AGENDA DLRP:DINKEY COLLABORATIVE Date: April 18, 2019 Time: 10:00-4:30 pm Location: Sierra National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, 1600 Tollhouse Road, Clovis, CA Contact information: Kim Sorini-Wilson, (559) 855-5355 x3328 and Juliana Birkhoff, Facilitator, 916 917 5669

Meeting Goals 1. Share information from constituencies and networks helpful to other Dinkey Collaborative members 2. Learn about Sierra Nevada Conservancy priorities and programs 3. Learn about forest wide prescribed fire project 4. Learn about Snow Corral restoration 5. Learn about road crossings for small animals 6. Learn about work group activities 7. Review preliminary information about Dinkey Collaborative accomplishments and remaining work 8. Learn about and provide feedback on Two Forest Vegetation Management Plan 9. Learn about Sierra National Forest activities and future Collaborative focus

TIME AGENDA ITEM PRESENTER(S) 10:00- Welcome Todd Ellsworth, 10:30 • Introductions Interim High Sierra District • Agenda Review Ranger • Ground Rules Kim Sorini-Wilson, High • Future Collaborative Focus Sierra District Wildlife Biologist, Sierra National Forest Juliana Birkhoff, Facilitator 10:30- News You Can Use Participants 11:00 • CA DOT USFS Region 5 Master Cooperative agreement • Cal Fire updates • Department of Conservation, Watershed Coordinator, to Sierra Resource Conservation District • Sierra Nevada Conservancy Blue Rush Forest Restoration Yosemite Sequoia Resource Conservation and Development Council • Sierra Institute, Building Capacity for Rural Development Across Sierra Communities • CFLRP • Other TIME AGENDA ITEM PRESENTER(S) 11:00- Sierra Nevada Conservancy Update Sarah Campe, Mt. 11:30 Brief presentation and facilitated discussion Whitney Area • Tahoe Central Sierra Initiative Representative, • Sierra Nevada Strategic Investment Plan Sierra Nevada • WIP Grant Program Conservancy • Other grant programs 11:30- Forest Wide Prescribed Fire Project Kim Sorini-Wilson, 12:00 Brief presentation and facilitated discussion Biologist, High Sierra District, Sierra National Forest 12:00- A New Road Crossing Structure for Small Animals: Case Stephanie Barnes, District 12:30 Study with The Yosemite Toad Fisheries, Aquatic Presentation and facilitated discussion Biologist, High Sierra District, Sierra National Forest 12:30- Lunch 1:15

1:15- Snow Corral Critical Aquatic Refuge Restoration – Forest Stephanie Barnes, District 2:00 Road 10S23 Decommissioning Around Snow Corral Fisheries, Aquatic Meadow Biologist, High Sierra Presentation and Facilitated Discussion District, Sierra National Forest 2:00- Two Forest Vegetation Management Planning Kristine Gibson, Planning 2:45 Brief presentation and facilitated discussion Assistant, Sierra National Forest 2:45- Dinkey Collaborative Work Group Updates 3:00 • Fire • Funding • Tribal Forest Restoration

3:00- Dinkey Collaborative Project Accomplishments and Kim Sorini-Wilson, High 3:30 Remaining Work Sierra District Wildlife • Timber Biologist, Sierra National • X Burns Forest • Mechanical thin Olivia Roe, Silviculturist, • Reforestation High Sierra District, Sierra • Channel Restoration National Forest • Vegetation Management Adam Hernandez, Fuels • Wildlife habitat Specialist, High Sierra District

2 TIME AGENDA ITEM PRESENTER(S) 3:30- Sierra National Forest Updates Todd Ellsworth, Acting 4:00 Brief presentation and facilitated discussion District Ranger, High Sierra • High Sierra District District • Sierra National Forest Dean Gould, Forest • Region Five Supervisor, Sierra National Forest 4:00- Next Steps Juliana Birkhoff, 4:30 Facilitator 4:30 Adjourn

Ground Rules 1. Electronics courtesy – please turn all devices to silent or off. 2. Be comfortable – take personal breaks if needed, restrooms and refreshments provided. 3. Honor time – we have a full agenda and specific goals for each item on the agenda. 4. Humor is welcome – it just should not be at someone else’s expense. 5. Common conversational courtesy –use appropriate language, don’t interrupt others, and don’t make it hard to hear by having private conversations. 6. All ideas and points of view have value – you do not have to agree with each other, please ask questions to learn the reasons why you differ. 7. Avoid assumptions and editorials – do not judge other people’s motives or the value of their actions; learn how different experiences lead to differences.

3

United States Department of Agriculture Sierra National Forest Forestwide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Purpose, Need and Proposed Action

Forest Service Sierra National Forest January 2019

For More Information Contact:

Christine Handler Team Leader Phone: (559) 920-2188 Email: [email protected]

Cover Photo: Prescribed burning on the Sierra National Forest in an areas with tree mortality. Credit: Adam Hernandez, FS employee.

Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

Introduction Fire is a core ecosystem process in the Sierra Nevada – it has shaped ecosystem composition, structure, and function. However, fire suppression has led to greatly diminished fire frequency in our forests over the last century. In addition, the Sierra National Forest has experienced historic tree mortality in recent years. Returning fire as a process back to the ecosystem is needed. Therefore, we are proposing to increase the pace and scale of prescribed burning to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic, severe wildfire on ecosystem health and public health and safety. We believe that an increase in our prescribed burning would decrease the adverse effects of undesirable wildfire.

Therefore, we are proposing to apply prescribed fire to land within the Sierra National Forest that is outside of wilderness. The prescribed burning would occur annually over the next 15 to 20 years and would occur on up to 50,000 acres per year. This forestwide analysis would provide a range of prescribed fire opportunities that can be prioritized and scheduled as necessary in any given year based on priority and need. Prescribed burning would be conducted within established guidelines law, regulation, and policy and consistent with the Forest Plan. Proposed Project Location The project area is located on lands within the Sierra National Forest that are outside of designated wilderness areas. Figure 1 provides an overview of the Forest lands that are potential prescribed burn locations.

1 Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

Figure 1. Map of Sierra National Forest System Lands outside of Wilderness

Need for the Proposal Fire is a core ecosystem process in the Sierra Nevada – it has shaped ecosystem composition, structure, and function. However, fire suppression has led to greatly diminished fire frequency in

2 Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

our forests over the last century. In addition, the Sierra National Forest has experienced historic tree mortality in recent years. Returning fire as a process back to the ecosystem is needed. Therefore, we are proposing to increase the pace and scale of prescribed burning to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic, severe wildfire on ecosystem health and public health and safety. We believe that an increase in our prescribed burning would decrease the adverse effects of undesirable wildfire. Current Condition Historically, forest fires of the Sierra National Forest were primarily frequent, low to mixed severity fires. In forested ecozones, these fires would burn mostly surface fuels, small trees, shrubs and understory plants, leaving many large canopy trees standing and creating an open forest condition. However, past forest management practices, over a century of aggressive suppression of forest fires, and other human disturbances have changed the surface fuels composition and structure of vegetation in the forest. Current forests are made of more, densely growing, smaller trees that have much less diversity and complexity than historic forests and increased surface fuels accumulations. This change in forest structure has resulted in a large change from historic fire frequency and intensity (referred to as fire return interval and fire regime) over large portions of the Forest. The longer time between forest fires has resulted in the growth of uncharacteristically heavy surface fuels and dense forests, thereby increasing the likelihood of high-severity, stand-replacing fires beyond what occurred historically. The high fire risk and high fire hazard pose threats to physical, biological, and social values in the project area such as: soil stability, hydrology and air quality, wildlife habitat for species including threatened, endangered, and Forest Service sensitive species, scenic values, and recreation. A comprehensive report on the conditions of the Forest was prepared in 2014. (This report was written before the onset of the Sierra National Forest’s severe tree mortality.) This is called the Final Sierra Nevada Forest Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2014). It identifies the ecosystem changes that have resulted due to fire suppression within the Sierra National Forest. It states that, “there have been two primary changes to fire patterns in the past 50 years. First, the overall frequency of fire across the landscape is greatly diminished from historic patterns. Second, the extent of high severity fires has increased beyond what is desirable by most” (page 54). These changes have resulted in increased forest density, and uniformity of structure and fuels. According to the Assessment, “these effects will continue with an increased risk of drought- related tree mortality, insect and pathogen outbreak, and uniformly intense, high severity, large wildfires.” The vulnerability of these ecosystems also puts at risk key species of concern and their habitat as well as riparian habitats resulting in decreased habitat for birds, bats, insects, and amphibians (USDA Forest Service 2014).

3 Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

Figure 2: Left - Photo of tree mortality in Blue Canyon (provided by Judi Tapia, FS employee). Right – Photo of the effects of high severity fire, Railroad fire, 2017 (provided by Carolyn Ballard, FS employee). The current rate of ecosystem restoration on the Sierra National Forest is very low compared to the need. Under current program contraints, such as logistics, funding, working through the most hazardous locations first, and burn windows, approximately 4,100 acres are treated annually. This includes understory burning and mechanically treated acres which are piled and burned. Furthermore, only 17.5% (or 230,000 acres) of all acres on the Forest (inclusive of wilderness) are available for mechanical treatment due to constraints such as administrative and legal designation, biological and slope limitations (North et al. 2015). In the last five years, there has been an average of about 19,000 acres of wildfire per year. The vast majority of these acres are from large fires such as the Aspen Fire (2013), the French Fire (2014), the Rough Fire (2015), the Railroad Fire (2017). In addition, the 2018 Ferguson Fire burned 96,000 acres on the Sierra, Stanislaus National Forests and Yosemite National Park. The sum total of all acres treated through prescribed fire and affected by uncharacteristically severe wildfire is less than the pace and scale needed to achieve the desired condition and, in the case of wildfires results in most of the burned areas burning at high intensity that desired. Fire risk and associated fire hazard have led to concerns over fire behavior in and adjacent to private property and fire effects to resource values on National Forest lands. In addition, smoke from large fires that does not disperse has the potential to negatively impact residents of and visitors to the area. Many of these concerns have been validated by relatively recent wildfires, such as the Railroad Fire. Uncharacteristic fuels accumulation, weather conditions, poor access for firefighting forces, rugged terrain and many other factors contributed to extreme fire behavior in most of these recent fires. During one or more of these fires, several structures were lost and air quality impacts adversely affected human health and exceeded the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. In addition, areas of high fire severity experienced soil erosion, loss of wildlife habitat and degraded visual quality.

4 Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

Figure 3: Left – Photo of helicopter dropping fire retardant on a wildfire (provided by Judy Tapia, FS employee). Right – Photo of smoke from high severity Railroad Fire, 2017 (provided by Carolyn Ballard, FS employee)

In addition, climate change is expected to continue to exacerbate conditions as it results in increased temperatures and summer drought. This change will intensify trends in fire, insect and pathogen outbreaks, and drought-related tree mortality (USDA Forest Service 2014). More specifically, the combination of bark beetles and drought have led to high levels of conifer mortality. The rate of tree mortality has increased dramatically over the last two to three years increasing the risk of uncharacteristic, stand-replacing wildfire across the Sierra National Forest for all vegetation types. All of this has resulted in the Sierra Nevada being identified as one of the highest risk areas in the country in terms of wildland urban interface and human developments at risk (USDA Forest Service 2014). Desired Condition The desired condition is for fire to burn with a range of intensity, severity and frequency that allows ecosystems to function in a healthy and sustainable manner. Wildland fire is a necessary process to sustain the fire-adapted ecosystems of the Sierra National Forest. In particular, low to mixed severity fires, approximating historic conditions, should be characteristic over most of the forest and high intensity fire (greater than 10 to 15 percent stand replacing) should be infrequent. Mixed severity fire on the landscape reduces fuel buildup and helps to maintain and protect habitat for a variety of species. As a result of restoration of natural fire processes, forests become more resilient to insects, disease, and drought. A natural fire regime is characterized as the degree to which fire frequency and severity historically occurred across the landscape without the intervention of modern suppression, but includes aboriginal burning (Agee 1993, Brown 1995). The five conventional classifications used by resource managers describe and group fire regimes by the average number of years between fire occurrence and the severity, or degree to which the overstory is replaced in a vegetation community. The predominant vegetation communities found on the Sierra National Forest and their proportion of the project area are listed in Table 1. See Appendix A – Desired Conditions and Actions by Vegetation Community for more detail about how the conditions and desired conditions vary by vegetation community.

5 Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

Table 1: Summary of vegetation community types Elevation Community Type Approximate Acres Low Shrub/Chaparral 40,000 Low Mixed Hardwood 50,000 Middle Shrub/Chaparral 100,000 Middle Pine/Mixed Hardwood/Conifer 418,000 High Subalpin/alpine 98,500

Based on these historic fire return invervals, at the Sierra Nevada scale, analysis suggests that the Forest Service alone needs to treat fuels across all forest types on 184,000 acres, and possibly up to 488,000 acres, annually (North et al. 2012). Specifically at the project level (those lands outside of wilderness) on the Sierra National Forest, there is a maintenance backlog from the absence of fire consisting of vegetation communities that have had their historic fire return interval disrupted primarily by suppression efforts for 100 years or more. This maintenance backlog or “fire debt”, coupled with the maintenance burning of previously treated acres and new projects, all aimed at forest health and resiliency on the Sierra National Forest support a need for approximately 20,000 to 50,000 acres of prescribed fire per year to approach historic levels (North et al. 2012). In addition, there is a desire to manage wildfire to reduce threats to communities and public health and safety, as well as enhance the social values of the Forest. This includes the desire to reduce wildlife fire threat in areas where fuel conditions currently pose the highest threat to communities and community assets. Fire management activities should minimize the risk of loss of life and damage to property. In addition, natural mixed severity fire should reduce smoke from larger fires, provide added protection for communities, and support sustainable recreation, particularly in maintaining scenic attractiveness, integrity and character.

