as above The desired condition is scattered trees emerging from discontinuous patches of chaparral. The canopy base height is 12 feet or greater or up to 50% of the tree height, whichever is less.





Objective

Width/ location

Vegetation Type

Hard Snag Retention

Down Wood Retention



Conifer Forest (patches inside Montane Chaparral)

15 of the largest hard snags per 5 acres.


No shrubs inside the drip lines of trees; 80+% shrub cover outside the drip lines

Treatment level 3 is designed to restore forest conditions similar to those experienced under historic fire regimes. The treatment objective is to reduce the potential for crown fire to be initiated in these stands. The desired condition is a more open stand with discontinuous fuels. Tree canopy base height averages 10-15 feet.

Treatment Level 3a

Threat Zone (482 acres)

Fire Behavior Objective: Limited passive crown fire and no active crown fire in conifer forest under 90th percentile1 weather conditions.

On steep areas, outside of Defense Zones, west and south of main fuelbreak

Montane Chaparral

Same as above Same as above A patchy or mosaic pattern of shrubs with up to 50% of the existing shrub cover removed

Treatment level 3 is designed to reduce the potential for fire to burn rapidly in contiuous fuels up the slopes of Bluff Mesa, so that suppression techniques can be more effective. The desired condition is a patchy discontinuous shrub layer with scattered trees emerging from the chaparral.

Treatment Level 3b


Fire Behavior Objective: Limited passive crown fire and no active crown fire under 90th percentile1 weather conditions.

On flat to rolling topography, outside of Defense Zones, east and north of main fuelbreak

Conifer Forest



In non-riparian areas, no shrubs inside the drip lines of trees

30% shrub cover will be retained (calculated on a per acre basis) outside drip lines

Shrubs in riparian areas to be retained

Treatment level 3 is designed to restore forest conditions similar to those experienced under historic fire regimes. The treatment objective is to reduce the potential for crown fire to be initiated in these stands. The desired condition is a more open stand with discontinuous fuels. Tree canopy base height averages 10-15 feet.

Treatment Level 3c Young Pine Conifer Forest 15 of the largest hard

6 downed logs per acre

Same as above, for Treatment Level

The desired condition is to improve vigor of young pine stands by creating 15- to 20-foot

ire and Fuels Resource Report



Objective

Width/ location

Vegetation Type

Hard Snag Retention

Down Wood Retention



Threat Zone (17+ acres)

Fire Behavior Objective: reduce active crown fire potential.

Plantations

snags per 5 acres.

(minimum 12 inches diameter, or the largest available, and 120 linear feet).

3b. spacing between trees and leaving the most dominant trees.

Treatment Level 4a Threat Zone (65 acres)


California Spotted Owl Habitats (PAC) and Bald Eagle Night Roost Habitats

Conifer Forest



Some shrubs will be cleared from inside the drip lines of trees.

Average is 30-50% outside the drip lines.

Treatment Level 4a was specifically designed for habitat diversity with an emphasis on spotted owl nesting and bald eagle night roost habitats. The treatment objective is to reduce the potential for crown fire to be sustained in these stands, while maintaining habitat suitability. The desired condition is a stand with moderate to dense structure with a canopy closure of 70 -100% made up of overstory and midstory trees and a reduction of understory ladder fuels. The desired stand composition is a mix of pines and white fir. Canopy base height averages 10 to 15 feet. The desired condition of the understory and shrub layers is a to have discontinuity in the fuels and fuel ladders while retaining shrub cover and forage for prey species such as woodrats.

The Design Criteria describe specific measures intended to attain these condition/stand objectives.

Treatment Level 4b Threat Zone (316 acres)

California Spotted Owl Habitats (HRC2, Suitable

Conifer Forest Same as above Same as above Same as above

Treatment Level 4b was specifically designed for habitat diversity with an emphasis on spotted owl foraging and

F

ire and Fuels Resource Report



Objective

Width/ location

Vegetation Type

Hard Snag Retention

Down Wood Retention




habitat) dispersal habitat. The treatment objectives are to reduce the potential for crown fire to be sustained in these stands and improve forest health. The desired condition is a stand with moderate to dense structure with a canopy closure of a minimum of 70% made up of the overstory and midstory trees and a reduction of understory and midstory ladder fuels. The desired stand composition is a mix of pines and white fir, with emphasis on pines. The desired condition of the understory is a to have discontinuity in the fuels and ladders while retaining brush cover and forage for prey species such as woodrats.

