Progress 10/18/16 to 06/30/17
Outputs
Target Audience:Target audiences include the US Forest Service, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, the Washington State legislature, fire scientists, landscape ecologists, researchers, educators, students, and the general public. Changes/Problems:14 units were identified for the project in consutlation with managers and WA DNR. Five units were burned and only 4 satisfied the QA/QC for the project. An amendment was requested to burn some of the additional plots during the spring of 2017. Two additional sites that were prescribed burned in spring of 2017. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Graduate and undergraduate students participated in the fieldwork for this project. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Daily to weekly meetings are held with leading scientists at the USFS PNW Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory to discuss progress. A joint field crew of UW students and staff and USFS personnel worked together over the entire summer of 2016 and spring 2017 collecting field data on pre- and post post fire assessments. UW PI and PNW cooperators have a monthly meeting to evaluate progress of joint research agreements. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
The following are the key findings for the fall and spring field campaigns: Pre-fire surface fuel loading varied across all 14 sites and ranged from 14.9 to 52.3 ton/acre. The duff fuel bed category contributed from 33 to 65% of the total surface loading. Seven of the 14 sites inventoried were burned, however plots did not ignite at one unit because of wet conditions and it was removed from the post-fire data set. Of the six sites that burned well, consumption ranged from 3.1 to 28.5 tons/acre. Duff consumption contributed substantially to the total fuel consumed in fall-burned sites and ranged from 4.2 to 19.0 tons acre-1 (30 to 67% of total fuel consumed). Consumption was much lower in the spring-burned sites (less than 1 ton/acre) and only contributed 15.6 and 19.7% to total fuel consumption. Both versions of Consume under-predicted fuel consumption in the fall-burned sites and over-predicted fuel consumption in the spring-burned sites. In the fall, Consume v. 2.1 under-predicted total fuel consumption by 18% to 36% while the Consume v. 4.2 under-predicted total fuel consumption by 16 to 45%. In the spring, Consume v. 2.1 over-predicted total fuel consumption by 34% and 37% while the Consume v. 4.2 under-predicted total fuel consumption by 11 and 24%. Overall, for the cases analyzed here, there was not an appreciable difference between the standard day-of approval burns and the 24-hr approval burns. Burning conducted by the pilot burn project seems to have been successful with burning either resulting in minimal impact to air quality or impacts on-par with non-pilot burns. 16 days with air quality in the Moderate AQI category. Thirteen days were from non-pilot burns Three days were from pilot burns, two of which may have been due to longer term smoldering of fuels (Paradise 90 and Sherman Creek at the Sherman Creek Fish Hatchery monitor). 2 days with air quality in the unhealthy for sensitive groups AQI category. This was due to non-pilot burns at Plain, WA In the spring of 2017 there were three days in the Moderate AQI category at Pinecliff but no burning was reported or detected by satellites in the area. Therefore, the air quality impacts were probably due to another source. The following are the key findings for the fall and spring field campaigns: Pre-fire surface fuel loading varied across all 14 sites and ranged from 14.9 to 52.3 ton/acre. The duff fuel bed category contributed from 33 to 65% of the total surface loading. Seven of the 14 sites inventoried were burned, however plots did not ignite at one unit because of wet conditions and it was removed from the post-fire data set. Of the six sites that burned well, consumption ranged from 3.1 to 28.5 tons/acre. Duff consumption contributed substantially to the total fuel consumed in fall-burned sites and ranged from 4.2 to 19.0 tons acre-1 (30 to 67% of total fuel consumed). Consumption was much lower in the spring-burned sites (less than 1 ton/acre) and only contributed 15.6 and 19.7% to total fuel consumption. Both versions of Consume under-predicted fuel consumption in the fall-burned sites and over-predicted fuel consumption in the spring-burned sites. In the fall, Consume v. 2.1 under-predicted total fuel consumption by 18% to 36% while the Consume v. 4.2 under-predicted total fuel consumption by 16 to 45%. In the spring, Consume v. 2.1 over-predicted total fuel consumption by 34% and 37% while the Consume v. 4.2 under-predicted total fuel consumption by 11 and 24%. Overall, for the cases analyzed here, there was not an appreciable difference between the standard day-of approval burns and the 24-hr approval burns. Burning conducted by the pilot burn project seems to have been successful with burning either resulting in minimal impact to air quality or impacts on-par with non-pilot burns. 16 days with air quality in the Moderate AQI category. Thirteen days were from non-pilot burns Three days were from pilot burns, two of which may have been due to longer term smoldering of fuels (Paradise 90 and Sherman Creek at the Sherman Creek Fish Hatchery monitor). 2 days with air quality in the unhealthy for sensitive groups AQI category. This was due to non-pilot burns at Plain, WA In the spring of 2017 there were three days in the Moderate AQI category at Pinecliff but no burning was reported or detected by satellites in the area. Therefore, the air quality impacts were probably due to another source.
Publications
|