Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

Cover photo:

Burned area of Shirley Fire taken near the point of origin, showing typical conditions in project area. Compare with the photo series in Appendix A which was used in analyzing the Shirley Fire project area

Contents FIRE AND FUELS SPECIALIST REPORT ...... 1 Summary ...... 1 Background and Affected Environment ...... 1 Fire Environment ...... 1 Wildland Urban Intermix ...... 1 Fire Suppression ...... 1 Fire Severity and Fuel Bed Change ...... 2 Fire Weather, Drought, and Topography ...... 3 Fire History ...... 3 Fuels ...... 4 Fuel Models ...... 5 Potential Fire Behavior ...... 5 Flame Lengths ...... 5 Indicators ...... 5 Indicator 1: Fuel Loading ...... 5 Indicator 2: Flame Length ...... 5 Assumptions ...... 6 Environmental Consequences ...... 6 Effects of no action ...... 6 Direct Effects ...... 6 Indirect Effects ...... 6 Results ...... 8 Cumulative Effects ...... 10 Proposed Action)...... 11 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 11 Results ...... 12 Cumulative Effects ...... 14 Fuels Treatment only- no Commercial Thinning ...... 14 Direct and Indirect Effects...... 15 Results ...... 15 Cumulative Effects ...... 16 Climate Change and Carbon Emissions ...... 17 References ...... 18 Appendix A- Photo Series ...... 22

i

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

ii

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

Summary Treatment of 142 acres within the 2014 Shirley Fire area is proposed for salvage harvest. The small scale (142 acres) proposed for treatment represents only about 5% of the Shirley Fire area within the larger landscape (2,545 acres). The proposed project would move the area toward desired conditions for forest resiliency and lower fire intensity and severity.

The project would result in the reduction of the accumulation of hazardous fuels within the threat zone of the wildland urban interface surrounding the community of Alta Sierra. The project will aid firefighters in protection of the community and its infrastructure should a future fire ignite of reburn in the project area. In the event of a future wildfire, treated units are estimated to have a flame length of 1.9 feet while, if untreated, units would have 7.5 foot flame lengths. Treatments would improve wildfire control and suppression.. The project would improve the ability to suppress future wildfire within treated units.

Background and Affected Environment The focus of the fire and fuels analysis is to address the effectiveness of the proposed action in meeting the needs for the Shirley Fire Salvage and Forest Restoration Project related to reducing the fuel loading from fire killed or injured trees, reducing fire intensity of future fires, improving effectiveness of fire suppression operations and firefighter, public and employee safety within the project area.

Fire Environment The Shirley fire started on June 13, 2014 on the south facing slope of Cooks Peak located in the Green Horn Mountains on the Sequoia National Forest, Kern River Ranger District. The cause of the fire is currently under investigation. The Fire was contained on June 20, 2014 after burning 2,545 acres. Of the 2,545 acres that burned (1126 acres Forest Service, 972 acres BLM, and 447acres Private) a total of 298 acres (11%) burned at a high severity, 1,442 acres (57%) at moderate severity, 682 acres (27%) at low, 123 acres (5%) unburned.

This was a suppression fire in steep terrain under extreme fire behavior and winds influenced by topography within the Greenhorn Mountain Range. This analysis and the discussion of the conditions are focused on those areas proposed for treatment. The proposed action covers 142 acres of mixed burned severity for recovery and restoration treatments. 2,403 acres of the fire area (94%) are not proposed for treatment. The conditions modeled in the proposed units are just those 142 acres (6%) proposed for actions.

Wildland Urban Intermix The project is within the threat zone of the wildland urban interface surrounding the community of Alta Sierra. Without treatment, the protection of the community and its infrastructure will remain threatened by the potential for high intensity fire reburning or igniting in the project area.

Fire Suppression The fire dynamics within the Shirley Fire Salvage and Forest Restoration Project have been altered due to the fire intensity and effects from the Shirley Fire in June 2014. The Shirley fire moved down slope across the landscape in a mosaic of intensities that ranged from full consumption of timber and vegetation to very low or unburned. This range leaves the potential for fire in the landscape at a wide range of potential fire behavior depending on vegetation burn severity, fuel loading changes from dead and dying trees and the regrowth of non-timber vegetation over time.

1

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

Public comments imply that the area was intentionally back -burned in order to burn trees to permit salvage logging. While backfiring was used, it was done to manage fire with “indirect” attack methods to reduce fire severity, not to burn more trees. This type of indirect approach is routinely used instead of downhill line construction for “direct” attack, especially when fire behavior is extreme, to avoid compromising firefighter safety. Backfires were set along the dozer line in order to manage fire, which may have been more severe if unburned fuels were left between the main fire and the control lines. Tactics on the Shirley fire were implemented to aggressively contain wildfire, while minimizing the loss to the values at risk and hazards to firefighters. The ignition source of the Shirley Fire, while human-caused, is still under investigation.

Fire suppression tactics such as backfiring and burnout operations are routinely utilized on wildland fires like the Shirley fire to create safe anchor points for firefighters. During the Shirley Fire, this was done by setting a backfire along the inside edge of the control lines at high points. Firefighters lit fires below each burn, moving downhill “creating depth” and a burned (black) safety zone buffer as they move downhill toward the head of the fire. This black zone was ignited so it could not reburn, creating a safety zone for firefighters to retreat for safety, should the fire behavior escalate.

The intent of these backfiring operations was to expand burned areas adjoining the main fire to prevent upslope fire progression from crossing critical holding points. This tactic provided safety for firefighters as they progressed toward the head of the fire building containment lines. These tactical decisions were made by Incident Commanders in charge of supervising the fire activities with considerations for the potential lost to the values at risk i.e.; property, life, natural recourse, and fire personal assigned.

Fire Severity and Fuel Bed Change This Shirley Fire Salvage and Forest Restoration Project Fire and Fuels report evaluates the short and long-term effects of a large mixed-severity fire on forest structure and subsequent fuel-loading and on future fire suppression difficulties in the project area. Over time. “As is common in mixed severity fires, areas of different fire severity occur as distinct patches within close proximity to one another” (Keyser and Others 2008). Ecological recovery, including forest overstory development, tree regeneration, understory development, and accumulation of forest floor biomass (fuel loading) will vary across patches of different fire severity. Fire behavior during the Shirley fire varied from low and very low intensity surface fire to stand-replacing crown fire. This fire intensity and the direct effects of the wildfire on vegetation and surface fuels affect fire recovery of the area. Immediate fire effects on forest vegetation and the forest floor are characterized as fire severity, changes to the fuel bed occur due to consumption by the fire and over time post-fire due to vegetation regrowth as well as snag fall.