6 Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

Figure 4: Vegetation communities across the project area (see also Table 1)

7 Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

Purpose and Need for the Project The overarching purpose of the project is to restore a healthy, diverse, fire-resilient forest structure in the Sierra National Forest. We have identified the need to address ecosystem health issues by increasing the pace and scale of prescribed fire across the forest towards a goal of prescribed burning of 20,000 to 50,000 acres annually. More specifically, there is a need to:

• restore historic fire patterns and frequencies at the landscape scale • to increase resiliency and overall health of vegetation with concordant benefits of providing quality wildlife habitat, • minimize the potential for uncharacteristic wildfires by reducing surface and ladder fuels and breaking up contiguous vegetation, especially in areas of recent tree mortality, and • address public health and safety impacts from uncharacteristic wildfires, including reducing risk for fire-fighters, reducing major impacts to air quality, and reducing risk to communities and community assets.

Proposed Action To accomplish project objectives and reintroduce the process of frequent fire throughout the Sierra National Forest we are proposing to use prescribed burning as a restoration tool throughout the Sierra National Forest. Management strategies suggested by researchers (North et al. 2009) emphasize the use of prescribed fire both as a fuel treatment and as a tool for restoring natural processes. Benefits associated with using prescribed fire is that it creates more open forest conditions similar to historic forests. Areas where prescribed burning occurs provide greater resistance to insects, disease, and drought, resulting in a more resilient forest. Because individual understory tree density would be reduced, height to live tree crown increased and surface fuels reduced; wildfires would be less intense, reducing risks to local communities, and post-fire landscapes would result in a wider range of surviving habitat types. Given this increased need, strategically placed and sequenced treatments will allow fire managers greater latitudes to increase the pace and scale of forest restoration over time. These treatments will provide areas to anchor additional treatments to as well as buffer highly valued resources and assets from future wildland fires. When treatments are placed in a strategic fashion across 20% of the landscape, modeled fire size and behavior is consistently reduced (Collins et al. 2013). The long-term effect would be modified fire behavior, effects, and growth. It is conceivable that this threshold of 20% could be attained in relatively short period of time through burning at the scales being proposed, addressing the maintenance backlog (fire debt), maintenance burning of previously treated acres and new projects.

In this proposed project we will analyze the potential for prescribed burning on all acres of National Forest System Lands within the Sierra National Forest, except for those within designated wilderness. Where there are no existing fire control lines (e.g., roads, natural barriers such as wet drainages), firelines would be constructed only as necessary to protect communities and infrastructure. In order to protect sensitive natural or cultural resources from the effects of fire or fire control lines, the proposed action also includes design features. Design features are best management practices or other resource protection measures that would be incorporated into each burn plan. The following sections describe how we would propose to use prescribed fire in more detail.

8 Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

Prescribed fire We are proposing prescribed burning on all National Forest System Lands within the Sierra National Forest, except for within the following areas: federally designated wilderness, granite rock outcrops, reservoirs, experiemental range, and administrative sites. While burning could occur anywhere within 772,000 acres of National Forest System Land, we estimate that we would conduct up to 50,000 acres of management-ignited prescribed burning per year. The project is being designed to provide a range of prescribed fire that can be prioritized and scheduled as necessary in any given year, allowing for flexibility in implementation. Flexibility is needed to implement prescribed fire where it’s most needed and most feasible to implement such as locations which will serve as anchor points for additional treatments to, as well as buffers for, highly valued resources and assets from future wildland fires. Most individual prescribed burns would be between 600 to 5,000 acres. We would anticipate that each burn area may have different fire return frequencies dependent on vegetation type (such as 2 to 3 management-ignited prescribed fire entries in a 15 to 20 year period for mixed conifer). All prescribed fire would occur in the project area according to applicable design features under appropriate burning conditions to move treatment areas toward the desired conditions applicable to the relevant vegetation type for the area (see Appendix A – Desired Conditions and Actions by Vegetation Community).The actual amount of burning is dependent on a variety of factors, including but not limited to funding, weather conditions, resource protection measures, resources available to accomplish treatments, and regional wildfire activity. Prescribed burning includes removing existing vegetation via the planned use of fire over part or all of a designated land area. Such burning is done under a “prescription” or a set of limits on burning conditions including maximum and minimum temperature, wind, and fuel moisture in order to meet a set of predetermined objectives. Several methods for the application of fire on the landscape are suggested but are not limited to: ground and aerial applications of fire through the use of handheld drip-torches, helicopter ignition by spherical ignition devices or helitorch, fusees, flares or fire launchers, or propane torches. Prescribed burning would mimic low and mixed intensity fires historically found in the Forest. Specific fire prescriptions would be determined by vegetation community type and are intended to move the unit toward desired ecological conditions (see Appendix A – Desired Conditions and Actions by Vegetation Community) and address safety issues, generally by altering wildland fuels (including reducing surface fuels, ladder fuels, and the density of trees and shrubs).

9 Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

Figure 5: Photo of Forest Service employees conducting a typical prescribed fire on the Sierra National Forest (photo provided by Carolyn Ballard, Forest Service employee)

We would not implement prescribed burns where fire behavior would not meet desired conditions or if prescribed burning may present a risk to resources. Test burns would be conducted, monitored, and reported. A prescribed burn would be terminated if the test burn or ongoing burning was not meeting the desired conditions (USDA and US Department of Interior 2017). In areas where specialists determine that fuel loading and/or stand structure is such that subsequent fire behavior might exceed acceptable thresholds and pose risk to prescriptive objectives and/or highly valued resources and assets (Wildland Urban Interface, infrastructure, etc.), prescribed fire alone will not be the sole source of treatment. In these situations, pre- treatment (such as thinning or pre-commercial treatments) could be planned with separate site- specific projects and would be planned under independent environmental review. Thininng and precommercial treatmnets are not considered part of the proposed action for this project. To protect sensitive California spotted owl habitat, hand thinning and pile burning may be used prior to prescribed burning in some locations (see design features). In collaboration with tribes and gatherers, burn plans for areas the tribes would like to burn would aim to enhance tribal culturally sensitive gathering resources such as food resources (such as acorns, pine nuts, smaller seeds, and berries) improve and increase basket and cordage materials (such as deergrass, sourberry, milkweed, ceanothus and soaproot) and sustain habitat for wildlife. Cultural burning would include a combination of broadcast burning and pile burning. Cultural burns would typically be up to 100 acres per planned burn area, though cultural broadcast burns

10 Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

could be larger. Cultural burn areas would include hand preparation (hand pruning and trimming and hand piling prior to burning) so that burning is controlled to meet cultural burn objectives. Fireline control line construction Fireline construction would be used for the protection of cultural sites, administrative sites, infrastructure or private property, and other features, as needed. Existing features such as roads, trails, or wet drainages would be used for fire control lines where possible. Where there are no existing control lines we would construct fire control lines to facilitate broadcast burning and hand piling burning operations. The amount of fireline would vary depending on the size of the burn area and existing conditions.Typical fire control line construction has been two miles for fireline for every 5,000 acres burned, therefore, for analysis purposes, we anticipate that there would be up to 20 miles fireline construction per year (or up to 2 miles per individual burn area). Because we propose to increase the size of the burn areas, this amount may be reduced because we would have more opportunity to use roads and natural features (such as rock faces) as fire control areas. Fireline construction may consist of removing herbaceous vegetation, pruning, or cutting breaks in the fuel by hand or mechanical methods, and clearing all vegetation down to mineral soil. Hand pruning and thinning of vegetation (ladder fuels and thickets of trees and brush) may occur up to 300 feet on eitherside of the control line. This area is considered critical for holding operations and vegetation should be managed to ensure prescribed fire control. Cut material may be piled and burned or scattered. See Table 3 for more specific description of construction methods and limitations. Firelines may be rehabilitated in certain areas to protect resources nad scenery (see design features), which may include pulling removed material back into the lines, hand constructing water diversion channels, or laying shrubs or woody debris in the lines following burning. In other areas, firelines may be left for use in future burn entries. The location of fire lines would be approved based on required survey data and interdisciplinary review, as defined in the project design features. To ensure firefighter safety during prescribed burning, overhead hazard mitigations may be required. Particular focus for overhead hazard removal would be within 2 tree lengths (approximately 150 feet) of fire control line construction or site protection, since that is where fire managers would be working. We would remove all overhead hazards (i.e. unsound snags) to a degree reasonably sufficient to exclude the possibility of a snag falling where people might be expected to spend appreciable time. This would be accomplished by hand falling or, if accessible, using mechanical equipment to push trees over. These areas are typically along road, fire line or other control points. We may also consider blasting snags in these areas. In areas where overhead risk cannot be mitigated by any means (assessed and deemed unsafe/unable to fall or necessary to retain for resource protection, e.g. wildlife habitat), ignition patterns will be adjusted such that overhead risk is mitigated through avoidance. No hazard mitigation would be needed where aerial ignition methods are used.

11 Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

Table 2: Fire line construction methods, ground disturbance, and safety measures Line Control Construction Limitations Ground Disturbance Safety Measures Technique Methods Natural Barriers None Unit size may NA Limited hand falling of overhead hazards (i.e. unsound (e.g. green need to be snags) to a degree reasonably sufficient to exclude the meadows, rock reduced or possibility of a snag falling where resources might be outcroppings, scree expanded based expected to spend appreciable time. slopes, granite on availability or shields, rivers, large adjacency of bodies of water) natural barriers

Existing Barriers None Unit size may NA Limited to some hand falling of overhead hazards (i.e. (e.g. roads, previous need to be unsound snags) to a degree reasonably sufficient to recent contracted or exclude the possibility of a snag falling where resources prescribedburn expanded based might be expected to spend appreciable time. Where units) on availability or specific overhead hazards are assessed and deemed adjacency of unsafe to fall by hand, equipment may be utilized to natural barriers mitigate hazard (e.g. feller-buncher to lay trees over and/or dozer and/or excavator to push trees over and skidders. Consider blasting snags. Handline Handcrews using Production rates Approximately three foot wide Remove all overhead hazards (i.e. unsound snags) that Construction hand tools, are slower than scrape down to mineral soil and threaten falling on hand line where Rx fire lighting and brushing with other line associated brushing of handline holding resources will be expected to maintain patrol on chainsaws, construction commensurate with expected fire foot during and after ignition. In areas where overhead removal of dead techniques behavior adjacent to constructed risk cannot be mitigated by hand falling (assessed and and down logs in line. Width of mineral scrape is deemed unsafe to fall by hand), and equipment is not path of hand line, dictated by fuel loading adjacent feasible, line location will be such that overhead risk is to hand line. avoided and/or located where mitigation can be conducted. Consider blasting snags. Fireline Explosives Blasting, followed Contingent on Approximately 3 foot wide scrape . Remove all overhead hazards (i.e. unsound snags) that by handcrews availability of down to mineral soil and threaten falling on hand line where Rx fire lighting and using hand tools, qualified blasters. associated brushing of handline holding resources will be expected to maintain patrol on brushing with commensurate with expected fire foot during and after ignition. In areas where overhead chainsaws, behavior adjacent to constructed risk cannot be mitigated by hand falling (assessed and removal of dead line. Width of mineral scrape is deemed unsafe to fall by hand), and equipment is not feasible, line location will be such that overhead risk is

12 Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

Line Control Construction Limitations Ground Disturbance Safety Measures Technique Methods and down logs in dictated by fuel loading adjacent avoided and/or located where mitigation can be path of hand line, to hand line. conducted. Consider blasting snags Mechanical Line Dozer, Costs are Up to eight foot wide scrape Remove all overhead hazards (i.e. unsound snags) that Construction excavator, feller- generally higher down to mineral soil and threaten falling on hand line where Rx fire lighting and buncher, skidder, than other line associated brushing of holding resources will be expected to maintain patrol on brushing with construction mechanical line commensurate foot during and after ignition. In areas where overhead chainsaws, light methods. with expected fire behavior risk cannot be mitigated by hand falling (assessed and hand tool touch- adjacent to constructed line. deemed unsafe to fall by hand), and equipment is not up and Width of mineral scrape is feasible, line location will be such that overhead risk is windrowing by dictated by fuel loading adjacent avoided and/or located where mitigation can be handcrews to hand line. conducted. Consider blasting snags

