Forest Management Plan for Mountain Home

Demonstration State Forest

Tulare County, California
Spring 2024

Location: 36.216667°, -118.7°

Prepared by:
Lily Aragon, Koby Dye, Gavin Schulz, Gavin Zollar

Plan Submitted May 6th, 2024

Image of Giant Sequoias located in Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest

Photo: John Greening, Laurie Schwaller

1
 Contents
Executive Summary: 6
Chapter 1: Introduction and background 6
Location and legal description: 6
General summary of property 7
Location map 7
Species composition & plant associations 8
Broad physical site characteristics 8
Acreage and notable geographic features 9
Adjacent land use 10
Background and history of property and ownership 10
Disturbance history and historic range of variability 10
Historic use and land management 11
Historic forest composition and structure 13
Climate 13
Ecosystem services provided 15
Recreation and Aesthetics 15
Management Demonstration 15
Timber production 16
Carbon sequestration 17
Social, economic, & political environment influencing management 17
Policies 17
i. Summary of pertinent laws and policies 17
Community and advocacy group priorities 18
Local markets and possibilities for income 18
Purpose and Need Statement 19
Chapter 2: Desired Conditions 20
FOCUS: Ecological Sustainability and Diversity 20
Desired conditions for Carbon Sequestration 20
Objectives 20
Standards & guidelines 20
Potential management approaches 21
Management constraints - 21
Desired conditions for Listed/ Sensitive Wildlife and Habitat 22
Objectives 22
Standards & guidelines 22
Potential management approaches. 23
Management constraints 23

2
FOCUS: Social and Economic Sustainability and Multiple Uses 23
Desired conditions for community 23
Objectives 24
Standards & guidelines 24
Potential management approaches. 25
Management constraints 25
Stand Description 25
Physical site characteristics 25
Topography 25
Roads, access, current harvest infrastructure 27
Harvest infrastructure 27
Forest composition and stocking 28
Overstory composition and species abundances 28
Carbon 29
Fuels 30
Understory species composition and vegetation classification 31
Diameter distributions 31
BA, volume, SDI, TPA 33
Health & disturbance 35
Fire 35
Insects and disease 36
Harvest history 36
Chapter 3: Management Alternatives to Meet Resource Objectives 37
Objectives 37
Management philosophy 37
Alternatives: 37
Alternative 1: No Action 37
Alternative 2: Thin 38
Alternative 3: Thin & Burn 38
References and citations used to set management parameters 39
Forest response to treatment and FVS models 40
Stand Structure 40
Stand Metics 43
Resources (Carbon, Fuels, Snags) 47
Fire Risk 50
Stand Visualization Comparison 51
Comparison of responses to each treatment 54
Cost-benefit analysis 55

3
 Ecological 55
Abiotic and Biotic Concerns 56
Endangered Species and Water Quality 57
Economic 58
Social 60
Selection & Justification of selected alternative 60
Implementation details 62
Schedule of activities 63
Long-term monitoring and adaptive management plans 64
Work Cited 65

Tables
Table 1. Dominant soil types in the MHDSF boundary
Table 2. Average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures at Mountain Home
Table 3. Seedling establishment per acre by year from 1967 to 1981
Table 4. Total Carbon across stands in 2024
Table 5. Fuel loads by size class for stands 6,8 and 9
Table 6. Fuel loads of 1 hour, 10 hour, and 100 hour fuels
Table 7. Summary table of TPA, BA, and volume in 2024
Table 8. Composite summary table of TPA, BA, and volume by species
Table 9. Composite summary table of SDI and QMD
Table 10. Fire risk in stands 6, 8, and 9
Table 11. Comparison table for TPA, BA, SDI, and QMD in stand 6 under each alternative
Table 12. Comparison table for TPA, BA, SDI, and QMD in stand 8 under each alternative
Table 13. Comparison table for TPA, BA, SDI, and QMD in stand 9 under each alternative
Table 14. Carbon lost in each stand across each alternative
Table 15. Cost breakdown for alternative 3
Table 16. Total Cost over a 100 year management period
Table 17. Timeline for preferred management alternative 3

Figures
Figure 1. Location Map of Mountain Home Demonstration Forest
Figure 2. Average Temperature in Tulare Country from Jan 1895 to Jan 2024
Figure 3. Map of Soil Types and Percent Slopes for MHDSF Treatment Units
Figure 4. Map of Treatment Units and Major Roads in MHDSF
Figure 5. Live TPA by DBH class for stand 6,8 and 9. (2024)
Figure 6. Live TPA for trees and regeneration in 2024
Figure 7. Projected total cubic volume per acre

4
Figure 8. Live TPA over time under each alternative
Figure 9. Live BA over time under each alternative
Figure 10. Total Stand Carbon over time for each alternative
Figure 11. Total surface fuels over time in stands for each alternative
Figure 12. Standing snags (>12”) present over time for each alternative
Figure 13. Percent of the basal area that would be killed in severe fire conditions
Figure 14. Projections of stands 6,8, and 9 for Alternative 1
Figure 15. Projections of stands 6,8, and 9 for Alternative 2
Figure 16. Projections of stands 6,8, and 9 for Alternative 3

5
 Executive Summary:
The Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest (MHDSF) Management plan evaluates

and addresses two management issues. The first issue deals with loss of long-term carbon

sequestration services provided by the forest. The second issue addressed by this plan is the

threats posed to sensitive wildlife and habitat in the forest. These issues have been used to create

targeted objectives for management to maximize carbon sequestration and mitigate loss of listed

species and habitat.

Three alternatives to address these issues have been discussed and analyzed in this plan.

The first alternative is a “No action” plan, under this alternative, no changes would be made to

the management of MHDSF. The second alternative involves two prescribed burns over a 100

year period. The final alternative is a thinning treatment followed by periodic burns for the next

100 years.

The following document gives a look into the historical and present conditions of

MHDSF, as well as a detailed look into how each of the proposed alternatives could change the

composition and quality of three stands that reside within MHDSF. Through the use of FVS

projections, each alternative is projected and compared in order to evaluate and compare

management outcomes.

Chapter 1: Introduction and background

Location and legal description:

Located in Tulare County, Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest (MHDSF) is a

5,069 acre tract of land found on the west slope of the Southern Sierra Nevada range. Found

about 22 miles east of Porterville, California, this state forest resides inside of Mountain Home

grove, one of the largest groves of giant sequoias (Fig. 1). MHDSF is one of the eight

6
Demonstration State Forests in California that is managed and overseen by the California

Department of forestry and Fire Protection. This protected land was purchased by the State of

California in 1946 and has since served as a demonstration forest used for scientific research and

experimentation to better understand sustainability and restoration of forests. Approximate

coordinates of this location are: Lat. 36°13′ N, long. 118°42’ W.

General summary of property

Location map

Figure 1. Map of Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest with forest boundaries, roads and
treatment units shown.

7
Species composition & plant associations

The Mountain Home State Forest located in California is known for its ancient redwoods,

and preserves over 4,500 old-growth giant sequoias (Sequoiadendron giganteum). The mixed

conifer forest surrounding them includes ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), sugar pine (Pinus

lambertiana), white fir (Abies concolor), and incense-cedar (Calocedrus decurrens). Douglas fir

and some hybrid Jeffrey pine occur in lower elevation areas in the forest.

Small amounts of hardwoods found in MHDSF include Black oak (Quercus kelloggii), Canyon

live oak (Quercus chrysolepsis), Interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii), White alder (Alnus

rhombifolia), and Pacific dogwood (Cornus nuttallii). (Kral, 2020)

Species in the understory vegetation include Mountain whitethorn (Ceanothus

cordulatus), Bearclover (Chamaebatia foliolosa), Gooseberry (Ribes roezlii), Currant (Ribes

nevadense), California hazelnut (Corylus cornuta var. californica), Bush chinquapin

(Castanopsis sempervirens), Dogwood (Cornus nuttallii), Deerbrush (Ceanothus integerrimus),

Manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), Bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), Lotus (Lotus spp.),

Lupine (Lupinus spp.), Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), and Littleleaf ceanothus (Ceanothus

parvifolius). (Kral, 2020)

Broad physical site characteristics

Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest is primarily composed of two distinct rock

types. The eastern section of the forest is underlain by metamorphic rock such as schists,

quartzite, and slate, while the western section of the forest is underlain by granite. (Kral, 2020)

With mostly moderate slopes, the elevation of this forest ranges from 4800 to 7600 feet

(1463-2316 m) (Benson, 1986). The soils in this site have moderate to high erosion ratings,

8
creating hazardous conditions on steep slopes as most granite-granodiorite has eroded at the

surface. The dominant soil series of this site consists of either gravelly, coarse, or sandy loam.