The context of disturbances change once a wildfire of mixed intensities affects the landscape. Discussions in this analysis regarding fire severity and disturbance focus on the future difficulties of suppressing fires and how the proposed actions affect what future fires will do. A wildfire resets the clock for many of the burned acres, particularity in moderate and high severity areas; but the historical fire regime of the project remains unchanged. Analysis discussions are based on future fuel loading and fire potential and not on departures from past fire occurrence and fire regimes.

Portions of the forest in this project were dramatically altered (high fire severity with 75-100% vegetation mortality) while others are only moderately changed (less than 75% mortality). Much of the area burned at low or very low intensity (0-25%) and the context of the stands and existing fuel loading are unchanged or slightly changed (reduced surface fuel loading) from pre-fire stand structures. Future fire intensity and severity within the project will vary depending on current stand structure and fuel loading, the effects of post-fire snag fall, and brush and tree regeneration. This 2

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

analysis compares the varying treatments of the three action alternatives based on fuel loading and future potential fire intensity described as flame length.

Fire Weather, Drought, and Topography Fire weather, drought, and topography play a major role in fire behavior and fire spread on this landscape. The Shirley Fire burned in the third year of severe drought when there has been significant mortality of uninjured drought stressed trees, it is expected that mortality of fire injured trees will be higher than predicted. Weather conditions during the Shirley fire where at or near historical highs. Topography was a major influence on the Shirley fire as the Greenhorn Mountain Range is known for its strong down- canyon and up-slope winds year around. The modeling in this analysis uses wind speeds and fire weather (see Table 1) that occurred during the initial days of the Shirley Fire.

While a permanent Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) wasn’t present at the exact site to adequately represent the wind influence in the project area, references from nearby Breckenridge RAWS, Wofford Heights RAWS stations, and onsite fire weather observation data was collected and used for modeling future fire activity within this landscape. Dead fuel moisture indicates a wildfire’s ability to spread. Wildfires usually spread in a continuous flaming front when the 10-hour fuel moisture drops below a rating of 6 percent, wind can throw embers ahead of the flaming front and start multiple small fires (spot fires) as observed on the Shirley fire. Generally, the higher the wind speed, the further the spot fires occur from the main fire. As these spot fires burn together they cause the speed and intensity of the fire to increase dramatically. Multiple spot fires are an indication of extreme fire behavior. It is not uncommon for these conditions to exist during the height of the fire season every year.

Table 1.Fire Weather – Shirley Fire. June 2014.

Fire History Fire history records show only one recorded unnamed fire within the Shirley fire perimeter and no recorded fire history within the purposed project area prior to the 2014 Shirley fire. The small unnamed fire in 1926 was just south of the 25S02 road. Fire history in the vicinity of the project area dates back to 1915 (see Figure 1), with full fire suppression the historic policy of the Forest Service.

3

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

Figure 1. Fire history map.

Fuels Changes in stand structure after wildfire are the result of fire-caused tree mortality and subsequent changes in the size and distribution of overstory and understory vegetation. Varying levels of tree mortality with different levels of fire severity can affect the structure and composition of the surface woody fuel loading. This surface fuel is defined as fuel loading changes in fine woody debris (FWD, woody biomass less than 3 inches diameter) and in large woody debris (CWD, woody biomass greater than 3 inches diameter) immediately post-fire and well as overtime as fire killed trees collapse and increase surface fuel loading.

Estimates and modeling of current surface fuel loading (53 tons / acre) and changes over time are based on representative fuel photo series (Maxwell and Ward 1979) Appendix A. In addition, data was taken from stand exams from the Revised Ice Timber Sale and Fuels Reduction Project (pre and post fire). This information was used as input into the BehavePlus5 Fire Modeling System (BehavePlus, 2009). Current and future predicted surface fuel beds in the project area are a mix of burn areas as well as forest litter, duff and down logs, branches, and twigs; as well as accumulation over time from fire and subsequent bug killed snags.

Fire behavior fuel models are used to describe and predict surface fire spread and fire intensity changes reflected as flame length over time on this landscape based on different levels of fuel loading. Herbaceous and shrub species that sprout or germinate from seeds tend to dominate burned areas within a few months to a couple of years after a wildfire, but vegetation recovery and successional pathways are complex due to varying levels of fire severity. The abundance and composition depend on seed source, scarification of soils and ability of site to reseed conifers. Manzanita species common on the KRRD district and previously abundant within the fire area are well known as aggressive sprouters after fire and other disturbances; plant regrowth along with

4

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

increases in surface fuel loading can influence fire intensity, reburn potential and residence time of fire and spotting potential as well as hindrance to fire suppression efforts(resistance to control).

The project area is difficult to characterize in terms of fuel loading and existing conditions due to the patchiness and complexity of the wildfire effects. Post fire surface fuel loading range from 0 – 53 tons per acre immediately post fire. The mosaic of burned versus unburned, high severity patches to very low/unburned patches; make the generalizations of the affected environment complex.

Fuel Models Fire behavior fuel models are a set of fuelbed inputs used to predict surface fire intensity and are described in terms of both expected fire behavior and vegetation. A fuel model is chosen by the primary carrier of the fire (e.g., grass, brush, timber litter, slash) and its fuel characteristics (e.g., fuel loading, surface area to volume ratio, fuel depth). Fuel models parameters are a combination of surface fuel loadings, the distribution of the fuel among the fuel particle size classes, live and dead vegetation and the moisture content of the live and dead fuels.

Potential Fire Behavior Fire behavior is described as intensity or severity of how fuels (vegetation and dead material) burn. It is often described by the effects of fire on vegetation or soils; by height/length of flame or by the type of fire and whether it stays on the forest floor or moves into tree crowns.