13 Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

Determining Site-Specific Burn Locations This project would be planned with the best available information, however all site-specific information would not be available before a decision would be made. Therefore, closer to the time of implementation, the site-specific stand conditions present would be evaluated through field inventory. Annually, fire management specialists would select areas for site-specific prescribed burns to occur. Based on the best available science and professional judgement, fire managers generally look to areas to prioritize prescribed fire on the landscape based on ecological need and/or potential future fire threat. This can include areas where prescribed fire can have a positive effect on future large fire growth during the fire season by strategically locating burn units and breaking up large areas of accumulated fuels thereby modifying future fire effects, areas where fire poses the greatest threat to high valued resources and assets, and areas most in need of the ecological benefits of prescribed fire. Moreover, the landscape will be prioritized strategically, from risk, spatial and temporal perspectives. Areas adjacent to high valued resources and assets and high risk locations that present few to no tactical options in the event of a wildfire will be treated first at smaller scales, increasing outwardly in size as risk is mitigated. Simultaneously, and on a larger scale such as a drainage or watershed that is in need of restoration through prescribed fire, fire managers will sequence treatments, starting at ridgetops, working slowly downward towards the bottoms with subsequent entries over time. This will allow for modified fire behavior and effects as well create natural barriers to fire spread to work from, ever increasing the pace and scale of restoration. Prescribed Fire Burn Plans In accordance with the Interagency Prescribed Fire guide and Interagency Fire and Aviation Operations Guide, site-specific burn plans would be prepared and would document the burn prescription as well as compliance with law, regulation, and policy as well as consistency with the analysis. In addition, the burn plans would include a complexity and risk assessment process that adequately identifies and controls hazards to protect life, property, and resources. A smoke management plan would be submitted for approval by the air pollution control district having jurisdiction and prescribed fire ignitions would be regulated by the air districts based on authorized burn day declarations. These plans identify, or prescribe conditions such as weather, fuels and fuel conditions, under which clearly stated objectives for a prescribed fire can be met. Qualified Fire Management Specialists write burn plans for prescribed fires that are then reviewed by other discipline specialists that may include biologists, hydrologists, etc. before implementation. As detailed in the design features, once initial burn areas and plans are developed by fire and fuels managers, the would then consult with specialists, where needed, to ensure that they are within the scope of the proposed action and effects analysis and that they are consistent with the design features that bind those actions. This will include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Determine if additional site-specific surveys are required; • Ensure appropriate application of the design criteria, best management requirements, and monitoring requirements; and

14 Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

• Document whether or not each specific project meets is within the scope of the activities evaluated in the analysis, that surveys have been completed, and that design features have been applied. A responsible line officer is always signatory to any prescribed fire plan and, in doing so,must ensure the burn plan is consistent with the decision, including surveys, design features and monitoring requirements. The Forest is required to submit a smoke management plan for each separate prescribed burn planning unit to the air district having jurisdiction for approval. For the Sierra National Forest area Clean Air Act requirements are implemented at the local level by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and Mariposa County Air Pollution Control District. The Forest then must receive authorization to burn on a daily basis from the air district. Burning would only be initiated on burn days designated by the air pollution control districts when satisfactory wind dispersion conditions prevail. In California, prescribed burners are required to participate on a daily state wide smoke management conference call in order to coordinate burning operations with local air district regulators and meteorologists who brief participants on air quality outlook. A great deal of coordination goes into meeting the prescriptive parameters, communicating with partner agencies and public, and monitoring effects post-fire. Ignition is conducted only after prescriptive criteria are met according to the prescribed fire burn plan and relevant agencies are consulted to minimize smoke impacts to the public’s air quality and health. Design features We anticipate that using prescribed fire as a restoration tool would provide benefits to many resources, such as wildlife habitat, native plants, and watershed health, especially when compared to the effects of an uncharacteristically severe wildfire. The implementation of design features would help us to avoid or reduce any unintended or negative effects of the project. Design features are an important part of the proposed action and are proposed to protect the sensitive wildlife, plants, fish, habitats, soils, scenery, air quality, and historic and archaeological sites. Design features incorporate applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines, best management practices, and conservation measures and Terms and Conditions from appropriate Biological Opinions for threatened and endangered species. Some design criteria would require field surveys prior to implementation to ensure that any rare or sensitive resources are avoided. As many of these resources may change over time and project implementation would occur over longer than a decade, completion of surveys and inventories closer to the time of implementation can better ensure the most accurate information is used to implement the project and protect these resources. Projects that cannot meet the design criteria would require separate NEPA analysis and compliance actions in order to proceed. Design features are listed in detail in Appendix x.

15 Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

References North, M., Stine, P.; O’Hara, K., Zielinski, W., Stephens, S., 2009. An ecosystem management strategy for Sierran mixed-conifer forests. General Technical Report, PSW-GTR-220 (Second printing, with addendum). Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49 p. USDA Forest Service.1991. Sierra National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service Sierra National Forest, Clovis, CA. USDA Forest Service. 2004. Record of Decision Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA USDA Forest Service. 2014. Final Sierra National Forest Assessment (Document number: R5- MB-269). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southerwest Region, Vallejo, CA. U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior. 2017. Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Guide. 53 p.

16 Appendix A – Desired Conditions and Actions by Vegetation Community The Sierra National Forest Forestwide Prescribed Burning Project is needed to restore the natural fire regime through the use of prescribed fire to achieve forest health and resilience. The proposed action would increase the pace and scale of prescribed fire across most of the forest, increasing prescribed burning to up to 50,000 acres per year in the long term. All prescribed fire would occur in the project area according to applicable design features under appropriate burning conditions to move treatment areas toward the desired conditions. Specific fire prescriptions would be determined by vegetation community type and are intended to move the unit toward desired ecological conditions. The purpose of this appendix is to provide a general framework of the broad vegetation communities on the Forest, describe the desired conditions for each, and to describe generally how prescribed fire use and prescriptions may vary between these communities in order to move towards desired conditions. It also very briefly describe the current conditions and anticipated results of prescribed burning for each community, to aid in environmental analysis (additional documentation is in the project file vegetation and fuels reports). The vegetation communities are summarized and displayed in Table 1and Figure 1. Prescribed fire would not be conducted where desired conditions or parameters described in this document could not be met or where burning may present a risk to resources.

Table 3: Summary of vegetation communities Elevation Community Type Approximate Acres in project area Low Shrub/Chaparral 40,000 Low Mixed Hardwood 50,000 Middle Shrub/Chaparral 100,000 Middle Pine/Mixed Hardwood/Conifer 418,000 High Subalpine/alpine 98,500

Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

Figure 6: Map of the project boundary and vegetation communities

[2]

Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

Low elevation shrub/chaparral – 40,000 Acres • Description/Current Vegetation Conditions – The low elevation shrub/chaparral community is characteristic of a Mediterranean climate with long, hot summers, and cool, wet winters where most precipitation falls as rain (20-40 inches). Non-native grasses and herbs are dominant. This community includes chaparral dominated by Mariposa manzanita, buckbrush, chaparral whitethorn, interior live oak, birchleaf mountain mahogany, western redbud, flannelbush, and yerba santa, with many other species adding to a highly diverse and special type of chaparral found only here. Tree- dominated plant communities are blue oak woodland or savannah with foothill pine California buckeye, and interior live oak present to varying degrees. California poppies are visible on the south-facing aspects. On the north-facing aspects, the oak woodland extends up. Scattered on the tops of the slope and ridge are rock outcrops of granite. The relict, endemic shrub tree anemone has its natural range in the Sierra NF in this chaparral type. (California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (WHR) Types: CRC and MCP). • Desired Conditions – Because this vegetation community represents a small amount of this biologically diverse vegetation type in public ownership, it is important for long term conservation. Where possible, have vegetation at different stages of growth. This will provide diversity necessary to species that depend on specialized habitat conditions. Reintroduce fire on a cycle that will promote a variety of shrub and chaparral stages. Fire frequency should be such that any encroaching conifers would be controlled by fire. Reducing any portion of the landscape where tree canopy cover is higher than historic levels. Restore native grasses and shrubs that are being extirpated from this zone due to non-native invasive species spread. The desired vegetation composition post-burning is a younger and vigorous, native chaparral plant community, resistant to large fire growth for at least several decades. The potential for a change in plant community exists if burning takes place in conditions that are too dissimilar from the natural wildfire season in these communities (Knapp, E.; Estes, B.; and Skinner, C., 2009), so this must be avoided. • Fire Regime and Condition Class – Chaparral is in a constant state of transition from young to older stages and back again, with fire as the primary disturbance. This type can be characterized as being in Fire Regime II and IV, where high severity fires that kill most aboveground stems occur on average every 35 to 100 years. Under the desired condition, fire-return intervals allow the buildup of native shrub and plant seeds in the soil seed bank and for the accumulation of fuels necessary to support fire-induced regeneration and invasive non-native plants do not dominate between fires. Under the current condition, this community can be characterized as being in Fire Regime Condition Class 1 and 2, indicating a low to moderate departure from its natural (historical) regime of vegetation characteristics; fuel composition; fire frequency, severity and pattern; and other associated disturbances. • Proposed Action – We would propose prescribed fire in the lower elevation shrub/chaparral primarily in spring, fall and most winter months. However, it should be noted that prescribed fire alone will not meet objectives on all of these acres (for example crushing of vegetation is frequently used to avoid unacceptable fire behavior near WUI/high valued resources) and additional projects or planning may be necessary to account for this complexity. However, under the proposed action, we would apply prescribed fire where strategic placement of previous burning/treatment has previously occurred that ensures acceptable fire behavior near high valued resources. We would apply aspect burning in the spring, using wetter, cooler aspects to act as a natural barrier to fire spread. We would not anticipate multiple entries, generally only treating stands once within a 35 to 100 year natural fire return interval.

[3]

Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

• Burn Objectives – Prescribed fire objectives in the vegetation community are to reduce the brush species, and generally creating mosaic patterns across the landscape, reducing fire behavior and subsequent growth in the event of wildfire. • Anticipated results – Prescribed burning in this vegetation community would result in fire behavior consisting of flame lengths across the area being greater than four feet over half of the acres, in order to meet objectives. Ground litter fuels would be reduced by up to 70 percent and high severity fire would replace greater than 75 percent of the overstory. Low elevation mixed hardwood (Blue Oak Woodland) – 50,000 Acres • Description/Current Vegetation Conditions (Structure and Composition) – In this woodland forest type, absent of fire, the vegetation is comprised primarily of: Blue Oak, Live Oak, and Gray Pine, with a mixed understory of buckbrush, whiteleaf manzanita, mahogany, coffee berry and annual grasses. Current forests are made of more, densely growing, smaller trees that have much less diversity and complexity than historic forests and increased surface fuels accumulations. This change in forest structure has resulted in a large change from historic fire frequency and intensity. The longer time between forest fires has resulted in the growth of uncharacteristically heavy surface fuels and dense forests, thereby increasing the likelihood of high-severity, stand-replacing fires beyond what occurred historically. (WHR Types: BOP, BOW, CPC, VOW) • Desired Conditions – Manage hardwood ecosystems for a diversity of hardwood tree size classes within a stand such that seedlings, saplings, and pole-sized trees are sufficiently abundant to replace large trees that die. Where possible, create openings around existing California black oak and canyon live oak to stimulate natural regeneration. Create conditions that would promote the growth of oaks in an ecosystem that is dependent on fire to maintain a savanna type hardwood ecosystem. Desired tree cover is approximately 10 to 40 percent. The forests are dominated by a reduced canopy cover of blue oak and other oak species which favor periodic fire. Care should be taken when reintroducing fire into this ecosystem that it’s not helping spread non- native invasive species. • Fire Regime and Condition Class – Fires occur periodically to maintain lower levels of dead grass and litter levels so that they do not fuel intense fire. This vegetation community can be characterized as being primarily Fire Regime I, with a natural fire return interval of 0 to 35 years. This mixed hardwood can generally be characterized as Fire Regime Condition Class 1 and 2, indicating a low to moderate departure from its natural (historical) regime of vegetation characteristics; fuel composition; fire frequency, severity and pattern; and other associated disturbances. Fires typically burn with low to moderate vegetation burn severity, rarely replacing more the 75 percent of the overstory. • Proposed Action – We would conduct prescribed burning in the mixed hardwood forest in the early summer, fall and/or winter months. We would not anticipate multiple entries, generally only treating stands once within 35 years. Prescribed fire alone will meet objectives on most of these acres. • Burn Objectives – Prescribed fire objectives in the vegetation community are to reduce the dead/down fuel component, reducing brush species and rejuvenating savannah/oak communities into a multi-age mosaic reducing fire behavior and growth in the event of wildfire.