(Kral, 2020). Table 1 shows dominant soils as well as percentages of land that they occupy.

Table 1. Dominant soil types in the MHDSF boundary.

National Resources Conservation Service. WebSoilsSurvey. 2024

Acreage and notable geographic features

Situated on the ridge between the North fork and the middle fork of the Tule river, this

5,069 acre site lies within five CalWater watersheds. These watersheds are Rancheria, Upper

North Bear, Hossack, Silver, and Burro Creeks. (Kral, 2020) Located approximately 50 miles

9
north, the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park is found, and a summit named Moses

Mountain resides close to forest boundaries. (Fig. 1)

Adjacent land use

There are approximately 30 miles of exterior boundary surrounding this forest, split

between three primary land owners. Land adjacent to this demonstration forest is under the

control of Tulare County Parks Department, the U.S. Forest Service, and private individuals. Of

these 30 miles, 24.5 miles are common with the USFS, 3 miles are common with private owners,

and 2.5 miles are common with TC. Primary uses of these lands include public recreation and

education, with an emphasis on the continued management and protection of land. Recreational

uses include camping, hiking, fishing, and hunting. Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest

is adjacent in access to Belch Park, an area used for recreational activities such as birdwatching,

camping, hiking, etc. However, this area is temporarily closed following its burn in the 2020

SQF Complex Fire resulting from the tremendous impacts of Castle fire.

Background and history of property and ownership

Disturbance history and historic range of variability

Historically, the occurrence of fires in the Forest has been minimal. In 2004, the Deep

Fire posed a threat to Mountain Home as it spread up the Wishon Fork of the Tule River. Another

incident in 2008 involved a lightning strike that ignited a 1-acre fire below the Vantage Point

Road. Most fires in the area are attributed to illegal campfires or careless smoking. The largest

fire prior to this plan revision, covering five acres, was sparked from a cigarette on a hiking trail

(Kral, 2020). More recently, the Castle Fire, occurring in September 2020 amidst high winds,

devastated the Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest. It impacted approximately 2,000

10
acres, or 40% of the area. The fire killed an estimated 20 million board feet of merchantable

timber initially, with an additional 10 million expected to succumb to fire and insect damage

within a few years. The fire significantly damaged or possibly killed hundreds of the roughly

4,750 old-growth giant sequoias (OGGS) in the forest. Recreational resources such as

campgrounds, trails, and day use areas suffered damage. This required tree removal for visitor

safety. However, proactive management efforts by CALFIRE helped limit damage to

campgrounds and saved numerous OGGS. CALFIRE swiftly responded to mitigate hazards,

prepare for reforestation, protect roads, and prevent erosion. Measures included installing straw

bale dikes, felling trees along roadsides, and preparing acres for planting. This includes 200,000

seedlings, including giant sequoias, which was planned for 2022 (CALFIRE). Pre-Euroamerican

settlement, California forest ecosystems supported high fire frequencies with mean fire return

intervals of 16 years (Steel et al., 2015). Furthermore, prior to European settlement, fire was used

by Native Amerians as a tool to drive game for hunting and to encourage the growth of plants

used for medicine, tools, and food (USDA).

Historic use and land management

The State of California acquired the Mountain Home Tract in 1946 from the Michigan

Trust Company and established it as a state forest. This was the result of responses from The

Native Sons and Daughters of the Golden West to the rapid deforestation of old growth sequoia

forests in the southern Sierra Nevadas. Recreational use of the Home Tract Forests began at the

same time of saw mill production and intensive sequoia logging between 1885 and 1905. It was a

popular destination for visitors escaping the heat of the valley and was a popular place to camp.

Many come just to view the incredible scale of the old growth forests, and after its state park

establishment it would develop 96 campsites across six different campgrounds. Recreational use

11
of the forest is a deciding factor to many management decisions and activities in the state park,

holding aesthetics at high priority throughout the silvicultural process.

Under the Statute which the forest is described the forest is distinguished to be a

multi-use forest intended for public hunting, fishing, and recreation. In 1986 a management plan

would be adopted to perpetuate the growth of old-aged sequoias and sustain a supply of

marketable young-growth sequoias. Younger stands are considered marketable and valuable

timber sources and to be managed as a commercial species while Old-growth trees and stands are

protected from activities like camping and timber harvesting. (Kral, 2020)

Historic Timber management of the area goes back before its acquisition under the State

Park system. Commercial species of this forest include ponderosa pine, sugar pine, white fir,

incense cedar, and young growth giant sequoias as mentioned above. The estimated volume of

marketable timber of this area equates to over 110 million board feet with an estimated

productivity of 2 million board feet per year. The silviculture strategy of choice was mainly

single tree and group selection cutting with the objective of removing over mature commercial

species to encourage the replacement with giant sequoia. On top of reduced competition the

additional disturbance to soil from harvesting perfects a seedbed for sequoia reproduction.

Multiple Native American tribes have occupied the mountain home area with the last

group being the Yawdanchi. Little is known about this tribe and the only information about

unknown tribes that preceded them are found through archaeological investigations (Kral, 2020).

More is known about Native American land use. Controlled burning, or prescribed fire, was a

common practice employed to manage landscapes for hunting, agriculture, and resource

availability. By intentionally setting fires, Native American communities could promote the

growth of desired plant species, clear land for farming, and maintain open habitats favored by

12
game animals. Fire was also used to maintain healthy ecosystems by preventing the

accumulation of dense vegetation, reducing the risk of wildfires, and stimulating the growth of

new vegetation that attracted wildlife. Additionally, fire played cultural and ceremonial roles,

symbolizing renewal, purification, and connection to the land for many indigenous peoples

across North America (Indigenous Fire, 2024).

Historic forest composition and structure

Historically dominated by old growth sequoias (Sequoiadendron giganteum), yellow

pine, and white pine, Mountain Home Demonstration State forest saw a sharp decline in these

species as a result of logging practices taking place in the early 1940s. However, due to growing

concern from local residents, sequoia harvesting was halted, and the preservation of old growth

sequoias began. (Kral, 2020) Due to its relatively low disturbance rate and comparatively low

emphasis on timber production, composition of the MHDSP has remained fairly consistent.

Giant Sequoias have dominated the upper canopy, totaling over 4500 old growth trees left to

thrive through active management of the mixed conifer forests surrounding them. Management

historically has allowed for growth of temperate shrubs and abundantly vegetated meadows in

areas of water and nutrient collection, retaining much of the natural aesthetic beauty that is

important to the recreational potential of the state park.

Climate

The climate of Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest has been historically

characterized by typical Mediterranean weather conditions with warm, dry summers and cool,

wet winters (Kral, 2020). However, recent decades have shown deviations from historic

conditions, with more intense drought seasons dominating the area. Average precipitation sits at

13
around 42 inches per year, with snowfall being the primary form of precipitation (CalFire).

Extreme temperatures have ranged from as low as 1⁰ F to as high as 90º F, with average monthly

temperatures reaching a maximum of 80-44º F and a minimum of 48-23ºF, as demonstrated in

table 2 (Kral, 2020). While current climate data suggests that MHDSF is not currently

experiencing high levels of drought, Figure 2 shows a steady increase in average temperatures in

surrounding areas such as Tulare County.

Table 2. Average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures at Mountain Home

(2002-2019).

Kral (2020). Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest Management Plan.

