Appendix H – Fire and Fuels
Issue 1 – Assumptions and Methods
Methods
Study Area
The Nature Conservancy, under an agreement with the BLM, assessed forest vegetation restoration needs
across five million acres of forest across southwestern Oregon (Figure H-1), including 1.2 million acres
of BLM-administered lands (Figure H-2). This geography generally includes the extent of forests with
historically frequent fires within SW Oregon. These forests cover very broad climatic, edaphic, and
topographic gradients with varying natural disturbance regimes.
Figure H-1. Analysis area within the State of Oregon
1305 | P a g e
Figure H-2. BLM-administered lands within the analysis area
Note: Brown is BLM, blue is the Roseburg District, grey is the Medford District, and green is the western half of Klamath Falls
Field Office.
Core Concepts and Data Sources
The Nature Conservancy built upon the conceptual framework of the LANDFIRE and Fire Regime
Condition Class (FRCC) programs (Barrett et al. 2010, Rollins 2009) and incorporated Oregon and BLM
specific datasets. The Nature Conservancy’s assessment of forest vegetation departure is based on four
1306 | P a g e
primary data inputs: (1) a classification and map of forested biophysical settings, (2) natural range of
variability (NRV) reference conditions for each biophysical setting, (3) a delineation of ‘landscape units’
for each biophysical setting, and (4) a map of present day forest vegetation structure.
Mapping Forested Biophysical Settings
Biophysical settings are potential vegetation units associated with characteristic land capabilities and
disturbance regimes (Barrett et al. 2010). Many different forested biophysical settings are found across
Washington and Oregon based on vegetation, soils, climate, topography, and historic disturbance regimes
(Keane et al. 2007, Pratt et al. 2006, Rollins 2009). They provide the framework for describing fire
regimes. The Nature Conservancy mapped biophysical settings using the 30 m pixel Integrated Landscape
Assessment Projects’ Potential Vegetation Type (PVT) dataset (Halofsky et al. 2014), which compiled
previous potential forest vegetation classification and mapping efforts including Simpson (2007) and
Henderson et al. (2011). The Nature Conservancy also incorporated subsequent refinements to Potential
Vegetation Type mapping in southwestern Oregon by Henderson (2013).
A biophysical setting model from either the LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment or the later LANDFIRE
National program (Rollins 2009, Ryan and Opperman 2013) was assigned to each Potential Vegetation
Type mapping unit (Table H-1). Assignments were made by staff in the U.S. Forest Service Pacific
Northwest Region Ecology Program based upon the geographic, environmental, and biological
characteristics of the biophysical setting models and the Potential Vegetation Type mapping units. The
Nature Conservancy defined forests across our study area as ‘forest’ or ‘forest and woodland’ land cover
class in the biophysical setting model. U.S. Forest Service National Forest System lands are typically
considered ‘forest’ if they have > 10 percent tree canopy cover, and this generally coincides with forest,
and forest and woodland land cover classes (USDA FS 2004).
Table H-1. ILAP PVTs in the analysis area to LANDFIRE BpS model crosswalk
Integrated Landscape Assessment
LANDFIRE
Project Potential Vegetation Type Biophysical Settings
(ILAP PVT)
(BpS)
Douglas-fir-White oak
0210290
Douglas-fir–Dry
0710270
Western hemlock
R#DFHEwt
Mixed Conifer–Warm/Dry
R#MCONdy
Mixed Conifer–Moist
R#MCONms
Douglas-fir–Moist
R#MCONsw
Tan oak-Douglas-fir–Ultramafic
R#MEVG
Oregon white oak–Ponderosa pine
R#OAPI
Lodgepole pine
R#PICOpu
Ponderosa pine-Lodgepole pine
R#PIPOm
Ponderosa pine–Xeric
R#PIPOxe
Shasta red fir–Moist
R#REFI
Tan oak-Douglas-fir–Moist
R#TAOAco
Jeffery Pine
R#PIJEsp
Mixed Conifer–Cold
R#SPFI
1307 | P a g e
Natural Range of Variability Reference Conditions
Each biophysical setting model is composed of a suite of 3–5 successional/structural stages (s-classes).
These classes typically include: (1) Early Development, (2) Mid-development Closed Canopy, (3) Middevelopment Open Canopy, (4) Late Development Open Canopy, and (5) Late Development Closed
Canopy. The definition of each s-class in terms of species composition, stand structure, and stand age is
unique for each biophysical setting (Table H-2 and Table H-3). The percentage of a biophysical setting
in each s-class will differ depending on disturbance frequencies and/or intensities. The LANDFIRE and
FRCC conceptual framework assumes that, given natural processes, a biophysical setting will have a
characteristic range of variation in the proportion in each s-class and that an effective indicator of
‘ecological condition’ for a given landscape is the relative abundance of each s-class within biophysical
settings (Barrett et al. 2010, Keane et al. 2011).