[4]

Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

• Anticipated Results – Prescribed burning in this vegetation community would be expected to have fire behavior that is surface fire (flame lengths 0 to 4 feet). In areas where higher fuel loading exists, flame lengths can be in excess of four feet and severity to the overstory increased, but rarely exceeding 75 percent mortality, especially under desired prescription parameters. Periodic fire would control regenerating seedlings and maintain lower levels of competing hardwoods and conifers. Middle elevation shrub/chapparal – 100,000 Acres • Description/Current Vegetation Conditions (Structure and Composition) – Mid-elevation chaparral has a number of dominant traits that make them highly adapted to the climate and disturbance regime of the Sierra. The dominant shrubs found in chaparral are typically sclerophyllous or often evergreen, with leaves characterized by a thick cuticle and sunken stomata. Not all shrubs found in the chaparral type are evergreen, including certain species of Ceanothus. Shrub and chaparral populations are recovering from intensive grazing and implementation of fires suppression policies from the previous century. Past fire suppression policies ended burning in and around chaparral (Estes, B. 2013). The most common function/disturbance in the chaparral vegetation type is recurring stand replacing fire resetting the succession of the vegetation to an early seral stage. (WHR Types: MCH and MHC) • Desired Conditions – Where possible, encourage shrub/chaparral at different stages of growth. This would provide diversity necessary to species that depend on particular habitat conditions. Control current populations of non-native invasive species that are currently extirpating native species. Restore tree canopy cover to historic levels. Fire frequency should be such that any encroaching conifers would be controlled by fire. • Fire Regime and Condition Class – This vegetation community can be characterized as being primarily Fire Regime I and IV, with a natural fire return interval of 0 to 35 or more years. This vegetation community can be characterized as being in Fire Regime Condition Class 3, indicating a high departure from its natural (historical) regime of vegetation characteristics; fuel composition; fire frequency, severity and pattern; and other associated disturbances. Multiple fire intervals have been missed here due to fire suppression over the last 100 years. • Proposed Action – We would implement prescribed fire in both the early summer and fall. We would not anticipate multiple entries, generally only treating stands once within 35 years, and in some cases over 35 years. Prescribed fire alone would meet objectives on most of these acres, meaning there will be no pre-treatment. • Burn Objectives – Prescribed fire objectives in the vegetation community are to reduce the dead/down fuel component, rejuvenating brush species into a multi-age class mosaic reducing fire behavior in the event of wildfire. • Anticipated Results – We would anticipate that greater than 80 percent of fire behavior in this community will be surface fire (flame lengths 0 to 4 feet) with less than 75 percent of the overstory replacement. In areas of higher fuel concentrations, some mixed severity to stand replacing fire can be expected with over 75 percent overstory replacement. Periodic fire would allow fire to occur in its characteristic pattern and resume its ecological role and reduce encroaching conifers. Middle elevation pine/mixed conifer – 418,000 Acres • Description/Current Vegetation Conditions (Structure and Composition) – Mixed conifer forest is the most common vegetation type and is comprised of: ponderosa pine, sugar pine, incense cedar,

[5]

Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

and white fir, and some Douglas-fir. Black oak is an important component of many mixed conifer stands, particularly at the lower elevations and on drier aspects (south and west). Pine and mixed species plantations, ranging from less than 10 years to over 50 years old also occur within this elevational band. Smaller components of this vegetation community include: non-forested areas such as wet meadows and rock outcroppings; Knobcone pine in limited patches; and special botanical and historical giant sequoia groves. These mixed conifer forest communities generally have elevated stand densities, increased canopy cover, and overall smaller average tree diameters, and a shift to more shared-tolerant species (for example, a shift from pine and oak to white fir), compared to pre-settlement conditions (Safford and Stevens 2017). In addition, stands are generally more homogenous today than historically with increased tree clump size, reduction in canopy gaps, and fewer shrub species. Current elevated seedling densities and composition shifts to more shade tolerant species is largely attributed to the removal of frequent low intensity fire on the landscape due to long term fire suppression practices. In addition, large areas of pine mortality occur within this vegetation community type. These trees largely remain standing and currently do not contribute to fire hazard, nor the ground fuel profile. They do, however, presently pose a risk to firefighters and prescribed fire personnel as a concerning overhead hazard. They are expected to naturally fall to the ground within a few years and become part of the ground fuel, contributing to loading that is well above what would otherwise be considered natural levels. (WHR Types – ASP, JPN, LPN, MHW, PPN, SMC, WFR) • Desired Conditions – Desired conditions at the landscape level for mid-elevation forests are a complex mosaic of varying forest densities, sizes, and species mix reflective of changes in the landform (aspect, elevation, slope position) and microsite conditions. Within individual forest stands, trees are highly irregular in spacing and size. Individual trees, small clumps, and groups of trees are interspersed with grass, herbaceous plants, and shrubs, in variably sized openings. A mosaic of moderate to dense shrubs, tree litter, down wood and bare ground occurs between groups of trees. Vigorous understories of heterogeneous, patchy, and diverse native shrubs, herbs, and grass species are present. • Fire Regime and Condition Class – The desired condition for mixed conifer is for frequent, low to mixed severity fires over most of the general forest, primarily in the pine, mixed conifer-pine and mixed conifer fir vegetation types. High intensity fire (greater than 10 to 15 percent stand replacing) is infrequent. Frequent fire maintains lower, manageable levels of flammable materials in most areas, especially in the surface and understory layers. It can be characterized as being primarily Fire Regime I, with a frequent natural fire return interval of 0 to 20 years. However, under current conditions mixed conifer can generally be characterized as being in Fire Regime Condition Class 3, indicating a high departure from its natural (historical) regime of vegetation characteristics; fuel composition; fire frequency, severity and pattern; and other associated disturbances. Multiple fire intervals have been missed here due to fire suppression over the last 100 years. Many of the large dead trees are and will remain standing for a few more years before they begin to fall to the ground. They currently don’t overly contribute to the ground fuel profile, however duff layers are excessive due to fire suppression and ideally will be treated first in anticipation of the increasing fuel loading. • Proposed Action – Prescribed burning in mixed conifer would generally occur in both the spring and fall. Burning would be conducted when conditions would provide for primarily low intensity underburning. Multiple entries with prescribed fire, up to three, over 10 to 15years will likely be necessary to meet objectives. Fire managers anticipate this need for multiple entries with

[6]

Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

prescribed fire to first address the accumulated duff loading, in preparation of the standing dead trees falling and becoming part of the ground fuel complex. Once this first entry with fire is accomplished, subsequent entries will be targeting the large heavy dead and down component that will be produced by recent overstory mortality. Still, prescribed fire alone is anticipated to be a feasible tool to meet desired conditions on most of these areas, meaning there will be minimal pre- treatment. In certain instances measures to minimize or exclude prescribed fire effects would be employed such as in areas of special habitat, young plantations and Giant Sequoia groves (McKinley and Nelder) to protect these resources from undesirable fire behavior and/or effects. If prescribed fire is to be precluded from entering these areas, handline and firing techniques would be such that fire does not impinge upon these areas. If prescribed fire is to be applied to any of these areas, prescription parameters, fireline location, fuel loading management, and firing techniques would be such that these resources are protected from undesirable fire behavior and/or effects (see also, Design Features, Appendix X). • Burn Objectives – Burn plan prescribed fire objectives in mixed conifer are to reduce the dead and down fuel component, brush species, and generally raise the crown base height (ladder fuels), limiting mortality to less than 20 percent in trees greater than 12 inches. This would reduce fire behavior in the event of wildfire. Some of the dead trees contribute to the ground fuel loading, however the majority of dead trees are still standing. Burning in mixed conifer early and often will reduce current fuel loading in preparation for the standing dead overstory to fall and become part of the ground fuel complex. • Anticipated Results – We anticipate that under the proposed action the vast majority of fire behavior will be surface fire (flame lengths 0 to 4 feet), with less than 15 percent of the overstory replacement. In areas of higher fuel concentrations or abundant ladder fuels, some mixed severity fire can be expected. Prescribed burning would preferentially remove fire-susceptible small diameter trees. White fir (A. concolor) and incence cedar (C. decurrens) are particularly fire-susceptible in small diameter classes, due to their low branches and thin bark. Prescribed burning would have a pruning effect on the lower branches of residual trees, raising canopy base height. Shrub biomass would initially decrease while forage value would increase as new sprouts and foliage replace older woody brush. The thinning effect on small trees and seedlings from low to mixed severity prescribed fire (i.e. within burn plan parameters specified elsewhere) is a desirable and necessary component to moving forest stands to a more fire resilient condition. High Subalpine/Fir – 98,500 Acres • Description/Current Vegetation Conditions (Structure and Composition) – The subalpine zone is primarily comprised of open, shrub, herb and grass species. Tree species are primarily comprised of mountain hemlock and open, windswept pines. Whitebark pine is found in harsh, windswept areas of the alpine zone. The tree size class is smaller, 6 to11 inch, and 11 to 24 inch diameter, and the canopy is more open. This is due to the harsh, higher elevation conditions and naturally more open subalpine woodlands. Fire suppression, resulting in fuel buildup over many years followed by high intensity wildfires is a major cause of mortality (USDI-FWS, 2011). Additionally, fire suppression has led to a shift in plant communities and a reduction in open habitat for whitebark pine germination. Where periodic fire is not a disturbance factor, shade intolerant species are encroaching on whitebark pine habitat (Keane et al. 2017).

[7]

Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

(WHR Types – ADS, RDR, SCN) • Desired Condition – Desired conditions at the landscape level need to be open and relatively free from shade tolerant species. Active fire suppression starting in the early 20th century has allowed fuel to build up and shade tolerant species to encroach hindering regeneration of shade intolerant pines. Periodic wildland/prescribed fire needs to occur within this ecosystem to supply the open conditions needed for regeneration. • Fire Regime and Condition Class –This vegetation community can be characterized as being in Fire Regimes III and IV, with an average fire return interval of somewhere between 35 to 100 or more years. A cooler, wetter elevation inhibits large fire growth, with stand replacing fire on average typically 15 to 20 percent of burned acres. This community can be characterized as being in Fire Regime Condition Class 2, indicating moderate departure from its natural (historical) regime of vegetation characteristics; fuel composition; fire frequency, severity and pattern; and other associated disturbances. • Proposed Action – We would conduct prescribed burns in both the later spring and early fall, as moisture scenarios at higher elevations permit tolerance for prescribed fire that is closer to the core wildfire season occurring in the summer months. Prescribed fire alone will meet objectives on most of these acres, meaning there will be no need for any type of pre-treatment. • Burn Objectives – Prescribed fire objectives in the vegetation community are to reduce the dead/down fuel component, brush species, and generally raise the crown base height (ladder fuels), limiting mortality to less than 20 percent in the overstory, thusly reducing fire behavior in the event of wildfire. • Anticipated Results – The standing dead component is no more than 5 percent in some areas and is not as prevalent here as in the mid-elevation communities. Some of these dead trees contribute to the ground fuel loading with the majority of dead trees still standing. However, there are occasional heavy concentrations of a heavy dead/down component throughout. Prescribed fire with low to moderate intensities will carry through these surface fuels readily, with occasional single and group tree torching of the overstory where fuel concentrations are heaviest. Greater than 90 percent of fire behavior will be surface fire (flame lengths 0 to 4 feet), with stand replacing fire occurring over less than 10 percent of the area. Periodic fire will have a threefold effect, first it will reduce the potential for a stand altering event, second it will reduce shade tolerant species frequency and third it will create open conditions desired by the Clark’s nutcracker for caching whitebark pine seeds.

[8]

Forest-wide Prescribed Fire Project Updated Proposed Action

References Cited Estes, Becky, 2013. Historic Range of Variability for Chaparral in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades. Keane, Robert E.; Holsinger, Lisa M., Mahalovich, Mary F.; Tomback, Diana F. 2017. Restoring whitebark pine ecosystems in the face of climate change. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-361. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 123 p. Knapp, Eric E.; Estes, Becky L.; Skinner, Carl N. 2009. Ecological effects of prescribed fire season: a literature review and synthesis for managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-224. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 80 p. North, Malcolm; Stine, Peter; O’Hara, Kevin; Zielinski, William; Stephens, Scott. 2009. An ecosystem management strategy for Sierran mixed-conifer forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49 p. Safford, Hugh D.: Stevens, Jens T. 2017. Natural range of variation for yellow pine and mixed-conifer forests in the Sierra Nevada, southern Cascades, and Modoc and Inyo National Forests, California, USA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-256. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 229 p. Sawyer, J. O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 2007. Alpine vegetation. Pages 539– 573 in m. Barbour, A. Schoenherr, and T. Keeler-Wolf, editors. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Stephens, Scott L., Collins, Brandon M., Fettig, Christopher J., Finney, Mark A., Hoffman, Chad M., Knapp, Eric E., North, Malcolm P., Safford, Hugh, and Wayman, Rebecca B. (2018) Drought, Tree Mortality, and Wildfire in Forests Adapted to Frequent Fire. BioScience 68:77-88. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Pinus albicaulis as Endangered or Threatened With Critical Habitat.

[9]

Cannabis site documentation project documenting 200 sites, rodenticides, one plot 7 lines of water at 8 gallons of water per water, billions of gallons of water poached off the sites

Studying the toxicants Fertilizer and toxicants per cultivation location, insecticides, rodenticides per site times how many sites in California

BLM Park Service and state forests also have impacts too

Complexes Toxicology sampling 165 sites to find out what actually is used, water, soil, plants,

Oldest positive sample after eradication 1080 still has contamination, contamination does not go away

Cannabis and spotted owls, barred owls, spotted owls 70% test positive

Cannabis and wildlife behavior project, do wildlife act differently in cannabis cultivation sites, frequently see fisher in the areas, bear with carbofuran on face, would have killed 7 to ten bears,

Cannabis and game species testing grouse, deer,

Cannabis and small mammals project prey availability contamination restoration at previous sites

Mountain lions and cannabis are species they consume exposed

Hoopa mountain lion project

Cannabis and predicative modeling project computer physically looking at grow sites, to predict latitude and longitude to look at growth sites, 500 detected, but up to 1000 are predicted to occur

Reclamation and restoration 73 sites, last year, remove irrigation lines, and trash, if you clean up site, the cultivators do not come back in,

Modeling project to see where grow sites might be, landscape view of where the grow sites are, to understand impact on fisher,

Use presence only data to predict how many sites there are, distance to roads? Water, population, slope, aspect, elevation, vegetation,

Map from model, overlap between high quality fisher habitat and moderate high likelihood of cultivation, predicts risks of 26% risk to fisher, overlap with fisher resting and denning habitat, 30 37% overlap

Conservation applications, prioritize areas for species conservation, reclamation, remediation, habitat restoration,

Land acquisition outside of high-risk areas within high quality habitat

Model initiated for law enforcement to target areas that are most at risk of cultivation,

Motor M2K

Michael Jow, nepa, forest health and fuel reduction, moving toward resiliency, two rivers that bound the project,

Project area, covers two million acres

Larges landscape analysis implement pace and scale across the landscape, respond to changes

