CLIMATE CHANGE Report

Transcription

1 CLIMATE CHANGE Report TROUT CREEK VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT Prepared by: Emelia H. Barnum, Planning Officer Date: October 26, 2010 Updates February and April 2011 by Cindy Diaz, Natural Resource Planner INTRODUCTION:... 1 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION:... 1 Forest Wide Standards and Guidelines... 1 Management Prescription Direction... 1 Management Area Direction... 1 ALTERNATIVES:... 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT:... 2 Local Trends:... 2 Regional Projections:... 2 Local Projections:... 3 Climate Change Influences on Forest Resiliency:... 3 Carbon Cycling:... 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES:... 6 Alternative 3- No Action... 6 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects... 6 Trends - Carbon Cycling:... 6 Trends - Climate Change and Forest Resiliency:... 7 Alternative 1-Proposed Action... 7 Direct and Indirect Effects... 7 Effects on Carbon Cycling:... 7 Effects from Climate Change:... 8 Cumulative Effects:... 8 Alternative 2 - Meadow Only... 9 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects... 9 Effects on Climate Change:... 9 Effects from Climate Change:... 9 Cumulative Effects: CONCLUSION Works Cited... 13

2 INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this report is to provide an analysis of the potential effects of the Trout Creek Vegetation Restoration Project in the context of climate change, in particular focused on the purpose and need for the proposal. Individual specialist reports may have addressed responses or effects to climate change in their individual reports. See individual specialist reports for details. Supporting reports are provided in cited references. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION: The project is guided by management direction found in the Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, USDA 1995), which incorporated the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA and USDI 1994) as amended. Management direction for the Shasta- Trinity National Forest (Forest) includes three integrated levels: 1) Forest-wide direction, 2) Management Prescription direction, and 3) Management Area supplemental management direction. The following excerpts are particularly pertinent to the proposed action: Forest Wide Standards and Guidelines Use commercial thinning to maintain or improve tree health and vigor (Forest-wide standards and guideline 20k.) Plan and implement fuel treatments emphasizing those treatments that will replicate fires natural role in the ecosystems (Forest-wide standards and guideline 8d). Management Prescription Direction Design and implement watershed restoration projects in a manner that promotes longterm ecological integrity of ecosystems, conserves the genetic integrity of native species, and attains Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. (Management Prescription4 -Riparian Reserves- Standards and Guidelines from the ROD 9D.) Management Area Direction Develop forest stands that are resistant to epidemic insect or disease attack through stocking control, manipulation of species composition, and introduction of tree improvement technology. (Management Area 3 Supplemental Direction 10.) The Forest Service Manual (2020) provides foundational policy for using ecological restoration to manage National Forest System lands in a sustainable manner. Ecological restoration activities should be planned, implemented, monitored, and evaluated in consideration of current and desired conditions and the potential for future changes in environmental conditions, including climate change (FSM [3)].) Page 1 of 15

3 ALTERNATIVES: The Trout Creek Project includes two action alternatives and a no action alternative. Alternative 1 (the proposed action) would restore meadow and riparian ecosystems in the meadow unit by removing conifers, burning, and planting on about 54 acres. Alternative 1 improves health, resiliency, and historic species composition of the adjacent forest stands by thinning, removing unhealthy lodgepole pine and white fir, planting with other pine species, cedars, and Douglas fir, and burning or masticating fuels on about 224 acres. Alternative 2 proposes the same activities as Alternative 1 in the meadow only. See the environmental assessment Alternatives section for alternative details. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT: Project-level analysis considers two types of climate change effects the effect of a proposed project on climate change and the effect of climate change on a proposed project (USDA, 2009). Ongoing climate change research has concluded that climate is changing, that the change will accelerate and that human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, primarily carbon dioxide emissions (CO 2 ), are the main source of accelerated climate change (USDA, 2009). Regional trends over the last century are linked to climate change (Butz & Safford (2011)). Local Trends: A summary of current trends and probable future trends in climate and climate-driven processes for the s and surrounding lands was recently completed (Butz & Safford (2011)).Between 1911 and 2005, data collected at the McCloud weather station shows a significant increase in average temperature of about 1-2 F (Butz & Safford (2011)). Trends in historical annual precipitation appear to be positive at McCloud (approximately 15 more inches per year on average in 1987 than 1925 (Butz & Safford (2011)). Analysis of regional hydrometeorlogical data from the lower Klamath Basin show a decrease in the percentage of precipitation falling as snow and accelerated snowpack melt, resulting in earlier peak runoff and lower base flows (Butz & Safford (2011)). Regional Projections: California s climate is expected to become considerably warmer during this century. During the next few decades, average temperatures are projected to rise between 1 and 2.3 F. Towards the end of the century, statewide average temperatures are expected to rise between 3 and 10.5 F, depending on various scenarios based on population growth, economic development and control of heat-trapping emissions (CCCC, 2006). The most common prediction among the most recent models is temperature warming by 9 F by 2100 (Butz & Safford (2011)). On average, projections show little change in expected total annual precipitation or in seasonal precipitation patterns in California (CCCC, 2006). The most common prediction among the more recent Page 2 of 15