1308 | P a g e
Table H-2. BLM-administered lands by s-class in terms of species composition, stand structure, and stand age for each biophysical setting
Standard LANDFIRE 5–Box Models
LANDFIRE BpS
0210290
0710270
R#DFHEwt
R#MCONdy
R#MCONms
R#MCONsw
R#MEVG
R#OAPI
R#PICOpu
R#PIPOm
R#PIPOxe
R#REFI
R#TAOAco
R#PIJEsp
LAND-FIRE BpS
F#SPFI
Included in
Early Seral (A)
Mid-seral Closed (B)
Mid-seral Open (C)
Late-seral Open (D)
Late-seral Closed (E)
BLM Dry Size Class* Canopy Closure Size Class* Canopy Closure Size Class* Canopy Closure Size Class* Canopy Closure Size Class* Canopy Closure
Extent
Min Max Min
Max Min Max Min
Max Min Max Min
Max Min Max Min
Max Min Max Min
Max
x
1
2
0
100
3
4
31
100
3
4
0
31
5
5
0
30
5
5
31
100
x
1
2
0
100
3
4
41
100
3
4
0
40
5
5
0
40
5
5
41
100
x
1
2
0
100
3
4
61
100
3
4
0
60
5
5
0
60
5
5
61
100
x
1
2
0
100
3
4
41
100
3
4
0
40
5
5
0
40
5
5
41
100
x
1
2
0
100
3
4
56
100
3
4
0
55
5
5
0
55
5
5
56
100
x
1
2
0
100
3
4
41
100
3
4
0
40
5
5
0
40
5
5
41
100
x
1
2
0
100
3
4
41
100
3
4
0
40
5
5
0
40
5
5
41
100
x
1
2
0
100
3
4
31
100
3
4
0
30
5
5
0
30
5
5
31
100
x
1
2
0
100
3
4
41
100
3
4
0
40
5
5
0
40
5
5
41
100
x
1
2
0
100
3
4
31
100
3
4
0
30
5
5
0
30
5
5
31
100
x
1
2
0
100
3
4
26
100
3
4
0
25
5
5
0
25
5
5
26
100
x
1
2
0
100
3
4
41
100
3
4
0
40
5
5
0
40
5
5
41
100
x
1
2
0
100
3
4
61
100
3
4
0
60
5
5
0
60
5
5
61
100
x
1
2
0
100
3
4
41
100
3
4
0
40
5
5
0
40
5
5
41
100
Included in
Early Seral (A)
Mid-seral Closed (B)
Mid-seral Open (C)
Late-seral Open (D)
Late-seral Closed (E)
BLM Dry Size Class Canopy Closure Size Class Canopy Closure Size Class Canopy Closure Size Class Canopy Closure Size Class Canopy Closure
Extent
Min Max Min
Max Min Max Min
Max Min Max Min
Max Min Max Min
Max Min Max Min
Max
x*
1
2
0
10
1
2
11
100
3
4
41
100
3
4
0
40
5
5
0
100
* BLM size-class values are numeric representations of structure classes used to categorize early, stand establishment, young, mature, and older complex structural stages (see
Vegetation Modeling – Forest Structural Stage Classification Appendix C). The BLM used vegetation-modeling canopy cover to determine open and closed status.
Note: The term canopy closure in this table is synonymous with canopy cover, and is based on modeled cover and not field based closure measurements.
1309 | P a g e
Table H-3. Non-BLM-administered lands by s-class in terms of species composition, stand structure, and stand age for each biophysical setting
Standard LANDFIRE 5–Box Models
LANDFIRE BpS
0210290
0710270
R#DFHEwt
R#MCONdy
R#MCONms
R#MCONsw
R#MEVG
R#OAPI
R#PICOpu
R#PIPOm
R#PIPOxe
R#REFI
R#TAOAco
R#PIJEsp
LAND-FIRE BpS
R#SPFI
Early Seral (A)
Size Class Canopy Closure
Min Max
Min
Max
1
2
0
100
1
2
0
100
1
2
0
100
1
2
0
100
1
2
0
100
1
2
0
100
1
2
0
100
1
2
0
100
1
2
0
100
1
2
0
100
1
2
0
100
1
2
0
100
1
2
0
100
1
2
0
100
Mid-seral Closed (B)
Size Class Canopy Closure
Min Max
Min
Max
3
5
31
100
3
6
41
100
3
5
61
100
3
5
41
100
3
5
56
100
3
5
41
100
3
4
41
100
3
3
31
100
3
5
41
100
3
4
31
100
3
5
26
100
3
5
41
100
3
4
61
100
3
5
41
100
Mid-seral Open (C)
Size Class Canopy Closure
Min Max
Min
Max
3
5
0
31
3
6
0
40
3
5
0
60
3
5
0
40
3
5
0
55
3
5
0
40
3
4
0
40
3
3
0
30
3
5
0
40
3
4
0
30
3
5
0
25
3
5
0
40
3
4
0
60
3
5
0
40
Late-seral Open (D)
Size Class Canopy Closure
Min Max
Min
Max
6
7
0
30
7
7
0
40
6
7
0
60
6
7
0
40
6
7
0
55
6
7
0
40
5
7
0
40
4
7
0
30
6
7
0
40
5
7
0
30
6
7
0
25
6
7
0
40
5
7
0
60
6
7
0
40
Late-seral Closed (E)
Size Class Canopy Closure
Min Max
Min
Max
6
7
31
100
7
7
41
100
6
7
61
100
6
7
41
100
6
7
56
100
6
7
41
100
5
7
41
100
4
7
31
100
6
7
41
100
5
7
31
100
6
7
26
100
6
7
41
100
5
7
61
100
6
7
41
100
Early Seral (A)
Size Class Canopy Closure
Min Max
Min
Max
1
2
0
10
Mid-seral Closed (B)
Size Class Canopy Closure
Min Max
Min
Max
1
2
11
100
Mid-seral Open (C)
Size Class Canopy Closure
Min Max
Min
Max
3
4
41
100
Late-seral Open (D)
Size Class Canopy Closure
Min Max
Min
Max
3
4
0
40
Late-seral Closed (E)
Size Class Canopy Closure
Min Max
Min
Max
5
7
0
100
Note: The term canopy closure in this table is synonymous with canopy cover, and is based on modeled cover percent and not field based closure measurements.
1310 | P a g e
The Natural Range of Variability (NRV) reference models describe how the relative distribution of
s-classes for a biophysical setting were shaped by succession and disturbance prior to European
settlement and provide a comparison to present-day forest conditions (Keane et al. 2009, Landres et al.