14
Figure 2. Average Temperature in Tulare County from Jan 1895 to Jan 2024

National Centers for Environmental Information (2024). Climate at a Glance County Time Series

Ecosystem services provided

Recreation and Aesthetics

Primary ecosystem services of the Mountain Home Forest are related to its extensive

recreational contributions. From providing up to 96 campsites, to housing several trail/river

systems ideal for fishing, Mountain Home attracts every kind of outdoor lover. For this reason,

aesthetic value remains a priority throughout management plans and established early in its

history.

Management Demonstration

A primary purpose for Mountain Home is to provide adequate demonstrations of forest

management and be a site to conduct experiments. Mountain Home research was focused on

giant sequoia tree forests. Strategies can be developed regarding young growth giant sequoia

regeneration, response to various management activities, fire history, productivity and yield.

(Dulitz,1994).

15
 Characterization of old-growth sequoias is based on having round tops with large limbs

in the upper bole and lacking branches in the lower third of the bole. Growth of old growth trees

is slow with annual rings only a few millimeters wide. The wood of these trees is too brittle for

quality requirements of lumber. Among the many management demonstrations performed at

MHDSF was a study on regeneration through density of sequoia seedlings per acre. Rapid

establishment of seedlings occurred immediately after logging and was followed by a rapid

decrease in density (Table 3). This decline is likely a result of brush competition in the absence

of timber removed during the 1967 harvest. However, this displays the resilient establishment of

seedlings at times of enhanced disturbance in soil. This characteristic of giant sequoia

reproduction works in the favor of MHDSF management strategies.

Table 3. Seedling establishment per acre by year from 1967 to 1981

Benson, 1986. Management of Giant Sequoia on Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest

Timber production

Though not the main goal of MHDSP, the giant sequoias supply a remarkable amount of

marketable timber, living and felled. In addition to scientific education and demonstrations of

forest management, it provides a significant supply of lumber harvested as timber. Dead and

downed material the forest contains vary in size and quality but can also be used as marketable

16
timber as a result of sequoias’ impressive resistance to decay. This characteristic of sequoias is

essential to their historical research potential in forest management as mentioned above. With its

large quantity of timber and felled bio-material, it is also an area of excited carbon cycling and

nutrient deposition. Wildlife also finds use in felled sequoias, as it provides a new habitat.

Old-growth felled sequoia trees offer a multitude of services to the ecosystem (Dulitz, 1994).

Carbon sequestration

Carbon sequestration is the capture and long-term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide

in plants and soils. The Forest is expected to see a long-term increase in carbon stocks. Forest

products from Mountain Home will contribute to carbon sequestration throughout their lifecycle,

including during harvesting, processing, storage as forest products, and regeneration.

Additionally, biomass fuels generated in the Forest offer a carbon-neutral alternative to fossil

fuels, further aiding in carbon sequestration efforts. (Kral, 2020)

Social, economic, & political environment influencing management

Policies

i. Summary of pertinent laws and policies

The state board of Forestry provides direction related to policy in MHDSF, with a strong

priority surrounding recreation. A primary focus of established policy in the MHDSF is the

management of giant sequoia. Under policies pertaining to timber harvesting and recreational

viability, the following guidelines are put in place; Old growth sequoia are protected during all

management activities, young growth sequoia are considered a valuable and marketable

resources, selected young-growth sequoias are encouraged to grow into specimen trees, and

campgrounds are located away from old growth sequoias. (Benson, 1986.) Furthermore, the

17
California Forest Practice Act outlines strict forest practice regulations that are designed to

ensure that timber harvesting is done in a manner that protects fish, wildlife, forests, and streams.

(CDFFP, 2022)

Community and advocacy group priorities

A prominent advocacy group for MHDSF is the Save the Redwoods League. They aim to

protect and restore California redwoods by creating connections between people and these

forests by acquiring land, employing innovative science for restoration, and contributing to the

establishment of numerous parks and reserves. Their work is rooted in conservation biology and

research, and aims to enhance appreciation and understanding of the redwoods. In regard to

MHDSF, they’re concerned about a lack of successful recruitment, germination, and

establishment of giant sequoia seeds in the mountain home grove (Burns et al., 2018).

Local markets and possibilities for income

Since 1946, dead and down giant sequoias have been sold to private operators through

small sales. Approximately 5,165 thousand board feet were removed from the forest between

1946 and 2001. State Forest staff regularly utilize downed material for various purposes

including manufacturing signs, lumber, and displays for department facilities statewide.

Mountain Home Conservation Camp 10 and Sierra Forest Products are the primary sawmills that

receive salvageable logs from MHDSF. Camp 10 is located within Mountain Home State Forest

boundaries, and Sierra Forest Products is located about 45 miles south of MHDSF. As of 2020,

dead and down sequoias are available for purchase at MHDSF with a Class I timber sale permit,

although sales of old-growth material are limited to ensure ecological preservation. Fuelwood

demand has declined, with permits issued for dead and down wood cutting only. Despite

18
drought-related slowdowns in firewood sales, efforts to process hazard trees into firewood for

campground use have been effective. Salvage of dead or damaged trees is essential to prevent

wood deterioration, with state policy allowing expedited removal on a small sales basis. Due to

increased tree mortality, salvage operations have become a yearly occurrence in recent years.

Unlike other public forests in California, Mountain Home is managed primarily for public

recreation as opposed to timber production or multiple use. Uniquely in the State Forest

organization it is the only State forest with giant sequoias managed to amplify old-growth

specimens and sustain an effective young-growth harvest (Benson, 1986). As MHDSF is

managed primarily for recreation or multiple use, possibilities for income come primarily from

the parks, campgrounds and tourism such as rafting its class I-III rapids which supports local

markets.

Purpose and Need Statement

A recent increase in high severity fires had been seen in areas surrounding mountain

home demonstration state forest, leading to declines in the forests ability to store carbon.

Mountain home demonstration state forest is home to rare ecosystems that must be protected in

order to facilitate the survival of listed and sensitive species. The purpose of the MHDSF

management plan is to aid the forest system in maximizing carbon sequestration and storage and

mitigate the loss of sensitive species and habitat. The MHDSF management plan is needed to

increase the forests’ ability to capture carbon from earth's atmosphere, reduce risk of high

severity fires that impact carbon storage, reduce loss of listed and sensitive habitat, and protect

wildlife from adverse consequences of wildfire, recreation activities, and other disturbances.

19
 Chapter 2: Desired Conditions
FOCUS: Ecological Sustainability and Diversity

Desired conditions for Carbon Sequestration

1. Stands will be composed of multi-layer vegetation to maximize the forest’s ability to

store carbon.

2. The composition of stands will predominantly feature trees in larger DBH classes,

consistent with the natural range of variability. (NRV)

3. Stands will have low to moderate fire severity risk, with limited fuel loads on the forest

floor.

Objectives
1. Surface fuels will be reduced by 50-80% immediately following thinning procedures, and

remain under 20 tons/acre in following years.

2. Thinning treatments will bring the basal area of stands closer to a target BA of 130.

3. Treatments will convert stands to be composed of large trees, with an overall SDI

between the range of 300-600.

Standards & guidelines

1. Exclude old-growth trees with DBH >50in from thinnings in order to promote long term

storage of carbon and overall resilience of forest stand. [Standard] Large diameter timber

(>50in DBH) can be harvested when impacts to disturbance resistance are minimal.

[Guideline]

2. Best management practices outlined by the CA Forest Practice rules and other agency

handbooks will be followed to minimize adverse effects on carbon storage. [Standard]

20
 Cooperation with local communities and agencies will be utilized to gain consensus on

management operations. [Guideline]

3. Prescribed fires will be conducted to reduce surface fuel loads following guidelines set by

the California Department of Fire and Forestry. [Standard] Fires will be conducted in

areas that pose the least risk large diameter timber. [Guideline]

Potential management approaches

1. Use mechanical treatments to perform thinnings based on assessment of stand-level

density and basal area which exclude old-growth trees that act as highly resistant storages

of carbon.

2. Promote the regeneration of intermediate and codominant crown class trees in order to

increase heterogeneity, resulting in overall benefits to forest resilience.

