FCCS Fuelbeds for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Tags: Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, FCCS, Lake Tahoe Basin, the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, fire behavior, surface fire behavior, crown fire, Quaking aspen, fuel consumption, surface fire, vegetation classes, Rothermel, types, LTBMU, natural disturbances, potential, fire hazard, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, management planning, fuel properties, fuel loading, FCCS Fuelbeds, Rocky Mountain Research Station, fuel treatment, fuel treatments, Lake Tahoe Fuelbed Pathway Handbook, fuel models, conifer forest, Lake Tahoe Basin Fuelbed Pathway Handbook, change agents, fuel, Technical Fire Management, Roger D. Lake Tahoe FCCS Fuelbed Development, lodgepole pine, Fire Management
Content: FCCS Fuelbeds For The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Final Report P018 Roger D. Ottmar and Hugh Safford
FCCS Fuelbeds for the Lake Tahoe Basin Final Report P018 Roger D. Ottmar1 and Hugh Safford2 1Principal Investigator U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station 400 North 34th Street, Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103 Phone: (206) 732-7826 Fax (206) 732-7801 [email protected] 2Co-Principal Investigator U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592 Phone: (707) 562-8934 Fax (707) 562-9050 [email protected] April 9, 2011 This research was sponsored in part by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Abstract We used the Fuel Characteristic Classification System (FCCS) to develop a set of past, current, and future fuelbeds for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU). Through group consensus of LBTMU managers, six major fuelbed types were identified that occur in the basin including: 1) jeffrey pine-white fir, 2) red fir, 3) wet lodgepole pine, 4) whitebark pinelodgepole, 5) mountain hemlock, and 6) mixed confer. Fuelbed pathways were completed for each of the major fuelbed type and 88 fuelbeds were identified for development. Twenty additional fuelbeds were identified and developed to represent unique vegetation types that did not fall within the six fuelbed types. The fuelbeds were constructed using the FCCS, scientific and grey literature, and measured fuels data. A Fuelbed Pathway Handbook was compiled that includes the six fuelbed types, pathway schematics, fuelbed names and descriptions, fire behavior estimates and general photographs assigned to the fuelbeds. Thirty one of the major fuelbeds and 20 of the unique fuelbeds were cross-walked to vegetation attributes from the CALVEG data set and mapped for the LTBMU. The Fuelbed Pathway Handbook, FCCS fuelbeds, and fuelbed map were presented at the forest management decision support tools Symposium held at Incline Village, NV and at a workshop conducted the following day. Defining and mapping important fuelbeds for the LTBMU will enable managers to better plan restoration and wildlife habitat projects and account for potential fire hazard, smoke from wildland fire, and carbon.
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Background and Purpose As fire models become more sophisticated and widely used, there is an increasing need to accurately quantify and classify the structural and geographical diversity of wildland fuels. Defining these fuelbeds will provide inputs for current and future fire and fuel models enabling managers to better plan restoration projects, quantify potential fire behavior, fire effects, and smoke emissions, account for carbon, and protect and enhance wildlife habitat throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU). Although the LTBMU has fire behavior fuel model maps, those do not provide a representation of realistic fuels required by today's planning processes. Consequently, the LTBMU collaborated with the Fire and Environmental Research and Applications (FERA) team of the Pacific Wildland Fire Research Laboratory to create a comprehensive set of Fuel Characteristic Classification System (FCCS) fuelbeds (Ottmar et al. 2007; Riccardi et al. 2007) representing the past, current and potential future conditions of major forest and rangeland types, management activities, and natural disturbances occurring within the LTBMU. What is the FCCS? It is a software system to build fuelbeds with realistic fuels data and predict their relative fire hazard (Ottmar et al. 2007, Riccardi et al. 2007). Users can modify FCCS fuelbeds to create a set of customized fuelbeds representing any scale of interest. FCCS calculates the relative fire hazard of each fuelbed, including surface fire behavior, crown fire, and available fuel potentials, scaled on an index from 0 to 9 (Sandberg et al. 2007b). These FCCS fire potentials facilitate communication of fire hazard among users by providing an index of the intrinsic capacity of each fuelbed for surface fire behavior, crown fire and fuels available for consumption. The FCCS fire potentials also offer an easy way to evaluate fuels treatment effectiveness. In addition to the FCCS fire potentials, the FCCS also predicts surface fire behavior, including reaction intensity (btu ft-2 sec-1), flame length (ft), and rate of spread (ft min1) based on benchmark and user-specified environmental conditions. Using a modified Rothermel spread equation, FCCS evaluates each fuelbed stratum separately for reaction intensity and heat sink terms, accounting for changes that occur between fuelbed strata due to natural succession or a natural or human change agent (Sandberg et al. 2007a). By comparing predicted flame length and rate of spread between the fuelbed and fire behavior fuel models, the FCCS provides a crosswalk to one of the original 13 Fire Behavior Prediction System fuel models and one of the 40 standard fuel models (Scott and Burgan 2005). Finally, the FCCS reports carbon storage by fuelbed category and subcategory. Study Location and Description study area The study area is the 150,000 acre Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit located on the California and Nevada border. Initially, the study area was to be confined to the Angora fire area (Fig. 1). However, following discussions with the LTBMU managers, it was decided the study will include the entire Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 3