1999). LANDFIRE biophysical setting models are used to develop NRV estimates using state-andtransition models incorporating pre-European settlement rates of succession and disturbance. Rates were
determined through an intensive literature and expert review process (Keane et al. 2002, Keane et al.
2007, Pratt et al. 2006, and Rollins 2009).
The distribution of s-classes for each biophysical setting, which results from running state-and-transition
models for many time-steps (Table H-4) does not represent a specific historical date, but instead
approximates characteristic conditions that result from natural biological and physical processes operating
on a landscape over a relatively long time. The NRV is frequently represented by a single value, the mean
relative abundance of each s-class from a collection of Monte Carlo state-and-transition model
simulations (e.g., Low et al. 2010, Shlisky et al. 2005, and Weisz et al. 2009). However, The Nature
Conservancy developed and used ranges for each s-class resulting from the stochastic variation within the
state-and-transition models. The Nature Conservancy ran 10 simulations for each biophysical setting
state-and-transition model over 1,000 pixels and 1,000 annual time steps. Simulations were started with
an equal portion in each s-class and it took 200–400 years for the initial trends to stabilize. The Nature
Conservancy calculated the range for each s-class as ± 2 standard deviations from the mean abundance
from the last 500 time steps (Provencher et al. 2008). Simulations were modeled using the Vegetation
Dynamics Development Tool (ESSA Technologies 2007).
1311 | P a g e
Table H-4. Reference condition range by Potential Vegetation Type (PVT)/Biophysical Setting (BpS)
LANDFIRE
BpS
0210290
BpS Name
Mediterranean California Mixed Oak Woodland
Mediterranean California Dry-Mesic Mixed
Conifer Forest and Woodland
R#DFHEwt Douglas-fir Hemlock–Wet Mesic
R#MCONdy Mixed Conifer–Eastside Dry
R#MCONms Mixed Conifer–Eastside Mesic
R#MCONsw Mixed Conifer–Southwest Oregon
R#MEVG
California Mixed Evergreen North
R#OAPI
Oregon White Oak/Ponderosa Pine
R#PICOpu
Lodgepole Pine–Pumice Soils
R#PIJEsp
Pine Savannah–Ultramafic
R#PIPOm
Dry Ponderosa Pine–Mesic
R#PIPOxe
Ponderosa Pine–Xeric
R#REFI
Red Fir
R#TAOCco Oregon Coastal Tanoak
R#SPFI
Spruce-Fir
0710270
1312 | P a g e
Early Seral (A)
Mid-seral (B)
LAND
LAND
VDDT HRV HRV
VDDT HRV
FIRE
FIRE
Mean Low High
Mean Low
RC
RC
10
9.3
7
11
1
1.1
0
Mid-seral (C)
Late-seral Open (D)
Late-seral Closed (E)
LAND
LAND
LAND
HRV
VDDT HRV HRV
VDDT HRV HRV
VDDT HRV HRV
FIRE
FIRE
FIRE
High
Mean Low High
Mean Low High
Mean Low High
RC
RC
RC
2
20
21.2
19
24
64
64.9
62
68
5
3.5
2
5
10
9.0
7
11
5
6.3
5
8
20
20.1
18
22
40
42.3
40
45
25
22.3
20
25
5
15
15
15
15
25
20
15
10
25
10
10
3
4.6
14.0
14.5
14.6
16.6
25.1
21.6
15.0
10.8
23.6
6.9
9.7
3.0
3
12
12
12
14
22
19
13
9
21
5
8
2
6
16
17
17
19
28
24
17
13
26
8
12
4
15
1
40
5
10
5
15
0
10
5
20
10
22
17.0
0.7
44.4
2.9
7.5
3.8
13.9
1.0
6.9
5.8
22.5
12.5
22.3
15
0
42
2
6
3
12
0
5
4
20
10
19
19
1
47
4
9
5
16
3
8
7
25
15
25
1
30
15
10
50
20
50
45
35
25
15
50
30
0.6
31.6
12.5
12.6
51.6
19.2
47.7
44.0
37.2
22.4
13.2
47.4
24.6
0
29
10
11
48
17
45
41
34
20
11
44
22
1
34
15
14
55
22
51
47
40
25
15
51
27
4
40
10
50
20
47
10
40
40
40
20
25
20
3.5
41.5
9.6
51.9
20.5
48.7
10.9
39.0
42.4
43.2
21.9
26.2
20.6
2
38
8
49
18
45
9
36
39
41
19
23
18
5
45
11
55
23
52
13
42
45
46
24
29
23
75
14
20
20
5
3
5
0
5
5
35
5
25
74.3
12.3
18.9
18.1
3.8
3.2
5.9
1.0
2.8
4.9
35.5
4.2
29.4
71
10
17
16
3
2
4
0
2
4
33
3
27
77
14
21
20
5
4
7
2
4
6
39
5
32
Landscape Units
Following the LANDFIRE and FRCC conceptual framework, The Nature Conservancy defined discrete
landscape units to compare present-day forests to modeled Natural Range of Variability reference
conditions (Barrett et al. 2010, Pratt et al. 2006). Landscape units were chosen that would adequately
represent the scale of disturbance of a particular Potential Vegetation Type and were composed of
forested lands within a BLM management district. This would allow summarization in an accurate and
usable way for managers (Figure H-3).
Figure H-3. Landscape units
Present-Day Forest Structure and Composition
The Nature Conservancy characterized present-day forest vegetation with the gradient nearest neighbor
imputation (GNN, Ohmann and Gregory 2002, Figure 3) datasets produced by the U.S. Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Research Station and Oregon State University Landscape Ecology, Modeling,
Mapping, and Analysis research group (www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma) and outputs from the BLM vegetation
modeling process (Appendix C).
All lands that are outside of BLM ownership used the GNN data for current conditions; the BLMadministered lands used the RMP data.