Flame Lengths Surface flame lengths are a measure of how intense a fire may become and a proxy for ease of fire suppression (resistance to control). The implications of observed or expected fire behavior are important components of suppression strategies and tactics, particularly in terms of the difficulty of control and effectiveness of various suppression resources. Heavy surface fuel loads generally contribute to longer flame lengths due to length of time the fuels stay burning (residence time). Wind speeds also contribute to flame lengths; high winds generally increase flame lengths and the rate of fire spread. Since surface fuel loading is a combination of live understory vegetation and dead woody debris fuel loading, predicted flame lengths change as fuel loading increases coupled with increased winds can have dramatic effects on fire behavior in the project area.

Indicators The effects of the alternatives were evaluated using the indicators discussed below. The indicators were selected as being the most meaningful and relevant given available data to quantifying the effects on the landscape for protecting the values at risk and for evaluating fire suppression effectiveness and wildfire reburn potential. Further definition of the indicators and how they apply to the purpose and need, and desired condition of the Project can be found in the Cumulative Effects section.

Indicator 1: Fuel Loading Surface fuel loading is the weight of the combustible material available to burn. The fuel profile is a combination of 1) fuel loading in tons per acre, 2) arrangement of the fuels (compacted or loosely arranged) both live and dead and 3) the continuity of the fuel; both horizontally (surface fuels) and vertically (ladder fuels). All three components affect fire behavior, fire intensity and rate of spread. Fuel loading directly affects the resistance to control and firefighter line production rates. Optimal fuel loading for dry site ponderosa pine is 5-20 tons per acre. For subalpine/fir types – optimal is 5- 30 tons per acre (Brown and others 2003)

Indicator 2: Flame Length

5

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

Flame lengths (the average length of a flame at a given point – expressed in feet) can be used as an observable measure of fireline intensity (the amount of heat released in BTU’s). Although fires can be dangerous at any intensity, small flames are easier to extinguish than tall flames. Optimal flame lengths for protecting the public and firefighters is, < 4 foot along strategic roads, public recreation areas and administrative sites (Andrews and others 2011).

Assumptions Modeling for this analysis assumes that the condition (fuel model and environmental parameters) for each unit is homogenous. Fire weather used was the actual weather during the Shirley Fire in June of 2014 (Table 1). The models are tools used to provide viewers a baseline to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives and potential long-term impacts from not implementing the Project.

The fire behavior analysis (Behave Plus) is for a potential future fire in the Shirley Salvage boundary for those units proposed for treatments so as to compare the effectiveness of the proposed actions vs. no action. Analysis of no action may be used as a surrogate for the entire 2,545 acre landscape for addressing the potential and severity of future fires; modeling of the entire fire was not completed.

Environmental Consequences The small scale (142 acres) of treatment represents only about 5% of the Shirley Fire within the larger landscape (2,545 acres). The spatial scale of the cumulative effects analysis for fire and fuels is just those projects within the immediate vicinity of the project boundary. Projects not directly adjacent to the project will have little to any influence on the fuel loading or subsequent future fire behavior within this project.

Effects of no action Direct Effects There are no treatments with No‐Action and therefore, no direct effects.

Indirect Effects

Indicator 1: Fuel Loading In choosing no action the SQF managers would be accepting the increasing levels of fuel loading from fire and bug killed trees over the extent of the project area. Fire control tactics could be more costly due to increased fuel loading and resistance to control to fire suppression efforts and less effective if all areas of fire and bug-killed trees are left to fall. The level of resistance to control and residence time during a subsequent fire can place fire fighters lives at risk due to potential snag fall.

Fuel loading in a post wildfire landscape will transition from unburned in some portions of the burned area to light fuel loading, and even heavy fuel loading in unburned areas of the fire. Standing snags may retain a substantial amount of biomass that will contribute to surface fuels over time as snags fall. Although large wood is not included in surface fire spread models, it can contribute to fire behavior and fire spread by acting as a source of embers, both directly by lofting from burning snags and indirectly through torching of trees preheated by burning of heavy fuels on the forest floor (Ritchie and others 2013, personal observation as fire and prescribed fire manager). Hoffman and others (2012) found that surface fuel loading increases from bug killed trees was above the recommended ranges for dry coniferous forests.

Hoffman and others (2012) found that surface fuel loading averaged 2.5 times higher in bug mortality areas and that most trees fell within three years and a majority of the trees were on the

6

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

ground within 5-15 years. Fire persistence and resistance to control are significantly influenced by loading, size and decay state of large woody fuel (Brown and others 2003). This is true for wildfires (personal observations) where snags are a source of spot fires and heavy down woody debris is a magnet for spot fires increasing the resistance to control and where high winds occur, the sustained burning of persistent fires can be fanned into fast moving, dangerous fires.

Since 2000 there have been 57 fire fighter fatalities due to snags falling during wildfires (http://www.wildfirelessons.net/irdb). Not treating the dead trees (both fire killed and subsequent post- fire bug-killed) along access roads places fire fighters and the public lives at risk and will remain a threat for 10 to 20 years (Brown and others 2003)

Indicator 2: Flame Length After a wildfire, depending on fire severity and fuel consumption, there is usually an immediate, short- term decrease in abundance of coarse and fine woody fuel, potentially reducing subsequent fire intensity and severity in the short term. However, with time, as snags fall, fuel loading may exceed pre- fire fuel loading and future potential fire intensity and severity increases, potentially well above the pre-fire potential (Johnson and others 2013, Keyser and other 2008). Figure 2 displays flame lengths in a potential reburn wildfire.

Van Wagtendonk and others (2012) found that in Yosemite National Park when areas reburned, the portions of unchanged severity fire decreased in acres while the portion of high severity fire has increased. This evidence has fire managers concerned about the fire intensity of future fires that may reburn in the project area and the effects on fire fighters safety. They also found that as high severity burned areas such as the Aspen converted to chaparral they were more than twice as likely to reburn at high severity and that reburn potential increased after nine years or longer from initial fire. Miller and Safford (2012) and Miller and others (2012c) found that the annual area of high severity fire increased in the period from 1984 to 2010 in yellow pine mixed conifer forests. This reburn potential and a nine year time frame was also noted by McIver and Ottmar (2007), and Donato and others (2009). This reburn would then coincide with the increases to surface fuel loading from snag fall. McIver and Ottmar (2007) found that other components of the fuelbed (live fuel such as grasses and brush) are a major influence in wildfire intensity about one decade after first fire. Due to the density of small trees and slash fuel from fire killed small trees, even a moderate wildfire will tend to be relatively severe.