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Figure 1. Location of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Study Description In collaboration with U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, the Fire and Environmental research applications Team (FERA) of the Pacific Northwest Research Station, and the LTBMU managers, 120 fuelbeds were identified and constructed using the fuelbed pathway concept, the FCCS, and data from both scientific and grey literature sources. The FCCS calculator provided fuelbed characteristics, a set of surface fire behavior, crown fire, and available fuel potential predictions based on established environmental criteria; and a report for each fuelbed. The fuelbeds were matched with CALVEG Lake Tahoe basin vegetation layer descriptions and attributes to map the fuelbeds across the region. A Fuelbed Pathway Handbook was produced with fuelbed types, fuelbed pathways, fuelbed descriptions, and fuelbed fire potentials and fire behavior predictions. Specific objectives of the project were: 1) Consult with LTBMU ID-team to determine critical fuelbed types, fuelbed pathways, and fuelbeds that will represent past, current and future vegetation states of the LTBMU. 2) Build fuelbeds using previously collected data and scientific and grey literature. 3) Run each fuelbed for fuelbed characteristics, fire potentials, fire behavior, and total carbon. 4) Use CALVEG existing vegetation layer to map the FCCS fuelbeds for the LTBMU. 5) Prepare required quarterly progress reports. 6) Complete a final report with fuelbed handbook, pathway diagrams, FCCS predicted fire outputs, and FCCS fuelbed files. 7) Complete FCCS fuelbed map for the LTBMU. 8) Prepare a draft manuscript(s) to be submitted to a refereed journal. 9) Present a minimum of one conference and one mini-workshop 4
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Methods Fuelbed Development A team of LTBMU fire ecologists and fire and fuel experts were gathered to list a set of important fuelbed types for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. A fuelbed pathway (similar to a successional forest pathway but for fuelbeds as they change over time) was created for each fuelbed type. The pathways identified fuelbeds to construct representing major forest types, natural succession, common management activities and natural disturbances over time. In addition, 20 fuelbeds were added to the fuelbed list that did not fall within the key fuel types identified by the LTBMU managers, but would allow a more complete assignment of fuelbeds to vegetation classes found in the LTBMU (Fig. 2).
Fuelbed pathways fuelbed list
Input from LTBMU managers
Scientific and grey literature
Fuelbed development
Plant guides, field data
FCCS fuelbed crosswalk CALVEG Veg. map data
Fuelbed map
FCCS fire runs
Deliverables: FCCS fuelbeds Fuelbed Handbook Fuelbed Map Workshop Figure 2. Study process.
5
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Fuelbeds provided in the FCCS system or similar fuelbeds from other projects (i.e. Okanogan/Wenatchee Nation forest project, Central Oregon Project) were used as starting points for creating the LTBMU fuelbeds. Local data, plant association guides, photo series, inventory data bases, and expert opinion were used to modify the fuelbed descriptions and adjust fuelbed inputs including loading, depths, percent cover, and species to represent the fuelbeds identified in the pathways and that fell outside the six important fuelbed types. Fuelbed Characteristics Fuelbed characteristics including fuel loading and carbon by fuelbed strata, categories, and subcategories were calculated for each fuelbed using the FCCS. Fire Behavior FCCS version 2.1 was used to calculate 1) FCCS surface fire behavior, crown fire, and available fuels potentials; and 2) reaction intensity, rate of spread, and flame length (Sandberg et al. 2007a; Sandberg et al. 2007b) for each fuelbed at three moisture scenarios (low, medium, and high), mid-flame windspeeds (0, 3, 7 mph) and slopes (0, 30, 70%). Suggested crosswalks to the original Fire Behavior Prediction System (Rothermel 1972, Albini 1976) and standard fuel models (Scott and Burgan, 2005) were also determined at three moisture scenarios (low, medium, high), mid-flame windspeeds (0, 3, 7 mph) and slopes (0, 30, 70%). Fuelbed handbook General information on the fuelbed types, fuelbed pathways, fuelbeds, fire potentials, surface fire behavior prediction, and fire behavior fuel model crosswalk were compiled into a Lake Tahoe Basin Fuelbed Pathway Handbook. The fuelbed types and pathways information is summarized in schematics and tables that include the fuelbed names, description, the age class, and any management actions or natural change agents associated with each fuelbed. All fuelbed outputs are presented in summary tables. The 108 fuelbeds are available from the FERA website for input into the FCCS allowing additional outputs to be observed including fuel loading and available carbon by fuelbed category (http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fera/fccs/downloads.shtml#sf). Representative photos for many fuelbed were collected and provided in the handbook. Photos were collected and added to the handbook to illustrate general structural features of the fuelbeds only and were not intended to represent actual species composition or fuel loadings. Fuelbed map To map FCCS fuelbeds we used CALVEG data for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (USDA 2008). The vegetation type (Regional Dominance type) and overstory tree size class were used to create unique classes. These unique vegetation classes matched closely with the fuelbed type, age, and characteristics of the pathways and fuelbeds and a simple crosswalk was created. Once a fuelbed map produced, it was discovered that there were more vegetation classes than fuelbed types developed for the basin and the map coverage was less than 90 percent. To improve map coverage, 20 additional fuelbeds outside the fuelbed types were constructed and added to the map to achieve a +99.5 % fuelbed coverage of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 6