To compare present-day forest vegetation to the Natural Range of Variability reference conditions, The
Nature Conservancy mapped the current distribution of s-classes for each biophysical setting using BLM
Proposed RMP and alternatives’ data for the BLM-administered lands and GNN data for all other
1313 | P a g e
ownerships. S-class mapping was based upon tree canopy cover and tree size thresholds provided for each
s-class in the biophysical setting model descriptions (Table H-2 and Table H-3).
Departure Analysis
Departure in this project is defined as the difference between a modeled reference condition and the
current conditions in acres (Figure H-4). In an effort to frame ecological departure appropriately, The
Nature Conservancy chose to look at the whole landscape and summarize departure for each analysis area
(district) by alternative and the Proposed RMP. This meant that the BLM s-class by alternative and the
Proposed RMP (Figure H-5) was mosaicked with the base GNN data (Figure H-6) to create a landscape
s-class layer that combined both the BLM data and the GNN data (Figure H-7).
Figure H-4. Example landscape unit (strata) departure summary calculation
1314 | P a g e
Figure H-5. BLM successional/structural stage (s-class) data for BLM-administered lands in the analysis
area
1315 | P a g e
Figure H-6. Gradient nearest neighbor (GNN) s-class data for the analysis area
1316 | P a g e
Figure H-7. BLM and GNN s-class data combined
This process of combining BLM data and GNN data was completed for each alternative and the Proposed
RMP and departure was calculated for each of these mosaicked datasets. Eight different landscape s-class
layers were developed: Current Condition, No Action alternative, Alternative A, Alternative B,
Alternative C, Alternative D, the Proposed RMP, and the No Timber Harvest reference analysis.
1317 | P a g e
Departure was calcuated for each combination of Potential Vegetation Type and landscape unit (strata)
and summarized as an acre value. Departue can be summarized in a deficit or excess acres of s-class or in
a combined overall departure acres; both were summarized in this analysis.
All the results were summerized by alternative and analysis unit in Excel, as well as summarys of s-class
by alternative to help frame the conversation and discussion in the RMP.
References
Barrett, S., D. Havlina, J. Jones, W. J. Hann, W. J., C. Frame, D. Hamilton, K. Schon, T. DeMeo, L. Hutter, and J. Menakis.
2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Guidebook, version 3.0. USDA FS, USDI BLM, and The Nature
Conservancy. http://www.frcc.gov/.
ESSA Technologies. 2007. Vegetation dynamics development tool user guide, version 6.0. ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver,
BC. p. 196.
Halofsky, J. E., M. K. Creutzburg, and M. A. Hemstrom. 2014. Integrating social, economic, and ecological values across large
landscapes. General Technical Report, USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR.
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr896.pdf.
Henderson, E. 2013. Final Report for Potential Vegetation Mapping Update for Southwestern Oregon. Unpublished report,
Oregon State University. Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. 14 pp.
Henderson, J. A., R. D. Lesher, D. H. Peter, and C. D. Ringo. 2011. A landscape model for predicting potential natural vegetation
of the Olympic Peninsula USA using boundary equations and newly developed environmental variables. General Technical
Report PNW-GTR-841. USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 35 pp.
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr841.pdf.
Keane, R. E., R. A. Parsons, and P. F. Hessburg. 2002. Estimating historical range and variation of landscape patch dynamics:
limitations of the simulation approach. Ecol. Model. 151(1): 29–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(01)00470-7.
Keane, R. E., M. G. Rollins, and Z. L. Zhu. 2007. Using simulated historical time series to prioritize fuel treatments on
landscapes across the United States: the LANDFIRE prototype project. Ecol. Model. 204(3): 485–502.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.02.005.
Keane, R. E., P. F. Hessburg, P. B. Landres, and F. J. Swanson. 2009. The use of historical range and variability (HRV) in
landscape management. For. Ecol. Manage. 258(7): 1025–1037. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.05.035.
Keane, R. E., L. M. Holsinger, and R. A. Parsons. 2011. Evaluating indices that measure departure of current landscape
composition from historical conditions. RMRS-RP-83. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort
Collins, CO. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_rp083.pdf.
Landres, P. B., P. Morgan, and F. J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological
systems. Ecol. Appl. 9(4): 1179–1188. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2641389.
Low, G., L. Provencher, and S. L. Abele. 2010. Enhanced conservation action planning: assessing land-scape condition and
predicting benefits of conservation strategies. J. Conser. Plan. 6: 36–60.
Ohmann, J. L., and M. J. Gregory. 2002. Predictive mapping of forest composition and structure with direct gradient analysis and
nearest-neighbor imputation in coastal Oregon, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32(4): 725–741.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/X02-011.
Pratt, S. D., L. M. Holsinger, R. E. Keane, R. E. 2006. Using simulation modeling to assess historical reference conditions for
vegetation and fire regimes for the LANDFIRE prototype project. In: Rollins, M. G., and C. K. Frame (Eds.). The
LANDFIRE prototype project: nationally consistent and locally relevant geospatial data for wildland fire management.
General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-175. USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins CO.
Provencher, L., J. L. Campbell, and J. Nachlinger. 2008. Implementation of mid-scale fire regime condition class mapping. Int. J.
Wildland Fire 17(3): 390–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF07066.
Rollins, M. G. 2009. LANDFIRE: a nationally consistent vegetation, wildland fire, and fuel assessment. Int. J. Wildland Fire 18:
235–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF08088.
Ryan, K. C., and T. S. Opperman. 2013. LANDFIRE – a national vegetation/fuels data base for use in fuels treatment,
restoration, and suppression planning. For. Ecol. Management 294: 208–216.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.11.003.