Where we are in the process, early, identified project area, preliminary need for action, key relevant literature, working on specific desired future conditions – from existing conditions and opportunities

Solicit input and develop proposed action

Why? Large high severity fires, Stan, Sequoia and Sierra are far outside of desired future conditions,

Evolving preliminary purpose protect lives and property and infrastructure from effects, modify to increase resiliency, reintroduce fire,

Landscape scale approach, condition based NEPA, management flexible to respond to conditions, without initial site-specific data

How would motor m2k differ from past projects

Condition based NEPA, a system of management practices based on implementation of (from proposed regs)

Fuels reduction and density

Considering all tools—mechanical, mastication,

Include information from spotted owl

July 11 first meeting from 1-5. VTG to SNF presentation for an hour, then break out groups, still working on agenda

July 22 field trip

Additional meetings in mid to late august

Michael Knapp-psw science advisor, official role, as an objective FOREST HEALTH AND BIOMASS UTILIZATION STATUS Dinkey Creek Landscape Collaborative – 4/18/2019

1) CA Forest Management Task Force – Biomass Utilization and Sierra Eastside Prioritization Working Groups – began active participation

2) Eastern Fresno County FireSafe and Stewardship Fuels Reduction Program – for private landowners, began pre-launch planning activities and awaiting first funds arriving

3) Tree Mortality EQUIP Program NRCS/CARCD – Pre-Launch Planning underway while awaiting go-ahead for announcing Tree Mortality EQIP program to private landowners

4) CAL FIRE’s Forest Health Grant Program – Notice of Award: $4.3 vs. $7.2 million requested for Hugger and Blue Rush as part of the Southern Sierra All- Lands Restoration and Recovery (SSARR) 3-County Program. Awaiting directions from CAL FIRE on how to re-budget based upon their priorities and conferring with Mariposa and Madera County groups

5) Sierra Resilient Landscape Collaborative – With Sierra National Forest, moving forward on setting up initial operations for bioenergy and biochar production at the Auberry Mill Site co-located with decking, grinding and milling operation

6) Southern Sierra Forest Health Watershed Coordinator Program – Received Notice of Award from CA Department of Conservation. Three (3) Tier approach will include Southern Sierra All-Lands Restoration and Recovery (SSARR) with Southern Sierra Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Group, then down into individual watersheds from the Upper San Joaquin to the Upper Kern River

7) Grand Bluffs Forest Carbon Farm Plan Development – Will be receiving funding and support from CA Association of RCDs and Carbon Cycle Institute to develop a plan for 240 acres of private forestlands within the Dinkey Creek Collaborative project area

Community Wildfire

In response to Prevention & Mitigation Executive Order N-05-19 Report

Prepared by: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

With Assistance From: Governor’s Office of Emergency Services

California National Guard

California Government Operations Agency

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

Department of Finance

California Natural Resources Agency

February 22, 2019 Contributors CAL FIRE would like to thank the following agencies, departments, regional and local government entities, and non-governmental partners for responding to CAL FIRE’s request for input on recommendations and draft copies of this report in writing or through conversation. Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Governor’s Office of Planning and Control Board Research California Fire Chief's Association California Natural Resources Agency California Environmental Justice Alliance Strategic Growth Council Morongo Fire District Office of State Fire Marshal The Nature Conservancy California Air Resources Board Resources Legacy Fund California Department of State Parks Pacific Forest Trust California Department of Fish and Wildlife California League of Cities California Department of Public Health California Fire Safe Council California Energy Commission The Red Cross California Public Utilities Commission California Licensed Foresters Association California Department of Transportation Sierra Forest Legacy California Department of Industrial Trinity County Fire Safe Council Relations Lower Mattole Fire Safe Council and Sierra Nevada Conservancy Mattole Restoration Council University of California Berkeley Watershed Research and Training Center University of California Cooperative ForEverGreen Forestry Extension (UCANR) The Fire Restoration Group Humboldt State University Mendocino/Humboldt Redwood California Forest Management Task Force Company US Forest Service PSW Research Station Green Diamond Resource Company Natural Resources Conservation Service Sierra Pacific Industries North Coast Regional Water Quality California Cattlemen's Association Control Board Town of Portola Valley Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board 1

Executive Summary California experienced the deadliest and most destructive wildfires in its history in 2017 and 2018. Fueled by drought, an unprecedented buildup of dry vegetation and extreme winds, the size and intensity of these wildfires caused the loss of more than 100 lives, destroyed thousands of homes and exposed millions of urban and rural Californians to unhealthy air. Climate change, an epidemic of dead and dying trees, and the proliferation of new homes in the wildland urban interface (WUI) magnify the threat and place substantially more people and property at risk than in preceding decades. More than 25 million acres of California wildlands are classified as under very high or extreme fire threat, extending that risk over half the state. Certain populations in our state are particularly vulnerable to wildfire threats. These Californians live in communities that face near-term public safety threats given their location. Certain residents are further vulnerable given factors such as age and lack of mobility. The tragic loss of life and property in the town of Paradise during the recent Camp Fire demonstrates such vulnerability. Recognizing the need for urgent action, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-05-19 on January 9, 2019. The Executive Order directs the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), in consultation with other state agencies and departments, to recommend immediate, medium and long-term actions to help prevent destructive wildfires. With an emphasis on taking necessary actions to protect vulnerable populations, and recognizing a backlog in fuels management work combined with finite resources, the Governor placed an emphasis on pursuing a strategic approach where necessary actions are focused on California's most vulnerable communities as a prescriptive and deliberative endeavor to realize the greatest returns on reducing risk to life and property. Using locally developed and vetted fire plans prepared by CAL FIRE Units as a starting point, CAL FIRE identified priority fuel reduction projects that can be implemented almost immediately to protect communities vulnerable to wildfire. It then considered socioeconomic characteristics of the communities that would be protected, including data on poverty levels, residents with disabilities, language barriers, residents over 65 or under five years of age, and households without a car. In total, CAL FIRE identified 35 priority projects that can be implemented immediately to help reduce public safety risk for over 200 communities. Project examples include removal of hazardous dead trees, vegetation clearing,

2 creation of fuel breaks and community defensible spaces, and creation of ingress and egress corridors. These projects can be implemented immediately if recommendations in this report are taken to enable the work. Details on the projects and CAL FIRE’s analysis can be found online at http://calfire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/downloads/FuelReductionProjectList.pdf , which will remain updated in the coming months. The list of projects is attached to this report as Appendix C. CAL FIRE has also worked with over 40 entities including government and non- government stakeholders to identify administrative, regulatory and policy actions that can be taken in the next 12 months to begin systematically addressing community vulnerability and wildfire fuel buildup through rapid deployment of resources. Implementing several of these recommended actions is necessary to execute the priority fuel reduction projects referenced above. Other recommendations are intended to put the state on a path toward long- term community protection, wildfire prevention, and forest health. The recommendations in this report, while significant, are only part of the solution. Additional efforts around protecting lives and property through home hardening and other measures must be vigorously pursued by government and stakeholders at all levels concurrently with the pursuit of the recommendations in this report. California must adopt an “all of the above” approach to protecting public safety and maintaining the health of our forest ecosystems. It is important to note that California faces a massive backlog of forest management work. Millions of acres are in need of treatment, and this work— once completed—must be repeated over the years. Also, while fuels treatment such as forest thinning and creation of fire breaks can help reduce fire severity, wind-driven wildfire events that destroy lives and property will very likely still occur. This report’s recommendations on priority fuel reduction projects and administrative, regulatory, and policy changes can protect our most vulnerable communities in the short term and place California on a trajectory away from increasingly destructive fires and toward more a moderate and manageable fire regime.

3

Current Setting While wildfires are a natural part of California’s landscape, the fire season in California and across the West is starting earlier and ending later each year. Climate change is considered a key driver of this trend1. Warmer spring and summer temperatures, reduced snowpack, and earlier spring snowmelt create longer and more intense dry seasons that increase moisture stress on vegetation and make forests more susceptible to severe wildfire2. The length of fire season is estimated to have increased by 75 days across the Sierras and seems to correspond with an increase in the extent of forest fires across the state3. Climate change is acting as a force-multiplier that will increasingly exacerbate wildland fire issues over the coming decades4. The state can expect to experience longer fire seasons, increased frequency and severity of drought, greater acreage burned and related impacts such as widespread tree mortality and bark beetle infestation5. Decades of fire suppression have disrupted natural fire cycles and added to the problem. California’s forest management efforts have not kept pace with these growing threats. Despite good forest management work completed by the state and federal government and private landowners each year, our collective forest management work each year is currently inadequate to improve the health of millions of acres of forests and wildlands that require it. It is estimated that as many as 15 million acres of California forests need some form of restoration6. As wildfire threats have worsened over the last two years, wildfire response, preemptive fire prevention, and vegetation management to reduce fire severity and contain erratic wildfire have been intensified. Further action is imperative. While restoring forest health and resilience will take decades to achieve, the immediate actions recommended in this report can immediately begin to protect our most vulnerable communities.

1 (Flannigan et al 2000; Westerling, 2016) 2 (Mote, 2005; Westerling, 2016) 3 (Westerling, 2016) 4 Simulations for California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment: Projecting Changes in Extreme Wildfire Events with a Warming Climate. http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/techreports/docs/20180827-Projections_CCCA4-CEC- 2018-014.pdf 5 California Tree Mortality Task Force: Synthesis of Research into the Long-Term Outlook for Sierra Nevada Forests following the Current Bark Beetle Epidemic http://www.fire.ca.gov/treetaskforce/downloads/WorkingGroup/White_paper_on_recovery_06- 12-18.pdf 6 Forest Carbon Plan 2018 4

While it is not possible to eliminate wildfire risks in California, focused and deliberate action can protect communities and improve forest and fuels conditions to enable a more moderate and healthy wildfire cycle that can coexist with Californians. Significant barriers to this work exist. Forest thinning and fuels reduction are expensive, and funding limitations constrain what can be achieved. Given this reality, it is critically important to focus funding and efforts on protecting vulnerable communities in high fire risk areas, utilizing no-cost and low-cost solutions where possible. For example, mobilizing the private sector by providing incentives to incorporate fuels reduction in commercial forest management on private lands can be an important part of this effort.

5

Recommendations Most urgently, this report identifies priority projects that can be implemented immediately to help protect our state’s most vulnerable communities. While some communities are vulnerable to fire due to their location next to forests and wildlands, that vulnerability can be magnified by socioeconomic factors such as population age, car ownership, and lack of ingress or egress corridors. To identify these priority projects, CAL FIRE developed a methodology to characterize communities’ relative vulnerability. This methodology incorporates physical wildfire risks around communities and socioeconomic characteristics of these communities to understand the relative vulnerability of each community. This methodology integrates three primary analyses: 1. Identification of vulnerable communities based on the socioeconomic characteristics of communities that indicate vulnerability to wildfire; 2. Identification of priority fuel reduction projects based on existing CAL FIRE Unit Plans. Each of these Unit Plans has identified priority projects based on the place-specific expertise of CAL FIRE Unit personnel working in each region of the state; and 3. Evaluation of wildfire risk within the proposed project area. A detailed explanation of this methodology is found in Appendix A. In addition to recommending priority projects for immediate implementation, this report recommends broader solutions for state government to consider in the immediate, near, and longer terms to ensure the work continues in a systematic way. Recommended short-term actions in this report encompass actions that can be taken immediately. Proposed mid-term actions are targeted for completion between July and December of this year. Long-term recommendations may be initiated quickly but will require more than a year to implement. In developing these recommendations for action, CAL FIRE considered: 1. Actions needed to advance work before the peak of fire season later this year; 2. Work already underway in other venues; and 3. Actions that will prevent and mitigate wildfires to the greatest extent possible with an emphasis on environmental sustainability and protection of public health. These efforts are meant to complement efforts already underway:

6

a. The Governor’s Forest Management Task Force was created in June 2018 to coordinate actions needed across government. It is anticipated the Forest Management Task Force will continue to be a centralized hub of organizing and coordinating actions recommended under this report. b. The Commission on Catastrophic Wildfire Cost and Recovery was established pursuant to SB 901 (Dodd, Chapter 626, Statutes of 2018). The Commission is tasked with making recommendations by July 2019 related to the costs of catastrophic wildfire, how these costs should be socialized in an equitable manner, and the potential to establish a fund to address the costs associated with catastrophic wildfires. c. The California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) Wildfire Proceeding was initiated in 2018. Among other things, in coordination with CAL FIRE the CPUC’s process will formalize enhanced wildfire mitigation plans currently under development by the electrical utilities pursuant to SB 901. d. The 2018 Strategic Fire Plan is California’s current plan for reducing community wildfire risk. The California Board of Forestry, the policy-setting body within CAL FIRE, recently updated California’s Strategic Fire Plan7. That plan identifies priorities for CAL FIRE including evaluation of wildfire risk, working with property owners and local governments to plan for and mitigate those risks, and determining resource needs to response to fire outbreaks. e. The 2018 State Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed by the California Office of Emergency Services (OES). CAL FIRE contributed to the recent update to California’s Hazard Mitigation Plan8, which contains specific information on hazard risk assessment, and tracks progress on various mitigation efforts developed in recent years. f. The California Forest Carbon Plan released in 2018 summarized current and projected forest conditions and directed actions to achieve healthy and resilient wildland and urban forests and maintain forests as a carbon sink.