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Results The majority of the results are presented in the Fuelbed Pathway Handbook and the Fuelbed Map in Appendix A. These were the two major deliverables for the project. Fuelbeds There were 6 fuelbed types identified by the LTBMU managers and 6 fuelbed pathways developed to account for natural succession, fuels management activities, and natural and human change agents. Harvest types, fuel treatments, and natural change agents were considered when constructing the pathways and included: clearcut, pre-commercial thin, select-cut, salvage, pile and burn, pile and no burn, prescribed fire, mastication; crown wildfire, ground wildfire, insect and disease, avalanche, and none. The fuelbed types and number of fuelbeds constructed for each type include: Jeffrey and white fir (28 fuelbeds) Red fir (22 fuelbeds) Wet lodgepole pine (8 fuelbeds) Whitebark pine, lodgepole pine (8 fuelbeds) Moutain hemlock (6 fuelbeds) Mixed conifer (28 fuelbeds) Twenty additional fuelbeds were identified and constructed to account for vegetation not covered by the 6 fuelbed types but that represented a significant portion of the LTBMU landscape. These included: 1) huckleberry oak shrub, 2) green leaf manzanita, 3) short hair reed grass-thread leaf sedge, 4) sapling aspen, 5) pole aspen, 6) medium aspen, 7) black cottonwood, 8) chamise chaparral, 9) sagebrush 10) western juniper/sagebrush/bitterbrush, 11) willow-mountain alder, l2) low sagebrush, 13) mountain mahogany, 14) avalanche disturbed aspen, 15) large ponderosa pine, 16) sapling Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine, 17) sapling ponderosa pine, 18) bitterbrush and rabbit brush, 19) western juniper savanna, and 20) old sagebrush. Fuelbed characteristics Over 300 input variables and calculated characteristics are available for each LTBMU fuelbed. In this report, we provide only loading (t a-1) for each major fuel category and total aboveground carbon (Appendix 1). Additional characteristics can be calculated or reported by running the LTBMU fuelbeds in the FCCS. The total loading ranged from 1.4 t a-1 for the low sagebrush additional fuelbed LF308 with only shrub biomass to mixed conifer LT064 fuelbed 80-120 years old with a substantial tree bole and woody fuel mass. The shrub, grass, woody fuel, and litter fuelbed categories drive the surface fire behavior reaction intensity, spread rate and flamelength for surface fire behavior. Total biomass for these 4 categories ranged from 1.1 t a-1 for the additional bitterbrush fuelbed CO208 with no litter and small woody fuels to 17.7 t a-1 for the mixed conifer fuelbed LT088 120+ years. 7
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Fuelbed map There were more fuelbeds developed for the Lake Tahoe Basin area than vegetation classes from the CALVEG data set. The data set did not distinguish between human or natural change agents so fuelbeds that naturally progressed from one age class to the next without a change agent were the only fuelbeds mapped. This allowed only 31 of the 100 fuelbeds developed for the six fuelbed types to be mapped. To achieve a more complete coverage of the LTBMU, 20 additional fuelbeds were constructed for vegetation classes without a matched fuelbed and added to the fuelbed list. Appendix 2 displays the CALVEG vegetation classes and FCCS fuelbed crosswalk. The fuelbed map and legend are displayed in Figs. 3 and 4. A majority of the mapped coverage was in the mixed conifer and yellow pine categories (55.2%), followed by montane chaparral and red fir (24.1 %). Grass and forbs, subalpine, lodgepole pine, great basin shrub types, riparian hardwoods, aspen and other accounted for the remaining area (20.8%). Modeled fire behavior FCCS surface fire behavior, crown fire, and available fuels potentials; reaction intensity, rate of spread, and flame length; suggested crosswalks to the original Fire Behavior Prediction System and standard fuel models are presented in summary tables of the Lake Tahoe Fuelbed Pathway Handbook. FCCS fire potentials ranged from 1 0 5 for the red fir fuelbed LT 0 3 3, 120+ years old that has been select cut, piled and burned at moisture scenario high, 0% slope, and 0 mph Wind speed to 9 6 9 for the red fir fuelbed LT032, 120+ years old with no management at moisture scenario low, 70% slope and 7 mph wind. The reaction intensity ranged from 560 btu ft-2 sec-1 for the wet lodgepole pine fuelbed LT038, 0-10 years old with no management action at high fuel moisture content, 0% slope and 0 mph wind speed to16,119 btus ft-2 sec-1 for the mixed conifer fuelbed LT062, 25-50 years old with no management at a low moisture, 70% slope and 7 mph wind. Flamelength ranged from 0.2 feet for the wet lodgepole pine fuelbed LT042, 40-80 year old with no treatment, high moisture content, 0 % slope and 0 mph wind speed to 25.3 feet for mixed conifer fuelbed LT062 25-50 years old with no treatment, at low fuel moisture content, 70% slope, and 7 mph wind speed. The rate of spread ranged from 0 ft/min-1 for the wet lodgepole pine fuelbed LT042, 40-80 years old with no treatment, high moisture content, 0 % slope and 0 mph wind speed to 81.4 ft/min-1 for fuelbed LT062 with no treatment at 25-50 years old, at low fuel moisture content, 70% slope, and 7 mph wind speed. In general, the FCCS fire potentials and surface fire behavior increased over time if there were no treatment activities in place or if there was a change agent such as logging without fuels treatment. 8
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Figure 3. FCCS fuelbed map for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 9
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Figure 4. Legend for Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit FCCS fuelbed map. 10
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Discussion Each FCCS fuelbed developed for the LTBMU represents a relatively uniform unit on the landscape that is a unique combustion environment. These LTBMU fuelbeds provide realistic physical fuel properties for a range of applications in fire, fuel, smoke, wildlife habitat, and carbon assessments. The fuelbeds can be input into Consume or other software tools to calculate Fuel Consumption, emissions, and potential fire effects. In addition, users can assess the effects of human and natural disturbances on a range of fuelbed characteristics. These can lead to a rigorous framework for planning, decision making, and Policy Analysis for the LTBMU. Since the fuelbed list was developed from important fuelbed types and pathways the fuelbeds will be especially beneficial for fuel treatment planning and evaluating the effectiveness of the fuel treatments through space and times. The fuelbeds for the LTBMU were developed from scientific and grey literature, photo series, and large data bases. Although they have not been verified