Shlisky, A. J., R. P. Guyette, and K. C. Ryan. 2005. Modeling reference conditions to restore altered fire regimes in oak-hickorypine forests: validating coarse models with local fire history data. In: EastFire Conference Proceedings. George Mason
University, Fairfax, VA. pp. 12–13.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.173.3665&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Simpson, M. 2007. Forested plant associations of the Oregon East Cascades. Technical Paper R6-NR-ECOL-TP-03-2007. USDA
FS, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YZTenR_ByNQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=R6-NR-ECOL-TP-032007&ots=ZJDzHqso9g&sig=Ag-KrWiWgwmC-iwngsB28Wk9iOI#v=onepage&q=R6-NR-ECOL-TP-03-2007&f=false.
1318 | P a g e
USDA FS. 2004. Standards for mapping of vegetation in the Pacific Northwest Region. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Region, Portland, OR. 22 pp.
Weisz, R., J. Tripeke, and R. Truman. 2009. Evaluating the ecological sustainability of a ponderosa pine ecosystem on the
Kaibab Plateau in Northern Arizona. Fire Ecology 5(1): 100–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.4996/fireecology.0501100.
Issues 2 and 3 – Assumptions and District-specific
Results
Issue 2
How would the alternatives affect fire resistance in the fire-adapted dry forests at the stand level?
Issue 3
How would the alternatives affect fire hazard at the stand – level within close proximity to
developed areas?
Common Analytical Assumptions
The results of this analysis do not include effects from non-commercial hazardous fuels work taking place
in forested or non-forested lands (Table H-5). These types of treatments would contribute toward
improving fire resistance and reducing fire hazard similarly among all alternatives and the Proposed
RMP.
Table H-5. Acres of current condition forested and non-forested BLM-administered lands within the
planning area
District/
Forest
Non-Forest
Totals
Field Office
(Acres)
(Acres)
(Acres)
Coos Bay
304,030
20,206
324,236
Eugene
297,222
13,841
311,063
Klamath Falls
46,773
167,312
214,084
Medford
740,110
66,565
806,675
Roseburg
399,163
24,477
423,640
Salem
374,392
24,765
399,157
Assumptions of General Stand Structural Stages and Fire
Interactions

Vegetation community structure is an important factor affecting potential fire behavior, postfire effects, fire resistance, and fire hazard.
Early Successional
The BLM assumes that although Early Successional communities have less than 30 percent canopy
cover—resulting in somewhat discontinuous surface fuel loading—this structural stage is typically
comprised of highly flammable vegetation (Agee 1993). When combined with open conditions that can
increase surface wind speeds and flames lengths (Pollet and Omi 2002, Rothermel 1983), in general, this
structural stage presents relatively moderate resistance to replacement fire and moderate fire hazard.
1319 | P a g e
Stand Establishment and Young High-density Stands
The Stand Establishment and Young High-density stand structural stages maintain low canopy base
heights and a combination of highly flammable Early Successional vegetation, along with increased
cover. In general, these structural stages present relatively low resistance to replacement fire and high fire
hazard (Odion et al. 2004, Weatherspoon and Skinner 1995).
Young Low-density Stands
Although, the canopy base height may be low in Young Low-density stands, in general, there is greater
separation between crowns (vertically and horizontally). This discontinuity in the fuel profile, results in
relatively lower canopy bulk densities, moderate fire hazard, and moderate resistance to replacement fire
within both the younger and structural legacy components of the stand.
Structural Legacies
The Stand Establishment and Young High-density stand structural stages maintain low canopy base
heights and a combination of highly flammable Early Successional vegetation, along with increased
cover. In general, these structural stages present relatively low resistance to replacement fire and high fire
hazard (Odion et al. 2004, Weatherspoon and Skinner 1995). However, both Early Successional and
Stand Establishment phases with Structural Legacies would have some separation of crown layers
between legacy trees and understory vegetation, resulting in somewhat discontinuous ladder fuels and
increased fire resistance in Structural Legacies. Pockets of heavy surface and ladder fuels may result in
potential mortality to Structural Legacies from cambial damage (trees < 20” DBH have 35–70 percent
mortality, USDI BLM 2008) or passive torching. This potential for cambial damage to overstory legacy
structures increases along with understory vegetative cover and height (Peterson et al. 2005). Despite
some potential separation in crown layers, in general, young high-density stands have high continuous
surface and ladder fuel loading, low canopy fuel base heights, and taller vegetation, relative to Early
Successional and Stand Establishment vegetation. This fuel profile in the Young High-density stands
increases crown fire potential of the young stand component and structural legacies (Odion et al. 2004),
resulting in lower relative resistance to replacement fire and higher fire hazard.
Overstory canopy cover from Structural Legacies could also partially shelter the stand, reducing surface
winds and slowing the drying of fuels (NWCG 2014), and thus help moderate fire behavior. Alternatively,
open stand conditions have the potential to increase drying and surface winds and thus flame lengths
(Pollet and Omi 2002, Rothermel 1983). Increased winds in combination with low canopy base heights
can increase torching potential and fire hazard, therefore no distinction is made between Early
Successional, Stand Establishment, and Young stands with Structural Legacies in regards to fire hazard.
Mature Single-layered Canopy
In general, Mature Single-layered Canopy stands have low surface fuel loading (due to closed canopy
shading inhibiting understory growth), higher canopy base heights, and thus a lower probability of
torching and crown fire initiation within the stand, creating a low stand-level fire hazard condition (Jain et
al. 2012). Although, continuous canopy cover of high canopy bulk density is susceptible to crown fire
spread from adjacent stands (Scott and Reinhardt 2001, Jain and Graham 2007, Jain et al. 2012).