Canopy base height averages 10 to 15 feet.

The Design Criteria describe specific measures designed to attain these condition/stand objectives.

Treatment Level 4c


Meadow Meadow Existing hard snags will be retained.

Existing downed logs will be retained.

NA Desired condition is to restore meadow habitat to more natural conditions and reduce encroachment of conifers Encroaching small and medium sized trees will be removed. Prescribed burning will be used to restore the grass/forb complex to young and vigorous growth stage.

1The 90th percentile weather from the most representative weather station is used to model fire behavior during late summer and fall afternoons. Under 90th percentile weather conditions, 10% of the days, or about 15 days will be hotter, drier, and windier.

F


Treatment Level 1 Treatment Level 1 would be the inner intensive portion of the main shaded fuelbreak to be constructed and it would cover approximately 85 acres (Table 11). It would be located on top of the ridge near the west and south project area boundaries and would follow existing roads and trails in many locations. The main shaded fuelbreak would provide firefighters a defensible space from which to carry out firefighting operations in order to prevent wildfires to the south and west of the project area from burning rapidly up the ridge in the montane chaparral and then gaining a foothold as a crown fire in the montane conifer forest on top of the mesa.

The primary type of treatment used to achieve fuelbreak objectives is mechanical thinning from below (low thinning), leaving the larger diameter trees, but reducing tree density sufficiently to meet the standard of no more than 40 percent crown closure in the defense zone (Forest Plan, Part 3, Appendix K). This type of thinning would result in an open forest structure that facilitates keeping a fire on the ground and out of the tree crowns. Trees would either be left individually spaced apart from each other, or may be in small clumps of two or three trees, where the clump is separated from other trees. In addition, slash and shrubs would be chipped, masticated, or piled and burned leaving only scattered individual shrubs outside the tree drip lines; shrub cover would be 10 percent or less (Figure 5). Prescribed burning may be used to clean up fine fuels. Lower limbs would be pruned from trees up to at least 12 feet.

The main Bluff Mesa fuelbreak would include a corridor up to 600 feet wide (300 feet on either side of the roads and trails). Treatment Level 1 would occur down the center 200-ft wide corridor and Treatment Level 2 (see below) would be implemented within the remaining 400 feet width, which includes 200 feet on each side of the center corridor.

Table 11: Treatments prescribed to meet treatment objectives.

Treatment Type Approximate Acres

Treatment Level 1 – Fuelbreak (intensive treatment) 85

Treatment Level 2 – Fuelbreak (less intensive treatment) 245

Treatment Level 3a – Forest Health 482

Treatment Level 3b – Forest Health 363

Treatment Level 3c – Plantation Thinning 17

Treatment Level 4a – Sensitive Areas: Sp, Owl PAC/Bald Eagle 65

Treatment Level 4b – Sensitive Areas: Sp. Owl HRC, Suitable Habitat 316

Treatment Level 4c – Sensitive Areas: Meadow 26

TOTAL 1,600



Figure 5. A portion of the Skyline Shaded Fuelbreak on the north edge of the Bluff Mesa project area. This would be similar to the inner third of the Treatment Level 1 fuelbreak.

Treatment Level 2 This treatment would be similar to Treatment Level 1, except less intensive. As noted above, it would be implemented in the outer 400 ft (200 ft on each side) of the Treatment Level 1 corridor. It would also be implemented along several internal roads in the project area, considered strategic as secondary fire-fighting zones, as well as escape routes for firefighters and residents of the private inholding around Bluff Lake. These fuelbreaks would be up to 200 feet wide (100 feet wide on each side of the roads).