in the field, we believe they are relatively accurate for most management planning. Each fuelbed can be customized with collected data to improve the representation of a particular fuelbed. Similarly, the fire behavior predictions are within the range of Rothermel's equations and have been verified by anecdotal evidence. However, they have not been validated with a scientifically collected data set. The FCCS fuelbeds and calculated fire potentials and surface fire behavior values will be validated in the upcoming years. The FCCS fire potentials calculated for each LTBMU fuelbed represent the capacity of a specific fuelbed to support a surface fire and crown fire, and to consume and smolder fuels at benchmark environmental conditions. The fire potentials can be used to evaluate and map fire hazard, compare and communicate the degree of fire hazard, and measure the change in fire hazard caused by fuel management, natural events, or the passage of time in the LTBMU. Each LTBMU fuelbed contains over 300 input variables and fire and carbon prediction outputs. Although the fuelbed map completed for this study only delineates fuelbeds, various input variable layers or output value layers for each fuelbed could be added to the map. For example, it would be relatively easy to display the fire behavior and crown fire potential, reaction intensity, flamelength, and rate of spread presented in the Fuelbed Pathway Handbook across the LTBMU. There are several enhancements that would improve the usefulness of this project. First, a more thorough examination of fuel measurements that are available would allow improved fuelbed construction. Second, Forest Vegetation Simulator runs could be used to improve stand data for fuelbeds as they move through time. Third, specific LTBMU fuelbed inputs and outputs such as fuel loading, carbon, snag density, etc. could be mapped for the LTBMU. Finally, each LTBMU fuelbeds could be run through Consume and estimates of fuel consumption and emissions for low, medium, and high moisture contents could be calculated and those values mapped. 11
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Conclusion This project has provided a robust set of fuelbeds that represent the past, current and potential future conditions of major forest and rangeland types, management activities, and natural disturbances occurring within the LTBMU. These fuelbeds can be used to evaluate the landscape for fire potential, smoke production, fuel loading, carbon storage, and wildlife habitat across time and space of the LTBMU. This project is just the beginning, providing a solid baseline of fuelbeds to assist in land management planning. As management actions change or the landscape changes due to succession or natural and human change agents, additional fuelbeds may need to be developed or the original fuelbeds modified. This will be a relatively easy process with the fuelbed pathways and initial fuelbeds in place. Acknowledgement I wish to thank Dr. Clint Wright for assisting with the workshop and presenting at the Tools conference, Travis Freed and Rob Norheim for gathering the CALVEG data layers and developing the LTBMU fuelbed map, Tom Leuschen for assisting with the management meeting and pathway development, and a Special thanks to Anne Andreu for building the fuelbeds and preparing the fuelbed pathway handbook. Literature Cited Albini, F.A. 1976. Estimating wildfire behavior and effects. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-30. Anderson, H.E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. General Technical Report, GTR-INT-122. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, Utah. Andrews, P.L.; Bevins, C.D.; Seli, R.C. 2005. BehavePlus fire modeling system, version 3.0: User's Guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-106 Revised. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.132 p. Ottmar, R.D., Sandberg, D.V.; Riccardi, C.L.; Prichard, S. J. 2007. An overview of the fuel characteristic classification System (FCCS) - quantifying, classifying, and creating fuelbeds for resource planning. Can. J. For. Res. 37:2383-2393. Riccardi, C. L., Ottmar, R. D., Sandberg, D.V., Andreu, A., Elman, E., Kopper, K., Long, J. 2007. The fuelbed: a key element of the fuel characteristic classification system. Can. J. For. Res. 37: 2413-2420. Rothermel, R.C. 1972. A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-115. F Scott, J. H., Burgan, R. E. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel's surface fire spread model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 72 p. Sandberg, D.V., Riccardi, C.L, and Schaaf, M.D. a. Fire potential for wildland fuelbeds using the Fuel Characteristic Classification System. Can. J. For. Res. 37:2456-2463. 12
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Sandberg, D.V., Riccardi, C.L., and Schaaf, M.D. b. Reformulation of Rothermel's wildland fire behavior model for complex fuelbeds. Can. J. For. Res. 37: 2438-2455. USDA (2008). CALVEG Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Remote Sensing Lab. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/clearinghouse/aa-reftmu.shtml 13
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit The study has completed the majority of deliverables stated in the proposal. Several additional tasks beyond the scope of the original proposal were also completed. Tables 1 and 2 list the proposed and actual deliverables and additional deliverables provided.
Table 1. Comparison of proposed and actual deliverables.
Proposed
Delivered
Scientific manuscript draft
Final report
Final Report
Fuelbed handbook
Fuelbed handbook
Fuelbed map
Fuelbed map delivered
Workshop
A FCCS, photo series, and Consume
Workshop was held at Incline Village, NV on
November 5, 2010. The FCCS fuebed
handbook, fuelbeds, and fuelbed map were
distributed. Approximately 20 participants
attended.
Forest Management
Three presentations were conducted at the
Decision Support Tools conference: 1)FCCS fuelbed project, 2)
Conference at Incline
Smoke Management Tools, 3) Digital Photo
Village, NV
Series.
Training
Lake Tahoe FCCS fuelbeds were presented at
8 RX 410 (Smoke management) and RX 310
(Fire Effects) national and regional training
sessions, two Technical Fire Management, and
at one 8-hour and one 4- hour regional and
conference workshop.
Quarterly reports
Completed required quarterly reports
FCCS fuelbeds
Constructed FCCS fuelbeds and incorporated
review comments.
