Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project

Fire and Fuels Report

Prepared by:

Don Helmbrecht and Laurie Kurth

Fire and Fuels Specialists

Fire Modeling Institute

RMRS Missoula Fire Sciences Lab

TEAMS Enterprise Unit

for:

Goosenest Ranger District

Klamath National Forest

August 10, 2009
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.
Hi-Grouse Project

i

Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2

Regulatory Direction and Desired Condition.............................................................................. 2

National Direction ................................................................................................................... 2

Klamath National Forest Plan Direction ................................................................................. 2

Desired Condition.................................................................................................................... 2

Methodology for Analysis............................................................................................................... 3

Walk-Through Surveys............................................................................................................... 3

Fuels Data Acquisition, Critique, and Modification ................................................................... 3

Historical Fire Weather Analysis................................................................................................ 4

Fire Behavior Potential ............................................................................................................... 4

Late-Successional Wildlife Habitat and Burn Probability .......................................................... 5

Affected Environment (Existing Condition) ................................................................................... 5

General Influences on Existing Condition .................................................................................. 5

Physical Environment ................................................................................................................. 6

Fire Environment ........................................................................................................................ 6

Fire History and Occurrence ................................................................................................... 6

Fire Regime ............................................................................................................................. 6

Fire Weather............................................................................................................................ 6

Fire Behavior and Fuels........................................................................................................... 9

Late-Successional Habitat ..................................................................................................... 11

Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................................... 11

Alternative 1 – No Action......................................................................................................... 11

Indirect Effects on Fuels and Fire Behavior.......................................................................... 11

Late-Successional Habitat ..................................................................................................... 12

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action............................................................................................... 12

Direct and Indirect Effects on Fuels and Fire Behavior........................................................ 12

Late-Successional Habitat ..................................................................................................... 13

Alternative 3.............................................................................................................................. 13

Direct and Indirect Effects on Fuels and Fire Behavior........................................................ 13

Late-Successional Habitat ..................................................................................................... 14

Alternative 4.............................................................................................................................. 15

Direct and Indirect Effects on Fuels and Fire Behavior........................................................ 15

Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................................... 17

Alternative 1 – No Action ..................................................................................................... 17

Action Alternatives................................................................................................................ 17

Summary and Conclusions........................................................................................................ 17

References................................................................................................................................. 21
Fire and Fuels Report

2

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to provide fire and fuels information in support of the environmental 

impact statement (EIS) being prepared for the Hi-Grouse project on the Klamath National Forest, 

Goosenest Ranger District. This report addresses the current fuel conditions and fire behavior 

potential, historical fire weather conditions, and effects of proposed silvicultural and fuel

treatment alternatives within the Hi-Grouse planning area. This report also addresses current and 

expected change in risk from wildland fire to northern spotted owl and northern goshawk habitat

within the planning area. The Hi-Grouse project would follow documented scientific principles 

for creating fire-resilient forests, and would use methods that have been shown to reduce fire 

severity. Refer to the sivilculture report for a complete description of silvicultural and fuel 

treatments.

Regulatory Direction and Desired Condition

National Direction

Historically many dry forests in the Western United States burned frequently with low intensity 

surface fires. Changes in forest structure and composition in many of these forests have increased 

fuel loads and susceptibility to highly intense and severe wildland fires (Graham et al. 2004, 

Peterson et al. 2005). The National Fire Plan, developed in August of 2000, and the Healthy 

Forests Initiative, launched in August 2002, provide direction to reduce risks from severe 

wildland fire through fuel reduction and restoration treatments. The proposed actions in the HiGrouse EIS address the concerns of severe wildland fire behavior due to departure from historical 

vegetative structure and composition.

Klamath National Forest Plan Direction

Forestwide, the Klamath National Forest Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP) provides 

direction to restore fire to its natural role in the ecosystem, to the maximum extent, consistent 

with the safety of persons, property, and other resources; analyze the impact of a project within 

the project’s landscape with respect to wildfires’ impact on future fires and other resources; and 

describe the hazard, risk, and consequences of wildland fire on the landscape (Klamath National 

Forest LRMP).

The Hi-Grouse planning area lies entirely within the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area 

(AMA). The Goosenest AMA was established under the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) with an 

emphasis on “Development of ecosystem management approaches, including use of prescribed 

burning and other silvicultural techniques, for management of pine forests, including objectives 

related to forest health, production and maintenance of late-successional forest and riparian 

habitat, and commercial timber production” (NWFP Standard & Guideline D-14).

Desired Condition

The desired condition is forest structure and composition that is resilient to fire and representative 

of conditions that existed under historical fire regimes. The combination of surface and ladder 

fuels would be such that the threat of stand-replacing fire is minimal. A mosaic of forest 

structure, composition, and density representative of reference conditions would allow for 

isolated patches of northern spotted owl and northern goshawk habitat while providing resiliency 

and decreased risk of wildland fire spread into habitat patches.
Hi-Grouse Project

3

Methodology for Analysis

The following sections discuss the methods used for quantifying and evaluating fuel conditions 

and potential fire behavior, effects of proposed silvicultural and fuel treatment alternatives on fire 

and fuels, and risk from wildland fire to northern spotted owl and northern goshawk habitat 

within the planning area.

Walk-Through Surveys

A field visit by the project silviculturist and fuels specialists occurred in September of 2008. The 

purpose of this visit was to familiarize the fuels specialists with the planning area and make 

observations of surface and canopy fuels for use in critiquing geospatial data.