Thinning from below would be the primary treatment within Treatment Level 2, leaving the larger diameter trees, but reducing tree density sufficiently to produce an average tree crown closure between 40 and 50 percent. Scattered hard snags and down logs would remain in the corridor. Shrub cover would be reduced to 10 percent or less. Altogether, this treatment would cover about 245 acres (171 acres along the main Bluff Mesa fuel break and 74 acres along internal roads).



Treatment Level 3 Treatment Level 3 is defined for threat zones outside of shaded fuelbreaks, where there are no special concerns for sensitive biological or cultural resources.. This treatment level is designed to restore forest conditions similar to those experienced under historic fire regimes. The treatment objective is to reduce the potential for crown fire to be initiated in these stands. Three variations of Treatment Level 3 were developed and are described in the following paragraphs.

Treatment Level 3a: To the west and south of the main shaded fuelbreak, where the vegetation is dominated by montane chaparral with pockets of conifer forest, the potential for stand-replacing fires would be reduced and forest health would be improved using Treatment Level 3a. This treatment would cover about 482 acres (about 30 percent of the project area). The focus of this treatment is to break up the continuity of fuels that now exists and change fire behavior under most weather conditions, so that flame length and rates of spread are reduced.

In the montane chaparral, this means the removal of up to 50 percent of the existing shrub cover creating a patchy or mosaic pattern. The scattered large trees that exist in these areas would be retained, although some seedlings and saplings would be removed with the shrub cover. In the conifer patches, stands would be opened up by thinning from below. Shrubs would be cleared from under the tree canopies and up to 20 percent of the existing shrub cover would be removed elsewhere.

In all areas, sufficient down wood and snags would be retained to meet Forest Plan standards; however, some removal of dead and dying trees would occur. Treatment methods would include mechanical methods and hand clearing. Prescribed broadcast burning would occur in some portions of the chaparral and forest treatment areas, following thinning and the removal of ladder fuels, and after the development of the main fuel break (Treatment Level 1), in order to reduce surface fuels and reintroduce surface fire into the ecosystem. Prescribed burns are managed burns that are conducted only when weather conditions cause a fire to remain mostly on the forest floor and the smoke to be carried away from surrounding communities. Broadcast burns would only occur when weather conditions provide for safe burning around adjacent private property.

Treatment Level 3b: This treatment level would be implemented in much of the flat to rolling terrain on top of Bluff Mesa, where the vegetation is dominated by montane conifer forest. As a result, the potential for stand-replacing fires would be reduced and forest health would be improved. This treatment would cover approximately 363 acres (about 23 percent of the project area). Similar to Treatment Level 3a, the focus of this treatment is to break up the continuity of fuels that now exists and change fire behavior under most weather conditions, so that flame length and rates of spread are reduced. In this area of montane conifers, thinning from below would be conducted resulting in more open stands (averaging about 50 percent canopy cover) dominated by large diameter trees. Canopy base height would average 10 to 15 feet. Shrubs would be removed beneath tree canopies and a minimum of 30 percent shrub cover would be maintained where possible.

Sufficient down wood and snags would be retained to meet Forest Plan standards; however, some removal of dead and dying trees would occur. Treatment methods would include mechanical methods and hand clearing. Prescribed broadcast burning would occur in some areas, following thinning and the removal of ladder fuels, and after the development of fuel breaks (Treatment



Levels 1 and 2), in order to reduce surface fuels and reintroduce surface fire into the ecosystem. Prescribed burns are managed burns that are conducted only when weather conditions cause a fire to remain mostly on the forest floor and the smoke to be carried away from surrounding communities. Broadcast burns would only occur when weather conditions provide for safe burning around adjacent private property.

Treatment Level 3c: Scattered within the Treatment Level 3b area are a number of small, young pine plantations, established following the Bear Fire and other fires. Most of these occur along the southern and western portions of the treatment area, near and within the main fuelbreak; they represent about 17 or more acres, outside of the fuelbreaks. These 20- to 40-year-old stands are densely stocked with small diameter trees. Treatment level 3c would create more open stands with more vigorous young trees and lower fuel levels. Trees would be thinned to approximately 15- to 20-foot spacings, leaving the most dominant trees. Complete shrub clearing under the drip lines, limited shrub clearing outside the drip lines, and limited pruning would occur to reduce ladder fuels. Treatments would be either mechanical or by hand. All Treatment Level 3c areas are not shown on Figure 7 because the areas are small and the boundaries of some are not well-defined.