Mature Multi-layered Canopy and Structurally-complex
Mature Multi-layered Canopy and Structurally-complex forests have the potential to exhibit the full range
of fire behavior (surface to crown fire). In general, these structural stages have heterogeneous
composition, which can alter fire spread (Jain et al. 2012, Finney 2001); and a larger number of large
diameter (> 20” DBH) trees with thick bark, which improve stand-level fire resistance and reduce standlevel fire hazard (Agee and Skinner 2005), potentially increasing the likelihood of burning at low- to
moderate-severity (Alexander et al. 2006). Multi-aged closed-forest conditions can potentially create a
vertical fuel ladder for surface fire to reach the canopy (North et al. 2009) and support accumulations of
1320 | P a g e
continuous heavy surface and ladder fuels, and increase the potential for torching and crown fire,
significantly reducing resistance to control. Alternatively, these structural types can create influential
microclimates and shelter surface winds, harboring conditions that are more likely to result in lowered fire
severity (Odion et al. 2004), particularly in topographic locations with low fire probability.
Ultimately, fire behavior in these structural stages will result from several factors, including weather, fuel
moisture, and topographic influences, along with the vertical and horizontal continuity of the fuel profile.
Fire Resistance and Fire Hazard Ratings

General assumptions regarding vegetation structural stage classification and the probable
fire behavior based on vertical and horizontal fuel profile were used to generate relative
stand-level resistance to replacement fire and fire hazard ratings (Table H-6 and Table H7).
Table H-6. BLM-defined structural stages and subdivisions, relative stand-level resistance to replacement
fire ratings, and assumptions regarding overall fuel profile continuity, and vertical and horizontal fuel
continuity
Structural
Stages
Early
Successional
Stand
Establishment
Young Highdensity
Young Lowdensity
Mature
Structurallycomplex
Subdivisions
with Structural Legacies
without Structural Legacies
with Structural Legacies
without Structural Legacies
with Structural Legacies
without Structural Legacies
with Structural Legacies
without Structural Legacies
Single-layered Canopy
Multi-layered Canopy
Developed Structurallycomplex
Existing Old Forest
Existing Very Old Forest
Resistance to
Replacement
Fire
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
Mixed
Assumptions Behind Resistance Ratings
Entire Fuel Profile
Horizontal Fuel
Vertical Fuel
Continuity
Profile Continuity Profile Continuity
Semi-discontinuous Semi-discontinuous Semi-discontinuous
Semi-discontinuous
Continuous
Semi-discontinuous
Semi-discontinuous Semi-discontinuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Semi-discontinuous
Continuous
Semi-discontinuous
Semi-discontinuous
Continuous
Semi-discontinuous
Discontinuous
Discontinuous
Continuous
Mixed continuity
Mixed continuity
Mixed continuity
Mixed
Mixed continuity
Mixed continuity
Mixed continuity
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed continuity
Mixed continuity
Mixed continuity
Mixed continuity
Mixed continuity
Mixed continuity
1321 | P a g e
Table H-7. BLM-defined structural stages and subdivisions, relative stand-level fire hazard ratings and
assumptions regarding surface fuel loading, canopy base height, and canopy fuel bulk density (continuity)
as the basis for the hazard rating
Assumptions Behind Hazard Ratings
Fire
Structural
Surface Canopy Canopy Fuel
Subdivisions
Hazard
Stages
Fuel
Base
Bulk Density
Rating
Loading Height
(Continuity)
with
Structural
legacies
Moderate
Early
Moderate
Successional
without Structural Legacies
Moderate
with Structural Legacies
High
Stand
Establishment
without Structural Legacies
High
Low
Low
High
with Structural Legacies
High
Young Stands–
High Density
without Structural Legacies
High
with Structural Legacies
Moderate
Young Stands–
Low Density
without Structural Legacies
Moderate
Moderate
Single-layered Canopy
Low
Moderate
High
Mature
Multi-layered Canopy
Mixed
Developed Structurally-complex
Mixed
Mixed
StructurallyExisting Old Forest
Mixed
complex
Existing Very Old Forest
Mixed
In general, stands with higher fire resistance have reduced surface fuel loading, lower tree density, large
diameter trees of fire-resistant species, increased height to live crown (Brown et al. 2004, Peterson et al.
2005, USDI BLM 2008), and discontinuous horizontal and vertical fuels.
Fire hazard refers to the ease of ignition, potential fire behavior, and resistance to control of the fuel
complex, defined by the volume and arrangement of several strata, including surface, ladder, and canopy
fuels (Calkin et al. 2010). The primary fuel characteristics associated with potential fire behavior and
crown fire potential are canopy base height, canopy bulk density, and surface fuel loading (Scott and
Reinhardt 2001, Jain and Graham 2007).