FCCS fuelbed pathways Constructed fuelbed pathways
Kick-off meeting
Met with LTBMU managers July 17-18, 2008
and drafted fuelbed type list and fuelbed
pathways
Status Initiated Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete
14
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Table 2. Additional deliverables completed that were not included in the original proposal. Additional Deliverables Completed But Not Originally Proposed A web page was established to distribute the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Fuelbed handbook and FCCS fuelbeds: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fera/fccs/downloads.shtml#sf The scope of the project increased significantly from the Angora fire perimeter to the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. This required approximately 50 additional fuelbeds to be developed than were originally planned and reorganization of fuelbed pathway handbook and fuelbed map. WEB PAGE A web page was established to distribute the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Fuelbed handbook and FCCS fuelbeds: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fera/fccs/downloads.shtml#sf POSTERS, ABSTRACTS, AND PRESENTATIONS Ottmar, Roger D. Lake Tahoe FCCS Fuelbed Development. A presentation at the Forest Management Decision Support Tools Conference, Incline Village, NV, November 4, 2010. Ottmar, Roger D. Smoke Management Tools. A presentation at the Forest Management Decision Support Tools Conference, Incline Village, NV, November 4, 2010. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit presentations Technical Fire Management, Bothell, WA, March 2011 Smoke Modeling workshop, Kinston, NC, 2011 Rx410, Albuquerque, Redmond, Missoula, Grand Rapids, Chattanooga, 2010 and 2011 Technical Fire Management, Bothell, WA, May 2010 Rx310, Redmond, 2011 Savannah Fire Congress Conference, Savannah, GA, 2009 CONSULTATIONS Over the past year, the principle investigator consulted with many land managers, regulators, and scientists with regard to the development of FCCS fuelbeds and used the Lake Tahoe project as the practical case for managers. These included fuel and fire managers of the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service, US Forest Service, Department of Defense, Army and Air Force, and the Division of Forestry in the States of Minnesota and Michigan. 15
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LESSON PLANS AND TRAINING The FCCS fuelbed development project for the LTBMU has been used as a case example in several local and regional training classes including Rx410 (smoke management), Rx310 (fire effects), and Technical Fire Management. In addition, the protocols and process will be demonstrated and applied from the LTBMU project to assist in the ongoing project to develop and map FCCS for northeastern Oregon 16
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Appendix 1 17
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
Table 1. Loading (tons/acre) for each major fuel category and total aboveground carbon (tons/acre) estimated for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit fuelbeds.
FB#
Age range
Treatment / Change agent
Tree Snag Ladder Shrub NW Total Small Pile & LLM Duff BA
fuel
fuel woody woody stump
fuel fuel
Jeffery pine ­ white fir forest
LT001 LT082 LT013 LT002 LT083 LT014 LT003
0-7 years shrub 0-7 years shrub 0-10 years grass 7-25 years 7-25 years 10-25 years 25-50 years
WF Salvage, WF WF None None None None
33.3 93.8 0.0 3.5 0.1 10.3 3.7 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0
0.1 1.2 0.0 3.5 0.1 10.3 3.7 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0
33.3 89.6 0.0 0.6 0.3
5.4
1.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
36.9 6.9 3.0 1.7 0.1
8.4
3.7 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0
3.6 1.2 3.0 1.7 0.1
8.4
3.7 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0
42.3 6.9 3.0 1.5 0.1 12.1 4.7 0.0 2.1 1.5 0.0
72.7 0.7 3.0 3.0 0.1 12.5 3.6 0.0 2.9 1.7 0.3
LT004 LT005 LT007 LT008 LT009 LT010 LT084 LT006 LT011 LT012 LT015
50-80 years 80-120 years 80-120 years 80-120 years 80-120 years 80-120 years 80-120 years over 120 years over 120 years over 120 years over 120 years
None
385.1 0.9 0.5 2.7 0.0
9.2
3.6 0.1 3.0 2.8 0.3
None
573.0 5.4 3.0 2.3 0.1 14.5 5.1 0.0 4.5 4.6 0.3
SC, RX or WF 216.8 0.6 3.0 0.9 0.2
3.5
1.6 0.5 1.4 0.3 0.0
SC