Treatment Level 4 Several threatened, endangered and sensitive plants occur within or adjacent to the project area; they are mostly associated with the montane meadow and riparian habitats. Suitable habitat is present for the spotted owl, although no spotted owl protected activity centers (PACs) currently occur within the project area. The project area also contains suitable habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher, mountain yellow-legged frog, several sensitive or watch list snakes, and bats. Bald eagle roosting sites occur in the northern portion of the project area. Limited treatments within these habitats may be beneficial for long-term habitat maintenance. Three treatment level variations were developed for Treatment Level 4, as described in the following paragraphs.

Treatment Level 4a: This treatment level was specifically designed for habitat diversity with an emphasis on spotted owl nest and roost habitat and bald eagle habitat. It would apply only within spotted owl territories identified as protected activity centers (PACs) and within important bald eagle habitats. In this project area, the only known habitat that occurs in this category is the bald eagle winter roost area in the northern portion of the project area (65 acres). The treatment objective is to reduce the potential for crown fire to be sustained in these stands, while maintaining habitat suitability. The desired condition is a stand with moderate to dense structure with a canopy closure of 70 -100% made up of overstory and midstory trees and reduced understory ladder fuels. The desired stand composition is a mix of pines and white fir. Pruning would be used to increase canopy base height to an average of 10 to 15 feet. Shrubs would be cleared beneath tree drip lines and a minimum of 30 percent shrub cover would be maintained outside the drip lines.

Treatment Level 4b: This treatment level covers the montane forest portion of the treatment area, and primarily consists of suitable spotted owl habitat (outside of PACs). It covers 316 acres or 20 percent of the project area. Strategically, the proposed treatments would break up fuel continuity while minimizing effects on canopy cover and structure. The thinning of midstory and understory would be allowed to remove ladder fuels, but the existing moderate to dense canopy structure would be maintained. A minimum canopy closure of 70 percent would be maintained, where existing cover is at or above this level. Pruning would be used to increase canopy base



heights to 10 to 15 feet. Shrubs would be cleared beneath tree drip lines and a minimum of 30 percent shrub cover would be maintained. No treatments would occur for some habitat areas and mechanical treatments or burning would not be allowed in most areas. Down wood and snag retention would exceed Forest Plan standards; however, limited removal of dead and dying trees would occur. Where treatments are proposed, they would be limited within riparian conservation areas and would be designed to avoid or minimize effects on target species. Additional mitigation measures may be prescribed after future analyses, based on individual plant, fish, or wildlife species needs.

Treatment Level 4c: Montane meadows occur adjacent to the Treatment Level 4b areas both upstream and downstream of Bluff Lake. These meadows provide habitat for some of the threatened, endangered, and sensitive species in the project area and Treatment Level 4c was designed for them. Treatment would include removal of encroaching trees by hand clearing or girdling and prescribed burning to restore the grass/forb complex to a young and vigorous growth stage. An estimated 26 acres of this treatment would occur.

Table 2 displays preliminary treatment acres by treatment type. Hand clearing and mechanical fuel reduction treatments could begin as early as the spring of 2011.

When trees are thinned the residual slash (limbs, tops, etc) would be treated either by chipping, direct removal, or through hand or machine piling and burning. Wood slash piles would be burned under controlled conditions that minimize smoke within nearby communities once the wood has dried. Mechanical treatment within riparian management areas would not occur unless treatment is essential to meet the primary purposes.