This reburn potential is true for wildfires and during prescribed fire operations (Petersen and others 2009, and personal observations) where snags are a source of spot fires and heavy down woody debris is a magnet for spot fire increasing the resistance to control. Where high winds occur, the sustained burning of persistent fires can be fanned into fast moving, dangerous fires as in the Big Meadows fire of 2009 (YNP) and in the High Glade and Campbell fires of 2013 on the Mendocino and Lassen National Forests (personal conversation with Sierra fire crews 2013).

Ritchie and others (2013) state that “elevated surface fuels can contribute a significant risk to the succeeding stands (Agee and Skinner, 2005) and present a challenge and safety risk to fire crews and the subsequent burn of these areas”. Petersen and others (2009) document the reburn potential of wildfires around the west from treated and untreated post-wildfire snags and fuel hazards, and found that emerging tree’s crowns with a shrub layer also present a fire hazard as the low canopy base height of the emerging trees creates torching potential and increasing flame lengths over surface fires.

7

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

Table 2. No Action Effects Output Variables With Wildfire.

Results

Output Variable Value Units Surface Rate of Spread (maximum) 48.3 ch/h Heat per Unit Area 517 Btu/ft2 Fireline Intensity 458 Btu/ft/s Flame Length 7.5 ft Reaction Intensity 2460 Btu/ft2/min Direction of Maximum Spread (from 0 deg upslope) Surface Spread Distance 386.3 ch Surface Spread Map Distance 12.75 in Area 4770.4 ac Perimeter 913 ch Fire Area at Initial Attack 6037.5 ac Perimeter at Initial Attack 1027.0 ch Contain Status Withdrawn Time from Report 9.0 h Contained Area -1.0 ac Fireline Constructed 33.7 ch Number of Resources Used 3 Cost of Resources Used 13972

The output variables in (Table 2) above show the resistant’s to the control of a future fire within the project area with no action. The outputs show that the ground firefighting resources responding would be withdrawn from fire fighting due to the fire behavior. This would decrease firefighter fireline production rates (decreasing efficiency in controlling fire) placing the firefighters at risk and dramatically increases the residence time that allows a fire to burn hotter and increases spotting potential. Fire persistence (residence time) and resistance to control (fireline production rates) are significantly influenced by loading, size and decay state of large woody fuel (Petersen and others 2009, Brown and others 2003).

Figure 2. No Action Effects- Fire Characteristics Chart displaying flame lengths.

8

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

The fire characteristics chart (Figure 2) indicates flame lengths would be above 7ft. This would require equipment such as dozers, fire engines, and retardant dropping aircraft to effectively suppress a future wildfire as indicated in (Table 3).

Table 3. Fire Characteristics Chart Description: Fire Suppression Interpretations of Flame Length and Fireline Intensity.

Fireline Intensity Flame Length (feet) (BTU/ft/s) Interpretation <4 <100 Fire can generally be attacked at the head or flanks by firefighters using handtools. Handlines should be successfully held. 4 – 8 100 – 500 Fires are too intense for direct attack on the head by firefighters using handtools. Handline cannot be relied on to hold fire. Equipment such as dozers, fire engines, and retardant aircraft can be effective. 8 – 11 500 – 1,000 Fires may present serious control problems such as

torching, crowing, and spotting. Control efforts at the head would probably be ineffective. >11 >1,000 Crowning, spotting, and major fire runs are probable. Control efforts at the head of fire are ineffective. Source: Rothermel 1983 Understanding why this chart is referred to as the “Hauling Chart” will help explain its importance to firefighter and public safety in the face of a wildfire. When flame lengths are less than 4 feet, a fire crew using just shovels, rakes, axes, and chain saws can be hauled to the fire and their suppression 9

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

actions would be generally successful. With flame lengths of 4 to 8 feet, heavy equipment along with aviation resources needs to be hauled to the fire for suppression actions. When flame lengths are over 8 feet, all firefighting equipment and personnel are in harm’s way and need to be hauled away from the fire to a safety area. In essence it is futile attempt a direct frontal attack on a wildfire when the flame lengths are greater than 8 feet regardless of how much or what type of equipment is available. Fires that have flame lengths less than 4 feet require fewer suppression resources, are the easiest to control, and pose the least amount of danger to wildland firefighters.

Table 4. Cumulative Effects of Past Present and Foreseeable Actions

Past, Project Name Acres Type Present, or Actions Jurisdiction Future Action Kern County Fire to treat both 280 acres Fuels private property with chipper Past, FS Alta Sierra Fuels Reduction days and portions of present and Grant Reduction (2012) Rancheria Road on FS land, reasonably On private within the Kern County road foreseeable maintenance easement.

Roadside brushing and Alta Sierra Fuels Present - This Chipping FS Escape Route Reduction project is 5 acres being done Grant Phase I (2012) currently. Alta Sierra / Existing footprint and Wofford Heights 265 acres Fuels Past FS maintenance. Fuel Reduction Reduction Grant Project, (2010) maintenance

Alta Sierra past - Hazardous fuels removal Completed within the Alta Sierra FS Subdivision Fuels 80 acres Fuels Reduction Project Reduction 2004 Community Grant (2004) Revised Ice Present – Commercial and pre- Timber Sale 4,277 acres Fuels Ongoing commercial thinning small and Fuels Reduction trees, and prescribed under FS Reduction burning Project Rancheria Present – Commercial and pre- FS Forest 5,879 acres Fuels Ongoing commercial thinning small Restoration Reduction trees, and prescribed under Project burning

Cumulative Effects The effect of taking no action would not change the context of future fire intensity or fuel loading within the project area created by snag fall and vegetation growth over time. Therefore this would not contribute to the impacts of past, present or foreseeable future actions. Other projects on the district will have little to no impact to the expected fuel loading and subsequent fire behavior across the project area. Surface fuel dynamics and potential future wildfire will be a function of pre- and post-fire live and dead biomass, litter fall (dead tree crowns), and tree fall (decay and time; as trees fall, decay and regrowth of vegetation change as time progresses). Because of these change dynamics and what is present on the post fire landscape, subsequent fire intensity will be specific to local conditions, spatially and temporally. Mechanical thinning and prescribed fire projects have occur in

10

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

the vicinity or adjacent to this project. Such treatments on Forest Service lands in the vicinity moves the forest toward desired conditions for forest resiliency and lowering fire intensity and severity over the district.