216.9 0.6 3.0 1.2 0.2 21.9 6.9 0.5 2.9 4.1 0.0
SC, P&B
216.8 0.6 3.0 1.3 0.2
3.5
2.0 0.5 1.4 0.3 0.0
SC, pile
216.8 0.6 3.0 1.2 0.2
3.5
2.0 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.0
SC, mastication 216.8 0.6 3.0 0.4 0.1 19.9 8.9 0.5 2.9 4.1 0.0
None
602.5 18.0 0.5 1.5 0.1 20.0 5.1 0.1 4.5 2.8 0.3
SC, RX
109.8 1.9 0.5 1.5 0.1
4.1
2.6 1.0 1.3 0.3 0.3
SC
109.8 1.9 0.5 1.5 0.1 14.5 4.5 1.6 2.4 5.7 0.3
None
400.7 7.5 3.0 0.8 0.2
4.6
2.1 0.2 2.6 5.7 0.0
LT016 LT017 LT018 LT019 LT020 LT087
over 120 years over 120 years over 120 years over 120 years over 120 years over 120 years
SC SC, RX, P&B SC SC, pile SC, pile None
109.8 1.9 3.0 1.2 0.1 25.9 6.9 2.9 2.6 5.7 0.0
345.5 7.5 3.0 0.9 0.2
4.6
2.1 8.8 1.4 2.6 0.0
345.5 4.1 3.0 0.8 0.1 24.0 7.0 8.8 2.6 5.7 0.0
345.5 4.1 3.0 0.8 0.1
3.5
2.0 8.8 1.4 0.5 0.0
109.8 1.9 0.5 2.3 0.1
3.5
2.0 1.6 1.3 0.5 0.3
400.7 7.5 3.0 0.8 0.1 26.3
0.2 2.6 10.6 0.0
Total Carbon 70.1 7.8 64.4 28.9 10.0 33.6 47.7 201.7 302.5 113.7 124.5 113.7 113.7 123.2 323.1 60.1 68.1 212.0 74.8 186.9 196.0 183.7 60.6 224.1
18
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
FB# LT021 LT022 LT023 LT024 LT025 LT026 LT027 LT028 LT029 LT030 LT031 LT086 LT032 LT033 LT034 LT035 LT036 LT089 LT037 LT038 LT039 LT040 LT041 LT042 LT043 LT044
Age range 0-10 years 10-25 years 25-50 years 50-80 years 50-80 years 50-80 years 80-120 years 80-120 years 80-120 years 80-120 years 80-120 years 80-120 years over 120 years over 120 years over 120 years over 120 years over 120 years over 120 years 0-10 years 0-10 years 10-20 years 20-40 years 20-40 years 40-80 years 40-80 years over 80 years
Treatment / Change agent
Tree Snag Ladder Shrub NW
fuel
fuel
WF None None None PCT, P&B PCT, pile None SC, RX, P&B None None SC, pile SC, mastication None SC, RX, P&B SC, pile None None None WF CC, RX None None PCT None None I&D
14.2 12.6 41.6 142.8 38.7 38.7 170.7 51.0 40.6 82.7 51.0 51.0 139.2 89.5 89.5 85.0 85.0 85.0 1.2 1.2 10.0 15.6 6.0 60.3 43.6 59.6
Red fir forest 123.3 0.0 2.5 0.0 72.3 3.0 1.1 0.0 28.8 0.5 0.1 0.0 5.4 3.0 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.5 0.4 0.1 1.3 0.5 0.4 0.1 65.2 0.5 0.3 0.0 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.0 8.4 3.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.7 0.5 0.2 0.0 28.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.3 0.1 3.0 3.0 0.3 0.0 1.7 0.5 0.2 0.0 5.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.7 0.5 0.2 0.0 Lodgepole pine forest 8.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.0 0.0 0.0 20.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 20.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 36.3 3.0 0.0 0.0
Total Small Pile & LLM Duff BA woody woody stump fuel fuel
17.1 3.3 0.0 1.4 3.1 0.0
27.7 1.3 0.0 0.6 3.1 0.0
25.7 6.1 0.0 3.0 8.9 0.0
20.1 5.5 0.0 3.0 6.6 0.0
5.4
2.9 0.6 1.2 1.7 0.0
35.0 10.0 0.6 6.6 22.0 0.0
33.6 4.2 0.0 3.6 16.2 0.0
3.8
0.8 1.0 0.6 0.9 0.0
18.5 3.6 0.1 2.4 7.9 0.0
40.0 10.0 0.1 6.9 28.9 0.0
16.0 6.0 0.3 4.4 8.8 0.0
24.0 12.5 0.3 4.4 8.8 0.0
48.0 8.0 0.0 7.5 35.6 0.0
9.1
1.1 0.6 0.6 2.1 0.0
16.5 6.5 0.9 3.0 8.8 0.0
16.0 6.0 0.2 4.5 17.6 0.0
16.0 6.0 0.2 7.5 7.7 0.0
27.9 13.0 0.2 4.5 17.6 0.0
15.4 4.3 0.1 1.5 0.4 0.0
4.5
0.7 1.2 1.5 0.4 0.0
20.4 4.3 0.1 1.5 0.8 0.0
19.7 3.2 0.1 2.1 2.6 0.0
15.4 9.2 2.9 1.5 2.6 0.0
21.6 3.2 0.1 0.0 5.3 0.0
14.5 5.7 0.0 1.8 4.8 0.0
49.2 3.2 0.1 3.0 8.6 0.0
Total Carbon 78.1 52.2 49.9 89.3 24.7 49.6 142.1 29.3 38.7 86.8 40.1 44.1 124.4 53.3 60.9 60.6 59.8 66.6 14.6 6.1 18.9 21.7 16.0 54.6 43.4 77.7
19
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
FB# LT045 LT046 LT047 LT048 LT049 LT050 LT051 LT052 LT054 LT055 LT056 LT057 LT058 LT059 LT060 LT080 LT072 LT061 LT081 LT073 LT062 LT063 LT064 LT066 LT067 LT068
Age range 0-10 yrs 10-40 yrs 40-90 yrs 90-120 yrs over 120 yrs over 120 yrs Dry site (no age) Quaking aspen 0-10 yrs 10-40 yrs 40-90 yrs 90-120 yrs over 120 yrs over 120 yrs 0-7 yrs 0-7 yrs 0-10 yrs 7-25 yrs 7-25 yrs 10-25 yrs 25-50 yrs 50-80 yrs 80-120 yrs 80-120 yrs 80-120 yrs 80-120 yrs
Treatment / Change agent WF None None None None None None Avalanche WF None None None None None WF Salvage, WF WF None None None None None None SC, RX or WF SC SC, P&B
Tree Snag Ladder Shrub NW Total Small Pile & LLM Duff BA
fuel
fuel woody woody stump
fuel fuel
Whitebark pine ­ lodgepole pine forest
0.3 29.7 3.0 0.8 0.1
5.9
2.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
12.2 23.3 0.5 0.6 0.1 14.2 6.7 0.0 1.5 8.2 0.0