Roads, Landings, and Skid Trails Ground-based equipment would primarily use existing NFS roads and existing unauthorized road routes, or rubber-tired vehicles would use overland travel without creating new roads. No mechanical equipment would be used in wetlands and wet meadows. In some instances, it may be necessary to develop new temporary roads to access treatment areas. Because few trees are expected to be hauled out of the project area, because a large portion of the project area has relatively gentle topography where roads are not required, and because the majority of the remainder has topography that is too steep for temporary roads, few, if any temporary roads are expected to be needed. No specific temporary roads have been identified to date and it is estimated that less than 1 mile of temporary access roads would need to be developed to implement treatments across the entire project area. Temporary roads, landings, and skid trails would be strategically placed to minimize disturbed areas and impacts to soils.

Any temporary roads, landings, and skid trails developed for this project, and any unauthorized routes used, would be rehabilitated and blocked after project completion. Rehabilitation would include returning the ground to natural contours, implementing de-compaction and erosion control measures as needed, and covering bare soil with slash, chips, or pine needles.

Based on an analysis of existing system and unauthorized roads and trails in the project area, their levels of use by off-road vehicles, their potential for use after project implementation for fire-fighting and for recreation, and the potential for resource damage associated with their existence and use, a number of road changes are proposed. The net result of these changes in road designations for the project area would be the following:



• 0.5 mile of unauthorized road would be converted to open system road (Bluff Mesa Group Camp);

• 1.6 miles of unauthorized road would be converted to an“administrative use only” system road (two access routes for Bluff Lake, 2N86A extension, south mesa fuelbreak);

• 0.5 mile of open system road would be converted to an “administrative use only” system road (2N86A)

• 0.5 mile of closed system road would be converted to “administrative use only” system road(2N86B);

• 0.3 mile of open system road would be decommissioned (2N11A); • 0.7 mile of closed system road would be decommissioned (Bellyache Springs) • All other unauthorized roads in the project area would be decommissioned/closed and

restored over time.

Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects of the proposed action on fire behavior within the treatment areas would be a reduction of the existing condition fire severity. Indirect effects would result in adjacent areas because of the fact that fire severity is reduced and fire suppression ability is improved on adjacent areas.

Direct effects of the treatment on the fire behavior within the treatment areas would be a reduction of the existing condition fire severity, as described by the FLAMMAP modeling results displayed in Table 12 by fire type.

Table 12. Existing Condition and Post Treatment Fire Type

Existing Condition Post Treatment

Fire Type Acres Percent of Area Acres Percent of Area

Surface Fire 371 23% 870 54%

Passive Crown Fire 637 40% 467 29%

Active Crown Fire 591 37% 263 17%

Total 1,600 100% 1,600 100%

Proposed treatments would change the quantity and continuity of fuels. Within the treated areas, fire behavior modeling indicates that fire type and flame length would be reduced. Crown base height would be increased substantially across all treated areas. This would reduce the chance that a surface fire would transition into ladder fuels and into a crown fire. Modeling predicts that the proposed treatments would reduce the percent of area with crown fire under the 90th percentile weather conditions from about 77 percent to 46 percent (Figure 1, Table 4). After implementation of the proposed action, the percent of area with surface fire would more than double, from 23 percent to 54 percent of the project area.

A relatively high percentage of crown fire would still exist in some areas, especially in the montane chaparral. This is the main reason for the major fuelbreak along the western and



southern edges of Bluff Mesa. In addition, there is a forested patch with projected active crown fire and higher flame lengths in the northern portion of the project area, which is due to the use of Treatment Level 4a in this area, because it is an identified bald eagle roosting area. As a result, very little treatment can be conducted in this area.

Thinning from below would break up the horizontal fuel continuity by opening up the tree canopy and increasing the tree spacing in the stand. Removal of dead and dying trees would reduce the amount of canopy fuels available to burn under high-intensity fires. Treatments would also increase stand vigor by providing more resources (rooting area, water, and nutrients) to the residual stand. This would result in healthier trees and a lower probability of future mortality from insects, disease, and wildfire that can contribute to high fuel loadings.

Mastication of shrubs would leave the chewed up debris on the ground. The overall benefit of reducing standing vegetation is that crown fire is less likely under most weather/wind conditions. Most shrubs species are expected to resprout within one growing season. Resprouted shrubs burn with lower flame lengths until plants grow to full size and produce large numbers of dead branches. This is the reason that maintenance would be required.