3. Apply digital processing tools such as FVS and GIS to better analyze a variety of forest

dimensions and develop models to better understand management techniques that best

accomplish the goals for a given stand.

Management constraints -
1. Limited resources and funding for mechanical treatments may reduce ability to conduct

thinning treatments and controlled burns to the desired degree.

2. Mistletoe, heart rot, and root disease can limit the availability of manageable timber that

can be used to promote carbon storage.

3. Topography may be a barrier to effective thinning treatments due to steep slopes limiting

the availability to use mechanical thinning equipment.

21
Desired conditions for Listed/ Sensitive Wildlife and Habitat
1. Stands will exhibit a dense multi-layer structure with a variety of overstory and

understory vegetation.

2. Stands will have an abundant supply of snags suitable for nesting and foraging.

3. Sustainable populations of native and desirable non-native species are maintained and

supported by healthy forests. These areas will be resilient to fire and other stressors to

ensure the long-term support of species.

Objectives
1. Multi-layers stands will be composed of large DBH and small DBH trees, with high

density to provide enhanced habitat and cover. Basal area will increase to a target of

≥350 ft2/ acre by the end of the 100 year period.

2. Regeneration (DBH 1-5”) will mediate the growth of a multi-layered stand structure. In

years immediately following treatment, the live TPA of stands will increase by about 150,

representing natural regeneration in stands.

3. Snags >12” suitable for nesting and habitat will be maintained and quantity will increase

to at least 30 snags per acre in each stand by 2050.

Standards & guidelines

1. Logging operations will follow CA practice rules to maintain snags that provide wildlife

habitat. [Standard] Snags >12” DBH will be prioritized, and snags between 8-12” will be

maintained so long as they do not cause issues with thinning and burning treatments.

[Guideline]

2. Consistently update management plans and mitigation to include current and accurate

information on listed and sensitive species provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

service, as well as information collected by the IUCN Red list. [Standard] Known nests

22
 and foraging sites will not purposefully be removed through management activities.

[Guideline]

Potential management approaches.

1. Planting of additional food sources such as wild grasses for native wildlife.

2. Utilize dredging of ponds to promote quality, clarity, and oxygen content of water.

Artificial woody debris recruitment in streams can be used to promote aquatic ecosystem

function.

3. Mechanical removal of encroaching trees or vegetation to promote the expansion of

meadows and other unique habitats critical for sensitive wildlife habitat and survival.

Management constraints
1. Recreation and resource extraction in MHDSF have the ability to negatively influence

sensitive wildlife and their habitats.

2. The location of management practices such as thinning or controlled burns may disrupt

the habitat of sensitive wildlife.

3. Protection of sensitive habitats may interfere with other areas of focus such as public

recreation.

FOCUS: Social and Economic Sustainability and Multiple Uses

Desired conditions for community

1. Stands will be exhibit healthy ecosystem conditions and be composed of various types of

vegetation to support recreation and educational activities in the forest

2. Stands will be naturally resistant to severe wildfire by being composed primarily of

fire-resistant and fire-tolerant species, encouraging visitation and preventing catastrophic

fires.

23
 3. Stands will possess low surface fuel loads to prevent large fires and allow for safe

recreation in the forest with low amounts of litter on trails and pathways.

Objectives
1. Surface fuel loads will be decreased by 60% and maintained at low levels to prevent high

severity fires and encourage tourism.

2. Stands will be composed of multiple tree species and at least a 45% increase to basal area

across the stands to attract visitors and encourage use of the flourishing forest.

3. Tree species that exhibit low fire-tolerance will be decreased or maintained in number

across stands. The TPA and BA of Giant sequoias will be increased in each stand

between 100-200%.

Standards & guidelines

1. Prescribed burns and management will be scheduled to occur during times of low

visitation to avoid negatively affecting visitation and use of the forest. [Standard]

Surrounding communities will be informed of management prior to it occurring via

website alerts and signs posted near the forest boundaries. [Guideline]

2. Economic data will be collected and monitored to ensure revenue brought in by visitors

does not fall below 2023 revenue. [Standard] Management activity that negatively affects

visitation and recreation will be minimized unless they show potential of providing long

term positive effects on the forest. [Guideline]

3. Maintain the “multiple use” aspect of MHDSF by prioritizing multiple uses in

management plans and actions rather than pursuing single-objective-focused actions.

[Standard] Reject management decisions that negatively impact one use unless it shows

potential of offsetting negative impacts by enhancing multiple other uses. [Guideline]

24
Potential management approaches.
1. Offer educational seminars to the public to foster greater environmental awareness and

consciousness when using MHDSF for recreational purposes.

2. Focus fuel removal treatments on stands that currently have the highest fuel loads and

encompass high trafficked recreational areas such as hiking trails.

3. Gather public input by conducting surveys designed for visitors that can contribute to

management decisions regarding recreational development and maintenance.

Management constraints
1. Public objection to proposed management projects due to lack of knowledge pertaining to

forest management.

2. Effectively promoting the educational seminars to interested individuals while also

enticing broader public engagement.

Stand Description
Physical site characteristics

Topography

MHDSF stands are primarily located on the West slopes of the southern Sierra Nevada

Mountain Range. Our stands primarily possess North and Northwest facing aspects. Stands 6,8

and 9 are almost entirely composed of Dome and Chaix soil series.(Fig. 3). These soils are

characteristic of being Coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, and mesic Typic Dysteoxerepts. The

Dome-Chaix soil series have a moderately steep slope range of 5-30%. Elevations of stands 6,8,

and 9 range primarily from 5,000 to 8,000 ft, and receive a mean annual precipitation of 30-51

25
inches. A small section to the west in Stand 9 is made up of a slightly different soils series, with

slopes ranging from 30-50%. (Fig.3). There are no streams, creeks, or rivers that run through

stands 6,8, or 9. However, Bear Creek is a 17 mile long river that is located Northwest of these

stands.

Figure 3. Map of soil types and percent slopes for MHDSF treatment units. Codes 670 and 672
represent different primary soil types and slopes.

26
Roads, access, current harvest infrastructure

There are multiple roads that run through MHDSF, allowing access to stands 6 and 9.

Summit Rd follows the north-south contours of stand 6, allowing access to a majority of the

stand. (Fig. 4). Stand 9 is accessible by an Eastward running road called Balch Park, along with

Hedrick Pond. (Fig.4). Stand 8 does not contain any of the main roads, with Stump road

providing the closest point of access.

Figure 4. Map of treatment units and major roads in Mountain Home Demonstration State
Forest.

Harvest infrastructure

Ground skidding equipment will remain the primary method for moving timber in the

forest. This approach makes use of existing roads and skid trails, leading to lower costs and

27
fewer environmental impacts compared to building new roads. Although areas suitable for cable

yarding are thought to exist in the North Fork of the Middle Fork of the Tule River, further

exploration will occur as opportunities arise in the future (Kral, 2020).

Forest composition and stocking

Overstory composition and species abundances

Based on an analysis of DBH classes across our three stands, stand structure varied

across stands, but primarily consisted of smaller trees ranging from 6”-16”. Stands 6 and 8 are

composed mostly of White Fir (Abies concolor) across most DBH classes. (Fig. 5). Stand 9

showed more variety in species composition, with higher proportions of Jeffery Pine (Pinus

Jeffreyi), Incense Cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) , and Giant Sequoias (Sequoiadendron

giganteum). (Fig. 5). Stand 6 does not contain trees above DBH size class 38”, whereas Stand 8

and Stand 9 contain Giant Sequoias in the 48”+ DBH class. The overstory of Stands 6 and 8 are

composed mainly of White Fir, while the overstory of Stand 9 is much more diverse.

28
Figure 5. Live trees per acre (TPA) by diameter breast height (DBH) class for stands 6,8 and 9 in
2024. DBH classes are represented in inches.

Carbon
Carbon loads range from 70-104 tons/acre between stands in 2024. Stand 6 possesses the

lowest total stand carbon at 70.2 tons/acre, followed by stand 9 at 84.5 tons/acre, and finally

stand 8 at 104.4 tons/acre. (Table 4) Total stand carbon correlates with the SDI and QMD of each

stand, with 6 having the lowest of each measurement, and stand 8 having the highest (Table 9).