Fuels Data Acquisition, Critique, and Modification

LANDFIRE (www.landfire.gov) is a national vegetation and fuels mapping project that provides 

nationally consistent and seamless geospatial data products for use in wildland fire analysis and 

modeling. LANDFIRE National data on elevation, aspect, slope, fire behavior fuel model, 

canopy cover, canopy height, canopy base height, and canopy bulk density were used as the basis 

for geospatial wildland fire modeling. Together these geospatial data layers make up the 

“landscape” file used by the FlamMap fire behavior modeling system (Finney 2006) used for 

analysis of this project. LANDFIRE National data was evaluated together with other local fuels 

data and it was determined to be the best suited for this analysis.

LANDFIRE fuels data was downloaded from the National Map and reprojected to the local NAD 

1983, UTM zone 10 north coordinate system to minimize true north/grid north distortion 

(http://www.landfire.gov/notifications21.php) using the LANDFIRE Data Access Tool 

(http://www.landfire.gov/products_tools.php). The data extends at least two miles from each side 

of the planning area to incorporate fire behavior and movement of fire into the planning area from 

adjacent land in the burn probability analysis.

LANDFIRE data, as well as any other geospatial dataset, requires careful evaluation especially 

when being applied at more local scales (Stratton 2009). The fuels specialists, together with 

LANDFIRE staff at the Missoula Fire Sciences Lab, critiqued LANDFIRE data for the Hi-Grouse 

planning area based on walk-through surveys, stand exam information, comparison to local fuel 

data sources, and knowledge and expertise of LANDFIRE fuel mapping methodology. Minor fire 

behavior fuel model modifications were made to reflect observations of primary fire-carrying fuel 

type and fuel loading due to past activity and mortality. Canopy cover generally appeared high 

and was modified as recommended in the December 2006 LANDFIRE notification 

(http://www.landfire.gov/notifications16.php).

The South Central Oregon, Northeastern California Variant of the Forest Vegetation Simulator 

(FVS) (Dixon 2005) was used to simulate silvicultural treatments proposed in the action 

alternatives. The Fire and Fuels Extension to FVS (FFE) (Reinhardt and Crookston 2003) was 

used to predict canopy fuel parameters for both critiquing LANDFIRE data and building posttreatment landscape data for use in FlamMap.
Fire and Fuels Report

4

Historical Fire Weather Analysis

Remote automated weather stations (RAWS) collect fire weather that is archived and available 

through KCFAST (http://fam.nwcg.gov/fam-web/kcfast/mnmenu.htm) and the Western Region 

Climate Center (http://www.raws.dri.edu/index.html

Table 1

). Weather for this analysis was initially 

obtained from three RAWS stations. A summary of the length of data, and some station 

information is included in . Based on input from the Klamath National Forest fire 

personnel and a review of the data, the VanBremmer station data was determined to best represent 

the planning area.

Table 1. RAWS station information in the vicinity of the Hi-Grouse planning area

Station Name Station Number Record Period Elevation (ft)

Van Bremmer 040243 1993-2008 5,310

Juanita 040240 1989-2008 5,400

Lower Klamath 040310 1998-2008 4,100

Fuel moisture and winds drive fire behavior in each of the fuel models. Kit Jacoby, retired fire 

management officer, was consulted regarding weather that drives fire behavior (Jacoby pers. 

comm. 2008). Additionally historic fire weather was analyzed to determine winds and fuel 

moisture conditions during the fire season using FireFamilyPlus (USDA Forest Service 2002). 

FlamMap adjusts fuel moisture for each pixel of the landscape to account for effects of aspect, 

elevation, slope, and canopy cover. The adjustment is based on weather conditions preceding the 

analysis period. This is referred to as the conditioning period. The conditioning period was 

developed from yearly data from the VanBremmer RAWS station based on Energy Release 

Component (ERC). ERC is a commonly used indicator of drought and fire potential that is 

calculated from fuel moistures. Wind speed and direction are direct inputs into fire behavior 

calculations. Hourly winds were assessed to determine direction and speed of predominant winds 

and the strongest winds recorded. Wind Wizard (Butler et al. 2006) was used to model variability 

of wind speed and direction due to topography across the landscape.

Fire Behavior Potential

Fire behavior is driven by the combination of fuels, topography, and weather across the 

landscape. Surface fire is fire that burns in the surface fuels (grass, shrubs, litter, dead and down 

branch wood, and short trees in contact with the ground surface). Crown fire refers to fire 

burning in the tree canopy. Two types of crown fire can be modeled in fire behavior modeling 

systems. Passive crown fire, also referred to as torching, kills individual or small groups of 

trees. Active crown fire, also referred to as continuous crown fire, involves the entire surface 

and canopy fuel complex and crowning remains dependent on heat from the surface fuels. Crown 

fires are more difficult to control and have more severe and lasting effects than surface fire due to 

the increased rate of spread, increased intensity, and likelihood to start spot fires long distances 

ahead of the fire front.

The FlamMap fire modeling system (Finney 2006) was used to assess the distribution of potential 

fire behavior characteristics in the planning area. Specific characteristics assessed were fireline

intensity expressed as flame length, rate of spread, and type of crown fire activity.
Hi-Grouse Project

5

Late-Successional Wildlife Habitat and Burn Probability

As noted in the Final Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 2008), management of habitat in the 

dry forest landscapes of the eastern Cascades of Oregon and Washington and the southern 

Cascades in California presents a challenge in that simply designating habitat reserves within 

these fire-prone landscapes is unlikely to be effective. The Plan has three components: 

identification of existing high-quality habitat, strategic placement of fuel reduction treatments, 

and management for sustainable ecosystem processes and functions. Restoration of fire tolerance 

and historic disturbance regimes is key to achieving the Plan’s goal of having 30 to 35 percent of 

each province in high-quality habitat patches. Management of the entire landscape is 

emphasized, with the concept of maintaining or creating high quality nesting/roosting patches 

within a matrix of stands treated to reduce risk from wildfire, insects, and disease. The highquality patches are not considered static in the long term, but would move throughout the 

landscape as current patches are inevitably lost to disturbance. The matrix (65 to 70 percent 

outside of nesting/roosting patches) should act as a retardant and not a conduit to fires, insects, 

and disease. Management for goshawks would entail most of the same principles as spotted owls. 