4 models is precipitation remaining similar or slightly reduced compared to today(christensen, et al., 2007)(Butz & Safford (2011)). Most models agree that summers will be drier than they are currently, regardless of levels of annual precipitation (Butz & Safford (2011)). With the projected rise in statewide average temperatures, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent (CCCC, 2006). A hotter, drier climate could promote up to 90 percent more wildfires in northern California by the end of the century by drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation (CCCC, 2006). With climate change, streams in the west may have reduced annual runoff; reduced flows are expected to contribute to contraction or loss of wetlands (Furniss, et al., 2010). Water temperatures are expected to increase as well as erosion, thus sediment loads are also expected to increase, affecting aquatic habitats (Furniss, et al., 2010). Local Projections: While no modeling specific to the Trout Creek project area exists 1, a downscaling of three climate models for the Rogue River Basin in southwest Oregon and the Klamath River Basin led to a similar projection for northwest California that precipitation may remain roughly similar to historical levels, but may shift in seasonality to fall predominantly in mid-winter months. Rising temperatures will increase the percentage of precipitation falling as rain and decrease snowpack considerably, resulting in drier summers. Both wet and dry cycles are likely to last longer and be more extreme, leading to periods of deeper drought as well as periods of more extensive flooding (Butz & Safford (2011)). Climate Change Influences on Forest Resiliency: Although future climate change at the local level is uncertain, a shift towards a drier or seasonally drier condition could result in an increasing risk over time of large-scale insect attack in the absence of management action to control stocking levels. Increased stand densities result in increased inter-tree competition for limited water and nutrients. Increased moisture stress reduces the natural defenses of the tree to repel insect attack and makes the forest susceptible to large-scale loss during periods of extended drought. This risk is amplified by the development of shade-tolerant species in the understory in the absence of fire or management activity. These shade-tolerant species (especially white fir) are less tolerant of prolonged drought and highly susceptible to insect attack. Climate Change and Wildfire Severity Published accounts of the last 25 years illustrate the increased intensity of fires (Miller, et al., 2009)(Spies, et al., 2006). Miller et al. (2009) noted a significant relationship between climate and forest fire activity from the early 20th century through 2006 in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades, with an increasing correlation between precipitation and temperature during the fire season itself. During the 1 As of today, no published climate change or vegetation change modeling has been carried out for the. Indeed, few future-climate modeling efforts have treated areas as restricted as the State of California. The principal limiting factor is the spatial scale of the General Circulation Models (GCMs) that are used to simulate future climate scenarios (Butz & Safford,(2011)). Page 3 of 15