7 State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2018 Strategic Fire Plan (August 22, 2018), available online at http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/pub/fireplan/fpupload/fpppdf1614.pdf. 8 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan (September 2018), Chapter 8 “Fire Hazards: Risks and Mitigation,” available online at https://www.caloes.ca.gov/HazardMitigationSite/Documents/011- 2018%20SHMP_FINAL_Ch%208.pdf. 7

SUMMARY TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation Priority Lead Type Direct CAL FIRE Units to complete priority fuel 1 I CAL FIRE Administrative reduction projects. Authorize incident response to implement 2 I CAL FIRE Administrative rapid treatment of fuels. Increase housing availability for fuel crew 3 I OES Administrative staff. Suspend regulatory requirements as needed All regulatory 4 I Regulations to complete fuels reduction projects in 2019. agencies Assess funding and personnel capacity within CAL FIRE and other departments and CAL FIRE / CCC / 5 determine areas for additional investment I Administrative DPR / CAL HR and administrative actions to maximize effectiveness of current workforce. Align community education campaigns Forest Management 6 I Policy across all state and local entities. Task Force Execute State Agency MOU for fuels All relevant 7 M Policy reduction. agencies Identify options for retrofitting homes to new 8 M CAL FIRE Policy wildland urban interface standards. Create incentives for fuels reduction on All regulatory 9 M Regulations private lands. agencies Continue developing methodology to assess 10 M CAL FIRE Administrative communities at risk. Jumpstart workforce development for forestry 11 M CAL FIRE / CARB Administrative and fuels work. Develop mobile data collection tool for 12 M CAL FIRE Administrative project reporting. Coordinate with air quality regulators to 13 M CAL FIRE / CARB Administrative enable increased use of prescribed fire. Develop technology tools to enable real time Forest Management 14 M Policy prescribed fire information sharing. Task Force Certify the California Vegetation Treatment Board of Forestry 15 L Administrative Program Environmental Impact Report. and Fire Protection Develop scientific research plan regarding Forest Management 16 management and mitigation with funding L Policy Task Force recommendations. Provide technical assistance to local Forest Management 17 governments to enhance or enable fire L Policy Task Force hazard planning. Update codes governing defensible space 18 L CAL FIRE Regulations and forest and rangeland protection. Request the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection review the Forest Practice Act and Board of Forestry 19 L Regulations Rules and make recommendations on and Fire Protection changes needed to restore forest health. Key: Priorities are identified as follows: I = immediate term, M = medium term, L = long term

8

Immediate Actions: These recommended actions would begin immediately to protect vulnerable communities before the height of the coming fire season.

1. Direct CAL FIRE Units to complete priority fuel reduction projects to protect public safety.

CAL FIRE has identified priority fuels reduction projects that can be initiated almost immediately to protect the lives, health, property, and natural resources using the community vulnerability methodology described above and in Appendix A. CAL FIRE shall work, to the extent feasible, with other public agencies, landowners, and the communities themselves to implement these projects. The list of priority projects impacting vulnerable communities will be maintained on CAL FIRE’s website and updated regularly so the status of each project is reported publicly. The list is attached at Appendix C.

2. Authorize incident response to implement rapid treatment of fuels.

Deploy emergency responders to complete fuels reduction projects to protect vulnerable communities. CAL FIRE and the National Guard will establish incident bases in proximity to vulnerable community centers and coordinate fuels treatment operations from those bases utilizing the Incident Command System. The Incident Command System provides a complete, functional command organization that CAL FIRE and the National Guard will use to ensure the effectiveness of command and crew safety. 3. Increase housing availability for fuel crew staff.

Provide additional state housing for seasonal state employees working on forest management and fuels reduction. These entry level employees are not highly compensated, and often have challenges finding affordable housing in areas where they work. OES should coordinate identifying additional housing for staff both in the short-term for work in 2019 and then a long-term plan for temporary housing. 4. Suspend regulatory requirements as necessary to protect public safety through the priority fuels reduction projects identified by CAL FIRE in this report.

Numerous laws and regulations govern fuels reduction projects, and implementation often requires coordination with, and approval from,

9

various state and local agencies. Typical environmental compliance, permitting requirements, licensing requirements, and state contracting laws and regulations, should be streamlined where possible to facilitate project implementation. 5. Assess funding and personnel capacity within CAL FIRE and other departments and determine areas for additional investment and administrative actions to maximize effectiveness of current workforce.

Expanding the state’s work to reduce public safety risks from wildfires and manage forests depends on adequately resourcing this work and providing the tools required to optimize state agency performance of this work.

CAL FIRE should identify whether staffing levels are sufficient, and current staffing locations remain appropriate to efficiently mitigate wildfires early, and effectively contribute to the state’s goal of treating 500,000 acres annually, as set forth in the Forest Carbon Plan.

This task should also include: a. Recommendations on how the additional resources requested in the Governor’s January Budget should be deployed if approved by the Legislature. b. Reviewing reimbursement rates and cost share agreements for CDCR and CCC project work. Identify where additional resources are needed. c. Reviewing classifications, work week and levels of administrative support for CAL FIRE staff. d. Identifying and working with other land management agencies who may need additional fuels management staff (for example, State Parks). e. Review of purchasing for items such as vehicles with associated changes to purchasing policies. f. Restarting work on CAL FIRE’s firefighter classification consolidation proposal with California Department of Human Resources (CalHR). 6. Align community education campaigns across all state and local entities.

The Forest Management Task Force should work on coordinated messaging for all entities providing direct funding or grants for public education campaigns. This should include coordinated messaging for Cal Volunteer and OES grants pursuant to AB 72 (Committee on Budget,

10

Chapter 1, Statutes of 2019) as well as all other state agencies, including CAL FIRE. Education campaigns should be rolled out consistently throughout the state. Mid-Term Actions: The recommended actions are designed to be completed by the end of this year.

7. Execute State Agency MOU for fuels reduction.

Direct all relevant state agencies and departments to develop and sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) committing the capabilities of each agency towards the common goals of fuel reduction and protection of vulnerable populations, and environmental sustainability. Direct the MOU agencies to utilize social media channels and other avenues to communicate the value of defensible space and other actions homeowners can take to protect against wildfire prior to the peak of wildfire season in 2019. 8. Identify options for retrofitting homes to new Wildland Urban Interface standards.

a. CAL FIRE should identify options for incentivizing home hardening to create fire resistant structures within the WUI and with a focus on vulnerable communities. b. The Forest Management Task Force should immediately begin work to identify actions for retrofitting homes in the WUI with a focus on vulnerable communities. The Forest Management Task Force should also develop a comprehensive plan to bring existing housing stock up to new building code standards for the Wildland Urban Interface with a priority on vulnerable communities. The Forest Management Task Force should work with the Department of Insurance to seek input from the insurance industry on potential rebates or incentives for homeowners. c. Additionally, as provided in Assembly Bill 2911 (Friedman, Chapter 641, Statutes of 2018), CAL FIRE, and the Director of Housing and Community Development, should develop a list of low-cost retrofits that provide comprehensive fire risk reduction to protect structures from fires spreading from adjacent structures or vegetation and to prevent vegetation from spreading fires to adjacent structures.

11

9. Create incentives for fuels reduction on private lands.

Direct the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to create or modify regulations to incentivize private landowners to engage in fuels reduction projects. This may include allowing removal of sufficient medium and large size trees or reducing after-harvest leave tree requirements sufficiently. These should be pursued through the emergency rule making process whenever possible.

Non-industrial private landowners often do not have the resources to actively manage their forests, and may often be the same vulnerable populations needing protection from wildfire. Small non-industrial private landowners make up approximately 25 percent of California’s forest land owners and managers, almost twice as much as private industrial forest lands.

10. Continue developing methodology to assess communities at risk.

The methodology used to identify priority projects provides a robust assessment of near-term projects that can be implemented before the 2019 fire season. However, long-term planning and decision-making efforts to reduce wildfire risk require consideration of additional factors. Therefore, this methodology should serve as the basis for ongoing assessment methods to evaluate short and long-term wildfire risk reduction strategies across the state, with specific attention to identifying vulnerable communities. The Forest Management Task Force should establish an interagency team with experience in spatial analysis, technology support, environmental management, public health, climate change, and social vulnerability to develop the methodology enhancements needed to inform the long- term planning needs of both state and local agencies. 11. Jumpstart workforce development for forestry and fuels work.

a. Identify specific opportunities to develop and incentivize workforce training programs for implementation by the end of 2019. The goal is to increase the number of properly trained personnel available to do fuels reduction and forest management and restoration work in the private sector.

12

12. Develop mobile data collection tool for project reporting.

Procure a mobile fuel reduction data collection application to be used by all land management departments and agencies to increase accuracy and ease of data collection in the field. 13. Coordinate with air quality regulators to enable increased use of prescribed fire.

Uncontrolled wildfires can cause far more harmful air quality and public health impacts than prescribed burns because they often burn much more vegetation and last longer than prescribed burns. However, prescribed burns must still be managed to minimize emissions. To increase the scale of prescribed burns while protecting air quality: a. CAL FIRE should coordinate with the CARB to explore updates to state air quality regulations to facilitate prescribed burns. Examples could include changes in how prescribed burns are accounted for in air quality calculations and allocating burn permits on a project, rather than parcel or landowner, basis. b. In addition to examining state regulations, CAL FIRE and CARB should also coordinate with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to identify changes in federal air quality regulations that would facilitate prescribed burns. c. CAL FIRE should coordinate with local and regional air districts to develop multi-year smoke management plans and burn permits for public purpose burning to help reduce costs and complexity for burners.

14. Develop technology tools to enable real time prescribed fire information sharing.

The Prescribed Fire Information Reporting System (PFIRS) should be officially recognized as the state’s reporting tool to underscore the need for a common reporting and permitting tool across all agencies and private burners involved with prescribed fire. PFIRS should be funded and developed as the tool to support, facilitate and track prescribed fire efforts statewide. All state agencies and departments should be directed to use prescribed fire to obtain permitting and report through PFIRS, and federal land managers should be encouraged to use it for reporting. The reporting system is currently used by CARB, CAL FIRE, and the U.S. Forest Service.

13

Longer-term Actions: These actions are designed to begin quickly, but likely require more than a year to complete.

15. Certify the California Vegetation Treatment Program Environmental Impact Report.

Beyond the priority fuels treatment projects that CAL FIRE will implement in 2019, CAL FIRE and other land managers must increase the pace and scale of vegetation treatment throughout California. To that end, CAL FIRE and the Board of Forestry are preparing the California Vegetation Treatment Program Environmental Impact Report (CalVTP EIR) to identify and minimize environmental impacts associated with vegetation treatment. Once completed, CAL FIRE and other agencies will be able to rely on that document to streamline the environmental review process for future treatment projects. To maximize the streamlining value of the CalVTP EIR, other agencies with regulatory authority over vegetation treatment activities should be directed to engage in its development. CAL FIRE and the Board of Forestry should invite agencies within the California Natural Resources Agency and California Environmental Protection Agency to: a. In the immediate term, identify subsequent permitting processes that may apply to vegetation treatment projects. b. In the mid-term, develop streamlined permitting recommendations if it is determined that environmental compliance not covered by the CalVTP EIR will preclude projects from timely completion. 16. Develop a scientific research plan for wildfire management and mitigation, with funding recommendations.

The Forest Management Task Force should develop a research plan with funding prioritization. Topics that should be considered include:

a. Leverage the Governor’s Request for Innovative Ideas (RFI2). b. Best management practices in the face of a changing climate and our understanding of forest health and resilience. c. Use of LiDAR, satellite and other imagery and elevation data collection, processing and analysis for incorporation into state management plans and emergency response. d. Funding for collaborative research to address the full range of wildfire related topics. Important research investments could include both

14

basic and applied research as well as social science to better understand social vulnerability, human behavior, land use, and policies that support resilience in communities that coexist with fire and mitigate impacts on life and property. e. Research and development on new WUI building test standards in future research programs including the use of damage inspection reports from recent fires. 17. Provide technical assistance to local governments to enhance or enable fire hazard planning.

With the expansion of urban development into wildland areas, firefighting becomes more dangerous and costly, and the consequences of wildfires to lives and property become more severe. Local governments control land use decisions that can minimize those dangers. CAL FIRE and other state agencies have information and expertise that can support local governments in making safer choices. To enable land use planning that minimizes fire risks: a. Assist the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research in identifying specific land use strategies to reduce fire risk to buildings, infrastructure, and communities and in updating the “Fire Hazard Planning, General Plan Technical Advice Series,” as provided in Assembly Bill 2911 (Friedman, Chapter 641, Statutes of 2018). b. Work with Cal OES and the Standardized Emergency Management System Advisory Committee to develop robust local evacuation planning models for high or very high Fire Hazard Severity Zones based upon best practices from within California. c. Provide technical assistance to support land use planning efforts to limit development in high fire hazard areas, as well as technical assistance to support mitigation activities that minimize risk to existing communities, with specific attention to vulnerable communities. 18. CAL FIRE should update codes governing defensible space and forest and rangeland protection.

a. Review the penalty for non-compliance with defensible space code, establishing a fixed compliance date in lieu of three-inspection process. Include vacant land provisions. b. Review enforcement the full 100 feet of defensible space around a structure when the structure is closer than 100 feet from the parcel line.

15

c. Consider the home and the first 0-5 feet as the most critical and hardened aspect of home hardening and defensible space. Consider requiring ignition resistant building material, only allow bark and hardscape, not trees or shrubs in this area. d. Consider science-based regulation of wood piles and wood fences. 19. Request the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection review the Forest Practice Act and Rules and make recommendations on changes needed to protect public safety and restore forest health.