29
Table 4. Total carbon across stands in 2024.

Fuels

Fuel loads differed relatively significantly across stand, with Stand 6 possessing the

highest amount of surface fuels, and Stand 9 possessing the least amount of surface fuels.(Table

5). Across all stands the highest proportion of surface fuels are composed of duff, with greater

than or equal to 3” fuels contributing to the next highest proportion of total surface fuels.(Table

5). Fuel class “>/=3” showed the greatest variety between stands, with differences in loads

between Stands 6 and 9 being about 13.98 tons. Across all stands, Fuel size class >12” and Litter

composes the smallest proportions of the total surface fuels. Regarding 1,10, and 100 hour fuels,

values are relatively similar across the three stands. Stand 6 possesses the least amount of 10 and

100 hour fuels, while stand 9 possesses the least amount of 1 hour fuels (Table 6).

Table 5. Fuel loads by size class and type in MHDSF Stands 6,8, and 9. Total Surface Fuels
include all size classes, as well and litter and duff

30
Table 6. Fuel loads of 1 hour, 10 hour, and 100 hour fuels in stands 6,8, and 9.

Understory species composition and vegetation classification

MHDSF has a varied open and closed understory with mixed shrubs and seedlings.

Components of the understory vegetation in MHDSF include the mountain whitethorn

(Ceanothus cordulatus), gooseberry (Ribes roezlii), California hazelnut (Corylus cornets var.

Californica), dogwood (Cornus nuttallii), deerbrush (Ceanothus integerrimus), snowberry

(Symphoricarpos albus), bearclover (Chamaebatia foliolosa), bush chinquapin (Castanopsis

sempervinens), manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), lotus

(Lotus spp.), lupine (Lupinus spp.), little leaf ceanothus (Ceanothus parvifolius), sierra currant

(Ribes nevadense) and thimbleberry (Rufus parviflorus). Stand 6, 8, and 9 are composed of

primarily the same species, but in different abundances. Stand 6 understory species that have

>40% cover are Whitethorn, bush chinquapin, and snowberry. Stand 8 understory species that

have >40% cover are green leaf manzanita and bush chinquapin. Stand 9 understory species that

have >40% cover are Breckenfern, sierra currant, and thimbleberry.

Diameter distributions

An important distinction is made at DBH size class 4.5”. Above this size, vegetation is

considered a tree, whereas below this point, vegetation is considered regeneration. Stands 6,8,

and 9 each show a general pattern of being primarily composed of trees belonging to smaller

31
DBH size classes, with the live TPA of each stand being made up of mainly 6”-16” trees. Stand 6

was dominated by DBH class 10, Stand 8 was dominated by DBH class 6, and Stand 9 was

dominated by DBH size class 8. (Fig. 6). When evaluating diameter distribution by species, it is

seen that Stand 6 and Stand 8 are dominated by Abies Concolor across most DBH classes. Stand

9 contains a more diverse species composition across DBH classes (Fig. 5).

Figure 6. Live TPA for trees and regeneration in 2024, separated by DBH classes in MHDSF
Stands 6,8 and 9. “Regeneration” is classified as vegetation in DBH class 4.5” and smaller.

32
BA, volume, SDI, TPA

Stands 6,8, and 9 in Mountain Home are composed of roughly 8 primary species. Basal

Area across all three stands is dominated by Abies concolor, while the TPA of stands 8 is also

dominated by this species, the highest percentage of TPA for stands 6 and 9 is Cornus nuttallii

(Table 7). Collectively across the three stands, Abies concolor dominates both TPA and BA

(Table 8). Stand 8 possesses the highest SDI, followed by stand 9, then stand 6. (Table. 9)

33
Table 7. Summary table of TPA, Basal area (BA), and volume for

34
Table 8. Composite Summary table of TPA, BA, and volume by species type across MHDSF
Stands 6,8, and 9.

Table 9. Composite summary table of SDI and QMD for stands 6, 8, and 9.

Health & disturbance

Fire
Prior to the Castle fire in 2020, a significant fire hadn't occurred in the mountain home

area in 100 years. Much of the small-scale fires are from illegal campfires or cigarettes. In 2015,

MHDSF participated in a managed wildfire on neighboring federal land to utilize their

infrastructure for containment. In 2018, the Alder Fire, originating southeast of MHDSF, caused

damage as it advanced northward into the forest. Unlike the 2015 fire, it wasn't officially

managed and spread until reaching previously treated areas within MHDSF (Kral, 2020). As of

35
2024, fire risk is severe across stands. Under severe fire conditions, 96% of the basal area in

stand 6 is expected to burn, 95% of stand 8 is expected to burn, and 64% of stand 9 is expected

to burn (Table 10).

Table 10. Fire risk of stands 6,8, and 9 in 2024. These numbers reflect the risk presented
by severe fires.

Insects and disease

MHDSF faces challenges from a range of insect pests and diseases, such as bark beetles,

mistletoe, heart rot, and root diseases like Armillaria root rot and Annosus root rot. Much like

other forests of the Sierras, these risks are very current to MHDSF and the damage done by

insects and disease threatens to negate the effects of other management treatments. In order to

achieve objectives listed above, insects and disease must be managed as well. To manage bark

beetle activity, methods like felling and removing infested trees are employed. The introduction

of white pine blister rust from Asia around 1900 has severely affected sugar pine populations

within the forest (Kral, 2020).

Harvest history
The Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest historically harvested around 2.2

million board feet (MMBF) of timber annually between 1946 and 2019. Despite this, a

significant amount of old growth remains. Stocking and volume growth have remained constant.

Planned harvests (THPs) from 2009 onwards have shown additional harvesting to salvage

36
drought and beetle-killed trees, particularly on tractor operable ground. The long-term

sustainable harvest levels, as outlined in the 2009 General Forest Management Plan, ranged

between 2.4 and 3 MMBF per year, depending on silvicultural methods. The unrestricted

sustainable harvest level was around 4.4 MMBF per year. However, due to the impact of the

8-year drought, the annual allowable cut has been reduced to 1.5 to 2 MMBF per year. This

reduction is largely attributed to the decline in pine species. Logistical considerations, such as

local sawmill demand and minimizing impacts on recreation, also influence harvest levels.

Additionally, variations in harvest levels may occur to facilitate salvage operations, fuel

reduction treatments, and stand sanitation to maintain forest health (Kral, 2020).

Chapter 3: Management Alternatives to Meet Resource Objectives

Objectives
Management philosophy
Our forest management approach prioritized the dual objectives of maximizing carbon

sequestration and safeguarding the habitat of listed and threatened species. Through the use of

adaptive management strategies informed by peer reviewed data and projection modeling, we

seek to restore and enhance the resilience of Southern Sierra Nevada forests. With underlying

goals of mitigating climate change and preserving biodiversity, we aim to restore healthy

ecosystem functions to ensure the sustainability, regeneration, and continuity of forests.

Alternatives:

Alternative 1: No Action
Under this treatment alternative, no action management would occur within the stands.

This no-action plan will conserve giant old-growth sequoias and current listed/ threatened

species and habitat. This no action alternative will minimize human impacts, and natural

37
processes will govern forest dynamics. Carbon sequestration will experience natural fluctuations

over time.

Alternative 2: Thin
This alternative involves implementing prescribed burning on a 50-year cycle, conducted

twice over the span of a century. The first burn is scheduled for fall 2024, followed by the second

burn in fall 2074. Each burn will adhere to specific parameters, including a wind speed of 5mph,

dry fuel conditions, temperatures around 70°F, and an aim of 100% stand area burned. This

approach not only mitigates fuel loads but also fosters forest floor regeneration, thereby

promoting sustained long-term enhancements in carbon sequestration.