5 temporal span of the study, particularly over the last quarter century, the researchers noted a correlation between increased fire severity and increased annual precipitation. Precipitation accounted for all or most of the variance in the latest period models. The increased fire severity was attributed to increased fuel loadings, presumably from a combination of fire suppression and augmented vegetation growth due to increases in precipitation. Peak snowmelt is coming earlier, fire season lengthening, the summer drought deepening and forest fuels are possibly at all time highs (Miller, et al., 2009). Climate Change and Adaptation Under some predictive scenarios, changes in climate may occur that will exceed the capacity of existing forest tree populations to adjust physiologically and developmentally. Furthermore, climate changes may occur at rates that will exceed the capacities of forest species to evolve in place to adapt to new conditions or to migrate to more favorable, future environments. Being relatively long-lived, the forest trees living today will probably compose much of the forests of the next century. Long-term adaptation to climate changes will require healthy and productive forests in the short term (Anderson, 2008). The susceptibility and resilience of these forests to fire or pest disturbances, as well as their ability to adapt to meet future climate challenges may be compromised by a lack of vigor or diversity. Declines in vigor may make forests more susceptible to large-scale pest attacks and more frequent or severe fires. Furthermore, existing plant species or genotypes may be poorly adapted to future climate conditions during all or various parts of their life cycles, resulting in increased risk of regeneration failures and altered trajectories of forest growth, development, and productivity (Fleming, 2010). Management actions to improve and sustain watershed resilience are recommended to respond to projected changes in climate (Furniss, et al., 2010). A healthy, resilient watershed provides a sustained flow of desired ecosystem services over the long term. It resists and quickly recovers from disturbances such as floods, fire, and insect outbreaks (Furniss, et al., 2010). Recommended actions to maintain and improve watershed resilience for aquatic systems include improving channel-flood plain interaction, restoring streamside riparian habitats and wetlands, minimizing stream temperature increases by maintaining appropriate riparian shade, and minimizing ground disturbance that reduces groundwater recharge. Carbon Cycling: Long-term carbon storage is a function of climate and its effects on fuels, ignitions, and fire severity over time and space, as well as the normal processes of tree growth and decomposition. The amount of carbon removed by forests from the atmosphere is controlled by rates of growth, respiration and decay (Mader, 2007). In mixed conifer forests, where surface fire effects historically dominated(agee, et al., 2005);(Hessburg, et al., 2007)), rebalancing of carbon occurred by constant thinning and consumption of surface and ladder fuels by frequent, low and mixed severity fires, where surface fire effects were dominant, and occasionally via patches of stand replacement fire. Page 4 of 15

6 Carbon Cycling and Forest Management The effects of forest management on carbon cycling depend on the forest type and fire regime. In forests with frequent wildfires, thinning and prescribed fire can reduce carbon loss, but in forests with less frequent fires (e.g. coastal) thinning and prescribed burning could release more carbon than would be released under a passive management system. Mader (2007) found that compared to intensively managed forests, the unmanaged forest may remove greater amounts of atmospheric carbon over limited timeframes during forest development. However, this advantage is eventually lost as the forest matures and forest respiration begins to approach growth, with no net carbon removal (Mader, 2007). Thinning with prescribed burning can emulate natural carbon rebalancing in frequent, low and mixed severity fires. However, surface fuels created by silvicultural activities must be removed to ensure reduced fire hazard (Huff, et al., 1995). Hurteau and North (2010) found tree growth had re-sequestered some or all of the carbon removed during various fuels treatments 2 in a Sierran mixed-conifer to red fir forest type in approximately seven years. Understory thinning and underburning recovered all of the removed carbon in approximately 15 years. Overstory thinning is projected to take much longer due to the removal of larger trees. As evidenced by wildfire simulations in Sierran mixed-conifer, thinning also results in carbon being concentrated in fewer, larger trees that approximate the old-growth structure of pre-fire suppression forests (Hurteau, et al., 2008). Thinning effectively increases the rotation length, placing forest carbon in a longer residence-time pool (Hurteau, et al., 2008). Carbon Loss from Wildfire Unmanaged forest conditions increase the severity of wildfire as fuels and forest mortality accumulate with a subsequent release of substantial amounts of CO2, depending on the type and condition of the forest and fire intensity. Ritchie et al. (2007 p. 206) observed survival rates in treated interior ponderosa pines stands in the 2002 Cone fire at Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest on the adjacent Lassen National Forest at 80 percent, in contrast to 1 percent in adjacent untreated stands. The approaching crown fire dropped to the ground and did not carry in previously thinned stands that included previous prescribed fire treatment, and carried as a low intensity ground fire in thinned stands without prescribed fire. Besides releasing stored carbon to the atmosphere, intense wildfire can also remove carbon from surface soils, emit large quantities of other greenhouse gases, result in large amounts of decomposing woody material, and destroy large areas of forest as a mechanism for removing atmospheric carbon. Hurteau et al. (2008) found unthinned stands were more likely to experience a stand-replacing fire that results in a large carbon release, both during the event and post-fire, and estimated prior thinning would have reduced live tree biomass CO 2 emissions by 98 percent in four large fires in the western United States occurring during the 2002 fire season. Depending on the forest type, the area burned by a standreplacing fire does not recover its pre-fire carbon stock for decades (Janisch J.E., 2002). 2 Fuel treatments included control, burn, understory thin, understory thin plus burn, overstory thin, and overstory thin plus burn. Page 5 of 15