Refer to the silviculture report for a description of silvicultural and fuel treatments in relation to 

late-successional habitat.

The FlamMap fire behavior modeling system was used to estimate burn probability. Burn 

probability, as used in FlamMap, is defined as the number of times a pixel burned as a proportion 

of the total number of fires simulated. One thousand random ignitions were used in the 

simulations. Burn probabilities are related to the sizes of fires that occur on a given landscape. 

Large fires burn a larger portion of the landscape than small fires and therefore a given pixel is 

likely to be burned by multiple fires resulting in a higher burn probability. Since fire size is a 

function of the gross spread rate and duration of the fire, treatments that reduce the spread rate 

will lower the burn probability. Burn probability estimates were used to assess the effectiveness

of treatment alternatives in reducing fire spread into areas of critical northern spotted owl

nesting/roosting and northern goshawk nesting habitat.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

General Influences on Existing Condition

The major influences on this area over the last 100 years are railroad logging beginning around 

1900, grazing, fire suppression, and selective cutting prescriptions over the last several decades in 

the true fir dominated stands. Early logging removed the majority of the original pine forest and 

left white fir. The removal of pine seed sources, combined with livestock grazing and postlogging fires created ideal conditions for germination of true firs, which then became established 

and grew during the relatively warm and wet early half of the 20th century. Selective logging in 

the white fir/pine and red fir types has lead to the introduction and spread of annosus root disease, 

which is now a major factor in stand health. Due to the recent drought, insect and disease related 

mortality is occurring in true firs and ponderosa pine. Mature lodgepole pine stands are 

continuing to experience heavy stand-replacing mortality due to the mountain pine beetle, and 

these high beetle populations are now infesting ponderosa pine within the white fir/pine type. 

Most of the stands in the planning area are overstocked and substantial tree mortality is occurring 

and is expected to continue. Most all of the planning area is departed from the historic fire return 

intervals having missed several fire cycles (Creasy et al. 2007).
Fire and Fuels Report

6

Physical Environment

Elevations in the planning area range from 5,400 to 6,500 feet. The white fir series is generally 

found below 6,000 feet and the red fir series is generally found above 6,000 feet. Flat areas with 

poor cold air drainage are dominated by lodgepole pine. Slopes are gentle with elevation 

increasing from west to east and from north to south.

Fire Environment

Fire History and Occurrence

Fires were much more common in the planning area prior to European settlement with much of 

the area experiencing short fire return intervals of 1 to 30 years (USDA Forest Service 1996). 

Analysis of fire history data reveals that the Hi-Grouse planning area has not experienced a 

wildland fire greater than 100 acres since 1918 when one touched the planning area’s northern 

boundary (Creasy et al. 2007). This lack of fire in the planning area has contributed to the current 

vegetative structure and composition, fuel load, and subsequent increase in fire hazard. Fire 

exclusion has allowed the establishment and dominance of true firs, where ponderosa pine was 

historically maintained as the dominant or a co-dominant species by frequent, low- to mixedseverity fires. This influx of true firs in the understory and mid-story provides a ladder for fire 

thus threatening the overstory trees.

Fire Regime

A fire regime is a generalized description of the role fire plays in an ecosystem (Agee 1993). 

Historical fire regimes can provide useful references for evaluating landscape health and 

designing ecologically viable fuel treatments (Reinhardt et al. 2008). For a more detailed 

synopsis of fire regimes in the planning area, refer to the Silviculture Report. In general, the 

lower elevation white fir series historically experienced a frequent low severity fire regime. Due 

to fire exclusion and changes in species composition and structure, most notably the replacement 

of fire tolerant ponderosa pine with fire intolerant white fir, the series has accumulated surface 

and ladder fuels conducive to stand replacement fire. In the higher elevation red fir series, fire 

was historically less frequent than in the white fir series and the fire regime was characterized as 

a moderate frequency mixed-severity fire regime. Today the red fir series is also more conducive 

to stand-replacement fire.

Fire Weather

A review of the energy release component (ERC) throughout the year and historic fires on the 

Goosenest Ranger District indicates the fire season occurs between May and October with best 

conditions for active fire July through September, peaking in late August (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

The majority of fires occurred when the ERCs were above 50 (fuel model G, Van Bremmer 

RAWS station) which is at the 66th percentile (1993 - 2008). All fires greater than 10 acres 

initiated when the ERCs were about 70 (86th percentile) and 90 percent of all fires initiated when 

ERCs were at or below the 97th percentile.
Hi-Grouse Project

7

Figure 1. Energy release component from the Van Bremmer RAWS station based on year-round 

data, 1993 – 2008

Number of fires by month 

1970 - 2008 Goosenest Ranger District

0 3 4 10

117

223

360

431

153

48 2 1

0

100

200

300

400

500

January

February

March

AprilMay

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Figure 2. Fire occurrence 1970 to 2008 on the Goosenest Ranger District. Number at top of bar is 

the number of fires starting in each month for the 29-year period.
Fire and Fuels Report

8

Kit Jacoby indicates that problem fire weather occurs from June through September when the 1-

hour fuel moisture is 6 percent and 10-hour fuel moisture is slightly higher, with wind playing a 

prominent role (Jacoby pers. comm. 2008). The Van Bremmer station has a high frequency of 

days when the 1-hour fuel moisture was no higher than 6 percent and the 10-hour fuel moisture 

was no higher than 8 percent (Table 2).