Proposed Action) The proposed action treats standing dead trees (snags) both killed by the Shirley fire (142 acres) and surface fuel loading from dead non salvaged and salvaged trees. Thinning and fuels reduction treatments are planned within the project to meet project needs including firefighter safety during future wildfire response and employee safety during reforestation efforts and for safe access for public and administrative purposes, by achieving the following: • A safe and dependable transportation system free of fire-affected trees or other hazards in areas of public and administrative use, • Surface fuel load levels which minimize high-intensity, large-scale fires within forest stands, while maintaining snags for wildlife habitat, Treatments along Roads and within treatments units are designed to slow fire rates of spread and reduce fire intensity and flame lengths to allow for direct attack on wildfires and allowing for safe ingress and egress of forest visitors and fire fighters.

Direct and Indirect Effects The biomass of snags (fire killed and secondary salvage) removed would have a substantial reduction on fuel loading and impact during a future wildfire (Brown and other 2003, Petersen and others 2009, Ritchie and others 2013). Fuel loading decreases to optimal levels of 5 to 20 tons per acre (Brown and others 2003) which influences decreased fire intensity and flame lengths.

Indicator 1: Fuel Loading Post-fire salvage logging combined with pile and burn surface fuel treatments can significantly reduce the loading of fuels and subsequent fire behavior (Johnson and others 2013). While some thinning treatment operations such as conventional harvesting may increase surface fuel loading (McIver and Ottmar 2007) immediately post-harvest, Johnson et al (2013) found that the use of whole tree harvesting and yarding minimized on site surface fuel accumulation. The residual fuel loading adds about 48 tons per acre (Harrell 1978) in these types of stands. Under the proposed action, the whole tree yarding and residual slash pile would remove this fuel, reducing the fuel hazard to within an optimal range as given by Brown and others (2003), Peterson and Others (2009) and Safford (2013). Tree removal followed by mechanical piling and pile burning significantly reduces fuel loading.

Indicator 2: Flame Length The indirect effect of removing snags and post harvest slash treatments is the reduced fire intensity in the treated stands and where fuel loading will remain low due to high mortality and surface fuel consumption.

11

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

Table 5. Proposed Action Output Variables With Wildfire.

Results

Output Variable Value Units Surface Rate of Spread (maximum) 5.1 ch/h Heat per Unit Area 231 Btu/ft2 Fireline Intensity 22 Btu/ft/s Flame Length 1.9 ft Direction of Maximum Spread (from upslope) 0 deg Surface Spread Distance 41.0 ch Surface Spread Map Distance 1.35 in Fire Area at Initial Attack 4.6 ac Perimeter at Initial Attack 28.3 ch Contain Status Contained Time from Report 2.6 h Contained Area 10.4 ac Fireline Constructed 45.2 ch Number of Resources Used 3 Cost of Resources Used 9626

The output variables in (Table 5) above show the resistance to the control of a future fire within the project area under the proposed action. The outputs show that the ground firefighting resources responding would be successful at firefighting due to the fire behavior. This would increase firefighter fireline production rates (increasing efficiency in controlling fire) placing the firefighters at minimal risk and dramatically decreases the residence time that allows a fire to burn hotter and decreases spotting potential. Fire persistence (residence time) and resistance to control (fireline production rates) are significantly influenced by loading, size and decay state of large woody fuel (Petersen and others 2009, Brown and others 2003)

12

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

Figure 3. Proposed Action Fire Characteristics Chart displaying flame lengths.

Fire behavior is the manner in which a fire reacts to the influences of fuel, weather, and topography. Fire behavior is typically modeled at the flaming front of the fire and described most simply in terms of fireline intensity (flame length) and in rate of forward spread. The implications of observed or expected fire behavior are important components of suppression strategies and tactics, particularly in terms of the difficulty of control and effectiveness of various suppression resources.

The fire characteristics chart (Figure 3) is an excellent tool for measuring the safety and potential effectiveness of various fireline resources given a visual assessment of active flame length. It’s also referred to as the hauling chart because it infers the relative intensity of the fire behavior to trigger points where hauling various resources to or away from an incident should be considered. While we understand that high severity fire is a key component in structural heterogeneity and biodiversity, the untreated acres of the Shirley Fire area within the Forest boundary will provide for habitat needs and still present conditions that are at risk of high intensity fire due to the natural fuel loading that will continue through time.

There are mixed and contrarian views regarding the removal of dead trees and the decreased the intensity of future fires (Beschta and others, 1995). Recent research by van Wagtendonk and others (2012) as well as fire information from past wildfires has found that post- wildfire fuel loading does indeed influence fire intensity and resistance to control and places fire fighters at risk.

Safford and others (2012) found that fire intensity and tree mortality are general much lower in fuel treatments. This has implications for the low and very low severity areas where the fire did not remove the previously existing fuel load and any fire induced mortality or post-fire bug mortality could dramatically affect the intensity of future fires in these stands. Safford and others (2009) found from the data that in the Angora fire, fuel loading was generally more important than topography in driving fire severity. Rhodes and Baker found in 2008 that fuels treatments are rarely

13

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

encountered by wildfire and that they are unlikely to reduce the effects of high severity fire. Since 2008, multiple studies have been conducted regarding fuel treatment effectiveness when encountered by high intensity wildfires and the claims made in earlier studies are no longer valid (Stevens-Rumann and others 2013, Safford and others 2012, McIver and Ottmar 2007). While Bond and others (2009) stated she found no compelling evidence that pre-fire tree mortality due to insects and drought had any effect on fire severity in her studies on the San Bernardino NF, she also stated that she did not consider the influence small trees have in fire severity because of lack of small tree size classes in her study. This is a difference scenario than the Shirley Project as there are large stands of dead small trees that will eventually fall, increase fuel loading and become a primary driver of high intensity fire.