Agee and Skinner (2005) outlined four basic principles that are most important to address in designing fuels reduction treatments:

1. Reduce surface fuels- this reduces the potential flame lengths, reduces tree torching, and allows for easier suppression.

2. Increase height to live crown (gap between surface fuels and canopy fuels) - this necessitates a longer flame length for tree torching.

3. Decrease crown density- this makes tree-to-tree crown fire less probable

4. Retain big trees of fire-resistant species (i.e. pines)- this results in less mortality for the same fire intensity

Increasing the proportion of fire-resistant species in a stand is an additional basic principle needed for creating fire-resilient conditions (Graham et al. 2004). These principles are all incorporated into the proposed action.

The proposed action would limit the risk of crown fire and provide an area that firefighters can safely suppress a wildfire. The Grass Valley Fire Study (USDA Forest Service 2008) in summary stated “Recent collaborative fuel treatments reduced fire behavior, specifically rate of spread and intensity, allowing residents to evacuate and firefighters to enter the initial attack area. Other fuel treatment areas encountered by the fire allowed fire fighters to concentrate on perimeter containment and structure protection.”

In summary, activities associated with the proposed action would effectively reduce flame lengths, increase canopy base height, lower existing fuel concentrations, decrease ladder fuels (brush and small trees), and increase the chance of successful suppression of a wildfire should one occur in the area. Any fire starting in the project area or entering the project area would have a higher probability of being confined to the ground, affording a high probability of control using engines, hand crews, and air tactical resources. A wildfire would be substantially less severe and of lower intensity than under current conditions. The probability of affecting key habitat components would be greatly reduced



compared to no action. Loss of or damage to private property and resource values in and near the project area would be reduced. Suppression efforts would be less difficult, less costly, and safer than under current conditions. The project area would be restored to a more resistant and resilient condition more characteristic of the historic disturbance regimes of montane conifer forests of southern California.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are those associated with the project when added to other past, current or reasonably foreseeable projects. The analysis area is comprised of the Bluff Mesa area combined with the north-facing slopes above Big Bear Lake including the South Big Bear project area, the adjacent fuelbreaks and ski areas, the Siberia Creek watershed, west of the project area, and the area south of the project area, down to the Santa Ana River. Activities considered for cumulative impacts are those that have influenced the current forest conditions or forest structure and diversity condition within the analysis area.

There would be beneficial cumulative effects associated with the selection of the proposed action. The other vegetation management projects that have occurred or will occur within the analysis area have created or will create fuel breaks or forest conditions that are resistant to adverse effects of drought, insects, and disease as well as enhancing recruitment of trees into the large-tree category by favoring growth of dominant trees. The proposed action would improve forest conditions and create defensible fire-fighting zones, such that the probability of large, crown fires would be reduced, particularly when combined with the other analysis area projects (e.g,, Skyline Fuelbreak, South Big Bear and Santa Ana Watershed Hazardous Fuel Reduction projects).

Monitoring Recommendations Forest wide standards require monitoring of the implementation and effectiveness of mitigations and BMPs. Guidance for BMP use and effectiveness evaluation for Region 5 is provided in documentation (USDA Forest Service, 2000). Evaluation is required for selected projects, based on a prescribed number set by the Regional Office. Some practices, because of infrequency of use must always be evaluated.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction This alternative complies with the Forest Plan and the National Fire Plan as described earlier in this document. It provides for the protection of the natural resources, fire suppression resources and private property within and adjacent to the project area



References

Agee, J.K. et al., 1998. The use of fuelbreaks in landscape fire management, http://www.qlg.org/pub/miscdoc/agee.htm

Agee, James, and Carl Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211: 83–96.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2004. Fire and resource assessment program, http://www.frap.cdf.ca.gov/

Debano, L.F., D.G. Neary, and P. F. Ffolliott. 1998. Fire’s Effects on Ecosystems. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158-0012. p 331

FARSITE ver. 4.1 http://www.farsite.org/

FireFamily Plus 3.0.1 http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/planning/nist/distribu.htm

FlamMap ver. 3.0 http://www.fire.org

Graham, R. T.; McCaffrey, S.; Jain, T. B. 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech Rep. RMRS-GTR-120. Fort Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; 43 p.