1322 | P a g e
Issue 2 – Stand-level Fire Resistance in the Harvest Land Base by District
Low
Moderate
Mixed
High
100%
7,714
10,092
80%
5,594
6,242
60%
3,609
9,516
7,797
6,715
7,007
7,277
7,339
9,225
4,190
6,127
7,834
2,633
6,255
7,301
7,468
40%
6,751
5,913
14,783
5,844
6,415
6,376
4,952
13,615
10,048
20%
7,555
363
6,899
Percent of Acres
3,365
6,785
331
14,738
13,179
4,708
6,870
14,190
539
13,202
12,102
590
11,485
7,937
12,542
8,506
5,606
0%
Current
Condition
Year
2063
No Action (36,820)
Current
Condition
Year
2063
Alt. A (17,384)
Current
Condition
Year
2063
Alt. B (32,775)
Current
Condition
Year
2063
Alt. C (31,603)
Current
Condition
Year
2063
Alt. D (26,969)
Current
Condition
Year
2063
PRMP (32,511)
Dry Forest Harvest Land Base (Acres)
Figure H-8. Stand-level fire resistance categories in the Harvest Land Base in the dry forest in the Klamath Falls Field Office for the current
condition in 50 years
1323 | P a g e
Low
100%
22,644
56,484
17,759
80%
164,820
Percent of Acres
6,250
9,946
13,345
High
14,125
13,652
33,722
34,147
79,821
106,028
90,146
39,375
29,543
24,383
118,525
41,131
20%
70,489
28,812
54,805
30,315
46,620
74,184
16,760
33,460
40%
11,913
70,049
71,240
84,835
20,141
Mixed
14,858
119,694
60%
Moderate
43,716
84,057
76,828
143,365
90,749
68,359
69,696
45,809
54,342
49,325
90,940
24,359
23,190
14,754
0%
Current
Condition
Year
2063
No Action (385,643)
Current
Condition
Year
2063
Alt. A (85,281)
Current
Condition
Year
2063
Alt. B (203,829)
Current
Condition
Year
2063
Alt. C (202,410)
Current
Condition
Year
2063
Alt. D (214,298)
Current
Condition
Year
2063
PRMP (180,303)
Dry Forest Harvest Land Base (Acres)
Figure H-9. Stand-level fire resistance categories in the Harvest Land Base in the dry forest on the Medford District for the current condition in 50
years
1324 | P a g e
Low
100%
3,056
1,353
15,401
Moderate
1,568
Mixed
High
3,545
2,861
366
9,363
10,576
8,956
8,438
80%
5,541
28,671
3,421
6,973
15,837
7,551
6,747
7,970
6,149
3,571
12,077
8,811
14,127
Percent of Acres
1,199
2,231
2,211
2,889
60%
13,157
5,761
9,979
8,937
40%
8,567
21,247
12,785
20%
14,352
1,787
5,210
20,061
23,196
21,805
20,081
16,278
25,350
10,382
8,163
13,891
11,326
0%
Current
Condition
Year
2063
No Action (62,100)
Current
Condition
Year
2063
Alt. A (23,149)
Current
Condition
Year
2063
Alt. B (32,725)
Current
Condition
Year
2063
Alt. C (43,175)
Current
Condition
Year
2063
Alt. D (48,095)
Current
Condition
Year
2063
PRMP (27,644)
Dry Forest Harvest Land Base (Acres)
Figure H-10. Stand-level fire resistance categories in the Harvest Land Base in the dry forest on the Roseburg District in 50 years
1325 | P a g e
Issue 3 – Stand-level Fire Hazard Within Wildland Developed
Areas by District
Low
100%
Moderate
13,932
Percent of Acres
80%
17,930
Mixed
9,556
20,331
High
9,865
12,016
39,532
37,237
36,737
60%
33,237
40%
23,089
20%
36,433
32,008
30,382
7,510
7,513
5,322
20,871
20,292
22,054
18,087
No Action
Alt. A
Alt. B
Alt. C
2,852
12,875
6,753
2,897
3,245
23,260
23,056
Alt. D
PRMP
0%
Current
Condition
50 Years After Plan Implementation (Acres)
Figure H-11. Stand-level fire hazard for all BLM-administered lands on the Coos Bay District within the
WDA in 2063
Low
100%
9,755
80%
Percent of Acres
Moderate
15,425
Mixed
7,709
8,708
14,994
69,397
57,545
34,922
50,019
61,379
60%
High
57,611
58,132
38,279
38,909
40%
2,056
20%
29,349
8,222
7,692
16,042
40,978
39,605
No Action
Alt. A
8,210
12,561
4,771
38,435
34,571
37,457
39,584
Alt. B
Alt. C
Alt. D
PRMP
0%
Current
Condition
50 Years After Plan Implementation (Acres)
Figure H-12. Stand-level fire hazard for all BLM-administered lands on the Eugene District within the
WDA in 2063
1326 | P a g e
Low
100%
Percent of Acres
80%
Moderate
499
673
572
60%
424
888
Mixed
356
356
20%
696
617
524
618
911
944
619
40%
High
285
42
441
639
641
110
509
585
266
262
298
462
114
615
0%
Current
Condition
No Action
Alt. A
Alt. B
Alt. C
Alt. D
PRMP
50 Years After Plan Implementation (Acres)
Figure H-13. Stand-level fire hazard for all BLM-administered lands on the Klamath Falls Field Office
within the WDA in 2063
Low
100%
Percent of Acres
80%
135,758
Moderate
Mixed
High
88,692
83,062
87,601
83,487
86,340
130,728
166,524
174,488
169,257
172,607
172,151
36,326
23,665
20,908
22,933
19,780
20,600
44,854
45,979
46,402
45,069
48,986
45,769
No Action
Alt. A
Alt. B
Alt. C
Alt. D
PRMP
112,951
60%
40%
140,398
20%
0%
29,722
18,982
Current
Condition
50 Years After Plan Implementation (Acres)
Figure H-14. Stand-level fire hazard for all BLM-administered lands on the Medford District within the
WDA in 2063
1327 | P a g e
Low
100%
37,168
80%
Percent of Acres
Moderate
28,754
Mixed
High
23,613
25,281
40,826
29,477
58,258
60%
47,242
58,340
59,760
52,111
40%
52,155
4,792
5,321
20%
3,139
9,377
8,638
30,680
0%
61,110
61,463
5,715
3,753
Current
Condition
No Action
27,467
23,761
Alt. A
Alt. B
32,019
18,305
Alt. C
Alt. D
5,450
25,195
PRMP
50 Years After Plan Implementation (Acres)
Figure H-15. Stand-level fire hazard for all BLM-administered lands on the Roseburg District within the
WDA in 2063
Low
100%
11,293
80%
Percent of Acres
Moderate
19,401
Mixed
11,282
High
13,878
18,746
50,969
45,196
14,557
6,991
8,027
25,732
43,664
52,100
60%
46,501
42,547
33,509
40%
20%
2,912
34,689
6,879
9,361
14,162
32,283
31,246
30,625
27,577
30,717
30,586
No Action
Alt. A
Alt. B
Alt. C
Alt. D
PRMP
22,471
0%
Current
Condition
50 Years After Plan Implementation
Figure H-16. Stand-level fire hazard for all BLM-administered lands on the Salem District within the
WDA in 2063
1328 | P a g e
Issue 3 – Stand-level Fire Hazard for Late-Successional Reserve Within Wildland
Developed Areas by Planning Area Region