Stevens-Rumann and others (2013) also found, like many other studies in the west, that fuels treatments can result in reduced fire severity and in long term difference in stand recovery. Where high severity fire has removed the canopy or opened the canopy, the rapid release of growing space (shrub and herbaceous regeneration), an increase in surface wind speed and the potential for reduced dead fuel moistures will have an increase in surface fire intensity (Johnson and Others, 2011). Rhodes and Baker (2008) do acknowledge that current findings suggest treatment effects on fire severity are mostly confined to treated areas, and that theory suggests a dense network of treatments might slow fire spread and reduce intensity, yielding a landscape effect on fire (Ritchie and others 2013, Stephens and others 2012). Omi and Martinsen (2003) found from the Angora fire data that fuels treatments can facilitate suppression efforts by providing safe access and egress for firefighters which meet the purpose and needs for the project.

Cumulative Effects Table 4 displays the effects that the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects on the KRRD that may have an influence on fire intensity in the Project area. These effects cumulatively show a reduction in the potential wildfire behavior and associated effects on resources (wildlife habitat, soil, aquatic habitat) on the KRRD. The PA treatments in Table 4 all benefit the resiliency of timber stands in terms of fire behavior intensity and severity in the Project area. Unless the projects (Table 3) are directly adjacent to Shirley they will have little to no effect on the Project area but many have an overall effect of improving the resiliency of the forest to the effects of severe wildfire, primarily those projects in pine or mixed conifer forest types. Those projects that have prescribed fire underburns as a fuels treatments provide ecological benefits to the forest as a whole by creating and increasing the heterogeneity of the forest and restoring some of the ecological processes that fire on the landscape provides. Forest restoration treatments and prescribed burns have the most direct and indirect effects of fire behavior and forest resilience by reducing flame lengths and removing surface and ladder fuels that promote high intensity fire. The cumulative effects of the timber thinning and burns (Grant and USFS projects) are reduced fire intensity, and reduced amounts of high severity fire (Stevens-Rumann and others 2013, Ritchie and others 2013 and Stephens and others 2012).

Fuels Treatment only- no Commercial Thinning Public comments request that fuels treatment only should be considered that include a small diameter thinning and also a “fell and leave” for roadside hazard trees. The non-commercial thinning treats standing dead trees (snags) 10 inches and below killed by the Shirley fire (142 acres) and surface fuel loading from dead non salvaged and salvaged trees. The treatment units and acres proposed for treatment are the same as those proposed under the proposed action. However, withthisfuels treatment, only hand treatment methods will be employed to thin and/or remove trees and vegetation less than 10 inches in diameter. The treatment of accumulations of activity and ground fuels would be with prescribed fire, by achieving the following:

14

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

• Hand treatment methods will be employed to: thin and/or remove trees and vegetation less than 10 inches at DBH. • Treating the accumulation of activity and ground fuels with prescribed fire.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Fuels treatment only would have similar direct and indirect effects as the No Action The effect of taking no actionHowever only hand treatment methods will be employed to: thin and/or remove trees and vegetation less than 10 inches at DBH. This will reduce surface and ladder fuels, short term leaving potential for fire behavior to increase with time due to the large amount of standing dead trees (snags) left above 10 inches, new growth, and activity fuels generated from hand thinning.

Indicator 1: Fuel Loading In choosing the non‐commercial alternative, the SQF managers would be accepting the increasing levels of fuel loading from fire and bug killed trees above 10 inches DBH over the extent of the project area. Fire control tactics could be far more costly due to increased fuel loading and resistance to control to fire suppression efforts and less effective if all areas of fire and bug-killed trees are left to fall. The high level of resistance to control and residence time during a subsequent fire can place fire fighters lives at risk due to potential snag fall.

Indicator 2: Flame Length The indirect effect of hand treatment methods thin and/or remove trees and vegetation less than 10 inches at DBH will increase flame lengths as trees fall and regrowth of vegetation change as time progresses.

Table 6. Proposed Action Output Variables With Wildfire.

Results

Output Variable Value Units Surface Rate of Spread (maximum) 49.7 ch/h Heat per Unit Area 1511 Btu/ft2 Fireline Intensity 1378 Btu/ft/s Flame Length 12.5 ft Direction of Maximum Spread (from upslope) 0 deg Surface Spread Distance 398.0 ch Surface Spread Map Distance 131.33 in Fire Area at Initial Attack 101.9 ac Perimeter at Initial Attack 133.6 ch Contain Status Withdrawn Time from Report 9.5 h Contained Area -1.0 ac Fireline Constructed 299.4 ch Number of Resources Used 3 Cost of Resources Used 14214

The output variables (in Table 6) above show the resistant’s to the control of a future fire within the project area under the Non-commercial thinning alternative. The outputs show that the ground

15

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

firefighting resources responding would be withdrawn from firefighting due to the fire behavior. This would decrease firefighter fireline production rates (decreasing efficiency in controlling fire) placing the firefighters at risk and dramatically increases the residence time that allows a fire to burn hotter and increases spotting potential. Fire persistence (residence time) and resistance to control (fireline production rates) are significantly influenced by loading, size and decay state of large woody fuel (Petersen and others 2009, Brown and others 2003).

Figure 4. Fuels Treatment/Non –Commercial Thinning Fire Characteristics Chart displaying flame lengths.

The fire characteristics chart (Figure 4) indicates flame lengths under the non-commercial thinning would be above 12ft. This would require equipment such as dozers, fire engines, and retardant dropping aircraft to effectively suppress a future wildfire as indicated in (Table 3). Fire behavior would consist of crowning, spotting, and major fire runs. For fire suppression efforts, the effect of reducing fuels in the Project is a reduced number of suppression resources needed for fire suppression. Smaller fires require fewer firefighters, which in turn reduces the number of firefighters exposed to hazards. In addition, smaller fires expose fewer numbers of the public to the hazards of wildfires not only in the general forest but also in degraded air quality influenced by high intensity wildfire emissions.

