DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE

Science Synthesis to Support 

Socioecological Resilience in 

the Sierra Nevada and Southern 

Cascade Range

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Pacific Southwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report

PSW-GTR-247 September 

2014
Editors

Jonathan W. Long is a research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618; Lenya 

Quinn-Davidson is a staff research associate, University of California Cooperative 

Extension, 5630 South Broadway, Eureka, CA 95503; Carl N. Skinner is a geographer 

(emeritus), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002.

Cover photographs (clockwise from upper left): Giant sequoia, Sequoia National Park, by 

Patricia Winter; black oak workshop, by Jonathan Long; fisher, by Zane Miller; Dusy Basin 

in Kings Canyon National Park, by Kathleen Matthews; prescribed burn, by Eric Knapp; 

harvester, by Susan Charnley. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, 

and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender 

identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, 

sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program, 

or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the 

Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) 

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency’s EEO Counselor (PDF) 

within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. 

Additional information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. 

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program 

Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.

html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter 

containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us 

by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at program.intake@usda.gov. 

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or 

program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 

845-6136 (in Spanish). 

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to 

contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 

720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

For any other information dealing with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) issues, 

persons should either contact the USDA SNAP Hotline Number at (800) 221-5689, which is also in 

Spanish or call the State Information/Hotline Numbers. 

For any other information not pertaining to civil rights, please refer to the listing of the USDA Agencies and 

Offices for specific agency information.
Science Synthesis to Support 

Socioecological Resilience in the 

Sierra Nevada and Southern 

Cascade Range

Volume 1

Jonathan W. Long, Lenya Quinn-Davidson, and 

Carl N. Skinner, Editors

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

Pacific Southwest Research Station

Albany, California

General Technical Report PSW-GTR-247

September 2014
ii

Contributors

Karen L. Pope is a wildlife biologist and William J. Zielinski is a research 

wildlife biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 1700 Bayview Dr., Arcata, CA 95521; Brandon M. Collins

is a research fire ecologist, Ken R. Hubbert formerly was a research soil scientist, 

and John J. Keane is a research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 

95618; Jessica W. Wright is a conservation geneticist and Malcolm P. North is a 

research plant ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618; Carolyn T. 

Hunsaker is a research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, 2081 E. Sierra Avenue, Fresno, CA 93710; 

Frank K. Lake is a research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 

96002; Andrzej Bytnerowicz is an ecologist, Mark E. Fenn is a research plant 

pathologist, and Patricia L. Winter is a research social scientist, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 4955 Canyon 

Crest Dr., Riverside, CA 92507; Emily E. Moghaddas formerly was a research 

soil scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, Taylorsville, CA, and currently is Natural Resources Program 

Manager, Kadena Air Base, U.S. Air Force, Okinawa, Japan; Susan Charnley is 

a research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main St., Suite 

400, Portland, OR 97205; Trista M. Patterson formerly was a research economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Sitka, AK 99835; David B. Herbst is a research biologist, Sierra Nevada 

Aquatic Research Laboratory, University of California and Marine Science Institute, University of California–Santa Barbara, HCR 79, Box 198, Mammoth Lakes, 

CA 93546; Angela Jardine is a field research engineer and Ph.D. candidate in the 

Programa Clima e Ambiente, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia e Universidade do Estado do Amazonas, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil; Marc D. Meyer

is an ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Sierra 

Province, Sierra National Forest, 1600 Tollhouse Rd., Clovis, CA 93611; Hugh D. 

Safford is the regional ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region, 1323 Club Dr., Vallejo, CA 94592.
iii

Abstract

Long, Jonathan W.; Quinn-Davidson, Lenya N.; Skinner, Carl N., eds. 2014. 

Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and 

southern Cascade Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

712 p. 2 vol.

A team of scientists integrated recent research to inform forest managers, stakeholders, and interested parties concerned with promoting socioecological resilience 

in the Sierra Nevada, southern Cascade Range, and Modoc Plateau. Among the 

focal topics were forest and fire ecology; soils; aquatic ecosystems; forest carnivores including Pacific fisher, marten, and California spotted owl; air quality; and 

the social, economic, and cultural components of socioecological systems. The 

synthesis adopted a holistic perspective by focusing on issues that cross scientific 

disciplines and considering the integrated nature of terrestrial and aquatic systems 

and the interconnections between restoration of ecological processes and the social 

and economic concerns of communities. A central theme is the importance of 

restoring key ecological processes to mitigate impacts of widespread stressors to 

socioecological resilience, including changes in climate, fire deficit and fuel accumulations, air pollution, and pathogens and invasive species. Key findings from 

the synthesis were that (1) efforts to promote resilience of socioecological systems 

increasingly consider the interaction of social values and ecological processes in 

pursuit of long-term mutual benefits and social learning for local communities and 

larger social networks; (2) strategic placement of treatments to reduce hazardous 

fuel accumulations and to restore fire as an ecosystem process within large landscapes can lower the risk of uncharacteristically large, severe, and dangerous fires, 

and their associated impacts to sensitive wildlife species; and (3) science suggests 

a need for active treatment in some riparian and core wildlife habitat to restore fire 

and its ecological benefits. Forest landscape management will need to be adaptive 

as the impacts of stressors and treatments on a range of socioecological values are 

determined by further research and monitoring.

Keywords: ecological restoration, socioecological systems, ecosystem resilience, forest planning, fire management, altered fire regimes, wildfire, climate 

change, anthropogenic disturbance, invasive species, water resources, species of 

conservation concern, California.
iv

Executive Summary

Objective

This synthesis distills important findings from recent studies to help inform managers, stakeholders, and others interested in promoting socioecological resilience in 

the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. As national forests are undertaking 

revision of land and resource management plans, there is an important opportunity 

to review existing science while charting directions for ecosystem management. 

Information was synthesized and structured to examine concepts and issues that cut 

across science disciplines, address relevant challenges holistically, and identify gaps 

in previous research. The synthesis considers both terrestrial and aquatic systems, 

and discusses interconnections between social and ecological components and 

processes.

Focal Area

The forested mountains of the Sierra Nevada, the southern Cascade Range, and 

the Modoc Plateau (fig. 1) are the focus of this report. Some specific ecological 

examples may not be applicable to drier landscapes in the eastern rain shadows 

of the mountains, which are more representative of the Great Basin. However, the 

appendix includes references to recent and relevant integrative science reports, 

including a 2013 synthesis to support land management in southern Nevada.1

Socioecological Resilience and the Planning Rule

An overarching question guided the development of the synthesis:

Based on recent scientific advances, what management strategies are likely 

to promote resilience of socioecological systems and sustain values-at-risk 

in the synthesis area over the short and long term given expected stressors?

A socioecological system is a dynamic association of biophysical and social 

factors that regularly interact and continuously adapt to regulate flows of critical 

resources, such as biodiversity, water, nutrients, energy, materials, infrastructure, 

and knowledge. This framework also addresses two key ideas in the 2012 Forest 

Planning Rule:

• Pursuing “opportunities for landscape scale restoration,” and

• Emphasizing “wildland fire and opportunities to restore fire-adapted 

ecosystems.”

1 Chambers, J.C.; Brooks, M.L.; Pendleton, B.K.; Raish, C.B., eds. 2013. The southern 

Nevada agency partnership science and research synthesis: science to support land 

management in southern Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-303. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 207 p. 
v

Figure 1—Focal areas of the ecological portions of this synthesis are the conifer-dominated forests in the 

mountains of the Sierra Nevada, southern Cascade Range, and Modoc Plateau. LTBMU = Lake Tahoe 

Basin Management Unit.
vi

Despite efforts to 

suppress it, fire will 

continue to serve as a 

catalyst that changes 

the landscape during 

periods of rapid 

climate change.

Stressors

Examples of widespread stressors to socioecological resilience include, but are 

not limited to:

• Changing climate, associated with warming temperatures and shifts in 

precipitation from snow to rain. 

• Fire deficit and fuels build-up across nearly 3 million acres in the Sierra 

Nevada.

• Air pollution, including nitrogenous compounds, ozone, mercury, and 

black carbon.

• Terrestrial and aquatic pathogens and invasive species.

• Demographic, economic, and social changes, including demand for 

ecological services within the region and from areas farther removed.

These stressors are expected to push systems toward novel conditions that 

require forward thinking about reference conditions and evaluation of synergistic 

effects. An example that illustrates the effects of interacting stressors is the decline 

of endemic amphibians in high-elevation lake ecosystems, which have been 

affected by stocked fish species and chytrid fungus, and may also be threatened by 

air pollution and climate change. A terrestrial example is white pine blister rust, an 

introduced disease that interacts with changes in tree density and forest composition, climate change, and management actions such as tree planting. Monitoring, 

modeling, field experiments, and proactive adaptive management will be needed to 

evaluate long-term system response to stressors and interventions.

A key point of this synthesis, and many other works that have preceded it, is the 

primary role of fire in shaping the forest’s structure, composition, and ecological 

processes before the 20th century. Since that time, there has been a substantial 

increase in fuels and a shift in the fire regime toward less frequent, more severe 

burns in the mixed-conifer and yellow pine forest types that predominate across 

much of the synthesis area. Despite efforts to suppress it, fire will continue to serve 

as a catalyst that changes the landscape during periods of rapid climate change.

Integrative Strategies to Promote Socioecological Resilience

Three major themes are identified that are essential for socioecological resilience: 

integrating considerations of social well-being, promoting more natural ecological 

disturbance regimes, and adopting an adaptive management framework that promotes social learning.
vii

1. Integrating social and ecological considerations—

• Identifying important socioecological values and promoting societal 

well-being: In treatment design, consideration of larger societal wellbeing, including impacts on local communities and economies, can help 

identify opportunities to facilitate joint social and ecological benefits. 

Ecosystem services such as biodiversity and habitat, waterflows, forest 

products, traditional cultural resources and associated livelihoods, and 

a sense of place are important in promoting resilience. More integrated 

and applied research is needed to better understand many of these values 

and potential tradeoffs among different management approaches. 

• Reducing vulnerabilities to major disruptions: Although patches of highseverity fire can be locally important for rejuvenating systems, very 

large, severe, and dangerous wildfires have short- and long-term social, 

economic, and ecological impacts (fig. 2), including impacts to human 

health; degradation of soil, water, and habitat quality; and losses of wood 

products and stored carbon.

• Building upon existing community capacity and cultivating trust: The 

capacity to mitigate and adapt to these risks depends on strategies that 

address various scales, complex layers of socioeconomic and sociocultural values and concerns, and institutional boundaries and constraints. 

The importance of cultivating trust and engaging diverse stakeholders in 

Figure 2—The Rim Fire on the Stanislaus National Forest and in Yosemite National 

Park became the premier example of an uncharacteristically large fire burning under 

severe conditions in the synthesis area in August and September 2013. It produced a 

number of immediate effects including evacuations, loss of property, poor air quality, 

and impacts to infrastructure that went beyond the synthesis area.

Brian Smithers

Although patches of 

high-severity fire can 

be locally important for 

rejuvenating systems, 

very large, severe, and 

dangerous wildfires 

have short and longterm social, economic, 

and ecological impact, 

including impacts 

to human health, 

degradation of soil, 

water, and habitat 

quality, and losses of 

wood products and 

stored carbon.
viii

decisionmaking processes 

has been demonstrated. 

Incorporating traditional 

and local ecological 

knowledge and facilitating 

social learning are important strategies for promoting resilience to stressors 

that may also build upon 

existing community 

capacity. For example, 

collaboration with tribal 

communities has revealed 

how traditional burning 

practices can promote ecological and social benefits 

(fig. 3).

2. Restoring reference disturbance regimes and heterogeneity at 

multiple scales—

• Research indicates that strategic placement of treatments to reduce hazardous fuel accumulations and to restore fire as an ecosystem process 

within large landscape areas can reduce the risk for undesirable social 

and ecological outcomes associated with uncharacteristically large, severe 

fires, including impacts to wildlife species of concern.

• Targeting and designing treatments based upon reference disturbance 

regimes and ecological trajectories can reduce impacts from severe wildfires in areas where interventions may be contentious, including forested 

riparian areas, wildlife core areas, postfire landscapes, and upper montane 

forests; however, more research is needed, especially on long-term effects 

of interventions in these systems. 

• In terrestrial systems, application of fire in concert with silvicultural 

treatments can reestablish fire regimes and heterogeneity at multiple 

scales (fig. 4). Using combinations of indicators that relate to key 

processes at various scales (for example, fire return interval and patch size 

of high-severity fires at broad scales, and heterogeneity of stand structure 

and fuels at finer scales) can help to evaluate restoration progress.

Figure 3—Tending practices, including frequent use of fire, that Native Americans have applied 

to California black oaks demonstrates ways to meet needs of humans and wildlife while sustaining productive forests that are resilient to wildfire. 

Jonathan Long
ix

Figure 4—Heterogeneity can be promoted at different scales based upon fire regimes (left), topography (top right), and fuels (bottom right). LTBMU = Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. YOSE = Yosemite National Park. SEKI = Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks. Map by Ross Gerrard.
x

• In aquatic systems, restoration efforts aim to support native food webs and 

promote dynamic but resilient systems that benefit from reference disturbance regimes, including both fire and flooding.

3. Applying strategic treatment at a landscape scale with 

adaptive management—

• Using large (40 000- to 80 000-ha [100,000- to 200,000-ac]) experimental areas: Most existing experimental areas (fig. 5) are too small to 

evaluate dynamics of wildlife with large home ranges. Within larger 

experimental areas, modeling tools (already developed for fisher and in 

progress for owl habitat) and existing datasets (southern Sierra Nevada 

fisher occupancy and owl demographic studies) could be used to evaluate effects of both treatments and wildfires on wildlife species with large 

home ranges.

• Evaluating active treatments for riparian and wildlife zones: Science 

generally supports the need to treat some riparian and core wildlife 

zones to restore fire regimes and resiliency. Continuing research is 

needed to evaluate what levels of treatment yield net benefits or neutral 

impacts to wildlife species and aquatic resources.

• Applying a phased approach to treatment, combining the use of wildfire, 

prescribed fire, and silviculture: Designing treatment strategies to promote desired values across large landscapes, while targeting fuels reduction treatments into specific portions of those landscapes, can be more 

efficient and allow more areas to be moved out of fire suppression into a 

fire maintenance regime. These approaches facilitate the reestablishment 

of fire as an ecological process. Under this approach, there would still be 

a substantial need for mechanical thinning in other areas, which would 

ensure a continuing supply of wood and economic returns to facilitate 

restorative treatments. A strategic approach (already underway in some 

areas) would include three phases:

1. Strategic defensive fuels reduction.

2. Restorative treatments in a fraction of the landscape (there is a need 

to evaluate the extent of such treatments using models in an adaptive 

management framework).

3. Maintenance of previously treated areas and extension of treatment 

across the landscape using managed wildfire, with additional understory burning and mechanical treatments as needed, and with adaptation as wildfires and climate change alter conditions and risks.

Designing treatment 

strategies to promote 

desired values across 

large landscapes, 

while targeting fuels 

reduction treatments 

into specific portions 

of those landscapes, 

can be more efficient 

and allow more areas 

to be moved out of fire 

suppression into a fire 

maintenance regime. 
xi

Figure 5—Owl demographic study areas (in black) are much larger than existing experimental forests, so they can facilitate 

efforts to evaluate landscape-scale effects on wildlife. LTBMU = Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. YOSE = Yosemite 

National Park. SEKI = Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks. Map by Ross Gerrard.
xii

Figure 6—Multiple fires have burned large patches with high severity in the watershed of Antelope Lake. Fire boundaries illustrated 

by Brandon Collins.

Scott Stephens

Multiple fires with high 

severity have potential 

for both short- and 

long-lasting impacts to 

ecological trajectories, 

watersheds and streams, 

socioeconomic values, 

and wildlife.

• Facilitating integrated ecosystem management by addressing cross-cutting 

research gaps: Success in promoting well-being in socioeconomic systems 

will depend not only on considering the condition of terrestrial, aquatic, 

and human systems in broad terms, but also on understanding the effects 

of management actions over long periods, particularly following major 

change events such as wildfires (including postfire treatments such as 

salvage logging). Multiple fires with high severity have potential for both 

short- and long-lasting impacts to ecological trajectories, watersheds and 

streams, socioeconomic values, and wildlife (fig. 6).
xiii

Contents 

Volume 1 1 Section 1—Overview and Integration 3 Chapter 1.1—Introduction

 Jonathan Long, Carl Skinner, Hugh Safford, Susan Charnley, 

 and Patricia Winter 3 Purpose 4 Synthesis Area 4 Scope and Approach 7 Focus on Peer-Reviewed Literature 8 Structure 8 Definitions of Resilience and Related Concepts 9 Restoration 9 Integrity

10 Processes, Disturbances, and Stressors

10 Ecological Resilience

11 Integration of Social and Ecological Systems and 

 Socioecological Resilience

11 Socioecological Resilience and Adaptability

14 Literature Cited

17 Chapter 1.2—Integrative Approaches: Promoting 

 Socioecological Resilience

 Jonathan Long, Carl Skinner, Malcolm North, Carolyn Hunsaker, 

 and Lenya Quinn-Davidson

17 Introduction

18 The Challenge of Multiple Stressors

20 Conditions That May Reduce Socioecological Resilience

24 Risks of Insufficient Treatment

26 Recognizing and Resolving Scale Mismatches

28 Strategies to Promote Socioecological Resilience

29 Promoting Heterogeneity, Emulating Natural Disturbances, 

and Restoring Processes

33 Social and Ecological Integration

37 Employing Adaptive Management Strategies

37 Phased Strategies for Long-Term Resilience

44 Management Implications

45 Literature Cited

55 Chapter 1.3—Synopsis of Emergent Approaches

 Malcolm North, Brandon Collins, John Keane, Jonathan Long, 

 Carl Skinner, and Bill Zielinski

56 Managing Forests for Resilience

58 Management Implications

58 Restoring Fire as an Ecological Process

61 Management Implications
xiv

61 Demonstration Landscapes for Reconciling Fuels Treatment, Wildlife 

 Habitat, and Riparian Restoration

64 Management Implications: Demonstration Landscapes

66 Literature Cited

71 Chapter 1.4—Synopsis of Climate Change

 Angela Jardine and Jonathan Long

71 Introduction

71 Observed and Predicted Climate Change in the Synthesis Area

74 Approaches to Promote Resilience to Climate Change

79 Literature Cited

83 Chapter 1.5—Research Gaps: Adaptive Management to 

 Cross-Cutting Issues

 Jonathan Long, Carl Skinner, Malcolm North, and Lenya Quinn-Davidson 

83 Summary of Cross-Cutting Research Gaps

84 Building on Adaptive Management Efforts

88 Research Gaps

89 Changes in Upper Montane and Subalpine Forests

91 Restoration of Forested Riparian Areas

91 Effects of Wildfires, Particularly Long Term

93 Effects of Post-Wildfire Treatments

94 Effects of Restoration Treatments on Ecological Services and 

Other Social Values

94 Performance Criteria

95 Management Implications

96 Literature Cited

101 Section 2—Forest Ecology

103 Chapter 2.1—Forest Ecology

 Malcolm North

103 Summary

104 Introduction

104 Tree Regeneration and Canopy Cover

108 Red Fir Forests

113 Forest Treatments to Facilitate Fire Affects Heterogeneity

114 Carbon Management in Fire-Prone Forests

118 Literature Cited

127 Section 3—Genetics of Forest Trees

129 Chapter 3.1—Genetics of Forest Trees

 Jessica Wright

129 Summary

129 Introduction

132 Provenance Tests

135 Recognition and Management of Provenance Test Sites on National Forests

136 Management Implications
xv

136 Literature Cited

139 Glossary

141 Section 4—Fire

143 Chapter 4.1—Fire and Fuels

 Brandon Collins and Carl Skinner

143 Summary

143 Introduction

144 Fire in Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range Ecosystems

144 Historical Role of Fire

149 Altered Ecosystems

150 Trends

151 Effects of Ecosystem Management Strategies

151 Passive Management (No Action, With Continued Fire Suppression)

151 Vegetation Management

153 Landscape-Scale Considerations

156 Fire Management

160 Literature Cited

173 Chapter 4.2—Fire and Tribal Cultural Resources

 Frank Lake and Jonathan Long

173 Summary

173 Introduction

175 Burning to Promote Tribal Cultural Values and Ecological Restoration

176 Effects of Fire on Culturally Valued Plant Resources

179 Landscape-Scale Effects of Burning Practices

179 Ecological Issues in Reestablishing Frequent Fire

180 Collaborations to Promote Traditional Burning and Cultural Resources

182 Research Gaps

182 Management Implications

182 Literature Cited

187 Chapter 4.3—Post-Wildfire Management

187 Summary

188 Introduction

189 Short-Term Management Actions and Recommendations

190 Hillslope Erosion

193 Debris Flows

194 Identifying Erosion Hotspots Using Landscape Analysis Tools

195 Research Needs

195 Postfire Salvage Logging and Replanting

196 Reviews of Ecological Considerations

201 Social Considerations

203 Management Guidance and Research Gaps

203 Managing Long-Term Post-Wildfire Outcomes

205 Landscape Approach and Multi-Scale Heterogeneity
xvi

206 Advance Planning and Collaboration

207 Monitoring and Research

208 Management Implications

209 Literature Cited

221 Section 5—Soils

223 Chapter 5.1—Soils

 Emily Moghaddas and Ken Hubbert

223 Summary

223 Introduction

225 Sierra Nevada Geology and Soils

226 Priorities in Soil Management

227 Prevent Soil Loss

227 Minimize Physical Disturbance

229 Evaluate Changes in Nutrient Capital and Turnover

229 Recognize Effects on Organic Matter and Soil Biota

230 Management Effects on Soils

230 Mechanical Forest Restoration and Fuel Treatments

236 Prescribed Fire Treatments

243 Effects of Wildfire

247 Knowledge Gaps

248 Management Implications

250 Literature Cited

263 Section 6—Water Resources and Aquatic Ecosystems

265 Chapter 6.1—Watershed and Stream Ecosystems

 Carolyn Hunsaker, Jonathan Long, and David Herbst

265 Summary

266 Introduction

267 Values and Services of Aquatic Ecosystems

269 Resilience and Degradation in Stream Ecosystems

269 Climate Change Effects on Watersheds and Stream Ecosystems

269 Effects on Hydrology

274 Effects on Channel Processes

277 Effects on Aquatic Ecosystems

280 Effects on Biological Indicators of Water Quality

282 Water Resources

282 Water Quantity

283 Water Quality

302 Strategies to Promote Resilience of Water and Aquatic Ecosystems

302 Promoting Favorable Waterflows

304 Promoting Resilience of Aquatic Ecosystems

307 Literature Cited
xvii

323 Chapter 6.2—Forested Riparian Areas

 Carolyn Hunsaker and Jonathan Long

323 Summary

323 Introduction

324 Fire History and Behavior in Riparian Areas

327 Wildfire Effects on Riparian Areas

327 Influences on Riparian Functions

327 Stream Order

328 Large Wood

328 Microclimate Effects

329 Recent Research

329 Prescribed Burning

330 Aspen Management

330 Terrestrial Amphibians

331 Research Gaps and Management Implications

335 Literature Cited

341 Chapter 6.3—Wet Meadows 

 Jonathan Long and Karen Pope

341 Summary

342 Introduction

343 Promoting Resilience in Wet Meadow Ecosystems

344 Channel Incision

346 In-Stream Structural Approaches

347 Evaluating Benefits of Meadow Restoration

350 Grazing Management and Wet Meadow Restoration

353 Monitoring and Evaluation

356 Research Gaps and Pending Research

360 Integrated Socioecological Approaches to Stream and 

 Meadow Restoration

362 Management Implications

362 Literature Cited

373 Chapter 6.4—Lakes: Recent Research and Restoration Strategies

 Karen Pope and Jonathan Long

373 Summary

374 Socioecological Significance of Lakes

375 Conservation Issues and Restoration Options

375 Climate Change

376 Introduced Species

378 Amphibian Disease

379 Pollution

380 Terrestrial Influences on Lakes

381 Metrics for Lake Assessments

383 Management Implications

384 Literature Cited
xviii

Volume 2

391 Section 7—Terrestrial Wildlife

392 Literature Cited

393 Chapter 7.1—The Forest Carnivores: Marten and Fisher

 William Zielinski

393 Summary

394 The Important Role of Predators in Ecosystems

396 The Fisher and the Marten in Context

398 Marten Ecology

401 Fisher Ecology

403 Population Status

403 Marten Populations

405 Fisher Populations

406 Threats to the Species and Implications for Management

406 Marten—Threats

410 Management Implications—Marten

411 Fisher—Threats

414 Management Implications—Fisher

417 Climate Change Implications—Marten and Fisher

418 Information Gaps

422 References

437 Chapter 7.2—California Spotted Owl: Scientific Considerations for 

 Forest Planning

 John Keane

437 Summary

438 Introduction

439 Ecological Context

440 Population Distribution, Status, Trends, and Genetics

440 Historical and Current Distribution

440 Population Status and Trends

441 Population Genetics

442 Habitat Associations

442 Patch/Stand Scale

443 Core Area/Home Range/Territory Scale

445 Landscape Scale

445 Effects of Forest Management and Wildfire

445 Forest Management

447 Wildfire

449 Additional Ecological Stressors

449 Barred Owls

450 Climate Change

451 Disease and Contaminants

452 Human Recreation and Disturbance

453 Integration of Current Forest Management With California Spotted Owl 

 Management and Conservation
xix

456 Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Information Needs

458 Literature Cited

469 Section 8—Air Quality

471 Chapter 8.1—Air Quality

 Andrzej Bytnerowicz, Mark Fenn, and Jonathan Long

471 Summary

472 Values at Risk from Air Pollution

472 Ozone

477 Nitrogen Deposition

482 Interactive Effects of Ozone, Nitrogen Deposition, and Climate Change

482 Impacts of Other Pollutants

482 Forest Management Strategies to Address Pollutant Effects

484 Fires, Smoke, and Air Quality

485 Effects of Management Strategies

486 Research Needs

488 Management Implications

488 Literature Cited

497 Section 9—Social/Economic/Cultural Components

499 References

501 Chapter 9.1—Broader Context for Social, Economic, 

 and Cultural Components

 Patricia Winter, Jonathan Long, Frank Lake, and Susan Charnley

501 Summary

501 Introduction

502 Demographic Influences in the Synthesis Area

502 Population Change, 1990 to 2012

504 Amenity Migration

506 Population Increases

510 Place Meanings Link to a Diverse and Growing Population

513 Recreation and Tourism

527 Literature Cited

543 Chapter 9.2—Ecosystem Services

 Trista Patterson

543 Summary

544 Overview and Chapter Organization

545 Importance of Ecosystem Services Within the Synthesis Region

546 Characterizing Ecosystem Services

546 Which Definition Is Best, and for Which Purpose?

547 Forest Service Use of the Ecosystem Service Concept

550 Frameworks for Adaptive Management

552 Addressing and Assessing Value

553 Valuation Methodologies

555 Payments for Ecosystem Services

556 Addressing Rising Demands for Ecosystem Services
xx

558 Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

559 Literature Cited

569 Chapter 9.3— Sociocultural Perspectives on Threats, Risks, and Health

 Patricia Winter, Jonathan Long, and Frank Lake

569 Summary

569 Introduction

570 How Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Health Is Related to Public Health 

 and Well-Being

574 Understanding Trust and Confidence

577 Ecosystem Dynamics, Threats and Risks

577 Climate Change

581 Wildland Fire

585 Invasive Species

587 Decisionmaking Science and Effects on Risk Management

588 Literature Cited

599 Chapter 9.4— Strategies for Job Creation Through National 

 Forest Management

 Susan Charnley

599 Summary

599 Introduction

601 Forest-Community Relations

601 Community Stability

602 Community Well-Being and Community Capacity

604 Community Resilience

605 Job Creation Through National Forest Management

605 Make Better Use of Existing Authorities and Tools

611 Invest in Project Work Strategically

615 Implement Projects That Build on Local Community Capacities 

and Priorities

616 Invest in Recreation Infrastructure, Opportunities, and Partnerships

618 Conclusions

619 Management Implications: Strategies for Improving Job Creation Through 

National Forest Management

621 Literature Cited

629 Chapter 9.5— Managing Forest Products for Community Benefit

 Susan Charnley and Jonathan Long

629 Summary

629 Introduction

631 Timber Production and the Wood Products Industry

631 Trends in Harvesting, Employment, and the Industry

636 Impacts of Reduced Federal Timber Harvesting on Communities

638 Tools

638 Future Prospects and Management Implications

640 Management Implications: Maintaining California’s Wood Products Industry
xxi

641 Biomass Utilization

641 Economic Issues

646 Social Issues

647 Tradeoffs

648 Tools

649 Management Implications: Opportunities to Increase Biomass 

Utilization From National Forests

649 Nontimber Forest Products

650 Management Implications: Nontimber Forest Product Harvesting

651 Grazing

653 Management Implications: Grazing on National Forests

653 Conclusions

654 Literature Cited

663 Chapter 9.6— Collaboration in National Forest Management

 Susan Charnley, Jonathan Long, and Frank Lake

664 Summary

664 Introduction

664 Collaboration in National Forest Management

666 Ingredients for Successful Collaborations

668 Benefits of Collaboration

668 Lessons Learned from the Dinkey Creek Collaborative

670 All-Lands Approach to Forest Management: Opportunities and Challenges

674 Models for Collaborative Forest Management

676 Fire Safe Councils

677 Fire Learning Networks

679 Community Wildfire Protection Plans

680 Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) Projects

681 Prescribed Fire Councils

681 Stewardship Contracting

682 Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreement (Wyden) Authority

683 Participatory Action Research

683 Educational Outreach to Promote Collaboration

684 GIS as a Tool for Collaborative Land Management

686 Traditional and Local Ecological Knowledge

687 Relevance of TEK/LEK

688 Engagement with TEK/LEK Holders and Practitioners

689 Filling Gaps in Knowledge

690 Collaboration in Monitoring and Adaptive Management

693 Conclusions

693 Literature Cited

704 Acknowledgments

705 English Equivalents

706 Appendix
xxii
1

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Section 1—Overview and Integration

This report synthesizes scientific information to inform strategies that will promote resilience of socioecological systems and sustain values at risk in the Sierra Nevada 

and Southern Cascade Range. The chapters in this opening section integrate key findings 

and themes from the remaining chapters of the report. Chapter 1.1 is an introduction that 

explains the overall purpose and scope of the report, defines resilience and associated 

terms, and then considers how the concept of socioecological resilience can be applied 

to particular issues in this region. Chapter 1.2 is a comprehensive integration of the full 

report; it outlines a range of approaches to promote resilience in response to broad-scale 

management challenges. Chapter 1.3 provides a more focused synopsis of emerging strategies to promote ecological resilience, including restoring fire as an ecological process 

and reducing fire hazard through landscape-scale treatments designed to actively sustain 

wildlife habitat and restore riparian ecosystems. Chapter 1.4 is a summary of the role of 

climate change, and compiles findings from the other chapters of the report on projected 

impacts as well as strategies to promote resilience to these impacts. Finally, the last 

chapter of this section (1.5) reviews adaptive management initiatives from the study area, 

then highlights several cross-cutting research gaps where additional scientific information would help refine strategies to promote resilience.

Mortar holes at Harden Lake demonstrate the long history of interaction between 

humans and the forests and waters of the synthesis area.

Jonathan Long
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247
3

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Jonathan W. Long,1 Carl Skinner,2 Hugh Safford,3 Susan Charnley,4

and Patricia L. Winter5

Purpose

National forests in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade bioregions have begun 

to review and revise their land and resource management plans (LRMPs). The three 

most southern national forests of the Sierra Nevada (Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra) 

were selected to be the lead forests for the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region 

(Region 5) and are among the first of the Nation’s 155 national forests to update 

their plans. The new planning rule requires the forests to consider the best available 

science and encourages a more active role for research in plan development. 

To help meet this requirement, the Region 5 leadership asked the Pacific Southwest 

Research Station (PSW) to develop a synthesis of relevant science that has become 

available since the development of the existing LRMPs. Regional leadership and 

stakeholders suggested that An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Sierran 

Mixed-Conifer Forests, PSW-GTR-220 (North et al. 2009), served as a useful 

format, but that the content and scope of that report should be expanded to address 

additional biological, social, and economic challenges. In response to this request, 

a team of scientists from PSW and the Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW) 

assembled to discuss the purpose of the effort and to engage with forest managers 

and stakeholders. Team members participated in the public Sierra-Cascades Dialog 

sessions and met with Forest Service leadership and managers, and external 

stakeholders, to learn about their concerns, interests, and management challenges.

Recognizing that a simple compilation or annotated bibliography of information would not meet management needs, the team discussed what format would 

make a synthesis more relevant and understandable. Most scientific research yields 

incremental steps forward, but those advances can be compiled to develop an 

understanding of broader issues and larger systems. Many of the major environmental challenges that are likely to significantly affect ecosystem resilience, such 

1 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618. 

2 Geographer (emeritus), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002.

3 Regional ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region, 1323 Club Dr., Vallejo, CA 94592.

4 Research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 620 SW Main St., Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205.

5 Research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Dr., Riverside, CA 92507.

Chapter 1.1—Introduction
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

as climate change, wildfire hazard, and air pollution, are best understood at broad 

scales. To maintain and improve ecological integrity and associated ecosystem 

services (e.g., biodiversity, ecosystem health, water quality and quantity, recreation, 

economically viable communities) will require assessing and mitigating potential 

stressors in the near and long term across large landscapes. Therefore, the synthesis 

team sought to produce a synthesis of recent scientific information that would 

inform strategies to promote resilience of socioecological systems and sustain 

values at risk in the synthesis area over the short and long terms given expected 

stressors. This introductory chapter explains that objective in further detail.

Synthesis Area

This synthesis presents recent science that is relevant to forest planning in the 

synthesis area, which includes the forested mountains of the Sierra Nevada, the 

southern Cascade Range, and the Modoc Plateau (fig. 1). The synthesis primarily 

focuses on conifer-dominated forest ecosystems that constitute the vast majority 

of this area, although chapters in the “Water Resources and Aquatic Ecosystems” 

section discuss forested riparian areas (chapter 6.2), wet meadows (chapter 6.3), and 

lakes (chapter 6.4). The broader concepts considered in this document are likely to 

be useful beyond the area and ecosystems of focus. However, many of the specific 

examples may not necessarily be applicable to other areas, especially drier areas 

that are more representative of the Great Basin.

Scope and Approach

This synthesis emphasizes recent advances in scientific understanding that pertain 

to some of the most important issues facing managers across the synthesis area. 

These advances can help managers integrate ecological and social considerations 

across multiple spatial and temporal scales. The intent of this synthesis was not to 

create a comprehensive summary of the latest science, and chapters do not represent 

a complete review of all available literature. A number of management-oriented 

syntheses that focus on various topics and disciplines have recently become available. These are referenced within the synthesis chapters and are also listed in the 

appendix.

The science synthesis team selected topics they considered most highly relevant to management in the focal parts of the synthesis area, based on input from 

management, stakeholders, and reviewers, and to be consistent with priority topics 

highlighted in the planning rule:
5

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Figure 1—Focal areas of this synthesis are the conifer-dominated forests in the mountains of the Sierra 

Nevada, southern Cascade Range, and Modoc Plateau. LTBMU = Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 

Map by Ross Gerrard.
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

The planning rule is designed to ensure that plans provide for the sustainability of ecosystems and resources; meet the need for forest restoration and 

conservation, watershed protection, and species diversity and conservation; 

and assist the Agency in providing a sustainable flow of benefits, services, 

and uses of NFS lands that provide jobs and contribute to the economic and 

social sustainability of communities (USDA FS 2012).

This synthesis is modeled in part after two prior synthesis reports published 

by the Pacific Southwest Research Station, PSW-GTR-220 (North et al. 2009) and 

PSW-GTR-237 (North 2012), which focused on management strategies for Sierra 

Nevada mixed-conifer forests. These reports provided a foundation for many of the 

broader strategies emphasized in this synthesis, and similarly emphasized a few 

wildlife species that have been management priorities.6

 This synthesis expands 

beyond terrestrial forest and fire ecology to include watershed and aquatic values 

and social systems, given their importance in the planning rule. Central themes 

running through the synthesis are the importance of scaling up from short-term, 

site-scale understandings to address long-term, landscape-scale processes, and the 

importance of considering interactions within socioecological systems. In addition, 

the synthesis considers how changes in climate, air pollution, and other stressors are 

creating novel conditions that require broad adaptive approaches to management.

Like PSW-GTR-220 and PSW-GTR-237, this synthesis integrates findings from 

a range of scientific disciplines to inform the development of management strategies. The goal of this synthesis is to inform forest planning across the synthesis 

area rather than tactics at the project level. Strategic planning helps to define broad, 

integrative approaches that guide the goals, location, and timing of projects. Strategic goals are often more conceptual and qualitative than the quantitative nature of 

project planning (Wood and Dejeddour 1992). The scales of space and time considered in strategic planning are usually more expansive (across broad landscapes and 

decades) than scales considered in project-level planning, which focus on a more 

localized place over a few years (Partidário 2007). Therefore, the resolution and 

precision of useful information often differ between these levels of planning. 

6 The two terrestrial wildlife chapters in this synthesis focus on three species that have 

been a priority for management and research: California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis 

occidentalis), fisher (Pekania pennanti), and Pacific marten (Martes caurina). These species have been designated as Forest Service Sensitive Species by the regional forester. They 

are likely to be a focus of fine-filter analysis and monitoring under the new planning rule. 

In addition, they have had special habitat designations and they range across large areas; 

these attributes pose special challenges for landscape-scale management.
7

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Focus on Peer-Reviewed Literature

The science synthesis is not an exhaustive review of the literature, a task that would 

have been beyond the scope and resources of the synthesis team. This synthesis 

focuses on scientific findings from published, peer-reviewed literature, with the 

majority of references published since the last round of science synthesis in the 

region, which included the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (Erman and SNEP 

Science Team 1997) and a follow-up report on livestock grazing (Allen-Diaz et al. 

1999). Peer-reviewed literature is not the only valid source of information to inform 

management strategies, but a focus on that literature narrows the breadth to a more 

manageable level, highlights regional-scale strategic issues that have been considered by scientists (rather than narrower topics for which information may be very 

limited), and reduces the burden of having to add an additional layer of peer review. 

Several of the chapters also include gray text boxes that alert readers to recent or 

pending relevant studies that are not yet published in peer-reviewed literature. In 

addition, some chapters provide references to websites or reports on particular 

topics that illustrate important ideas, although particular findings from such sources 

are not presented nor endorsed.

The emphasis on literature that has been clearly peer-reviewed is likely to leave 

out relevant scientific information that may be contained in reports by agencies, 

universities, and non-profit organizations, as well as in master’s theses and dissertations. This restriction may pose particular concern for social, economic, and health 

issues. However, the plan revision process includes the parallel assessment phase, 

which is not limited to peer-reviewed literature.

In general, the team focused its scope to peer-reviewed research that occurred 

in the synthesis area or in forest ecosystems with relevant ecological or social 

conditions. Ecological and social research is always context specific, and there 

are few, if any, universal principles in either of these disciplines because place, 

time, and research scope all affect the data that are collected. Scientific studies 

are published with strict caveats about their spatial and temporal scales, making 

it difficult for managers and even other scientists to integrate and distill the 

information for particular management situations. The science synthesis tries 

to clarify the extent and limitations of available information, especially by 

highlighting various research gaps.

All chapters of the synthesis were reviewed by numerous individuals within 

Forest Service management and research, as well as by scientists from outside the 

Forest Service. This review process greatly helped to enhance both the content and 

readability of the synthesis.

This synthesis focuses 

on published peerreviewed literature that 

was most relevant to 

the synthesis area, 

although chapters do 

include gray text boxes 

that alert readers to 

recent relevant studies 

that may not yet be 

published.
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Structure

The science synthesis has several formats that reflect the effort to distill and integrate relevant research at different levels. The majority of the synthesis is composed 

of chapters that summarize information or address key questions in specific topical 

areas (e.g., forest ecology, air quality, soils, and ecosystem services). These chapters 

address issues the authors considered highly relevant and ripe for synthesis, including topics suggested by managers, stakeholders, and reviewers.

The chapters in this first section have a different structure, which is designed 

to promote greater integration and generalization. Chapter 1.2, “Integrative 

Approaches,” condenses much of the information from the different disciplines and 

summarizes themes that run through the topical chapters. Chapters 1.3, “Synopsis 

of Emergent Approaches,” and 1.4, “Synopsis of Climate Change,” are highly 

condensed chapters that succinctly integrate and summarize central themes relevant 

to management of Sierra Nevada forests. Those two subjects were selected to 

address emerging challenges faced by the national forests. The structure and tone of 

chapter 1.3 is intentionally different from other chapters; it outlines approaches to 

help promote socioecological resilience within the synthesis area that have emerged 

from science integration efforts, including several hypotheses to be tested in an 

adaptive management framework, perhaps within demonstration landscapes that 

have a special emphasis on monitoring, research, and modeling. A final chapter in 

the integration section (chapter 1.5) focuses on adaptive management efforts and 

research gaps that also cut across the topical sections. Readers are encouraged to 

explore these different levels to understand connections across the various disciplines and topics.

Definitions of Resilience and Related Concepts

Our goal is to sustain and restore ecosystems that can deliver all the benefits that Americans want and need. Due to changing climate, we may not 

be able to restore them to their original condition, but we can move them 

toward ecological integrity and health. The Forest Service recognizes that 

increasing the pace and scale of restoration and active management of the 

National Forests is critically needed to address these threats to the resiliency of our forests and watersheds and the health and safety of America’s 

forest-dependent communities (Tidwell 2012).
9

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Our goal for the Pacific Southwest Region is to retain and restore ecological 

resilience of the national forest lands to achieve sustainable ecosystems that 

provide a broad range of services to humans and other organisms (USDA 

FS 2011).

Current goals for Forest Service policies (stated above) emphasize the concepts 

of restoration, resilience, and integrity. These terms are related and they are often 

used together, although their specific definitions have different emphases. 

Restoration

Ecological restoration is commonly defined as “the process of assisting the recovery 

of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed” (SER 1994: 132). 

The Forest Service has adopted the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER 1994) 

definition of ecological restoration while also incorporating the concepts of resilience and capacity to respond to future conditions by adding the following statement: “Ecological restoration focuses on reestablishing the composition, structure, 

pattern, and ecological processes necessary to facilitate terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems sustainability, resilience, and health under current and future conditions” (Office of the Federal Register 2012: 70).

Integrity

Originating from the field of water quality, ecological integrity has been defined 

as a combination of chemical, physical, and biological integrity, with integrity 

specifically defined as “the capability of supporting and maintaining a balanced, 

integrated, adaptive community of organisms having species composition, diversity, 

and functional organization comparable to that of natural habitats of the region” 

(Karr and Dudley 1981: 56). Ecological integrity can be seen as a state that allows 

an ecosystem to withstand and recover from natural and human-caused perturbations (Karr and Dudley 1981). The definition of ecological integrity in the recent 

Forest Service Planning Rule reflects this concept of a resilient state: “The quality 

or condition of an ecosystem when its dominant ecological characteristics (for 

example, composition, structure, function, connectivity, species composition and 

diversity) occur within the natural range of variation and can withstand and recover 

from most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human 

influence” (Office of the Federal Register 2012: 67).
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Processes, Disturbances, and Stressors

Recent syntheses of ecological theory stress the importance of temporal and spatial 

scale of various changes in ecosystem structure, relative to the part of an ecosystem 

under consideration, when identifying ecological processes as “disturbances” and 

“stressors.” A disturbance is commonly defined as a relatively discrete event that 

disrupts ecosystem structure and alters resource availability (White and Pickett 

1985), and which is caused by a factor external to the level of interest (Pickett et al. 

1989, Rykiel 1985). A stressor refers to a more chronic influence that reduces the 

potential of ecosystems to be resilient to disturbances (Borics et al. 2013).7 Others 

have applied the terms “pulse” to refer to short-term effects and “press” to describe 

long-term influences, with the time scale being relative to the lifespan of the 

affected organisms (Glasby and Underwood 1996).

Ecological Resilience

Resilience has been broadly defined as “the capacity of a system to experience 

shocks while retaining essentially the same function, structure, feedbacks, and 

therefore identity” (Walker et al. 2006: 2), with “shock” being another term for 

a disturbance or pulse effect. This definition follows from an earlier concept of 

ecological resilience as the amount of disturbance a system can absorb without 

shifting into an alternate configuration or regime, where a different range of variation of ecological processes and structures reigns (Gunderson 2000). This definition 

does not require that a particular condition be desirable, as discussed further below, 

and it is possible for degraded systems to be resilient. However, applications of 

this definition do implicitly require consideration of temporal changes relative to a 

reference condition, either backward to a past condition (or range of conditions) or 

forward to a future condition. The ecological concepts of restoration, integrity, and 

resilience all depend on the definition of a reference state and our ability to measure 

departure from that state (Safford et al. 2012). Such a reference need not necessarily 

include human influence; however, the long presence of humans in California and 

their pervasive modern influence on ecosystems suggest that sustainable management will only be possible by explicitly acknowledging the roles that humans play 

and have played in affecting the status and trend of synthesis area ecosystems 

(Nowacki et al. 2012).

7 The Forest Service has defined stressors in relation to ecological integrity as “factors 

that may directly or indirectly degrade or impair ecosystem composition, structure or 

ecological process in a manner that may impair its ecological integrity, such as an invasive 

species, loss of connectivity, or the disruption of a natural disturbance regime” (Office of 

the Federal Register 2012: 70). This definition focuses more on the quality of outcome than 

the frequency of the event.
11

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Integration of Social and Ecological Systems and 

Socioecological Resilience

A premise of this synthesis is that the success of attempts to restore the integrity of 

ecosystems or maintain or increase the resilience of ecosystems to global change 

will depend on the extent to which those efforts can integrate ecological and socioeconomic concerns (Folke et al. 2010). An interdependent socioecological system 

(“SES”) has been defined by Redman et al. (2004) as:

1. A coherent system of biophysical and social factors that regularly interact 

in a resilient, sustained manner;

2. A system that is defined at several spatial, temporal, and organizational 

scales, which may be hierarchically linked;

3. A set of critical resources (natural, socioeconomic, and cultural) whose flow 

and use is regulated by a combination of ecological and social systems; and

4. A perpetually dynamic, complex system with continuous adaptation.

Key areas of emphasis in the synthesis flow from the SES concept, including 

the importance of understanding linkages across spatial and temporal scales; the 

interaction of biophysical and social factors; the flow of critical resources or ecological goods and services that are natural, socioeconomic, and cultural; and the 

dynamic and adaptive nature of systems. This synthesis features discussion of the 

triple-bottom line concept (see chapter 9.1, “Broader Context for Social, Economic, 

and Cultural Components”) as a framework for explicitly considering ecological, 

social, economic, and cultural values toward a more integrated understanding of 

benefits to society.

Socioecological Resilience and Adaptability

Scientists define socioecological resilience as the capacity of systems to cope with, 

adapt to, and influence change; to persist and develop in the face of change; and to 

innovate and transform into new, more desirable configurations in response to disturbance (Folke 2006). This definition emphasizes the dynamic and adaptive nature 

of socioecological systems and departs from narrower definitions of resilience that 

emphasize a return to an equilibrium condition following disturbance (Folke 2006). 

It also recognizes that ecological systems have potential to change in ways that are 

undesirable for human communities.

Adaptability refers to the capacity of humans to manage resilience, which 

determines whether people can respond intentionally to create a desirable configuration and to avoid undesirable ones (Walker et al. 2006). The idea of adaptation is 

emphasized in a definition of community resilience as “the existence, development, 

The success of 

attempts to restore 

the integrity of 

ecosystems or 

maintain or increase 

the resilience of 

ecosystems to global 

change will depend 

on the extent to which 

those efforts can 

integrate ecological 

and socioeconomic 

concerns.
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

and engagement of community resources by community members to thrive in an 

environment characterized by change, uncertainty, unpredictability, and surprise” 

(Magis 2010: 402) (see chapter 9.4, “Strategies for Job Creation Through National 

Forest Management”). 

Systems that remain in a condition with essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks may demonstrate resilient change, whereas those that 

move to a new configuration may be described as undergoing transformation or 

“regime shift” (Berkes and Ross 2012). However, real world outcomes are unlikely 

to fall neatly into one category or the other, but rather are likely to fall along a continuum associated with changes in system function over time. Research within the 

synthesis area has been undertaken to try to determine where observed changes in 

high-elevation whitebark forests lie on such a continuum (see chapter 1.5, “Research 

Gaps: Adaptive Management to Cross-Cutting Issues”).

Sugihara et al. (2006: 62) contended that fire was so regular and intrinsic in 

many California ecosystems that when viewed at the landscape scale and when 

operating within its natural range of variation, fire should be considered as an 

“incorporated ecological process” rather than as a disturbance (fig. 2). They compare fire to other processes, such as precipitation and flooding, which are essential 

to perpetuating ecosystems (Sugihara et al. 2006). Although both fires and floods 

can damage important values, they also have important roles in rejuvenating ecosystems by removing living and dead vegetation, resetting vegetation trajectories, 

redistributing nutrients, and exposing mineral soils. Especially in many forested 

ecosystems in California, human alteration of fire regimes through suppression has 

led to fires with behavior and effects that are outside the range of natural variation 

(Sugihara et al. 2006) (fig. 3). Accordingly, fire suppression acts as a stressor in such 

systems. Rather than trying to minimize or resist fires, floods, and other intrinsic 

ecological processes, resilience-based strategies emphasize facilitating more regular, lower severity events as a way to reduce the vulnerability of the socioecological 

system to unpredictable severe ones (de Bruijne et al. 2010, Liao 2012).

These definitions point to important concepts that can be incorporated in plans 

to promote ecological integrity and social well-being. The next chapter goes deeper 

into the concept of socioecological resilience by describing some of the potential 

threats to critical resources that could shift systems in the synthesis area to less 

desirable configurations.

Rather than trying 

to minimize or resist 

fires, floods, and other 

intrinsic ecological 

processes, resiliencebased strategies 

emphasize facilitating 

more regular, lower 

severity events as 

a way to reduce the 

vulnerability of the 

socioecological system 

to unpredictable severe 

ones.
13

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Figure 2—Wildfires can be considered as an incorporated natural process in the Illilouette Basin within Yosemite National Park.

Figure 3—Crown fires can pose substantial threats to human communities, and the legacy of such events is an important 

consideration in promoting resilience of socioecological systems in the synthesis area. Shown here is a hotshot crew at the 

2007 Antelope Complex Fire.

Zev Balsen Scott Stephens
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Literature Cited

Allen-Diaz, B.; Barrett, R.; Frost, W.; Huntsinger, L.; Tate, K. 1999. Sierra 

Nevada ecosystems in the presence of livestock. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California-Berkeley, Rangeland Science Team. 149 p. http://rangelandwatersheds.

ucdavis.edu/publication%20list%20and%20files/SNEPgrazing.pdf. (26 December 

2013).

Berkes, F.; Ross, H. 2013. Community resilience: Toward an integrated approach. 

Society and Natural Resources. 26(1): 5–20.

Borics, G.; Várbíró, G.; Padisák, J. 2013. Disturbance and stress: different 

meanings in ecological dynamics? Hydrobiologia. 711(1). doi:10.1007/s10750-

013-1478.

de Bruijne, M.; Boin, A.; van Eeten, M. 2010. Resilience: exploring the concept 

and its meanings. In: Comfort, L.K.; Boin, A.; Demchak, C.C., eds. Designing 

resilience: preparing for extreme events. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh 

Press: 13–32.

Erman, D.C.; SNEP Science Team, eds. 1997. Status of the Sierra Nevada: the 

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. Digital Data Series DDS-43. Denver, CO: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/

dds-43/DDS_43.pdf.

Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological 

systems analyses. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions. 

16(3): 253–267.

Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.R.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Chapin, T.; Rockstrom, 

J. 2010. Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and 

transformability. Ecology and Society. 15(4): 20.

Glasby, T.M.; Underwood, A.J. 1996. Sampling to differentiate between pulse and 

press perturbations. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 42(3): 241–252.

Gunderson, L.H. 2000. Ecological resilience—in theory and application. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics. 31: 425–439.

Karr, J.R.; Dudley, D.R. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals. 

Environmental Management. 5(1): 55–68.

Liao, K.H. 2012. A theory on urban resilience to floods—a basis for alternative 

planning practices. Ecology and Society. 17(4): 48. http://www.ecologyandsociety.

org/vol17/iss4/art48/.
15

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Magis, K. 2010. Community resilience: an indicator of social sustainability. 

Society and Natural Resources. 23(5): 401–416.

North, M. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. 184 p.

North, M.; Stine, P.A.; O’Hara, K.L.; Zielinski, W.J.; Stephens, S.L. 2009.

An ecosystems management strategy for Sierra mixed-conifer forests, with 

addendum. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49 p.

Nowacki, G.J.; MacCleery, D.W.; Lake, F.K. 2012. Native Americans, ecosystem 

development, and historical range of variation. In: Wiens, J.A.; Hayward, 

G.D.; Safford, H.D.; Giffen, C.M., eds. Historical environmental variation in 

conservation and natural resource management. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell 

Press: 76–91.

Office of the Federal Register. 2012. Subpart A: National Forest System Land 

Management Planning. In: USDA, ed. 36 CFR Part 219. U.S. Government 

Printing Office, Federal Register: 48–71.

Partidário, M.R. 2007. Scales and associated data—what is enough for SEA 

needs? Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 27(5): 460–478.

Pickett, S.T.A.; Kolasa, J.; Armesto, J.J.; Collins, S.L. 1989. The ecological 

concept of disturbance and its expression at various hierarchical levels. Oikos. 

54(2): 129–136.

Redman, C.L.; Grove, J.M.; Kuby, L.H. 2004. Integrating social science into the 

long-term ecological research (LTER) network: social dimensions of ecological 

change and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems. 7(2): 161–171.

Rykiel, E.J. 1985. Towards a definition of ecological disturbance. Australian 

Journal of Ecology. 10(3): 361–365.

Safford, H.D.; Wiens, J.A.; Hayward, A.G.D. 2012. The growing importance 

of the past in managing ecosystems of the future. In: Wiens, J.A.; Hayward, 

G.D.; Safford, H.D.; Giffen, C.M., eds. Historical environmental variation in 

conservation and natural resource management. Chichester, United Kingdom: 

John Wiley & Sons: 319–327. Chapter 24.

Society for Ecological Restoration [SER]. 1994. SER comments. Restoration 

Ecology. 2(2): 132–133.
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Sugihara, N.G.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Fites-Kaufman, J. 2006. Fire as an 

ecological process. In: Sugihara, N.G.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Fites-Kaufman, J.; 

Shaffer, K.E.; Thode, A.E., eds. Fire in California’s ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: 

University of California Press: 58–74.

Tidwell, T. 2012. U.S. Forest Service land management: challenges and 

opportunities for achieving healthier national forests. Statement to U.S. House 

of Representatives, 112th Congress, Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee 

on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry. Washington, DC: Government Printing 

Office. 6 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/congress/112thCongress/Documents/CY%20

2012/HAgC_03-27-2012_Testimony.pdf. (26 December 2013).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2011. Region Five 

ecological restoration: leadership intent. Vallejo, CA: Pacific Southwest Region. 

4 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2012. National 

Forest System Land Management Planning. In: USDA Forest Service, ed. 36 

CFR Part 219. U.S. Government Printing Office, Federal Register: 21162–21176.

Walker, B.; Gunderson, L.; Kinzig, A.; Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Schultz, L. 

2006. A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience 

in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society. 11(1): 13.

White, P.S.; Pickett, S.T.A. 1985. Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: 

an introduction. In: Pickett, S.T.A.; White, P.S., eds. The ecology of natural 

disturbance and patch dynamics. New York: Academic Press: 3–13.

Wood, C.; Dejeddour, M. 1992. Strategic environmental assessment: EA of 

policies, plans and programmes. Impact Assessment. 10(1): 3–22.
17

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Jonathan W. Long,1 Carl Skinner,2 Malcolm North,3 Carolyn T. Hunsaker,4 and 

Lenya Quinn-Davidson5

Introduction

This chapter begins by discussing current challenges for ecosystem management 

that emerged from multiple chapters of the full synthesis. It then considers integrative approaches to promote resilience, including general strategies that recognize 

the integrated nature of socioecological systems, the importance of promoting 

disturbance regimes upon which these systems have evolved, and opportunities 

to integrate social considerations into strategies (see chapter 1.1, “Introduction,” 

for definitions of key terms). It continues by outlining an adaptive management 

approach to scale up current practices so that planning and implementation are 

more congruent with the scales at which processes affect ecosystems in the synthesis area. The following chapter 1.3, “Synopsis of Emergent Approaches,” focuses on 

three important themes that are touched on in this chapter; these themes emerged 

largely from synthesizing findings from the forest ecology, fire, and wildlife chapters. Chapter 1.4, “Synopsis of Climate Change,” summarizes how climate change 

relates to all the chapters in this synthesis and strategies to promote resilience to 

that stressor. Chapter 1.5, “Research Gaps: Adaptive Management to Cross-Cutting 

Issues,” discusses a number of current adaptive management efforts and important 

topics that emerged as priorities for adaptive management and research. Altogether, 

the chapters in this section outline strategies to respond proactively to expected 

challenges in the synthesis area.

1 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618. 

2 Geographer (emeritus), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002.

3 Research plant ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.

4 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 2081 E. Sierra Avenue, Fresno, CA 93710.

5 Staff research associate, University of California Cooperative Extension, 5630 South 

Broadway, Eureka, CA 95503.

Chapter 1.2—Integrative Approaches: 

Promoting Socioecological Resilience
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

The Challenge of Multiple Stressors

The challenges facing national forests in the synthesis area have grown much more 

complex as the forests themselves have changed and as external influences have 

evolved. These challenges reflect long-standing natural processes (including fire, 

drought, and insects), decades of fire suppression and other practices that have 

altered ecosystems (e.g., hydrologic modifications, habitat fragmentation, loss of 

biodiversity, etc.), and increasingly, novel stressors associated with human activities within the region and even across the globe (Folke 2006, Steffen et al. 2007). 

Incursions of nuisance plants and animals, diseases, and pollutants, combined with 

a legacy of human influences on climate, fire regimes, and species extinctions, are 

forming “novel ecosystems” (Hobbs et al. 2009), which do not have historical analogues upon which to base predictions or to serve as clear references for restoration. 

The remainder of this chapter focuses on several opportunities to promote system 

resilience to stressors. 

There are many challenges to managing forests of the synthesis area in the 

21st century, including an array of evolving, novel stressors:

• Dust from as far away as China may be causing snowpack to decline and 

polluting water bodies in alpine areas that have historically been regarded 

as relatively pristine wilderness (see chapter 8.1, “Air Quality”). 

• The barred owl (Strix varia) is invading forests at the expense of the 

California spotted owl, and there are no clear solutions to prevent this 

incursion (Gutierrez et al. 2007) (see chapter 7.2, “California Spotted Owl: 

Scientific Considerations for Forest Planning”).

• The fisher is being poisoned by application of rodenticides by marijuana 

growers to protect their illicit crops (Gabriel et al. 2012) (see chapter 7.1, 

“The Forest Carnivores: Marten and Fisher”).

• Populations of priority amphibians face combined effects of climate change, 

introduction of predatory fishes, disease, pesticides, disrupted flow regimes, 

and other habitat impacts (see chapter 6.4, “Lakes: Recent Research and 

Restoration Strategies”).

• Climate change is projected to shift precipitation from snow to rain, which 

may reduce seasonal water availability in forest soils, and negatively affect 

aquatic systems and associated ecosystem services by altering channel 

stability and stream hydrographs, especially by reducing summer baseflows 

(see chapter 6.1, “Watershed and Stream Ecosystems”).

The challenges facing 

national forests in the 

synthesis area reflect 

long-standing natural 

processes including 

fire, decades of fire 

suppression and other 

practices that have 

altered ecosystems 

and increasingly, novel 

stressors associated 

with human activities 

within the region and 

even across the globe.
19

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

• Climate-driven projections suggest that forests will become more susceptible to insect attack and disease caused by native and introduced pathogens (Evangelista et al. 2011, Sturrock et al. 2011). A complex interaction of 

climate change, altered fire regimes, and air pollution pose threats to forest 

resilience (see chapter 8.1). Research has already documented increased 

rates of insect attack, disease, and mortality in many Western forests that 

could portend vulnerability to substantial changes in forest structure, composition, and function (van Mantgem et al. 2009).

• Scientists report increasing frequency and extent of wildfires, along with 

the increasing occurrence of uncharacteristically severe wildfire in the synthesis area (Lenihan et al. 2003; Miller and Safford 2012; Miller et al. 2009, 

2012; Westerling et al. 2011) (see chapter 4.1, “Fire and Fuels”).

Land management agencies have a limited ability to prevent these impacts, but 

effective management actions can mitigate their effects. The new planning rule 

acknowledges the likelihood that some stressors may render it infeasible to maintain or restore ecological conditions to maintain a viable population of a species of 

conservation concern in a planning area. The existence of such stressors complicates management because it becomes harder to evaluate the effects of management 

actions without accounting for the stressor that cannot be controlled. Interactions 

between climate change, other stressors, and disturbances can induce positive 

feedbacks that threaten to push systems beyond key thresholds; these challenges 

should be considered as syndromes rather than as isolated problems (Rapport and 

Maffi 2011). Common indicators of such syndromes include losses of biodiversity, especially predators; simplifications of food webs; eutrophication of aquatic 

systems; and increasing prevalence of invasive species and diseases (Rapport and 

Singh 2006). Assessments, research studies, and management strategies that target 

these syndromes will be most effective if they consider multiple factors and their 

synergistic effects. Amphibians in lakes provide an example in the Sierra Nevada 

(see chapter 6.4) of how a response to a syndrome could include removing introduced fishes from lakes to help amphibians better withstand disease and climate 

change. Other strategies for assessing and responding to these syndrome impacts 

have been to develop highly integrated ecological indexes or state of the environment reports, which consider effects on both ecosystems and social systems, and 

emphasize opportunities for human actions to improve ecological health (Rapport 

and Singh 2006).
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Conditions That May Reduce Socioecological Resilience

Periodic disturbance plays a fundamental role in the development of socioecological systems by facilitating reorganization and renewal (Cabell and Oelofse 2012, 

Folke 2006). However, people often regard such disturbances negatively because 

of their disruptive effects. Indeed, major shocks that push systems beyond critical 

thresholds can induce large and persistent loss in the flows of ecological services. 

Such shocks as well as more frequent stressors can reduce the ability of a system to 

recover from future disturbances.

Systems that remain in a condition with essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks may demonstrate resilient change, whereas those that 

move to a new configuration may be described as undergoing transformation or 

“regime shift” (Berkes and Ross 2012). However, real-world outcomes are unlikely 

to fall neatly into one category or the other, but rather are likely to fall along a 

continuum associated with changes in system function over time. For example, 

research within the synthesis area has been undertaken to try to determine where 

observed changes in high-elevation whitebark forests lie on such a continuum (see 

chapter 1.5).

Human actions have contributed to the potential for regime shifts that have 

negative impacts on livelihoods and societal development (Folke 2006). Stressors 

associated with anthropogenic activities, such as climate change, pollution, and 

species invasions, are critically important to consider from a socioecological perspective, although they are difficult to manage because they originate from outside 

local landscapes or do not recur frequently and predictably. Human alteration of 

fire regimes through suppression has promoted fires with behavior and effects that 

are outside the range of natural variation (Sugihara et al. 2006). The lasting legacy 

of fire suppression is an important stressor that can be directly addressed through 

management in the synthesis area, although reducing those accumulated fuels 

requires difficult tradeoffs among short- and long-term costs and risks to values 

held by different groups of people.

Fire is a fundamental ecological process that often repeats in relatively 

predictable ways across a landscape. Native Americans in the synthesis area 

historically lived with fire and used it to promote ecological outcomes that 

supported their communities (fig. 1). Changes in forest fuel and habitat conditions 

over time can leave systems vulnerable to regime shifts (Agee 2002). If forests 

that have uncharacteristically large accumulations of living and dead fuels 

are not managed, when they inevitably burn there will be a loss of ecosystem 

services, including biodiversity and other social values (Franklin and Agee 

2003). Consequently, various topical sections of this synthesis describe negative 

The lasting legacy of 

fire suppression is an 

important stressor 

that can be directly 

addressed through 

management in 

the synthesis area, 

although reducing 

those accumulated 

fuels requires difficult 

tradeoffs among 

short- and long-term 

costs and risks to 

values held by different 

groups of people.
21

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Figure 1—California black oaks demonstrate the importance of viewing social and ecological systems in an interconnected manner. 

Because these trees have been cultivated and used by Native Americans and other people, they have important roles in providing 

wildlife habitat, and their condition is fundamentally connected to fire regimes in the synthesis area.

Jonathan Long

consequences of large and severe fires on many socioecological values in the 

modern era. These impacts include the following:

1. High levels of tree mortality over large areas can forestall recovery of 

forested conditions and associated ecosystem services for long periods 

(decades to centuries) and may be a catalyst for regime shifts as climate 

change progresses. Even if these systems begin to regrow trees, they 

may be more vulnerable to effects of future fires (chapter 4.3, “PostWildfire Management”)

2. Widespread tree mortality and persistent loss of trees may be associated 

with significant emissions of carbon, as forests are converted from carbon 

sinks into source areas for extended period (Dore et al. 2012) (chapter 2.1, 

“Forest Ecology”).
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

3. Large patches of tree mortality may represent a loss of breeding habitat for 

species such as California spotted owl, fisher, and Pacific marten (chapters 

7.1 and 7.2).

4. Intense, large, and long-lasting wildfires are likely to cause exceedances 

of air quality standards instituted to protect human health (Cisneros et al. 

2010). It is much more difficult to control air quality and other impacts from 

those wildfires than from prescribed fires (chapter 8.1).

5. Although aquatic systems often demonstrate relatively high levels of resilience and important rejuvenating effects following wildfire, very large and 

severe wildfires may induce significant channel erosion and reorganization that can extirpate vulnerable aquatic populations, degrade downstream 

water quality, reduce storage capacity of downstream reservoirs, and 

elevate flood risks (chapters 4.3 and 6.1).

It is difficult to identify critical thresholds beyond which the resilience of 

social systems substantially erodes (see chapter 9.4, “Strategies for Job Creation 

Through National Forest Management”). However, fires can cause a range of 

impacts to social values, and much greater impacts are expected to result from fires 

that burn intensely, over large areas, and for long periods. It is also important to 

recognize that residential fire disasters can be avoided through treatments in the 

narrow “home ignition zone” surrounding dwellings (Cohen 2000, Reinhardt et al. 

2008). However, large, intense and unmanageable wildland fires pose significant 

and costly challenges to agencies responsible for addressing short-term health and 

safety hazards, including smoke, flooding, and erosion. Such fires can induce the 

acute stresses of evacuation, as well as longer term impacts to individual health and 

community well-being (Hodgson 2007). Severe wildfires that cause widespread tree 

mortality affect socioeconomic values, including timber flows that contribute to 

local economies and maintain their infrastructure and markets for forest products. 

The nonmarket value of wildfire impacts are potentially very large but also challenging to assess owing to the size and diversity of resources that may be affected; 

the variability of responses across space and time (including the possibility that 

social preferences are likely to vary over time), and the infeasibility of valuing the 

cultural heritage of indigenous peoples (Venn and Calkin 2009). Furthermore, large 

fires threaten values held by people well beyond California, as residents of New 

England expressed willingness to pay substantial sums to treat and protect oldgrowth forests associated with spotted owls from high-intensity wildfire (Loomis 

and Gonzalez-Caban 1998).

Large and severe fires (fig. 2) may constitute a threat to resilience for some 

components of a socioecological system but not others. Recent syntheses have 
23

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

focused on the problem of “megafires,” which some authors have described as having catastrophic damages in terms of human casualties and economic losses (SanMiguel-Ayanz et al. 2013). Adams (2013), writing from a perspective in Australia, 

suggested a size threshold for such megafires at 100 000 ha. Until the Rim Fire of 

2013, none of the fires within the synthesis area had exceeded that size threshold. 

Although fire size alone can increase risks and challenges during an event, it is 

important to consider consequences rather than size alone (Reinhardt et al. 2008).

Because the concept of resiliency is scale-dependent and requires viewing 

outcomes along a continuum (see chapter 1.1), it is important to evaluate whether 

outcomes are “characteristic” by considering the spatial and temporal arrangement 

of a series of events in relation to the expected distribution of outcomes. Not all 

fires that result in widespread tree mortality should be viewed as causing a loss 

Figure 2—Multiple fires have burned large patches with high severity in the watershed of Antelope Lake; such processes have 

potential for both short-term and long-lasting impacts to a wide range of social and ecological values. Fire boundaries illustrated by 

Brandon Collins.

Scott Stephens
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

of ecological resilience; in some cases, trees may have invaded areas that were 

much more open or even dominated by nonforest vegetation under a fire regime 

that existed prior to fire suppression (see chapter 4.3). From a long-term landscape 

perspective, such fires may be seen as corrective. Yet, the cumulative landscape 

impact of large areas of high-severity burns followed by reburns may also lead to 

transformations of ecosystems, including extended periods with reduced availability of mature forest (see chapter 4.3). Consequently, long-term impacts to important 

ecological services are likely to be linked to the size of the high-severity patches, 

which influences recovery of both terrestrial and aquatic systems (Dunham et al. 

2007, Lentile et al. 2007). Another concern associated with large patches of highseverity burn is the potential loss of genetic diversity, especially of trees that may 

have special resistance to nonfire disturbances such as insects and diseases. 

The ultimate measure of resilience is how systems respond to major shocks, so 

it can be a difficult property to evaluate except in hindsight. However, there may 

be useful surrogates or indicators that point to vulnerabilities. Chapter 1.5 considers the need to evaluate impacts of fires of different severities, and concludes with 

further consideration of indicators of resilience. There will be important resources 

that decline in the absence of recurring fire. Some of these components may include 

yellow pines, sugar pine, and California black oak in frequent fire mixed-conifer 

forests (fig. 3 and chapter 4.2) and wildlife species that depend on habitat created 

and maintained by fire of different severities. In addition, valuable components such 

as large trees can become increasingly vulnerable to fire as duff accumulates in the 

absence of frequent fire (Hood 2010). A general approach for evaluating impacts 

of wildfire on social and ecological values is to measure ecological departure from 

historical range of variability (HRV) (Venn and Calkin 2009). Such an emphasis 

is consistent with the idea that both the curtailment of fire and uncharacteristically 

severe wildfires are undesirable. Moritz et al. (2013) discuss a conceptual approach 

to guide ecosystem management using boundaries associated with too much or 

too little fire based upon HRV and social preferences and cite examples of applications, including an analysis of risks of fire in chaparral communities to viability of 

steelhead populations in southern California.

Risks of Insufficient Treatment

North et al. (2012) pointed out that large areas of the Sierra Nevada are unlikely 

to receive needed forest treatments. Forgoing treatments can result in lasting 

impacts to ecosystems, human communities, and myriad ecosystem services. For 

example, deferring tree harvest for extended periods can not only impose social 

and economic impacts, but can also result in losses of key infrastructure needed to 

The cumulative 

landscape impact of 

large areas of highseverity burns followed 

by reburns may also 

lead to transformations 

of ecosystems, 

including extended 

periods with reduced 

availability of mature 

forest. Long-term 

impacts to important 

ecological services are 

likely to be linked to 

the size of the highseverity patches, which 

influences recovery 

of both terrestrial and 

aquatic systems.
25

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

maintain capacity to conduct restoration treatments and preserve options for future 

forest management (see chapter 9.5, “Managing Forest Products for Community 

Benefit”). Furthermore, the global dimensions of economic and environmental 

issues mean that reducing harvests in local forests can have an unintended consequence of increasing environmental impacts much farther away (Berlik et al. 2002). 

For yellow pine and mixed-conifer forests, the likelihood of major disruptions 

in the long term may increase if effective treatments are not implemented, with 

effectiveness often being marked by the combination of targeted mechanical or 

hand removal of trees followed by treatment to reduce surface fuels, typically by 

fire (Agee and Skinner 2005, Safford et al. 2012c). For instance, computer modeling 

by Scheller et al. (2011) indicated that the threat of large, severe wildfires to habitat 

of fisher over large areas likely outweighs the expected short-term negative effects 

Figure 3—Large “legacy” pine trees loom over a California black oak and incense cedars in an area that has burned twice in 

the past 30 years within Yosemite National Park. 

Jonathan Long
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

of fuels treatments on fisher population size. Moreover, the analysis noted that the 

benefits of treatment would be even greater if climate change makes wildfires larger 

and more severe (see chapter 1.4). In a similar vein, Roloff et al. (2012) completed 

a risk analysis of fuels treatments for northern spotted owls in southwest Oregon, 

which suggested that active management posed fewer risks than no management 

in fire-prone landscapes, although they cautioned that this strategy requires testing 

through field evaluation under an adaptive management framework. For these reasons, lack of treatment may exact a higher cost than first imagined, and the desire to 

avoid short-term risk from an institutional perspective must be weighed against the 

larger social risks that may be compounded through insufficient action.

Recognizing and Resolving Scale Mismatches

Research to understand socioeconomic and ecological processes is often restricted 

to a narrow range of influences, effects, localities, and timeframes that facilitate 

study (see table 1 for common spatial scales of ecological studies), but these constraints may not sufficiently reflect important processes that operate at larger scales. 

These types of scale mismatches have exacerbated debates over how best to manage 

national forests. In the Sierra Nevada, research has rarely been conducted in an 

interdisciplinary, cross-scale fashion that could enable better understanding of the 

dynamics and interactions of patterns over multiple scales of both space and time 

(Bissonette 1997). Many of the areas that have been designated for experimental 

approaches are relatively small (see table 1 in chapter 1.5). Likewise, there have 

been few attempts to craft a cohesive, interdisciplinary management strategy aimed 

at achieving multiple but seemingly disparate objectives. Forest management practices are often regulated by standards set for localized conditions at a single point in 

time, despite the fact that forest conditions continuously change in both space and 

time via stand development and disturbance processes. The integrated approach 

suggested in PSW-GTR-220 by North et al. (2009) took important steps forward 

in promoting a landscape strategy and collaboration across the disciplines of forest 

ecology, wildlife biology, and silviculture. The follow-up report, PSW-GTR-237, 

also edited by North (2012), extended those recommended considerations to include 

bark beetles, climate change, and various wildlife communities, and featured 

examples of collaboration and adaptive management experiments.

Integrated management strategies that consider effects at scales of 50 years or 

more, across local to large spatial scales, and across ecological and social dimensions, could help enhance socioecological resilience. Management approaches that 

seem suboptimal from a stand-level perspective may be favored when seen from a 

Lack of treatment may 

exact a higher cost 

than first imagined, 

and the desire to 

avoid short-term risk 

from an institutional 

perspective must be 

weighed against the 

larger social risks that 

may be compounded 

through insufficient 

action.
27

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

landscape perspective (or vice versa), because the effects of treating a stand may 

influence how the landscape as a whole responds to fire. For this reason, strategies 

that opportunistically target areas suggested by high fuel loads, low treatment costs, 

and reduced obstacles (such as regulations, additional planning requirements, or 

avoidance of potential litigation) can leave large parts of the landscape vulnerable to 

uncharacteristically severe wildfire under a management regime dominated by fire 

suppression. In a similar fashion, aquatic scientists have reinforced the importance 

of moving beyond reach-scale evaluations of conditions and projects to assessing 

how management shifts the cumulative distribution of stream conditions within a 

watershed over decades (Benda et al. 2003). The importance of a landscape perspective to promote forest resilience is detailed in the following chapter (1.3).

Table 1—Minimum scales needed to evaluate ecological data that can be collected at various spatial scales 

to answer research and management questions 

Typical minimum 

 scale of data Ecological attributes or processes

Plot (<1 to 4 ha) • Vegetation structure, composition, and regeneration

 (<1 to 10 acres) • Fire effects on plants, soils, insects, wildlife with small home ranges, etc.

 to stand scale • Effects of some mechanical and prescribed fire treatments and wildfires

 (40 ha or 100 acres) • Soil structure and chemistry

• Soil erosion

• Wildlife with small home ranges, such as small mammals, birds, and amphibians

• Use of habitat patches by species with large home ranges (i.e., nest patch and foraging patch)

• Meadows

• Air pollution effects

• Tree genetics

Small landscape scale • Linkages between terrestrial watersheds and aquatic systems

 (40 to 400 ha or 100 to • Stream water quantity and quality

 1,000 acres), including • Benthic macroinvertebrates

 headwater watersheds • Sediment loads

• Fire effects on stands to small watersheds

• Fire history and stand structure reconstruction

Intermediate landscape • Terrestrial wildlife with large home range dynamics (e.g., raptors, forest carnivores, and 

 scale (400 to 40 000 other large mammals) and fishes

 ha or 1,000 to 100,000 • Fire history and stand structure reconstruction

 acres) • Fire severity patterns

• Fuel treatment effectiveness to reduce large, high-intensity wildfires

• Climatic influences on fire regimes and subbasin hydrology

Large landscape scale • Population dynamics of wildlife with large home ranges

 (40 000 ha or 100,000 • Landscape genomics

 acres and larger) • Climatic influences on regional fire activity

Note: For non-ecological data, see the scale discussion in chapter 9.1, “Broader Context for Social, Economic, and Cultural Components.”
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Strategies to Promote Socioecological Resilience

The introduction to this synthesis (chapter 1.1) defines socioecological resilience 

as “the capacity of systems to cope with, adapt to, and shape change; to persist and 

develop in the face of change; and to innovate and transform into new, more desirable configurations in response to disturbance.” This synthesis focuses in particular on the long-term challenges posed by wildfire and climate change because 

of their potential to affect the resilience of socioecological systems throughout 

the region. This section considers several general strategies to address these kinds 

of challenges, beginning with several principles that emerge from a broad-scale 

perspective on ecological resilience.

Box 1.1-1

General Strategies for Addressing Challenges

• Recognize and address scale mismatches—the temporal and spatial scales of 

management systems may not be well matched to the scales of environmental 

variation (Cumming et al. 2006).

• Consider long-term (more than 50 years) risks in addition to short-term (fewer 

than 10 years) expected outcomes. Management focused on avoiding shortterm risks is unlikely to sufficiently account for infrequent disturbances such 

as severe wildfires, nor for the progressive effects of climate change.

• Set adaptable objectives and revisit them, because there may be a lack of clear 

solutions, certain options may prove unrealistic, and new opportunities may 

become apparent as conditions change (Hobbs et al. 2010). In particular, the 

occurrence of large fires is likely to affect plans.

• Rely more on process-based indicators than static indicators of structure and 

composition, while recognizing that restoration of structure and process must 

be integrated.

• Integrate valuation tools, decisionmaking tools, modeling, monitoring, and, 

where appropriate, research to evaluate responses and better account for the 

risks and tradeoffs involved in management strategies. Although applications 

of such tools entail many caveats, technologies have advanced to facilitate concurrent analysis of many tradeoffs, such as effects on air quality, fire risk, wildlife habitat, water quality, water quantity, and cultural and economic values.
29

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Promoting Heterogeneity, Emulating Natural Disturbances, 

and Restoring Processes 

Actively promoting forest heterogeneity through silviculture and managed fire is 

an important restoration strategy, especially given the threat of climate change (see 

chapter 2.1). Current forest conditions are often relatively homogenous owing to 

past management practices and the absence of fire. Forests that developed under 

the influence of frequent, mostly low- and moderate-intensity fires exhibited very 

heterogeneous conditions that were likely produced by interacting effects of site 

productivity, topography, and fire history. These forests were common historically, 

but are now very limited because of fire suppression. Researchers have suggested 

actively promoting greater diversity in stand structure, age, species composition, 

and genetic backgrounds within those species as a hedging strategy to address 

uncertainty associated with climate change (Notaro et al. 2012). Treatments to 

reduce and promote variation in stem density and fuel loads should promote forest 

resilience to large disturbances associated with climate change, including droughts 

and insect and disease outbreaks (Fettig 2012, Littell et al. 2012, Safford et al. 

2012b, Sturrock et al. 2011). To promote desired wildlife habitat and other forest restoration objectives, traditional uniform treatments could be modified to yield more 

variable density structure and canopy closure consistent with reference conditions 

(Knapp et al. 2012, North and Sherlock 2012, North and Stine 2012).

North et al. (2012) suggested that the most practical strategy for treating large 

areas is to significantly expand managed fire, while recognizing the importance 

of structural treatments to facilitate such a strategy. This approach builds on the 

principle of natural disturbance-based management (North and Keeton 2008), and 

it is consistent with recent research concerning the importance of fire in riparian 

and aquatic ecosystems (see chapters 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3). A recent review of the 

Fire and Fire Surrogate study concluded that fire should be maintained whenever 

possible, because mechanical treatments did not serve as surrogates for fire for 

most variables (McIver et al. 2013). Arkle and Pilliod (2010) similarly concluded 

that using early-season prescribed fire in upland forests was unlikely to serve 

as a surrogate for the reference fire regime in maintaining integrity of riparian 

and stream systems. However, as Knapp et al. (2009) explained, in systems that 

have departed significantly from the reference fire regime, it may take a series 

of treatments (including out-of-season prescribed burns) to reduce fuel loads 

sufficiently before in-season fires will more predictably yield desired outcomes. 

Successful adaptive management strategies will anticipate wildfire disturbances 

and seek to direct them to achieve desired conditions. For areas with frequent fire 

regimes, Hirsch et al. (2001) called for “fire-smart” management strategies that 

Treatments to 

reduce and promote 

variation in stem 

density and fuel 

loads should promote 

forest resilience to 

large disturbances 

associated with climate 

change, including 

droughts and insect 

and disease outbreaks.
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

acknowledge the inevitability of wildfire. This approach prompts consideration 

of how immediate risks associated with use of prescribed fire may be offset by 

potential to reduce future wildfire risks. 

There are many areas where treatments to modify stand structures would help 

to facilitate returning fire as a primary disturbance mechanism (Miller and Urban 

2000). Varying forest conditions with micro- and macro-topography can help 

increase heterogeneity and provide managers with a template for how and where to 

vary treatments. Recent studies provide information on how forest conditions and 

fire regimes varied according to topography when active fire regimes were operating historically (Beaty and Taylor 2001; Scholl and Taylor 2010; Taylor 2000; Taylor 

and Skinner 1998, 2003) and in landscapes where fire regimes have been partially 

restored (Lydersen and North 2012). Treatment strategies that build on the concept 

of emulating natural disturbance regimes would alter treatment type and intensity 

according to topographic position; for some landscapes in this synthesis area, such 

an approach might include reducing fuels preferentially on drier southern and western slopes, as compared to north slopes and canyon bottoms, and initially managing 

ridgetops for fuelbreaks (Weatherspoon and Skinner 1996).

Emphasizing process-based restoration and indicators—

Because a resilience-based restoration strategy places so much emphasis on the 

dynamism of systems, it demands greater attention to functional processes. Conditions and processes are so interconnected that restoration has to address both; however, restoration ecology has placed increasing emphasis on restoration of dynamic 

ecological processes versus static targets for structure and composition (Harris et al. 

2006). For example, scientists in the field of stream restoration have called for less 

emphasis on in-stream structural approaches in favor of reestablishing disturbance 

regimes (fires and floods), vegetation dynamics, coarse woody debris recruitment, 

and lateral and longitudinal stream connectivity that build in-stream habitat (see 

Palmer et al. 2005 and chapter 6.1). In terrestrial forests that experience frequent 

fires, researchers contend that ecologically based restoration depends on successfully restoring mostly low- to moderate-intensity fire as a keystone process, while 

recognizing that fire regimes and stand structures must be restored in an integrated 

way (see chapter 4.1 and Allen et al. 2002). Therefore, structural indicators remain 

essential, but they have to be considered in light of dynamic processes, and there is 

a need for indicators and metrics that focus on process. It will be necessary to rely 

on modeling and monitoring to evaluate whether important habitat elements are 

likely to be sustained over time.
31

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

In addition to abiotic processes like fires and floods, it is also important to 

consider biotic processes as indicators of ecological resilience. For example, predation is an important process given the potential for trophic cascades when predators 

are lost (see chapter 7.1). Using an example from Lake Tahoe, Vander Zanden et 

al. (2003) demonstrated how consideration of long-term changes in food webs can 

guide restoration efforts, in particular by targeting systems where such changes 

have been less extensive. 

Researchers studying aquatic systems have asserted that management systems 

have tended to rely too much on indicators of acceptable habitat conditions and 

water quality standards rather than embracing system dynamics and disturbance 

regimes (Rieman et al. 2003). Some decisionmaking systems may provide incentives to treat priority species and water quality as constraints, with an emphasis 

on avoiding short-term potentially negative impacts. However, approaches based 

upon promoting resilience need to sustain ecological values over the long run. 

Foundational components include the physical-chemical aspects of soil and water, 

which in turn support vegetation and habitat for terrestrial and aquatic organisms. 

Because foundational ecological processes, such as soil water storage, may not 

have explicit targets, there may be a tendency to undervalue, or even ignore them 

in decisionmaking. Yet, as noted in chapter 6.1, forest treatments have the potential 

to enhance system resilience to multiple stresses by increasing soil water availability. Such treatments, along with meadow restoration (see chapter 6.3), also have 

potential to enhance the yield, quality, and timing of downstream water flows and 

resulting ecosystem services. Another approach emphasized in promoting resilience 

of fluvial systems is to reestablish reference hydrologic regimes, including overbank 

flows in wet meadows (see chapter 6.3) and natural hydrograph patterns in regulated rivers (see chapter 6.1). The strategic orientation of PSW-GTR-220 (North 

et al. 2009) and PSW-GTR-237 (North 2012), which focus on restoring heterogeneity and landscape-scale ecological processes, can address aquatic resources by 

incorporating key hydrologic processes as treatment objectives rather than primarily as constraints. 

Using fire regime metrics to evaluate performance—

By addressing system dynamics, process-based indicators avoid some of the 

shortcomings that may be posed by structural indicators, but they still pose a risk of 

oversimplification. Carefully selected fire regime metrics can be useful for setting 

priorities and evaluating performance, because they focus on a key disturbance 

process. Sugihara et al. (2006) identify seven important attributes for characterizing 

fire regimes, including fire return interval, seasonality, size, spatial complexity, 

fireline intensity, severity, and type. The total amount of area burned in any given 
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

year does not necessarily indicate failure or success, because there has been such 

a deficit of fire on the landscape since the onset of fire suppression. The proportion 

of area burned at low, moderate, and high severity and how the fires threaten 

human life and property are more important indicators. Area burned at low to 

moderate severity could be an important indicator of progress, whereas the extent 

of high-severity fire could be a useful indicator of a problem (Weatherspoon and 

Skinner 1996). In terms of achieving restoration goals, expectations for particular 

areas would need to be based on historical variation and/or contemporary reference 

sites, current conditions, and projections of climate change and future disturbance 

(Safford et al. 2012a). Fire return interval departure (FRID) analyses can help 

evaluate departures from reference conditions at a large scale. However, FRID 

analyses may not provide sufficient detail to apply these metrics at the project scale, 

and fire recurrence intervals alone are insufficient to drive treatment priorities (see 

chapter 4.1). For example, depending on values at risk and socioecological context, 

it may be more important to maintain a restored or minimally departed condition in 

one area than it would be to correct a significantly departed condition in another.

It is also important to consider the various dimensions of the fire regime 

other than simple averages of fire frequency, since the variation in fire regime 

characteristics within and among fires is a more important influence on landscape 

heterogeneity and biodiversity (Agee 2002). Individual low-severity burns are 

generally insufficient to restore reference structure and process after long fire-free 

periods (Collins et al. 2011, Miller and Urban 2000, Skinner 2005). Consequently, 

a metric like time since last fire may be useful as an initial look or as a short-term 

indicator of management performance, but it should not necessarily be construed as 

an indicator of a restored fire regime (see chapter 4.1). Unqualified measures of area 

burned or area treated would not be particularly useful indicators of restoration of 

ecological process. More multidimensional metrics are needed to evaluate effectiveness in reducing hazard or in restoring ecosystems.

Managing long-term post-wildfire outcomes—

Uncharacteristically severe wildfires will continue to affect large areas of the 

synthesis area in coming decades. The Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) 

program addresses short-term postfire impacts to life, property, and ecosystems, but 

a longer term strategy is important for promoting resilience of ecosystems within 

severely burned landscapes (see chapter 4.3). The Forest Service in California has 

recently developed a template to help guide national forests in planning for restoration and long-term management of post-wildfire landscapes. Postfire conditions 

offer opportunity to realign ecosystem structure, function, or composition with 

expected future climate. Large areas affected by uncharacteristically severe fire 

Large areas affected 

by uncharacteristically 

severe fire may shift 

ecosystems into 

less desirable states 

that may persist 

for long periods, 

especially because 

climate change is 

also influencing those 

trajectories. 
33

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

may shift ecosystems into less desirable states that may persist for long periods, 

especially because climate change is also influencing those trajectories. Additional 

research and extensive monitoring are needed to ensure that treatments of those 

areas do not rely on untested approaches applied in a piecemeal fashion without 

consideration of landscape context and changing climate.

Social and Ecological Integration

The “triple bottom line” concept, which emphasizes social, economic, and ecological dimensions of sustainability (see chapter 9.1, “Broader Context for Social, 

Economic, and Cultural Components”), underscores the understanding that human 

and natural ecosystems are interdependent (see also chapter 4.2, “Fire and Tribal 

Cultural Resources”). Chapter 9.2, “Ecosystem Services,” in particular notes the 

importance of understanding natural ecosystems as a foundation that generates 

finite streams of ecological services that benefit human societies and have limited 

substitutability. Findings from research (see section 9 in particular) suggest that an 

important part of a strategy to promote socioecological resilience is to explicitly 

consider social effects of forest management strategies on near and more distant 

human communities, as well as how community capacity can facilitate management to promote resilience. Researchers studying socioecological systems note that 

Box 1.1-2

Summary of Approaches for Integrating Social Considerations 

Into Strategies

• Consider the integrated nature of socioecological systems; approaches that 

address issues from a narrow perspective are less likely to succeed in the long 

run than strategies that consider ecological, social, economic, and cultural components. Recognizing and measuring ecosystem services and other sociocultural 

values can help to consider impacts to communities and ecosystems as part of 

this approach.

• Use participatory and collaborative approaches to facilitate adaptive responses 

and social learning. Many of the topical sections of this synthesis note how scientists have moved toward such approaches as a way of promoting resilience, 

especially where management systems may be geographically and culturally distant from people who use the forests and their local knowledge systems (examples in chapter 9.6, “Collaboration in National Forest Management,” include 

grazing management and incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge).
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

no single approach to governance, including broader and more active participation 

by local communities, will solve problems in managing socioecological systems 

(Ostrom 2007), because human-environment relationships are so complex and 

differ from one place to another. However, there is growing recognition that 

engagement, capacity building, and participation are often necessary components 

of strategies that promote resilience through social learning (Fernandez-Gimenez 

et al. 2008). 

Recognizing ecosystem services and other sociocultural values—

The shift to thinking about integrated socioecological systems has spurred efforts 

to value ecosystem services (see chapter 9.2), because an ecosystem’s capacity 

to generate such services is the foundation for social and economic development 

(Folke 2006b). Understanding changing demand for many ecosystem services at 

different scales is crucial for developing appropriate ecosystem management strategies (Grêt-Regamey et al. 2012). An important component of a resilience strategy 

may be to moderate societal expectations for ecological services rather than trying 

to provide a constant or ever-increasing supply. The Sierra Nevada encompasses 

watersheds that support millions of people and a large part of the global economy; 

therefore, potential impacts to water quality and quantity are of great importance 

locally, regionally, and even globally. Impacts of treatments and wildfires on these 

services are an important research topic (see chapter 6.1 as well as chapter 1.5).

The sociocultural value of ecosystems is not limited to direct uses by people, 

as it also extends beyond the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. Research 

has shown that people living far from the Sierra Nevada hold substantial values 

for the region’s ecosystems and especially for their charismatic fish and wildlife 

(Loomis and Gonzalez-Caban 1998, Richardson and Loomis 2009). Ecosystems 

also support community identity and sense of place (see chapter 9.1). These values 

resist quantification and commodification but may be critical to maintaining the 

sustainability of socioecological systems (Berkes et al. 2006, Ostrom 2007).

Emphasizing values sustained by the forests may help facilitate communications with diverse members of the general public, local residents, landowners, and 

other groups. Studies have shown that science-based planning and communication 

are important for improving acceptability of proposed actions, such as wildfire 

risk reduction treatments, biomass utilization, and salvage logging (see chapter 

9.5). Because local communities often play a role in management practices related 

to biodiversity enhancement, soil and water protection, and improving other ecosystem services, managing forest products on national forest lands to benefit those 

communities can in turn provide environmental benefits for forest and rangeland 

ecosystems across ownerships (see chapter 9.5).
35

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Considering impacts to communities and ecosystems—

An integrated landscape-scale strategy can promote restoration in ways that benefit 

both local communities and ecosystems using specific approaches that are discussed within chapter 9.4. However, potential solutions may entail various tradeoffs 

between ecological and social impacts at multiple scales. For example, tools like 

stewardship contracts afford certain benefits and flexibility to promote ecological 

restoration, but under current policies, they can also incur potential impacts to communities by reducing payments to local governments. Redressing public policies 

that create disincentives for ecological restoration may be important in developing a 

successful long-term strategy.

An important issue raised in different topical sections of this synthesis concerns 

the potential to generate energy and fuel from forest biomass. This approach holds 

promise for simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas and smoke emissions, promoting renewable energy and U.S. energy security, and facilitating larger scale forest 

treatments in support of reduced fire hazard and ecological restoration. There has 

been considerable debate concerning whether forest biomass should be regarded 

as carbon-neutral, and assessments of the overall impact of emissions hinge on 

assumptions about fire regimes (Winford and Gaither 2012). However, there is 

consensus that the utilization of “waste” biomass debris that would otherwise 

release carbon quickly into the atmosphere (through decay or pile burning) is likely 

to be carbon friendly (Johnson 2009). Therefore, encouraging a shift from burning 

debris from harvest or fire hazard reductions in piles to burning in biomass facilities could yield significant environmental and economic benefits. Researchers have 

sought to estimate a sustainable supply of biomass that represents a byproduct of 

other management objectives, such as precommercial thinning and wildfire hazard 

reduction (Parker et al. 2010). However, development of biomass utilization in the 

Sierra Nevada requires consideration of an array of ecological, economic, and social 

factors, and the overall impact and acceptability of biomass initiatives depends 

heavily on local conditions (see chapter 9.5).

Promoting collaboration and partnerships—

Consistent with an all-lands approach, working at the landscape scale will require 

greater coordination and partnerships with private landowners, nongovernmental 

organizations, and state and local governments. In addition, collaboration demands 

consideration of views and interests of stakeholders at broad scales, including 

people who may be farther away than those who have traditionally been included 

in planning. Although collaboration entails costs and complications, stakeholder 

input and participation from early stages can be crucial in outlining shared goals 

and objectives, facilitating shared learning and problem solving, and building 

Encouraging a shift 

from burning debris 

from harvest or fire 

hazard reductions 

in piles to burning 

in biomass facilities 

could yield significant 

environmental and 

economic benefits.
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

trust (Bartlett 2012). Although reaching consensus may not necessarily be a goal 

of planning, research from other areas, such as the yellow pine forests of northern 

Arizona, suggests that diverse stakeholder groups are able to reach consensus about 

managing very large landscapes (Hampton et al. 2011, Sisk et al. 2006), particularly because treatments need to initially target only a portion of the landscape to 

effectively reduce the risk of large, intense wildfires (Ager et al. 2007, Loehle 2004, 

Schmidt et al. 2008, Syphard et al. 2011). Achieving such agreement may be easier 

in high-relief areas where topography has a strong influence on effective treatment 

options and more difficult in areas with high-profile values (e.g., sequoia groves and 

habitat for wildlife species of concern). However, there are no guaranteed outcomes 

from adopting a collaborative process, and, as outlined in chapter 9.6, “Collaboration in National Forest Management,” cross-boundary collaboration may be particularly challenging in some communities. That chapter also suggests that fire could be 

a rallying point, given that creating strategies to reduce fire risk across boundaries 

may enhance cooperation.

Science-based monitoring and feedback mechanisms that enable adaptive 

management practices are valuable for correcting course and building trust and 

cooperation (Cox et al. 2010, Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2008). Such adaptive 

systems are important because there are significant gaps in scientific knowledge of 

the behaviors of these complex systems, as outlined in chapter 1.5. Furthermore, 

these approaches embed capacity to identify and benefit from new information 

discovered as a result of monitoring, shifts in social systems or values, shifts in 

ecological systems or dynamics, or a change in their interactions. A wide range of 

collaborative approaches to adaptive management, including participatory research 

and monitoring, and collaborations with tribal groups to investigate effects of 

reintroducing traditional burning practices, is discussed in chapter 9.6.

Institutionalized science-management partnerships are an approach to collaborative adaptive management that has been developed in the synthesis area. 

These partnerships have attempted to facilitate the dissemination of scientific 

information directly to resource managers, while providing researchers with a better understanding of contexts and constraints, including the challenges associated 

with climate change (Littell et al. 2012). Robust science-management partnerships 

may also provide the added benefit of building stakeholder trust and encouraging 

creative approaches to adaptive management. Regional examples of these sciencemanagement partnerships include the Tahoe Science Consortium, Southern Sierra 

Conservation Cooperative, Northern California Prescribed Fire Council, and 

California Fire Science Consortium. 
37

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Employing Adaptive Management Strategies

Phased Strategies for Long-Term Resilience

Considering management strategies in terms of phases may help reconcile shortand long-term priorities, reduce both short- and long-term risks, and facilitate 

adaptation to changing conditions. Attempts to restore a more natural disturbance 

regime of fire as an ecological process without first securing vulnerable communities and resources could have undesirable outcomes. Accordingly, a starting point 

for many landscapes has been to emphasize fire hazard reduction in areas of high 

value, such as the wildland-urban interface (WUI), as well as other areas where 

human-caused ignitions are likely to cause problems. Though such treatments can 

be effective, conditions on adjacent private lands in the WUI and the susceptibility 

of structures also determine effectiveness of wildfire defenses. As a result, involvement and cooperation of local communities is important in implementing treatments 

in a coordinated way across property boundaries (Weatherspoon and Skinner 1996). 

Although WUI-focused approaches may do little to restore resilience to the 

larger landscape (Schmidt et al. 2008), they may expand windows of confidence 

in allowing fire to return. A major challenge is to go beyond localized fire hazard 

reduction and pursue a goal of restoring conditions where fire can be returned safely 

as a key process in the landscape. This goal is an integral part of a larger landscape 

resilience strategy. A near-term emphasis on reducing fire hazard in strategic 

areas can secure a margin of safety for pursuing longer term objectives. However, 

treatments driven by near- and long-term objectives do not necessarily need to be 

applied in a distinct sequence, but rather could be adapted to the needs, constraints, 

and opportunities of particular contexts. Accordingly, a strategic approach would 

likely blend more short-term defensive fire risk reduction as well as more restorative 

treatments for the long term. For example, resource managers may be able to take 

advantage of wildland fire opportunities without necessarily completing near-term 

strategic defensive treatments. In addition, strategically located treatments intended 

to reduce the potential for uncharacteristically severe wildfire would not necessarily 

need to be limited solely to achieving that objective. Rather, they could incorporate 

elements designed to promote future wildlife habitat, increase stand resilience 

to insects, diseases, and drought, and achieve other facets of the long-term goal 

(Weatherspoon and Skinner 1996). There are opportunities to enhance habitat for 

wildlife and other resources when seeking to reduce wildfire risk in developed areas 

(Eitzel et al. 2012); such an approach can be important because those areas may 

also harbor important biodiversity (Manley et al. 2006) and provide wildlife-related 

ecological services, including recreational opportunities.

A major challenge is 

to go beyond localized 

fire hazard reduction 

and pursue a goal of 

restoring conditions 

where fire can be 

returned safely as a 

key process in the 

landscape.
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

The hallmark of a strategic approach is the spatial and temporal arrangement 

of treatments to promote landscape resilience, rather than targeting the least costly 

locations or those that exhibit the worst fuels conditions. Although these strategies 

may be guided by local knowledge, geospatial decision support software, such as 

the Landscape Treatment Designer (Ager et al. 2012b), can be valuable in designing 

and evaluating such strategies.

Near-term phase: strategic treatments in a fraction of landscape to reduce fire 

hazard and promote resilience—

A near-term strategy would select areas for treatment to inhibit the potential for 

high-intensity wildfire to burn in uncharacteristically large patches. This approach 

sets up the landscape to achieve long-term goals. Treatments in this phase would 

represent a mix of approaches to promote conditions where wildfire can occur without unacceptably severe outcomes. Topography, vegetation, expected fire behavior, 

and resource concerns can guide development of treatment strategies (Skinner et al. 

2006). Multiple landscape modeling studies suggest that if treatments are strategically placed, an initial target of treating 10 to 25 percent of the landscape within 

a period of 5 to 10 years can effectively reduce the likelihood of unacceptably 

large, high-intensity fires (Ager et al. 2007, 2010; Finney et al. 2007; Schmidt et al. 

2008; Syphard et al. 2011). A strategy based on within-stand and across-landscape 

heterogeneity appears suited to deter the spread of high-intensity fire across the 

landscape while providing for a wide range of habitat conditions (Knapp et al. 2012, 

Weatherspoon and Skinner 1996). This phase may require a number of years to 

be completed, as some areas may require sequential treatments before they would 

achieve the desired condition (Skinner 2005). In some areas, strategic fuels treatment has been examined through the Fireshed planning effort (Bahro et al. 2007). 

This near-term strategic approach may reflect various strategies designed to impede 

wildfire spread similar to that modeled by Ager et al. (2013), including broad 

landscape protection as well as the restoration of dispersed fire barriers.

Long-term phase: landscape-scale restoration of resilience and heterogeneity—

Objectives for this long-term phase would focus on expanding restoration work 

while sustaining a desired mosaic of ecological conditions through time. Integrating 

predictive habitat models with silvicultural and fire models would help to evaluate 

these spatial and temporal dynamics. A combination of corrective treatments to 

bring areas back into a desired condition and maintenance treatments would need 

to be applied. Tradeoffs between treating new areas and maintaining existing areas 

would need to be considered using models to account for costs of treatment, changing fire conditions, and other factors (Finney et al. 2007).

Managed fire will likely 

become increasingly 

important for 

promoting resilience 

in forest ecosystems 

particularly important 

in the many areas that 

are inaccessible to 

mechanical treatments 

to remove smaller 

trees.
39

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Corrective treatments and maintenance treatments may be distinguished more 

by their objectives than by their means of treatment. However, managed fire will 

likely become increasingly important for promoting resilience in forest ecosystems 

(North et al. 2012). As outlined in chapter 1.3, this approach would be particularly 

important in the many areas that are inaccessible to mechanical treatments to 

remove smaller trees.

As wildfires occur, they may alter the priorities for treatment across the landscape, and create new opportunities to influence ecological trajectories (fig. 2). As 

a consequence, greater integration with post-wildfire treatment plans, both before 

and after such fires occur, is another important facet of a resilience-based landscape 

strategy (see chapter 4.3). To be successful, adaptive strategies may require integration of land management plans and fire management plans to address short-term 

responses to wildfire as well as long-term objectives for large-scale fire restoration. 

Post-wildfire plans are important not only because fires are likely to be widespread 

agents of change, but also because wildfires can open windows of opportunity to 

learn and to take actions to promote future resilience (Littell et al. 2012).

Incentives for landscape-scale restoration—

Although strategic defense treatments can facilitate a larger restoration approach, 

they do not necessarily constitute restoration, because their intent is primarily to 

alter fire behavior to aid suppression activities and ameliorate wildfire impacts 

while working to produce conditions that reestablish fire as an ecological process. 

Hence, this approach relies strongly upon a resistance strategy (Millar et al. 2007). 

Treatments would have to include some fire component to be considered fully 

restorative, even though mechanical treatments will in many cases be needed before 

fire can be safely applied. To encourage restoration, it would be appropriate to 

recognize and accord greater weight to treatments that come closer to facilitating 

reference fire regimes based upon frequency, seasonality, severity, and spatial pattern. Performance metrics based heavily on area treated will incentivize treating the 

easiest parts of the landscape in a concentrated fashion; therefore, they may hinder 

a strategic approach to promote resilience. Consequently, selection of appropriate 

performance metrics is a particularly important topic for management and science 

to consider (see chapter 1.5). Promoting more integrated accounting of ecological 

outcomes may help to facilitate actions that may generate significant gains over the 

long-term but involve shorter term risks and costs. As an example, one approach 

to integrate consideration of land management and air quality objectives has 

been to make decisions about prescribed burning through a more unified or joint 

institutional structure, as reported from a successful program in western Australia 

(Adams 2013). 
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Economic considerations are particularly important in planning a landscape 

scale strategy because treatments of areas that have not been harvested for many 

decades may provide resources to restore parts of the landscape where harvest costs 

are likely to exceed biomass revenues (Hartsough 2003, North 2012). Although 

corrective treatments will remove merchantable trees, returns from maintenance 

treatments are likely to be much smaller. Consequently, opportunities to receive 

greater returns for smaller tree biomass will be important in accelerating the pace 

and extent of restoration treatments.

Demonstration landscapes—

Designing a landscape strategy requires carefully considering opportunities to promote wildlife, riparian, and aquatic habitat values rather than avoiding such priority 

areas. Applying the principle of emulating natural disturbance regimes would likely 

benefit riparian areas and habitat for species of concern over the long term, but this 

approach would benefit from testing within an adaptive management framework, 

including experimentation, modeling, intensive monitoring, and research on particular issues. Experimental approaches to landscape management, focusing on firerelated treatments in particular, have been tested on relatively small scales within 

experimental forests and other adaptive management areas in the synthesis area (see 

chapter 1.5). Larger demonstration areas could facilitate evaluation of treatment 

impacts on wildfire at the landscape scale and on a wide range of species with large 

home ranges, such as California spotted owls and fishers. The Dinkey Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project has enabled observations of the effects 

of prescribed fire on fishers, but larger areas would be needed to address questions 

of connectivity for forest carnivores. The Northwest Forest Plan set up 10 adaptive 

management areas (AMAs), which ranged in size from around 37 000 ha (92,000 

ac) to almost 200 000 ha (500,000 ac), to afford managers an opportunity to test 

new approaches at large scales and adjust standards and guides to local conditions. 

Scientists have noted that the plan’s potential to facilitate large-scale experimentation has not been fulfilled owing to disagreements over what constitutes adaptive 

management and a perceived or real lack of sufficient flexibility to test different 

strategies (Rapp 2008, Stankey et al. 2003). Nevertheless, the Goosenest Adaptive 

Management Area (GAMA), located within this synthesis area, has demonstrated 

some on-the-ground progress (Rapp 2008). Whereas managers used the larger 

area to explore strategies pertaining to raptors, goshawks, and spotted owls, the 

GAMA Ecological Research study was undertaken to specifically test a variety of 

treatments designed to achieve the AMA’s goal of accelerating late-successional 

conditions in young-growth forests. Explicitly designated demonstration areas, as 

described in chapter 1.3, could play an important role in facilitating the landscapeDesigning a landscape 

strategy requires 

carefully considering 

opportunities to 

promote wildlife, 

riparian, and aquatic 

habitat values 

rather than avoiding 

such priority areas. 

Applying the principle 

of emulating natural 

disturbance regimes 

would likely benefit 

riparian areas and 

habitat for species 

of concern over the 

long term, but this 

approach would benefit 

from testing within an 

adaptive management 

framework.
41

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

scale adaptive management needed to reconcile short-term risks with long-term 

gains. This type of active adaptive management approach would benefit from a 

robust partnership involving management, research, and stakeholder groups.

Riparian areas—

Landscape strategies that consider fire regime and topography interactions in 

designing treatments should be able to accommodate riparian area concerns (North 

2012, Skinner et al. 2006). Management to promote resilience of small to medium 

stream reaches that historically burned frequently like adjacent uplands would 

facilitate similarly frequent, low- to moderate-intensity fire (see chapter 6.2, “Forested Riparian Areas”), rather than being set aside as unmanaged buffer zones that 

are more susceptible to high fire intensity. However, in riparian areas that function 

differently than uplands, other tactics are warranted because of higher soil moisture 

and stronger connectivity to aquatic systems. Experimental, scientifically informed 

harvesting and burning techniques could illuminate new ways to improve riparian 

conditions and improve understanding of treatment effects on water flow, water 

quality, soils, riparian and aquatic biota, and impacts from wildfire. This approach 

would require consideration of large woody debris loading, shading, stream channel stability, and nutrient inputs, among other factors (Burton 2005). As part of a 

long-term adaptive management strategy, experiments in riparian areas would help 

to address a significant research gap.

Special wildlife management areas—

Areas of special management have been designated for several wildlife species, for 

example, protected activity centers (PACs) for California spotted owl and den buffer 

areas for fisher. In these areas, restrictions on vegetation management have been 

linked to site location and hazard levels (wildland-urban interface versus wildlands), but they have generally made treatments more challenging to implement. In 

wildland settings, mechanical treatments have often been restricted or not allowed, 

and approved treatments (e.g., prescribed fire and hand removal of fuels) have often 

been limited to specific timeframes or prescriptions (see sidebar on limited operating periods in chapter 1.5). PACs were originally designated as an interim measure, 

but they have become long-term zones with little to no active management (Berigan 

et al. 2012). In some cases, their boundaries have been revised based on changes in 

conditions and long-term monitoring data (Berigan et al. 2012), but in other cases, 

unoccupied areas have remained set apart from the general forest matrix. 

Because areas within primary habitat for species of concern may be at relatively 

high risk for uncharacteristically severe wildfire (Ager et al. 2012), treatments 

within such areas could aid their long-term conservation despite short-term risks of 
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

impacts (Scheller et al. 2011). It would be valuable to evaluate the effects of including or excluding core wildlife areas from treatment within landscape-scale plans. 

Extensive monitoring within demonstration landscapes could help to test tradeoffs 

between short-term risks and long-term gains for species conservation projected 

through modeling (see chapter 1.3). Another approach would be to use abandoned 

areas and margins of core areas as a surrogate to evaluate treatment effects on 

occupied habitats. Use of robust modeling tools as part of an adaptive management 

framework may highlight the ways in which landscape-scale strategies can promote 

long-term improvements in habitat. The focus needs to move beyond effects easily 

seen at the stand scale to effects that are not as easily seen at the landscape scale, 

but that can still be modeled and validated through monitoring. This approach may 

aid conservation and recovery of additional species of concern as research is better 

able to evaluate the quality and connectivity of their habitats.

Promoting future habitat and appropriate habitat connectivity—

Where landscapes appear to have deficits of priority species habitat compared to 

the likely HRV, plans could be developed to guide management activities to restore 

high-quality habitat (North 2012) following conservation approaches suggested by 

Thompson et al. (2011) and Spencer et al. (2011). Landscape-level restoration strategies could be developed to promote desired habitat conditions where they currently 

do not exist, using concepts and tools like the HRV, climate adaptation strategies, 

and scenario planning (Nydick and Sydoriak 2011, Peterson et al. 2011). Landscape 

strategies would include treatment designs that consider and promote habitat connectivity appropriate to the landscape, keeping in mind the potential undesirable 

effects of connectivity, such as unwanted spread of severe fire or invasive species. 

The maintenance of habitat connectivity would be an important consideration as 

treatments progress through the landscape and as forest conditions change with 

stand development. Landscape analysis tools that can evaluate multiple objectives 

are well suited to help resource managers evaluate these tradeoffs (see chapter 7.1 

for examples).

Applying landscape-scale modeling—

Because experimentation is so costly, difficult, and slow, modeling will be an 

important component of developing and adjusting an adaptive management 

strategy. The “fireshed” modeling approach demonstrated the potential for spatial 

analyses to evaluate complex tradeoffs across large areas over many decades 

(Bahro et al. 2007). Although the term “fireshed” may imply an emphasis on fuels 

reduction, the intent of the approach is to focus thinking at the broader landscape 

scale at which fire operates rather than at a more limited project scale. In this sense, 
43

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

fireshed is analogous to watershed except it is based on the scale at which fire 

operates informed by fire history, fire regimes, topography, vegetation, expected 

fire behavior, and the risk of problem fires (Bahro et al 2007). The objective of 

fireshed assessment would be to develop plans that limit the risk of large, highintensity fires while considering a broad array of values—including watersheds, 

viewsheds, smokesheds, wildlife habitat quality and connectivity, ecosystem 

services, and other social and economic values—in an integrated approach at an 

appropriate landscape scale. Landscape-scale simulations suggest that these broad 

treatment strategies may benefit wildlife species (Scheller et al. 2011). Combining 

multiple tools may be necessary to assess treatment effects on the distribution of 

seral stages/structural types, associated habitat values, and connectivity through 

time at multiple scales. An example of an integrated approach applied the Forest 

Vegetation Simulator (FVS) tool to model effects at the smaller scale of fisher home 

ranges (Thompson et al. 2011), while designing fuels treatments based on landscape 

analyses (e.g., Fireshed, Flammap), local knowledge of prevailing winds, and the 

general direction of historical large wildfires. Modeling habitat for priority species 

at the landscape scale would allow projections of the future arrangement of dense 

patches, matrix, and openings based on treatments and wildfires under different 

management strategies. The complementary use of modeling and monitoring can 

examine potential air quality benefits of prescribed burning, managed wildfires, and 

other treatments to mitigate hazardous conditions during wildfires (see chapter 8.1). 

Chapter 9.6, “Collaboration in National Forest Management,”) notes that participatory approaches to modeling and data visualization may be a useful way to engage 

stakeholders in sharing knowledge of the environment and considering management 

alternatives in relation to the particular geography of a landscape.

Monitoring effects on species of concern—

Although habitat modeling will be important to evaluate potential outcomes at 

large scales, species monitoring will also remain a significant part of an overall 

resilience strategy. Effects of treatments on current habitat conditions would need 

to be monitored to estimate how species of concern are likely to respond. Although 

many species appear to either benefit from or be indifferent to fuels reduction treatments (Stephens et al. 2012), other species associated with high canopy closure and 

high structural complexity may be negatively affected by conventional treatments. 

However, even these species persisted within landscapes that historically had 

considerable amounts of open forest conditions and early seral habitat created and 

maintained by frequent, low- and mixed-severity fires (Perry et al. 2011). Chapters 

1.3 and 7.1 focus more on this issue. In particular, chapter 7.1 notes that tension 

Although many 

species appear to 

either benefit from or 

be indifferent to fuels 

reduction treatments, 

other species 

associated with 

high canopy closure 

and high structural 

complexity may be 

negatively affected 

by conventional 

treatments. However, 

even these species 

persisted within 

landscapes that 

historically had 

considerable amounts 

of open forest 

conditions and early 

seral habitat created 

and maintained by 

frequent, low- and 

mixed-severity fires.
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

between achieving fire-related objectives and promoting habitat for fisher may be 

more significant when addressing the forest understory rather than the large trees in 

the overstory. Again, landscape management strategies that emphasize heterogeneity, in addition to robust monitoring in treated areas, may be able to account for and 

address the needs of different priority species.

Monitoring plans are expected to include both a coarse-filter approach to 

evaluate landscape-scale habitat patterns and ecological processes, and a fine-filter 

approach to ensure that at-risk species are being conserved. Integrating modeling 

with monitoring of field conditions can help to evaluate how ecosystems are changing at broad scales where experimentation may be impractical. Noon et al. (2012) 

recommended targeting a small number of species based on management objectives 

and the species’ ecological roles, sensitivity to change, and conservation importance; however, they recognized that multiple species approaches, as described by 

Manley et al. (2004), are appropriate for species that can be detected using the same 

protocols (for example, breeding birds, small rodents, and mesocarnivores).

Management Implications

• Strategic placement and phasing across the landscape using a combination 

of prescribed fire, managed wildfire, and mechanical treatments can 

accomplish the following:

▪ Shift disturbance regimes toward patterns that are more consistent 

with how ecosystems evolved and promote resilience to stressors 

such as climate change.

▪ Reduce undesirable losses from the terrestrial, aquatic, and socioeconomic components of socioecological systems that can result 

from large, severe, and dangerous wildfires.

▪ Promote important values for the long term, including habitat needs 

for species of concern, favorable water flows, traditional cultural 

resources, forest products and associated livelihoods and infrastructure, 

and other ecosystem services and social benefits.

• Measures of ecological departure from the HRV can be useful for 

evaluating effects of wildfire on socioecological values and to design 

and evaluate strategies to promote resilience.

• Approaches for reestablishing historical processes within aquatic 

ecosystems, in addition to terrestrial treatments, can include restoring 

incised channels in wet meadows, removing introduced fishes from 

lakes, and promoting more natural stream hydrographs below dams.
45

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

• Development and implementation of these approaches through collaborative, placed-based efforts can strengthen existing community capacities and 

reduce vulnerabilities to major disruptions.

Literature Cited

Adams, M.A. 2013. Mega-fires, tipping points and ecosystem services: managing 

forests and woodlands in an uncertain future. Forest Ecology and Management. 

294(0): 250–261.

Agee, J.K. 2002. The fallacy of passive management: managing for firesafe forest 

reserves. Conservation Biology in Practice. 3(1): 18–25.

Agee, J.; Skinner, C. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 211(1–2): 83–96.

Ager, A.A.; Finney, M.A.; Kerns, B.K.; Maffei, H. 2007. Modeling wildfire risk 

to northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) habitat in central Oregon, 

USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 246(1): 45–56.

Ager, A.A.; Vaillant, N.M.; Finney, M.A.; Preisler, H.K. 2012. Analyzing 

wildfire exposure and source-sink relationships on a fire prone forest landscape. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 267(0): 271–283.

Allen, C.D.; Savage, M.; Falk, D.A.; Suckling, K.F.; Swetnam, T.W.; Schulke, 

T.; Stacey, P.B.; Morgan, P.; Hoffman, M.; Klingel, J.T. 2002. Ecological 

restoration of Southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective. 

Ecological Applications. 12(5): 1418–1433.

Arkle, R.S.; Pilliod, D.S. 2010. Prescribed fires as ecological surrogates for 

wildfires: a stream and riparian perspective. Forest Ecology and Management. 

259(5): 893–903.

Bahro, B.; Barber, K.H.; Sherlock, J.W.; Yasuda, D.A. 2007. Stewardship and 

fireshed assessment: a process for designing a landscape fuel treatment strategy. 

In: Powers, R.F., tech. ed. Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems proceedings of the 

2005 national silviculture workshop. Gen. Tech Rep. PSW-GTR-203. Albany, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station: 41–54.

Bartlett, G. 2012. Developing collaboration and cooperation. In: North, M., ed. 

Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station: 81–88. Chapter 8.
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Beaty, R.M.; Taylor, A.H. 2001. Spatial and temporal variation of fire regimes in a 

mixed conifer forest landscape, southern Cascades, California, USA. Journal of 

Biogeography. 28(8): 955–966.

Benda, L.; Miller, D.; Bigelow, P.; Andras, K. 2003. Effects of post-wildfire 

erosion on channel environments, Boise River, Idaho. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 178(1–2): 105–119.

Berigan, W.J.; Gutierrez, R.J.; Tempel, D.J. 2012. Evaluating the efficacy of 

protected habitat areas for the California spotted owl using long-term monitoring 

data. Journal of Forestry. 110(6): 299–303.

Berkes, F.; Ross, H. 2012. Community resilience: toward an integrated approach. 

Society and Natural Resources. 26(1): 5–20.

Berlik, M.M.; Kittredge, D.B.; Foster, D.R. 2002. The illusion of preservation: 

a global environmental argument for the local production of natural resources. 

Journal of Biogeography. 29(10–11): 1557–1568.

Bissonette, J.A. 1997. Wildlife and landscape ecology: effects of pattern and scale. 

New York: Springer-Verlag. 438 p.

Burton, T.A. 2005. Fish and stream habitat risks from uncharacteristic wildfire: 

observations from 17 years of fire-related disturbances on the Boise National 

Forest, Idaho. Forest Ecology and Management. 211(1–2): 140–149.

Cabell, J.F.; Oelofse, M. 2012. An indicator framework for assessing 

agroecosystem resilience. Ecology and Society. 17(1): 18.

Cisneros, R.; Bytnerowicz, A.; Schweizer, D.; Zhong, S.R.; Traina, S.; Bennett, 

D.H. 2010. Ozone, nitric acid, and ammonia air pollution is unhealthy for people 

and ecosystems in southern Sierra Nevada, California. Environmental Pollution. 

158(10): 3261–3271.

Cohen, J.D. 2000. Preventing disaster—home ignitability in the wildland-urban 

interface. Journal of Forestry. 98(3): 15–21.

Collins, B.M.; Everett, R.G.; Stephens, S.L. 2011. Impacts of fire exclusion and 

managed fire on forest structure in an old growth Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer 

forest. Ecosphere. 2(4): article 51.

Cox, M.; Arnold, G.; Tomas, S.V. 2010. A review of design principles for 

community-based natural resource management. Ecology and Society. 

15(4): article 38.
47

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Cumming, G.S.; Cumming, D.H.M.; Redman, C.L. 2006. Scale mismatches 

in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecology and 

Society. 11(1): article 14.

Dore, S.; Montes-Helu, M.; Hart, S.C.; Hungate, B.A.; Koch, G.W.; Moon, 

J.B.; Finkral, A.J.; Kolb, T.E. 2012. Recovery of ponderosa pine ecosystem 

carbon and water fluxes from thinning and stand-replacing fire. Global Change 

Biology. 18(10): 3171–3185.

Dunham, J.B.; Rosenberger, A.E.; Luce, C.H.; Rieman, B.E. 2007. Influences 

of wildfire and channel reorganization on spatial and temporal variation in 

stream temperature and the distribution of fish and amphibians. Ecosystems. 

10(2): 335–346.

Evangelista, P.H.; Kumar, S.; Stohlgren, T.J.; Young, N.E. 2011. Assessing 

forest vulnerability and the potential distribution of pine beetles under current 

and future climate scenarios in the Interior West of the US. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 262(3): 307–316.

Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E.; Ballard, H.L.; Sturtevant, V.E. 2008. Adaptive 

management and social learning in collaborative and community-based 

monitoring: a study of five community-based forestry organizations in the 

western USA. Ecology and Society. 13(2): article 4.

Fettig, C.J. 2012. Chapter 2: Forest health and bark beetles. In: North, M., ed. 

Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station: 13–22.

Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological 

systems analyses. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions. 

16(3): 253–267.

Franklin, J.F.; Agee, J.K. 2003. Forging a science-based national forest fire 

policy. Issues in Science and Technology. 20(1): 59–66.

Gabriel, M.W.; Woods, L.W.; Poppenga, R.; Sweitzer, R.A.; Thompson, C.; 

Matthews, S.M.; Higley, J.M.; Keller, S.M.; Purcell, K.; Barrett, R.H.; 

Wengert, G.M.; Sacks, B.N.; Clifford, D.L. 2012. Anticoagulant rodenticides 

on our public and community lands: spatial distribution of exposure and 

poisoning of a rare forest carnivore. Plos One. 7(7): e40163.

Grêt-Regamey, A.; Brunner, S.H.; Kienast, F. 2012. Mountain ecosystem 

services: who cares? Mountain Research and Development. 32(S1): S23–S34.
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Gutierrez, R.J.; Cody, M.; Courtney, S.; Franklin, A.B. 2007. The invasion 

of barred owls and its potential effect on the spotted owl: a conservation 

conundrum. Biological Invasions. 9(2): 181–196.

Hampton, H.M.; Sesnie, S.E.; Bailey, J.D.; Snider, G.B. 2011. Estimating 

regional wood supply based on stakeholder consensus for forest restoration in 

northern Arizona. Journal of Forestry. 109(1): 15–26.

Harris, J.A.; Hobbs, R.J.; Higgs, E.; Aronson, J. 2006. Ecological restoration 

and global climate change. Restoration Ecology. 14(2): 170–176.

Hirsch, K.; Kafka, V.; Tymstra, C.; McAlpine, R.; Hawkes, B.; Stegehuis, 

H.; Quintilio, S.; Gauthier, S.; Peck, K. 2001. Fire-smart forest management: 

A pragmatic approach to sustainable forest management in fire-dominated 

ecosystems. Forestry Chronicle. 77(2): 357–363.

Hobbs, R.J.; Cole, D.N.; Yung, L.; Zavaleta, E.S.; Aplet, G.H.; Chapin, F.S.; 

Landres, P.B.; Parsons, D.J.; Stephenson, N.L.; White, P.S.; Graber, D.M.; 

Higgs, E.S.; Millar, C.I.; Randall, J.M.; Tonnessen, K.A.; Woodley, S. 

2010. Guiding concepts for park and wilderness stewardship in an era of global 

environmental change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 8(9): 483–490.

Hobbs, R.J.; Higgs, E.; Harris, J.A. 2009. Novel ecosystems: implications for 

conservation and restoration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 24(11): 599–605.

Hodgson, R.W. 2007. Emotions and sense making in disturbance: community 

adaptation to dangerous environments. Human Ecology Review. 14(2): 233–242.

Johnson, E. 2009. Goodbye to carbon neutral: getting biomass footprints right. 

Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 29(3): 165–168.

Knapp, E.E.; Estes, B.L.; Skinner, C.N. 2009. Ecological effects of prescribed 

fires season: a literature review and synthesis for managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PSW-GTR-224. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 80 p.

Knapp, E.; North, M.; Benech, M.; Estes, B. 2012. The variable-density thinning 

study at Stanislaus-Tuolumne Experimental Forest. In: North, M., ed. Managing 

Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 

127–139. Chapter 12.

Lenihan, J.M.; Drapek, R.; Bachelet, D.; Neilson, R.P. 2003. Climate change 

effects on vegetation distribution, carbon, and fire in California. Ecological 

Applications. 13(6): 1667–1681.
49

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Lentile, L.B.; Morgan, P.; Hudak, A.T.; Bobbitt, M.J.; Lewis, S.A.; Smith, 

A.M.S.; Robichaud, P.R. 2007. Post-fire burn severity and vegetation response 

following eight large wildfires across the western United States. Fire Ecology. 

3(1): 91–108.

Littell, J.S.; Peterson, D.L.; Millar, C.I.; O’Halloran, K.A. 2012. U.S. national 

forests adapt to climate change through science-management partnerships. 

Climatic Change. 110(1–2): 269–296.

Loehle, C. 2004. Applying landscape principles to fire hazard reduction. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 198(1–3): 261–267.

Loomis, J.B.; Gonzalez-Caban, A. 1998. A willingness-to-pay function for 

protecting acres of spotted owl habitat from fire. Ecological Economics. 

25(3): 315–322.