Alternative 3: Thin & Burn

A "thin from below" treatment followed by periodic prescribed burns will be

implemented in MHDSF. The thinning operation, scheduled for late summer, will maintain a

residual basal area of 130 Ft2 per acre and impose an upper DBH limit of 50”. This treatment

will primarily target white fir and incense cedar while excluding giant sequoias. In the fall of

2026, two years after the thinning, a prescribed burn will be conducted under favorable

conditions: wind speed at 5mph, dry fuel conditions, temperatures around 70°F, with the aim of

burning 100% of the stand area. Subsequently, MHDSF will undergo natural regeneration over

the next decade. Beginning in fall 2036, periodic burns will occur every 10 years, following the

same parameters as the initial burn. This alternative will foster understory growth in stands 6, 8,

and 9, ensuring long-term carbon storage, mitigating high-severity fire risks by reducing fine

fuels, and protecting listed habitat by maintaining large old growth sequoias. By decreasing

white fir and nurturing giant sequoias, the forest will be dominated by a more natural mix of

38
species, resulting in a desired forest structure characterized by low density and fire resistant

species. (Kral, 2020)

Regeneration
Under alternatives 1 and 2, natural regeneration is modeled periodically in 20 year

intervals starting in 2034. Natural regeneration includes 200 white fir, 20 incense cedar, 30

Jeffrey pine, and 10 giant sequoias per acre. These parameters were set based on inventory

conditions of stands 6,8, and 9. Additional regeneration is set to occur after fires in alternative 2,

with 20 sugar pine, 50 ponderosa pine, 5 white fir, 20 Jeffrey pine, and 300 giant sequoia (50%

survival rate) per acre.

Alternative 3 did not have standard background regeneration. Regeneration was set to

occur after burn and thin treatments to replicate natural regeneration that occurs following

treatments. Post-thin regeneration included 20 white fir, 20 Jeffrey pine, 20 sugar pine, 50

ponderosa pine, and 100 giant sequoia per acre. Post-burn regeneration included 5 white fir, 20

Jeffrey pine, 20 sugar pine, 50 ponderosa pine, and 300 giant sequoia (33% survival rate) per

acre.

References and citations used to set management parameters

Parameters and species preference/ exclusions were set based on information presented in

the FFE regarding the Western Sierra variant, as well data presented in alternative MHDSF

management plans.

Kral, J., 2020. Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest Management Plan. California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, The Natural Resource Agency.
https://bof.fire.ca.gov/media/9808/wksp-70-mtn-home-draft-mgmt-plan_3-16-20.pdf

39
Rebain, S., Reinhardt, E., Crookston, N., Beukema, S., Kurz, W., Greenough, J., Robinson, D.,
Lutes, D. 2022. The Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator:
Updated Model Document. https://www.fs.usda.gov/fmsc/ftp/fvs/docs/gtr/FFEguide.pdf

Forest response to treatment and FVS models

Alternative 1 (A1.): No Action

Alternative 2 (A2.): Prescribed burn in the fall of 2024 and 2074 (50 year cycle). Dry fuel

conditions, temperature 70°F, target to burn 100% of stand area.

Alternative 3 (A3.): Thin-from-below treatment followed by an initial clean up burn two years

later. Periodic burns occurring every 10 years, beginning in 2036. Targeted species in thin: White

fir and Incense cedar. Giant sequoias excluded from thinning. Initial and subsequent burns target

100% of the stand.

Stand Structure
Across all alternatives, general trends are seen for TPA, BA, and total cubic ft per acre.

Cubic feet per acre experiences a steady increase across all alternatives (Fig. 7), TPA experiences

fluctuations with a general trend downwards (Fig. 8), and BA experiences a steady increase,

stabilizing around 2080 in all three stands (Fig. 9).

40
Figure 7. Projected total cubic volume per acre for stands 6,8, and 9 in each alternative
simulation. A1.) No action, A2.) Burn only, A3.)Thin and Burns

41
Figure 8. Live TPA over time in stands 6,8, and 9 for each alternative. TPA is the number of
trees/acre.

42
Figure 9. Live BA over time in stands 6, 8, and 9 for each alternative. BA is reported in
sqrft/acre.

Stand Metics
TPA, BA, SDI, and QMD were compared to understand how each alternative would

change the structure of MHDSF, stands 6, 8 and 9. Table 11 shows comparisons across

alternatives for stand 6. Table 12 shows comparisons across alternatives for stand 8. Table 13

shows comparisons across alternatives for stand 9.

43
Table 11. Comparison table for TPA, BA, SDI, and QMD in stand 6 for each alternative.

44
Table 12. Comparison table for TPA, BA, SDI, and QMD in stand 8 for each alternative.

45
Table 13. Comparison table for TPA, BA, SDI, and QMD in stand 9 for each alternative.

46
Resources (Carbon, Fuels, Snags)
Total stand carbon, total surface fuels, and snags greater than or equal to 12 inches were

evaluated to understand how well each alternative met our desired conditions and objectives.

Alternative 1 and 2 presented very similar carbon outputs, while alt 3 showed slightly lower

carbon stocks. (Fig 10). Alternative 3 also saw the greatest loss in carbon as a result of thins and

burns (Table 14). Alternative 3 saw the greatest reduction in surface fuels, followed by

alternative 2, then alternative 3 (Fig 11). Large hard snags were most abundant in alternative 2,

followed by alt 3, then alt 1 (Fig 12).

Figure 10. Total Stand carbon over time for each alternative. Carbon is reported in Tons/Acre.

47
Table 14. Carbon lost in each stand across each alternative.

48
Figure 11. Total Surface fuels over time in stands 6,8 and 9 for each alternative. Fuels are
reported in Tons/Acre.

49
Figure 12. Standing snags (greater than 12”) present over time for each alternative. Y-axis is in
snags/ acre.

Fire Risk
In the event of a severe fire event, the amount of basal area lost will meditate not only

carbon loss, but also the potential effects on sensitive wildlife and habitat. Decreasing the percent

of basal are that is projected to burn under severe fire will protect stored carbon as well as habitat

for wildlife. Under Alternative 1, the expected %BA to burn under severe fire remains very high,

between 90-100%. Under Alternative 2, the expected %BA to burn under severe fire drops

immediately following burns, but quickly returns to 80-100%. Alternative 3 shows a large

decrease in expect %BA to burn, dropping to and remaining below 20% in all stands (Fig. 13).

50
Figure 13. Percent of the basal area that would be killed in severe fire conditions for stands 6,8
and 9.

Stand Visualization Comparison

Visual projections for the beginning (2024) and end (2124) of each alternative. Stand 6,

8, and 9 are each shown. Figure 14 displays alternative 1: no action, showing the natural changes

of each stand without human intervention. Figure 15 displays Alternative 2: Burn only, showing

stand changes after 2 prescribed burns are implemented within a 100 year period. Figure 16

displays stand changes following a thinning treatment and a series of prescribed burns over a 100

year period.

51
Figure 14. Projection of stands 6, 8, and 9 for Alternative 1: No Action. The left images are the
beginning of the simulation (2024), and the right images are the end of the simulation (2124).

52
Figure 15. Projection of stands 6, 8, and 9 for Alternative 2: Burn only. The left images are the
beginning of the simulation (2024), and the right images are the end of the simulation (2124).

53
Figure 16. Projection of stands 6, 8, and 9 for Alternative 3: Thin & Burn. The left images are
the beginning of the simulation (2024), and the right images are the end of the simulation (2124).

Comparison of responses to each treatment

An analysis of the effects of treatment methods reveals that both thinning and burn

operations have drastic effects on stand structure and carbon sequestration. Thinning has large

54
effects on forest density and basal area, with long term decreases to TPA, and long term increases

to BA. This suggests a conversion from a forest dominated by small DBH trees, to one composed

of larger DBH trees. Stand 6 remains unaffected by thinning procedures. This is due to the stands

initial BA being below the residual BA target for thinning treatments. Targeting fire intolerant

species like white fir and incense cedar, thinning improves the forest's resilience to fire.