Keeley, J. E, C.J. Fotheringham, and M. Morais. 1999. Reexamining fire suppression impacts on brushland fire regimes. Science 284: 1829-1832

Keeley, J. E. and Fotheringham, C. J. 2001. Historic Fire Regime in Southern California Shrublands. Conservation Biology No 6. 1536-1548.

Minnich R.A. and R.G. Everett. 2001. Conifer Tree Distribution in Southern California. Madrono, Vol. 48: 177-197

Minnich, R.A., M.G. Barbour, J.H. Burk, and R.F. Fernau. 1995. Sixty years of change in California conifer forests of the San Bernardino Mountains. Conservation Biology 9:902-914

National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2003. Fireline handbook,

NWCG handbook #3 National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2004. Glossary of wildland fire terminology. http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/glossary/pms205.pdf

Rothermel, Richard C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires, Gen Tech Rep. INT-143, USDA, FS, Intermountain Range and Experiment Station, Ogden, UT, 161 p. 25

Schmidt, K.M., Menakis, J.P. Hardy, C.C., Hann, W.J., Bunnell, D.L. 2002. Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-87, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.


http://www.qlg.org/pub/miscdoc/agee.htm

http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/planning/nist/distribu.htm

http://www.fire.org/

http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/glossary/pms205.pdf


Stephenson, J. R and Calcarone, G.M. 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: habitat and species conservation issues. General Technical Report GTR-PSW-172. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 342 p.

USDA Forest Service. June 2008. Fuel Treatment Effects on Fire Behavior, Suppression Effectiveness, and Structure Ignition, Grass Valley Fire. R5-TP-026a

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Land Management Plan, Part 1 Southern California National Forests Vision. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MB-075. 57 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Land Management Plan, Part 2 San Bernardino National Forest Strategy. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MB-079. 155 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2005c. Land Management Plan, Part 3 Design Criteria for the Southern California National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MB-080. 130 p.



Appendix A - Fire Behavior Maps



Map 1. Pretreatment FlamMap Fire Type




Map 2. Post-Treatment FlamMap Fire Type.


Map 3. Existing Condition Flame Length under 90th Percentile Weather.



Map 4. Post-Treatment Flame Length under 90th Percentile Weather.





Appendix B – Fire Behavior Modeling Descriptions



Model Descriptions (based on http://www.fire.org/)

FARSITE

FARSITE is a fire behavior and growth simulator for use on Windows computers. It is used by Fire Behavior Analysts from the USDA FS, USDI NPS, USDI BLM, and USDI BIA, and is taught in the S493 course. FARSITE is designed for use by trained, professional wildland fire planners and managers familiar with fuels, weather, topography, wildfire situations, and the associated concepts and terminology.

What is FARSITE?

• FARSITE is a fire growth simulation model. It uses spatial information on topography and fuels along with weather and wind files.

• FARSITE incorporates the existing models for surface fire, crown fire, spotting, post-frontal combustion, and fire acceleration into a 2-dimensional fire growth model.

• FARSITE runs under Microsoft Windows operating systems (Windows 98, me, NT, 2000, and XP) and features a graphical interface.

• FARSITE users must have the support of a geographic information system (GIS) to use FARSITE because it requires spatial landscape information to run.

FIREFAMILY Plus

FireFamily Plus is a Windows program that combines the fire climatology and occurrence analysis capabilities of the PCFIRDAT, PCSEASON, FIRES, and CLIMATOLOGY programs into a single package with a graphical user interface

FLAMMAP

FlamMap is a fire behavior mapping and analysis program that computes potential fire behavior characteristics (spread rate, flame length, fireline intensity, etc.) over an entire FARSITE landscape for constant weather and fuel moisture conditions.