Lydersen, J.; North, M. 2012. Topographic variation in structure of mixed-conifer 

forests under an active-fire regime. Ecosystems. 15(7): 1134–1146.

Manley, P.N.; Zielinski, W.J.; Schlesinger, M.D.; Mori, S.R. 2004. Evaluation 

of a multispecies approach to monitoring species at the ecoregional scale. 

Ecological Applications. 14(1): 296–310.

McIver, J.; Stephens, S.L.; Agee, J.K.; Barbour, J.; Boerner, R.E.J.; 

Edminster, C.B.; Erickson, K.L.; Farris, K.L.; Fettig, C.J.; Fiedler, 

C.E.; Haase, S.; Hart, S.C.; Keeley, J.E.; Knapp, C.N.; Lehmkuhl, J.F.; 

Moghaddas, J.; Ostrosina, W.; Outcalt, K.W.; Schwilk, D.W.; Skinner, C.; 

Waldrop, T.A.; Weatherspoon, C.P.; Yasussy, D.A.; Youngbloods, A.; Zack, 

S. 2013. Ecological effects of alternative fuel-reduction treatments: highlights 

of the National Fire and Fire Surrogate study. International Journal of Wildland 

Fire. 22: 63–82.

Miller, C.; Urban, D.L. 2000. Modeling the effects of fire management 

alternatives on Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests. Ecological Applications. 

10(1): 85–94.

Miller, J.D.; Collins, B.M.; Lutz, J.A.; Stephens, S.L.; van Wagtendonk, 

J.W.; Yasuda, D.A. 2012. Differences in wildfires among ecoregions and land 

management agencies in the Sierra Nevada region, California, USA. Ecosphere. 

3(9): art80.

Miller, J.D.; Safford, H.D. 2012. Trends in wildfire severity 1984–2010 in the 

Sierra Nevada, Modoc Plateau, and southern Cascades, California, USA. Fire 

Ecology. 8(3): 41–57.
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Miller, J.D.; Safford, H.D.; Crimmins, M.; Thode, A.E. 2009. Quantitative 

evidence for increasing forest fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and southern 

Cascade Mountains, California and Nevada, USA. Ecosystems. 12(1): 16–32.

Moritz, M.A.; Hurteau, M.D.; Suding, K.N.; D’Antonio, C.M. 2013. Bounded 

ranges of variation as a framework for future conservation and fire management. 

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1286: 92–107.

Noon, B.R.; Bailey, L.L.; Sisk, T.D.; McKelvey, K.S. 2012. Efficient species-level 

monitoring at the landscape scale. Conservation Biology. 26(3): 432–441.

North, M. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. 184 p.

North, M.; Collins, B.M.; Stephens, S.L. 2012. Using fire to increase the scale, 

benefits and future maintenance of fuels treatments. Journal of Forestry. 110(7): 

392–401.

North, M.P.; Keeton, W.S. 2008. Emulating natural disturbance regimes: an 

emerging approach for sustainable forest management. In: Lafortezza, R.; Chen, 

J.Q.; Sanesi, G.; Crow, T., eds. Patterns and processes in forest landscapes: 

sustainable management of forest landscapes. New York: Springer-Verlag Press: 

341–372. Chapter 17.

North, M.; Sherlock, J. 2012. Marking and assessing forest heterogeneity. In: 

North, M., ed. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station: 95–105.

North, M.; Stine, P.A. 2012. Clarifying concepts. In: North, M., ed. Managing 

Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 

149–164.

North, M.; Stine, P.A.; O’Hara, K.L.; Zielinski, W.J.; Stephens, S.L. 2009. 

An ecosystems management strategy for Sierra mixed-conifer forests, with 

addendum. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49 p.

Notaro, M.; Mauss, A.; Williams, J.W. 2012. Projected vegetation changes for 

the American Southwest: combined dynamic modeling and bioclimatic-envelope 

approach. Ecological Applications. 22(4): 1365–1388.
51

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Nydick, K.; Sydoriak, C. 2011. Alternative futures for fire management under a 

changing climate. Park Science. 28(1): 44–47.

Ostrom, E. 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 104(39): 

15181–15187.

Palmer, M.A.; Bernhardt, E.S.; Allan, J.D.; Lake, P.S.; Alexander, G.; Brooks, 

S.; Carr, J.; Clayton, S.; Dahm, C.N.; Shah, J.F.; Galat, D.L.; Loss, S.G.; 

Goodwin, P.; Hart, D.D.; Hassett, B.; Jenkinson, R.; Kondolf, G.M.; Lave, 

R.; Meyer, J.L.; O’Donnell, T.K.; Pagano, L.; Sudduth, E. 2005. Standards 

for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology. 42(2): 

208–217.

Parker, N.; Tittmann, P.; Hart, Q.; Nelson, R.; Skog, K.; Schmidt, A.; Gray, E.; 

Jenkins, B. 2010. Development of a biorefinery optimized biofuel supply curve 

for the Western United States. Biomass & Bioenergy. 34(11): 1597–1607.

Perry, D.A.; Hessburg, P.F.; Skinner, C.N.; Spies, T.A.; Stephens, S.L.; Taylor, 

A.H.; Franklin, J.F.; McComb, B.; Riegel, G. 2011. The ecology of mixed 

severity fire regimes in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 262(5): 703–717.

Peterson, D.L.; Millar, C.I.; Joyce, L.A.; Furniss, M.J.; Halofsky, J.E.; Neilson, 

R.P.; Morelli, T.L. 2011. Responding to climate change in national forests: a 

guidebook for developing adaptation options. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-855. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 109 p.

Rapp, V. 2008. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994–2003): first-decade 

results of the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-720. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 42 p.

Rapport, D.J.; Maffi, L. 2011. Eco-cultural health, global health, and 

sustainability. Ecological Research. 26(6): 1039–1049.

Rapport, D.J.; Singh, A. 2006. An EcoHealth-based framework for state of 

environment reporting. Ecological Indicators. 6(2): 409–428.

Reinhardt, E.; Keane, R.; Calkin, D.; Cohen, J. 2008. Objectives and 

considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior 

western United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 256(12): 1997–2006.
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Richardson, L.; Loomis, J. 2009. The total economic value of threatened, 

endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecological Economics. 

68(5): 1535–1548.

Rieman, B.; Lee, D.; Burns, D.; Gresswell, R.; Young, M.; Stowell, R.; Rinne, 

J.; Howell, P. 2003. Status of native fishes in the western United States and 

issues for fire and fuels management. Forest Ecology and Management. 178(1–2): 

197–211.

Roloff, G.J.; Mealey, S.P.; Bailey, J.D. 2012. Comparative hazard assessment for 

protected species in a fire-prone landscape. Forest Ecology and Management. 

277: 1–10.

Safford, H.D.; North, M.; Meyer, M.D. 2012b. Climate change and the relevance 

of historical forest conditions. In North, M., ed. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 23–46. Chapter 3.

Safford, H.D.; Stevens, J.T.; Merriam, K.; Meyer, M.D.; Latimer, A.M. 2012c.

Fuel treatment effectiveness in California yellow pine and mixed conifer forests. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 274: 17–28.

Safford, H.D.; Wiens, J.A.; Hayward, A.G.D. 2012a. The growing importance 

of the past in managing ecosystems of the future. In: Wiens, J.A.; Hayward, 

G.D.; Safford, H.D.; Giffen, C.M., eds. Historical environmental variation in 

conservation and natural resource management. Chichester, United Kingdom: 

John Wiley & Sons: 319–327. Chapter 24.

San-Miguel-Ayanz, J.; Moreno, J.M.; Camia, A. 2013. Analysis of large fires in 

European Mediterranean landscapes: lessons learned and perspectives. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 294(0): 11–22.

Scheller, R.M.; Spencer, W.D.; Rustigian-Romsos, H.; Syphard, A.D.; Ward, 

B.C.; Strittholt, J.R. 2011. Using stochastic simulation to evaluate competing 

risks of wildfires and fuels management on an isolated forest carnivore. 

Landscape Ecology: 1491–1504.

Schmidt, D.A.; Taylor, A.H.; Skinner, C.N. 2008. The influence of fuels 

treatment and landscape arrangement on simulated fire behavior, southern 

Cascade Range, California. Forest Ecology and Management. 255(8–9): 3170–

3184.

Scholl, A.E.; Taylor, A.H. 2010. Fire regimes, forest change, and self-organization 

in an old-growth mixed-conifer forest, Yosemite National Park, USA. Ecological 

Applications. 20(2): 362–380.
53

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Sisk, T.; Prather, J.; Hampton, H.; Aumack, E.; Xu, Y.; Dickson, B. 2006. 

Participatory landscape analysis to guide restoration of ponderosa pine 

ecosystems in the American Southwest. Landscape and Urban Planning. 

78(4): 300–310.

Skinner, C.N. 2005. Reintroducing fire into the Blacks Mountain Research Natural 

Area: effects on fire hazard. In: Ritchie, M.W.; Maguire, D.A.; Youngblood, 

A., eds. Symposium on ponderosa pine: issues, trends, and management. PSWGTR-198. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station: 245–257.

Skinner, C.N.; Taylor, A.H.; Agee, J.K. 2006. Klamath Mountains bioregion. In: 

Sugihara, N.G.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Fites-Kaufman, J.; Shaffer, K.E.; Thode, 

A.E., eds. Fire in California’s ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California 

Press: 170–194.

Spencer, W.; Rustigian-Romsos, H.; Strittholt, J.; Scheller, R.; Zielinski, 

W.; Truex, R. 2011. Using occupancy and population models to assess habitat 

conservation opportunities for an isolated carnivore population. Biological 

Conservation. 144(2): 788–803.

Stankey, G.H.; Bormann, B.T.; Ryan, C.; Shindler, B.; Sturtevant, V.; Clark, 

R.N.; Philpot, C. 2003. Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan—

rhetoric and reality. Journal of Forestry. 101(1): 40–46.

Steffen, W.; Crutzen, P.J.; McNeill, J.R. 2007. The Anthropocene: are humans 

now overwhelming the great forces of nature. Ambio. 36(8): 614–621.

Stephens, S.L.; McIver, J.D.; Boerner, R.E.J.; Fettig, C.J.; Fontaine, J.B.; 

Hartsough, B.R.; Kennedy, P.L.; Schwilk, D.W. 2012. The effects of forest 

fuel-reduction treatments in the United States. BioScience. 62(6): 549–560.

Sturrock, R.N.; Frankel, S.J.; Brown, A.V.; Hennon, P.E.; Kliejunas, J.T.; 

Lewis, K.J.; Worrall, J.J.; Woods, A.J. 2011. Climate change and forest 

diseases. Plant Pathology. 60(1): 133–149.

Sugihara, N.G.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Fites-Kaufman, J. 2006. Fire as an 

ecological process. In: Sugihara, N.G.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Fites-Kaufman, J.; 

Shaffer, K.E.; Thode, A.E., eds. Fire in California’s ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: 

University of California Press: 58–74.

Syphard, A.D.; Scheller, R.M.; Ward, B.C.; Spencer, W.D.; Strittholt, J.R. 

2011. Simulating landscape-scale effects of fuels treatments in the Sierra 

Nevada, California, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 20(3): 364–383.
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Taylor, A.H. 2000. Fire regimes and forest changes in mid and upper montane 

forests of the southern Cascades, Lassen Volcanic National Park, California, 

USA. Journal of Biogeography. 27(1): 87–104.

Taylor, A.H.; Skinner, C.N. 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a latesuccessional reserve, Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 111(2–3): 285–301.

Taylor, A.H.; Skinner, C.N. 2003. Spatial patterns and controls on historical fire 

regimes and forest structure in the Klamath Mountains. Ecological Applications. 

13(3): 704–719.

Thompson, C.M.; Zielinski, W.J.; Purcell, K.L. 2011. Evaluating management 

risks using landscape trajectory analysis: a case study of California fisher. 

Journal of Wildlife Management. 75(5): 1164–1176.

van Mantgem, P.J.; Stephenson, N.L.; Byrne, J.C.; Daniels, L.D.; Franklin, 

J.F.; Fulé, P.Z.; Harmon, M.E.; Larson, A.J.; Smith, J.M.; Taylor, A.H.; 

Veblen, T.T. 2009. Widespread increase of tree mortality rates in the western 

United States. Science. 323(5913): 521–524.

Vander Zanden, M.J.; Chandra, S.; Allen, B.C.; Reuter, J.E.; Goldman, 

C.R. 2003. Historical food web structure and restoration of native aquatic 

communities in the Lake Tahoe (California-Nevada) basin. Ecosystems. 6(3): 

274–288.

Venn, T.J.; Calkin, D.E. 2009. Challenges of socio-economically evaluating 

wildfire management on non-industrial private and public forestland in the 

western United States. Small-Scale Forestry. 8: 43–61.

Weatherspoon, C.P.; Skinner, C.N. 1996. Landscape-level strategies for forest 

fuel management. In: SNEP Science Team and Special Consultants, eds. Status 

of the Sierra Nevada, Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress. 

Vol. I: Assessment summaries and management strategies. Report No. 36. Davis, 

CA: Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California–Davis: 

1471–1492. Chapter 7.

Westerling, A.; Bryant, B.; Preisler, H.; Holmes, T.; Hidalgo, H.; Das, T.; 

Shrestha, S. 2011. Climate change and growth scenarios for California wildfire. 

Climatic Change. 109(S1): 445–463.

Winford, E.M.; Gaither, J.C. 2012. Carbon outcomes from fuels treatment 

and bioenergy production in a Sierra Nevada forest. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 282: 1–9.
55

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Malcolm North,1 Brandon Collins,2 John Keane,3 Jonathan W. Long,4 Carl 

Skinner,5 and Bill Zielinski6

This synopsis presents three integrated themes that emerged from synthesizing 

information about biological resources. These themes become particularly 

important when managing forests to promote resilience at large landscape scales 

and long timeframes. This synopsis summarizes ideas in the longer chapter 1.2, 

“Integrative Approaches: Promoting Socioecological Resilience,” by using a concise 

style in which definitions, citations, and elaboration of some key points are included 

in endnotes.

The emergent theme for promoting resilience is working with and adapting to 

dynamic ecological processes at broader scales. From this broad perspective, two 

integral concepts emerge: (1) restoring fire as an ecological process, and (2) reducing fire hazard while sustaining wildlife habitat and restoring riparian ecosystems. 

Implementing and testing these concepts may require establishing the proposed 

demonstration landscapes. 

Management practices based upon these concepts would also be improved by 

considering potential effects on economic, social, and cultural components. Questions that are particularly important for integrating socioecological components 

include how to select appropriate scales for planning in particular areas (see Cheng 

and Daniels [2003] and chapter 9.1, “Broader Context for Social, Economic, and Cultural Components”); how to design forest treatments in ways that benefit local communities (see chapter 9.4, “Strategies for Job Creation Through Forest Management,” 

and 9.5, “Managing Forest Products for Community Benefit”); and how to consider 

local and traditional ecological knowledge and promote participation in monitoring 

programs (see chapter 9.6, “Collaboration in National Forest Management”).

1 Research plant ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.

2 Research fire ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.

3 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.

4 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr. Davis, CA 95618.

5 Geographer (emeritus), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002.

6 Research wildlife biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, 1700 Bayview Dr., Arcata, CA 95521.

Chapter 1.3—Synopsis of Emergent Approaches
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Managing Forests for Resilience 

Increasing forest resilience7 in the Sierra Nevada will require management strategies that work with and adapt to dynamic ecological processes at broader scales. 

Current practices often concentrate on containing fire, sustaining large trees, and 

preserving wildlife habitat, in an attempt to maintain stasis with stand-level management. This approach is fundamentally at odds with dynamics in fire-dependent 

forests and will constrain rather than facilitate an adaptive response to climate 

change. Management actions might be better guided by evaluating how well they 

restore heterogeneous forest conditions that are congruent with how site productivity and historical fire intensity affected local growth and mortality.8

Many ecosystems processes9 are complex and difficult to measure, compelling 

resource managers and scientists to use surrogate assessments, such as structural 

condition or indicator species presence. Forest management in the Sierra Nevada has 

often applied indicators derived from other forest ecosystems, particularly the Pacific 

Northwest, such as old-growth forest characteristics and spotted owl viability.10

7 Definitions of resilience have evolved as the concept has been adopted and more widely 

employed in ecology (e.g., Folke et al. 2004; Holling 1973, 2010; Walker et al. 2004; 

see chapter 1.0, “Introduction,” for this synthesis).

8 Recent research (Falk et al. 2006a) has stressed that restoration efforts should first assess 

whether structure, composition, or process measurements may provide the most efficient, albeit 

indirect, measure of ecosystem condition. A pattern in ecosystems with frequent disturbance 

regimes (e.g., fluvial plains, fire-dependent forests) is that measurements of disturbance 

processes are often the most effective metrics of restoration (Falk et al. 2006b).

9 Ecological processes can be both biotic (e.g., competition, growth, nutrient cycling, etc.) and 

abiotic (e.g., fire, erosion, flooding, etc.). A general definition is “the physical, chemical and 

biological actions or events that link organisms and their environment.” In many Sierra Nevada 

forests, the processes that appear to most strongly influence forest structure and composition 

are fire and site productivity (Lydersen and North 2012). Managing forests so that the conditions produced are congruent with these two processes is likely to maintain and restore other 

ecosystem processes that are much more difficult to assess.

10 Management practices in the Pacific Northwest such as clearcutting have truncated forest 

seral stages, largely eliminating the long disturbance-free period of old forest conditions. This 

reduced the amount of forest containing large structures and deep, multilayered canopies, 

putting those conditions and the species associated with them at risk. Management practices in 

the Sierra Nevada also reduced the number of large trees in many areas, raising concerns for 

sensitive species associated with these stand attributes. Practices in the Sierra Nevada, however, 

often did not remove all large, old structures or completely reset forest seral stage. Perhaps a 

more pervasive management impact has been largely eliminating low-intensity fire, putting 

frequent change and the forest heterogeneity it produced at risk. The seral stage most imperiled 

in Sierra Nevada forests is that created by frequent, low-intensity fire.

 Managers and scientists still have much to learn about frequent-fire forests in the Sierra 

Nevada by looking to active-fire regime landscapes within its borders (e.g., Illilouette Basin in 

Yosemite National Park, Sugarloaf Basin of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Beaver 

Creek Pinery in the Ishi Wilderness) (Collins et al. 2007, 2008; Collins and Stephens 2010; 

Taylor 2010) and to the south (i.e., Sierra San Pedro Mártir in Mexico) (Stephens 2004, Stephens 

and Fry 2005, Stephens and Gill 2005, Stephens et al. 2007). The research that has come from 

these areas is probably more directly applicable to Sierra Nevada forest dynamics than is some 

of the information from the infrequent disturbance and relatively mesic conditions of Pacific 

Northwest forests west of the Cascade Range. 
57

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Indicators from other regions, such as old forests in the Pacific Northwest, which 

have profoundly different disturbance regimes and climate, are unlikely to be 

congruent with the reference heterogeneity and dynamism of Sierra Nevada forests. 

Because current old growth and spotted owl nesting habitat will change, proactive 

management can plan for creating these conditions in future forest landscapes. 

An emphasis on these indicators has often focused management at the stand 

scale, which can then get bogged down in identifying optimal forest structure on an 

acre-by-acre basis. Terrestrial treatments at fine scales may also be insufficient for 

addressing watershed and aquatic ecosystem processes on a scale effective for restoration. When desired habitat is managed at the scale of individual parcels, it can 

lose sight of the major ecological processes (e.g., growth, mortality, disturbance) 

that will continue to shape the larger landscape. These dynamics can render forest 

plans with static structural and habitat goals obsolete by the time they complete 

public and administrative review.11 The new planning rule directs national forests 

to embrace and accommodate ecosystem change.12

Research suggests that a prudent approach may be to increase forest landscape 

heterogeneity at multiple scales with management practices that promote the 

structure and composition that might have been produced by historical, frequent fire 

disturbance.13 Sierra Nevada managers have been experimenting with principles 

from PSW-GTR-220 (North et al. 2009), such as using existing stand conditions 

and topography as a template to vary treatments while meeting fire hazard reduction, wildlife habitat, and forest restoration objectives. This approach is consistent 

with recent research showing that topography, site productivity, and fire history 

interact to influence burn intensity and forest heterogeneity.14 Many modern forests 

are relatively homogenous, with much higher stem density and canopy cover than 

11 Wildfire, beetle mortality, and drought stress often change forest condition, but change 

in wildlife habitat designations do not always follow suit. For example, managers cannot 

decommission or retire PACs once they are established if there has not been “significant” 

change to the habitat, even if the PAC becomes unoccupied by owls. There is currently 

no threshold that defines “significant” change, leaving it unclear whether the designation 

should remain after moderate changes to habitat conditions that are common in dynamic 

ecosystems.

12 Final Planning Rule, Section 219.8 (Sustainability): “The plan must provide for social, 

economic, and ecological sustainability within Forest Service authority and consistent with 

the inherent capability of the plan area, as follows... iv) System drivers, including dominant ecological processes, disturbance regimes, and stressors, such as natural succession, 

wildland fire, invasive species, and climate change; and the ability of terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems on the plan area to adapt to change.”

13 See North et al. (2009) and North (2012). 

14 See Lydersen and North (2012). 

Indicators from other 

regions, such as old 

forests in the Pacific 

Northwest, which 

have profoundly 

different disturbance 

regimes and climate, 

are unlikely to be 

congruent with the 

reference heterogeneity 

and dynamism of Sierra 

Nevada forests.
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

existed under an active fire regime.15 Unless treated, these conditions will limit 

forest resilience to drought and climate change. Management activities that reduce 

stem density and move forests toward the range of conditions that would result from 

natural interactions between frequent fire and varying site productivity are likely 

to improve landscape resilience to both acute (e.g., high-severity wildfire, drought, 

etc.) and chronic disturbances (e.g., understory burning, climate change, bark 

beetles, air pollution, etc.).16

Management Implications

• Forests managed to be congruent with what potential fire behavior and 

site productivity would produce will be more in sync with the two dominant processes—growth and mortality—that fundamentally shape Sierra 

Nevada forests.17

• Practices suggested in PSW-GTR-220 and discussed in PSW-GTR-237 

may help create these conditions and increase the landscape heterogeneity 

needed for resilient terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Restoring Fire as an Ecological Process

Wildfire is a major catalyst through which the effects of a changing climate will be 

expressed (fig. 1). Managing fire in contemporary forests riddled with human development has significant risks. Notwithstanding these concerns, restoration of fire as 

an ecological process is the most efficient means of promoting forest resilience and 

rejuvenating aquatic habitat in much of the Sierra Nevada. In addition, there are 

large portions of wildland landscapes (e.g., steep slopes, wilderness, roadless areas, 

etc.) where mechanical treatment is infeasible. Thinning will be a substantial component of forest treatments; however, it is important to consider how fire might be used 

15 An example: by one estimate (Forest Service Westcore data), tree density on Forest 

Service land averages 280 stems/ac. In contrast, Lydersen and North (2012) found stem 

densities ranging from 45 to 134 stems/ac on ridge and lower slope stands, respectively, in 

old-growth mixed conifer with restored fire regimes. They also found canopy cover ranged 

from 19 to 49 percent on ridges and midslope stands, respectively. We are not aware of any 

estimate of average canopy cover for the Sierra Nevada, but observation suggests current 

conditions are usually much higher and lack spatial variability.

16 Betancourt (2012) suggested that landscape heterogeneity decreases the probability of 

synchronous high-intensity disturbance over large scales. In frequent-fire forests, some 

processes (e.g., seed dispersal and microclimate amelioration) and forest conditions (plant 

and animals that require undisturbed refugia) may not be resilient to large increases in the 

patch size of high-severity fire.

17 There is not a single structural condition that would always be produced by a set fire 

behavior. Rather, variation in weather and fuel conditions at the time of burn is likely to 

produce a range of outcomes that would give management general bounds within which to 

define a desired condition. 

Restoration of fire as 

an ecological process 

is the most efficient 

means of promoting 

forest resilience and 

rejuvenating aquatic 

habitat in much of the 

Sierra Nevada.
59

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

rather than preemptively dismissing it as impractical. To increase the pace and scale 

of fuels reduction and forest restoration, management may need to enlarge project 

areas and incorporate fire at broad scales. This effort will involve expanding burn 

windows, and in some instances, targets for allowable fire-caused tree mortality.

Fire must be controlled in areas near homes, but in much of the forested 

wildlands, there are opportunities for wider use of fire for fuels reduction and 

forest restoration. Current rates of fuels reduction, even when wildfire is included 

regardless of severity, treat less than 20 percent of the area that may have burned 

historically each year in the Sierra Nevada.18 Research suggests that outside of the 

wildland urban interface19 (WUI) a more practical objective is to reduce adverse 

18 See North et al. (2012).

19 In the Healthy Forests Restoration Action of 2003, the WUI is defined as up to 1.5 mi 

from communities at risk or as defined in individual community fire protection plans.

Figure 1—2008 wildfire in the Marble Mountain Wilderness that had a range of fire severities creating postburn heterogeneity.

Malcolm North
60

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

fire effects and intensity rather than occurrence and size.20 A recent comparison 

of fire severity and size between Forest Service and Yosemite National Park lands 

found that the park’s policy of allowing most lightning fires to burn relatively 

unimpeded under a range of fire weather conditions had achieved fire patterns 

that were closer to desired historical conditions.21 The pace, scale, and restoration 

benefits of fire would be significantly increased if national forests identified large, 

contiguous blocks of forest to be treated, and then moved these blocks out of fire 

suppression to be maintained with prescribed and managed wildfire (fig. 2).22

Outside of the WUI, forests could be zoned for a range of wildfire responses 

consistent with desired effects and made a priority for managed fire use.23 More 

creative and flexible ways of working with fire could help achieve restoration 

objectives. Greater use of wildland fire will require continued interagency 

coordination (especially between land management and air quality regulatory 

agencies), strategic monitoring, robust science-management partnerships, and 

increased support of fire management programs from agency leadership and 

the general public. Approaches that focus primarily on containing fire through 

suppression, regardless of burning conditions, sacrifice opportunities for using fire 

for ecological benefits and promise more dangerous and more destructive fires in 

the future.

20 See Reinhardt et al. (2008).

21 See Miller et al. (2012).

22 Recent research (Ager et al. 2012b, 2013) has developed models for optimizing fuels 

treatment locations across a landscape to facilitate managed wildfire and prescribed fire 

use, rather than the traditional allocation designed to aid suppression. 

23 Dellasala et al. (2004) suggested a comparable three-zone approach.

Figure 2—Variable forest structure produced by a restored fire regime in Sugarloaf Valley, Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park.

Marc Meyers

The pace, scale, and 

restoration benefits 

of fire would be 

significantly increased 

if national forests 

identified large, 

contiguous blocks of 

forest to be treated, 

and then moved 

these blocks out 

of fire suppression 

to be maintained 

with prescribed and 

managed wildfire.
61

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Management Implications

• In mid-elevation forests, use of frequent, low- and moderate-intensity fire is 

the most effective management practice for restoring forest resilience in the 

advent of climate change. Treatment prescriptions could often be guided by 

what is needed to restore fire to the area. 

• Outside of the WUI, each national forest could zone areas for different 

fire responses (e.g., let burn and monitor, containment but not suppression, 

allow surface but not crown fire, etc.) under specified weather percentile 

conditions.

• More remote firesheds could be identified, fuels treated in strategic 

locations, and desired conditions maintained by prescribed fire and 

managed wildfire.

Demonstration Landscapes for Reconciling Fuels 

Treatment, Wildlife Habitat, and Riparian Restoration

Current practices and regulations make it difficult to manage forested landscapes 

for broad-scale processes. Forest planning often involves a patchwork of designations; for example, the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment includes protected 

activity centers, habitat conservation areas, and riparian conservation areas) within 

which forest practices are limited. Management decisions under these constraints 

often becomes triage, with treatments opportunistically targeting forests with the 

highest fuel loads that do not face operational or stakeholder barriers. Proactive, 

integrated landscape management will be needed to effectively reduce fire hazard 

while providing immediate and long-term wildlife habitat and restoring riparian 

ecosystems. Exploring this may require relaxing some of the constraints, on an 

experimental basis, in demonstration areas. The intent is to test how habitat for 

sensitive species can be maintained and improved across a landscape without using 

spatially explicit protection or buffer areas. To date, management and research have 

not collaborated and experimented on the scale needed to examine how treatments 

that promote forest resilience can be reconciled with the provision of sensitive species habitat and riparian restoration. Without taking that step, it may be impossible 

to effectively manage Sierra Nevada forests at a scale that is consistent with some 

species habitat use patterns or the ecological processes inherent in these forests. 

The body of research, much of it recent, supports this approach and provides a 

solid foundation for moving forward. Demonstration landscapes might be identified where a collaborative team would define a desired condition, and management 

would be planned and implemented at a broad scale while relaxing constraints on 

current forest practice designations.
62

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Recent success with several collaborative projects in the Sierra Nevada suggests 

some institutional structures that may facilitate success. First, effective broadscale management efforts could be based on a collaborative process.24 A key to 

successful collaboration is that participants define a desired condition and identify 

immediate and long-term objectives.25 Second, science-based monitoring and its 

active incorporation in adjusting management practices are essential both for course 

correction and as a means of building trust and cooperation. A third guideline is 

the inclusion of rural community concerns and economic factors in decisionmaking. Landscape management requires public support, and for long-term viability, a 

self-sustaining economic base. Projects that cultivate stakeholder and community 

involvement, and plan for generating sufficient revenue to support long-term management objectives, could weather shrinking budgets and steadily fund monitoring 

that better accomplishes broad-scale restoration.

Although principles in PSW-GTR-220 suggest a general approach (North et al. 

2009), optimal management of a landscape for all wildlife species while reducing 

fire hazards is still in a developmental stage. Current policy focuses on sensitive 

species and is weighted toward maintaining and creating high canopy cover, oldforest conditions. This fine-filter approach does not adequately consider the habitat 

needs of a broader range of species and the shifting dynamics in frequent-fire 

forests. Management actions aimed at restoration of dynamic, broad-scale processes 

that produce a range of vegetation conditions similar to those under which Sierra 

Nevada ecosystems evolved should help to conserve coarse-scale terrestrial and 

aquatic biodiversity. For terrestrial wildlife, this approach would include developing 

variable habitat conditions for species associated with different seral stages, from 

primary disturbance conditions (i.e., black-backed woodpecker and postfire habitatassociated species), to early succession (fox sparrow, deer, etc.), through old-forest 

conditions, and the diversity of prey species upon which top trophic predators 

depend. For riparian ecosystems, reductions in forest density and judicious fire 

24 Collaborative teams by definition strive for consensus. However, it is not always possible 

to get 100-percent agreement. Effective and efficient collaboration may hinge on eventually 

voting on some issues and then moving forward following the majority’s intent (Bartlett 

2012).

25 There are several collaborative groups that have made significant progress and can 

provide practical lessons, including all three collaborative forest landscape restoration 

programs, the Dinkey Landscape Restoration, the Amador-Calaveras Consensus Group 

Cornerstone, and the Burney-Hat Creek Basin. Sagehen Experimental Forest has also 

had tremendous success with its collaborative efforts, including the implementation of 

demonstration plots to help visualize treatment options. 

Management actions 

aimed at restoration 

of dynamic, broadscale processes that 

produce a range of 

vegetation conditions 

similar to those 

under which Sierra 

Nevada ecosystems 

evolved should help to 

conserve coarse-scale 

terrestrial and aquatic 

biodiversity. 
63

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Box 1.3-1

An Adaptive Management Proposal to Evaluate Tolerance 

by Fishers for Disturbance

A reasonable hypothesis to be tested in an adaptive management framework is 

whether fishers can tolerate fuels treatments up to the levels that may be needed 

to reduce risk of uncharacteristically severe wildfire at the landscape scale. 

Fishers have evolved with the effects of fire on their habitat, yet it is uncertain 

how much disturbance via fire and fuels treatment they may tolerate. Researchers on the Sierra National Forest,26 however, have surveyed multiple study areas 

equivalent to the average size of a female fisher home range (approximately 

13 km2

 [5 mi2]) and evaluated the percentage of those areas that were covered 

by treatments, including a combination of prescribed fire, thinning, salvage 

logging, and other forms of timber harvest, over 3-year periods (a reasonable 

estimate of fisher generation time). Evaluation of these data could suggest levels 

of treatment per year that might be tolerated by fisher, and those levels could be 

compared to the areas that modeling results suggest need to be treated to reduce 

the likelihood of unacceptably large, high-intensity fires (10 to 25 percent of 

a landscape over a 5- to 10-year period) (Ager et al. 2007, 2010; Finney et al. 

2007; Schmidt et al. 2008; Syphard et al. 2011). To be cautious, the area treated 

should account for the relative suitability of habitat patches as well as their contribution to fisher habitat conditions within the local area. For example, impacts 

to fishers may be too great if treatments target important patch types in a poor 

quality home-range area; this is in contrast to treatments that target less important habitat patches in a higher quality home-range area. This approach remains 

a hypothesis to be tested, but the proposed rate and extent of disturbance in 

fisher habitat may permit the coexistence of fishers with a rate of application of 

fuels treatments that will also protect their habitat from loss from high-intensity 

fire. Fishers may tolerate such a rate, especially because the fraction of the landscape needed to reduce wildfire risk may only partially coincide with occupied 

fisher areas. It is important to caution, however, that this proposal represents the 

desire to create a starting point for collecting new information that can evaluate 

its merit. This proposed guideline needs to be tested in an adaptive management 

framework and to be integrated with other emergent approaches.

26 Thompson, C.M.; Purcell, K.L. 2013. Unpublished data from fisher study. On file 

with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 2081 E. Sierra Avenue, Fresno, CA 93710-4639.
64

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

use27 could enhance soil water balance and help restore stream microclimate, 

nutrient, and sediment processes that support aquatic diversity. The heterogeneity 

of conditions within Sierra Nevada riparian areas suggests delineating riparian 

management zones using scalable widths based upon soil moisture, geomorphic 

settings, and other local landscape characteristics. 

As forest management strategies place more emphasis on a coarse-filter 

approach to biodiversity, sensitive species populations presently at risk still need to 

be maintained or increased. Monitoring of sensitive species while treatments are 

implemented would help to evaluate impacts and provide for course corrections (see 

box 1.3-1 for a suggested approach in fisher habitat). Recently developed fisher and 

spotted owl habitat models28 can be used to evaluate different management alternatives and their expected influence on current and future habitat conditions. These 

analyses would include designing and maintaining habitat connectivity29 across a 

dynamically changing landscape. 

Management Implications: Demonstration Landscapes

• Establish demonstration landscapes with an objective of restoring ecological processes and resilience while maintaining safeguards to minimize the 

loss of ecosystem services and habitat in the short term.

• When necessary, constraints on management practices from land use designations could be relaxed to achieve landscape resilience objectives. These 

practices would be considered experimental and subject to initial evaluation 

against the best available sensitive species habitat and fire behavior models, 

and longer term evaluation from monitoring results.

27 Recent research suggests that riparian forests on many first- and second-order streams in 

the Sierra Nevada may have had fire regimes comparable to adjacent uplands (van de Water 

and North 2010, 2011). This reinforces the idea that riparian areas should not be set aside 

when designing landscape-level treatments. 

28 See Ager et al. (2012a), Gaines et al. (2010), Thompson et al. (2011), and Zielinski et al. 

(2010). 

29 Forest conditions that facilitate landscape connectivity vary between species, making 

it difficult to plan and manage “corridors” for an array of wildlife. Riparian areas have an 

important function as corridors, as research suggests that even under an active fire regime, 

historical riparian forests had higher stem density and canopy cover than upland forests 

(van de Water and North 2011). To maintain this high-cover corridor and avoid wildfire 

wicking, riparian forests could become a priority for light fuels treatment (i.e., surface and 

small ladder fuels). A more sophisticated approach, albeit focused on forest carnivores, is 

the multiple species habitat connectivity modeling that is nearing completion (collectively 

for Pacific fisher, marten, wolverine, and Sierra Nevada red fox) (Spencer and RustigianRomsos 2012). This effort received input, over several years, from species and connectivity 

modeling experts. Another more explicit modeling approach of note is the California 

Essential Habitat Connectivity Project (Spencer et al. 2010), which produced a coarse level 

of wildlife connectivity statewide.

Practices in demonstration landscapes 

would be considered 

experimental and subject to initial evaluation 

against the best available sensitive species 

habitat and fire behavior models, and longer 

term evaluation from 

monitoring results.
65

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

• Demonstration landscape boundaries could be identified based on fireshed 

concepts (i.e., 100,000 to 200,000 ac in size) to be consistent with the scale 

of the dominant process, fire.30

• These landscapes might be established in areas with extensive ongoing 

monitoring or research (e.g., spotted owl demographic study areas, southern 

Sierra fisher occupancy monitoring area, instrumented watersheds, etc. [see 

fig. 1 in chapter 1.5]). This strategic placement would significantly reduce 

costs and “startup” time because long-term baseline data are available at 

these sites.

• Desirable locations could include places without large WUIs or checkerboard ownership; places near wilderness or National Park Service lands to 

provide a buffer for species and a comparison landscape with less intensive active management. Once located, strong commitment and innovation 

would be needed from local Forest Service leadership. 

• Create a collaborative team among managers (including the Regional 

Ecology program), stakeholders, and research scientists to develop a desired 

condition for the demonstration landscape and a science-based, questiondriven monitoring program31 to inform and modify management with 

updated information.

30 The primary intent is to manage the entire landscape to a condition where it is resilient to 

ecosystem stress, particularly fire, drought, and large bark beetle infestations. Widespread 

reintroduction of fire is the best means to build this resilience. All areas in the landscape 

could be managed collectively to achieve landscape-level resilience, although some areas 

may not need active treatment. For example, an area that is too steep for mechanical 

treatment and has low or moderate fuel loads may not currently be a priority for treatment, 

but it could be included within plans for managed wildfire or an adjacent prescribed fire. 

Similarly, some areas that are naturally more resilient owing to their moist conditions or 

shaded aspects (i.e., north- and east-facing slopes and some riparian areas) may also not be 

priorities for treatment.

31 The science-based, question-driven monitoring program in Appendix E of the Sierra 

Nevada Framework could be updated to more fully address the social dimensions of 

socioecological resilience. Monitoring that evaluates the effects of management decisions 

on socioecological resilience might (1) reflect relevant ecological, social, and economic 

processes in a “triple bottom line” framework; (2) use metrics that are quantifiable, reasonably available to managers, and within the scope of management influence; (3) incorporate 

concerns of scientists, managers, and local experts; and (4) be linked to potential changes 

in management based upon the results of monitoring.

 Monitoring plans could be centered on a coarse-filter approach to evaluate landscapescale habitat patterns and ecological processes, but could include some fine-filter 

monitoring to ensure that at-risk species are being conserved. Integrating modeling with 

monitoring of field conditions could help evaluate how ecosystems are changing at broad 

scales where experimentation may be impractical. Modeling would be an important component of developing and adjusting an adaptive management strategy. Predictive habitat 

models could be integrated with silvicultural and fire models. Tradeoffs between treating 

new areas and maintaining existing areas would need to be considered using models to 

account for costs of treatment, changing fire conditions, and other factors.
66

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

• Planning for desired conditions accounts for long-term, large-scale context. 

Objectives for smaller areas, such as stands or stream reaches, are identified 

in the context of the entire landscape and over a long timeframe (e.g., see 

sidebar in chapter 2.1, “Forest Ecology”). 

• As a general treatment implementation guide, models in fire (FARSITE/

FlamMap), wildlife (fisher and owl habitat trajectory), and forest restoration 

(PSW-GTR-237 ArcGIS LMU macro) could be used to project and plan 

future conditions.

• Use prescribed fire and managed wildfire wherever possible to most 

effectively achieve or maintain ecosystem resilience. 

• For long-term sustainability, many projects would need to generate their 

own revenue and support local economies. Without compromising ecological integrity, economic and social factors need to be explicitly included in 

planning, monitoring, and management to ensure long-term viability.

Literature Cited

Ager, A.A.; Finney, M.A.; Kerns, B.K.; Maffei, H. 2007. Modeling fire risk to 

northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) habitat in central Oregon, USA. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 246: 45–56.

Ager, A.A.; Vaillant, N.M.; Finney, M.A. 2010. A comparison of landscape fuel 

treatment strategies to mitigate wildland fire risk in the urban interface and 

preserve old forest structure. Forest Ecology and Management. 259: 1556–1570.

Ager, A.A.; Vaillant, N.M.; Finney, M.A.; Preisler, H.K. 2012a. Analyzing 

wildfire exposure and source-sink relationships on a fire prone forest landscape. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 267: 271–283.

Ager, A.A.; Vaillant, N.M.; McMahan, A. 2013. Restoration of fire in managed 

forests: a model to prioritize landscapes and analyze tradeoffs. Ecosphere. 4: 29. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00007.1. (4 August 2014).

Ager, A.A.; Vaillant, N.M.; Owens, D.E.; Brittain, S.; Hamann, J. 2012b.

Overview and example application of the Landscape Treatment Designer. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-859. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 11 p.

Bartlett, G. 2012. Developing collaboration and cooperation. In: North, M., ed. 

Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station: 81–88. Chapter 8.
67

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Betancourt, J.L. 2012. Reflections on the relevance of history in a nonstationary 

world. In: Wiens, J.A.; Hayward, G.D.; Safford, H.D.; Giffen, C.M., eds. 

Historical environmental variation in conservation and natural resource 

management. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons: 307–318.

Cheng, A.S.; Daniels, S.E. 2003. Examining the interaction between geographic 

scale and ways of knowing in ecosystem management: A case study of placebased collaborative planning. Forest Science. 49(6): 841–854.

Collins, B,M.; Kelly, M.; van Wagtendonk, J.; Stephens, S.L. 2007. Spatial 

patterns of large natural fires in Sierra Nevada wilderness areas. Landscape 

Ecology. 22: 545–557. 

Collins, B.M.; Miller, J.D.; Thode, A.E.; Kelly, M.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; 

Stephens, S.L. 2008. Interactions among wildland fires in a long-established 

Sierra Nevada natural fire area. Ecosystems. 12: 114–128.

Collins, B.M.; Stephens, S.L. 2010. Stand-replacing patches within a mixed 

severity fire regime: quantitative characterization using recent fires in a longestablished natural fire area. Landscape Ecology. 25: 927–939.

Dellasala, D.A.; Williams, J.E.; Williams, C.D.; Franklin, J.F. 2004. Beyond 

smoke and mirrors: a synthesis of fire policy and science. Conservation Biology. 

18: 976–986.

Falk, D.A.; Palmer, M.A.; Zelder, J.B. 2006a. Foundations of restoration ecology. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 363 p.

Falk, D.A.; Palmer, M.A.; Zelder, J.B. 2006b. Integrating ecological theory and 

restoration ecology: A synthesis. In: Falk, D.A.; Palmer, M.A.; Zelder, J.B., eds. 

Foundations of restoration ecology. Washington, DC: Island Press: 341–346.

Finney, M.A.; Seli, R.C.; McHugh, C.W.; Ager, A.A.; Bahro, B.; Agee, J.K. 

2007. Simulation of long-term landscape-level fuel treatment effects on large 

wildfires. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 16: 712–727.

Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Elmquvist, T.; Gunderson, 

L.; Holling, C.S. 2004. Regime shifts; resilience; and biodiversity in ecosystem 

management. Annual Review of Ecology and Evolution. 35: 557–581.

Gaines, W.L.; Harrod, R.J.; Dickinson, J.; Lyons, A.L.; Halupka, K. 2010. 

Integration of Northern spotted owl habitat and fuels treatments in eastern 

Cascades, Washington, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 260: 2045–2052.

Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003; 16 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.
68

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecosystems. Annual Review of 

Ecological Systems. 4: 1–23.

Holling, C.S. 2010. Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In: 

Gunderson, L.H.; Allen, C.R.; Holling, C.S., eds. Foundations of ecological 

reslience. Washington, DC: Island Press: 51–56.

Lydersen, J.; North, M. 2012. Topographic variation in structure of mixed-conifer 

forests under an active-fire regime. Ecosystems. 15: 1134–1146.

Miller, J.D.; Collins, B.M.; Lutz, J.A.; Stephens, S.L.; van Wagtendonk, 

J.W.; Yasuda, D.A. 2012. Differences in wildfires among ecoregions and land 

management agencies in the Sierra Nevada region, California, USA. Ecosphere. 

3: article 80.

North, M. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. 184 p.

North, M.; Collins, B.M.; Stephens, S.L. 2012. Using fire to increase the 

scale, benefits and future maintenance of fuels treatments. Journal of Forestry. 

110: 392–401.

North, M.; Stine, P.A.; O’Hara, K.L.; Zielinski, W.J.; Stephens, S.L. 2009. 

An ecosystems management strategy for Sierra mixed-conifer forests, with 

addendum. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49 p.

Reinhardt, E.D.; Keane, R.; Calkin, D.E.; Cohen, J.D. 2008. Objectives and 

considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior 

western United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 256: 1997–2006.

Schmidt, D.A.; Taylor, A.H.; Skinner, C.N. 2008. The influence of fuels 

treatment and landscape arrangement on simulated fire behavior, Southern 

Cascade range, California. Forest Ecology and Management. 255: 3170–3184.

Spencer, W.D.; Beier, P.; Penrod, K.; Winters, K.; Paulman, C.; RustigianRomsos, H.; Strittholt, J.; Parisi, M.; Pettler, A. 2010. California essential 

habitat connectivity project: a strategy for conserving a connected California. 

Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department 

of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration. 313 p. http://nrm.dfg.

ca.gov/FileHandler:ashx?Document ID=18366. (12 June 2014).
69

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Spencer, W.D.; Rustigian-Romsos, H. 2012. Decision-support maps and 

recommendations for conserving rare carnivores in the interior mountains 

of California. Corvallis, OR: Conservation Biology Institute. 49 p. http://

d2k78bk4kdhbpr.cloudfront.net/media/reports/files/Report_Decision-support_

maps_for_Sierra_Nevada_carnivores_8_21_12.pdf. (26 December 2013).

Stephens, S.L. 2004. Fuel loads, snag density, and snag recruitment in an 

unmanaged Jeffrey pine–mixed conifer forest in northwestern Mexico. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 199: 103–113.

Stephens, S.L.; Fry, D.L. 2005. Spatial distribution of regeneration patches in an 

old-growth Pinus jeffreyi-mixed conifer forest in northwestern Mexico. Journal 

of Vegetation Science. 16: 693–702.

Stephens, S.L.; Fry, D.L.; Franco-Vizcaino, E.; Collins, B.M.; Moghaddas, 

J.J. 2007. Coarse woody debris and canopy cover in an old-growth Jeffrey pine–

mixed conifer forest from the Sierra San Pedro Martir, Mexico. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 240: 87–95.

Stephens, S.L.; Gill, S.J. 2005. Forest structure and mortality in an old-growth 

Jeffrey pine-mixed conifer forest in north-western Mexico. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 205: 15–28.

Syphard, A.D.; Scheller, R.M.; Wards, B.C.; Spencer, W.D.; Strittholt, J.R. 

2011. Simulating landscape-scale effects of fuels treatments in the Sierra 

Nevada, California, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 20: 364–383

Taylor, A.H. 2010. Fire disturbance and forest structure in an old-growth Pinus 

ponderosa forest, southern Cascades, USA. Journal of Vegetation Science. 

21: 561–570.

Thompson, C.M.; Zielinski, W.J.; Purcell, K.L. 2011. The use of landscape 

trajectory analysis to evaluate management risks: a case study with the Pacific 

fisher in the Sierra National Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management. 

75: 1164–1176. 

Van de Water, K.; North, M. 2010. Fire history of coniferous riparian forests in 

the Sierra Nevada. Forest Ecology and Management. 260: 384–395.

Van de Water, K.; North, M. 2011. Stand structure, fuel loads, and fire behavior 

in riparian and upland forests, Sierra Nevada Mountains, USA; a comparison 

of current and reconstructed conditions. Forest Ecology and Management. 

262: 215–228.
70

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Walker, B.; Holling, C.S.; Carpenter, S.R.; Kinzig, A. 2004. Resilience; 

adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and 

Society. 9(2): article 5.

Zielinski, W.J.; Gray, A.; Dunk, J.R.; Keyser, C.; Sherlock, J.; Dixon, G. 2010.

Using forest inventory and analysis (FIA) data and the forest vegetation simulator 

(FVS) to predict wildlife habitat suitability: resting habitat for the fisher (Martes 

pennanti). Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-232. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 31 p.
71

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Angela Jardine1 and Jonathan Long2

Introduction

Changes in climate can interact with other stressors to transform ecosystems and 

alter the services those ecosystems provide. This synopsis presents themes that 

run through the synthesis report regarding the impacts of a changing climate on 

the forests and waters of the synthesis area as well as long-term, broad-scale, 

science-based strategies to promote system resilience to those impacts. Scientific 

observations of climate variations in air temperatures and precipitation (type and 

quantity) and their interactions have been directly linked to changes in stream flows 

(amount and timing), fires (frequency and severity), and ecosystem structure and 

function over the past several decades. Future climate scenarios suggest a strong 

likelihood for increased exposure of socioecological systems in the synthesis area 

to wildfire, droughts, intense storms, and other natural disturbances. Many of the 

social, economic, and cultural impacts of climate change are expected to be disproportionately greater on rural communities, natural resource-based communities, 

Native American communities, and groups with less financial resources to facilitate 

adaptation (see chapter 9.3, “Sociocultural Perspectives on Threats, Risks, and 

Health,” and Wear and Joyce [2012]). Well-synthesized information about strategic 

responses to climate change is available in the chapter on climate change in PSWGTR-237 (Safford et al. 2012) and the recent report Effects of Climatic Variability 

and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S. 

Forest Sector (Vose et al. 2012).

Observed and Predicted Climate Change in the 

Synthesis Area

Climate refers to the long-term weather patterns (i.e., precipitation, temperature, 

humidity, sunshine, wind velocity, fog, frost, and hail storms) for a given region. 

Climate dynamics are the products of a complex system that entails large natural 

variability on different temporal and spatial scales (Lucarini 2002). There is 

important climatic variation from north to south within the synthesis area, as well 

as east-west variation. Despite this complexity, there are several recent trends and 

projections that appear to be relatively consistent across climate change scenarios 

Chapter 1.4—Synopsis of Climate Change

1 Field research engineer and Ph.D. candidate, Programa Clima e Ambiente, Instituto 

Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia e Universidade do Estado do Amazonas, Manaus, 

Amazonas, Brazil. 

2 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.

Many of the social, 

economic, and cultural 

impacts of climate 

change are expected to 

be disproportionately 

greater on rural 

communities, 

natural resourcebased communities, 

Native American 

communities, and 

groups with less 

financial resources to 

facilitate adaptation.
72

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

and most parts of the synthesis area, including increased average annual and 

seasonal temperatures, increased length of freeze-free season and fire season, 

increased droughts, and increased storm severity (Das et al. 2011, Overpeck et al. 

2013, Safford et al. 2012).

Across the Southwestern United States (California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, 

Colorado, and New Mexico), temperatures since 1950 are reported to be the 

warmest in the past 600 years, with average daily temperatures in the most recent 

decade (2001–2010) being higher than any other decade since 1901 (the period of 

record used for a standardized comparison of the first decade of the 21st century 

to the entire record of the 20th century using the PRISM monthly gridded analysis 

dataset) (Hoerling 2013). Likewise, the spatial extent of drought from 2001 through 

2010 covered the second largest area observed for any decade since 1901, and total 

streamflows in the four major drainages of the Southwest (Sacramento/San Joaquin, 

Upper Colorado, Rio Grande, and Great Basin) fell 5 percent to 37 percent below 

the 20th-century averages during the 2001–2010 decade (Overpeck et al. 2013).

In the Sierra Nevada, warming temperatures since the 1980s are generally 

attributed to increasing nighttime minimum temperatures across the region; 

however, different elevations have experienced a range of temperature changes 

(Safford et al. 2012). For example, the annual number of days with below-freezing 

temperatures in higher elevations is decreasing, whereas the number of extreme 

heat days at lower elevations is increasing (Safford et al. 2012). Changing temperatures combined with elevation differences influence the type of precipitation 

received in the Sierra Nevada, which in turn greatly impacts regional hydrology and 

fire vulnerability.

Observations show an increase in the proportion of precipitation falling as 

rain instead of snow since the 1980s (Harpold et al. 2012, Safford et al. 2012). This 

change has manifested in spring snowpack decreases of at least 70 percent across 

the lower elevations of the northern Sierra Nevada, a trend that has not yet been 

observed in the higher elevation southern Sierra Nevada. By 2002, spring thaw and 

peak streamflows were occurring 1 to 4 weeks earlier than they had 50 years earlier 

in the central Sierra Nevada (Stewart et al. 2005). Such changes have extended 

the fire season in the Sierra Nevada, particularly in low- to mid-elevation conifer 

forests (Safford et al. 2012). A longer fire season, associated with earlier drying and 

more cured fuels, has been linked to increases in the size or intensity of wildfires 

across the Western United States in general and the Sierra Nevada and southern 

Cascade Range specifically (Miller and Safford 2012, Miller et al. 2012, Safford et 

al. 2012, Westerling et al. 2006). These changes are a primary concern for forest 

and water resource managers across the synthesis region. 
73

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

One of the most significant projected changes in climate for the synthesis area 

over the next century is an increase in average temperature by 2 to 4 °F (1.1 to 

2.2 °C) in the winter and double that amount in the summer (Safford et al. 2012). 

Changes in precipitation are less clear and may differ within the synthesis area 

(Safford et al. 2012). In the Sierra Nevada, models project a decrease in mountain 

snowpack of at least 20 percent and up to 90 percent over the next century (Safford 

et al. 2012). This prediction is a major concern for water resource managers, who 

are already trying to balance various demands for water during periods of low 

flows. These changes are associated with projected reductions in streamflow, especially during the spring, on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada, with greater 

impacts expected in the south (San Joaquin basin) than in the north (Sacramento 

basin) (VanRheenen et al. 2004). Flood potential is predicted to increase for highelevation, snow-fed streams owing to shifts toward earlier peak daily flows (driven 

by increasing temperatures), increases in the frequency and magnitude of storms, 

and an increased proportion of precipitation falling as rain instead of snow (Das 

et al. 2011, Overpeck et al. 2013, Safford et al. 2012). For the western slopes of the 

Sierra Nevada, wintertime “wet” floods are expected to become more frequent and 

intense, while spring and summer snowmelt floods are expected to become smaller 

(Das et al. 2011, Overpeck et al. 2013).

Despite uncertainty about changes in annual precipitation, many models suggest increases in area burned in the Sierra Nevada, particularly on the drier eastern 

side, even in scenarios when precipitation increases (Hayhoe et al. 2004, Krawchuk 

et al. 2009, Lenihan et al. 2008). Simulations also point to widespread conversion of 

conifer-dominated forest to mixed evergreen forest as broadleaved trees, especially 

oaks, and shrubs increase at lower elevations, extensive expansion of grassland 

vegetation (primarily via fire-driven conversion of woody vegetation), and to loss 

of alpine and subalpine vegetation at high elevations (Lenihan et al. 2008). Crimmins et al. (2011) noted that water balance, rather than temperature, drives changes 

in plant distributions, and that increases in precipitation in recent decades may be 

resulting in downhill as well as uphill expansion of some plant species. Their findings have resulted in some scientific debate (Dobrowski et al. 2011, Stephenson and 

Das 2011).

Although many of the datasets discussed above focus on measurements of 

climate over the past 100 years or so, it is important to consider longer term perspectives when considering potential impacts to ecosystems. Taking a long-term 

view allows distributions of plants and animals to be seen as constantly shifting 

along complex and variable gradients (Stine 2004). The ranges of species will tend 

to contract into refugia during unfavorable periods and expand outward under more 
74

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

favorable conditions. In response, scientists have proposed using soft boundaries 

and corridors for long-term management plans (Stine 2004). This approach was a 

driving force behind setting guidelines for conservation of the California spotted 

owl rather than adoption of reserves (Verner 1997). As an alternative to a reserve 

approach for conserving biodiversity in the face of environmental change, Davis et 

al. (1996) considered establishment of biodiversity management areas that would 

have multiple uses but maintain an emphasis on species conservation. Another 

finding from studies with long-term perspective is that aquatic ecosystems may be 

particularly affected by climate change, with the indigenous fauna being survivors 

from past droughts that strained those habitats (Stine 2004). However, key challenges facing the broader socioecological systems are how well those species, as 

well as human systems, can tolerate the impacts of climate change in combination 

with other stressors that have been introduced within the past two centuries.

Approaches to Promote Resilience to Climate Change

Chapter 1.2 summarizes strategic approaches to meet the challenges of promoting 

socioecological resilience. Current climate change impacts and those predicted 

to occur in the near and distant future challenge the ability to manage natural 

resources now and especially in the long term. The following points highlight 

concerns, strategic approaches, and research needs from various chapters of this 

science synthesis that focus on climate change. Readers are encouraged to review 

the chapters listed at the end of each example (and the references therein) for greater 

detail.

• Recognize and address scale mismatches—The temporal, spatial, and 

functional scales of management systems may not be well matched to the 

scales of environmental variation.

Figure 1—This red fir stand in the Illilouette Valley of Yosemite National Park has experienced multiple fires in recent decades. 

Marc Meyer
75

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Forest ecology research has concentrated on narrow spatial and temporal scales; 

however, effective planning for climate change should consider long temporal 

periods and large spatial scales to account for widespread changes in disturbance 

regimes. Designing treatments at larger scales allows strategies to better account for 

landscape-scale processes, such as wildfires and insect outbreaks, as well as species 

that have large ranges. (See chapter 1.2.) 

• Consider long-term (>50 years) risks in addition to short-term (<10 years) 

expected outcomes. 

Large old-forest structures, which provide vital habitat for a variety of fauna in 

the synthesis area, take decades or centuries to develop; landscape plans should promote recruitment of these habitat features and promote forest resilience by increasing growing space and reducing the risk of uncharacteristic high-intensity fire. (See 

chapters 2.1, “Forest Ecology;” 7.1, “The Forest Carnivores: Marten and Fisher;” 

and 7.2, “California Spotted Owl: Scientific Considerations for Forest Planning.”)

Many of the ecological services afforded by mountain meadows are threatened 

by a warming climate, and these vulnerabilities appear to be particularly high in 

several central Sierra Nevada watersheds, including the American, Mokelumne, 

Tuolumne, and Merced. Restoration efforts in these systems may help to delay 

runoff and increase summertime low flows. (See chapter 6.3, “Wet Meadows.”)

Post-wildfire flooding and debris flows can have significant downstream 

impacts, including accelerated filling of reservoirs and other effects on water supplies, as well as significant and lasting impacts on vulnerable and isolated aquatic 

populations (see chapter 6.1, “Watershed and Stream Ecosystems”). Because 

climate change is expected to increase the incidence of severe wildfire and possibly 

rainstorms, and because human populations are increasing, the threat posed by 

post-wildfire debris flows is expected to increase. Debris flows can be difficult to 

mitigate, and few options exist beyond reducing the potential for severe fires. (See 

chapter 4.3, “Post-Wildfire Management.”)

• Set adaptable objectives and revisit them, because there may be a lack of 

clear solutions, certain options may prove unrealistic, and new opportunities may become apparent as conditions change.

Eighty-five percent of known California spotted owl sites occur in moderate- or 

high-risk fire areas in the Sierra Nevada. Uncertainty exists regarding how increasing trends in the amounts and patch sizes of high-severity fire will affect California 

spotted owl occupancy, demographics, and habitat over longer timeframes. Barred 

owls have replaced or displaced northern spotted owls over large areas of their 

range. Management needs to consider effects of multiple stressors on at-risk spe-
76

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

cies, especially because conditions may change which options are prudent or 

feasible over time. (See chapter 7.2.)

Given expectations for climate change, increased use of prescribed fire and 

managed wildfire at large scales would help to restore resilience in many forests. 

(See chapter 1.3, “Synopsis of Emergent Approaches.”)

In the face of climate change, proactive conservation strategies for trout and 

amphibians should consider not only direct effects of climate, such as ameliorating 

high temperatures or low flows, but also reducing interactions with introduced species and other stressors. In some situations, there may be enhanced opportunities 

to deal with introduced species as climate change or wildfires alter conditions. (See 

chapters 6.1 and 6.4, “Lakes: Recent Research and Restoration Strategies.”)

Approaches to promote resilience following severe wildfires should consider 

landscape context and the changing climate to help to identify desired conditions, 

target treatments, and associated monitoring, and to identify species and genotypes 

appropriate for postfire planting efforts. (See chapters 3.1, “Genetics of Forest 

Trees,” and 4.3.)

• Rely more on process-based indicators than static indicators of structure and composition, while recognizing that restoration of structure 

and process must be integrated.

Sierra Nevada managers have been experimenting with PSW-GTR-220 principles, using topography as a template to vary treatments while meeting fire hazard 

reduction, wildlife habitat, and forest restoration objectives. Although climate 

change may be a chronic stressor, the catalyst through which its effects will likely 

be expressed is wildfire. (See chapter 1.3, “Synopsis of Emergent Approaches.”)

Manipulation of current forests to resemble historical forest conditions may 

not be the best long-term approach when considering future climates. In many 

places, such an approach may represent a useful short-term goal, but climates and 

climate-driven processes are heading in unprecedented directions. Given the likely 

novelty of future climates, a prudent approach for maintaining forest ecosystems 

is to restore key processes such as wildfire that have shaped forest ecosystems 

for millennia, and associated structure and composition that are resilient to those 

processes and aid in their restoration. (See chapter 4.1, “Fire and Fuels.”)

Climate patterns strongly influence soil development and nutrient cycling 

processes. As elevation and precipitation increase, soil pH and base saturation tend 

to decrease as a result of greater leaching and decreased evapotranspiration. (See 

chapter 5.1, “Soils.”)

Although climate 

change may be a 

chronic stressor, the 

catalyst through which 

its effects will be 

expressed is likely 

to be wildfire.
77

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Climate change effects on flood regimes could alter sediment storage in 

floodplains, terraces, and colluvial hollows, which would in turn influence channel 

stability. Climate change is also expected to diminish summer low flows that could 

threaten aquatic life, especially cold water species. (See chapter 6.1.)

Because foundational ecological processes, such as soil water storage and vegetation evapotranspiration, may not have explicit targets, there may be a tendency to 

undervalue—or even ignore—them in decisionmaking. Forest treatments have the 

potential to enhance system resilience to multiple stresses by reducing evapotranspiration and increasing soil water availability. In addition, such treatments have the 

potential to enhance the yield, quality, and timing of downstream water flows and 

resulting ecosystem services. (See chapter 6.1.)

• Integrate valuation tools, decisionmaking tools, modeling, monitoring, and, where appropriate, research to evaluate responses and better 

account for the risks and tradeoffs involved in management strategies.

Climate change may become a chronic stressor in red fir forests in the lower 

parts of their present distribution; reductions in the extent of true fir forests could 

be particularly detrimental to martens; consequently, the potential influence on 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem processes in the fir zone constitute an important 

cross-cutting research gap. (See chapters 1.5, “Research Gaps: Adaptive Management to Cross-Cutting Issues,” 2.1, and 7.1.) 

Post-wildfire management increasingly involves evaluating impacts of wildfire 

and potential benefits of treatment using decision support tools, developing broadscale and long-term restoration strategies to influence ecological trajectories and 

promote desired conditions; and to design and implement programs that feed back 

into adaptive management frameworks. (See chapter 4.3.)

There is broad consensus for using common garden experiments or provenance 

tests to prepare for projected conditions by better understanding how genetic 

variability can improve ecological restoration. (See chapter 3.1, “Genetics of 

Forest Trees.”)

Rigorous assessment of the effects of future climate change on spotted owls 

will require dynamic models that incorporate vegetation dynamics and effects of 

competitor species. (See chapter 7.2.)

Further research is needed to evaluate how nitrogen deposition and ozone 

affect carbon sequestration both aboveground and in the soil. This information will 

be critical to climate change mitigation efforts in the region. During severe fires, 

accumulated nitrogen in vegetation, litter, and surface soils will be released, and 

both thinning and prescribed fire can be used to proactively reduce the amount of 
78

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

plant matter available for combustion. However, long-term ecosystem protection 

and sustainability will ultimately depend on reductions in nitrogen deposition, and 

this is the only strategy that will protect epiphytic lichen communities. (See chapter 

8.1, “Air Quality.”)

• Consider the integrated nature of socioecological systems; approaches 

that address only one dimension of a problem are less likely to succeed in 

the long run than strategies that consider ecological, social, economic, and 

cultural components.

Addressing diverse viewpoints and perceptual divides regarding climate 

change by focusing on more immediate and local issues and potential impacts to 

public health and socioeconomic well-being, is important for generating support for 

mitigation and adaptation. (See chapter 9.3.)

Anticipated shifts in the hydrologic cycle are expected to detract from spring 

and summer water-based recreation and tourism, may reduce water supplies, and 

may increase risks of floods. These projections highlight the importance of advance 

planning as well as efforts to restore degraded systems so they will be less vulnerable. (See chapters 6.1; 6.3; 9.1, “Broader Context for Social, Economic and Cultural 

Components;” and 9.3, “Sociocultural Perspectives on Threats, Risks, and Health.”)

Adjusting management approaches based upon long-term monitoring and feedback loops becomes increasingly important as climate change induces effects on 

systems. (See chapters 9.1 and 9.6, “Collaboration in National Forest Management.”)

An important opportunity to mitigate climate change while promoting broader 

objectives lies in utilizing biomass generated from restorative forest treatments for 

energy production, especially in lieu of pile burning. (See chapter 9.5, “Managing 

Forest Products for Community Benefit.”)

• Use participatory and collaborative approaches to facilitate adaptive 

responses and social learning.

Rural communities in the United States tend to be more vulnerable to climate 

change than urban communities, and people residing in the wildland-urban interface are particularly vulnerable to fire, making the concept of community resilience 

especially relevant in these contexts because of its focus on a community’s ability to 

cope with change. (See chapter 9.4, “Strategies for Job Creation Through National 

Forest Management.”)

Interactions with holders of traditional and local ecological knowledge could be 

particularly valuable in understanding impacts of climate change. (See chapters 4.2, 

“Fire and Tribal Cultural Resources,” and 9.6.)
79

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Science-management partnerships can facilitate dissemination of scientific 

information to help confront the challenges associated with climate change (see 

chapter 1.2, “Integrative Approaches: Promoting Socioecological Resilience”). 

The California Landscape Conservation Cooperative (CA LCC) is an example of 

a partnership that aims to address impacts of climate change and has held recent 

workshops for the synthesis area.

Literature Cited

Crimmins, S.M.; Dobrowski, S.Z.; Greenberg, J.A.; Abatzoglou, J.T.; 

Mynsberge, A.R. 2011. Changes in climatic water balance drive downhill shifts 

in plant species’ optimum elevations. Science. 331(6015): 324–327.

Das, T.; Dettinger, M.; Cayan, D.; Hidalgo, H. 2011. Potential increase in floods 

in California’s Sierra Nevada under future climate projections. Climatic Change. 

109(1): 71–94.

Davis, F.W.; Stoms, D.M.; Church, R.L.; Okin, W.J.; Johnson, K.N. 1996. 

Selecting biodiversity management areas. In: SNEP Science Team and Special 

Consultants, eds. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress. 

Vol. II: assessments and scientific basis for management options. Report No. 37. 

Davis, CA: Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California–

Davis: 1503–1522.

Dobrowski, S.Z.; Crimmins, S.M.; Greenberg, J.A.; Abatzoglou, J.T.; 

Mynsberge, A.R. 2011. Response to comments on “Changes in climatic water 

balance drive downhill shifts in plant species’ optimum elevations.” Science. 

334(6053): 177.

Harpold, A.; Brooks, P.; Rajagopal, S.; Heidbuchel, I.; Jardine, A.; Stielstra, 

C. 2012. Changes in snowpack accumulation and ablation in the intermountain 

west. Water Resources Research. 48(11501): 11 p.

Hayhoe, K.; Cayan, D.; Field, C.B.; Frumhoff, P.C.; Maurer, E.P.; Miller, N.L.; 

Moser, S.C.; Schneider, S.H.; Cahill, K.N.; Cleland, E.E.; Dale, L.; Drapek, 

R.; Hanemann, R.M.; Kalkstein, L.S.; Lenihan, J.; Lunch, C.K.; Neilson, 

R.P.; Sheridan, S.C.; Verville, J.H. 2004. Emissions pathways, climate change, 

and impacts on California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of 

the United States of America. 101(34): 12422–12427.
80

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Hoerling, M.P.; Dettinger, M.; Wolter, K.; Lukas, J.; Eischeid, J.; Nemani, 

R.; Liebmann, B.; Kunkel, K.E. 2013. Present weather and climate: evolving 

conditions. In: Garfin, G.; Jardine, A.; Merideth, R.; Black, M.; LeRoy, S., eds. 

Assessment of climate change in the Southwest United States: a report prepared 

for the National Climate Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press: 74–100. 

Chapter 5.

Krawchuk, M.A.; Moritz, M.A.; Parisien, M.A.; Van Dorn, J.; Hayhoe, K. 

2009. Global pyrogeography: the current and future distribution of wildfire. 

Plos One. 4(4).

Lenihan, J.H.; Bachelet, D.; Neilson, R.P.; Drapek, R. 2008. Response of 

vegetation distribution, ecosystem productivity, and fire to climate change 

scenarios for California. Climatic Change. Supplement 1: S215–S230.

Lucarini, V. 2002. Towards a definition of climate science. International Journal 

of Environment and Pollution. 18(5): 413–422.

Miller, J.D.; Safford, H.D. 2012. Trends in wildfire severity 1984–2010 in the 

Sierra Nevada, Modoc Plateau, and southern Cascades, California, USA. Fire 

Ecology. 8(3): 41–57.

Miller, J.D.; Skinner, C.N.; Safford, H.D.; Knapp, E.E.; Ramirez, C.M. 

2012. Trends and causes of severity, size, and number of fires in northwestern 

California, USA. Ecological Applications. 22(1): 184–203.

Overpeck, J.T.; Garfin, G.; Jardine, A.; Busch, D.; Cayan, D.; Dettinger, 

M.; Fleishman, E.; Gershunov, A.; MacDonald, G.; Redmond, K.; Travis, 

W.; Udall, B. 2013. Summary for decision makers. In: Garfin, G.; Jardine, A.; 

Merideth, R.; Black, M.; LeRoy, S., eds. Assessment of climate change in the 

Southwest United States: a technical report prepared for the National Climate 

Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press: 1–20. Chapter 1.

Safford, H.D.; North, M.; Meyer, M.D. 2012. Climate change and the relevance of 

historical forest conditions. In: North, M., ed. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 23–46. Chapter 3.

Stephenson, N.L.; Das, A.J. 2011. Comment on “Changes in climatic water 

balance drive downhill shifts in plant species’ optimum elevations.” Science. 

334(6053): 177.
81

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Stewart, I.T.; Cayan, D.R.; Dettinger, M.D. 2005. Changes toward earlier 

streamflow timing across western North America. Journal of Climate. 

18(8): 1136–1155.

Stine, S. 2004. Climate change in wildland management: taking the long view. 

In: Murphy, D.D.; Stine, P.A., eds. Proceedings of the Sierra Nevada Science 

Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-193. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 51–55.

VanRheenen, N.T.; Wood, A.W.; Palmer, R.N.; Lettenmaier, D.P. 2004. 

Potential implications of PCM climate change scenarios for Sacramento–

San Joaquin River basin hydrology and water resources. Climatic Change. 

62: 257–281.

Verner, J. 1997. Conservation strategies for spotted owls in relation to concepts 

of dynamic equilibria. In: Sommarstrom, S., ed. What is watershed stability? 

A review of the foundation concept of dynamic equilibrium in watershed 

management. Proceedings of the 6th biennial watershed management conference. 

Water Resources Center Report No. 92. Davis, CA: University of California, 

Centers for Water and Wildland Resources: 23–33.

Vose, J.M.; Peterson, D.L.; Patel-Weynand, T. 2012. Effects of climatic 

variability and change on forest ecosystems: a comprehensive science synthesis 

for the U.S. forest sector. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-870. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

265 p.

Wear, D.N.; Joyce, L.A. 2012. Climate change, human communities, and 

forests in rural, urban, and wildland-urban interface environments. In: Vose, 

J.M.; Peterson, D.L.; Patel-Weynand, T., eds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-870. 

Effects of climatic variability and change on forest ecosystems: a comprehensive 

science synthesis for the U.S. forest sector. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 97–124. 

Chapter 3.

Westerling, A.L.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Cayan, D.R.; Swetnam, T.W. 2006. Warming 

and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science. 

313(5789): 940–943.
82

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247
83

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Jonathan Long,1 Carl Skinner,2 Malcolm North,3 and Lenya Quinn-Davidson4

Summary of Cross-Cutting Research Gaps

• High-elevation forests, including the upper montane and subalpine zones, 

warrant increased attention and research owing to the projected effects of 

climate change. These forests provide important habitat and biodiversity 

values, and they face novel threats from shifts in precipitation patterns and 

increased likelihood of uncharacteristically severe wildfire. 

• Forested riparian areas are highly valued, yet they have not been a focus 

for restoration research. Conducting experimental projects over extended 

periods and across the synthesis area, in combination with large-scale 

modeling, would help to guide practices to restore riparian areas and 

downstream aquatic resources.

• Long-term effects of wildfire, with and without various pre- and postfire 

treatments, remain a significant research gap for many socioecological 

values. Increased understanding of long-term effects of repeated fires 

across upland, riparian, and aquatic systems would help to promote 

socioecological resilience.

• Key questions remain concerning removal of burned trees and woody 

debris as part of post-wildfire treatments, given limited understanding of 

fuelbed succession following fires of different intensities. Both social and 

ecological research are needed to evaluate the outcomes of accepting or 

influencing ecological trajectories of severely burned areas through salvage 

and other kinds of treatments.

Chapter 1.5—Research Gaps: Adaptive 

Management to Cross-Cutting Issues

1 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.

2 Geographer (emeritus), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002.

3 Research plant ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.

4 Staff research associate, University of California Cooperative Extension, 5630 

South Broadway, Eureka, CA 95503.
84

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

• There is a great need for more integrated research that evaluates how 

ecological restoration efforts affect important socioeconomic and cultural 

values. Although science suggests that there are opportunities for forest treatments to enhance water supply and mitigate some of the potential 

effects of climate change, research is lacking in the Sierra Nevada on the 

longevity of treatment effects on water yield and the extent to which water 

quality can be maintained or enhanced.

• Benchmarks and performance criteria can be valuable tools for evaluating 

progress toward meeting broad restoration goals, and there are large efforts 

to develop integrated indexes of ecosystem health that consider ecological 

and social conditions. However, at a broad strategic landscape level, it can 

be problematic to emphasize quantitative targets. More research and joint 

consideration by managers and scientists of these types of benchmarks and 

criteria would help to inform management goals and strategies.

Building on Adaptive Management Efforts

A number of studies undertaken by the Forest Service within the synthesis area 

have been designed and implemented to better understand both more immediate 

and long-term effects of treatments, including the Blacks Mountain Ecological 

Research Project (Oliver 2000); Goosenest Adaptive Management Area Project 

(Ritchie 2005); Long-Term Soil Productivity Study (Powers 2006); National Fire 

and Fire Surrogate Study (McIver and Fettig 2010); the Teakettle Experiment 

(North 2002); the Kings River Experimental Watersheds (KREW) (Hunsaker and 

Eagan 2003); the Plumas-Lassen Administrative Study, which includes the Meadow 

Valley study area; and the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project (SNAMP), 

a joint project spearheaded by the University of California (fig. 1 and table 1). These 

studies have generally had difficulty maintaining funding after initial implementation, so the resulting information from the studies has been limited to responses 

over relatively short time periods. In a few situations, researchers have been able to 

study some long-term questions by taking advantage of a well-designed study that 

had been dormant or abandoned for some time but had been well archived by the 

original researchers (Dolph et al. 1995, Knapp et al. 2012). These examples provide 

a valuable precedent for future research. 

Progress made on previous research topics will help to inform development of 

landscape strategies. Synthesis of research on the effects of forest fire hazard reduction treatments suggests that the threat of high-intensity fire can be significantly 

reduced with relatively benign impact on most wildlife species at project scales 
85

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Figure 1—Map of experimental areas in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range, highlighting various adaptive management projects featured in this synthesis. LTBMU = Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit. YOSE = Yosemite National Park. SEKI = Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks. 

NP = national park. Map by Ross Gerrard.
86

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

(Stephens et al. 2012). However, many of the less common species have not been 

a focus of study primarily because of statistical limitations with studying small 

populations or large home ranges. Most research associated with priority species, 

such as California spotted owl, has been on the small mammals that are their prey. 

Treatment areas within these studies have often not been large enough to make 

strong inferences about species with large home ranges, address patterns of habitat 

suitability and connectivity at the landscape scale, and evaluate the synergistic 

effects of treatments and wildfires on wildlife. Additionally, these research projects 

generally have not been in place long enough to evaluate long-term effects. Adaptive management studies must overcome the challenge of maintaining long-term 

capacity and resources in order to promote social learning and system resilience.

Many experimental forests and other areas dedicated to adaptive management experiments offer opportunities to improve understanding of how to design 

strategies to restore forests. A number of other large projects have been supported 

through the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, including the 

Dinkey Landscape Restoration Project, the Amador Calaveras Consensus Group 

Cornerstone Project, and the Burney-Hat Creeks Basin Project. In particular, the 

Dinkey project is examining effects on fishers, and it has already yielded insights 

regarding approaches to promote successful collaboration (Bartlett 2012). A number 

of these projects are discussed throughout chapters of this synthesis; the following 

examples highlight projects in Forest Service experimental forests and adaptive 

management areas (fig. 1 and table 1). 

The Teakettle Experiment improved understanding of the ecological effects 

of widely used forest treatments, such as understory and overstory thinning with 

Table 1—USDA Forest Service experimental forests and adaptive management 

areas within the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range synthesis area

Research area Acres Hectares

Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest 9,180 3715

Challenge Experimental Forest 3,573 1446

Goosenest Adaptive Management Area 172,000 70 000

Goosenest Ecological Research Study Area 3,000 1200

(also the southern Cascade Range Site of the 

National Fire and Fire Surrogates Study)

Kings River Experimental Watersheds 46,604 18 860

Onion Creek Experimental Forest 2,965 1200

Sagehen Experimental Forest 20,016 8100

Stanislaus-Tuolumne Experimental Forest 1,500 607

Swain Mountain Experimental Forest 6,158 2492

Teakettle Experimental Forest 3,212 1300

Treatment areas 

within these studies 

have often not been 

large enough to make 

strong inferences 

about species with 

large home ranges, 

address patterns of 

habitat suitability 

and connectivity at 

the landscape scale, 

and evaluate the 

synergistic effects 

of treatments and 

wildfires on wildlife. 

Additionally, these 

research projects 

generally have not 

been in place long 

enough to evaluate 

long-term effects.
87

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

and without prescribed fire (North 2002). Dozens of studies examined how these 

treatments affected different ecosystem components. Collectively, the research 

suggested that in fire-suppressed mixed-conifer forest prior to treatment, many 

ecological processes were impeded by competition for limited soil moisture and 

uncharacteristically high fuel and duff loading (North and Chen 2005). After 

treatment, patchy heterogeneity of forest conditions was associated with the greatest increases in species diversity and restoration of ecosystem functions (Ma et al. 

2010, North et al. 2007, Wayman and North 2007). The researchers concluded that 

fire was essential to restoring many ecological processes but that understory thinning could play an important role in facilitating greater variability in burn effects 

and post-treatment forest heterogeneity (North 2006). 

The objectives of several other experimental areas were to test particular 

hypotheses. For example, the Challenge and Blacks Mountain Experimental Forests are included in the Long-Term Soil Productivity (LTSP) study, which looks 

at effects of different treatments on long-term soil productivity (see chapter 5.1, 

“Soils”). Currents efforts on the Sagehen Experimental Forest are looking at the 

ecological effects of strategically placed treatments on a landscape. In addition, the 

Sagehen fuels reduction project was planned to protect and restore forest landscape 

heterogeneity, reduce fuels, and maintain and restore habitat for the Pacific marten. 

The consideration of habitat for a rare forest carnivore, early in a collaborative 

planning process, was viewed as key to the favorable prognosis for this project. 

Monitoring of martens and forest conditions as the treatments are implemented and 

beyond will help evaluate whether the expected outcomes develop.

The high-diversity treatment at Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest (BMEF) 

is one of the most established efforts to study heterogeneity in forest structure and 

fuels through variable-density thinning based on species composition and other 

factors. The primary objective of the BMEF study was to compare differences in 

ecological effects between stands treated for high structural diversity and stands 

treated for low structural diversity (Oliver 2000). Comparisons between the two 

types of treatments at the BMEF showed a large difference in short-term financial 

returns; the high-diversity treatment yielded less revenue because it maintained 

most large legacy trees, whereas the low-diversity alternative was based on a 

prescription that cut most larger trees while maintaining intermediate-sized trees 

(Hartsough 2003). However, both types of treatments reduced fire behavior considerably when affected by an otherwise severe wildfire (Ritchie et al. 2007, Symons et 

al. 2008). Although an analysis of carbon outcomes of alternative treatments in the 

study area has not been done, Pacific Southwest Research Station researchers have 

data available to do so.
88

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Treatments in the Stanislaus-Tuolumne Experimental Forest were designed to 

mimic historical reference conditions, including density, species composition, and 

age distribution (Knapp et al. 2012). To achieve these objectives, treatments based 

on stand conditions described by original detailed data and old maps have extended 

into some riparian areas and moved away from diameter caps in favor of selecting trees for removal to achieve the desired structure and spatial pattern. Future 

analyses of these treatments will facilitate a number of important comparisons of 

the effects of creating different stand structures to achieve both restoration and 

fire hazard reduction objectives, including a comparison of timber volume and 

economic returns between variable-density thinning and a more conventional even 

density thin. An extension of this research is examining effects of the experimental 

treatments on water yield.

The Goosenest Ecological Study Project (including its associated Fire and Fire 

Surrogate Study) was focused on finding ways to accelerate late-successional conditions through mechanical thinning and prescribed fire, including a comparison of a 

treatment that emphasized retention of pine trees and an alternative that emphasized 

retention of any large trees including firs; the study assessed treatment effects on 

fire hazard, vegetation, soils, small mammals, beetles, and birds.

Research Gaps

Appendix E of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) provided a list 

of priority questions for monitoring and research to support adaptive management. 

Several of those priorities have yielded outcomes highlighted in this synthesis, 

including but not limited to the following:

• Effects of fuel treatments on wildfire risk reduction (chapter 4.1, “Fire 

and Fuels”);

• Continuation of watershed research at the Kings River Experimental 

Watershed (chapter 6.1, “Watershed and Stream Ecosystems”); 

• Expansion of aquatic invertebrate monitoring (chapter 6.1);

• Study of grazing effects on amphibians (chapter 6.3, “Wet Meadows”);

• Expanded monitoring of fishers, particularly in the southern Sierra (chapter 

7.1, “The Forest Carnivores: Marten and Fisher”); and

• Continuation of the owl demographic study (chapter 7.2, “California 

Spotted Owl: Scientific Considerations for Forest Planning”).

Other topics recommended in SNFPA appendix E are likely to have been 

under-addressed. In addition, some important areas discussed in this synthesis, 

such as social and economic components of resilience, were not emphasized in that 

document. Revisiting and revising the list of questions from SNFPA appendix E 
89

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

would help to develop a long-term strategy for research to address management 

challenges. The various chapters of this synthesis highlight gaps in knowledge 

from their respective disciplines and focal areas. The topics that follow emerged 

as important concerns across multiple chapters. In addition, chapter 1.3, “Synopsis 

of Emerging Approaches,” highlights the importance of adaptive management to 

evaluate the effects of treating large landscape areas to achieve integrated resource 

objectives, including promotion of wildlife species of concern, promotion of water 

quality, and reduction of wildfire risks. The premise that a strategic landscape 

approach can promote resilience by avoiding potential traps of stand-scale perspectives and constraints is a particularly important hypothesis to test through 

simulation modeling and an adaptive management framework. Another topic that 

is related to understanding interactions between treatments and wildlife species of 

special concern is the issue of limited operating periods (see box 1.5-1).

Changes in Upper Montane and Subalpine Forests

The management recommendations for the mixed-conifer forests presented in 

North et al. (2009) were not intended to extend to higher elevation forests with 

less frequent fire regimes. Considerations for red fir forests, which fall into that 

category, are discussed in chapter 2.1, “Forest Ecology.” Pacific marten (Martes 

caurina), which depend on relatively high-elevation forests, are thought to be 

particularly vulnerable to habitat loss as a result of climate change (Purcell et al. 

2012, Wasserman et al. 2012). 

The zone of transition from wet mixed-conifer forests into red fir (Abies magnifica) is a particularly important focal area for forest management in the synthesis 

area. Multiple sections of this synthesis note that red fir forests are an important 

subject for research because they are broadly distributed in the region; they support 

important values, such as habitat for priority species and water supply; and they 

have not been extensively researched. Projected warming and shifts in precipitation 

from snow-dominated to rain-dominated, as well as associated increases in the 

incidence of severe wildfire, could result in disturbance effects that push systems 

in this transition zone beyond important ecological thresholds. Trujillo et al. (2012) 

noted that forest productivity and composition in the elevation zone between 1800 

and 2100 m in the Sierra Nevada appears particularly sensitive to changes in snowpack. Streams in this zone are expected to experience increases in and changes 

in seasonal timing of peak flows, and the freezing level in winter storms, which 

coincides with the moist mixed conifer/red fir transition, is expected to rise (Herbst 

and Cooper 2010, Safford et al. 2012a). As temperatures warm, trees in this zone 

are less likely to go dormant in winter, so their evapotranspiration will increase and 

Projected warming and 

shifts in precipitation 

from snow-dominated 

to rain-dominated, 

as well as associated 

increases in the 

incidence of severe 

wildfire, could result 

in disturbance effects 

that push systems in 

this red fir transition 

zone beyond important 

ecological thresholds.
90

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Box 1.5-1

Limited Operating Periods

Limited operating periods (LOPs) are typically seasonal restrictions on 

certain activities that are thought to disturb wildlife. Although special 

management zones typically impose spatial constraints on treatments, sets 

of LOPs impose additional temporal constraints. As a result, science that 

improves understanding of species’ habitat associations does not resolve the 

LOP constraint. Although noise is often a primary concern, burning also 

generates heat and gases that could be harmful under certain conditions, such 

as when denning animals are unable to relocate (Dickinson et al. 2010). Many 

LOPs designated for raptors and carnivores of concern in the Sierra Nevada 

Forest Plan Amendment extend for 6 or 7 months through spring and summer, 

whereas LOPs for sensitive amphibians and wintering bald eagles run from 

fall through winter and into spring. Restrictions on spring burning in particular could constrain management especially in a near-term phase designed 

to render landscapes more resilient to fire. Paradoxically, LOPs may conflict 

with larger strategic recommendations to benefit wildlife species; for example, 

spring burning may have less effect on predicted fisher resting habitat than 

fall burning (see chapter 7.1, “The Forest Carnivores: Marten and Fisher”), yet 

spring burning is difficult to implement under the current LOP around fisher 

dens. Out-of-season burning may be a critical tool to reduce accumulated 

fuels, especially while trying to accommodate air quality constraints. Future 

listings of species under the Endangered Species Act could reduce management options to implement restorative landscape treatments; this possibility 

presents another incentive to transition toward the long-term phase outlined in 

chapter 1.2, “ Integrative Approaches: Promoting Socioecological Resilience.”

Limited operating periods constitute an important opportunity for 

research to address a practical management challenge. Synthesizing existing information and conducting additional research on effects of treatment 

operations on particular species of concern would help to narrow restrictions 

to the most ecologically relevant conditions (considering treatment effects and 

interactions with weather and animal development). Research to refine smoke 

modeling could also help to gauge potential impacts more precisely.
91

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

likely reduce soil moisture and stream discharge (Bales et al. 2011). In addition, 

competitive interactions between martens and fishers may increase with decline in 

snowpack, which is projected to continue in the northern Sierra Nevada (Safford et 

al. 2012a). Major changes in subalpine forest structure have occurred over the last 

century, and increasing tree densities may promote higher continuity of fuels, which 

could increase the future role of more intense fire, and greater density-related stress, 

which could increase forest susceptibility to outbreaks of insects and disease (Dolanc et al. 2012). Continued monitoring and research are needed to evaluate whether 

declines in whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) forests in California represent change 

that is indicative of a resilient ecosystem, or instead a “catastrophic” outcome (or 

transformation) resulting from the synergy of climate change, native insect pests, 

and novel stressors (Millar et al. 2012). 

Restoration of Forested Riparian Areas

Forested riparian areas are highly valued yet have not been a focus for restoration 

research. Chapter 6.2, “Forested Riparian Areas,” suggests that more active use 

of mechanical thinning and prescribed fire would help to restore riparian ecosystems in the synthesis area, but effects on water quality, riparian soils, and priority 

riparian and aquatic species (including Sierra yellow-legged frog, mountain yellow 

legged-frog, and Yosemite toad) may warrant special consideration in experimental 

studies. However, for the Sierra Nevada, few research experiments on prescribed 

fire have been conducted in riparian areas, and only one recent wildfire study has 

been published for stream riparian areas (see chapter 6.1.) In the Tahoe basin, there 

have been studies on pile burning in streamside zones (see chapter 5.1, “Soils”) and 

pending research on silvicultural treatments in aspen stands, which are commonly 

found in riparian areas. The KREW study will provide new data from one experimental area in the southern Sierra Nevada over the next few years. Meanwhile, 

work as part of SNAMP will provide additional information on hydrologic effects 

in the central Sierra Nevada. Conducting experimental projects over extended periods (at least 10 years) and across the synthesis area, in combination with large-scale 

modeling, would help to guide practices to restore riparian areas and downstream 

aquatic resources.

Effects of Wildfires, Particularly Long Term

Long-term effects of wildfire and treatments both pre- and post-wildfire remain a 

significant research gap (see chapter 4.3, “Post-Wildfire Management”). Safford 

et al. (2012b) noted that the effectiveness of fuels treatments in reducing wildfire 

severity in frequent-fire forest types has been well established. There remains a 

need to evaluate effects of fires (along with effectiveness of forest treatments) in 

Conducting experimental projects over 

extended periods (at 

least 10 years) and 

across the synthesis 

area, in combination 

with large-scale 

modeling, would help 

to guide practices to 

restore riparian areas 

and downstream 

aquatic resources.
92

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

other ecosystem types, including riparian and montane hardwood forests. The 

Fire and Fire Surrogates Study (McIver and Fettig 2010, McIver et al. 2013), which 

includes three research sites within the assessment area, was designed for this 

purpose and would continue to provide important information if these sites were 

again emphasized. Moreover, the effects of fires (and postfire treatments), especially 

in large severe patches over long periods, are not well understood.

Research on the effects of severe wildfire on aquatic systems has been quite 

limited in the Sierra Nevada (see chapter 6.2). Researchers have noted the importance of identifying thresholds at which high-severity burns have negative impacts 

on aquatic organisms (Minshall 2003). Given the particular importance of water 

quality as an ecosystem service, the potential impacts of increasingly severe 

wildfire on aquatic systems are an important research gap (see chapter 4.3). One 

particular threat from wildfires that has been recognized in the Sierra Nevada is 

sedimentation of reservoirs, which can degrade water quality in the short term and 

reduce storage capacity in the long term (Moody and Martin 2004, 2009).

A recent study by Buchalski et al. (2013) surveyed nightly echolocation activity 

of bats in riparian and upland areas one year after the McNally fire in the southern 

Sierra Nevada. They concluded that some species were selecting burned areas for 

foraging; a finding which reinforces the value of fire-created habitat heterogeneity 

for biodiversity. However, it did not examine roosting habitat, which could be more 

sensitive to effects of severe wildfire, especially for species that roost in large trees 

and snags, such as pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) (Baker et al. 2008).

Recent wildfires, such as the 2012 Chips Fire on the Plumas and Lassen 

National Forests, present opportunities to learn how severe wildfires affect spotted 

owls and their habitat, because there is a decade-long monitoring dataset in the 

burned area. The Chips Fire burned through large areas previously burned by the 

2000 Storrie Fire. The availability of data from existing plots in the Storrie Fire 

area will allow study of the effects of the reburn (see chapter 4.3). Among other 

objectives, these types of studies could help to evaluate the extent to which down 

woody fuel loads remaining from the Storrie Fire may have affected severity of 

the reburn. The Reading Fire 2012 within the southern Cascade Range portion of 

the synthesis area presented an opportunity to evaluate impacts of fire to sensitive 

wildlife species such as the Pacific marten, northern goshawk, California spotted 

owl, and native trout.
93

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Effects of Post-Wildfire Treatments

Key questions remain concerning treatment of burned trees and woody debris in 

high-severity burn patches, given limited understanding of fuelbed succession 

following fires of different intensity. These questions are especially important given 

that the warming climate appears to be lengthening the fire season (Westerling et 

al. 2006), with associated increases in fire activity expected (Lenihan et al. 2003). 

Chapter 4.3 identifies a number of important gaps in socioecological research, 

including effects on channel processes (fig. 2), use of dead trees by wildlife such as 

black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus), and outcomes of accepting or influencing ecological trajectories of severely burned areas through salvage, replanting 

and other kinds of treatments. In particular, novel approaches may be needed to 

encourage regeneration of conifers and hardwoods where widespread patches of 

high-severity burn may inhibit recovery of desired conditions.

Figure 2—Aerial view of the Lion Fire of 2011, which was managed for resource benefits.

Brent Skaggs
94

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Effects of Restoration Treatments on Ecological Services and 

Other Social Values

A common thread throughout this synthesis is the need for more integrated research 

that evaluates how ecological restoration efforts affect important socioeconomic 

and cultural values (see chapter 9.2, “Ecosystem Services”). Chapters 4.2, “Fire 

and Tribal Cultural Resources; 4.3, “Post-Wildfire Management;” and 6.3, “Wet 

Meadows,” all highlight the gap in understanding effects on ecosystem services 

associated with wildlife, culturally important plants, and water resources. Science 

suggests that there are opportunities for forest treatments to enhance water supply 

and mitigate some of the potential effects of climate change, although research is 

lacking in the Sierra Nevada for how much and how long restoration treatments are 

likely to influence water yield and water quality (see chapter 6.1). The use of geospatial modeling tools to prioritize landscape treatment strategies (see chapter 1.1) 

can explicitly integrate social values by mapping overlap between the use, provision, and vulnerability of ecosystem services to disturbances (Beier et al. 2008). 

Performance Criteria

Benchmarks and performance criteria can be valuable tools for evaluating progress 

toward meeting broad restoration goals. However, at a broad strategic landscape 

level, it can be problematic to emphasize fixed quantitative targets. For one reason, 

such targets may lead to raising standards inappropriately high for some areas, 

reducing expectations for others, with an overall tendency to reduce heterogeneity 

in the landscape (Bisson et al. 2009). As a result, resilience-based approaches tend 

to de-emphasize fixed production targets in favor of plans to reduce vulnerability 

and strengthen capacity to respond and adapt. The properties of a socioecological 

system that confer resilience can change over time, with spatial configuration, and 

depending on the people involved, so the selection of useful surrogates or metrics 

needs to be similarly diverse and dynamic (Carpenter et al. 2005). By considering 

various policy constraints on management and other contextual factors, evaluation 

systems may yield more informative findings that promote social learning (for 

example, availability of burn windows, see chapter 9.3, “Sociocultural Perspectives 

on Threats, Risks, and Health”). As an example of how metrics could be used, Fire 

Return Interval Departure metrics can serve as an initial measure of restoring fire 

as an ecological process, but they should be considered within a broader context of 

the reference fire regime (Sugihara et al. 2006) and the larger socioecological system in terms of vulnerability and desired conditions (see chapter 4.1). In addition, 

the choice of metrics should be reviewed and may need to be revised as the system 

evolves and presents new opportunities and constraints.

Science suggests that 

there are opportunities 

for forest treatments to 

enhance water supply 

and mitigate some of 

the potential effects 

of climate change, 

although research is 

lacking in the Sierra 

Nevada for how 

much and how long 

restoration treatments 

are likely to influence 

water yield and water 

quality.
95

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Accordingly, restoration designed to promote broader societal interests will 

strive to include a mix of ecological and social criteria for evaluating success (see 

chapter 9.4, “Strategies for Job Creation Through Forest Management,” for examples of socioeconomic indicators). There are many efforts to develop integrated 

indexes of ecosystem health that consider ecological and social conditions (Rapport 

and Maffi 2011, Rapport and Singh 2006) (see also chapter 9.2). Although efforts 

to quantify social criteria, such as cultural significance and community well-being, 

also entail a risk of being too reductionist (Higgs 1997), such indicators can provide 

valuable guides for identifying potential vulnerabilities and opportunities that may 

help promote resilience in socioecological systems (Cabell and Oelofse 2012). A key 

consideration is to incorporate feedback loops to evaluate whether the indicators 

appear to be working as intended and revise them especially to account for confounding factors.

Chapter 1.3, “Synopsis of Emergent Approaches,” considers the hypothesis that 

treatments initially implemented across a relatively small proportion of a landscape 

in a short number of years could avert the most undesirable effects of wildfires 

while avoiding deleterious impacts to priority wildlife species. This example 

identifies a guideline that could be tested for particular landscapes in an adaptive 

management framework involving managers, stakeholders, and researchers. This 

type of reflective approach would engage the public and communities in evaluating 

the particular ecological and social characteristics of their landscapes, identifying 

vulnerabilities and appropriate indicators, and strengthening capacity to adapt to 

future disturbances and stressors by promoting a long-term view towards risks 

(see chapter 9.3). 

Management Implications

• There are a number of important and potentially controversial topics for 

which science suggests that treatment approaches might be warranted, but 

further study in an adaptive management framework would be helpful to 

evaluate social and ecological tradeoffs and suitable contexts, including:

▪ treatment of red fir forests,

▪ treatment of riparian areas, and

▪ removal of burned trees following severe wildfires.

• Management plans might be particularly well-informed through adaptive management or targeted research to evaluate effects of treatments and 

unmanaged wildfires on wildlife habitat, water supply, and other high-value 

ecological services.
96

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

• Collaborative review by scientists and managers of past efforts to implement adaptive management, including monitoring plans in the SNFPA 

appendix, could help to inform management plans. 

Literature Cited

Baker, M.D.; Lacki, M.J.; Falxa, G.A.; Droppelman, P.L.; Slack, R.A.; 

Slankard, S.A. 2008. Habitat use of pallid bats in coniferous forests of northern 

California. Northwest Science. 82(4): 269–275.

Bales, R.C.; Hopmans, J.W.; O’Geen, A.T.; Meadows, M.; Hartsough, P.C.; 

Kirchner, P.; Hunsaker, C.T.; Beaudette, D. 2011. Soil moisture response to 

snowmelt and rainfall in a Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forest. Vadose Zone 

Journal. 10(3): 786–799.

Bartlett, G. 2012. Developing collaboration and cooperation. In: North, M., ed. 

Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station: 81–88. Chapter 8.

Beier, C.M.; Patterson, T.M.; Chapin, F.S. 2008. Ecosystem services and 

emergent vulnerability in managed ecosystems: a geospatial decision-support 

tool. Ecosystems. 11(6): 923–938.

Bisson, P.A.; Dunham, J.B.; Reeves, G.H. 2009. Freshwater ecosystems and 

resilience of Pacific Salmon: habitat management based on natural variability. 

Ecology and Society. 14(1): article 45.

Buchalski, M.R.; Fontaine, J.B.; Heady, P.A.I.; Hayes, J.P.; Frick, W.F. 2013.

Bat response to differing fire severity in mixed-conifer forest California, USA. 

Plos One. 8(3): e57884.

Cabell, J.F.; Oelofse, M. 2012. An indicator framework for assessing 

agroecosystem resilience. Ecology and Society. 17(1): 18.

Carpenter, S.R.C.; Westley, F.; Turner, M.G. 2005. Surrogates for resilience 

of social–ecological systems. Ecosystems. 8: 941–944.

Dickinson, M.B.; Norris, J.C.; Bova, A.S.; Kremens, R.L.; Young, V.; Lacki, 

M.J. 2010. Effects of wildland fire smoke on a tree-roosting bat: integrating a 

plume model, field measurements, and mammalian dose-response relationships. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 40(11): 2187–2203.
97

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Dolanc, C.R.; Thorne, J.H.; Safford, H.D. 2012. Widespread shifts in the 

demographic structure of subalpine forests in the Sierra Nevada, California, 

1934 to 2007. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 22(3): 264–276.

Dolph, K.L.; Mori, S.R.; Oliver, W.W. 1995. Long-term response of old-growth 

stands to varying levels of partial cutting in the eastside pine type. Western 

Journal of Applied Forestry. 10(3): 101–108.

Hartsough, B. 2003. Economics of harvesting to maintain high structural diversity 

and resulting damage to residual trees. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 

18(2): 133–142.

Herbst, D.B.; Cooper, S.D. 2010. Before and after the deluge: rain-on-snow 

flooding effects on aquatic invertebrate communities of small streams in the 

Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 

29(4): 1354–1366.

Higgs, E.S. 1997. What is good ecological restoration? Conservation Biology. 

11(2): 338–348.

Hunsaker, C.T.; Eagan, S.M. 2003. Small stream ecosystem variability in the 

Sierra Nevada of California. In: Renard, K.G.; McElroy, S.A.; Gburek, W.J.; 

Canfield, H.E.; Scott, R.L., eds. First interagency conference on research in the 

watersheds: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 

716–721. http://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/icrw/Proceedings/Hunsaker.pdf. (4 

September 2014).

Knapp, E.; North, M.; Benech, M.; Estes, B. 2012. The variable-density thinning 

study at Stanislaus-Tuolumne Experimental Forest. In: North, M., ed. Managing 

Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 

127–139. Chapter 12.

Lenihan, J.M.; Drapek, R.; Bachelet, D.; Neilson, R.P. 2003. Climate change 

effects on vegetation distribution, carbon, and fire in California. Ecological 

Applications. 13(6): 1667–1681.

Ma, S.; Concilio, A.; Oakley, B.; North, M.; Chen, J. 2010. Spatial variability 

in microclimate in a mixed-conifer forest before and after thinning and burning 

treatments. Forest Ecology and Management. 259(5): 904–915.

McIver, J.D.; Fettig, C.J. 2010. Ecological consequences of alternative fuel 

reduction treatments in seasonally dry forests: the National Fire and Fire 

Surrogate Study. Forest Science. 56(1): 2–3.
98

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

McIver, J.; Stephens, S.L.; Agee, J.K.; Barbour, J.; Boerner, R.E.J.; 

Edminster, C.B.; Erickson, K.L.; Farris, K.L.; Fettig, C.J.; Fiedler, 

C.E.; Haase, S.; Hart, S.C.; Keeley, J.E.; Knapp, C.N.; Lehmkuhl, J.F.; 

Moghaddas, J.; Ostrosina, W.; Outcalt, K.W.; Schwilk, D.W.; Skinner, C.; 

Waldrop, T.A.; Weatherspoon, C.P.; Yasussy, D.A.; Youngbloods, A.; Zack, 

S. 2013. Ecological effects of alternative fuel-reduction treatments: highlights 

of the National Fire and Fire Surrogate study. International Journal of Wildland 

Fire. 22: 63–82.

Millar, C.I.; Westfall, R.D.; Delany, D.L.; Bokach, M.J.; Flint, A.L.; Flint, 

L.E. 2012. Forest mortality in high-elevation whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) 

forests of eastern California, USA; influence of environmental context, bark 

beetles, climatic water deficit, and warming. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 42(4): 749–765.

Minshall, G.W. 2003. Responses of stream benthic macroinvertebrates to fire. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 178(1–2): 155–161.

Moody, J.A.; Martin, D.A. 2004. Wildfire impacts on reservoir sedimentation 

in the western United States. In: Hu, C.; Tan, Y., eds. Proceedings of the ninth 

international symposium on river sedimentation. Yichang, China: International 

Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation: 1095–1102.

Moody, J.A.; Martin, D.A. 2009. Synthesis of sediment yields after wildland fire 

in different rainfall regimes in the western United States. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 18(1): 96–115.

North, M.P. 2006. Restoring forest health: Fire and thinning effects on mixedconifer forests. Science Perspectives. PSW-SP-007. Albany, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. 6 p.

North, M.P. 2002. The Teakettle experiment. In: Verner, J., ed. Proceedings of a 

symposium on the Kings River Sustainable Forest Ecosystem Project: progress 

and current status. Gen. Tech. Rep.PSW-GTR-183. Albany, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 47–54.

North, M.P.; Chen, J. 2005. Introduction to the Teakettle Special Issue. Forest 

Science. 51(3): 185–186.

North, M.; Innes, J.; Zald, H. 2007. Comparison of thinning and prescribed fire 

restoration treatments to Sierran mixed-conifer historic conditions. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 37(2): 331–342.
99

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Oliver, W.W. 2000. Ecological research at the Blacks Mountain Experimental 

Forest in northeastern California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-179. Albany, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 66 p.

Powers, R.F. 2006. Long-Term Soil Productivity: genesis of the concept and 

principles behind the program. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 36(3): 

519–528.

Purcell, K.L.; Thompson, C.M.; Zielinski, W.J. 2012. Chapter 4: Fishers and 

American martens. In: North, M., ed. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 47–60.

Rapport, D.J.; Maffi, L. 2011. Eco-cultural health, global health, and 

sustainability. Ecological Research. 26(6): 1039–1049.

Rapport, D.J.; Singh, A. 2006. An EcoHealth-based framework for state of 

environment reporting. Ecological Indicators. 6(2): 409–428.

Ritchie, M.W. 2005. Ecological research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management 

Area in northeastern California. 247. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-192. Albany, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 125 p.

Ritchie, M.W.; Skinner, C.N.; Hamilton, T.A. 2007. Probability of tree survival 

after wildfire in an interior pine forest of northern California: effects of thinning 

and prescribed fire. Forest Ecology and Management. 247(1–3): 200–208.

Safford, H.D.; North, M.; Meyer, M.D. 2012a. Climate change and the relevance 

of historical forest conditions. In: North, M., ed. Managing Sierra Nevada 

forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 23–46. 

Chapter 3.

Safford, H.D.; Stevens, J.T.; Merriam, K.; Meyer, M.D.; Latimer, A.M. 2012b.

Fuel treatment effectiveness in California yellow pine and mixed conifer forests. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 274: 17–28.

Stephens, S.L.; McIver, J.D.; Boerner, R.E.J.; Fettig, C.J.; Fontaine, J.B.; 

Hartsough, B.R.; Kennedy, P.L.; Schwilk, D.W. 2012. The effects of forest 

fuel-reduction treatments in the United States. BioScience. 62(6): 549–560.
100

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Sugihara, N.G.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Fites-Kaufman, J. 2006. Fire as an 

ecological process. In: Sugihara, N.G.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Fites-Kaufman, J.; 

Shaffer, K.E.; Thode, A.E., eds. Fire in California’s ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: 

University of California Press: 58–74.

Symons, J.N.; Fairbanks, D.H.K.; Skinner, C.N. 2008. Influences of stand 

structure and fuel treatments on wildfire severity at Blacks Mountain 

Experimental Forest, northeastern California. The California Geographer. 

48(1): 61–82.

Trujillo, E.; Molotch, N.P.; Goulden, M.L.; Kelly, A.E.; Bales, R.C. 2012. 

Elevation-dependent influence of snow accumulation on forest greening. Nature 

Geoscience. 5(10): 705–709.

Wasserman, T.N.; Cushman, S.A.; Shirk, A.S.; Landguth, E.L.; Littell, J.S. 

2012. Simulating the effects of climate change on population connectivity of 

American marten (Martes americana) in the northern Rocky Mountains, USA. 

Landscape Ecology. 27(2): 211–225.

Wayman, R.B.; North, M. 2007. Initial response of a mixed-conifer understory 

plant community to burning and thinning restoration treatments. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 239(1–3): 32–44.

Westerling, A.L.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Cayan, D.R.; Swetnam, T.W. 2006. Warming 

and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science. 

313(5789): 940–943.
101

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

This section builds upon recent synthesis reports by focusing on four topics: (1) how to regenerate shade-intolerant pine trees; (2) strategies for managing red fir forests, 

which are likely to be greatly affected by climate change; (3) how to design forest treatments to facilitate heterogeneous fire outcomes; and (4) strategies to promote long-term 

carbon storage in fire-prone forests. All these topics are important in designing strategies 

to promote forests that will be resilient to climate change, wildfires, and other stressors.

Section 2—Forest Ecology

Malcom North

Regeneration underneath large sugar pines is shifting to shade-tolerant white fir as a result of fire suppression and 

closing of the forest canopy.
102

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247
103

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Malcolm North1

Summary

Building on information summaries in two previous general technical reports 

(PSW-GTR-220 and PSW-GTR-237), this chapter focuses on four topics raised by 

forest managers and stakeholders as relevant to current forest management issues. 

Recent studies suggest that the gap size in lower and mid-elevation historical forests 

with active fire regimes was often about 0.12 to 0.32 ha (0.3 to 0.8 ac). This small 

size was sufficient to facilitate shade-intolerant pine regeneration, probably because 

the surrounding forest canopy was more open than is common in modern fire-suppressed forests. Treatments that create these regeneration gaps may not significantly 

reduce canopy cover (a stand-level average), but they will create greater variability 

in canopy closure (a point-level measure), which may also increase habitat heterogeneity. A review of red fir forest literature suggests that these forests historically 

had a highly variable fire regime. Red fir in drier conditions and in locations well 

connected to forests with more frequent fire regimes probably had a shorter fire 

return interval. These forests may need treatment with managed fire or mechanical thinning to help restore their resilience to fire and potential climate change. 

In another section, this chapter examines how current constraints on prescribed 

fire use may decrease the variable burn conditions that increase heterogeneity in 

postburn forests. Fire management officers may consider intentionally varying fuel 

loads within a stand in an effort to increase burn effect variability. The next section examines the role of fire-dependent forests as potential carbon sinks to offset 

anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). Forest treatments may reduce 

wildfire emissions if a treated forest burns. However, many fuels treatments are 

likely to be a net carbon loss, as the probability of any particular treated stand burning is low, and treatments require continuing maintenance. Where treatments may 

have a net carbon gain is if they can change the current equilibrium between growth 

and mortality. Treatments that shift tree composition toward pine may accomplish 

this. A final section discusses how longer timeframes and larger spatial scales may 

help inform and explain how management decisions are made in the context of the 

larger landscape and long-term objectives.

Chapter 2.1—Forest Ecology

1 Research plant ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.
104

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Introduction

Two U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service general technical reports, 

PSW-GTR-220 (North et al. 2009b) and PSW-GTR-237 (North 2012a), summarize 

some of the recent research in forest ecology relevant to a synthesis of science for 

the Sierra Nevada region. GTR-237 builds on concepts in GTR-220, providing new, 

more indepth information on topics of “Forest Health and Bark Beetles” (Fettig 

2012), “Climate Change and the Relevance of Historical Forest Conditions” (Safford 

et al. 2012a), “Marking and Assessing Stand Heterogeneity” (North and Sherlock 

2012), “GIS Landscape Analysis Using GTR 220 Concepts” (North et al. 2012a), 

and “Clarifying [GTR 220] Concepts” (North and Stine 2012). The final chapter in 

GTR-237, “A Desired Future Condition for Sierra Nevada Forests” (North 2012b), 

highlights three topics (the limitations of stand-level averages, economics and treatment scale, and monitoring) where ecological research suggests a need for fundamental changes in how the Forest Service approaches ecosystem management.

Building on these GTRs, this “Forest Ecology” chapter has a different structure 

than the other chapters. It is focused on four subjects for which stakeholders and 

managers have suggested that a summary of existing information would be relevant 

to a regional science synthesis: tree regeneration and canopy cover, red fir (Abies 

magnifica) forests, forest treatments to facilitate fire heterogeneity, and carbon 

management in fire-prone forests. These four sections do not attempt to summarize 

and cite all literature relevant to each section. Rather, each section begins with 

one or two questions that motivated the subject’s inclusion in this synthesis. These 

questions provide the framework for how the relevant literature is selected and summarized. The chapter ends with a sidebar that gives an example of how larger scales 

may be incorporated into meeting forest management objectives.

Tree Regeneration and Canopy Cover

Within the last decade, there has been substantial new research on the light requirements and gap conditions associated with favoring shade-intolerant, fire-tolerant 

pines. Although forest managers have long known that high-light environments are 

needed to favor pines, creating these gaps has sometimes been seen as conflicting 

with canopy cover targets suggested in the current standards and guides.

• What gap size and light conditions are needed to favor pine establishment 

and growth over shade-tolerant firs and incense cedar?

• Do open conditions created in these gaps reduce canopy cover below 

threshold guidelines?

To increase resilience 

in frequent-fire forests 

to a warming climate 

and wildfire, and to 

restore ecosystem 

functions, conifer 

regeneration across 

much of the Sierra 

Nevada needs to favor 

fire-tolerant pines. 
105

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

To increase resilience in frequent-fire forests to a warming climate and wildfire, 

and to restore ecosystem functions, conifer regeneration across much of the Sierra 

Nevada needs to favor fire-tolerant pines. Sugar (Pinus lambertiana), Jeffrey (P. 

jeffreyi), and ponderosa (P. ponderosa) pine are all shade intolerant and require 

high-light environments to survive, and they grow more rapidly than fire-sensitive, 

shade-tolerant species such as white fir (Abies concolor) and red fir. Two species, 

incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), 

are considered shade tolerant in the central and southern Sierra Nevada, but in the 

northern Sierra Nevada, southern Cascade Range, and Klamath Mountains, they 

are sometimes able to survive and thrive in high-light environments if there is 

sufficient precipitation. Studies have shown that firs and incense cedars can produce 

20 to 30 times the amount of seed per unit basal area as many pine species (Gray 

et al. 2005, Zald et al. 2008). Even fuels reduction and forest restoration treatments 

that favor pine retention in mixed-conifer forests often retain enough large fir and 

incense cedar seed trees to perpetuate pretreatment composition (Zald et al. 2008). 

Fire suppression, which has increased canopy cover and reduced understory light, 

has been in effect long enough that many shade-tolerant species are now large 

enough to survive low-intensity fire (Collins et al. 2011, Lydersen and North 2012, 

Miller and Urban 2000). Moderate-severity fire or mechanical thinning may be 

needed to sufficiently open the canopy. Repeated applications of low-intensity fire 

may also eventually shift tree regeneration and sapling composition toward pine, 

but at present, few forests burn with sufficient frequency to affect this compositional shift. In the absence of frequent fire, reducing canopy cover and planting pine 

seedlings may be the most effective means of overcoming the entrenched effects of 

fire suppression, which favor shade-tolerant, fire-sensitive regeneration. 

Recent work has examined what understory light level is needed to favor pine 

regeneration over fir and incense cedar (Bigelow et al. 2011; York et al. 2003, 

2004). These studies suggest that in many forests, a minimum opening of 0.10 ha 

(0.25 ac) is needed to provide enough light (40 percent of full sunlight) to support 

pine regeneration within part of the opening. As gap size increases, so does the 

area with a high-light environment favoring pine, and the growth rate of the gap’s 

pine seedlings (McDonald and Phillips 1999, York et al. 2004, Zald et al. 2008). 

A similar response occurs in smaller gaps when canopy cover is reduced on the 

southern side of a gap (“feathering the edge”). This may explain why pre-firesuppression gap sizes appear to have been relatively small (0.12 to 0.32 ha [0.3 to 

0.8 ac]) (Knapp et al. 2012), yet most of these stands likely supported robust pine 

regeneration, because reconstruction studies and old data suggest pine often contributed >40 percent of mixed-conifer basal area (McKelvey and Johnson 1992). A 
106

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

recent study found that small gaps (0.04 ha [0.1 ac]) created in pile and burn treatments significantly increased stand-level light heterogeneity; that study also found 

greater ponderosa pine germination on ash substrates produced by the pile burns 

compared with bare soil (York et al. 2012). At the Beaver Creek Pinery, a ponderosa 

pine forest with a modern history of low-intensity burns, Taylor (2010) found a 

Figure 1—White fir regenerating under an overstory dominated by pines owing to high levels of 

canopy cover from fire suppression at the Teakettle Experimental Forest.

Brian Oakley
107

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

small average gap size of 0.06 ha (0.14 ac) with high variability (range 0.008 to 0.24 

ha [0.02 to 0.6 ac]), suggesting that small gaps may be sufficient for shade-intolerant 

regeneration if the forest matrix surrounding the gap has a low density and low 

canopy cover.

Outside of gaps, Bigelow et al. (2011) found that thinning the forest matrix to 

a canopy cover of 40 percent provided sufficient light to support pine regeneration 

in about 20 percent of the treated area. In a recent study of old-growth mixedconifer stands with restored fire regimes (Lydersen and North 2012), canopy cover 

averaged 44 percent, which supported a regeneration composition consistent with 

overstory composition (about 50 percent pine). These low estimates of canopy cover 

may seem at odds with the goal of providing habitat sufficient for some species 

designated as sensitive by the Forest Service, such as fisher (Pekania pennanti) and 

California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis). However, canopy cover is 

a stand-level average of canopy conditions. In heterogeneous forests composed of 

tree groups, gaps, and a low-density matrix (Larson and Churchill 2012, North et al. 

2009b), most of the gaps and some of the matrix will likely have low canopy closure 

(i.e., the percentage of the sky hemisphere covered with foliage when viewed from 

a single point [Jennings et al. 1999]). In contrast, canopy closure in tree clusters 

often exceeds 65 percent. Distinguishing between stand-level average measures 

of vertical porosity (canopy cover) and point-level measures of how much of the 

sky hemisphere is blocked by foliage (canopy closure) can improve assessments of 

canopy conditions (North and Stine 2012).

Point measures of canopy closure are probably best for assessing how much 

“protection” and foliage cover there is over a patch or microsite. Spherical densiometers are often used to assess canopy conditions in the field. Practitioners 

should understand that densiometers do not measure canopy cover. Instead, they 

are designed to measure canopy closure (a large viewing angle represented by an 

inverted cone) over the point from which the readings are taken (Nuttle 1997). Of 

several methods available, closure is probably most effectively measured with a 

digitized hemispherical photograph that is analyzed with computer software. In 

contrast, canopy cover is probably most effectively measured with a siting tube or 

densitometer, which records whether, within a narrow view window approaching a 

point, the observer can or cannot see the sky. Multiple readings (often 100 or more) 

are taken throughout the stand of interest and the percentage of readings where 

the sky is obscured is recorded as canopy cover. Canopy cover, however, is often 

indirectly estimated from plot data using the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS). 

Managers should be aware that these estimates are based on an assumption about 

how trees are distributed that does not account for actual conditions in the stand 
108

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

that is being modeled. If managers want to increase fine-scale heterogeneity, variability in canopy closure may provide a better assessment of conditions than canopy 

cover, which is a stand-level average. North and Sherlock (2012) suggest using both 

to provide estimates of stand-level conditions and within-stand or patch conditions.

Distinguishing between canopy cover and closure may help resolve one problem often faced by foresters: how to provide high-light environments that favor pine 

regeneration and also meet canopy cover targets for Forest Service sensitive species. 

With high within-stand variability in canopy closure, openings can be produced 

that favor pine regeneration and still attain a stand-level average of canopy cover 

high enough to meet canopy cover targets. Further discussion of this distinction and 

a figure illustrating the differences can be found in North and Stine (2012). 

Red Fir Forests

Forest management in the Sierra Nevada has often focused more of its attention 

on forest types that historically had a frequent, low-intensity fire regime. With 

fire regimes now having been altered for over a century, some managers and 

stakeholders have asked whether red fir, generally the next higher forest type 

in elevation above mixed conifer, should receive more active management. In 

particular, there is interest in understanding whether these forests need fire or 

mechanical treatment to help restore ecosystem conditions and increase resilience 

to a changing climate.

• What was red fir’s historical fire regime and how did it vary with 

site conditions?

• Is gap creation needed to facilitate red fir regeneration and development 

of younger tree cohorts?

According to a Gap Analysis Program (GAP) of forest types and ownerships in 

the Sierra Nevada, red fir forests are the fourth most extensive forest type. These 

forests cover 339 493 ha (838 905 ac) in the Sierra Nevada (or about 11 percent 

of the region’s 3.2 million ha), of which 207 091 ha (511 732 ac) are on Forest 

Service land (Davis and Stoms 1996) (table 1). It is the largest forest type in the 

upper montane zone (above 1830 to 2286 m [6,000 to 7,500 ft] in elevation from 

the northern to southern Sierra Nevada, respectively), and it is often “passively” 

managed (i.e., rarely receives active management treatments, such as mechanical 

thinning, planting, or prescribed fire), because it is remote, in wilderness 

designation, or less of a fire danger to structures and humans. These forests are 

important habitat for many species, including the Pacific marten (Martes caurina) 

(see discussion in chapter 7.1, “The Forest Carnivores: Marten and Fisher”), and 

they occupy the elevation zone with greatest snowpack depth (Laacke 1990). As 

With high within-stand 

variability in canopy 

closure, openings can 

be produced that favor 

pine regeneration and 

still attain a stand-level 

average of canopy 

cover high enough to 

meet canopy cover 

targets.
109

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Table 1—Forest type, total area, fractional Forest Service ownership, historical fire return interval (HFRI), 

and estimated historical amount of area burned each year in the Sierra Nevada before fire suppression on 

Forest Service lands

Forest Service Forest HFRI Historical

Forest type Total area ownership Service area mean burn

Hectares Percent Hectares Years Hectares/year 

(acres) (acres) (acres/year)

Mixed-conifer 593 (1,467) 62 368 (909) 12 31 (76)

West-side ponderosa pine 440 (1,087) 53 233 (576) 5 47 (115)

Lower cismontane mixed conifer–oak 423 (1,046) 46 195 (481) 10 19 (48)

Jeffrey pine–fir 296 (730) 80 236 (584) 8 30 (73)

Jeffrey pine 196 (484) 75 147 (363) 6 25 (61)

East-side ponderosa pine 161 (399) 76 123 (303) 5 25 (61)

Black oak 109 (269) 60 65 (161) 10 7 (16)

White fir 54 (133) 70 38 (93) 25 2 (4)

Aspen 10 (24) 89 9 (22) 30 0.3 (0.7)

Sequoia–mixed conifer 7 (18) 31 2 (5) 15 0.1 (0.4)

 Active management total 2290 (5,658) 1416 (3,499) 184 (454)

Red fir 339 (839) 61 207 (512) 40 5 (13)

Lodgepole pine 216 (533) 60 129 (320) 30 4 (11)

Red fir-western white pine 159 (394) 75 120 (295) 50 2 (6)

White bark pine–mountain hemlock 38 (93) 62 23 (58) 85 0.3 (0.7)

White bark pine–lodgepole pine 37 (92) 86 32 (79) 40 0.8 (2)

Upper cismontane mixed conifer–oak 26 (64) 48 13 (31) 15 (0.8) (2)

Foxtail pine 24 (59) 21 5 (12) 50 0.1 (0.25)

Whitebark pine 22 (54) 68 15 (37) 65 0.2 (0.6)

 Passive management total 861 (2,128) 544 (1,344) 14 (35)

All lands total 3151 (7,786) 1960 (4,843) 198 (489)

Hectare and acre values are in thousands and rounded from the original source. Historical fire return interval was determined from three sources with 

extensive literature reviews of many fire history studies: Stephens et al. 2007, van de Water and Safford 2011, and the fire effects information database 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/). The extent of the Sierra Nevada is the Jepson (Hickman 1993) definition, which generally corresponds 

to the Plumas National Forest south through the Sequoia National Forest including the Inyo National Forest. The table is adapted and updated from 

North et al. (2012b). Forest type, total area, and fractional ownership are from Davis and Stoms (1996).

a result, they may be significantly affected by climate change, as most models 

suggest that precipitation may often turn from snow to rain in much of this zone 

in the future (Safford et al. 2012a). It is unclear how this will affect red fir forests. 

Climate change may become a chronic stress in red fir forests in the lower parts 

of its present distribution, but the exact mechanisms of this stress and its potential 

influence on ecosystem processes are unknown. Historically, there was some timber 

harvested in red fir forests in the 1970s and 1980s (Laacke 1990), but with increased 

designation of roadless areas and public controversy, there has been much less 

active management in many red fir forests since the 1990s. The concern with red 

fir is what type of management would best maintain or restore its ecosystem 
110

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

processes given a century of altered fire frequency and uncertain but probable 

future climate warming.

Management concepts in GTR-220 are applicable to forests that historically 

had frequent, low-intensity fire regimes. The historical fire regime in red fir is not 

as well defined as it is in lower elevation forest types, such as ponderosa pine and 

mixed conifer, and it has often been classed as mixed severity (Parker 1984, Skinner 2003, Sugihara et al. 2006). A recent review paper of all fire history studies 

on dominant woody species in California for different forest types lists 29 studies 

with some information on red fir fire return intervals (van de Water and Safford 

2011). The review paper reports mean, median, minimum mean, and maximum 

mean fire return intervals of 40, 33, 15, and 130 years, respectively. Using a 40-year 

historical fire return interval, approximately 5177 ha (12,793 ac) of red fir may have 

burned each year before fire suppression (about 2.3 percent of the historical annual 

burn acreage for all forest types) (table 1). Many of the red fir fire history studies, 

like those at lower elevations, found few if any fires in their sample area in recent 

decades, which suggests that some red fir forests have now missed more than one 

fire return interval (Stephens 2001).

A review of these studies suggests a wide range of fire regimes, possibly 

because many of the studies examine stands in which red fir is mixed with other 

species. Red fir is often found across a broad elevation band from mixed conifer 

(generally 1372 to 2286 m [4,500 to 7,500 ft]) to western white pine (Pinus monticola) (generally 2591 to 3200 m [8,500 to 10,500 ft]) forest types. Studies at lower 

elevations, where the tree species composition suggests drier site conditions, have 

generally found shorter historical fire return intervals and age structures that suggest frequent pulses of regeneration. In contrast, higher elevation and more mesic 

site studies often document a mixed-severity fire regime with distinct recruitment 

pulses following fire events (Scholl and Taylor 2006, Taylor 2004). One study 

documented a strong linear relationship between fire return interval and elevation, 

possibly driven by snowpack and its effect on fuel moistures (Bekker and Taylor 

2001). Another factor may be landscape context. Red fir forests that are well connected with lower elevation forest may have shorter intervals because fire could 

easily carry up into higher elevations under suitable weather and fuel moisture 

conditions (Skinner 2003). In contrast, some red fir forests grow in shallow “flower 

pot” pockets surrounded by extensive exposed granite. These red fir forests likely 

had longer intervals because of their relative isolation. 