Table 2. Number of days with specific fuel moisture, wind speed, and combinations

Dates 1hr ≤

6

10hr ≤

8

Winds

≥5

Winds

≥10

Winds 

≥15

1 hr 

and 10 

hr

1hr, 10hr 

and winds 

5

1hr, 

10hr, and 

winds 10

total 

obs

June 1–Sept 30 1,414 1,548 1,396 319 31 1,404 1,119 244 1,952

To model fire behavior in FlamMap, fuel moistures and conditioning periods were selected to 

represent the 97th percentile so that the modeling will represent maximum fire behavior of 90 

percent of fires that have occurred. Additionally, dead fuel moistures at the 97th percentile are 

similar to those identified by Kit Jacoby. Based on ERC, the period August 21 to September 8, 

2006 is representative of 97th

Measured live woody fuel moistures vary greatly depending on time of season and species 

measured, with values as low as 60 percent and well above 180 percent. Based on the measured 

fuel moistures for greenleaf manzanita (arctostaphylos patula) and live fuel moisture guidelines 

(Scott and Burgan 2005), live herbaceous and live woody values are assumed 2/3 cured (60 

percent herbaceous, 90 percent woody). Generally, fire in fuels with shrubs (grass shrub, shrub, 

and timber understory models) will have more active fire behavior when live woody fuel moisture 

is below 100 to 120 percent, depending on species and location. By using the selected live fuel 

moistures, the modeled fire behavior in this analysis will reflect more active fire behavior in fuel 

models that incorporate live fuels.

percentile conditions. Fuel moistures were conditioned using 

weather data from this time period. FlamMap runs were done with the conditioned fuel moistures

at 4:00 pm. One-hour fuel moistures ranged from 3 to 8 percent across the landscape with the 

modal value being 6 percent.

Winds during the burning period are somewhat variable, but are predominantly out of the south to 

northwest with the strongest winds from the south (Figure 3). Winds of 25 mph from the 

northwest were used for analysis.
Hi-Grouse Project

9

Figure 3. Wind rose based on the Van Bremmer RAWS station, 1993 – 2008, May 1 

through October 31, 1100 – 2000 hours, including gusts

Fire Behavior and Fuels

A fire behavior fuel model is a set of fuelbed inputs used to predict surface fire behavior and 

transition to crown fire. Table 3 shows the distribution of fuel models in the Hi-Grouse planning 

area.

Table 3. Current distribution of fire behavior fuel models in the High-Grouse planning area

Fuel 

Model Fuel Model Descriptor Acres Percent of Total

TU5 Very high load, dry climate timber-shrub 3,144 42

TL8 Long-needle litter 858 12

TL5 High load conifer litter 762 10

GS2 Moderate load, dry climate grass-shrub 761 10

TL4 Small downed logs 616 8

TU1 Low load dry climate timber-grass-shrub 532 7

TL3 Moderate load conifer litter 477 6

Other

Includes grass, grass-shrub, shrub, timber litter, timber understory 

models with less than 25 acres each and non-burnable areas currently 

in the planning area.

302 5
Fire and Fuels Report

10

Forty-two percent of the planning area is mapped as fire behavior fuel model timber-understory 5

(TU5). The primary carrier of fire in TU5 is heavy forest litter with a shrub or small tree 

understory. Within the Hi-Grouse planning area, this fuel model is mostly associated with the 

white fir/pine community. Thirty-six percent of the planning area is mapped with a timber litter 

(TL) fuel model. The primary carrier of fire in the timber litter fuel models is dead and down 

woody fuel. Live fuel, if present has little effect on fire behavior. The timber litter fuel models 

are dispersed throughout the planning area with the exception of TL5, which is concentrated in 

the lodgepole pine community. The primary carrier of fire in TL5 is high-load conifer litter and 

light slash or mortality fuel. Ten percent of the planning area is mapped as grass-shrub 2 (GS2). 

The primary carrier of fire in GS2 is grass and shrubs combined.

Fire behavior characteristics are directly related to fire behavior fuel models but vary with fuel 

moisture and wind. Modeled minimum, maximum and mean flame lengths and rates of spread 

and number of acres of crown fire activity under current conditions for each fuel model are

included in table 4. Flame lengths range from nearly 0.5 feet to several hundred feet where there 

is crown fire. The average flame length for the planning area is 41 feet. The dominant TU5 fuel 

model will have a lot of crown fire resulting in the high average flame length. Rates of spread 

range from 0.22 chains per hour to several hundred chains per hour where there is crown fire or 

flashy grass and shrub fuels. The average rate of spread is 48 chains per hour. Fire behavior in 

the planning area is dominated by the expected high flame lengths and rates of spread associated 

with crown fire in the majority of the area represented by the TU5 fuel model. When the live 

herbaceous and woody fuels are more physiologically active (less than 2/3 cured), the fire 

behavior in those models will be reduced. Nearly one-half of the area is expected to experience 

either passive or active crown fire with flame lengths greater than 8 feet (Table 4). 