Cumulative Effects Fuels treatment/non commercial thinning would not change the context of future fire intensity or fuel loading within the project area created by snag fall above 10 inches DBH and vegetation growth over time. Therefore this would not contribute to the impacts of past, present or foreseeable future actions. Other projects on the district will have little to no impact to the expected fuel loading and subsequent fire behavior across the project area. Surface fuel dynamics and potential future wildfire

16

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

will be a function of pre- and post-fire live and dead biomass, litter fall (dead tree crowns), and tree fall (decay and time; as trees fall, decay and regrowth of vegetation change as time progresses). Because of these change dynamics and what is present on the post fire landscape, subsequent fire intensity will be specific to local conditions, spatially and temporally. Mechanical thinning and prescribed fire projects have occur in the vicinity or adjacent to this project. Such treatments on Forest Service lands in the vicinity moves the forest toward desired conditions for forest resiliency and lowering fire intensity and severity over the district.

Climate Change and Carbon Emissions Climate change and its effect on future fire are discussed qualitatively, but not quantitatively in this report. Due to the small scale and size of the project in the global context, it is assumed to have an insignificant effect on climate change and carbon emissions. The task of linking potential emissions from small forest projects to world-wide indirect effects such as rising sea levels and extreme weather events is extremely complex, and is likely to provide only the most speculative of results.

Public comments included concerns that fuels reduction treatments should not be completed, in order to increase carbon storage in forests, to ameliorate atmospheric carbon dioxide, based on an article by Mitchell (2009). On the contrary, on a statewide basis, wildfires in California contribute 24 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide to the statewide total (California Energy Commission (CEC) 2006). Compared to fuels treatment such as pile burning, lop and scatter and underburning, wildfires are uncontrolled, consume greater amounts of fuel, release more carbon, and produce more smoke. Emissions from wildfire are typically twice those of a prescribed fire on the same acreage due to greater emission factor (Ottmar 2001), fuel consumption and fire intensity. In addition, wildfires typically occur during summer months when the air quality of the region is at its worst. Wildfire emissions would typically occur during the summer under hot, dry conditions. This is also the typical period (May – October) when air quality is typically at its worst due to the higher seasonal temperatures conducive to creating peak ozone concentrations.

Prescribed burns, on the other hand, typically take place in the fall or spring. Prescribed burn operations produce smoke that has the potential to be transported over long distances. The Shirley Project is not expected to produce smoke outputs that violate National Ambient Air Quality Standards, reduce visibility or degrade air quality in Class 1 airsheds.

In addition, public comments propose that eliminating logging would result in massive increases in carbon sequestration (Depro, 2007). However, on a statewide basis, wildfires in California contribute 24 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide to the statewide total (California Energy Commission (CEC 2006). This is approximately four times the average emissions associated with forestry each year (CEC 2006). Also, if logging is not completed locally to provide timber, product demand would be met by importation, increasing carbon emissions from transportation.

The Shirley Project’s potential to contribute to cumulative effects will be mitigated by following all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, and by following additional project design features. Prescribed burning would only occur on permissive burn days, which are determined by the California Air Resources Board, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, and the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District. Coordination at this level ensures that burning takes place on days, and times of the year when emissions are well dispersed and less likely to cause air quality and health issues to people in the community. Additional project mitigations include: dust abatement on roads used for log hauling; prescribed burning during the low use visitor/recreation season; posting signs along roads leading to campgrounds, communities, and areas near the burn informing the community that burning is in progress; and using local communication sources to inform people

17

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

about burn activities and actions they can take to protect themselves from potential smoke effects.

Per direction given by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.7 & 1508.8), the environmental effects of the Shirley Project on climate change, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and carbon cycling were considered in terms of their context and intensity to the activities being proposed. Choosing No Action would not have direct effects on GHG emissions, carbon cycling, or climate change. However, demand for lumber would still persist and would be filled by receiving supplies from other more distant sources. If a wildfire were to occur in the untreated stands, large amounts of carbon and other emissions could be released, contributing GHGs to the environment, and reducing the forest’s capacity to store carbon.

Both actions propose thinning, burning, and ecological restoration activities that may reduce carbon stocks and contribute an insignificant source of greenhouse gases to the environment. Over time, these treatments will accelerate growth on the remaining trees and will recover carbon losses in approximately nine to 15 years after treatment.

At the present time, climate change projections are inherently uncertain and vary on a local, regional and planetary basis. In addition, because the emissions associated with the Rancheria Project are extremely small in a global atmospheric context and readily mix into the global GHG pool, it is not currently possible to distinguish the effects of the proposed management activities from all other sources worldwide. Meaningful determination of significance regarding effects of the project beyond local effects and adherence to air resource control board rules cannot be made.

References

Agee, J.K.; Skinner, C.N. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211: 83–96.

Anderson H.E., 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Gen Tech Rpt –INT-122, Ogden Utah. 22p.

Beschta, R.L.;, Frissell, C A.; Gresswell, R.; Hauer, R.; Karr, J.R.; Minshall, G.W.; Perry, D.A. and Rhodes, J.J. 1995 Wildfire and salvage logging. Unpublished.

Bonnicksen, T. M. 2009. Impacts of California wildfires on climate and forests: a study of seven years of wildfires (2001-2007). FCEM Report 3. The Forest Foundation. Auburn, California.

Brown, James K.; Reinhardt, Elizabeth D.; Kramer, Kylie A. 2003. Coarse woody debris: managing benefits and fire hazard in the recovering forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-105. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 16 p

Bond, Monica L., Derek e. Lee, Curtis M. Bradley and Chad T. Hanson. 2009. Influence of pre-fire tree mortality of fire severity in conifer forests of the San Bernardino Mountains, California. The Open Forest Science Journal, 2009,2,41-47.

California Energy Commission, 2006. Scenarios of Climate Change in California: An Overview. California Energy Commission. 2006. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004. Sacramento, CA, CEC-600-2006-013-SF.

18

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

Depro, 2008, Commercial Logging and Climate Change.

Harrell, R.D., 1978. California regional supplement to handbook for predicting slash weights of western conifers. Gen Tech Rep. INT-37. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 12p.