Analysis of fire patterns in red fir indicates that high-severity patches often 

occur (Pitcher 1987, Stephens 2000). A recent paper analyzing fire-severity 

patterns between Yosemite National Park and adjacent national forest lands found 
111

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

that wildfires in red fir forests in Yosemite averaged 7.1 percent high severity and 

burned at significantly lower severity than wildfires on Forest Service lands on the 

east and west sides of the Sierra Nevada crest (16.3 and 12.1 percent, respectively) 

(Miller et al. 2012). Given Yosemite’s more extensive use of fire for resource benefit, 

Miller et al. (2012) suggested that the park’s levels of high-severity fire may more 

closely mimic the area’s historical fire regime. Another study in upper montane 

mixed-conifer and red fir forests with a restored fire regime in Illilouette Basin 

(Collins and Stephens 2010) found higher levels (about 15 percent) of high severity. 

This paper also analyzed high-severity patch size, finding that most patches in that 

area were small (<4 ha [10 ac]), but about 5 percent of the total number of patches 

were large (61 to 93 ha [150 to 230 ac]). High-severity patches larger than the upper 

bounds of this range may be uncharacteristic of historical fire patterns. If fire 

burns at high intensity in red fir, larger patches can switch to montane shrub fields. 

This switch may persist for decades, as shrubs inhibit tree regeneration, slow their 

Figure 2—Red fir regenerating after a mixed-severity fire in the Illilouette Basin of Yosemite National Park.

Malcolm North
112

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

growth, and facilitate postfire, small-tree mortality that favors shrub resprouting 

and dominance (Nagel and Taylor 2005).

Collectively, the research suggests two considerations for managing red fir forests. First, where feasible, fire restoration would benefit red fir ecosystems (Skinner 

2003). For some remote areas, this may mean designation as managed wildfire areas 

or include the application of prescribed fire. Fire history studies suggest that many 

stands have “missed” one to three burn events and, consequently, are likely to have 

increased fuel loading, higher stem densities, and less light in the understory (Taylor 2000). These changes have also reduced shrub cover, and the habitat that shrubs 

provide, to the low levels noted in some red fir studies (North et al. 2002, Selter et 

al. 1986). Fuel loads will need to be evaluated on a site-by-site basis (McColl and 

Powers 2003). With a mixed-severity fire regime, however, higher fuel loads may 

still be acceptable under moderate weather conditions, because some torching and 

large tree mortality may be a desired outcome. Fire appears to be the most effective 

means of ensuring natural red fir regeneration.

Second, in drier, lower elevation red fir forests, and in productive stands connected to lower elevation forests with frequent fire regimes, some fuels reduction 

may be needed to reduce risks to structures and people (Zhang and Oliver 2006). 

Initial treatments in these areas could focus on surface fuels reduction and removal 

of some smaller trees. Canopy openings do not appear to be required for successful 

regeneration as long as canopy cover is low enough to allow sun flecking, which 

is associated with increased seedling survival (Ustin et al. 1984). Red fir is shade 

tolerant, so seedlings and saplings can persist in stands with high canopy cover 

(Barbour et al. 1998, Selter et al. 1986). Studies suggest, however, that recruitment 

and establishment are often linked to disturbance, particularly fire (Taylor 1993, 

Taylor and Halpern 1991, Taylor and Solem 2001).

Experimentation with mechanical treatments that create small openings (i.e., 

0.04 to 0.2 ha [0.1 to 0.5 ac]) may be needed later as seedlings grow. Some evidence suggests that rates of sapling survival and growth are higher in areas where 

mixed-severity fire has killed overstory trees (Chappell and Agee 1996, Pitcher 

1987). Long-term regeneration studies have found abundant natural seedling and 

successful red fir establishment in canopy openings created by mechanical thinning 

(Gordon 1970, 1973a, 1973b, 1979). 

With a mixed-severity 

fire regime, higher 

fuel loads may still 

be acceptable under 

moderate weather 

conditions because 

some torching and 

large tree mortality 

may be a desired 

outcome.

Where feasible, 

fire restoration 

would benefit red 

fir ecosystems.
113

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Forest Treatments to Facilitate Fire 

Affects Heterogeneity 

Fire restoration in the Sierra Nevada is difficult owing to many constraints including enforcement of air quality regulations, liability and safety concerns, and 

increased rural home construction (North et al. 2012b). Some fire managers and 

scientists have questioned whether prescribed fire constraints limit their intended 

ecological benefits, and in particular whether there is sufficient heterogeneity in 

intensity and severity.

• Given current limitations, how can prescribed fire be applied with different 

intensities to create forest structural heterogeneity, a common goal in 

forest restoration?

Recent ecosystem management approaches that emphasize increasing forest 

structural heterogeneity largely focused on mechanical treatments while stressing 

the benefits of reintroducing fire where possible (North 2012a, North et al. 2009b). 

Prescribed fire, however, can often be used only under certain weather and fuel 

moisture conditions during a limited “burn window” allowed by air quality regulators. These constraints reduce fire effects variability because burns must often be 

quickly executed, which reduces the heterogeneity produced by slower moving 

burns that tend to be patchier. Furthermore, when fire has been absent for several 

decades, dense stands of young trees may not be killed by rapid, low-intensity prescribed fire, and structural homogeneity within the stand may be retained (Miller 

and Urban 2000). In contrast, accounts of historical fires and managed wildfires 

(often in wilderness) suggest that under less constrained conditions, fires burned for 

a long time and at different intensities, depending on changes in fuel and weather 

conditions (Nesmith et al. 2011). This variability likely created greater microclimate 

and habitat heterogeneity in the postburn forest, producing bare mineral soil areas 

where fire burned at high intensity and other areas missed by fire that could provide 

refugia for tree saplings and some fire-sensitive understory plant species (Wayman 

and North 2007). With prescribed fire, this variability is often markedly reduced 

owing to the constrained conditions of where and when fire can now be used.

In stands with constrained burn windows, forest managers might consider 

varying fuel conditions within treatment areas to help prescribed burning produce 

variable fire effects. In general, fuels treatments have been focused on removing 

ladder and surface fuels to facilitate fire containment, suppression, and reduced 

mortality of overstory trees (Reinhardt et al. 2008). When prescribed fire is allowed 

to burn for only a brief period, or when fuels have relatively similar moisture 

contents, creating surface and ladder fuel heterogeneity may help achieve some 

In stands with 

constrained burn 

windows, forest 

managers might 

consider varying fuel 

conditions within 

treatment areas to 

help prescribed 

burning produce 

variable fire effects.
114

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

of the variable fire effects that would have been produced under less constrained 

conditions. Studies suggest that surface fuel input rates and higher stem density 

associated with ladder fuels vary with site productivity (Taylor and Skinner 2003, 

van Wagtendonk and Moore 2010, van Wagtendonk et al. 1998). To create variable 

fuel conditions, managers might use small changes in productivity to guide spatial 

variation. In many mixed-conifer forests, productivity is often associated with 

available moisture. Higher surface fuel loads and some ladder fuels might be left 

in more mesic microsites and more extensively removed in more xeric conditions, 

such as ridge tops and areas with shallow soils. Metrics for evaluating prescribed 

fire effectiveness may also need to be adjusted. Desirable outcomes when creating 

variable fire effects will include limited areas of torching and some ground that 

has not been blackened. Safford et al. (2012b) recommend that prescribed burn 

projects plan for 5- to 15-percent overstory mortality. In mixed conifers, topography 

will naturally increase variability in fire effects, but given the time, weather, and 

fuel conditions, and the constraints associated with current prescribed fire policy, 

manipulations of fuel heterogeneity may be needed in some areas to produce the 

variable postburn conditions likely created by historical fire regimes.

Carbon Management in Fire-Prone Forests

Forests store large amounts of carbon and through growth can become carbon sinks 

to offset anthropogenic emissions of CO2. Wildfires release carbon back to the 

atmosphere, and the amount of release increases with fire severity. Fuels treatments 

can, in the event of a wildfire, reduce fire severity and consequent carbon release, 

but they come at a “cost,” because in the near-term they also reduce forest carbon 

stores.

• Do young, fast-growing trees that are harvested for wood products provide 

greater long-term carbon storage than growing and retaining large, old trees?

• What are the carbon costs and benefits of fuels reduction in fire-prone forests?

Through growth and the long-lived nature of many trees, forests sequester 

carbon from the atmosphere. Recent state policy and political attention has been 

focused on the potential to mitigate the effects of climate change through forest 

management. The most ready means of increasing forest carbon stores is through 

afforestation and reforestation of forest lands converted to other uses (i.e., agriculture, pasture, etc.) (IPCC 2005). Although developing countries often reduce their 

carbon stores as forest land is converted to other uses, forests in the United States 

have been a net carbon sink in the last century because of forest regrowth (particularly in the upper Midwest and New England) and, in some cases (see discussion 
115

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

below), fire suppression (Hurtt et al. 2002). For much of the United States, where 

forest land cover is now relatively stable, the question has been whether different 

management practices could stabilize or increase the amount of carbon storage that 

forests presently contain.

In the past, some groups have suggested that converting old forests to young, 

fast-growing plantations, where harvested wood products could store carbon for 

several decades, would create a net increase in long-term carbon stocks. This 

approach was based on the idea that old forests are slow growing and carbon neutral 

because respiration costs nearly balance carbon uptake (Odum 1969). More recent 

research generally does not support this idea, as a global survey of old forests found 

that many continue to sequester carbon and have stocks that far exceed young, managed forests (Luyssaert et al. 2008). In addition, there is some evidence (Sillett et 

al. 2010) that large trees may contain even more carbon than our current estimates 

predict. This is because a tree’s carbon storage is estimated from its diameter, and, 

unlike younger trees upon which most carbon allometric equations are based, old 

trees may be allocating most of their growth to the upper bole (Sillett et al. 2010). 

If young forest stocks could be efficiently harvested and their carbon sequestered in wood products for centuries, after several rotations they might match carbon stores in old forests dominated by large trees. However, this would be difficult 

with current wood use practices. The problem is not with the immediate carbon 

expense from machinery, because generally the amount of carbon loss from fossil 

fuel used in the forest operations (i.e., diesel and gasoline) is quite small (often 

<5 percent) compared with the carbon captured in the harvested forest biomass 

(Finkral and Evans 2008, North et al. 2009a). The problem is that the carbon is not 

stored for long and often ends up, through decomposition, back in the atmosphere. 

A recent global analysis of the longevity of harvested forest carbon found that 

after 30 years, in most countries (90 of 169), less than 5 percent of the carbon still 

remained in longer storage, such as wood products and landfills (Earles et al. 2012). 

Most temperate forest countries with longer-lived products, such as wood panels 

and lumber, had higher carbon storage rates, with Europe, Canada, and the United 

States averaging 36 percent of the forest carbon still stored after 30 years (Earles et 

al. 2012). This higher rate, however, is still far short of what large long-lived trees 

would continue to accumulate and store over several decades to centuries.

In fire-prone forests, there has been substantial debate about whether carbon 

loss through fuels treatment (mechanical thinning or prescribed fire) is offset by 

lower carbon emissions if the treated stand is later burned by wildfire (Campbell et 

al. 2012, Hurteau and North 2009, Hurteau et al. 2008, Mitchell et al. 2009, North 

and Hurteau 2011). Different results from these studies and others are in part due 
116

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Box 2.1-1

Forest Management at Landscape Scales

Most forest ecology research has been concentrated on small spatial and temporal scales that are not 

always relevant to managing forest landscapes over the long term. What research has occurred at 

broader scales is often context-specific, providing case studies of particular landscapes and species. 

Although there are many relevant modeling studies, it is difficult to find empirical landscape-scale, 

long-term ecological research that is directly relevant to current management issues in the Sierra 

Nevada. In practice, it is often local managers who must make these decisions and must balance where 

and when to maintain current conditions versus treating forests to move toward a desired condition 

decades in the future. An example may help illustrate how different scales are often considered and how 

a stand’s context might affect management decisions.

A manager might be faced with the choice of whether to thin around a large black oak (Quercus 

kelloggii) that is being overtopped by surrounding conifers. If thinning sufficiently opens up the canopy, 

the oak will likely survive and may produce acorns that could thrive in the high-light environment. If 

left alone, the oak will likely die within a few years, but even so, the tree can provide valuable resting 

and nesting habitat for sensitive species in the near future (as both a near-dead tree and, later, as a snag). 

Any manager faced with this decision will have to weigh current and future needs for habitat and oak 

regeneration, both locally and across the landscape in which the stand is embedded. The context of the 

forest’s current condition forces 

consideration of landscape 

scales. For example, how rare 

are sensitive species habitats and 

large oaks within the broader 

landscape, and how rare will 

they be in the future? How 

resilient will a large oak be to 

prolonged drought under different levels of stem density? 

There is no clear resolution to 

this situation. Communicating 

what the tradeoffs are and how 

decisions will be made may 

help stakeholders understand 

the effort to incorporate broader 

spatial and temporal scales into 

current, stand-level management 

decisions. Figure 3—Large legacy black oak used by a fisher for a rest site. The tree is 

surrounded and overtopped by ingrowth resulting from fire suppression.

Bill Zielinski
117

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

to the spatial and temporal scale over which the carbon accounting is assessed, the 

“fate” of the carbon removed in the fuels treatment, and whether long-term carbon 

emissions from dead trees are included (Hurteau and Brooks 2011). In general, 

treating forests often results in a net carbon loss owing to the low probability of 

wildfire actually burning the treated area, the modest reduction in wildfire combustion and carbon emissions, and the need to maintain fuels reduction through 

periodic additional carbon removal (Campbell et al. 2012). Over the long term (i.e., 

centuries), Campbell et al. (2012) suggest that carbon stores in unthinned forests 

and those that experience infrequent high-severity fire will exceed those exposed to 

frequent low-severity fire. Forest location, however, is an important consideration, 

as some areas (e.g., road corridors, ridge tops) have much higher risk of ignition and 

carbon loss from wildfire than other areas. For most policy and economic analyses, 

the temporal scale identified by Campbell et al. (2012) may not be as relevant as 

carbon dynamics over the next few decades (Hurteau et al. 2013). 

Recent research has proposed the idea of carbon carrying capacity (Keith et 

al. 2009). This concept may be particularly relevant to forest managers because it 

emphasizes carbon stability and the level of storage that forests can maintain. In 

the absence of disturbance, a forest may “pack” on more carbon as the density and 

size of trees increase. This additional biomass, however, makes the forest prone to 

disturbances, such as drought stress, pests, pathogens, and higher severity wildfire, 

which increase tree mortality. This mortality reduces carbon stocks as dead trees 

decompose, and through efflux much of the carbon returns to the atmosphere. 

Carbon carrying capacity, therefore, is lower than the maximum storage potential 

of a forest, but represents the biomass that can be maintained given disturbance 

and mortality agents endogenous to the ecosystem. In frequent-fire forests such 

as Sierra Nevada mixed conifer, the carbon carrying capacity is the amount that 

a forest can store and still be resilient (i.e., have low levels of mortality) to fire, 

drought, and bark beetle disturbances (Earles et al. 2014).

One factor that would change this long-term balance is if management activities 

led to increased carbon storage by altering the amount and longevity of sequestered carbon. In Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests, two studies that examined 

historical forest conditions have suggested that this might be possible. Although 

historical forests were less dense as a result of frequent fire, they may have stored 

more carbon because the number and size of large trees was greater than in current 

forests that have fewer large trees (Fellows and Golden 2008, North et al. 2009a), 

possibly owing to increased mortality rates from increased stand density (Smith et 

al. 2005). Carbon stores are calculated from total tree biomass (a three-dimensional 

measure) and will be much higher in a stand with a few large trees compared with 
118

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

a stand with many small trees, even if both stands have similar basal area (a twodimensional measure). Other studies (Hurteau et al. 2010, Scholl and Taylor 2010), 

however, have found higher carbon storage in modern fire-suppressed forests than 

in historical active-fire forests, suggesting that there may be considerable variability 

between different locations and levels of productivity. In general, forests managed 

so that growth and carbon accumulation are concentrated in large trees will also 

have longer, more secure carbon storage than stands where growth is concentrated 

in a high density of small trees prone to pest, pathogen, and fire mortality.

Literature Cited

Barbour, M.; Frenau, R.F.; Rey Beneayas, J.M.; Jurjavcic, N.; Royce, E.B. 

1998. Tree regeneration following clearcut logging in red fir forests of California. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 104(1): 101–111.

Bekker, M.F.; Taylor, A.H. 2001. Gradient analysis of fire regimes in montane 

forests of the southern Cascade Range, Thousand Lakes Wilderness, California, 

USA. Plant Ecology. 155(1): 15–28.

Bigelow, S.; North, M.; Salk, C. 2011. Using light to predict fuels-reduction and 

group-selection effects on succession in Sierran mixed-conifer forest. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 41(10): 2051–2063.

Campbell, J.L.; Harmon, M.E.; Mitchell, S.R. 2012. Can fuel-reduction 

treatments really increase forest carbon storage in the western US by reducing 

future fire emissions? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 10(2): 83–90.

Chappell, C.B.; Agee, J.K. 1996. Fire severity and tree seedling establishment in 

Abies magnifica forests, southern Cascades, Oregon. Ecological Applications. 

6: 628–640.

Collins, B.M.; Everett, R.G.; Stephens, S.L. 2011. Impacts of fire exclusion and 

recent managed fire on forest structure in old growth Sierra Nevada mixedconifer forests. Ecosphere. 2(4): article 51.

Collins, B.M.; Stephens, S.L. 2010. Stand-replacing patches within a mixed 

severity fire regime: quantitative characterization using recent fires in a longestablished natural fire area. Landscape Ecology. 25(6): 927–939.

Davis, F.W.; Stoms, D.M. 1996. Sierran vegetation: a gap analysis. In: Sierra 

Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress. Vol. II. Assessments and 

scientific basis for management options. Wildland Resources Center Report 

No. 37. Davis, CA: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildlands 

Resources: 671–690.

In general, forests 

managed so that 

growth and carbon 

accumulation are 

concentrated in 

large trees will have 

longer, more secure 

carbon storage than 

stands where growth 

is concentrated in a 

high density of small 

trees prone to pest, 

pathogen, and fire 

mortality.
119

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Earles, J.J.; North, M.P.; Hurteau, M.D. 2014. Wildfire and drought dynamics 

destabilize carbon stores of fire-suppressed forests. Ecological Applications. 

24(4): 732–740.

Earles, J.J.; Yeh, S.; Skog, K.E. 2012. Timing of carbon emissions from global 

forest clearance. Nature Climate Change. 2(9): 682–685.

Fellows, A.W.; Goulden, M.L. 2008. Has fire suppression increased the amount 

of carbon stored in western U.S. forests? Geophysical Research Letters. 28(12): 

2077–2080.

Fettig, C.J. 2012. Forest health and bark beetles. In: North, M., ed. Managing 

Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 

13–22. Chapter 2.

Finkral, A.J.; Evans, A.M. 2008. The effects of a thinning treatment on carbon 

stocks in a northern Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 255(7): 2743–2750.

Gordon, D.T. 1970. Natural regeneration of white and red fir... influence of several 

factors. Res. Pap. PSW-58. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 32 p.

Gordon, D.T. 1973a. Damage from wind and other causes in mixed white fir-red fir 

stands adjacent to conifers. Res. Pap. PSW-90. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 23 p.

Gordon, D.T. 1973b. Released advance reproduction of white and red fir ... 

growth, damage, mortality. Res. Pap. PSW-95. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 12 p.

Gordon, D.T. 1979. Successful natural regeneration cuttings in California true 

fir. Res. Pap. PSW-140. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14 p.

Gray, A.; Zald, H.; Kern, R.; North, M. 2005. Stand conditions associated with 

tree regeneration in Sierran mixed-conifer forests. Forest Science. 51(3): 198–210.

Hickman, J.C. 1993. The Jepson manual of higher plants of California. Berkeley 

and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p.
120

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Hurteau, M.D.; Brooks, M.L. 2011. Short- and long-term effects of fire on carbon 

in US dry temperate forest systems. BioScience. 61(2): 139–146.

Hurteau, M.D.; Hungate, B.A.; Koch, G.W.; North, M.P.; Smith, G.R. 2013. 

Aligning ecology and markets in the forest carbon cycle. Frontiers in Ecology 

and the Environment. 11(1): 37–42.

Hurteau, M.D.; Koch, G.W.; Hungate, B.A. 2008. Carbon protection and fire risk 

reduction: toward a full accounting of forest carbon offsets. Frontiers in Ecology 

and the Environment. 6(9): 493–498.

Hurteau, M.; North, M. 2009. Fuel treatment effects on tree-based forest carbon 

storage and emissions under modeled wildfire scenarios. Frontiers in Ecology 

and the Environment. 7(8): 409–414.

Hurteau, M.D.; Stoddard, M.T.; Fule, P.Z. 2010. The carbon costs of mitigating 

high-severity wildfire in southwestern ponderosa pine. Global Change Biology. 

17(4): 1516–1521.

Hurtt, G.C.; Pacala, S.W.; Moorcroft, P.R.; Caspersen, J.; Shevliakova, E.; 

Houghton, R.A.; Moore, B., III. 2002. Projecting the future of the U.S. carbon 

sink. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America. 99(3): 1389–1394.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. 2005. Intergovernmental 

panel on climate change special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. 

New York: Cambridge University Press. 440 p.

Jennings, S.B.; Brown, N.D.; Sheil, D. 1999. Assessing forest canopies and 

understorey illumination: canopy closure; canopy cover and other measures. 

Forestry. 72(1): 59–73.

Keith, H.; Mackey, B.G.; Lindenmayer, D.B. 2009. Re-evaluation of forest 

biomass carbon stocks and lessons from the world’s most carbon-dense forests. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America. 106: 11635–11640.

Knapp, E.; North, M.; Benech, M.; Estes, B. 2012. Chapter 12: The variabledensity thinning study at Stanislaus-Tuolumne Experimental Forest. In: North, 

M., ed. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station: 127–139.
121

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Laacke, R.J. 1990. Abies magnifica A. Murr. California red fir. In: Burns, R.M.; 

Honkala, B.H., eds. Silvics of North America. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 71–79.

Larson, A.J.; Churchill, D. 2012. Tree spatial patterns in fire-frequent forests 

of western North American, including mechanisms of pattern formation and 

implications for designing fuel reduction and restoration treatments. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 267: 74–92.

Luyssaert, S.; Schulze, E.D.; Borner, A.; Knohl, A.; Hessenmoller, D.; Law, 

B.E.; Ciais, P.; Graces, J. 2008. Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. 

Nature. 455(7210): 213–215.

Lydersen, J.; North, M. 2012. Topographic variation in structure of mixed-conifer 

forests under an active-fire regime. Ecosystems. 15(7): 1134–1146.

McColl, J.G.; Powers, R.F. 2003. Decomposition of small woody debris of 

California red fir: mass loss and elemental content over 17 years. Soil Science 

Society of America Journal. 67(4): 1227–1233.

McDonald, P.M.; Phillip, P.E. 1999. Plant community development after 28 years 

in small group-selection openings. Res. Pap. PSW-RP-241. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

17 p.

McKelvey, K.S.; Johnson, J.D. 1992. Historical perspectives on forests of 

the Sierra Nevada and the Transverse Ranges of Southern California: forest 

conditions at the turn of the century. In: Verner, J.; McKelvey, K.S.; Noon, B.R.; 

Gutierrez, R.J.; Gould, G.I., Jr.; Beck T.W., eds. The California spotted owl: a 

technical assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-133. Albany, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station: 225–246.

Miller, C.; Urban, D.L. 2000. Modeling the effects of fire management 

alternatives in Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests. Ecological Applications. 

10(1): 85–94.

Miller, J.D.; Collins, B.M.; Lutz, J.A.; Stephens, S.L.; van Wagtendonk, 

J.W.; Yasuda, D.A. 2012. Differences in wildfires among ecoregions and land 

management agencies in the Sierra Nevada region, California, USA. Ecosphere. 

3(9): article 80.
122

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Mitchell, S.R.; Harmon, M.E.; O’Connell, K.E.B. 2009. Forest fuel reduction 

alters fire severity and long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest 

ecosystems. Ecological Applications. 19(3): 643–655.

Nagel, T.A.; Taylor, A.H. 2005. Fire and persistence of montane chaparral in 

mixed conifer forest landscapes in the northern Sierra Nevada, Lake Tahoe, 

Basin, California, USA. The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 132(3): 

442–457.

Nesmith, J.C.B.; Caprio, A.C.; Pfaff, A.H.; McGinnis, T.W.; Keeley, J.E. 

2011. A comparison of effects from prescribed fires and wildfires managed for 

resource objectives in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 261(7): 1275–1282.

North, M., ed. 2012a. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. 184 p.

North, M. 2012b. A desired future condition for Sierra Nevada forests. In: North, 

M., ed. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station: 165–175.

North, M.; Boynton, R.M.; Stine, P.A.; Shipley, K.F.; Underwood, E.C.; Roth, 

N.E.; Viers, J.H.; Quinn, J.F. 2012a. Geographic information system landscape 

analysis using GTR 220 concepts. In: North, M., ed. Managing Sierra Nevada 

forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 107–115.

North, M.; Collins, B.M.; Stephens, S.L. 2012b. Using fire to increase the scale, 

benefits and future maintenance of fuels treatments. Journal of Forestry. 110(7): 

392–401. 

North, M.P.; Hurteau, M.D. 2011. High-severity wildfire effects on carbon 

stocks and emissions in fuels treated and untreated forest. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 261(6): 1115–1120.

North, M.; Hurteau, M.; Innes, J. 2009a. Fire suppression and fuels treatment 

effects on mixed-conifer carbon stocks and emissions. Ecological Applications. 

19(6): 1385–1396.
123

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

North, M.; Oakley, B.; Chen, J.; Erickson, H.; Gray, A.; Izzo, A.; Johnson, D.; 

Ma, S.; Marra, J.; Meyer, M.; Purcell, K.; Rambo, T.; Roath, B.; Rizzo, D.; 

Schowalter, T. 2002. Vegetation and ecological characteristics of mixed-conifer 

and red-fir forests at the Teakettle Experimental Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-186. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. 52 p.

North, M.; Sherlock, J. 2012. Marking and assessing forest heterogeneity. In: 

North, M., ed. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station: 95–105.

North, M.; Stine, P. 2012. Clarifying concepts. In: North, M., ed. Managing Sierra 

Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 149–164.

North, M.; Stine, P.; O’Hara, K.; Zielinski, W.; Stephens, S. 2009b. An 

ecosystem management strategy for Sierran mixed-conifer forests. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-220. 2nd ed. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49 p.

Nuttle, T. 1997. Densiometer bias? Are we measuring the forest or the trees? 

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 25: 610–611.

Odum, E.P. 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science. 164: 262–270.

Parker, A.J. 1984. Mixed forests of red fir and white fir in Yosemite National Park, 

California. American Midland Naturalist. 112: 15–23.

Pitcher, D.C. 1987. Fire history and age structure in red fir forests of Sequoia 

National Park, California. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 17(7): 582–587.

Reinhardt, E.D.; Keane, R.E.; Calkin, D.E.; Cohen, J.D. 2008. Objectives and 

considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior 

western United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 256(12): 1997–2006. 

Safford, H.D.; North, M.; Meyer, M.D. 2012a. Climate change and the relevance 

of historical forest conditions. In: North, M., ed. Managing Sierra Nevada 

forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 23–45.

Safford, H.D.; Stevens, J.T.; Merriam, K.; Meyer, M.D.; Latimer, A.M. 2012b. 

Fuel treatment effectiveness in California yellow pine and mixed conifer forests. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 274: 17–28.
124

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Scholl, A.E.; Taylor, A.H. 2006. Regeneration patterns in old-growth red firwestern white pine forests in the northern Sierra Nevada, Lake Tahoe, USA. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 235(1): 143–154.

Scholl, A.E.; Taylor, A.H. 2010. Fire regimes, forest change, and self-organization 

in an old-growth mixed-conifer forest, Yosemite National Park, USA. Ecological 

Applications. 20(2): 362–380.

Selter, C.M.; Pitts, W.D.; Barbour, M.G. 1986. Site microenvironment and 

seedling survival of Shasta red fir. American Midland Naturalist. 115: 288–300.

Sillett, S.C.; Van Pelt, R.; Koch, G.W.; Ambrose, A.R.; Carroll, A.L., Antoine, 

M.E.; Mifsud, B.M. 2010. Increasing wood production through old age in tall 

tree. Forest Ecology and Management. 259(5): 976–994.

Skinner, C.N. 2003. Fire regimes of upper montane and subalpine glacial basins 

in the Klamath Mountains of northern California. In: Galley, K.E.M.; Klinger, 

R.C.; Sugihara, N.G., eds. Proceedings of fire conference 2000: the first 

national congress on fire ecology, prevention, and management. Misc. Publ. 13. 

Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 145–151.

Smith, T.; Rizzo D.; North, M. 2005. Patterns of mortality in an old-growth 

mixed-conifer forest of the southern Sierra Nevada, California. Forest Science. 

51(3): 266–275.

Stephens, S.L. 2000. Mixed conifer and red fir forest structure and uses in 1899 

from the central and northern Sierra Nevada, California. Madroño. 47(1): 43–52.

Stephens, S.L. 2001. Fire history differences in adjacent Jeffrey pine and upper 

montane forests in the eastern Sierra Nevada. International Journal of Wildland 

Fire. 10(2): 161–167.

Stephens, S.L.; Martin, R.E.; Clinton, N.E. 2007. Prehistoric fire area and 

emissions from California’s forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 251(3): 205–216.

Sugihara, N.G.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Shaffer, K.E.; Fites-Kaufman, J.; 

Thode, A.E. 2006. Fire in California’s ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press. 596 p.

Taylor, A.H. 1993. Fire history and structure of red fir (Abies magnifica) forests, 

Swain Mountain Experimental Forest, Cascade Range, northeastern California. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 23(8): 1672–1678.
125

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Taylor, A.H. 2000. Fire regimes and forest changes along a montane forest 

gradient, Lassen Volcanic National Park, southern Cascade Mountains, USA. 

Journal of Biogeography. 27(1): 87–104.

Taylor, A.H. 2004. Identifying forest reference conditions on early cut-over lands, 

Lake Tahoe Basin, USA. Ecological Applications. 14(6): 1903–1920.

Taylor, A.H. 2010. Fire disturbance and forest structure in an old-growth Pinus 

ponderosa forest, southern Cascades, USA. Journal of Vegetation Science. 

21(3): 561–570.

Taylor, A.H.; Halpern. C.B. 1991. The structure and dynamics of Abies magnifica

forest in the southern Cascade Range, USA. Journal of Vegetation Science. 

2(2): 189–200.

Taylor, A.H.; Skinner, C.N. 2003. Spatial patterns and controls on historical fire 

regimes and forest structure in the Klamath Mountains. Ecological Applications. 

13(3): 704–719.

Taylor, A.H.; Solem, M.N. 2001. Fire regimes in an upper montane forest 

landscape in the southern Cascades, Caribou Wilderness, California. Journal of 

the Torrey Botanical Society. 128: 350–361.

Ustin, S.L.; Woodward, R.A.; Barbour, M.G. 1984. Relationships between 

sunfleck dynamics and red fir seedling distribution. Ecology. 65: 1420–1428.

van de Water, K.M.; Safford, H.D. 2011. A summary of fire frequency estimates 

for California vegetation before Euro-American settlement. Fire Ecology. 7(3): 

26–58.

van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Benedict, J.M.; Sydoriak, W.M. 1998. Fuel bed 

characteristics of Sierra Nevada Conifers. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 

13(3): 73–84.

van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Moore, P.E. 2010. Fuel deposition rates of montane and 

subalpine conifers in the central Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 259(10): 2122–2132.

Wayman, R.; North, M. 2007. Initial response of a mixed-conifer understory plant 

community to burning and thinning restoration treatments. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 239(1): 32–44.

York, R.A.; Battles, J.J.; Heald, R.C. 2003. Edge effects in mixed conifer group 

selection openings: tree height response to resource gradients. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 179(1): 107–121. 
126

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

York, R.A.; Battles, J.C.; Wenk, R.C.; Saah, D. 2012. A gap-based approach for 

regenerating pine species and reducing surface fuels in multi-aged mixed conifer 

stands in the Sierra Nevada, California. Forestry. 85(2): 203–213.

York, R.A.; Heald, R.C.; Battles, J.J.; York, J.D. 2004. Group selection 

management in conifer forests: relationships between opening size and tree 

growth. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 34(3): 630–641. 

Zald, H.; Gray, A.; North, M.; Kern, R. 2008. Initial regeneration responses 

to fire and thinning treatments in a Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forest, USA. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 256(1): 168–179.

Zhang, J.; Oliver, W.W. 2006. Stand structure and growth of Abies magnifica

responded to five thinning levels in northeastern California, USA. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 223(1): 275–283.
127

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Genetics of forest trees are important to consider when planning for long-term ecological resilience, especially in the face of introduced diseases like white-pine 

blister rust and changes in climate that have altered the composition of forests in the 

Sierra Nevada. Selecting which trees to plant, and where and when to plant them, will 

have an important influence on the long-term condition of forests and the benefits that 

they provide.

Section 3—Genetics of Forest Trees

Richard Cronn
128

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247
129

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Jessica Wright 1

Summary

Combining data from provenance test studies with our current understanding of 

predicted climate change can be a powerful tool for informing reforestation efforts. 

However, the limitations of both sources of data need to be understood to develop 

an approach to ecological restoration that reduces risk and promotes the highest 

chance of successful reforestation. 

Introduction

Climate change is anticipated to cause dramatic shifts in climate across the Sierra 

Nevada, including increased frequency and severity of wildfires (Safford et al. 

2012). Reforestation may be an important component of ecological restoration after 

stand-replacing wildfires. These wildfire events may be important opportunities 

to promote resilience to climate change, because interventions during the early 

stages of succession can be less costly and more effective than during later stages 

(Betancourt 2012). Ecological genetics, the study of genes and genotypes of natural 

populations in their environment, can help guide restoration efforts with the goal of 

promoting more resilient forests.

Research in forest genetics strives to understand the distribution and structure 

of genetic variation within tree species across the landscape. This information can 

support the development of resilient forest management strategies. Studies include 

examining genetic variation in adaptive traits (growth and survival) in common 

garden studies (Conkle 1973, Mátyás 1994, 1996; O’Neill et al. 2007, 2008; Rehfeldt 

1999, Thomson and Parker 2008, Thomson et al. 2009, Ukrainetz et al. 2011), as 

well as using molecular genetic and genomic variation to characterize genetic 

variation (reviewed in Neale and Kremer 2011). Although the study of conservation 

genetics has been useful to the management of forest animal species (Avise 2004), 

this chapter focuses on the genetics of forest trees, which are uniquely challenged 

in responding to climate change because they are long lived and cannot move once 

established, should the climate in a local area become intolerable.

An important question in forest management is how to use genetic tools to 

improve management responses to climate change. There are several potential 

strategies available to promote resilient forests. In 1992, Ledig and Kitzmiller 

proposed responding to climate change through assisted migration. They suggested 

Chapter 3.1—Genetics of Forest Trees

1 Conservation geneticist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.
130

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

moving tree seed sources uphill by an amount defined by the projected amount of 

increased temperature according to Hopkin’s Law, which predicts that temperature 

goes down 1.4 °C for every 1,000-ft gain in elevation (Ledig and Kitzmiller 1992). 

However, they also recommended waiting 10 years before starting any program of 

assisted migration in order to wait until “the signal for global warming becomes 

clearer” (Ledig and Kitzmiller 1992: 158). This simplistic approach to responding 

to novel climates has been argued against, particularly given the complex nature of 

mountain ecosystems (Millar et al. 2007). Indeed, uncertainty in predictions of the 

amount of temperature and precipitation changes in mountain ecosystems is a major 

hurdle in designing reforestation efforts to respond to climate change (Millar et al. 

2007). One suggested approach is to sow mixtures of seed sources and, hence, use 

a hedging approach to minimize the risk of failure (Crowe and Parker 2008, Millar 

et al. 2007). The topic of assisted migration (also known as managed relocation; see 

Schwartz et al. 2012) is highly complex, and is currently under intense debate. A 

recent review article describes a set of relevant ethical, policy, and ecological questions surrounding any managed relocation effort (Schwartz et al. 2012). There is 

currently no consensus for the use of managed relocation in managing California’s 

forested ecosystems or in any other ecosystem (see box 3.1-2).

Forest genetics research has made a number of important contributions to land 

management practices in the Sierra Nevada. Perhaps none is more important than 

the creation of the California seed zone map (fig. 1) (Buck et al. 1970). The seed 

zone map indicates areas where seeds can be safely planted to preserve genetic 

structure and local adaptation. Forest Service silviculturists and geneticists use 

these seed zones to guide their seed collecting and planting decisions for ecological restoration projects that include reforestation. In California, there is one seed 

zone map for all tree species. The basic rule of thumb is that a reforestation project 

will use seeds from the same seed zone and within a 500-ft elevation band from 

the planting site (Buck et al. 1970). Recently, many of these reforestation projects 

have been organized as part of a postfire response to help facilitate the recovery of 

forests after stand-replacing wildfire.

Although the California seed zone map has done well in guiding reforestation 

efforts in the past, its future effectiveness is under question owing to projected 

climate change (Erickson et al. 2012). The map was created under an assumption of 

a static climate, and that assumption is no longer sound (IPCC 2007). New information is needed to establish best management practices for reforestation efforts in the 

Sierra Nevada.

There is currently 

no consensus for 

the use of managed 

relocation in managing 

California’s forested 

ecosystems or in any 

other ecosystem.
131

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Figure 1—Seed zones (with purple outlines; the numbers identify each of the zones) and provenance tests 

(circles) established by the Pacific Southwest Research Station within the national forests (aqua areas) that are 

in the focus area of this review. The map includes two main seed zone series, 500 for the west slope and 700 

for the east slope, within the Sierra Nevada synthesis area. The colored dots show locations of provenance tests 

in a number of conifer and hardwood species. Map by Ross Gerrard, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. LTBMU = Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit; IFG Placerville = Pacific Southwest Research 

Station Institute of Forest Genetics, Placerville, California.
132

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Provenance Tests

Provenance tests are an important source of genetic information that can be used to 

inform land management. These are studies where seeds are collected from across 

the range of a species and grown in a common garden or gardens (ideally, multiple 

planting sites are used to allow a comparison between the different planting environments). Tests can be designed to focus either on variation within a species or 

variation among species by planting a number of different species in a single test.2

Because seeds are moved from one climate environment to another, the response of 

each genotype to that novel climate can be measured. In general, provenance tests 

have revealed temperature to be the most important climate variable determining 

tree survival and growth (reviewed in Aitken et al. 2008). However, some analyses 

do show that precipitation is an important factor in determining performance 

(e.g., Ukrainetz et al. 2011). Interestingly, for the Sierra Nevada, predictions from 

2 For a recently planted current example, see http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/forgen/interior/AMAT.htm.

Box 3.1-1

Emerging Genetic and Genomic Approaches

Recent advancements in molecular genetic and genomic approaches are 

making available powerful new tools, which allow for a better understanding of the genetic variation underlying important traits and the association 

between genetic variation and environmental variation. Recently Parchman 

et al. (2012) used a novel genomic approach and found 97,000 variable sites 

in a genome-wide survey of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) variation. Using a genome-wide association study, they were able to identify 11 

candidate loci that were strongly associated with serotiny in lodgepole pines 

(Pinus contorta) in Wyoming. By using approaches like this, one can find the 

loci that are associated with ecologically and economically important traits. In 

addition, landscape genomic approaches are starting to identify loci associated 

with climate variation. For example, Eckert et al. (2010) examined 1,730 SNPs 

in loblolly pine (P. taeda) and found several of them associated with climate 

variables, suggesting that those loci are potentially adaptive. Association 

genetics and landscape genomics are beginning to provide important insights 

for understanding the underlying genetics of adaptive traits. Understanding 

how adaptive variation is distributed across the landscape can potentially help 

inform management decisions, including reforestation efforts. 
133

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Box 3.1-2

Forest Service Report on “Genetic Options for Adapting 

National Forests to Climate Change”

In light of the uncertainty regarding managed relocation, Forest Service 

geneticists prepared a report entitled “Genetic resource management and 

climate change: genetic options for adapting national forests to climate 

change” (Erickson et al. 2012). The report presents underlying principles 

for the role of genetics in responses to climate change. It outlines the need 

for “genetically diverse and adapted seed and planting stock” (Principle 1, 

page 10) for ecological restoration, and it emphasizes the importance of gene 

conservation. The authors recommend developing seed collection, storage, 

and nursery capacity, particularly for a broader range of species than have 

historically been deployed. They also propose working to establish new 

provenance and common garden studies, recognizing the need for the type 

of data that provenance tests can generate. They also put forward the idea 

of examining potential in situ and ex situ gene conservation plans.

future climate models yield more consistent estimates for mean annual temperature 

(MAT) than for mean annual precipitation (MAP) (Safford et al. 2012). Added to 

that is the geographic complexity found in the mountain ecosystems of the Sierra 

Nevada (Millar et al. 2007). The availability of water is dependent on MAP, but 

also on local, microscale topography and soils, which determine what happens 

to rain after it falls and washes down the mountain slope. As a result, two trees 

growing 10 m from each other could have very different amounts of available water, 

but they would still be experiencing the same MAT. Clearly, even modeling current 

climate in a mountain environment is challenging.

An example of a very comprehensive provenance test is found in British 

Columbia, Canada. The Illingworth test in lodgepole pine (P. contorta spp. latifolia, 

murrayana, and contorta) was established in 1969, using 140 source populations, 

with 62 different test sites established, for a total of 69,120 seeds sown. The data 

from this test have been used to determine the response of populations to novel 

climates (O’Neill et al. 2008, Rehfeldt et al. 1999, Wang et al. 2010). Rehfeldt et 

al. (1999) performed a series of regression analyses to determine how the different source populations would respond to a changing climate. O’Neill et al. (2008) 

expanded this analysis to create a universal transfer function, which allows prediction of current and future forest productivity “for any population in any location” 

(page 1041) using current climate and different models of climate change. Wang 
134

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

et al. (2010) developed a universal response function (URF) using the same data, 

then modeled forest height for lodgepole pines in British Columbia under projected 

climate change scenarios, including both forests planted with local planting stock as 

well as planting stock predicted to have the best height growth using the URF and 

the A2 “enterprise” climate scenario. They found very dramatic changes between 

the two models, with the modeled forests planted with the “ideal” planting stock 

being much taller than those that used the local planting stock.

This analysis was possible because of the existence of the Illingworth Provenance Test in British Columbia. In California, there are provenance test resources 

established by the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station for Jeffrey, 

ponderosa, and sugar pine, and red and grand fir (e.g., Conkle 1973; Kitzmiller 

2004, 2005) (fig. 1). However, the largest number of planting sites for these tests 

was four—much fewer than the 62 sites used in Canada. For the provenances 

that were tested, similar analyses are being performed. Past analyses have shown 

evidence for local adaptation in both sugar pine (Kitzmiller 2004) and ponderosa 

pine (Kitzmiller 2005). However, with limited existing provenance test resources, it 

is not possible to match the level of detail that can be achieved in British Columbia 

for lodgepole pine. If something approaching the level of detail achieved in Canada 

is desired for California, investment would be needed to establish additional tests in 

a broader range of species, as well as across a broad range of planting sites, including those outside of traditional planting areas. The Forest Service Pacific Southwest 

Region has begun to establish climate adaptation plots that are designed to test 

the response of seedlings moving uphill within a seed zone. Plots were established 

within ecological restoration projects, with as much variation as possible in elevation. These sites have a great deal of potential to support future ecological restoration projects by determining how far uphill trees can be moved within a seed zone 

and still survive and grow; however, they will require attention over the next several 

decades to obtain their full value. Because these test plots were all established 

using material from within the same seed zone, they are not useful for testing how 

seeds perform in different seed zones. Although provenance tests take a long time 

to show results for 30-year growth in a particular climate, information can begin 

to be obtained from tests starting on the day they are planted. Seedling growth and 

survival can be assessed from the very beginning of the experiment.

It is important, however, to point out the drawbacks and limitations of 

provenance test data. First are the silvicultural techniques used to establish each 

of the planting sites. Both to reduce environmental variation and to make sure 

as many seedlings survive the transplanting process as possible, sites are highly 

prepared, and seedlings are often watered until they are well established (Aitken 

These climate adaptation plots have a

great deal of potential 

to support future 

ecological restoration 

projects by determining 

how far uphill trees can 

be moved within a seed 

zone and still survive 

and grow.
135

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

et al. 2008). This can result in conditions that are very different from operational 

tree plantings, which often use the “plant and pray” method—seedlings are planted 

but not watered, and often not kept clear of competing vegetation. Another issue, 

particularly with historical tests, is that test sites were not established in marginal 

environments or outside of the range of the species (O’Neill et al. 2008). These 

tests were often established with silvicultural goals—finding the best seed sources 

for particular sites—and there was little point in learning about sites where trees 

did not thrive. However, under climate change, these could be some of the most 

important sites to include in future studies. Finally, provenance tests do not test 

the impacts of other important and potentially interacting factors besides climate, 

including fire, insect pests, or diseases (Aitken et al. 2008, O’Neill et al. 2008). 

A tree can be optimally adapted to grow in a certain environment, but it hardly 

matters if it is killed by beetles or is not resistant to a local pathogen. 

Recognition and Management of Provenance 

Test Sites on National Forests

As a final note, it is important that land and resource management plans recognize 

the significance of provenance test plots located within national forests (fig. 1). 

Along with other kinds of special management areas designated for research purposes, these sites are investments whose value can be lost if they are inadvertently 

or randomly treated without appropriate direction from the researchers assigned to 

oversee them. Although sites should not necessarily be deferred from treatment, if 

treatments are needed, they should be carefully implemented to avoid unintended 

impacts to the research value of the site.

Figure 2—The Harrell provenance test in sugar pine includes 124 different sources of 

sugar pine, all grown in a single common garden.

Jessica Wright
136

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Management Implications

There is active scientific debate about whether revegetation efforts should move 

beyond local sourcing of revegetation materials toward the managed relocation of 

genotypes that appear better adapted to expected climate change; however, there 

is broad consensus for using common garden experiments or provenance tests to 

prepare for projected conditions by better understanding how genetic variability can 

improve ecological restoration (fig. 3). 

Provenance Test Data

● Source climate data

● Test-site climate data

Quantifies responses within

species to a range of climates

Predicts the range of potential

future climates at a given site

General Circulation Models

● Predictions for climate change

Models the performance of a given 

seed source at a given site 

in current future climate conditions

Figure 3—Flowchart illustrating how climate modeling and genetic information can help suggest 

seed sources to promote forests that are more resilient to climate change.

Literature Cited

Aitken, S.N.; Yeaman, S.; Holliday, J.A.; Wang, T.; Curits-McLane, S. 

2008. Adaptation, migration or extirpation: climate change outcomes for tree 

populations. Evolutionary Applications. 1: 95–111.

Avise, J.C. 2004. Molecular markers, natural history, and evolution. 2nd ed. 

Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. 684 p.

Betancourt, J.L. 2012. Reflections on the relevance of history in a nonstationary 

world. In: Wiens, J.A.; Hayward, G.D.; Safford, H.D.; Giffen, C.M., eds. 

Historical environmental variation in conservation and natural resource 

management. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons: 307–318.

Bonner, F.T.; Karrfalt, R.P. 2008. The woody plant seed manual. Agric. Handb. 

727. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1223 p.

There is broad 

consensus for using 

common garden 

experiments or 

provenance tests to 

prepare for projected 

conditions by better 

understanding how 

genetic variability can 

improve ecological 

restoration.
137

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Buck, J.M.; Adams, R.S.; Cone, J.; Conkle, T.; Libby, W.J.; Eden, C.J.; 

Knight, M.J. 1970. California tree seed zones. San Francisco, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 5 p.

Conkle, M.T. 1973. Growth data for 29 years from the California elevational 

transect study of ponderosa pine. Forest Science. 19: 31–39.

Crowe, K.A.; Parker, W.H. 2008. Using portfolio theory to guide reforestation 

and restoration under climate change scenarios. Climatic Change. 89: 355–370.

Eckert, A.J.; Bower, A.D.; González-Martínez, S.C.; Wegrzyn, J.L.; Coop, 

G.; Neale, D.B. 2010. Back to nature: ecological genomics of loblolly pine 

(Pinus taeda, Pinaceae). Molecular Ecology. 19: 3789–3805.

Erickson, V.; Aubry, C.; Berrang, P.; Blush, T.; Bower, A.; Crane, B.; DeSpain, 

T.; Gwaze, D.; Hamlin, J.; Horning, M.; Johnson, R.; Mahalovich, M.; 

Maldonado, M.; Sniezko, R.; St. Clair, B. 2012. Genetic resource management 

and climate change: genetic options for adapting national forests to climate 

change. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Forest Management. 19 p.

Kitzmiller, J.H. 2004. Adaptive genetic variation in sugar pine. In: Sniezko, 

R.A.; Samman, S.; Schlarbaum, S.E.; Kriebel H.B., eds. 2004. Breeding and 

genetic resources of five-needle pines: growth, adaptability and pest resistance. 

Proceedings RMRS-P-32. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 103–123.

Kitzmiller, J.H. 2005. Provenance trials of ponderosa pine in northern California. 

Forest Science. 51: 595–607.

Ledig, F.T.; Kitzmiller, J.H. 1992. Genetic strategies for reforestation in the face 

of global climate change. Forest Ecology and Management. 50: 153–169.

Mátyás, C. 1994. Modeling climate change effects with provenance test data. 

Tree Physiology. 14: 797–804.

Mátyás, C. 1996. Climatic adaptation of trees: rediscovering provenance tests. 

Euphytica. 92: 45–54.

Millar, C.I.; Stephenson, N.L.; Stephens, S.T. 2007. Climate change and forests 

of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications. 

17: 2145–2151.

Neale, D.B.; Kremer, A. 2011. Forest tree genomics: growing resources and 

applications. Nature Reviews Genetics. 12: 111–122.
138

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

O’Neill, G.A.; Hamann, A.; Wang, T. 2008. Accounting for population variation 

improves estimates of the impact of climate change on species’ growth and 

distribution. Journal of Applied Ecology. 45: 1040–1049.

O’Neill, G.A.; Nigh, G. 2011. Linking population genetics and tree height growth 

models to predict impacts of climate change on forest production. Global Change 

Biology. 17: 3208–3217.

O’Neill, G.A.; Nigh, G.; Wang, T.; Ott, P.K. 2007. Growth response functions 

improved by accounting for nonclimatic site effects. Canadian Journal of 

Forestry Research. 37: 2724–2730.

Parchman, T.L.; Gompert, Z.; Mudge, J.; Schilkey, F.D.; Benkman, C.W.; 

Buerkle, C.A. 2012. Genome-wide association genetics of an adaptive trait in 

lodgepole pine. Molecular Ecology. 21: 2991–3005.

Safford, H.D.; North, M.; Meyer, M.D. 2012. Climate change and the relevance of 

historical forest conditions. In: North, M., ed. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 23–45.

Schwartz, M.W.; Hellmann, J.J.; McLachlan, J.M.; Sax, D.F.; Borevitz, J.O.; 

Brennan, J.; Camacho, A.E.; Ceballos, G.; Clark, J.R.; Doremus, H.; Early, 

R.; Etterson, J.R.; Fielder, D.; Gill, J.L.; Gonzalez, P.; Green, N.; Hannah, 

L.; Jamieson, D.W.; Javeline, D.; Minteer, B.A.; Odenbaugh, J.; Polasky, 

S.; Richardson, D.M.; Root, T.L.; Safford, H.D.; Sala, O.; Schneider, S.H.; 

Thompson, A.R.; Williams, J.W.; Vellend, M.; Vitt, P.; Zellmer, S. 2012. 

Managed relocation: integrating the scientific, regulatory, and ethical challenges. 

BioScience. 62(8): 732–743.

Thomson, A.M.; Parker, W.H. 2008. Boreal forest provenance tests used to 

predict optimal growth and response to climate change. 1. Jack pine. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 38: 157–170.

Thomson, A.M.; Riddell, C.L.; Parker, W.H. 2009. Boreal forest provenance 

tests used to predict optimal growth and response to climate change: 2. Black 

spruce. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 39: 143–153.

Ukrainetz, N.K.; O’Neill, G.A.; Jaquish, B. 2011. Comparisons of fixed and focal 

point seed transfer systems for reforestation and assisted migration: a case study 

for interior spruce in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research. 

41: 1452–1464.
139

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Wang, T.; O’Neill, G.A.; Aitken, S.N. 2010. Integrating environmental and 

genetic effects to predict responses of tree populations to climate. Ecological 

Applications. 20: 153–163.

Glossary

Assisted migration—Schwartz et al. (2012) defines this as “introducing a species 

into a new location by bringing propagules or individuals and releasing them” 

(Schwartz et al. 2012: 733).

Common garden experiment—A study, generally in plants, that involves planting 

multiple sources of plants in a single common garden or across multiple gardens. 

When all sources of plants are planted in a garden located in their home environment as well as one or more other environments, this is called a reciprocal transplant experiment.

Ex situ gene conservation—Seeds are collected from trees and stored in seed 

banks, either for long-term conservation or later deployment as part of ecological 

restoration activities. Seeds from the genus Pinus can generally be stored in optimal 

conditions for many years (Bonner and Karrfalt 2008). However, other species, 

such as oaks, do not store well after seeds are shed, so ex situ conservation for 

those species requires a living gene conservation archive plantation. 

In situ gene conservation—Populations of trees are conserved in a naturally 

occurring population that is part of a genetic conservation reserve.

Managed relocation—Schwartz et al. (2012) offers this definition: “The intentional 

act of moving species, populations, or genotypes to a location outside of a known 

historical distribution for the purpose of maintaining biological diversity of ecosystem functions as an adaptation strategy for climate change” (Schwartz et al. 2012: 

733).

Provenance test—A type of common garden experiment, generally in trees, where 

sources of trees (from a set of locations or provenances) are planted in a common 

garden or gardens. Ideally, these provenances are from across the entire range of the 

species, though many studies choose to focus on a particular part of the range.

All sections of this synthesis are concerned with fire because of its role as a dominant ecological process in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. Fire 

has long influenced the diverse natural and cultural resources of the synthesis area, 

including air quality, human health, infrastructure, community well-being, soils, 

timber, terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, and water resources. 
140

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247
141

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

I

n this section, chapter 4.1, “Fire and Fuels,” summarizes recent literature relevant to 

fire and forest management in yellow pine, mixed-conifer, and upper montane forest 

types in the synthesis area. It also discusses the historical role of fire in the region and 

describes potential outcomes of various management strategies—both currently and 

in the future. Chapter 4.2, “Fire and Tribal Cultural Resources,” focuses on the pivotal 

role of fire in sustaining culturally important plants and opportunities to learn about 

the effects of Native American burning practices. Chapter 4.3, “Post-Wildfire Management,” considers both short-term responses to fire, including salvage logging, and longer 

term management and restoration of postfire landscapes. That chapter was added in 

response to concerns from managers, combined with the expectation that climate change 

will increase potential for more severe wildfires (see chapter 1.4, “Synopsis of Climate 

Change”). As an increasing amount of forest land in the synthesis area has been affected 

by major wildfires, more restoration plans are being developed. The Forest Service 

in California recently developed a postfire restoration strategy template to help guide 

national forests in planning for restoration and long-term management of burned landscapes. Together, the chapters in this section inform ways to minimize the undesirable 

outcomes of fire while harnessing its power to rejuvenate ecosystems and increase their 

resilience.

A prescribed burn for the Blacks Mountain Interdisciplinary Ecological Research Study was 

conducted in conjunction with a thinning treatment to conserve old trees.

 John Anstead

Section 4—Fire
142

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247
143

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Brandon Collins1 and Carl Skinner2

Summary

Recent studies of historical fire regimes indicate that fires occurring prior to EuroAmerican settlement were characterized by a high degree of spatial complexity that 

was driven by heterogeneity in vegetation/fuels and topography and influenced by 

variability in climate, which mediated the timing, effects, and extents of fires over 

time. Although there are many important lessons to learn from the past, we may not 

be able to rely completely on past forest conditions to provide us with blueprints for 

current and future forest management. Rather than attempting to achieve a particular 

forest structure or landscape composition that may have existed historically, restoring the primary process that shaped forests for millennia (i.e., fire) may be a prudent 

approach for hedging against uncertainties around maintenance of fire-adapted 

forests. This is not to suggest that all forms of fire would be appropriate in these 

forests. A more suitable goal, albeit a more difficult one, would be to restore the 

forest stand and landscape conditions that would allow fires to function in what is 

generally believed to be a more natural way. Given the current state of the frequentfire adapted forests in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range, achieving this 

will be a challenge and will require innovative forest management approaches that 

focus on large spatial scales. Treating landscapes based on an informed deployment 

of treatment areas and then moving areas out of fire suppression into fire maintenance is one means of potentially changing current patterns.

Introduction

Fire is an inherent process in most Sierra Nevada, southern Cascade Range, and 

montane Modoc Plateau forest types, where it has been not only a regulating mechanism, but also the dominant force shaping forest structure within stands as well as 

patterns across landscapes (Riegel et al. 2006, Skinner and Taylor 2006, van Wagtendonk and Fites-Kaufman 2006). This chapter summarizes recent literature relevant to fire and forest management in several key forest types of the Sierra Nevada 

and southern Cascade Range: yellow pine (Pinus ponderosa and P. jeffreyi) and 

mixed-conifer forest types. Red fir (Abies magnifica) forests are addressed in chapter 

2.1, “Forest Ecology.” The literature summarized and the implications discussed in 

this chapter apply primarily to forested areas outside of the wildland-urban interface 

Chapter 4.1—Fire and Fuels

1 Research fire ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.

2 Geographer (emeritus), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002.

Fire is an inherent 

process in most 

Sierra Nevada, 

southern Cascade 

Range, and montane 

Modoc Plateau 

forest types, where 

it has been not 

only a regulating 

mechanism, but 

also the dominant 

force shaping forest 

structure within 

stands as well as 

patterns across 

landscapes.
144

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

(WUI). Social issues related to fire and fuels are examined in further detail in the 

social chapters (chapters 9.1 through 9.6). 

Fire in Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade 

Range Ecosystems

Historical Role of Fire

Numerous studies demonstrate the integral role that fire played in shaping historical (i.e., pre-Euro-American settlement) forest structure and composition in the 

focal area. These studies, which are largely from mixed-conifer, ponderosa pine, 

and Jeffrey pine forest types, demonstrate frequent occurrence of generally low- to 

moderate-severity fire over at least the last several centuries. The general consensus 

from these studies is that frequent fire maintained relatively open, patchy stands 

composed of primarily large, fire-resistant trees. Although this was likely the case 

for many areas within these forest types, to surmise that those stand conditions 

were ubiquitous throughout the Sierra Nevada would be a gross oversimplification. 

Recent studies of historical fire occurrence have gone beyond solely reporting fire 

frequency by reconstructing historical forest structure and characterizing spatial 

patterns resulting from more natural fire-forest interactions in the Sierra Nevada 

(e.g., Beaty and Taylor 2007, 2008; Knapp et al. 2012; Nagel and Taylor 2005; 

Scholl and Taylor 2006, 2010) and in the southern Cascade Range (Beaty and 

Taylor 2001; Bekker and Taylor 2001; Norman and Taylor 2003, 2005; Taylor 2000). 

These studies indicate a high degree of spatial complexity driven by heterogeneity in vegetation/fuels and topography and influenced by variability in climate, 

which mediates the timing, effects, and extents of fires over time. Notably, the 

great difference between the gentle topography of the Cascade Range and the more 

complex topography of the Sierra Nevada creates considerable differences in how 

fire functioned historically in the two mountain ranges. As a result of the differences between the two mountain ranges, the following discussion is mostly relevant 

to the Sierra Nevada and may not be as relevant to the Cascade Range or the Modoc 

Plateau. Please see Skinner and Taylor (2006) for a discussion of fire in the Cascade 

Range and Riegel et al. (2006) for the Modoc Plateau area. 

The complexity of factors influencing fire regimes in the Sierra Nevada makes 

it difficult to distill quantitative information relevant to restoring Sierra Nevada forests, but there are several general themes that may inform management activities as 

they relate to restoration and resilience. Note that these themes are generally applicable to the mixed-conifer, ponderosa pine, and Jeffrey pine forest types; however, 

there are moisture/productivity gradients within individual forest types, as well as 

across types, that influence key fire regime characteristics: frequency and severity.
145

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

• Topography: Several reconstruction studies demonstrate that topography 

strongly influenced historical fire regimes (Beaty and Taylor 2001, 2008; 

Taylor and Skinner 1998, 2003). This effect, however, appears to be 

moderated by the topographic complexity of a particular area; i.e., in 

landscapes with complex geomorphic structure, topography may have 

been the dominant influence driving patterns in fire effects, whereas 

in more gentle landscapes, patterns in fire effects were driven more by 

the interactions between vegetation/fuel and topography (Skinner and 

Taylor 2006, Skinner et al. 2006). In more complex landscapes, upper 

slope positions tended to experience greater proportions of high-severity 

fire, whereas lower slope positions had lesser proportions. This pattern 

appears to exist almost independently of the vegetation/fuel structure in 

a particular landscape. The greater proportions of high-severity fire on 

upper slopes may have been exacerbated on south- and west-facing slopes, 

where more exposure and drying of fuels tends to coincide with more 

pronounced upslope and up-canyon winds. In more gentle landscapes of 

the Sierra Nevada, it appears that greater proportions of high-severity fire 

were associated with more mesic forest types (e.g., forests with greater 

component of fir [Abies sp.]). The mesic conditions could be a function of 

more northerly aspects or higher elevation. It should be noted that there 

are reconstruction studies that demonstrate no effect of topography on fire 

regime and forest structure characteristics (e.g., Scholl and Taylor 2010). 

It is unclear to what extent other factors may be masking more site-level 

influences (e.g., ignition sources/patterns, cold-air pooling).

• Riparian areas: In many riparian sites, reconstruction studies have demonstrated historical regimes of frequent fire that do not appear to differ 

from adjacent upland areas (Skinner 2003, Van de Water and North 2010). 

However, results from these studies do suggest that perennial streams, 

which may have greater influence on understory vegetation, fuel moisture 

levels, or relative humidity, do have noticeably lower fire frequency than 

adjacent upland areas. It is suggested that these riparian areas may have 

acted as filters—not simply barriers—for fire spread, as fires tended to 

burn through these areas (or burn with enough intensity to scar surviving 

trees) only when conditions were more favorable for fire spread (e.g., during 

drought conditions or substantial wind events) (Skinner 2003).

• East-side (Sierra Nevada) pine forests: There are far fewer historical 

reconstruction studies in forests on the eastern side of the Sierran crest 

than there are for mixed-conifer forests on the west slope. Based on the 
146

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

few studies in east-side pine, it appears that fire frequency and inferred fire 

effects were generally similar between east-side pine and west-side mixedconifer forests (Gill and Taylor 2009, Moody et al. 2006, North et al. 2009b, 

Taylor 2004, Vaillant and Stephens 2009). There are, however, contextspecific distinctions that suggest some differences existed in fire regimes 

between east-side pine and west-side mixed-conifer: (1) In contrast to the 

larger expanses of contiguous forests on the west side, east-side forests are 

sometimes isolated in canyons or on benches in discrete stands (North et al. 

2009b); this isolation results in longer fire return intervals for some east-side 

stands and greater variability in fire frequency and fire effects. (2) Several 

sampled stands in the east-side pine type maintained frequent fire regimes 

as late as the early- to mid-1900s (North et al. 2009b), whereas frequent 

fire in many west-side mixed-conifer forests ceased around the 1880s. The 

structural changes associated with cessation of fire could be different as a 

result of these different cessation dates. The contemporary forest conditions 

in the Jeffrey pine-mixed-conifer dominated area of the Sierra San Pedro 

Mártir (Baja California) serve as a relevant reference site for east-side pine 

forests (Stephens and Fulé 2005). This area has experienced very little timber 

harvesting, and fire suppression dates back only to the 1970s (Stephens et 

al. 2003). This forest has an open, all-aged structure, with its most salient 

characteristic being high spatial variability (Stephens and Gill 2005, Stephens 

et al. 2008). This variability not only pertains to spatial arrangement and 

sizes of trees, but also to coarse woody debris and tree regeneration patches 

(Stephens and Fry 2005, Stephens et al. 2007).

• Cascade Range fire regimes: The historical reconstructions of fire in these 

forests depict fire regimes considerably different than those of the Sierra 

Nevada. Further, many studies have focused on the upper montane forests 

(Bekker and Taylor 2001, Taylor 1993, Taylor and Halpern 1991, Taylor and 

Solem 2001) in addition to the mid-elevation pine and mixed-conifer forests 

(Norman and Taylor 2003, 2005; Taylor 2000). The more gentle topography of the Cascade Range affords conditions where fires are able to spread 

rather easily over large areas without significant interruption. Especially on 

the east side of the range in the pine and mixed-conifer forests, pre-suppression era fires were not only primarily frequent, low- to moderate-intensity 

fires, but were also quite large. Fires of this type covering tens to hundreds 

of thousands of acres occurred on average once every 20 years (Norman 

and Taylor 2003). Although they burned less frequently than lower and 

middle elevation forests, the upper montane forests with mixed-severity 
147

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

fire regimes burned much more frequently than similar forests of the Sierra 

Nevada (Bekker and Taylor 2001; Taylor 1993, 2000; Taylor and Halpern 

1991; Taylor and Solem 2001). The gentle topography of the Cascade 

Range, combined with continuity of vegetation (fuels) from lower to higher 

elevations, allowed fires to burn more regularly in the higher elevations 

(Skinner and Taylor 2006). This is in contrast to the very rocky, vegetationally broken landscapes of the Sierra Nevada, where it is more difficult for 

fires to move about so freely in the upper montane forest.

• Landscape heterogeneity: Differential fire effects over the landscape, 

including stand-replacing patches (fig. 1), contribute to coarse-grained 

heterogeneity across landscapes. This has been demonstrated for historical 

fire regimes (Beaty and Taylor 2008) and for areas with more intact, contemporary fire regimes (Collins and Stephens 2010). These studies suggest 

that stand-replacing fire was a component of Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer 

forests, but at relatively low proportions across the landscape (about 5 to 15 

percent), consisting mostly of many small patches (<4 ha [10 ac]) and few 

Studies suggest that 

stand-replacing fire 

was a component 

of Sierra Nevada 

mixed-conifer forests, 

but at relatively low 

proportions across the 

landscape, consisting 

mostly of many small 

patches and few large 

patches.

Figure 1—A stand-replacing patch created by a 1994 fire in the Illilouette basin, Yosemite National Park. The photo was taken in 2010. 

Jeffrey pine seedlings are beginning to emerge over the Ceanothus.

 Scott Stephens
148

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

large patches (about 60 ha [150 ac]). Based on these studies, it appears that 

landscapes with active fire regimes included relatively dense, even-aged 

stands and shrub patches, as well as the often-referenced open, park-like, 

multi-aged stands. Actual proportions in each vegetation type/structure are 

largely unknown owing to the limitations of historical reconstruction studies, although several studies have made estimates based on reconstructed 

tree ages and density (Beaty and Taylor 2001, 2008; Scholl and Taylor 2010; 

Taylor 2004, 2010; Taylor and Skinner 1998).

• Climate: Variability in historical fire occurrence is linked to both shortand long-term fluctuations in regional and synoptic climate (Beaty and 

Taylor 2009; Gill and Taylor 2009; Stephens and Collins 2004; Swetnam 

1993; Swetnam and Baisan 2003; Taylor and Beaty 2005; Taylor and Scholl 

2012; Taylor et al. 2008; Trouet et al. 2006, 2009, 2010). 

▪ Short-term climatic variation (e.g., annual to decadal scale):

Although climatic fluctuations do not appear to have moderated fire 

effects, climate (particularly variation in precipitation) has been shown 

to drive fire extent (e.g., widespread fire years coincided with regional 

drought years, and were sometimes preceded by regionally wet years). 

▪ Long-term climatic variation (decades to century scale): Fire frequency, or chance of fire occurrence, appears to be associated with 

variation in air temperature (Swetnam 1993, Swetnam and Baisan 

2003), with higher temperature associated with more frequent fires and 

longer fire seasons (Westerling et al. 2006). Precipitation appears to be 

associated with fire extent (Swetnam 1993, Swetnam and Baisan 2003). 

Thus, moist years produce vegetation that is available to burn in the 

inevitable drier years that occur during otherwise moist periods. 

▪ The rain shadow effect on the east side of the Sierra Nevada and the 

tendency for greater stand isolation, primarily in the southern portion, 

appears to somewhat de-couple fire in east-side pine forests from synoptic climatic conditions (North et al. 2009b).

Although there are many important lessons to learn from the past, we may not 

be able to rely completely on past forest conditions to provide us with blueprints for 

current and future management (Millar et al. 2007, Wiens et al. 2012). In particular, 

the nature and scale of past variability in climate and forest conditions, coupled 

with our inability to precisely reconstruct those conditions, introduce a number 

of conceptual and practical problems (Millar and Woolfenden 1999). Detailed 
149

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

reconstructions of historical forest conditions, often based on dendroecology, are 

very useful but represent a relatively narrow window of time and tend to coincide 

with tree recruitment in the period referred to as the Little Ice Age, which was 

much cooler than the present (Stephens et al. 2010). Therefore, manipulation of 

current forests to resemble historical forest conditions may not be the best approach 

when considering future warmer climates (Safford et al. 2012a). Rather, restoring 

the primary process that shaped forests for millennia (i.e., fire) may be a prudent 

approach for hedging against uncertainties around the maintenance of fire-adapted 

forests (Fulé 2008). This is not to suggest that all forms of fire would be appropriate 

in these forests. A more suitable goal, albeit a more difficult one, would be to 

restore the forest stand and landscape conditions that would allow fires to function 

in what is generally believed to be a more natural way.

Altered Ecosystems

Past harvesting practices and livestock grazing, coupled with over a century of fire 

suppression, have shifted forest structure and composition within the ponderosa 

pine, Jeffrey pine, and mixed-conifer types of the Sierra Nevada. This shift is 

generally characterized by increased tree densities, smaller average tree diameters, 

increased proportions of shade-tolerant tree species, and elevated surface fuel loads 

relative to historical or pre-European settlement forest conditions (Collins et al. 

2011a, Scholl and Taylor 2010, van Wagtendonk and Fites-Kaufman 2006). In addition to the stand-level changes within these forest types, fire exclusion and other 

management practices have led to considerable homogenization across landscapes 

(Hessburg et al. 2007, Perry et al. 2011, van Wagtendonk and Fites-Kaufman 2006). 

This homogenization is a product of several interacting influences: (1) widespread 

timber harvesting, primarily involving removal of larger trees left during railroad or 

mining-related logging in the 19th and early 20th centuries; (2) infilling of trees into 

gaps that were historically created or maintained by variable-severity fire; and (3) 

forest expansion into shrub patches and meadows that were formerly maintained by 

fire. In addition to a loss of beta-diversity, these stand- and landscape-level changes 

have increased vulnerability of many contemporary forests to uncharacteristically 

high disturbance intensities and extents, particularly from fire and drought-induced 

insect/disease outbreaks (Allen 2007, Fettig 2012, Guarin and Taylor 2005). Following such disturbances, these forests and the species that depend on them have 

limited capacity to return to predisturbance states. This issue may be exacerbated if 

climate changes according to predictions in the next several decades, as large, highintensity fires may become catalysts for abrupt changes in vegetation and associated 

species (i.e., type conversion).
150

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Trends

Recent research has demonstrated an increased proportion of high-severity fire in 

yellow pine and mixed-conifer forests in the Sierra Nevada between 1984 and 2010 

(Miller and Safford 2012, Miller et al. 2009). In addition, these studies demonstrated 

that fire sizes and annual area burned have also risen during the same period. The 

authors point out that these increases co-occur with rising regional temperatures 

and increased long-term precipitation. Westerling et al. (2006) also demonstrated 

increased area burned over a similar time period, which they attributed to regional 

increases in temperature and earlier spring snow melts. Despite these documented 

increases over the last few decades, California and the Western United States as a 

whole are in what Marlon et al. (2012) described as a large “fire deficit.” This is based 

on reconstructed fire occurrence over the last 1,500 years using sedimentary charcoal records. Marlon et al. (2012) argue that the current divergence between climate 

(mainly temperature) and burning rates is unprecedented throughout their historical 

record. In other words, with temperatures warming as they have been over the last 

several decades, we would expect to see much higher fire activity, based on historical 

fire-climate associations. This divergence is due to fire management practices, which, 

as the authors point out, may not remain effective over the long term if warming 

trends continue. It is likely, given increasing temperature and the precipitation patterns since the onset of fire suppression, that fire activity would have increased over 

the 20th century rather than decreased had fire suppression not been implemented 

(Skinner and Taylor 2006, Stine 1996), further exacerbating the current fire deficit.

Notable increases in fire activity are predicted for California, and they are driven 

largely by projected increases in temperature and decreases in snow pack and, to a 

lesser extent, increased fuel production from carbon dioxide (CO2) “fertilization” 

(Flannigan et al. 2000; Lenihan et al. 2003, 2008; Westerling et al. 2011). It remains 

unclear how these increases in fire activity would be manifested in Sierra Nevada 

forests (Safford et al. 2012a). Increased area burned does not necessarily result in 

increased proportions of high-severity fire (Miller et al. 2012b). However, one of 

the potential ramifications of decreased snowpack forcing longer fire seasons is that 

the probability of fire occurring on a given spot increases, potentially resulting in 

shorter intervals between successive fires. This may not be a problem if fire severity 

is generally low to moderate, with lesser proportions of high severity occurring in 

small patches. However, if high-severity proportions and patch sizes are elevated 

(Miller and Safford 2012), decreased time between successive fires could lead to type 

conversion or local loss of a particular plant association (Safford et al. 2012a). Further, even if proportions are not elevated but remain similar, this would translate into 

greater area burned at high severity as total burned area increases.
151

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Effects of Ecosystem Management Strategies

Passive Management (No Action, With Continued 

Fire Suppression)

There is little evidence to suggest that passive management in Sierra Nevada 

forests will result in increased resilience to stressors (e.g., drought) or disturbance 

(e.g., fire, insects); in fact, there is evidence to the contrary (Agee 2002). A recent 

study demonstrates that crown fire potential in untreated stands continues to 

increase over time (Stephens et al. 2012). Modeling studies at the landscape scale 

also predict much greater losses from wildfire in untreated scenarios than in 

fuels-treated scenarios (Ager et al. 2007, 2010a; Collins et al. 2011b; Finney et al. 

2007; Schmidt et al. 2008). Stephens and Moghaddas (2005a), however, reported 

that relatively untreated mixed-conifer stands with little understory and ladder fuels 

had generally low torching potential. These stands, which were 80 to 100 years old, 

regenerated naturally after early railroad logging and were subjected to minimal or 

no silvicultural treatments throughout their development (except full fire suppression). However, stands with similar structure (closed stem exclusion phase, sensu 

O’Hara et al. [1996], with relatively low surface and ladder fuels) and management 

history are probably rare in the Sierra Nevada. The prevailing evidence, both from 

studies of fire effects following actual wildfires and from studies reporting modeled 

wildfire effects, demonstrates that untreated stands (no action) are more prone to 

crown fire initiation and high fire-induced mortality (Ritchie et al. 2007; Safford et 

al. 2009, 2012b; Stephens and Moghaddas 2005b; Symons et al. 2008).

Vegetation Management

Fuels reduction is becoming the dominant forest management activity in dry forest 

types throughout the Western United States. The primary objectives of these 

activities are to modify wildland fire behavior in order to protect private property 

and public infrastructure, minimize negative impacts on forests (Agee and Skinner 2005), enhance suppression capabilities (Agee et al. 2000), and improve firefighter safety (Moghaddas and Craggs 2007). In drier Sierra Nevada forest types, 

objectives for fuel reduction treatments can often be aligned with those aimed at 

increasing ecosystem resilience through restoration treatments (McKelvey et al. 

1996, Weatherspoon and Skinner 1996). One key potential difference between a fire 

hazard versus restoration focus is the incorporation of variability in both residual 

stand structure and surface fuels, which for a restoration-focused treatment would 

involve creating more horizontal and vertical spatial variability that would include 

retaining clumps of trees and woody debris (North et al. 2009a). This clumpiness 

could result in local tree torching, and thus overstory tree mortality, under wildfire 
152

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

conditions. Torching potential within the denser clumps would likely exceed that 

in stands treated for fire hazard reduction, in which the goal is to more uniformly 

raise canopy base height and reduce surface fuels. Although research is underway 

to more directly assess the relative differences between the two treatment strategies (Knapp et al. 2012), there are no recent published results. However, early 

publications recognized the importance of spatial variability, which was described 

by Show and Kotok (1924: 31) in this way: “The virgin forest is uneven-aged, or at 

best even-aged by small groups, and is patchy and broken; hence it is fairly immune 

from extensive devastating crown fires.”

The activities carried out in fire hazard reduction- or restoration-focused 

treatments include fire (either prescribed or managed wildland fire), mechanical 

treatments (e.g., thinning, mastication, chipping), or a combination of the two. In 

field-based experiments, Stephens and Moghaddas (2005b), Schmidt et al. (2008), 

and Stephens et al. (2009) all found that prescribed fire alone effectively reduces 

surface fuels, thus reducing modeled spread rates, fire line intensities, and flame 

lengths under a range of weather conditions. In addition, these studies also demonstrated substantial reductions in ladder fuels in areas treated with prescribed fire. 

However, as fire-killed trees fall and contribute to surface fuel pools, the overall 

effectiveness in reducing potential fire behavior can be short lived (Keifer et al. 

2006, Skinner 2005). It is likely that in dense, fire-excluded stands, multiple burns 

will be needed to achieve more long-lived effects (Stephens et al. 2009). Thinning effectiveness depends on the type of thinning performed and the subsequent 

treatment of activity fuels (Agee and Skinner 2005). In fire-excluded forests, fuel 

reduction prescriptions often aim to both reduce ladder fuels (increase canopy 

base height) and increase crown spacing (reduce crown bulk density), in combination with removing activity and existing surface fuels (e.g., piling and burning or 

broadcast underburning) (Agee and Skinner 2005, Stephens et al. 2009). Whole-tree 

harvests have also been shown to effectively reduce modeled fire behavior (Schmidt 

et al. 2008, Stephens et al. 2009) and actual fire effects (Ritchie et al. 2007, Symons 

et al. 2008). Data on tree mortality in thinned areas burned by wildfires, which 

demonstrate greater survivability in areas underburned following thinning, serve as 

real-world tests on the importance of treating activity fuels following thinning (see 

Raymond and Peterson 2005, Ritchie et al. 2007, Safford et al. 2012b, Symons et al. 

2008). It is worth noting the instances in which extreme fire behavior (e.g., plume 

collapse, extreme wind) can overwhelm even well-designed fuels treatments, and 

lead to high tree mortality (Finney et al. 2003, Werth et al. 2011).

One concern regarding treatments that reduce tree densities and increase 

canopy base heights is that more open stands could experience greater windspeeds 
153

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

and reduced fuel moistures (Countryman 1956). It has been suggested that these 

potential microclimatic changes could contribute to increased fire spread rates and 

surface fire intensities under wildfire conditions. However, a recent study by Bigelow and North (2011) demonstrated only modest increases in wind gust speeds and 

no significant differences in fuel moisture between treated and untreated stands. 

Findings from Estes et al. (2012) also demonstrated little to no effect of thinning 

on fuel moistures, particularly during peak fire season in northern California. The 

results from these studies suggest that there is little evidence that microclimatic 

changes associated with fuels treatments will result in noticeably increased fire 

behavior, at least not in Mediterranean climates, where long, dry periods desiccate fuels irrespective of stand conditions. Furthermore, reductions in fire hazard 

through well-designed fuels treatment are likely to compensate for any potential 

increases in fire behavior (Weatherspoon and Skinner 1996).

Plantations present a unique concern in the Sierra Nevada. Plantations are 

generally dense, have uniformly low canopy base heights, and can often have shrub 

understories. These characteristics make plantations particularly susceptible to 

lethal fire, whether by high-intensity fire in tree canopies or from excessive heat 

produced by moderate-intensity surface fires (Kobziar et al. 2009, Thompson and 

Spies 2010, Weatherspoon and Skinner 1995). Recent research has demonstrated 

that prescribed fire treatments, either before plantation establishment (LyonsTinsley and Peterson 2012, Weatherspoon and Skinner 1995) or following establishment (Kobziar et al. 2009), can be effective at increasing tree survivability in 

wildfire. Note that even under prescribed fire conditions, trees in plantations 

are fairly vulnerable to cambial kill or crown scorch (Knapp et al. 2011). Postestablishment mastication in plantations (shrubs and small trees) may be able to 

reduce fire behavior (e.g., flame length, rate of spread) under wildfire conditions 

sufficiently to aid in fire-suppression activities, but it does not appear to be very 

effective at reducing tree mortality (Knapp et al. 2011, Kobziar et al. 2009). 

However, if masticated fuelbeds are allowed to decompose for a decade or so, 

fire hazards can be substantially reduced (Stephens et al. 2012).

Landscape-Scale Considerations

The large wildfires that are occurring annually throughout the Sierra Nevada 

demonstrate the pressing need to scale up insights gained at the stand level to larger 

landscapes. The effort required for planning and analysis of alternatives tends to 

force larger project areas, encouraging actions at the landscape scale. Yet implementing fuels treatments across an entire landscape may not be consistent with 

desired conditions or may not be operationally feasible (because of such issues as 
154

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

funding, access, and land designations [e.g., wilderness, etc.]) (Collins et al. 2010). 

In response, fire scientists and fire managers have conceptually developed and are 

refining methods for the strategic placement of treatments across landscapes (Finney 

2001, 2004; Finney et al. 2007; Stratton 2004; Weatherspoon and Skinner 1996). The 

basic idea is that an informed deployment of treatment areas (i.e., a deployment that 

covers only part of the landscape) can modify fire behavior and effects for the entire 

landscape. Owing to the complexity of modeling fire and fuels treatments across 

landscapes (e.g., data acquisition, data processing, model execution, etc.), fuels 

treatment project design is often based on local knowledge of both the project area 

and past fire patterns. Recent studies in the northern Sierra Nevada and southern 

Cascade Range suggest that these types of landscape-level fuels treatment projects 

(where treatment arrangement is based more on local knowledge and fairly simple 

fire behavior modeling rather than intensive modeling associated with an optimization approach) can be quite effective at reducing potential fire behavior at the 

landscape scale (Collins et al. 2011b, Moghaddas et al. 2010, Schmidt et al. 2008).

Although only a few studies have explicitly modeled effectiveness of landscape 

fuels treatments using different proportions of treated area, there are some common 

findings: (1) noticeable reductions in modeled fire size, flame length, and spread 

rate across the landscape relative to untreated scenarios occurred with 10 percent of 

the landscape treated, but the 20-percent treatment level appears to have the most 

consistent reductions in modeled fire size and behavior across multiple landscapes 

and scenarios (Ager et al. 2007, 2010b; Finney et al. 2007; Schmidt et al. 2008); 

(2) increasing the proportion of area treated generally results in further reductions 

in fire size and behavior; however, the rate of reduction diminishes more rapidly 

when more than 20 percent of the landscape is treated (Ager et al. 2007, Finney et 

al. 2007); (3) random placement of treatments requires substantially greater proportions of the landscape to be treated compared to optimized or regular treatment 

placement (Finney et al. 2007, Schmidt et al. 2008); however, Finney et al. (2007) 

noted that the relative improvement of optimized treatment placement breaks down 

when larger proportions of the landscape (about 40 to 50 percent) are excluded from 

treatment because of land management constraints that limit treatment activities. It 

should be emphasized that this is not to preclude treating more than 20 percent of 

a landscape to achieve restoration, resilience, or other resource objectives. These 

studies suggest that when beginning to deal with fire hazard in a landscape, the 

initial objective would be to strategically reduce fire hazard on between 10 and 

20 percent of the area to effectively limit the ability of uncharacteristically highintensity fire to easily move across the landscape. This would buy time to allow 

restoration activities to progress in the greater landscape.

When beginning to 

deal with fire hazard in 

a landscape, the initial 

objective would be to 

strategically reduce 

fire hazard on between 

10 and 20 percent of 

the area to effectively 

limit the ability of 

uncharacteristically 

high-intensity fire to 

easily move across 

the landscape. This 

would buy time to allow 

restoration activities to 

progress in the greater 

landscape.
155

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

In designing landscape-level fuels treatment or restoration projects, there are 

often conflicts between reducing potential fire behavior and protecting/conserving 

other resources (Collins et al. 2010). One common conflict is habitat for wildlife 

species of concern (e.g., California spotted owl [Strix occidentalis occidentalis] and 

Pacific fisher [Martes pennanti]). Often these species prefer multistoried stands or 

closed canopies for nesting or denning habitat (Solis and Gutiérrez 1990, Weatherspoon et al. 1992). Although it has been argued that fire suppression and past 

harvesting practices have created much of the habitat that is being called “desirable” for many of these species (see Spies et al. 2006), the species-specific approach 

toward managing forests continues to prevail (Stephens and Ruth 2005). This 

approach limits the timing and intensity of fuels treatments. Consequently, the ability to modify potential fire behavior, particularly fast-moving, high-intensity fire, 

in forests with prolonged fire exclusion is restricted. Furthermore, regulations on 

forest management within and around nesting centers or natal dens (e.g., protected 

activity centers, or PACs) and riparian buffer zones affect the size and placement 

of fuels treatments across landscapes. Therefore, there is limited opportunity to 

apply “optimal” placement of fuels treatments to maximize the reduction in spread 

of intense fire across the landscape. Additionally, these protected areas are often 

highly productive and contain large amounts of live and dead fuel. Thus, these areas 

may be prone to exacerbated fire behavior, creating effects not only within these 

protected areas (Spies et al. 2006), but also carrying into adjacent stands.

The dynamic nature of forest ecosystems imposes an important temporal 

consideration on landscape fuels management planning. A suite of fuels treatments 

deployed strategically across the landscape will have a characteristic life cycle. As 

time since treatment increases, vegetation growth will contribute to fuel pools and 

rebuild fuel continuity (Agee and Skinner 2005, Collins et al. 2009). Thus, as standlevel treatments mature and become less effective at reducing fire behavior, the 

performance at the landscape level will also decline (Collins et al. 2011b). Therefore, the design of landscape-level fuels treatments involves a tradeoff between 

maximizing the fraction of the landscape area treated (if only once) and treating 

a limited area repeatedly to maintain treatment effectiveness (Finney et al. 2007). 

Empirical studies from wildfires (Collins et al. 2009; Martinson and Omi 2013) and 

studies based on modeled fire (Collins et al. 2011b, Stephens et al. 2012) suggest that 

treatments can be expected to reduce fire behavior for 10 to 20 years. Obviously, a 

number of factors contribute to this longevity: type and intensity of treatment, site 

productivity, forest type, etc. Ultimately, this balance between treatment longevity 

and landscape-scale effectiveness is going to be location-specific, but it will require 

continual consideration in fire-adapted forest landscapes.
156

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Fire Management

North et al. (2012) performed an analysis comparing current levels of fuels treatment across the Sierra Nevada to the estimated levels of historical burning throughout the range. They estimated that current treatment rates, which include wildfire 

area, account for less than 20 percent of the area that may have burned historically. 

Given that re-treatment intervals may need to be every 20 to 30 years depending 

on forest type, the authors argued that the current pattern and scale of fuels reduction and restoration treatments is unlikely to ever significantly advance restoration 

efforts, particularly if Forest Service (FS) budgets continue to decline. Furthermore, 

because the estimate of treatment rates includes wildfire, regardless of severity, it 

is likely that North et al. (2012) overestimate current restoration efforts. Treating 

and then moving areas out of fire suppression into fire maintenance is one means of 

potentially changing current patterns. However, this approach would require a fundamental change in the objectives and scale of fuels treatments. Rather than treating areas to enhance fire suppression efficacy and continue to limit the spread of 

fire, which would only perpetuate the current hazardous fuels/fire deficit problem, 

the intent would be to implement fuels treatments that allow fire to occur such that 

fire effects are within a desired range across the landscape (Reinhardt et al. 2008). 

This type of strategy would not necessarily seek to achieve ubiquitous low-severity 

fire effects across a landscape. Instead, the aim would be to restore a fundamental 

ecosystem process that involves a range of fire effects consistent with the historical 

range of variability. Spatial fire modeling/fuels treatment tools have recently been 

developed to assist planning for transitioning toward a managed fire-dominated 

landscape (Ager et al. 2012, 2013). Minimizing ecological impacts associated with 

fire suppression activities (Backer et al. 2004) would be an additional benefit of 

transitioning toward increased use of managed fire.

A recent comparison of contemporary fire patterns (extent and severity) 

between lands managed by the FS and National Park Service (NPS) in the Sierra 

Nevada revealed a significant distinction in fire severity patterns between the two 

agencies (Miller et al. 2012a). Across the forest types that were analyzed, Miller et 

al. (2012a) demonstrated that the proportion of high-severity fire and high-severity 

patch size were smaller for NPS fires than for FS fires. In addition, their results 

showed that overall fire extent was less on NPS lands. The authors point out that 

although in recent years the FS has begun to manage more wildfires for resource 

benefit, a policy of full suppression was in effect on most fires that occurred during 

their study period. In contrast, the NPS areas that they analyzed (all within Yosemite National Park) have a policy of suppressing only lightning-ignited fires when 

they occur outside their fire use zone or out of prescription, which resulted in most 

The aim should not 

be to simply limit fire 

spread or achieve 

ubiquitous low-severity 

fire effects across a 

landscape, but rather 

to restore a range of 

fire effects consistent 

with historic range of 

variability.
157

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

fires being managed for resource benefit. Miller et al. (2012a) suggested that by 

allowing most lightning fires to burn relatively unimpeded under a planned range 

of fire weather conditions, Yosemite has been able to achieve fire patterns that are 

closer to what may have occurred historically. This is not the case for the FS fires 

that were analyzed, which tended to burn under more extreme fire weather conditions, as these are the conditions under which fires generally escape initial fire suppression efforts (Finney et al. 2011). The authors did note that the NPS and FS lands 

included in the study have different land management histories, particularly with 

respect to timber harvesting, which have resulted in different contemporary stand 

structures, and could contribute to differential fire patterns. The NPS and FS lands 

in the study also had very different landscape contexts, with FS lands exhibiting a 

wider range of topographic and geomorphic configurations that would ultimately 

affect fire behavior. However, we should also note that many of the FS fires analyzed were in the Cascade Range and Modoc Plateau, where gentler, less complex 

landscapes more easily facilitate large fires and major fire runs (e.g., Fountain Fire 

1992, Huffer Fire 1997) compared with the rocky, interrupted landscapes of Yosemite National Park that were the focus of the Miller et al. (2012b) study.

Efforts to restore fire as an ecological process may be guided by metrics that 

help to quantify the effects of fire relative to reference conditions. One important set 

of metrics is the fire regime interval departure (FRID) geodatabase, which focuses 

on fire frequency (see box 4.1-1). However, it is important to note that burning to 

achieve a particular interval between successive fires may not result in desired forest conditions. Clearly, fires were frequent in yellow pine and mixed-conifer forests 

of the synthesis area prior to Euro-American settlement. However, frequency alone 

did not appear to have generated the fine- and coarse-grained heterogeneity that has 

been associated with historical forest conditions. Rather, it seems that a range of fire 

effects over time, with a distribution skewed to the low- and moderate-severity, but 

including some stand-replacing effects, contributed to overall heterogeneity. The 

development of robust fire severity estimates derived from satellite imagery serves 

as a useful tool to quantify the distribution of fire effects both within individual 

fires (Collins et al. 2007) and across multiple fires throughout a region (Thode et al. 

2011). It is important to emphasize that low-severity fire alone, even when applied 

multiple times, may not restore historical forest conditions (Collins et al. 2011a, 

Miller and Urban 2000). Reestablishing distributions of fire effects similar to historical conditions may prove difficult to achieve in the short term in fire-suppressed 

forests, but it is a useful long-term goal for promoting socioecological resilience 

(SNEP Science Team 1996).
158

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Box 4.1-1

Fire Return Interval Departure Metrics

Jonathan Long and Hugh Safford

Fire return interval departure (FRID) is a measure of how much the frequency of fire has changed in recent 

years versus the time before Euro-American settlement (Van de Water and Safford 2011). These data are 

fundamental for planning fuels treatments and restoring fire regimes, because they allow forest managers to 

identify areas at high risk of passing ecological thresholds resulting from altered fire regimes and their interactions with other factors (Van de Water and Safford 2011). High positive FRID values indicate areas that 

were characterized by frequent fire but have not experienced fire for many decades (fig. 2). FRID analyses 

can be combined with strategic considerations of fire behavior, topography, and values at risk to help identify 

priorities for fuels reduction and restoration of fire. 

FRID maps are available for California from the U.S. Forest Service Remote Sensing Lab. Unlike the 

national fire regime condition class program, which primarily measures departure from modeled conditions 

of vegetation structure, the California FRID data directly measure fire frequency departure. The FRID 

geodatabase includes several different metrics (“PFRID” metrics, based on percent departure) that account 

for the cumulative fire history of the national forests and adjoining areas since 1908. Another metric, the 

National Park Service (NPS) FRID index, compares the time since last fire against the pre-Euro-American 

fire frequency. The NPS FRID index is not structured to deal with areas experiencing more frequent fire 

today than under reference conditions (red areas in fig. 2), as is the case in much of low- and middle-elevation southern California and other areas where human activity and vegetation changes have made fire more 

frequent over time. The PFRID metrics extend into negative numbers to permit departure measurements 

under any scenario. Because the NPS FRID index weighs only the time since the most recent fire, it is most 

useful as a short-term performance measure, whereas the percentage-based metrics comparing long-term 

frequencies are better measures of actual fire restoration. Measures like mean, minimum, and maximum 

PFRID, which evaluate the influence of fire over a longer time scale, will be more helpful in targeting and 

tracking a longer term strategy to promote resilience to disturbance, a warming climate, and other stressors.

As with any simple metric, users should be cautious when interpreting the significance of FRID data 

or using them to plan treatments. FRID data do not account for nonfire silvicultural treatments and do not 

provide a measure of overall fire risk. Although FRID would be expected to be correlated to vegetation burn 

severity, FRID analyses do not directly account for expected fire intensity or burn severity. Consequently, 

strategies need to consider other components of the fire regime, such as fire size, severity, and spatial pattern. Furthermore, a restoration strategy would take into account other factors, including forest productivity, 

aquatic ecosystems, wildlife habitat, social values, and other values at risk (Franklin and Agee 2003), as well 

as understanding of how fire may affect a landscape. As one example, mixed-conifer forests in areas of high 

productivity may be at higher risk of uncharacteristically severe fire after missing only three or four fires 

than are lower productivity ponderosa or Jeffrey pine forests that have missed more than four fires. However, 

because of the importance of fire frequency, FRID metrics can serve a useful role in measuring progress 

toward restoring a more natural role of fire as a dominant ecological process.
159

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Figure 2—Mean percent fire 

return interval departure (mean 

PFRID) coded by condition 

class for the mountains of the 

Sierra Nevada and southern 

Cascade Range. Negative 

condition classes indicate 

areas where fires have been 

burning more often than under 

presettlement conditions, 

whereas positive condition 

classes indicate areas where 

fires have been burning less 

often. Condition classes 1 

and -1 are depicted with the 

same color because they both 

indicate conditions that are not 

greatly departed from the mean 

presettlement value. See Van 

de Water and Safford (2011) for 

more details regarding how the 

metric is calculated. LTBMU 

= Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. YOSE = Yosemite 

National Park. SEKI = SequoiaKings Canyon National Parks. 
160

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Literature Cited

Agee, J.K. 2002. The fallacy of passive management: managing for firesafe forest 

reserves. Conservation Biology in Practice. 3(1): 18–25.

Agee, J.K.; Bahro, B.; Finney, M.A.; Omi, P.N.; Sapsis, D.B.; Skinner, 

C.N.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Weatherspoon, C.P. 2000. The use of shaded 

fuelbreaks in landscape fire management. Forest Ecology and Management. 

127(1–3): 55–66.

Agee, J.K.; Skinner, C.N. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction 

treatments. Forest Ecology and Management. 211(1/2): 83–96.

Ager, A.A.; Finney, M.A.; Kerns, B.K.; Maffei, H. 2007. Modeling wildfire risk 

to northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) habitat in Central Oregon, 

USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 246(1): 45–56.

Ager, A.A.; Finney, M.A.; McMahan, A.; Cathcart, J. 2010a. Measuring the 

effect of fuel treatments on forest carbon using landscape risk analysis. Natural 

Hazards and Earth System Sciences. 10(12): 2515–2526.

Ager, A.A.; Vaillant, N.M.; Finney, M.A. 2010b. A comparison of landscape 

fuel treatment strategies to mitigate wildland fire risk in the urban interface and 

preserve old forest structure. Forest Ecology and Management. 259(8): 1556–1570.

Ager, A.A.; Vaillant, N.M.; McMahan, A. 2013. Restoration of fire in managed 

forests: a model to prioritize landscapes and analyze tradeoffs. Ecosphere. 4: 

article 29.

Ager, A.A.; Vaillant, N.M.; Owens, D.E.; Brittain, S.; Hamann, J. 2012. 

Overview and example application of the Landscape Treatment Designer. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-859. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 11 p.

Allen, C.D. 2007. Interactions across spatial scales among forest dieback, fire, and 

erosion in northern New Mexico landscapes. Ecosystems. 10(5): 797–808.

Backer, D.M.; Jensen, S.E.; McPherson, G.R. 2004. Impacts of fire-suppression 

activities on natural communities. Conservation Biology. 18(4): 937–946.

Beaty, R.M.; Taylor, A.H. 2001. Spatial and temporal variation of fire regimes in a 

mixed conifer forest landscape, Southern Cascades, California, USA. Journal of 

Biogeography. 28(8): 955–966.
161

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Beaty, R.M.; Taylor, A.H. 2007. Fire disturbance and forest structure in oldgrowth mixed conifer forests in the northern Sierra Nevada, California. Journal 

of Vegetation Science. 18: 879–890.

Beaty, R.M.; Taylor, A.H. 2008. Fire history and the structure and dynamics of a 

mixed conifer forest landscape in the northern Sierra Nevada, Lake Tahoe Basin, 

California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 255(3/4): 707–719.

Beaty, R.M.; Taylor, A.H. 2009. A 14 000 year sedimentary charcoal record of 

fire from the northern Sierra Nevada, Lake Tahoe Basin, California, USA. The 

Holocene. 19(3): 347–358.

Bekker, M.F.; Taylor, A.H. 2001. Gradient analysis of fire regimes in montane 

forests of the southern Cascade range, Thousand Lakes Wilderness, California, 

USA. Plant Ecology. 155(1): 15–28.

Bigelow, S.W.; North, M.P. 2011. Microclimate effects of fuels-reduction and 

group-selection silviculture: implications for fire behavior in Sierran mixedconifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 264: 51–59.

Collins, B.M.; Everett, R.G.; Stephens, S.L. 2011a. Impacts of fire exclusion and 

managed fire on forest structure in an old growth Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer 

forest. Ecosphere. 2(4): 51.

Collins, B.M.; Kelly, M.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Stephens, S.L. 2007. Spatial 

patterns of large natural fires in Sierra Nevada wilderness area. Landscape 

Ecology. 22: 545–557.

Collins, B.M.; Miller, J.D.; Thode, A.E.; Kelly, M.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; 

Stephens, S.L. 2009. Interactions among wildland fires in a long-established 

Sierra Nevada natural fire area. Ecosystems. 12(1): 114–128.

Collins, B.M.; Stephens, S.L. 2010. Stand-replacing patches within a ‘mixed 

severity’ fire regime: quantitative characterization using recent fires in a longestablished natural fire area. Landscape Ecology. 25(6): 927–939.

Collins, B.M.; Stephens, S.L.; Moghaddas, J.J.; Battles, J. 2010. Challenges and 

approaches in planning fuel treatments across fire-excluded forested landscapes. 

Journal of Forestry. 108(1): 24–31.

Collins, B.M.; Stephens, S.L.; Roller, G.B.; Battles, J.J. 2011b. Simulating fire 

and forest dynamics for a landscape fuel treatment project in the Sierra Nevada. 

Forest Science. 57(2): 77–88.
162

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Countryman, C.M. 1956. Old growth conversion also converts fire climate. Fire 

Control Notes. 17: 15–19.

Estes, B.L.; Knapp, E.E.; Skinner, C.N.; Uzoh, F.C.C. 2012. Seasonal variation 

in surface fuel moisture between unthinned and thinned mixed conifer forest, 

northern California, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 21(4): 428–435.

Fettig, C.J. 2012. Forest health and bark beetles. In: North, M., ed. Managing 

Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 

13–22. Chapter 2.

Finney, M.A. 2001. Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for 

modifying fire growth and behavior. Forest Science. 47(2): 219–228.

Finney, M.A. 2004. Landscape fire simulation and fuel treatment optimization. 

In: Hayes, J.L.; Ager, A.A.; Barbour, J.R., eds. Methods for integrated modeling 

of landscape change. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-610. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 

117–131.

Finney, M.A.; Bartlette, R.; Bradshaw, L.; Close, K.; Collins, B.M.; Gleason, 

P.; Hao, W.M.; Langowski, P.; McGinely, J.; McHugh, C.W.; Martinson, 

E.J.; Omi, P.N.; Shepperd, W.D.; Zeller, K. 2003. Fire behavior, fuels 

treatments, and fire suppression on the Hayman fire. In: Graham, R.T., tech. ed. 

Hayman Fire case study. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-114. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 

33–179.

Finney, M.A.; McHugh, C.W.; Grenfell, I.C.; Riley, K.L.; Short, K.C. 2011. 

A simulation of probabilistic wildfire risk components for the continental 

United States. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment. 

25(7): 973–1000.

Finney, M.A.; Seli, R.C.; McHugh, C.W.; Ager, A.A.; Bahro, B.; Agee, J.K. 

2007. Simulation of long-term landscape-level fuel treatment effects on large 

wildfires. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 16(6): 712–727.

Flannigan, M.D.; Stocks, B.J.; Wotton, B.M. 2000. Climate change and forest 

fires. Science of the Total Environment. 261: 221–229.

Franklin, J.F.; Agee, J.K. 2003. Forging a science-based national forest fire 

policy. Issues in Science and Technology. 20(1): 59–66.
163

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Fulé, P.Z. 2008. Does it make sense to restore wildland fire in changing climate? 

Restoration Ecology. 16(4): 526–531.

Gill, L.; Taylor, A.H. 2009. Top-down and bottom-up controls on fire regimes 

along an elevational gradient on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada, California, 

USA. Fire Ecology. 5(3): 57–75.

Guarin, A.; Taylor, A.H. 2005. Drought triggered tree mortality in mixed 

conifer forests in Yosemite National Park, California, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 218(1–3): 229–244.

Hessburg, P.F.; Salter, R.B.; James, K.M. 2007. Re-examining fire severity 

relations in pre-management era mixed conifer forests: inferences from 

landscape patterns of forest structure. Landscape Ecology. 22: 5–24.

Keifer, M.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Buhler, M. 2006. Long-term surface fuel 

accumulation in burned and unburned mixed-conifer forests of the central and 

southern Sierra Nevada, CA (USA). Fire Ecology. 2: 53–72.

Knapp, E.; North, M.; Benech, M.; Estes, B. 2012. The variable-density thinning 

study at Stanislaus-Tuolumne Experimental Forest. In: North, M., ed. Managing 

Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 

127–139. Chapter 12.

Knapp, E.E.; Varner, J.M.; Busse, M.D.; Skinner, C.N.; Shestak, C.J. 2011. 

Behaviour and effects of prescribed fire in masticated fuelbeds. International 

Journal of Wildland Fire. 20(8): 932–945.

Kobziar, L.N.; McBride, J.R.; Stephens, S.L. 2009. The efficacy of fire and fuels 

reduction treatments in a Sierra Nevada pine plantation. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 18(7): 791–801.

Lenihan, J.M.; Bachelet, D.; Neilson, R.P.; Drapek, R. 2008. Response of 

vegetation distribution, ecosystem productivity, and fire to climate change 

scenarios for California. Climatic Change. Suppl. 1: S215–S230.

Lenihan, J.M.; Drapek, R.; Bachelet, D.; Neilson, R.P. 2003. Climate change 

effects on vegetation distribution, carbon, and fire in California. Ecological 

Applications. 13(6): 1667–1681.

Lyons-Tinsley, C.; Peterson, D.L. 2012. Surface fuel treatments in young, 

regenerating stands affect wildfire severity in a mixed conifer forest, eastside 

Cascade Range, Washington, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 

270: 117–125.
164

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Marlon, J.R.; Bartlein, P.J.; Gavin, D.G.; Long, C.J.; Anderson, R.S.; Briles, 

C.E.; Brown, K.J.; Colombaroli, D.; Hallett, D.J.; Power, M.J.; Scharf, 

E.A.; Walsh, M.K. 2012. Long-term perspective on wildfires in the western 

USA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America. 109(9): E535–E543.

Martinson, E.J.; Omi, P.N. 2013. Fuel treatments and fire severity: a metaanalysis. Res. Pap. RMS-RP-103WWW. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 35 p.

McKelvey, K.S.; Skinner, C.N.; Chang, C.; Erman, D.C.; Husari, S.J.; Parsons, 

D.J.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Weatherspoon, C.P. 1996. An overview of fire in 

the Sierra Nevada. In: Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress. 

Vol. II: Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Report No. 37. 

Davis, CA: Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California–

Davis: 1033–1040.

Millar, C.I.; Stephenson, N.L.; Stephens, S.L. 2007. Climate change and forests 

of the future: Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications. 

17: 2145–2151.

Millar, C.I.; Woolfenden, W.B. 1999. The role of climate change in interpreting 

historical variability. Ecological Applications. 9(4): 1207–1216.

Miller, C.; Urban, D.L. 2000. Modeling the effects of fire management 

alternatives on Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests. Ecological Applications. 

10(1): 85–94.

Miller, J.D.; Collins, B.M.; Lutz, J.A.; Stephens, S.L.; van Wagtendonk, 

J.W.; Yasuda, D.A. 2012a. Differences in wildfires among ecoregions and land 

management agencies in the Sierra Nevada region, California, USA. Ecosphere. 

3(9): 80.

Miller, J.D.; Safford, H.D. 2012. Trends in wildfire severity 1984–2010 in the 

Sierra Nevada, Modoc Plateau and southern Cascades, California, USA. Fire 

Ecology. 8(3): 41–57.

Miller, J.D.; Safford, H.D.; Crimmins, M.; Thode, A.E. 2009. Quantitative 

evidence for increasing forest fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and southern 

Cascade Mountains, California and Nevada, USA. Ecosystems. 12(1): 16–32.

Miller, J.D.; Skinner, C.N.; Safford, H.D.; Knapp, E.E.; Ramirez, C.M. 

2012b. Trends and causes of severity, size, and number of fires in northwestern 

California, USA. Ecological Applications. 22(1): 184–203.
165

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Moghaddas, J.J.; Collins, B.M.; Menning, K.; Moghaddas, E.E.Y.; Stephens, 

S.L. 2010. Fuel treatment effects on modeled landscape level fire behavior in the 

northern Sierra Nevada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 40(9): 1751–1765.

Moghaddas, J.J.; Craggs, L. 2007. A fuel treatment reduces fire severity and 

increases suppression efficiency in a mixed conifer forest. International Journal 

of Wildland Fire. 16(6): 673–678.

Moody, T.J.; Fites-Kaufman, J.; Stephens, S.L. 2006. Fire history and climate 

influences from forests in the northern Sierra Nevada, USA. Fire Ecology. 

2: 115–141.

Nagel, T.A.; Taylor, A.H. 2005. Fire and persistence of montane chaparral in 

mixed conifer forest landscapes in the northern Sierra Nevada, Lake Tahoe 

Basin, California, USA. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 132(3): 442–457.

Norman, S.P.; Taylor, A.H. 2003. Tropical and north Pacific teleconnections 

influence fire regimes in pine-dominated forests of north-eastern California, 

USA. Journal of Biogeography. 30(7): 1081–1092.

Norman, S.P.; Taylor, A.H. 2005. Pine forest expansion along a forest-meadow 

ecotone in northeastern California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 

215(1–3): 51–68.

North, M.; Collins, B.M.; Stephens, S.L. 2012. Using fire to increase the scale, 

benefits and future maintenance of fuels treatments. Journal of Forestry. 

110(7): 392–401.

North, M.; Stine, P.A.; O’Hara, K.L.; Zielinski, W.J.; Stephens, S.L. 2009a. 

An ecosystems management strategy for Sierra mixed-conifer forests, with 

addendum. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49 p.

North, M.P.; Van de Water, K.M.; Stephens, S.L.; Collins, B.M. 2009b.

Climate, rain shadow, and human-use influences on fire regimes in the eastern 

Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Fire Ecology. 5(3): 20–34.

O’Hara, K.L.; Latham, P.A.; Hessburg, P.F.; Smith, B.G. 1996. A structural 

classification for Inland Northwest forest vegetation. Western Journal of Applied 

Forestry. 11(3): 97–102.
166

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Perry, D.A.; Hessburg, P.F.; Skinner, C.N.; Spies, T.A.; Stephens, S.L.; Taylor, 

A.H.; Franklin, J.F.; McComb, B.; Riegel, G. 2011. The ecology of mixed 

severity fire regimes in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 262(5): 703–717.

Raymond, C.L.; Peterson, D.L. 2005. Fuel treatments alter the effects of wildfire 

in a mixed-evergreen forest, Oregon, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

35(12): 2981–2995.

Reinhardt, E.D.; Keane, R.E.; Calkin, D.E.; Cohen, J.D. 2008. Objectives and 

considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior 

western United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 256(12): 1997–2006.

Riegel, G.M.; Miller, R.F.; Skinner, C.N.; Smith, S.E. 2006. Northeastern 

plateaus bioregion. In: Sugihara, N.G.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Fites-Kaufman, J.; 

Shaffer, K.E.; Thode, A.E., eds. Fire in California’s ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: 

University of California Press: 225–263.

Ritchie, M.W.; Skinner, C.N.; Hamilton, T.A. 2007. Probability of tree survival 

after wildfire in an interior pine forest of northern California: Effects of thinning 

and prescribed fire. Forest Ecology and Management. 247(1–3): 200–208.

Safford, H.D.; North, M.; Meyer, M.D. 2012a. Climate change and the relevance 

of historical forest conditions. In: North, M., ed. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 23–46. Chapter 3.

Safford, H.D.; Schmidt, D.A.; Carlson, C.H. 2009. Effects of fuel treatments on 

fire severity in an area of wildland–urban interface, Angora Fire, Lake Tahoe 

Basin, California. Forest Ecology and Management. 258(5): 773–787.

Safford, H.D.; Stevens, J.T.; Merriam, K.; Meyer, M.D.; Latimer, A.M. 2012b. 

Fuel treatment effectiveness in California yellow pine and mixed conifer forests. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 274: 17–28.

Schmidt, D.A.; Taylor, A.H.; Skinner, C.N. 2008. The influence of fuels 

treatment and landscape arrangement on simulated fire behavior, Southern 

Cascade range, California. Forest Ecology and Management. 

255(8/9): 3170–3184.

Scholl, A.E.; Taylor, A.H. 2006. Regeneration patterns in old-growth red firwestern white pine forests in the northern Sierra Nevada, Lake Tahoe, USA. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 235(1–3): 143–154.
167

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Scholl, A.E.; Taylor, A.H. 2010. Fire regimes, forest change, and self-organization 

in an old-growth mixed-conifer forest, Yosemite National Park, USA. Ecological 

Applications. 20(2): 362–380.

Show, S.B.; Kotok, E.I. 1924. The role of fire in the California pine forests. 

Bulletin No. 1294. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 80 p.

Skinner, C.N. 2003. A tree-ring based fire history of riparian reserves in the 

Klamath Mountains. In: Farber, P.M., ed. California riparian systems: processes 

and floodplains management, ecology, and restoration. Mill Valley, CA: 

Pickleweed Press: 116–119.

Skinner, C.N. 2005. Reintroducing fire into the Blacks Mountain Research Natural 

Area: effects on fire hazard. In: Ritchie, M.W.; Maguire, D.A.; Youngblood, 

A., eds. Symposium on ponderosa pine: issues, trends, and management. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-198. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 245–257.

Skinner, C.N.; Taylor, A.H. 2006. Southern Cascade bioregion. In: Sugihara, 

N.G.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Fites-Kaufman, J.; Shaffer, K.E.; Thode, A.E., eds. 

Fire in California’s ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 

195–224.

Skinner, C.N.; Taylor, A.H.; Agee, J.K. 2006. Klamath Mountains bioregion. In: 

Sugihara, N.G.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Fites-Kaufman, J.; Shaffer, K.E.; Thode, 

A.E., eds. Fire in California’s ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California 

Press: 170–194.

SNEP Science Team. 1996. Fire and fuels. In: Status of the Sierra Nevada, 

Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress. Vol. I: Assessment 

summaries and management strategies. Report No. 36. Davis, CA: Centers for 

Water and Wildland Resources, University of California–Davis. 61–71. Chapter 4.

Solis, D.M.; Gutiérrez, R.J. 1990. Summer habitat ecology of the Northern 

Spotted Owls in northwestern California. Condor. 92(3): 739–748.

Spies, T.A.; Hemstrom, M.A.; Youngblood, A.; Hummel, S. 2006. Conserving 

old-growth forest diversity in disturbance-prone landscapes. Conservation 

Biology. 20(2): 351–362.

Stephens, S.L.; Collins, B.M. 2004. Fire regimes of mixed conifer forests in the 

north-central Sierra Nevada at multiple spatial scales. Northwest Science. 78(1): 

12–23.
168

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Stephens, S.L.; Collins, B.M.; Roller, G.B. 2012. Fuel treatment longevity in a 

Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 285(1): 

204–212.

Stephens, S.L.; Fry, D.L. 2005. Spatial distribution of regeneration patches in an 

old-growth Pinus jeffreyi-mixed conifer forest in northwestern Mexico. Journal 

of Vegetation Science. 16(6): 693–702.

Stephens, S.L.; Fry, D.; Franco-Vizcaíno, E. 2008. Wildfire and forests in 

northwestern Mexico: the United States wishes it had similar fire problems. 

Ecology and Society. 13(2): 10.

Stephens, S.L.; Fry, D.L.; Franco-Vizcaino, E.; Collins, B.M.; Moghaddas, 

J.M. 2007. Coarse woody debris and canopy cover in an old-growth Jeffrey pinemixed conifer forest from the Sierra San Pedro Martir, Mexico. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 240(1–3): 87–95.

Stephens, S.L.; Fulé, P.Z. 2005. Western pine forests with continuing frequent 

fire regimes: Possible reference sites for management. Journal of Forestry. 

103(7): 357–362.

Stephens, S.L.; Gill, S.J. 2005. Forest structure and mortality in an old-growth 

Jeffrey pine-mixed conifer forest in north-western Mexico. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 205(1–3): 15–28.

Stephens, S.L.; Millar, C.I.; Collins, B.M. 2010. Operational approaches to 

managing forests of the future in Mediterranean regions within a context of 

changing climates. Environmental Research Letters. 5: 024003.

Stephens, S.L.; Moghaddas, J.J. 2005a. Silvicultural and reserve impacts on 

potential fire behavior and forest conservation: twenty-five years of experience 

from Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forests. Biological Conservation. 125(3): 

369–379.

Stephens, S.L.; Moghaddas, J.J. 2005b. Experimental fuel treatment impacts 

on forest structure, potential fire behavior, and predicted tree mortality in 

a California mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 

215(1–3): 21–36.

Stephens, S.L.; Moghaddas, J.J.; Ediminster, C.; Fiedler, C.E.; Hasse, S.; 

Harrington, M.; Keeley, J.E.; Knapp, E.E.; McIver, J.D.; Metlen, K.; 

Skinner, C.N.; Youngblood, A. 2009. Fire treatment effects on vegetation 

structure, fuels, and potential fire severity in western U.S. forests. Ecological 

Applications. 19(2): 305–320.
169

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Stephens, S.L.; Ruth, L.W. 2005. Federal forest-fire policy in the United States. 

Ecological Applications. 15(2): 532–542.

Stephens, S.L.; Skinner, C.N.; Gill, S.J. 2003. Dendrochronology-based fire 

history of Jeffrey pine-mixed conifer forests in the Sierra San Pedro Martir, 

Mexico. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 33(6): 1090–1101.

Stine, S. 1996. Climate, 1650–1850. In: SNEP Science Team and Special 

Consultants, eds. Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress. 

Vol. II: Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Report No. 37. 

Davis, CA: Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California–

Davis: 25–30.

Stratton, R.D. 2004. Assessing the effectivness of landscape fuel treatments on fire 

growth and behavior. Journal of Forestry. 102: 32–40.

Swetnam, T.W. 1993. Fire history and climate change in giant sequoia groves. 

Science. 262: 885–888.

Swetnam, T.W.; Baisan, C.H. 2003. Tree-ring reconstructions of fire and climate 

history in the Sierra Nevada and southwestern United States. In: Veblen, T.T.; 

Baker, W.L.; Montenegro, G.; Swetnam, T.W., eds. Fire and climatic change in 

temperate ecosystems of the western Americas. Ecological Studies Volume 160. 

New York: Springer: 158–195.

Symons, J.N.; Fairbanks, D.H.K.; Skinner, C.N. 2008. Influences of stand 

structure and fuel treatments on wildfire severity at Blacks Mountain 

Experimental Forest, northeastern California. The California Geographer. 

48(1): 61–82.

Taylor, A.H. 1993. Fire history and structure of red fir (Abies magnifica) forests, 

Swain Mountain Experimental Forest, Cascade Range, northeastern California. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 23: 1672–1678.

Taylor, A.H. 2000. Fire regimes and forest changes in mid and upper montane 

forests of the southern Cascades, Lassen Volcanic National Park, California, 

USA. Journal of Biogeography. 27(1): 87–104.

Taylor, A.H. 2004. Identifying forest reference conditions on early cut-over lands, 

Lake Tahoe Basin, USA. Ecological Applications. 14(6): 1903–1920.

Taylor, A.H. 2010. Fire disturbance and forest structure in an old-growth Pinus 

ponderosa forest, southern Cascades, USA. Journal of Vegetation Science. 21: 

561–572.
170

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Taylor, A.H.; Beaty, R.M. 2005. Climatic influences on fire regimes in the 

northern Sierra Nevada Mountains, Lake Tahoe Basin, Nevada, USA. Journal of 

Biogeography. 32(3): 425–438.

Taylor, A.H.; Halpern, C.B. 1991. The structure and dynamics of Abies magnifica

forests in the southern Cascade Range, USA. Journal of Vegetation Science. 

2: 189–200.

Taylor, A.H.; Scholl, A.E. 2012. Climatic and human influences on fire regimes 

in mixed conifer forests in Yosemite National Park, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 267: 144–156.

Taylor, A.H.; Skinner, C.N. 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a latesuccessional reserve, Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 111(2/3): 285–301.

Taylor, A.H.; Skinner, C.N. 2003. Spatial patterns and controls on historical fire 

regimes and forest structure in the Klamath Mountains. Ecological Applications. 

13(3): 704–719.

Taylor, A.H.; Solem, M.N. 2001. Fire regimes and stand dynamics in an upper 

montane forest landscape in the southern Cascades, Caribou Wilderness, 

California. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 128(4): 350–361.

Taylor, A.H.; Trouet, V.; Skinner, C.N. 2008. Climatic influences on fire regimes 

in montane forests of the southern Cascades, California, USA. International 

Journal of Wildland Fire. 17(1): 60–71.

Thode, A.E.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Miller, J.D.; Quinn, J.F. 2011. Quantifying 

the fire regime distributions for severity in Yosemite National Park, California, 

USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 20(2): 223–239.

Thompson, J.R.; Spies, T.A. 2010. Factors associated with crown damage 

following recurring mixed-severity wildfires and post-fire management in 

southwestern Oregon. Landscape Ecology. 25: 775–789.

Trouet, V.; Taylor, A.; Carleton, A.; Skinner, C. 2009. Interannual variations 

in fire weather, fire extent, and synoptic-scale circulation patterns in northern 

California and Oregon. Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 95(3/4): 349–360.

Trouet, V.; Taylor, A.H.; Carleton, A.M.; Skinner, C.N. 2006. Fire-climate 

interactions in forests of the American Pacific coast. Geophysical Research 

Letters. 33: L18704.
171

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Trouet, V.; Taylor, A.H.; Whal, E.R.; Skinner, C.N.; Stephens, S.L. 2010. Fireclimate interactions in the American West since 1400 CE. Geophysical Research 

Letters. 37: L04702.

Vaillant, N.M.; Stephens, S.L. 2009. Fire history of a lower elevation Jeffrey pinemixed conifer forest in the eastern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Fire Ecology. 

8(3): 4–19.

Van de Water, K.M.; North, M. 2010. Fire history of coniferous riparian forests in 

the Sierra Nevada. Forest Ecology and Management. 260(3): 384–395.

Van de Water, K.M.; Safford, H.D. 2011. A summary of fire frequency estimates 

for California vegetation before Euro-American settlement. Fire Ecology. 

7(3): 26–58.

van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Fites-Kaufman, J.A. 2006. Sierra Nevada bioregion. 

In: Sugihara, N.G.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Shaffer, K.E.; Fites-Kaufman, J.A.; 

Thode, A.E., eds. Fire in California’s ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press: 264–294.

Weatherspoon, C.P.; Husari, S.J.; van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1992. Fire and fuels 

management in relation to owl habitat in forests of the Sierra Nevada and 

Southern California. In: Verner, J.; McKelvey, K.S.; Noon, B.R.; Gutierrez, 

R.J.; Gould, G.I., Jr.; Beck, T.W., eds. The California spotted owl: a technical 

assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-133. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 

247–260.

Weatherspoon, C.P.; Skinner, C.N. 1995. An assessment of factors associated 

with damage to tree crowns from the 1987 wildfires in northern California. 

Forest Science. 41(3): 430–451.

Weatherspoon, C.P.; Skinner, C.N. 1996. Landscape-level strategies for forest 

fuel management. In: SNEP Science Team and Special Consultants, eds. Sierra 

Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress. Vol. II: Assessments and 

scientific basis for management options. Report No. 37. Davis, CA: Centers for 

Water and Wildland Resources, University of California–Davis: 1471–1492.

Werth, P.A.; Potter, B.E.; Clements, C.B.; Finney, M.A.; Goodrick, S.L.; 

Alexander, M.E.; Cruz, M.G.; Forthofer, J.A.; McAllister, S.S. 2011.

Synthesis of knowledge of extreme fire behavior: volume 1 for fire managers. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-854. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 144 p.
172

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Westerling, A.; Bryant, B.; Preisler, H.; Holmes, T.; Hidalgo, H.; Das, T.; 

Shrestha, S. 2011. Climate change and growth scenarios for California wildfire. 

Climatic Change. 109(S1): 445–463.

Westerling, A.L.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Cayan, D.R.; Swetnam, T.W. 2006. Warming 

and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science. 

313(5789): 940–943.

Wiens, J.A.; Hayward, G.D.; Safford, H.D.; Giffen, C.M. 2012. Historical 

environmental variation in conservation and natural resource management. 

Oxford, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell. 360 p.
173

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Frank K. Lake1 and Jonathan W. Long 2

Summary

Native American tribes regard plants that have evolved with frequent fire and other 

natural resources as living cultural resources that provide, water, food, medicines, 

and other material goods while also sustaining tribal cultural traditions. Collaborations between management agencies and tribes and other Native American 

groups can incorporate traditional ecological knowledge to facilitate placed-based 

understanding of how fire and various management practices affect tribal cultural 

resources and values. Collaboration approaches reviewed in this chapter and in 

chapter 9.6, “Collaboration in National Forest Management,” can foster restoration 

opportunities that would benefit tribal communities and broader values. A strategy 

to promote socioecological resilience may include efforts to reestablish frequent fire 

regimes by emulating traditional burning practices, and to learn how larger highseverity fires may affect cultural resources and associated values.

Introduction

This chapter reflects several of the broader themes featured in this synthesis. First, 

it reinforces the perspective that humans are and have long been integral parts of 

ecosystems in the synthesis area (Stevens 2005). Therefore, to the extent restoration 

depends on reestablishing, at an appropriate scale, the disturbance regimes that 

have shaped ecosystems, it is important to consider opportunities to reestablish or 

emulate Native American forest practices, such as harvesting and burning (fig. 1). 

Second, this chapter emphasizes the importance of considering system dynamics 

at a range of scales, from individual organisms to large landscapes. Research has 

focused on small-scale effects of tribal land management and traditional burning 

practices, such as how individual plants, patches, or sites respond, but the effects 

of tribal practices on larger vegetation communities and landscapes constitutes 

an important subject for further research (Anderson 2006b). Lastly, this chapter 

recognizes that efforts to promote socioecological resilience would be incomplete if 

they did not consider how the widespread lack of fire in the synthesis area impacts 

contemporary uses of forest resources by Native Americans. 

Chapter 4.2—Fire and Tribal Cultural Resources

1 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002.

2 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.
174

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Many Native Americans3 have a broad conception of cultural resources, which 

includes artifacts, structures, heritage sites, biophysical resources, and intangible 

resources (Welch 2012). Both wildfire and prescribed fire can affect cultural 

resources directly and indirectly (see fig. 2), with frequency, seasonality, extent, 

and severity of fires influencing those effects. Efforts to manage wildfires can also 

have lasting and detrimental effects on cultural resources through line construction, 

firing operations, and other suppression, mop-up, or postfire rehabilitation activities 

(Ryan et al. 2012). Emphasizing the idea that critical resources have natural, economic, and cultural dimensions (see section 9 preface, “Social/Economic/Cultural 

Components”), this chapter focuses on relationships between fire and tribal cultural 

resources, especially for living resources such as plants, fungi, and animals, which 

have been actively managed to sustain them in their desired quantity and quality. Plants have been a particularly important focus of research on fire effects on 

cultural resources.

Figure 1—Ron Goode of the North Fork Mono Tribe directs a burning treatment for a patch of sourberry plants (Rhus trilobata).

Belinda Aldern

3 Where this chapter focuses on cultural resources within the synthesis area, it refers to 

Native Americans. The term tribe is emphasized when discussing management strategies that 

are likely to be implemented through consultations, collaborations, or other interactions on 

a government-to-government basis. Those relationships, along with approaches to working 

with tribal traditional ecological knowledge, are considered in chapter 9.6, “Collaboration in 

National Forest Management.”
175

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Burning to Promote Tribal Cultural Values and 

Ecological Restoration

Reestablishing traditional burning practices aligns well with ecological restoration 

goals, given that many culturally valued fungi and plants produce berries, nuts, 

roots, and stems that support wildlife and provide other ecological services (Anderson 2006a, Anderson and Barbour 2003). Restoration efforts that support traditional 

tribal practices and subsistence activities can also promote other social and cultural 

values, such as native language, place names and maps, ceremonies, and other elements of cultural capital that perpetuate and maintain Native American traditions 

and associated ecosystems (Jordan and Shennan 2003, Long et al. 2003).