7 Carbon Sequestration and Forest Products Actively managed forests in California remove and store significantly greater amounts of carbon than unmanaged stands when both the standing forest and captured forest products are considered (Mader, 2007). Carbon stored in forest products ensures a substantial degree of permanence in carbon storage and dampens flow back to the atmosphere. The half-life of carbon stored in solid wood products used in home construction is estimated at years (Skog & Nicholson (2000 p. 82)). The weighted average half-life of carbon stored in all solid wood products is estimated at 40 years (Mader, 2007 p. 13). An additional advantage of managed forests is the substitution of wood products for fossil fuel. When product substitution is considered, intensive forest management can lead to significant reduction in atmospheric carbon by generating biomass energy and displacing fossil fuel-intensive products. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES: Although future statewide and local climate change is somewhat uncertain at this time, especially beyond a few decades, the alternatives can still be evaluated on their effect on creating forest conditions that are more resilient to potential future changes in local climate. While the actual intensity of the effects of forest management activities on global climate change remains uncertain, there is sufficient information on the role of forests and forest management on carbon cycling to recognize the relative effects of the action alternatives versus no action on the capacity to remove and store atmospheric carbon Alternative 3- No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Under Alternative 3 no treatments would be implemented. There would be no direct or indirect effects. There would be no removal of wood or fiber for carbon storage in product form, or use of wood as bioenergy to displace fossil fuel consumption. This alternative would have no immediate change in the amount of sequestered carbon in forest stands and no immediate change in the rate of carbon removal from the atmosphere. As there would be no direct or indirect effects with Alternative 3, there would be no cumulative effects. Trends - Carbon Cycling: Under the no action alternative there would be no immediate change in the amount of sequestered carbon in forest stands and no immediate change in the rate of carbon removal from the atmosphere. The total accumulation of carbon in fully stocked stands will continue to rise until the stand reaches maturity. At some point, the rate of carbon storage declines due to less efficient photosynthesis and higher respiratory losses and may eventually have zero net CO 2 intake (Mader, 2007). There would be no Page 6 of 15

8 removal of wood or fiber for carbon storage in product form. There would be no use of wood as bioenergy to displace fossil fuel consumption. Under the no action alternative, stand densities would continue to increase and forest fuels would continue to accumulate. There would be an increasing risk of severe wildfire with the potential for catastrophic carbon losses to the atmosphere. There would be continued releases of carbon to the atmosphere from the decomposition of down dead wood, especially in areas that are currently experiencing high levels of conifer mortality from root diseases. Conifer mortality would increase over time as stocking levels increase and forest stands become more susceptible to attack by insects and disease. Conifer mortality leads to additional amounts of fuels and decomposing woody material. Since there would be no timber harvest activity, emissions from logging equipment would not contribute to atmospheric carbon. There would be no releases of carbon to the atmosphere from prescribed burning. Trends - Climate Change and Forest Resiliency: Cumulative effects to forest vegetation from global warming in the project area may increase the potential for decreased tree vigor and productivity as well as increase disturbances from insects, disease, and fire. Proposed treatments that reduce stand density levels may increase the resilience of the stands to climate change (Fleming, 2010). Conifer encroachment is expected to continue with a corresponding reduction of shade-intolerant riparian vegetation in the meadow. Decreasing riparian vegetation would further reduce bank strength and contribute to increased bank erosion. As climate warms, these situations would be exacerbated. Alternative 1-Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Effects on Carbon Cycling: Under Alternative 1 (forested stands and meadow), there would be an immediate reduction in the capacity of the standing forest to store carbon due to the reduction in the number of trees. However, the carbon stored in the harvested trees will remain sequestered in the resulting manufactured forest products and eventually released to the atmosphere over a long period. Thinning treatments will temporarily reduce canopy cover, maintain stand vigor, capture mortality, and shift carbon uptake to more-efficient growers. Thinning with sanitation treatments are proposed in areas that have an unhealthy tree component. Replanting these areas will reestablish fully stocked, young, vigorous conifer stands that are more efficient at storing carbon and more sustainable for the site. Page 7 of 15