Hoffman, C.F.; Sieg, C.H.; McMillin, J.D. and Fule, P.Z. 2012. Fuel loading 5 years after a bark beetle outbreak in south-western USA ponderosa pine forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire 2012, 21, 306-312

Johnson, M.C.; Halofsky, J.E., and Peterson, D.L.2013. Effects of salvage logging and pile-and-burn on fuel loading, potential fire behavior, fuel consumption and emissions. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2013, 22:757-769.

Johnson, M.C.; Kennedy, M.C., and Peterson, D.L. 2011. Simulating fuel treatment effects in dry forests of the western United States: testing the principles of a fire-safe forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 41:1018-1030.

Keyser, T.L.; Lentile, L.B.; Smith, F.W., and Shepperd W.D., 2007. Changes in forest structure after a large mixed-severity wildfire in ponderosa pine forest of the Black Hills, South Dakota, USA. Forest Science 54 (3) 11p.

Maxwell, W.G.; Ward, F.R. 1979. Photo series for quantifying forest residues in the: sierra mixed conifer type, sierra true fir type. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-095. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 79 p

McIver, J.D.; amd Ottmar, R. 2006. Fuel mass and stand structure after post-fire logging os a severly burned ponderosa pine forest in northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 238 (2007) 268- 279.

Meyer, Marc; Safford, Hugh. 2010. A summary of current trends and probable future trends in climate and climate-driven processes in the Sequoia National Forest and the neighboring Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Miller J.D., B.M. Collins, J.A. Lutz, S.L. Stephens, J.W. Van Wagtendonk, and D.A. Yasuda. 2012c. Differences in wildfires among ecoregions and land management agencies in the Sierra Nevada region. California. USA. Ecosphere 3: article 80.

Miller, J.D., and H. Safford. 2012. Trends in wildfire severity: 1984 to 2010 in the Sierra Nevada, Modoc Plateau, and southern Cascades, California, USA. Fire Ecology 8(3): 41-57.doi: 10.4996/fireecology.0803041

Mitchell, S.R., Mark E. Harmon, Kari E. B. O'Connell “Forest fuel reduction alters fire severity and long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest ecosystems.” Ecological Applications 19.3 (2009): 643-655.

Omi, P. N. and E. J. Martinson. 2002. Final Report: Effects of Fuels Treatments on Wildfire Severity. Fort Collins, CO: Western Forest Research Center, Joint Fire Sciences Program, Colorado State University.

Ottmar, R.D. 2001. Smoke source characteristics. In: Hardy, C.C., R.D. Ottmar, J.L. Peterson, J.E. Core,

19

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

P. Seamon, eds/comps. Smoke management guide for prescribed and wildland fire 2001 edition. National Wildfire Coordination Group; PMS 420-2, NFES 1279. December 2001. Chapter 5. Available online at http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/SMG/SMG-72.pdf. Ottmar, R.D., Peterson, J.L., Leehouts, B. and Core, J.E. 2001. Smoke management: techniques to reduce or redistribute emissions. in Smoke management guide for prescribed and wildland fire. 2001. National Wildfire Coordinating Group, PMS 420-2. Resources Board and the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (MOU-5-99-20-038).

Peterson, D.L.; Agee, J.K,; Aplet, G.H.; Dkystra, D.P.; Graham, R.L.; Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Pilliod, D.S.; Potts, D.F.; Powers, R.F. Stuart, John D. 2009. Effects of timber harvest following wildfire in western North America. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-776. Portland OR; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51p.

Rebain, Stephanie A. comp. 2010 (revised May 10, 2011). The Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator: Updated Model Documentation. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 387p.

Reinhardt, Elizabeth; Crookston, Nicholas L. (Technical Editors). 2003. The Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-116. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 209 p.

Ritchie, Martin W., Eric E. Knapp and Carl N. Skinner.2013. Snag longevity and surface fuel accumulation following post-fire logging in a ponderosa pine dominated forest. Forest Ecology and Management 287 (2013) 113-122.

Rhodes, Jonathan J. and William L. Baker. 2008. Fire probability, fuel treatment effectiveness and ecological tradeoffs in Western U.S. public forests. The Open Forest Science Journal, 2008, 1,1-7.

Rothermel, R.C. 1983. How to predict the Spread and Intensity of Forest and Range Fires. USDA Forest Service, National Wildfire Coordinating Group, US DA Forest Service and US Department of the Interior. PMS-436-1.

Safford, H.D. 2013. Natural Range of Variation (NRV) for yellow pine and mixed conifer forests in the bioregional assessment area, including the Sierra Nevada, southern Cascades, and Modoc and Inyo National Forests. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.

Safford H.D., J.T. Stephens, M.D. Meyer, and A.M. Latimer. 2012a. Fuels treatment effectiveness in California yellow pine and mixed conifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management 274 (2012) 17-28.

Safford H.D., D.A. Schmidt and C.H. Carlson, 2009. Effects of Fuel treatments on fire severity in an area of wildland-urban interface, Angora Fire, Lake Tahoe Basin, California. Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 773-787.

Stephens S.L.; McIver J.D.; Boehrner, R.E.J.’ Fettid, C.J.; Fontaine, J.B.. Hartsough, B.R.; Kennedy, P.L.; and Schwilk, D.W. 2012. The effects of forest fuel-reduction treatments in the United States. BioScience 62:549-560.

Stevens-Rumann, C.; Shive, K.; Fule P. and Sieg, C.H.. 2013. Pre-wildfire fuel reduction treatments result in more resilient forest structure a decade after wildfire. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2013, 22, 1108-1117.

van Wagtendonk, J.W., K.A. van Wagtendonk, and A.E. Thode. 2012. Factors associated with the

20

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

severity of intersecting fires in Yosemite National Park, California, USA. Fire Ecology: 8(1): 11-31. doi: 10.4996/fireecology.0801011

Wagener W.W., and Offord H.R., 1972. Logging slash: it’s breakdown and decay at two forests in northern California. USDA Forest Service. Pacific SW For & Res Stn..PSW-93. 11 p.

Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center, (http://www.wildfirelessons.net/home). Incident Reviews. Snag and Felling reports 2000- present.

21

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report-Shirley Fire Salvage 2015

Appendix A- Photo Series This photo series information was used in analyzing the Shirley Fire project area (Maxwell and Ward, 1979). Compare with the cover photo of this report.

22