Low
100%
1,968
5,661
29,500
Percent of Acres
80%
22,798
Mixed
6,468
29,552
65,298
53,142
35,250
49,887
40%
15,064
471
20%
1,816
754
11,957
2,468
21,491
7,345
27,146
2,248
3,056
28,810
45,945
1,573
852
2,397
1,290
37,380
16,767
20,205
1,049
8,277
905
5,013
Current
Condition
Year
2063
0%
Current
Condition
Year
2063
No Action (37,195)
Current
Condition
Year
2063
Alt. A (103,345)
Current
Condition
42,014
36,391
55,360
Year
2063
Alt. B (128,971)
5,945
3,111
23,360
82,119
68,723
High
3,609
7,224
41,744
14,032
60%
Moderate
Current
Condition
Year
2063
Alt. C (77,808)
Alt. D (51,044)
28,471
23,392
Current
Condition
Year
2063
PRMP (101,287)
Late Successional Reserve within WDA (Acres)
Figure H-17. Stand-level fire hazard in the Late-Successional Reserve in the dry forest in the coastal/north in 50 years
1329 | P a g e
Low
Moderate
Mixed
High
100%
8,008
Percent of Acres
80%
19,073
32,743
14,120
29,125
39,990
39,314
78,512
13,954
22,798
17,249
35,158
60%
155,991
22,538
40%
1,043
20%
2,375
0%
7,866
1,538
Current
Condition
Year
2063
No Action (39,465)
103,232
115,316
96,196
106,459
94,922
137,337
21,422
104,686
94,976
9,405
4,392
2,672
8,470
12,470
38,651
Current
Condition
Year
2063
Alt. A (236,789)
5,986
7,269
21,059
6,707
8,630
Current
Condition
Year
2063
Current
Condition
Alt. B (147,491)
3,836
19,280
3,460
5,891
Year
2063
Current
Condition
Alt. C (161,785)
3,167
13,652
5,656
7,222
17,503
Year
2063
Current
Condition
Year
2063
Alt. D (134,674)
Late Successional Reserve within WDA (Acres)
Figure H-18. Stand-level fire hazard in the Late-Successional Reserve in the dry forest in the interior/south in 50 years
1330 | P a g e
105,094
PRMP (143,012)
References
Agee, J. K. 1993. Fire ecology of the Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, D.C. Island Press. 493 pp.
Agee, J. K. and C. N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management
211(1–2): 83–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.01.034.
Alexander, J. D., N. E. Seavy, C. J. Ralph, and B. Hogoboom. 2006. Vegetation and topographical correlates of fire severity from
two fires in the Klamath-Siskiyou region of Oregon and California. International Journal of Wildland Fire 15: 237–245.
http://www.klamathbird.org/images/stories/kbo/pdfs_peer_reviewed_publications/alexanderetal_2006_vegetationandtopogr
aphical.pdf.
Finney, M. A. 2001. Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire growth and behavior. Forest Science
47(2): 219–228. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr292/2001_finney.pdf.
Jain, T. B., and R. T. Graham. 2007. The relation between tree burn severity and forest structure in the Rocky Mountains.
Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems: Proceedings of the 2005 National Silviculture Workshop. USDA Forest Service Gen.
Tech. Rep PSW-GTR-203. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr203/psw_gtr203_017jain.pdf.
Jain, T. B., M. A. Battaglia, Han-Sup Han, R. T. Graham, C. R. Keyes, J. S. Fried, J. E. Sandquist. 2012. A comprehensive guide
to fuel management practices for dry mixed conifer forests in the northwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR292.: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 331 pp.
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/42150.
National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG). 2014. Fire behavior field reference guide. Publication PMS 437. National
Interagency Fire Center, Fire Environment Committee, Boise, ID.
North, M., P. Stine, K. O’Hara, W. Zielinski, and S. Stephens. 2009. An ecosystem management strategy for Sierran mixedconifer forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 49
pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr220/psw_gtr220.pdf.
Odion, D. C., E. J. Frost, J. R. Strittholt, H. Jiang, D. A. DellaSala, M. A. Moritz. 2004. Patterns of Fire Severity and Forest
Conditions in the Western Klamath Mountains, California. Conservation Biology 18(4): 927–936.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00493.x.
Pollet, J., and P. N. Omi. 2002. Effects of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in ponderosa pine forests.
International Journal of Wildland Fire 11(1): 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF01045.
Peterson, D. L., M. C. Johnson, J. K. Agee, T. B. Jain, D. McKenzie, and E. D. Reinhardt. 2005. Forest structure and fire hazard
in dry forests of the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-628. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station, Portland, OR. 30 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr628.pdf.
Rothermel, R. C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-143. USDA Forest
Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 161 pp.
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr143.pdf.
Scott, J. H., and E. D. Reinhardt. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface and crown fire behavior. Res.
Pap. RMRS-RP-29. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 59 pp.
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_rp029.pdf.
USDI BLM. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western
Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts. Portland, OR. Vol. I–IV. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/.
Weatherspoon, C. P., and C. N. Skinner. 1995. An assessment of factors associated with damage to tree crowns from the 1987
wildfires in northern California. Forest Science 41(3): 430–451.
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/weatherspoon/psw_1995_weatherspoon001.pdf.
1331 | P a g e
Page intentionally left blank
1332 | P a g e