Table 4. Current fire behavior characteristics in the major fuel models

Flame length and Rate of Spread

Fuel 

Model Acres

Minimum 

Flame 

Length (ft)

Maximum 

Flame 

Length (ft)

Mean 

Flame 

Length (ft)

Minimum 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

Maximum 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

Mean 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

TU5 3,144 3 349 86 1 451 91

TL8 858 1 228 6 1 399 12

TL5 762 1 3 2 1 12 3

GS2 761 1 143 17 1 415 54

TL4 616 1 2 1 <1 7 2

TU1 532 1 4 1 <1 12 1

TL3 477 <1 1 1 <1 3 1

Crown Fire Activity (acres)

Surface Torching Active 

Crown

TU5 282 1,291 1,572

TL8 824 2 32

TL5 762

GS2 479 193 89

TL4 616

TU1 532

TL3 477
Hi-Grouse Project

11

Acres with Potential Fire Behavior

Flame 

Length 

(ft)

Acres

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

Acres

Crown 

Fire 

Activity

Acres

0 - 4 3868 0 - 1 594 Surface 3,972

4 - 8 442 1 - 5 2,944 Torching 1,485

8 - 11 118 5 - 10 555 Active 1,692

> 11 3024 10 - 20 373

20 - 40 442

40 - 80 621

> 80 1,923

Late-Successional Habitat

Fuel model TU5 makes up the majority of the identified northern spotted owl nesting/roosting (72

percent) and northern goshawk nesting (68 percent) habitats. The expected high flame lengths in 

this fuel model, in combination with the higher stand densities and multi-layered structure of 

these late-successional forests, lead to approximately two-thirds of the identified habitat areas 

expected to experience either passive or active crown fire. High flame lengths and rates of spread 

in the areas surrounding the late-successional habitat increase the likelihood of fire moving into 

the habitat areas. Mean burn probability is 11 percent for the northern spotted owl 

nesting/roosting habitat and 10 percent for the northern goshawk nesting habitat. Acres of 

potential crown fire activity and burn probability modeled under current conditions within each 

habitat area is included in Table 5.

Table 5. Crown fire activity and burn probability within northern spotted owl nesting/roosting and 

northern goshawk nesting habitat

Crown Fire Activity (acres) Burn Probability (percent)

Surface Torching

Active 

Crown Minimum Maximum Mean

Northern spotted owl 

nesting/roosting 186 141 217 3 15 11

Northern goshawk 

nesting 275 154 298 2 15 10

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

Indirect Effects on Fuels and Fire Behavior

Over time, no management will result in additional accumulation of large dead and down fuels in 

areas of annosus infection. Forest fuel models will become fuel model TL7 where there is little 

herbaceous or shrub understory and TU5 where there is understory. This will result in increased 

fire intensity and severity, including increased passive and active crown fire.
Fire and Fuels Report

12

Late-Successional Habitat

The above noted changes in fuels will furthermore increase the probability of fire spread into latesuccessional habitat patches and risk of losing the desired composition and structure to standreplacement fire.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects on Fuels and Fire Behavior

Alternative 2 would have the greatest reduction in surface fuels, resulting in the most acres 

changing fuel models. Some areas would retain their surface fuel characteristics but receive 

treatment that would result in increased canopy base heights, decreased canopy cover, and 

decreased canopy bulk density, resulting in reduced fire behavior. Table 6 shows the fire behavior 

characteristics by fuel model for alternative 2. While the ranges of flame length and rate of 

spread are similar to the current conditions, the means for each fuel model are greatly reduced. 

The conversion of nearly 3,000 acres of timbered fuels to fuel model TU1 results in greatly 

reduced fire behavior potential. Average flame length and rate of spread for the planning area are 

14 feet and 20 chains per hour, respectively. Just over 10 percent of the planning area is expected 

to experience either passive or active crown fire and/or flame lengths greater than 8 feet (Table 

6).

Table 6. Alternative 2 - fire behavior characteristics in the major fuel models

Flame length and Rate of Spread

Fuel 

Model

Acres Minimum 

Flame 

Length (ft)

Maximum 

Flame 

Length (ft)

Mean 

Flame 

Length 

(ft)

Minimum 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

Maximum 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

Mean 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

TU1 2,959 1 4 2 <1 17 3

GS2 1256 1 143 9 1 415 35

TU5 1,140 3 349 68 1 451 71

TL1 674 <1 1 1 <1 1 1

TL3 307 <1 2 1 <1 4 2

GS1 270 1 51 3 1 197 16

TL4 263 1 2 1 <1 7 2

TL5 198 1 3 2 1 12 3

TL8 177 1 228 11 1 399 24

Crown Fire Activity (acres)

Surface Torching Active 

Crown

TU1 2959

GS2 1135 58 63

TU5 446 279 415

TL1 674

TL3 307

GS1 269 1

TL4 263

TL5 198

TL8 163 14
Hi-Grouse Project

13

Acres with Potential Fire Behavior

Flame 

Length 

(ft)

Acres Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

Acres Crown Fire 

Activity

Acres

0 - 4 5,413 0 - 1 982 Surface 6,413

4 - 8 1,114 1 - 5 3,685 Torching 338

8 - 11 102 5 - 10 837 Active 492

> 11 824 10 - 20 656

20 - 40 491

40 - 80 212

> 80 590

Late-Successional Habitat

Alternative 2 treats the most acres of late-successional habitat of any of the action alternatives. 

Table 7 shows the potential crown fire activity and burn probability within NSO-NR and NGH-N

habitat areas for alternative 2. The reduced fire behavior outside of the late-successional habitat 

decreases the probability of fire spread into the habitat areas. Mean burn probability is 3% for the 

NSO-NR and the NGH-N habitat (Table 7).