Understanding how Native American harvesting activities relate to ecological 

conditions at different scales may help forest managers promote valued cultural 

resources and broader restoration objectives. Native American practitioners 

today, as in the past, adapt and respond to areas of the landscape affected by fires 

to acquire resources of value (Anderson and Moratto 1996). Practitioners such 

as basketweavers harvest individual plants or patches at a variety of locations 

in a landscape (Anderson 1996, 2006a). Securing enough resources for a tribal 

family requires access to different populations of target organisms distributed 

across diverse ecological communities. Consequently, narrow-scale treatments 

Figure 2—Direct and indirect fire effects on environment, cultural resources, and tribal values (Ryan et al. 2012: 12).

Fire Impacts to Cultural Resources

Direct Indirect

Combusion environment

 + CR material properties

 + CR location

 + Heat transfer mechanisms

 First-order effects (physical 

 alteration) (e.g., consumption, 

 cracking, melting,sooting, etc.)

Fire environment/first-order effects

 + Postfire environment (precipitation, wind)

 Second-order effects (additional physical alterations)

 (e.g., erosion, weathering, deflation, etc.)

Human environment

 Third-order effects 

 (socioeconomic, cultural, political)

Tangible

 Suppression 

 Rehabilitation

 Mitigation

 Hunting/gathering

 Looting/vandalism

Intangible

 Aesthetics

 Sense of place

 Cultural landscape

 Spiritual value
176

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

that enhance a few patches may only serve a small number of basketweavers 

(Anderson 1996, 1999). Tribal communities rely on access to a variety of ecological 

communities across a diverse landscape to maintain different cultural traditions, 

including ceremonies, basket making, hunting, and food gathering (fig. 3). Using 

fire to promote cultural resources in different ecological communities at a larger 

landscape scale could enhance resource quality, diversity, and access for multiple 

tribal groups, given that many Sierra Nevada tribes have similar or related cultural, 

language, basketry, and subsistence traditions (Anderson 2006a, Jordan and Shennan 2003).

Effects of Fire on Culturally Valued Plant Resources

Many plant species that are used by Native Americans depend on fire both for persistence and for maintenance of desired growth forms and quality. In the absence 

of fire, many of these species will decline in abundance or mature to a condition 

in which the plant material is not suitable for traditional cultural uses. Examples of 

these fire-associated plants valued highly by Native Americans and tribes are various shrubs, herbs, and graminoids used for basketry and cordage, including willows 

(Salix L. sp.), Indian hemp (Apocynum L.), milkweed (Asclepias L.), skunkbush 

sumac (Rhus trilobata Nutt.), sedges (Carex L.), deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens

(Benth.) Hitchc.), California redbud (Cercis orbiculata Greene), Pacific dogwood 

(Cornus nuttallii Audubon ex Torr. & A. Gray), and beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax

(Pursh) Nutt.); nut-producing trees, such as California black oak (Quercus kelloggii Newberry) and beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta Marshall); berry-producing 

shrubs and herbs, such as elderberry (Sambucus L.), woodland strawberry 

(Fragaria vesca L.), and blueberry (Vaccinium L.); edible geophytes, including 

snake lily (Dichelostemma Kunth), mariposa lily (Calochortus Pursh), and camas 

(Camassia Lindl.); and plants for medicinal or ceremonial uses, such as wild 

tobacco (Nicotiana L.), among many others (Anderson 1994, 1999, 2006a). A lack 

of fire or undesirable applications of fire (including, but not limited to, uncharacteristically severe wildfire) can pose a threat to the sustainable production of these 

plants in the quantity and quality desired by Native Americans to sustain traditional 

lifeways and livelihoods. Three species that are culturally important and may have 

broader ecological significance are discussed below.

Beargrass—

Beargrass is an important plant in the understory of conifer forests, where it has 

declined in abundance in part because of fire exclusion (Charnley and Hummel 

2011, Shebitz et al. 2009). Across its range, beargrass provides food and habitat for 

several animals and pollinating insects, especially flies, beetles, and bees (Charnley 

A lack of fire or undesirable applications 

of fire (including, 

but not limited to, 

uncharacteristically 

severe wildfire) can 

pose a threat to the 

sustainable production 

of these plants in the 

quantity and quality desired by Native 

Americans to sustain 

traditional lifeways 

and livelihoods.
177

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

and Hummel 2011, Hummel et al. 2012). A fire return interval of less than 20 years 

may be necessary to limit encroachment and maintain desired reproduction and 

growth of beargrass, as well as other valued resources associated with relatively 

open understories (Shebitz et al. 2008). Consequently, efforts to replicate traditional 

burning may be necessary to maintain these communities in a state similar to their 

historical condition (Hummel et al. 2012). 

Figure 3—Black oak acorn mush, a traditional food prepared by Lois Conner Bohna in a basket 

made by her grandmother, Lilly Harris, circa 1920 from roots of Santa Barbara sedge (Carex 

barbarae Dewey) and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn) and stems of redbud and 

deer grass.

Frank Lake
178

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

California black oak—

California black oak is another example of a Sierra Nevada culturally significant 

species that depends on forest fire. Archaeological and ethnographic evidence indicate that black oak was historically one of the most important tribal food resources, 

and it remains an important species of concern to Native Americans in the Sierra 

Nevada (Anderson 2007, Haney 1992, Morgan 2008). The trees provide acorns for 

a variety of wildlife and valuable habitat for fisher and spotted owls (North 2012). 

Therefore, the tangible and intangible values of these traditional use sites connect 

past tribal use to contemporary cultural and ecological values, and they reveal the 

importance of promoting recovery and resilience of black oak in Sierra Nevada 

mixed-conifer forests. This species has several adaptive traits to survive repeated 

fires; in the absence of fire, conifers encroach, compete with the oaks for resources, 

reduce the crown openings needed for robust mast production, and increase fuel 

loads (Cocking et al. 2012). Mature black oak trees are susceptible to topkill by fire, 

although they generally resprout from the root collar (Cocking et al. 2012, Stephens 

and Finney 2002). Treatments focused solely on reducing fire hazard may not result 

in retention or recruitment of California black oak (Moghaddas et al. 2008). Consequently, management to promote resilience of black oak in the long term while 

mitigating short-term losses of mature trees is an important challenge when designing treatments to promote socioecological values.

Bearclover—

Another plant that demonstrates complex interactions in managing fire for ecocultural restoration is bearclover, also known as mountain misery (Chamaebatia 

foliolosa Benth.). Bearclover is a low-stature shrub found in large areas of the Sierra 

Nevada, and it is commonly associated with black oak. Bearclover is a traditional 

medicine for Native Americans, provides for honey bees and native wildlife, fixes 

nitrogen, competes strongly with conifer seedlings, and provides highly flammable 

fuels to carry fires (McDonald et al. 2004). Black oak sites favored by Native 

Americans for gathering acorns do not have bearclover under the trees (Anderson 

2006a). Treatments intended to reduce bearclover have promoted increases in 

grasses, including, where introduced, highly invasive cheatgrass (McDonald et al. 

2004). Because bearclover is well adapted to burning and can be widespread, it is 

likely to have had an important role in maintaining fire regimes and affecting other 

forest understory species.
179

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Landscape-Scale Effects of Burning Practices

Traditional burning practices served as a disturbance that not only maintained 

desired growth forms of individual plants, but also promoted desired plant communities across broader scales (Anderson 2006b). Though there has been debate about 

the extent of burning carried out by Native Americans in different regions (Keeley 

2002), a comprehensive review suggests that the extent was large across various 

habitat types (Stephens et al. 2007). Davis et al. (1996) note that the frequency 

of fire necessary to perpetuate specific resources in conditions needed by Native 

Americans in the Sierra Nevada would have required extensive and intensive burning in important vegetation types. A primary mechanism by which fire contributes 

to the maintenance of culturally important plant species is by limiting the encroachment of trees and shrubs in meadow and woodland habitats (Anderson and Barbour 

2003, Turner et al. 2011). Tribal land management practices served to maintain 

valued habitats and species diversity across landscapes, from riverine riparian areas 

to oak and mixed-conifer forests to montane meadows (Anderson 1994). Traditional 

burning practices occurred at different frequencies and during different seasons, 

with ignition strategies that varied according to the goals of fire use (Anderson 

1999). These practices fostered a mosaic of vegetation types in different stages 

across landscapes, which promoted food security (Charnley et al. 2008, Kimmerer 

and Lake 2001). Reintroducing traditional burning management practices would 

help increase heterogeneity in fuel conditions and reinstate finer grained landscape 

patterns where burning by Native Americans was important in the past and is of 

value today (Anderson 1994, Anderson and Barbour 2003, Miller and Urban 2000).

Ecological Issues in Reestablishing Frequent Fire

Plans to restore frequent fire as an ecological process must consider various effects 

and interactions, especially generation of smoke. Prehistoric Native American burning practices are thought to have been significant contributors of smoke and carbon 

emissions in the Sierra Nevada (Anderson 1994, Stephens et al. 2007). However, 

these emissions should not necessarily be seen only as a pollutant, because smoke 

in appropriate seasons can provide ecological benefits, such as control of insect 

pests and enhanced germination of various plants, including beargrass (Shebitz and 

James 2010) and tobacco (Preston and Baldwin 1999). For plant germination, there 

are potential substitutes for natural smoke that may help compensate for fire deficits 

(Landis 2000, Shebitz and James 2010). However, smoke may provide other benefits 

that are not substitutable; for example, smoke from extensive fires has been hypothesized to be important in moderating water temperatures by diffusing direct solar 

radiation, which could in turn benefit cold water fisheries (Mahlum et al. 2011). 

Reintroducing 

traditional burning 

management practices 

would help increase 

heterogeneity in 

fuel conditions and 

reinstate finer grained 

landscape patterns 

where burning by 

Native Americans was 

important in the past 

and is of value today.
180

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Additionally, smoke particles can have physiological effects on plants that could 

have wider implications for ecosystem function (Calder et al. 2010).

Proposals to reintroduce frequent burning may generate other ecological 

concerns. Where nonnative species are widespread, burning has potential to 

negatively affect native biodiversity, including culturally valued species (Brooks 

et al. 2004). For example, a study in Kings Canyon National Park cautioned that 

frequent burning in areas that have been invaded by cheatgrass might facilitate 

spread of the invasive grass (Keeley and McGinnis 2007). Further study would help 

to understand how season of burning influences these effects (Knapp et al. 2009). 

Ethnographic reports indicate that tribal burning occurred at various seasons and 

may have differed from the natural lightning ignition season (Anderson 2006a). In 

addition, effects of fire frequency are an important subject for research. Chapter 

5.1, “Soils,” discusses the potential for frequent prescribed burning to deplete soil 

nitrogen in certain circumstances. However, at present, many locations targeted for 

cultural use burns are relatively nutrient-rich, have an abundance of nitrogen-fixing 

plants, and occur in areas along the western slope of the Sierra Nevada region, 

where nitrogen deposition rates tend to be elevated (see chapter 8.1, “Air Quality”). 

Currently, the areas treated with prescribed fire for tribal cultural purposes are 

so limited that concerns about nitrogen loss at the local to regional scale appear 

minimal. For those reasons, burning to emulate traditional burning is not likely to 

pose a risk of depleting nitrogen or adversely affect forest productivity.

Collaborations to Promote Traditional Burning and 

Cultural Resources

Productive, collaborative relationships between federal forest managers and tribal 

governments, communities, individuals (where appropriate), and organizations 

(e.g., the California Indian Basketweavers Association) can help to prioritize forest 

treatments and promote alignment with tribal concerns. Collaboration, consultation, 

and other forms of engagement with local tribal governments and Native American 

communities help to incorporate tribal traditional ecological knowledge in research 

and forest management and to respect tribal needs and traditions regarding access 

and caretaking (see chapter 9.6). Several examples of collaborations are shown in 

box 4.2-1.

These types of collaborations will assist forest managers in understanding 

which habitats, specific plants, or other valued resources can be perpetuated to 

serve tribal needs (Anderson and Barbour 2003). Each resource of interest (e.g., 

basketry material or food-producing plants) may have a favored season, frequency, 
181

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

or intensity of burning, and prescriptions may reflect a multitude of objectives for 

burning (Anderson 1999, 2006a). This information can assist restoration efforts 

that promote enhancement of cultural resources and address tribal values, and 

it can promote landscape resilience to climate change and detrimental wildfires. 

Landscape-scale modeling approaches (see chapter 1.2, “Integrative Approaches: 

Promoting Socioecological Resilience”) could incorporate Native American values 

and traditional burning strategies. Riparian and meadow restoration activities in 

particular may provide important opportunities to promote habitat for culturally 

important species (see chapter 6.3, “Wet Meadows”).

Box 4.2-1

Examples of National Forest–Tribal Collaborations

• Deergrass has been a subject of collaborative work by the Sierra National 

Forest and Mono tribes (Anderson 1994, 1999, 2006a).

• As part of the proposed Sage Steppe/Dry-Forest Restoration Project, the 

Modoc National Forest worked with Cultural Advocates for Native Youth, 

an organization based in the Cedarville Indian Rancheria, to restore native 

tobacco plants at burn piles.

• Beargrass restoration has been a subject of collaborative restoration on the 

Plumas and Lassen National Forests involving Maidu tribes (Charnley et 

al. 2008), as well as studies on the Olympic National Forest involving the 

Quinault and Skokomish tribes (Shebitz et al. 2009).

• The Klamath and Six Rivers National Forests entered into an agreement with 

the Karuk tribe to manage the Katimiin Cultural Management Area, identified in the Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, to 

allow for specific cultural management activities, including reintroduction of 

fire onto the landscape. The Karuk hold the culmination of their Pikyawish 

(world renewal) ceremonies in this area near Somes Bar, California. The 

Karuk, prior to government fire-suppression policies and efforts, used to ceremonially burn the mountain above Katimiin, a historical village site. This 

cooperative agreement between the Forest Service and the Karuk tribe may 

serve as a model for other federally recognized tribes in California.
182

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Research Gaps

Traditional burning regimes may have been an important factor in maintaining 

larger vegetation communities, such as open mixed-conifer forests with sugar pine, 

montane mixed-conifer forests with beargrass understory, montane meadows, and 

other relatively open riparian types. Evaluating the ecological outcomes of fuels and 

fire treatments that reinstate or emulate traditional burning practices in different 

habitats, as suggested in the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report by Anderson 

and Moratto (1996), remains a potentially valuable avenue for research (Charnley et 

al. 2007). A useful way to examine potential effects of tribal burning practices is to 

consider a range of ecologically relevant scales (e.g., organism, population, community, and landscape), and the implications of burning on food webs, including 

animals of ecological and cultural significance (Anderson 1997). In addition, the 

historical and current responses of desired forest resources to fires of different size, 

season, and severity are an important research gap, especially given the potential 

for larger high-severity burn patches in the future (see chapter 1.2).

Management Implications

• Integrating cultural values into design of landscape-scale treatment strategies could increase access to tribally valued resources for food, materials, 

medicine, and ceremonial uses.

• Reintroducing traditional Native American burning practices at appropriate 

locations within the synthesis area may yield important social and ecological benefits, including landscape heterogeneity. Research is needed to 

understand how factors such as season, frequency, and scale of burns (considering traditional burns, other kinds of prescribed burns, and wildfires) 

influence fire effects on social and ecological values.

• Collaborations and consultations with tribes and Native American groups 

can promote opportunities to learn about these fire effects and incorporate 

them into forest management practices and applied restoration efforts.

Literature Cited

Anderson, M.K. 1994. Prehistoric anthropogenic wildland burning by huntergatherer societies in the temperate regions—a net source, sink, or neutral to the 

global carbon budget. Chemosphere. 29(5): 913–934.

Anderson, M.K. 1996. Tending the wilderness. Restoration Management Notes. 

14(2): 154–166.
183

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Anderson, M.K. 1997. From tillage to table: the indigenous cultivation of 

geophytes for food in California. Journal of Ethnobiology. 17(2): 149–169.

Anderson, M.K. 1999. The Fire, pruning , and coppice management of temperate 

ecosystems for basketry material by California Indian tribes. Human Ecology. 

27(1): 79–113.

Anderson, M.K. 2006a. Tending the wild: Native American knowledge and the 

management of California’s natural resources. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press. 558 p.

Anderson, M.K. 2006b. The use of fire by Native Americans in California. In: 

Sugihara, N.G.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Fites-Kaufman, J.; Shaffer, K.E.; Thode, 

A.E., eds. Fire in California’s ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California 

Press: 417–430.

Anderson, M.K. 2007. Indigenous uses, management, and restoration of oaks 

of the far western United States. Tech. Note No. 2. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National 

Plant Data Center. 20 p.

Anderson, M.K.; Barbour, M.G. 2003. Simulated indigenous management: a 

new model for ecological restoration in national parks. Ecological Restoration. 

21(4): 269–277.

Anderson, M.K.; Moratto, M.J. 1996. Native American land-use practices and 

ecological impacts. In: SNEP Science Team and Special Consultants, eds. Sierra 

Nevada Ecosystem Project, final report to Congress. Vol. II: assessments and 

scientific basis for management options. Report No. 37. Davis, CA: Centers 

for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California–Davis: 187–206. 

Chapter 9.

Brooks, M.L.; D’Antonio, C.M.; Richardson, D.M.; Grace, J.B.; Keeley, J.E.; 

DiTomaso, J.M.; Hobbs, R.J.; Pellant, M.; Pyke, D. 2004. Effects of invasive 

alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience. 54(7): 677–688.

Calder, W.J.; Lifferth, G.; Moritz, M.A.; Clair, S.B.S. 2010. Physiological 

effects of smoke exposure on deciduous and conifer tree species. International 

Journal of Forestry Research. 2010: 1–7.

Charnley, S.; Fischer, A.P.; Jones, E.T. 2007. Integrating traditional and local 

ecological knowledge into forest biodiversity conservation in the Pacific 

Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management. 246(1): 14–28.
184

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Charnley, S.; Fischer, A.P.; Jones, E.T. 2008. Traditional and local ecological 

knowledge about forest biodiversity in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-751. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 52 p.

Charnley, S.; Hummel, S. 2011. People, plants, and pollinators: the conservation 

of beargrass ecosystem diversity in the Western United States. In: Pujol, J.L., 

ed. The importance of biological interactions in the study of biodiversity. Rijeka, 

Croatia; and Shanghai, China: InTech: 127–154. Chapter 8.

Cocking, M.I.; Varner, J.M.; Sherriff, R.L. 2012. California black oak responses 

to fire severity and native conifer encroachment in the Klamath Mountains. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 270: 25–34.

Davis, F.W.; Stoms, D.M.; Church, R.L.; Okin, W.J.; Johnson, K.N. 1996.

Selecting biodiversity management areas. In: SNEP Science Team and Special 

Consultants, eds. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, final report to Congress. 

Vol. II: assessments and scientific basis for management options. Report No. 37. 

Davis, CA: Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California–

Davis: 1503–1522.

Haney, J.W. 1992. Acorn exploitation in the eastern Sierra Nevada. Journal of 

California and Great Basin Anthropology. 14(1): 94–109.

Hummel, S.; Foltz-Jordan, S.; Polasky, S. 2012. Natural and cultural history of 

beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax). Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-864. Portland, OR: 

U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 80 p.

Jordan, P.; Shennan, S. 2003. Cultural transmission, language, and basketry 

traditions amongst the California Indians. Journal of Anthropological 

Archaeology. 22(1): 42–74.

Keeley, J.E. 2002. Native American impacts on fire regimes of the California 

coastal ranges. Journal of Biogeography. 29(3): 303–320.

Keeley, J.E.; McGinnis, T.W. 2007. Impact of prescribed fire and other factors on 

cheatgrass persistence in a Sierra Nevada ponderosa pine forest. International 

Journal of Wildland Fire. 16(1): 96–106.

Kimmerer, R.W.; Lake, F.K. 2001. The role of indigenous burning in land 

management. Journal of Forestry. (99): 36–41.
185

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Knapp, E.E.; Estes, B.L.; Skinner, C.N. 2009. Ecological effects of prescribed 

fire season: a literature review and synthesis for managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PSW-GTR-224. Albany, CA: U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 80 p.

Landis, T.D. 2000. Where there’s smoke... there’s germination. Native Plants 

Journal. 1(1): 25–29.

Long, J.W.; Tecle, A.; Burnette, B. 2003. Cultural foundations for ecological 

restoration on the White Mountain Apache Reservation. Conservation 

Ecology. 8(1): article 4. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol8/iss1/art4/ 

(26 December 2013).

Mahlum, S.K.; Eby, L.A.; Young, M.K.; Clancy, C.G.; Jakober, M. 2011.

Effects of wildfire on stream temperatures in the Bitterroot River Basin, 

Montana. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 20(2): 240–247.

McDonald, P.M.; Fiddler, G.O.; Potter, D.A. 2004. Ecology and manipulation of 

bearclover (Chamaebatia foliolosa) in northern and central California: the status 

of our knowledge. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-190. Albany, CA: U.S Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. 26 p.

Miller, C.; Urban, D.L. 2000. Modeling the effects of fire management 

alternatives on Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests. Ecological Applications. 

10(1): 85–94.

Moghaddas, J.J.; York, R.A.; Stephens, S.L. 2008. Initial response of conifer 

and California black oak seedlings following fuel reduction activities in a 

Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 

255(8–9): 3141–3150.

Morgan, C. 2008. Reconstructing prehistoric hunter-gatherer foraging radii: a 

case study from California’s Southern Sierra Nevada. Journal of Archaeological 

Science. 35(2): 247–258.

North, M. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. 184 p.

Preston, C.A.; Baldwin, I.T. 1999. Positive and negative signals regulate 

germination in the post-fire annual, Nicotiana attenuata. Ecology. 

80(2): 481–494.
186

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Ryan, K.C.; Jones, A.T.; Koerner, C.L.; Lee, K.M. 2012. Wildland fire in 

ecosystems: effects of fire on cultural resources and archaeology. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 3. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 224 p.

Shebitz, D.; James, J.E. 2010. When Smokey says “no:” fire-less methods for 

growing plants adapted to cultural fire regimes. In: Riley, L.E.; Pinto, J.R.; 

Dumroese, R.K., tech. coords. National proceedings: forest and conservation 

nursery associations. Proceedings RMRS-P-62. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 

15–21.

Shebitz, D.J.; Reichard, S.H.; Dunwiddie, P.W. 2009. Ecological and cultural 

significance of burning beargrass habitat on the Olympic Peninsula. Ecological 

Restoration. 27(3): 306–319.

Shebitz, D.J.; Reichard, S.H.; Woubneh, W. 2008. Beargrass (Xerophyllum 

tenax) on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington: autecology and population status. 

Northwest Science. 82(2): 128–140.

Stephens, S.L.; Finney, M.A. 2002. Prescribed fire mortality of Sierra Nevada 

mixed conifer tree species: effects of crown damage and forest floor combustion. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 162(2–3): 261–271.

Stephens, S.; Martin, R.; Clinton, N. 2007. Prehistoric fire area and emissions 

from California’s forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 251(3): 205–216.

Stevens, N.E. 2005. Changes in prehistoric land use in the alpine Sierra Nevada: a 

regional exploration using temperature-adjusted obsidian hydration rates. Journal 

of California and Great Basin Anthropology. 25(2): 187–205.

Turner, N.J.; Deur, D.; Mellot, C.R. 2011. “Up on the Mountain:” ethnobotanical 

importance of montane sites in Pacific coastal North America. Journal of 

Ethnobiology. 31(1): 4–43.

Welch, J.R. 2012. Effects of fire on intangible cultural resources: moving toward 

a landscape approach. In: Ryan, K.C.; Jones, A.T.; Koerner, C.L.; Lee, K.M., eds. 

Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on cultural resources and archaeology. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 157–170. 

Chapter 3.
187

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Jonathan W. Long,1 Carl Skinner,2 Susan Charnley,3 Ken Hubbert,4

Lenya Quinn-Davidson,5 and Marc Meyer6

Summary

Wildfires, especially large, severe, and unmanageable events, exert major influences on socioecological systems, not only through risks to life and property, 

but also losses of important values associated with mature forest stands. These 

events prompt decisions about post-wildfire management interventions, including 

short-term emergency responses, salvage logging, and other actions to influence 

long-term ecological trajectories, including tree planting and treatment of fuels 

and shrubs. The cost-effectiveness of such interventions has been increasingly 

scrutinized, and scientists have noted the potential for unintended or undesirable 

ecological effects of postfire treatments. Research has highlighted the importance 

of targeting postfire treatments to specific contexts where benefits are expected to 

exceed the costs of interventions. Implementation of these approaches would tend 

to result in patchy treatments within high-severity burns that vary with landscape 

attributes and presence of important values.

Salvage of fire-killed trees is one of the most influential and contentious tools 

applied to postfire landscapes. One possible ecological benefit of salvage is to 

reduce uncharacteristically high levels of fuel accumulations that have resulted 

from combinations of past fire suppression, past timber harvest, and severe wildfire. 

Other benefits may result from accelerating long-term establishment of mature 

forests that provide timber and habitat for various wildlife species of concern. The 

most immediate benefit of postfire salvage is the sale of fire-killed timber, which 

often pays for rehabilitation and provides returns to local economies. The reduction 

of the hazard of falling trees is another socioeconomic benefit important to recreational users and others working in the forest, potentially including tree planters 

Chapter 4.3—Post-Wildfire Management

1 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618. 

2 Geographer (emeritus), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002.

3 Research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main St., Suite 400, 

Portland, OR 97205.

4 Formerly research soil scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.

5 Staff research associate, University of California Cooperative Extension, 5630 South 

Broadway, Eureka, CA 95503.

6 Ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Sierra Province, 

Sierra National Forest, 1600 Tollhouse Rd., Clovis, CA 93611.
188

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

and firefighters. Local support for salvage operations can be quite high, although 

that support appears to depend on beliefs or assurances that salvage operations do 

not cause ecological harm.

Further research is needed to understand effects of wildfires, and high-severity 

patches in particular, over long periods (and after multiple fires), including effects 

on fire behavior, ecological trajectories, wildlife species associated with postfire 

conditions and old forests, streams, watersheds, economic values, and social 

well-being. Extensive reburns, such as the Chips Fire of 2012, may present valuable 

opportunities to better understand long-term changes in ecological conditions and 

how to promote socioecological resilience through interventions before and after 

reburn events. Because wildfires are expected to be a major influence on the forests 

of the synthesis area in coming decades, enhanced understanding of their effects, 

particularly of large high-severity patches, is an important research gap discussed 

throughout this chapter.

Introduction

Wildfires trigger management decisions about postfire interventions to mitigate 

potentially undesirable outcomes. Because uncharacteristically large patches 

of high-severity wildfire are expected to occur in the synthesis area in coming 

decades, these postfire decisions may have significant implications for the resilience 

of socioecological systems. Postfire situations entail several types of responses, 

including a short-term response through the Burned Area Emergency Response 

(BAER) program to protect life, property, water quality, and ecosystems; potential 

salvage logging of burned trees; and longer term restoration efforts. A range of 

options and approaches, many of which are outlined below, are available to address 

these issues. The Forest Service in California has recently developed a postfire 

restoration strategy template to help guide national forests in planning for restoration and long-term management of burned landscapes.

The intent of this chapter is to inform strategic planning to prepare responses 

for inevitable future wildfires. Application of a long-term, landscape-scale, and 

integrated socioecological approach, as highlighted throughout the synthesis, is 

especially important in postfire contexts. A number of recent scientific publications point to postfire tree mortality and erosion as important mechanisms for 

rejuvenating habitats and promoting resilience to changing climates that could be 

undermined by postfire interventions (Dellasala et al. 2004, Dunham et al. 2003). 

Swanson et al. (2010) noted that the period of early succession after wildfire (fig. 1) 

or other stand-replacing disturbances is important for promoting high productivity 

of understory herbs and shrubs, large nutrient fluxes, and highly complex food webs 

Complex tradeoffs 

between economic 

values, ecological 

values, and risks 

across short and long 

time scales render 

post-wildfire management a particularly 

challenging issue, and 

the limited frequency 

of these events makes 

it important to monitor 

and evaluate outcomes 

to promote social 

learning.
189

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

and forest structure. Thinking about wildfire events proactively and reviewing them 

after they happen provide important feedbacks to adapt larger strategies designed 

to promote resilience of socioecological systems (see chapter 1.2, “Integrative 

Approaches: Promoting Socioecological Resilience,” as well as McCool et al. 

[2007]). This perspective highlights the need to accurately predict when postfire 

trajectories are likely to result in significant losses of values and whether the full 

socioecological costs and benefits of interventions justify the investment. Complex 

tradeoffs between economic values, ecological values, and risks across short and 

long time scales render post-wildfire management a particularly challenging issue, 

and the limited frequency of these events makes it important to monitor and evaluate outcomes to promote social learning.

Short-Term Management Actions and 

Recommendations

In the 1970s, federal agencies adopted BAER programs as a coordinated approach 

to address short-term threats to life, property, and natural and cultural resources. 

Teams with members representing multiple resource concerns and disciplines 

collaborate to inventory damage, assess future impacts, identify values at risk from 

potential flood events and accelerated erosion, and recommend cost-effective mitigation treatments (Robichaud et al. 2000, Wohlgemuth et al. 2009). These responses 

are commonly limited to the first 3 years after a fire, which accords with the period 

during which flood and erosion risks may be particularly elevated (Berg and Azuma 

2010). However, Robichaud et al. (2010) note that risks may extend for several more 

years, especially in semiarid regions. Short-term postfire response varies depending 

on the values at risk, fire severity, topography, and other context-specific factors. 

A tool has been developed to evaluate cost effectiveness of short-term treatments 

based upon protection of values at risk, including both monetary and nonmonetary 

values (Calkin et al. 2007).

Figure 1—Stand-replacing burn patches, such as this one on the Piute Fire of 2008, lead to discussions about postfire management 

strategies based upon a range of ecological and social considerations.

Marc Meyer
190

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Short-term postfire concerns often focus on flooding, erosion, and sedimentation, which are interconnected in complex ways, because water and sediment can be 

routed and stored in different places at different times. Effects of wildfire on soils 

and water are discussed in chapters 5.1, “Soils,” and 6.1, “Watershed and Stream 

Ecosystems,” and they have been the focus of recent science syntheses (Elliot et 

al. 2010, Neary et al. 2005). Postfire flooding is a function of excess overland flow 

from hillslopes, although conditions of downstream channel networks can exacerbate flood hazards through potential failures of debris jams, culverts, and dams. 

Based upon a study in the Sagehen watershed that found a short-term reduction in 

woody debris following fire, Berg et al. (2002) recommended surveying the extent 

and length of woody debris relative to channel bankfull widths when evaluating the 

risk of postfire debris jams.

Recent reviews have examined techniques to mitigate erosion and other postfire damage and found that many once widely used treatments for hillslopes and 

channels have demonstrated inconsistent effectiveness (Robichaud et al. 2000, 

Wohlgemuth et al. 2009). These findings have supported a general trend toward 

non-intervention, except when targeting areas of particularly high vulnerability 

with carefully designed and implemented measures (Wohlgemuth et al. 2009). In 

some areas, hillslope erosion may be greatly exceeded by erosion from channels 

(Moody and Martin 2001). Few postfire in-channel treatments have been widely 

recommended because they are costly to engineer to inhibit failure. For example, 

strawbale check dams can rapidly fill, and there are many reports of widespread 

failure of such dams (fig. 2) within two years of installation; consequently, studies 

have recommended limiting such treatments to very small catchments (e.g., less 

than 1 ha) (Wohlgemuth et al. 2009). However, careful and intensive design, construction, and maintenance may allow check dams to be effective in larger watersheds (deWolfe et al. 2008).

Hillslope Erosion

Erosion on hillslopes through rainsplash, sheetwash, and rilling is often a focus for 

postfire treatment, as these are the most common and widespread causes of postfire 

erosion (Miller et al. 2011). In addition, rehabilitation strategies often target hillslopes based upon a general principle of treating the problems as close to the source 

as possible, and because hillslope treatments (see box 4.3-1) appear generally more 

successful than in-channel treatments. Research and monitoring have consistently 

found that ground cover is the most significant factor in reducing hillslope erosion 

(Robichaud et al. 2009). Predictive tools, including the Water Erosion Prediction 
191

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Project (WEPP), are also designed to address hillslope rather than channel processes. These tools are designed to work on a local scale for prioritizing vulnerable 

areas for potential treatment (Miller et al. 2011).

Debris Flows

Debris flows are an important concern in BAER assessments because of the threat 

they can pose to life, property, and ecological values for a few years after wildfire. 

Additional discussion of debris flows is presented in chapter 6.1. Postfire erosion 

associated with debris flows can pose threats to downstream public water supplies 

(deWolfe et al. 2008, Goode et al. 2012). Although impacts to channels from severe 

wildfires can rejuvenate aquatic habitats, they can also kill aquatic life and result in 

extirpation of vulnerable aquatic species that are not able to recolonize the affected 

streams (Neville et al. 2012). If postfire landforms persist beyond the wildfire 

recurrence intervals, successive wildfires will have an important cumulative impact 

on watershed morphology (Moody and Martin 2001). Some researchers suggest a 

general lack of good options to prevent postfire debris flows (Goode et al. 2012). 

Figure 2—Failure of check dams with straw bales and wattles following an extreme rain event. 

Jan Beyers
192

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Box 4.3-1

Treatments for Hillslope Erosion

• Straw and other dry mulches: Straw mulch is a highly effective means of 

providing groundcover on burned hillslopes to protect the topsoil against 

rainsplash, slowing surface flows, and helping control hydrophobic soil conditions (Bautista et al. 1996, Robichaud et al. 2000). Relatively less expensive than most other hillslope treatments, straw mulch has become one of the 

most widely employed postfire erosion control techniques (Robichaud et al. 

2010). However, it may be problematic to apply in areas with windy conditions, and denser materials such as wood particles can be effective but more 

costly alternatives (Wohlgemuth et al. 2009). There are also concerns about 

the effects of different kinds of dry mulches (e.g., agricultural straw, rice 

straw, wood mulch) on introduction of invasive species such as cheatgrass 

and establishment of native herbaceous and woody species (Robichaud et al. 

2010). One approach being explored is to chip and shred burned trees on site 

to generate native mulch materials (Robichaud et al. 2010).

• Hydromulch: Most hydromulch mixes consist of a bonded-fiber matrix combined with a non-water-soluble tackifier, which allows the aerially applied 

mulch to penetrate into and bond with the soil substrate. Hydromulch can 

be highly effective, but it is several times more expensive than straw mulch 

(Hubbert et al. 2012). Treatment effectiveness decreases after the first year as 

the product breaks down (Robichaud et al. 2010).

• Contour-felled log erosion barriers (LEBs) and fiber rolls (straw wattles): 

Both logs and fiber rolls are used to improve infiltration, slow overland 

flow velocity by breaking up the slope length, and, to a lesser degree, 

capture and keep sediment on the slopes. Reviews show that effective use 

of these treatments requires a skilled workforce for proper placement; 

poor installation and foot traffic during installation can be a source of 

hillslope disturbance and rilling if water flows are concentrated (Robichaud 

et al. 2000). The fiber rolls may be easier to place and entail less ground 

disturbance than downing and placement of LEBs. Because both of these 

treatments are expensive and labor intensive, they are used primarily for 

protection of high-value areas (Robichaud et al. 2000). Both treatments lose 

effectiveness as the barriers fill with sediment, so they require maintenance. 

Use of LEBs in particular has decreased in recent years in favor of dry mulch 

treatments (Robichaud et al. 2010).
193

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

However, one postfire study reports that a combination of well-designed, wellimplemented, and well-maintained hillslope treatments (straw mulch, seeding, and 

LEBs) and channel treatments (check dams and debris racks) can reduce debris-flow 

volumes (deWolfe et al. 2008). Further research is needed to evaluate where and 

when such interventions are likely to be an efficient response. One possible aid 

in that effort is a debris flow volume prediction model based upon steep slopes, 

burn severity, and rainfall that has been developed and tested, although not for the 

synthesis area in particular (deWolfe et al. 2008, Gartner et al. 2008). Because climate change is expected to increase the incidence of severe wildfire, high-intensity 

storms, and rain-on-snow events, the threat of post-wildfire debris flows is expected 

to increase and become more widespread (Cannon and DeGraff 2009).

Box 4.3-1 (continued)

• Seeding: Grass seeding for postfire hillslope stabilization has decreased 

as a percentage of burned areas since the 1970s, likely owing to concerns 

about both cost effectiveness and ecological effects; however, more has 

been spent on reseeding as area burned and use of native species for seeding have increased (Peppin et al. 2011b). Because natural revegetation may 

be sufficient, erosive precipitation events may not occur, or erosive precipitation events may wash out the seeds, there may be a relatively narrow 

window of conditions where seeding would be successful in preventing 

erosion. However, within most of the synthesis area, that window may be 

wider than in regions where intense storms are more likely to happen after 

fires and before winter precipitation (Peppin et al. 2011a). However, where 

seeding is successful, it may reduce richness of native species, especially 

annual fire followers, and reduce establishment of woody plant seedlings (Beyers 2004, Peppin et al. 2011a, Stella et al. 2010). Use of mulch 

with seeding increases the establishment of seeded grasses, but generally the combination does not provide greater cover than mulch by itself 

(Robichaud et al. 2010). The effectiveness of seeding for reducing nonnative invasive plants after fire is mixed, as suppression of one species may 

entail replacement with one or more nonnative competitors (Peppin et al. 

2011a). A particular concern of reseeding has been introduction of nonnative species or poorly adapted genotypes. The latter issue has been noted 

as requiring further research to determine the extent to which poorly 

adapted genotypes die off or reduce the fitness of native plants (Hufford 

and Mazer 2003). 

The threat of postwildfire debris flows 

is expected to increase 

and become more 

widespread.
194

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Roads—

Because roads can concentrate runoff, obstruct streamflow, and alter other hydrologic processes, they are a focus of postfire treatments. In addition, research from 

western Oregon indicated that roads and debris flows can interact to facilitate 

spread of invasive plants (Watterson and Jones 2006), which is a particular concern 

after wildfires. A recent synthesis report (Foltz et al. 2008) provides information 

to guide decisions about postfire road rehabilitation based upon surveys of BAER 

specialists; it reported that treatments favored across all regions included upgrading road drainage features and culverts and increasing cleaning and armoring of 

ditches.

Identifying Erosion Hotspots Using Landscape Analysis Tools 

Prioritizing areas for treatment can be guided by a range of factors, in particular 

soil attributes, such as postfire soil cover, burn severity, and soil type, in addition 

to expected precipitation, vegetation type, and resource values (Benavides-Solorio 

and Macdonald 2005). Analyses of topography provide additional information for 

prioritizing treatments following wildfires (Istanbulluoglu et al. 2002), especially 

because research has shown that convergent swales have greater potential for 

postfire erosion (Benavides-Solorio and Macdonald 2005). The spatial distribution 

of postfire effects can be mapped in relation to landscape features using remote 

sensing and geographic information system tools. Postfire monitoring of burned 

watersheds to evaluate erosion rates and consequences can enhance understanding 

of postfire erosional processes, help to develop and refine models (including WEPP) 

to inform and improve treatment strategies, and inform forest treatment planning 

by identifying areas that appear particularly vulnerable to postfire erosion. Tools to 

predict postfire debris flows in southern California and the Intermountain Region 

(Cannon and DeGraff 2009) could be tested and refined so that they could be used 

for BAER and longer term planning in the synthesis area. Detailed terrestrial and 

airborne LiDAR surveys offer tools for evaluating post-wildfire erosion (Bremer 

and Sass 2012, Buckman et al. 2009, Canfield et al. 2005, Perroy et al. 2010). These 

studies suggest that as airborne LiDAR sets become more widely available in the 

synthesis area, it will become more practical to identify erosion hotspots and debris 

flows and to quantify erosion and deposition in channels, although more detailed 

terrestrial LiDAR surveys may be required to evaluate finer hillslope processes. 

Low-cost techniques can be used to monitor postfire floods and debris flows in 

channels that do not already have stream gages (Kean et al. 2012). Evaluating risks 

at finer reach scales can help to evaluate the likelihood of extirpation of aquatic life 

within basins by relating the probability and location of expected debris flows to 

occupied habitats.
195

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Research Needs

Robichaud et al. (2009) identified three research needs to support short-term rehabilitation, including predictive models of watershed processes, refinement of remote 

sensing tools, and development of mulches using local site materials. However, they 

also emphasized the importance of long-term monitoring to evaluate treatments.

Postfire Salvage Logging and Replanting

One of the more controversial activities in the postfire environment is salvage 

logging of fire-killed trees. Salvage logging is controversial because few short-term 

positive ecological effects and many potential negative effects have been associated with postfire logging (Peterson et al. 2009), while the potential economic 

returns from salvaging timber in a timely manner can be very large (Sessions 

et al. 2004). Several of the more common reasons given for doing this work are 

(1) utilizing the dead wood while it is still merchantable; (2) generating revenue 

for postfire rehabilitation activities, including site preparation and replanting of 

severely burned areas; (3) reducing the level of future fire hazard that may result 

as the dead wood accumulates on the ground as surface fuel; and (4) enhancing the 

ability of firefighters to safely control future fires (Peterson et al. 2009, Ritchie et 

al. 2013). Effects on greenhouse gas emissions are another consideration. Salvage 

removes carbon from the forest; however, much of the carbon in dead trees may be 

released to the atmosphere through decomposition. By converting those trees into 

forest products, there is potential to avoid greenhouse gas emissions (Powers et 

al. 2013). Finally, some scientists and others contend that, for both pragmatic and 

ecological reasons, salvage and replanting are needed to speed recovery of complex 

or mature forest conditions for future timber production or restoration of old forest 

habitat (especially large trees) for some wildlife species (Sessions et al. 2004). 

This argument has been countered by claims that salvage and replanting disrupts 

an important seral stage and recovery processes that favor other wildlife species 

(Hutto 2006). Although this debate points to a fundamental tradeoff between early 

seral habitat and late seral habitat, promoting heterogeneous conditions may allow 

both objectives to be realized. It is important to consider that only a portion of most 

large fires on public lands are typically proposed for salvage while other areas are 

left untreated, whereas on industrial timberlands, salvage and replanting would be 

expected to return lands to full timber production. Accordingly, another consideration may be the combined effect of actions on public and private lands where large 

fires have burned across ownerships.

Salvage logging is 

controversial because 

few short-term positive 

ecological effects 

and many potential 

negative effects have 

been associated with 

postfire logging, while 

the potential economic 

returns from salvaging 

timber in a timely 

manner can be 

very large.
196

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Reviews of Ecological Considerations

Knowledge of the ecological effects of postfire logging, most of which is shortterm, has been summarized by McIver and Starr (2000), Lindenmayer et al. (2004), 

Lindenmayer and Noss (2006), Lindenmayer et al. (2008), and Peterson et al. 

(2009). These reviews note that general ecological concerns associated with salvage 

logging include impacts to soils; impacts to understory vegetation and recruitment; 

potential increases in surface fuel loads; reductions in key structural elements, such 

as snags and burned logs and their associated habitat values; and other influences 

on forest development. Reviews of the effects of salvage logging on aquatic systems 

reflect more general concerns about timber harvest (e.g., increased sedimentation 

and runoff from roads and logging disturbance, and loss of large trees and coarse 

woody debris inputs), although effects could be more significant because the timing 

of salvage logging imposes a stress following the disturbance of severe wildfire 

(Beschta et al. 2004, Karr et al. 2004, McCormick et al. 2010, Peterson et al. 2009).

Currently, there is only one published experiment that was designed to study 

the effects of varying the intensity of postfire logging within the synthesis area 

(Ritchie et al. 2013). The initial publication from this study focused on snag longevity and buildup of surface fuels over the first eight years following the Cone Fire 

(2002). The study found that most ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Lawson & C. 

Lawson) snags had fallen within 8 years of the fire (only 16 percent were partially 

intact in the 30 to 45 cm class, compared to 41 percent in the >45-cm class). White 

fir (Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr.) snags were more durable 

(42 percent partially intact in the 30 to 45 cm class and 92 percent in the >45-cm 

class). Further, regardless of the intensity of postfire logging, approximately 80 

percent of the biomass of retained snags was on the ground 8 years after the fire. 

Correspondingly, 8 years after the fire, surface fuels were greater where more 

snag basal area had been retained. Additional studies would be needed within the 

synthesis area to understand these processes to account for variation in snag and log 

decay and other ecological factors.

Generally, effects of postfire logging vary considerably by forest type, fire 

severity, and the timing and nature of the treatment (Peterson et al. 2009). Impacts 

on tree recruitment have been observed when logging has been delayed until 

after seedlings have become established (Donato et al. 2006, Newton et al. 2006, 

Roy 1956). Salvage logging by helicopter is likely to avoid more of the ground 

disturbance. However, the economic feasibility of salvage logging in general, and 

especially more costly methods such as helicopter logging, may depend on removing larger, more merchantable dead trees (Han 2004). Larger trees are likely to be 

disproportionately valuable for wildlife species that use postfire snags (Hutto 2006). 
197

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

These relationships suggest a fundamental tradeoff, although identifying thresholds 

for snag size and patch size would likely require additional research.

Wildlife associated with high-severity wildfire— 

Patches of high-severity fire create ecologically important habitat that support 

distinctive species assemblages for several years after fire (Hutto 2006, Saab et al. 

2011). One species in particular, the black-backed woodpecker, is associated with 

patches of high-severity fire that have high densities of snags colonized by woodboring beetles. Woodpeckers such as the black-backed woodpecker create cavities 

that are used by many other cavity-nesting birds and mammals, leading some 

scientists to consider them to be a useful indicator of ecological condition (Drever 

et al. 2008) and potentially a keystone species (Bednarz et al. 2004). The habitat 

requirements of wildlife species that are associated with snags created by fire may 

be quite different from reference snag densities and other habitat qualities from 

unburned forests (Hutto 2006). For example, a study of three fires on the western 

slope of the Sierra Nevada detected foraging by black-backed woodpeckers only 

in high-severity patches that were unlogged, with an average of 124 large (>50 cm 

diameter at breast height [DBH]) and 128 medium ( >25 and <50 cm) snags per 

hectare, and none in high-severity patches that were logged and contained a residual 

average of 18 large and 170 medium snags per hectare, or in lower severity patches 

(Hanson and North 2006b). In addition, Seavy et al. (2012) reported a small study 

from two fires (Moonlight and Cub) in the northern Sierra Nevada and found that 

black-backed woodpecker nest in areas where snag densities exceed 200 snags/

ha. These studies reinforce findings from the Pacific Northwest and the northern 

Rocky Mountains to suggest that the species may benefit from patches with very 

high snag densities, and that salvage in such patches may have negative effects on 

postfire biodiversity (Hutto 2006, Kotliar et al. 2002). However, a survey of blackbacked woodpeckers in 72 wildfires across the synthesis area found a relatively 

weak relationship between occupancy and reduction in canopy cover (Saracco et 

al. 2011). The authors interpreted their results as indicating that the species uses a 

range of burn severities that provide a broad window of favorable habitat and may 

represent broader postfire habitat use than has been reported for other regions. 

Note that studies of salvage impacts on wildlife within the synthesis area have been 

observational rather than experimental, so it may not be appropriate to generalize 

the findings. However, such studies still provide insights into important dynamics 

for consideration. For example, a study from a jack pine forest in Michigan 

(Youngman and Gayk 2011), though based upon a very different ecosystem, 

indicated how populations of black-backed woodpeckers can reflect complex 

Studies of blackbacked woodpeckers 

within unburned 

forests are pending in 

the synthesis area, and 

further research on 

this and other wildlife 

species of special 

concern will be needed 

to understand effects 

of fires with different 

patch sizes, severities, 

and configurations and 

postfire logging on 

habitat suitability over 

time and space.
198

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

dynamics, including use of burned and unburned forest, competition with other 

woodpeckers, and potential for enhanced availability of beetles as food following 

early season fires. Studies of black-backed woodpeckers within unburned forests 

are pending in the synthesis area, and further research on this and other wildlife 

species of special concern (see chapter 1.5, “Research Gaps: Adaptive Management 

to Cross-Cutting Issues”) will be needed to understand effects of fires with different 

patch sizes, severities, and configurations and postfire logging on habitat suitability 

over time and space.

Despite these uncertainties regarding effects of postfire treatment on biodiversity, there are important data sources about postfire environments that have not 

entered into peer-reviewed literature but could still serve to inform management 

decisions. Thus, there may be sufficient information to develop a decision support 

tool to guide managers in the synthesis area regarding decisions about particular 

postfire landscapes. For example, a tool called the “Decayed Wood Advisor” 

(DecAID) was developed to manage for biodiversity in Washington and Oregon 

(Marcot et al. 2002, Mellen et al. 2002).

Predictions of postfire tree mortality—

Some of the controversy around postfire salvaging is related to the variable ability 

to accurately predict which trees are likely to die from fire damage (Hood et al. 

2007b). Although areas burned by high-intensity fire typically result in high tree 

mortality, some trees that appear dead may survive (especially in young ponderosa 

pine trees) and others may take up to several years to die depending on the nature 

of fire damage and other postfire impacts, such as bark beetle attacks (Hanson 

and North 2006a, Hood et al. 2007a). Furthermore, prescribed fires often result 

in increased tree mortality when compared to similar unburned sites (Fettig and 

McKelvey 2010; Fettig et al. 2008, 2010a, 2010b). Improving the ability to accurately predict which trees are likely to live or die following fire has been the focus 

of several studies completed in the last decade. These studies developed a better 

understanding of the characteristics of fire injuries that are associated with subsequent tree mortality (Hood 2010). Hood et al. (2007b) cautioned that the Ryan and 

Amman mortality model (Ryan and Amman 1994), which is based on tree scorch 

and size, should be applied with caution in areas where the majority of trees are 

large (greater than 55 cm dbh). By improving identification of trees that are likely to 

die within a few years of a fire based on characteristics of fire effects, such information can help support postfire activities (Hood et al. 2007b, 2010). 
199

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Reburns—

The long-term ecological effects of reburns, including potential ecological benefits 

of postfire salvage of dead trees, are an important gap in our knowledge of postfire 

management in the synthesis area. There are many conflicting accounts of fire 

behavior during reburns in areas that had previously experienced different levels 

of fire severity and postfire logging, but to date, no systematic studies have been 

done in forests similar to those in the synthesis area (Peterson et al. 2009). Studies 

in Oregon (Thompson and Spies 2010; Thompson et al. 2007, 2011) looked at reburn 

severity in southwestern Oregon within the area that burned in the Silver Fire 

(1987) and burned again in the Biscuit Fire (2002). They found that high-severity 

burns from the Silver Fire led to a condition dominated by shrubs and regenerating 

trees that burned again at high severity during the Biscuit Fire. They also found that 

the postfire treatments had promoted relatively dense and homogeneous fuelbeds 

that were vulnerable to reburn, and that the vulnerability of the planted stands was 

likely to persist for 25 years (Thompson et al. 2011). They found higher proportions of crown damage in stands that had been salvage logged and replanted after 

the Silver Fire than in the areas that had been left unmanaged. However, as with 

many retrospective studies of salvage, they did not have details about the planting 

treatment and extent of pretreatment differences between the treated and untreated 

areas. There were likely initial differences between the treated and untreated 

areas that led to the decision to treat some and not the others; Thompson et al. 

(2011) noted that most of the unmanaged stands were >50 years old and therefore 

less vulnerable. Note also that the area in that study was a relatively productive 

environment in which fuels could accumulate rapidly. Most of the synthesis area is 

very different in vegetation and climate, so more long-term, site-specific research 

would help improve understanding of postfire recovery. Ongoing studies of the 

Storrie Fire (2000) may provide an opportunity for this type of research, given that 

a large portion of that area was reburned in the Chips Fire of 2012. Remeasurement 

of existing plots in the Storrie Fire area would yield more detailed data than were 

available to Thompson and Spies (2010). Reburns can provide valuable opportunities to learn about long-term dynamics in ways that may better evaluate resilience. 

For example, studying the area burned by the Storrie and Chips fires could help to 

understand reburns in areas where dead wood was removed or left after the Storrie 

Fire and may have affected fire-severity patterns, coarse woody debris and snags, 

and regrowth of conifers, hardwood trees, understory shrubs, and chaparral stands.
200

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Reforestation—

One of the key questions is how long it will take for severely burned forests to 

grow, and what the composition of those forests will be, with and without intervention, including salvage, replanting, and reduction of shrubs, especially given the 

likelihood of reburn. The combination of fire exclusion and high-severity fire has 

potential to shift forest systems toward shrubs or shade-tolerant conifers that can 

grow through hardwood and shrub cover (Crotteau et al. 2013). This question begs 

a larger discussion about desired conditions for different ecological areas, which is 

the focus of the final section in this chapter. This particular issue demonstrates the 

complexity of managing systems that are affected by multiple stressors (see 

chapter 1.2), because choices involve tradeoffs among different risks across long 

time periods.

Tree planting may be conducted independently of salvage, but the treatments 

are often planned as a combined treatment. Although regeneration can be extensive 

following severe burns, it is often highly variable (Crotteau et al. 2013, Shatford 

et al. 2007). Regeneration of pine species in particular may be compromised in 

large high-severity fires patches, both now and as the climate changes (Crotteau et 

al. 2013, Feddema et al. 2013). Perry et al. (2011) noted that the more time it takes 

for conifers to grow large enough to survive reburns, the less chance they have of 

becoming dominant over shrubs and being able to survive the next fire. Replanting 

trees can accelerate conifer establishment and, when combined with vegetation 

management, reduce the time to regenerate forest conditions (Zhang et al. 2008). 

In addition, Sessions et al. (2004) argued that tree planting may be important 

when confronting diseases such as white-pine blister rust, which affects trees such 

as sugar pine and western white pine in the synthesis area. Populations of those 

species in the synthesis area generally exhibit some resistance to the disease; there 

are trees that are fully resistant (because they have a single major resistance gene) 

and others that are susceptible to infection but can tolerate it (partially resistant 

or “slow-rusting” trees). Accordingly, tree planting may include a mixture of both 

types of stock to reduce the likelihood of widespread tree losses and the risk of the 

disease overcoming the simple form of resistance (Maloney et al. 2012).

Another component of postfire treatment can include the use of herbicides to 

reduce shrubs and favor conifer survival and growth (McDonald and Fiddler 2010, 

Zhang et al. 2008). A study comparing active postfire management to passive 

management on private forest lands that burned in the large Fountain Fire (1992) in 

the synthesis area concluded that active postfire reforestation treatments were more 

effective at quickly restoring forest cover than passive management (Zhang et al. 
201

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

2008). In another retrospective study of several large severe wildfires in the synthesis area, (McGinnis et al. 2010) examined complex interactions among logging, tree 

planting, herbicides to reduce shrubs, and alien species, especially cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). This study found that salvage logging increased dead fuel loads in 

the short term but only in the largest size class (1,000-hour fuels) and that modeled 

fire hazards did not change over the long term. The salvage and replanting treatment did not affect shrub cover, grass and forb cover, alien species cover or alien 

species richness, but the combination of salvage, planting, and herbicides reduced 

shrub cover in favor of forbs and grasses, including several invasive species. The 

fire modeling in that study indicated that reburns could threaten the planted conifers 

for two decades, and the authors expressed concern that frequent reburns in herbicide-treated areas might cause type conversion into alien-dominated grass areas. 

This study provides another illustration of the complex interactions that arise when 

considering postfire interventions, especially in systems that have been invaded.

Social Considerations

Despite concerns over the ecological effects of salvage logging, several studies have 

found a high level of public support for salvage logging in communities that have 

experienced a nearby wildfire, or are located in an area where the risk of wildfire is 

high. For instance, McCaffrey (2008) found that 75 percent of sampled homeowners 

in Incline Village at Lake Tahoe believed salvage logging was an acceptable practice. The study also found that respondents who had direct experience with wildfire 

were 15 percent more likely to find salvage logging acceptable than respondents 

who lacked experience with wildfire. Older residents were more likely to approve 

of salvage logging, with approval at 93 percent among the 65-and-older group in 

this study. Respondents in the study who found salvage practices unacceptable cited 

general distrust of logging and a specific concern that mature trees that did not pose 

a fire risk would be removed. However, the study noted that environmental concerns by most residents in that community might have been alleviated by the fact 

that logging practices in the basin are highly regulated. The study also reported that 

half of the respondents considered use of herbicides to be unacceptable. 

Salvage logging was also viewed favorably by the majority of respondents in 

three communities in California, Colorado, and New Mexico who recently had 

suffered extensive wildfires (Ryan and Hamin 2009). One of the three communities was the town of Arnold, within the synthesis area. Respondents cited concerns 

over aesthetics (especially seeing large numbers of dead trees), and the potential for 

economic benefit, as reasons for their support. The study found that recreational 

users cited the safety hazard posed by dead or dying trees as a primary reason 
202

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

to support salvage. Public support appeared to depend on salvage logging being 

undertaken in a manner that was ecologically appropriate, with particular concerns 

for keeping a large number of snags for wildlife, limiting road building or removing 

roads after logging, and removing post-logging slash. Another study by Ryan and 

Hamin (2006) found that residents in Los Alamos, New Mexico, supported salvage 

logging after the Cerro Grande Fire of 2000, but preferred not to have any new logging roads built. Their support was based on a perceived “wastefulness” of leaving 

burned trees standing. In this study, participants found salvage logging preferable to 

the logging of unburned forests. A qualitative study in Washington state (Mendez 

et al. 2003) reported general attitudes consistent with the themes in these other 

studies, but gave more weight to environmental concerns in a community that had 

experienced recent growth. 

Salvage logging can generate several economic benefits if done in a timely 

manner. It provides an option to recover economic value from dead and damaged 

timber and helps prepare the burned site for new investments (Prestemon and 

Holmes 2004). It can provide economic benefit to affected local timber industries 

and owners of damaged timber, enabling them to recover value from an otherwise 

economically catastrophic event (Prestemon et al. 2006). However, large salvage 

timber sales associated with major disturbances such as wildland fire or hurricanes 

have the potential to lower prices in the short term by flooding the market with 

a large quantity of logs. Although this can benefit consumers by bringing down 

prices, it can hurt the owners of undamaged forests. Over the longer term, this 

initial decrease in prices may be followed by higher-than-average prices, reflecting 

the reduction in standing timber volume (supply) caused by the disturbance event. 

The tables then turn, benefitting owners of undamaged timber but hurting consumers (Prestemon et al. 2006). 

Prestemon and Holmes (2004) stress the importance of focusing timber salvage 

operations on burned stands that contain higher value materials in order to optimize 

economic benefits. Dead and damaged timber decays and loses value by the day; 

delays in the salvage process can result in major economic losses unless timber 

salvage recovery plans are carried out as designed (Prestemon et al. 2006). There 

are two common reasons for harvesting delays in salvage situations: administrative 

delays, and appeals and litigation, the latter often resulting from environmental 

concerns (Prestemon et al. 2006).
203

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Management Guidance and Research Gaps

The issue of salvage logging may well be regarded as fundamentally a tradeoff 

between ecological and socioeconomic values, although there are some contexts in 

which salvage may have ecological benefits. As with other issues considered in the 

synthesis, these contexts include ecosystems that have been extensively modified 

by past land use practices or introductions of nonnative species. Franklin and Agee 

(2003) suggested that salvage may be ecologically appropriate in dry forests that 

have uncharacteristically high amounts of standing dead and down trees, likely 

owing to fire suppression and other legacy effects of past management. As a general 

strategic approach, reviews have suggested retaining untreated patches and limiting 

the removal of biological legacies, especially larger structures (Lindenmayer et al. 

2008). Public attitudes appear to rest heavily upon the perceived ecological impacts 

of the practice (McCool et al. 2006, Prestemon et al. 2006, Ryan and Hamin 

2009). As a result, a concerted research effort would be needed to resolve the 

many questions that remain concerning the short- and long-term effects of postfire 

salvage logging, not only from a purely scientific perspective, but also to reconcile 

public concerns. Scientific reviews emphasize the lack of experimental research on 

postfire logging, particularly regarding long-term effects, that would provide a basis 

for more specific management guidelines. Understanding of fire behavior in reburns 

with and without salvage is an important research gap, and would aid understanding of both long-term ecological impacts and short-term fire conditions, including 

safety hazards faced by firefighters. The consequences of salvage logging following 

wildfire on carbon and nitrogen cycling and storage are another area of uncertainty 

(Bradford et al. 2012, Powers et al. 2013).

Managing Long-Term Post-Wildfire Outcomes

Proactively considering the likelihood of large wildfires and how to respond to them 

is an important component to promoting ecosystem resilience to future stressors. 

Although postfire rehabilitation is a rapid process that focuses on short-term flooding and erosion risks, planning based upon long-term objectives and consideration 

of future climate can help evaluate the goals and rate of progress for achieving 

desired ecological composition, structure, and function (Littell et al. 2012). Taking 

a broader perspective on long-term resilience can promote consideration of the 

circumstances under which interventions are most appropriate. Public support for 

management actions may be strongly tied to the ecological context of the wildfire 

as well as to its social impacts, especially in terms of impacts to homes, viewsheds, 

public safety, and local economies. Although expectations for interventions are 

likely to be higher in communities that are more immediately connected to the 

A concerted research 

effort would be 

needed to resolve the 

many questions that 

remain concerning 

the short- and longterm effects of postfire 

salvage logging, not 

only from a purely 

scientific perspective, 

but also to reconcile 

public concerns. 

Scientific reviews 

emphasize the lack of 

experimental research 

on postfire logging, 

particularly regarding 

long-term effects, 

that would provide 

a basis for more 

specific management 

guidelines.
204

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

burned areas, an important finding is that success may depend heavily on communication regarding not only the initial treatments but also longer term recovery.

Many parts of the landscape, such as steep terrain and roadless or wilderness 

areas, may be largely untreatable because of access limitations and other related 

restrictions. In addition, attempting to reestablish prefire forest communities may be 

problematic given expectations for a warmer climate with more fire and less snow 

in much of the synthesis area. Because fire and climate are likely to be conjoined 

drivers of ecological change, developing more detailed climate and fire scenarios 

should help to assess system vulnerability in a spatially explicit manner (Nydick 

and Sydoriak 2011). Historical studies can not only provide valuable insights into 

past dynamics, but also identify areas that may be more sensitive to the combined 

influence of wildfire and changing climate, which, based on work in the Klamath 

Mountains, might include areas with more productive soils (Briles et al. 2011).

Determining which kinds of changes are adaptive and which ones are undesirable will likely remain a central challenge in postfire management planning. 

Refraining from interventions may be appropriate in areas where the ecological 

trajectory of a postfire landscape seems to align with desired conditions, which may 

include regeneration of hardwoods, chaparral, or other nonconiferous vegetation 

(Taylor 2004). Severely burned patches may enhance diversity within the landscape 

by restoring ecological communities that were displaced by conifer expansion 

under altered fire regimes. For example, in the mixed-conifer forests of the Lake 

Tahoe Basin, Nagel and Taylor (2005) estimated that fire suppression has reduced 

the average size of montane chaparral stands by more than 60 percent. Recovery 

of shrubfields may be an important dynamic on upper and south-facing slopes in 

particular (Beaty and Taylor 2008, Crotteau et al. 2013, Nagel and Taylor 2005). 

Swanson et al. (2010) noted that the early successional conditions following standreplacing wildfire increase availability of sunlight and nutrients that can support 

both terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity. Canopy gaps created by severe burns might 

also facilitate long-term rejuvenation of California black oak (Quercus kelloggii

Newb.) by reducing competition from encroaching conifers (Cocking et al. 2012). 

However, loss of large, mature oaks may reduce acorn production, which is important to many wildlife species and to Native Americans (see chapter 4.2, “Fire and 

Tribal Cultural Resources”). 

High-severity fire may also induce “type conversions” or “transformations.” 

These outcomes may be more likely in areas where fuels have accumulated owing 

to management actions over the last century and then burned with high severity 

(Skinner and Taylor 2006). The size of high-severity patches may be a particularly 

important indicator of whether changes constitute a major shift, especially because 
205

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

natural recovery processes such as natural reseeding of conifers may be limited by 

the distance to live trees (Crotteau et al. 2013). Recent patterns of increased standreplacing fires in coniferous forests of the synthesis area point to the importance of 

tracking high-severity patch size, postfire forest regeneration, availability of oldforest habitat, and related landscape attributes that may veer beyond the historical 

range of variation (Miller et al. 2009).

The spread of invasive species may increase the potential for transformations. 

For example, increased fire frequencies, such as those found in some shrub communities in southern California, coupled with nonnative plant invasions, may facilitate 

conversions of woody communities to grasslands dominated by nonnative annuals 

(Keeley and Brennan 2012, Keeley et al. 2011). Although this kind of transformation has not appeared to be a widespread problem in the synthesis area, it could 

be a growing concern in the future, particularly in lower elevation and drier areas 

(Sherrill and Romme 2012).

Landscape Approach and Multiscale Heterogeneity

Evaluation of the landscape context of high-severity patches in relation to unburned 

and low- to moderate-severity burned areas (fig. 3) will be important for setting 

priorities and designing management strategies to promote landscape resilience. For 

example, patchy configurations of unburned and lower burn severity areas within 

or adjacent to large, severely burned areas may provide a seed source for natural 

tree regeneration and reduce the need for artificial planting. It may be important to 

promote connectivity of remaining habitat patches within the burn perimeter to areas 

outside of the burn, as well as to design strategies to conserve such patches (see chapter 7.1, “The Forest Carnivores: Marten and Fisher,” for more specific discussions of 

connectivity for wildlife). In addition, evaluating effects across private and public 

lands will be an important part of the post-management decisionmaking process.

Postfire management might also consider stand-scale heterogeneity in vegetation structure. For example, where tree planting is deemed appropriate, those 

treatments can be designed to promote finer scale heterogeneity and ecological 

resilience. Specific tactics may include planting fire-resistant tree species, planting 

trees at variable densities in groups or as single stems with openings (Larson and 

Churchill 2012), and managing plantations with the intention of introducing fire as 

a management tool, which might include wider spacing (Kobziar et al. 2009). Such 

tactics may be important in helping to avoid an ecological trap of early successional, even-aged stand structures that are vulnerable to repeated fires.

Another strategy that might be considered would be to select tree stock that 

is diverse and adapted to local conditions given expectations for possible climate 
206

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

change; additional research will help to determine which traits might be most 

important for promoting forest resilience (see chapter 3.1, “Genetics of Forest 

Trees”). The expectation that tree planting will be conducted following wildfires 

could reinforce efforts to gather and store sufficient seed materials in advance of 

such events. 

Advance Planning and Collaboration

Increased collaboration and integration of postfire considerations into management 

plans in anticipation of potential fires may facilitate implementation of postfire restoration. Timely implementation may be critical to avoid passing various thresholds 

of soil erosion, vegetation development, and suitability of harvestable materials. 

Incorporating postfire strategies into advance planning may help build capacity for 

timely implementation (Littell et al. 2012). For example, where salvage is identified to be a desirable component of postfire treatment, there could be substantial 

economic benefits from advance planning by reducing the potential for delayed 

harvest (Prestemon et al. 2006). Encouraging community participation in postfire 

Figure 3—An overhead view of part of the Lion Fire of 2011, which was managed to promote resource benefits, reveals 

heterogeneous burn conditions across both uplands and riparian areas in the Golden Trout Wilderness. 

Brent Skaggs
207

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

rehabilitation efforts may be an important opportunity to mobilize volunteer labor 

and benefit community members (McCool et al. 2007), and participation may also 

be valuable in planning restoration (see chapters 9.1 and 9.6 on the benefits of community participation in restoration activities).

Monitoring and Research

Monitoring, modeling, and research of postfire landscapes can help determine the 

likely trajectory of ecosystem recovery in the postfire environment, prioritize areas 

for treatment, and evaluate when important thresholds might be crossed. Monitoring data would help calibrate models to estimate the likely direction of postfire 

vegetation succession under changing climate conditions. Researchers have used the 

LANDIS model to evaluate the time it takes for different tree species to reoccupy 

severely burned areas with and without planting (Wang et al. 2007). An important 

opportunity for monitoring-based research is to better understand successional 

pathways for forest types after fires of differing severity as the climate changes, 

especially if large areas of forests do not regenerate. These large-scale monitoring and research efforts underscore the increasing value of new remote-sensing 

techniques coupled with ground-based data in tracking these changes (Schimel et 

al. 2013). Chapter 1.5, “Research Gaps: Adaptive Management to Cross-Cutting 

Issues,” discusses the need for collaborative efforts to refine monitoring and 

research questions, because science-management partnerships can be an effective 

way to prioritize and design adaptation strategies (Littell et al. 2012). Given the 

importance of understanding social and ecological dimensions of systems, research 

and monitoring plans should also consider socioeconomic factors, including effects 

on water supplies, recreation, the forest products industry, human health, and other 

indicators of community well-being. 

One of the most important parts of developing a long-term resilience strategy 

is to help better understand the implications of fire severity patterns, especially 

large high-severity burned areas, on the spatial and temporal distribution of 

various resources and social values. This approach will require integrated studies 

that consider the effects of multiple fires and reburns across large landscapes 

(in terms of fragmentation of habitat and changes in landscape fire behavior). 

Well-designed, long-term monitoring and research is essential to understanding 

postfire impacts to priority terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species. The effect of 

fire severity (including the size and spatial arrangement of different fire severity 

classes) on wildlife species will be an important subject of research within the 

synthesis area. Another important research gap is the effect of severe wildfires 

on species associated with old-forest habitats, such as California spotted owl and 

One of the most 

important parts of 

developing a long-term 

resilience strategy is to 

help better understand 

the implications of 

fire severity patterns, 

especially large highseverity burned areas, 

on the spatial and 

temporal distribution 

of various resources 

and social values.
208

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

forest carnivores. By continuing to monitor within burned areas, existing fisher 

population monitoring in the Pacific Southwest Region could help to elucidate the 

influence of wildfire on fisher occupancy. This information would be valuable for 

testing occupancy models and designing landscape strategies to conserve values at 

risk over long periods. It is important to recognize that most mixed-conifer forests 

in the synthesis area are significantly departed from their historical fire regimes (see 

chapter 4.1, “Fire and Fuels”), and that wildlife living in such forests may respond 

very differently in landscapes with active fire regimes (see chapter 7.1). Differences 

in fire regimes and management history may be important factors in explaining 

why Roberts et al. (2011) found that spotted owls in Yosemite National Park, which 

are used to relatively frequent fire regimes, were less associated with large trees 

than was reported in an earlier study by Blakesley et al. (2005) from northeastern 

California. Because of these complex interactions, it remains important to test 

hypotheses about how sensitive wildlife species will respond to treatments and 

to wildfires (see chapter 7.2, “California Spotted Owl: Scientific Considerations 

for Forest Planning”). These issues underscore the themes considered in chapters 

1.2, “Integrative Approaches: Promoting Socioecological Resilience,” and 1.3, 

“Synopsis of Emerging Approaches.”

Management Implications

• Proactively planning responses to future wildfires can help promote resilience by identifying critical values that may require postfire intervention 

and by facilitating implementation of time-sensitive postfire treatments.

• High-severity patches and resulting fuel loads that are larger than the range 

of expected variation may be a focus for interventions.

• Many questions remain concerning the long-term effects of multiple severe 

wildfires and postfire treatments such as salvage logging, not only from a 

purely scientific perspective, but also to reconcile public concerns.

• Promoting greater interaction between management and research, including 

using monitoring in a robust adaptive management framework, could help 

to answer key questions, such as under what conditions interventions such 

as postfire logging might yield benefits in terms of reducing undesirable 

impacts from reburns in heavy fuels. 
209

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Literature Cited

Bautista, S.; Bellot, J.; Vallejo, V.R. 1996. Mulching treatment for postfire soil 

conservation in a semiarid ecosystem. Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation. 

10(3): 235–242.

Beaty, R.M.; Taylor, A.H. 2008. Fire history and the structure and dynamics of a 

mixed conifer forest landscape in the northern Sierra Nevada, Lake Tahoe Basin, 

California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 255(3–4): 707–719.

Bednarz, J.C.; Ripper, D.; Radley, P.M. 2004. Emerging concepts and research 

directions in the study of cavity-nesting birds: keystone ecological processes. 

The Condor. 106: 1–4.

Benavides-Solorio, J.D.D.; MacDonald, L.H. 2005. Measurement and prediction 

of post-fire erosion at the hillslope scale, Colorado Front Range. International 

Journal of Wildland Fire: 457–474.

Berg, N.H.; Azuma, D.L. 2010. Bare soil and rill formation following wildfires, 

fuel reduction treatments, and pine plantations in the southern Sierra Nevada, 

California, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 19(4): 478–489.

Berg, N.H.; Azuma, D.; Carlson, A. 2002. Effects of wildfire on in-channel 

woody debris in the eastern Sierra Nevada, California. In: Laudenslayer, J., 

William F.; Shea, P.J.; Valentine, B.E.; Weatherspoon, C.P.; Lisle, T.E., eds. 

Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood in 

western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. Albany, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station: 49–63.

Beschta, R.L.; Rhodes, J.J.; Kauffman, J.B.; Griesswell, R.E.; Minshall, 

G.W.; Karr, J.R.; Perry, D.A.; Hauer, E.R.; Frissell, C.A. 2004. Postfire 

management on forested public lands of the western United States. Conservation 

Biology. 18(4): 957–967.

Beyers, J.L. 2004. Postfire seeding for erosion control: effectiveness and impacts 

on native plant communities. Conservation Biology. 18(4): 947–956.

Blakesley, J.A.; Noon, B.R.; Anderson, D.R. 2005. Site occupancy, apparent 

survival, and reproduction of California spotted owls in relation to forest stand 

characteristics. Journal of Wildlife Management. 69(4): 1554–1564.

Bradford, J.B.; Fraver, S.; Milo, A.M.; D’Amato, A.W.; Palik, B.; Shinneman, 

D.J. 2012. Effects of multiple interacting disturbances and salvage logging on 

forest carbon stocks. Forest Ecology and Management. 267: 209–214.
210

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Bremer, M.; Sass, O. 2012. Combining airborne and terrestrial laser scanning 

for quantifying erosion and deposition by a debris flow event. Geomorphology. 

138(1): 49–60.

Briles, C.E.; Whitlock, C.; Skinner, C.N.; Mohr, J. 2011. Holocene forest 

development and maintenance on different substrates in the Klamath Mountains, 

northern California, USA. Ecology. 92(3): 590–601.

Buckman, S.; Brownlie, K.; Morris, R.H.; Bourman, R.P.; Leon Patino, 

J. 2009. Using LiDAR to assess the effect of fire and floods on upland peat 

bogs, Waterfall Gully, Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australia. In: Ostendorf, 

B.; Baldock, P.; Bruce, D.; Burdett, M.; Corcoran, P., eds. Proceedings of the 

Surveying & Spatial Sciences Institute biennial international conference. 

Adelaide, Australia: Surveying & Spatial Sciences Institute: 733–743.

Calkin, D.E.; Hyde, K.D.; Robichaud, P.R.; Jones, J.G.; Ashmun, L.E.; 

Loeffler, D. 2007. Assessing post-fire values-at-risk with a new calculation 

tool. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-205. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 32 p.

Canfield, H.E.; Wilson, C.J.; Lane, L.J.; Crowell, K.J.; Thomas, W.A. 2005. 

Modeling scour and deposition in ephemeral channels after wildfire. Catena. 

61(2–3): 273–291.

Cannon, S.H.; DeGraff, J. 2009. The increasing wildfire and post-fire debris-flow 

threat in western USA, and implications for consequences of climate change. In: 

Sassa, K.; Canuti, P., eds. Landslides—disaster risk reduction. Berlin: SpringerVerlag: 177–190. Chapter 9.

Cocking, M.I.; Varner, J.M.; Sherriff, R.L. 2012. California black oak responses 

to fire severity and native conifer encroachment in the Klamath Mountains. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 270: 25–34.

Crotteau, J.; Varner, J.M.; Ritchie, M. 2013. Post-fire regeneration across a fire 

severity gradient in the southern Cascades. Forest Ecology and Management. 

287: 103–112.

Dellasala, D.A.; Williams, J.E.; Williams, C.D.; Franklin, J.E. 2004. Beyond 

smoke and mirrors: a synthesis of fire policy and science. Conservation Biology. 

18(4): 976–986.

deWolfe, V.G.; Santi, P.M.; Ey, J.; Gartner, J.E. 2008. Effective mitigation of 

debris flows at Lemon Dam, La Plata County, Colorado. Geomorphology. 

96(3–4): 366–377.
211

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Donato, D.C.; Fontaine, J.B.; Campbell, J.L.; Robinson, W.D.; Kauffman, J.B.; 

Law, B.E. 2006. Post-wildfire logging hinders regeneration and increases fire 

risk. Science. 311(5759): 352–352.

Drever, M.C.; Aitken, K.E.H.; Norris, A.R.; Martin, K. 2008. Woodpeckers 

as reliable indicators of bird richness, forest health and harvest. Biological 

Conservation. 141(3): 624–634.

Dunham, J.B.; Young, M.K.; Gresswell, R.E.; Rieman, B.E. 2003. Effects of fire 

on fish populations: landscape perspectives on persistence of native fishes and 

nonnative fish invasions. Forest Ecology and Management. 178(1–2): 183–196.

Elliot, W.J.; Miller, I.S.; Audin, L. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel 

management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 299 p.

Feddema, J.J.; Mast, J.N.; Savage, M. 2013. Modeling high-severity fire, 

drought and climate change impacts on ponderosa pine regeneration. Ecological 

Modelling. 253: 56–69.

Fettig, C.J.; Borys, R.; Dabney, C. 2010a. Effects of fire and fire surrogate 

treatments on bark beetle-caused tree mortality in the southern Cascades, 

California. Forest Science. 56: 60–73.

Fettig, C.J.; Borys, R.R.; McKelvey, S.R.; Dabney, C.P. 2008. Blacks Mountain 

Experimental Forest: bark beetle responses to differences in forest structure and 

the application of prescribed fire in interior ponderosa pine. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research. 38(5): 924–935.

Fettig, C.J.; McKelvey, S.R.; Cluck, D.R.; Smith, S.L.; Otrosina, W.J. 2010b. 

Effects of prescribed fire and season of burn on direct and indirect levels of 

tree mortality in ponderosa and Jeffrey pine forests in California, USA. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 260(2): 207–218.

Fettig, C.J.; McKelvey, S.R. 2010. Bark beetle responses to stand structure and 

prescribed fire at Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest, California, USA: 5-year 

data. Fire Ecology. 6: 26–42.

Foltz, R.B.; Robichaud, P.R.; Rhee, H. 2008. A synthesis of postfire 

road treatments for BAER teams: methods, treatment effectiveness, and 

decisionmaking tools for rehabilitation. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-228. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 152 p.
212

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Franklin, J.F.; Agee, J.K. 2003. Forging a science-based national forest fire 

policy. Issues in Science and Technology. 20(1): 59–66.

Gartner, J.E.; Cannon, S.H.; Santi, P.M.; Dewolfe, V.G. 2008. Empirical models 

to predict the volumes of debris flows generated by recently burned basins in the 

western U.S. Geomorphology. 96: 339–354.

Goode, J.R.; Luce, C.H.; Buffington, J.M. 2012. Enhanced sediment delivery 

in a changing climate in semi-arid mountain basins: Implications for water 

resource management and aquatic habitat in the northern Rocky Mountains. 

Geomorphology. 139: 1–15.

Han, H.S. 2004. Economic feasibility of an integrated harvesting system for smalldiameter trees in southwest Idaho. Forest Products Journal. 54(2): 21–27.

Hanson, C.T.; North, M.P. 2006a. Post-fire epicormic branching in Sierra Nevada 

Abies concolor (white fir). International Journal of Wildland Fire. 15: 31–35.

Hanson, C.T.; North, M.P. 2006b. Postfire woodpecker foraging in salvage-logged 

and unlogged forests of the Sierra Nevada. The Condor. 110(4): 777–792.

Hood, S.M. 2010. Mitigating old tree mortality in long-unburned, fire-dependent 

forests: a synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-RMRS-238. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 71 p.

Hood, S.M.; McHugh, C.W.; Ryan, K.C.; Reinhardt, E.; Smith, S.L. 2007b. 

Evaluation of a post-fire tree mortality model for western USA conifers. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. 16(6): 679–689.

Hood, S.M.; Smith, S.L.; Cluck, D.R. 2007a. Delayed conifer tree mortality 

following fire in California. In: Powers, R.F., ed. Restoring fire-adapted 

ecosystems: proceedings of the 2005 national silviculture workshop. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-203. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 261–283.

Hood, S.M.; Smith, S.L.; Cluck, D.R. 2010. Predicting mortality for five 

California conifers following wildfire. Forest Ecology and Management. 

260(5): 750–762.

Hubbert, K.R.; Wohlgemuth, P.M.; Beyers, J.L. 2012. Effects of hydromulch 

on post-fire erosion and plant recovery in chaparral shrublands of southern 

California. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 21(2): 155–167.
213

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Hufford, K.M.; Mazer, S.J. 2003. Plant ecotypes: genetic differentiation in the 

age of ecological restoration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 18(3): 147–155.

Hutto, R.L. 2006. Toward meaningful snag-management guidelines for postfire 

salvage logging in North American conifer forests. Conservation Biology. 

20(4): 984–993.

Istanbulluoglu, E.; Tarboton, D.G.; Pack, R.T.; Luce, C. 2002. A probabilistic 

approach for channel initiation. Water Resources Research. 38(12): 61-1-61-14.

Karr, J.R.; Rhodes, J.J.; Minshall, G.W.; Hauer, F.R.; Beschta, R.L.; Frissell, 

C.A.; Perry, D.A. 2004. The effects of postfire salvage logging on aquatic 

ecosystems in the American West. BioScience. 54(11): 1029–1033.

Kean, J.W.; Staley, D.M.; Leeper, R.J.; Schmidt, K.M.; Gartner, J.E. 

2012. A low-cost method to measure the timing of postfire flash floods and 

debris flows relative to rainfall. Water Resources Research. 48(5): W05516. 

doi:10.1029/2011WR011460.

Keeley, J.E.; Brennan, T.J. 2012. Fire-driven alien invasion in a fire-adapted 

ecosystem. Oecologia. 169(4): 1043–1052.

Keeley, J.E.; Franklin, J.; D’Antonio, C. 2011. Fire and invasive plants on 

California landscapes. In: McKenzie, D.; Miller, C.; Falk, D.A., eds. The 

landscape ecology of fire. New York: Springer: 193–221.

Kobziar, L.N.; McBride, J.R.; Stephens, S.L. 2009. The efficacy of fire and fuels 

reduction treatments in a Sierra Nevada pine plantation. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 18(7): 791–801.

Kotliar, N.B.; Hejl, S.J.; Hutto, R.L.; Saab, V.; Melcher, C.P.; McFadzen, M.E. 

2002. Effects of fire and post-fire salvage logging on avian communities in 

conifer-dominated forests of the western United States. In: George, T.L.; Dobkin, 

D.S., eds. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds in western landscapes: 

contrasts with paradigms from the eastern United States. Studies in Avian 

Biology 25. Camarillo, CA: Cooper Ornithological Society: 49–64.

Larson, A.J.; Churchill, D. 2012. Tree spatial patterns in fire-frequent forests 

of western North America, including mechanisms of pattern formation and 

implications for designing fuel reduction and restoration treatments. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 267: 74–92.
214

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Lindenmayer, D.B.; Burton, P.J.; Franklin, J.F. 2008. Salvage logging and its 

ecological consequences. Washington, DC: Island Press. 229 p.

Lindenmayer, D.B.; Foster, D.R.; Franklin, J.F.; Hunter, M.L.; Noss, R.F.; 

Schmiegelow, F.A.; Perry, D. 2004. Salvage harvesting policies after natural 

disturbance. Science. 303(5662): 1303–1303.

Lindenmayer, D.B.; Noss, R.F. 2006. Salvage logging, ecosystem processes, and 

biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology. 20(4): 949–958.

Littell, J.S.; Peterson, D.L.; Millar, C.I.; O’Halloran, K.A. 2012. U.S. national 

forests adapt to climate change through science-management partnerships. 

Climatic Change. 110(1–2): 269–296.

Maloney, P.E.; Vogler, D.R.; Jensen, C.E.; Mix, A.D. 2012. Ecology of whitebark 

pine populations in relation to white pine blister rust infection in subalpine 

forests of the Lake Tahoe Basin, USA: Implications for restoration. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 280: 166–175.

Marcot, B.G.; Mellen, K.; Livingston, S.A.; Ogden, C. 2002. The DecAID 

advisory model: wildlife component. In: Laudenslayer, W.F., Jr.; Valentine, 

B.; Weatherspoon, C.P.; Lisle, T.E., eds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. 

Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood 

in western forests. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station: 561–590.

McCaffrey, S. 2008. The homeowner view of thinning methods for fire hazard 

reduction: more positive than many think. In: Narog, M.G., ed. Proceedings of 

the 2002 fire conference: managing fire and fuels in the remaining wildlands and 

open spaces of the Southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-189. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station: 15–22.

McCool, S.F.; Burchfield, J.A.; Williams, D.R.; Carroll, M.S. 2006. An 

event-based approach for examining the effects of wildland fire decisions on 

communities. Environmental Management. 37(4): 437–450.

McCool, S.F.; Burchfield, J.; Williams, D.R.; Carroll, M.; Cohn, P.; Kumagai, 

Y.; Ubben, T. 2007. Social science to improve fuels management: a synthesis of 

research on the impacts of wildland fires on communities. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTRNC-269. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 36 p.
215

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

McCormick, F.H.; Rieman, B.E.; Kershner, J.L. 2010. Biological responses to 

stressors in aquatic ecosystems in western North America: cumulative watershed 

effects of fuel treatments, wildfire, and post-fire remediation. In: Elliot, W.J.; 

Miller, I.S.; Audin, L., eds. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management 

in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station: 206–233.

McDonald, P.M.; Fiddler, G.O. 2010. Twenty-five years of managing vegetation 

in conifer plantations in northern and central California: results, application, 

principles, and challenges. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-231. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

87 p.

McGinnis, T.W.; Keeley, J.E.; Stephens, S.L.; Roller, G.B. 2010. Fuel buildup 

and potential fire behavior after stand-replacing fires, logging fire-killed trees 

and herbicide shrub removal in Sierra Nevada forests. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 260(1): 22–35.

McIver, J.D.; Starr, L. 2000. Environmental effects of postfire logging: literature 

review and annotated bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-486. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 72 p.

Mellen, K.; Marcot, B.G.; Ohmann, J.L.; Waddell, K.L.; Willhite, E.A.; 

Hostetler, B.B.; Livingston, S.A.; Ogden, C. 2002. DecAID: a decaying 

wood advisory model for Oregon and Washington. In: Laudenslayer, W.F., 

Jr.; Valentine, B.; Weatherspoon, C.P.; Lisle, T.E., eds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-181. Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of 

dead wood in western forests. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 527–533.

Mendez, S.R.; Carroll, M.S.; Blatner, K.A.; Findley, A.J.; Walker, G.B.; 

Daniels, S.E. 2003. Smoke on the hill: A comparative study of wildfire and two 

communities. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 18(1): 60–70.

Miller, J.D.; Safford, H.D.; Crimmins, M.; Thode, A.E. 2009. Quantitative 

evidence for increasing forest fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and southern 

Cascade Mountains, California and Nevada, USA. Ecosystems. 12(1): 16–32.
216

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Miller, M.E.; MacDonald, L.H.; Robichaud, P.R.; Elliot, W.J. 2011. Predicting 

post-fire hillslope erosion in forest lands of the western United States. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. 20(8): 982–999.

Moody, J.A.; Martin, D.A. 2001. Initial hydrologic and geomorphic response 

following a wildfire in the Colorado Front Range. Earth Surface Processes and 

Landforms. 26(10): 1049–1070.

Nagel, T.A.; Taylor, A.H. 2005. Fire and persistence of montane chaparral in 

mixed conifer forest landscapes in the northern Sierra Nevada, Lake Tahoe 

Basin, California, USA. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 132(3): 442–457.

Neary, D.G.; Ryan, K.C.; DeBano, L.F. 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects 

of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 4. Ogden, UT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 250 p.

Neville, H.M.; Gresswell, R.E.; Dunham, J.B. 2012. Genetic variation reveals 

influence of landscape connectivity on population dynamics and resiliency of 

western trout in disturbance-prone habitats. In: Luce, C.M.; Morgan, P.; Dwire, 

K.; Isaak, D.; Holden, Z.; Rieman, B., eds. Climate change, forests, fire, water, 

and fish: Building resilient landscapes, streams, and managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-290. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 177–186.

Newton, M.; Fitzgerald, S.; Rose, R.R.; Adams, P.W.; Tesch, S.D.; Sessions, J.; 

Atzet, T.; Powers, R.F.; Skinner, C. 2006. Comment on “Post-wildfire logging 

hinders regeneration and increases fire risk.” Science. 313(5787): 615.

Nydick, K.; Sydoriak, C. 2011. Alternative futures for fire management under a 

changing climate. Park Science. 28(1): 44–47.

Peppin, D.; Fule, P.; Beyers, J.; Sieg, C.; Hunter, M. 2011a. Does seeding after 

severe forest fires in western USA mitigate negative impacts on soils and plant 

communities? CEE review. 08-023 (SR60). http://www.environmentalevidence.

org/SR60.html.

Peppin, D.L.; Fule, P.Z.; Sieg, C.H.; Beyers, J.L.; Hunter, M.E.; Robichaud, 

P.R. 2011b. Recent trends in post-wildfire seeding in western US forests: costs 

and seed mixes. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 20(5): 702–708.

Perroy, R.L.; Bookhagen, B.; Asner, G.P.; Chadwick, O.A. 2010. Comparison of 

gully erosion estimates using airborne and ground-based LiDAR on Santa Cruz 

Island, California. Geomorphology. 118(3–4): 288–300.
217

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Perry, D.A.; Hessburg, P.F.; Skinner, C.N.; Spies, T.A.; Stephens, S.L.; Taylor, 

A.H.; Franklin, J.F.; McComb, B.; Riegel, G. 2011. The ecology of mixed 

severity fire regimes in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 262(5): 703–717.

Peterson, D.L.; Agee, J.K.; Aplet, G.H.; Dykstra, D.P.; Graham, R.T.; 

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Pilliod, D.S.; Potts, D.F.; Powers, R.F.; Stuart, J.D. 2009.

Effects of timber harvest following wildfire in western North America. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-776. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 p.

Powers, E.M.; Marshall, J.D.; Zhang, J.; Wei, L. 2013. Post-fire management 

regimes affect carbon sequestration and storage in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer 

forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 291: 268–277.

Prestemon, J.P.; Holmes, T.P. 2004. Market dynamics and optimal timber salvage 

after a natural catastrophe. Forest Science. 50(4): 495–511.

Prestemon, J.P.; Wear, D.N.; Stewart, F.J.; Holmes, T.P. 2006. Wildfire, timber 

salvage, and the economics of expediency. Forest Policy and Economics. 8(3): 

312–322.

Ritchie, M.W.; Knapp, C.N.; Skinner, C.N. 2013. Snag longevity and surface fuel 

accumulation following post-fire logging in a ponderosa pine dominated forest. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 287: 113–122.

Roberts, S.L.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Miles, A.K.; Kelt, D.A. 2011. Effects 

of fire on spotted owl site occupancy in a late-successional forest. Biological 

Conservation. 144(1): 610–619.

Robichaud, P.R.; Ashmun, L.E.; Sims, B.D. 2010. Post-fire treatment 

effectiveness for hillslope stabilization. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-240. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 62 p.

Robichaud, P.R.; Beyers, J.L.; Neary, D.G. 2000. Evaluating the effectiveness of 

postfire rehabilitation treatments. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 85 p.

Robichaud, P.R.; Lewis, S.A.; Brown, R.E.; Ashmun, L.E. 2009. Emergency 

post-fire rehabilitation treatment effects on burned area ecology and long-term 

restoration. Fire Ecology. 5(1): 115–128.
218

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Roy, D.F. 1956. Salvage logging may destroy Douglas-fir reproduction. Research 

Note 107. Berkeley, CA: California Forest and Range Experiment Station. 5 p.

Ryan, K.C.; Amman, G.D. 1994. Interactions between fire-injured trees and 

insects in the greater Yellowstone area. In: Despain, D.G., ed. Plants and their 

environments: proceedings of the first biennial scientific conference on the 

Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service: 259–271.

Ryan, R.L.; Hamin, E. 2006. Engaging communities in post-fire restoration: 

forest treatments and community-agency relations after the Cerro Grande Fire. 

In: McCaffrey, S., ed. The public and wildland fire management: social science 

findings for managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-1. Newton Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 87–96.

Ryan, R.L.; Hamin, E. 2009. Wildland-urban interface communities’ response to 

post-fire salvage logging. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 24(1): 36–41.

Saab, V.A.; Russell, R.E.; Rotella, J.; Dudley, J.G. 2011. Modeling nest survival 

of cavity-nesting birds in relation to postfire salvage logging. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 75(4): 794–804.

Saracco, J.F.; Siegel, R.B.; Wilkerson, R.L. 2011. Occupancy modeling of blackbacked woodpeckers on burned Sierra Nevada forests. Ecosphere. 2(3): article 31.

Schimel, D.S.; Asner, G.P.; Moorcroft, P. 2013. Observing changing ecological 

diversity in the Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 

11(3): 129–137.

Seavy, N.E.; Burnett, R.D.; Taille, P.J. 2012. Black-backed woodpecker nest-tree 

preference in burned forests of the Sierra Nevada, California. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin. 36(4): 722–728.

Sessions, J.; Bettinger, P.; Buckman, R.; Newton, M.; Hamann, A.J. 2004. 

Hastening the return of complex forests following fire: the consequences of 

delay. Journal of Forestry. 102(3): 38–45.

Shatford, J.P.A.; Hibbs, D.E.; Puettmann, K.J. 2007. Conifer regeneration after 

forest fire in the Klamath-Siskiyous: How much, how soon? Journal of Forestry. 

105(3): 139–146.

Sherrill, K.R.; Romme, W.H. 2012. Spatial variation in postfire cheatgrass: 

Dinosaur National Monument, USA. Fire Ecology. 8(2): 38–56.
219

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Skinner, C.N.; Taylor, A.H. 2006. Southern Cascade bioregion. In Sugihara, N.G.; 

van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Fites-Kaufman, J.; Shaffer, K.E.; Thode, A.E., eds. Fire in 

California’s ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 195–224.

Stella, K.A.; Sieg, C.H.; Fule, P.Z. 2010. Minimal effectiveness of native and nonnative seeding following three high-severity wildfires. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 19(6): 746–758.

Swanson, M.E.; Franklin, J.F.; Beschta, R.L.; Crisafulli, C.M.; DellaSala, 

D.A.; Hutto, R.L.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Swanson, F.J. 2010. The forgotten 

stage of forest succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. Frontiers 

in Ecology and the Environment. 9(2): 117–125.

Taylor, A.H. 2004. Identifying forest reference conditions on early cut-over lands, 

Lake Tahoe Basin, USA. Ecological Applications. 14(6): 1903–1920.

Thompson, J.R.; Spies, T.A. 2010. Factors associated with crown damage 

following recurring mixed-severity wildfires and post-fire management in 

southwestern Oregon. Landscape Ecology. 25: 775–789.

Thompson, J.R.; Spies, T.A.; Ganio, L.M. 2007. Reburn severity in managed and 

unmanaged vegetation in a large wildfire. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences of the United States of America. 104(25): 10743–10748.

Thompson, J.R.; Spies, T.A.; Olsen, K.A. 2011. Canopy damage to conifer 

plantations within a large mixed-severity wildfire varies with stand age. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 262(3): 355–360.

Wang, X.; He, H.S.; Li, X. 2007. The long-term effects of fire suppression and 

reforestation on a forest landscape in Northeastern China after a catastrophic 

wildfire. Landscape and Urban Planning. 79(1): 84–95.

Watterson, N.A.; Jones, J.A. 2006. Flood and debris flow interactions with roads 

promote the invasion of exotic plants along steep mountain streams, western 

Oregon. Geomorphology. 78(1–2): 107–123.

Wohlgemuth, P.M.; Beyers, J.L.; Hubbert, K.R. 2009. Rehabilitation strategies 

after fire: the California, USA experience. In: Cerdá, A.; Robichaud, P.R., eds. 

Fire effects on soils and restoration strategies. Enfield, NH: Science Publishers: 

511–536.

Youngman, J.A.; Gayk, Z.G. 2011. High density nesting of black-backed 

woodpeckers (Picoides arcticus) in a post-fire Great Lakes jack pine forest. 

Wilson Journal of Ornithology. 123(2): 381–386.
220

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Zhang, J.W.; Webster, J.; Powers, R.F.; Mills, J. 2008. Reforestation after 

the Fountain Fire in Northern California: an untold success story. Journal of 

Forestry. 106(8): 425–430.
221

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Section 5—Soils

Jane Smith

Soils are the interface between forest vegetation, waters, air, and land. Soils are featured in this synthesis because of their foundational role in maintaining sustainable, productive forests and watersheds. Disturbances can potentially cause excessive 

soil erosion and loss of productivity.
222

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247
223

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Emily Moghaddas1 and Ken Hubbert 2

Summary

When managing for resilient forests, each soil’s inherent capacity to resist and 

recover from changes in soil function should be evaluated relative to the anticipated extent and duration of soil disturbance. Application of several key principles 

will help ensure healthy, resilient soils: (1) minimize physical disturbance using 

guidelines tailored to specific soil types; (2) evaluate changes in nutrient capital 

and turnover, perhaps using simple balance sheets; and (3) recognize effects on 

organic matter and soil biota. Because of fire suppression, accumulations of litter 

and duff in many Sierra Nevada forests that evolved with frequent fires may exceed 

levels that occurred historically and may now represent novel conditions. As a 

result, proportionately higher pools of nutrients may exist aboveground than in the 

past. Repeated prescribed burns may be designed to consume fuels in patches to 

temper nutrient losses and other undesired effects. Extensive areas of high-severity 

fire pose risks to long-term soil quality by altering soil bulk density, structure, 

water-holding capacity, and nutrient content in ways that ultimately contribute to 

declines in soil resilience. A recent synthesis report published by the Pacific Southwest Research Station (Busse et al. 2014) provided a current review of soil science 

relevant to forest management.

Introduction

Soil is in many ways the lifeblood of nearly all terrestrial ecosystem functions. 

Beyond just a growth medium for plants, soils store and mete out water and nutrients, fostering growth of vegetation, animal, and human communities. Soil also 

degrades toxins, sequesters carbon, and is home to an unimaginable number and 

diversity of organisms, each of which contributes to soil processes and functions. 

Enthusiasts richly describe soil as the “porous rind,” “living mantle,” and even the 

“ecstatic skin of the earth” (Logan 1995). Soil is easily manipulated, and management actions can simultaneously have a mix of positive and negative impacts on soil 

functions or plant growth. By and large, many management and other disturbance 

effects on long-term soil sustainability remain unknown (Powers et al. 2005) (see 

box 5.1-1). There is still much to learn about basic nutrient storage pools, appropriate sampling schemes (Harrison et al. 2011), and the chemical importance of rocks 

Chapter 5.1—Soils

1 Formerly a research soil scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, Taylorsville, CA; currently Natural Resources Program 

Manager, Kadena Air Base, U.S. Air Force, Okinawa, Japan. 

2 Formerly a research soil scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.
224

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

within and below the soil (Johnson et al. 2012, Morford et al. 2011). With up to 20 

000 km (12,427 mi) of fungal mycelia in a cubic meter (1.3 yd3) of soil (Pennisi 

2004), it can be difficult to untangle the many complex processes that encourage 

plant growth and distribute water and solutes through the soil and among roots. 

However, it is known that if we manage our soil poorly, civilizations themselves 

may ultimately erode (Montgomery 2012). 

Box 5.1-1

Long-Term Soil Productivity Experiment

Researchers established the National Long-Term Soil Productivity Research Program in 

response to concerns about possible losses in soil productivity on national forests resulting 

from soil compaction and organic matter removal. The study is well-represented in the 

synthesis area, with six sites including Blodgett (University of California); Challenge and 

Rogers (Plumas National Forest); Aspen, Bunchgrass, and Cone (Lassen National Forest); 

Wallace (Eldorado National Forest); and Central Camp, Owl, and Vista (Sierra National 

Forest) (Powers 2002). Results from the first 10 years of the study show that compaction 

can increase soil water availability in sandy soils, leading to improvements in vegetation 

growth. However, growth may be inhibited in compacted clay soils (Gomez et al. 2002a, 

2002b). Further, productivity impacts were measured from fairly extreme treatments, such 

as complete removal of surface organic matter (Powers et al. 2005). However, Powers et 

al. (2005) cautioned that longer term results are needed to evaluate impacts to soils. 

Following a perturbation, the functional or structural integrity of a soil may 

change. The magnitude of change reflects the resistance of the soil, with more 

resistant soils showing little change in soil function after a disturbance. The 

degree and rate of recovery describe the soil’s resilience. Together, the concepts 

of soil resistance and resilience can be useful when considering management 

impacts on vital soil functions (Seybold et al. 1999). The temporal and spatial 

scales of resistance and resilience may also influence management decisions. For 

example, creating a parking lot at a trailhead will cause a significant change in 

soil hydrologic function owing to vegetation loss and compaction, but it may be 

considered allowable or desirable if it affects only a very small proportion of a stand 

or watershed, or reduces the overall impact of a more dispersed parking area. On 

the other hand, multiple timber harvesting entries may reduce the soil hydrologic 

function across a broad area if increasingly more land is compacted without 

allowing the soil’s structural integrity to recover between entries. When managing 

When managing for 

resilient forests, each 

soil’s inherent capacity 

to resist and recover 

from changes in soil 

function should be 

evaluated relative to 

the anticipated extent 

and duration of soil 

disturbance.
225

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

for resilient forests, each soil’s inherent capacity to resist and recover from changes 

in soil function should be evaluated relative to the anticipated extent and duration of 

soil disturbance.

Sierra Nevada Geology and Soils

The Sierra Nevada, often described solely by its massive granite core, in fact 

embodies a rich and complex geologic history. In general, the range comprises three 

rock groups: the famed granitic batholith, older metamorphosed rocks that were 

invaded by the batholithic magma, and younger volcanic and sedimentary postbatholithic rocks. Sierra Nevada granite formed as igneous magma that intruded 

below the surface rock and cooled beneath it. Millions of years of erosion and 

weathering have removed much of the older surface layers, exposing the granite 

core. In the northern half of the range, the older metasedimentary and metavolcanic 

features are seen in an elongated band along the western flank. These highly varied 

features include slate, schist, quartzite, greenstone, serpentine, and many other rock 

types. The southern Sierra Nevada has undergone greater uplift, so much of the 

older rock surrounding the granite intrusion has been removed, and granitic rocks 

dominate the terrain. In some places, however, roof pendants of the ancient metamorphic rocks can be seen atop their granite base. In more recent geologic history, 

volcanic eruptions deposited tuff and andesite flows upon the older granitic and 

metamorphosed basement. These surfaces predominate east of the Sierra Nevada 

crest as well as in the north, extending to the eastern Cascade Range and the Modoc 

Plateau. Uplift, faulting, and repeated glaciations have further sculpted the Sierra 

Nevada landscape, carving the rock and depositing till and sediments in their wake.

Sierra Nevada soils are highly varied, reflecting the combined influence of 

climate, topography, biological activity, and parent material over millennia. The 

resulting soil landscape is a diverse mosaic of varying soil color, depth, texture, 

water-holding capacity, and productivity. Generally speaking, many soils of the 

Sierra Nevada are weakly developed and classified as Entisol or Inceptisol soil 

orders. These often occur at higher elevations and ridge positions, where cold 

temperature regimes and steep topography limit soil development, but they also 

occur on resistant parent materials at lower elevations. Developmentally young soils 

are typically shallow and coarse textured, with little clay development and rapid 

infiltration rates. Many form on granitic bedrock. On the west slope, mid-elevation 

soils typically exhibit greater development, support the most productive forests of 

the range, and include Alfisol and Ultisol soil orders. These soils are deeper, have 

greater structure and color development and fewer rock fragments, and are enriched 

with clay. These characteristics enhance the soil’s ability to store nutrients and water. 
226

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Climate patterns strongly influence soil development and nutrient cycling 

processes. As elevation and precipitation increase, soil pH and base saturation tend 

to decrease as a result of greater leaching and decreased evapotranspiration. Soil 

carbon (C) tends to increase with elevation. Soil depth, color development, and 

organic horizon thickness and decay rates reach a maximum at mid elevations, with 

decreases both above and below (Dahlgren et al. 1997). Microbial activity tends 

to be greatest when soils are both warm and moist. The Mediterranean climate 

of the Sierra Nevada produces a prolonged summer drought, limiting decomposition rates because of moisture limitation during the warmest months. Aspect also 

influences soil development and processes, with more weathering and deeper, richer 

soils forming on mesic north slopes compared to xeric south-facing slopes. Besides 

water, nitrogen (N) is typically the most limiting factor to plant growth in forest 

systems (Vitousek and Horwath 1991). In California’s forests, the mineral soil is 

the primary nitrogen (N) reserve, storing 65 to 90 percent of ecosystem N capital 

(Johnson et al. 2008, 2009). Within forest soil profiles, both N and C are concentrated at the surface, and typically decline with depth (Zinke and Stangenberger 

2000). Recent research has shown that nutrient hotspots occur at sites on both the 

west (Johnson et al. 2011) and east (Johnson et al. 2010) slopes of the Sierra Nevada, 

with point-scale increases in available N and other important nutrients.

Although simplified patterns of Sierra Nevada geology and soil properties can 

help describe the regional setting, a tremendous variety of local conditions exists 

throughout the range. Parent material can be an important factor in soil conditions. 

For example, soils formed on serpentine have unique nutrient properties, including a low calcium-to-magnesium ratio and high accumulations of heavy metals, 

which tend to support sparse and sometimes endemic vegetation. Likewise, bands 

of ancient metasedimentary slate may underlie highly leached and weathered soil, 

with low levels of base cations and low productivity, whereas an adjacent soil on a 

more recent andesitic flow may support a robust stand with rich nutrient reserves. 

Parent material has also long been used as an index of soil erodibility. In the Sierra 

Nevada, soils formed from decomposed granite tend to be highly erodible (André 

and Anderson 1961), whereas metasedimentary soils are more stable. Local knowledge of geology and soil conditions is essential in understanding the potential of, 

and management concerns in, a particular landscape.

Priorities in Soil Management

Regardless of overall land management strategies, application of several key principles will help ensure healthy, resilient soils. Although the list below is not by any 

means exhaustive, the following considerations are straightforward, easy to grasp, 

and easy to apply in practice.
227

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Prevent Soil Loss

Maintaining soil in place is often the highest soil management priority. Soil erosion 

is a natural process—over the ages, mountains erode, alluvial valleys form, and 

lakes fill in. However, in human time scales, soil erosion is considered acceptable 

when it is in equilibrium with rates of soil formation. Soil formation rates vary by 

location, but have been estimated around 2 to 4 Mg • ha • yr-1 (1 to 2 t • ac • yr-1) for 

forest soils. When spread uniformly across an area, this represents an annual gain 

of a few tenths of a millimeter (0.01 in). Visually, sheet erosion at this rate may be 

imperceptible, though modeling programs such as the Water Erosion Prediction 

Project are frequently used to estimate losses through model simulations. Accelerated erosion resulting from management activities that exceeds the background 

rate of soil formation is typically considered unacceptable. Owing to the time scale 

at which soils form, prolonged soil erosion is perceived as effectively irreversible. 

When soil is lost, so is the rooting medium in which plants grow, as well as nutrients, C, organic matter, and the ability to hold water (Page-Dumroese et al. 2010). 

These properties are generally concentrated at the soil surface, so surface erosion 

can have greater impacts than soil loss from lower horizons (Elliott et al. 1999). 

These losses can permanently impair site quality where soil is removed, yet productivity may be enhanced where it is deposited. Excess sedimentation into lakes and 

streams, however, can reduce water quality and aquatic habitat. Maintaining soil 

cover is the easiest way to prevent accelerated erosion. Using model simulations, 

Page-Dumroese et al. (2000) found that in many cases, 50 percent ground cover 

could prevent accelerated erosion rates. Citing several other studies, Robichaud 

et al. (2010) suggested that levels of exposed bare soil less than 30 to 40 percent 

following forest thinning can generally keep soil erosion rates “acceptably low.” 

Maintaining soil onsite is essential to continued ecological function, and timeframes for recovery of lost soil and the functions it provides are far greater 

than human lifetimes.

Minimize Physical Disturbance

Forest management practices, especially those using mechanized equipment, are 

likely to disturb the soil. Many soils are easily compacted by heavy machines, 

which also displace organic and mineral horizons during turning maneuvers. Forest 

floor displacement, especially when combined with compaction, leaves soil vulnerable to erosion. Mineral soil displacement can affect soil quality by removing surface 

material, which is generally richer in nutrients, organic matter, and habitat than 

underlying subsoil. In cases where a residual canopy exists, litter accumulation and 

recovery of lost or displaced soil cover can be achieved in a matter of years. Com-
228

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

paction effects on forest soils have been studied for over 60 years (Munns 1947, 

Steinbrenner and Gessel 1955), and they remain an important management concern 

today. Physical soil changes from compaction have been enumerated by many (see 

Page-Dumroese et al. 2006), and can include decreases in soil porosity, rooting 

volume, and aeration, and increases in soil bulk density, strength, water content, 

runoff, and erosion. Compaction impacts are site-specific, with varied effects on 

forest stand productivity (Gomez et al. 2002a). One of the easiest ways to prevent 

compaction is to operate machines when soils are at their driest. This is especially 

true of soils with high clay content, which develop high soil strength—and compaction resistance—as they dry. Operationally, treatment operations can be timed to 

delay more vulnerable sites to later in the summer to allow for greater soil drying. 

Once compacted, recovery of bulk density or soil strength can take many decades. 

Recovery rates are influenced by management history, including the number of 

harvest events in a stand and soil moisture conditions during the harvest, as well 

as soil and site attributes, such as soil texture, rock fragment content, and freezethaw cycles (Page-Dumroese et al. 2006). Equipment and operating conditions can 

be specified to limit soil compaction. These well-known guidelines typically are 

tailored for soil texture, rock content, and organic matter, and they include using 

low-ground pressure equipment and operating when soils are dry, frozen, or under 

substantial snow (e.g., see table 1). Compaction can be mitigated by techniques 

such as subsoiling, which typically uses a winged implement to lift and shatter the 

compacted layer without inverting the soil. When properly applied, subsoiling can 

increase soil infiltration, allow deeper root elongation, and foster increased plant 

growth. These practices are not without their own risks, however, and may cause 

rilling and erosion when improperly applied on moderate to steep slopes. Preventing or limiting compaction typically is quite feasible, and in most cases is preferable 

to relying on post-compaction mitigation practices.

Table 1—Compaction risk ratings based on texture class and coarse fragments

Compaction hazard Texture class Coarse fragments > 2 mm

Low Sandy Any amount

Any texture Greater than 70 percent

Moderate Loamy texture Any amount

High Clayey Any amount

Silty Less than 35 percent

Adapted from Forest Service Region 5 Detrimental Compaction Risk Rating Guide (USDA FS 2006).
229

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Evaluate Changes in Nutrient Capital and Turnover 

Forest management can directly and indirectly change nutrient stores at a site. 

Vegetation harvest removes nutrients in wood and/or crowns, immediately affecting local nutrient pools (Powers 2006). Reductions in canopy cover and altered 

microclimate can also change the rates at which organic matter decomposes and 

nutrients cycle from organic to inorganic forms. Fire short-circuits this decomposition pathway, rapidly cycling nutrients tied up in organic matter (Knoepp et al. 

2005). Heat from prescribed fire operations volatilizes nutrients, including N, most 

of which is typically lost as gas during forest floor combustion. Some N may move 

downward into the soil in forms chemically available to plants and microbes. To 

evaluate the nutrient impacts of different treatment strategies, forest managers may 

find it useful to assess the scale of nutrient removal relative to existing pools, and 

the local mechanisms and rates of nutrient replenishment. Understanding sources 

and rates of nutrient inputs and outputs allows estimations for future condition and 

potential recovery. These are discussed in more detail in the following sections. 

Recognize Effects on Organic Matter and Soil Biota

Organic matter is considered a cornerstone of soil quality, enabling soil to perform 

important biological, chemical, and physical functions. As a habitat and nutrient 

source, organic matter supports soil biota; it also has an extremely high capacity to 

retain and exchange water and nutrients, and it contributes to soil structure, aggregation, and stability. Soil biotas are essential to many basic soil processes, including 

formation of soil structure and porosity, organic matter decomposition, atmospheric 

N fixation, and enhanced nutrient uptake by plants. From single-celled bacteria to 

complex arthropods and vertebrates, soil organisms are the lifeline between plants 

and mineral soil. Soil inhabitants tend to concentrate near their food sources at 

the soil surface, where organic matter and roots are most abundant. Soil biological 

indicators can be used to detect environmental changes, but their use in land management is limited by taxonomic challenges and their inordinate numbers, and by 

inefficient analytical protocols and a lack of understanding about them (Andersen et 

al. 2002). Our understanding of soil biodiversity is in its infancy. For example, less 

than 10 percent of soil microarthropod populations have been explored (André et al. 

2002), and more than 1,000 species of new fungi are described each year (Hawksworth 2001), though not all exclusively occupy soil habitat. Symbiotic associations 

between plants and fungi, known as mycorrhiza, are well known, but how these 

intricate mycelial pipelines operate to transmit water and influence plant establishment remains under investigation (Plamboeck et al. 2007). Soil organisms are 
230

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

generally outside the scope of forest management. However, managing for organic 

matter is a complementary strategy to ensure biologically healthy soil. 

Management Effects on Soils

Mechanical Forest Restoration and Fuel Treatments

Thinning to reduce hazardous fuels or improve forest health in dense Sierra Nevada 

stands often involves the removal of hundreds of stems per hectare. Though these 

are typically small-diameter materials, the intensive mechanical operations used to 

harvest and treat them have raised questions about long-term soil impacts, including 

compaction, erosion, and nutrient removal. These concerns are not new to forest 

management, but novel treatments in managed landscapes require careful evaluation of new and cumulative impacts on soil quality.

Physical soil disturbance—

Mechanical thinning treatments in the Sierra Nevada typically use conventional 

harvest techniques, including heavy equipment operating as harvesters (fellerbunchers and cut-to-length harvesters), skidders, or forwarders. In contrast to traditional commercial stand thinnings that remove fewer, larger trees, forest restoration 

treatments often aim to remove or process large quantities of small stems. Operationally, this may require that equipment traverse a large proportion of the treatment 

area in order to access and remove material. Although this equipment footprint can 

increase the risk of soil compaction from vehicle traffic and soil displacement from 

vehicle turning, careful operations and application of best management practices 

(BMPs) can avoid excessive disturbance. Treatment monitoring is essential to allow 

for feedback to contract officers and operators. Further, monitoring can provide 

data to track effectiveness of BMPs at minimizing soil and water quality impacts.

Mechanical fuels treatments and restoration thinning can be conducted with 

minimal exposure of bare mineral soil. In several southern Sierra Nevada studies, 

bare soil exposure 1 to 3 years after treatment did not differ between treated stands 

and controls, regardless of whether slash material was left on site (Wayman and 

North 2007) or piled and burned (Berg and Azuma 2010). Although bare soil can 

contribute to surface erosion, Berg and Azuma (2010) found no evidence of rilling following forest thinning on predominantly granitic soils. In an erosion study 

focused on the northern and central Sierra Nevada, Litschert and MacDonald (2009) 

studied mechanical harvest units, 2 to 18 years after treatment, that were thought to 

have erosion or sedimentation problems. They evaluated approximately 200 of these 

units on a range of parent materials and found evidence of soil erosion (i.e., rills or 
231

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

sediment plumes at the lower unit boundary) in only 19 instances. In all thinning 

units, the erosion was traced to a skid trail rather than the harvest area in general.

Steep slopes are typically more vulnerable to runoff and erosion, but they are 

increasingly identified as high priority areas for thinning treatments. To prevent 

excessive soil disturbance, most public lands in the Sierra Nevada exclude mechanical operations from slopes with gradients above 30 to 35 percent. No studies have 

examined ground-based operations on steep slopes of the Sierra Nevada, but Cram 

et al. (2007) studied disturbance and erosion on intermediate (10 to 25 percent) 

and steep (26 to 43 percent) slopes in a thinned New Mexico mixed-conifer forest. 

Although operations on steep slopes generally cause more soil disturbance, Cram et 

al. (2007) found that maintaining soil cover and minimizing large areas of bare soil 

can be sufficient to prevent increased erosion and sedimentation levels. Equipment 

has been developed to operate on steep and sensitive areas, including a variety of 

skyline systems (Elliot et al. 2010) and even more novel approaches, including harvesters that walk on legs rather than roll on tires and tracks (Jaffe and O’Brien 2009).

In addition to bare soil exposure, skid trails and associated compaction are 

likely the greatest physical impact of mechanical forest restoration and fuel 

reduction operations. The spatial extent and arrangement of skid trails depends 

on the material removed as well as slope, terrain, and proximity to temporary or 

permanent roads. Much of the compaction on skid trails occurs during the first few 

machine passes (Williamson and Nielson 2000). Cut-to-length harvest systems, 

in which only tree boles are taken off site, have been shown to reduce the amount 

of compaction when boles are forwarded over slash-covered trails. Compared to 

whole-tree harvests that were yarded with skidders, cut-to-length systems produced 

a smaller compacted footprint with a lower degree of bulk density change (Han et 

al. 2009). Although heavy slash mats help buffer the impacts of machine traffic, 

they break down after multiple equipment passes and their effectiveness at minimizing compaction decreases (Han et al. 2006). Many Sierra Nevada stands have 

legacy skid trails from previous harvest entries, and re-use of existing trails could 

limit cumulative compaction impacts. This can be problematic, however, when 

previous skid trails or landings are located in drainages or sensitive areas, do not 

access the necessary part of the unit, or are poorly suited for contemporary harvest 

methods. Roads are often a large contributor to cumulative watershed effects owing 

to compaction, erosion, and sedimentation to streams. Erosion from roads is discussed in Section 6 of this synthesis, “Water Resources and Aquatic Ecosystems.”

Mastication treatments in particular have raised concerns about soil compaction, because masticators may need to operate well away from skid trails to reach 

standing trees, shrubs, or slash. Like slash mats, masticated material may help 

Skid trails and 

associated compaction 

are likely the greatest 

physical impact of 

mechanical forest 

restoration and fuel 

reduction operations.
232

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

buffer the compacting forces of heavy equipment (Moghaddas and Stephens 2008), 

but soil moisture remains a key factor in susceptibility to compaction. Recent 

findings in the Sierra Nevada have shown that compaction effects on tree growth 

are complicated and can vary with soil texture. Growth in pine plantations less than 

10 years old was negatively affected in compacted clay soils, responded neutrally to 

compacted loam, and increased in compacted sandy loam soil (Gomez et al. 2002a, 

2002b). Compaction compresses large pores, so coarse-textured soils may have 

more capillary ability when compacted, holding more water and enhancing tree 

growth. Soil compaction is a reversible process, but recovery can take many years. 

Soil recovery is greatly enhanced by freeze-thaw processes, but soil texture may 

also play a key role in recovery rates. In plantations grown in compacted soils, bulk 

density recovery after 5 years was slower in fine-textured soils than coarse-textured 

ones (Page-Dumroese et al. 2006).

Box 5.1-2

Compaction

Soils are easily compacted, even with just a few machine passes. Recovery 

following compaction is a slow process, often requiring decades. Mitigation 

techniques, such as subsoiling, are not without their own risks and effects, and 

should be considered far less desirable options than preventing compaction in 

the first place. Operationally, compaction can be minimized by: 

• Operating when soils are dry; moist soils are more susceptible to 

compaction and will compact to a greater depth than dry soils

• Operating when soils are frozen or under deep snow

• Using equipment with minimal ground pressure 

• Limiting equipment to designated trails, and reusing trails where 

feasible

• Using boom-mounted equipment, which requires less ground travel

• Traveling over deep slash layers where feasible

Results from the Long Term Soil Productivity experiment show that compaction can increase soil water availability in sandy soils, leading to improvements in vegetation growth. However, growth may be inhibited in compacted 

clay soils (Gomez et al. 2002a, 2002b). 
233

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Effects on soil nutrients—

Forest restoration thinning and fuels treatments are commonly achieved through 

whole-tree harvest techniques. For more than 40 years, this practice has raised 

concerns about nutrient loss and long-term site productivity because branches and 

foliage are removed along with the tree stems (Kimmins 1977, Tamm 1969). However, most research has evaluated whole-tree clearcut harvests, and surprisingly few 

studies have addressed impacts of whole-tree thinning. Thinning typically removes 

far less biomass than clearcut prescriptions. For example, fuels reduction thinning 

projects in dense Sierra Nevada stands removed an average of 12 percent of the 

standing live volume (Collins et al. 2007), which was equivalent to 21 percent of the 

basal area in those areas (Stephens and Moghaddas 2005). Fuels reduction treatments in dense stands typically reduce basal area by 20 to 45 percent (Boerner et 

al. 2008b), while retaining a majority of the standing volume on site. Fuels are often 

thinned from below, so understory, suppressed, and intermediate trees are removed 

before codominant or dominant trees. These lower crown positions have proportionately less canopy biomass (Reinhardt et al. 2006) and, therefore, fewer canopy 

nutrients than the dominant overstory. Using clearcut-based studies to infer nutrient 

loss impacts following fuel reductions could grossly overestimate effects on soil 

nutrient pools and stand productivity. In any case, studies of stands greater than 15 

years old suggest that whole-tree clearcut impacts to soil C and N stocks diminish 

with time (Jandl et al. 2007, Johnson et al. 2002, Jones et al. 2008, Walmsley et al. 

2009), and nutrient recovery in thinned stands would likely be much quicker.

Few whole-tree thinning studies have been conducted in U.S. forests, and studies 

on fuels reduction thinning in the Sierra Nevada are even fewer. Johnson et al. 

(2008) compared whole-tree and cut-to-length thinning in a Sierra Nevada east-side 

pine forest. Whole-tree harvest methods removed approximately three times more 

N than cut-to-length methods. Because limbs and tops were left on site, the cut-tolength system left two to three times more C and N content in the forest floor than 

the whole-tree harvest. However, neither harvest system removed more than a few 

percentage points of the ecosystem N capital of the sites (Johnson et al. 2008). In a 

fuels reduction study in dry forests of central Oregon, Busse et al. (2009) compared 

the effects of whole-tree harvest, bole-only removal, and thinning without biomass 

removal on vegetation responses. Through periodic measurements in the 17 years 

following the treatments, they found no differences in tree growth, shrub cover, or 

herbaceous biomass among treatments. Busse and Riegel (2005) estimated that this 

whole-tree thinning removed 4 percent of ecosystem N, whereas bole-only harvest 

removed 1 percent. Compared to the other residue treatments, the whole-tree harvest 

did not reduce the site potential or soil nutrient status of the relatively infertile sites 
234

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

included in that study (Busse and Riegel 2005). It’s likely that many Sierra Nevada 

forests are similarly resistant to N reductions, but the potential losses must be considered in the context of the total amount of N on site and sources of N inputs over time. 

Fertile sites with deep, rich soils tend to be more resilient to whole-tree harvests than 

poor sites, such as shallow soils over bedrock or coarse-textured soils (RaulundRasmussen et al. 2008). More nutrients are generally exported during whole-tree 

harvests from fertile sites than from nutrient-poor sites, but higher levels of nutrient 

inputs and cycling rates often allow for rapid replacement of the lost nutrients. 

Balance sheets are useful to compare nutrient inputs, outputs, and on-site 

reserves (Smith 1986). Forest managers can estimate the amount of nutrients 

removed during whole-tree fuels reduction by first taking stock of what is held in 

tree crowns and boles and then determining how much material will be removed 

during treatment. For example, canopy fuels in a dense, mid-elevation west slope 

Sierra Nevada stand with high fire hazard conditions were estimated at 17 Mg/ha 

(8 t/ac) (Reinhardt et al. 2006). Estimates from other similar studies in the Western 

United States found crown fuel loads between 9 and 21 Mg/ha (4 to 9 tons/ac) 

(Cruz et al. 2003, Fulé et al. 2001). Assuming that half the crown volume of a stand 

is removed and that its foliar N content is 1.4 percent (Carter 1992, Garrison et al. 

2000), approximately 65 to 150 kg N/ha (0.029 to 0.067 t N/ac) might be removed 

as crown material during fuels treatments. Assuming that an equal portion of N is 

stored in the wood, 65 to 150 kg N/ha (0.029 to 0.067 t N/ac) may also be removed 

as bole material. For many Sierra Nevada sites, 130 to 300 kg N/ha (0.058 to 0.130 

t N/ac) represents only a small percentage of the N stored in the soil (Zinke and 

Stangenberger 2000) and an even smaller proportion of total ecosystem N on site. 

Furthermore, the actual amount of N removed will vary by stand and thinning 

treatment. At their east-side Jeffrey pine site, Johnson et al. (2008) reported N 

removal of 50 and 162 kg N/ha (0.022 and 0.072 t N/ac) in areas treated with cutto-length and whole-tree thinning, respectively. It is important to remember that N 

is chronically added to forest stands by deposition and lost by leaching, and these 

processes vary by geographic region. By estimating local deposition and leaching 

rates, one can consider harvest N removals in the context of how quickly they will 

be replenished (table 2). Although useful as a simple tool to gain perspective on 

long-term nutrient changes, this nutrient budget approach cannot account for complex and unpredictable changes in nutrient cycling or rates of availability (Powers 

et al. 1990).