9 Accumulations of snags and down dead wood in root disease areas release carbon to the atmosphere through decomposition. Snags in excess of the numbers specified for the project and concentrations of down woody material will be reduced with a subsequent reduction in carbon released to the atmosphere. Whole tree yarding will minimize the accumulation of activity-generated slash. Utilization of biomass for bioenergy would displace some fossil fuel consumption. Alternative 1 will reduce the risk of losing relatively large volumes of carbon to the atmosphere as a result of major wildfire in the project area. Following the proposed treatment, fire behavior under a predicted wildfire situation will decrease. Flame lengths will be lower and there will be a reduced chance for fire to climb into the crowns. The result will be post-project conditions where wildfires would be less damaging and easier to suppress (McRae & Clark (2010)). The project would result in short-term releases of carbon to the atmosphere during prescribed burning. Prescribed burning typically does not affect soil carbon and limits carbon releases because it typically affects only understory plants and ladder fuels. Although prescribed burning returns some carbon, other greenhouse gases, and particulate matter to the atmosphere, combustion is more complete than wildfire, which releases higher concentrations of the other greenhouse gases and particulate matter (Mader, 2007 p. 11). There would be additional releases from equipment emissions during mechanical restoration activities (see the Trout Creek Air Quality Report) Effects from Climate Change: Although future climate change at the local level is uncertain, the project would improve the ability of the forest to withstand drier or seasonally drier conditions by maintaining proper stand densities and by favoring drought resistant and more ecologically sustainable species in the treated stands. Such measures would reduce the risk of insect attack during prolonged drought periods. If the local climate shifts towards wetter conditions, these measures would not have a detrimental effect. Alternative 1 is designed to restore the function of the meadow system by restoring the extent and connectivity of the meadow and facilitating conditions for riparian vegetation to thrive. Selected conifer removal from the meadow will allow shade intolerant riparian plants to reestablish and expand without suppression from extensive conifer shade. Water temperature (range of diurnal fluctuation), is not expected to change appreciably from this proposed action due to the retention of adequate shade trees. In time (3-5 years), this action will have long-term positive effects to water temperature along the length of Trout Creek in the project area as conifer are replaced by riparian plant communities (George, 2010), (George, 2010a). Floodplain interaction is expected to increase in portions of the meadow reach. Cumulative Effects: In the global context, the Trout Creek Project would have an insignificant effect on climate change. From data available at the state level, the 33 million acres of forest in California are estimated to store 1,333.9 Page 8 of 15