Table 7. Alternative 2 - crown fire activity and burn probability within northern spotted owl 

nesting/roosting and northern goshawk nesting habitat

Crown Fire Activity (acres) Burn Probability (percent)

Surface Torching

Active 

Crown Minimum Maximum Mean

Northern spotted owl 

nesting/roosting 311 96 139 0 6 3

Northern goshawk 

nesting 483 96 149 0 10 3

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Fuels and Fire Behavior

Alternative 3 would reduce surface fuels, resulting in a change in fuel models in much of the 

planning area, but on fewer acres than alternative 2. Some areas would retain their surface fuel 

characteristics but receive treatment that would result in increased canopy base heights, decreased 

canopy cover, and decreased canopy bulk density, resulting in reduced fire behavior. However,

some of the treatments are lower intensity than alternative 2, thus the fire behavior is more 

intense than alternative 2, but reduced from current conditions. Table 8 shows the fire behavior 

characteristics by fuel model. While the ranges of flame length and rate of spread are similar to 

the current conditions, the means for each fuel model are reduced. Average flame length and rate 

of spread for the planning area are 26 feet and 32 chains per hour, respectively. Approximately 

25 percent of the planning area is expected to experience either passive or active crown fire 

and/or flame lengths greater than 8 feet (Table 8).
Fire and Fuels Report

14

Table 8. Alternative 3 - fire behavior characteristics in the major fuel models

Flame length and Rate of Spread

Fuel 

Model

Acres Minimum 

Flame 

Length 

(ft)

Maximum 

Flame 

Length 

(ft)

Mean 

Flame 

Length 

(ft)

Minimum 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

Maximum 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

Mean 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

TU5 2,571 3 349 65 1 451 70

TU1 1,011 1 4 2 <1 12 2

TL1 726 <1 1 1 <1 1 1

TL3 640 <1 2 1 <1 4 1

GS2 526 1 143 18 1 415 61

GS1 501 1 176 5 1 298 17

TL8 497 1 228 7 1 399 13

TL4 420 1 2 1 <1 7 2

TL5 335 1 3 2 1 12 3

Crown Fire Activity (acres)

Surface Torching Active 

Crown

TU5 911 689 971

TU1 1,011

TL1 726

TL3 640

GS2 369 79 78

GS1 489 1 11

TL8 477 <1 20

TL4 420

TL5 335

Acres with Potential Fire Behavior

Flame 

Length 

(ft)

Acres Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

Acres Crown 

Fire 

Activity

Acres

0 - 4 4,516 0 - 1 1,108 Surface 5,380

4 - 8 1,039 1 - 5 2,970 Torching 769

8 - 11 96 5 - 10 988 Active 1,079

> 11 1,801 10 - 20 505

20 - 40 301

40 - 80 358

> 80 1,222

Late-Successional Habitat

Alternative 3 would treat less acres of late-successional habitat than alternative 2. Table 9 shows 

the potential crown fire activity and burn probability within northern spotted owl nesting/roosting

and northern goshawk nesting habitat areas for alternative 3. The reduced fire behavior outside of 

the late-successional habitat would decrease the probability of fire spread into the habitat areas. 
Hi-Grouse Project

15

Mean burn probability is 5 percent for the northern spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat and 4

percent for the northern goshawk nesting habitat (Table 9).

Table 9. Alternative 3 - crown fire activity and burn probability within northern spotted owl 

nesting/roosting and northern goshawk nesting habitat

Crown Fire Activity (acres) Burn Probability (percent)

Surface Torching Active 

Crown Minimum Maximum Mean

Northern spotted owl 

nesting/roosting 218 128 199 <1 11 5

Northern goshawk nesting 391 128 209 0 11 4

Alternative 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Fuels and Fire Behavior

Alternative 4 would reduce surface fuels, resulting in the change in fuel models in much of the 

planning area, but on fewer acres than alternative 2 and more acres than alternative 3. Some 

areas would retain their surface fuel characteristics but receive treatment that would result in 

increased canopy base heights, decreased canopy cover, and decreased canopy bulk density, 

resulting in reduced fire behavior. However, some of the treatments are lower intensity than 

alternative 2, thus the fire behavior is more intense than alternative 2, but reduced from current 

conditions. Table 10 shows the fire behavior characteristics by fuel model. While the ranges of 

flame length and rate of spread are similar to the current conditions, the means for each fuel 

model are reduced. Average flame length and rate of spread for the planning area are 23 feet and 

30 chains per hour, respectively. Approximately 22 percent of the planning area is expected to 

experience either passive or active crown fire and/or flame lengths greater than 8 feet (Table 10).

Table 10. Alternative 4 - fire behavior characteristics in the major fuel models

Flame length and Rate of Spread

Fuel Model Acres

Minimum 

Flame 

Length (ft)

Maximum 

Flame 

Length (ft)

Mean 

Flame 

Length (ft)

Minimum 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

Maximum 

Rate of

Spread 

(ch/hr)

Mean 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

TU1 1910 1 4 2 <1 12 2

TU5 1790 3 349 82 1 451 87

GS2 1314 1 143 9 1 415 33

TL1 678 <1 1 1 <1 1 1

TL4 403 1 2 1 <1 7 2

TL3 357 <1 1 1 <1 3 1

TL8 311 1 228 9 1 399 19

GS1 270 1 51 3 1 197 16

TL5 202 1 3 2 1 12 4
Fire and Fuels Report

16

Table 10. Alternative 4 - fire behavior characteristics in the major fuel models

Crown Fire Activity (acres)

Surface Torching Active 

Crown

TU1 1910

TU5 341 606 843

GS2 1180 61 73

TL1 678

TL4 403

TL3 357

TL8 292 <1 19

GS1 270 1

TL5 202

Acres with Potential Fire Behavior

Flame 

Length (ft) Acres

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

Acres Crown Fire 

Activity Acres

0 - 4 4831 0 - 1 977 Surface 5633

4 - 8 972 1 - 5 3167 Torching 668

8 - 11 81 5 - 10 707 Active 935

> 11 1567 10 - 20 705

20 - 40 498

40 - 80 322

> 80 1075

Late-Successional Habitat

Alternative 4 would treat the least amount of late-successional habitat of the action alternatives. 