For particularly sensitive sites, there are a number of options to minimize or 

compensate for nutrient losses from whole-tree harvesting. More nutrients can be 

kept on site by harvesting in the fall or winter. Wood becomes more brittle during 

Fertile sites with deep, 

rich soils tend to be 

more resilient to wholetree harvests than poor 

sites, such as shallow 

soils over bedrock or 

coarse-textured soils.
235

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

this time and is more likely to break during thinning activities. Leaving broken 

branches or tops in the stand will reduce the nutrients exported off site. Harvesting 

trees during their dormant period may also reduce nutrient exports, as leaves translocate their nutrients to the roots and other components at senescence (Nambiar and 

Fife 1991). Thinning deciduous trees after leaf drop can also reduce foliar export 

out of the stand. Marking guidelines that account for species nutrient requirements 

can also help offset nutrient removals; thinning trees with high nutritional needs 

while retaining more frugal species may export a relatively larger amount of nutrients, but the overall nutrient demand in the residual stand will be reduced. Where 

species exhibit great differences in nutrient needs, these nutrient requirements 

could become a consideration in marking guidelines for fuels reduction, in addition 

to crown spacing, shade tolerance, and fire behavior characteristics. Five years after 

whole-tree thinning to reduce fuels and restore stand structure, units where large 

trees were preferentially retained, regardless of species, had greater levels of soil N, 

and thus greater short-term potential for increased growth and productivity, than 

units where pine species were preferentially retained. However, the pine-retention 

stands had higher levels of forest floor N, suggesting greater potential for nutrient 

availability in the future (Miesel et al. 2008).

In many cases, whole trees are skidded to a landing where processors, such as 

delimbers, remove the nonmerchantable material from the bole. Rather than chipping or burning the slash, skidders could backhaul some or all of it into the unit 

Table 2—Example of soil nutrient capital and nutrient balance accounts for a site thinned with a wholetree harvest approach 

Credit/debit Nutrient balance Explanation

Kilograms 

N per hectare

Soil pool 9800 The soil acts as a large reservoir to store N. Most soil N occurs

in organic form, which is not readily available for plant uptake

and cannot be easily leached. Plant-available inorganic N is slowly

released through decomposition and mineralization pathways.

Harvest export -200 Whole-tree thinning removes some of the N capital from the site. 

The time required to replenish lost N depends on rates of inputs and

outputs. Harvesting alters soil microclimate, which can increase or 

decrease the amount of N available for plant uptake by altering 

rates of decomposition and N mineralization.

Annual deposition 6 Nitrogen is continually added to terrestrial systems as both dry and 

wet deposition.

Annual leaching -1 Nitrogen leaching losses typically occur as plant-available nitrate.

Nitrogen (N) removal from whole-tree harvest is equal to less than 3 percent of the total soil pool of N. Assuming that deposition and 

leaching rates remain constant, N is added at a rate of 5 kg • ha-1 • yr-1. At that rate, the N removed from the thinning treatment would 

be replenished after approximately 40 years, or sooner, if the abundance of N-fixing vegetation increased after treatment.
236

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

to redistribute the nutrients on site. This would allow efficient harvesting equipment (e.g., feller-bunchers) to fell trees while reducing nutrient losses. Rich (2001) 

addressed some operational constraints and practices to help make backhauling of 

slash a feasible option. However, fuel loading should be a consideration in plans that 

include redistribution of slash.

Prescribed Fire Treatments

Prescribed fire operations designed to reduce ground and surface fuel loads are 

common in the Sierra Nevada, and many basic prescribed fire effects on soils have 

been well described in review or meta-analysis publications that use references 

from around the globe (e.g., see Carter and Foster 2004; Certini 2005; Johnson 

and Curtis 2001; Nave et al. 2011; Neary et al. 1999, 2005; Raison 1979; Wan et 

al. 2001). Like mechanical vegetation removal, fire reduces the nutrient capital on 

site, but through a very different mechanism. Whereas harvests physically remove 

nutrients contained in biomass, fires volatilize and transform nutrients through 

heating and combustion. Similar effects are generally found regardless of whether 

or not sites are thinned prior to burning, but the magnitude of those effects can 

vary. Management practices that alter the forest floor will similarly alter fire behavior and effects. Conditions that lead to greater fuel consumption have the potential 

to increase impacts on soils. Slashmats left in yarding trails during cut-to-length 

harvests create continuous fuelbeds that burn more than adjacent areas, whereas 

skid trails tend to disrupt fuel continuity and burn less than adjacent areas.

Recent research has focused on comparing the individual and combined effects 

of thinning and burning treatments on soil. Boerner et al. (2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 

2009) have conducted soil meta-analyses for 12 North American forest sites in 

which the same study design was used to examine forest thinning, burning, and 

combination treatments. A number of similar forest restoration or fuels reduction 

studies using prescribed fire have been implemented across and near the Sierra 

Nevada, and these form the basis for this section. They include treatments in 

mixed-conifer stands in the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in the southern 

Cascade Range, Blodgett Forest Research Station in the central Sierra Nevada 

(fig. 1), Teakettle Experimental Forest and Sequoia National Park in the southern 

Sierra Nevada, and a Jeffrey pine forest east of the Sierra crest.

One of the most significant changes to the soil system caused by fire is the loss 

of mass and nutrients from the forest floor. Fuel consumption typically varies across 

a burned area owing to microsite differences in fuel moisture, loading, and continuity. In unharvested stands, Knapp and Keeley (2006) found that 70 percent of the 

treatment area burned during early season prescribed fires when fuels and soil were 
237

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Figure 1—(A) Before (2001) and (B) after (2003) photos of a Fire and Fire Surrogate Study site at the 

University of California’s Blodgett Forest Research Station that was thinned and burned.

Scott Stephens Scott Stephens
238

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

moist, whereas 88 percent burned during late-season fires when conditions were 

substantially drier. Prefire harvests can both increase and decrease fuel continuity and burn extent. Cut-to-length harvesting, in which activity slash is placed in 

the yarding trail, can result in higher levels of fuel consumption within slash mat 

features; in one study, fire covered 60 percent of the area outside slashmat features, 

while 70 percent of the area burned within the slashmat trails (Murphy et al. 

2006a). In contrast, skid trails typically expose large amounts of bare soil, reducing 

the percentage of area burned. Following whole-tree harvest, Murphy et al. (2006a) 

found that fire covered 77 percent of areas outside skid trails, but only 30 percent 

of the area within them. Similarly, Moghaddas and Stephens (2007) found that, in 

thinning units where both logging slash and masticated debris were left on site, 95 

percent of areas outside skid trails burned, but only 48 percent of the area within 

skid trails burned. Where skidders were used, the combination of thinning and 

burning exposed more bare soil than either one alone (Moghaddas and Stephens 

2007, Wayman and North 2007). 

When litter and duff layers burn, most of the N they contain is lost to the 

atmosphere in gaseous form. The amount of N lost during fires is positively correlated to the amount of material burned, which can vary tremendously across the 

Sierra Nevada. For example, prescribed fire in a highly productive mixed-conifer 

forest reduced the forest floor mass by 87 percent, causing N losses of 725 to 750 

kg/ha (0.32 to 0.33 t/ac) (Moghaddas and Stephens 2007), which represents well 

under 10 percent of the ecosystem N on site (Boerner et al. 2008c). But burning 

in east-side Jeffrey pine forests reduced the forest floor mass by 60 to 75 percent, 

with concomitant N losses of only 100 to 250 kg/ha (0.04 to 0.11 t/ac) (Murphy et 

al. 2006a), equivalent to less than 5 percent of ecosystem N there (Johnson et al. 

2008). At each locale, the greater losses occurred in stands where logging slash 

was present. The forest floor was reduced by more than half at both sites, causing 

a substantial relative reduction in surface N capital. Carbon losses from the forest 

floor follow similar patterns to N, with proportionately more C lost as more forest 

floor is combusted.

Despite huge changes in the forest floor, total C and N pools in mineral soil 

often remain unchanged following prescribed fire, though both decreases and 

increases have been observed. Total soil C and N were unchanged following 

burning in both examples described above (Johnson et al. 2008, Moghaddas and 

Stephens 2007). Similarly, burning and thin-burn treatments in a southern Sierra 

Nevada site did not alter soil C pools (North et al. 2009) or C and N concentrations 

relative to control plots (Wayman and North 2007). Soil pools may remain largely 

unaffected, because so much nutrient capital exists in the soil that fire-induced 

Despite huge changes 

in the forest floor, 

total C and N pools 

in mineral soil often 

remain unchanged 

following prescribed 

fire.
239

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

changes are relatively small by comparison (Wan et al. 2001), and because prescribed burns do not often reach temperatures high enough to combust soil organic 

matter beyond shallow surface layers (Johnson et al. 2009). At another southern 

Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer site, 74 percent of the forest floor mass was consumed 

during early-season burns (Knapp et al. 2005), with no change in soil total C or 

N pools (Hamman et al. 2008). In contrast, late-season burns at the same site 

consumed 94 percent of the forest floor (Knapp et al. 2005), reducing soil C levels 

for at least 3 years, but causing no change in total N. The drier fuel and soil conditions during late-season burns can contribute to greater burn severity and a more 

Box 5.1-3

Putting Nutrient Removals in Perspective

Because of fire suppression, accumulations of litter and duff in many Sierra 

Nevada forests that evolved with frequent fires may exceed levels that 

occurred historically and may now represent novel conditions. As a result, 

proportionately higher pools of nutrients may exist aboveground than in the 

past. Both forest thinning (harvest) and prescribed fire cause nutrient losses, 

although through very different mechanisms. Whereas nutrients are directly 

exported in boles (and tops and limbs, in the case of whole-tree harvest) 

during thinning, fires remove carbon and nitrogen (N) largely through 

combustion and volatilization. Cumulatively, harvest and burning treatments 

will remove more nutrients than either treatment alone. It is a good idea 

to assess the scale of nutrient removal relative to existing pools in order to 

evaluate potential risks to forest productivity and consider soil resilience to 

nutrient losses. Soils are widely variable in space, and knowing if a specific 

soil has vast reserves of N and other nutrients or is shallow and nutrient 

poor can be critical in assessing the consequences of nutrient removal. This 

is especially true if repeat or cumulative treatments are being considered. 

Management goals may not seek to replenish these nutrients if they are 

removed through harvest or fire, but understanding the magnitude of change 

and rate of recovery can provide important ecological perspective. Balance 

sheets can provide ballpark estimates of nutrient inputs and outputs and give 

managers a sense of the scale of impact different treatment alternatives may 

carry (see table 2). After treatments, periodic site visits can be used to assess 

the cover and type of nitrogen-fixing shrubs; these visits can further refine 

estimates of N replenishment over time. 
240

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

prolonged soil effect (Hamman et al. 2008). In the southern Cascade Range, Miesel 

et al. (2007) reported reduced concentrations of soil C in unthinned, burned stands, 

but no change in areas that had been whole-tree harvested prior to burning. The 

decrease was attributed to greater soil heating and organic matter combustion in the 

unthinned areas. In some cases, soil C can increase following prescribed fire owing 

to the incorporation of charcoal (Johnson and Curtis 2001), but no examples of this 

have been documented in the Sierra Nevada.

A short-term increase in soil pH is often, though not universally, observed 

following prescribed fire as a result of deposition of ash rich in base cations (Raison 1979). Studies in the Sierra Nevada that measured pH show that thinning and 

burning treatments elicit the same soil response as burn-only treatments, whether 

that response is an increase in pH (Moghaddas and Stephens 2007, Ryu et al. 2009) 

or no change in pH (Murphy et al. 2006a). Fire also tends to increase inorganic N 

levels in the soil (Miesel et al. 2007, Moghaddas and Stephens 2007). In both the 

southern Cascade Range and the central Sierra Nevada, thinning before burning 

resulted in greater inorganic N increases. At the latter location, the increase was 

due primarily to large increases in ammonium, which can result from oxidation 

of organic matter during burning and increased N mineralization. Presumably, 

the organic matter and N source was the combusted forest floor, as volatilized N 

can condense and move down into the mineral soil. The increase in inorganic N, 

however, represented only 5 percent of the N lost from the forest floor (Moghaddas and Stephens 2007). Nitrogen-fixing plants, which occur at both of these study 

sites, can also contribute inorganic N to the soil. Despite increases in mineral N, 

no changes in mineralization rates were detected following burning in the southern 

Cascade Range (Miesel et al. 2007) or in central Sierra Nevada (Moghaddas and 

Stephens 2007) or southern Sierra Nevada (Hamman et al. 2008) sites, and changes 

in nitrification rates were variable. Although N turnover rates often increase following fire, microbial activity is strongly linked to substrate availability, organic matter 

quality, and microclimate—factors that will vary under different site and burn 

conditions. When changes do occur following prescribed fire, they tend to diminish 

within several years (Wan et al. 2001).

Woody fuels are piled and burned in some areas because of infeasibility or 

restrictions against underburning or mechanical operations. Burn piles concentrate 

soil heating effects into relatively small, confined areas beneath the pile footprint. 

Soil heating during pile burning can be extreme. In southern Colorado, Massman and Frank (2004) measured soil temperatures of 400 °C (752 °F) beneath a 

large slash pile, and temperatures remained elevated for several days. Significant 

changes in the physical, chemical, and biological properties of soil are likely under 
241

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

these conditions, but not all pile burns result in extreme soil temperatures or soil 

damage (Busse et al. 2014). The severity of an individual burn plays a large role 

in subsequent soil impacts, which may include changes in organic C and N, available nutrients, water repellency, microbial activity, soil texture, mineralogy, bulk 

density, and porosity. Pile burning is also responsible for the so-called “ash-bed 

effect,” in which the release of nutrients (particularly N, calcium, magnesium, and 

potassium) from organic materials can temporarily augment soil fertility. In the 

Sierra Nevada, York et al. (2009) found that 10-year height and diameter growth of 

conifer seedlings was up to 50 percent greater within pile burn perimeters than on 

adjacent, unburned ground.

Fuels managers face decisions about the appropriate size and density of piles for 

given treatment units. Although larger piles will generate more heat overall, they do 

not necessarily increase the degree of soil heating. For example, Busse et al. (2013) 

found no significant relationship between pile size and maximum soil temperature 

or heat duration for piles ranging from 1.8 to 6.1 m (6 to 20 ft) in diameter in the 

Lake Tahoe basin. Rather, fuel composition was the key factor in soil heating at 

these sites. Piles containing high levels of large-diameter bole wood reached greater 

soil temperatures for longer durations than piles containing smaller diameter 

materials and limbs. Under all piles, the most extreme heating was limited to the 

surface 5 to 10 cm (2.0 to 3.9 in) of mineral soil below the pile. Extreme soil heating 

may be of little concern if it occurs beneath widely spaced piles that occupy little of 

the total land surface. The greater the density or total ground coverage of piles, the 

greater the potential to affect soil quality as a result of extreme soil heating. Across 

71 sites in the Lake Tahoe basin, ground coverage by piles averaged 8 percent, but 

reached as high as 35 percent where larger diameter insect-killed trees were bucked 

and piled (Busse et al. 2014). These findings suggest that, in most cases, decisions 

regarding the optimal size and number of piles per treatment unit can be based on 

operational factors, including cost effectiveness, fire risk, and operator safety, rather 

than potential soil effects.

Soil resilience and repeat burning: fire as a restoration tool—

Most terrestrial areas in the Sierra Nevada evolved with some periodic influence 

of fire, including the changes in nutrients and soil processes that fire causes. The 

reintroduction of fire is often recommended as a restoration and maintenance tool. 

There are very few data available about repeat burning effects on soils in the Sierra 

Nevada. Perhaps the most extensive research on the soil impacts of long-term, 

frequent prescribed fire programs has come from the Southeastern United States. 

Soil studies in southern pine forests have examined impacts following decades 

of annual burning and made comparisons to less frequently burned or unburned 

In most cases, decisions 

regarding the optimal 

size and number of piles 

per treatment unit can 

be based on operational 

factors, including cost 

effectiveness, fire risk, 

and operator safety, 

rather than potential 

soil effects.
242

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

stands. As with single-entry prescribed fires, repeat burning results in reductions in 

the forest floor and the nutrients contained therein. The more frequent the burns, the 

greater the reduction in forest floor N content. For example, following 30 years of 

prescribed fire treatments in the coastal plain of South Carolina, forest floor N mass 

was reduced by 29, 60, 60, and 85 percent following fires every 4, 3, 2, and 1 years, 

respectively, relative to the 480 kg N/ha (0.21 t N/ac) in the control stand (Binkley 

et al. 1992). Similarly, annual burning at another South Carolina site reduced forest 

floor N by 68 percent, and a fire return interval of 7 years resulted in a 32-percent 

loss of N relative to the 408 kg N/ha (0.18 t N/ac) in the control (McKee 1982). 

Although climate, soils, and forest type differ between the Sierra Nevada and 

the Southeast, the concept that more frequent fire results in greater cumulative 

forest floor N losses transcends these differences. Johnson et al. (1998) developed 

a nutrient cycling model to predict N changes following frequent prescribed fire 

at a site in the eastern Sierra Nevada. Using local litterfall rates, N concentration, 

and litter decay rates, they simulated the forest floor biomass and N content under 

varying fire frequencies and levels of fuel consumption. They showed that, over a 

100-year period, prescribed fires every 10 years would result in 35 percent more N 

loss than fires every 20 years, assuming half the forest floor is consumed. Allowing 

litter to accumulate for 100 years before it is completely consumed by wildfire 

would result in less than half the N loss modeled for a 10-year prescribed fire 

interval (Johnson et al. 2009).

Over time, repeated fires can lead to a gradual reduction in the N capital of 

a site. This does not suggest, however, that infrequent fire is the most desirable 

management strategy. Although more N is conserved under infrequent fire regimes, 

that scenario places overall soil resilience at risk. In that case, the forest floor N 

pool slowly swings between extreme states—unprecedented accumulation in thick 

duff and litter layers, then complete loss following wildfire. Furthermore, fires that 

completely consume the forest floor leave the mineral soil vulnerable to erosion and 

associated losses of nutrients and organic matter. Rather than broadly excluding fire 

to preserve on-site N pools, managers may choose to consider local N replenishment mechanisms following periodic fire and factor that into planning efforts. Soil 

resilience to N loss depends on the rate of N recovery. Predominant N input sources 

include atmospheric deposition and N fixation. Levels of N deposition depend 

largely on air pollution and weather patterns, which vary across the Sierra Nevada 

(see chapter 8.1, “Air Quality”). The National Atmospheric Deposition Program 

maintains a long-term record of wet deposition chemistry and may be a useful 

starting point for managers to approximate deposition levels. In relatively unpolluted areas, N fixation is the most important N input source. Johnson et al. (2004) 

studied nutrient changes following the stand-replacing Little Valley Fire in the 
243

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

eastern Sierra Nevada. Although 71 percent of aboveground N was consumed in the 

1981 fire, additions from the N-fixing shrub snowbrush (Ceanothus velutinus Douglas 

ex. Hook) had more than made up for the losses 16 years later. If inputs were limited 

to deposition alone, the lost N would not be replaced for more than 1,000 years at this 

relatively unpolluted site (Johnson et al. 2004). Other N-fixing species contribute far 

less to ecosystem N recovery. Slow-growing N-fixing shrubs in northeastern California and central Oregon, including bitterbrush (Purshia tridentada (Pursh) DC.) and 

mahala mat (Ceanothus prostratus Benth.), probably fix enough N to meet their own 

needs, but are unlikely to contribute enough to compensate for N losses following 

disturbances such as fire (Busse 2000). Johnson et al. (2009) suggested that frequent 

prescribed burning (with intervals less than 10 to 20 years) has potential to result in 

substantial N losses over time. It follows that historical frequent fire regimes would 

have also caused cumulative N losses, potentially reducing productivity over time. 

Similar losses from frequent prescribed fire might raise concerns about contemporary 

site productivity, but they may also be a desirable outcome, especially in watersheds 

with nutrient-sensitive water bodies, such as Lake Tahoe, and areas with heavy 

N pollution. Where cumulative N loss from repeat prescribed burns is a concern, 

techniques to increase burn heterogeneity, in which areas of the forest floor remain 

unburned, may be useful. In general, research on the effects of frequent prescribed 

burning in the Sierra Nevada is needed, as the effects of long-term fire suppression 

on forest soils in this region are not well understood (Miesel et al. 2011).

Effects of Wildfire

Wildfires can cause a number of important effects on soils, including increased 

runoff and erosion, potential changes in soil structure and biota, and loss of the forest 

floor and associated C and N. Postfire effects and recovery, hydrologic response, 

and the magnitude of erosion events are highly variable depending on fire severity 

and extent, postfire rainfall amount and intensity (especially in the first three years 

following wildfire), and geology and topography (Miller et al. 2011, Moody et al. 

2008, Robichaud et al. 2008). A recent synthesis on soils (Busse et al. 2014) provided 

a more detailed consideration of the effects of fire. That report cautions that severe 

burns induce losses of organic matter, alter surface physical and chemical properties, 

and can increase soil erosion and reduce long-term soil productivity. Three important 

advances in understanding of fire effects on soils are considered briefly here: the 

importance of plant and litter cover in limiting erosion, the issue of “sterilization” 

by intense fire, and the issue of fire-induced water repellency. Effects of wildfire 

on streams are discussed in chapter 6.1, “Watershed and Stream Ecosystems,” and 

strategies for treating postfire impacts are discussed in chapter 4.3, “Post-Wildfire 

Management.”
244

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Postfire impacts on physical and biological properties—

Research has shown that plant and litter cover play an overwhelming role in 

controlling postfire erosion (Larsen et al. 2009). Loss of forest floor cover during 

wildfire exposes bare mineral soil to raindrop impact and decreases surface roughness, leading to greater velocity of overland flow and potential sheetwash, rill, and 

gully erosion. Patterns of fire severity help dictate the nature and extent of these 

impacts. Wildfires generally burn in mosaics of low, moderate, and high severity, 

leaving a patchy distribution of litter and duff across the landscape. Generally, the 

degree of patchiness of forest floor cover determines its effectiveness in intercepting rainfall and surface flow and preventing surface runoff and erosion (Pannkuk 

and Robichaud 2003, Robichaud 2000). Recovery of vegetation cover is also site 

specific yet can be rapid depending on timing and amount of rainfall or snowmelt. 

Erosion control is considered “partially effective” once plant cover exceeds 30 percent, and it is considered “effectively” controlled, even during high-intensity rain 

events, when plant cover approaches 60 percent (Quinton et al. 1997, Robichaud et 

al. 2000). In the Sierra Nevada, postfire erosion decreases with time through the 

first several years following fire (Berg and Azuma 2010, Pierson et al. 2008) as 

vegetation becomes reestablished and cover increases (Keeley et al. 2003).

A common perception has been that high-severity wildfires sterilize soils, but 

research indicates that severely burned “red” soils are not sterile, although such 

burning does greatly reduce soil nutrients and microbial abundance (Hebel et al. 

2009). These impacts can be particularly acute where there are concentrations of 

large wood debris that burn for extended periods, as reported from studies of burn 

piles. Although these patches can be recolonized from less severely burned areas, 

recovery of plant communities may be much slower than recovery of the microbial 

community (Busse et al. 2014, Fornwalt and Rhoades 2011, Korb et al. 2004).

The formation of water repellent layers following burning is another fire-related 

soil process that has received attention from researchers. Soil water repellency 

(or hydrophobicity) causes soils to resist wetting for extended periods, which can 

result in increased runoff from the hydrophobic patches and accelerated soil erosion 

(Doerr et al. 2000). Studies have shown that soil water repellency is a common 

feature of many Sierra Nevada soils not only after fire but also in areas that have 

not been burned (see Busse et al. 2014). Burning can volatilize hydrophobic organic 

compounds present in the soil and litter, which then condense onto soil particles. 

However, burning can also break down repellent layers in soils, especially at high 

temperatures (>400 °C), although such effects are not necessarily consistently 

associated with burn severity (Doerr et al. 2000). Most wildfires result in a mosaic 

of repellency from zero to high levels that is influenced by the distribution of plants 
245

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

on the landscape, nonuniformity of fire temperature and duration, litter depth and 

moisture content, and differences in soil moisture and soil texture (Hubbert et al. 

2006, MacDonald and Huffman 2004). Most research has inferred rather than demonstrated a direct causal link between water repellency and erosion, and few studies 

have succeeded in isolating the erosional effects of water repellency from other 

related causes (Doerr et al. 2000). Because water repellency is greatest in dry soils, 

it is probable that reduced infiltration rates leading to overland flow and subsequent 

erosion events would be most likely to occur after prolonged dry periods (Rice and 

Grismer 2010). Therefore, one would expect fire-caused repellency to play a minimal role in the middle of a Sierra Nevada winter, but its effect would be much more 

pronounced during summer thunderstorms or the first rain events of the fall. Presence of soil cracks, burned root holes, and patches of hydrophilic soils can prevent 

hydrophobic patches from having significant effects (Shakesby and Doerr 2000). 

As a result, other fire effects, such as reduced infiltration resulting from sealing of 

surface pores by ash and fine soil particles, may be more important determinants 

of postfire runoff and erosion than water repellency (Martin and Moody 2001, 

Robichaud et al. 2013).

Effects on soil nutrients—

There are very few studies of wildfire effects on soils that include comparisons 

of pre- and postfire data. Only one such study exists in the Sierra Nevada; it took 

place on the southeast side of Lake Tahoe, where soil research plots burned in the 

2002 Gondola Fire (Johnson et al. 2007, Murphy et al. 2006b). That fire resulted 

in a 20-percent reduction in ecosystem C and a 15-percent reduction in ecosystem 

N, owing primarily to combustion of vegetation, the organic soil horizon, and 

large woody debris. Although the wildfire had no statistically significant effect on 

soil C and N, about one-fifth of the N lost was from mineral soil (Johnson et al. 

2007). This is in contrast to most prescribed fires, which do not typically reach 

temperatures high enough to volatilize N in the soil. Unfortunately, no data on the 

intensity of the Gondola Fire were reported. Some of the C and N losses may have 

been caused by erosion. A few weeks after the fire, a high-intensity precipitation 

event (up to 15 mm; 0.59 in within 3 to 5 hours) led to runoff and erosion of up to 

1.4 cm (0.55 in) of soil from the study area (Murphy et al. 2006b). The ecosystem C 

is unlikely to be replenished until a mature forest is established at this site, whereas 

lost N may recover within a few decades if N-fixing shrubs, such as snowbrush 

ceanothus (Ceanothus velutinus), colonize the site (Johnson et al. 2007).

A similar study of pre- and postfire soil conditions was conducted in southwestern Oregon in the area that burned in the 2002 Biscuit Fire. However, the 

Biscuit Fire burned at high intensity, reaching temperatures >700 °C (>1,292 °F), 
246

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Box 5.1-4

Heavy Metals and Mercury

Heavy metal accumulation is a nationwide environmental health hazard. Even 

relatively remote forest ecosystems are not immune from this problem—in 

fact, extensive fire suppression in the Sierra Nevada is suspected to have led 

to a buildup of heavy metals, particularly mercury, in forest litter (Obrist et 

al. 2009). Of immediate concern is the potential for redistribution of litter and 

sediment-bound metals during fire, leading to unwanted pollution of lakes and 

reservoirs and, ultimately, heavy metal bioaccumulation in fish (Obrist 2012).

The environmental fate of mercury is reasonably well studied in Sierra 

Nevada soils and offers insight to the fates of other heavy metals such as lead, 

chromium, cadmium, nickel, and zinc. Mercury accumulation has resulted 

largely from human activity, coinciding with the start of the industrial revolution. For example, Drevnick et al. (2010) reported estimates of mercury flux to 

Lake Tahoe at 2 μg/m2

/year for preindustrial sediments and 15-20 μg/m2/year 

for modern sediments. Key points relevant to the fate of mercury in Sierra 

Nevada forests are:

• Ninety to 98 percent of the total mercury in Sierra Nevada forests is 

found in mineral soil (Engle et al. 2006; Obrist et al. 2009, 2011).

• Mercury is essentially inert in mineral soil and unaffected by wildfire or prescribed fire (Engle et al. 2006, Schroeder and Munthe 1998). 

Large postfire erosional events that transport sediment-bound mercury 

to streams, lakes, and reservoirs may be of concern (Burke et al. 2010, 

Caldwell 2000, Driscoll et al. 2007). 

• Carbon and nitrogen rich soils (highly fertile) typically contain the highest concentrations of mercury (Obrist et al. 2009, 2011). The corollary is 

that many low-fertility Sierra Nevada soils are at low risk for mercury 

contamination.

• Combustion of forest litter is the primary source of mercury transport 

during fire (Engle et al. 2006, Obrist et al. 2009). Thus, severe burning 

with complete combustion of the forest floor represents the greatest 

risk for mercury redistribution and potential bioaccumulation in 

Sierra Nevada waters.
247

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

as evidenced by melted aluminum tags in the research area (Bormann et al. 2008). 

This study represents the first direct evidence of significant mineral soil C and N 

losses from wildfire. Unlike the Gondola Fire, which did not affect mineral soil C 

pools, 60 percent of C lost from the organic and mineral horizons in the Biscuit 

Fire came from mineral soil. Similarly, 57 percent of the N lost from the organic 

and mineral horizons in the Biscuit Fire came from mineral soil. The Biscuit Fire 

caused substantial losses of fine soil, totaling up to 127 Mg/ha (57 t/ac). This loss 

was likely caused by water erosion as well as convective transport in the fire’s 

smoke plume (Bormann et al. 2008). The loss of soil organic matter may affect soil 

bulk density, structure, water-holding capacity, and nutrient content, contributing 

to declines in soil resilience. As a general conclusion regarding effects of wildfire, 

management strategies that reduce the potential for uncharacteristically severe 

wildfires in Sierra Nevada forests will help limit erosional losses and conserve 

essential soil functions.

Knowledge Gaps

Mastication is a technique used across the Sierra Nevada to thin forested stands 

and plantations and rearrange woody fuels. Mastication produces a layer of woody 

residue on the forest floor that has no natural analog. Debris size, depth, and 

density depend on the characteristics of the mastication equipment and masticated 

materials, as well as the time since treatment. Residues effectively serve as a mulch 

layer, reducing soil heating caused by solar radiation and retaining soil moisture 

by reducing evaporation. But few studies have examined the effects of mastication 

on soils, particularly long-term responses as the debris settles and decays. Soil 

scientists have concerns about deep residues, and how they may affect rates of 

nutrient cycling, N availability, or soil aeration. Depending on the depth, density, 

and continuity of masticated debris, fire treatments in masticated stands may result 

in more severe effects to soils. No long-term studies exist to address these issues.

Many ground-based mechanical operations in the Sierra Nevada are limited 

to slopes of less than 35 percent, but there is an increasing desire to treat steeper 

slopes. Operational knowledge is needed to effectively treat steep ground without substantially increasing the risk of soil loss, erosion, and sedimentation into 

streams. Existing equipment innovations may render the 35-percent slope restriction obsolete, and field-based trials and studies are needed to inform and enhance 

managers’ options in this sensitive terrain.

The topic of coarse woody debris has received much attention as a habitat 

component for wildlife and a structural attribute of aquatic systems. Less is known 

about the importance of large wood for overall soil resilience, or what levels and 

Management strategies 

that reduce the potential 

for uncharacteristically 

severe wildfires in Sierra 

Nevada forests will help 

limit erosional losses 

and conserve essential 

soil functions.
248

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

types of woody material are desirable for Sierra Nevada ecosystems. Woody debris 

acts as a barrier against soil erosion, provides water to plants and microbes during 

summer drought, and contributes to nutrient cycling processes. However, actual 

ground cover of down wood is typically so low that the importance of these services may either be viewed as trivial or as highly valuable owing to their relatively 

rare occurrence. Evaluations of the contribution of woody debris to soil ecosystems 

in the Sierra Nevada is needed to help establish desirable woody debris conditions, 

including size, quantity, and decay class distributions.

Soil biotas are essential to many basic soil processes, but our understanding of 

soil biodiversity—both composition and function—is limited. However, healthy 

soils are an important component of forest health, and further research in this area 

would complement management efforts in the synthesis region. 

Box 5.1-5

Dynamic Soils, Dynamic Data?

Soil survey data is a tremendous asset to land managers. However, soil resource inventories provide only a single snapshot in the life of a soil. Soils change over time, and 

long-term monitoring can inform adaptive management strategies to achieve sustainable, resilient forests. To this end, the Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis 

(FIA) and Forest Health Monitoring programs have incorporated soil measurements 

into their national assessment scheme. On a very coarse spatial scale (1 soil plot per 

38 450 ha [95,012 ac]), soil data are collected to monitor erosion, surface disturbance, 

and chemical and physical properties (O’Neill et al. 2005). Plots are to be remeasured 

every 5 years to capture changes in soil characteristics and condition. Over time, this 

ambitious undertaking will provide a wealth of data to conduct trend assessments and 

provide broad insights for management strategies and on long-term climatic influences. 

Already, the data have allowed a national assessment of forest floor C stocks (Woodall 

et al. 2012). One legitimate criticism of the FIA protocol is its focus on the upper soil, 

which neglects material greater than 20 cm deep (Harrison et al. 2011).
249

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Management Implications

Preventing soil loss—

• Maintaining soil in place is paramount to current and future soil quality, 

resilience, and health. Recovery of severe erosion is beyond human time 

scales.

• With proper design and BMPs, mechanical treatments and prescribed fires 

can be implemented with low risk of soil erosion.

• Severe wildfire, particularly at large scales, poses a high risk of postfire 

soil loss through erosion.

Minimizing physical disturbance—

• Bare soil exposure can be minimal following mechanical treatments, but 

compacted skid trails can contribute to decreased soil function and to 

downstream sedimentation.

• Compaction may have beneficial soil impacts in sandy soils. In other cases, 

operational restrictions, such as soil moisture guidelines or equipment 

specifications, can be tailored to the specific soil type to limit compaction.

• Prescribed fire can greatly reduce the mass and depth of the forest floor. 

Needlecast from scorched trees can quickly replace lost soil cover.

• Combined thinning and prescribed fire treatments typically expose more 

bare soil than either practice alone.

• In most cases, the size and density of burn piles can be based on operational factors rather than potential soil heating effects.

• Severe wildfire can remove the forest floor and woody debris, expose bare 

soil, and alter soil structure and bulk density.

Evaluating changes in nutrient capital and turnover—

• Whole-tree harvest techniques transport more nutrients off site than boleonly methods, but many Sierra Nevada sites have large soil N reservoirs 

and are fairly resistant to N loss regardless of thinning method.

• Prescribed fire removes C and N by combusting the forest floor, but C and 

N pools in the mineral soil typically remain unchanged.

• Nutrient cycling models show that frequent, low-severity fire will cause 

greater overall nutrient loss than infrequent, high-severity fire where fuels 

have accumulated over many decades. At face value, reduced nutrient loss 

seems beneficial to soils, but extensive high-severity fire in fact poses far 

greater risks to long-term soil quality and resilience.

• Design repeat burns to produce patchy fuel consumption to temper nutrient 

losses from frequent fires.
250

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

• Simple balance sheets are useful to gain perspective on nutrient losses 

relative to existing pools and inputs or outputs over time.

Recognizing effects on organic matter and soil biota—

• Because of fire suppression, accumulations of litter and duff in many 

Sierra Nevada forests that evolved with frequent fires may exceed levels 

that occurred historically.

• Biologically healthy soil is critical to sustaining resilient forests, but 

predicting and quantifying management effects on soil organisms is 

generally beyond the reach of forest managers.

• Severe wildfires consume soil organic matter. This loss can affect soil 

bulk density, structure, water-holding capacity, and nutrient content, 

ultimately contributing to declines in soil resilience.

Literature Cited

Andersen, A.N.; Hoffmann, B.D.; Müller, W.J.; Griffiths, A.D. 2002. Using ants 

as bioindicators in land management: simplifying assessment of ant community 

responses. Journal of Applied Ecology. 39: 8–17.

André, H.M.; Ducarme, X.; Lebrun, P. 2002. Soil biodiversity: myth, reality or 

conning? Oikos. 96: 3–24.

André, J.E.; Anderson, H.W. 1961. Variation of soil erodibility with geology, 

geographic zone, elevation, and vegetation type in northern California wildlands. 

Journal of Geophysical Research. 66: 3351–3358. 

Berg, N.H.; Azuma, D.L. 2010. Bare soil and rill formation following wildfires, 

fuel reduction treatments, and pine plantations in the southern Sierra Nevada, 

California, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 19: 478–489. 

Binkley, D.; Richter, D.; David, M.B.; Caldwell, B. 1992. Soil chemistry in a 

loblolly/longleaf pine forest with interval burning. Ecological Applications. 

2: 157–164.

Boerner, R.E.J.; Giai, C.; Huang, J.; Miesel, J.R. 2008a. Initial effects of fire 

and mechanical thinning on soil enzyme activity and nitrogen transformations 

in eight North American forest ecosystems. Soil Biology & Biochemistry. 

40: 3076–3085. 

Boerner, R.E.J.; Huang, J.; Hart, S.C. 2008b. Fire, thinning, and the carbon 

economy: Effects of fire and fire surrogate treatments on estimated carbon 

storage and sequestration rate. Forest Ecology and Management. 255: 3081–3097. 
251

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Boerner, R.E.J.; Huang, J.; Hart, S.C. 2008c. Impacts of fire and fire surrogate 

treatments on ecosystem nitrogen storage patterns: similarities and differences 

between forests of eastern and western North America. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research. 38: 3056–3070. 

Boerner, R.E.J.; Huang, J.; Hart, S.C. 2009. Impacts of Fire and Fire Surrogate 

treatments on forest soil properties: a meta-analytical approach. Ecological 

Applications. 19: 338–358. 

Bormann, B.T.; Homann, P.S.; Darbyshire, R.L.; Morrissette, B.A. 2008. 

Intense forest wildfire sharply reduces mineral soil C and N: the first direct 

evidence. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 38: 2771–2783.

Burke, M.P.; Hogue, T.S.; Fereira, M.; Mendez, C.B.; Navarro, B.; Lopez, S.; 

Jay, J.A. 2010. The effect of wildfire on soil mercury concentrations in Southern 

California watersheds. Water Air Soil Pollution. 212: 369–385.

Busse, M.D. 2000. Ecological significance of nitrogen fixation by actinorhizal 

shrubs in interior forests of California and Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-178. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station: 23–41.

Busse, M.D.; Cochran, P.H.; Hopkins, W.E.; Johnson, W.H.; Riegel, G.M.; 

Fiddler, G.O.; Ratcliff, A.W.; Shestak, C.J. 2009. Developing resilient 

ponderosa pine forests with mechanical thinning and prescribed fire in central 

Oregon’s pumice region. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 39: 1171–1185. 

Busse, M.D.; Moghaddas, E.E.Y.; Hubbert, K.D. 2014. Fuel reduction practices 

and their effects on soil quality. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-241. Albany, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 164 p.

Busse, M.D.; Riegel, G.M. 2005. Managing ponderosa pine forests in central 

Oregon: Who will speak for the soil? In: Proceedings, Ponderosa pine: issues, 

trends, and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-198. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 

109–122.

Busse, M.D.; Shestak, C.J.; Hubbert, K.R. 2013. Soil heating during burning of 

forest slash piles and wood piles. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 22(6): 

786–796.
252

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Caldwell, C.A.; Canavan, C.M.; Bloom, N.S. 2000. Potential effects of forest fire 

and storm flow on total mercury and methylmercury in sediments of an aridlands reservoir. The Science of the Total Environment. 260: 125–133.

Carter, M.C.; Foster, C.D. 2004. Prescribed burning and productivity in southern 

pine forests: a review. Forest Ecology and Management. 191: 93–109. 

Carter, R. 1992. Diagnosis and interpretation of forest stand nutrient status. In: 

Chappel, H.N.; Weetman, G.F.; Miller, R.E., eds. Forest fertilization: sustaining 

and improving nutrition and growth of western forests. Contrib. 73. Seattle, WA: 

University of Washington, College of Forest Resources: 90–97. 

Certini, G. 2005. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: a review. Oecologia. 

143: 1–10. 

Collins, B.M.; Moghaddas, J.J.; Stephens, S.L. 2007. Initial changes in forest 

structure and understory plant communities following fuel reduction activities 

in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 

239: 102–111. 

Cram, D.S.; Baker, T.T.; Fernald, A.G.; Madrid, A.; Rummer, B. 2007. 

Mechanical thinning impacts on runoff, infiltration, and sediment yield 

following fuel reduction treatments in a southwestern dry mixed conifer forest. 

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 62: 359–366. 

Cruz, M.G.; Alexander, M.E.; Wakimoto, R.H. 2003. Assessing canopy fuel 

stratum characteristics in crown fire prone fuel types of western North America. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. 12: 39–50. 

Dahlgren, R.A.; Boettinger, J.L.; Huntington, G.L.; Amundson, R.G. 1997. 

Soil development along an elevational transect in the western Sierra Nevada, 

California. Geoderma. 78: 207–236.

Doerr, S.H.; Shakesby, R.A.; Walsh, R.P.D. 2000. Soil water repellency: its 

causes, characteristics and hydro-geomorphological significance. Earth-Science 

Reviews. 51(1–4): 33–65.

Drevnick, P.E.; Shinneman, A.L.C.; Lamborg, C.H.; Engstrom, D.R.; Bothner, 

M.H.; Oris, J.T. 2010. Mercury flux to sediments of Lake Tahoe, CaliforniaNevada. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 210: 399–407.

Driscoll, C.T.; Han, Y.; Chen, C.Y.; Evers, D.C.; Lambert, K.F.; Holsen, T.M.; 

Kamman, N.C.; Munson, R.K. 2007. Mercury contamination in forest and 

freshwater ecosystems in the Northeastern United States. BioScience. 57: 17–28.
253

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Elliot, W.J.; Miller, I.S.; Audin, L., eds. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects 

of fuel management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 299 p.

Elliot, W.J.; Page-Dumroese, D.; Robichaud, P.R. 1999. The effects of forest 

management on erosion and soil productivity. In: Lal, R., ed. Soil quality and 

erosion. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press: 195–209.

Engle, M.; Gustin, M.S.; Johnson, D.W.; Murphy, J.F.; Miller, W.M.; Walker, 

R.F.; Wright, J.; Markee, M. 2006. Mercury distribution in two Sierran forest 

and one desert sagebrush steppe ecosystems and the effects of fire. Science of the 

Total Environment. 367(1): 222–233.

Fornwalt, P.J.; Rhoades, C.C. 2011. Rehabilitating slash pile burn scars in 

upper montane forests of the Colorado Front Range. Natural Areas Journal. 

31(2): 177–182.

Friedli, H.; Radke, L.F.; Lu, J.Y.; Banic, C.M.; Leaitch, W.R.; MacPherson, 

J.I.2003. Mercury emissions from burning of biomass from temperate North 

American forests: laboratory and airborne measurements. Atmospheric 

Environment. 37(2): 253–267.

Fulé, P.Z.; Waltz, A.E.M.; Covington, W.W.; Heinlein, T.A. 2001. Measuring 

forest restoration effectiveness in reducing hazardous fuels. Journal of Forestry. 

99: 24–29.

Garrison, M.T.; Moore, J.A.; Shaw, T.M.; Mika, P.G. 2000. Foliar nutrient and 

tree growth response of mixed-conifer stands to three fertilization treatments 

in northeast Oregon and north central Washington. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 132: 183–198.

Gomez, A.; Powers, R.F.; Singer, M.J.; Horwath, W.R. 2002a. Soil compaction 

effects on growth of young ponderosa pine following litter removal in 

California’s Sierra Nevada. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 

66: 1334–1343.

Gomez, A.G.; Powers, R.F.; Singer, M.J.; Horwath, W.R. 2002b. N uptake 

and N status in ponderosa pine as affected by soil compaction and forest floor 

removal. Plant and Soil. 242: 263–275.

Hamman, S.T.; Burke, I.C.; Knapp, E.E. 2008. Soil nutrients and microbial 

activity after early and late season prescribed burns in a Sierra Nevada mixed 

conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 256: 367–374.
254

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Han, H.; Page-Dumroese, D.; Han, S.; Tirocke, J. 2006. Effects of slash, 

machine passes, and soil moisture on penetration resistance in a cut-to-length 

harvesting. International Journal of Forest Engineering. 17: 11–24.

Han, S.; Han, H.; Page-Dumroese, D.S.; Johnson, L.R. 2009. Soil compaction 

associated with cut-to-length and whole-tree harvesting of a coniferous forest. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 39: 976–989.

Harrison, R.B.; Footen, P.W.; Strahm, B.D. 2011. Deep soil horizons: 

contribution and importance to soil carbon pools and in assessing wholeecosystem response to management and global change. Forest Science. 57: 67–76.

Hawksworth, D.L. 2001. The magnitude of fungal diversity: the 1.5 million 

species estimate revisited. Mycological Research. 105: 1422–1432.

Hebel, C.L.; Smith, J.E.; Cromack, K. 2009. Invasive plant species and soil 

microbial response to wildfire burn severity in the Cascade Range of Oregon. 

Applied Soil Ecology. 42: 150–159.

Hubbert, K.R.; Preisler, H.K.; Wohlgemuth, P.M.; Graham, R.C.; Narog, 

M.G. 2006. Prescribed burning effects on soil physical properties and soil 

water repellency in a steep chaparral watershed, southern California, U.S.A. 

Geoderma. 130: 284–298.

Jaffe, V.; O’Brien, S. 2009. Mechanized equipment for fire and fuels operations. 

Helena, MT: Mechanized Fire Team. 160 p. http://www.wildfirelessons.net/

documents/yellowbook_lowres_cover.pdf. (10 September 2013).

Jandl, R.; Lindner, M.; Vesterdal, L.; Bauwens, B.; Baritz, R.; Hagedorn, F.; 

Johnson, D.W.; Minkkinen, K.; Byrne, K.A. 2007. How strongly can forest 

management influence soil carbon sequestration? Geoderma. 137: 253–268.

Johnson, D.W.; Curtis, P.S. 2001. Effects of forest management on soil C and 

N storage: meta analysis. Forest Ecology and Management. 140: 227–238.

Johnson, D.W.; Glass, D.W.; Murphy, J.D.; Stein, C.M.; Miller, W.W. 2010. 

Nutrient hot spots in some sierra Nevada forest soils. Biogeochemistry. 

101: 93–103.

Johnson, D.W.; Fenn, M.E.; Miller, W.W.; Hunsaker, C.F. 2009. Fire effects on 

carbon and nitrogen cycling in forests of the Sierra Nevada. In: Bytnerowicz, A.; 

Arbaugh, M.; Riebau, A.; Andersen, C., eds. Developments in environmental 

science, vol. 8: Wildland fires and air pollution. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 405–423.
255

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Johnson, D.W.; Knoepp, J.D.; Swank, W.T.; Shan, J.; Morris, L.A.; Van Lear, 

D.H.; Kapeluck, P.R. 2002. Effects of forest management on soil carbon: results 

of some long-term resampling studies. Environmental Pollution. 116: S201–S208.

Johnson, D.W.; Miller, W.W.; Rau, B.M.; Meadows, M.W. 2011. The nature and 

potential causes of nutrient hotspots in a Sierra Nevada forest soil. Soil Science. 

176: 596–610. 

Johnson, D.; Murphy, J.D.; Walker, R.F.; Glass, D.W.; Miller, W.W. 2007. 

Wildfire effects on forest carbon and nutrient budgets. Ecological Engineering. 

31: 183–192.

Johnson, D.W.; Murphy, J.D.; Walker, R.F.; Miller, W.W.; Glass, D.W.; 

Todd, D.E. 2008. The combined effects of thinning and prescribed fire on 

carbon and nutrient budgets in a Jeffrey pine forest. Annals of Forest Science. 

65: 601p1–601p12. 

Johnson, D.W.; Susfalk, R.B.; Caldwell, T.G.; Murphy, J.D.; Miller, W.W.; 

Walker, R.F. 2004. Fire effects on carbon and nitrogen budgets in forests. Water, 

Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus. 4: 263–275.

Johnson, D.W.; Susfalk, R.B.; Dahlgren, R.A.; Klopatek, J.M. 1998. 

Fire is more important than water for nitrogen fluxes in semi-arid forests. 

Environmental Science and Policy. 1: 79–86.

Johnson, D.W.; Walker, R.F.; Glass, D.W.; Miller, W.W.; Murphy, J.D.; Stein, 

C.M. 2012. The effect of rock content on nutrients in a Sierra Nevada forest soil. 

Geoderma. 173: 84–93. 

Jones, H.S.; Garrett, L.G.; Beets, P.N.; Kimberley, M.O.; Oliver, G.R. 2008. 

Impacts of harvest residue management on soil carbon stocks in a plantation 

forest. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 72: 1621–1627. 

Keeley, J.E.; Lubin, D.; Fotheringham, C.J. 2003. Fire and grazing impacts 

on plant diversity and alien plant invasions in the southern Sierra Nevada. 

Ecological Applications. 13: 1355–1374.

Kimmins, J.P. 1977. Evaluation of the consequences for future tree productivity of 

the loss of nutrients in whole-tree harvesting. Forest Ecology and Management. 

1: 169–183. 

Knapp, E.E.; Keeley, J.E. 2006. Heterogeneity in fire severity within early season 

and late season prescribed burns in a mixed-conifer forest. International Journal 

of Wildland Fire. 15: 37–45. 
256

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Knapp, E.E.; Keeley, J.E.; Ballenger, E.A.; Brennan, T.J. 2005. Fuel reduction 

and coarse woody debris dynamics with early season and late season prescribed 

fire in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 

208: 383–397. 

Knoepp, J.D.; DeBano, L.F.; Neary, D.G. 2005. Soil chemistry. In: Neary, D.G., 

Ryan, K.C., DeBano, L.F., eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire 

on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 

53–72.

Korb, J.E.; Johnson, N.C.; Covington, W.W. 2004. Slash pile burning effects on 

soil biotic and chemical properties and plant establishment: recommendations for 

amelioration. Restoration Ecology. 12(1): 52–62.

Larsen, I.J.; MacDonald, L.H.; Brown, E.; Rough, D.; Welsh, J.M.; Pietraszek, 

J.H.; Libohova, Z.; Benavides-Solorio, J.D.; Schaffrath, K. 2009. Causes of 

post-fire runoff and erosion: Water repellency, cover, or soil sealing? Soil Science 

Society of America Journal. 73: 1393–1407.

Litschert, S.E.; MacDonald, L.H. 2009. Frequency and characteristics of 

sediment delivery pathways from forest harvest units to streams. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 259: 143–150. 

Logan, W.B. 1995. Dirt: the ecstatic skin of the earth. New York: Riverhead 

Books. 202 p.

MacDonald, L.H.; Huffman, E.L. 2004. Post-fire soil water repellency: 

persistence and soil moisture thresholds. Soil Science Society of America 

Journal. 68: 1729–1734. 

Martin, D.A.; Moody, J.A. 2001. Comparison of soil infiltration rates in 

burned and unburned mountainous watersheds. Hydrological Processes. 

15(15): 2893–2903.

Massman, W.J.; Frank, J.M. 2004. Effect of a controlled burn on the thermophysical properties of a dry soil using a new model of soil heat flow and a 

new high temperature heat flux sensor. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 

13: 427–442.

McKee, W.H., Jr. 1982. Changes in soil fertility following prescribed burning on 

Coastal Plain pine sites. Res. Pap. SE-234. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 23 p.
257

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Miesel, J.R.; Boerner, R.E.J.; Skinner, C.N. 2008. Mechanical restoration of 

California mixed-conifer forests: Does it matter which trees are cut? Restoration 

Ecology. 17: 784–795.

Miesel, J.R.; Boerner, R.E.J.; Skinner, C.N. 2011. Soil nitrogen mineralization 

and enzymatic activities in fire and fire surrogate treatments in California. 

Canadian Journal of Soil Science. 91(6): 935–946.

Miesel, J.R.; Skinner, C.N.; Boerner, R.E.J. 2007. Impact of fire on soil resource 

patterns in a northern California montane ecosystem. In: Masters, R.E.; Galley, 

K.E.M., eds. Proceedings of the 23rd Tall Timbers fire ecology conference: fire 

in grassland and shrubland ecosystems. Tallahassee: FL: Tall Timbers Research 

Station: 94–102.

Miller, M.E.; MacDonald, L.H.; Robichaud, P.R.; Elliot, W.J. 2011. Predicting 

post-fire hillslope erosion in forest lands of the western United States. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. 20(8): 982–999.

Moghaddas, E.E.Y.; Stephens, S.L. 2007. Thinning, burning, and thin-burn fuel 

treatment effects on soil properties in a Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forest. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 250: 156–166. 

Moghaddas, E.E.Y.; Stephens, S.L. 2008. Mechanized fuel treatment effects on 

soil compaction in Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer stands. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 255: 3098–3106. 

Montgomery, D.R. 2012. Dirt: the erosion of civilizations. Berkeley, CA: 

University of California Press. 285 p.

Moody, J.A.; Martin, D.A.; Haire, S.L.; Kinner, D.A. 2008. Linking 

runoff response to burn severity after a wildfire. Hydrological Processes. 

22: 2063–2074.

Morford, S.L.; Houlton, B.Z.; Dahlgren, R.A. 2011. Increased forest ecosystem 

carbon and nitrogen storage from nitrogen rich bedrock. Nature. 477: 78–81. 

Munns, E.N. 1947. Logging can damage the soil. Journal of Forestry. 45: 513.

Murphy, J.D.; Johnson, D.W.; Miller, W.W.; Walker, R.F.; Blank, R.R. 2006a.

Prescribed fire effects on forest floor and soil nutrients in a Sierra Nevada forest. 

Soil Science. 171: 181–199.

Murphy, J.D.; Johnson, D.W.; Miller, W.W.; Walker, R.F.; Carroll, E.F.; Blank, 

R.R. 2006b. Wildfire effects on soil nutrients and leaching in a Tahoe Basin 

Watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality. 35: 479–489.
258

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Nambiar, E.K.S.; Fife, D.N. 1991. Nutrient retranslocation in temperate conifers. 

Tree Physiology. 9: 185–207.

Nave, L.E.; Vance, E.D.; Swanston, C.W.; Curtis, P.S. 2011. Fire effects on 

temperate forest soil C and N storage. Ecological Applications. 21: 1189–1201.

Neary, D.G.; Klopatek, C.C.; DeBano, L.F.; Ffolliott, P.F. 1999. Fire effects 

on belowground sustainability: a review and synthesis. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 122: 51–71.

Neary, D.G.; Ryan, K.C.; DeBano, L.F., eds. 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: 

effects of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 4. Ogden, 

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 250 p.

North, M.; Hurteau, M.; Innes, J. 2009. Fire suppression and fuels treatment 

effects on mixed-conifer carbon stocks and emissions. Ecological Applications. 

19: 1385–1396.

Obrist, D. 2012. Mercury distribution across 14 U.S. forests. Part II: patterns of 

methyl mercury concentrations and areal mass of total and methyl mercury. 

Environmental Science & Technology. 46(11): 5921–5930.

Obrist, D.; Johnson, D.W.; Lindberg, S.E., 2009. Mercury concentrations and 

pools in four Sierra Nevada forest sites, and relationships to organic carbon and 

nitrogen. Biogeosciences. 6(5): 765–777.

Obrist, D.; Johnson, D.W.; Lindberg, S.E.; Luo, Y.; Hararuk, O.; Bracho, 

R.; Baffles, J.J.; Dail, D.B.; Edmonds, R.L.; Monson, R.K.; Ollinger, S.V.; 

Pallardy, S.G.; Pregitzer, K.S.; Todd, D.E. 2011. Mercury distribution across 

14 U.S. forests. Part I: spatial patterns of concentrations in biomass, litter, and 

soils. Environmental Science and Technology: 45(9): 3974–3981.

O’Neill, K.P.; Amacher, M.C.; Palmer, C.J. 2005. Developing a national indicator 

of soil quality on U.S. forestlands: methods and initial results. Environmental 

Monitoring and Assessment. 107: 59–80.

Page-Dumroese, D.; Jurgensen, M.; Elliot, W.; Rice, T.; Nesser, J.; Collins, T.; 

Meurisse, R. 2000. Soil quality standards and guidelines for forest sustainability 

in northwestern North America. Forest Ecology and Management. 138: 445–462. 
259

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Page-Dumroese, D.; Jurgensen, M.; Neary, D.; Curran, M.; Trettin, C. 2010. 

Soil quality is fundamental to ensuring healthy forests. In: Pye, J.M.; Rauscher, 

H.M.; Sands, Y.; Lee, D.C.; Beatty, J.S., tech. eds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR802-vol. 1. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station: 27–36.

Page-Dumroese, D.S.; Jurgensen, M.F.; Tiarks, A.E.; Ponder, F., Jr.; Sanchez, 

F.G.; Fleming, R.L.; Kranabetter, J.M.; Powers, R.F.; Stone, D.M.; Elioff, 

J.D.; Scott, D.A. 2006. Soil physical property changes at the North American 

Long-Term Soil Productivity study sites: 1 and 5 years after compaction. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 36: 551–564.

Pannkuk, C.D.; Robichaud, P.R. 2003. Effectiveness of needle cast at reducing 

erosion after forest fires. Water Resources Research. 39: 1333–1342.

Pennisi, E. 2004. The secret life of fungi. Science. 304: 1620–1622.

Pierson, F.B.; Robichaud, P.R.; Moffet, C.A.; Spaeth, K.E.; Hardegree, S.P.; 

Clark, P.E.; Williams, C.J. 2008. Fire effects on rangeland hydrology and 

erosion in a steep sagebrush-dominated landscape. Hydrological Processes. 

22(16): 2916–2929.

Plamboeck, A.H.; Dawson, T.E.; Egerton-Warburton, L.M.; North, M.; Bruns, 

T.D.; Querejeta, J.I. 2007. Water transfer via ectomycorrhizal fungal hyphae to 

conifer seedlings. Mycorrhiza. 17: 439–447.

Powers, R.F. 2002. Effects of soil disturbance on fundamental, sustainable 

productivity of managed forests. In: Verner, J. , comp. The Kings River 

sustainable ecosystem project. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-183. Albany, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station: 63–82.

Powers, R.F. 2006. Long-Term Soil Productivity: genesis of the concept 

and principles behind the program. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

36: 519–528.

Powers, R.F.; Alban, D.H.; Miller, R.E.; Tiarks, A.E.; Wells, C.G.; Avers, 

P.E.; Cline, R.G.; Fitzgerald, R.O.; Loftus, N.S., Jr. 1990. Sustaining site 

productivity in North American forests: problems and prospects. In: Gessel, S.P.; 

Lacate, D.S.; Weetman, G.F.; Powers, R.F., eds. Sustained productivity of forest 

soils, Proceedings of the 7th North American forest soils conference. Vancouver, 

BC: University of British Columbia, Faculty of Forestry Publication: 49–79.
260

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Powers, R.F.; Scott, D.A.; Sanchez, F.G.; Voldseth, R.A.; Page-Dumroese, D.; 

Elioff, J.D.; Stone, D.M. 2005. The North American long-term soil productivity 

experiment: findings from the first decade of research. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 220: 31–50.

Quinton, J.N.; Edwards, G.M.; Morgan, R.P.C. 1997. The influence of 

vegetation species and plant properties on runoff and soil erosion: results 

from a rainfall simulation study in south east Spain. Soil Use and Management. 

13(3): 143–148.

Raison, R.J. 1979. Modification of the soil environment by vegetation fires, 

with particular reference to nitrogen transformations: a review. Plant and Soil. 

51: 73–108.

Raulund-Rasmussen, K.; Stupak, I.; Clarke, N.; Callesen, I.; Helmisaari, H.-

S.; Karltun, E.; Varnagiryte-Kabasinskiene, I. 2008. Effects of very intensive 

forest biomass harvesting on short and long term site productivity. In: Röser, 

D.; Asikainen, A.; Raulund-Rasmussen, K.; Stupak, I., eds. Sustainable use of 

forest biomass for energy: a synthesis with focus on the Baltic and Nordic region. 

Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer: 29–78.

Reinhardt, E.; Scott, J.; Gray, K.; Keane, R. 2006. Estimating canopy fuel 

characteristics in five conifer stands in the western United States using tree and 

stand measurements. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 36: 2803–2814.

Rice, E.C.; Grismer, M.E. 2010. Dry-season soil water repellency affects Tahoe 

Basin infiltration rates. California Agriculture. 64(3): 141–148.

Rich, B. 2001. Thinning, fuel manipulation and prescribed fire in dry forest types. 

In: Schiess, P.; Krogstad, F., eds. The international mountain logging and 11th

Pacific Northwest skyline symposium, 2001—a forest engineering odyssey. 

Seattle, WA: University of Washington, College of Forest Resources: 90–95.

Robichaud, P.R. 2000. Fire effects on infiltration rates after prescribed fire in 

northern Rocky Mountain forests, USA. Journal of Hydrology. 232: 220–229.

Robichaud, P.R.; Beyers, J.L.; Neary, D.G. 2000. Evaluating the effectiveness of 

postfire rehabilitation treatments. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 85 p.

Robichaud, P.R.; Lewis, S.A.; Wagenbrenner, J.W.; Ashmun, L.E.; Brown, 

R.E. 2013. Post-fire mulching for runoff and erosion mitigation: Part I: 

effectiveness at reducing hillslope erosion rates. Catena. 105: 75–92.
261

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Robichaud, P.R.; MacDonald, L.H.; Foltz, R.B. 2010. Fuel management and 

erosion. In: Elliot, W.J.; Miller, I.S.; Audin, L., eds. Cumulative watershed effects 

of fuel management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station: 79–100.

Robichaud, P.R.; Pierson, F.B.; Brown, R.E.; Wagenbrenner, J.W. 2008.

Measuring effectiveness of three postfire hillslope erosion barrier treatments, 

western Montana, USA. Hydrological Processes. 22: 159–170.

Ryu, S.; Concilio, A.; Chen, J.; North, M.; Ma, S. 2009. Prescribed burning 

and mechanical thinning effects on belowground conditions and soil respiration 

in a mixed-conifer forest, California. Forest Ecology and Management. 

257: 1324–1332.

Schroeder, W.H.; Munthe, J. 1998. Atmospheric mercury—an overview. 

Atmospheric Environment. 32(5): 809–822.

Seybold, C.A.; Herrick, J.E.; Brejda, J.J. 1999. Soil resilience: a fundamental 

component of soil quality. Soil Science. 164: 224–234.

Shakesby, R.A.; Doerr, S.H. 2000. The erosional impact of soil hydrophobicity: 

current problems and future research directions. Journal of Hydrology. 232: 

178–191.

Smith, C.T., Jr. 1986. An evaluation of the nutrient removals associated with 

whole-tree harvesting. In: Smith, C.T., Martin, C.W., Tritton, L.M., eds. 

Proceedings of the 1986 symposium on the productivity of northern forests 

following biomass harvesting. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-GTR-115. Durham, NH: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station: 29–38.

Steinbrenner, E.C.; Gessel, S.P. 1955. The effect of tractor logging on physical 

properties of some forest soils in southwestern Washington. Soil Science Society 

of America Journal. 19: 372–376.

Stephens, S.L.; Moghaddas, J.J. 2005. Experimental fuel treatment impacts 

on forest structure, potential fire behavior, and predicted tree mortality in a 

California mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 215: 21–36.

Tamm, C.O. 1969. Site damages by thinning due to removal of organic matter 

and plant nutrients. In: Proceedings of the IUFRO meeting on thinning and 

mechanization. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal College of Forestry: 175–177.
262

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2006. Detrimental 

compaction risk rating guide: Region 5 Version 1. [Place of publication 

unknown]. 3 p.

Vitousek, P.M.; Howarth, R.W. 1991. Nitrogen limitation on land and in the 

sea: How can it occur? Biogeochemistry. 13: 87–115.

Walmsley, J.D.; Jones, D.L.; Reynolds, B.; Price, M.H.; Healey, J.R. 2009.

Whole tree harvesting can reduce second rotation forest productivity. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 257: 1104–1111.

Wan, S.; Hui, D.; Luo, Y. 2001. Fire effects on nitrogen pools and dynamics in 

terrestrial ecosystems: a meta-analysis. Ecological Applications. 11: 1349–1365.

Wayman, R.B.; North, M. 2007. Initial response of a mixed-conifer understory 

plant community to burning and thinning restoration treatments. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 239: 32–44.

Williamson, J.R.; Neilsen, W.A. 2000. The influence of forest site on rate and 

extent of soil compaction and profile disturbance of skid trails during groundbased harvesting. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 30: 1196–1205.

Woodall, C.W.; Perry, C.H.; Westfall, J.A. 2012. An empirical assessment of 

forest floor carbon stock components across the United States. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 269: 1–9.

York, R.A.; Thomas, Z.; Restaino, J. 2009. Influence of ash substrate proximity 

on growth and survival of planted mixed-conifer seedlings. Western Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 24: 117–123.

Zinke, P.J.; Stangenberger, A.G. 2000. Elemental storage of forest soil from 

local to global scales. Forest Ecology and Management. 138: 159–165.
263

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Water resources and aquatic ecosystems in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range support critical ecological and socioeconomic values both within and well 

beyond the region. This section contains four chapters on different types of water-based 

ecosystems in the synthesis area. Chapter 6.1, “Watershed and Stream Ecosystems,” 

considers challenges and threats facing those systems, including climate change and 

wildfire, before turning to recent research on water quantity and quality, including how 

macroinvertebrates serve as indicators of water quality. Chapter 6.2, “Forested Riparian 

Areas,” focuses on the ecologically important transition zones between upland forests 

and streams. It discusses current understanding of the role of fire in riparian ecosystems, 

as well as findings about opportunities for management to restore those areas. Wet 

meadows, the subject of chapter 6.3, have been a special focus of restoration efforts and 

research in the synthesis area and in other regions. Chapter 6.4, “Lakes,” discusses recent 

research and restoration strategies for high-elevation lake ecosystems; it examines a 

Section 6—Water Resources and Aquatic Ecosystems

Pope Marsh in South Lake Tahoe represents a rare wetland habitat adjoining the largest natural lake in 

the synthesis area. 

Jonathan Long
264

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

multitude of stressors, including climate change, pollution, introduced fishes, and 

diseases. Although these different kinds of systems are related through the flow 

of water, they have distinct ecological issues and management challenges. Taken 

together, these chapters feature strategies to promote resilience that complement the 

broader themes of the synthesis, including an emphasis on promoting or emulating 

natural disturbance regimes, considering the larger spatial and temporal contexts 

of these systems, and understanding linkages between ecological processes and 

social values. As water travels, it integrates landscape influences, so that downstream waterbodies and their aquatic organisms reflect the condition of terrestrial 

and aerial environments. Accordingly, these chapters emphasize the connections 

between aquatic ecosystems and other forest components that are discussed in 

chapters 2.0, “Forest Ecology;” 4.1, “Fire and Fuels;” 4.2, “Fire and Tribal Cultural 

Resources;” 4.3, “Post-Wildfire Management;” 5.0, “Soils;” and 8.0, “Air Quality.”

Jim Frazier

Perennial streams such as Reynolds Creek on the Stanislaus National Forest and associated riparian areas are an important focus for 

promoting socioecological resilience in the synthesis area
265

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Carolyn T. Hunsaker,1 Jonathan W. Long,2 and David B. Herbst 3

Summary

Water and aquatic ecosystems in the synthesis area have high social, cultural, 

and ecological values. National forests in the synthesis area are a major source of 

water supply, hydropower, and recreational activity for much of California. Recent 

research has provided more information on water and nutrient budgets; these 

data are fundamental to understanding the interaction of terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems, current forest conditions, and response to stressors. Rapid changes in 

climate pose a threat to water resources, as warming has produced a shift toward 

more precipitation falling as rain than snow, which reduces snowpack water storage, 

causes earlier runoff, increases the frequency of major floods through rain-on-snow 

events, and diminishes late-season flows and the stability of headwater habitats. 

Because climate change is expected to increase impacts from storms and wildfires, 

flooding and sediment movement may increase, which could in turn reduce channel 

stability and habitat quality. Hydrologic response to climate change is expected to 

be different for the northern, central, and southern Sierra Nevada. Recent research 

has noted that natural disturbances such as fires and floods and associated erosion 

can be important for maintaining stream functions and biodiversity; however, systems that are already degraded or have limited connectivity for aquatic life may be 

vulnerable to losses following disturbances. Significant increases in sedimentation 

rates may negatively affect sensitive aquatic organisms and reservoirs. Therefore, 

efforts to promote a fire regime that results in fewer uncharacteristically large and 

severe wildfires can help maintain resilience of aquatic systems.

Forest restoration treatments may promote resilience to drought, wildfire, 

insects, and disease, and they could increase water available to soils, groundwater, 

and streams owing to reduced transpiration and increased snowpack. However, 

forest treatments that are not designed primarily to increase water yield may not 

remove sufficient trees to result in an easily measured and sustained increase in 

water. Consequently, evaluations of the water benefits of general restoration treatments will depend on the combination of long-term experimental studies and modeling, which have been initiated in the past decade. Aquatic systems that have not 

Chapter 6.1—Watershed and Stream Ecosystems

1 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 2081 E. Sierra Avenue, Fresno, CA 93710.

2 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr. Davis, CA 95618.

3 Research biologist, Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory, University of California, 

and Marine Science Institute, University of California–Santa Barbara, HCR 79, Box 198, 

Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546.
266

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

been degraded by historical land management may demonstrate relatively greater 

declines in water quality because of warming and deposition of nitrogen, so it is 

important to include them in a long-term monitoring network. It is also important to 

have data on physical, chemical, and biological indicators of water quality and quantity to detect both change and the causes of change. Stream invertebrates are good 

indicators of small-stream conditions where many forest management activities take 

place. Additional management strategies to promote resilience of aquatic ecosystems 

to stressors include restoration of natural processes, including fire regimes, flow 

regimes, hyporheic exchange, lateral channel migration, and habitat connectivity.

Introduction

All life depends on an adequate supply of water. The national forests play an 

important role in water protection, stemming from the Organic Administration 

Act of 1897, which asserted that one of the primary reasons for establishing forest 

reserves was to “secure favorable conditions of water flows.” How much and where 

water occurs is a direct function of climate and weather patterns. Soils, topography, 

and vegetation affect how water is partitioned in the landscape, and these factors, 

along with human activities, air quality, and ecosystem disturbances, affect the 

quality of water. Measurements of physical, chemical, and biological characteristics 

serve to characterize the condition or health of water resources and aquatic ecosystems. Monitoring environmental attributes at different scales or doing research, 

especially with designed experiments, can help to gain knowledge about effects 

of land use practices. The Adaptive Management Plan, Appendix E, in the Sierra 

Nevada Framework (USDA FS 2001, 2004) described the need for status and trends 

monitoring and research; it also identified priority questions and knowledge gaps 

that required new information to improve Forest Service management of water 

resources and aquatic ecosystems. Since that time, most Forest Service efforts 

toward aquatic resources in the Sierra Nevada have been directed to studies of 

amphibians, grazing practices, and invertebrates. More recent attention has been 

given to meadow restoration. A long-term watershed research project in the Sierra 

Nevada was established by the Pacific Southwest Research Station in 2000 at the 

Kings River Experimental Watersheds (KREW), which includes a portion of the 

Teakettle Experimental Forest. This research site has attracted National Science 

Foundation funding for the establishment of the Southern Sierra Critical Zone 

Observatory (Lin et al. 2011),4

 which is starting to provide new information on 

hydrology and geosciences in the Sierra Nevada. Older watershed research sites 

4 Southern Sierra Critical Zone Observatory, http://criticalzone.org/sierra.
267

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

with long investments exist at University of California’s Blodgett Forest Research 

Station and Sagehen Experimental Forest (see fig. 1 in chapter 1.5). 

This chapter begins with a review of values and services associated with 

aquatic ecosystems. It then considers climate change and wildfire before turning to 

recent science on water quantity, water quality, and macroinvertebrates as indicators of water quality. This chapter concludes with a discussion of management 

strategies to promote resilience of aquatic ecosystems. A challenge for the future is 

to better integrate water and aquatic ecosystems into forest planning, which typically has focused on tree structure and composition, fire, and a few wildlife species 

in the synthesis region (e.g., North 2012, North et al. 2009).

Values and Services of Aquatic Ecosystems

Water, in all its forms, is indeed the crowning glory of the Sierra. Whether in 

motion or at rest, the waters of the Sierra are a constant joy to the beholder. 

...Above all, they are the Sierra’s greatest contribution to human welfare.

—History of the Sierra Nevada, F.P. Farquhar (1965: 1)

National forests supply 45 percent of California’s water, and most of the state’s 

surface water originates in the Sierra Nevada. In the Pacific Southwest Region, 

one of the most valuable ecosystem services that national forests provide is an 

adequate supply of good water for aquatic ecosystems and human needs. California’s economy is highly dependent on agriculture, and much of the country relies 

on fresh fruits and vegetables produced in California. Water is therefore pivotal to 

California’s economy and the Nation’s food supply. Furthermore, human recreation 

is highly influenced by the presence of water bodies.

Streams, riparian areas, and wet meadows support a wide range of social, 

cultural, and ecological values, including plant and wildlife diversity, water quality, 

water quantity, cultural values, aesthetic values, sport fishing, and tourism. Native 

American cultural resources are often concentrated along perennial streams owing 

to availability of water and culturally important plants, travel corridors, and other 

patterns that facilitated settlement (Jackson 1988). Activities such as timber harvest, 

recreation, and livestock grazing (see chapter 9.5, “Managing Forest Products for 

Community Benefit”) can affect the condition of riparian and meadow areas. Such 

areas can sustain a diverse array of ecosystem services and ameliorate effects of 

climate change (see also chapter 6.3, “Wet Meadows”). 

The value of riparian ecosystems (termed aquatic-terrestrial ecotones in 

the international literature) has been discussed extensively (Holland et al. 1991, 

Malanson 1993, Petts 1990, Pinay et al. 1990). Historically, riparian ecosystems 

were valued for their economic uses: transportation corridors, water supply and 
268

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

electricity, construction materials and waste disposal, agriculture and livestock, 

and settlement. The more recently recognized economic, social, and biological 

values of riparian ecosystems are listed below. Luce et al. (2012) identified valued 

functions of riparian plant communities for native fishes: provision of shade for 

thermal modification of stream temperature, inputs of large wood for in-stream 

habitat complexity, organic matter inputs to aquatic food webs, and provision of 

streamside habitat and stabilization of streambanks.

Values of riparian ecosystems from the referenced literature

Economic:

Reduce downstream flooding

Recharge aquifers

Surface water supply in arid regions

Support secondary productivity, e.g., for fisheries

High yields of timber

Social:

Recycle nutrients

Store heavy metals and toxins

Filter of diffuse pollution from uplands

Accumulate organic matter as a sink for carbon dioxide

Intermediate storage for sediments

Natural heritage

Recreation

Aesthetics

Natural laboratories for teaching and research

Biological:

Special habitat for some endangered or threatened species

Habitat for aquatic species

Riparian areas are unique environments because of their position in the landscape; they are both ecotones between the terrestrial and aquatic zones, and corridors across regions (Malanson 1993). The term ecotone was first used in 1905 by 

Clements; with the development of the discipline of landscape ecology, there was a 

renewed interest in the ecotone concept in Europe around 1990, and it was explored 

by the Man and Biosphere program (Holland et al. 1991, Naiman and Decamps 

1990). An ecotone was then defined as “a zone of transition between adjacent 

ecological systems, having a set of characteristics uniquely defined by space and 

time scales and by the strength of interactions between adjacent ecological systems” 

(Naiman and Decamps 1990: 3).
269

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Resilience and Degradation in Stream Ecosystems

Ecological resilience has been defined as the amount of disturbance an ecosystem 

can absorb without crossing a threshold to a different stable state, where a different 

range of variation of ecological processes and structures reigns (Gunderson 2000) 

(see also chapter 1.1). This general idea is also reflected in the concept of dynamic 

equilibrium, which Heede (1980) described as the capacity of streams to adjust to 

perturbations within a few years. These concepts depend on the timeframe being 

considered and the range of variation in processes and structures. For example, 

understanding thresholds of erosion beyond which long-term sustainability is 

jeopardized requires extensive monitoring and understanding of reference conditions and natural variability. Developing site-specific restoration and management 

strategies therefore requires consideration of the evolutionary history of particular 

sites (Miller et al. 2001).

Some scientists have challenged the concept of dynamic equilibrium by arguing that many fluvial systems are inherently unstable (Lave 2009). Fluvial systems 

in Mediterranean climates in particular have been characterized as highly variable 

and ever-changing (Kondolf et al. 2012). Reflecting this view, scientists in recent 

years have challenged efforts that emphasize promoting channel stability, and they 

cautioned that management and restoration approaches are often overprotective in 

seeking to avoid disturbances and erosion. They pointed out that channel instability 

may have desirable consequences; for example, erosion and deposition following 

major disturbances, such as wildfires, can be important for maintaining stream 

functions and biodiversity (Bisson et al. 2003). Florsheim et al. (2008) outlined the 

various benefits of streambank erosion for maintaining aquatic habitat diversity and 

reiterated that total elimination of bank erosion should not be a goal when restoring 

rivers.

Climate Change Effects on Watersheds and 

Stream Ecosystems

Effects on Hydrology

Anticipating that a changing climate in California will substantially affect water 

resources and aquatic ecosystems, strategies for assessing the impacts of altered 

stream flows need to be developed. Changes in the Sierra Nevada, the primary 

source area of water in the state, are of particular concern. Warming has produced 

a shift toward more precipitation falling as rain than snow, and this reduces snowpack water storage, causes earlier runoff, increases the frequency of major floods 

through rain-on-snow events, and diminishes late-season flows and the stability of 

headwater habitats that are important for maintaining watershed hydrological and 

Scientists in recent 

years have challenged 

efforts that promote 

channel stability and 

cautioned that management and restoration 

approaches are often 

overprotective in seeking to avoid disturbances and erosion. 

They pointed out that 

channel instability may 

have desirable consequences; for example, 

erosion and deposition 

following disturbances 

such as wildfires can 

be important for maintaining stream functions and biodiversity.
270

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

ecological function (fig. 1). The California Department of Water Resources (DWR 

2006) identified some other potential effects of climate change in California on 

water resources, including changes in vegetation, increased incidence of wildfires, 

increased water temperatures, and changes in human water demand.

Figure 1—Conceptualization of the climate-driven changes (gray line) to the natural hydrograph (blue line) of a Sierra Nevada stream.

The water resources of the Western United States depend heavily on snowpack 

to store part of the winter precipitation into the drier summer months. A well-documented shift toward earlier runoff in recent decades has been attributed to more 

precipitation falling as rain instead of snow and earlier snowmelt (Knowles et al. 

2006). The starting date of snowmelt is earlier now by about 15 days, based on data 

from 1960 to 2000 (fig. 2). A decline in the mountain snowpack of western North 

America has also been documented (Barnett et al. 2008, Mote et al. 2005). The 

California Department of Water Resources report (DWR 2006) showed how hydrologic patterns by river basin have already changed in California during the past 

100 years. There is a slight decreasing trend in precipitation in central and southern 

California and increased variability in precipitation. There is also a difference 

between changes in northern and southern California. For example, the total annual 

water year runoff has been increasing for the Sacramento River basins (northern 
271

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

and central Sierra Nevada) and decreasing for the San Joaquin River basins (central 

and southern Sierra Nevada). However, both areas experienced decreases in spring 

runoff; runoff from April through July declined by 9 percent for the Sacramento 

River basins and declined by 7 percent for the San Joaquin River basins. 

Snowpack provides 20 percent of California’s total runoff and 35 percent of its 

usable surface water. Climate modeling predicts a loss of snowpack for the mountains in California (table 1), with a greater effect in the northern Sierra Nevada, 

where the mountains are lower in elevation than in the southern Sierra (Knowles 

and Cayan 2002). A change in surface water quantity of this magnitude will affect 

aquatic ecosystems and human uses.

Figure 2—Trend in the timing of snowmelt discharge based on the day of maximum daily discharge, 

Kern River, California. Figure is from Peterson et al. 2008.

Table 1—Temperature increase and effect on Sierra Nevada snowpack 

Temperature increase Loss of snowpack Predicted year of effect

°C Percent

0.6 5 2030

1.6 33 2060

2.1 50 2090

(43 in south and 66 in north)

Source: Knowles 2002.
272

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

In the past 10 years, many publications and modeling efforts have focused on 

predicting climate change effects on critical ecological variables, including air 

temperature, amount and timing of precipitation and stream discharge, and soil 

moisture (Dettinger 2005, Hayhoe et al. 2004, Jeton et al. 1996, Knowles et al. 

2006, Maurer 2007, Stewart et al. 2004, Vicuna et al. 2008). Some of these findings 

for the synthesis area are briefly discussed to highlight their importance for watershed and aquatic ecosystem condition.

Global climate models use a grid that is too coarse to adequately depict the 

complex structure of temperature and precipitation in California, especially within 

the rugged terrain of the synthesis area. A statistical technique allows coarse data 

to be “downscaled” to a finer level of detail, and a grid scale of 12 km (7 mi) was 

available by 2006 (Cayan et al. 2006). More recent work is downscaling data to 

even finer grids that allow predictions on possible changes to other attributes, such 

as stream discharge, water quality, and erosion. For example, Ficklin et al. (2012) 

developed and applied a hydroclimatological stream temperature model within the 

Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to mountain areas of the Western United 

States. These scientists are also working on projections of (1) future hydrologic flow 

components for the major river basins of the Sierra Nevada using an ensemble of 

general circulation models, and (2) the effects of climate change on water quality 

(stream temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, and sediment concentration) 

in the Sierra Nevada. The U.S. Geological Survey in Sacramento has an ongoing 

study of the effects of climate on snowmelt and water availability in the southern 

Sierra Nevada (Tuolumne, Merced, San Joaquin, King, and Kaweah River basins). 

These new downscaling efforts and predictions at the river-basin scale and for 

smaller watersheds will be useful to forest managers in considering climate change 

effects on water resources. 

Null et al. (2010) used WEAP21 (Stockholm Environment Institute’s Water 

Evaluation and Planning System), a weekly one-dimensional rainfall-runoff model, 

to compare the hydrologic responses of 15 watersheds on the west slope of the 

Sierra Nevada to air temperature increases of 2, 4, and 6 °C while keeping other 

climatic variables unchanged. Predicted changes in mean annual flow were largely 

driven by area and increased evapotranspiration from climate warming, while 

snowfall and snowmelt timing resulted in runoff timing changes. Predicted changes 

in low flow duration were a function of deep soil moisture capacity and infiltration. 

Null et al. (2010) found that vulnerabilities varied from north-to-south within the 

Sierra Nevada. Northern watersheds were sensitive to decreased mean annual flow 

owing to their extensive use for water storage; central watersheds were sensitive 

to length of low-flow conditions owing to their large areas of mountain meadows; 
273

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

south-central watersheds were sensitive to changes in runoff timing owing to their 

importance for hydropower; and the southernmost watershed, the Kern, appeared 

to be the most resilient (table 2). For the 15 watersheds included in the study, total 

water storage is approximately 24 590 mcm5 for all dams greater than 1.2 mcm, and 

total online hydropower capacity is approximately 8,751 MW. Null et al. (2010) state 

that their results are broadly consistent with other climate forecasts (Brekke at al. 

2004, Lettenmaier and Gan 1990, Miller et al. 2003). 

Bales et al. (2006) identified three pressing hydrologic information needs for the 

western mountains of the United States given climate change, population growth, 

and land use change:

• To better understand the processes controlling the partitioning of 

energy and water fluxes within and out from these systems.

• To better understand feedbacks between hydrological fluxes and 

biogeochemical and ecological processes.

• To enhance our physical and empirical understanding with integrated 

measurement strategies and information systems.

Table 2—Modeled mean annual flow by watershed and air temperature increase

Annual average flow (MCM) Percent decrease from basecase

Watershed Basecase 2 °C increase 6 °C increase 2 °C increase 6 °C increase

Feather 5776 5649 5264 2.2 8.8

Yuba 3020 2960 2806 2.0 7.1

Bear 492 475 445 3.6 9.6

American 3556 3448 3218 3.1 9.5

Cosumnes 603 571 518 5.2 14.0

Mokelumne 979 946 887 3.4 9.4

Calaveras 330 319 301 3.3 8.9

Stanislaus 1561 1523 1435 2.4 8.1

Tuolumne 2445 2401 2304 1.8 5.8

Merced 1348 1308 1237 3.0 8.2

San Joaquin 2294 2265 2201 1.3 4.1

Kings 2117 2094 2041 1.1 3.6

Kaweah 586 564 519 3.8 11.5

Tule 199 190 171 4.6 14.3

Kern 926 887 813 4.2 12.2

Source: Null et al. 2010.

MCM = million cubic meters.

5 Million cubic meters. 1 mcm = 810.7 acre feet or the volume of water necessary to cover 1 

acre to a depth of 1 foot (also equivalent to 325,851 U.S. gallons).
274

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

The KREW research (see box 6.1-5 on page 290) can help one to understand 

climate change effects for the southern Sierra Nevada, because five of the KREW 

streams are located in the rain-snow interface zone and five are in the snowdominated zone. The current functioning of the lower elevation streams provides 

valuable insight into what can be expected for higher elevation streams with a 2 °C 

air temperature shift (Bales et al. 2011a, Hunsaker et al. 2012). New information is 

also being developed on these topics with field instrumentation and data analyses 

by the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project (SNAMP) and the Southern 

Sierra Critical Zone Observatory (SSCZO).

Using data from four eddy covariance towers, Goulden et al. (2012) reported 

a large decline in evapotranspiration (ET) between 2015 and 2700 m that is 

associated with development of winter dormancy in trees. This elevation range 

marks the transition from a mixed rain-and-snow precipitation regime to one 

dominated by snow (Hunsaker et al. 2012). During 3 years of observations, the ET 

at 2015 m ranged from 70 to 80 cm/yr (Bales et al. [2011a] estimated 96 cm/yr at 

this location), whereas it was only 35 to 50 cm/yr at the 2700 m elevation. Goulden 

et al. (2012) interpreted their results as suggesting that winter transpiration could 

increase because of climate change, thus decreasing the amount of water available 

for streams.

Effects on Channel Processes

Because climate change is expected to increase rainfall and storm intensity (Moody 

and Martin 2009) and the occurrence of uncharacteristically severe wildfire (Miller 

et al. 2009), flooding and sediment movement may increase owing to the incidence 

of rain-on-snow events or post-wildfire floods, which could in turn reduce channel 

stability and habitat quality. Negative impacts of climate change may be especially 

pronounced in high-elevation, currently snow-dominated systems that shift toward 

more winter rainfall (Battin et al. 2007). Herbst and Cooper (2010) suggested that 

increased rain-on-snow floods might pose a particular threat to streams that are 

already degraded (see “Effects of floods” on page 300). Riebe et al. (2001) concluded that outside of glacial transition periods, climate change is unlikely to substantially affect watershed-scale erosion rates in the Sierra Nevada; however, they 

cautioned that climate change could alter sediment storage in floodplains, terraces, 

and colluvial hollows, which would affect short-term sediment delivery and channel stability. In reviewing effects of climate change on streams in the mountains 

of Idaho, Goode et al. (2012) contended that sediment yield could increase tenfold 

compared to recent historical levels owing to increases in postfire debris flows. 

Because climate change is expected to increase the incidence of severe wildfire, 

Because climate 

change is expected to 

increase the incidence 

of severe wildfire, 

high-intensity storms, 

and rain-on-snow 

events, the threat of 

post-wildfire debris 

flows is expected to 

increase and become 

more widespread.
275

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

high-intensity storms, and rain-on-snow events, the threat of post-wildfire debris 

flows is expected to increase and become more widespread (Cannon and DeGraff 

2009). If postfire landforms persist beyond the wildfire recurrence interval, successive wildfires will have an important cumulative impact on watershed morphology 

(Moody and Martin 2001).

Debris flows—

Intense storms, in many cases following wildfires, can trigger debris flows.6

 Most 

debris-flow activity occurs within about 2 years following a fire, because revegetation tends to quickly stabilize hillslopes. Substantial hazards from flash flooding, 

however, could remain for many years after a fire (Cannon and Michael 2011). In 

studies of postfire debris-flow processes throughout the Western United States, the 

great majority of fire-related debris flows initiate through a process of progressive 

bulking of storm runoff with sediment eroded both from hillslopes and from channels, rather than from infiltration-triggered landsliding. Statistical-empirical models 

have been developed to estimate the probability and volume of debris flows that 

may be produced from burned drainage basins as a function of different measures 

of fire severity and extent, gradient, and soil physical properties in the basin (Cannon and Michael 2011). The probability model was developed using data from 388 

basins in 15 recently burned areas of the Western United States, and the volume 

model was developed from 55 debris-flow-producing basins burned by eight different fires where the volume could be attributed to a single storm. This modeling 

work used a 30-minute-duration, 10-year-recurrence rainstorm of 0.73 in (18.5 mm)

to trigger an event. Intense rainfall events, rain-on-snow storms, and rapid snowmelt are all associated with debris flow occurrence in the Sierra Nevada. Cannon et 

al. (2008) summarized research on runoff and sedimentation events from recently 

burned watersheds and found that a 30-minute peak rainfall intensity greater than 

10 mm/h resulted in significant increases in runoff, and intensities greater than 20 

mm/h resulted in significant sediment movement. The association between wildfire, 

debris flow, and floods is well established in the southern Sierra Nevada (DeGraff 

et al. 2011), and the modeling work by Cannon and Michael (2011) enables risk 

potential and volume of sediment from wildfires to be estimated for comparison to 

sediment from management activities.

6 Land and rock slides are another geomorphic disturbance that can deliver sediment to 

stream networks in the synthesis area. However, compared to some mountain ranges, such 

as the European Alps or the Himalayas, the Sierra Nevada generates relatively infrequent 

massive rock slides. In the southern Sierra Nevada, nine slides have been documented from 

prehistoric times to 1997, ranging in size from 23 000 m3

 to 11 million m3 (Harp et al. 

2008). Such slides have had severe impacts on people, communities, and infrastructure and 

can create dams in steep river canyons.
276

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Large debris flows down channels may be among the most persistent effects of 

wildfires (Benda et al. 2003, Goode et al. 2012, Moody and Martin 2001). Debris 

flows are a major concern in southern California and the Intermountain Region, 

and those flows tend to be larger than flows in more humid climates such as the 

Pacific Northwest (Santi and Morandi 2012). The wetter western slopes of the Sierra 

Nevada have experienced debris flows associated with landslides following high 

rates of rainfall, rapid snowmelt, or rain-on-snow events (DeGraff 1994). In addition, there have been instances of post-wildfire debris flows from burned watersheds upslope from El Portal, California, near Yosemite National Park (Cannon and 

DeGraff 2009). In the southern Sierra Nevada, monsoonal storms on July 12, 2008, 

produced intense rainfall that triggered large debris flows in the southern Sierra 

Nevada (fig. 3) (DeGraff et al. 2011). One flow traveled down the north and south 

forks of Oak Creek through the town of Independence on the east side of the Sierra 

Nevada; it resulted in substantial damage to homes, a Forest Service campground, 

Figure 3—Damage to residences along Oak Creek following the postfire debris flow incident of July 12, 2008, on the Inyo National Forest.

Jerome V. De Graff
277

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

and other infrastructure. The other flow traveled down Erskine Creek through the 

town of Lake Isabella, California, and into the Kern River on the southern end of 

the Sierra Nevada. The Inyo Complex fire had burned 30 percent of the Oak Creek 

watershed at high or moderate severity in 2007, and the Piute Fire had burned 15 

percent of the Erskine Creek watershed at high or moderate severity, but the two 

events shared relatively intense rainfall (16 to 30 mm/hour) (DeGraff et al. 2011). 

These incidents demonstrate that postfire debris flows are a significant concern 

in the southern and eastern parts of the Sierra Nevada, which experience highintensity rainstorms. Further research would be needed to evaluate risks within the 

synthesis area, given high amounts of variability in these watershed processes. A 

comparison of rainfall regimes by Moody and Martin (2009) showed that the region 

that includes the Sierra Nevada experiences less intense rainfall than the mountains 

of Arizona, but more intense rainfall than in the Great Basin. However, they found 

very high variability within the Pacific region and poor correlation between postwildfire sediment yields and rainfall intensity (measured as the average 2-year event 

over 30-minute periods).

Effects on Aquatic Ecosystems

Projected effects of climate change on aquatic ecosystems include hydrologic 

effects discussed above (especially lower summer baseflows, earlier runoff, and 

higher summer water temperatures), as well as biological effects, such as increased 

isolation of native aquatic species and spread of invasive species (Viers and Rheinheimer 2011).

Impacts on trout—

The projected impacts of climate change on trout and salmon species are a particular concern because of the vulnerability of those species to increased stream 

temperatures (Moyle et al. 2011). Although the middle of the Sierra Nevada includes 

a large area that was historically fishless, the northern and southern Sierra Nevada 

support several endemic strains of native trout (fig. 4). Several varieties of redband 

or rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) evolved in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

drainages of the Sierra Nevada, while varieties of cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus 

clarkii) evolved within the interior east-side drainages of the Lahontan basin 

(Behnke 2002). Because of stocking with nonnative trout species, translocations of 

trout outside of their native streams, and impacts to habitats, most of these native 

trout have become confined to relatively small streams, leaving them vulnerable 

to the effects of climate change and wildfire (see box 6.1-1). Wenger et al. (2011) 

forecasted significant declines in trout habitat and associated socioeconomic consequences across the interior Western United States over the next 60 years.

Because of stocking 

with nonnative trout 

species, translocations 

of trout outside of their 

native streams, and 

impacts to habitats, 

most of these native 

trout have become 

confined to relatively 

small streams, leaving 

them vulnerable to 

the effects of climate 

change and wildfire.
278

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Figure 4—Historical distribution of native trout within the synthesis area. Map by Ross Gerrard.
279

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Box 6.1-1

Reports on Threats From Climate Change and Wildfire on 

Aquatic Species

Trout Unlimited has generated a series of reports under its Conservation Success Index program (Williams et al. 2007) that characterize risks for native 

salmonids from changes in climate and fire regime within their ranges. 

More recently, researchers at the University of California–Davis prepared 

a white paper report on the effects of future climates on freshwater fishes 

(Moyle et al. 2012).

In addition to the recently published study of postfire debris flows by 

DeGraff et al. (2011), the Forest Service has conducted monitoring of impacts 

to aquatic ecosystems following recent fires, including the Moonlight Fire 

(2007), Cub Fire (2008), and Lion Fire (2011). These observational efforts 

should afford opportunities to evaluate resilience of streams in the synthesis 

area to wildfires of different severities. 

Post-wildfire floods that reorganize channel habitats can have significant 

impacts on fish populations, including extirpation of isolated native trout populations in headwater streams in the Southwest (Brown et al. 2001). A study by Isaak 

et al. (2010) in Idaho demonstrated that severe wildfires followed by channelreorganizing floods can increase rates of stream warming over long periods. These 

events can cause streams to warm by removing vegetation and widening channels; 

those effects may offset the potential of such events to lower temperatures by 

increasing base flow (a potential short-term effect resulting from reduced transpiration in the watershed) (Sugihara et al. 2006), or by increasing heat exchange with 

colder groundwater (Dunham et al. 2007). In contrast, native fish populations that 

inhabit relatively intact stream networks in the Northwest and the northern Rocky 

Mountains have demonstrated resilience following wildfires (Gresswell 1999, 

Neville et al. 2009). However, the responses of aquatic systems to wildfire and 

climate change observed in other regions may not transfer well across the synthesis 

area because of variations in climate, topography, extent of nonnative competitors, 

and connectivity of aquatic populations.
280

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Effects on Biological Indicators of Water Quality

Understanding particular effects of climate change on the biology of mountain 

streams would be valuable, because many management agencies use biological 

criteria to measure trends of ecological health, water quality, and the integrity of 

ecosystem function. In particular, streams in relatively undisturbed watersheds 

serve as references to evaluate condition. Against a background of climate-driven 

alteration to the ecology of streams across the Sierra Nevada, the biological integrity of reference streams may decline. Biological diversity in confined headwater 

and alpine streams may be especially sensitive to shifting hydrologic patterns. Even 

though all streams and lakes are affected by climate change, the reference habitats 

may have more to lose than disturbed streams that have already been affected by 

localized sources of pollution and other forms of degradation. If reference streams 

Figure 5—Intense rain events or rain-on-snow events can increase suspended sediment and turbidity in streams, as shown at one of 

the flumes in the Kings River Experimental Watersheds, Sierra National Forest.

Tom Whitaker
281

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

lose a higher proportion of aquatic life to warming and hydrologic disruption, 

then the “signal,” or difference relative to disturbed test sites, would be decreased. 

The reference condition for streams is typically developed based on many sites 

sampled over many years, so if these streams slowly degrade, the range of variability or “noise” in the cumulative reference condition will increase. The net effect 

of a declining reference condition is that it will be harder to detect degradation 

by nonclimate factors. Establishment of current conditions and quantification of 

climate-induced drift would help to monitor conditions within the Sierra Nevada 

and to recalibrate standards as climate conditions change.

Box 6.1-2

Stream Monitoring Network for Climate Change

In 2010, the Management Indicator Species Program of the Pacific Southwest 

Region funded the establishment of a stream observatory network, designed 

by David Herbst of the Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory, to detect 

the ecological impacts of climate-induced changes in hydrologic balance and 

temperature of Sierra Nevada streams and to provide a historical context for 

recovery of degraded ecological values. The network includes 12 sites (6 in 

the southern Sierra Nevada and 6 in the northern Sierra Nevada) that serve as 

undisturbed reference sites for streams that are expected to have high and low 

risk for climate-induced loss of snow cover and hydrologic stability, in combination with high and low resistance to climate change. This network also sets 

up a natural experiment within which differing hypothesized risks based on 

forecasted climate conditions and hydrographic susceptibility can be contrasted. The sites are broadly representative of Sierra Nevada streams across a 

range of elevations from 1220 to 3660 m (4,000 to 12,000 ft). Meas-urements 

at these sites include stream invertebrates, algae periphyton, water chemistry, 

geomorphic characteristics, stage height, riparian cover, and water and air 

temperature. Benthic invertebrate samples from this network partition into 

two community groupings—those sites north of Yosemite National Park and 

those south of the park. A possible difference is that southern Sierra Nevada 

streams have less groundwater recharge based on a comparison of their chemistry with that of northern streams, and they are thus more susceptible to low 

flows and drying, and support less biological invertebrate diversity. Southern 

Sierra Nevada streams with greater upstream length may be less prone to 

drying and therefore have a higher level of diversity.
282

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Water Resources

This section includes a discussion of ecosystem processes and issues that are important to water quantity and quality. Stream benthic macroinvertebrates (BMIs) are 

included here as important biological indicators of water quality.

Water Quantity

Streamflow response to a change in forest density is strongly related to climate, species composition, and the percentage change in vegetation density. Troendle et al. 

(2010) provided a review of the many studies on this topic and made the following 

observation (Troendle et al. 2010: 126–127): “The data from 95 watershed experiments conducted in the United States show that, on average, annual runoff increases 

by nearly 2.5 mm for each 1 percent of watershed area harvested (Stednick 1996). 

Because runoff is quite variable from year to year, the general conclusion is that 

approximately 20 percent of the basal area of the vegetation must be removed 

before a statistically significant change in annual runoff can be detected (Bosch and 

Hewlett 1982, Hibbert 1967, Stednick 1996).” Because most of these paired watershed experiments imposed a partial or complete clearcutting of the mature trees, 

our current understanding of the hydrologic impacts of thinning and prescribed fire 

comes from inference supported by some plot and process studies.

Many fuels management treatments or forest restoration efforts remove less 

than 20 percent of the basal area of trees; although this may result in a change in 

flow, it likely will not be detectable, especially in dry years. With best management 

practices (BMPs), which should not cause overland flow from skid trails or soil 

compaction, there should be little or no detectable effect on peak discharges. Any 

change will be short-lived because of vegetation regrowth, except in cold snow 

zones (Rocky Mountain region). Prescribed fire by itself is less likely to influence 

water yield than mechanical treatments because of the smaller reduction in basal 

area and lack of ground disturbance by heavy machinery (Troendle et al. 2010).

During the past decade, a better understanding of hydrologic processes has 

developed for the southern Sierra Nevada. Hunsaker et al. (2012) characterized the 

climate and hydrologic patterns for eight headwater catchments, including both 

the rain-snow transition zone and the snow-dominated zone of the southern Sierra 

Nevada. A water-balance instrument cluster at these rain-snow catchments enabled 

an estimate of total annual evapotranspiration at 76 cm in 2009, a value higher than 

previous estimates for the Sierra Nevada (Bales et al. 2011a). Water loss rates from 

soil were estimated to be 0.5 to 1.0 cm d-1 during the winter and snowmelt seasons. 

Soon there will be data on the effect of both prescribed fire and mechanical removal 

of vegetation on streamflow (see box 6.1-5).

Forest treatments 

that remove less than 

20 percent of tree 

basal area may result 

in a change in flow, 

although it likely will 

not be detectable.
283

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Engle et al. (2008) provided the only new experimental data on streamflow 

response to prescribed fire in the Sierra Nevada. The Tharps Creek watershed (13 

ha) was burned after having no fire for at least 120 years; the preburn surface fuel 

load was 210 Mg ha-1 and fuels were reduced by 85 percent as a result of the fire. 

After fire, runoff coefficients increased by 7 percent in dry years and 35 percent in 

wet years. (The runoff coefficient is the relationship between the amount of runoff to 

the amount of precipitation; the value is large for areas with low infiltration and high 

runoff.) Mean annual runoff in the 50-ha Log watershed (control) during the dry 

years was 29 percent of precipitation; mean annual runoff was 56 percent of precipitation when drought years are excluded. Runoff coefficients in the Tharps watershed 

were consistently lower than in the Log watershed, averaging 51 percent during 

wet years and 8 percent during dry years. Nine years after the burn, there was no 

evidence that runoff in the Tharps watershed was returning to prefire levels.

Box 6.1-3

Water Yield Predictions

A recent report based on modeling suggests a somewhat different conclusion 

from Troendle et al. (2010) about the ability to increase water yield through 

forest harvesting. Bales et al. (2011b) suggested that reducing forest cover by 

40 percent of maximum levels (based on leaf area index) across a watershed 

could increase water yields by about 9 percent. They estimated that proposed 

treatments at the Onion Creek Experimental Forest on the Tahoe National 

Forest could increase water yield by as much as 16 percent and extend snow 

storage (i.e., delay snowmelt) by days to weeks. They also cited recent studies 

in the Sierra Nevada that report potential increases in snow accumulation of 

14 to 34 percent after forest harvest (see Bales et al. 2011b). However, a wellintegrated approach to forest management considers many values in an area 

rather than focusing on opportunities to maximize any one value such 

as water yield.

Water Quality

General condition—

Water from the Sierra Nevada accounts for 60 percent of the total dollar value 

of all natural products or services produced by the entire region—more than 

forest products, agricultural products, recreational services, or even residential 

development (SNEP Science Team 1996). A number of indicators can be used to 
284

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

characterize water quality, including chemical indicators (nutrients, conductivity, 

pH, metals, pathogens, pesticides, and organics), physical indicators (temperature 

and sediment), biological indicators such as stream invertebrates, and human use 

criteria (water that is “swimmable, fishable, drinkable”). A general overview of 

water quality for major Sierra Nevada river basins is based on publicly available 

data about various indicators—some quantitative and some qualitative (Timmer 

et al. 2006). 

The conditions of waters in the synthesis area may be affected not only by 

ongoing human activities but also by legacies associated with historical mining, 

logging, and construction for homes, roads, and railways. Because of enhanced 

planning, BMPs, and state and federal regulations, impacts from contemporary 

development activities are typically much less severe than during historical periods. 

Even though legacy impacts (e.g., mercury contamination from historical mining, 

high sediment loads from old and poorly constructed roads, or human health hazards from old septic systems) can be substantial in local areas, they are not a focus 

of this synthesis. Instead, this chapter focuses on water quality issues that tend to 

be common across the synthesis area and are a focus for monitoring to maintain 

or improve water quality. Some human health issues with water quality are briefly 

discussed in chapters 6.3, “Wet Meadows,” and 9.3, “Sociocultural Perspectives on 

Threats, Risks, and Health”).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state of California, and 

Forest Service all use macroinvertebrates as a biological indicator of water quality 

along with measures of stream physical habitat and water chemistry. An ecological condition assessment (2000 through 2006) of California’s perennial wadeable 

streams provided an overview of water quality for forested lands (Ode 2007). This 

assessment reported that forests had 80 percent of the monitored stream segments 

in an unimpaired condition, compared with agriculture and urban land uses that 

had more than 80 percent being in the impaired and very impaired condition 

classes. When a forest stream segment was highly impaired, the following stressors 

were associated the most with that poor condition: total nitrogen (N) (30 percent), 

chloride (20 percent), total phosphorus (P) (10 percent), lack of habitat complexity 

(20 percent), and riparian disturbance and streambed stability (10 percent). 

National forests are mostly in the headwaters of Sierra Nevada river basins; 

often the impaired portion of a river or stream is downstream of the forests or associated with reservoirs or other impoundments. As an example, Timmer et al. (2006) 

reported the following information for the Kings River watershed. The upper North 

Fork has been listed as impaired for wetland habitat and flow alterations by the EPA 

and listed as threatened for habitat, fishery, and freshwater by the California State 
285

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Water Resources Control Board. The Main Fork Kings River is listed by the EPA 

as impaired for flow alterations and threatened for habitat, fishery, and freshwater. 

Timmer et al. (2006) listed the probable sources for these detrimental impacts as 

construction, agriculture or nursery operations, and modification of the streambed. 

At Pine Flat Reservoir, EPA listed the Kings River as impaired for pathogens, 

habitat, and freshwater and as threatened for swimming, fishing, fish tissue concentrations, and recreation user days. The threatened designation means that the 

water currently supports designated uses, but may become impaired in the future if 

pollution control actions are not taken. Impaired means that a designated water use 

is not supported. This report also indicates if a water body is affected by a particular metal and if human exposure is a concern. Similar general condition information 

exists for all major watersheds in the Sierra Nevada (Timmer et al. 2006).

Figure 6—Sediment is removed, weighed, and sampled to quantify and characterize the annual 

load in a stream. A sediment basin is emptied at the Teakettle Creek, which is used as a control 

watershed in the Kings River Experimental Watersheds. 

Amber Olsson
286

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Stream sediment and erosion—

Undisturbed forests are an important source of the clean water that is necessary for 

ecosystem health as well as urban and agricultural uses. By altering infiltration rates 

and evapotranspiration rates and disturbing the soil, forest management activities 

(including road construction, timber harvesting, site preparation, fuels reduction, 

and prescribed fire) can increase overland flow rates and sediment yields. Sediment 

yields are dependent on many factors: climate, topography, soil type, vegetation, 

historical land use, and the dominant erosion processes (Stednick 2000). Robichaud 

et al. (2010) provided a review of fuels management effects on erosion. Reported 

sediment yields from undisturbed forests in the Western United States are 0.007 

Mg ha-1 (0.003 t ac-1), but values up to 25 Mg ha-1 (11 t ac-1) have been reported 

(Stednick 2000). Hunsaker and Neary (2012) reported an average of 16 ± 21 kg ha-1

(0.016 ± 0.021 Mg ha-1) over 7 years of measurement at the undisturbed Teakettle 

Experimental Forest in the headwaters of the Kings River (Mg = 106 grams or 1 

metric tonne). Breazeale (1972) reported mean annual sediment rates of 260 Mg 

km-2 (110 t mi-2) for the North Fork of the Kings River, and Dunne and Reid (1985) 

reported 100 Mg km-2 (43 t mi-2) for the Teakettle Experimental Forest.

Research to better understand cumulative watershed effects in the Sierra 

Nevada has focused on sediment data from roads, timber harvests, and wildfires. 

On the Eldorado National Forest, MacDonald et al. (2004) found the median 

sediment production rate from roads was 0.2 kg m-2, nearly an order of magnitude 

higher than any of the other sources they evaluated (including skid trails, off-road 

vehicle trails, prescribed fire, and wildfire). In a more recent study of 200 harvest 

units on the Eldorado, Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests, Litschert and 

MacDonald (2009) found only 15 rills and four sediment plumes on 14 of the units. 

Only 7 percent of the units had sediment entering the streamside management 

zones, and the majority of these involved skid trails. They attributed these relatively 

limited impacts to the increased use and refinement of BMPs and a shift from 

clearcuts to thinning and group selection. Litschert and MacDonald (2009) suggested that attention should focus on proper construction and postharvest treatment 

of skid trails for additional reduction of sediment input to streams (e.g., use of 

proper water bars, ripping to maximize infiltration where soils are compacted, 

and adequate surface roughness at water bar outlets).

Any type of land use change that causes soil disturbance or vegetation removal 

(timber harvest, brush clearing for fuels reduction, fire, and road construction, use, 

and decommissioning) has the potential to cause erosion and subsequent sediment 

delivery to water bodies. Historically, roads have been considered the primary 

source of sediment and a significant problem in many landscapes. The potential in 
287

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

the Sierra Nevada for erosion and sediment effects on water quality and aquatic 

habitat from forest management and wildfire needs to be evaluated with respect to 

current knowledge and practices. Coniferous forests across western North America 

are experiencing widespread mortality as a result of drought, insect outbreaks, and 

wildfire associated with climate change. In many of these landscapes, wildfires and 

subsequent storms commonly result in the delivery of large, infrequent pulses of 

sediment to water bodies. Goode et al. (2012) suggested that sediment yields may 

be roughly 10 times greater with climate-modulated processes than those observed 

during the 20th century. Although coarse sediment is important for forming geomorphology and aquatic habitat, an order of magnitude increase may have undesirable impacts to aquatic organisms and reservoir management and life expectancy.

Gucinski et al. (2001) synthesized scientific information on forest roads and 

noted that the Forest Service has a framework (USDA FS 1999) in place for evaluating benefits, problems, risks, and tradeoffs of roads. On November 9, 2005, the 

Forest Service published the Final Travel Management Rule (70 Federal Register 

[Fed. Reg.] 216, November 9, 2005; p. 68264–68291), which required designation 

of roads and trails for motor vehicle use. Implementing travel management plans 

to meet this requirement should help reduce sediment from roads. Despite the size 

of the forest road network, road effects have been examined in only a few places, 

especially in the Appalachians, Pacific Northwest, and Rocky Mountains. Given 

the wide variability in road history, age, construction methods, and use patterns in 

relation to topography, climate, and social setting, the narrow geographical scope 

of these studies limits their extrapolation to other regions or their usefulness in 

addressing more subtle effects. In forests along the west side of the Sierra Nevada, 

major roads were built along broad ridges, with secondary roads leading down into 

headwater areas. In general, Sierra Nevada roads create less erosion and landslides 

when compared to roads in western Oregon forests, which usually entered watersheds along narrow stream bottoms and then climbed the adjacent steep, unstable 

hillslopes to access timber extending from ridge to valley floor. Road placement 

in the landscape, combined with local geology and climate, resulted in different 

effects of roads on watershed, vegetation, and disturbance processes in the Western 

United States (Gucinski et al. 2001). A summary of points discussed by Gucinski et 

al. (2001) about road erosion effects is included here.

• Although mass erosion rates from roads typically are one to several orders 

of magnitude higher than from other land uses based on unit area, roads 

usually occupy a relatively small fraction of the landscape, so their combined 

effect on erosion may be more comparable to other activities, such as timber 

harvest.
288

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

• Roads interact directly with stream channels in several ways, depending on 

orientation to streams (parallel, orthogonal) and landscape position (valley 

bottom, midslope, ridge).

• The geomorphic consequences of these interactions, particularly during 

storms, are potentially significant for erosion rates, direct and offsite 

effects on channel morphology, and drainage network structure, but they 

are complex and often poorly understood.

• Encroachment of forest roads along the mainstem channel or floodplain 

may be the most direct effect of roads on channel morphology in many 

watersheds.

• Poorly designed channel crossings of roads and culverts designed to pass 

only waterflow also may affect the morphology of small tributary streams, 

as well as limit or eliminate fish passage.

• Indirect effects of roads on channel morphology include the contributions of 

sediment and altered streamflow that can alter channel width, depth, local 

gradients, and habitat features (pools, riffles) for aquatic organisms.

• Extensive research has demonstrated that improved design, building, and 

maintenance of roads can reduce road-related surface erosion at the scale 

of individual road segments.

Although poorly constructed roads in the Sierra Nevada can cause soil erosion 

and increase sedimentation to water bodies, their effects have not been studied very 

much in the synthesis area. Two studies do provide recent information for the Sierra 

Nevada (see box 6.1-4). Road impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat should be 

less in the future because very little new road construction is expected and knowledge exists about how to construct and maintain roads to lessen impacts. Larger 

sources of soil erosion may include increased wildfires (see “Debris flows” on page 

275), as well as a lack of road maintenance that results in progressive degradation of 

road-drainage structures and functions (Furniss et al. 1991). A nationwide, multisite study by Meadows et al. (2008) found that all-terrain vehicle (ATV) traffic on 

existing trails can increase runoff and sediment, but that proper trail design and 

maintenance can reduce those impacts.

Goode et al. (2012) projected that climate change would increase sediment 

yield in semiarid basins, primarily through changes in temperature and hydrology 

that promote vegetation disturbance (i.e., wildfire, insect/pathogen outbreak, and 

drought-related die-off). Although their case study took place in central Idaho, it is 

relevant for the Sierra Nevada because of similarities in conditions, such as coarsetextured, granitic soils and forests on steep mountain terrain. Istanbulluoglu et al. 

(2004) demonstrated that the mechanism driving higher long-term sediment yields 
289

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Box 6.1-4

Master’s Research: Roads and Measured Sediment Loads 

in the Sierra Nevada

In master’s degree theses, Coe (2006) and Stafford (2011) provided data on sediment production and delivery from forest roads in mixed, rain-snow climate regimes in the Sierra 

Nevada. After studying roads for 3 years on the Eldorado National Forest, Coe (2006) 

found that sediment production rates from native surface roads (median value of 0.14 kg 

m-2 yr-1) were much greater (12 to 25 times) than those from rocked roads (median value of 

0.009 kg m-2 yr-1), and that sediment from roads with slopes greater than 7 percent was 75 

percent higher than for less steep roads. He also found that the annual amount of sediment 

delivered from episodic gully erosion below road segments was comparable to the amount 

of sediment being delivered from the native road surface. For comparison, sediment 

production from unpaved roads in the Sierra Nevada was approximately 67 percent of 

reported values for the Idaho batholith and only 4 percent of that for the Pacific Northwest. 

Fifty-nine percent of the road segments that connected to streams were at stream crossings, 

whereas 35 percent of the connected segments resulted from road-induced gullies. Sediment traveled less than 42 m below the drainage outlet for 95 percent of the road segments. 

In-sloped roads drained by relief culverts, longer road segments on steeper slopes, and 

drainage outlets discharging onto hillslopes with compacted soils were usually associated with road-induced gullies. Coe (2006) concluded that road sediment production can 

be mitigated by rocking native-surface roads, improving and maintaining drainage from 

roads, reducing the number of stream crossings, and rocking the approaches to stream 

crossings. 

Stafford (2011) performed a study similar to Coe’s within the southern Sierra Nevada. 

She measured an average sediment production rate of 1.8 kg m-2 yr-1 for native surface 

road segments in the rain zone; higher than was measured by Coe. At the rain-and-snow 

and snow-dominated zones, the average sediment production for native surface road segments is more than an order of magnitude lower (0.13 kg m-2 yr-1), which is similar to that 

measured by Coe (2006) in the same type of precipitation regime. There was no significant 

difference in sediment production from native and gravel-surfaced road segments in the 

lower elevation area, but in the higher elevation area, the sediment production was 22 

percent less for graveled roads. Surprisingly, Stafford (2011) found no significant difference 

in sediment production and delivery between road segments in a highly erodible soil type 

(Holland) and road segment less erodible soil types. She suggested that sediment production from forest roads can be reduced by using more than 30 percent gravel cover on native 

surface roads, minimizing grading, and improving the construction of water bars.
290

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

in smaller catchments (<25 km) is rare, postfire erosional events that are typically 

two orders of magnitude larger than the long-term average yields of 146 t km-2 yr-1

(determined from cosmogenic dating). Sediment yields from experimental basins 

with roads are on the order of 101 t km-2 yr-1, whereas yields from individual firerelated events in this region are three orders of magnitude greater (104

 t km-2 yr-1). 

An experiment (Ketcheson et al. 1999) showed that for 1 to 2 km/km2 of new 

road, the amount of sediment yield increased by 7 to 12 t km-2 yr-1 compared 

with 2.5 t km-2 yr-1 for the control basin (more than a doubling during the four 

study years). Goode et al. (2012) concluded that road maintenance and decommissioning are generally effective and beneficial for water quality but will not 

mitigate an increase in sediment yields from increased wildfire frequency. They 

also highlighted the substantial uncertainty about the efficacy of postfire treatments for vegetation and hillslope erosion in forest mountain basins (Robichaud 

et al. 2000) and the growing body of literature discouraging further interference 

in natural landscape disturbance processes because the dynamic response to such 

disturbances may help maintain more diverse ecosystems that are more resilient to 

changed climates (DellaSala et al. 2004). Therefore, work to reduce the magnitude 

and frequency of wildfire is likely important to influence total sediment yields 

from forests in the Sierra Nevada drainage basins.

Box 6.1-5

Current Research—Kings River Experimental Watersheds

The Kings River Experimental Watersheds (KREW) is a watershed-level, integrated 

ecosystem project for headwater streams in the Sierra Nevada (http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/

topics/water/kingsriver). Eight watersheds at two study sites are fully instrumented to 

monitor ecosystem changes. The KREW project was designed to address several of the 

information gaps for water resources and aquatic ecosystems included in the Monitoring 

and Adaptive Management Plan for the Sierra Nevada (Appendix E, Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment [USDA FS 2001, 2004]). A few examples of these questions are: 

• What is the effect of fire and fuels reduction treatments (i.e., thinning of trees) on 

the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of riparian areas and streams?

• Does the use of prescribed fire increase or decrease the rate of soil erosion (long 

term versus short term) and affect soil health and productivity?

• How adequate and effective are current stream buffers (areas on both sides of a 

stream with restricted uses) at protecting aquatic ecosystems?

Continued on next page

Road maintenance and 

decommissioning are 

generally effective and 

beneficial for water 

quality but will not 

mitigate an increase 

in sediment yields 

from increased 

wildfire frequency.
291

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Box 6.1-5 (continued)

Prior to 2000, when KREW was designed, there was no long-term experimental 

watershed study in the southern Sierra Nevada to guide future land management 

activities. KREW has a site in the rain-snow zone and a site in the snow-dominated 

zone of Sierra Nevada mixed conifer. Data have been gathered for a 9-year pretreatment period (Brown et al. 2008; Hunsaker and Eagan 2003; Hunsaker and Neary 

2012; Hunsaker et al. 2007, 2012; Johnson et al. 2011a; Liu et al. 2012). Tree thinning 

was completed in 2012, some prescribed underburns were completed in 2013, and final 

burns are planned for 2014. The experimental design will allow partitioning of effects 

between thin only, underburn only, and the preferred treatment of thin and burn. 

This research is evaluating the integrated condition of the streams and their 

associated watersheds (i.e., physical, chemical, and biological characteristics).

• Physical measurements include upland erosion, turbidity (suspended sediment), 

stream temperature, streamflow, channel characteristics, and weather conditions.

• Chemical measurements for stream water, shallow soil water, precipitation, 

and snowmelt include nitrate, ammonium, and phosphate (primary biological 

nutrients); chloride; sulfate; calcium; magnesium; potassium; sodium; pH; and 

electrical conductivity.

• Biological measurements include stream invertebrates (like dragonflies and 

mayflies), algae, and riparian and upland vegetation (herbs, shrubs, and trees). 

Yosemite toads (Anaxyrus [=Bufo] canorus) are also being studied at the Bull 

Creek site.

Unique aspects of KREW include the following:

• An integrated design of physical, chemical, and biological components being 

measured at the same locations and at several spatial scales. 

• A control watershed that can provide the “natural range” of variability (no 

roads or timber harvesting).

• A designed comparison of fuels and vegetation for riparian and upland parts 

of the watersheds.

• Use of a long-term data set for stream invertebrates to evaluate water quality 

effects after management treatments at a designed before-after control-impact 

(BACI) experiment.

• A comparison of adult Yosemite toad movement before and during treatments.

• A comparison of rain-snow and snow-dominated watershed function before 

and after land disturbances.
292

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Nutrients and chemistry—

Water chemistry is of interest for various reasons: human health, aquatic ecosystem 

condition, and agricultural and industrial uses downstream of the forests. Although 

the chemistry of water is usually very good within national forests, it is prudent to 

monitor some characteristics. The EPA and state of California use chloride, specific conductance, and total N and P as indicators of stress in perennial, wadeable 

streams (Ode 2007). Additional information on chemistry processes in forests can 

be found in chapters 5.1 and 8.1. This discussion focuses on nitrogen, which is a 

necessary nutrient for vegetation, but in high enough amounts can be a substantial 

stressor on both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Sudduth et al. (2013) reported 

on the significant role that forests have in reducing concentrations of nitrate in 

stream water, as compared to watersheds that have been developed for urban use or 

agriculture. Soil solution and stream water nitrate were positively correlated across 

40 undisturbed forest watersheds, with stream water values usually being half of 

the soil solution concentrations. A similar relationship was seen in 10 disturbed 

(usually clearcut tree harvest) forest watersheds.

Nitrogen is an important indicator of the overall health of a forest, and knowing 

its concentration over time in atmospheric deposition, vegetation, soils, and stream 

water provides a useful assessment tool (see chapter 5.1). Usually, Sierra Nevada 

stream water has very low N concentrations, almost at detection limits (Engle et 

al. 2008, Hunsaker et al. 2007). However, atmospheric deposition (as discussed in 

chapter 8.1) is high and moderately high in the southern and central Sierra Nevada, 

respectively. Nitrogen leaching from soils to water, which can lead to acid conditions and a fine root biomass loss of 26 percent, are expected at N deposition levels 

of 17 kg N ha-1 yr-1 (Fenn et al. 2008). High N deposition, coupled with recent findings of high N content in mineral soils and water flowing through forest floor litter 

in both the western and eastern Sierra Nevada (Johnson et al. 2010, 2011a, 2011b; 

Miller et al. 2005), are reasons to have long-term measurements on N partitioning 

in the forest ecosystem.

A recent study by Argerich et al. (2013) highlighted the importance of longterm, uninterrupted stream chemistry monitoring data. They examined long-term 

data (greater than 12 years) from seven Forest Service experimental forests to see 

whether stream N concentrations in undisturbed catchments have changed over 

long periods and if patterns were consistent across the United States. They found 

high variability both across the country and within individual sites, which suggests 

that local factors were important. The analysis did not include data from the synthesis area, but two Western sites were included: H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest in 

Oregon and Fraser Experimental Forest in Colorado. Stream nitrate and ammonium 
293

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

mostly decreased or showed no trend in Oregon, whereas stream nitrate in Colorado 

showed an increasing trend and stream ammonium was neutral or decreasing. 

Nitrogen concentrations in wet deposition at both locations usually showed no 

trend. As mentioned earlier, N is an important indicator of forest health. Nine years 

of extensive N data will soon be available from the KREW project in the synthesis 

area; these data can be compared to the trends for these other western watershed 

studies. This evaluation of N is especially important where deposition levels are 

high, as they are in the southern Sierra Nevada (see chapter 8.1).

The long-term (decade-scale) effects of fire on watershed chemical balances 

relate to changes in vegetative cover and include N fixation and the accumulation 

of elements in aggrading plant biomass (Johnson et al. 2009). Tree mortality, crown 

scorch, and stand replacement can affect canopy-related processes that are important in watershed balances of water and nutrients, such as interception of precipitation and cloud water, scavenging of aerosols and gases, and transpiration. The 

changes in nutrient budgets expected soon after fire (first few years) are a result of 

many processes, as listed by Engle et al. (2008): wind- and water-driven sediment 

export, changes in the physical properties of soil, dissolution of ash, shifts in soil 

water pH, changes in microbial biomass and activity, increased decomposition, and 

changes in biological demand for water and nutrients. 

Johnson et al. (1998) stated that fire and postfire N fixation are more important 

than atmospheric deposition and leaching for N fluxes in most semiarid forests of 

the Southwestern United States. Exceptions may occur in areas with high atmospheric inputs of N from local air pollution. They argued that existing literature 

shows that the nutrient cycling paradigm established for humid forest ecosystems, 

which emphasizes fluxes into and out of the ecosystem by water, needs modification for semiarid forests. Odum et al. (1994) proposed that a realistic paradigm for 

natural systems is one in which the system is subjected to regular pulses of N from 

processes such as fire rather than the concept of steady-state and one-dimensional, 

vertical nutrient cycling. Nitrogen cycling studies in semiarid forests require a 

long-term, landscape-scale perspective that encompasses episodic fire and periods 

of intensive postfire N fixation. Johnson et al. (1998) concluded that the frequency 

of fire and the occurrence and duration of postfire N fixation are crucial factors that 

determine the long-term productivity of semiarid forest ecosystems and require 

more study; datasets comparing N fluxes via fire and water at the same site are very 

rare. 

Fire has both short- and long-term effects on nutrient availability and cycling 

in forest ecosystems. Because of its low volatilization temperature (200 °C), nearly 

all N in burned biomass is lost in gaseous form, and N losses are disproportionately 
294

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

large compared to carbon (C) losses. Fire can also result in the loss of other nutrients, 

including sulfur and phosphorus, by volatilization, though to a lesser extent than for 

N (Raison et al. 1985, 1990). The mean and median values for N losses during wildfire and prescribed fire are 360 and 280 kg ha-1, respectively, which equal approximately 500 to 12,000 years leaching loss of N from semiarid forests (measured rates 

0.1 to 0.6 kg ha-1 yr-1). Data exist for the east side of the Sierra Nevada (Little Valley, 

Nevada) to compare fluxes of N via deposition and leaching versus wildfire (Johnson 

et al. 1997), and they show that at a 100-year interval, wildfire was the dominant 

factor in long-term N losses, exceeding leaching losses by more than two orders of 

magnitude (3 to 6 compared with 0.03 kg ha-1 yr-1).

Some combination of restoring natural fire frequency, vegetation conditions, 

or fuel loading to landscapes is usually the goal of prescription burning and forest 

restoration, thus it is important to understand how watershed balances respond to 

fire on time scales that match target fire return intervals (FRIs). Tree ring studies 

indicate that, from 1700 to 1900, natural FRIs in the region of Sequoia National Park 

averaged 10 to 20 years (Engle et al. 2008); this is an accepted FRI for mixed-conifer 

forests in the southern Sierra Nevada. 

Engle et al. (2008) provided the only new long-term research on stream chemistry 

before and after prescribed fire in the Sierra Nevada. Their research is for a 16-year 

paired catchment study in sequoia/mixed-conifer forest in Sequoia National Park. 

Seven years of prefire chemistry data were compared to 9 years of postfire chemistry 

data for two adjacent headwater streams—the intermittent Tharps Creek (13 ha) and 

the perennial Log Creek (50 ha) in the rain-snow zone of the southern Sierra Nevada. 

This study provides an excellent opportunity for the comparison of water chemistry 

data collected before and after thinning and burning treatments at KREW; these two 

long-term research projects should provide the necessary information for resource 

managers to understand small-stream response and recovery processes to forest restoration practices in the southern Sierra Nevada. Measurement of ecosystem outputs 

after fire using gauged streamflow is rare (Engle et al. 2008).