The Forest Practice Act, and regulations that implement it, currently contain rules that limit fuel hazard reduction activities. The rules could be updated to facilitate non-commercial fuel reduction projects. The Board should consider where existing exemptions could be expanded further to prevent and mitigate wildfires with an emphasis on environmental sustainability and protection of public health.

16

Appendix A – Methodology to assess vulnerable communities Summary

The 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California9, and the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy10 provide a set of goals and strategies that includes: fire adapted communities, safe and effective wildfire response, and resilient landscapes. Despite recent accelerated investment and resources, the vast amount of work and time required to achieve strategic goals necessitates an approach that best protects lives and property in the near-term, while simultaneously working over the long-term to create more resilient communities and landscapes that will allow Californians to live sustainably in the State’s fire- prone landscapes. Near-term needs include increasing the pace of fuel reduction in and near communities at risk, improving compliance with defensible space requirements, and improving fire resistance of both existing and new structures in the WUI. In the longer term, a landscape-scale approach that marries forest health treatments with targeted community protection activities will be needed to fully address the scope of fire management issues in California. Living sustainably in the fire-prone landscapes of California will require broad recognition of the inevitability of fire, which will in turn necessitate enhanced investment in and novel approaches to risk evaluation, fuel management, forest health, land use planning and community adaptation. As we move headlong through the 21st century, fire managers and landowners in California are challenged to effectively utilize available resources and tools to create resilient landscapes, reduce loss of life and property, and stem rising management costs, while enhancing our compatibility with the fire environment in which we live. Applying limited resources necessitates identification of the most vulnerable communities in which to begin this work. Methods for assessing vulnerable communities The following section provides a general description of the methods used to incorporate both wildfire risk and socioeconomic conditions of the communities that fuel reduction projects are designed to reduce The overall goal of the analysis was to construct a framework that provides an assessment of wildfire risk and populations at risk from wildfire impacts. The

9 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California. http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/fire_er/fpp_planning_cafireplan 10 National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/thestrategy.shtml 17

methodology consists of three main steps: a) identification of priority fuel reduction projects; b) evaluation of wildfire risk within the proposed project area; and c) evaluation of the socioeconomic characteristics of communities that projects are intended to protect. For the initial step, CAL FIRE Units were asked to identify priority fuel reduction projects for their Units that would reduce wildfire risk to nearby communities. Project boundaries were incorporated into a GIS database for analysis. Socioeconomic Analysis Socioeconomic factors were based on evaluating conditions that are associated with populations at risk to wildfire. Some populations may experience greater risk to wildfire based on socioeconomic factors that lead to adverse health outcomes and their ability to respond to a wildfire. The factors chosen for this analysis were previously identified in CAL FIRE’s Forest and Range Assessment and through a study conducted by Headwater’s Economics (Table 1). Data for each socioeconomic variable was from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) and organized by census tract. Table 1. Socioeconomic variables considered to represent populations at risk to wildfire impacts

Socioeconomic Variables Description

Families in poverty Percentage of families in the census tract living below the poverty line Percentage of people in census tract estimated People with disabilities to have a disability; based on self-reporting People that have difficulty Percentage of people in the census tract speaking English estimated to have difficulty speaking English Percentage of people in the census tract over People over 65 the age of 65 Percentage of people in the census tract under People under 5 the age of 5 Percentage of families in the census tract Households without a car without a car Data Sources: American Community Survey (ACS); California Building Resilience Against Climate Effects (CalBRACE) Project (2016). For each project, the number of nearby communities was identified, represented by communities that were within a 5-mile buffer of each project boundary. For each community within the buffer, census track data was averaged for each of the socioeconomic variables. This resulted in a table that 18

provides a description of the socioeconomic characteristics of each community that is associated each proposed project. In addition, a composite socioeconomic index was generated that represented the average across all socioeconomic variables. The socioeconomic index ranges from 0 to 100. Wildfire Risk Analysis for Proposed Projects Wildfire risk was then characterized by intersecting the Unit proposed fuel reduction projects with the following spatial data layers: SRA – State Responsibility Areas WUI – Wildland Urban Interface (WUI Interface, WUI Intermix, and WUI Influence Zone) CAL FIRE Priority Landscape for Reducing Wildfire Risk to Ecosystems CAL FIRE Priority Landscape for Reducing Wildfire Threat to Communities Each of these data layers is described in greater detail below. An overlay of project boundaries was done to determine the percentage of the project area in State Responsibility Area (SRA) and within WUI. WUI was represented by varying degrees of housing density that are associated with WUI Interface, WUI Intermix, and WUI Influence zones. The proposed project boundaries were then intersected with CAL FIRE’s Priority Landscape for Reducing Wildfire Risk to Ecosystems (“Ecosystems PL”). The Ecosystems PL combines resource assets (water supply, carbon storage, standing timber, site quality, and large trees) with a set of threats (fire threat – fuel hazard and fire probability and Fire Return Interval Departure). This PL prioritizes watersheds for potential treatment to reduce wildfire risk based on threats and assets to forested lands. The ranking varies from 1 (least risk) to 5 (greatest risk). Lands such as conifer woodlands (e.g. juniper and pinyon- juniper), oak woodlands (blue oak woodland, valley oak woodland, coastal oak woodland, etc.), shrublands, grasslands, were not included. In addition, only forested lands with a fire return interval departure (FRID) of class 2 or greater were included. This ensures that the areas most in need of treatment to restore natural fire regimes and improve ecological functions are prioritized. For this analysis, only ranks 3, 4, and 5 were used to designate high priority areas for reducing wildfire risk to ecosystems. Each proposed project was overlaid with the Ecosystems PL to determine the percent of each project area that was associated with high wildfire risk to ecosystem services. Next the proposed projects were intersected with CAL FIRE’s Priority Landscape for Reducing Wildfire Risk to Communities (“Communities PL”). The Communities PL identifies where communities (people and associated infrastructure) are at

19

greatest risk from wildfire. Housing density within the Wildland Urban Interface is used to represent community assets. Areas with lower housing density receive a lower value and areas of higher housing density receive a higher value. The threat to communities is derived from CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Combining asset and threat rankings produces a priority landscape where areas with higher housing density and higher fire hazard receive the highest score. For this analysis, only ranks 3, 4, and 5 were used to designate high priority areas for reducing wildfire risk to communities. Each proposed project was overlaid with the Communities PL to determine the percent of each project area that was associated with high wildfire threat to communities. A composite Wildfire Risk Index was also generated that represented the average across all wildfire risk variables (WUI, Ecosystems PL, and Communities PL). The wildfire risk index ranges from 0 to 100. Results characterizing wildfire risk for each proposed project are described on the CAL FIRE website. Detailed Data Layer Information for Methodology to Assess Communities at Risk This appendix provides detailed information on the sources, selection and construction of each of the data layers used in this analysis. State Responsibility Area CAL FIRE has a legal responsibility to provide fire protection on all State Responsibility Area (SRA) lands, which are defined based on land ownership, population density and land use. For example, CAL FIRE does not have responsibility for densely populated areas, incorporated cities, agricultural lands, or lands administered by the federal government. Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) –The line, area, or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels11. CAL FIRE Priority Landscape for Reducing Wildfire Threat to Communities This Priority Landscape (PL) prioritizes lands where communities (people and associated infrastructure) are at risk from wildfire to direct efforts at reducing wildfire risk in these areas.

11 http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/glossary 20

Ranking The ranking varies from 1 (least risk) to 5 (greatest risk). Housing density derived from FRAP's WUI layer is used to rank assets. Threat is determined using California Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Assets The asset to be protected in this PL is communities, which are defined by housing densities. Less dense areas receive lower value and higher densities receive higher value. The classes of density are:

0 = No houses 1 = 0 - 0.05 housing unit per acre 2 = 0.051 - 0.200 housing unit per acre 3 = 0.201 - 1 housing unit per acre 4 = greater than 1 housing unit per acres Threats The threat to the communities is Fire Hazard Severity, derived from CAL FIRE's Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The zone ranking is:

1 = moderate severity 3 = high severity 5 = very high severity Final Ranking: The ranked asset and ranked threat were combined to derive the final ranked priority landscape. The results were ranked from the lowest risk of 1 to the highest risk of 5. CAL FIRE Priority Landscape for Reducing Wildfire Risk to Forest Ecosystem Services This Priority Landscape (PL) prioritizes watersheds for potential treatment to reduce wildfire risk based on threats and assets to forested lands. Ranking The ranking varies from 1 (least risk) to 5 (greatest risk). Lands such as conifer woodlands (e.g. juniper and pinyon-juniper), oak woodlands (blue oak woodland, valley oak woodland, coastal oak woodland, etc.), shrublands, grasslands, were not included. In addition, only forested lands with a fire return interval departure (FRID) of class 2 or greater were included. This ensures that the areas most in need of treatment to restore natural fire regimes and improve ecological functions are prioritized.

21

Assets Surface water value: Watersheds (HUC12s) were ranked based on surface drinking water value from the USDA Forest Service's Forests to Faucet data, https://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/FS_Efforts/forests2faucets.shtml Carbon storage: Estimated amount of carbon in the forest that is in living trees above the ground was spatially imputed into a GIS layer from Forest Service FIA data by Wilson et al. (2013) using a gradient nearest neighbor (GNN) technique. See Wilson, B.T., C.W. Woodall, and D.M. Griffith, Imputing forest carbon stock estimates from inventory plots to a nationally continuous coverage. Carbon Balance and Management, 2013. 8(1): p. 15. Standing timber: Shows the estimated commercial timber volume on lands available for harvesting. Standing Timber was primarily derived from LEMMA Structure Maps (https://lemma.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/structure-maps) that also used Forest Service FIA data and a GNN methodology (2012 vintage). LEMMA commercial timber volume was reduced for areas of high fire severity burns through 2017 (from FRAP), BAER imagery for areas of high severity wildfires that have occurred in 2018 from: https://fsapps.nwcg.gov/afm/baer/download.php), and Aerial Detection Survey data of areas of high tree mortality (also subsequent to 2012). Lands not available for timber harvest were removed, including southern California and South Central Coast counties with no viable timber processing facilities. Site quality: This shows the productivity of timberland, based upon potential volume of wood (i.e. cubic feet) that can be produced per acre in a year. Site Class GIS data was produced by Wilson from Forest Service FIA data (using the same methods as for the Carbon storage layer), based upon FIA attribute SITECLCD – site productivity class code. It shows the potential timber volume produced at culmination of mean annual increment, in the standard classes used by the USFS. Large trees: Derived from FRAP vegetation layer FVEG15 (WHRSIZE), which in turn (for this attribute) came from CALVEG data of the USFS. Tree size class scores were 1 = (6-11" DBH); 3 = (11-24" DBH); and 5 = (over 24" DBH). Threats Fire Threat: FRAP fire threat data (fthrt18_1) was derived from a combination of FRAP surface fuels data and large fire probability from the Fire Simulation (FSim) system developed by the US Forest Service Missoula, Montana Fire Sciences Laboratory.

22

Fire Return Interval Departure (FRID): FRID shows the deviation from historic averages of fire occurrence. FRID from USFS Region 5 was used to prioritize areas most in need of treatment. FRID scores of 2, 3, and 4 were assigned scores of 1, 3, and 5 respectively. Composite Ranks All assets were combined and the result ranked from 1 to 5 to derive a composite asset. Likewise, all threats were combined the results ranked from 1 to 5 to create a composite threat. The composite asset layer and composite threat ranks were then combined and classified to a final priority landscape rank for each 30m pixel.

23

Appendix B – Maps

Figure 1: California’s Wildland Urban Interface.

24

Figure 2: Priority Landscapes for Reducing Wildfire Threat to Communities. 25

Figure 3: Priority Landscapes for Reducing Wildfire Threat to Communities.