Table 11 shows the potential crown fire activity and burn probability within northern spotted owl 

nesting/roosting and northern goshawk nesting habitat areas for alternative 4. The reduced fire 

behavior outside of the late-successional habitat decreases the probability of fire spread into the 

habitat areas. Mean burn probability is 4 percent for the northern spotted owl nesting/roosting and 

northern goshawk nesting habitat (Table 11).

Table 11. Alternative 4 - crown fire activity and burn probability within northern spotted owl 

nesting/roosting and northern goshawk nesting habitat

Crown Fire Activity (acres) Burn Probability (percent)

Surface Torching Active 

Crown Minimum Maximum Mean

Northern spotted owl 

nesting/roosting 218 128 199 0 9 4

Northern goshawk nesting 391 128 209 0 9 4
Hi-Grouse Project

17

Cumulative Effects

The planning area is defined as the area that was analyzed for meeting the purpose and need for 

the project, and is approximately 7,400 acres. Activities within and adjacent to the planning area 

can collectively modify wildland fire spread and behavior. To account for fire spread into the 

planning area, past and proposed activities recorded in the Forest Service Activity Tracking 

System (FACTS) within the Badger Basin-Willow Creek HUC 5 watershed were analyzed.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Within the planning area, timber harvest and fire suppression have been the dominant 

management activities having a cumulative effect on vegetation and fuel. The trends that have 

developed under this management regime would continue with no action, and would contribute to 

the adverse forest health conditions discussed under large-scale assessments such as ICBEMP and 

the Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan and increased risk of high-severity fire.

Action Alternatives

Similar restoration projects have been carried out within the Goosenest AMA and other parts of 

the watershed. In conjunction with these projects, it is likely that with any of the action 

alternatives the potential for large uncharacteristic wildfires and bark beetle outbreaks in 

ponderosa pine and white fir would be reduced. Management options for the future would be 

increased. Wildland fire use may become more of an option, and the ability to implement the 

Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan would be improved.

Proposed vegetation and fuels activities within FACTS are likely to have little effect on wildland 

fire spread and behavior within the planning area due to their small acreage and location in 

relation to the planning area. Proposed activities are at least 2 miles from the planning area 

boundary and most of the acreage is to the northeast within the Callahan Lava Flow HUC 7 

watershed, while the predominant winds are from the south to northwest (figure 3).

Summary and Conclusions

The following tables compare fire behavior characteristics for current conditions and all of the 

alternatives. Figure 4 includes burn probability maps for current conditions and each alternative. 

Currently, fire behavior in the planning area is dominated by the high flame lengths and rates of 

spread associated with crown fire in the majority of the area represented by the TU5 fuel model. 

Nearly one-half of the area is expected to experience either passive or active crown fire with 

flame lengths greater than 11 feet. Mean burn probabilities are 11 percent for the northern spotted 

owl nesting/roosting habitat and 10 percent for the northern goshawk nesting habitat. Modeled 

fire behavior under current conditions is not characteristic of the frequent low severity and 

moderate frequency mixed-severity historical fire regimes of the planning area.

All alternatives include treatments that will reduce the amount of TU5 fuel model, increase 

canopy base heights, and reduce canopy bulk density; thus reducing crown fire and burn 

probabilities and moving the expected fire behavior more towards conditions characteristic of the 

historical fire regimes of the planning area. Alternative 2 would provide the greatest reduction in 

fire behavior in the planning area as well as in late-successional habitat.

Alternative 2 would have the greatest number of acres with reduced flame length, rate of spread, 

and passive or active crown fire; and the lowest burn probability in late-successional habitat of 

any of the action alternatives. Acres with crown fire within the planning area would be reduced 
Fire and Fuels Report

18

by 75 percent in this alternative. Mean burn probability would be reduced by 8 percent in 

northern spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat and 7 percent in northern goshawk nesting habitat.

Alternative 3 would have the least number of acres with reduced flame length, rate of spread, and 

passive or active crown fire; and the third lowest burn probability in late-successional habitat of 

any of the action alternatives. Acres with crown fire within the planning area would be reduced 

by approximately 40 percent in this alternative. Mean burn probability would be reduced by 6

percent in both northern spotted owl nesting/roosting and northern goshawk nesting habitat.

Alternative 4 would have the second most number of acres with reduced flame length, rate of 

spread, and passive or active crown fire; and the second lowest burn probability in latesuccessional habitat of any of the action alternatives. Acres with crown fire within the planning 

area would be reduced by approximately 50 percent in this alternative. Mean burn probability 

would be reduced by 7 percent in northern spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat and 6 percent in 

northern goshawk nesting habitat.