37.0 10.0 0.5 0.6 0.1 11.5 3.5 0.0 2.1 11.7 0.0
81.7 6.4 0.5 0.4 0.1 19.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 18.7 0.0
40.5 9.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 20.0 2.0 0.3 3.0 26.0 0.0
50.2 10.8 0.5 0.4 0.2 30.0 3.0 0.3 3.0 26.0 0.0
38.1 1.1 3.0 0.1 0.3 10.3 3.3 0.0 1.5 5.2 0.0
3.3 0.0 3.0 0.1 0.3
2.8
1.6 0.0 3.7 14.8 0.0
Mountain hemlock forest
0.6 48.7 3.0 0.4 0.1 18.3 4.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
37.2 191.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 22.4 8.4 0.0 1.5 8.2 0.0
220.5 112.3 3.0 0.3 0.1 18.0 4.0 0.0 2.1 11.7 0.0
373.8 44.5 0.5 0.2 0.1 18.6 2.6 0.0 3.0 18.7 0.0
377.9 33.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 29.9 1.9 0.3 3.0 26.0 0.0
450.1 39.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 42.0 3.0 0.3 3.0 26.0 0.0
Mixed conifer forest
113.4 93.8 0.0 6.3 0.1 10.3 3.7 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0
0.1 1.2 0.0 6.3 0.1 10.3 3.7 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0
113.3 89.6 0.0 1.0 0.3
5.4
1.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
121.2 58.2 3.0 4.7 0.1
8.4
3.7 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0
8.0 1.2 3.0 4.7 0.1
8.4
3.7 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0
133.3 58.6 3.0 2.0 0.1 12.1 4.7 0.0 1.7 1.5 0.0
214.4 23.5 3.0 4.6 0.1 12.5 3.6 0.0 3.0 1.7 0.3
1006.5 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.0
9.2
3.6 0.1 3.0 2.8 0.3
1202.3 5.4 3.0 0.2 0.1 14.5 5.1 0.0 4.5 4.6 0.3
540.1 0.6 3.0 0.8 0.2
3.5
1.6 0.4 1.5 0.3 0.0
540.2 0.6 3.0 1.2 0.2 21.9 6.9 0.4 3.0 4.1 0.0
540.1 0.6 3.0 1.2 0.2
3.5
2.0 0.4 1.5 0.3 0.0
Total Carbon 19.9 27.0 34.3 62.1 46.4 56.3 28.9 12.5 35.4 110.4 171.2 226.8 231.1 274.8 111.5 9.2 104.7 93.1 13.7 99.9 128.5 511.3 616.1 275.1 286.2 275.3
20
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
FB#
Age range
Treatment / Change agent
Tree Snag Ladder Shrub NW
fuel
fuel
LT069 LT085 LT065 LT070 LT071 LT074 LT075 LT076 LT077 LT078 LT079 LT088 LT090 LT091 LT092 LT093 LT094 FCCS 001 FCCS 046 FCCS 056
80-120 yrs 80-120 yrs over 120 yrs over 120 yrs over 120 yrs over 120 yrs over 120 yrs over 120 yrs over 120 yrs over 120 yrs over 120 yrs over 120 yrs Huckleberry oak Greenleaf Manzanita Shorthair reedgrass threadleaf sedge Quaking aspen sapling Quaking aspen pole Black cottonwood - Douglas-fir quaking aspen Chamise chaparral Sagebrush
SC, pile SC, mastication None SC, pile SC None SC SC, RX, P&B SC SC, pile SC, pile None None None None None None None None FE, grazing, exotic species
540.1 540.1 1495.2 537.1 536.7 986.2 536.7 1021.5 1021.5 1021.5 536.7 986.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 33.8 418.9 0.0 0.0
0.6 3.0 1.2 0.2 0.6 3.0 0.4 0.1 18.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.1 1.9 0.5 0.0 0.1 30.3 3.0 0.8 0.1 1.9 3.0 1.2 0.1 7.5 3.0 0.8 0.2 4.1 3.0 0.8 0.1 4.1 3.0 0.8 0.1 1.9 0.5 0.8 0.1 7.5 3.0 0.8 0.1 Additional fuelbeds 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 2.3 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.7
Total Small Pile & LLM Duff BA
woody woody stump
fuel fuel
3.5
2.0 0.4 1.5 0.5 0.0
19.9 8.9 0.4 3.0 4.1 0.0
20.0 5.1 0.0 4.5 2.8 0.3
4.1
2.6 1.2 1.4 0.3 0.0
14.5 4.5 1.9 2.6 5.7 0.3
4.6
2.1
0.2 2.6 5.7 0.0
25.9 6.9 3.3 2.6 5.7 0.0
4.6
2.1 10.5 1.4 2.6 0.0
24.0 7.0 10.5 2.6 5.7 0.0
3.5
2.0 10.5 1.4 0.5 0.0
3.5 2.0 1.6 1.4 0.5 0.3
26.3 11.6 0.2 2.6 10.6 0.0
1.0 1.0 0.0 1.6 0.3 0.0 2.0 1.8 0.0 1.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0
2.8 1.6 0.0 3.1 14.0 0.0 14.1 2.6 0.0 3.1 14.0 0.0 17.5 4.5 0.0 1.8 37.0 0.0
2.5
2.5 0.0 0.5 3.1 0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Total Carbon 275.3 284.8 768.6 272.9 281.0 513.8 288.4 525.7 534.8 522.5 273.4 516.8 2.5 4.9 1.3 11.4 31.0 234.4 5.4 1.2
21
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
FB#
Age range
Treatment /
Tree Snag Ladder Shrub NW Total Small Pile & LLM Duff BA
Change agent
fuel
fuel woody woody stump
fuel fuel
FCCS 069 Western juniper / FE
0.6 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.2
0.8
0.8
0.0 0.5 0.1 0.3
sagebrush ­
bitterbrush
FCCS 095 Willow - mountain None
0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.1
2.1
1.2
0.0 3.1 23.4 0.0
alder
FCCS 224 Quaking aspen
FE
98.3 12.1 3.0 0.4 1.1 14.1 2.6 0.0 0.9 11.9 0.0
LF308
Low sagebrush
None
0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LF313
Mountain