26

Appendix C – CAL FIRE Priority Fuel Reduction Project List

CAL Socio- Final Number of Affected Fire Risk # Project Name FIRE Acres economic Summary Communities Population Score (FRS) UNIT Score (SES) Score 1 Hwy 44 Fuel Break SHU 1,124 3 8,833 90 86 88 2 Kings Mountain Roadside CZU 467 18 271,096 88 84 86 3 Rush Creek FKU 181 1 2,973 71 99 85 San Juan Canyon Fuel 4 BEU 2,277 4 54,067 116 53 85 Reduction 5 Martin Ranch Fuel Break LMU 57 4 3,957 69 98 83 Santa Barbara Foothill 6 SBC 1,960 5 127,516 98 64 81 Community Defensible Space 7 Musick Fuel Break FKU 393 5 12,677 62 95 79 8 Bridgeville FR HUU 18 1 4,143 66 87 76 9 North Orinda Fuel Break SCU 1,760 30 561,223 96 56 76 10 West Redding Fuels Reduction SHU 3,091 7 114,607 84 67 75 11 Guatay Community Fuel Break MVU 128 15 221,282 85 66 75 12 China Gulch Fuel Break SHU 530 8 88,610 84 66 75 13 Forbestown Ridge BTU 1,673 8 14,950 92 58 75 North Fork American River 14 NEU 4,373 13 77,319 65 84 74 Fuelbreak 15 Shaver Springs FKU 78 4 12,677 62 86 74 El Granada Quarry Park Fuel 16 CZU 250 10 100,433 85 62 73 Break 17 Blue Rush Fuel Break FKU 82 1 2,973 71 75 73 18 State Route 17 Fuel Break SCU 454 8 72,462 58 88 73

27

Socio- Final Number of Affected Fire Risk # Project Name UNIT Acres economic Summary Communities Population Score (FRS) Score (SES) Score Painted Cave Community 19 SBC 1,742 7 84,232 79 66 73 Defensible Space 20 Willits Fuels Reduction MEU 11,965 3 13,120 88 55 72 21 San Marcos Pass SBC 3,096 7 84,342 79 62 70 22 Grist Fuel Break MMU 102 3 13,097 79 60 69 23 Crest Community Fuel Break MVU 60 3 5,278 71 66 68 24 Beal Fuel Break FKU 728 6 12,677 62 74 68 Aptos, Buzzard, Hinkley Ridgetop 25 CZU 1,036 16 112,505 73 58 66 and Roadside 26 Ukiah Fuels Reduction MEU 26,541 10 39,195 95 34 65 27 Lake Shastina Fuels Treatment SKU 759 3 7,231 87 36 62 Ponderosa West Grass Valley 28 NEU 1,238 9 54,776 67 56 61 Defense Zone 29 Big Rock Prescribed Burn LAC 431 8 44,440 52 66 59 30 Metcalf Gap MMU 44 4 10,131 79 37 58 Palo Colorada Fire Access 31 BEU 6,843 4 9,556 77 37 57 Roads Laurel Springs-Hennicksons 32 BEU 4,368 1 5,933 64 48 56 Ridge 33 Elk Creek Fuel Break TGU 953 2 4,868 98 3 50 34 Palo Corona Fuel Reduction BEU 10,428 9 59,585 82 11 46 Highway 41 Vegetation 35 MMU 4,621 7 28,737 84 4 44 Management Plan

28

SUMMARY | Dinkey Collaborative Full Group Meeting April 18, 2019 Dinkey Landscape Restoration Project, Sierra National Forest

Meeting Synopsis At its meeting, the Dinkey Collaborative meeting began with an update from Dean Gould, Sierra National Forest Supervisor. Mr. Gould explained that the Forest Service continues to increase partnerships to accomplish its work. The Sierra National Forest is prioritizing work and seeking partners for planning, project implementation, and to receive and manage funds.

Dinkey Collaborative member organizations presented details on the funds they received for forest restoration, carbon sequestration, and watershed health. The Sierra Nevada Conservancy has dedicated over $3 million for projects to restore forest and watershed health. Sierra National Forest staff updated the Collaborative on the restoration at Snow Corral. Removing the bridge and gabions will improve habitat for several meadow species. Similarly, Stephanie Barnes reviewed the success of a new road crossing to protect Yosemite toads and other endangered wildlife.

Sierra National Forest staff updated the Collaborative on the Forest Wide Prescribed Fire Project and the Two Forest Vegetation Management Plan. The Dinkey Collaborative will meet again on June 20, 2019.

Contents Meeting Synopsis ...... 1 1. Action Items and Agreements ...... 2 2. Forest Supervisor Sierra National Forest Updates ...... 2 3. News You Can Use ...... 2 4. Sierra Nevada Conservancy Update ...... 3 5. Forest Wide Prescribed Fire Project ...... 4 6. Snow Corral Restoration ...... 4 7. Road Crossings for Small Animals ...... 4 8. Two Forest Vegetation Management Plan ...... 5 9. Dinkey Collaborative Work Group Updates...... 6 10. Dinkey Collaborative Project Accomplishments and Remaining Work ...... 6

This meeting summary paraphrases individual comments and suggestions from Dinkey Collaborative members. Statements do not indicate consensus of the group unless “AGREEMENT” precedes the words.

All materials are available to members on DataBasin.org, and general information is available on the Dinkey Collaborative website, http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/sierra/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5440860 For questions, please contact the facilitator, Dr. Birkhoff [email protected] (916) 917 5669.

1. Action Items and Agreements 1a. Dinkey Collaborative will review the Forest Wide Prescribed Fire project in a conference call and provide input to the Interdisciplinary team. 1b. The Facilitator will organize the Fire Work Group call.

2. Members Welcome and Introductions Kim Sorini-Wilson, District Wildlife Biologist, represented the Forest Service and welcomed members and guests to the Dinkey Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) meeting. The facilitator, Dr. Birkhoff, reviewed the agenda and ground rules.

2. Forest Supervisor Sierra National Forest Updates Dean Gould, Sierra National Forest Supervisor, reviewed activities, and upcoming events on the Sierra National Forest.

• Region Five, of the United States Forest Service, expects the revised Forest Plan this summer. The Sierra National Forest will work with the Region to plan public meetings and opportunities to review the Revised Forest Plan. • The Sierra National Forest is working with the Stanislaus National Forest on a Forest Vegetation Plan. The two Forests expect the record of decision in July, 2020. The Stanislaus National Forest staff are leading the NEPA analysis. There are no documents to review yet. However, there will be many opportunities to review the vegetation plans through 2019 and 2020. • The Interdisciplinary Team is working on the analysis and consultation for The Forest Wide Prescribed Forest Program. Supervisor Gould expects a decision in Fall, 2019. • Sierra National Forest staff participated in the Southern Sierra Leadership Forum on April 9-10, 2019. The Southern Sierra Leadership Forum includes federal land management resource agencies, state natural resource agencies, and southern sierra counties. The Sierra Nevada Conservancy convened the Southern Sierra Leadership program to facilitate and coordinate with state policy makers and state resources. • The Sierra National Forest is developing partnerships to ensure they have capacity and the ability to receive funds. Business partners include the Great Basin Institute, American Forest Foundation, and National Forest Foundation. The Sierra National Forest is also developing a partnership with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). • The Southern Sierra Prescribed Fire Council received funds to provide prescribed fire education.

3. News You Can Use CAL Fire Governor Newsom issued an executive order in January to direct California Department of Forestry and Fire (Cal Fire) to consult with other agencies and recommend immediate, medium, and long-term actions to help prevent destructive wildfires. Cal Fire identified 35 projects to implement immediately. Projects include removing dead trees, clearing vegetation, creating fuel breaks, and creating ingress and egress corridors. Of those projects, many are in the Dinkey

Collaborative region. They include Rush Creek, Musick Fuel Break, Shaver Springs, Blue Rush Fuel Break, Beal Fuel Break, Grist Fuel Break, Metcalf Gap, and Highway 41 Vegetation Management Plan.

Department of Conservation The Department of Conservation funded eight organizations to hire watershed coordinators. The Sierra Resource Conservation District and the Sierra Institute for Community and Environment received funds to hire watershed coordinators. SSRCD will integrate their work on the Southern Sierra All Lands Restoration and Recovery program with the Southern Sierra Integrated Regional Water Management group.

Sierra Nevada Conservancy The Yosemite Sequoia Resource Conservation securing a grant from SNC for the Blue Rush Forest Restoration Project, a Dinkey Collaborative priority project. Funds will treat 450 acres in the Big Creek Watershed of the Sierra National Forest.

Yosemite Sequoia Conservation and Development Council is also coordinating with the Bass Lake Ranger District to reforest 350 acres burned in the 2014 French Fire. Reforestation will improve watershed and stream conditions, and improve water quality.

The Sierra Nevada Conservancy also provided resources for the Rural Community Development Initiative. Funds will support organizational and technical capacity building assistance to community organizations for forest biomass utilization.

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program The Farm Bill reauthorized the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) for another five years and added 80,000,000 for fiscal years 2019 through 2023. Projects that have not finished approved actions may apply for an extension to complete their work. The USDSA, United States Forest Service will reconvene the CFLRP Advisory Board to develop an approach to the program. The Sierra National Forest will keep the Collaborative up to date on information.

4. Sierra Nevada Conservancy Update Sarah Campe, Mt. Whitney Area Representative of the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, updated Collaborative members on SNC’s activities to improve the health and resiliency of Sierra Nevada lands. Ms. Campe explained that the SNC hoped to help the Southern Sierra region to communicate a clear identity. Having a clear identity may help the region to attract resources and partners. The SNC is cataloguing current impediments to fulfilling critical needs.

SNC convened the Southern Sierra Leadership Forum (SSLF) to help federal, state, county and local leaders coordinate their resources and align policies. The SSLF has Mapping, Governance, and Planning Committees. The SSLF met at the Sequoia National Forest in April to develop work plans. Ms. Campe will keep the Dinkey Collaborative apprised of SSLF actions and successes.

The SNC will work across the region with Federal and State agencies to understand how to coordinate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) assessments and planning. The goal is to help the ten state funding agencies work together at a landscape level. Working together should reduce the work load on funding applicants.

The SNC is working with American Forests to integrate different projects in a geographic information system. Integrating the different information from different agencies will help analyze duplication and integrate the impact of different projects.

5. Forest Wide Prescribed Fire Project Kim Sorini-Wilson, Biologist, High Sierra District, Sierra National Forest, reviewed updates for the Forest Wide Prescribed Fire Project. She explained that the Sierra National Forest wanted feedback on three documents, the Updated Purpose, Need, and Proposed Action, Draft Design Features, and Desired Conditions and Actions by Vegetation Community.

She explained there would be a conference call on April 29 to review the three documents and provide time for Dinkey Collaborative members to provide input. She asked Dinkey Collaborative members to focus on any design criteria which would be impediments to conduct prescribed burns.

Dinkey Collaborative members suggested that the Sierra National Forest should include public education about smoke in any public outreach for the project.

6. Snow Corral Restoration Stephanie Barnes explained that the Sierra National Forest had decommissioned 7 miles of Forest Road 10S23 around and beyond Snow Corral Meadow. The crew removed the yellow bridge and the gabions at road crossings. The crew dispersed the rock around the road crossing area. The rocks will develop a natural bottom and wide area for stream energy to dissipate before it hits the meadow. The area is open now, instead of created channels. The open area will allow the stream to create a transitional area above the meadow. Ms. Barnes explained that allowing the stream to develop the transition is a natural process compared to stream processes created from high gradient bedrock blocked by 120 feet of gabions and road.

The work site was completely dry during the project. Ms. Barnes observed frogs about 200 feet upstream in residual pools, where the stream flowed. She did not observe any disturbance to wildlife from the work. Ms. Barnes will continue to monitor the area and will report after summer and winter.

7. Road Crossings for Small Animals Stephanie Barnes reviewed a successful project to reduce roadkill hotspots in the Sierra National Forest. Ms. Barnes explained that vehicles hit Yosemite toads and other sensitive

amphibians. The Sierra National Forest partnered with the United States Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center to identify two roads with high toad mortality. The installed a barrier and elevated road segment. Each section funnels animals toward the low bridge. The cars pass overhead and the toads move to the other side under the bridge in the 100-foot-wide crossing space. USGS and USFS installed wildlife cameras to monitor which animals and how many used the crossing.

Ms. Barnes explained that the elevated road was very successful. Many animals used the crossing as well as Yosemite toads. Ms. Barnes concluded that they will be sharing the results with CAL Trans as well as other National Forests.

8. Two Forest Vegetation Management Plan Dean Gould and Kim Sorini-Wilson reviewed the status of the Two Forest Vegetation Management Plan. The Stanislaus National Forest is leading the effort to develop the plan, with cooperation from the Sierra National Forest. The vegetation management plan will compliment the Forest Wide Prescribed Fire plan. The Forest expects the Vegetation Management plan to describe the plan area and vegetation communities, provide an assessment of vegetation and fuels management conditions, and proposed vegetation management actions for different vegetation communities.

Dinkey Collaborative members suggested:

• The Interdisciplinary Team could review the condition-based analysis approach the Dinkey Collaborative recommended in the reforestation framework. • Another Collaborative member suggested using the “out of whack” approach the Landscape Planning Work group developed. • Members agreed that it was important, for landscape level planning, to ensure the vegetation management plan is strategic and compliments the Forest Wide Prescribed Burn project. • Another participant explained that several forests were using spatial analysis and mapping to outline “potential operational delineations”. She asked if the ID team was using this approach to the plan?

Dinkey Collaborative members agreed that they wanted to be involved in the environmental analysis process. Dean Gould explained that the ID team is interested in involving collaborative groups and other stake holders early in the two Forest Veg and fuels management environmental analysis process. He said that specific meeting dates have not been set. He explained that the goal would be to involve Collaborative groups over the summer. The goal will be to solicit input at various stages of the planning process well before a fleshed out proposed action.

Dinkey Collaborative members suggested that they could send representatives to a work group comprised of members from the three collaboratives. The Forest Service will also host a series of meetings/workshops to involve stakeholders.

9. Dinkey Collaborative Work Group Updates Fire Work Group The Fire Work Group met on March 22 to learn about activities in California to identify challenges to the widespread use of prescribed fire for forest health and resilience. The call focused on local and regional opportunities to ameliorate those challenges. During the call, participants discussed California Forest Management Task Force and the Fire MOU Partnership. Participants agreed to monitor those groups to learn about opportunities.

Funding Work Group The Funding Work group met on March 19 to identify goals and a process to fund the Dinkey Collaborative and Dinkey Collaborative projects. The Work Group concluded they needed a clear understanding of the progress and remaining work for each Dinkey project. The Sierra National Forest agreed to complete a matrix with that information for the Work Group to review.

Steering Committee The Steering Committee agreed to meet to develop options for the Dinkey Collaborative moving forward.

10. Dinkey Collaborative Project Accomplishments and Remaining Work Olivia Roe and Adam Hernandez presented a spread sheet that showed Dinkey Collaborative projects and their progress. They agreed to keep updating the spread sheet and present it in final form in June.