Inorganic N was elevated in stream water for 3 years after fire in the Tharps 

Creek watershed. Increased export of water, SO4

-2, Cl-

, SiO2, and base cations 

continued through the end of the study. This loss was calculated to be less than 1 

percent of the N, up to one-third of the calicum (Ca) and magnesium (Mg), and up to 

three-fourths of the potassium (K) contained in the forest floor prior to combustion. 

Changes in watershed balances indicated that low-end natural FRIs may prevent 

complete reaccumulation of several elements between fires. However, this result 

needs to be considered in the context of the high fuel loads that had built up over 120 

years. Unfortunately, we do not have data that relate nutrient losses to more historical 

or natural fuel loads that would have built up under a historical FRI of 10 to 20 years. 
295

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Stephan et al. (2012) compared the effects of wildfire and spring prescribed 

burning on headwater streams in central Idaho. They found that stream nitrate concentrations were elevated by an order of magnitude for three growing seasons after 

wildfire and appeared to be related positively to the percent of watershed burned 

in wildfire. They found no significant effects of the much less severe prescribed 

burning on aquatic N dynamic. Terrestrial plants and in-stream mosses were found 

to sequester postfire available inorganic N, which Stephan et al. (2012) interpreted 

as evidence that the systems were adapted to pulses following fire. For that reason, 

they concluded that rehabilitation measures for N cycling are not generally required 

after wildfire, and prescribed burning treatments may need to sometimes result in 

higher severity to stimulate N cycling. 

Spatial variability of nutrients on the landscape—

Understanding soil nutrient hot spots is important for water quality and plant 

nutrition. “Hotspots” are areas (or patches) that show disproportionately high reaction rates relative to the surrounding soil area (or matrix). In semiarid soils, these 

patches have long been recognized where “islands of fertility” occur near widely 

spaced shrubs or patches of vegetation (Johnson et al. 2011b). Schimel and Bennett 

(2004) highlighted the importance of hot spots as sources of nutrients to plant roots, 

which are otherwise outcompeted by microbes for nutrients in the rest of the soil 

matrix. A review of data sets for forests in the eastern Sierra Nevada mountains 

showed N hot spots in soils, resin lysimeters, and resin capsules; other measured 

nutrients (extractable P, Mg2+, K+

, SO4

2-, and Ca2+) also showed positive skew and 

outliers, but less so than N (Johnson et al. 2010). A recent study at KREW on the 

western side of the Sierra Nevada showed that nutrient hot spots occur in mixedconifer forests for nearly all measured nutrients; these nutrients were measured 

using soil cores, resin collectors, resin probes, and resin capsules in 6 by 6-m plots 

(Johnson et al. 2011b). 

Recent literature shows that the lack of rooting in the O horizon of semiarid 

forests (during extreme summer drought) results in a spatial decoupling of the 

processes of decomposition/nutrient mineralization and vegetation uptake, and a 

lack of the intense competition for N between roots and decomposers (Johnson et 

al. 2011b). Because of this vertical decoupling, nutrients released during decomposition in O horizons are not immediately taken up and are solubilized by rain 

or snowmelt, creating solutions with very high inorganic N and P concentrations, 

which presumably infiltrate the soil at preferential flow paths and contribute to hot 

spots and possible leaching to surface water (Miller et al. 2005). Nutrient-enriched 

O horizon interflow has been quantified in both the eastern (Miller et al. 2005) and 

western (Johnson et al. 2011b) Sierra Nevada. At KREW, values for ammonium-N 
296

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

ranged from less than 0.1 to 456 μmol L-1 (<0.1 to 6.3 mg N L-1), NO3-N concentrations ranged from less than 0.1 to 622 μmol L-1 (<0.1 to 8.8 mg N L-1), and ortho-P 

concentrations ranged from less than 0.1 to 98 μmol L-1 (<0.1 to 3.1 mg P L-1); 

upper values exceeded those found in soil solutions and stream waters at these sites 

by ten to a hundredfold (Hunsaker et al. 2007).

Stream benthic macroinvertebrates—

This synthesis examines studies in which the ecology of aquatic invertebrates in 

streams (fig. 7) has been used to monitor or evaluate management actions, stressors 

from different kinds of disturbance, and natural processes in stream ecosystems. 

Informed decisionmaking in the Forest Service or other agencies is founded on 

reliable science, so the studies reported here emphasize practical applications for 

management planning and design. The studies cited in this section come exclusively 

from the Sierra Nevada, have not been covered in previous summaries (such as 

Erman 1996), and include only those with some invertebrate data component. 

Development of biomonitoring tools and bioassessment programs in California—

Use of stream invertebrates as biological indicators has become one of the most 

common water quality tools of regulatory agencies (Allan 1995, Rosenberg and 

Resh 1993). Invertebrates are especially useful indicators in small, wadeable 

streams in the Sierra Nevada, and in headwaters and fishless or intermittent 

streams. These organisms can be used as sentinels to show how much the ecological 

integrity of watersheds is changing, and how effective management may be in 

protecting these natural resource values. Adaptive management requires monitoring 

tools for tracking the progress of desired outcomes. Bioassessment sampling by 

California’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) provides 

extensive new data on community composition and indicators of environmental 

quality. The database, which is under construction, compiles surveys from portions 

of the Sierra Nevada, and these will be used to develop quantitative numeric 

biological objectives for use in water quality monitoring programs of the state 

of California (Ode and Schiff 2009). The Southwest Association of Freshwater 

Invertebrate Taxonomists has summarized various regional taxonomic updates and 

species descriptions from the broader region.7

 Online documents provide lists by 

state, taxonomy resources, compilation of tolerance values, and functional feeding 

groups as sources for bioassessment, but those documents cannot currently be 

compiled just for the Sierra Nevada (although the SWAMP database can). Benthic 

macroinvertebrates are being used in a probabilistic sampling design for monitoring 

7 Southwest Association of Freshwater Invertebrate Taxonomists, http://www.safit.org.
297

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

of status, trend, and health in response to management activities in the Pacific 

Southwest Region of the Forest Service.

Hawkins et al. (2000) provided the foundation for developing predictive models 

(RIVPACS) for assessing stream health in the Sierra Nevada and Klamath Mountains, and those models are now being used in SWAMP to establish biological objectives for streams across California. Results suggest that logged sites had subtle losses 

of diversity (10 percent) compared to reference areas (<5 percent of the basin logged), 

with losses related mostly to reduced riparian cover rather than amount of area logged 

or number of roads (logging intensity and type were not specified in the analysis).

Herbst (2004) provided an overview of stream survey work done in the Sierra 

Nevada through 2002, including initial steps in identifying reference stream standards, monitoring of grazing and mining practices, and gaps in understanding of 

stream invertebrate ecology. An eastern Sierra Nevada multimetric index of biotic 

Figure 7—Benthic macroinvertebrates are collected from streams with nets, woody material is removed, and organisms are sorted in 

the field before being preserved and taken back to the laboratory for identification.

Carolyn Hunsaker
298

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

integrity (IBI) and predictive models (RIVPACS) show how differing methods and 

analytic tools are robust in giving the same assessments of loss of stream health 

related to channel modifications or livestock grazing (Herbst and Silldorff 2006). 

Natural patterns of variation in stream communities in space and time—Carter 

and Fend (2001) found that differences in the richness of invertebrates in riffles 

and pools appear to depend on annual discharge regime and are more pronounced 

during low discharge years and disappear when flow is higher. This study, which 

took place on the Merced River in the Yosemite Valley, suggests that differences in 

erosional and depositional features between riffles and pools diminish when flows 

increase, so communities become more similar. An implication of this is that it is 

possible that flow regulation may influence the natural variations in habitat-based 

diversity and that channelization (eliminating riffle-pool geomorphology) may also 

produce less diverse assemblages of aquatic life and more limited ecosystem processes (such as nutrient recycling, productivity, organic matter transport, conversion, and decomposition). Beche and Resh (2007) found that traits related to environmental adaptations vary in response to gradients of flow between years, from 

dry to wet conditions. Traits that provide adaptation to drying (e.g., desiccation 

resistance, aerial respiration) were more common in drought years, whereas traits 

permitting survival during high flows (e.g., flat body shape, drift dispersal) were 

more common in wet years. Prolonged drought or wet conditions result in shifts in 

trait composition. Despite this relationship, traits among taxa are often sufficiently 

redundant that taxa can be replaced without losses in trait diversity. Consequently, it 

may be more difficult to conserve species diversity than trait diversity in the face of 

a changing climate regime.

Erman (2002) studied the invertebrates of spring and springbrook (outflow) 

communities over 20 years to describe the biota and physical/chemical properties 

of Sierra Nevada cold springs. Results showed the individualistic nature of springs 

even within the same stream basin. Spring invertebrate assemblages differed 

greatly from one spring to another, as did timing of insect emergence and abundance of species. Invertebrate species richness was greater in deeper, more permanent springs, which were distinguished by high concentrations of dissolved ions, 

especially calcium. Spring permanence was also determined by direct observations 

over time, measurement of discharge variability, correlation of discharge with ionic 

concentration, and water dating. This study demonstrated the high conservation 

value of spring habitats and the high levels of diversity that can serve as a biodiversity refuge in cold-water environments.
299

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Fire effects—Beche et al. (2005) found minimal effects from prescribed fire on 

stream invertebrates in a Sierra Nevada study. Prescribed fire altered BMI community composition only within the first weeks postfire, but there were no lasting 

(1 year) impacts on BMIs. Densities and percentage of sensitive taxa were significantly reduced after an intense wildfire on Angora Creek in the Lake Tahoe basin, 

but there were no consistent changes in taxonomic richness or diversity (Oliver et 

al. 2012). Canopy cover and bank stability declined dramatically following the wildfire and substrate also changed substantially, with fine sediment more abundant and 

cobble less abundant postfire. There were large reductions in relative abundances 

of shredder and scraper taxa, whereas collector-gatherer abundances increased. 

Community composition shifted away from prefire configurations, and continued 

to diverge in the second year following the fire. Scores from a regionally derived 

IBI were variable, but overall they were much lower in postfire samples and did not 

show recovery after 2 years. This study demonstrated substantial postfire effects 

to aquatic ecosystems even in the absence of large flooding or scouring events, and 

it showed that these effects can be transmitted downstream into unburned reaches. 

These findings, when compared to those from Beche et al. (2005), suggest that fire 

effects are strongly related to fire intensity.

Forest management practices—Although stream invertebrates have been adopted 

as good water quality indicators for the Forest Service, little published information 

exists regarding effects of mechanical forest management practices (road building 

and maintenance, tree thinning and commercial harvesting, tractor piling of slash 

and burning) on stream invertebrates in the Sierra Nevada. A few publications exist on prescribed fire effects on stream invertebrates (see previous discussion). The 

usefulness of stream invertebrates for monitoring aquatic ecosystem condition and 

associated information gaps were recognized in the Adaptive Management Plan, 

Appendix E, of the Sierra Nevada Framework (USDA FS 2001, 2004), and one new 

research experiment exists (see box 6.1-5 on page 290). McGurk and Fong (1995) 

found that there was reduced diversity and increased dominance by common taxa in 

stream invertebrate communities in the Sierra Nevada where equivalent roaded area 

(ERA, a metric of cumulative land disturbance associated with timber harvest and 

roads) exceeded 5 percent of a watershed.

Flow regulation and impoundments—Aquatic organisms have evolved life history 

strategies to take advantage of high flood predictability and associated seasonal 

processes. The timing of the spring snowmelt recession and the shape of the 

recession hydrograph contribute to reproductive cues for many riparian and aquatic 

species, such as cottonwoods, willows, mayflies, amphibians, and salmonids. 

Yarnell et al. (2010) developed a conceptual model about snowmelt recession that 
300

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

provides some testable hypotheses about regulated flows in streams and climate 

change effects on the hydrograph. As flows gradually decrease through spring, 

the hydrograph passes through windows of biological opportunity at magnitudes 

that support habitat (i.e., availability) in sufficient condition (i.e., suitability) for 

species persistence. Shifts in the timing of the recession or changes to the shape of 

the recession hydrograph that preclude suitable habitat during a particular species’ 

window of reproduction can lead to a lack of success. Shifts in the timing of the 

recession may push periods of reproduction out of phase with the availability of 

suitable habitat. Shifts in the rate of the recession affect both abiotic and biotic 

conditions, creating the largest observed changes to the stream ecosystem. The 

effects of climate warming on aquatic ecosystems in Mediterranean-montane 

climates will be profound, with shifts in each of the three primary components 

of the recession (magnitude, timing, and rate of change). Shifts in the timing at 

the start of the recession and decreases in the magnitude of the flow, coupled 

with a shorter duration resulting from a relatively small increase in the rate of 

change, will alter in-stream and riparian species compositions, forcing cold-water 

aquatic species to inhabit higher elevations, and leading to a higher abundance of 

nonnative species. Shifts in the spring recession as a result of flow regulation can 

create similar patterns. On the basis of this conceptual model, the authors found 

that managed hydrographs with a flashy, short-duration spring snowmelt recession 

overlying a steady base flow can create channel conditions reflective of the two 

observed extremes in discharge, flood and base flow. Aquatic and riparian species 

will be reflective of the homogeneous channel conditions and lack diversity. Rehn 

(2008) used a reference stream dataset to establish a multimetric IBI for Sierra 

Nevada west-slope streams to evaluate the effects of hydropower releases on BMIs. 

Degradation of the invertebrate community (quantified through comparison with 

upstream sites) was found within 3 km of dams and was mostly related to flow 

regulation and constancy below dams (i.e., loss of natural flow regime). Rehn’s 

findings support the conceptual model and hypotheses in Yarnell et al. (2010).

Effects of floods—Herbst and Cooper (2010) evaluated conditions before and after 

the 1997 New Year’s Day floods for 14 small, headwater streams in the eastern 

Sierra Nevada. The streams showed loss of bank stability and riparian cover resulting from scour. Densities of BMIs in previously disturbed habitats increased, with 

increases mainly consisting of small opportunistic species (rapid-growing colonizers) feeding on fine particulate organic matter. These results show a shift to common taxa with generalized food habits. Undisturbed reference streams changed 

little from 1996 to 1997, suggesting that these more diverse and stable communities 

persist even in the face of short-term extreme flows, and are important biodiversity 
301

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

refugia for downstream habitats where flooding may be more severe. These results 

highlight the importance of protecting the integrity of less disturbed headwater 

stream habitats.

Introduced invasive species—A paired watershed study of fishless streams with 

adjacent trout-stocked streams in Yosemite National Park showed that trout reduce 

native grazers and permit more dense growth of algae on stream rocks (Herbst et 

al. 2008b). This study showed losses of 20 percent of BMI taxa richness, mostly as 

losses of endemics and native montane species, in the presence of trout. The higher 

algae cover in streams with nonnative trout corresponds to more collector-gatherers 

and fewer predators and grazers. Conserving biodiversity and restoring natural food 

webs likely depends on removal of introduced trout.

The New Zealand mud snail (NZMS) has caused significant disruptions in 

stream food chains across many trout streams of the Western United States. Herbst 

et al. (2008a) suggest that specific conductance levels may control which streams 

NZMS can colonize. In streams with specific conductance below 50 μS, snails do 

not survive, and at levels below 200 μS, their growth and survival are inhibited. 

Invasive herbivores like NZMS can have strong top-down and bottom-up influences 

on invaded ecosystems, but these impacts can be extremely variable across time 

and space. 

Information gaps—The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) provided a summary on the status of invertebrates, highlighting high endemism (among caddisflies 

and stoneflies in particular) and dependence of diversity on habitat quality, but it 

provided little information on ecological structure, function, and ecosystem processes in streams (Erman 1996). The distribution and abundance of aquatic invertebrates in the Sierra is still mostly unknown. Many studies are localized at research areas (see fig. 1 in chapter 1.5), such as the Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research 

Laboratory (SNARL) on Convict Creek, Sagehen Creek Experimental Forest, the 

Blodgett Forest Research Station, and KREW, or where restoration project monitoring has occurred. Recent sampling done under the California SWAMP provides 

more survey data, but important geographic gaps remain. High elevations, intermittent streams, springs, remote regions, and whole catchments remain poorly characterized (most surveys represent only 100- to 200-m reaches within larger basins). 

Data from some studies show an emerging pattern of north-south distinctions in 

biogeography. 

Researchers still do not know a lot about the biodiversity of aquatic 

invertebrates in the Sierra Nevada. Erman (1996) reported that species-level 

information was lacking for many taxa and that inventories or lists were incomplete; 

this statement remains true. She reported approximately 400 taxa from streams 

Conserving biodiversity 

and restoring natural 

food webs likely 

depends on removal 

of introduced trout.
302

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

and lakes, approximately 20 percent of which were endemic to the Sierra Nevada 

(see box 6.1-6 for an update). Further genetics research is likely to reveal unknown 

biodiversity. For example, studies of the Cascades stonefly (Doroneuria baumanni), 

which is the most common large predatory insect in the high Sierra Nevada, show 

genetic variation in isolated Sierra Nevada and Great Basin populations (Schultheis 

et al. 2012).

Strategies to Promote Resilience of Water and 

Aquatic Ecosystems

Recent science indicates that watershed management should be guided by an understanding of disturbance regimes that recognizes the nonequilibrium nature of ecosystems (Bisson et al. 2003, Rieman et al. 2010, Wallington et al. 2005, Welsh 2011, 

and chapter 1.2, “Integrative Approaches: Promoting Socioecological Resilience”).

Promoting Favorable Waterflows

Given changing climate conditions, maintaining or improving water quantity and 

quality in low-order streams through fuels reduction activities (mechanical thinning 

and prescribed fire) can be considered as a management opportunity rather than 

a constraint. For water quality, this approach requires a balancing of short-term, 

low-intensity effects against high-intensity effects from more extreme events. For 

example, potential for extreme wildfires is increasing with climate change. Because 

fuels reduction activities are expected to reduce the risk of wildfires, they can be 

considered as an opportunity to maintain or improve water quality because wildBox 6.1-6

Ongoing Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Research in Eastern 

Sierra Nevada Streams

About 400 surveys in streams of the eastern Sierra Nevada have contributed 

to a database developed at the Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory 

(SNARL) with more than 500 distinct taxa from about 200 stream surveys 

(see http://vesr.ucnrs.org/pages/Herbst_Research.html for more on this 

database). More comprehensive listings of taxa from high-elevation streams 

in the western Sierra Nevada, and at species-level resolution (many are only at 

the genus level currently), will likely place this total closer to 1,000 species or 

more. Reference specimen collection cataloguing is underway at SNARL for 

hundreds of surveys in the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin.

Because fuels reduction 

activities are expected 

to reduce the risk of 

wildfires, they can 

be considered as an 

opportunity to maintain 

or improve water quality 

because wildfires 

can have significant 

impacts through 

increased sediment 

loads and phosphorus 

concentrations and 

debris flows.
303

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

fires can have significant impacts through increased sediment loads and phosphorus 

concentrations and debris flows. Also, with warming temperatures, trees are 

expected to decrease soil moisture and increase evapotranspiration, thus leaving 

less water for movement to streams; mechanical thinning of trees and low-intensity 

underburning of vegetation would reduce evapotranspiration and help maintain soil 

and stream water amounts. The strategic orientation of PSW-GTR-220 (North et al. 

2009) and PSW-GTR-237 (North 2013), which focuses on restoring heterogeneity 

and landscape-scale ecological processes, can be extended to aquatic ecosystems. 

The incorporation of key hydrologic and nutrient processes as treatment objectives 

facilitates a more holistic forest restoration effort. 

Because N concentrations are a good indicator of forest health (both productivity and stress), it would be beneficial to have a few locations where N is measured 

periodically in wet and dry atmospheric deposition, mineral soil, and soil and 

stream waters. Such measurements are most likely to be done at research locations 

(fig. 1 in chapter 1.5), and they could continue through collaborative activities 

between research and forest management (examples include studies such as those 

reviewed in Argerich et al. [2013], Sudduth et al. [2013], and ongoing at KREW [see 

box 6.1-5]).

The scientific literature indicates that increased wildfire impacts in the future 

are a concern in terms of soil erosion, sedimentation, and impacts to water resources 

(Goode et al. 2012). To mitigate potential impacts to water bodies, it is important to 

evaluate overall watershed potential for erosion and sedimentation resulting from 

wildfires, as well as fuels reduction activities; timber harvest; and road construction, 

use, improvement, and decommissioning. Some research exists and can be augmented with monitoring data from future forest management projects.

Addressing roads—

Although the ability to measure or predict the hydrologic consequence of building 

or modifying a specific road network might be limited, general principles and models are available to decrease the negative effects of roads. These principles can be 

useful during upgrading or decommissioning of roads to meet various objectives. A 

list of principles provided by Gucinski et al. (2001) includes the following: 

• Locate roads to minimize effects by conducting careful geologic examination of all proposed road locations.

• Design roads to minimize interception, concentration, and diversion potential, including measures to reintroduce intercepted water back into slow 

(subsurface) pathways by using outsloping and drainage structures rather 

than attempting to concentrate and move water directly to channels.
304

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

• Evaluate and eliminate diversion potential at stream crossings.

• Design road-stream crossings to pass not just water but also woody 

debris, sediment, and fish.

Assessing water quality using stream macroinvertebrates—

Much work remains to be done to characterize the health of Sierra Nevada streams 

using stream invertebrates. Mapping invertebrate distributions would provide a 

basic understanding of biodiversity patterns, hot spots, and biogeographic regionalization of aquatic invertebrate fauna. Future planning efforts will benefit when 

forestwide analyses and multiforest syntheses can be done on stream invertebrate 

data and stream physical properties data (Stream Condition Inventory) that already 

exist for the synthesis area. 

Spatial analysis of watersheds, from headwaters to major river systems, would 

provide information on how the ecological health of interconnected stream systems 

changes as a function of land use disturbances, habitat fragmentation, and reservoirs/dams. Combining data from SWAMP, the regionwide Management Indicator 

Species Program, the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station and other 

organizations like SNARL could yield valuable information to improve assessments of cumulative watershed affects. Furthermore, distribution data on fish and 

amphibians could be combined with the accumulating data on aquatic invertebrates 

to assist in identifying areas of high biological value (richness, endemism, index of 

biological integrity) for conservation management to provide a means for identifying and protecting reference areas of biological integrity. Knowledge about forest 

stream condition (as shown by Ode 2007) can improve substantially if invertebrate 

monitoring occurs at selected management projects that have not yet proceeded to 

an implementation phase. It is possible to use bioassessment tools to gather data 

using a before-after control-impact (BACI) statistical design to evaluate project 

outcomes in terms of aquatic invertebrate indicators of desired ecological improvements. These case histories could provide a foundation for adaptive management 

(monitoring informs decisions on how to proceed with actions) and advance restoration as a prescriptive science (what works and where and how long it takes) (see box 

6.1-5 about KREW). Opportunities exist at the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project, the Dinkey Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project on the 

Sierra National Forest, and for similar projects where planned management affords 

an opportunity to learn more about prescribed fire, selective logging practices, or 

fuels reduction in protecting aquatic ecosystems within the context of forest ecosystem health.
305

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Promoting Resilience of Aquatic Ecosystems

Landscape-scale consideration of tradeoffs in managing forests for wildfires—

Although wildfire can have negative or neutral impacts on fish, wildfire-related 

disturbances can also help to maintain diverse and productive habitats (Rieman et 

al. 2003). Many of the processes associated with wildfire disturbance have potential 

to benefit aquatic habitats, including contributions of nutrients, wood, and coarse 

substrate; reorganization of in-channel habitat structure; increases in streamflow; 

and increases in temperature, light, and in-stream food production (in systems 

that are below optimum growth levels) (Gresswell 1999). The overall impact of 

a wildfire on aquatic organisms depends on the specific context of that event; 

however, scientists have come to a general conclusion that fishes in large habitat 

networks are more likely to benefit even after relatively severe wildfires, whereas 

fishes in small, isolated systems are more vulnerable to losses (Rieman et al. 2010). 

A recent synthesis of short-term effects of wildfire on amphibians yielded similar 

conclusions, specifically that (1) wildfire can provide important benefits for amphibian diversity overall; (2) wildfire can pose threats to small, isolated, or stressed 

populations, particularly in the Southwest; and (3) negative effects on populations 

or individuals are greater in fire-suppressed forests, and high-severity burns cause 

greater negative effects on populations or individuals (Hossack and Pilliod 2011). In 

addition, some research suggests that native fishes may be better adapted to fireassociated disturbances than nonnative competitors. This relationship, combined 

with the potential for wildfire to extirpate or greatly reduce nonnative trout species, 

suggests that wildfires, even uncharacteristically severe ones, could provide important opportunities to enhance native species.

Forests may be treated to reduce the threat of uncharacteristically severe 

wildfire or to emulate some of the desired effects of natural disturbances, consistent 

with the principle of disturbance-based management (see chapter 1.2). Burton 

(2005) and Rieman et al. (2003) emphasized the need to carefully weigh the costs 

and benefits of treatments, because road networks and stream crossings that may be 

used to implement the treatments have potential to perpetuate impacts to streams 

and aquatic populations. Collectively, these studies recommend spatially explicit 

analysis of risks for aquatic species in the synthesis area. 

Stream and riparian restoration to promote resilience to climate change—

Restoration of stream and riparian ecosystems is a core strategy for enhancing ecological resilience to postfire impacts and climate change (see chapter 1.1), because 

of the important roles of streams in providing linear habitat connectivity, laterally 

Scientists have come 

to a general conclusion 

that fishes in large 

habitat networks are 

more likely to benefit 

even after relatively 

severe wildfires, 

whereas fishes in 

small, isolated systems 

are more vulnerable 

to losses.
306

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

connecting aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and creating thermal refugia for 

cold water species such as salmonids (Seavy et al. 2009).

Promoting connectivity—Increasing longitudinally connected networks from 

mainstem rivers to headwater tributaries has been recommended to help native trout 

species cope with the threat of wildfire under projected climate change (Haak and 

Williams 2012). However, because many remaining native fish populations have 

been purposefully isolated from nonnative invaders, efforts to reconnect isolated 

populations could leave populations exposed to potential invaders (Fausch et al. 

2009). For that reason, Williams et al. (2009) observed that a shift away from an 

isolation strategy would require increasing efforts to reduce nonnative fishes.

Ameliorating high temperatures—An analysis by Wenger et al. (2011) suggested 

that proactive trout conservation strategies in the face of climate change should 

include ameliorating high temperatures along with reducing interactions with nonnative species. Stream restoration has potential to ameliorate increases in stream 

temperatures, reductions in base flows, and other projected effects of climate 

change. Restoration efforts can promote vegetation growth and channel narrowing that reduce solar exposure, and they can also promote channel complexity and 

associated hyporheic exchange (where surface water mixes with shallow groundwater) by developing riffles, secondary channels, and floodplain sediments (Hester 

and Gooseff 2010, Kondolf 2012, Poole and Berman 2001). As an example of this 

strategy, researchers are investigating how wet meadow restoration could increase 

summer discharge and reduce water temperatures to help sustain California golden 

trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita) (see chapter 6.3).

Restoring flow regimes on regulated rivers—

Management of reservoirs and regulated rivers was not a focus of this synthesis, 

although these systems are clearly important as a source of ecosystem services in 

terms of recreation opportunities, flood control, water supply, and power generation 

(Null et al. 2010). Recent research demonstrates that the cross-cutting theme of 

disturbance-based management relates strategies for river management to conservation of endemic species. A recent study examined time series data for the foothill 

yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) and California red-legged frogs (R. draytonii); the 

findings suggest that flow management that emulates natural flow regimes is likely 

to promote resilience of populations of these native frogs (Kupferberg et al. 2012). 

Dams generally reduce overall heterogeneity in flow regime, while also permitting 

unnaturally rapid changes in flow, such as sharp decreases in flow following spring 

runoff (Kupferberg et al. 2012, Moyle and Mount 2007). Climate change may also 

alter hydrologic regimes in ways that are similarly detrimental to these aquatic 
307

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

species by reducing snowpacks, inducing earlier and more rapid snowmelt in the 

spring, and by extending periods of low flow in the summer and fall (Null et al. 

2010). Those changes may harm species that are adapted to gradual spring recession flows (Yarnell et al. 2010), and also reduce whitewater boating opportunities. 

Kupferberg et al. (2012) reported a negative association between hydrologic modification, as suggested by dam height, and persistence of foothill yellow-legged frog 

populations. In regulated rivers, a management strategy to protect native riverine 

species is to emulate natural flow patterns, especially by limiting rapid fluctuations 

in water levels; this strategy could benefit the species directly, by helping them 

avoid mortality, and perhaps indirectly, by promoting changes in channel morphology and in-stream habitat (Yarnell et al. 2012). Another component of a management strategy to benefit these species could be meadow restoration efforts, to the 

extent that they can extend base flows longer into the summer (see chapter 6.3).

Restoring fluvial processes—

Researchers have emphasized the fundamental importance of restoring fluvial 

processes in dynamic stream systems (e.g., by removing levees or other artificial 

structures) as a strategy to restore fluvial form and aquatic habitats (Kondolf 2012, 

Kondolf et al. 2012). This approach shares close parallels with the idea of restoring 

fire as an ecological process, and as such, its success will depend on careful articulation of goals and understanding of the ecological and social context of the system. 

In particular, the more passive approach of setting aside a “zone of liberty,” where 

natural riverine processes of deposition and erosion can occur freely, is more likely 

to succeed in relatively large and powerful streams or rivers (Kondolf 2012). 

Literature Cited

Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream ecology—structure and function of running waters. 

New York: Chapman and Hall. 388 p.

Argerich, A.; Johnson, S.L.; Sebestyen, S.D.; Rhoades, C.C.; Greathouse, E.; 

Knoepp, J.D.; Adams, M.B.; Likens, G.E.; Campbell, J.L.; McDowell, W.H.; 

Scatena, F.N.; Ice, G.G. 2013. Trends in stream nitrogen concentrations for 

forested reference catchments across the USA. Environmental Research Letters. 

8: 014039. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/-14039.

Bales, R.C.; Battles, J.J.; Chen, Y.; Conklin, M.H.; Holst, E.; O’Hara, L.O.; 

Saksa, P.; Stewart, W. 2011b. Forests and water in the Sierra Nevada: Sierra 

Nevada watershed ecosystem enhancement project. Report number 11.1. Merced, 

CA: Sierra Nevada Research Institute. 39 p.

Researchers have 

emphasized the 

fundamental importance 

of restoring fluvial 

processes in dynamic 

stream systems as 

a strategy to restore 

fluvial form and aquatic 

habitats.
308

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Bales, R.C.; Hopmans, J.W.; O’Geen, A.T.; Meadows, M.; Hartsough, P.C.; 

Kirchner, P.; Hunsaker, C.T.; Beaudette, D. 2011a. Soil moisture response 

to snowmelt and rainfall in a Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forest. Vadose Zone 

Journal. 10: 786–799.

Bales, R.C.; Molotch, N.P.; Painter, T.H.; Dettinger, M.D.; Rice, R.; Dozier, 

J. 2006. Mountain hydrology of the western United States. Water Resources 

Research. 42: W08432. doi:10.1029/2005WR004387.

Barnett, T.P.; Pierce, D.W.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Bonfils, C.; Santer, B.D.; Das, T.; 

Bala, G.; Wood, A.W.; Nozawa, T.; Mirin, A.A.; Cayan, D.R.; Dettinger, 

M.D. 2008. Human-induced changes in the hydrology of the western United 

States. Science. 319: 1080–1083. 

Battin, J.; Wiley, M.W.; Ruckelshaus, M.H.; Palmer, R.N.; Korb, E.; Bartz, 

K.K.; Imaki, H. 2007. Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat 

restoration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United 

States of America. 104(16): 6720–6725.

Beche, L.A.; Resh, V.H. 2007. Biological traits of benthic macroinvertebrates in 

California Mediterranean-climate streams: long-term annual variability and trait 

diversity patterns. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie. 169: 1–23. 

Beche, L.A.; Stephens, S.L.; Resh, V.H. 2005. Effects of prescribed fire on a 

Sierra Nevada (California, USA) stream and its riparian zone. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 218: 37–59. 

Behnke, R.J. 2002. Trout and salmon of North America. New York: The Free 

Press. 359 p.

Benda, L.; Miller, D.; Bigelow, P.; Andras, K. 2003. Effects of post-wildfire 

erosion on channel environments, Boise River, Idaho. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 178(1–2): 105–119.

Bisson, P.A.; Rieman, B.E.; Luce, C.; Hessburg, P.F.; Lee, D.C. 2003. Fire and 

aquatic ecosystems of the western USA current knowledge and key questions. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 213–229.

Bosch, J.M.; Hewlett, J.D. 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine 

the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. Journal of 

Hydrology. 55: 2–23.
309

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Breazeale, R.E. 1972. An estimation of the natural geologic sedimentation rate of 

the North Fork Kings River. Open-file report. Clovis, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Sierra National Forest. 61 p.

Brekke, L.D.; Miller, N.L.; Bashford, K.E.; Quinn, M.W.T.; Dracup, J.A. 

2004. Climate change impacts uncertainty for water resources in the San Joaquin 

River Basin, California. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 

40: 149–164.

Brown, D.K.; Echelle, A.A.; Propst, D.L.; Brooks, J.E.; Fisher, W.L. 2001. 

Catastrophic wildfire and number of populations as factors influencing risk 

of extinction for Gila trout (Oncorhynchus gilae). Western North American 

Naturalist. 61(2): 139–148.

Brown, L.R.; May, J.T.; Hunsaker, C.T. 2008. Species composition and habitat 

associations of benthic algal assemblages in headwater streams of the Sierra 

Nevada, California. Western North American Naturalist. 68(2): 194–209.

Burton, T.A. 2005. Fish and stream habitat risks from uncharacteristic wildfire: 

Observations from 17 years of fire-related disturbances on the Boise National 

Forest, Idaho. Forest Ecology and Management. 211(1–2): 140–149.

California Department of Water Resources [DWR]. 2006. Progress on 

incorporating climate change into management of California’s water resources. 

Technical memorandum report. Sacramento, CA. 339 p.

Cannon, S.H.; DeGraff, J. 2009. The increasing wildfire and post-fire debris-flow 

threat in western USA, and implications for consequences of climate change. In: 

Sassa, K.; Canuti, P., eds. Landslides—disaster risk reduction. Berlin: SpringerVerlag: 177–190.

Cannon, S.H.; Gartner, J.E.; Wilson, R.C.; Bowers, J.C.; Laber, J.L. 2008.

Storm rainfall conditions for floods and debris flows from recently burned areas 

in southwestern Colorado and southern California. Geomorphology. 96: 250–269. 

Cannon, S.H.; Michael, J.A. 2011. Emergency assessment of postwildfire debrisflow hazards for the 2011 Motor Fire, Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests, 

California. Open-File Report 2011-1251. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Geological Survey. 10 p.

Carter, J.L.; Fend, S.V. 2001. Inter-annual changes in the benthic community 

structure of riffles and pools in reaches of contrasting gradient. Hydrobiologia. 

459: 187–200. 
310

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Cayan, D.; Luers, A.L.; Hanemann, M.; Franco, G.; Croes, B. 2006.

Scenarios of climate change in California: an overview. CEC-500-2005-186-SF. 

Sacramento, CA: California Climate Change Center. 47 p.

Coe, D.B.R. 2006. Sediment production and delivery from forest roads in the 

Sierra Nevada, California. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 107 p. 

M.S. thesis.

DeGraff, J.V. 1994. The geomorphology of some debris flows in the southern 

Sierra-Nevada, California. Geomorphology. 10(1–4): 231–252. 

DeGraff, J.; Wagner, D.; Gallegos, A.; DeRose, M.; Shannon, C.; Ellsworth, 

T. 2011. The remarkable occurrence of large rainfall-induced debris flows at 

two different locations on July 12, 2008, Southern Sierra Nevada, CA, USA. 

Landslides. 8(3): 343–353.

DellaSala, D.A.; Williams, J.; Deacon Williams, C.; Franklin, J.F. 2004.

Beyond smoke and mirrors: a synthesis of fire policy and science. Conservation 

Biology. 18: 976–986.

Dettinger, M.D. 2005. From climate-change spaghetti to climate-change 

distributions for 21st century California. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed 

Science. 3(1): 1–14.

Dunham, J.B.; Rosenberger, A.E.; Luce, C.H.; Rieman, B.E. 2007. Influences 

of wildfire and channel reorganization on spatial and temporal variation in 

stream temperature and the distribution of fish and amphibians. Ecosystems. 

10(2): 335–346.

Dunne, T.; Reid, L. 1985. Effects of the HAAS-Kings River Project on sediment 

transport and sedimentation. Seattle, WA: R.W. Beck Engineering Co. 166 p.

Engle, D.L.; Sickman, J.O.; Moore, C.M.; Esperanza, A.M.; Melack, J.M.; 

Keeley, J.E. 2008. Biogeochemical legacy of prescribed fire in a giant sequoiamixed conifer forest: a 16-year record of watershed balances. Journal of 

Geophysical Research. 113: G01014. doi:10.1029/2006JG000391.

Erman, N.A. 1996. Status of aquatic invertebrates. In: SNEP Science Team, eds. 

Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress. Vol. II: Assessments 

and scientific basis for management options. Report No. 37. Davis, CA: Centers 

for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California–Davis: 987–1008. 

Chapter 35.
311

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Erman, N.A. 2002. Lessons from a long-term study of springs and spring 

invertebrates (Sierra Nevada, California, U.S.A.) and implications for 

conservation and management. Conference proceedings. Spring-fed wetlands: 

important scientific and cultural resources of the Intermountain Region, 2002. 

Las Vegas, NV: Desert Research Institute. http://www.dri.edu. (6 January 2014).

Farquhar, F.P. 1965. History of the Sierra Nevada. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press. 278 p.

Fausch, K.D.; Rieman, B.E.; Dunham, J.B.; Young, M.K.; Peterson, D.P. 2009. 

Invasion versus isolation: trade-offs in managing native salmonids with barriers 

to upstream movement. Conservation Biology. 23(4): 859–870.

Fenn, M.E.; Jovan, S; Yuan, F.; Geiser, L; Meixner, T.; Gimeno, B.S. 2008. 

Empirical and simulated critical loads for nitrogen deposition in California 

mixed conifer forests. Environmental Pollution. 155: 492–511.

Ficklin, D.L.; Luo, Y.; Stewart, I.T.; Maurer, E.P. 2012. Development and 

application of a hydroclimatological stream temperature model within the 

Soil and Water Assessment Tool. Water Resources Research. 48: W01511. 

doi:10.1029/2011WR011256. 

Florsheim, J.L.; Mount, J.F.; Chin, A. 2008. Bank erosion as a desirable attribute 

of rivers. BioScience. 58(6): 519–529.

Furniss, M.J.; Roelofs, T.D.; Yee, C.S. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. 

In: Meehan, W.R., ed. Influences of forest and rangeland management on 

salmonid fishes and their habitats. Spec. Publ. 19. Bethesda, MD: American 

Fisheries Society: 297–323.

Goode, J.R.; Luce, C.H.; Buffington, J.M. 2012. Enhanced sediment delivery 

in a changing climate in semi-arid mountain basins: implications for water 

resource management and aquatic habitat in the northern Rocky Mountains. 

Geomorphology. 139: 1–15.

Goulden, M.L.; Anderson, R.G.; Bales, R.C.; Kelly, A.E.; Meadows, M.; 

Winston, G.C. 2012. Evapotranspiration along an elevation gradient in 

California’s Sierra Nevada. Journal of Geophysical Research. 117: G03028. 

doi:10.1029/2012JG002027.

Gresswell, R.E. 1999. Fire and aquatic ecosystems in forested biomes of North 

America. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 128(2): 193–221. 
312

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Gucinski, H.; Furniss, M.J.; Ziemer, R.R.; Brookes, M.H. 2001. Forest roads: 

a synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-509. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 103 p.

Gunderson, L.H. 2000. Ecological resilience—in theory and application. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics. 31: 425–439.

Haak, A.L.; Williams, J.E. 2012. Spreading the risk: native trout management 

in a warmer and less-certain future. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management. 32(2): 387–401.

Harp, E.L.; Reid, M.E.; Godt, J.W.; DeGraff, J.V.; Gallegos, A. 2008.

Ferguson rock slide buries California State highway near Yosemite National 

Park. Landslides. doi:10.1007/s10346-008-0120-9.

Hawkins, C.P.; Norris, R.H.; Hogue, J.N.; Feminella, J.W. 2000. Development 

and evaluation of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of 

streams. Ecological Applications. 10: 1456–1477.

Hayhoe, K.; Cayan, D.; Field, C.; Frumhoff, P.; Maurer, E. 2004. Emissions 

pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 101: 

12422–12327.

Heede, B.H. 1980. Stream dynamics: an overview for land managers. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RM-72. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 p.

Herbst, D.B. 2004. Establishing reference conditions for streams and measuring 

ecological responses to management actions using aquatic invertebrate biological 

assessments. In: Murphy, D.D.; Stine, P.A., eds. Proceedings of the Sierra 

Nevada Science Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-193. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 

133–141. 

Herbst, D.B.; Bogan, M.T.; Lusardi, R.A. 2008a. Low specific conductivity 

limits growth and survival of the New Zealand mud snail from the Upper Owens 

River, California. Western North American Naturalist. 68: 324–333. 

Herbst, D.B.; Cooper, S.D. 2010. Before and after the deluge: rain-on-snow 

flooding effects on aquatic invertebrate communities of small streams in the 

Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 

29: 1354–1366. 
313

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Herbst, D.B.; Silldorff, E.L. 2006. Comparison of the performance of different 

bioassessment methods: similar evaluations of biotic integrity from separate 

programs and procedures. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 

25: 513–530. 

Herbst, D.B.; Silldorff, E.L.; Cooper, S.D. 2008b. The influence of introduced 

trout on native aquatic invertebrate communities in a paired watershed study of 

streams in Yosemite National Park. Freshwater Biology. 54: 1324–1342. 

Hester, E.T.; Gooseff, M.N. 2010. Moving beyond the banks: hyporheic restoration 

is fundamental to restoring ecological services and functions of streams. 

Environmental Science & Technology. 44(5): 1521–1525.

Hibbert, A.R. 1967. Forest treatment effects on water yield. In: Sopper, W.E.; 

Lull, H.W., eds. Forest Hydrology. New York: Pergamon: 527–543.

Holland, M.M.; Risser, P.G.; Naiman, R.J. 1991. Ecotones: the role of landscape 

boundaries in the management and restoration of changing environments. New 

York: Chapman and Hall. 142 p.

Hossack, B.R.; Pilliod, D.S. 2011. Amphibian responses to wildfire in the 

western United States: emerging patterns from short-term studies. Fire 

Ecology. 7(2): 129–144.

Hunsaker, C.; Bytnerowicz, A.; Auman, J.; Cisneros, R. 2007. Air pollution 

and watershed research in the central Sierra Nevada of California: nitrogen and 

ozone. The Scientific World. 7(S1): 206–221.

Hunsaker, C.T.; Eagan, S.M. 2003. Small stream ecosystem variability in the 

Sierra Nevada of California. In: Renard, K.G.; McElroy, S.A.; Gburek, W.J.; 

Canfield, H.E.; Scott, R.L., eds. First interagency conference on research in the 

watersheds. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 

Research Service: 716–721. http://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/icrw/Proceedings/

Hunsaker.pdf. (6 January 2014).

Hunsaker, C.T.; Neary, D.G. 2012. Sediment loads and erosion in forest headwater 

streams of the Sierra Nevada, California. In: Webb, A.A.; Bonell, M.; Bren, 

L.; Lane, P.N.J.; McGuire, D.; Neary, D.G.; Nettles, J.; Scott, D.F.; Stednick, J.; 

Wang, Y., eds. Revisiting experimental catchment studies in forest hydrology 

Proceedings of a workshop held during the XXV IUGG general assembly. 

Wallingford, United Kingdom: International Association of Hydrological 

Sciences Publications. 353: 195–203.
314

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Hunsaker, C.T.; Whitaker, T.W.; Bales, R.C. 2012. Snowmelt runoff and water 

yield along elevation and temperature gradients in California’s southern Sierra 

Nevada. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 48: 667–678.

Isaak, D.J.; Luce, C.H.; Rieman, B.E.; Nagel, D.E.; Peterson, E.E.; Horan, 

D.L.; Parkes, S.; Chandler, G.L. 2010. Effects of climate change and wildfire 

on stream temperatures and salmonid thermal habitat in a mountain river 

network. Ecological Applications. 20(5): 1350–1371. 

Istanbulluoglu, E.; Tarboton, D.G.; Pack, R.T.; Luce, C.H. 2004. Modeling of 

the interactions between forest vegetation, disturbances, and sediment yields. 

Journal of Geophysical Research—Earth Surface. 109: F01009.

Jackson, T.L. 1988. Geologic setting and prehistoric settlement patterning in 

the central Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of California and Great Basin 

Anthropology. 10(2): 227–236.

Jeton, A.E.; Dettinger, M.D.; Smith, J.L. 1996. Potential effects of climate 

change on streamflow, eastern and western slopes of the Sierra Nevada, 

California and Nevada. Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4260. 

Sacramento, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 44 p.

Johnson, D.W.; Fenn, M.E.; Miller, W.W.; Hunsaker, C.F. 2009. Effects on 

carbon and nitrogen cycling in forests of the Sierra Nevada. In: Bytnerowicz, A.; 

Arbaugh, M.; Riebau, A.; Andersen, C., eds. Developments in environmental 

science, vol. 8: Wildland fires and air pollution. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 405–423.

Johnson, D.W.; Glass, D.W.; Murphy, J.D.; Stein, C.M.; Miller, W.W. 2010.

Hot spots and hot moments: another look at nutrient variability in Sierra Nevada 

forest soils. Biogeochemistry. 101: 93–103.

Johnson, D.W.; Hunsaker, C.T.; Glass, D.W.; Rau, B.M.; Roath, B.A. 2011a.

Carbon and nutrient contents in soils from the Kings River Experimental 

Watersheds, Sierra Nevada Mountains, California. Geoderma. 160: 490–502.

Johnson, D.W.; Miller, W.W.; Rau, B.M.; Meadows, M.W. 2011b. The nature 

and potential causes of nutrient hotspots in a Sierra Nevada forest soil. Soil 

Science. 176(11): 596–610.

Johnson, D.W.; Susfalk, R.B.; Dahlgren, R.A. 1997. Nutrient fluxes in forests 

of the eastern Sierra Nevada Mountains, USA. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 

11: 673–681. 
315

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Johnson, D.W.; Susfalk, R.B.; Dahlgren, R.A.; Klopatek, J.M. 1998.

Fire is more important than water for nitrogen fluxes in semi-arid forests. 

Environmental Science and Policy. 1: 79–86.

Ketcheson, G.L.; Megahan, W.F.; King, J.G. 1999. “R1–R4” and “BOISED” 

sediment prediction model tests using forest roads in granitics. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association. 35: 83–98.

Knowles, N.; Cayan, D.R. 2002. Potential effects of global warming on the 

Sacramento/San Joaquin watershed and the San Francisco estuary. Geophysical 

Research Letters. 29(18): 38-1–38-4.

Knowles, N.; Dettinger, M.D.; Cayan, D.R. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus 

rainfall in the western United States. Journal of Climate. 19(18): 4545–4559. 

doi:10.1175/JCL13850.1.

Kondolf, G.M. 2012. The espace de liberté and restoration of fluvial process: 

When can the river restore itself and when must we intervene? In: Boon, P.J.; 

Calow, P.; Petts, G.E., eds. River Conservation and Management. Hoboken, NJ: 

John Wiley & Sons: 223–241.

Kondolf, G.M.; Podolak, K.; Grantham, T. 2012. Restoring mediterraneanclimate rivers. Hydrobiologia. 719: 527–545.

Kupferberg, S.J.; Palen, W.; Lind, A.; Bobzien, S.; Catenazzi, A.; Drennan, 

J.; Power, M.E. 2012. Effects of altered flow regimes by dams on survival, 

population declines, and range-wide losses of California river-breeding frogs. 

Conservation Biology. 26: 513–524.

Lave, R. 2009. The controversy over natural channel design: substantive 

explanations and potential avenues for resolution. Journal of the American 

Water Resources Association. 45(6): 1519–1532.

Lettenmaier, D.P.; Gan, T.Y. 1990. Hydrologic sensitivities of the SacramentoSan Joaquin River Basin, California, to global warming. Water Resources 

Research. 26: 69–86.

Lin, H.; Hopmans, J.W.; Richter, D.B. 2011. Interdisciplinary sciences in 

a global network of Critical Zone Observatories. Vadose Zone Journal. 

10(3): 781–785. doi:10.2136/vzj2011.0084.

Litschert, S.E.; MacDonald, L.H. 2009. Frequency and characteristics of 

sediment delivery pathways from forest harvest units to streams. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 259: 143–150.
316

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Liu, F.; Hunsaker, C.T.; Bales, R.C. 2012. Controls of streamflow generation in 

small catchments across the snow-rain transition in the Southern Sierra Nevada, 

California. Hydrological Processes. 27(14): 1959–1972. doi:10.1002/hyp.9304.

Luce, C.; Morgan, P.; Dwire, K.; Isaak, D.; Holden, Z.; Rieman, B. 2012.

Climate change, forests, fire, water and fish: building resilient landscapes, 

streams, and managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-290. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 207 p. 

MacDonald, L.H.; Coe, D.B.; Litschert, S.E. 2004. Assessing cumulative 

watershed effects in the Central Sierra Nevada: hillslope measurements and 

catchment-scale modeling. In: Murphy, D.D.; Stine, P.A., eds. Proceedings of 

the Sierra Nevada science symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-193. Albany, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station: 149–157.

Malanson, G.P. 1993. Riparian landscapes. New York: Cambridge University 

Press. 308 p.

Maurer, E.P. 2007. Uncertainty in hydrologic impacts of climate change in the 

Sierra Nevada, California, under two emission scenarios. Climatic Change. 

82: 309–325.

McGurk, B.J.; Fong, D. 1995. Equivalent roaded area as a measure of cumulative 

effect of logging. Environmental Management. 19: 609–621. 

Meadows, D.; Foltz, R.B.; Geehan, N. 2008. Effects of all-terrain vehicles 

on forested lands and grasslands. 0823 1811-SDTDC. San Dimas, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and 

Development Center. 110 p.

Miller, J.; Germanoski, D.; Waltman, K.; Tausch, R.; Chambers, J. 2001.

Influence of late Holocene processes and landforms on modern channel 

dynamics in upland watersheds of central Nevada. Geomorphology. 38: 373–391.

Miller, J.D.; Safford, H.D.; Crimmins, M.; Thode, A.E. 2009. Quantitative 

evidence for increasing forest fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and southern 

Cascade Mountains, California and Nevada, USA. Ecosystems. 12(1): 16–32.

Miller, N.I.; Bashford, K.E.; Strem, E. 2003. Potential impacts of climate change 

on California hydrology. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 

39: 771–784.
317

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Miller, W.W.; Johnson, D.W.; Denton, C.; Verburg, P.S.J.; Dana, G.L.; Walker, 

R.F. 2005. Inconspicuous nutrient laden surface runoff from mature forest 

Sierran watersheds. Water Air Soil Pollution. 163: 3–17.

Moody, J.A.; Martin, D.A. 2001. Initial hydrologic and geomorphic response 

following a wildfire in the Colorado Front Range. Earth Surface Processes and 

Landforms. 26(10): 1049–1070.

Moody, J.A.; Martin, D.A. 2009. Synthesis of sediment yields after wildland fire 

in different rainfall regimes in the western United States. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 18(1): 96–115.

Mote, P.W.; Hamlet, A.F.; Clark, M.P.; Lettenmaier, D.P. 2005. Declining 

mountain snowpack in western North America. Bulletin of the American 

Meteorological Society. 86: 39–49. doi:10.1175/BAMS-86-1-39.

Moyle, P.B.; Katz, J.V.E.; Quiñones, R.M. 2011. Rapid decline of California’s 

native inland fishes: a status assessment. Biological Conservation. 144(10): 

2414–2423.

Moyle, P.B.; Kiernan, J.D.; Crain, P.K.; Quiñones, R.M. 2012. Projected 

effects of future climates on freshwater fishes of California. CEC-500-2012-028. 

Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission. 53 p.

Moyle, P.B.; Mount, J.F. 2007. Homogenous rivers, homogenous faunas. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America. 104(14): 5711–5712. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701457104. 

Naiman, R.J.; Decamps, H., eds. 1990. The ecology and management of aquaticterrestrial ecotones. Nashville, TN: The Parthenon Publishing Group. 316 p.

Neville, H.; Dunham, J.; Rosenberger, A.; Umek, J.; Nelson, B. 2009. Influences 

of wildfire, habitat size, and connectivity on trout in headwater streams revealed 

by patterns of genetic diversity. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 

138(6): 1314–1327.

North, M.; Stine, P.A.; O’Hara, K.L.; Zielinski, W.J.; Stephens, S.L. 2009.

An ecosystems management strategy for Sierra mixed-conifer forests, with 

addendum. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49 p.

North, M. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. 184 p.
318

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Null, S.E.; Viers, J.H.; Mount, J.F. 2010. Hydrologic response and watershed 

sensitivity to climate warming in California’s Sierra Nevada. PLoS ONE, 

5(4):e9932. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009932.

Ode, P.R. 2007. Ecological condition assessment of California’s perennial wadeable 

streams. Report to the State Water Resources Control Board’s Non-Point Source 

Program. Rancho Cordova, CA: California Department of Fish and Game 

Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory.

Ode, P.; Schiff, K. 2009. Recommendations for the development and maintenance 

of a reference condition management program (RCMP) to support biological 

assessment of California’s wadeable streams: report to the State Water Resources 

Control Board’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Tech. 

Report 581. Sacramento, CA: California Environmental Protection Agency, State 

Water Resources Control Board. 44 p. 

Odum, W.E.; Odum, E.P.; Odum, H.T. 1994. Nature’s pulsing paradigm. 

Estuaries. 18: 547–555.

Oliver, A.A.; Bogan, M.T.; Herbst, D.B.; Dahlgren, R.A. 2012. Short-term 

changes in stream macroinvertebrate communities following a severe fire in 

the Lake Tahoe basin, California. Hydrobiologia. 694(1): 117–130. doi:10.1007/

s10750-012-1136-7.

Organic Administration Act of 1897; Act of June 4, 1897; 16 U.S.C 475.

Peterson, D.H.; Stewart, I.; Murphy, F. 2008. Principal hydrologic responses to 

climatic and geologic variability in the Sierra Nevada, California. San Francisco 

Estuary & Watershed Science. 6(1): Article 3.

Petts, G.E. 1990. The role of ecotones in aquatic landscape management. In: 

Naiman, R.J.; Decamps, H. eds. The ecology and management of aquaticterrestrial ecotones. Man and the Biosphere series, vol. 4. Paris: UNESCO: 

227–261.

Pinay, G.; Decamps, H.; Chauvet, E.; Fustec, E. 1990. Functions of ecotones 

in fluvial systems. In: Naiman, R.J.; Decamps, H. eds. The ecology and 

management of aquatic-terrestrial ecotones. Man and the Biosphere series, 

vol. 4. Paris: UNESCO: 114–169. 

Poole, G.C.; Berman, C.H. 2001. An ecological perspective on in-stream 

temperature: natural heat dynamics and mechanisms of human-caused thermal 

degradation. Environmental Management. 27(6): 787–802. 
319

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Raison, R.J.; Keith, H.; Khanna, P.K. 1990. Effects of fire on the nutrientsupplying capacity of forest soils. In: Dyck, W.J.; Mees, C.A., eds. Impact of 

intensive harvesting on forest site productivity. Forest Research Institute Bulletin 

No. 159, IEA/BE T6/A6 Report No. 2. Rotorua, New Zealand: 39–54.

Raison, R.J.; Khanna, P.K.; Woods, P.V. 1985. Mechanisms of element transfer 

to the atmosphere during vegetation fires. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

15: 132–140.

Rehn, A.C. 2008. Benthic macroinvertebrates as indicators of biological condition 

below hydropower dams on west slope Sierra Nevada streams, California, USA. 

River Research and Applications. 25: 208–228. 

Rice, R.; Bales, R.C.; Painter, T.H.; Dozier, J. 2011. Snow water equivalent 

along elevation gradients in the Merced and Tuolumne River basins of the Sierra 

Nevada. Water Resources Research. 47: W08515. 11 p.

Riebe, C.S.; Kirchner, J.W.; Granger, D.E.; Finkel, R.C. 2001. Minimal 

climatic control on erosion rates in the Sierra Nevada, California. Geology. 

29(5): 447–450.

Rieman, B.E.; Hessburg, P.F.; Luce, C.; Dare, M.R. 2010. Wildfire and 

management of forests and native fishes: Conflict or opportunity for convergent 

solutions? BioScience. 60(6): 460–468.

Rieman, B.; Lee, D.; Burns, D.; Gresswell, R.; Young, M.; Stowell, R.; Rinne, 

J.; Howell, P. 2003. Status of native fishes in the western United States and 

issues for fire and fuels management. Forest Ecology and Management. 178(1–2): 

197–211.

Robichaud, P.R.; Beyers, J.L.; Neary, D.G. 2000. Evaluating the effectiveness of 

postfire rehabilitation treatments. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 85 p.

Robichaud, P.R.; MacDonald, L.H.; Foltz, R.B. 2010. Fuel management and 

erosion. In: Elliot, W.J.; Miller, I.S.; Audin, L. eds. Cumulative watershed effects 

of fuel management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station: 79–100.

Rosenberg, D.M.; Resh, V.H. 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic 

macroinvertebrates. New York: Chapman and Hall. 504 p.
320

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Santi, P.; Morandi, L. 2012. Comparison of debris-flow volumes from burned 

and unburned areas. Landslides. 10(6): 757–769.

Schimel, J.P.; Bennett, J. 2004. Nitrogen mineralization: challenges of a 

changing paradigm. Ecology. 85: 591–602.

Schultheis, A.S.; Booth, J.Y.; Perlmutter, L.R.; Bond, J.E.; Sheldon, A.L. 2012. 

Phylogeography and species biogeography of montane Great Basin stoneflies. 

Molecular Ecology. 13: 3325–3340. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05599.x. 

Seavy, N.E.; Gardali, T.; Golet, G.H.; Griggs, F.T.; Howell, C.A.; Kelsey, R.; 

Small, S.L.; Viers, J.H.; Weigand, J.F. 2009. Why climate change makes 

riparian restoration more important than ever: recommendations for practice 

and research. Ecological Restoration. 27(3): 330–338.

SNEP Science Team, eds. 1996. Status of the Sierra Nevada, Sierra Nevada 

ecosystem project: final report to Congress. Vol. I: assessment summaries 

and management strategies. Report No. 36. Davis, CA: Centers for Water 

and Wildland Resources, University of California–Davis. 209 p.

Stafford, A.K. 2011. Sediment production and delivery from hillslopes and forest 

roads in the southern Sierra Nevada, California. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado 

State University. 190 p. M.S. thesis. 

Stednick, J.D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water 

yield. Journal of Hydrology. 176(1–4): 79–95.

Stednick, J.D. 2000. Timber management. In: Dissmeyer, G.E., ed. Drinking water 

from forest and grasslands: a synthesis of the scientific literature. Gen. Tech Rep. 

GTR-SRS-39. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station: 103–119.

Stephan, K.; Kavanagh, K.L.; Koyama, A. 2012. Effects of spring prescribed 

burning and wildfires on watershed nitrogen dynamics of central Idaho 

headwater areas. Forest Ecology and Management. 263: 240–252.

Stewart, I.T.; Cayan, D.R.; Dettinger, M.D. 2004. Changes in snowmelt runoff 

timing in western North America under a “business as usual” climate change 

scenario. Climatic Change. 62: 217–232.

Sudduth, E.B.; Perakis, S.S.; Bernhardt, E.S. 2013. Nitrate in watersheds: 

Straight from soils to streams? Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences. 

118: 1–12. doi:10.1002/jgrg.20030.
321

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Sugihara, N.G.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Fites-Kaufman, J.; Shaffer, K.E.; 

Thode, A.E. 2006. Fire in California’s ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University 

of California Press. 596 p.

Timmer, K.; Suarez-Brand, M.; Cohen, J.; Clayburgh, J. 2006. State 

of Sierra waters: a Sierra Nevada watersheds index. South Lake Tahoe, CA: 

Sierra Nevada Alliance. 170 p.

Troendle, C.A.; MacDonald, L.H.; Luce, C.H.; Larsen, I.J. 2010. Fuel 

management and water yield. In: Elliot, W.J.; Miller, I.S.; Audin, L., eds. 

Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the western United 

States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 126–148.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1999. Roads 

analysis: informing decisions about managing the national forest transportation 

system. Misc. Rep. FS-643. Washington, DC: 222 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2001. Sierra 

Nevada forest plan amendment: final environmental impact statement. 

Vallejo, CA: Pacific Southwest Region. http://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/

Resources/Conservation/LawsPoliciesRegulation/KeyForestServicePolicy/

SierraNevadaFramework/Framework-FSROD01.pdf. (December 13, 2013).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2004. Sierra 

Nevada forest plan amendment: final supplemental environmental impact 

statement. Vallejo, CA: Pacific Southwest Region. http://www.fs.usda.gov/

Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsBdev3_046095.pdf. (December 13, 2013).

Vicuna, S.; Leonardson, R.; Hanemann, M.W.; Dale, L.L.; Dracup, J.A. 2008.

Climate change impacts on high elevation hydropower generation in California’s 

Sierra Nevada: a case study in the Upper American River. Climatic Change. 

87: 123–137.

Viers, J.H.; Rheinheimer, D.E. 2011. Freshwater conservation options for 

a changing climate in California’s Sierra Nevada. Marine and Freshwater 

Research. 62: 266–278.

Wallington, T. J.; Hobbs, R.J.; Moore, S.A. 2005. Implications of current 

ecological thinking for biodiversity conservation: a review of the salient issues. 

Ecology and Society. 10(1): article 15. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/

iss1/art15/. (December 13, 2013).
322

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Welsh, H.H. 2011. Frogs, fish and forestry: an integrated watershed network 

paradigm conserves biodiversity and ecological services. Diversity. 3: 503–530. 

doi:10.3390/d3030503.

Wenger, S.J.; Isaak, D.J.; Luce, C.H.; Neville, H.M.; Fausch, K.D.; Dunham, 

J.B.; Dauwalter, D.C.; Young, M.K.; Elsner, M.M.; Rieman, B.E.; Hamlet, 

A.F.; Williams, J.E. 2011. Flow regime, temperature, and biotic interactions 

drive differential declines of trout species under climate change. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 108(34): 

14175–14180.

Williams, J.E.; Haak, A.L.; Gillespie, N.G.; Colyer, W.T. 2007. The conservation 

success index: synthesizing and communicating salmonid condition and 

management needs. Fisheries. 32(10): 477–492.

Williams, J.E.; Haak, A.L.; Neville, H.M.; Colyer, W.T. 2009. Potential 

consequences of climate change to persistence of cutthroat trout populations. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 29(3): 533–548.

Yarnell, S.M.; Viers, J.H.; Mount, J.F. 2010. Ecology and management of the 

spring snowmelt recession. BioScience. 60: 114–127.

Yarnell, S.; Lind, A.; Mount, J. 2012. Dynamic flow modeling of riverine 

amphibian habitat with application to regulated flow management. River 

Research and Applications. 28: 177–191.
323

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Carolyn T. Hunsaker1 and Jonathan W. Long2

Summary

Riparian areas are typically highly productive areas that sustain important socioecological benefits, including the capacity to modulate effects of watershed disturbances on aquatic systems. Recent studies have shown that fire behavior in riparian 

areas varies with landscape attributes. Smaller, headwater riparian areas often burn 

similarly to adjacent uplands, whereas riparian areas next to larger streams (4th

order and higher) often burn less frequently and less severely because of moister 

microclimates, and therefore can serve as fire breaks within a landscape. However, 

other riparian areas may accumulate fuels rapidly owing to their high productivity, 

and during dry fire seasons they can serve as wicks that carry high-intensity fire 

through a landscape. These localized relationships with fire suggest that treatment 

strategies for riparian areas should be customized and likely would differ. However, 

riparian areas that are vulnerable to uncharacteristically high-severity fire may 

benefit from being included in upland treatments to render them and their associated landscapes more resilient to wildfire. Furthermore, treatments that reduce tree 

density and increase light may have positive effects on understory plant diversity 

and aquatic productivity in some riparian areas, including those with aspen. Studies on prescribed fire in Sierra Nevada riparian areas have found relatively benign 

impacts. However, information about the effects of both mechanical treatments and 

fire treatments is still relatively limited, which suggests a need for experimental 

treatments. Overall, an adaptive management strategy based upon active management within some riparian areas may promote resilience better than a broad handsoff approach.

Introduction

Riparian areas are important transition zones between terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems that can modulate effects from the watershed and provide valuable 

socioecological benefits. This chapter uses the term riparian area broadly to 

describe the “stream-riparian corridor,” which consists of the stream channel, 

Chapter 6.2—Forested Riparian Areas

1 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 2081 E. Sierra Avenue, Fresno, CA 93710.

2 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr. Davis, CA 95618.
324

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

adjacent floodplains, and the transitional upland fringe, as defined by Dwire et al. 

(2010).3 When Dwire et al. (2010) synthesized the state of knowledge about the 

potential impacts of streamside and upland fuels management on riparian areas, 

they found that most information was derived from studies on the effects of forest 

harvest or wildland fire. Although research about fire history strongly suggests 

a need for treatments within many riparian areas, limited information about the 

effects and effectiveness of mechanical treatments and prescribed fire treatments 

currently limits guidance for managing these valuable riparian ecosystems. 

As a consequence, these systems continue to present an important opportunity 

for research on riparian responses to treatments as well as to fires of different 

severities.

Luce et al. (2012) provided a timely and relevant synthesis of information concerning strategies for promoting resilience in riparian and aquatic ecosystems in the 

face of wildfire and climate change. They emphasized several important functions 

of riparian areas, including provision of shade, inputs of large woody debris and 

allochthonous organic matter, streamside habitat, and bank stability. One of their 

central themes is the role of fire as an agent of renewal and redistribution in riparian 

and aquatic systems within large landscapes over long periods.

Fire History and Behavior in Riparian Areas

Riparian plant communities evolved within the ecological context of regional fire 

regimes. A broader review of fire and fuels in the synthesis area is provided in 

chapter 4.1, “Fire and Fuels.” Luce et al. (2012) presented four generalized scenarios 

of fire behavior and effects in riparian areas:

• Riparian areas burn like adjacent uplands because of similar vegetation 

and topography;

• Riparian areas burn less frequently or less severely than adjacent uplands 

because of soil and terrain that maintain moist microclimates;

• Riparian areas serve as fire breaks, particularly on large, perennial streams;

• Riparian areas burn more frequently or more severely than adjacent uplands 

where fuel loads are higher along low-order streams in steep terrain with 

south-facing aspects. 

3 Riparian areas have been defined in the planning rule by the Forest Service as “threedimensional ecotones of interaction that include terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that 

extend down into the groundwater, up above the canopy, outward across the floodplain, up 

the near-slopes that drain to the water, laterally into the terrestrial ecosystem, and along the 

water course at variable widths” (Office of the Federal Register 2012: 1411).

Fire is an agent of 

renewal and redistribution in riparian and 

aquatic systems within 

large landscapes over 

long periods.
325

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Research findings provide support for these different scenarios. Data from 

perennial streams in the Klamath Mountains suggest that fire return intervals 

(FRIs), and possibly fire behavior, are more variable within riparian zones than in 

adjacent uplands. Skinner (2003) found that median FRIs were generally twice as 

long on riparian sites than on neighboring uplands, but found no substantial differences in the range of FRIs between the two landscape types. Taylor and Skinner 

Figure 1— (A) An intermittent stream and (B) a perennial stream (Hull Creek), both on the Stanislaus 

National Forest, demonstrate some of the diversity in riparian habitats within the synthesis area. 

Jonathan Long Jim Frazier

A

B
326

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

(2003) found that areas with similar timing of fires were several hundred hectares in 

size and bounded by topographic features (e.g., ridgetops, aspect changes, riparian 

zones, and lithologic units) that affect fuel structure, fuel moisture, and fire spread. 

However in very dry years, fires would spread across such boundaries. Thus, by 

affecting fire spread, riparian areas contribute to the structure and dynamics of 

upland forest landscapes (Skinner 2003, Skinner et al. 2006, Taylor and Skinner 

2003). This is an example of the linkage between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

Using remotely sensed Burned Area Reflectance Classifications from four fires 

in the Intermountain Region, Fisk et al. (2004) found that riparian areas burned less 

severely than upland areas in general, but that lower order streams burned more 

like uplands, and that slope and aspect were more watershed-specific factors. Luce 

et al. (2012) summarized the average FRI for riparian areas across five studies in 

dry forests as 12 to 36 years. That value is very similar to the return interval of 10 

to 31 years for uplands in the same studies. However, they found that the average 

FRI in mesic forest types, based upon two studies from the Klamath Mountains 

in California and the Cascade Range in Oregon, is much longer: 26 to 41 years in 

riparian versus 17 to 25 years in associated uplands. Two of the studies included in 

the synthesis by Luce et al. (2012) are discussed in greater detail below.

First, research in the Sierra Nevada has indicated that riparian forests have 

higher fuel loads than adjacent uplands, and that on smaller and more incised 

streams, forested riparian areas have fire histories similar to adjacent uplands (Van 

de Water and North 2010, 2011). Conducted at 36 sites in the northern Sierra Nevada 

(Lassen National Forest, Onion Creek Experimental Forest, and Lake Tahoe Basin), 

these studies developed dendrochronological fire records in adjacent riparian and 

upland areas across a variety of forest and stream conditions. They sampled firstthrough fourth-order streams, with a particular focus on first- and second-order 

streams. Riparian and upland FRIs were significantly different in only one quarter 

of the sites they sampled. They found that the historical seasonality of fire did not 

differ between riparian and upland areas; in both, fires typically occurred in late 

summer to early fall. Riparian FRIs ranged from 8.4 to 42.3 years. Fire return intervals were shorter in forests with a higher proportion (>23 percent) of pine species, 

sites east of the Sierra Nevada crest, lower elevation sites (<1944 m), and riparian 

zones bordering narrower, more incised streams (width/depth ratio <6.2).

Second, a recent study of two fires in southern Oregon similarly reported that 

smaller headwater streams had characteristics similar to adjacent uplands (such 

as low composition of riparian deciduous hardwoods) that were associated with 

high riparian fire severity (Halofsky and Hibbs 2008). Research in dry inland 

forests of Oregon also showed that historical fire frequencies in riparian areas 

Research in the Sierra 

Nevada has indicated 

that riparian forests 

have higher fuel loads 

than adjacent uplands, 

and that on smaller and 

more incised streams, 

forested riparian areas 

have fire histories 

similar to adjacent 

uplands.
327

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

were comparable to those in adjacent uplands (the differences were not statistically 

significant), but high patchiness and mixed severity meant that many fires occurred 

only at a riparian plot or only in an upslope plot within a pair, but not at both 

(Olson and Agee 2005). In some areas, riparian fires may also be less frequent but 

more severe than those in uplands (Arno 1996, Everett et al. 2003). Aspect may be 

an important factor within landscape areas, as Everett et al. 2003 found that fire 

frequencies were more similar across site types on north-facing aspects (higher 

moisture and cooler temperatures) than on south-facing slopes. These studies 

demonstrate the wide variation in relationships between fire regimes across the 

riparian-upland interface.

Wildfire Effects on Riparian Areas

Kobziar and McBride (2006) studied the relationships between wildfire burn patterns, stream channel topography, and the short-term response of riparian vegetation 

to the Lookout Fire along two creeks in mixed-conifer forest in the northern Sierra 

Nevada (Plumas National Forest). The study streams were perennial (3 m wide) with 

7.4- to 9.9-m-wide riparian corridors on their southern aspects. One stream burned 

at lower severity, with 53 percent of transects at low to moderate severity and 47 

percent at moderate to high severity. In the other stream, 86 percent of transects 

burned at low to moderate severity and 14 percent burned at moderate to high severity. The entire riparian corridor burned only 14 to 26 percent of the time, and onethird of the study transects were not burned. The authors noted that wider floodplain 

terraces supported mountain alder, which has been shown to slow backing wildfires 

moving toward streams. That study found that postfire seedling recruitment and 

sprouting allowed riparian vegetation to be resilient and maintain stream quality 

even following high-severity fire. Wildfire effects on streams and aquatic systems 

are discussed more in chapter 6.1, “Watershed and Stream Ecosystems.”

Influences on Riparian Functions 

Stream Order

Distinctions between headwater streams and larger stream orders may be relevant 

for predicting fire effects and for disturbance-based management. The definition 

of headwater streams often differs, although first through third order may be a 

reasonable division for parts of the synthesis area. For example, streams of those 

orders often have very narrow riparian areas (1 to 3 m on a side in the Kings River 

Experimental Watersheds [KREW]) that have a unique plant community from 

the adjacent uplands (Dolanc and Hunsaker 2007). These distinctions may have 

an influence on management plans, because first- to third-order streams represent 
328

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

approximately 90 percent of all streams in the continental United States (Leopold et 

al. 1995). Agreement on delineation rules and verification of stream order and flow 

regime in the field is necessary to determine the extent of different stream types 

and to direct management to protect water quality and aquatic habitats (Hansen 

2001). Streams at the fourth-order size up to large rivers usually support wider 

riparian areas and create a larger, moister microclimate; these downstream riparian areas likely impede some fires from burning all or some of their vegetation or 

crossing their stream channels.

Large Wood

Scientific literature has described the hydrological, ecological, and geomorphic 

effects of in-stream large wood and reported on the important role that large wood 

plays in linking upland, riparian, and aquatic portions of watershed ecosystems. 

Wohl and Jaeger (2009) provide a conceptual model of large wood loads and spatial 

distribution in streams of the Colorado Front Range that is summarized here as the 

findings may inform issues in the synthesis area. They note that in-stream large 

wood (LW) loads are generally highest in the headwater reaches, where trees are 

large and small channel size and stream power limit transport. Intermediate reaches 

often exhibit a dynamic equilibrium where LW pieces are moved out at approximately the same rate that they enter the reach. In headwaters and intermediate 

reaches, landscape disturbances like fire, windthrow, landslides, and debris flows 

are responsible for delivering large pulses of wood to streams. However, large, 

low-gradient streams and rivers are supply limited because of the larger proportion 

of open water compared to riparian contact area. Wohl and Jaeger (2009) surmise 

that stream reaches at lower elevations in the Colorado Front Range may have a 

deficit in LW resulting from historical reductions in supply and active removal 

of wood, whereas loads in higher elevation streams may be closer to a historical 

reference condition. If similar patterns occur for streams in the synthesis area, then 

their conceptual model might suggest that short-term reductions in LW from active 

management would pose little risk in small, low-order streams. However, Wohl and 

Jaeger (2009) also noted that local recruitment of wood is limited in reaches along 

large meadows and bedrock outcrops, which do occur in parts of the synthesis area. 

Microclimate Effects

Riparian areas are supported by a moister, three-dimensional air and soil microclimate as compared with adjacent uplands. Rambo and North (2009) compared 

microclimate (air temperature and humidity) gradients in trees from near the forest 

floor up through the canopy for both upland and riparian-influenced forest trees 

Short-term reductions 

in large wood from 

active management 

would pose little risk 

in small, low-order 

streams.
329

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

(three trees for each landscape type). The study area was in the Teakettle Experimental Forest in old-growth mixed-conifer forest that received one of three treatments: none, understory thinning, or overstory thinning. Measurements were made 

at 5, 15, 25, 35, and 45 m above the forest floor. Riparian microclimate had significantly lower minimums and means, and greater daily ranges of temperatures and 

humidity. The largest temperature and humidity ranges were near the stream and 

forest floor. In summer, steep slopes cause drainages to be warmer than ridge tops 

from upslope winds in daytime, and cooler at night because of the downslope flow of 

cold air from surrounding higher terrain. Accumulation of cold air at night can result 

in a local temperature inversion in drainages. This phenomenon acts in conjunction 

with stream influence, which directly cools air temperature and indirectly supplies 

water for daytime evaporative cooling via plant transpiration. In another study 

assessing changes in microclimate conditions both vertically and horizontally from 

Teakettle Creek, Rambo and North (2008) found a very narrow area around the 

stream (< 5.0 m vertically and < 7.5 m horizontally) in which microclimate conditions differed from upland.

Recent Research

Prescribed Burning

Beche et al. (2005) published one of the few studies that focused on effects of 

prescribed fire in a Sierra Nevada riparian area. They examined prescribed fire 

effects in a mixed-conifer forest of the northern Sierra Nevada by comparing 

characteristics of the stream and its riparian zone in the burned watershed with 

those of five unburned watersheds (first- and second-order streams of low gradient). 

Effects were measured immediately and up to 1 year after the fire and compared 

with conditions 1 to 7 years prefire. They concluded that the prescribed fire either 

had no or short-lasting (≤1 year) impacts on the stream and its riparian zone. The 

prescribed fire in the riparian zone was patchy in terms of intensity, consumption, 

and severity; it consumed 79 percent of prefire fuels, 34 percent of total surface 

fuels, and 90 percent of total ground fuels. The prescribed fire significantly reduced 

percentage of cover of surface vegetation and plant taxa richness in comparison 

with unburned sites, but not plant diversity (Simpson’s D). Community composition 

of understory riparian vegetation changed postfire, most likely as a result of the 

reduction in taxa richness and cover. Postfire riparian tree mortality (>11.5 in 

diameter at breast height) was only 4.4 percent. No postfire change occurred in large 

woody debris volume and recruitment or in the amount of fine sediment in pools. 

Some water chemistry parameters increased (SO4-, total P, Ca2+, and Mg2+), and 

periphyton biomass decreased; however, these changes were short term (≤1 year). 

Prescribed fire either 

had no or short-lasting 

(≤1 year) impacts on 

the stream and its 

riparian zone.
330

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Macroinvertebrate community composition was affected 10 to 19 days postfire, 

but density, richness, and diversity were unaffected; furthermore, composition 

recovered within 1 year. These effects are discussed in more detail in chapter 6.1. 

Beche et al. (2005) explained that the limited observed impacts may be a result 

of the small portion (<20 percent) of the watershed area that burned, moderate 

topography, the low to moderate severity of the fire, and the below-average 

precipitation year that followed the fire.

In a study from the Lake Tahoe basin, prescribed burning in areas that included 

some ephemeral channels showed short-term (3-month) increases in calcium and 

pH but not a significant increase in the amount of soluble reactive phosphorus in 

stream waters (Stephens et al. 2004: 258).

Aspen Management

Aspen stands provide important ecological services, including habitat for diverse 

wildlife and distinctive understory plants (Kuhn et al. 2011). Recent studies have 

demonstrated the benefits of selective conifer removal in restoring aspen stands; 

studies have taken place on the Eagle Lake Ranger District (ELRD) and the Lassen National Forest (Jones et al. 2005, 2011). At the sites in Lassen, the removal 

treatments were conducted in concert with control of heavy grazing pressure, and 

harvest was selected over the use of fire to avoid damage to the aspen trees. Jones 

et al. (2005) reported that hand pile burning within the treated stands killed aspen 

roots and appeared to inhibit regeneration. Another recent study on the east side of 

the Sierra Nevada (Krasnow et al. 2012) found that conifer thinning was effective 

in stimulating aspen release, although one stand that lost old aspen trees may have 

been past a threshold for restoration. The study also found that prescribed burning 

could be an effective restoration tool for aspen, although it noted that wildland 

fire use that resulted in higher intensity might be more effective. A detailed and 

comprehensive review of aspen ecology management in the Sierra Nevada is found 

in Shepperd et al. (2006); with regard to water resources, it is important to note that 

they suggested a possible benefit to water yield of restoring aspen stands, although 

studies suggest that more research is needed on that topic.

Terrestrial Amphibians

Effects of fires of varying severities and timber harvest, and their interactions, on 

terrestrial amphibians have been proposed as an important topic for research (Hossack and Pilliod 2011). Appendix E of the Sierra Nevada Forest Management Plan 

amendment identified effects of fuels treatments as an important research topic, 

with a focus on site occupancy by the foothill yellow-legged frog. Other species 

Prescribed burning 

could be an effective 

restoration tool for 

aspen, although 

wildland fire use that 

resulted in higher 

intensity might be 

more effective.
331

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

that may be important to consider are slender salamanders in the genus Batrachoseps, within which several new species have been recently described in the 

Southern Sierra Nevada (Jockusch et al. 2012). A synthesis of wildfire effects on 

amphibians noted that four studies found negative effects on populations or individuals on lungless salamanders, especially in uncharacteristically severe burns 

(Hossack and Pilliod 2011). One of the four studies was from southern California, 

where large fires in 2003 reduced occupancy by the slender garden salamander (B.

major) in burned chaparral; the authors suggested that the effect may have resulted 

from a reduction in moist litter rather than be a direct effect of the fire, because the 

amphibians tend to move underground during the summer wildfire season (Rochester et al. 2010). Within the synthesis area, Bagne and Purcell (2009) examined 

effects of spring prescribed burning in ponderosa pine forest on two species of terrestrial salamanders (Ensatina eschscholtzi platensis and B. gregarius). They found 

no strong adverse effects of the treatment, which resulted in patchy burn effects, 

although they cautioned that sample sizes in the study were small. A review of studies suggests that heterogeneity of burn patches could be important in maintaining 

resilient populations of these amphibians (Hossack and Pilliod 2011).

Box 6.2-1

Pending Research on Pile Burning

Recent research in the Lake Tahoe basin that examined effects of pile burning in 

riparian areas suggested that in most management settings, potential soil effects 

did not appear to be an overriding concern (see chapter 5.1, “Soils,” for details 

on soil heating, although water quality results of that study are still in review).

Researchers from Humboldt State University have conducted research on 

pile burning in aspen stands in the Tahoe basin; although published studies are 

pending, the authors have released a report (Dagley et al. 2012).

Research Gaps and Management Implications

Dwire et al. (2010) concluded that there is little information about specific and 

cumulative impacts of different fuels reduction treatments on riparian and aquatic 

ecosystems. Stone et al. (2010) similarly concluded that additional experimental 

studies of fuels treatment effects on aquatic and riparian ecosystems are needed 

before generalizations can be made across different forest types and local conditions. Study results are often quite variable and confounded by local effects of 

other past and current management activities (Wondzell 2001).
332

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Luce et al. (2012: 52) enumerated a number of challenges for riparian management: “(1) the integration of existing riparian classifications with developments in 

landscape ecology that highlight the role of landscape position and location within 

watersheds; (2) prediction of changes to riparian vegetation in response to climaterelated shifts in temperature and precipitation given local and regional characteristics, watershed condition, and disturbance regimes; and (3) maintenance of valued 

riparian functions.” They placed significant emphasis on the need for basic inventory and monitoring data about aquatic ecosystems, including stream temperature 

data and detailed mapping of riparian and aquatic habitats. 

The 1996 Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) report included a chapter 

with recommendations for riparian management that included a prohibition on vegetation removal and ground disturbance within riparian zones, which was intended 

to benefit both riparian and aquatic habitats (Kondolf et al. 1996). That section 

emphasized the importance of riparian tree canopies within first- and second-order 

streams in blocking summer sun and moderating water temperatures, as well as 

stream loading of large wood and other organic matter from riparian trees. It also 

suggested a fixed buffer width of 150 ft based on typical tree heights in the Sierra 

Nevada, and it recommended adopting wider, variable buffer widths that could 

be increased to account for variation in the riparian community and hillslope and 

soil erodibility. They asserted that “even the natural role of disturbance...does not 

require, in most situations, active restoration of the landscape in order to secure the 

habitat conditions necessary for the area” (Kondolf et al. 1996: 1026). The SNEP 

recommendations are similar to those established by FEMAT (1993) in the Pacific 

Northwest around the same time. The Sierra Nevada Framework (USDA FS 2001, 

2004) established similar buffers with restricted activities; however, this planning 

effort also called for research on management in riparian areas. However, recent 

science has shown that higher stem densities and fuel loads in riparian forests can 

serve as a wick for high-intensity fire to move within treated upland forests under 

some conditions, such as the Angora Fire in the Lake Tahoe basin (Murphy et al. 

2007, Pettit and Naiman 2007, Van de Water and North 2011). More studies of 

variation across riparian areas are needed, but limited evidence does suggest that 

some of these forests are vulnerable to uncharacteristically high-severity fires under 

severe weather conditions; as a result, scientists have noted the importance of considering treatments in riparian areas as part of landscape-scale restoration strategies 

(Messier et al. 2012, Van de Water and North 2011).

Broad principles based upon recent science discussed in this synthesis suggest 

that more active management within riparian areas, including mechanical harvest, 

could promote resilience to uncharacteristically severe wildfire. The principles 

Limited evidence 

suggests that some 

riparian forests are 

vulnerable to extreme 

fires and may benefit 

from treatment as part 

of landscape-scale 

restoration strategies.
333

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

of restoring upland forests described in chapter 1.2, “Integrative Approaches: 

Promoting Socioecological Resilience,” can extend to riparian areas. For example, 

it may be appropriate to design treatments to increase heterogeneity where it has 

been reduced. Customization to local conditions and consistency with principles 

designed to promote resilient soils (see chapter 5.1) would help to develop specific 

treatment approaches. Luce et al. (2012) suggested scenarios in which short-term 

risk may need to occur to promote a long-term benefit. For example, they considered that extending fuels reduction treatments into riparian areas may reduce 

effective shade for several years, while reducing the potential for severe wildfire 

and ultimately sustaining shade benefits over several decades. 

Effects of fire suppression and lack of active treatment have contributed to high 

fuel loads, increased tree density, and shifted vegetation composition to less fireresistant species in riparian areas as well as in uplands. Treatments should reduce 

the likelihood of high-severity wildfires where they are not characteristic of the 

landscape. Riparian areas support important resource values, they are well adapted 

to recovery from disturbance, and even uncharacteristically high-severity fires may 

not necessarily impair long-term recovery of key functions. Outcomes may depend 

on the extent and severity of fire in the surrounding landscape and the vulnerability 

of downstream aquatic resources (see chapter 6.1). Better information is needed to 

understand how uncharacteristically severe fire may alter trajectories in riparian 

areas over a range of time scales relevant to understanding particular ecological 

processes (such as aquatic life cycles, channel organization, recruitment of woody 

debris, etc.). 

Rieman et al. (2003) stated that objectives for fuels reduction treatments should 

include the return to fuel loads that support ecosystem processes and natural 

disturbance regimes and incorporate short- and long-term targets for the vegetation condition of uplands and riparian areas. Fuel loads in many riparian forests 

are so high that mechanical treatments may be needed to reduce fuels to levels that 

facilitate safer reintroduction of fire. Studies in uplands show that mechanical fuels 

reduction treatments, if conducted properly (i.e., reducing surface and ladder fuels), 

can effectively reduce fire severity under most weather conditions (Safford et al. 

2012). These treatments should work just as effectively in riparian areas, although 

higher productivity in riparian areas may necessitate more frequent maintenance.

Treating densely stocked riparian areas may not only offer benefits in terms of 

wildfire risk reduction and promotion of shade-intolerant riparian vegetation, but 

it may also yield benefits to aquatic systems. This idea has gained traction in the 

Pacific Northwest, where the use of riparian management areas has been widely 

adopted. For example, evidence suggests that light limitation of primary production 
334

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

often overrides nutrient limitation in small, forested streams (Wilzbach et al. 

2005). Bisson et al. (2005) reported that following the 1980 eruption of Mount St. 

Helens, fish populations thrived in what would otherwise be considered undesirable 

stream temperatures owing to the presence of abundant food supplies. An early 

study by Murphy et al. (1981) had reported that small, steep streams traveling 

through clearcuts in the Oregon Cascade Range had greater aquatic productivity 

than streams in shaded forest reaches, although they cautioned that such treatments 

might have imposed effects further downstream. In a similar vein, Newton and 

Cole (2005) reported that stream buffers on the south side of streams in western 

Oregon appeared to support increased production of benthic insects while avoiding 

creation of temperature hot spots. Although these studies do not necessarily test 

proposed management strategies for the synthesis area, they point to the potential 

benefits of reducing riparian forest canopies in western forests, which should be 

considered as part of an adaptive management framework.

Riparian treatments would need to be evaluated and monitored to assess 

impacts and guide approaches in the future. There may be valuable opportunities to 

better link management and research. For example, Stone et al. (2010) interviewed 

Forest Service fire management officers in 11 Western States and found that 43 

percent were conducting fuels reduction treatments in riparian areas (California 

had 7 of 12 districts with riparian treatments). Although 88 percent of the districts 

reported monitoring activities to evaluate the effectiveness or ecological effects of 

the fuels reduction treatments in riparian areas, most monitoring was qualitative or 

not collected with sufficient spatial and temporal replication for quantitative summaries.

The special nature of these systems warrants developing localized prescriptions 

based in part upon historical fire regimes. For instance, approaches should differentiate riparian areas that function similar to upland landscapes in terms of fire 

frequency and spread; as discussed earlier, stream order may be a useful distinguishing characteristic. Van de Water and North (2010) suggest that the following 

riparian types could probably be treated similarly to upland areas, including:

• Lower elevation riparian areas;

• Riparian areas adjacent to small, incised headwater streams that historically 

experienced fire at frequencies similar to those of upland areas; and

• Riparian areas surrounded by forests with a high proportion (about onethird of the basal area or greater) of fire-tolerant pines, especially those on 

the east side of the Sierra Nevada.
335

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

For other kinds of forested riparian areas, including those at higher elevations 

and those bordering wider streams, they recommended considering less intensive 

treatments, such as hand thinning and pile burning small trees (Van de Water and 

North 2010). Understanding the life history requirements of aquatic taxa will help 

to inform prescriptions in different contexts. For example, the Cascades frog (Rana 

cascadae) is an example of a species that appears to need open-canopy basking 

sites along the riparian corridor (Pope et al. 2014).

An ongoing research experiment in eight Sierra Nevada watersheds in the 

mixed-conifer zone will provide new insight into restoration treatments in headwater riparian areas for both mechanical thinning and prescribed fire (see the 

box on KREW in chapter 6.1). However, the research gap is so large that more 

adaptive management research is needed to develop guidelines for mechanical and 

prescribed fire treatments in riparian areas within the synthesis area. Consequently, 

the approach of large experimental areas outlined in chapter 1.2 might incorporate 

adaptive management experiments within riparian areas to help fill this gap.

Literature Cited

Arno, M.K. 1996. Reestablishing fire-adapted communities to riparian forests in 

the ponderosa pine zone. In: Arno, S.F.; Hardy, C.C., eds. The use of fire in forest 

restoration. INT-GTR-341. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research Station: 42–43.

Bagne, K.E.; Purcell, K.L. 2009. Response of two terrestrial salamander species 

to spring burning in the Sierra Nevada, California. Res. Note RMRS-RN-41. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 10 p.

Beche, L.A.; Stephens, S.L.; Resh, V.H. 2005. Effects of prescribed fire on a 

Sierra Nevada (California, USA) stream and its riparian zone. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 218: 37–59. 

Bisson, P.A.; Crisafulli, C.M.; Fransen, B.R.; Lucas, R.E.; Hawkins, C.P. 

2005. Response of fish to the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. In: Dale, V.H.; 

Swanson, F.J.; Crisafulli, C.M., eds. Ecological responses to the 1980 eruption of 

Mount St. Helens. New York: Springer: 164–181.

Dolanc, C.R.; Hunsaker C.T. 2007. Riparian and upland vegetation on the Kings 

River Experimental Watershed, Sierra Nevada, California. In: Powers, R.F., ed. 

Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems: proceedings of the 2005 national silviculture 

workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-203. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 299.

Adaptive management 

research is needed 

to develop guidelines 

for mechanical 

and prescribed fire 

treatments in riparian 

areas within the 

synthesis area.
336

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Dagley, C.M.; Berrill, J.; Coppeto, S.; Jacobson, K. 2012. Effects of slash pile 

burning after restoring conifer-encroached aspen. South Lake Tahoe, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 

10 p. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5406067.pdf. 

(13 December 2013).

Dwire, K.A.; Rhoades, C.C.; Young, M.K. 2010. Potential effects of fuel 

management activities on riparian areas. In: Elliot, W.J.; Miller, I.S.; Audin, L., 

eds. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the western United 

States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 175–205.

Everett, R.; Schellhaas, R.; Ohlson, P.; Spurbeck, D.; Keenum, D. 2003.

Continuity in fire disturbance between riparian and adjacent sideslope Douglasfir forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 175: 31–47.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest 

ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment: report 

of the forest ecosystem management team, July 1993. USDA Forest Service; 

USDC National Marine Fisheries Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service; Environmental Protection 

Agency. Portland, OR: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Fisk, H.; Megown, K.; Decker, L.M. 2004. Riparian area burn analysis: process 

and applications. RSAC-57-TIP1. Salt Lake City, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Remote Sensing Application Center. 4 p.

Halofsky, J.E.; Hibbs, D.E. 2008. Determinants of riparian fire severity in two 

Oregon fires, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 38: 1959–1973.

Hansen, W.F. 2001. Identifying stream types and management implications. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 143(1-3): 39–46.

Hossack, B.R.; Pilliod, D.S. 2011. Amphibian responses to wildfire in the 

western United States: emerging patterns from short-term studies. Fire 

Ecology. 7(2): 129–144.

Jockusch, E.L.; Martinez-Solano, I.; Hansen, R.W.; Wake, D.B. 2012.

Morphological and molecular diversification of slender salamanders (Caudata: 

Plethodontidae: Batrachoseps) in the southern Sierra Nevada of California 

with descriptions of two new species. Zootaxa. 3190: 1–30.
337

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Jones, B.E.; Lile, D.F.; Tate, K.W. 2011. Cattle selection for aspen and meadow 

vegetation: implications for restoration. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 

64(6): 625–632.

Jones, B.E.; Rickman, T.H.; Vazquez, A.; Sado, Y.; Tate, K.W. 2005. Removal 

of encroaching conifers to regenerate degraded aspen stands in the Sierra 

Nevada. Restoration Ecology. 13(2): 373–379. 

Kobziar, L.N.; McBride, J.R. 2006. Wildfire burn patterns and riparian vegetation 

response along two northern Sierra Nevada streams. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 222: 254–265.

Kondolf, G.M.; Kattelman, R.; Embury, M.; Erman, D.C. 1996. Status of 

riparian habitat. In: SNEP Science Team and Special Consultants, eds. Sierra 

Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress. Vol. II: Assessments and 

scientific basis for management options. Report No. 37. Davis, CA: Centers for 

Water and Wildland Resources, University of California: 1009–1030.

Krasnow, K.D.; Halford, A.S.; Stephens, S.L. 2012. Aspen restoration in the 

eastern Sierra Nevada: effectiveness of prescribed fire and conifer removal. Fire 

Ecology. 8(3): 104–118.

Kuhn, T.J.; Safford, H.D.; Jones, B.E.; Tate, K.W. 2011. Aspen (Populus 

tremuloides) stands and their contribution to plant diversity in a semiarid 

coniferous landscape. Plant Ecology. 212(9): 1451–1463.

Leopold, L.B.; Wolman, M.G.; Miller, John P. 1995. Fluvial processes in 

geomorphology. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. 544 p.

Luce, C.; Morgan, P.; Dwire, K.; Isaak, D.; Holden, Z.; Rieman, B. 2012.

Climate change, forests, fire, water and fish: building resilient landscapes, 

streams, and managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-290. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 207 p.

Messier, M.S.; Shatford, P.A.; Hibbs, D.E. 2012. Fire exclusion effects 

on riparian forest dynamics in southwestern Oregon. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 264: 60–71.

Murphy, K.; Rich, T.; Sexton, T. 2007. An assessment of fuel treatment effects 

on fire behavior, suppression effectiveness, and structure ignition on the Angora 

Fire. Tech. Pap. R5-TP-025. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region. 32 p.
338

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Murphy, M.L.; Hawkins, C.P.; Anderson, N.H. 1981. Effects of canopy 

modification and accumulated sediment on stream communities. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society. 110(4): 469–478.

Newton, M.; Cole, E.C. 2005. Linkage between riparian buffer features and 

regeneration, benthic communities and water temperature in headwater streams, 

western Oregon. In: Harrington, C.; Schoenholtz, S., eds. Productivity of western 

forests: a forest products focus. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-642. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station: 81–101.

Office of the Federal Register. 2012. Subpart A: National Forest System Land 

Management Planning. In: USDA, ed. 36 CFR Part 219. U.S. Government 

Printing Office, Federal Register: 48–71.

Olson, D.L; Agee, J.K. 2005. Historical fires in Douglas-fir dominated riparian 

forests of the southern Cascades, Oregon. Fire Ecology. 1(1): 50–74.

Pettit, N.E.; Naiman, R.J. 2007. Fire in the riparian zone: characteristics and 

ecological consequnces. Ecosystems. 10: 673–687.

Pope, K.L.; Brown, C.; Hayes, M.J.; Green, G.; Macfarlane, D. 2014. Cascades 

frog conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-244. Albany, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 116 p.

Rambo, T.R.; North, M.P. 2008. Spatial and temporal variability of canopy 

microclimate in a Sierra Nevada riparian forest. Northwest Science. 82: 259–268.

Rambo, T.R.; North, M.P. 2009. Canopy microclimate response to pattern and 

density of thinning in a Sierra Nevada forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 

257: 435–442.

Rieman, B.; Lee, D.; Burns, D.; Gresswell, R.; Young, M.; Stowell, R.; 

Rinne, J.; Howell, P. 2003. Status of native fishes in the western United 

States and issues for fire and fuels management. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 178(1–2): 197–211.

Rochester, C.J.; Brehme, C.S.; Clark, D.R.; Stokes, D.C.; Hathaway, S.A.; 

Fisher, R.N. 2010. Reptile and amphibian responses to large-scale wildfires 

in Southern California. Journal of Herpetology. 44(3): 333–351.
339

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Safford, H.D.; Stevens, J.T.; Merriam, K.; Meyer, M.D.; Latimer, A.M. 2012.

Fuel treatment effectiveness in California yellow pine and mixed conifer forests. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 274: 17–28.

Shepperd, W.D.; P. Rogers, P.; Burton, D.; Bartos, D.L. 2006. Ecology, 

biodiversity, management, and restoration of aspen in the Sierra Nevada. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-178. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 122 p.

Skinner, C.N. 2003. A tree-ring based fire history of riparian reserves in the 

Klamath Mountains. In: Farber, P.M., ed. California riparian systems: processes 

and floodplains management, ecology, and restoration. Mill Valley, CA: 

Pickleweed Press: 116–119. 

Skinner, C.N.; Taylor, A.H.; Agee, J.K. 2006. Klamath Mountains bioregion. In: 

Sugihara, N.S.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Fites-Kaufmann, J.; Shaffer, K.; Thode, 

A., eds. Fire in California’s ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California 

Press: 170–194.

Stephens, S.L.; Meixner, T.; Poth, M.; McGurk, B.; Payne, D. 2004. Prescribed 

fire, soils, and stream water chemistry in a watershed in the Lake Tahoe Basin, 

California. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 13: 27–35.

Stone, K.R.; Pilliod, D.S.; Dwire, K.A.; Rhoades, C.C.; Wollrab, S.P.; Young, 

M.K. 2010. Fuel reduction management practices in riparian areas of the western 

USA. Environmental Management. 46(1): 91–100.

Taylor, A.H.; Skinner, C.N. 2003. Spatial patterns and controls on historical fire 

regimes and forest structure in the Klamath Mountains. Ecological Applications. 

13(3): 704–719.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2001. Sierra 

Nevada forest plan amendment: final environmental impact statement. 

Vallejo, CA: Pacific Southwest Region. http://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/

Resources/Conservation/LawsPoliciesRegulation/KeyForestServicePolicy/

SierraNevadaFramework/Framework-FSROD01.pdf. (13 December 2013).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2004. Sierra 

Nevada forest plan amendment: final supplemental environmental impact 

statement. Vallejo, CA: Pacific Southwest Region. http://www.fs.usda.gov/

Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsBdev3_046095.pdf. (13 December 2013).

Van de Water, K.M.; North, M. 2010. Fire history of coniferous riparian forests 

in the Sierra Nevada. Forest Ecology and Management. 260(3): 384–395.
340

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Van de Water, K.; North, M. 2011. Stand structure, fuel loads, and fire behavior 

in riparian and upland forests, Sierra Nevada Mountains, USA; a comparison 

of current and reconstructed conditions. Forest Ecology and Management. 

262(2): 215–228. 

Wilzbach, M.A.; Harvey, B.C.; White, J.L.; Nakamoto, R.J. 2005. Effects 

of riparian canopy opening and salmon carcass addition on the abundance 

and growth of resident salmonids. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences. 62: 58–67.

Wohl, E.; Jaeger, K. 2009. A conceptual model for the longitudinal distribution 

of wood in mountain streams. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 

34: 329–344.

Wondzell, S.M. 2001. The influence of forest health and protection treatments 

on erosion and stream sedimentation in forested watersheds of eastern Oregon 

and Washington. Northwest Science. 75: 128–140.
341

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Jonathan W. Long 1 and Karen L. Pope2

Summary

Wet meadows help to sustain favorable water flows, biological diversity, and other 

values; consequently, restoration of degraded wet meadows is an important part 

of a strategy for promoting socioecological resilience. This chapter focuses on 

high-elevation wet meadows that are associated with streams; thus restoration of 

such meadows may be considered a subset of stream restoration. However, it is 

important to recognize that degradation of high-elevation meadows often reflects 

site-level impacts rather than watershed-scale impacts that degrade lower-elevation 

streams and rivers. For that reason, and because of the cascade of impacts associated with incision of wet meadows, restoration of wet meadows is often expected to 

deliver a wide range of benefits. Published evaluations of wet meadow restoration 

efforts within the synthesis area have demonstrated gains at specific sites in certain 

functions, including water quality, water quantity, and macroinvertebrate diversity. 

Broader reviews of stream and river restoration in the past decade indicate that 

restoration efforts have often fallen short in demonstrating anticipated benefits, 

especially in terms of wildlife and fishes. These shortcomings may reflect a variety 

of causes, including incomplete documentation of projects, inability of treatments 

to address limiting factors, and limitations on monitoring resources, experimental 

designs, and timeframes for evaluating responses, which may require over a decade 

to gauge. Because many of these challenges are also relevant to meadow restoration 

projects, these findings reinforce the need for continued and increased monitoring 

of treatment outcomes, use of rigorous experimental designs, and use of conceptual 

models when evaluating the potential for improving site conditions, designing 

treatments, setting restoration objectives, and evaluating outcomes. An important 

theme in the synthesis that applies to wet meadow restoration is an emphasis on 

restoring ecological processes, such as overbank flooding, sediment transport, and 

establishment of native wetland vegetation. Active site-specific restorations may 

be warranted where local factors have caused degradation to a point where natural 

recovery is likely to be extremely slow. Monitoring the rate and extent of channel incision is important to avoid losses of socioecological values in stream and 

meadow ecosystems associated with erosion and lowering of water tables. However, 

Chapter 6.3—Wet Meadows

1 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr. Davis, CA 95618.

2 Wildlife biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 1700 Bayview Dr., Arcata, CA 95521.
342

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

considering broader landscape influences on meadows may be more important 

over the next several decades, given that changes in hydrology, wildfire regime, 

and spread of nonnative species may affect key ecological processes in meadows. 

Meadow restoration offers productive ground for understanding interactions among 

a wide range of ecological, social, cultural, and economic values. Designing, 

conducting, and evaluating restoration strategies in an adaptive management framework will likely benefit from broad participation by resource managers, researchers, 

and community members to facilitate this integrated understanding.

Introduction

This chapter addresses wet meadows, and in particular, high-elevation wetlands 

that have fine-textured soils and shallow groundwater tables in the summer. These 

conditions support wetland vegetation, predominantly herbaceous plants, including 

sedges, other graminoids, and forbs, but also woody plants such as willows that 

can tolerate anaerobic conditions (Ramstead et al. 2012, Weixelman et al. 2011). 

This chapter focuses on meadows that are associated with defined stream channels 

(fig. 1). It does not focus on headwater fens and other peatlands, which are valuable 

but relatively uncommon in the synthesis area; recent publications provide guidance 

for assessing their conditions (Weixelman et al. 2011).

Figure 1—Trout Creek and adjacent wet meadow in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit.

Jonathan Long
343

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Stream restoration in general has been identified as an important part of the 

Forest Service’s overall restoration strategy for the synthesis area (USDA FS 2011b). 

Restoration of wet meadows provides important opportunities to promote ecological 

resilience and benefit social values (Weixelman et al. 2011). Wet meadow restoration 

is expected to have an important role in securing favorable flows of high-quality 

water (Viers and Rheinheimer 2011) and mitigating emissions of carbon and nitrogen (Norton et al. 2011). By enhancing meadow wetness and enhancing diversity of 

meadow conditions, restoration could also promote biodiversity including pollinators 

(Hatfield and LeBuhn 2007) and nesting passerine birds (Cocimano et al. 2011). The 

final section of this chapter, “Integrated Socioecological Approaches to Stream and 

Meadow Restoration,” considers further opportunities to link socioeconomic and 

ecological values to guide restoration of wet meadows.

Restoration of streams has been a focus of research across the Sierra Nevada 

region, the state of California, and the United States within the past decade. Earlier 

synthesis reports for the region, including the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project 

report (SNEP Science Team 1996b), the 1998 Science Review (Sierra Nevada 

Science Review Team 1998), and the 1999 report Sierra Nevada Ecosystems in the 

Presence of Livestock (Allen-Diaz et al. 1999), remain relevant and useful because 

they address a broader range of meadow ecosystems and related topics, including 

conservation of aquatic biodiversity, sustaining streamflows for wildlife and human 

uses, and grazing management on public lands. A more recent synthesis for Great 

Basin ecosystems by Chambers and Miller (2011) explained that strategies to restore 

streams and meadows should consider a wide range of watershed impacts, including roads, trails, grazing, and water diversions. Restoration strategies may be most 

effective if they consider where and when addressing these watershed influences is 

necessary to promote restoration, and in which cases active interventions are warranted and cost effective (Hobbs and Cramer 2008, Kauffman et al. 1997).

Promoting Resilience in Wet Meadow Ecosystems

Chapter 6.1, “Watershed and Stream Ecosystems,” provides a definition of resilience 

and emphasizes the importance of restoring natural fluvial processes. Although 

these concepts apply generally to montane wet meadow systems, a strategy of relying on natural disturbance processes may be less effective in these less physically 

dynamic systems because they have relatively small watershed areas and reduced 

stream power. There is widespread recognition that channel headcutting in headwater systems can be indicative of a more persistent disequilibrium, in part because 

the process is difficult to reverse through natural deposition in such small systems. 

In the Great Basin, many streams have exhibited a tendency toward incision during 

Restoration of 

wet meadows 

provides important 

opportunities to 

promote ecological 

resilience and benefit 

social values.
344

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

the past two millennia (Germanoski and Miller 2004). However, most meadow 

systems on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada appear to have been stable 

within the past three millennia, and in a few cases, as many as 10,000 years, apart 

from more recent incision associated with anthropogenic disturbances such as 

livestock grazing (Benedict 1982, Ratliff 1985). Reference erosion rates appear very 

low in many small headwater streams and in wet meadow systems that have intact 

streambank vegetation, as reported by studies in the Sierra Nevada (Micheli and 

Kirchner 2002, Simon 2008). As a consequence, high rates of incision and bank 

erosion generally appear outside the range of historical variation in these systems 

and strengthen the rationale for active intervention.

To evaluate what kinds of interventions, if any, are warranted in a particular 

ecological system requires analysis to determine whether abiotic or biotic thresholds 

have been passed (Hobbs and Cramer 2008). In considering these questions, Sarr 

(2002) described how systems with intact soils and geomorphology demonstrated 

capacity to recover quickly and predictably, while others had shifted to alternative states marked by channel incision (discussed in more detail below), lowering 

of local water tables, reduced connectivity of channels to broad floodplains, and 

encroachment of nonhydrophytic woody plants (particularly conifer trees and 

sagebrush) in formerly wet riparian areas. Revegetation measures such as transplanting sedges tend to be more effective where groundwater tables are sufficiently 

high (Steed and DeWald 2003). In more degraded sites, much more active restoration efforts to remove woody vegetation, raise groundwater levels, and reestablish 

burning regimes may be needed to restore native herbaceous communities (Berlow 

et al. 2003). Sagebrush encroachment is addressed in detail by Chambers and Miller 

(2011). A report by Eagan et al. (2000) noted that a trail used by hikers and stock in 

a subalpine meadow required recontouring and restoration of topsoil after demonstrating little recovery following 30 years of closure. Because restoration potential 

appears to be very site-specific, studies of geology, hydrology, and soils attributes, 

as well as assessment tools discussed in the section on monitoring and evaluation 

near the end of this chapter, are important to determine site potential and to select 

appropriate treatments (Ramstead et al. 2012). 

Channel Incision

Channel incision can cause a profound loss of productivity in wet meadow 

ecosystems. Shields et al. (2010) described incision as a syndrome that threatens 

many ecosystem services by triggering a cascade of geomorphic, hydrologic, 

and biological effects, including bank instability, channel erosion, perturbated 

High rates of incision 

and bank erosion 

generally appear 

outside the range of 

historical variation 

in these systems 

and strengthen the 

rationale for active 

intervention.
345

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

hydrology, non-point source pollution, conversions from wet to dry meadow 

vegetation, degradation of aquatic habitat, and reduced fish species richness. Causes 

of incision may be natural, such as geological uplift, lowering of channel base 

levels associated with changing climate, or extreme runoff events associated with 

wildfires or storms; or resulting from more specific human actions, such as blocked 

culverts that impair sediment movement or overgrazing that removes protective 

vegetation or substrates from stream channels. These influences result in excess 

capacity of a stream to transport sediment relative to the supply of sediment from 

upstream reaches (Simon and Rinaldi 2006). Reduced sediment supply resulting 

from the alteration of fire regimes, as well as loss of beaver activity, are additional 

potential influences that might have rendered meadows more vulnerable to incision 

(see “Research Gaps and Pending Research” at the end of this chapter). 

Studies within the synthesis area have reinforced the importance of addressing 

channel incision. The potential for channel incision to pierce low-permeability 

layers and alter stream hydrology is a particular concern; such layers may be 

associated with peat or with compacted soils that are a legacy of historical heavy 

grazing (Hill and Mitchell-Bruker 2010). Local studies have also quantified some 

impacts from incision; for instance, a study of Monache Meadow in the southern 

Sierra Nevada found that banks without wet meadow vegetation are approximately 

10 times more susceptible to erosion than banks with herbaceous wet meadow 

vegetation, such as sedges and rushes (Micheli and Kirchner 2002). Where channels 

have active headcuts, herbaceous vegetation may not be effective in preventing 

bank erosion (Zonge et al. 1996). Moreover, physical changes associated with 

channel widening or incision, including increased temperatures, are not readily 

changed through restoration of riparian vegetation alone (Poole and Berman 2001). 

Because of the profound losses in ecosystem functions that can occur as a result 

of incision (Sarr 2002), management strategies and monitoring would benefit from 

focusing on this process. Preventing incision and restoring incised meadows could 

be important components of a landscape strategy to promote system resilience to 

climate change (Seavy et al. 2009) and sequester carbon and nitrogen (Norton et 

al. 2011). Although incision is likely to be a predominant problem of concern, other 

processes in meadows are important, such as channel widening (Loheide et al. 

2009).

Chambers and Miller (2011) proposed a general framework for addressing 

incised meadows based on the degree of incision (table 1). Their synthesis is particularly useful for considering issues that are important for east-side systems, such as 

sagebrush encroachment and management of the fire-adapted, invasive cheatgrass.
346

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

In-Stream Structural Approaches

Because waiting for streams to stop incising may result in extensive erosion, structural interventions are often proposed for incising systems, and as shown in table 1, 

may be particularly warranted for early stages of incision. Such treatments include 

various kinds of grade control features and streambank or channel armoring (see 

Ratliff [1985] and Chambers and Miller [2011] for more extensive descriptions). 

In-stream structures have long been used to protect or enhance aquatic habitat, but 

there remain serious concerns about their potential for failure. For example, Stewart 

et al. (2009) concluded that resource managers should be circumspect in using 

in-stream engineered devices because evidence does not support their effectiveness. 

Failures, such as erosion around or under the structures, tend to be more common in 

larger, more dynamic streams but are still a concern for smaller meadow systems; 

consequently, structural treatments generally require careful design and installation 

as well as long-term monitoring and maintenance (Chambers and Miller 2011).

An important trend in large river restoration strategies is to move from permanent structures toward temporary protection and enhancement that allows natural 

vegetation, sedimentation, and erosional processes to reestablish (Miller and Kochel 

2010), as well as allowing streams access to a wider corridor to migrate (Kondolf 

2011) (see chapter 6.1). Softer or “deformable” treatments may be somewhat more 

challenging to evaluate than harder in-stream structures because by their nature, 

they are intended to be overtaken by natural recovery processes. Although montane 

wet meadow systems are less dynamic than low-elevation riverine systems, the 

general principles of reducing constraints on historical floodplains (such as roads 

and culverts) and designing deformable treatments can extend to meadow treatments. For example, this principle is reflected in the use of natural rock and plant 

materials (rather than unnaturally large rip-rap or metal gabions) to construct grade 

control structures (e.g., riffle formations) and stabilize streambanks (see Chambers 

and Miller [2011] and Ramstead et al. [2012] for examples of such applications).

Table 1—Framework for addressing incision within wet meadow systems by Chambers and Miller (2010)

Condition Indicators Treatment approach

Low to moderately incised Channel has incised to In-stream structures and bank stabilization measures 

0 to 2 times bankfull to prevent knickpoint migration and maintain

channel depth meadow vegetation

Highly incised Channel has incised to Careful design of in-stream structures to minimize

>2 times bankfull further incision of the main channel and to 

channel depth maintain springs

Fully incised Channel has previously Actively manage area to maintain meadow vegetation

incised but is no longer based upon knowledge of groundwater tables and

actively incising riparian vegetation

An important trend in 

large river restoration 

strategies is to move 

from permanent 

structures toward 

temporary protection 

and enhancement 

that allows natural 

vegetation, sedimentation, and erosional 

processes to 

reestablish.
347

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Channel filling and plugging—

Channel reconfigurations in the synthesis area have involved diversion, filling, 

or plugging of existing channels as well as excavation of new channels. Filling 

of incised channels has been conducted in a number of sites in the synthesis area 

(Loheide et al. 2009, Ramstead et al. 2012). For sites that are thought to have historically lacked defined channels, flows may be directed over the meadow surface (an 

example includes Halstead Meadow in Sequoia National Park, cited in Ramstead 

et al. [2012]). In other cases, they may be diverted into one or more remnant channels that have a more desirable geomorphic configuration and vegetation. Either 

approach requires careful attention to protecting or restoring native vegetation and 

hydrology to prevent re-incision. Where remnant conditions are not suitable for 

reintroducing flows, practitioners have often constructed new channels.

To reduce the volume of material needed to refill incised channels, practitioners 

have developed the “pond and plug method,” wherein materials are excavated 

within the meadow, creating ponds, and then the channel is plugged at various 

locations using the excavated materials. This method has been the subject of studies 

in the Feather River watershed, which provide evidence that this method is effective 

in restoring many attributes of these systems (Loheide et al. 2009), as described 

further in the next section. However, researchers have also noted concerns about 

these treatments:

• Pond and plug creates novel conditions of deep ponds, which can become 

habitats for invasive aquatic species such as bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) 

and green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) (Adams and Pearl 2007, Ramstead 

et al. 2012).

• Channel reconstruction or pond and plug methods may be inappropriate in 

systems with fine-grained confining units, because the process of excavating 

alluvial materials could disrupt the meadow hydrology (Chambers and Miller 

2011). Identifying low-permeability layers in meadows is an important component of a broader strategy for protection and restoration (see Hill and MitchellBruker [2010] and the “Research Gaps and Pending Research” section).

Evaluating Benefits of Meadow Restoration

Water quantity and quality effects of meadow restoration have been undertaken 

at a relatively small number of sites in the Sierra Nevada within the past decade, 

with considerable emphasis on large, low-gradient meadows along tributaries of 

the Feather River and streams in the Lake Tahoe basin. Published studies suggest 

that active meadow restoration designed to remedy incised channels has increased 
348

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

groundwater levels and subsurface storage, which in turn promotes wetland vegetation (Hammersmark et al. 2010); increased frequency and duration of floodplain 

inundation, which in turn may filter sediment and nutrients; attenuated peak flows 

and increased mid-summer baseflows (Hammersmark et al. 2008, Tague et al. 2008); 

and reduced maximum water temperatures (Loheide and Gorelick 2006). Streamflow below restored meadows may be affected by higher evapotranspiration rates 

in the rewetted meadows (and any created ponds) and increased subsurface storage 

(Hammersmark et al. 2008, Loheide and Gorelick 2005). Research has improved 

understanding of how site qualities influence response, including the presence of 

impermeable layers that can maintain high water tables but also inhibit groundwater 

from upwelling to the meadow surface (Booth and Loheide 2012). The water quality 

and water quantity benefits of wet meadow restoration are an important topic for 

which the National Fish and Wildlife Federation has initiated a major research initiative in Forest Service Region 5 (Viers and Rheinheimer 2011).

Restoration of meadow hydrology and vegetation is often expected to result in a 

cascade of higher order functions, including increases in soil carbon and improvements in fish and wildlife habitat (Ramstead et al. 2012). Nevertheless, a number of 

reviews have cautioned not to oversell higher order benefits without further monitoring and research to quantify them. This concern has emerged in light of the popularization and commercial expansion of stream restoration in parts of the United 

States (Lave et al. 2010). Several reviews have recommended a rigorous application 

of ecological theory and greater emphasis on monitoring outcomes (Palmer 2009, 

Ramstead et al. 2012). Bernhardt and Palmer (2011) noted that research on river 

restoration in recent years has progressed from asking “Why don’t we know more 

about river restoration success?” to asking “Why aren’t river restoration projects 

more effective?” This general trend also appeared to unfold in California, where 

Kondolf et al. (2007) highlighted a lack of information needed to evaluate projects. 

In a meta-analysis of effects of stream restoration projects on macroinvertebrates, 

Miller et al. (2010) did not include any studies from the Sierra Nevada, presumably 

because they did not find ones that met their criteria for a controlled research design. 

A recent evaluation of wet meadow restoration in the Southwest, which included 

studies of about a dozen projects from the synthesis area, concluded that although 

there has been significant progress in restoring morphology and vegetation, there 

remains a need for long-term and better designed monitoring programs (Ramstead 

et al. 2012). These reviews noted lack of controls and confounded treatments as a 

common problem in evaluating project effects. For example, changes in grazing 

management are often confounded with structural restoration treatments, and sites 

that have not been treated recently may have an older history of treatments. Others 
349

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

have noted the potential for a publication bias in favor of reporting more successful 

projects (Ramstead et al. 2012, Stewart et al. 2009).

Demonstrating benefits of stream and meadow restoration becomes more 

challenging when evaluating benefits to higher order ecosystem services, including 

biodiversity. Researchers have criticized shortcomings of some restoration projects 

as overly relying upon the “field of dreams hypothesis” that “if you build it, they 

will come,” in which “it” refers to physical structure, hydrology, or vegetation, and 

“they” refers to the desired biological community, usually wildlife (Hobbs and Cramer 2008, Palmer et al. 1997). Defenders of that approach may counter that projects 

that fell short may have lacked restoration of critical ecosystem processes, such 

as overbank flooding and fire, so in effect, they did not “rebuild it.” Nevertheless, 

researchers contend that this hypothesis needs to be rigorously tested for different 

habitats and different species (Palmer et al. 1997). In recent years, researchers have 

reviewed stream restoration efforts nationwide to evaluate this hypothesis. Bernhardt and Palmer (2011) cautioned that channel reconfiguration efforts may reduce 

bank erosion and increase sinuosity, but that evaluations have found little evidence 

for benefits to sensitive taxa and water quality (in particular, reduction of nutrients). 

They noted that many projects in the United States are undertaken at sites where 

watershed degradation is a key factor, so reach-specific channel restoration treatments do not treat the underlying causes of degradation. However, their review 

included many urbanized streams and other sites in heavily altered watersheds. 

Sites on national forests in the Sierra Nevada are less likely to have experienced 

severe watershed-scale impacts (although dams may have significantly altered 

hydrologic processes in some watersheds), and many restoration projects have targeted streams and meadows that have been significantly affected by localized road, 

channelization, or grazing impacts. Therefore, meadow restoration projects in the 

synthesis area should generally be less vulnerable to those potential shortcomings. 

Nevertheless, this research firmly underscores the importance of long-term monitoring and research to evaluate more complex, higher order outcomes of restoration.

Researchers have emphasized the importance of conceptual models to explicitly 

state and test the strength of linkages between various fundamental changes, such 

as modifying channels to reduce entrenchment and increase the areas flooded 

during frequent floods, to vegetative effects and higher order effects on fish, 

amphibians, and terrestrial wildlife. Through a national meta-analysis of two dozen 

studies, Miller et al. (2010) concluded that although habitat restoration may promote 

biodiversity and ecosystem resilience, its ability to increase biomass of macroinvertebrates for the benefit of higher tropic levels (e.g., fish, amphibians, and birds) 

was still uncertain. That study noted that channel reconfigurations yielded highly 

Long-term monitoring 

and research are 

needed to evaluate the 

more complex, higher 

order outcomes of wet 

meadow restoration, 

including effects on 

wildlife.
350

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

variable invertebrate community responses. On the other hand, in a study from the 

Sierra Nevada, Herbst and Kane (2009) reported that active channel restoration 

yielded a rapid shift in macroinvertebrate communities toward reference conditions. 

Conceptually, restoration of wet meadow hydrology should yield benefits for a variety of wildlife species, including willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) (Cocimano 

et al. 2011). However, many of these higher order biological objectives may prove 

hard to achieve (or to demonstrate) in short timeframes because of confounding or 

limiting factors, including legacy effects of past management, including historical 

overgrazing, soil compaction, mining, and stocking of nonnative trout. For example, 

the stocking of trout into fishless systems has affected amphibians, reptiles, and 

birds by altering food webs in lakes and streams (Eby et al. 2006, Epanchin et al. 

2010). A Sierra Nevada study by Purdy et al. (2011) found that fundamental indicators of vegetation and physical habitat tend to classify meadows as being in better 

condition than do aquatic indices, especially the native fish and amphibian index. 

This finding could reflect a variety of causes, including legacy effects, time lags 

in these indicators, and controlling influences that are beyond the site.

Grazing Management and Wet Meadow Restoration

Livestock grazing involves a complex interplay of social and ecological factors (see 

chapter 9.5, “Managing Forest Products for Community Benefit”). Although grazing is only one of many land uses that affect streams and wet meadows, grazing 

management and hydrogeomorphic condition appear to be critical determinants of 

meadow restoration outcomes (Ramstead et al. 2012). In a recently published review 

of rotational grazing from a broad socioecological perspective, Briske et al. (2011b) 

offered frameworks to promote effective management of grazed systems, including 

adaptive management with an emphasis on stakeholder participation (FernandezGimenez et al. 2008) as well as targeted grazing that explicitly emphasizes management outcomes, such as weed control, fire hazard reduction, and wildlife habitat 

improvement. The latter approach suggests that grazing management could be an 

important tool for promoting socioecological resilience in systems that evolved with 

grazing animals. This approach embodies the logic of disturbance-based management as described in North and Keeton (2008), and recognizes that grazing, like 

fire, can be a tool for rejuvenating areas by reducing accumulated vegetation. It is 

important to recognize that because different kinds of domesticated livestock (i.e., 

cattle, horses, and sheep) have different grazing behaviors and influences, they 

are not interchangeable with each other or with the prehistorical assemblage that 

may have grazed particular landscapes. Researchers have discussed the utility of 

grazing in “novel systems,” where grazing has a long history and nonnative species 
351

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

have become dominant (Hobbs et al. 2009). In such systems, carefully managed 

livestock grazing may be a useful, albeit often controversial, tool for maintaining 

biodiversity and ecological services (Hobbs and Cramer 2008). For example, studying spring systems in Sierra Nevada foothills, Allen-Diaz et al. (2004) found that 

removing livestock grazing may allow dead plant material to accumulate, which in 

turn can increase levels of nitrate in wetland waters and decrease plant diversity. 

Similar findings have come from research in vernal pool systems (Marty 2005). 

The ecological benefits of grazing-based management approaches to less invaded, 

high-elevation wet meadows of the Sierra Nevada are less clear. A report by the 

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project indicated that it was unknown whether grassland 

ecosystems in the Sierra Nevada were adapted to disturbance by prehistoric megafauna, and suggested that more intensive grazing practices, such as active herding, 

could avoid many undesirable impacts (SNEP Science Team 1996a).

A recent comprehensive report on riparian management practices provides 

an overview of prescribed grazing effects on a wide range of resource values, 

including wildlife habitat, water quantity and quality, streambank and soil stability, 

carbon storage, plant and animal diversity, composition and vigor of plant communities, forage for grazing and browsing animals’ health and productivity, riparian 

and watershed function, soil condition, and fine fuel loads (Briske et al. 2011a). 

In a companion chapter on riparian management practices, George et al. (2011) 

found that grazing practices that result in heavy use of riparian vegetation, are too 

long in duration, or are poorly timed can be detrimental to aquatic values such as 

fisheries and streambank stability. They found support for grazing exclusion as a 

restoration strategy for degraded riparian systems because it promotes recovery of 

riparian plant community composition. However, they noted that other techniques 

for manipulating livestock distribution, including herding, supplement placement, 

water development, and fences, are effective in reducing livestock residence time 

and utilization in the riparian zone. Both direct effects (such as trampling) and indirect effects (reducing vegetation) of grazing on streambanks and channels within 

the riparian zone remain critical considerations for meadow resilience because of 

their potential to induce stream incision and other threshold changes (Ramstead et 

al. 2012, Trimble and Mendel 1995).

Studies have also examined effects beyond the streamside zone, including 

impacts on water quality, soils, nutrients, and vegetative composition. For example, 

Blank et al. (2006) reported that cattle grazing under short-term, high-density 

stocking conditions did not affect composition and root length density, but that the 

treatment deposited nutrients and altered soil pH at the edge of a wet meadow in 

the synthesis area. Also from the synthesis area, a recently completed 5-year study 
352

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

addressed the effectiveness of excluding cattle from breeding areas of Yosemite 

toads (Bufo canorus). The researchers found no detectable differences in toad 

occupancy, toad density, or water quality between grazed and nongrazed meadows when livestock grazing met current standards, including 30 to 40 percent 

use (Roche et al. 2012b). In addition, they found that meadow hydrology there 

influences occupancy by toads, and cattle grazing intensity does not (Roche et 

al. 2012a). Recent studies on national forests of the Sierra Nevada have reported 

exceedances in levels of fecal coliform bacteria (Escherichia coli, specifically) in 

several meadow streams with cattle grazing as well as recreational use in some 

cases (Derlet et al. 2012, Myers and Kane 2011, Myers and Whited 2012). Additional research on a number of sites in the synthesis area should help to put these 

studies within a broader context of national forest management (see box 6.3-1).