10 million bone-dry tons of carbon in live trees, snags, and down wood. 3 At 278 acres, the Trout Creek Project area represents only a small percentage ( %) of forest lands in California. Previous discussions on carbon storage (both in the standing forest and as wood products following timber harvest), the use of bioenergy to displace fossil fuel consumption, and the reduced risk of losing large volumes of carbon to the atmosphere as a result of major wildfire indicate that the project does not appear to have an adverse net effect on carbon cycling. Because greenhouse gases mix readily into the global pool of greenhouse gases, it is not currently possible to ascertain the indirect effects of emissions from single or multiple sources (projects). In addition, because the large majority of Forest Service projects are extremely small in the global atmospheric CO 2 context, it is not presently possible to conduct quantitative analysis of actual climate change effects based on individual or multiple projects (USDA, 2009). Alternative 2 - Meadow Only Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Effects on Climate Change: Alternative 2 will only treat the meadow (54 acres). As with Alternative 1, there would be an immediate reduction in the capacity of the remaining standing forest to store carbon, though on fewer acres. Carbon stored in the harvested trees will remain sequestered in the resulting manufactured forest products and eventually released to the atmosphere over a long period. Carbon uptake will be shifted to the remaining trees. Whole tree yarding will minimize the accumulation of activity-generated slash. As with Alternative 1, this alternative will reduce the risk of losing carbon to the atmosphere due to a wildfire in the project area; however, fewer acres of fuels reduction would be done. Post-project conditions where wildfires would be less damaging and easier to suppress where treated. This alternative would also result in short-term releases of carbon to the atmosphere during prescribed burning of piles and the meadow, though a lesser amount than Alternative 1. Although prescribed burning returns some carbon, other greenhouse gases, and particulate matter to the atmosphere, combustion is more complete than wildfire, which releases higher concentrations of the other greenhouse gases and particulate matter. There would be additional releases from equipment emissions during harvest operations, but a smaller proportion of emissions compared to Alternative 1 (see air quality report). Effects from Climate Change: With Alternative 2, only the meadow would be treated with the remaining upland stand treatments being deferred to a future date. A delay in treatment of these stands will slightly increase the risk of 3 See Table 2 (pg. 125) and Table 28 (pg. 148). Page 9 of 15

11 insect attack and tree mortality especially if annual or seasonal precipitation amounts fall below normal levels, which would result in additional moisture stress. Alternative 2 s actions in the meadow are expected to produce the same effects in the meadow as Alternative 1. Cumulative Effects: In the global context, the Alternative 2 would have an insignificant effect on climate change. From data available at the state level, the 33 million acres of forest in California are estimated to store 1,333.9 million bone-dry tons of carbon in live trees, snags, and down wood (Christensen, et al., 2007). 4 At 54 acres, this alternative represents only a small percentage ( %) of forest lands in California. Previous discussions on carbon storage (both in the standing forest and as wood products following timber harvest), the use of bioenergy to displace fossil fuel consumption, and the reduced risk of losing large volumes of carbon to the atmosphere as a result of major wildfire indicate that the project does not appear to have an adverse net effect on carbon cycling. Because greenhouse gases mix readily into the global pool of greenhouse gases, it is not currently possible to ascertain the indirect effects of emissions from single or multiple sources (projects). In addition, because the large majority of Forest Service projects are extremely small in the global atmospheric CO 2 context, it is not presently possible to conduct quantitative analysis of actual climate change effects based on individual or multiple projects (USDA, 2009) CONCLUSION In summary, project activities are designed to increase project area conditions such that they are more resilient to environmental fluctuations, including climate change. There will be some changes in carbon sequestration, including both a reduction in the capacity of the standing forest to store carbon (due to removal of trees) as well as a shift in carbon uptake to more-efficient growers (the remaining trees). Products manufactured from the harvested trees are expected to store carbon for a period of time (halflife 40 years) and eventually release carbon to the atmosphere over a long period. Short-term releases of carbon are expected from prescribed burning activities and equipment emissions; however, the risk of losing large volumes of carbon and other greenhouse gases from a wildfire is decreased. The amounts of carbon or greenhouse gases and the degree of ecosystem resilience are dependent on the selected alternative. Considering changes in carbon storage, the use of bioenergy to displace fossil fuel consumption, and the reduced risk of losing large volumes of carbon to the atmosphere as a result of major wildfire indicate that the project does not appear to have an adverse net effect on carbon cycling for either alternative. 4 See Table 2 (pg. 125) and Table 28 (pg. 148). Page 10 of 15