Prescribed burns also had notable effects on stand structure, with large effects being seen

on fuel loads and snags. Periodic burns are shown to reduce surface fuel loads across stands,

reducing the probability of high severity fires. Furthermore, low intensity periodic burns cause

an initial slight reduction in snags when compared to a no action scenario, but a long-term steady

increase in snags is seen despite low fires taking place. This suggests that burn treatments are not

having long-term negative consequences on snags and habitats, and are instead mediating an

increase in large snags in the forest.

Cost-benefit analysis

Ecological
The task of maximizing carbon sequestration and mitigating impacts on listed and

threatened species is met with ecological costs. Management tools and actions such as prescribed

burns and mechanical thinning will alter the ecosystem in various ways. Prescribed burns will

cause a short-term release of carbon and air pollutants, as well as modify habitat in burn areas.

While a short-term loss of carbon results from burns, a portion of this carbon will be returned to

soil as pyrogenic carbon, an altered form of carbon that contributes to long-term carbon

sequestration due to its stable nature (Meunier, Sutheimer. 2022). Mechanical thinning also

presents ecological challenges. The movement of thinning equipment and preparation of sites

within the forest may result in soil disturbances that could promote invasive species. Thinning

55
may also result in the loss of habitat and cover for some species. However, employing thinning

can restore natural forest structure, promoting the growth of larger trees that act as cover for

listed species. (Westover, 2021)

A comparison of alternatives shows that alternative 3 will best reach our goals of

enhancing carbon sequestration and maintaining habitat for listed species. The thin and burn

operation will enhance long term carbon storage and encourage the growth of understory

vegetation, providing a healthy habitat structure for species in the forest. Furthermore, the burns

performed in alternative 3 are less severe than those performed in alternative 2. While stand

carbon is higher throughout the years in alternative 1 and 2, alternative 3 shows a steady and

continual increase in stand carbon (Fig. 10). Compounding carbon increases with other aspects

such as decreased fuel loads and increased snags, alternative 3 provides overall positive effects

on objectives pertaining to carbon sequestration and listed species.

Abiotic and Biotic Concerns

Implementing our proposed practices such as prescribed burns, and thinnings lead to

abiotic and biotic concerns. Abiotically, these methods can exacerbate soil erosion, potentially

compromising water quality and altering microclimates. They may also fragment habitats,

disrupting wildlife corridors and affecting carbon sequestration. On the biotic front, changes in

forest structure can drastically alter wildlife habitats and biodiversity, potentially facilitating the

spread of invasive species. Prescribed burns, while effective for reducing wildfire severity, can

carry with it the risk of temporary wildlife displacement. Disturbances can also impact vital soil

microbial communities that are crucial for nutrient cycling and ecosystem resilience. Achieving

successful outcomes requires a delicate balance between management objectives and mitigating

adverse ecological impacts.

56
 Between management alternatives 2 and 3, the former involves less mechanical

employment in forest stands, maintaining a less disturbed forest floor, as it lacks a thinning

treatment. This is important in terms of soil erosion susceptibility and soil water retention. Areas

impacted by logging equipment exhibit great complications with water filtration which have the

potential to cause damage at a landscape scale. This greatly disrupts the habitats of listed species

considered in our management plan. Aside from abiotic impacts, biotic characteristics of

MHDSF like the composition of forest stands benefit in the extended temporal from treatments

promoting resilience to disturbance. With long term resilience of the forest stand and ecological

support of listed species’ habitat comes overall wildlife biodiversity. Between the two treatments

previously mentioned, alternative 3 encompasses this aspect of biotic resilience in the long run

due to its promotion of large tree growth and heterogeneity outlined in the thinning treatment’s

parameters. Its treatment involves thinning which excludes sequoias, which are fire resistant,

while targeting white fir and cedar, which both are not fire resistant. The combination of thinning

with control burning builds overall resistance and regenerative ability. These values are more

important to the goals of Mountain Home which focuses on recreational appeal and the

experimental potential while maintaining biodiversity through fostering of listed species and

habitat sustainability.

Endangered Species and Water Quality

MHDSF is a habitat that hosts a handful of endangered species. The implementation of

prescribed fire and thinning operations raises concerns about the potential removal of snags,

which are critical habitats for endangered species like the Pacific Fisher, Northern Goshawk, and

California Spotted Owl. These species rely on the presence of old-growth trees and snags for

57
nesting sites, making them particularly vulnerable to habitat disturbances. The risk of soil

erosion resulting from fires poses a threat to water quality, impacting species such as the Foothill

yellow-legged frog, which dwell in stream environments. Additional and potentially endangered

species include, the Golden Eagle, Sierra Nevada red fox, wolverine, great gray owl, Townsend’s

big-eared bat, spotted bat, pallid bat, red bat, California Condor, and great blue heron. According

to the California Natural Diversity Database, the presence of Keck’s Checkerbloom (Sidalcea

keckii), Tracy’s Eriastrum (Eriastrum tracyi), Kaweah Brodiaea (Brodiaea insignis), and

Springville Clarkia (Clarkia springvillensis) are listed plants within the mountain home region

(Kral, 2020). Balancing forest management practices with the conservation needs of these

endangered species is crucial to ensuring the long-term health and sustainability of the

ecosystem.

Prescribed burns as outlined in alternative management approach 3 aim to burn in order

to achieve reduction in wildfire severity to the forest stand. These prescribed burns will ensure

the initial resistance to fire through overall litter reduction and promotion of old-growth,

fire-tolerant giant sequoias. This in turn will soften the impact of large scale disturbances to

protect habitat integrity for our wildlife species of concern. Water quality is impacted by the

implications erosion has on sedimentary build up, nutrient runoff, and altered hydrology as a

result of management activity associated with thinning and prescribed fire. In order to mitigate

this consequence of mechanical use within the site, employment of water-flow management,

such as mulching, buffer strips, and encouragement of cover vegetation. Additionally, by only

performing thinning based on a constrained schedule primary use of skid trails sustains the most

natural state of disturbed soil and prevents landscape-altering erosion.

58
 Economic
Funding may be hard to achieve for implementing and managing treatments of thinning,

masticating, and burning to the desired effect. Additional costs of hiring trained crew to perform

management treatments as well as equipment and operating costs will likely need to be

accounted for. Potential revenue sources to offset costs may be timber harvests and revenue

associated with increased park visitation. An estimated 1765 board feet of merchantable timber

could be retrieved from the 2024 thinning. With about 1666 merchantable board feet of white fir

and 99 merchantable board feet of incense cedar harvested, potential revenue from timber sales

is about $718.38. Increased visitation will likely be the main source of revenue for the forest. A

breakdown of costs associated with each alternative over a 100 year period is presented in Table

15, and final total cost comparisons can be found in table 16.

Table 15. Cost breakdown for alternative 3

Management Combined Targeted % Type of Price/acre of Cost breakdown by
Alternative acreage of of area being treatment treatment year of treatment
stands treated method

1: No action N/A N/A N/A $0 N/A

2: Burn Only ~153 acres 100% Prescribed fire $1000 (2024 2024 Burn:
(x2) burn) $153,000
+
$1000 & 2074 Burn:
discount (2074) $16,938.58

3: Thin and ~153 acres Thin: 100% Hand thin (lop $780 (Thin) 2024 Thin:
Burns & scatter), + $119,340
Initial Burn: $1000 &
100% Initial discount (Initial 2026 Burn:
prescribed burn) $140,106.68
Recurring burn, +
burns: 100% $1000 & Subsequent burns:
Reoccurring discount 2036: $90,218.57
prescribed (5 burns) 2046:$58,094.24
burns (x9) 2056: $37,408.49

59
 2066:$24,088.36
2076: $15,511.16
2086:$9,988.07
2096: $6,431.59
2106:$4,141.48
2116: $2,666.81

Table 16: Total Cost over a 100 year management period

Management Alternative Total Cost

1: No Action No initial cost.

Long-term consequences such as fire or disease
could result in high economic costs to combat
outbreaks.

2: Burn Only $ 169, 938.58

3: Thins and Burns $507,995.45

Social
The forest treatments would likely elicit varied social responses. Thinning combined with

prescribed burns would release smoke into the air, potentially impacting nearby residents, and

pose a risk of uncontrollable fires causing property damage. The aesthetic appeal of the forest

would diminish due to the burnt landscapes. Thinning operations would generate noise,

disturbing nearby residents and recreational activities in the area. However, both treatments offer

the advantage of reducing fire risk to surrounding areas and enhancing recreational opportunities

once the project is completed.