Much of the research on grazing has had limitations on experimental design 

that constrain the range of inference to contexts that may not necessarily match 

conditions on national forest lands. Many studies of grazing impacts are difficult 

to translate to grazing management strategies when they lack details such as 

stocking rates or utilization levels (Briske et al. 2008). Many studies of grazing 

in the Western United States, including the Sierra Nevada, have provided a 

dichotomous view of grazing by comparing differences or trajectories of vegetation 

and channel morphology inside and outside of exclosures (examples from the Sierra 

Nevada include Kondolf [1993] and Knapp and Matthews [1996]). Studies have 

commonly reported that where physical thresholds had not been exceeded (e.g., 

channel incision that had lowered water tables below the rooting zone), long-term 

grazing exclusion or reduction has facilitated substantial growth of native wetland 

herbaceous and woody vegetation such as willows (Ramstead et al. 2012). A 

review of exclosure studies on the Kern Plateau by Sarr (2002) noted that particular 

vegetative and channel responses to exclusion differ owing to a host of factors, 

including watershed stability, climate, subsurface moisture availability, soil organic 

content, proximity of willow propagule sources, and degree of channel incision. A 

study of bumblebees at 20 meadow sites on the Tahoe National Forest (Hatfield and 

LeBuhn 2007) reported variable impacts associated with cattle and sheep grazing 

that suggested an important interaction between grazing and flower availability, but 

it did not quantify the level of grazing use.

Variation in responses has also been reported in some studies on higher order 

responses within the past decade. Studies assessing the impacts of cattle on amphibians have often been correlative and have yielded mixed results; for example, Bull 

and Hayes (2000) found no evidence of negative effects of grazing on the Columbia 

spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), but they noted their inability to control for wide 
353

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

variation in grazing intensity and other landscape variables. More experimental 

studies using cattle exclosures have also reported mixed results with specific 

implications for particular taxa. For example, reporting from a study in Tennessee, 

Burton et al. (2009) suggested that fencing cattle from wetlands may benefit ranid 

frogs, and controlled grazing may benefit toads in the genus Bufo.

Quantifying the influence of livestock grazing in stream and meadow ecosystems has been difficult because experimental designs may not sufficiently 

address ecological variation. Sarr (2002) identified common problems in evaluating 

responses to livestock grazing and exclusion, including lack of proper controls and 

the small size of exclosures. Research experiments are often conducted at too small 

a scale to properly evaluate effects (Briske et al. 2008). In response to these challenges, Sarr (2002) suggested that resource managers evaluate treatments at watershed scales on experimental rangelands, and in modest-sized exclosures as part of 

an ongoing adaptive management process. This strategy is reflected in the recent 

study by Herbst et al. (2012), which suggested that treatments at broader scales 

may yield different outcomes than smaller riparian exclosures. Specifically, they 

reported greater macroinvertebrate diversity and measures of habitat quality after 

4 years of rest from grazing at the allotment scale, but more limited differences 

within local riparian exclosures that had been in place over a decade.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Recent stream restoration research indicates that monitoring remains very 

important in evaluating whether restoration is achieving desired objectives and 

in improving practice. The Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework set a 

goal of establishing a comprehensive monitoring effort by 2016 (USDA FS 2011a). 

Effort-based performance metrics, such as number of stream miles restored or 

enhanced, may create an unintended incentive for intervention, particularly in 

reaches that may have lower per-unit treatment costs. It is important to measure 

performance in terms of changes in ecological condition and associated benefits. 

Furthermore, metrics based primarily on physical structure (such as high sinuosity 

and low width-depth ratios) may underemphasize ecological functions (Bernhardt 

and Palmer 2011). Consequently, measurements of ecological processes (such as 

overbank flooding) and services (e.g., improved water quality, changes in seasonal 

water tables, dampened floods, and improvements in the diversity or abundance of 

target taxa) may be more appropriate for tracking progress (Bernhardt and Palmer 

2011). The emphasis on process-based indicators is an important theme of this 

synthesis (see chapter 1.2, “Integrative Approaches: Promoting Socioecological 

Resilience”). In addition, monitoring is important in evaluating project outcomes 
354

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

over a long period during which floods and vegetative development are expected 

to alter conditions. Finally, adopting a landscape perspective may be important in 

promoting socioecological resilience by giving increased weight toward meadows 

with greater potential to yield desirable outcomes. For example, stream reaches that 

are located close to less disturbed areas are more likely to be successful in reestablishing aquatic organisms (Bernhardt and Palmer 2011).

The Watershed Condition Framework considers channel incision within criteria 

for channel shape and function. Developing more specific quantitative criteria for 

this critical threshold of ecological function may be possible in different regions 

within the Sierra Nevada; for example, Micheli and Kirchner (2002) suggested that 

a bank height of 1 m in a southern Sierra Nevada meadow represents a threshold 

for shifting to dry meadow species and less stable streambanks, and Chambers and 

Miller (2011) suggested a threshold of incision occurs when channel depths exceed 

twice the bankfull depth.

A recent study in the Sierra Nevada concluded that soil properties correspond 

with rapid assessments of meadow condition using the Proper Functioning Condition methodology; specifically, they found that meadows categorized as “properly 

functioning” have greater nitrogen and dissolved organic nitrogen than “nonfunctioning” or “at-risk” meadows, and greater carbon than “nonfunctioning” meadows 

(Norton et al. 2011). To evaluate grazing management in wet meadows, Blank et al. 

(2006) suggested using root-length density as an indicator of ecological function. 

Root depth is another useful indicator of functional condition, and these types of 

qualities can be related to vegetation cover and composition data that is collected 

more routinely (Weixelman et al. 1999). Collectively, these studies provide a basis 

for using rapid assessments that focus on channel incision and shifts in vegetation away from native wet meadow graminoids; however, they also point to more 

quantitative metrics and possible threshold values for monitoring.

Stewart et al. (2009) contended that more research-based information about 

in-stream structural treatments is needed before widespread use can be recommended. Kondolf et al. (2007) pointed to the importance of post-project evaluation, 

monitoring, and adaptive management for advancing stream restoration and learning from both successes and failures. They further noted that restoration projects in 

California rarely provide for monitoring beyond 3 years, which is likely inadequate 

to observe effects of large, infrequent events. They also argued that projects do not 

always meet the standards needed to evaluate the restoration outcomes articulated 

by Bernhardt et al. (2007), including a clearly defined goal, objective success 

criteria, and use of controlled monitoring designs. Ruiz-Jaen and Aide (2005) 

recommended including measures of diversity, vegetation structure, and ecological 

Post-project evaluation, 

monitoring, and 

adaptive management 

beyond 3 years is 

important for advancing 

stream restoration.
355

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

processes, and monitoring more than one reference site, to account for the temporal 

and spatial dynamics of ecosystems. Identifying suites of streams and watersheds 

that are in reference condition or could be brought into reference condition would 

facilitate evaluation of restoration potential and success in the face of anticipated 

stressors.

Monitoring frameworks need to consider temporal scale to account for effects 

of disturbances on key indicators (Berkes and Folke 2002, Bryant 1995). Because 

recovery of stream channels and floodplains may be limited by the episodic nature 

of flood disturbances (Sarr 2002), pulsed monitoring to coincide with climate and 

flood dynamics has been proposed as an efficient way to evaluate stream condition 

(Bryant 1995). Furthermore, interpreting indicators of stream condition relative to 

flood dynamics may be more appropriate than evaluating annual trends in systems 

where less frequent floods drive key ecological processes. The idea of quantifying 

a threshold to aid determination of when geomorphic monitoring is warranted was 

proposed by Florsheim et al. (2006) for dynamic lowland rivers. Even in relatively 

stable wet meadow ecosystems, environmental conditions can vary significantly 

from one year to the next, so reliable evaluations need a relatively long timeframe 

for monitoring, including pre- and posttreatment data, to demonstrate trends 

(Kiernan and Moyle 2012, Ramstead et al. 2012). These temporal dynamics further 

complicate efforts to evaluate impacts of grazing and rest, so one strategy is to consider long rest periods that provide opportunities to evaluate influences of grazing 

from multiple perspectives (Briske et al. 2011b).

Standardized monitoring and classification protocols could facilitate collection 

and comparison of data at larger spatial scales. Katz et al. (2007) provided a number 

of recommendations to facilitate evaluation of project effectiveness, including 

standardized metrics and a common reporting system for tracking restoration 

projects that includes common semantics for project type, location, timing, and 

magnitude. Stein et al. 2009 validated the utility of a rapid assessment tool, the 

California Rapid Assessment Methodology (CRAM) for lower elevation systems, 

although testing of a CRAM module for high-elevation meadow systems has not yet 

been published. Validation is important to ensure that the methods are effectively 

capturing important information about condition and trend. However, as Purdy et 

al. (2011) explained, variation across different biological indices within sites pose 

challenges for rapid assessments to concisely summarize the various dimensions of 

stream and meadow condition.

Classification systems are helpful in addressing heterogeneity within the large 

areas. A field key by Weixelman et al. (2011) provides a tool for classifying meadow 

types based on several hydrogeomorphic factors, including soils, water source, 

and gradient. Loheide et al. (2009) developed a framework for predicting potential 

Because recovery 

of stream channels 

and floodplains may 

be limited by the 

episodic nature of 

flood disturbances, 

pulsed monitoring to 

coincide with climate 

and flood dynamics 

has been proposed 

as an efficient way 

to evaluate stream 

condition.
356

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

benefits of restoration based on several factors, including elevation, soil texture, and 

the degree of stream incision. Use of these classifications in project reporting and 

evaluation could help evaluate restoration treatment effectiveness across the synthesis area by identifying geomorphic settings and hydrologic characteristics that 

appear particularly sensitive to threats or responsive to treatments.

Research Gaps and Pending Research

A host of pending research projects will help to fill some of the important gaps 

in knowledge regarding wet meadow restoration (see box 6.3-1 below). Many of 

the key cause-and-effect questions and information gaps identified in the Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Appendix E (USDA FS 2004) focused on impacts 

of livestock grazing practices. These questions will likely remain at the center of 

meadow management, although thorough review of long-term monitoring data on 

rangelands, streams, and meadows should provide better information on which to 

base decisions and to revisit the questions in Appendix E. 

Many topics that influence the outcomes of meadow restoration warrant further research, especially groundwater interactions between meadow aquifers and 

surrounding systems and the effects of meadow properties and various treatments 

on hydrologic responses (Hill and Mitchell-Bruker 2010, Loheide et al. 2010). 

Long-term studies of effects of meadow restoration on higher order values, such 

as favorable water flows (Loheide et al. 2010) and aquatic life, remain a topic for 

further research, particularly in light of anticipated effects of climate change. The 

Sierra Nevada watersheds with the largest amount of mountain meadows are the 

Mokelumne, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus; these three basins, along with the American and Merced, have been projected to have longer periods of low flows, which 

threaten mountain meadows and the services they provide (Null et al. 2010).

The introduction of beaver (Castor canadensis) has been suggested as a 

strategy for restoring wet meadows through their potential to induce sediment 

deposition, raise water tables, and alter relatively large habitat patches (Johnston 

and Naiman 1990). Beaver introductions in Yellowstone have shown potential to 

promote increased water surface area, wetland herbaceous vegetation, and riparian 

shrubs (McColley et al. 2012). However, the complex interactions between beaver 

activity, wetland hydrology and vegetation, and human infrastructure have to be 

considered, especially given the potential impacts of beaver dam failures (Beier and 

Barrett 1987, Butler and Malanson 2005). Recently published evidence that beaver 

were native to at least some watersheds in the Sierra Nevada suggests that other 

areas warrant more indepth investigation (James and Lanman 2012, Lanman et al. 

2012). These findings heighten the importance of research to determine the conditions under which beaver reintroductions may promote meadow restoration.

Long-term studies 

of effects of meadow 

restoration on higher 

order values, such as 

favorable water flows 

and aquatic life, remain 

a topic for further 

research, particularly 

in light of anticipated 

effects of climate 

change.
357

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Box 6.3-1

Current and Pending Research

These studies are included for reference although they may have not been published in peerreviewed outlets.

Golden trout and climate change adaptation—

• The U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW) has a current 

project funded by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to examine the resiliency of stream habitats in the Golden Trout Wilderness to future climate warming. 

This project will spatially analyze stream temperatures and shading in restored and 

degraded sections of Mulkey and Ramshaw meadows to estimate what proportion 

of the habitat will be resilient to climate change and what proportion should undergo 

restoration treatments. The project is using peak temperature threshold values of 23 

°C to trigger management responses, with a long-term goal of keeping streams below 

20 °C so they will be resilient to future climate warming. Monitoring of degraded 

and recovering stream sections will enable comparisons of temperature, dissolved 

oxygen, stream depth and width, and shading, and it will be used to guide restorative 

management actions.

Grazing management in national forests—

• Researchers at the University of California–Davis (UC Davis), led by Kenneth Tate, 

are completing a study across several national forests to determine whether grazing 

best management practices avoid exceedance of water quality standards.

(continued on next page)

Large-scale restoration efforts are increasingly seeking to better incorporate 

understanding of disturbance regimes and multiple successional states (Lake et al. 

2007). As noted in chapter 1.5, “Research Gaps: Adaptive Management to CrossCutting Issues,” proposals to study landscape-scale effects of forest treatments on 

multiple resource values would benefit from including aquatic resources, especially 

to evaluate effects of managing riparian areas and impacts from wildfires. Ratliff 

(1985) noted a wide range of potential wildfire impacts to meadows, including 

reduced encroachment by conifer trees; increased flows of water, sediment, charcoal, and woody debris; consumption of peat layers in meadow soils by intense 

fires; and consumption of wood structures that serve as check dams. However, a 

more formal examination of outcomes would help to evaluate whether there are 

thresholds of existing meadow instability or wildfire severity that leads to undesirable outcomes, as well as under what conditions and timeframes wildfires promote 

desirable developments in wet meadows.
358

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

(from page 357)

• A joint Forest Service Region 5 and UC Davis project, also led by Kenneth Tate, will 

publish long-term (1999 to present) rangeland condition and trend monitoring data on 

more than 800 permanent plots from throughout the state.

Hydrologic effects of meadow restoration—

• Barry Hill, Region 5 Hydrologist, is preparing an assessment of meadow restoration 

and meadow hydrology for the Sierra Nevada.

Meadow restoration guide and economic effects—

• “A guide for restoring functionality to mountain meadows of the Sierra Nevada” 

(Stillwater Sciences 2012) provides an overview of restoration strategies in the 

synthesis area.

• “An Economic Analysis of Sierra Meadow Restoration” (Aylward and Merrill 2012) 

synthesized both peer-reviewed studies and unpublished reports in evaluating potential 

economic impacts of meadow restoration in the synthesis area.

Evaluation of meadow restoration—

• A recent PSW meadow restoration study included sites from the southern Cascade 

Range to the Stanislaus National Forest (fig. 2). Response variables of interest included 

basic physical and vegetative indicators of wetland condition, including soil moisture, 

soil carbon, vegetation cover and biomass, channel depth, and presence of headcuts.

Meadow restoration and native trout reports—

• Researchers at UC Davis published a report titled “Meadow Restoration to Sustain 

Stream Flows and Native Trout: a Novel Approach to Quantifying the Effects of 

Meadow Restorations to Native Trout” (Henery et al. 2011).

• American Rivers produced a report titled “Evaluating and Prioritizing Meadow 

Restoration in the Sierra” that documented a rapid assessment methodology based 

on six attributes (bank height, gullies, bank stability, ratio of graminoid to forb 

vegetation, bare ground, and encroachment) and a framework for prioritizing 

restoration activities (Hunt and Nylen 2012).

• UC Davis researchers have released a study that examined the number and size of 

meadows in the Sierra Nevada: “Sierra Nevada Meadow Hydrology Assessment” 

(Fryjoff-Hung and Viers 2013).

• UC Davis researchers have prepared reports on effects of climate change on fishes 

and amphibians associated with meadows: “Projected Effects of Future Climates on 

Freshwater Fishes of California” (Moyle et al. 2012) and “Montane Meadows in the 

Sierra Nevada: Changing Hydroclimatic Conditions and Concepts for Vulnerability 

Assessment” (Viers et al. 2013).
359

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Figure 2—Map of sites in the meadow restoration study led by the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

Map by Diane Sutherland.
360

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Integrated Socioecological Approaches to Stream and 

Meadow Restoration

Because streams and meadows provide important ecological services and other 

sociocultural values (fig. 3), they present opportunities to promote ecologically 

and socially integrated restoration consistent with the broader approaches in this 

synthesis (see chapters 1.2, “Integrative Approaches: Promoting Socioecological 

Resilience”] and 9.1, “Broader Context for Social, Economic, and Cultural Components”). Advancing management may increasingly depend on a participatory 

or collaborative adaptive management program that accounts for both social and 

ecological objectives and promotes learning to meet those objectives (see chapter 

9.6, “Collaboration in National Forest Management,” as well as Briske et al. [2011b] 

for a discussion in the context of grazing management). Bernhardt et al. (2007) 

observed that the most effective stream restoration projects tend to involve local 

community members and advisory committees throughout all stages, and they 

hypothesized that those interactions promote accountability in ways that improve 

outcomes. Golet et al. (2006) also found that community participation in planning 

may also help to increase the success and social benefits of stream restoration. 

Chapter 9.1 explains that participation in restoration activities can be empowering 

for individuals and enhance social capital. Recognizing the importance of social 

benefits builds upon the distinction drawn by Higgs (1997) between “effective 

restoration” that is focused on meeting technical performance criteria and “good 

restoration,” which addresses the value of restoration in sociocultural contexts.

Increasing interest in the idea of payments for ecosystem services through 

restoring montane meadows of the Sierra Nevada has generated excitement about 

the potential to accelerate the pace of restoration (Viers and Rheinheimer 2011). 

Rising interests and concerns about these approaches are discussed more generally 

in chapter 9.2, “Ecosystem Services.” Market incentives have fostered interest in 

treating degraded streams and developing stream restoration as an applied science; 

however, the increasing importance of stream restoration as a private industry and 

potential market for ecosystem services could have unintended consequences as 

complex ecosystem functions are translated into specific credits (Lave et al. 2010). 

Kondolf et al. (2007) pointed out that although quantitative criteria are important 

measures of success, projects may also have broader goals regarding stakeholder 

involvement. Many meadow sites have strong cultural value to tribes and may 

have been managed by Native American tribes (Ramstead et al. 2012). A strategy 

discussed in chapter 4.2, “Fire and Tribal Cultural Resources,” focuses on partnering with tribes to reestablish more frequent fire regimes and enhance growth of 

Because streams 

and meadows 

provide important 

ecological services 

and other sociocultural 

values, they present 

opportunities to 

promote ecologically 

and socially integrated 

restoration consistent 

with the broader 

approaches in this 

synthesis.
361

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

culturally desirable plants, such as sedges, willows, and various geophytes, including 

beargrass, that are commonly associated with riparian or wet meadow habitats. 

Relationships between meadow condition and broader social values are a topic 

that invites further study, particularly to reconcile potential tensions in meadows 

between scenic views and more complex ecological aesthetics based upon ecological 

integrity (Gobster 1999, Gobster et al. 2007). For example, wildflower viewing is an 

important and burgeoning recreational activity (see chapter 9.1). However, Ratliff 

(1985) reported that maintaining wet meadows in good hydrologic and vegetative 

condition favors graminoid species that are less showy than many forbs. On the other 

hand, maintaining wet meadow hydrology may promote production of late-season 

wildflowers for the benefit of pollinators (Hatfield and LeBuhn 2007) as well as 

human visitors. Furthermore, because meadow degradation can stimulate dramatic 

shifts from vegetative reproduction by sedges to production of pollen and seeds by 

grasses and forbs (Klimkowska et al. 2009), evaluating production of allergens could 

present another opportunity to relate meadow integrity to social considerations. 

Figure 3—Fly-fishing along Trout Creek, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, represents one of the socioeconomic opportunities 

afforded by well-functioning stream/wet meadow ecosystems. 

Jonathan Long
362

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Management Implications

• Wet meadows can be vulnerable to transformations that result in diminished socioecological value. The flip side of that coin is that restoration 

of these systems holds great potential to provide multiple ecological and 

social benefits, despite their small share of the landscape. Research to date 

suggests that projects can promote important benefits; however, additional 

long-term monitoring and research would help to evaluate those benefits 

and prioritize investments in restoration.

• In particular, long-term studies of effects of stream and meadow restoration 

on higher order values such as water flows and aquatic life remain a topic 

for further research, particularly in light of anticipated effects of climate 

change.

• Assessments of the number, size, location, current condition (especially 

extent of incision), and recovery potential of degraded wet meadows in 

the synthesis area will help target and prioritize structural interventions, 

changes in grazing practices, or other restoration treatments.

• In addition to site-specific assessments and treatments, examination of 

disturbances (e.g., wildfire) and management practices (e.g., prescribed 

grazing practices) on a larger, watershed scale, could aid the design of 

more effective strategies to promote long-term resilience of these 

valuable systems.

Literature Cited

Adams, M.J.; Pearl, C.A. 2007. Problems and opportunities managing invasive 

bullfrogs—Is there any hope? In: Gherardi, F., ed. Biological invaders in 

inland waters— profiles, distribution, and threats. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: 

Springer: 679–693. Chapter 38.

Allen-Diaz, B.; Barrett, R.; Frost, W.; Huntsinger, L.; Tate, K. 1999. Sierra 

Nevada ecosystems in the presence of livestock. Davis, CA: University of 

California–Davis, Rangeland Science Team. 149 p.

Allen-Diaz, B.; Jackson, R.D.; Bartolome, J.; Tate, K.; Oates, L.G. 2004. 

Long-term grazing study in spring-fed wetlands reveals management tradeoffs. 

California Agriculture. 58(3): 144–148.

Aylward, B.; Merrill, A.G. 2012. An economic analysis of Sierra Meadow 

restoration. Bend, OR: Ecosystem Economics, and Berkeley, CA: Stillwater 

Sciences. 76 p.
363

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Beier, P.; Barrett, R.H. 1987. Beaver habitat use and impact in Truckee River 

Basin, California. Journal of Wildlife Management. 51(4): 794–799.

Benedict, N.B. 1982. Mountain meadows: stability and change. Madrono. 

29(3): 148–153.

Berkes, F.; Folke, C. 2002. Ecosystem dynamics and local knowledge. In: 

Gunderson, L.; Holling, C.S., eds. Panarchy: understanding transformations in 

human and natural systems. Washington DC: Island Press: 121–146. Chapter 5.

Bernhardt, E.S.; Palmer, M.A. 2011. River restoration: the fuzzy logic 

of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Ecological 

Applications. 21(6): 1926–1931.

Bernhardt, E.S.; Sudduth, E.B.; Palmer, M.A.; Allan, J.D.; Meyer, J.L.; 

Alexander, G.; Follastad-Shah, J.; Hassett, B.; Jenkinson, R.; Lave, R.; 

Rumps, J.; Pagano, L. 2007. Restoring rivers one reach at a time: results 

from a survey of U.S. river restoration practitioners. Restoration Ecology. 

15(3): 482–493.

Blank, R.R.; Svejcar, T.; Riegel, G. 2006. Soil attributes in a Sierra Nevada 

riparian meadow as influenced by grazing. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 

59(3): 321–329.

Booth, E.G.; Loheide, S.P. 2012. Hydroecological model predictions indicate 

wetter and more diverse soil water regimes and vegetation types following 

floodplain restoration. Journal of Geophysical Research—Biogeosciences. 

117, G02011. doi:10.1029/2011JG001831.

Briske, D.D.; Derner, J.D.; Brown, J.R.; Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Teague, W.R.; 

Havstad, K.M.; Gillen, R.L.; Ash, A.J.; Willms, W.D. 2008. Rotational 

grazing on rangelands: reconciliation of perception and experimental evidence. 

Rangeland Ecology and Management. 61(1): 3–17.

Briske, D.D.; Derner, J.D.; Milchunas, D.G.; Tate, K. 2011a. An evidence-based 

assessment of prescribed grazing practices. In: Briske, D.D., ed. Conservation 

benefits of rangeland practices: assessment, recommendations, and knowledge 

gaps. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press: 21–74.

Briske, D.D.; Sayre, N.F.; Huntsinger, L.; Fernandez-Gimenez, M.; Budd, B.; 

Derner, J.D. 2011b. Origin, persistence, and resolution of the rotational grazing 

debate: integrating human dimensions into rangeland research. Rangeland 

Ecology and Management. 64(4): 325–334.
364

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Bryant, M.D. 1995. Pulsed monitoring for watershed and stream restoration. 

Fisheries. 20(11): 6–13.

Bull, E.L.; Hayes, M.P. 2000. Livestock effects on reproduction of the Columbia 

spotted frog. Journal of Range Management. 53(3): 291–294.

Burton, E.C.; Gray, M.J.; Schmutzer, A.C.; Miller, D.L. 2009. Differential 

responses of postmetamorphic amphibians to cattle grazing in wetlands. The 

Journal of Wildlife Management. 73(2): 269–277.

Butler, D.R.; Malanson, G.P. 2005. The geomorphic influences of beaver dams 

and failures of beaver dams. Geomorphology. 71(1–2): 48–60.

Chambers, J.C.; Miller, J.R. 2011. Geomorphology, hydrology, and ecology of 

Great Basin meadow complexes—implications for management and restoration. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-258. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 125 p.

Cocimano, M.C.; Morrison, M.L.; Mathewson, H.A.; Vormwald, L.M. 2011.

The influence of meadow moisture levels on activity of small mammal nest 

predators in the Sierra Nevada, California. Northwestern Naturalist. 

92(1): 50–56.

Derlet, R.W.; Richards, J.R.; Tanaka, L.L.; Hayden, C.; Ger, K.A.; Goldman, 

C.R. 2012. Impact of summer cattle grazing on the Sierra Nevada watershed: 

aquatic algae and bacteria. Journal of Environmental and Public Health. 

2012(Article ID 760108): 7 p.

Eagan, S.; Newman, P.; Fritzke, S.; Johnson, L. 2000. Restoration of multiplerut trails in the Tuolumne Meadows of Yosemite National Park. In: Cole, D.N.; 

McColl, S.F.; Borrie, W.T.; O’Loughlin, J., eds. Wilderness science in a time of 

change conference. Vol. 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management. 

RMRS-P-15-Vol-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station: 188–192.

Eby, L.A.; Roach, W.J.; Crowder, L.B.; Stanford, J.A. 2006. Effects of stockingup freshwater food webs. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 21(10): 576–584.

Epanchin, P.N.; Knapp, R.A.; Lawler, S.P. 2010. Nonnative trout impact 

an alpine-nesting bird by altering aquatic-insect subsidies. Ecology. 

91(8): 2406–2415.
365

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Florsheim, J.L.; Mount, J.F.; Constantine, C.R. 2006. A geomorphic monitoring 

and adaptive assessment framework to assess the effect of lowland floodplain 

river restoration on channel-floodplain sediment continuity. River Research and 

Applications. 22(3): 353–375.

Fryjoff-Hung, A.; Viers, J.H. 2013. Sierra Nevada Meadow Hydrology 

Assessment: final project report to the USDA Forest Service Pacific 

Southwest Region. Davis, CA: University of California–Davis, Department 

of Environmental Science and Policy. 1114 p.

George, M.R.; Jackson, R.D.; Boyd, C.S.; Tate, K.W. 2011. A scientific 

assessment of the effectiveness of riparian management practices. In: 

Briske, D.D., ed. Conservation benefits of rangeland practices: assessment, 

recommendations, and knowledge gaps. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press: 213–252.

Germanoski, D.; Miller, J.R. 2004. Basin sensitivity to channel incision in 

response to natural and anthropogenic disturbance. In: Chambers, J.C.; Miller, 

J.R., eds. Great Basin riparian ecosystems—ecology, management, and 

restoration. Covelo, CA: Island Press. 88–123.

Gobster, P.H. 1999. An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. 

Landscape Journal. 18(1): 54–64.

Gobster, P.H.; Nassauer, J.I.; Daniel, T.C.; Fry, G. 2007. The shared landscape: 

What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology. 22: 959–972.

Golet, G.H.; Roberts, M.D.; Luster, R.A.; Werner, G.; Larsen, E.W.; Unger, 

R.; White, G.G. 2006. Assessing societal impacts when planning restoration 

of large alluvial rivers: a case study of the Sacramento River project, California. 

Environmental management. 37(6): 862–879.

Hammersmark, C.T.; Dobrowski, S.Z.; Rains, M.C.; Mount, J.F. 2010. 

Simulated effects of stream restoration on the distribution of wet-meadow 

vegetation. Restoration Ecology. 18(6): 882–893.

Hammersmark, C.T.; Rains, M.C.; Mount, J.F. 2008. Quantifying the 

hydrological effects of stream restoration in a montane meadow, northern 

California, USA. River Research and Applications. 24(6): 735–753.

Hatfield, R.G.; LeBuhn, G. 2007. Patch and landscape factors shape community 

assemblage of bumble bees, Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), in montane 

meadows. Biological Conservation. 139(1–2): 150–158.
366

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Henery, R.; Purdy, S.; Williams, J.; Hatch, J.; Fesenmyer, K.; Drew, M.; Lass, 

D.; Knight, C. 2011. Meadow restoration to sustain stream flows and native 

trout: a novel approach to quantifying the effects of meadow restorations to 

native trout. Davis, CA: Trout Unlimited, California Trout, University of Nevada, 

Reno, and University of California–Davis. 110 p.

Herbst, D.B.; Bogan, M.T.; Roll, S.K.; Safford, H.D. 2012. Effects of livestock 

exclusion on in-stream habitat and benthic invertebrate assemblages in montane 

streams. Freshwater Biology. 57(1): 204–217.

Herbst, D.B.; Kane, J.M. 2009. Responses of aquatic macroinvertebrates to stream 

channel reconstruction in a degraded rangeland creek in the Sierra Nevada. 

Ecological Restoration. 27(1): 76–88.

Higgs, E.S. 1997. What is good ecological restoration? Conservation Biology. 

11(2): 338–348.

Hill, B.; Mitchell-Bruker, S. 2010. Comment on “A framework for understanding 

the hydroecology of impacted wet meadows in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade 

Ranges, California, USA.” Hydrogeology Journal. 18(7): 1741–1743.

Hobbs, R.J.; Cramer, V.A. 2008. Restoration ecology: interventionist approaches 

for restoring and maintaining ecosystem function in the face of rapid 

environmental change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 

33: 39–61.

Hobbs, R.J.; Higgs, E.; Harris, J.A. 2009. Novel ecosystems: implications for 

conservation and restoration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 24(11): 599–605.

Hunt, L.; Nylen, B.D. 2012. Evaluating and prioritizing meadow restoration in the 

Sierra. Nevada City, CA: American Rivers. 22 p.

James, C.D.; Lanman, R.B. 2012. Novel physical evidence that beaver historically 

were native to the Sierra Nevada. California Fish and Game. 98(2): 129–132.

Johnston, C.A.; Naiman, R.J. 1990. Aquatic patch creation in relation to beaver 

population trends. Ecology. 71(4): 1617–1621.

Katz, S.L.; Barnas, K.; Hicks, R.; Cowen, J.; Jenkinson, R. 2007. Freshwater 

habitat restoration actions in the Pacific Northwest: a decade’s investment in 

habitat improvement. Restoration Ecology. 15(3): 494–505.

Kauffman, J.B.; Beschta, R.L.; Otting, N.; Lytjen, D. 1997. An ecological 

perspective of riparian and stream restoration in the western United States. 

Fisheries. 22(5): 12–24.
367

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Kiernan, J.D.; Moyle, P.B. 2012. Flows, droughts, and aliens: factors affecting the 

fish assemblage in a Sierra Nevada, California, stream. Ecological Applications. 

22(4): 1146–1161.

Klimkowska, A.; van Diggelen, R.; den Held, S.; Brienen, R.; Verbeek, S.; 

Vegelin, K. 2009. Seed production in fens and fen meadows along a disturbance 

gradient. Applied Vegetation Science. 12(3): 304–315.

Knapp, R.A.; Matthews, K.R. 1996. Livestock grazing, golden trout, and 

streams in the Golden Trout Wilderness, California: impacts and management 

implications. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 16(4): 805–820.

Kondolf, G.M. 1993. Lag in stream channel adjustment to livestock exclosure in 

the White Mountains of California. Restoration Ecology. 1(4): 226–230.

Kondolf, G.M. 2011. Setting goals in river restoration: When and where can 

the river “heal itself”? In: Simon, A.; Bennett, S.J.; Castro, J.M., eds. Stream 

restoration in dynamic fluvial systems: scientific approaches, analyses, and tools. 

Book 194. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union: 29–43.

Kondolf, G.M.; Anderson, S.; Lave, R.; Pagano, L.; Merenlender, A.; 

Bernhardt, E.S. 2007. Two decades of river restoration in California: What can 

we learn? Restoration Ecology. 15(3): 516–523.

Lake, P.S.; Bond, N.; Reich, P. 2007. Linking ecological theory with stream 

restoration. Freshwater Biology. 52(4): 597–615.

Lanman, R.B.; Perryman, H.; Dolman, B.; James, C.D. 2012. The historical 

range of beaver in the Sierra Nevada: a review of the evidence. California Fish 

and Game. 98(2): 65–80.

Lave, R.; Doyle, M.; Robertson, M. 2010. Privatizing stream restoration in the 

US. Social Studies of Science. 40(5): 677–703.

Loheide, S.P.; Deitchman, R.S.; Cooper, D.J.; Wolf, E.C.; Hammersmark, 

C.T.; Lundquist, J.D. 2009. A framework for understanding the hydroecology 

of impacted wet meadows in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges, California, 

USA. Hydrogeology Journal. 17(1): 229–246.

Loheide, S.P.; Deitchman, R.S.; Cooper, D.J.; Wolf, E.C.; Hammersmark, C.T.; 

Lundquist, J.D. 2010. Reply to comment on “A framework for understanding 

the hydroecology of impacted wet meadows in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade 

Ranges, California, USA.” Hydrogeology Journal. 18(7): 1745–1746.
368

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Loheide, S.P.; Gorelick, S.M. 2005. A local-scale, high-resolution 

evapotranspiration mapping algorithm (ETMA) with hydroecological 

applications at riparian meadow restoration sites. Remote Sensing of 

Environment. 98(2–3): 182–200.

Loheide, S.P.; Gorelick, S.M. 2006. Quantifying stream-aquifer interactions 

through the analysis of remotely sensed thermographic profiles and in situ 

temperature histories. Environmental Science Technology. 40(10): 3336–3341.

Marty, J.T. 2005. Effects of cattle grazing on diversity in ephemeral wetlands. 

Conservation Biology. 19(5): 1626–1632.

McColley, S.D.; Tyers, D.B.; Sowell, B.F. 2012. Aspen and willow restoration 

using beaver on the northern Yellowstone winter range. Restoration Ecology. 

20(4): 450–455.

Micheli, E.R.; Kirchner, J.W. 2002. Effects of wet meadow riparian vegetation on 

streambank erosion. 1. Remote sensing measurements of streambank migration 

and erodibility. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 27(6): 627–639.

Miller, J.R.; Kochel, R.C. 2010. Assessment of channel dynamics, in-stream 

structures and post-project channel adjustments in North Carolina and its 

implications to effective stream restoration. Environmental Earth Sciences. 

59(8): 1681–1692.

Miller, S.W.; Budy, P.; Schmidt, J.C. 2010. Quantifying macroinvertebrate 

responses to in-stream habitat restoration: applications of meta-analysis to river 

restoration. Restoration Ecology. 18(1): 8–19.

Moyle, P.B.; Kiernan, J.D.; Crain, P.K.; Quiñones, R.M. 2012. Projected 

effects of future climates on rreshwater fishes of California. CEC-500-2012-028. 

Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission. 53 p.

Myers, L.; Kane, J. 2011. The impact of summer cattle grazing on surface water 

quality in high elevation mountain meadows. Water Quality, Exposure and 

Health. 3(1): 51–62.

Myers, L.; Whited, B. 2012. The impact of cattle grazing in high elevation Sierra 

Nevada mountain meadows over widely variable annual climatic conditions. 

Journal of Environmental Protection. 3(28A): 823–837.
369

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

North, M.P.; Keeton, W.S. 2008. Emulating natural disturbance regimes: an 

emerging approach for sustainable forest management. In: Lafortezza, R.; Chen, 

J.Q.; Sanesi, G.; Crow, T., eds. Patterns and processes in forest landscapes: 

sustainable management of forest landscapes. New York: Springer-Verlag: 

341–372. Chapter 17.

Norton, J.B.; Jungst, L.J.; Norton, U.; Olsen, H.R.; Tate, K.W.; Horwath, W.R. 

2011. Soil carbon and nitrogen storage in upper montane riparian meadows. 

Ecosystems. 14(8): 1217–1231.

Null, S.E.; Viers, J.H.; Mount, J.F. 2010. Hydrologic response and watershed 

sensitivity to climate warming in California’s Sierra Nevada. Plos One. 5(3).

Palmer, M.A. 2009. Reforming watershed restoration: science in need of 

application and applications in need of science. Estuaries and Coasts. 32(1): 1–17.

Palmer, M.A.; Ambrose, R.F.; Poff, N.L. 1997. Ecological theory and community 

restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology. 5(4): 291–300.

Poole, G.C.; Berman, C.H. 2001. An ecological perspective on in-stream 

temperature: natural heat dynamics and mechanisms of human-caused thermal 

degradation. Environmental Management. 27(6): 787–802.

Purdy, S.E.; Moyle, P.B.; Tate, K.W. 2011. Montane meadows in the Sierra 

Nevada: comparing terrestrial and aquatic assessment methods. Environmental 

Monitoring and Assessment. 184(11): 6967–6986.

Ramstead, K.M.; Allen, J.A.; Springer, A.E. 2012. Have wet meadow restoration 

projects in the Southwestern U.S. been effective in restoring geomorphology, 

hydrology, soils, and plant species composition? Environmental Evidence. 

1(11): 16.

Ratliff, R.D. 1985. Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of California: state of 

knowledge. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-PSW-84. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 59 p.

Roche, L.M.; Allen-Diaz, B.; Eastburn, D.J.; Tate, K.W. 2012b. Cattle grazing 

and Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus Camp) breeding habitat in Sierra Nevada 

meadows. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 65(1): 56–65.

Roche, L.M.; Latimer, A.M.; Eastburn, D.J.; Tate, K.W. 2012a. Cattle grazing 

and conservation of a meadow-dependent amphibian species in the Sierra 

Nevada. Plos One. 7(4): e35734.
370

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Ruiz-Jaen, M.C.; Aide, T.M. 2005. Restoration success: How is it being 

measured? Restoration Ecology. 13(3): 569–577.

Sarr, D.A. 2002. Riparian livestock exclosure research in the western United 

States: a critique and some recommendations. Environmental Management. 

30(4): 516–526.

Seavy, N.E.; Gardali, T.; Golet, G.H.; Griggs, F.T.; Howell, C.A.; Kelsey, R.; 

Small, S.L.; Viers, J.H.; Weigand, J.F. 2009. Why climate change makes 

riparian restoration more important than ever: recommendations for practice 

and research. Ecological Restoration. 27(3): 330–338.

Shields, F.D.; Lizotte, R.E.; Knight, S.S.; Cooper, C.M.; Wilcox, D. 2010. The 

stream channel incision syndrome and water quality. Ecological Engineering. 

36(1): 78–90.

Sierra Nevada Science Review Team. 1998. Sierra Nevada science review: 

report of the Science Review Team charged to synthesize new information of 

rangewide urgency to the national forests of the Sierra Nevada. Vallejo, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

149 p.

Simon, A. 2008. Fine-sediment loadings to Lake Tahoe. Journal of the American 

Water Resources Association. 44(3): 618–639.

Simon, A.; Rinaldi, M. 2006. Disturbance, stream incision, and channel evolution: 

the roles of excess transport capacity and boundary materials in controlling 

channel response. Geomorphology. 79(3–4): 361–383.

SNEP Science Team. 1996a. Rangelands. In: Status of the Sierra Nevada, 

Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress. Vol. I: Assessment 

summaries and management strategies. Report No. 36. Davis, CA: Centers for 

Water and Wildland Resources, University of California: 113–122. Chapter 7.

SNEP Science Team. 1996b. Status of the Sierra Nevada, Sierra Nevada ecosystem 

project: final report to Congress. Vol. I: Assessment summaries and management 

strategies. Report No. 36. Davis, CA: Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 

University of California–Davis. 209 p.

Steed, J.E.; DeWald, L.E. 2003. Transplanting sedges (Carex spp.) in 

southwestern riparian meadows. Restoration Ecology. 11(2): 247–256.
371

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Stewart, G.B.; Bayliss, H.R.; Showler, D.A.; Sutherland, W.J.; Pullin, A.S. 

2009. Effectiveness of engineered in-stream structure mitigation measures to 

increase salmonid abundance: a systematic review. Ecological Applications. 

19(4): 931–941.

Stillwater Sciences. 2012. A guide for restoring functionality to mountain 

meadows of the Sierra Nevada. Technical memorandum. Berkeley, CA. 74 p. 

http://www.stillwatersci.com/resources/2012meadowrestguide.pdf. (9 September 

2014).

Tague, C.; Valentine, S.; Kotchen, M. 2008. Effect of geomorphic channel 

restoration on streamflow and groundwater in a snowmelt-dominated watershed. 

Water Resources Research. 44(10): 1–10.

Trimble, S.W.; Mendel, A.C. 1995. The cow as a geomorphic agent—a critical 

review. Geomorphology. 13(1–4): 233–253.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2004. Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement Volume 4, Appendix E– Adaptive Management Strategy. Vallejo, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 134 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2011a. Watershed 

condition framework: a framework for assessing and tracking changes to 

watershed condition. FS-977. Washington, DC. 34 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2011b. Region Five 

ecological restoration: leadership intent. Vallejo, CA: Pacific Southwest Region. 

4 p.

Viers, J.H.; Purdy, S.E.; Peek, R.; Fryjoff-Hung, A.; Santos, N.R.; Katz, J.; 

Emmons, J.D.; Dolan, D.V.; Yarnell, S.M. 2013. Montane meadows in the 

Sierra Nevada: changing hydroclimatic conditions and concepts for vulnerability 

assessment. Tech. Rep. Davis, CA: University of California, Davis, Center for 

Watershed Sciences. 63 p.

Viers, J.H.; Rheinheimer, D.E. 2011. Freshwater conservation options for 

a changing climate in California’s Sierra Nevada. Marine and Freshwater 

Research. 62: 266–278.
372

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Weixelman, D.A.; Hill, B.; Cooper, D.J.; Berlow, E.L.; Viers, J.H.; Purdy, S.E.; 

Merrill, A.G.; Gross, S.E. 2011. A field key to meadow hydrogeomorphic types 

for the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Ranges in California. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. R5-TP-034. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region. 33 p.

Weixelman, D.A.; Zamudio, D.C.; Zamudio, K.A. 1999. Eastern Sierra 

Nevada riparian field guide. R4-ECOL-99-01. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. [Irregular pagination].

Zonge, K.L.; Swanson, S.; Myers, T. 1996. Drought year changes in streambank 

profiles on incised streams in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Geomorphology. 

15(1): 47–56.
373

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Karen L. Pope 1 and Jonathan W. Long 2

Summary

The Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range support thousands of montane 

lakes, from small, remote tarns to iconic destinations such as Lake Tahoe. Their 

beauty and recreational opportunities instill high social value, in particular by 

serving as destinations for hiking, camping, swimming, and fishing. Lakes also 

have high ecological value because they support a diverse aquatic fauna, including 

rare species such as the mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa/R. sierrae), 

and they provide food for terrestrial and aquatic predators. A number of stressors 

interact to affect lake ecosystems in the synthesis area. Climate change is expected 

to affect lakes by altering physical processes and reducing water levels. In shallow 

lakes and ponds, reduced hydroperiods could directly reduce the amount of available habitat for lentic amphibians and increase the instances of stranding mortality 

of eggs and tadpoles. Introductions of fish into lakes have altered food webs and 

particularly affected native amphibians. Chytridiomycosis, an amphibian-specific 

fungal disease caused by Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), has caused significant declines and extirpations in populations of amphibians native to the Sierra 

Nevada and southern Cascade Range. Research is ongoing to determine ways to 

reduce impacts of Bd on native amphibian populations. Air pollution has potential 

to negatively affect lake-dwelling amphibians, especially owing to interactions with 

other stressors; however, recent studies from the synthesis area did not find associations between frog population status and measured pesticide concentrations. A 

metric using the ratio of the number of taxa observed at a site to that expected can 

be an effective tool for assessing resistance and resilience of expected native taxa to 

threats. Successful restorations will likely depend on the control of introduced fish, 

the presence and virulence of Bd, and habitat conditions that help frogs to withstand 

these and other stressors. 

Chapter 6.4—Lakes: Recent 

Research and Restoration Strategies

1 Wildlife biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 1700 Bayview Dr., Arcata, CA 95521.

2 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.
374

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Socioecological Significance of Lakes

The Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range contain thousands of natural lakes 

that provide both ecological and recreational values. In high-elevation environments 

characterized by low productivity, lakes provide food and energy to terrestrial 

consumers, such as birds (Epanchin et al. 2010) and snakes (Matthews et al. 2002, 

Pope et al. 2008). In addition, native endemic species, such as the Sierra Nevada 

yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae) (fig. 1) and Yosemite toad (Anaxyrus [=Bufo] 

canorus), are found in California’s mountain lakes. These species, in addition to 

the Sierra Nevada population of mountain yellow-legged frog (R. muscosa), were 

recently added to the federal list of threatened and endangered species.

Because of their great beauty, lakes also serve as important destinations for 

recreational activities, including hiking, camping, swimming, and fishing. Historically, nearly all lakes in the high Sierra Nevada (above 1800 m) were fishless, but 

the introduction of nonnative trout has been a common practice since the early 

1900s (Knapp 1996). Currently, the majority of large, deep lakes support introduced 

populations of fish, including brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss), and brown trout (Salmo trutta) (CDFG 2011, Knapp and 

Matthews 2000). This fishery supports a multimillion dollar recreational industry 

by bringing anglers to the region. 

Figure 1—Recent metamorph and adult forms of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog.

Kathleen Matthews
375

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Conservation Issues and Restoration Options

Climate Change

Lakes serve as sentinels of climate change because they provide easily detectable 

signals that may reflect the influence of the change on the broader catchment area 

(Williamson et al. 2009). Changes in lake temperatures and water levels are easy to 

measure. Available records can span extended periods; for example, Schneider et 

al. (2009) found that six large lakes in California (including Lake Tahoe) have been 

warming an average of 0.11 ± 0.02 °C per year since 1992. These rates of change 

are about twice as high as regional trends in air temperature (Schneider et al. 2009). 

As a consequence of climate change, increased surface water warming rates will 

likely affect lake ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada by potentially decreasing lake 

levels, but also by altering critical physical processes, such as stratification and deep 

mixing (Sahoo et al. 2012). In addition, predicted treeline advancement (Harsch et 

al. 2009) and increases in terrestrial vegetation surrounding alpine lakes (Luckman 

and Kavanagh 2000) may result in increased inputs of terrestrially derived dissolved organic matter into montane lakes (Sommaruga et al. 1999). These coupled 

changes in climate variability and physical and chemical processes have been found 

to dramatically alter the distribution and abundance of important lake zooplankton 

such as the grazer, Daphnia (Fischer et al. 2011). In addition, lake warming and 

increased nutrient inputs were found to enhance the exchange of energy and organisms between lakes and neighboring terrestrial ecosystems by increasing emergence 

of aquatic insects and increasing decomposition rates (Greig et al. 2012).

Climate change may interact with other stressors to alter lake community 

dynamics. Warmer air temperatures are predicted to result in less annual snowpack 

in the Sierra Nevada (Cayan et al. 2008, Young et al. 2009), which in turn will 

affect the hydroperiod of small lakes and ponds. Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs 

and mountain yellow-legged frogs (hereafter referred to as mountain yellow-legged 

frogs) have a 2- to 3-year larval stage and may experience an interactive effect of 

lower water levels and introduced fishes, with fish preventing breeding in the majority of deep lakes (Vredenburg 2004) and climate change increasing the likelihood 

of drying of shallow lakes and ponds that do not support fish (Lacan et al. 2008). 

Based on this expected interaction, mitigations for climate change effects on native 

lentic species include removing fish from some larger lakes to provide additional 

fish-free, permanent, cool water refuge habitat (see discussion below). 

Threatened amphibians 

face threats from 

introduced fishes in 

deep lakes and drying 

out in shallow ponds 

that do not support 

fish.
376

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Introduced Species

Invasive species are a major threat to freshwater ecosystems and can cause a range 

of impacts, including behavioral shifts of native species and restructuring of food 

webs (e.g., Cucherouset and Olden 2011, Simon and Townsend 2003). Climate 

change is expected to accelerate the spread of aquatic invasive species (Rahel and 

Olden 2008). Although many invasive species have not entered the high Sierra 

Nevada’s natural mountain lakes, some, such as the American bullfrog (Lithobates 

catesbeiana) and signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus), do occur in many of the 

reservoirs and constructed ponds in the range. These impoundments are much more 

likely to harbor invasive species than are natural lakes (Johnson et al. 2008), and 

they can allow invasive species to establish self-sustaining populations that can then 

spread to the adjacent natural waters (e.g., Ding et al. 2008). Additional detrimental invaders, such as the New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) 

and Quagga mussel (Dreissena rostiformis bugensis), are spreading rapidly in 

California’s freshwater habitats (Karatayev et al. 2012, Richards 2002). The Sierra 

Nevada’s natural lakes are relatively discrete ecosystems separated by dry land that 

is inhospitable to most aquatic species. In addition, limited road access to many 

lakes, as well as inspection programs, may inhibit unintentional spread of aquatic 

invasive species via recreational boats (Johnson et al. 2001). As a result, dispersal 

of invasive species may be expected to be slow, and many suitable mountain lake 

ecosystems have remained uninvaded for long periods (Johnson et al. 2008). 

Nonetheless, aquatic invasive species pose a serious threat to native biodiversity 

and associated ecological services (Johnson et al. 2008). Once established, invasive 

species such as crayfish, sunfish, bass, and aquatic weeds have been shown to 

affect native biodiversity, reduce water quality, and create food and other habitat 

conditions that benefit other nonnative species (Caires et al. 2013, McCarthy et al. 

2006, Nilsson et al. 2012). Losses of ecosystem services associated with introductions of species such as crayfish appear to have outweighed gains in some areas. 

Aquatic invertebrates are major components not only of aquatic communities but 

also adjacent terrestrial habitats. Larval insects and zooplankton serve as prey 

for larger aquatic insects and amphibians, and the winged adult stages of insects 

feed terrestrial predators, such as birds, bats, and spiders (Nakano and Murakami 

2001, Sanzone et al. 2003). In high-elevation lakes, introduced trout can produce 

strong top-down effects on aquatic invertebrates (Knapp et al. 2005, Pope et al. 

2009, Vadeboncoeur et al. 2003). This is important because changes in invertebrate 

abundance and composition can have cascading consequences for nutrient cycling 

(Schindler et al. 2001) and terrestrial communities (Epanchin et al. 2010, Finlay and 

Vredenburg 2007, Knight et al. 2005). For example, Knight et al. (2005) found that 
377

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

fish reduce dragonfly emergence, with subsequent consequences on native pollinators and terrestrial plant reproduction. In the Sierra Nevada, Epanchin et al. (2010) 

linked introduced fish to dramatic decreases in mayfly emergence, with indirect 

consequences for feeding gray-crowned rosy-finches (Leucosticte tephrocotis 

dawsoni). These studies show that the effects of introduced trout permeate beyond 

the lake boundary and have ramifications for neighboring terrestrial ecosystems. 

These complex interactions are an important topic for further investigation to better 

understand potential implications of managing nonnative species.

Preventing establishment of aquatic invaders is recognized as a core management strategy because eradication and control are costly and difficult following 

establishment (Simberloff et al. 2005). When the basic biology of an invasive 

species is known, recent studies have been successful in identifying vulnerable 

sites so that prevention efforts can be targeted to where they are likely to produce 

the greatest ecological benefit (Olden et al. 2011, Vander Zanden and Olden 2008). 

Development and implementation of comprehensive invasive species plans for lake 

habitats of the synthesis area could help prevent or slow the secondary spread of 

California’s freshwater invaders into the Sierra Nevada’s backcountry lakes (e.g., 

Vander Zanden and Olden 2008).

Some species are stocked and actively maintained because they have social and 

economic value, especially for recreational fishing, and are therefore not considered 

nuisances. However, some of these species, such as nonnative trout, may exert 

negative effects on native species that historically inhabited these ecosystems. 

For example, deep, permanent waters are critical as overwintering and breeding 

habitat for mountain yellow-legged frogs (Bradford 1989, Knapp and Matthews 

2000). Introduced trout are significant predators of these frogs (Grinnell and Storer 

1924, Vredenburg 2004), and many studies have found that breeding populations of 

mountain yellow-legged frogs rarely co-occur with nonnative trout (Knapp 2005, 

Knapp and Matthews 2000). 

California is one of several states that initiated reviews of hatchery and stocking programs in response to concerns over effects on wild populations of species 

listed under the Endangered Species Act (Kostow 2009). Recent policy changes by 

the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW, the agency responsible for 

fish stocking) have reduced fish stocking in water bodies where sensitive native fish 

and amphibians may occur. Introduced fish are likely to remain ubiquitous in Sierra 

Nevada lakes even where they are no longer stocked. For example, Armstrong and 

Knapp (2004) found that lakes in the John Muir Wilderness with >2.1 m of spawning gravels that were <3520 m in elevation nearly always showed signs of supporting self-sustaining populations of rainbow and golden trout.
378

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Nevertheless, the stocking of fish in aquatic water bodies represents a management action over which participating agencies have the ability to exert both direct 

and indirect controls. Because stocking has occurred throughout the Sierra Nevada 

and southern Cascade Range, actions taken on this issue have the potential to be 

far reaching. Further, the rapid recovery of native frog populations and other native 

species following fish removal in lentic systems (Knapp et al. 2001, Knapp et al. 

2007, Pope 2008, Vredenburg 2004) indicates that fish removals have the potential 

to be effective restoration tools. Both CDFW and the National Park Service have 

integrated strategic fish removal projects into their resource management plans, 

and the Forest Service is implementing fish removal projects in the Sierra Nevada 

(e.g., Desolation Wilderness, El Dorado National Forest). These projects focus on 

headwater lake basins with high ecological value and they make up a small fraction 

of fish-containing lakes in the Sierra Nevada. Projects to remove fish from Sierra 

Nevada lakes have primarily used non-chemical methods, such as setting gill nets 

and electrofishing in inlets and outlets, to reduce impacts to nontarget organisms. 

Research to understand the mechanisms of recovery following fish removals 

can help managers determine characteristics of lakes and amphibian populations 

best suited for recovery. For example, Pope (2008) found that the high reproductive 

output of Cascades frogs (Rana cascadae) may allow rapid population growth, 

even with only a small number of breeding-aged frogs onsite. Knapp et al. (2007) 

found that following rapid population increases, mountain yellow-legged frogs 

disperse to neighboring suitable habitat if it is available. Determining lake basins to 

focus on native amphibian restoration involves science and management working 

together to maximize the positive outcomes of restoration actions while maintaining recreational fisheries. Important basin characteristics include the presence of 

target amphibians and additional nearby suitable habitat, the ability to successfully 

eliminate introduced fish, and the level of use by anglers. Because it is extremely 

difficult to remove fish from streams without the use of toxicants (e.g., rotenone), 

lakes with natural fish barriers near their inlets and outlets are better targets than 

lakes without natural fish barriers (e.g., Knapp et al. 2007, Pope 2008). 

Amphibian Disease

Although amphibians are susceptible to a wide array of diseases, one disease has 

emerged as the greatest conservation concern for amphibians in the Sierra Nevada 

(and the world). Chytridiomycosis, an amphibian-specific fungal disease caused 

by Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), has been implicated in declines and 

extinctions of amphibian populations worldwide (e.g., Bosch et al. 2001, Lips et al. 

2004, Muths et al. 2003), and has contributed to widespread declines of mountain 

Determining lake 

basins to focus on 

native amphibian 

restoration involves 

science and 

management working 

together to maximize 

the positive outcomes 

of restoration actions 

while maintaining 

recreational fisheries.
379

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

yellow-legged frogs throughout the Sierra Nevada (Briggs et al. 2010, Rachowicz 

et al. 2006, Vredenburg et al. 2010). Mass die-offs of frogs and population extirpations have been observed soon after the arrival of Bd in mountain yellow-legged 

frog populations (Vredenburg et al. 2010). Although many populations have been 

driven to extinction by Bd, some populations have survived the population crash 

and persist with the disease (Briggs et al. 2010, Knapp et al. 2011). Research is 

ongoing to determine factors that allow some populations to persist while others are 

extirpated (Knapp et al. 2011). One important finding is that large populations have 

a higher likelihood of persisting with the disease (Knapp et al. 2011). This finding 

suggests that although Bd can be devastating to populations even where fish have 

been removed, these “recovered” frog populations have a better chance of persisting 

in the long term than those facing the additional stressor of introduced fish. 

Options to help ameliorate the impacts of Bd include developing protected 

populations and prophylactic or remedial disease treatment (Woodhams et al. 2011). 

Because sustainable conservation in the wild is dependent on long-term population 

persistence, successful disease mitigation would include managing already infected 

populations by decreasing pathogenicity and host susceptibility so that co-evolution 

with those potentially lethal pathogens can occur (Woodhams et al. 2011). Currently, researchers are working to identify mechanisms of disease suppression and 

develop adaptive management strategies to be tested in field trials with natural 

populations. Antimicrobial skin peptides and microbes that inhibit infection by Bd

have been identified from the skin of mountain yellow-legged frogs and may be 

useful tools for increasing the frog’s resistance to Bd (Harris et al. 2009, Woodhams 

et al. 2007).

Pollution

Exposure to pesticides transported to the Sierra Nevada by prevailing winds from 

California’s Central Valley has been hypothesized as a cause of population declines 

of native amphibians, primarily along the west slope of the Sierra Nevada (Davidson 2004, Fellers et al. 2004). Pesticide residues from Central Valley agricultural 

areas have been found in samples of air, snow, surface water, lake sediments, 

amphibians, and fish across the Sierra Nevada (Cory et. al 1970, Fellers et al. 2004, 

Hageman et al. 2006, McConnell et al. 1998), and windborne contaminants have 

been linked to patterns of decline of mountain yellow-legged frogs (Davidson and 

Knapp 2007). However, a recent study that compared concentrations of historically 

and currently used pesticides with the population status of mountain yellow-legged 

frogs in the southern Sierra Nevada found no association between frog population 

status and measured pesticide concentrations (Bradford et al. 2011). In addition, 
380

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

in both the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range, pesticide concentrations 

in water and amphibian tissue were consistently below concentrations found to be 

toxic to amphibians (Bradford et al. 2011, Davidson et al. 2012). Low concentrations 

of pesticides could, however, interact with other stressors and contribute to adverse 

effects on frogs. For example, the pesticide carbaryl was found to reduce production 

of amphibian skin peptides that inhibit the growth of Bd, the fungus that causes 

chytridiomycosis (Davidson et al. 2007). For practical reasons, most field studies 

continue to focus on single stressors; however, the few studies assessing interactive 

effects of low-level contaminants with other stressors highlight the need for additional multifactor studies. 

Terrestrial Influences on Lakes

Mountain lakes receive organic material from two different sources: primary 

production that occurs within the system’s boundaries (autochthonous sources) and 

primary production imported from the terrestrial watershed (allochthonous 

sources). It is important to understand the relative significance of those sources for 

particular lakes and how those relationships may change over time given disturbances and stressors. Determining the source and magnitude of inputs will help to 

predict the trajectories of variables important to management objectives (McIntire 

et al. 2007). New research using multiple techniques including stable isotopes has 

shown that terrestrial organic material provides major support for both benthic 

and pelagic organisms in small lakes (Bade et al. 2007, Cole et al. 2011). General 

disturbance ecology suggests that periodic human-induced watershed and riparian disturbances that emulate natural disturbance regimes may initiate renewal 

processes that are required for long-term sustainability of aquatic ecosystems 

(Kreutzweiser et al. 2012). Consequently, disturbance-based forest management 

approaches such as those described in PSW-GTR-220 (North et al. 2009) may result 

in long-term positive feedbacks in forested lake systems in the Sierra Nevada. 

However, Spencer et al. (2003) cautioned that expanded fire activity and other 

treatments associated with fuel reductions could deliver nutrients to lakes and other 

surface waters that may already be threatened by eutrophication. Their study focused 

on the northern Rocky Mountains, where the reference fire regime ranged from 

decades to several hundred years. They suggested that there was potential to shift 

regimes from infrequent pulses of nutrients to an annual loading from the combination of wildfires, prescribed burns, pile burning, and agricultural burning. Another 

stressor to consider is the nutrient loading through long-distance aerial transport (see 

chapter 8.1, “Air Quality.” They noted the need to evaluate impacts of large wildfires 

on aquatic ecosystems. Accordingly, an important avenue for scientific research is 
381

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

to better understand linkages between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, including 

lakes, especially in the context of large wildfires and various stressors (see chapter 

1.5, “Research Gaps: Adaptive Management to Cross-Cutting Issues”).

Metrics for Lake Assessments

With multiple serious threats facing lake ecosystems in the Sierra Nevada (fig. 2), 

it is valuable to understand the degree to which these systems are altered. A metric 

using the ratio of the number of taxa observed (O) at a site to that expected (E) 

to occur at the site in the absence of anthropogenic impacts (abbreviated as O/E) 

has been applied to lakes with fish in the Sierra Nevada (Knapp et al. 2005). The 

authors found that amphibians, reptiles, benthic invertebrates, and zooplankton 

have relatively low resistance to fish introductions, but all taxa recover when lakes 

revert to a fishless condition. This metric proved effective at assessing resistance 

and resilience of expected native taxa in Sierra Nevada lakes to one threat (introduced fish), and it may be effective at assessing other threats. Since then, Van Sickle 

(2008) has suggested an alternative statistical approach that could be more sensitive 

Figure 2—Dusy Basin, Kings Canyon National Park. 

Kathleen Matthews
382

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

to anthropogenic stressors; this approach uses BC, an adaptation of Bray-Curtis 

distance, instead of O/E to assess compositional dissimilarity between an observed 

and expected assemblage. 

Although comparisons to reference systems are important, assessment of longterm trends in lake dynamics is another important component for understanding 

the patterns of change associated with both natural and human-caused stressors 

(e.g., Kowalewski et al. 2013, McIntire et al. 2007). Use of both paleolimnological 

evidence and long-term monitoring provide insight into mechanisms for observed 

changes and provide more accurate baselines for potential restoration efforts 

(Kowelewski et al. 2013). For example, a 16-year study at Crater Lake, Oregon, 

revealed that changes in lake productivity (and thus water clarity) were likely driven 

by long-term climatic changes that regulate the supply of allochthonous nutrients 

into the lake (McIntire et al. 2007). 

Although metrics based upon species composition may be useful in assessing 

the overall condition of the aquatic biota, priority will likely be given to restoration 

of lakes in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range to support populations of 

amphibian species, such as the Sierra Nevada and southern mountain yellow-legged 

frogs and the Cascades frog. Recent research has shown that successful restorations 

will likely depend on the elimination of introduced fish, regardless of whether Bd is 

present and how virulent it is if it is present, and habitat conditions that help frogs to 

withstand the effects of climate change and disease.

Box 6.4-1

Recent and Pending Studies on Frogs and Chytrid Disease

Pending research may suggest additional considerations to help frogs withstand the 

novel threat posed by the fungal disease chytridiomycosis, which is caused by Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd). For example, a recent lab study comparing the effects 

of Bd isolated from two localities in northern California found dramatic differences in 

the virulence of the isolates on Cascades frogs (Rana cascadae), with one isolate causing nearly complete mortality in test animals within 6 weeks and the other causing a 

mortality rate only slightly higher than that of unexposed animals.3

 This result suggests 

that in addition to environmental conditions and local host population size, the local 

strain of Bd may also play an important role in determining host population dynamics.

3 Piovia-Scott et al., 2013. Unpublished data. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Lab, 1700 Bayview Drive, Arcata, 

CA 95521.

(continued on next page)

Recent research has 

shown that successful 

restorations will 

likely depend on 

the elimination of 

introduced fish, 

regardless of whether 

Bd is present and how 

virulent it is if it is 

present, and habitat 

conditions that help 

frogs to withstand 

the effects of climate 

change and disease.
383

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Furthermore, preliminary field testing of supplementing microbes on the skin of 

mountain yellow-legged frogs have shown promising results in boosting survival with 

the disease.4

A recent study by the Pacific Southwest Research Station and University of California–Davis collaborators found that all the remnant populations of Cascades frogs in the 

southern Cascades survive with Bd and occur in habitats where adult frogs commonly 

move among different water bodies for breeding, summer feeding, and overwintering. 

When the frogs are in the breeding sites, they tend to have high prevalence and loads of 

Bd, but when they move to streams and channels, loads of Bd are dramatically reduced 

or eliminated.5 One hypothesis is that the movement away from breeding sites where 

the disease may thrive allows the frogs to behaviorally eliminate the disease, and thus, 

the population is able to persist. If this is true, restoration of lake basins with additional 

stream and meadow habitats nearby may be most effective where Bd is a concern.

4 Vredenburg, V.T.; Briggs, C.J.; Harris, R. 2011. Host-pathogen dynamics of amphibian chytridiomycosis: the role of the skin microbe in health and disease. In: Olsen, L., ed. Fungal diseases: an 

emerging threat to human, animal and plant health: workshop summary. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press: 342–354.

5 Pope et al. 2013. Unpublished data in final report to the Lassen National Forest (ISA #12-05-

06-02) on the status of the Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) in the southern Cascade Mountains of 

California. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lassen National Forest, 

2550 Riverside Drive, Susanville, CA 96130.

Management Implications

• Removal of introduced fish is an important strategy to help priority 

amphibians species withstand combined stressors including climate change 

and disease. 

• Chytridiomycosis continues to be a major conservation concern for frogs in 

mountain lake ecosystems. Researchers are working to develop treatment 

options to help infected populations.
384

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Literature Cited

Armstrong, T.W.; Knapp, R.A. 2004. Response by trout populations in alpine 

lakes to an experimental halt to stocking. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences. 61: 2025–2037.

Bade, D.L.; Carpenter, S.R.; Cole, J.J.; Pace, M.L.; Kritzberg, E.; Van de 

Bogert, M.C.; Cory, R.M.; McKnight, D.M. 2007. Sources and fates of 

dissolved organic carbon in lakes as determined by whole-lake carbon isotope 

additions. Biogeochemistry. 84(2): 115–129.

Bosch, J.; Martinez-Solano, I.; Garcia-Paris, M. 2001. Evidence of a chytrid 

fungus infection involved in the decline of the common midwife toad (Alytes 

obstetricans) in protected areas of central Spain. Biological Conservation. 

97: 331–337.

Bradford, D.F. 1989. Allotopic distribution of native frogs and introduced fishes in 

high Sierra Nevada lakes of California: implication of the negative effect of fish 

introductions. Copeia. 1989(3): 775–778.

Bradford, D.F.; Knapp, R.A.; Sparling, D.W.; Nash, M.S.; Stanley, K.A.; 

Tallent-Halsell, N.G.; McConnell, L.L.; Simonich, S.M. 2011. Pesticide 

distributions and population declines of California, USA, alpine frogs, Rana 

muscosa and Rana sierrae. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 

30(3): 682–691.

Briggs, C.J.; Knapp, R.A.; Vredenburg, V.T. 2010. Enzootic and epizootic 

dynamics of the chytrid fungal pathogen of amphibians. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 107: 9695–9700.

Caires, A.M.; Chandra, S.; Hayford, B.L.; Wittmann, M.E. 2013. Four decades 

of change: dramatic loss of zoobenthos in an oligotrophic lake exhibiting gradual 

eutrophication. Freshwater Science. 32(3): 692–705.

California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]. 2011. A status review of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa and Rana sierrae). A report to the 

California Fish and Game Commission. 52 p. http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.

ashx?DocumentID=40357. (17 December 2013).

Cayan, D.R.; Maurer, E.P.; Dettinger, M.D.; Tyree, M.; Hayhoe, K. 2008.

Climate change scenarios for the California region. Climatic Change. 

87: S21–S42.
385

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Cole, J.J.; Carpenter, S.R.; Kitchell, J.; Pace, M.L.; Solomon, C.T.; Weidel, B. 

2011. Strong evidence for terrestrial support of zooplankton in small lakes based 

on stable isotopes of carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 108(5): 1975–1980.

Cory, L.; Fjeld, P.; Serat, W. 1970. Distributional patterns of DDT residues in the 

Sierra Nevada mountains. Pesticides Monitoring Journal. 3: 204–211.

Cucherouset, J.; Olden, J.D. 2011. A conspectus of the ecological impacts of 

invasive freshwater fishes. Fisheries. 36: 215–230.

Davidson, C. 2004. Declining downwind: amphibian population declines in 

California and historic pesticide use. Ecological Applications. 14: 1892–1902.

Davidson, C.; Benard, M.F.; Shaffer, H.B.; Parker, J.M.; O’Leary, C.; Conlon, 

J.M.; Rollins-Smith, L.A. 2007. Effects of chytrid and carbaryl exposure 

on survival, growth and skin peptide defenses in foothill yellow-legged frogs. 

Environmental Science & Technology. 41(5): 1771–1776.

Davidson, C.; Knapp, R.A. 2007. Multiple stressors and amphibian declines: dual 

impacts of pesticides and fish on yellow-legged frogs. Ecological Applications. 

17: 587–597.

Davidson, C.; Stanley, K.; Simonich, S.M. 2012. Contaminant residues and 

declines of the Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) in the California Cascades, USA. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 31: 1895–1902.

Ding, J.Q.; Mack, R.N.; Lu, P.; Ren, M.; Huang, H. 2008. China’s booming 

economy is sparking and accelerating biological invasions. Bioscience. 

58: 317–324.

Epanchin, P.N.; Knapp, R.A.; Lawler, S.P. 2010. Non-native trout impact an 

alpine-nesting bird by altering aquatic-insect subsidies. Ecology. 91: 2406–2415.

Fellers, G.M.; McConnell, L.L.; Pratt, D.; Datta, S. 2004. Pesticides in mountain 

yellow-legged frogs (Rana muscosa) from the Sierra Nevada mountains of 

California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 23: 2170–2177.

Finlay, J.C.; Vredenburg, V.T. 2007. Introduced trout sever trophic connections in 

watersheds: consequences for a declining amphibian. Ecology. 88: 2187–2198.

Greig, H.S.; Kratina, P.; Thompson, P.L.; Palen, W.J.; Richardson, J.S.; 

Shurin, J.B. 2012. Warming, eutrophication, and predator loss amplify subsidies 

between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Global Change Biology. 

18(2): 504–514. 
386

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Grinnell, J.; Storer T.I. 1924. Animal life in the Yosemite. Berkeley, CA: 

University of California Press. 752 p.

Hageman, K.J.; Simonich, S.L.; Campbell, D.H.; Wilson, G.R.; Landers, 

D.H. 2006. Atmospheric deposition of current-use and historic-use pesticides in 

snow at national parks in the Western United States. Environmental Science & 

Technology. 40(10): 3174–3180.

Harris, R.N.; Brucker, R.M.; Walke, J.B.; Becker, M.H.; Schwantes, C.R.; 

Flaherty, D.C.; Lam, B.A.; Woodhams, D.C.; Briggs, C.J.; Vredenburg, 

V.T.; Minbiole, K.P.C. 2009. Skin microbes on frogs prevent morbidity and 

mortality caused by a lethal skin fungus. Isme Journal. 3(7): 818–824.

Harsch, M.A.; Hulme, P.E.; Mcglone, M.S.; Duncan, R.P. 2009. Are treelines 

advancing? A global meta-analysis oftreeline response to climate warming. 

Ecology Letters. 12: 1040–1049.

Johnson, L.E.; Ricciardi A.; Carlton J.T. 2001. Overland dispersal of aquatic 

invasive species: a risk assessment of transient recreational boating. Ecological 

Applications. 11: 1789–1799.

Johnson, P.T.J.; Olden, J.D.; Vander Zanden, M.J. 2008. Dam invaders: 

impoundments facilitate biological invasions into freshwaters. Frontiers in 

Ecology and the Environment. 6: 357–363.

Karatayev, A.Y.; Claudi, R.; Lucy, F.E. 2012. History of Dreissena research and 

the ICAIS gateway to aquatic invasions science. Aquatic Invasions 7: 1–5.

Knapp, R.A. 1996. Non-native trout in natural lakes of the Sierra Nevada: an 

analysis of their distribution and impacts on native aquatic biota. In: Sierra 

Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress. Vol. III: Assessments, 

commissioned reports, and background information. Report No. 38. Davis, CA: 

Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California–Davis: 

363–407.

Knapp, R.A. 2005. Effects of nonnative fish and habitat characteristics on lentic 

herpetofauna in Yosemite National Park, USA. Biological Conservation. 

121: 265–279.

Knapp, R.A.; Boiano, D.M.; Vredenburg, V.T. 2007. Removal of nonnative fish 

results in population expansion of a declining amphibian (mountain yellowlegged frog, Rana muscosa). Biological Conservation. 135: 11–20.
387

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Knapp, R.A.; Briggs, C.J.; Smith, T.C.; Maurer, J.R. 2011. Nowhere to hide: 

impact of a temperature-sensitive amphibian pathogen along an elevation 

gradient in the temperate zone. Ecosphere. 2: 1–26.

Knapp, R.A.; Hawkins, C.P.; Ladau, J.; McClory, J.G. 2005. Fauna of Yosemite 

National Park lakes has low resistance but high resilience to fish introductions. 

Ecological Applications. 15: 835–847.

Knapp, R.A.; Matthews, K.R. 2000. Non-native fish introductions and the decline 

of the mountain yellow-legged frog from within protected areas. Conservation 

Biology. 14: 428–438.

Knapp, R.A.; Matthews, K.R.; Sarnelle, O. 2001. Resistance and resilience of 

alpine lake fauna to fish introductions. Ecological Monographs. 71: 401–421.

Knight, T.M.; McCoy, M.W.; Chase, J.M.; McCoy, K.A.; Holt, R.D. 2005.

Trophic cascades across ecosystems. Nature. 437: 880–883.

Kostow, K. 2009. Factors that contribute to the ecological risks of salmon and 

steelhead hatchery programs and some mitigating strategies. Reviews in Fish 

Biology and Fisheries. 19(1): 9–31.

Kowalewski, G.A.; Kornijów, R.; McGowan, S.; Woszczyk, M.; Suchora, 

M.; Bałaga, K.; Kaczorowska, A.; Gąsiorowski, M.; Szeroczyńska, K.; 

Wasiłowska, A. 2013. Persistence of protected, vulnerable macrophyte species 

in a small, shallow eutrophic lake (eastern Poland) over the past two centuries: 

implications for lake management and conservation. Aquatic Botany. 

106(0): 1–13.

Kreutzweiser, D.P.; Sibley, P.K.; Richardson, J.S.; Gordon, A.M. 2012.

Introduction and a theoretical basis for using disturbance by forest management 

activities to sustain aquatic ecosystems. Freshwater Science. 31: 224–231.

Lacan, I.; Matthews, K.; Feldman, K. 2008. Interaction of an introduced 

predator with future effects of climate change in the recruitment dynamics of 

the imperiled Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae). Herpetological 

Conservation and Biology. 3: 211–223.

Lips, K.; Mendelson, J.I.; Munoz-Alonso, A.; Canseco-Márquez, L.; Mulcahy, 

Daniel G. 2004. Amphibian population declines in montane southern Mexico: 

resurveys of historical localities. Biological Conservation. 119: 555–564.

Luckman, B.; Kavanagh, T. 2000. Impact of climate fluctuations on mountain 

environments in the Canadian Rockies. Ambio. 29: 371–380.
388

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Matthews, K.R.; Knapp, R.A.; Pope, K.L. 2002. Garter snake distributions in 

high-elevation aquatic ecosystems: is there a link with declining amphibian 

populations and nonnative trout introductions? Journal of Herpetology. 

36: 16–22.

McCarthy, J.M., Hein, C. L.; Olden, J.D.; Vander Zanden, M.J. 2006. Coupling 

long-term studies with meta-analysis to investigate impacts of nonnative crayfish 

on zoobenthic communities. Freshwater Biology. 51: 224–235

McConnell, L.L.; LeNoir, J.S.; Datta, S.; Seiber, J.N. 1998. Wet deposition of 

current-use pesticides in the Sierra Nevada mountain range, California, USA. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 10: 1908–1916.

McIntire, C.D.; Larson, G.L.; Truitt, R.E. 2007. Seasonal and interannual 

variability in the taxonomic composition and production dynamics of 

phytoplankton assemblages in Crater Lake, Oregon. Hydrobiologia. 

574: 179–204.

Muths, E.; Corn, P.S.; Pessier, A.P.; Green, D.E. 2003. Evidence for diseaserelated amphibian decline in Colorado. Biological Conservation. 110: 357–365.

Nakano S.; Murakami M. 2001. Reciprocal subsidies: dynamic interdependence 

between terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences of the United States of America. 98: 166–170.

Nilsson, E.; Solomon, C.T.; Wilson, K.A.; Willis, T.V.; Larget, B.; Vander 

Zanden, M.J. 2012. Effects of an invasive crayfish on trophic relationships in 

north-temperate lake food webs. Freshwater Biology. 57(1): 10–23.

Pope, K.L. 2008. Assessing changes in amphibian population dynamics 

following experimental manipulations of introduced fish. Conservation 

Biology. 22: 1572–1581.

Pope, K.L.; Garwood, J.M.; Welsh, H.H.; Lawler S.P. 2008. Evidence of indirect 

impacts of introduced trout on native amphibians via facilitation of a shared 

predator. Biological Conservation. 141: 1321–1331.

Pope, K.L.; Piovia-Scott, J.; Lawler, S.P. 2009. Changes in aquatic insect 

emergence in response to whole-lake experimental manipulations of introduced 

trout. Freshwater Biology. 54: 982–993. 

Rachowicz, L.J.; Knapp, R.A.; Morgan, J.A.T.; Stice, M.J.; Vredenburg, V.T.; 

Parker, J.M.; Briggs, C.J. 2006. Emerging infectious disease as a proximate 

cause of amphibian mass mortality. Ecology. 87(7): 1671–1683.
389

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Richards, D.C. 2002. The New Zealand mudsnail invades the Western United 

States. Aquatic Nuisance Species. 4: 42–44.

Sahoo, G.B.; Schladow, S.G.; Reuter, J.E.; Coats, R.; Dettinger, M.; Riverson, 

J.; Wolfe, B.; Costa-Cabral, M. 2012. The response of Lake Tahoe to climate 

change. Climatic Change: 1–25.

Sanzone, D.M.; Meyer, J.L.; Marti, E.; Gardiner, E.P.; Tank, J.L.; Grimm, 

N.B. 2003. Carbon and nitrogen transfer from a desert stream to riparian 

predators. Oecologia. 134: 238–250.

Schindler, D.E.; Knapp, R.A.; Leavitt, P.R. 2001. Alteration of nutrient cycles 

and algal production resulting from fish introductions in mountain lakes. 

Ecosystems. 4: 308–321.

Schneider, P.; Hook, S.J.; Radocinski, R.G.; Corlett, G.K.; Hulley, G.C.; 

Schladow, S.G.; Steissberg, T.E. 2009. Satellite observations indicate rapid 

warming trend for lakes in California and Nevada. Geophysical Research 

Letters. 36(22): L22402.

Simberloff, D.I.; Parker, M.; Windle, P.N. 2005. Introduced species: policy, 

management, and future research needs. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment. 3: 12–20.

Simon, K.S.; Townsend, C.R. 2003. Impacts of freshwater invaders at different 

levels of ecological organisation, with emphasis on salmonids and ecosystem 

consequences. Freshwater Biology. 48: 982–994.

Spencer, C.N.; Gabel, K.O.; Hauer, F.R. 2003. Wildfire effects on stream food 

webs and nutrient dynamics in Glacier National Park, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 178: 141–153.

Vadeboncoeur, Y.; Jeppesen, E.; Vander Zanden, M.J.; Schierup, H.H.; 

Christoffersen, K.; Lodge D.M. 2003. From Greenland to green lakes: 

cultural eutrophication and the loss of benthic pathways in lakes. Limnology 

and Oceanography. 48: 1408–1418.

Vander Zanden, M.J.; Olden, J.D. 2008. A management framework for 

preventing the secondary spread of aquatic invasive species. Canadian Journal 

of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 65: 1512–1522.

Van Sickle, J. 2008. An index of compositional dissimilarity between observed and 

expected assemblages. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 

27: 227–235.
390

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Vredenburg, V.T. 2004. Reversing introduced species effects: experimental 

removal of introduced fish leads to rapid recovery of a declining frog. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America. 101: 7646–7650.

Vredenburg, V.T.; Knapp, R.A.; Tunstall, T.S.; Briggs, C.J. 2010. Dynamics 

of an emerging disease drive large-scale amphibian population extinctions. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America. 107: 9689–9694.

Williamson, C.E.; Saros, J.E.; Schindler, D.W. 2009. Sentinels of change. 

Science. 323: 887–888.

Woodhams, D.C.; Bosch, J.; Briggs, C.J.; Cashins, S.; Davis, L.R.; Lauer, A.; 

Muths, E.; Puschendorf, R.; Schmidt, B.R.; Sheafor, B.; Voyles, J. 2011. 

Mitigating amphibian disease: strategies to maintain wild populations and 

control chytridiomycosis. Frontiers in Zoology. 8(1): 8.

Woodhams, D.C.; Vredenburg, V.T.; Simon, M.A.; Billheimer, D.; Shakhtour, 

B.; Shyr, Y.; Briggs, C.J.; Rollins-Smith, L.A.; Harris, R.N. 2007. Symbiotic 

bacteria contribute to innate immune defenses of the threatened mountain 

yellow-legged frog, Rana muscosa. Biological Conservation. 138(3–4): 390–398.

Young, C.A.; Escobar-Arias, M.I.; Fernandes, M.; Joyce, B.; Kiparsky, M.; 

Mount, J.F.; Mehta, V.K.; Purkey, D.; Viers, J.H.; Yates, D. 2009. Modeling 

the hydrology of climate change in California’s Sierra Nevada for subwatershed 

scale adaptation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 

45(6): 1409–1423.
391

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

A wide range of terrestrial wildlife species inhabit the synthesis area. This section of the report focuses on three of those species: two forest carnivores, the 

fisher (Pekania pennanti) and the Pacific marten (Martes caurina), and one raptor, 

the California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis). Recent taxonomic revisions have changed the scientific names of the fisher and marten in California. The 

fisher was formerly known as M. pennanti (Sato et al. 2012), and the Pacific marten, 

found in western North America, was formerly classified with the American marten 

(M. americana), which now refers to martens in eastern North America (Dawson 

and Cook 2012). Chapter 7.1, “The Forest Carnivores: Marten and Fisher,” describes 

the ecology and context of fisher and marten, summarizing population trends, identifying threats, and highlighting science-based implications for the management of 

their habitats. Chapter 7.2, “California Spotted Owl: Scientific Considerations for 

Forest Planning,” describes the ecological context, population trends, and habitat 

needs of this top predator, highlighting recent findings on the effects of forest 

management, wildfire, and other important ecological stressors. Several aquatic 

species of concern to management, including native trouts and 

amphibians, are addressed in chapters 6.1 “Water and Stream 

Ecosystems,” and 6.4, “Lakes: Recent Research and Restoration 

Strategies.”

The species in this section are not the only ones that could 

be affected by management actions, but they have been priorities 

for conservation in the synthesis area because of ecological and 

social factors. They are important values at risk because of their 

roles as predators, relative scarcity, declining populations over 

past decades, and association with large trees, dead trees, and 

other characteristics found in old forests. These three species 

have been featured in previous synthesis reports for the Sierra 

Nevada (North 2012, North et al. 2009). They use large areas 

and have special habitat requirements and designations, which 

complicate landscape-scale management and restoration in the 

Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. They have also been 

designated as Forest Service Sensitive Species (and Pacific fisher 

has been identified as “warranted” for listing under the Endangered Species Act). Therefore, they are likely to be a focus of 

further monitoring and analysis under the “fine filter” approach 

Section 7—Terrestrial Wildlife

California spotted owl.

Tom Munton
392

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

outlined in the planning rule to address species of concern. Many other species, 

including wolverine (Gulo gulo) and the Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator), might be prioritized based on similar criteria. A much broader analysis would 

be needed to systematically review species that may be appropriate as fine filter 

indicators. From a resilience perspective, and especially in light of climate change, 

it is important to consider how future fire severity and size may affect biodiversity, 

especially species that may be positively or negatively associated with high-severity 

burn patches of different sizes (see chapters 1.2, “Integrative Approaches: Promoting Socioecological Resilience,” and 4.3, “Post-Wildfire Management”).

The three species featured in this section provide useful focal points for a discussion of strategies to promote long-term, large-scale socioecological resilience in 

the synthesis area. Losses of biodiversity, declines of predators, and other changes 

to trophic webs are an important threat to ecological resilience (see chapter 1.2). 

However, chapter 1.3, “Synopsis of Emergent Approaches,” cautions that emphasizing needs of a few species can pose challenges to long-term, landscape-scale 

restoration efforts for a broader range of values, including overall native biodiversity. Consequently, the integrative approaches in this synthesis emphasize the 

importance of weaving habitat requirements of these three species into a broader 

landscape and long-term perspective for forest planning. 

Literature Cited

Dawson, N.G.; Cook, J.A. 2012. Behind the genes: diversification of North 

American martens (Martes americana and M. caurina). In: Aubry, K.B.; 

Zielinski, W.J.; Raphael, M.G.; Proulx, G.; Buskirk, S.W., eds. Biology and 

conservation of martens, sables, and fishers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University 

Press: 23–38.

North, M. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. 184 p.

North, M.; Stine, P.A.; O’Hara, K.L.; Zielinski, W.J.; Stephens, S.L. 2009.

An ecosystems management strategy for Sierra mixed-conifer forests, with 

addendum. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49 p.

Sato, J.J.; Wolsan, M.; Prevosti, F.J.; D’Elia, G.; Begg, C.; Begg, K.; Hosoda, 

T.; Campbell, K.L.; Suzuki, H. 2012. Evolutionary and biogeographic history 

of weasel-like carnivorans (Musteloidea). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution.

63(3): 745–757.

From a resilience 

perspective, and 

especially in light of 

climate change, it is 

important to consider 

how future fire severity 

and size may affect 

biodiversity, especially 

species that may be 

positively or negatively 

associated with highseverity burn patches 

of different sizes.
393

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

William J. Zielinski1

Summary

Martens and fishers, as predators, perform important functions that help sustain 

the integrity of ecosystems. Both species occur primarily in mature forest environments that are characterized by dense canopy, large-diameter trees, a diverse 

understory community, and abundant standing and downed dead trees. Martens 

occur in the upper montane forests, where the threat of wildfire is less, and fishers predominately occur in the lower montane forests, where the threat of severe 

wildfire is much greater. Both species use habitat at multiple scales: the resting/

denning site, the stand, the home range, and the landscape. Thus, management 

of habitat may benefit from considering these components when evaluating the 

effects of treatment activities. These species’ diets are relatively diverse and their 

prey occurs in a variety of habitats within their home ranges. It appears that the 

heterogeneous conditions that are predicted to occur with the restoration of fire as a 

disturbance process may yield habitat for martens, fishers, and their diverse sources 

of food. New science, however, will be needed to test this assumption. Mechanical 

thinning may mimic some aspects of disturbance that would ideally be caused by 

fire, but this alternative would appear to be more justified—based on departures 

from fire return intervals—in the lower montane forests where fishers occur than in 

the upper montane forests where martens occur. During the course of mechanical 

treatments, however, it would be important to restore or maintain the distributions 

of large trees, conifers, and—for the fisher—black oaks, as well as sufficient understory habitat for both species. Management actions to reduce fire risk, or to restore 

ecological resilience to fire, may be consistent with the maintenance of landscapes 

capable of supporting fishers, as long as sufficient resting/denning structures are 

retained and the composition and configuration of the residual landscape is compatible with home range requirements. New scientific tools have been developed in the 

last 10 years to help evaluate the effects of proposed treatments on habitat features 

for fishers, in particular, but these have not yet been used in a coordinated manner 

to evaluate effects at multiple scales (resting/denning, home range, and landscape). 

Similar tools need to be developed to evaluate marten habitat. This chapter of the 

synthesis identifies the threats to each species in the Sierra Nevada and outlines the 

science available to assist managers in dealing with these threats. Our knowledge 

base is far from complete, however, which is why monitoring fisher and marten 

Chapter 7.1—The Forest Carnivores: 

Marten and Fisher

1 Research wildlife biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, 1700 Bayview Dr., Arcata, CA 95521.
394

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

populations and their habitats is an important centerpiece of their management. 

Monitoring, together with new ideas about adaptive management (especially for the 

effects of treatments on fishers and their habitat), is critical to ensuring that implementation of an ecosystem management scheme for the forests of the Sierra Nevada 

will benefit long-terms goals for marten and fisher conservation. 

The Important Role of Predators in Ecosystems

Predators have important effects on the structure of biological communities, 

primarily because the act of killing and eating other species transfers energy and 

nutrients through the ecosystem. However, they also have important indirect effects 

on community structure because their consumption of prey—and their simple 

presence—affects the distribution of herbivores, which, in turn, affects the abundance and distribution of plants. These “trophic cascades” have been most clearly 

demonstrated by research on the effects of the return of wolves to the Yellowstone 

ecosystem (Ripple and Beschta 2004). The retention of predators in an ecosystem is, 

therefore, integral to the maintenance of biodiversity and, hence, the resilience and 

proper functioning of that system (Finke and Denno 2004, Finke and Snyder 2010). 

In addition, when larger predators are absent, intermediate-sized (meso) predators 

can increase to the point that they have destabilizing effects on their prey, a phenomenon referred to as “mesopredator release” (Crooks and Soulé 1999, Roemer et al. 

2009). The “top down” control of community structure by predators, which has been 

demonstrated on every continent and ocean, is primarily why researchers work to 

understand the ecology of montane mammalian predators and to collect information 

that will help ensure their persistence in the face of environmental change. California 

has already lost some key mammalian predators (e.g., grizzly bear [Ursus arctos], 

gray wolf [Canis lupus]), and some species are so rare that they no longer play effective ecological roles (i.e., wolverine [Gulo gulo] and Sierra Nevada red fox [Vulpes 

vulpes necator]). Thus, the disproportionately important functional roles of mammalian predators are already reduced in montane forest ecosystems in California, 

and elsewhere in North America (Laliberte and Ripple 2004). Using research results 

from studies on carnivores to inform management will help ensure that additional 

predators, especially the two species of forest mesocarnivores, the fisher (Pekania 

pennanti) and the Pacific marten (Martes caurina),2 are not lost from our forest ecosystems and can continue their important roles throughout their geographic ranges.

2 Recent taxonomic revisions have changed the scientific names of the marten and fisher in 

California. What was formerly the American marten (Martes americana) in western North 

American is now the Pacific marten (M. caurina) (Dawson and Cook 2012). The fisher, 

which was formerly M. pennanti, is now Pekania pennanti (Sato et al. 2012).

The retention of 

predators in an 

ecosystem is, 

therefore, integral 

to the maintenance 

of biodiversity 

and, hence, the 

resilience and 

proper functioning 

of that system.
395

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

This chapter considers the relevant science necessary to assist in the management of the fisher and Pacific marten. These are not the only species that could be 

affected by management decisions, but they are among the most prominent conservation concerns across many national forests in the synthesis area. A case could be 

made for the inclusion of the wolverine and the Sierra Nevada red fox species that 

have generated recent interest (Moriarty et al. 2009, Perrine et al. 2010), but given 

time and space limitations, this chapter is focused only on the fisher and the marten.

Figure 1—Fisher in an incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), Fresno County, Sierra National Forest. 

Zane Miller
396

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

The Fisher and the Marten in Context

The fisher, a medium-sized member of the family Mustelidae, is the only species 

in its genus and it occurs only in North America. Its dark brown, glossy fur often 

looks black. Fishers have white or cream patches on the chest and around the 

genitals, and the head and shoulders are often grizzled with gold or silver (Douglas 

and Strickland 1987). The conical shape of the tail, thicker near the body and tapering to a thinner tip, distinguishes the silhouette of the fisher from that of the Pacific 

marten, M. caurina; fishers also have relatively smaller ears than martens, and lack 

the marten’s yellow or orange gular or ventral patches. There is a single subspecies 

of fisher in California, the Pacific fisher (P. pennanti pacifica) (fig. 2).

Figure 2—Fisher geographic range in western North American (adapted from Lofroth et al. 2010). 

Gray ovals in the Olympic Peninsula and in the northern Sierra Nevada refer to the locations of 

recent reintroductions.
397

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

There are 14 subspecies of marten recognized by Hall (1981) (fig. 3). Recent 

genetic and morphological evidence has warranted splitting the American marten 

into two species: the American marten east of the Rocky Mountain crest (M. 

americana) and the Pacific marten (M. caurina) west of the crest (Dawson and 

Cook 2012) (fig. 4). Two subspecies of the Pacific marten are recognized in California: the Sierra marten (M. c. sierrae) in the Sierra Nevada, Cascades, and Klamath/

Trinity Mountains, and the Humboldt marten (M. c. humboldtensis) in the redwood 

zone along the north coast. For the purposes of this chapter, I hereafter refer to all 

martens in California as the Pacific marten (M. caurina), with most of the focus on 

the Sierra Nevada subspecies (M. c. sierrae).

Figure 3—The subspecies of marten in North America (from Dawson and Cook 2012, reprinted from Biology and 

Conservation of Martens, Sables and Fishers: A New Synthesis, Keith B. Aubry, William J. Zielinski, Martin G. 

Raphael, Gilbert Proulx, and Steven W. Buskirk, eds. Copyright © 2012 by Cornell University. Used by permission of the publisher, Cornell University Press.).
398

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Marten Ecology

Martens are generally associated with late-successional conifer forests (Powell et 

al. 2003) characterized by an abundance of large dead and downed wood, and large, 

decadent live trees and snags (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994), especially in boreal and 

montane forests of western North American (Thompson et al. 2012). The marten 

distribution overlaps the fisher distribution slightly in the Sierra Nevada but extends 

to much higher elevation (about 1350 to 3200 m [4,500 to 10,500 ft]) red fir and 

lodgepole pine forests. Martens are extremely sensitive to the loss and fragmentation of mature forest habitat and rarely occupy landscapes after >30 percent of the 

Figure 4—The geographic boundary between Martes americana (dark circles enclosed by light 

grey ellipse) and M. caurina (open circles enclosed by dark gray ellipse) based on cytochrome b 

gene sequence data. Although not depicted, the martens in California are within the new species, 

the Pacific marten (M. caurina). Illustration from Dawson and Cook (2012), adapted from Carr and 

Hicks (1997). Reprinted from Biology and Conservation of Martens, Sables and Fishers: A New 

Synthesis, Keith B. Aubry, William J. Zielinski, Martin G. Raphael, Gilbert Proulx, and Steven W. 

Buskirk, eds. Copyright © 2012 by Cornell University. Used by permission of the publisher, Cornell 

University Press.

Martens are extremely 

sensitive to the loss 

and fragmentation of 

mature forest habitat 

and rarely occupy 

landscapes after >30 

percent of the mature 

forest has been 

harvested.
399

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

mature forest has been harvested (Bissonette et al. 1997, Chapin et al. 1998, Hargis 

et al. 1999, Potvin et al. 2000). Home ranges of Pacific martens in the Sierra Nevada 

average 300 to 500 ha (740 to 1235 ac) for males and 300 to 400 ha (740 to 990 ac) 

for females (Spencer et al. 1983). The physical structure of forests appears to be 

more important to marten habitat quality than plant species composition (Buskirk 

and Powell 1994). Martens require abundant large trees and dead-wood structures 

to provide prey resources, resting structures, and escape cover to avoid predators. 

How these elements are provisioned over space and time in a manner that permits 

martens to persist is unknown. However, as discussed in chapter 1.2, “Integrative 

Approaches: Promoting Socioecological Resilience”—and foreshadowed in PSWGTR-220 (North et al. 2009)—restoring forests to conditions where natural disturbances can affect vegetation structure and composition may likely provide sufficient 

habitat for martens, fishers, and other species that have evolved with periodic 

disturbance, especially low-intensity fire. 

In the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range of California, martens are associated 

with late-successional forests dominated by true fir (Abies spp.) and lodgepole pine 

forests and are most abundant where old-growth forest characteristics are abundant 

(Ellis 1998, Spencer et al. 1983). Riparian zones, especially near mature forests, are 

important foraging areas (Martin 1987, Spencer et al. 1983, Zielinski et al. 1983). 

Other than this, little is known about the effect of topography on the distribution 

of marten habitat or marten behavior. Resting sites used by Sierra Nevada martens 

differ with the season. Aboveground cavities in the largest diameter trees and snags 

are primarily used during the summer (fig. 5), whereas subnivean logs, snags, and 

stumps are typically selected for resting during the winter (Martin and Barrett 1991, 

Spencer 1987). Martens can inhabit younger or managed forests as long as some of 

the structural elements found in older forests remain, particularly those required 

for resting and denning (Baker 1992, Porter et al. 2005, Thompson et al. 2012). On 

the Lassen National Forest, male martens preferentially used open shelterwood 

stands during the summer, when chipmunks and ground squirrels were available in 

these relatively open areas; however, females showed strong year-round selection 

of old-growth stands (uncut, large-tree stands with tree cover >69 percent) (Ellis 

1998). The size of openings that martens will cross in the Sierra Nevada or Cascade 

Range is currently under study (see box 7.1-2 on page 420). However, in the Rocky 

Mountains, the average width of clearcuts (openings) crossed by martens was 140 

m (460 ft); this distance is significantly less than the average width of clearcut 

openings that martens encountered but did not cross (average = 320 m [1,050 ft]) 

(Heinemeyer 2002). Moreover, martens were more likely to cross larger openings 

(maximum distance = 180 m [600 ft]) that had some structures in them (i.e., isolated 
400

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

trees, snags, logs) than smaller openings (average distance = 50 m [160 ft]) that had 

no structures (Heinemeyer 2002). Cushman et al. (2011) reported that snow-tracked 

martens in Wyoming strongly avoided openings and did not venture more than 17 

m (55 ft) from a forest edge. 

Martens are dietary generalists, although their diet changes with seasonal prey 

availability, and during particular seasons they may specialize on a few specific 

prey species (Martin 1994, Zielinski et al. 1983). The diet is dominated by mammals, but birds, insects, and fruits are seasonally important (Martin 1994). The diet 

of the marten in the Sierra Nevada changes with season, as does the time of day 

that martens search for particular prey (Martin 1987, Zielinski et al. 1983). Winter 

prey is primarily Douglas squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii), snowshoe hare, voles 

(Microtus sp.), and flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus). In the summer, the diet 

switches to include ground-dwelling sciurids, and voles continue to be important 

prey (Zielinski et al. 1983). Several of the key prey species reach their highest 

densities in forest stands with old-growth structural features (e.g., red-backed vole 

Figure 5—Marten in a red fir (Abies magnifica), Plumas County, Lassen National Forest.

Mark Linnell
401

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

(Clethrionomys californicus), Hayes and Cross 1987, Zabel and Waters 1992;3

flying squirrel, Waters and Zabel 1995; Douglas squirrel, Carey 1991).

Pacific martens typically occur in forested regions that receive considerable 

snowfall, and they are well adapted to these conditions. They have relatively low 

foot loading (i.e., high foot surface area to body mass ratio), which allows them to 

move relatively easily over deep, soft snow, and they are adept at using subnivean 

environments for foraging and resting. This gives martens a competitive advantage 

over larger carnivores that may otherwise compete with or prey on martens, such as 

bobcats (Lynx rufus), coyotes (Canis latrans), and fishers, whose distributions are 

limited by deep, soft snow (Krohn et al. 1997, 2004). 

Fisher Ecology

In western North America, fishers are associated with late-successional conifer 

or mixed-conifer-hardwood forests characterized by an abundance of dead and 

downed wood, dense canopy, and large trees (Buskirk and Powell 1994, Lofroth et 

al. 2010, Purcell et al. 2009, Raley et al. 2012, Zielinski et al. 2004a). Fishers occur 

in a variety of low and mid-elevation forests (primarily the ponderosa pine and 

mixed-conifer types) where canopy is moderate to dense, but the vegetation types 

constituting the home range can be heterogeneous (Lofroth et al. 2010, Thompson 

et al. 2011). In the Sierra Nevada, fishers occur primarily in mixed-conifer and 

ponderosa pine forests from 1065 to 2030 m (3,500 to 7,000 ft), elevations that do 

not typically receive deep and persistent snow, which is thought to restrict their 

movements (Krohn et al. 1995, 1997). Powell and Zielinski (1994) hypothesized that 

forest structure was more important than tree species for fisher habitat. Complex 

structure, including a diversity of tree sizes, snags, downed trees and limbs, and 

understory vegetation, provides den and rest sites and hiding cover for fishers, as 

well as habitat for their prey. Both inactive (resting and denning) and active (foraging) fishers are typically associated with complex forest structure (Lofroth et al. 

2010, Zhao et al. 2012). 

Fishers forage in a manner that suggests that they use habitat at four scales: the 

resting site, the stand, the home range, and the landscape. Resting and denning (i.e., 

parturition and neonatal care) typically occur in trees, snags, and logs that are in 

the largest diameter classes (Aubry et al. 2012, Lofroth et al. 2010, Raley et al. 2012) 

and are either deformed or in some form of decay (Weir et al. 2012). For example, 

3 Zabel, C.J.; Waters, J.R. 1992. Associations between forest structure and abundances of 

flying squirrels and other small mammals. 12 p. Unpublished report. On file with: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CA 

95521. 
402

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

the average diameters at breast height (dbh) of conifer and hardwood rest trees in 

one study in the Sierra Nevada were 109 and 66 cm (43 and 26 in), respectively 

(Zielinski et al. 2004a). In an innovative new study using LiDAR to characterize the 

vegetation structure surrounding den trees, Zhao et al. (2012) found that tree height 

and slope were important variables in classifying the area immediately surrounding 

denning trees. At scales larger than 20 m (65 ft), forest structure and complexity 

became more important. The variables identified using LiDAR were consistent with 

those identified from previous studies describing fisher resting structures.

The strong association of fishers with dense forest stands that contain a diversity of tree sizes complicates the ability of management activities to achieve what 

seem like mutually exclusive goals: the reduction of stand densities and fuels, 

and the maintenance of fisher habitat. The basal area of small-diameter trees is an 

important predictor of fisher resting sites (Zielinski et al. 2004a). The smaller trees 

may provide the requisite canopy cover needed by fishers, as long as a suitably large 

resting structure (tree or snag) is also available (Purcell et al. 2009). Some researchers have speculated that the dense forest conditions that appear attractive to fishers 

today may be an artifact of past logging practices and fire suppression. These 

factors may have changed forest conditions from stands dominated by large trees 

and snags to dense stands with size class distributions that included more smalldiameter trees (Collins et al. 2011, Scholl and Taylor 2010). Topography affects the 

distribution of dense forests and the effect of fire severity (North et al. 2009), as 

well as the distribution of fisher resting sites. Underwood et al. (2010) found that 

fisher activity locations were disproportionately found in lower topographic positions (i.e., canyons), as well as in southerly and northerly mid-slope positions. 

As generalized predators, fishers prey on a variety of small and medium-sized 

mammals and birds, and they also feed on carrion (Martin 1994, Powell 1993). In 

California, reptiles and insects are also notable components of the diet (Golightly 

et al. 2006, Zielinski et al. 1999). Home range size appears to be a function of the 

abundance of food, in that fishers whose diet includes a significant component of 

relatively large (>200 g) food items (e.g., woodrat [Neotoma sp.] and western gray 

squirrel [Sciurus griseus]) have significantly smaller home ranges (Slauson and 

Thompson4 ). 

4 Slauson, K. 2013. Unpublished data from fisher diet and home range study. On file with: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 1700 

Bayview Dr., Arcata, CA 95521. 

Thompson, C. 2013. Unpublished data from fire effects on fisher study. On file with: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 2081 E 

Sierra Ave., Fresno, CA 93710.

The strong association 

of fishers with dense 

forest stands that 

contain a diversity of 

tree sizes complicates 

the ability of management activities to 

achieve what seem 

like mutually exclusive 

goals: the reduction 

of stand densities 

and fuels, and the 

maintenance of 

fisher habitat.
403

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Predation is probably the predominant cause of death, and fishers are regularly 

killed by cougars (Puma concolor), coyotes, and bobcats (Lofroth et al. 2010). 

Fishers are also affected by viral and parasitic diseases, such as canine distemper, 

parvovirus, and toxoplasmosis, and they are victims of poison distributed to control 

rodents (Brown et al. 2006; Gabriel et al. 2012a, 2012b). 

Population Status

Marten Populations

Martens were legally trapped for fur in California until 1954, and the earliest 

summary of the trapping records indicated that the marten was well distributed 

across its native range in the early 1900s (Grinnell et al. 1937). However, declining 

numbers resulting from intense trapping pressure during this period resulted in the 

prohibition of trapping. Before and during this period, California’s primary forests 

were heavily harvested (Bolsinger and Waddell 1993, Franklin and Fites-Kaufmann 

1996, McKelvey and Johnston 1992), adding to the pressure on marten populations. 

Recent research has focused on the distributional dynamics of the marten in the 

Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range. Concern about the decreasing distribution of 

martens in some regions of the Pacific States has been voiced for decades (Dixon 

1925, Kucera et al. 1995, Zielinski et al. 2001). Historical and contemporary distributions in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range were compared by contrasting the 

locations of animals trapped for their fur in the early 1900s (Grinnell et al. 1937) 

with surveys recently conducted (Zielinski et al. 2005) using noninvasive methods 

(track stations and cameras) (Long et al. 2008). These surveys revealed changes in 

the distributions of a number of carnivore species, including the marten, fisher, wolverine, and Sierra Nevada red fox. Historically, the marten was reported to occur 

throughout the upper montane regions of the Cascade Range and northern Sierra 

Nevada, but survey results indicate that populations are now reduced in distribution 

and fragmented (Zielinski et al. 2005). 

Change in habitat distribution in the Cascade Range and northern Sierra 

Nevada has also been demonstrated using predictive habitat modeling. The results 

of surveys were used to build landscape habitat suitability models by contrasting 

the environmental features at places where martens were detected with the features 

at places where they were not. This work confirmed that the available habitat for 

martens is isolated and has been reduced in area since the early 1900s (Kirk and 

Zielinski 2009). The model that best fit the data suggested that remaining marten 

populations are associated with sites with the largest amount of reproductive 

habitat (dense, old forest), the greatest number of nearby habitat patches, and 

nearby reserved land (land protected from timber harvest). The highest density 
404

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

of detections was located in the largest protected area in the study region: Lassen 

Volcanic National Park. This is in stark contrast to descriptions of historical 

distribution, which described martens as evenly distributed in the region during the 

early 1900s, including at lower elevation sites (Grinnell et al. 1937, Zielinski et al. 

2005). 

The loss of marten distribution seems clear, but what is less clear is the cause. 

This is difficult to ascertain with data from such a large region; what is necessary 

instead is a more focused effort to contrast areas that have maintained their marten 

populations compared to those that have not. Recent work in the Sagehen Experimental Forest (SEF), within the Sagehen Creek watershed on the Tahoe National 

Forest, may be helpful in this regard (Moriarty et al. 2011). The watershed has been 

the location for a number of studies on marten ecology in California, but the unique 

element of this body of work is that most of these studies also included a systematic 

survey of marten occurrence. Martens were assumed to be very common in the 

watershed in the 1970s and 1980s, but anecdotal observations have suggested that 

they subsequently became quite rare. This concern led to new surveys in 2007 and 

2008, which detected no martens during summer surveys (June through September), despite the fact that martens were regularly detected during the summer in 

earlier surveys (Moriarty et al. 2011). A few marten detections occurred in the 

winter, but these were in a small western portion of the watershed. Marten detections in 2007 and 2008 were approximately 60 percent fewer than in surveys in the 

1980s. Thus, at the scale of the Sagehen Creek watershed, the same phenomenon 

was observed that was described for the northern Sierra Nevada/southern Cascade 

Range as a whole (Zielinski et al. 2005). 

The cause of the decrease in marten numbers at Sagehen is uncertain. However, 

geographic information system analysis comparing older vegetation maps from 

1978 with maps from 2007 revealed a loss and fragmentation of important marten 

habitat (Moriarty et al. 2011). This included a decrease in habitat patch size, core 

habitat area, and total amount of marten habitat in the study area, as well as an 

increase in distance between important habitat patches. For example, the mean 

area of patches of reproductive habitat decreased from 56.6 ha to 44.5 ha, and the 

mean distance between these patches increased from 194 to 240 m over the almost 

30-year period (Moriarty et al. 2011). Many of these changes occurred between 

1983 and 1990, when 39 percent of the forest habitat in SEF experienced some form 

of timber harvest (i.e., regeneration, selection, hazard tree removal). The sensitivity of martens to forest fragmentation is well established (e.g., Bissonette et al. 

1989, Hargis et al. 1999, Potvin et al. 2000). Given this, and the fact that the loss 

of martens at Sagehen coincided with the period of greatest harvest activity in the 
405

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

study area, the loss and fragmentation of habitat is the most likely explanation for 

the decline at SEF (Moriarty et al. 2011). Collectively, the evidence from studies at 

Sagehen, and from the larger Cascade Range and northern Sierra Nevada region, 

supports the conclusion that the distribution of martens in this region has decreased. 

On the contrary, however, evidence from surveys in the central and southern Sierra 

Nevada (Kucera et al. 1995, Zielinski et al. 2005) suggests that the marten population is well distributed. 

Fisher Populations 

Following European settlement of North America, fisher range contracted drastically, particularly in the southern regions, because of deforestation and trapping 

(Powell 1993). In California, Grinnell et al. (1937) described the original range of 

the fisher as including the northern Coast Range, Klamath Mountains, southern 

Cascade Range, and the entire western slope of the Sierra Nevada. The status of 

the fisher in California has been of concern for almost 100 years, beginning with 

Dixon (1925), who believed that the fisher was close to extinction in California 

and proposed that protective measures be taken. Consequently, trapping of fishers 

in California was prohibited in 1946—considerably later than was suggested by 

Dixon (1925). Population decline and fragmentation have reduced genetic diversity 

in California, particularly in the southern Sierra Nevada (Drew et al. 2003, Tucker 

et al. 2012, Wisely et al. 2004), and the two native fisher populations in California 

are geographically and genetically isolated (Knaus et al. 2011, Tucker et al. 2012, 

Wisely et al. 2004, Zielinski et al. 1995). Due, in part, to the genetic and population 

data available at the time, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the 

West Coast Distinct Population Segment (as defined by the Endangered Species Act 

[ESA]) in California, Oregon, and Washington was “warranted but precluded” for 

listing under the ESA (U.S. Federal Register, April 8, 2004). 

Survey data indicate that fishers currently occur in two widely separated 

regions of the state: the northwest, including the northern Coast Range and Klamath 

Province, and the southern Sierra Nevada (Aubry and Lewis 2003, Zielinski et al. 

1995). This creates a gap in their distribution of approximately 400 km (250 mi) 

in the northern Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range, which has previously 

been attributed to the historical effects of trapping and timber harvest (Zielinski et 

al. 1995, 2005). Contrary to the conclusions of Grinnell et al. (1937)—and an earlier 

report suggesting fishers were trapped in the gap region in the early 1900s (Grinnell 

et al. 1930)—new genetic analysis suggests that the two populations in California 

were separated prior to European influence in the region (Knaus et al. 2011, Tucker 

et al. 2012). Further study of this genetic information is pending (see box 7.1-2), 

Collectively, the 

evidence from studies 

at Sagehen, and from 

the larger Cascade 

Range and northern 

Sierra Nevada 

region, supports the 

conclusion that the 

distribution of martens 

in this region has 

decreased.
406

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

but this new genetic information does not necessarily mean that fishers did not 

once occupy most of the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. Depending 

on one’s view of the size of the historical gap between fisher populations in the 

Sierra Nevada, the fisher currently occupies anywhere from 20 to 90 percent of its 

historical range in California. If the gap predates European influence and was as 

large then as it is today, the current range of fishers in California would be about 

90 percent of the pre-European historical range. If the gap was as small as a few 

fisher home ranges wide, then the current range may be no more than 20 percent 

of the historical range. In 2009, a small population of fishers was reintroduced to 

Butte and Tehama Counties (Facka and Powell 2010) within the presumed gap in 

the distribution; results from this reintroduction are pending (see box 7.1-2), and it is 

too soon to evaluate the contribution these animals will make to fisher populations 

in California. 

The distribution of the fisher population in the southern Sierra Nevada has been 

monitored since 2002, and there has been no change in the proportion of detection stations with a fisher detection (i.e., occupancy); the population appears stable 

(Zielinski et al. 2012). Based on habitat and population modeling, the size of the 

southern Sierra Nevada population has been estimated to be between 125 and 250 

adults (Spencer et al. 2011). This is consistent with an estimate extrapolated from 

fisher density calculated by Jordan (2007) from a mark-recapture study. 

Threats to the Species and Implications 

for Management 

Marten—Threats

Timber harvest, vegetation management, and wildfire— 

Timber harvest and fur trapping are regarded as the primary causes of reductions 

in marten populations in the Western United States (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). 

Commercial fur trapping is the most direct way that humans have affected marten 

populations, but California prohibited marten trapping in 1954. Current threats 

include the continuing effects of habitat loss and fragmentation from timber harvest, particularly clearcutting, and vegetation management to reduce fuels. Wildfire 

is a serious threat, as well, especially if wildfire size and severity are exacerbated 

by climate change; these issues are discussed in a separate section below, entitled 

“Climate Change Implications—Marten and Fisher.” 

Given the current rarity of clearcutting on public lands in California, the largest 

potential direct threat from human activities is the effect of forest thinning. Abundant literature notes the sensitivity of martens to the effects of forest fragmentation 

(Bissonette et al. 1997, Chapin et al. 1998, Hargis et al. 1999, Potvin et al. 2000), 
407

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

but in these cases, the fragmentation is typically due to regeneration or clearcut 

harvests. How thinning treatments fragment habitat is poorly known, but it is under 

study in the Cascade Range in California (see box 7.1-2). Although we have little 

local information on the effects of thinning on martens, Fuller and Harrison (2005) 

evaluated how partial harvests affect martens in Maine and summarized the few 

data on this subject that predated their study. Partial harvests (also referred to as 

“partial overstory removal” in the Eastern United States) leave residual forest cover 

in harvest blocks. In Fuller and Harrison’s (2005) study area, 52 to 59 percent of the 

basal area was removed in partial harvests. In these conditions, martens used the 

partial harvest stands primarily during the summer. When they were using partial 

harvest stands, their home ranges were larger, indicating poorer habitat quality in 

these areas. Partial harvested areas were avoided during the winter, presumably 

because they provided less overhead cover and protection from predators. How this 

work relates to predicting the effects of thinning in marten habitat in the Sierra 

Nevada is unclear, but the most conservative generalization would suggest that 

martens would associate with the densest residual areas in thinned units and may 

also increase their home ranges, which may lead to decreased population density. 

The negative effects of thinning probably result from reducing overhead cover. 

Thinnings from below, which retain overstory cover, probably have the least impact 

on marten habitat, provided they retain sufficient ground cover. Downed woody 

debris provides important foraging habitat for martens. Andruskiw et al. (2008) 

found that physical complexity on or near the forest floor, which is typically provided by coarse woody debris, is directly related to predation success for martens; 

when this complexity is reduced by timber harvest (a combination of clearcut and 

selection harvests with subsequent site preparation in their study area), predation 

success declines. Marten home ranges in uncut forests had 30 percent more coarse 

woody debris (>10 cm diameter) from all decay classes combined than in cut forests 

(Andruskiw et al. 2008). Retaining sufficient understory vegetation and downed 

wood, which are necessary marten habitat elements, will be a challenge in applying 

fuels treatments that are meant to reduce the density of surface fuels. 

Recent genetic work in Ontario finds that forests managed for commercial value 

(via clearcutting) appear to be sufficiently connected to maintain gene flow, at least 

at the level of the province (Koen et al. 2012). This would also appear to be the case 

in landscapes like those planned for the Sierra Nevada forests, where thinning is the 

dominant silvicultural treatment, because the impact on canopy is much less. Thus, 

it appears possible for gene flow to be maintained in commercial forests, even when 

forest fragmentation reduces the abundance or distribution of martens. Commercial 

harvest and thinning both occurred in the Pacific Southwest Research Station’s 

Retaining sufficient 

understory vegetation 

and downed wood, 

which are necessary 

marten habitat 

elements, will be a 

challenge in applying 

fuels treatments that 

are meant to reduce 

the density of surface 

fuels.
408

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

(PSW) Sagehen Experimental Forest (Tahoe National Forest) in the last 30 years, 

and their cumulative effect on habitat loss was the most likely cause for the marten 

decline reported there (Moriarty et al. 2011). Similarly, shelterwood harvests in 

the red fir zone of PSW’s Swain Mountain Experimental Forest (Lassen National 

Forest) led to open conditions (i.e., percentage of canopy cover from largest size 

class trees = 10 to 19 percent) that were used less often by martens during the 

winter (Ellis 1998). Thus, clearcutting, and partial cutting and thinning, have been 

reported to have negative effects on populations, though they may not necessarily 

have deleterious effects on gene flow. 

Recreation— 

Recreation has the potential for significant impacts to marten populations, especially winter recreation that occurs in high-elevation montane forests or subalpine 

zones. The sound of engines from off-highway vehicles (OHVs) may disturb marten 

behavior directly, but in winter, the use of snowmobiles can also have indirect 

effects by compacting the snow, which permits access to marten areas by competing carnivores that would not typically be able to traverse deep snow (Buskirk et 

al. 2000). The only study to explore the effects of OHVs on martens in the Sierra 

Nevada found that marten occupancy at two study areas was unaffected by yearround OHV use (Zielinski et al. 2008). Martens were ubiquitous in both control and 

OHV use areas, and there was no effect of use areas on probability of detection, 

nor were martens more nocturnal in the OHV use areas than the control areas. 

Moreover, females were not less common in the OHV use areas compared to the 

controls. However, martens were exposed to relatively low levels of disturbance 

overall, and most OHV use occurred at a time of day when martens were inactive 

(Zielinski et al. 2008). 

Ski resorts are considered likely to affect marten populations because they 

remove and fragment high-elevation fir forest habitat. There are about 25 ski resorts 

in the Sierra Nevada, and nearly all occur within the range of the marten. The Lake 

Tahoe region includes approximately half of these resorts, constituting the highest 

density of resorts in the Sierra Nevada and one of the highest in North America. 

To create ski runs, chair lifts, and associated facilities, trees are removed, creating 

open areas and fragmenting forest. Martens typically avoid open areas that lack 

overhead cover or tree boles that provide vertical escape routes from predators 

(Drew 1995), are more susceptible to predation if they must cross such areas, 

and have been shown to avoid areas when >30 percent of mature forest has been 

removed (Bissonette et al. 1997). Snow compaction from grooming alters surface 
409

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

consistency, making it easier for larger bodied carnivores (e.g., coyotes)—which, 

unlike martens, are not adapted for deep, soft snow—to expand their winter ranges 

and compete with or prey on martens (Bunnell et al. 2006, Buskirk et al. 2000). 

Skiers and staff are active during most of the day, and grooming and some skiing 

activity occur at night. Thus, martens that are sensitive to these activities may not 

find time for important foraging activities. Ski resort effects are not limited to winter, as habitat fragmentation is a year-round effect and many resorts are developing 

summer recreational activities (e.g., hiking, mountain biking). 

Kucera (2004) conducted the only intensive study of martens in a ski area in 

California. He captured 12 individuals at the Mammoth Mountain ski area, 10 of 

which were males, 1 was female, and 1 was of unknown sex, resulting in a highly 

skewed sex ratio. The single female raised two kits but did not use developed areas 

and used only natural rest sites. Martens appeared to move away from the ski area 

and into unmanaged forest after winter. Kucera (2004) suggested that this fits a 

seasonal use pattern where martens occupy ski areas during winter when natural 

prey is least available and human-supplied food is most plentiful, then they move 

into unmanaged forests in spring. This migration would allow them to exploit artificial food sources during winter but return to places where females maintain home 

ranges to breed in summer. Realizing that this study required confirmation and a 

larger sample, Slauson and Zielinski (see box 7.1-2) began a 4-year study in 2008 to 

evaluate the effects of ski area development and use on home range and demography of marten populations. Field work is completed and a final report is pending. 

Roads, predation, and other mortality—

Roads represent a direct threat to martens (via road kill), as well as an indirect 

threat by facilitating an increase in the interactions between martens and their 

predators and competitors (Slauson et al. 2010). Martens are susceptible to predation by coyote, red fox, bobcat, and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) (Bull and 

Heater 2001, Lindström et al. 1995, Thompson 1994). Marten populations in highly 

altered forest landscapes (i.e., dominated by landscapes fragmented by regeneration 

and partial harvests and roads) show higher rates of predation and lower annual 

survival rates than those in less altered forest landscapes (Belant 2007, Bull and 

Heater 2001, Thompson 1994). The mechanism for these demographic effects is 

presumably linked to the risk of predation incurred by martens when they use 

stands with less cover or, for example, when fragmented habitat requires martens 

to use additional energy to travel through their home ranges using only the patches 

of residual stands. Use of rodenticides, particularly at illegal marijuana cultivation 

sites on public and private lands, is also a potential threat (Gabriel et al. 2012b). 
410

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Management Implications—Marten

It makes sense that treating forests to reduce the severity of fire be conducted 

in proportion to the expectation of catastrophic fires and priorities for restoration. Fortunately, fire return intervals in the true fir and subalpine zones, where 

martens are most common, are not as short as in the mid-elevation forest types 

(mean maximum fire return interval in red fir = 130 years; Van de Water and 

Safford 2011), so red fir forests are not a high priority for restoration treatments, 

especially given the backlog of treatments in more fire-prone forest types. Thus, 

it would appear that there is less impetus for land managers to thin canopies 

and reduce surface fuels—both actions that potentially reduce habitat quality for martens—in true fir forests than in the mixed-conifer forests at lower 

elevations. Although there may be a need for restoration treatments in the 

high-elevation forests, this should be initiated based on strategic fire planning 

that accounts for the habitat needs of martens at multiple scales (i.e., landscape 

connectivity, home range quality, and the provision of microhabitat elements). 

Long-term viability for martens will most likely require evaluating habitat 

connectivity and restoring it where is it is found to be lacking. This is challenging 

for a number of reasons: (1) there are few studies evaluating the viability of martens 

under alternative forest management regimes (e.g., Carroll 2007, Fuller and Harrison 2005, Lacey and Clark 1993), and none in California; and (2) fragmented 

marten habitat is at additional risk from a warming climate because it occurs near 

the upper elevational range of forests (Carroll 2007, Lawler et al. 2012, Purcell et al. 

2012). Thus, if maintaining adequate marten habitat is desired, plans could be made 

for connectivity of upper montane forest stands that may migrate to higher elevations in the future. The California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project (Spencer 

et al. 2010) may be of some value in this regard, but it is a coarse-scale project of 

statewide scope. Guidelines for developing connectivity maps at finer resolution 

are available (e.g., Beier et al. 2011, Spencer et al. 2010), and some work of this 

nature has been conducted in the vicinity of Lassen National Forest to evaluate the 

effects of projects on connectivity (Kirk and Zielinski 2010). Furthermore, predicting marten habitat connectivity along the length of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade 

Range in California is underway (see box 7.1-2). Also noteworthy is the recent effort 

to reestablish fishers in the northern Sierra Nevada (Facka and Powell 2010); the 

implications of the growth of this new fisher population on martens in the California Cascades should be explored. 

The Sierra Nevada Framework (USDA FS 2001, 2004) specifies a marten 

monitoring program on Forest Service lands. Periodically, over the 10-year duration 

of the fisher monitoring program (Zielinski and Mori 2001, Zielinski et al. 2012), 
411

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

some sample units at sufficiently high elevation have detected martens, but martens 

have not been the target of a species-specific program, nor have the data from the 

fisher monitoring program been analyzed for their value in monitoring change in 

occupancy of the Sierra marten population. A marten-specific monitoring program 

would produce benefits to managers similar to the occupancy monitoring program 

for fishers in the southern Sierra Nevada. 

Fisher—Threats 

Timber harvest, vegetation management, and wildfire—

Fishers are sensitive to loss of late-successional habitat via timber harvest and vegetation management and to loss of habitat by uncharacteristically severe fire. Weir 

and Corbould (2010), studying fishers in British Columbia, found that a 5-percent 

increase in clearcut logging (equivalent to 240 ha [590 ac] of a 4775 ha [11,800 ac] 

study area, over 12 years) decreased the probability of home range occupancy by 50 

percent. This is probably because fishers avoid establishing home ranges in areas 

with a high density of openings (Weir and Corbould 2010). Resting and denning 

structures are probably the most limiting habitat element (Powell and Zielinski 

1994, Purcell et al. 2012). Because fishers move between rest sites on a daily basis, 

and reuse is low (Lofroth et al. 2010), suitable resting structures need to be numerous and well distributed throughout home ranges. Fishers prefer to rest in shadeintolerant trees, such as black oaks and ponderosa pines (Purcell et al. 2009), which, 

due to selective harvest and fire suppression, are now less abundant than they were 

historically (Collins et al. 2011, McDonald 1990, Roy and Vankat 1999, Scholl and 

Taylor 2010). However, white fir, which is more abundant than it was historically, 

is also frequently used for resting sites in the Sierra Nevada (Purcell et al. 2009, 

Zielinski et al. 2004a). Thus, any management actions or disturbance factors (e.g., 

logging of large-diameter trees, high-severity fire) that further reduce the abundance of large conifers (>76 cm [30 in] dbh), particularly ponderosa pines, sugar 

pines and white fir, as well as black oaks, will negatively affect fishers. Therefore, a 

long-term strategy for the regeneration and growth of black oak and ponderosa pine 

(the two most shade-intolerant species that fishers use as resting sites) will probably be an important conservation action for fishers. This will require reducing the 

density of species that have benefited from fire suppression (e.g., incense cedar and 

white fir), as specified by North et al. (2009), especially trees that are in the smaller 

size classes (particularly <50 cm [20 in] dbh). Because fishers, martens, and other 

species, however, will rest in the cavities in the larger white fir, and we do not know 

the minimum number of cavities to maintain habitat for these species, a conservative approach would call for retaining white fir trees in the largest size classes. 
412

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Naney et al. (2012) summarized the significant threats to fishers for each bioregion within the fisher’s range in the Pacific states and provinces. In the Sierra Nevada, 

the highest threats were determined to be severe wildfire and fire suppression activities, fuels reduction and timber harvest, and fragmentation. A tradeoff exists between 

the loss of habitat value that occurs when forests are thinned to reduce the severity of 

future fires and the loss of habitat that occurs when untreated stands are consumed by 

wildfire. Treatments to reduce fire severity can be beneficial if they do not reduce the 

density of important habitat elements, such as the largest size classes of trees, snags, 

and logs, or affect canopy cover on topographic positions where it is naturally dense, 

typically on north- and east-facing slopes (North et al. 2009). The definition of “large” 

is important, because managers frequently request threshold values. Subtracting one 

standard deviation from the mean dbh of fisher resting sites could be a reasonable, and 

conservative, threshold for the interpretation of “large” trees. Using this assumption, 

“large” live conifers and snags would be those that exceed 63.5 and 71 cm (25 and 28 

in) dbh, respectively (data from Purcell et al. 2009). 