Table 12. Mean flame length and rate of spread by fuel model for each alternative

Mean Flame Length (ft) Mean Rate of Spread (ch/hr)

Fuel 

Model Current Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Current Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt4

GS1 3 5 3 16 17 16

GS2 17 9 18 9 54 35 61 33

TU1 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 2

TU5 86 68 65 82 91 71 70 87

TL1 1 1 1 1 1 1

TL3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1

TL4 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2

TL5 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4

TL8 6 11 7 9 12 24 13 19

Table 13. Crown fire activity by fuel model for each alternative

Fuel 

Model

Current Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Surface Passive Active Surface Passive Active Surface Passive Active Surface Passive Active

GS1 269 1 489 1 11 270 1

GS2 479 193 89 1,135 58 63 369 79 78 1,180 61 73

TU1 532 2,959 1,011 1,910

TU5 282 1,291 1,572 446 279 415 911 689 971 341 606 843

TL1 674 726 678

TL3 477 307 640 357

TL4 616 263 420 403

TL5 762 198 335 202

TL8 824 2 32 163 14 477 < 1 20 292 < 1 19
Hi-Grouse Project

19

Table 14. Acres with fire behavior characteristics for each alternative

Fire Behavior Current Alt2 Alt3 Alt4

Flame Length (ft)

<= 4 3,868 5,413 4,516 4,831

4 - 8 442 1,114 1,039 972

8 - 11 118 102 96 81

> 11 3,024 824 1,801 1,567

Rate of Spread (chains/hr)

<= 1 594 982 1,108 977

1 - 5 2,944 3,685 2,970 3,167

5 - 10 555 837 988 707

10 - 20 373 656 505 705

20 - 40 442 491 301 498

40 - 80 621 212 358 322

> 80 1,923 590 1,222 1,075

Crown Fire Activity

Surface 3,972 6,413 5,380 5,633

Passive 1,485 338 769 668

Active 1,692 492 1,079 935

Table 15. Crown fire activity and burn probability within northern spotted owl nesting/roosting and 

northern goshawk nesting habitat by alternative

Crown Fire Activity

Habitat

Current Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Surface Passive Active Surface Passive Active Surface Passive Active Surface Passive Active

NSO-NR 186 141 217 311 96 139 218 128 199 218 128 199

NGH-N 275 154 298 483 96 149 391 128 209 391 128 209

Burn Probability (percent)

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean

NSO-NR 3 15 11 0 6 3 < 1 11 5 0 9 4

NGH-N 2 15 10 0 10 3 0 11 4 0 9 4

NSO-NR = northern spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat; NGH-N = northern goshawk nesting habitat
Fire and Fuels Report

20

Figure 4. Burn probability for current conditions and each alternative. 

Burn probability was calculated as the number of fires that burn an individual pixel in proportion to 1,000 

simulated fires. Polygons with diagonal hatching represent northern goshawk nesting habitat. Polygons 

with cross-hatching represent northern goshawk nesting and northern spotted owl nesting roosting habitat. 

The solid line represents the Hi-Grouse planning area.

Current Conditions Alternative 2

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Burn Probability

 

 

 

 

 

 
Hi-Grouse Project

21

References

Agee, James K. 1993 Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press Washington DC 

493 p.

Butler, B. W., M. Finney, L. Bradshaw, J. Forthofer, C. McHugh, R. Stratton, and D. Jimenez. 

(2006) WindWizard: A New Tool for Fire Management Decision Support. Conference 

Proceedings: Fuels Management - How to Measure Success, March 28-30, 2006, 

Portland, OR. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. (501 KB; 10 pages).

Creasy, Max; Safford, Hugh; Schmidt, Dave 2007. Fire Regime Condition Class Report, Hi 

Grouse Project, Goosenest Ranger District, Klamath National Forest.

Dixon, Gary. 2005. South Central Oregon/Northeast California Variant of the forest Vegetation 

Simulator. USDA Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO.

Finney, M.A., 2006. An overview of FlamMap fire modeling capabilities. In: Andrews, P.L.; 

Butler, B.W., comps. Fuels Management-How to Measure Success: Conference 

Proceedings. 28-30 March 2006; Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station PProceedings RMRS-P-41, pp. 213-220.

Graham, Russel T. et.al. 2004. Science Basis for Changing Forest Structure to Modify Wildfire 

Behavior and Severity. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General 

Technical Report RMRS-GTR-120, March, 2004.

Jacoby, Kit. 2008. Personal communication regarding fire weather in the Hi-Grouse planning 

area.

Peterson, David L., Morris C. Johnson, James K. Agee, Theresa B. Jain, Donald McKenzie, and 

Elizabeth D. Reinhardt. 2005. Forest Structure and Fire Hazard in Dry Forests of the 

Western United States. USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station, General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-628, February 2005.

Reinhardt, Elizabeth, and Nicholas L. Crookston (Technical Editors). 2003. The Fire and Fuels 

Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mt. Research 

Station, Ogden, UT, General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-116, 209 p.

Reinhardt, Elizabeth D.; Keane, Robert E.; Calkin, David E.; Cohen, Jack D. 2008. Objectives 

and considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior 

western United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 256: 1997-2006.

Scott, Joe H.; Burgan, Robert 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.

Stratton, Richard D. 2009. Guidebook on LANDFIRE fuels data acquisition, critique, 

modification, maintenance, and model calibration. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-220. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 54 p.
Fire and Fuels Report

22

USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. 1996. Goosenest Adaptive Management Area 

Ecosystem Analysis. April, 1998.

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station 2002. Fire Family Plus User’s Guide 

Version 3.0. Rocky Mountain Research Station and Systems for Environmental 

Management.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. Region 1, 

Portland, Or, May, 2008.