60
Selection & Justification of selected alternative
Through the analysis and comparison of multiple management approaches, Alternative 3

shows the highest probability of meeting our objectives. Alternative 3 involves a thinning

operation targeting White Fir and Incense Cedar, followed by an initial prescribed burn.

Subsequently, follow-up burns will be conducted every ten years to maintain low fuel loads and

foster understory growth.

FVS simulations indicate that Alternative 3 and Alternative 2 had similar effects on TPA

and BA, with significant reductions to TPA (Fig. 8) and notable increases to BA (Fig. 9). These

conversions are in line with our objectives, as they suggest a conversion from a forest dominated

by small DBH classes, to one dominated by larger trees. Alternative 3 shows a more intense

conversion to a large-tree dominated forest, as TPA is lower when compared to Alternative 2,

while BA remains similar. (Fig. 8,9). In terms of stand structure, both alternatives show similar

effects, as BA and TPA see similar changes over the course of both alternatives (Table 7,8,9) .

However, a divergence is seen with how these two alternatives influence stand carbon, surface

fuels, and large snags. These three resources are highly correlated with our management

objectives, and Alternative 3 demonstrates the highest likelihood of establishing favorable

conditions across these categories, without fully sacrificing one or more of the resources. Carbon

sequestration is an important aspect of healthy forests, and Alternative 3 shows to steadily

elevate the total stand carbon (Fig 10.). This is in line with our goals to prioritize carbon

sequestration in our stands. Other objectives included reducing surface fuels to mitigate the risk

of high severity fires in our stands that could detrimentally affect habitat quality. A sharp

reduction in total surface fuels is seen with Alternative 3, as all stands hold equal to or less than

20 tons/ acre of fuels by the end of the simulation (Fig. 11). Similarly, when evaluating the risk

that a high severity fire would pose under each alternative, Alternative 3 is the only course of

61
management that would decrease the expected BA mortality to under 20% (Fig. 13).

Additionally, with objectives to protect listed and sensitive wildlife, large hard snags are an

important aspect in management, as they provide habitat and nesting sites for many listed species

in MHDSF. Alternative 2 and 3 show similar effects on snags, but Alternative 3 is the only

alternative that consistently elevates snags. Alternative 1 and 2 show initially positive increases

to snags, but both show declines occurring near the end of the simulated period (Fig. 12). While

stand 6 has slightly less snags per acre present in Alternative 3 by the end of the simulation, a

cohesive look at effects suggests that Alternative 3 shows the highest probability of balancing

and meeting objectives to maximize carbon sequestration, while still maintaining and protecting

listed species and their habitat.

Implementation details
Mechanical thinning occurs once at the beginning of the cycle in 2024, followed by a

clean up burn two years later and reoccurring burns beginning a decade thereafter. The initial

thinning treatment will target White Fir and Incense Cedar, while Giant Sequoias are excluded

from thinning operations. Consistent monitoring and surveying will be mutualized to ensure

stand dynamics are naturally regenerating as expected, and increased human intervention will

take place if conditions fail to meet set objectives. The removal treatment will be lop and scatter,

leaving residual slash in the forest to dry until the cleanup burn in 2026. The forest will then be

left and monitored for 2 years to promote natural regeneration. Following this period of time,

burns will be implemented every 10 years in the fall to keep fuel loads in the forest down.

62
Schedule of activities
Table 17 outlines the scheduled activities for the preferred alternative 3 throughout a 100
year management timeline.

Table 17. Timeline for preferred management Alternative 3.

Year Time of Year Activity

2024 Spring Perform an assessment and
(April-May) mapping of planned treatment
area including access and
temporary infrastructure (roads
and landings)

2024 Late Summer Thinning treatment

(August-September)

2024-2026 September 2024- October Allow for woody debris to dry.

2026 Assess conditions before burn.

2026 Fall Oct. 1-7:

(October 1-14) Monitor

Oct. 8-15:
Burn treatment

2027-2035 Year-round Periodic monitoring to evaluate

effects of thinning and burning
treatments to ensure predicted
natural regeneration

63
 2036 Fall Apply burn treatment following
(October) initial parameters
1 week monitor
1 week burn

2046-2124 Fall Apply periodic burn treatment

(October) every 10 years following the
1 week monitor same parameters as 2036
1 week burn treatments until 2116

Long-term monitoring and adaptive management plans

Long term monitoring of our stands is necessary to ensure that carbon sequestration

remains stable and that listed species and habitat do not experience reductions as a result of

human intervention. Targeted thins need to be monitored to ensure that species such as white fir

and incense cedar are being prioritized, but not completely eliminated from stands. Thin

treatments should be further monitored to track TPA reductions, as severe reductions could result

in a poorly functioning forest that exhibits inadequate habitat density for listed species. To

address concerns regarding management strategies, land and forest monitoring should be

implemented periodically following thin and burn treatments to evaluate changes to TPA, BA,

fuel loads and carbon. Land surveys and monitoring should take place every 10 years prior to

scheduled burns, and intermediate assessment should take place to evaluate the status of listed

species and habitat. Evaluation of natural regeneration should also be considered during

monitoring, and the potential implementation of human-driven regeneration projects could be

considered to further enhance stand dynamics and carbon sequestration. Continuous surveillance

of MHDSF will ensure and facilitate the long-term enhancement of carbon sequestration and

protection of listed/ sensitive wildlife and habitat.

64
 Work Cited
Benson, N., 1986 Management of Giant Sequoia on Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest
https://www.fs.usda.gov/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr095/psw_gtr095_benson.pd
f

Burns, E., Campbell, R., Cowan, P., 2018. State of Redwoods Conservation Report.
Savetheredwoods Leauge
https://www.savetheredwoods.org/wp-content/uploads/State-of-Redwoods-Conservation-
Report-Final-web.pdf.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Mountain Home Demonstration State
Forest.https://www.fire.ca.gov/What-We-Do/Natural-Resource-Management/Demonstrati
on-State-Forests/Mountain-Home-Demonstration-State-Forest. (Accessed 27 Feb. 2024.)

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2022. California Forest Practice Rules.
https://bof.fire.ca.gov/media/y5rfw50b/2022-fpr-and-fpa_ada.pdf

Dulitz, 1994. Management of Giant Sequoia on Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest
https://www.fs.usda.gov/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr151/psw_gtr151_18_dulitz.
pdf

Kral, J., 2020. Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest Management Plan. California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, The Natural Resource Agency.
https://bof.fire.ca.gov/media/9808/wksp-70-mtn-home-draft-mgmt-plan_3-16-20.pdf

Meunier, J., Sutheimer, C. 2022. Carbon Dynamics in Relation To Prescribed Fire in the Lake
States.https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/sites/default/files/topic/ClimateChange/PrescribedFireCa
rbonDynamics.pdf

National Centers for Environmental Information. Climate at a glance County Time Series
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/county/time-series/CA-
107/tavg/12/0/1895-2024 (Accessed 25 Feb. 2024)

Powers, E., Marshall, D.,Zhang, J., Wei, L., 2013. Post-fire management regimes affect carbon
sequestration and storage in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest Post-fire management
regimes affect carbon sequestration and storage in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest
(usda.gov)
Steel, Z. L., H. D. Safford, and J. H. Viers. 2015. The fire frequency-severity relationship and the
legacy of fire suppression in California forests.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00224.1

65
U. S. National park service, 2024. Indigenous fire practices shape our land - fire.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fire/indigenous-fire-practices-shape-our-land.htm
(Accessed 5 Feb. 2024).

United States Department of Agriculture.

https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (Accessed 25 Feb.
2024)
United States Department of Agriculture. Fire Ecology and Restoration.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/sierra/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5442508 (Accessed
3 May. 2024)

Westover, R. 2021. Thinning the Forest for the Trees.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/features/thinning-forest-trees

66