• FlamMap software creates raster maps of potential fire behavior characteristics (spread rate, flame length, crown fire activity, etc.) and environmental conditions (dead fuel moistures, mid-flame wind speeds, and solar irradiance) over an entire FARSITE landscape. These raster maps can be viewed in FlamMap or exported for use in a GIS, image, or word processor.

• FlamMap is not a replacement for FARSITE or a complete fire growth simulation model. There is no temporal component in FlamMap. It uses spatial information on topography and fuels to calculate fire behavior characteristics at one instant.



• It uses the same spatial and tabular data as FARSITE: - a Landscape (.LCP) File, - Initial Fuel Moistures (.FMS) File, - optional Custom Fuel Model (.FMD), - optional Conversion (.CNV), - optional Weather (.WTR), and - optional Wind (.WND) Files.

• It incorporates the following fire behavior models: - Rothermel's 1972 surface fire model, - Van Wagner's 1977 crown fire initiation model, - Rothermel's 1991 crown fire spread model, and - Nelson's 2000 dead fuel moisture model.

• FlamMap runs under Microsoft Windows operating systems (Windows 95, 98, me, NT, 2000, and XP) and features a graphical user interface.

• Users may need the support of a geographic information system (GIS) analyst to use FlamMap because it requires spatial coincident landscape raster information to run.

FlamMap is widely used by the USDI National Park Service, USDA Forest Service, and other federal and state land management agencies in support of fire management activities. It is designed for use by users familiar with fuels, weather, topography, wildfire situations, and the associated terminology. Because of its complexity, only users with the proper fire behavior training and experience should use FlamMap where the outputs are to be used for making fire and land management decisions.



Appendix C – Big Bear Valley CWPP Summary

Big Bear Valley Community Wildfire Protection Plan Final Plan “A Systems Approach” June, 2006 Prepared by David A. Yegge M.P.A., B.B.A., A. S. Fuels Technician City of Big Bear Lake Fire Department

It can be seen that the Bluff Mesa project area is largely within the Mill Creek WUI Management Unit, although it also follows the edges of the Big Bear Lake and Santa Ana WUI Management Units.



Big Bear Valley Community Wildfire Protection Plan Page 42 General Purpose

• Ensure the long-term economic stability of the communities by reducing the fire threat risk from very high to moderate/low.

• Identify lands private, public, forested, urbanized or otherwise that, if treated,

would reduce the potential fire impact to communities and structures in and around the Big Bear Valley. This is commonly referred to as the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) zone.

• Implement fuel reduction measures to assure continuing and ongoing safety of the

Big Bear Valley watershed and recharge aquifers. • Identify high valued areas that, if absent from trees, would have a detrimental

effect on the appearance and ambiance of the communities of Big Bear Valley. Propose and implement measures to assure the long-term survivability of these areas.

• Identify and support new markets that collectively, with public and private

partnerships, assure that the forest vegetation and trees that are removed go to sources that have a beneficial use, i.e., lumber, biomass chips for landscaping and erosion control, and/or energy.

Big Bear Valley Community Wildfire Protection Plan Page 54 Section 7.12 Mitigation measure 12

• Implement measures within Big Bear Valley Wildland Urban Interface restoring the forest to a condition resembling historic levels of fire regimes, species composition, and insects & disease agents while at the same time assure the removal of dead, dying or diseased trees. Reduce the tree density by removing over-dense trees of any size and the vegetation undergrowth that is necessary to achieve and maintain fire intensity at moderate to low levels.

• Collaborate with the United States Forest Service to ensure the development of

the shaded fuel breaks are completed around all the communities of the Big Bear Valley.



Big Bear Valley Community Wildfire Protection Plan Page 62 Management Unit 9 (Mill Creek)*

• Treatment – On public lands, the USFS will identify appropriate prescription to be conducted and collaborate with local government and the public to ensure the ongoing objects of this Plan and healthy forest initiative are met. Prescribed fire possible. On private properties, owners and the agency having jurisdiction will assure the ongoing implementation of fuel reduction meets appropriate state, county, and local requirements.


Documents

Bluff Mesa Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Fire and ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...The Bluff Mesa Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Fire and Fuels Resource