None
32.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1
1.9
1.4
0.0 1.6 1.2 0.0
mahogany
OW072 Subalpine forest Avalanche
10.1 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.3
2.8
1.6
0.0 3.7 14.8 0.0
OW140 Ponderosa pine80- None
597.7 5.4 3.0 2.0 0.1 14.5 5.1 0.0 4.4 4.6 0.3
150 yrs
CO005 Douglas-fir -
CC, salvage, RX 16.9 4.1 0.0 4.0 0.1 20.5 2.7 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.0
ponderosa pine 0- or WF
15 yrs
CO114 Ponderosa pine CC, salvage,
7.1 2.8 0.0 2.5 0.3 11.4 4.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.0
forest 0-15 yrs
P&B, RX or WF
CO208 Bitterbrush ­
None
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0
rabbitbrush 10-20
yrs
CO216 Western juniper / None
2.6 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0
bitterbrush /
bunchgrass 20-40
yrs
CO228 Sagebrush 20-40 None
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2
0.3
0.3
0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0
yrs
Abbreviations: NW = nonwoody; LLM = litter, lichen and moss; BA = basal accumulations; WF = wildfire; SC = select cut; RX =
prescribed fire; P&B = pile and burn; CC = clearcut; I&D = insects and disease; PCT -= pre-commercial thin; FCCS = fuel
characteristic classification system; LF = landfire; OW = Okanogan-Wenatchee; CO = central Oregon.
Total Carbon 1.9 13.3 68.5 0.7 18.6 15.8 314.6 22.8 12.4 0.7 2.3 1.3
22
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Appendix 2 23
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
Appendix 2. CALVEG class and FCCS fuelbed crosswalk for mapping LTBMU fuelbeds.
CALVEG Category Mixed conifer Mixed conifer sapling Mixed conifer poles Mixed conifer small Mixed conifer medium
FCCS Fuelbed LT061 LT062 LT063 LT064
Mixed conifer large/giant Red fir Red fir poles Red fir small Red fir medium Red fir large/giant Grass/Forbs Perrenial grasses and forbs Wet meadow Alpine grasses and forbs Non-native/ornamental grass Annual grasses and forbs Subalpine Mountain hemlock small Western white pine saplings Western white pine poles Western white pine small Western white pine
LT065 LT023 LT024 LT027 LT032 LT092 LT092 ** ** LT092 LT056 ** ** ** **
CALVEG Category Yellow pines Jeffrey pine/White fir poles Jeffrey pine/White fir small Jeffrey pine/White fir medium Jeffrey pine/White fir large/giant Eastside pine poles Eastside pine small Eastside pine medium Lodgepole pine Lodgepole saplings Lodgepole poles Lodgepole small Lodgepole medium Lodgepole large/giant Great Basin shrub types Mountain sagebrush Low sagebrush Bitterbrush Great Basin mixed shrub Basin sagebrush Riparian hardwoods Mountain alder Willow (shrub)
FCCS Fuelbed LT003 LT004 LT005 LT006 CO005 CO114 OW140 LT037 LT039 LT040 LT042 LT044 FCCS069 LF308 CO208 CO228 FCCS056 OW072 FCCS095
CALVEG Category Montane chaparral Upper montane mixed chaparral Huckleberry oak Upper montane mixed shrub Pinemat manzanita snowbrush Bush chinquapin Curleaf mountain mahogany Gr. Basin=mixed chaparral trans. Green leaf manzanita Mountain whitehorn Snowberry Aspen Quaking aspen saplings Quaking aspen poles Quaking aspen small Quaking aspen medium Aspen (shrub) Other Alpine mixed scrub Western Juniper Barren Snow/ice
FCCS Fuelbed FCCS046 LT090 FCCS046 LT091 ** ** LF313 ** LT091 ** ** LT093 LT094 FCCS224 FCCS224 FCCS095 ** CO216 None None
24
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
medium Western white pine large/giant White bark pine saplings White bark pine poles
** LT045 LT046
Willow sapling Willow poles Black cottonwood sapling
White bark pine small
LT047
Black cottonwood poles
White bark pine medium LT048
Riparian mixed hardwoods
** CALVEG class coverage was less than 0.2% and did not develop a representative fuelbed. LT = Lake Tahoe fuelbed FCCS = FCCS standard fuelbed CO = Central Oregon fuelbed OW = Okanogan/Wenatchee fuelbed LF = LANDFIRE fuelbed
** ** ** FCCS001 FCCS001
Urban-related bare soil Urban/developed (general) Non=native/ornamental conifer/hardwood
None None **
25
FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 26

File: fccs-fuelbeds-for-the-lake-tahoe-basin-management-unit.pdf
Title: FCCS Fuelbeds For Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
Author: rottmar
Published: Mon Sep 30 08:54:43 2013
Pages: 26
File size: 1.86 Mb


Stunned with Sorrow, 11 pages, 0.1 Mb

, pages, 0 Mb

, pages, 0 Mb

What unemployment means, 1 pages, 0.03 Mb
Copyright © 2018 doc.uments.com