12 In the global context, the Trout Creek Project would have an insignificant effect on climate change. The Trout Creek Project area represents only a small percentage of forest lands in California. Because greenhouse gases mix readily into the global pool of greenhouse gases, it is not currently possible to ascertain the indirect effects of emissions from single or multiple sources (projects). In addition, because the large majority of Forest Service projects are extremely small in the global atmospheric CO 2 context, it is not presently possible to conduct quantitative analysis of actual climate change effects based on individual or multiple projects (USDA, 2009). _/s/ Emelia H. Barnum Emelia H. Barnum Shasta-McCloud Management Unit 10/26/2010 _/s/ Cindy M. Diaz Cindy M. Diaz Shasta-McCloud Management Unit 04/22/2011 Page 11 of 15

13

14 Works Cited Agee, James K. and Skinner, Carl N Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management. 2005, Vols Anderson, Paul Silviculture and Climate Change. (May 20, 2008).. Climate Change Resource Center. [Online] May 20, [Cited: April 11, 2011.] Butz, Ramona J. and Safford, Hugh A summary of current trends and probable future trends in climate and climate-driven processes for the s and surrounding lands. s.l. : USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, January, CCCC Our Changing Climate Assessing the Risks to California. A summary report from the California Climate Change Center. s.l. : California Climate Change Center ( Christensen, Glenn A, Campbell, Sally J and Fried, Jeremy S California s Forest Resources, Five-Year Forest Inventory and Analysis Report. s.l. : USDA Forest Service, PNW-GTR-763. Fleming, Deborah Vegetation Management Specialist Report for Trout Creek Meadow Restoration. s.l. : On file at the U.S. Forest Service Ranger Station at McCloud, CA, Furniss, M. J., et al Water, climate change, and forests: watershed stewardship for a changing climate. s.l. : USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. PNW-GTR George, Heidi. 2010a. Personal Communication. October 27, 2010a Hydrology Report for the trout Creek Vegetation Management Environmental Assessment. s.l. : on file at the U.S. Forest Service, McCloud Ranger Station Office in McCloud, CA, Hessburg, P.F., James, K.M. and Salter, R.B Re-examining fire severity relations in premanagement era mixed conifer forests: Inferences from landscape patterns of forest structure. Landscape Ecology. Special Feature. 2007, Vol. 22, 1: Huff, Mark H., et al Historical and current forest landscapes in eastern Oregon and Washington. Part II: Linking vegetation characteristics to potential fire behavior and related smoke production. s.l. : U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 43 p., Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-355. Hurteau, Matthew and North, Malcolm Carbon Costs and Benefits of Fuel Treatments. s.l. : Northern Arizona University, U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Research Station, Hurteau, Matthew D., Koch, George W. and Hungate, Bruce A Carbon protection and fire risk reduction: toward a full accounting of forest carbon offsets. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2008, Vol. 6, doi: / Janisch J.E., Harmon, M.E Successional changes in live and dead wood carbon stores: implications for net ecosystem productivity. Tree Physiology. 2002, Vols. 22: Mader, Steven Climate Project: Carbon Sequestration by California Forests and Forest Products.. s.l. : Prepared by CH2M Hill, Inc. on behalf of California Forests for the Next Century, McRae, Heather and Clark, Steve Fire/Fuels/Smoke Specialist Report Trout Creek Vegetation Restoration Project. McCloud, CA : On file McCloud Ranger Station, Miller, J.D., et al Quantitative Evidence for Increasing Forest Fire Severity in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Mountains, California and Nevada, USA. Ecosystems. 2009, Vol. 12, 1: Ritchie, Martin.W., Skinner, Carl N. and Hamilton, Todd A Probablility of tree survival after wildfire in an interior pine forest of northern California: Effects of thinning and prescribed fire. Forest Ecology and Management. 2007, 247 (p ). Page 13 of 15

15 Skog, Kenneth E and Nicholson, Geraldine A Carbon Sequestration in Wood and Paper Products.. s.l. : USDA Forest Service, RMRS-GTR-59.. Spies, Thomas A., et al Conserving old-growth forest diversity in disturbance-prone landscapes. Conservation Biology. 2006, Vol. 20, 2: USDA Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis. January 13, s.l. : USDA Forest Service., Page 14 of 15