Simulation studies have revealed that carefully applied treatments (thinning from 

below and the treatment of surface fuels) within fisher habitat may be more effective 

at reducing the loss of habitat than when treatments are placed outside such habitat 

(Scheller et al. 2011). Unlike the California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis), for which the response to fuel treatments has been explored both empirically and 

via modeling (e.g., Lehmkuhl et al. 2007, Roberts et al. 2011), there is no published 

work to evaluate the direct effects of fuels treatment (mechanical or prescribed fire) 

on fishers. A recent study, however, evaluated the effects of various treatment types 

on predicted values of fisher resting habitat (Truex and Zielinski 2013). The effects 

of actual treatments were compared by evaluating their effects on predicted fisher 

habitat based on fisher habitat models developed in the southern Sierra Nevada. The 

effects of mechanical thinning, prescribed fire, and the combination of mechanical 

thinning and prescribed fire were compared to controls at the University of California–Berkeley’s Blodgett Forest Research Station in the central Sierra Nevada. The 

combination of thining and fire had significant short-term impacts on predicted fisher 

resting habitat quality, as well as on canopy closure, a key habitat element for fisher in 

California. Early (June) and late season (September and October) prescribed fire treatments were compared at Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks. The late-season burn 

treatment had a significant negative impact on modeled fisher habitat suitability when 

measured 1 year later (Truex and Zielinski 2013). Although predicted resting habitat 

suitability was significantly reduced by some treatments, there were no negative 

effects on predicted foraging habitat. Although the treatments that included mechanical methods had greater short-term reduction on modeled fisher resting habitat suitability than prescribed fire, these effects were mitigated by the fact that mechanical 

Treatments to reduce 

fire severity can be 

beneficial if they do 

not reduce the density 

of important habitat 

elements, such as the 

largest size classes 

of trees, snags, and 

logs, or affect canopy 

cover on topographic 

positions where it 

is naturally dense, 

typically on north- and 

east-facing slopes.
413

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

treatments could target or avoid individual trees. Hardwoods and all large trees and 

snags could more easily be avoided using mechanical means of treatment. Furthermore, even the use of fire could be controlled somewhat by raking debris from the 

base of particular trees that were viewed as important to protect. Thus, it appears 

that if care is taken to apply treatments with the goal of protecting large hardwoods 

and conifers, and there are funds to conduct the raking, the potential reduction in 

predicted habitat quality may be mitigated (Truex and Zielinski 2013). Long-term 

strategies that encourage the regeneration, and growth to large size, of black oaks, 

ponderosa pines, and white fir will also be an important conservation action (e.g., 

North et al. 2009). Some white fir may need to be removed to encourage the development of oaks and pines, but cavities in large white fir are used as resting sites by 

fishers and martens. The large white fir may need to be retained during the transition 

to forests that eventually produce pines and oaks of cavity-bearing size, particularly 

for fishers. However, martens use large white fir at an elevation above where black 

oaks and ponderosa pines occur, so the maintenance of an abundant supply of large 

white fir in the upper montane zone will be an important component of marten 

habitat management. 

Studies on spotted owls suggest that the use of prescribed fire to reduce the 

density of small trees can be compatible with owl occupancy (Ager et al. 2007, 

Lehmkuhl et al. 2007, Roberts et al. 2011, Roloff et al. 2012). Some of this research 

predicts, via modeling, that fuels treatments on a relatively small proportion of 

the forest landscape result in significant decrease in the probability of owl habitat 

loss following wildfire (e.g., Ager et al. 2007). If this work also applies to fishers, 

it suggests that in fire-suppressed forests, a “no action” management option may 

involve greater risk to fishers than some form of treatment because these ecosystems 

have diverged from historical (and also more resilient) conditions (Purcell et al. 

2012, Thompson et al. 2011). Management to reduce fire risk, or to restore ecological 

resilience to fire, may be consistent with the maintenance of landscapes capable of 

supporting fishers, as long as sufficient resting/denning structures are retained and 

the composition and configuration of the residual landscape is compatible with home 

range requirements (e.g., Thompson et al. 2011). 

Because prescribed fire can pose a threat to fisher habitat, early-season burns 

appear to be preferable to late-season burns (Truex and Zielinski 2013). Early burns, 

which are timed to follow the fisher denning period in spring, will minimize the 

likelihood of disturbing denning female fishers. If conditions necessitate burning 

earlier than mid-May, efforts could be made to avoid treating areas that have a 

high density of structures likely to be used by females for denning (for reference to 

denning structures and denning habitat, see Lofroth et al. 2010 and Thompson et al. 

2010, and box 7.1-2). 

Management to reduce 

fire risk, or to restore 

ecological resilience to 

fire, may be consistent 

with the maintenance 

of landscapes capable 

of supporting fishers, 

as long as sufficient 

resting/denning 

structures are retained 

and the composition 

and configuration of 

the residual landscape 

is compatible 

with home range 

requirements.
414

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Roads, predation, and other mortality—

Because of their delayed maturation and the fact that not all females reproduce 

each year, fisher population growth rates are relatively low (Lofroth et al. 2010). 

Thus, the recently reported high rates of predation on fishers (Thompson et al. 2010; 

see box 7.1-2), especially by bobcats and cougars, are of concern. Fisher mortality 

associated with roads is another important concern (see box 7.1-2). Use of rodenticides, particularly at illegal marijuana cultivation sites on public lands, is also a 

growing threat (Gabriel et al. 2012b). Fishers are also affected by viral and parasitic 

diseases (Brown et al. 2006, Gabriel et al. 2012a), but the magnitude of the direct 

and indirect effects of these organisms on fisher populations is unknown. 

Management Implications—Fisher

Recent research findings (summarized in Purcell et al. 2012) support the validity 

of previous recommendations to focus habitat management for fishers in areas 

where, historically, fires would have burned less frequently, such as north 

and east-facing slopes, canyon bottoms, and riparian areas (North et al. 

2009). Resting sites are often found close to streams and on relatively steep slopes 

(Purcell et al. 2009, Zielinski et al. 2004a), and fisher telemetry locations include 

more observations in canyons and fewer observations on ridges (Underwood et 

al. 2010). These are landscape-scale recommendations, but as noted earlier in this 

review, home range and stand-scale level recommendations frequently center on 

Box 7.1-1

Pending Research on Fisher Resting Habitat

A recent meta-analysis of fisher resting habitat studies throughout the Western United States and 

Canada provides some overarching conclusions about the features that distinguish resting sites 

from random forest sites (Aubry et al. 2013). This work includes the results of five studies in California and reinforces the conclusions of those independent studies in terms of the importance of 

retaining large trees, snags, and logs and dense cover for fisher resting habitat. The authors found 

that resting sites differed from random points at all eight study areas in the following respects: 

resting sites had steeper slopes, lower heat load indices, higher overhead cover, greater volume 

of logs ≥26 cm in mean diameter, greater basal area of large (51 to 100 cm diameter at breast 

height [dbh]) conifers, greater basal area of large hardwoods, greater basal area of large snags, 

larger mean dbh of live conifers ≥10 cm dbh, and larger mean dbh of live hardwoods ≥10 cm dbh. 

Reductions in the values for these features should be considered threats to the availability 

of resting habitat for fishers in the Sierra Nevada, and elsewhere in the fisher’s western range.
415

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

protecting large-diameter hardwoods and conifers (but not specifying how many 

per acre are necessary) and maintaining canopy cover (e.g., a minimum of 56 to 61 

percent canopy cover in stands, depending on the method of measurement; Purcell 

et al. 2009). Stand- and home range-scale management is often more problematic 

because areas used are not homogeneous, and no single threshold should be 

applied to all stands or home ranges. This is why a landscape-scale approach to 

management of forests in the Sierra Nevada would help ensure adequate fisher 

habitat. Not all stands need to meet the minimum standard for occupancy, 

but for occupancy to occur in a home-range-sized area, there is a typical 

collection of composition and configuration attributes that are derived from 

stand-level information (e.g., Thompson et al. 2011). A process-based approach 

to generating heterogeneity in landscape condition, like that offered in PSWGTR-220 (North et al. 2009), will not only be superior to a stand-by-stand level 

approach, but may be the only approach possible given the logistical challenges 

of describing stand-level variables and the difficulty of recording and tracking 

the changes in stand-level conditions in large areas over space and time. 

The approach recommended in North et al. (2009) also encouraged the retention 

of oaks and pines, and stressed the importance of hardwoods, especially California 

black oaks (Quercus kelloggii). Black oaks require openings for regeneration and 

subsequent growth (McDonald 1990), suggesting that the creation of small openings around mature productive trees would aid establishment of young trees 

needed to replace dying oaks. It would be best to balance this approach with 

retaining smaller trees around oaks with visible cavities that are currently 

suitable as resting or denning structures. Most oaks used by fishers are live trees, 

although dead portions (e.g., broken limbs with access to cavities) of otherwise 

healthy trees are important (Purcell et al. 2009, Zielinski et al. 2004a). 

Monitoring of fisher habitat and populations is an essential component of 

adaptive management. Fortunately, a number of research and management efforts 

have established the groundwork for these components. There now exist empirical 

models that can be used to assess and monitor fisher habitat at the resting site, 

home range, and landscape scales for various locations in the Sierra Nevada.

The effects of forest practices on fisher resting habitat can be quantitatively evaluated with the development of a model for the southern Sierra Nevada that predicts 

resting habitat value from plot data (Zielinski et al. 2006, 2010). The model is 

specifically developed to use Forest Inventory and Analysis data, but can use other 

types of plot data, as well. This model has also been integrated with the Forest 

Vegetation Simulator to forecast future effects of proposed activities on fisher resting habitat (Zielinski et al. 2010). A number of regional landscape suitability models 
416

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

are also available (Davis et al. 2007, Spencer et al. 2011), and they can be used for 

assessment and monitoring of large-scale habitat distribution and connectivity. 

The California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project (Spencer et al. 2010) may 

be of some value in this regard, but it is a coarse-scale project of statewide scope. 

Guidelines are now available for the development of finer scale connectivity maps 

(e.g., Beier et al. 2011, Spencer et al. 2010). Using these practices, a new effort is 

underway to model fisher habitat connectivity and to specify linkages in the central 

and southern Sierra Nevada (Spencer and Rustigian-Romsos 2012). 

A specific research need identified in North et al. (2009) entailed examination 

of potential outcomes of proposed forest treatments based on modeling habitat in 

female fisher home ranges. This shortcoming has been partially addressed through 

the recent development of an analytical tool that predicts the relative impacts of 

management actions on fisher habitat in the vicinity of the Sierra National Forest 

(Thompson et al. 2011). This approach is a form of ecological risk management and 

is based on quantifying the range of variation in currently occupied female fisher 

home ranges. It assumes that if we manage landscapes to resemble those occupied 

home ranges, there is a high likelihood that the landscape will remain functional 

fisher habitat and minimize the risk of negative population impacts. Results in the 

Sierra National Forest study area indicate that female fishers use landscapes with 

relatively high proportions of large trees and snags, and where patches of highquality habitat are connected in a heterogeneous mix of forest ages and conditions. 

Unfortunately, it is not known what size these patches must be nor how far apart 

they can be to assure that they become incorporated into a fisher home range. 

However, Thompson et al. (2011) specify the average values for female fisher home 

ranges in respect to a number of variables, including canopy closure, basal area, and 

a number of common indices of patch size and connectivity (see table 2 in Thompson et al. 2011). Values for these variables suggest the importance of variation in 

canopy cover and tree size values among stands within home ranges. These values, 

however, apply only to the region where the model was developed, but the results 

suggest that some level of management to reduce fire risk may be consistent 

with maintaining fisher habitat, as long as sufficient resting/denning structures 

are retained. A decision tool that will allow managers to evaluate project areas for 

their suitability as female fisher home ranges and to adjust prescriptions accordingly 

is being developed for the Sierra National Forest (see box 7.1-2). Managers could 

also benefit if similar fisher home range habitat “templates” were developed 

for other areas where sufficient data on the vegetation characteristics of home 

ranges have been collected by researchers. 
417

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Based upon reviews of relevant science, members of the synthesis team concluded that one of the most scientifically and economically defensible ways to 

protect biodiversity in the Sierra Nevada—including the habitat of martens 

and fishers—is to promote prescribed fire and managed wildfire for its beneficial ecological effects, including the capacity to make the forests of the Sierra 

Nevada more resilient to climate change. Fire is a disturbance that has historically 

influenced the vegetation structure and composition in the synthesis area and produced patterns to which the fauna and flora of the area have adapted. Chapters 1.2, 

“Integrative Approaches: Promoting Socioecological Resilience” and 1.3, “Synopsis 

of Emergent Approaches,” provide more details about this approach. To minimize 

impact on individual fishers, prescribed fire and other treatments as needed 

could be dispersed over space and time. Testing the hypotheses discussed under 

Information Gaps (below) in a rigorous assessment framework can lead to better 

guidelines for the spatial and temporal application of treatments.

Part of an assessment framework is a credible monitoring program. The 

Sierra Nevada Framework (2001, 2004) specified the development of a fisher monitoring program and a study plan was conceived (Zielinski and Mori 2001) that led 

to annual occupancy monitoring beginning in 2002. Analysis of the first 8 years of 

sampling data revealed that occupancy was stable over that period (Zielinski et al. 

2012). Results of this population monitoring program could be reconciled with 

multiscale habitat monitoring for a dual-monitoring approach (population and 

habitat) in the future. This combined monitoring program will reassure us that the 

assumptions we are making about restoring resilient forest ecosystems with the use 

of prescribed fire and some mechanical treatment of surface and ladder fuels (see 

chapter 1.2) will indeed produce the amount and distribution of habitat that favors 

the persistence of fishers and martens. 

Finally, of great concern is the recent news that rodenticide, most likely associated with marijuana cultivation, may be a new source of morbidity and mortality 

in fishers (Gabriel et al. 2012b). Reducing the application of rodenticides and 

remediating the environmental damages that have already occurred is an 

acute need. 

Climate Change Implications—Marten and Fisher

Lawler et al. (2012) investigated the potential direct and indirect effects of climate 

change on select species of the genus Martes. Climate change predictions suggest 

that the range of the Pacific marten in California will contract to the north and move 

up in elevation over the coming century (Lawler et al. 2012). Furthermore, warming 

climate may favor the upward elevation expansion of fishers into areas currently 
418

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

occupied by martens (increasing potential competition), and marten habitat will 

become less common and more fragmented (Lawler et al. 2012). This is because the 

biggest predicted change in forests in California is the increase in mixed woodland 

and hardwood-dominated forest types and the reduction in conifer-dominated forest 

types (Lenihan et al. 2003). Because oaks—especially California black oaks—are 

a key component of fisher habitat, floristic changes may benefit fishers as long as 

temperature effects do not result in upward range shifts. Reductions in snowpack, 

as a result of climate change, could also favor fishers, because deep snow normally 

excludes fishers from marten habitat in winter (Krohn et al. 1997). 

Climate change is also predicted to change fire regimes, increasing fire frequency, area, and intensity (e.g., Flannigan et al. 2000), and these changes are 

expected to result in loss of late-seral habitat important to both species (McKenzie 

et al. 2004). Decreases in the density of large conifer and hardwood trees and 

canopy cover are projected as fire severity increases (Lawler et al. 2012). As these 

factors are closely related to fisher rest site and home range use in the southern 

Sierra Nevada (Purcell et al. 2009, Zielinski et al. 2004b), the expectation is for an 

overall decrease in the availability of fisher habitat. The largest climate impacts to 

these species will probably occur at the southernmost portion of their ranges (the 

southern Sierra Nevada) (Lawler et al. 2012). The authors recommend protecting 

fisher habitat through targeted fuels treatments, and applying more liberal fire 

management policies to naturally ignited fires during moderate weather conditions. 

The change in marten distribution at the SEF (Moriarty et al. 2011) appeared to 

occur rapidly owing to the influence of traditional timber harvest methods during 

the mid to late 1900s. It occurred more rapidly than changes in the flora and fauna 

that affect marten populations might be expected to change because of a warming climate. Yet the marten is a species that may not fare well given the predicted 

changes in vegetation distribution as a result of a warming climate. The true fir 

forests where martens typically occur are predicted to diminish in area (Lenihan et 

al. 2003, Mortenson 2011), resulting in a poor prognosis for martens (Lawler et al. 

2012). Climate change may also increase fire frequency and intensity in the upper 

montane zone, calling for increased levels of thinning treatments in this elevation, 

which may also diminish marten habitat. 

Information Gaps

Purcell et al. (2012) summarized some of the gaps in knowledge that are preventing 

application of science to the management of fisher and marten habitat. They noted 

that there is a great deal of uncertainty around predicting impacts on marten and 

fisher habitat, particularly cumulative effects. This is largely because our knowledge 
419

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

of how habitat change influences survival and reproduction is limited, and because 

we do not yet understand how landscape heterogeneity affects these species at 

multiple scales. Managing for appropriate stand conditions in terms of density 

and abundance of large trees may be insufficient if the nature of the arrangement 

of these stands on the landscape is not also considered. If forests of the future 

will be more heterogeneous, and this heterogeneity will be a result of a strategic 

mixture of, for example, three types of patches: (1) high vegetation density, (2) low 

vegetation density resulting from thinning, and (3) openings—then it will be critical 

to understand how much of each should occur in landscapes managed for fishers 

and martens. In particular, resource managers need information about the necessary 

extent and connectivity of older forest patches, and the spatial heterogeneity and 

composition of the remaining landscape. Research is moving in this direction (e.g., 

Thompson et al. 2011), but we cannot yet provide these recommendations. Nor can 

we determine how fishers will respond to landscapes that have been managed to 

include active fire regimes, because there are too few of those landscapes available 

for study or they occur in atypical landscape settings. 

Central to moving forward in treating forest fuels is the need to understand 

the tradeoff between the loss of habitat value that occurs during proactive fuels 

treatments (when surface fuels are reduced or canopies are thinned), and the loss of 

habitat that occurs when untreated stands are consumed by wildfire. Some simulation work has been done that indicates that the indirect negative effects of treatments are justified, at least in terms of modeled fisher habitat (Scheller et al. 2011). 

However, much more work needs to be done on this subject for martens and fishers. 

Ongoing field studies on martens in the Cascade Range (see box 7.1-2) are seeking to understand the direct effects of fuels treatments on these important wildlife 

species. Whether animals stay or relocate—and for how long—during management 

activities is important to know. More critical, however, is how to allocate treatments 

in space and time so that predicted fire intensity and the distribution of habitat are 

within acceptable ranges. There are examples of research that lead in this direction 

(e.g., Cushman and McGarigal 2007, Thompson et al. 2011), but this topic needs 

more urgent attention and results. Finally, it is important to note that our lack of 

knowledge about the effects of fuels treatments on fishers and marten extends 

to their prey. We know very little about the effects of management activities on 

important prey species and on foraging behavior. 

Future work will need to explore the effect of understory management on 

fishers and martens. It is understood that treating surface fuels (shrubs and downed 

wood) and ladder fuels is necessary, and perhaps sufficient, to reduce the potential 

for high-intensity fires (Agee and Skinner 2005), and that this will have only modest 

Central to moving 

forward in treating 

forest fuels is the 

need to understand 

the tradeoff between 

the loss of habitat 

value that occurs 

during proactive 

fuels treatments 

(when surface fuels 

are reduced and/or 

canopies are thinned), 

and the loss of habitat 

that occurs when 

untreated stands are 

consumed by wildfire.
420

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Box 7.1-2

Pending Research and Monitoring on Marten and Fisher

Pending studies of effects of fuels treatments—

• Field studies on martens are being directed by Keith Slauson (Pacific Northwest Research Station 

[PNW]) and Katie Moriarty (Oregon State University) in the Cascade Range, and field studies on 

fishers are being directed by Craig Thompson and Kathryn Purcell (Pacific Southwest Research 

Station [PSW]) in the Cascade Range and the Sierra Nevada. These studies are expected to help 

understand the direct effects of fuels treatments on these important wildlife species.

• Katie Moriarity is studying the size of openings that martens will cross in the Sierra Nevada 

and Cascade Range.

• Craig Thompson is directing new research at Kings River (Sierra National Forest) to understand 

how females with kits respond to nearby management activities (i.e., people, heat and smoke 

from prescribed fire).

Other ongoing studies—

• Keith Slauson and Bill Zielinski (PSW) began a 4-year study in 2008 to evaluate the effects of 

ski area development and use on home range and demography of marten populations. Field work 

is completed and a final report is pending.

• Research at both Kings River (led by Craig Thompson) and by the Sierra Nevada Adaptive 

Management Project (currently led by Rick Sweitzer and formerly by Reginald Barrett, 

University of California–Berkeley) is investigating various causes of fisher mortality, including 

predators, road kill, and rodenticides. 

• Mourad W. Gabriel, University of California–Davis, is conducting research on effects on fisher 

of rodenticides. A subcommittee of the interagency Southern Sierra Fisher Working Group is 

exploring ways to mitigate this source of mortality.

Translocation of fisher—

• Aaron N. Facka, North Carolina State University, is studying the translocation of fisher as part 

of his Ph.D. research.

Genetics—

• Michael K. Schwartz (Rocky Mountain Research Station) is evaluating the genetic data on fisher.

Connectivity—

• Preliminary models are available (Spencer and Rustigian-Romsos 2012).

Decision support tool—

• PSW researchers led by Craig Thompson are currently developing a decision tool that will allow 

managers to evaluate project areas for their suitability as female fisher home ranges and to adjust 

prescriptions accordingly.
421

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

effects on the habitat for some species associated with mature forests (Stephens 

et al. 2012). Focusing on ladder fuels without reducing overstory canopy cover 

has been considered a compromise that will achieve fuel reduction goals but still 

maintain habitat for mature forest-associated species. However, these prescriptions 

have the potential to result in greater homogeneity because residual overstory 

cover is generally uniformly high, but vertical complexity is generally very low. 

Additionally, the high residual overstory cover may inhibit regeneration of shadeintolerant species (e.g., oaks and shrubs), which are important habitat elements for 

fishers. There may, in fact, be undue attention directed to diameter limits and the 

need to promote and protect large trees, when understory management may be a 

potentially greater source of conflict between achieving fire goals and fisher habitat 

goals. Lofroth et al. (2010) concluded that management that reduced or removed 

understory vegetation may decrease prey availability, disrupt movements, and 

make fishers more vulnerable to predation. Furthermore, Naney et al. (2012: 39–40) 

noted that “a successful conservation strategy must.... recognize the importance of 

understory vegetation to support abundant prey populations and provide adequate 

fisher cover, and the contribution of diverse native vegetation to fisher habitat and 

the maintenance of resilient landscapes.” It is necessary to determine what levels 

of surface fuels treatments are compatible with the retention of fisher and marten 

foraging habitat, and habitat for their prey. It is possible that the approach advocated 

in PSW-GTR-220 (North et al. 2009), which would retain understory structural 

diversity on north- and east-facing slopes, may provide sufficient understory 

for fishers, martens, and their prey, but this remains an assumption to be tested. 

The ability to describe fisher habitat features using LiDAR (Zhao et al. 2012) 

is a technological breakthrough that will help characterize treatment effects on 

understory structure. 

Our current understanding of fisher habitat use is also prejudiced by the fact 

that all fisher research has been conducted in forests where fires have been suppressed. This shortcoming means that we continue to assume that the places that 

fishers choose for home ranges and for resting sites are the same types of places that 

fishers would select if forest ecosystems were more heterogeneous, less dense in 

places, and if fire were a dominant disturbance. Even when we possess this information, however, ecologists do not know how to influence vegetation dynamics to 

produce habitat that will replace the habitat lost to different stressors. Dense stands 

of preferred species, without the action of fire or thinning, will not guarantee the 

replacement of large conifers and oaks for use as resting sites. Maintaining habitat 

in riparian areas and on topographic positions that may have burned less frequently, 

and at times more severely—as advocated by North et al. (2009)—may help provide 
422

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

resting habitat elements, as well as connectivity, without significantly reducing the 

effectiveness of treatments designed to restore resilient forests. However, the resulting habitat connectivity in landscapes managed with these objectives is unknown. 

New analytical tools (e.g., Thompson et al. 2011, Zielinski et al. 2010) will help 

evaluate the merits of landscapes that develop under these new management 

regimes, but the tools may be inappropriate if they are modeled on forest conditions 

indicative of fire-suppressed forests.

We also still lack important information about specific life-history characteristics, such as reproductive site requirements for martens and fishers, including their 

requirements for den trees (parturition sites) and denning habitat at multiple spatial 

scales (Purcell et al. 2012). As suggested in PSW-GTR-220 (North et al. 2009), one 

way to help ensure the retention of key forest structures would be to provide a list 

of attributes and representative photos of resting and denning structures for use 

by marking crews (see Lofroth et al. 2010 for descriptions of the specific types of 

structures used by fishers for resting and denning). It is one thing to identify these 

potential structures, but another to understand the effects of nearby disturbance, 

including prescribed fire, on the occupant(s)—especially if they are reproductive 

females (see box 7.1-2 for ongoing work on how females with kits respond to nearby 

management activities). However, much more work needs to be done to determine 

whether the administration of treatments near known dens, and in areas where den 

locations may not be known but will still be affected, will have tolerable effects 

on fisher behavior, physiology, and reproductive output. And, finally, there is very 

little known about how fishers use landscapes that have recently burned. Our 

understanding of the risks fishers face from loss of habitat under these conditions 

would be advanced with new studies that study the behavior of fishers shortly after 

a landscape has been transformed by fire. 

References

Agee, J.K.; Skinner, C.K. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction 

treatments. Forest Ecology and Management. 211(1–2): 83–96.

Ager, A.A.; Finney, M.A.; Kerns, B.K.; Maffei, H. 2007. Modeling fire risk to 

northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) habitat in central Oregon, USA. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 246: 45–56.

Andruskiw, M.; Fryxell, J.; Thompson, I.D.; Baker, J.A. 2008. Habitat-mediated 

variation in predation risk by the American marten. Ecology. 89: 2273–2280.
423

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Aubry, K.B.; Lewis, J.C. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes 

pennanti) in Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific states. 

Biological Conservation. 114: 79–90.

Aubry, K.B.; Raley, C.M.; Buskirk, S.W.; Zielinski, W.J.; Schwartz, M.K.; 

Golightly, R.T.; Purcell, K.L.; Weir, R.D.; Yaeger, J.S. 2013. Meta-analysis 

of habitat selection at resting sites by fishers in the Pacific coastal states and 

provinces. Journal of Wildlife Management. 77(5): 965–974.

Aubry, K.B.; Zielinski, W.J.; Raphael, M.G.; Proulx, G.; Buskirk, S.W., eds. 

2012. Biology and conservation of martens, sables, and fishers: a new synthesis. 

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 536 p.

Baker, J.A. 1992. Habitat use and spatial organization of pine marten on southern 

Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University: 

119 p. M.S. thesis.

Beier, P.; Spencer, W.; Baldwin, R.F.; McRae, B.H. 2011. Toward best practices 

for developing regional connectivity maps. Conservation Biology. 25: 879–892.

Belant, J. 2007. Human-caused mortality and population trends in American 

marten and fisher in a U.S. National Park. Natural Areas Journal. 27: 155–160.

Bissonette, J.A.; Harrison, D.J.; Hargis, C.D.; Chapin, T.G. 1997. The influence 

of spatial scale and scale-sensitive properties on habitat selection by American 

marten. In: Bissonette, J.A., ed. Wildlife and landscape ecology. New York: 

Springer-Verlag: 368–385.

Bissonette, J.A.; Fredrickson, R.J.; Tucker, B.J. 1989. American marten: a case 

for landscape-level management. Washington, DC: Transactions of the 54th

North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: 89–101. 

Bolsinger, C.L.; Waddell, K.L. 1993. Area of old-growth forests in California, 

Oregon, and Washington. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-197. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

29 p. 

Brown, R.N.; Gabriel, M.W.; Wengert, G.; Matthews, S.; Higley, J.M.; Foley, 

J.E. 2006. Fecally transmitted viruses associated with pacific fishers (Martes 

pennanti) in northwestern California. Transaction of the Western Section of the 

Wildlife Society. 42: 40–46. 

Bull, E.L.; Heater, T.W. 2001. Survival, causes of mortality, and reproduction in 

the American marten in northeastern Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist. 82: 1–6.
424

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Bunnell, K.D.; Flinders, J.T.; Wolfe, M.L. 2006. Potential impacts of coyotes and 

snowmobiles on lynx conservation in the Intermountain West. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin. 34: 828–838.

Buskirk, S.W.; Powell, R.A. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American 

martens in Martens, sables and fishers: biology and conservation. In: Buskirk, 

S.W.; Harestad, A.S.; Raphael, M.G.; Powell, R.A., eds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell 

University Press: 283–296. 

Buskirk, S.W.; Ruggiero, L.F. 1994. American marten. In: Ruggiero, L.F.; Aubry, 

K.B.; Buskirk, S.W.; Lyon, L.J.; Zielinski, W.J., eds. American marten, fisher, 

lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-254. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: 7–37. 

Buskirk, S.W.; Ruggiero, L.F.; Krebs, C.J. 2000. Habitat fragmentation and 

interspecific competition: implications for lynx conservation. In: Ruggiero, 

L.F.; Aubry, K.B.; Buskirk, S.W.; Koehler, G.M.; Krebs, C.J.; McKelvey, K.S.; 

Squires, J.R., eds. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-30WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 83–100.

Carey, A.B. 1991. The biology of arboreal rodents in Douglas-fir forests. In: Huff, 

M.A.; Holthausen, R.S.; Aubry, K.B., tech. coords. Biology and management 

of old-growth forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-276. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 

1–46.

Carroll, C. 2007. Interacting effects of climate change, landscape conversion and 

harvest on carnivore populations at the range margin: marten and lynx in the 

northern Appalachians. Conservation Biology. 21: 1092–1104.

Chapin, T.G.; Harrison, D.J.; Katnik, D.D. 1998. Influence of landscape pattern 

on habitat use by American marten in an industrial forest. Conservation Biology. 

12: 96–227.

Collins, B.M.; Everett, R.G.; Stephens, S.L. 2011. Impacts of fire exclusion and 

managed fire on forest structure in an old growth Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer 

forest. Ecosphere. 2(4): article 51.

Crooks, K.R.; Soulé, M.E. 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions 

in a fragmented system. Nature. 400: 563–566.
425

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Cushman, S.; McGarigal, K. 2007. Multivariate landscape trajectory analysis: an 

example using simulation modeling of American marten habitat change under 

four timber harvest scenarios. In: Bissonette, J.A.; Storch, I., eds. Temporal 

dimensions of landscape ecology. New York: Springer: 119–140.

Cushman, S.A.; Raphael, M.G.; Ruggiero, L.F.; Shirk, A.S.; Wasserman, 

T.N.; O’Doherty, E.C. 2011. Limiting factors and landscape connectivity: the 

American marten in the Rocky Mountains. Landscape Ecology. 26: 1137–1149.

Davis, F.W.; Seo, C.; Zielinski, W.J. 2007. Regional variation in home-rangescale habitat models for fisher (Martes pennanti) in California. Ecological 

Applications. 17: 2195–2213.

Dawson, N.G.; Cook, J.A. 2012. Behind the genes: diversification of North 

American martens (Martes americana and M. caurina). In: Aubry, K.; Zielinski, 

W.; Raphael, M.; Proulx, G.; Buskirk, S., eds. Biology and conservation of 

martens, sables, and fishers: a new synthesis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University 

Press: 23–38.

Dixon, J.S. 1925. A closed season needed for fisher, marten, and wolverine in 

California. California Fish and Game. 11: 23–25.

Douglas, C.W.; Strickland, M.A. 1987. Fisher. In: Novak, M.; Baker, J.A.; 

Obbard, M.E.; Malloch, B., eds. Wild furbearer management and conservation in 

North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Trappers 

Association: 511–529. 

Drew, G.S. 1995. Winter habitat selection by American marten (Martes americana) 

in Newfoundland: Why old growth? Logan, UT: Utah State University. 72 p. 

Ph.D. dissertation.

Drew, R.E.; Hallett, J.G.; Aubry, K.B.; Cullings, K.W.; Koepf, S.M.; Zielinski, 

W.J. 2003. Conservation genetics of the fisher (Martes pennanti) based on 

mitochondrial DNA sequencing. Molecular Ecology. 12: 51–62.

Ellis, L.M. 1998. Habitat-use patterns of the American marten in the southern 

Cascade mountains of California, 1992–1994. Arcata, CA: Humboldt State 

University. 186 p. M.S. thesis.
426

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Facka, A.N.; Powell, R.A. 2010. Translocation of fishers into the northern Sierra 

Nevada of California. Annual report. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and Sierra Pacific Industries. 

Raleigh, NC: University of North Carolina, Department of Biology. 14 p. 

https://r1.dfg.ca.gov/Portal/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ULHGj73p15Y%3D&tab

id=832. (9 September 2014).

Finke, D.L.; Denno, R.F. 2004. Predator diversity dampens trophic cascades. 

Nature. 429: 407–410.

Finke, D.L.; Snyder, W.E. 2010. Conserving the benefits of predator biodiversity. 

Biological Conservation. 143: 2260–2269.

Flannigan, M.D.; Stocks, B.J.; Wotton, B.M. 2000. Climate change and forest 

fires. The Science of the Total Environment. 262: 221–229.

Franklin, J.F.; Fites-Kaufmann, J.A. 1996. Assessment of late-successional 

forests of the Sierra Nevada. In: Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report 

to Congress. Vol. II: Assessments and scientific basis for management options. 

Report No. 37. Davis, CA: Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University 

of California: 627–662. Chapter 21.

Fuller, A.K.; Harrison, D.J. 2005. Influence of partial timber harvesting on 

American martens in north-central Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management. 

69: 710–722. 

Gabriel, M.W.; Wengert, G.M.; Brown, R.N. 2012a. Pathogens and parasites 

of Martes species: management and conservation implications. In: Aubry, 

K.; Zielinski, W.; Raphael, M.; Proulx, G.; Buskirk, S., eds. Biology and 

conservation of martens, sables, and fishers: a new synthesis. Ithaca, NY: 

Cornell University Press: 138–185.

Gabriel, M.W.; Woods, L.W.; Poppenga, R.; Sweitzer, R.A.; Thompson, C.; 

Matthews, S.M.; Higley, J.M.; Keller, S.M.; Purcell, K.; Barrett, R.H.; 

Wengert, G.M.; Sacks, B.M.; Clifford, D.L. 2012b. Anticoagulant rodenticides 

on our public and community lands: spatial distribution of exposure and 

poisoning of a rare forest carnivore. PLoS ONE. 7(7):e40163. doi:10.1371/

journal.pone.0040163.

Golightly, R.T.; Penland, T.F.; Zielinski, W.J.; Higley, J.M. 2006. Fisher diet in 

the Klamath/North Coast Bioregion. Unpublished report. Arcata, CA: Humboldt 

State University. http://www.fws.gov/yreka/Fisher/Literature/Golightly%20

et%20al%202006%20Fisher%20Diet.pdf. (18 December 2013).
427

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Grinnell, J.; Dixon, J.S.; Linsdale, J.M. 1930. Vertebrate natural history of a 

section of northern California through the Lassen Peak region. Berkeley, CA: 

University of California Press. 594 p.

Grinnell, J.; Dixon, J.S.; Linsdale, J.M. 1937. Fur-bearing mammals of 

California. Vol. 1. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 375 p.

Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2nd edition. New York: John 

Wiley & Sons. 1300 p.

Hargis, C.D.; Bissonette, J.A.; Turner, D.L. 1999. The influence of forest 

fragmentation and landscape pattern on American martens. Journal of Applied 

Ecology. 36: 157–172.

Hayes, J.P.; Cross, S.P. 1987. Characteristics of logs used by western red-backed 

voles, Clethrionomys californicus, and deer mice, Peromyscus maniculatus. 

Canadian Field-Naturalist. 101: 543–546.

Heinemeyer, K.S. 2002. Translating individual movements into population 

patterns: American martens in fragmented forested landscapes. Santa Cruz, CA: 

University of California–Santa Cruz. 300 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Jordan, M.J. 2007. Fisher ecology in the Sierra National Forest, California. 

Berkeley, CA: University of California–Berkeley. 244 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Kirk, T.A.; Zielinski, W.J. 2009. Developing and testing a landscape habitat 

suitability model for the American marten (Martes americana) in the Cascades 

mountains of California. Landscape Ecology. 24: 759–773.

Kirk, T.A.; Zielinski, W.J. 2010. Modeling functional habitat connectivity of the 

American marten (Martes americana) in northeastern California using leastcost corridor modeling. Unpublished report. Arcata, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 43 p. http://

www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/SierraNevadaWildlife/

AmericanMarten/AM-Kirk%20and%20Zielinski2010.pdf. (18 December 2013).

Knaus, B.J.; Cronn, R.; Liston, A.; Pilgrim, K.; Schwartz, M.K. 2011. 

Mitochondrial genome sequences illuminate maternal lineages of conservation 

concern in rare carnivore. BMC Ecology. 11: 10.

Koen, E.L.; Bowman, J.; Garroway, C.J.; Mills, S.C.; Wilson, P.J. 2012.

Landscape resistance and American marten gene flow. Landscape Ecology. 

27: 29–43.
428

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Krohn, W.B.; Hoving, C.; Harrison, D.; Phillips, D.; Frost, H. 2004. Martes

foot-loading and snowfall patterns in eastern North America: implications to 

broad-scale distributions and interactions of mesocarnivores. In: Harrison, 

D.; Fuller, A.; Proulx, G., eds. Martens and fishers (Martes) in human altered 

landscapes: an international perspective. New York: Springer Science+Business 

Media: 115–131. 

Krohn, W.B.; Kenneth, D.E.; Randall, B.B. 1995. Relations among fishers, snow, 

and martens: development and evaluation of two hypotheses. Forestry Chronicle. 

71: 97–105.

Krohn, W.B.; Zielinski, W.J.; Boone, R.B. 1997. Relations among fishers, snow, 

and martens in California: results from small-scale spatial comparisons. In: 

Proulx, G.; Bryant, H.; Woodard, P., eds. Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, 

and management. Edmonton, AB: Provincial Museum of Alberta: 211–232. 

Kucera, T. 2004. Ecology of American martens on the Mammoth Mountain 

Ski area, Inyo National Forest, California. Bishop, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Inyo National Forest. [Pages unknown].

Kucera, T.E.; Zielinski, W.J.; Barrett, R. 1995. Current distribution of the 

American marten, Martes americana, in California. California Fish and Game. 

81: 96–103.

Lacey, R.C.; Clark, T.W. 1993. Simulation modeling of American marten (Martes 

americana) populations: vulnerability to extinction. Western North American 

Naturalist. 53: 282–292.

Laliberte, A.S.; Ripple, W.J. 2004. Range contractions of North American 

carnivores and ungulates. Bioscience. 54: 123–138.

Lawler, J.J.; Safford, H.D.; Girvetz, E.H. 2012. Martens and fishers in a 

changing climate. In: Aubry, K.B.; Zielinski, W.J.; Raphael, M.G.; Proulx, G.; 

Buskirk, S.W., eds. Biology and conservation of martens, sables, and fishers: a 

new synthesis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press: 371–397. 

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Kennedy, M.; Ford, E.D.; Singleton, P.H.; Gaines, W.L.; Lind, 

R.L. 2007. Seeing the forest for the fuel: integrating ecological values and fuels 

management. Forest Ecology and Management. 246: 73–80.

Lenihan, J.M.; Drapek, R.; Bachelet, D.; Neilson, R.P. 2003. Climate change 

effects on vegetation distribution, carbon, and fire in California. Ecological 

Applications. 13: 1667–1681.
429

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Lindström, E.R.; Brainerd, S.M.; Helldin, J.O.; Overskaug, K. 1995. Pine 

marten–red fox interactions: A case of intraguild predation? Annales Zoologici 

Fennici. 32: 123–130.

Lofroth, E.C.; Raley, C.M.; Higley, J.M.; Truex, R.L.; Yaeger, J.S.; Lewis, 

J.C.; Happe, P.J.; Finley, L.L.; Naney, R.H.; Hale, L.J.; Krause, A.L.; 

Livingston, S.A.; Myers, A.M.; Brown, R.N. 2010. Conservation of fishers 

(Martes pennanti) in south-central British Columbia, western Washington, 

western Oregon, and California—volume I: conservation assessment. Denver, 

CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 154 p.

Long, R.A.; MacKay, P.; Zielinski, W.J.; Ray, J.C., eds. 2008. Noninvasive 

survey methods for carnivores. Washington, DC: Island Press. 400 p.

Martin, S. 1987. Ecology of the pine marten (Martes americana) at Sagehen 

Creek, California. Berkeley, CA: University of California–Berkeley. 446 p. 

Ph.D. dissertation.

Martin, S.K. 1994. Feeding ecology of American martens and fishers. In: Buskirk, 

S.; Harestad, A.; Raphael, M.; Powell, R., eds. Martens, sables, and fishers. 

Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press: 297–315.

Martin, S.K.; Barrett, R.H. 1991. Resting site selection by marten at Sagehen 

Creek, California. Northwestern Naturalist. 72: 37–42.

McDonald, P. 1990. California black oak. In: Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H., tech. 

coords. Silvics of North America: Vol. 2. Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 661–671.

McKelvey, K.S.; Johnston, J.D. 1992. Historical perspectives on forests of 

the Sierra Nevada and the Transverse Ranges of southern California: forest 

conditions at the turn of the century. In: Verner, J.; McKelvey, K.S.; Noon, 

B.R.; Gutierrez, R.J.; Gould, G.I.; Beck, T.W., eds. The California spotted owl: 

a technical assessment of its current condition. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station: 225–246.

McKenzie, D.; Gedalof, Z.; Peterson, D.L.; Mote, P. 2004. Climatic change, 

wildfire, and conservation. Conservation Biology. 18: 890–902.

Moriarty, K.M.; Zielinski, W.J.; Gonzales, A.G.; Dawson, T.E.: Boatner, 

K.M.; Wilson, C.A.; Schlexer, F.V.; Pilgrim, K.L.; Copeland, J.P.; Schwartz 

M.K. 2009. Wolverine confirmation in California after nearly a century: Native 

or long-distance immigrant? Northwest Science. 83: 154–162. 
430

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Moriarty, K.M.; Zielinski, W.J.; Forsman, E.D. 2011. Decline in American 

marten occupancy rates at Sagehen Experimental Forest, California. Journal 

of Wildlife Management. 75: 1774–1787.

Mortenson, L.A. 2011. Spatial and ecological analysis of red fir decline in 

California using FIA data. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 

96 p. M.S. thesis.

Naney, R.H.; Finley, L.L.; Lofroth, E.C.; Happe, P.J.; Krause, A.L.; Raley, 

C.M.; Truex, R.L.; Hale, L.J.; Higley, J.M.; Kosic, A.D.; Lewis, J.C.; 

Livingston, S.A.; Macfarlane, D.C.; Myers, A.M.; Yaeger, J.S. 2012. 

Conservation of fishers (Martes pennanti) in south-central British Columbia, 

western Washington, western Oregon, and California—volume III: threat 

assessment. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. 55 p.

North, M.; Stine, P.; O’Hara, K.; Zielinski, W.; Stephens, S. 2009. An 

ecosystem management strategy for Sierran mixed-conifer forests. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49 p.

Perrine, J.D.; Campbell, L.A.; Green, G.A. 2010. Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes 

vulpes necator): a conservation assessment. Tech. Rep. R5-FR-010. Vallejo, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 42 p.

Porter, A.D.; St Clair, C.C.; de Vries, A. 2005. Fine-scale selection by marten 

during winter in a young deciduous forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

35: 901–909.

Potvin, F.; Belanger, L.; Lowell, K. 2000. Marten habitat selection in a clearcut 

boreal landscape. Conservation Biology. 14: 844–857.

Powell, R.A. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology and behavior. 2nd ed. 

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 237 p.

Powell, R.A.; Buskirk, S.W.; Zielinski, W.J. 2003. Fisher and marten (Martes 

pennanti and Martes americana). In: Feldhamer, G.; Thompson, B.; Chapman, 

J., eds. Wild mammals of North America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins 

University Press: 635–649.
431

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Powell, R.A.; Zielinski, W.J. 1994. Fisher. In: Ruggiero, L.F.; Aubry, K.B.; 

Buskirk, S.W.; Zielinski, W.J., eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest 

carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station: 38–73.

Purcell, K.L.; Mazzoni, A.K.; Mori, S.R.; Boroski, B.B. 2009. Resting 

structures and resting habitat of fishers in the southern Sierra Nevada, California. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 258: 2696–2706.

Purcell, K.L.; Thomas, C.M.; Zielinski, W.J. 2012. Fishers and American 

martens. In: North, M., ed. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station: 47–60.

Raley, C.M.; Lofroth, E.C.; Truex, R.L.; Yaeger, J.S.; Higley, J.M. 2012.

Habitat ecology of fishers in western North America: a new synthesis. In: Aubry, 

K.B.; Zielinski, W.J.; Raphael, M.J.; Proulx, G.; Buskirk, S.W., eds. Biology and 

conservation of martens, sables, and fishers: a new synthesis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell 

University Press: 231–254.

Ripple, W.J.; Beschta, R.L. 2004. Wolves and the ecology of fear: Can predation 

risk structure ecosystems? Bioscience. 54: 755–766.

Roberts, S.L.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Miles, A.K.; Kelt, D.A. 2011. Effects 

of fire on spotted owl site occupancy in a late-successional forest. Biological 

Conservation. 144: 610–619.

Roemer, G.W.; Gompper, M.E.; Van Valkenburgh, B. 2009. The ecological role 

of the mammalian mesocarnivore. Bioscience. 59: 165–173.

Roloff, G.J.; Mealey, S.P.; Bailey, J.D. 2012. Comparative hazard assessment for 

protected species in a fire-prone landscape. Forest Ecology and Management. 

277: 1–10.

Roy, D.G.; Vankat, J.L. 1999. Reversal of human-induced vegetation changes 

in Sequoia National Park, California. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

29: 399–412.

Sato, J.J.; Wolsan, M.; Prevosti, F.J.; D’Elía, G.; Begg, C.; Begg, K.; Hosoda, 

T.; Campbell, K.L.; Suzuki, H. 2012. Evolutionary and biogeographic 

history of weasel-like carnivorans (Musteloidea). Molecular Phylogenetics 

and Evolution. 63(3): 745–757.
432

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Scheller, R.M.; Spencer, W.D.; Rustigian-Romsos, H.; Syphard, A.D.; Ward, 

B.C.; Strittholt, J.R. 2011. Using stochastic simulation to evaluate competing 

risks of wildfires and fuels management on an isolated forest carnivore. 

Landscape Ecology. 26: 1491–1504. 

Scholl, A.E.; Taylor, A.H. 2010. Fire regimes, forest change, and self-organization 

in an old-growth mixed-conifer forest, Yosemite National Park, USA. Ecological 

Applications. 20: 362–380.

Slauson, K.M.; Zielinski, W.J.; Kirk, T.A. 2010. Effects of forest restoration 

on mesocarnivores in the northern redwood region of northwestern California. 

Arcata, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. 29 p. http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/mammals/

HumboldtMarten/documents/Effects%20of%20Forest%20Restoration%20

on%20Mesocarnivores_FINAL2.pdf. (18 December 2013).

Spencer, W.D. 1987. Seasonal rest-site preferences of pine martens in the northern 

Sierra Nevada. Journal Wildlife Management. 51: 616–621.

Spencer, W.D.; Barrett, R.H.; Zielinski, W.J. 1983. Marten habitat preferences in 

the northern Sierra Nevada. Journal Wildlife Management. 47: 1181–1186.

Spencer, W.D.; Beier, P.; Penrod, K.; Winters, K.; Paulman, C.; RustigianRomsos, H.; Strittholt, J.; Parisi, M.; Pettler, A. 2010. California essential 

habitat connectivity project: a strategy for conserving a connected California. 

Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department 

of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration. http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/

FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18366. (18 December 2013).

Spencer, W.D.; Rustigian-Romsos, H. 2012. Decision-support maps and 

recommendations for conserving rare carnivores in the interior mountains of 

California. Corvallis, OR: Conservation Biology Institute. 49 p.

Spencer, W.D.; Rustigian-Romsos, H.; Strittholt, J.R.; Scheller, R.; Zielinski, 

W.J.; Truex, R. 2011. Using occupancy and population models to assess habitat 

conservation opportunities for an isolated carnivore population. Biological 

Conservation. 144: 788–803.

Stephens, S.L.; McIver, J.D.; Boerner, R.E.J.; Fettig, C.J.; Fontaine, J.B.; 

Hartsough, B.R.; Kennedy, P.; Schwilk, D.W. 2012. Effects of forest fuel 

reduction treatments in the United States. BioScience. 62: 549–560.
433

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Thompson, C.M.; Purcell, K.L.; Garner, J.; Green, R. 2010. Kings River fisher 

project: progress report 2007–2010. Fresno, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 37 p.

Thompson, C.M.; Zielinski, W.J.; Purcell, K.L. 2011. The use of landscape 

trajectory analysis to evaluate management risks: a case study with the fisher in 

the Sierra National Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management. 75: 1164–1176.

Thompson, I.D. 1994. Marten populations in uncut and logged boreal forests in 

Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Management. 58: 272–280.

Thompson, I.D.; Fryxell, J.; Harrison, D.J. 2012. Improved insights into use of 

habitat by American martens. In: Aubry, K.; Zielinski, W.; Raphael, M.; Proulx, 

G.; Buskirk, S., eds. Biology and conservation of martens, sables, and fishers: a 

new synthesis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press: 209–230.

Truex, R.L.; Zielinski, B. 2013. Short-term effects of fire and fire surrogate 

treatments on fisher habitat in the Sierra Nevada. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 293: 85–91.

Tucker, J.M.; Schwartz, M.K.; Truex, R.L.; Pilgrim, K.L.; Allendorf, F.W. 

2012. Historical and contemporary DNA indicate fisher decline and isolation 

occurred prior to European settlement of California. PLos One. 7(12): e52803. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052803.

Underwood, E.C.; Viers, J.H.; Quinn, J.F.; North, M. 2010. Using topography 

to meet wildlife and fuels treatment objectives in fire-suppressed landscapes. 

Environmental Management. 46: 809–819.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2001. Sierra 

Nevada forest plan amendment: final environmental impact statement. Vallejo, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region. 55 p. http://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/

LawsPoliciesRegulation/KeyForestServicePolicy/SierraNevadaFramework/

Framework-FSROD01.pdf. (18 December 2013).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2004. Sierra 

Nevada forest plan amendment: final supplemental environmental impact 

statement. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/

fsBdev3_046095.pdf. (18 December 2013).
434

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Van de Water, K.M.; Safford, H.D. 2011. A summary of fire frequency estimates 

for California vegetation before Euro-American settlement. Fire Ecology. 

7: 26–58.

Waters, J.R.; Zabel, C.J. 1995. Northern flying squirrel densities in fir forests of 

northeastern California. Journal of Wildlife Management. 59: 858–866.

Weir, R.D.; Phinney, M.; Lofroth, E.C. 2012. Big, sick, and rotting: why tree size, 

damage, and decay are important to fisher reproductive habitat. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 265: 230–240.

Weir, R.D.; Corbould, F.B. 2010. Factors affecting landscape occupancy by fishers 

in north-central British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management. 74: 405–410.

Wisely, S.M.; Buskirk, S.W.; Russell, G.A.; Aubry, K.B.; Zielinski, W.J.; 

Lessa, E.P. 2004. Genetic diversity and structure of the fisher (Martes pennanti) 

in a peninsular and peripheral metapopulation. Journal of Mammalogy. 85: 

640–648.

Zhao, F.; Sweitzer, R.A.; Guo, Q.; Kelly, M. 2012. Characterizing habitats 

associated with fisher den structures in the Southern Sierra Nevada, California 

using discrete return lidar. Forest Ecology and Management. 280: 112–119.

Zielinski, W.J.; Baldwin, J.A.; Truex, R.L.; Tucker, J.M.; Flebbe, P.A. 2012. 

Estimating trend in occupancy for the southern Sierra fisher (Martes pennanti) 

population. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management. http://fwspubs.org/doi/

pdf/10.3996/012012-JFWM-002. (18 December 2013).

Zielinski, W.J.; Duncan, N.P.; Farmer, E.C.; Truex, R.L.; Clevenger, A.P.; 

Barrett, R.H. 1999. Diet of fishers (Martes pennanti) at the southernmost extent 

of their range. Journal of Mammalogy. 80: 961–971.

Zielinski, W.J.; Gray, A.N.; Dunk, J.R.; Sherlock, J.W.; Dixon, G.E. 2010.

Using Forest Inventory and Analysis data and the Forest Vegetation Simulator 

to predict and monitor fisher (Martes pennanti) resting habitat suitability. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-232. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 31 p.

Zielinski, W.J.; Kucera, T.E.; Barrett, R.H. 1995. Current distribution of the 

fisher, Martes pennanti, in California. California Fish and Game. 81: 104–112.
435

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Zielinski, W.J.; Mori, S. 2001. What is the status and change in the geographic 

distribution and relative abundance of fishers? Adaptive management strategy, 

Sierra Nevada framework, study plan. Arcata, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Zielinski, W.J.; Slauson, K.M.; Bowles, A.E. 2008. Effects of off-highway 

vehicle use on the American marten. Journal of Wildlife Management. 

72: 1558–1571.

Zielinski, W.J.; Slauson, K.M.; Carroll, C.R.; Kent, C.J.; Kudrna, D.G. 2001. 

Status of American martens in coastal forests of the Pacific states. Journal of 

Mammalogy. 82: 478–490.

Zielinski, W.J.; Spencer, W.D.; Barrett, R.D. 1983. Relationship between 

food habits and activity patterns of pine martens. Journal of Mammalogy. 

64: 387–396.

Zielinski, W.J.; Truex, R.L.; Dunk, J.R.; Gaman, T. 2006. Using forest 

inventory data to assess fisher resting habitat suitability in California. Ecological 

Applications. 16: 1010–1025.

Zielinski, W.J.; Truex, R.L.; Schlexer, F.V.; Campbell, L.A.; Carroll, C. 2005. 

Historical and contemporary distributions of carnivores in forests of the Sierra 

Nevada, California, U.S.A. Journal of Biogeography. 32: 1385–1407.

Zielinski, W.J.; Truex, R.L.; Schmidt, G.A.; Schlexer, F.V.; Schmidt, K.N.; 

Barrett, R.H. 2004a. Resting habitat selection by fishers in California. Journal 

of Wildlife Management. 68: 475–492.

Zielinski, W.J.; Truex, R.L.; Schmidt, G.A.; Schlexer, F.V.; Schmidt, K.N.; 

Barrett, R.H.; O’Shea, T.J. 2004b. Home range characteristics of fishers in 

California. Journal of Mammalogy. 85: 649–657.
436

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247
437

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

John J. Keane1

Summary

California spotted owls (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) are top trophic-level avian 

predators associated with mature forests characterized by dense canopies and large 

trees, snags, and logs in the Sierra Nevada. Owls show the strongest associations 

with mature forest conditions for nesting and roosting and will forage in a broader 

range of vegetation types. California spotted owls use habitat at multiple scales 

ranging from (1) patches and stands used for nesting and foraging, (2) home ranges 

that support a territorial pair of owls, and (3) landscapes necessary to support viable 

populations. Multiscalar management is needed to address the habitat requirements 

of California spotted owls. Recent research reinforces the importance of mature 

forest to spotted owl occupancy, survival, and habitat quality. These studies have 

also demonstrated that some level of heterogeneity is also associated with highquality habitat for spotted owls. California spotted owls seem to be able to persist in 

landscapes that experience low- to moderate-severity fire, as well as some level of 

mixed-severity wildfire. Little information is available to evaluate how California 

spotted owls and their habitats are affected by mechanical treatments. New forest 

management concepts, based on recent research, have proposed focusing efforts on 

restoration of vegetation conditions at patch, stand, and landscape scales that would 

be more similar to the heterogeneous conditions that would occur under a wildfiredominated natural disturbance regime. Although some degree of uncertainty exists, 

management approaches that seek to restore ecological resilience and the role of 

wildfire as the primary natural disturbance agent may produce landscapes capable 

of supporting viable populations of spotted owls, provided that mature forest 

conditions characterized by dense canopies and important large conifer and oak 

trees can be maintained. Current knowledge is incomplete regarding the conditions 

necessary to maintain high-quality owl territories and viable populations under 

these new forest management concepts. Future forest management efforts will 

require carefully constructed monitoring and adaptive management components to 

reduce uncertainty and advance current knowledge about owl territory needs and 

population viability. In addition to habitat concerns, California spotted owls face a 

significant emerging threat owing to the recent range expansion of barred owls into 

the Sierra Nevada. Barred owls appear to be competitively dominant over spotted 

Chapter 7.2—California Spotted Owl: 

Scientific Considerations for Forest Planning

1 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.
438

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

owls and have the capacity to displace or replace spotted owls at sites where they 

co-occur. Future planning efforts may need to consider the potentially confounding 

effect of barred owls on California spotted owl habitat requirements, should barred 

owls continue to increase their distribution and abundance in the Sierra Nevada. 

This synthesis reviews the current knowledge and threats to California spotted owls 

in the Sierra Nevada reported since publication of the Sierra Nevada Forest Planning Amendment in 2001.

Introduction

California spotted owls (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) (fig. 1) have been at the 

forefront of Sierra Nevada management and conservation debates for 25 years 

because of their strong habitat associations with commercially valuable large 

trees, snags, and late-successional forests. Initial concerns focused on the effects 

of timber harvest on large trees and late-successional habitat and potential risks to 

California spotted owl population viability. In recent years, the debate over Sierra 

Nevada forest management and California spotted owls has broadened with growing recognition that past management practices, specifically timber harvest and 

fire suppression, have fundamentally changed forest structure, composition, and 

function over the last 100 years (North et al. 2009). Removal of fire as a primary 

natural disturbance process, coupled with reductions in large trees and late-successional forests through timber harvest, has resulted in contemporary Sierra Nevada 

forests that are generally more homogenous at multiple spatial scales, have higher 

densities of shade-tolerant tree species and reduced numbers of large trees, and are 

at greater risk of high-severity wildfire compared to their historical counterparts. 

Additionally, the extent and severity of wildfire has increased in the Sierra Nevada 

and across the Western United States as a result of climate change (Miller et al. 

2009, Westerling et al. 2006). Eighty-five percent of known California spotted owl 

sites occur in moderate- or high-risk fire areas in the Sierra Nevada (USDA FS 

2001), and though management and restoration of large trees and late-successional 

forest remains a primary objective of spotted owl management, there is uncertainty 

about the relative tradeoffs of actively managing forests to reduce wildfire risk and 

no-management approaches that leave habitat intact but do not address wildfire 

concerns. This issue is embedded within broader discussions about the most effective strategies for addressing long-term resilience and restoration of Sierra Nevada 

forests (North et al. 2009). Finally, range expansion of the barred owl (Strix varia) 

in the Sierra Nevada poses an increasing risk factor to California spotted owls. 

Extensive scientific literature reviews on California spotted owls have been 

conducted as part of the California Spotted Owl Technical Review (CASPO) 

In recent years, the 

debate over Sierra 

Nevada forest management and California 

spotted owls has 

broadened with 

growing recognition 

that past management 

practices, specifically 

timber harvest and 

fire suppression, have 

fundamentally changed 

forest structure, composition, and function 

over the last 100 years.
439

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

(Verner et al. 1992) and during development of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment (SNFPA) (USDA FS 2001). The goal of this chapter is to synthesize 

scientific information on the California spotted owl that has been reported since the 

SNFPA. Although this section is focused on California spotted owl, relevant papers 

from the northern spotted owl (S.o. caurina) and Mexican spotted owl (S.o. lucida) 

subspecies are also included. 

Ecological Context

As top-trophic level avian predators in Sierra Nevada forests, California spotted 

owls have several characteristics that are broadly associated with increased species 

vulnerability: they have large individual spatial requirements and low population 

densities, and they are habitat specialists. Spotted owls have high adult survival 

rates and low reproductive rates—life history characteristics associated with species that are long lived with sporadic reproduction in response to variable environmental conditions. Although they are adaptations to variable environments, these 

life history characteristics also render spotted owl populations slow to recover from 

population declines. Spotted owl populations are regulated by territorial behavior in 

which owl pairs defend non-overlapping territories that include nesting and foraging habitat. They exhibit this behavior in response to resources and conditions, such 

as habitat, weather, prey, and competitors, that influence population dynamics. Maintaining viable populations of owls requires 

consideration and management of landscape vegetation conditions 

and dynamics. Primary conservation and management concerns at 

the population-landscape scale include managing for a distribution 

of high-quality territories that support high adult survival and high 

reproduction (= high quality) and facilitate successful dispersal and 

recruitment. Management efforts would benefit from considering 

the nested structure of spotted owl habitat associations at multiple 

scales, ranging from patches/stands used by individual owls for 

nesting, roosting, and foraging, to territories required to support 

a pair of owls, and up to landscapes necessary to support viable 

populations. These different spatial scales are important to consider 

in formulating strategies to promote forest restoration, resilience, 

and fire management, and they are consistent with current forest 

management proposals advocating a multiscale perspective that 

encompasses a patch-scale focus to increase vegetation heterogeneity nested within a landscape-scale focus that considers topography, 

elevation, latitude, and natural disturbance regimes. Figure 1—California spotted owl. 

Tom Munton

Management efforts 

would benefit from 

considering the nested 

structure of spotted owl 

habitat associations at 

multiple scales, ranging 

from patches/stands 

used by individual owls 

for nesting, roosting, 

and foraging, to 

territories required to 

support a pair of owls, 

and up to landscapes 

necessary to support 

viable populations.
440

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Population Distribution, Status, Trends, and Genetics

Historical and Current Distribution 

Little is known about the historical distribution, abundance, and habitat associations 

of California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada (Gutiérrez 1994, Verner et al. 1992). 

Early inventory and survey efforts are described in Verner et al. (1992). The first 

systematic efforts to survey California spotted owls occurred in 1973 and 1974, 

followed by broad efforts to inventory California spotted owls across the Sierra 

Nevada during the late 1980s and early 1990s. More recently, inventory and survey 

efforts have largely consisted of project-level surveys, generally conducted for 1 

to 2 years in support of project implementation, and demographic study area-level 

surveys at four study sites where consistent annual monitoring has occurred over a 

much longer time period (Blakesley et al. 2010, Franklin et al. 2004).

Verner et al. (1992) found no evidence of range contractions or expansions of 

California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada. However, they identified 11 areas 

of concern where potential gaps in distribution may become an issue owing to 

fragmentation or bottlenecks in the distribution of owls or their habitat if the status 

of the owl in the Sierra Nevada were to deteriorate. No research has addressed the 

status of owls or their habitat in these areas of concern since the publication of 

CASPO in 1992. Anecdotal observations of California spotted owls suggest that 

they are still widely distributed across their historical range in the Sierra Nevada.

Population Status and Trends

The most recent estimate of population size for California spotted owls in the Sierra 

Nevada reported 1865 owl sites, with 1,399 sites on National Forest System (NFS) 

lands, 129 owl sites on National Park Service (NPS) lands, 314 sites on private 

lands, 14 sites on Bureau of Land Management lands, 8 on state of California lands, 

and 1 on Native American lands (USFWS 2006). Care should be used interpreting 

these estimates of population numbers as they represent a compilation of all sites 

where California spotted owls have been recorded over the past 30 to 40 years; 

they should not be interpreted as an accurate estimate of current population size 

because the proportion of sites still occupied by owls at the current time is not 

known, and there is evidence for recent population declines in the Sierra Nevada 

(see below). Demographic monitoring from four study areas from 1990 to 2011 

provides the sole source of empirical data on the status of and trends in California 

spotted owl populations in the Sierra Nevada. Three of the demographics studies 

are conducted on NFS lands (on the Lassen, Eldorado and Sierra National Forests), 

and the fourth study is located on NPS lands (Sequoia–Kings Canyon National 
441

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Parks). Two meta-analysis workshops have been conducted to analyze California 

spotted owl demographics and population trends across the four studies (Blakesley 

et al. 2010, Franklin et al. 2004). Recent research of population trends provides 

evidence for population declines on the three studies on NFS lands and a stable/

increasing population in the NPS study area, and it is providing new approaches for 

evaluating spotted owl population trends and interpreting the probability of population declines (Conner et al. 2013; Tempel and Gutiérrez 2013). Tempel and Gutierrez 

(2013) reported declines in both territory occupancy and rate of population change 

measured by realized population change for the Eldorado National Forest study 

area. Conner et al. (2013) used a Bayesian approach for estimating the probability of 

different levels of population decline using realized population change and reported 

probabilities of decline of 93 percent and 78 percent for the Lassen and Sierra 

National Forests study areas, respectively, and an 8 percent probability of a stable or 

increasing population for the Sequoia-Kings Canyon study area. The factors driving 

these population trends are not known. 

Population Genetics

Population genetics studies support the recognition of three subspecies of spotted 

owls based on both microsatellites (Funk et al. 2008) and mitochondrial DNA 

(Barrowclough et al. 1999, 2005, 2011; Haig et al. 2001, 2004). Early descriptions 

of spotted owl distribution based on limited numbers of specimens and records 

suggested that the range of northern and California spotted owls did not overlap 

(Grinnell and Miller 1944). More recent extensive survey and inventory efforts have 

documented a continuous distribution of spotted owls between the subspecies, and 

initial genetic analyses indicated the boundary between subspecies to be in northern California or southern Oregon (Barrowclough et al. 2005, Funk et al. 2008). 

Based on these initial genetic assessments, Gutiérrez and Barrowclough (2005) 

proposed the Pit River as a geographical boundary between the subspecies because 

it was located approximately halfway between populations known to consist largely 

of pure northern spotted owl haplotypes near Mount Shasta and largely pure 

California spotted owl haplotypes near Lassen Peak. However, recent research has 

refined understanding of genetic variation across this region and indicates that a 

hybrid zone exists from approximately 94 km north of Mount Shasta to southeast 

of Lassen Peak, and that a more appropriate place to designate a boundary between 

northern and California spotted owls would be between the Pit River and Lassen 

Peak (Barrowclough et al. 2011). 

Recent research of 

population trends 

provides evidence for 

population declines on 

the three studies on 

NFS lands and a stable/

increasing population 

in the NPS study area.
442

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Habitat Associations 

Patch/Stand Scale

Nest and roost habitat—

Nest and roost site habitat requirements are the best studied aspect of California 

spotted owl habitat associations. Spotted owls nest in cavities, on tops of broken 

trees, and on platforms located in older, large-diameter live conifers, oaks, and 

snags. Conifer nest trees average about 110 cm (45 in) diameter at breast height 

(dbh) in the Sierra Nevada (Verner et al. 1992). Large conifers, oak trees, and snags 

are key habitat elements for California spotted owls, and large, downed logs resulting from these trees are important habitat elements for key prey species. Nests and 

roosts are typically located in stands that have ≥70 percent total canopy cover and 

contain one or several large trees of declining vigor and multiple canopy layers 

resulting from mixtures of differently aged trees. 

Foraging habitat—

Recent telemetry studies of spotted owl foraging habitat use consistently indicate 

that owls use a broader range of vegetation conditions for foraging than they do for 

nesting and roosting (Ganey et al. 2003, Glenn et al. 2004, Irwin et al. 2007, Williams et al. 2011). California spotted owl foraging habitat use across all forest types 

and vegetation conditions remains a poorly understood aspect of their ecology. Use 

of a broader range of vegetation conditions for foraging is likely governed by the 

abundance and availability of important prey species. Northern flying squirrels 

(Glaucomys sabrinus) and dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) dominate 

the biomass of owl diets in the Sierra Nevada, with deer mice (Peromyscus 

maniculatus), pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.), and other small mammals, birds, 

and insects also a component of the diet (Verner et al. 1992). Williams et al. (1992) 

synthesized the available ecological and habitat association information for key 

California spotted owl prey species. Given the importance of prey to spotted owls, 

much research has focused on small mammal ecology and habitat associations 

(Coppeto et al. 2006, Innes et al. 2007, Lehmkuhl et al. 2006, Meyer et al. 2007) 

and the effects of forest treatments on small mammals (Amacher et al. 2008). 

Results from studies of small mammal habitat associations demonstrate the speciesspecific importance of vegetation type, stand characteristics, and specific habitat 

elements (e.g., shrubs, downed logs, snags, truffles), and that habitat associations 

may vary in different parts of the Sierra Nevada. Fontaine and Kennedy (2012) and 

Stephens et al. (2012) provide recent reviews of fuels treatment effects on wildlife. 

A full review of the literature on habitat associations and forest management effects 
443

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

on key California spotted owl prey species is beyond the scope of this review. However, given the importance of prey to California spotted owls and other carnivores 

in the Sierra Nevada, a future synthesis of scientific information on small mammal 

habitat associations and effects of forest management on their populations and habitat is needed. This information may inform and help tailor development of future 

forest management treatments and desired landscape conditions to different parts of 

the Sierra Nevada, as well as identify important information and research gaps. 

Core Area/Home Range/Territory Scale

The size of California spotted owl home ranges is highly variable; it appears to vary 

with latitude and elevation, and likely in response to the availability and arrangement of vegetation types and dominant prey species (Gutiérrez et al. 1995). Across 

the Sierra Nevada, home range sizes are smallest in low-elevation, hardwood-dominated sites, where dusky-footed woodrats are the dominant prey species; intermediate in mixed-conifer forests; and largest in true fir forests of the northern Sierra 

Nevada, where northern flying squirrels are the dominant prey species (Zabel et al. 

1995). A number of studies have reported that the proportion of older forest is the 

best predictor of home range size, with smaller home ranges having higher proportions of older forest (Glenn et al. 2004, Gutiérrez et al. 1995). Recently, Williams 

et al. (2011) reported that the number of vegetation patches (a measure of habitat 

heterogeneity) is the best predictor of home range size for California spotted owls in 

the central Sierra Nevada, with larger home ranges associated with greater habitat 

heterogeneity. Whether owls were selecting home ranges for vegetation heterogeneity, or simply using more heterogeneous home ranges that reflected habitat availability or increased travel distances associated with the lack of large areas of older 

forest within the study area, was uncertain (Williams et al. 2011). 

Recent research includes observational studies that describe associations 

between habitat and spotted owl occurrence, occupancy, and demographic 

parameters (survival, reproduction, habitat fitness potential) at the core area and 

home range scales (Blakesley et al. 2005; Dugger et al. 2005, 2011; Franklin et al. 

2000; Gaines et al. 2010; Irwin et al. 2004; Kroll et al. 2010; Lee and Irwin 2005; 

McComb et al. 2002; Olson et al. 2004; Seamans and Gutiérrez 2007a). Although 

the size of the analysis areas varied across studies, habitat associations were generally assessed at similar spatial scales (core areas or home range scales) around 

spotted owl nests and roost or activity centers. Vegetation classifications and habitat 

definitions also varied across studies, but the studies generally defined spotted owl 

habitat as stands with large trees and high canopy cover (hereafter referred to as 

mature forest; see individual studies for specific definitions of habitat used in each). 
444

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Although recent studies are geographically and spatially varied, they share 

many key themes. Results consistently reinforce original findings of the strong 

association between spotted owls and mature forest habitat in core areas around 

nest sites. Modeling of habitat conditions with survival and occupancy shows that 

important habitat metrics at core area and home range scales include the total 

amounts of mature forest or the amounts of interior mature forest (defined as the 

amount of mature forest greater than some distance from an edge). Adult spotted 

owl survival is positively associated with the amount of mature forest (Blakesley et 

al. 2005; Dugger et al. 2005, 2011; Franklin et al. 2000; Olson et al. 2004). Territory occupancy is also positively related to the amounts of mature forest at core 

area scales for both California and northern spotted owls, with higher colonization 

rates and lower extinction rates associated with territories with more mature forest 

(Blakesley et al. 2005, Dugger et al. 2011, Seamans and Gutiérrez 2007a). Dugger et 

al. (2011) reported that northern spotted owl extinction and colonization rates were 

negatively associated with the degree of fragmentation of mature forest across the 

larger home range.

Spotted owl reproduction exhibits high annual variation. Franklin et al. (2000) 

reported that 43 percent of annual variation in reproduction is explained by habitat 

covariates; however, most studies report little influence of habitat on variation in 

reproduction (Blakesley et al. 2005, Dugger et al. 2005, Olson et al. 2004). Weather 

may directly influence spotted owls, but it may also indirectly influence them by 

affecting the abundance or availability of prey. In general, annual variation in 

reproduction has been shown to be associated with weather (the importance of 

specific weather metrics differs among studies), owl age/experience, reproduction 

in the previous year, and the presence of barred owls nearby (Blakesley et al. 2005; 

Dugger et al. 2005, 2011; Kroll et al. 2010; MacKenzie et al. 2012; Olson et al. 2004; 

Seamans et al. 2001). 

Three studies have investigated territory habitat quality and its association with 

habitat amounts and patterns (Dugger et al. 2005, Franklin et al. 2000, Olson et al. 

2004). For the purposes of these studies, habitat quality was defined as habitat fitness 

potential, an integrative metric that incorporates territory-specific estimates of survival and reproduction to generate a territory-specific estimate of lambda. Lambda 

is the annual rate of population growth. A lambda value of 1.0 indicates a stable 

population, lambda values >1 indicate an increasing population, and lambda values 

<1.0 indicate a declining population. In terms of territory-specific lambda estimates, 

values >1.0 indicate territories with combinations of owl survival and reproduction 

that result in positive population growth. In all three studies, habitat fitness potential values (indicating high-quality territories) were highest for habitat conditions 

containing mature forest interspersed with a mix of other vegetation types.

Results consistently 

reinforce original 

findings of the strong 

association between 

spotted owls and 

mature forest habitat 

in core areas around 

nest sites.
445

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Several consistent patterns emerge from recent research efforts devoted to 

understanding the factors that contribute to high-quality owl habitat at core area 

and home range spatial scales (i.e., forest conditions that support viable territories). 

First, spotted owl occurrence and survival are significantly related to mature forest 

habitat. Second, higher owl survival and reproduction are also associated with areas 

that have a mix of different vegetation types and edge between mature forest and 

other vegetation types. Third, weather is an important factor influencing spotted owl demographics, particularly reproduction. Finally, spotted owl population 

dynamics are likely governed by both habitat and weather.

Landscape Scale

Spotted owls are a territorial species with each pair defending an exclusive territory, 

and they appear to exhibit an ideal despotic distribution where dominant individuals occupy the highest quality sites (Franklin et al. 2000, Seamans and Gutiérrez 

2006, Zimmerman et al. 2003). In addition to habitat factors, the presence of other 

spotted owls in adjacent territories may also be a factor associated with the probability of a territory being selected (Seamans and Gutiérrez 2006). At the landscape 

scale, spotted owl territories tend to be more regularly spaced than randomly 

distributed. Little information is available at larger landscape scales on the relationship between landscape vegetation patterns and California spotted owl population 

density or number of territories, especially comparative information to assess 

how the number of territories varies across landscapes with different amounts and 

patterns of vegetation. Limited information suggests that the number of spotted 

owl territories may be related to landscape-scale habitat availability (Zabel et al. 

2003). Additionally, creation of large gaps or large areas of low-quality habitat may 

affect dispersal of young and adult owls and successful colonization of unoccupied 

territories. Understanding of the relationships between landscape-scale vegetation 

condition and spotted owl territory density and dispersal behavior is a high priority 

for further research, as current forest fuels, restoration, and wildfire strategies are 

focused on larger landscape scales. 

Effects of Forest Management and Wildfire

Forest Management 

Two general approaches have been used to investigate the effects of forest management on spotted owls: (1) modeling, which is used to project the effects of forest 

treatments on spotted owls and their habitat; and (2) field-based studies, which 

measure the response of spotted owls to forest management effects. Simulation 

modeling suggests that landscape-scale fuels treatments on a small proportion of 

Simulation modeling 

suggests that 

landscape-scale fuels 

treatments on a small 

proportion of the 

landscape can minimize 

effects to owl habitat 

and reduce risk of 

habitat loss to wildfire.
446

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

the landscape can minimize effects to owl habitat and reduce risk of habitat loss to 

wildfire (Ager et al. 2007, Lehmkuhl et al. 2007). Some treatments may also reduce 

fire risk within core areas with minimal effects on owl reproduction (Lee and 

Irwin 2005). Simulation modeling indicates that the long-term benefits of wildfire 

risk reduction may outweigh the short-term effects of treatments on spotted owl 

habitat (Roloff et al. 2012). Models have been developed to spatially integrate fuels 

treatments with protection of spotted owl habitat within landscape-scale restoration efforts (Ager et al. 2012, Gaines et al. 2010, Prather et al. 2008). Results from 

simulation modeling also suggest that fuels treatments can be effectively used to 

reduce wildfire risk and support restoration efforts while providing spotted owl 

habitat at home range and landscape scales.

Numerous observational studies have described spotted owl habitat associations 

(see review above), but very few studies have directly assessed the effects of fuels 

and forest treatments on spotted owls and their habitat. Researchers have long 

advocated for experimental studies to evaluate the effects of forest management 

on spotted owls (Lee and Irwin 2005, Noon and Franklin 2002), and a lack of 

controlled experiments to test important hypotheses for forest management effects 

on spotted owls contributes to continuing controversy (Noon and Blakesley 2006). 

To date, no experiments using before-after control-impact (BACI) designs have 

been conducted, with the exception of a study of forest treatment effects on owl 

foraging on the Eldorado National Forest. These BACI studies are scientifically 

challenging to design, logistically difficult to implement, and expensive to conduct. 

Given the inherent variability in spotted owl populations, large numbers of 

individual owls or owl pairs in experimental and control groups may be necessary 

to have adequate statistical power to detect effects. Planning regulations, regulatory 

requirements (e.g., the National Environmental Policy Act), and legal challenges 

make it logistically difficult to implement extensive treatments across space and 

time to meet rigorous scientific design requirements. In lieu of experimental 

studies, passive adaptive management approaches (sensu Kendall [2001]) have 

been used to investigate the effects of forest management on California spotted 

owls. Under a passive adaptive management framework, managers dictate 

the implementation of treatments in time and space governed by management 

priorities. Researchers attempt to establish a baseline and monitor changes in owl 

response using models to evaluate the evidence for treatment effects on observed 

responses. Inferences from these quasi-experimental, passive adaptive management 

approaches are weaker than those from BACI designs because observed responses 

may result from other uncontrolled factors. Under a BACI design, or active adaptive 

management (sensu Kendall [2001]), treatments and controls are implemented 

in space and time to meet rigorous experimental design criteria as governed by 
447

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

research priorities. Nevertheless, these passive adaptive management approaches 

may be the best option in situations where true experiments are not scientifically, 

logistically, or financially possible, or where political will may be lacking. 

Seamans and Gutiérrez (2007a) reported that California spotted owl territories 

with more mature forest had higher probabilities of being colonized and lower 

probabilities of becoming unoccupied. Alteration of ≥20 ha of mature forest in these 

spotted owl territories may decrease the probability of colonization. It is unclear 

whether breeding dispersal or other factors, such as lower survival, are associated 

with variability in the probability of a territory becoming unoccupied. Nor is it clear 

if the probability of a territory becoming unoccupied is related to the amount of 

mature forest within or among territories (Seamans and Gutiérrez 2007a). 

Three ongoing studies may provide further insight into the effect of forest 

management on California spotted owls. Twenty years of demographic monitoring 

at four study sites distributed across the Sierra Nevada have provided an unparalleled long-term data set on owl occupancy and demographics. Efforts are underway 

to develop post-hoc annual vegetation maps for each study area that can facilitate a 

retrospective meta-analysis to assess habitat associations and investigate the effects 

of forest management on California spotted owl occupancy, survival, and reproduction across the four study areas. Results from the Plumas-Lassen Study and the 

Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project will also provide further modeling 

and monitoring of forest treatment effects on California spotted owls. These ongoing efforts will further understanding of forest treatment and wildfire effects 

on California spotted owls and their habitat in the Sierra Nevada. 

Wildfire

Current information indicates that California spotted owls will occupy landscapes 

that experience low- to moderate-severity wildfire, as well as areas with mixedseverity wildfire that includes some proportion of high-severity fire. Bond et al. 

(2002) reported that first-year postfire adult survival and site fidelity were similar 

at 11 territories that had experienced wildfire compared to unburned sites across 

the range of northern, Mexican, and California spotted owls. In contrast, Clark et 

al. (2011) reported lower adult owl survival 1 to 4 years postfire in eastern Oregon. 

However, their results were likely affected by past logging effects and postfire 

salvage logging that resulted in low overall amounts of remaining suitable habitat 

after the wildfires. Jenness et al. (2004) reported no effects of mixed-severity 

wildfire on Mexican spotted owls at burned sites that experienced an average 

of 16 percent high-severity fire. However, Jenness et al. (2004) stated that the 

statistically nonsignificant higher occupancy and higher reproduction observed at 

unburned sites (31 sites) compared to burned sites (33 sites) were suggestive of a 
448

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

biologically significant effect. They recommended that their results, which indicate 

that wildfires do not affect spotted owls, should be interpreted cautiously because 

of concerns that limited sample sizes and high variability in both burn extent and 

severity across their burned sites may have limited ability (i.e., low statistical 

power) to detect biologically meaningful differences between burned and unburned 

sites. In Yosemite National Park, Roberts et al. (2011) estimated that spotted owls 

had similar occupancy and density between unburned (16 sites) and recently burned 

(16 sites) (<15 years since burn) montane forests that burned primarily at low to 

moderate fire severity. Lee et al. (2012) reported no difference in owl occupancy 

between unburned and burned territories from six fire areas in the Sierra Nevada. 

Further, Lee et al. (2012) concluded that the proportion of high-severity fire (an 

average of 32 percent of suitable vegetation burned within analysis areas) had no 

effect on postfire occupancy by spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada, although the 

amount of high-severity fire was not included in models of occupancy, colonization, 

and extinction and was only qualitatively assessed relative to burned sites. Recently, 

Lee et al. (2013) found no statistically significant effects of wildfire or salvage 

logging on California spotted owls in the mountains of southern California. 

Although not statistically significant, occupancy rates declined by 0.062 in burned 

sites in the first year after wildfire, and postfire salvage logging reduced occupancy 

by an additional 0.046 relative to burned sites without salvage logging. Differences 

in occupancy between unburned versus burned and burned-salvage logged sites 

increased over time. Colonization was positively associated, and extinction 

negatively associated, with the amount of suitable habitat within 203-ha core areas 

around owl sites, and extinction probability was significantly higher when >50 ha of 

suitable habitat burned at high severity within burned sites compared to unburned 

sites (Lee et al. 2013).

Little information is available on patch-scale habitat use in postfire landscapes. 

Bond et al. (2009) reported that owls nested and roosted in unburned or low- to 

moderate-severity patches of forest, and, 4 years after fire, they foraged selectively 

in high-severity burn patches that were located within larger home ranges that generally burned at low to moderate severities. Patches of early-successional vegetation 

recovering from high-severity fire may provide access to early-successional associated prey, such as woodrats and gophers, within the mosaic of mixed fire severity 

landscapes. Additional information is needed on habitat use by spotted owls in 

postfire landscapes. Further, it is important to know if the owls using the postfire 

landscapes are the original occupants or whether the postfire site was colonized by 

different owls to more fully understand the effects of wildfire on spotted owls. 
449

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Recent findings indicate that California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada are 

able to persist in landscapes that experience low- to moderate-severity and mixedseverity wildfires. However, several key uncertainties remain regarding long-term 

occupancy and demographic performance of spotted owls at burned sites. Specifically, uncertainty exists regarding how increasing trends in the amounts and patch 

sizes of high-severity fire will affect California spotted owl occupancy, demographics, and habitat over longer timeframes. Additionally, further information is needed 

on the effects of postfire salvage logging on spotted owl habitat. 

Additional Ecological Stressors

Barred Owls

Barred owl (Strix varia) range expansion has posed a significant threat to the 

viability of the northern spotted owl (Gutiérrez et al. 2007). Barred owls are native 

to eastern North America but have expanded their range westward into Washington, Oregon, and northern California in the past 40 years and are now found 

throughout the entire range of the northern spotted owl. During initial colonization, 

barred owls may hybridize with spotted owls to produce hybrids (i.e., “sparred” 

owls). As barred owl numbers increase in a local area, they pair with their own 

species. Compared to spotted owls, barred owls are larger, are active both day 

and night, consume a broader diet, have smaller home ranges, and occur at higher 

population densities. These factors render them competitively dominant over 

spotted owls, and they have displaced or replaced northern spotted owls over many 

portions of their range. Inferences regarding barred owl effects on spotted owls 

must be tempered by the fact that studies to date are based on observational and 

correlational studies and require confirmation through experimental assessment of 

barred owl effects. Results to date suggest two key findings: first, barred owls have 

replaced or displaced northern spotted owls over large areas of their range through 

the hypothesized mechanism of interference competition (Dugger et al. 2011); and 

second, although little information is available on how forest management affects 

spotted-barred owl interactions, there is recent evidence suggesting habitat patterns 

can influence occupancy and colonization dynamics (Dugger et al. 2011, Yackulic 

et al. 2012). 

Barred owls are an increasing risk factor for California spotted owls in the 

Sierra Nevada. Barred owls were first recorded within the range of the California 

spotted owl in 1989 on the Tahoe National Forest. Two sparred owls were reported 

in the Eldorado Demographic Study Area during 2003 and 2004 (Seamans et 

al. 2004), and one of these sparred owls is still present on the study area. Barred 

owls were first recorded in the southern Sierra Nevada in 2004 (Steger et al. 

Recent findings 

indicate that California 

spotted owls in the 

Sierra Nevada are 

able to persist in 

landscapes that 

experience low- to 

moderate-severity 

and mixed-severity 

wildfires. However, 

uncertainty exists 

regarding how 

increasing trends 

in the amounts and 

patch sizes of highseverity fire will affect 

California spotted 

owl occupancy, 

demographics, and 

habitat over longer 

timeframes.
450

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

2006). Ongoing research has documented 73 records of barred or sparred owls in 

the Sierra Nevada to date, with the majority of records from the northern Sierra 

Nevada (Tahoe, Plumas, and Lassen National Forests). Of note, five new records of 

barred owls were documented in the Stanislaus and Sierra National Forests in 2012, 

indicating further range expansion of barred owls in the southern Sierra Nevada. 

Barred owl numbers are likely higher than documented in the Sierra Nevada, 

as there have been no systematic surveys for them to date. Rather, barred owls are 

recorded during spotted owl surveys or reported by the public. Spotted owl surveys 

are conducted annually within the four demographic study areas; however, outside 

of these study areas, spotted owl survey efforts are limited and sporadic over 

space and time in response to local project survey requirements. Thus, it is likely 

that additional barred owls are present in the Sierra Nevada given limited spotted 

owl survey work outside of the demographic study areas. Further, species-specific 

survey methods are required to account for differences in response behavior and 

imperfect detection between spotted and barred owls (Wiens et al. 2011). 

Climate Change

Across their range, spotted owls exhibit population-specific demographic relationships with local weather and regional climates (Glenn et al. 2010, 2011; Peery et 

al. 2012). Based solely on projections of climate change (i.e., not incorporating 

other factors such as habitat, etc.), this population-specific variation is anticipated 

to result in population-specific responses to future climate scenarios, which could 

range from little effect to potentially significant effects. These population-specific 

responses could result in high vulnerability. For California spotted owls, Seamans 

and Gutiérrez (2007b) reported that temperature and precipitation during incubation most affected reproductive output, and conditions in winter associated with 

the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) most affected adult survival on the Eldorado 

National Forest. Weather variables explained a greater proportion of the variation in 

reproductive output than they did for survival. Further, these two weather variables 

were also included in the best models predicting annual population growth rate 

(Seamans and Gutiérrez 2007b). MacKenzie et al. (2012) found that SOI or other 

weather variables explained little variation in annual reproduction for this same 

population of owls. Unlike results for California spotted owls in southern California 

reported in Peery et al. (2012), subsequent analyses testing for effects of weather 

variables on demographic parameters showed no clear temporal associations for 

owls on the Eldorado National Forest in the Sierra Nevada.2

2 Gutiérrez, R.J. 2013. Personal communication. Professor, Department of Fisheries, 

Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, 2003 Upper Buford Circle, 

St. Paul, MN 55108. 
451

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Future responses to climate change are likely to be governed by complex interactions of factors that directly affect spotted owls and their habitat, as will indirect factors that can affect habitat (e.g., insect pests, disease, increased fire risk, etc.). Carroll 

(2010) recommended that dynamic models that incorporate vegetation dynamics and 

effects of competitor species in addition to climate variables are needed for rigorous 

assessment of future climate change on spotted owls. 

Disease and Contaminants

Disease can function as an important ecological limiting factor in wildlife populations, especially in the case of invasive diseases introduced into native populations 

that have not co-evolved mechanisms to cope with the risk. Little information exists 

on disease prevalence in California spotted owl populations, and no information 

exists regarding the effects of disease on individual fitness or population viability. 

Blood parasite prevalence sampling for California spotted owls in the northern Sierra 

Nevada documented that 79 percent of individuals were positive for at least one 

infection, whereas 44 percent of individuals tested positive for multiple infections 

(Ishak et al. 2008). Gutiérrez (1989) reported 100 percent blood parasite infection 

rates across all three spotted owl subspecies, suggesting long-term adaptation to high 

parasitism rates.

West Nile virus (WNV), a mosquito-borne flavivirus, was first detected in eastern North America in 1999 and spread rapidly across the continent. West Nile virus 

was first detected in southern California in late 2003 and spread throughout California in late summer of 2004 (Reisen et al. 2004). The virus has been demonstrated to 

have high acute species-specific mortality rates in many raptor species (owls, hawks, 

and their relatives) (Gancz et al. 2004, Marra et al. 2004). None of the 141 individual 

California spotted owl blood samples collected from the southern (Sierra National 

Forest, Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks) or northern (Plumas and Lassen 

National Forests) Sierra Nevada from 2004 to 2008 has tested positive for WNV 

antibodies, which would indicate exposure and survival (Hull et al. 2010). Adult, territorial California spotted owls have high annual survival (80 to 85 percent) that has 

been stable across years, and no evidence has been published from the four long-term 

demographic studies indicating changes in adult owl survival. Nevertheless, although 

no effects have been documented to date, future outbreaks of WNV may pose a risk 

to California spotted owls.

Environmental contaminants have not been identified as potential ecological 

stressors on California spotted owls. However, recent reports of high exposure rates 

of fisher (Pekania pennanti) to rodenticides, likely associated with illegal marijuana 

cultivation, across the southern Sierra Nevada (Gabriel et al. 2012) may have implications for spotted owls and other forest carnivores, as they feed extensively on rodents.
452

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Human Recreation and Disturbance

Disturbance from human recreation and management activities has the potential for 

impacts on California spotted owls. Impacts from recreation and disturbance can 

range from the presence of hikers near owl nests and roosts to loud noises from chain 

saws or motorized vehicles. Additionally, disturbances can be acute (short term) or 

chronic (long term) depending on the type of recreational or management activity. 

Measures of behavioral response or fecal corticosterone hormone levels (hormones 

that reflect stress) have been used to assess spotted owl response to disturbance.

Mexican spotted owls in canyons on the Colorado Plateau exhibited low behavioral responses to hikers at distances ≥55 m from roost sites, and adults and juveniles were unlikely to flush from hikers at distances ≥24 m and >12 m, respectively 

(Swarthout and Steidl 2001). Additionally, the presence of hikers near nests did not 

markedly change Mexican owl behavior, although cumulative effects of high levels 

of recreational hiking near nests may be detrimental (Swarthout and Steidl 2003). 

No differences in reproductive success were observed between Mexican spotted owl 

nests exposed to helicopter and chain saw noise; however, owls exhibited behavioral 

responses to both stimuli, and greater behavioral response to chainsaw noise than 

helicopter noise (Delaney et al. 1999). Results from this study supported management use of a 400-m disturbance buffer around active Mexican spotted owl nests. 

Wasser et al. (1997) reported higher corticosterone hormone levels in male northern 

spotted owls within 0.41 km of roads in Washington, suggesting higher stress levels 

correlated with proximity to roads. Tempel and Gutiérrez (2003, 2004) found little 

evidence for disturbance effects from chain saws and roads, as measured by fecal 

corticosterone hormone levels for California spotted owls on the Eldorado National 

Forest, California. Recently, Hayward et al. (2011) reported a more complex association among road noise and northern spotted owl response on the Mendocino 

National Forest in California. They found no association between baseline hormone 

levels and distance to roads. Rather, owls in this study area exhibited increased 

corticosterone hormone levels in response to acute traffic exposure, and they found 

that owl response may vary with owl life history stage (adults versus juveniles) and 

physiological body condition. Of note, they reported lower reproductive success for 

owls near roads with loud noise versus owls near quiet roads.
453

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Integration of Current Forest Management With 

California Spotted Owl Management and Conservation 

Recent research suggests that fundamental changes in forest management may 

be required to promote resilience, given current forest conditions resulting from 

historical management practices, a changing climate, and an increased focus on 

wildfire, both as a threat to habitat and human values, as well as the primary natural 

disturbance agent that historically has shaped vegetation structure and function 

(Larson and Churchill 2012; North et al. 2009, 2012; Perry et al. 2011). North (2012) 

and North et al. (2009, 2012) have proposed a conceptual forest restoration framework that focuses management perspective across multiple spatial and temporal 

scales when identifying future desired conditions. Key operating concepts focus on 

fine-scale vegetation heterogeneity resulting from the primary role of fire, embedded within landscape vegetation patterns that are influenced by topography, elevation, latitude, and natural fire regimes over longer temporal scales and larger spatial 

scales. At the core of this framework is the hypothesis that forest resilience may 

best be realized by approaches that restore or mimic Sierra Nevada forest structure 

and function under a wildfire-dominated natural disturbance regime, with the goal 

of reintroducing fire as an important process to these systems where and when possible (North 2012; North et al. 2009, 2012).

One key measure of success for the proposed forest restoration framework 

focused on forest resilience will be to sustain biodiversity and well-distributed, 

viable populations of sensitive, focal wildlife species, such as the California spotted owl, fisher, and marten. Similar to the multiscale management considerations 

for forests, management of California spotted owls and their habitat has parallel 

considerations of spatial scales, ranging from patches containing specific habitat 

elements used for nesting and foraging (e.g., large trees, downed logs) to landscapes 

capable of supporting high-quality territories and viable populations. For the past 

20 years, California spotted owl management has been based on recommendations 

provided by the California Spotted Owl Technical Report (Verner et al. 1992). This 

strategy consisted of establishing protected activity centers (PACs) of approximately 300 ac (121.5 ha) for each owl site, and using forest treatments designed to 

maintain large trees within treatment units. Following the Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment (USDA FS 2004), management was adjusted to include a 1,000-

ac (405-ha) home range core, where an additional 700 ac (283.5 ha) outside of the 

PAC is designated and managed as foraging habitat around core areas. Originally, 

the PAC concept was adopted as an interim strategy to reduce risk from timber 

harvest and protect the large trees and mature forest known to be important habitat 

around spotted owl core areas, as well as large trees throughout treated forest areas, 

One key measure 

of success for the 

proposed forest 

restoration framework 

focused on forest 

resilience will be to 

sustain biodiversity 

and well-distributed, 

viable populations of 

sensitive, focal wildlife 

species, such as the 

California spotted owl, 

fisher, and marten.
454

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

until a more comprehensive forest management strategy could be developed. Little 

evaluation of the PAC strategy, and no evaluation of CASPO forest treatments, has 

been conducted, but recent work documents that PACs have been successful in 

protecting important nesting and roosting habitat and that owls use these PACs over 

very long periods of time (Berigan et al. 2012). However, it is uncertain if a reservebased PAC strategy can effectively provide habitat to support a viable population 

of California spotted owls over the long term in the wildfire-structured forests of 

the Sierra Nevada, given increasing trends in wildfire acres burned and amounts of 

high-severity wildfire associated with contemporary forest fuel loads and projected 

future climate change scenarios (Ager et al. 2007, 2012; Gaines et al. 2010; Miller et 

al. 2009; Roloff et al. 2012).

Recommendations proposed by North et al. (2009) focus on using topography, 

aspect, elevation, latitude, and desired vegetation conditions more consistent with 

patterns that would result under a natural disturbance regime structured by wildfire 

to guide management decisions. Management of denser forest habitat conditions 

would be targeted for topographic locations where wildfires would have burned less 

frequently or at lower severities, such as northerly aspects, canyon bottoms, and 

riparian areas. Conversely, south-facing slopes and ridge tops would be managed 

for more open vegetative conditions consistent with patterns that would be expected 

under a more natural fire regime. Nested within the overarching landscape scale, 

vegetation treatments would focus on generating patch-scale heterogeneity in forest 

structure and composition thought to be more consistent with conditions generated 

by a frequent, predominately low- to moderate-severity fire regime. Whether the 

management strategy proposed by North et al. (2009) can provide for viable populations of California owls is a hypothesis that requires field testing and validation.

No information is available on historical spotted owl distribution, numbers, 

or habitat associations under pre-Euro-American forest conditions in the Sierra 

Nevada. California spotted owls were present in these forests, but no information 

is available to evaluate how they interacted with forest landscapes that were generally less dense, more heterogeneous at multiple spatial scales, and dominated by 

large trees. Further, there is no information on the population size and densities of 

California spotted owls that occurred under these historical conditions. Thus, there 

is no base of historical information to convey how California spotted owls might 

respond to future conditions that may be more similar to the pre-Euro-American 

forest conditions in the Sierra Nevada. However, results from recent research on 

spotted owl habitat associations provides a strong basis for identifying and managing for vegetation types (e.g., mature forest) and habitat elements (i.e., large trees, 

logs, and snags) important to spotted owls. 
455

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Recent empirical studies of spotted owl habitat associations consistently reinforce the importance of large trees and mature forest habitat at the stand, core area, 

home range, and landscape scales (Dugger et al. 2005, Franklin et al. 2000, Olson et 

al. 2004). Hence, management to protect and enhance large trees and mature forest 

habitat and their resilience to wildfire and climate change is an important foundational piece for a successful strategy to maintain viable populations of California 

spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada. However, recent studies have also indicated that 

vegetation heterogeneity is a component of high-quality habitat at core area and 

home range spatial scales, and that owls will forage in a broader range of vegetation 

conditions relative to nesting and roosting habitat. Simulation modeling studies also 

project that forest fuels and restoration treatments may be compatible with maintaining spotted owl habitat (Ager et al. 2007, 2012; Lehmkuhl et al. 2007; Roloff et 

al. 2012).

Considering that California spotted owls evolved within heterogeneous Sierra 

Nevada forests structured by wildfire as the primary disturbance agent, as well 

as results from recent empirical and modeling studies, it is reasonable to expect 

that carefully crafted forest treatments can meet fuels and restoration objectives 

and provide habitat for California spotted owls. However, several caveats must be 

considered and uncertainty exists regarding how treatments will affect owl populations and their habitat. First, current understanding of California spotted owl habitat 

associations is based on studies conducted under contemporary forest conditions 

in the Sierra Nevada, which are shaped by timber harvest and fire suppression 

policies and management activities that have resulted in significant reductions in 

large trees and mature forest, and increases in forest homogeneity across stand and 

landscape spatial scales. It is uncertain if current habitat conditions are optimal for 

spotted owls and how owls may respond to future vegetation conditions that shift 

the landscape vegetation trajectory toward a condition more similar to patterns that 

would be expected under a natural disturbance regime largely driven by wildfire, 

but also influenced by other natural disturbances, such as insects, diseases and 

wind. Second, uncertainty exists regarding what constitutes high-quality spotted 

owl habitat capable of maintaining territories and viable populations over time. 

Current ongoing research investigating California spotted owl demography-habitat 

associations will help address these knowledge gaps.

Current population status and declining population trends of spotted owls on 

NFS lands in the Sierra Nevada point to the importance of a careful approach to 

management of California spotted owls and their habitat. Although the causes of the 

population declines are unknown, it is likely that historical and current vegetation 

It is reasonable to 

expect that carefully 

crafted forest treatments can meet fuels 

and restoration objectives and provide 

habitat for California 

spotted owls. However, 

several caveats must 

be considered and uncertainty exists regarding how treatments will 

affect owl populations 

and their habitat.
456

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

management practices (primarily timber harvest and fire suppression) are a factor. 

Additionally, range expansion of the barred owl into the Sierra Nevada is a serious emerging threat to California spotted owl viability. Recent research indicates 

that comprehensive forest management strategies are required to address forest 

resilience and restoration in the Sierra Nevada, given current vegetation conditions, 

trends in wildfire, and projected climate change (North et al. 2009). Considerable 

scientific uncertainty exists regarding how California spotted owls and their habitat 

will be affected by the management direction proposed in North et al. (2009). Adaptive management and monitoring of California spotted owls and their habitat will 

be an important element of a management strategy to address forest resilience and 

restoration in the Sierra Nevada.

Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and 

Information Needs

A number of tools and assessments can be used to address current scientific 

uncertainty about how California spotted owls and their habitat will respond to 

the management direction proposed in North et al. (2009). Ongoing research will 

address some of the information needs, whereas other needs can be met by tailoring 

existing modeling tools and approaches that have been developed for other applications to specifically address California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada. Key 

information needs are highlighted below. 

1. Integrated conservation planning efforts to synthesize existing and ongoing 

research efforts and develop adaptive management planning and assessment 

tools could better inform forest management. Improved habitat models 

specific to California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada are a core need to 

further understand owl-habitat associations and to develop adaptive management tools to assess how owls may respond to management scenarios. 

The current effort to conduct an integrated meta-analysis to relate over 20 

years of California spotted owl demographic data to changes in habitat over 

20 years across the four long-term demographic study areas in the Sierra 

Nevada will provide the most comprehensive assessment of owl habitat 

associations to date. Models from this effort can be further developed to 

function as adaptive management tools. Similarly, ongoing research developing patch-scale nesting and foraging models using Forest Inventory and 

Analysis data can be developed into adaptive management tools for assessing treatment effects.

Recent research 

indicates that 

comprehensive forest 

management strategies 

are required to address 

forest resilience and 

restoration in the 

Sierra Nevada, given 

current vegetation 

conditions, trends 

in wildfire, and 

projected climate 

change. Considerable 

scientific uncertainty 

exists regarding how 

California spotted 

owls and their habitat 

will be affected by the 

management direction 

proposed in North et al. 

(2009).
457

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

2. Results from climate change assessments across the three subspecies of 

spotted owls indicate population-specific associations with weather factors 

and projected responses to future climate change (Glenn et al. 2010, Peery 

et al. 2012). Modeling to project how California spotted owl populations 

in the Sierra Nevada may respond to future climate and habitat scenarios 

would provide insight into possible future scenarios. The four ongoing 

demographic studies provide existing long-term data on owl populations 

across the Sierra Nevada that can inform this assessment.

3. Models at home range and landscape scales are needed to assess tradeoffs 

between wildfire risk and treatment effects over short and long time periods 

specific to the Sierra Nevada (e.g., Ager et al. 2012, Lee and Irwin 2005, 

Roloff et al. 2012, Scheller et al. 2011, Thompson et al. 2011).

4. Improved information on vegetation status, structure, and condition is 

needed to facilitate development of habitat models and to assess the effects 

of treatments on California spotted owls and their habitat. Current, widely 

available vegetation data are not consistent across the Sierra Nevada 

and vary among forests. At patch scales, existing vegetation data are not 

adequate to describe the finer scale heterogeneity that will result from 

the proposed new management direction. New vegetation information 

is required that describes finer scale heterogeneity that can then be used 

to model and assess owl habitat and treatment effects. Efforts to develop 

vegetation information that is better able to capture fine-scale vertical and 

horizontal heterogeneity, such as LiDAR or WorldView2 imagery, are 

promising (García-Feced et al. 2011; Hyde et al. 2005, 2006), yet as of now, 

they are not available and operational enough to be able to conduct patchto landscape-scale analyses of owl habitat associations.

5. Efforts are needed to assess the distribution and status of barred owls 

across the Sierra Nevada. Barred owls pose an increasing risk to California 

spotted owls in the synthesis area and require conservation focus. 

6. Additional research is needed on the effects of high-severity fire on 

California spotted owl occupancy, population dynamics, and habitat given 

increasing trends in the amounts and patch sizes of high-severity fire in the 

Sierra Nevada (Miller et al. 2009).
458

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

7. Little information is available on how prey affects California spotted 

owl foraging behavior and population dynamics. Better understanding 

of California spotted owl-prey associations across different vegetation 

types and elevations would be beneficial for tailoring treatments and 

desired landscape conditions across different regions of the Sierra Nevada. 

Additionally, a synthesis of the literature on small mammal habitat associations in the Sierra Nevada, and comparative information from other 

western forests, would be valuable for identifying important forest types, 

stand structure characteristics, and habitat elements important to small 

mammals that could be used to inform future management. 

Literature Cited

Ager, A.A.; Finney, M.A.; Kerns, B.K.; Maffei, H. 2007. Modeling wildfire risk 

to northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) habitat in Central Oregon, 

USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 246(1): 45–56.

Ager, A.A.; Vaillant, N.M.; Finney, M.A.; Preisler, H. 2012. Analyzing wildfire 

exposure and source-sink relationships on a fire prone forest landscape. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 267: 271–283.

Amacher, A.J.; Barrett, R.H.; Moghaddas, J.J.; Stephens, S.L. 2008. 

Preliminary effects of fire and mechanical fuel treatments on the abundance 

of small mammals in the mixed-conifer forest of the Sierra Nevada. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 255: 3193–3202.

Barrowclough, G.F.; Groth, J.G.; Mertz, L.A.; Gutiérrez, R.J. 2005. 

Genetic structure, introgression, and a narrow hybrid zone between northern 

and California spotted owls (Strix occidentalis). Molecular Ecology. 

14(4): 1109–1120.

Barrowclough, G.F.; Groth, J.G.; Odom, K.J.; Lai, J.E. 2011. Phylogeography 

of the barred owl (Strix varia): species limits, multiple refugia, and range 

expansion. The Auk. 28(4): 696–706.

Barrowclough, G.F.; Gutiérrez, R.; Groth, J.G. 1999. Phylogeography of 

spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) populations based on mitochondrial DNA 

sequences: gene flow, genetic structure, and a novel biogeographic pattern. 

Evolution. 53(3): 919–931.
459

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Berigan, W.J.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Tempel, D.J. 2012. Evaluating the efficacy of 

protected habitat areas for the California spotted owl using long-term monitoring 

data. Journal of Forestry. 110(6): 299–303.

Blakesley, J.A.; Noon, B.R.; Anderson, D.R. 2005. Site occupancy, apparent 

survival, and reproduction of California spotted owls in relation to forest stand 

characteristics. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 69: 1554–1564.

Blakesley, J.A.; Seamans, M.E.; Conner, M.M.; Franklin, A.B.; White, G.C.; 

Gutiérrez, R.J.; Hines, J.E.; Nichols, J.D.; Shaw, D.W.H.; Munton, T.E.; 

Keane, J.J.; Steger, G.N.; Noon, B.R.; McDonald, T.L.; Britting, S. 2010. 

Population dynamics of spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada, California. Wildlife 

Monographs. 174: 1–36.

Bond, M.L.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Franklin, A.B.; LaHaye, W.S.; May, C.A.; 

Seamans, M.E. 2002. Short-term effects of wildfires on spotted owl survival, 

site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 

30(4): 1022–1028.

Bond, M.L.; Lee, D.E.; Siegel, R.B.; Ward, J.P.J. 2009. Habitat use and selection 

by California spotted owls in a postfire landscape. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 73(7): 1116–1124.

Carroll, C. 2010. Role of climatic niche models in focal-species-based conservation 

planning: assessing potential effects of climate change on northern spotted owl 

in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Biological Conservation. 143(6): 1432–1437.

Clark, D.A.; Anthony, R.G.; Andrews, L.S. 2011. Survival rates of northern 

spotted owls in post-fire landscapes of southwest Oregon. The Journal of Raptor 

Research. 45(1): 38–47.

Conner, M.M.; Keane, J.J.; Gallagher, C.V.; Jehle, G.; Munton, T.E.; 

Shaklee, P.A.; Gerrard, R.A. 2013. Realized population change for longterm monitoring: California spotted owl case study. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 77(7): 1449–1458.

Coppeto, S.A.; Kelt, D.A.; Van Vuren, D.H.; Wilson, J.A.; Bigelow, S. 2006. 

Habitat association of small mammals at two spatial scales in the northern 

Sierra Nevada. Journal of Mammalogy. 87: 402–413.

Delaney, D.K.; Grubb, T.G.; Beier, P.; Pater, L.L.; Reiser, M.H. 1999. Effects of 

helicopter noise on Mexican spotted owls. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 

63(1): 60–75.
460

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Dugger, K.M.; Anthony, R.G.; Andrews, L.S. 2011. Transient dynamics of 

invasive competition: barred owls, spotted owls, habitat, and the demons of 

competition present. Ecological Applications. 21(7): 2459–2468.

Dugger, K.M.; Wagner, F.; Anthony, R.G.; Olson, G.S. 2005. The relationship 

between habitat characteristics and demographic performance of northern 

spotted owls in southern Oregon. Condor. 107: 863–878.

Franklin, A.B.; Anderson, D.R.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Burnham, K.P. 2000. Climate, 

habitat quality, and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in northwestern 

California. Ecological Monographs. 70(4): 539–590.

Franklin, A.B.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Nichols, J.D.; Seamans, M.E.; White, G.C.; 

Zimmerman, G.S.; Hines, J.E.; Munton, T.E.; LaHaye, W.S.; Blakesley, 

J.A.; Steger, G.N.; Noon, B.R.; Shaw, D.W.H.; Keane, J.J.; McDonald, T.L.; 

Britting, S. 2004. Population dynamics of the California spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis occidentalis): a meta-analysis. Ornithological Monographs. 54: 1–55.

Funk, W.C.; Forsman, E.D.; Mullins, T.D.; Haig, S.M. 2008. Introgression 

and dispersal among spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) subspecies. Evolutionary 

Applications. 1: 161–171.

Gabriel, M.W.; Woods, L.W.; Poppenga, R.; Sweitzer, R.A.; Thompson, C.; 

Matthews, S.M.; Higley, J.M.; Keller, S.M.; Purcell, K.; Barrett, R.H.; 

Wengert, G.M.; Sacks, B.N.; Clifford, D.L. 2012. Anticoagulant rodenticides 

on our public and community lands: spatial distribution of exposure and 

poisoning of a rare forest carnivore. PLoS ONE. 7(7): e40163.

Gaines, W.L.; Harrod, R.J.; Dickinson, J.; Lyons, A.L.; Halupka, K. 

2010. Integration of Northern spotted owl habitat and fuels treatments in 

the eastern Cascades, Washington, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 

260(11): 2045–2052.

Gancz, A.Y.; Barker, I.K.; Lindsay, R.; Dibernardo, A.; McKeever, K.; Hunter, 

B. 2004. West Nile virus outbreak in north American owls, Ontario, 2002. 

Emerging infectious diseases. 10(12): 2135–2142.

Ganey, J.L.; Block, W.M.; Ackers, S.H. 2003. Structural characteristics of forest 

stands within home ranges of Mexican spotted owls in Arizona and New Mexico. 

Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 18(3): 189–198.

García-Feced, C.; Tempel, D.J.; Kelly, M. 2011. LiDAR as a tool to characterize 

wildlife habitat: California spotted owl nesting habitat as an example. Journal of 

Forestry. 109(8): 436–443.
461

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Glenn, E.M.; Anthony, R.G.; Forsman, E.D. 2010. Population trends in northern 

spotted owls: associations with climate in the Pacific Northwest. Biological 

Conservation. 143(11): 2543–2552.

Glenn, E.M.; Anthony, R.G.; Forsman, E.D.; Olson, G.S. 2011. Local weather, 

regional climate, and annual survival of the northern spotted owl. The Condor. 

113(1): 159–176.

Glenn, E.M.; Hansen, M.C.; Anthony, R.G. 2004. Spotted owl home-range 

and habitat use in young forests of western Oregon. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 68(1): 33–50.

Grinnell, J.; Miller, A.H. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Santa 

Clara, CA: Cooper Ornithological Club. 608 p.

Gutiérrez, R.J. 1989. Hematozoa from the spotted owl. Journal of Wildlife 

Diseases. 25(4): 614–618.

Gutiérrez, R.J. 1994. Changes in the distribution and abundance of spotted owls 

during the past century. Studies in Avian Biology. 15: 293–300.

Gutiérrez, R.J.; Barrowclough, G.F. 2005. Redefining the distributional 

boundaries of the northern and California spotted owls: implications for 

conservation. Condor. 107: 182–187.

Gutiérrez, R.J.; Cody, M.; Courtney, S.; Franklin, A.B. 2007. The invasion 

of barred owls and its potential effect on the spotted owl: a conservation 

conundrum. Biological Invasions. 9: 181–196.

Gutiérrez, R.J.; Franklin, A.B.; LaHaye, W.S. 1995. Spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F., eds. The birds of North America. 

Philadelphia, PA: Academy of Natural Sciences: 1–28.

Haig, S.M.; Mullins, T.D.; Forsman, E.D. 2004. Subspecific relationships and 

genetic structure in the spotted owl. Conservation Genetics. 5: 683–705.

Haig, S.M.; Wagner, R.S.; Forsman, E.D.; Mullins, T.D. 2001. Geographic 

variation and genetic structure in spotted owls. Conservation Genetics. 2: 25–40.

Hayward, L.S.; Bowles, A.E.; Ha, J.C.; Wasser, S.K. 2011. Impacts of acute 

and long-term vehicle exposure on physiology and reproductive success of the 

northern spotted owl. Ecosphere. 2(6): article 65.

Hull, J.M.; Keane, J.J.; Tell, L.; Ernest, H.B. 2010. West Nile Virus antibody 

surveillance in three Sierra Nevada raptors of conservation concern. The Condor. 

112(1): 168–172.
462

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Hyde, P.; Dubayah, R.; Peterson, B.; Blair, J.B.; Hofton, M.; Hunsaker, C.; 

Knox, R.; Walker, W. 2005. Mapping forest structure for wildlife habitat 

analysis using waveform lidar: Validation of montane ecosystems. Remote 

Sensing of Environment. 96(3–4): 427–437.

Hyde, P.; Dubayah, R.; Walker, W.; Blair, J.B.; Hofton, M.; Hunsaker, C. 2006. 

Mapping forest structure for wildlife habitat analysis using multi-sensor (LiDAR, 

SAR/InSAR, ETM+, Quickbird) synergy. Remote Sensing of Environment. 

102(1–2): 63–73.

Innes, R.J.; Van Vuren, D.H.; Kelt, D.A.; Johnson, M.L.; Wilson, J.A.; Stine, 

P.A. 2007. Habitat associations of dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) 

in mixed-conifer forest of the northern Sierra Nevada. Journal of Mammalogy. 

88(6): 1523–1531.

Irwin, L.L.; Clark, L.A.; Rock, D.C.; Rock, S.L. 2007. Modeling foraging 

habitat of California spotted owls. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 

71(4): 1183–1191.

Irwin, L.L.; Fleming, T.L.; Beebe, J. 2004. Are spotted owl populations 

sustainable in fire-prone forests? Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 18(4): 1–28.

Ishak, H.D.; Dumbacher, J.P.; Anderson, N.L.; Keane, J.J.; Valkiūnas, G.; 

Haig, S.M.; Tell, L.A.; Sehgal, R.N.M. 2008. Blood parasites in owls with 

conservation implications for the spotted owl (Strix occidentalis). PLoS ONE. 

3(5): e2304.

Jenness, J.S.; Beier, P.; Ganey, J.L. 2004. Associations between forest fire and 

Mexican spotted owls. Forest Science. 50(6): 765–772.

Kendall, W.L. 2001. Using models to facilitate complex decisions. In: Shenk, T.M.; 

Franklin, A.B., eds. Modeling in natural resource management. Covelo, CA: 

Island Press: 147–170. 

Kroll, A.J.; Fleming, T.L.; Irwin, L.L. 2010. Site occupancy dynamics of 

northern spotted owls in the eastern Cascades, Washington, USA. The Journal 

of Wildlife Management. 74(6): 1264–1274.

Larson, A.J.; Churchill, D. 2012. Tree spatial patterns in fire-frequent forests 

of western North America, including mechanisms of pattern formation and 

implications for designing fuel reduction and restoration treatments. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 267: 74–92.
463

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Lee, D.E.; Bond, M.L.; Borchert, M.I.; Tanner R. 2013. Influence of fire and 

salvage logging on site occupancy of spotted owls in the San Bernardino and San 

Jacinto Mountains of Southern California. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 

77: 1327–1341

Lee, D.E.; Bond, M.L.; Siegel, R.B. 2012. Dynamics of breeding-season site 

occupancy of the California spotted owl in burned forests. Condor. 114(4): 

792–802.

Lee, D.C.; Irwin, L.L. 2005. Assessing risks to spotted owls from forest thinning 

in fire-adapted forests of the western United States. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 211: 191–209.

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Kennedy, M.; Ford, E.D.; Singleton, P.H.; Gaines, W.L.; Lind, 

R.L. 2007. Seeing the forest for the fuel: integrating ecological values and fuels 

management. Forest Ecology and Management. 246(1): 73–80.

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Kistler, K.D.; Begley, J.S.; Boulanger, J. 2006. Demography 

of northern flying squirrels informs ecosystem management of western interior 

forests. Ecological Applications. 16(2): 584–600.

MacKenzie, D.I.; Seamans, M.E.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Nichols, J.D. 2012.

Investigating the population dynamics of California spotted owls without marked 

individuals. Journal of Ornithology. 152(2): 597–604.

Marra, P.P.; Griffing, S.; Caffrey, C.; Kilpatrick, A.M.; McLean, R.; Brand, 

C.; Saito, E.; Dupuis, A.P.; Kramer, L.; Novak, R. 2004. West Nile virus and 

wildlife. BioScience. 54(5): 393–402.

McComb, W.C.; McGrath, M.T.; Spies, T.A.; Vesely, D. 2002. Models for 

mapping potential habitat at landscape scales: an example using northern spotted 

owls. Forest Science. 48(2): 203–216.

Meyer, M.D.; Kelt, D.A.; North, M.P. 2007. Microhabitat associations of northern 

flying squirrels in burned and thinned forest stands of the Sierra Nevada. 

American Midland Naturalist. 157: 202–211.

Miller, J.D.; Safford, H.D.; Crimmins, M.; Thode, A.E. 2009. Quantitative 

evidence for increasing fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade 

mountains, California and Nevada, USA. Ecosystems. 12: 16–32.

Noon, B.R.; Blakesley, J.A. 2006. Conservation of the northern spotted owl under 

the Northwest Forest Plan. Conservation Biology. 20(2): 288–296.
464

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Noon, B.R.; Franklin, A.B. 2002. Scientific research and the spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis): opportunities for major contributions to avian population ecology. 

Auk. 119(2): 311–320.

North, M.P., ed. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacfic 

Southwest Research Station. 184 p.

North, M.P.; Collins, B.M.; Stephens, S. 2012. Using fire to increase the scale, 

benefits, and future maintenance of fuels treatments. Journal of Forestry. 

110(7): 392–401.

North, M.P.; Stine, P.A.; O’Hara, K.; Zielinski, W.J.; Stephens, S.L. 2009. An 

ecosystem management strategy for southern sierran mixed-conifer forests. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49 p.

Olson, G.S.; Glenn, E.M.; Anthony, R.G.; Forsman, E.D.; Reid, J.A.; Loschl, 

P.J.; Ripple, W.J. 2004. Modeling demographic performance of northern 

spotted owls relative to forest habitat in Oregon. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 68(4): 1039–1053.

Peery, M.Z.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Kirby, R.; LeDee, O.E.; LaHaye, W. 2012.

Climate change and spotted owls: potentially contrasting responses in the 

Southwestern United States. Global Change Biology. 18(3): 865–880.

Perry, D.A.; Hessburg, P.F.; Skinner, C.N.; Spies, T.A.; Stephens, S.L.; Taylor, 

A.H.; Franklin, J.F.; McComb, B.; Riegel, G. 2011. The ecology of mixed 

severity fire regimes in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 262(5): 703–717.

Prather, J.W.; Noss, R.F.; Sisk, T.D. 2008. Real versus perceived conflicts 

between restoration of ponderosa pine forests and conservation of the Mexican 

spotted owl. Forest Policy and Economics. 10(3): 140–150.

Reisen, W.; Lothrop, H.; Chiles, R.; Madon, M.; Cossen, C.; Woods, L.; 

Husted, S.; Kramer, V.; Edman, J. 2004. West Nile virus in California. 

Emerging Infectious Diseases. 10(8): 1369–1378.

Roberts, S.L.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Miles, A.K.; Kelt, D.A. 2011. Effects 

of fire on spotted owl site occupancy in a late-successional forest. Biological 

Conservation. 144: 610–619.
465

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Roloff, G.J.; Mealey, S.P.; Bailey, J.D. 2012. Comparative hazard assessment for 

protected species in a fire-prone landscape. Forest Ecology and Management. 

277: 1–10.

Scheller, R.M.; Spencer, W.D.; Rustigian-Romsos, H.; Syphard, A.D.; Ward, 

B.C.; Strittholt, J.R. 2011. Using stochastic simulation to evaluate competing 

risks of wildfires and fuels management on an isolated forest carnivore. 

Landscape Ecology. 26(10): 1491–1504.

Seamans, M.E.; Corcoran, J.; Rex, A. 2004. Southernmost record of a spotted 

owl × barred owl hybrid in the Sierra Nevada. Western Birds. 35: 173–174.

Seamans, M.E.; Gutiérrez, R.J. 2006. Spatial dispersion of spotted owl sites and 

the role of conspecific attraction on settlement patterns. Ethology Ecology and 

Evolution. 18(2): 99–111.

Seamans, M.E.; Gutiérrez, R.J. 2007a. Sources of variability in spotted owl 

population growth rate: testing predictions using long-term mark-recapture data. 

Oecologia. 152(1): 57–70.

Seamans, M.E.; Gutiérrez, R.J. 2007b. Habitat selection in a changing 

environment: The relationship between habitat alteration and spotted owl 

territory occupancy and breeding dispersal. Condor. 109: 566–576.

Seamans, M.E.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Moen, C.A.; Peery, M.Z. 2001. Spotted owl 

demography in the central Sierra Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management. 

65(3): 425–431.

Steger, G.; Werner, L.; Munton, T. 2006. First documented record of the barred 

owl in the southern Sierra Nevada. Western Birds. 37: 106–109.

Stephens, S.L.; McIver, J.D.; Boerner, R.E.J.; Fettig, C.J.; Fontaine, J.B.; 

Hartsough, B.R.; Kennedy, P.L.; Schwilk, D.W. 2012. The effects of forest 

fuel-reduction treatments in the United States. BioScience. 62(6): 549–560.

Swarthout, E.C.; Steidl, R.J. 2001. Flush responses of Mexican spotted owls 

to recreationists. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 65(2): 312–317.

Swarthout, E.C.; Steidl, R.J. 2003. Experimental effects of hiking on breeding 

Mexican spotted owls. Conservation Biology. 17(1): 307–315.

Tempel, D.J.; Gutiérrez, R.J. 2003. Fecal corticosterone levels in California 

spotted owls exposed to low-intensity chainsaw sound. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 

31(3): 698–702.
466

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Tempel, D.J.; Gutiérrez, R.J. 2004. Factors related to fecal corticosterone 

levels in California spotted owls: implications for assessing chronic stress. 

Conservation Biology. 18(2): 538–547.

Tempel, D.J.; Gutiérrez, R.J. 2013. The relationship between occupancy and 

abundance for a territorial species, the California spotted owl. Conservation 

Biology. 27(5): 1087–1095.

Thompson, C.; Zielinski, W.; Purcell, K. 2011. The use of landscape trajectory 

analysis to evaluate management risks: a case study with the Pacific fisher in the 

Sierra National Forest. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 75: 1164–1176.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2001. Sierra Nevada 

Forest Plan Amendment, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 3, 

Chapter 3, part 4.4. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region. 276 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2004. Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region. 492 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2006. 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered 

and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding for a petition to list 

the California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) as threatened or 

endangered. Federal Register. 71(100): 29886–29908.

Verner, J.; McKelvey, K.S.; Noon, B.R.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Gould, G.I.; Beck, 

T.W. 1992. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current 

status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 285 p.

Wasser, S.K.; Bevis, K.; King, G.; Hanson, E. 1997. Noninvasive physiological 

measures of disturbance in the northern spotted owl. Conservation Biology. 

11(4): 1019–1022.

Westerling, A.L.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Cayan, D.R.; Swetnam, T.W. 2006. Warming 

and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science. 

313(5789): 940–943.

Wiens, J.D.; Anthony, R.G.; Forsman, E.D. 2011. Barred owl occupancy 

surveys within the range of the northern spotted owl. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 75(3): 531–538.
467

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Williams, D.F.; Verner, J.; Sakai, H.F.; Waters, J.R. 1992. General biology of 

the major prey species of the California spotted owl. In: Verner, J.; McKelvey, 

K.S.; Noon, B.R.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Gould, G.I.; Beck, T.W., tech. coords. The 

California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-133. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 207–221.

Williams, P.J.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Whitmore, S. 2011. Home range and habitat 

selection of spotted owls in the central Sierra Nevada. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 75(2): 333–343.

Yackulic, C.B.; Reid, J.; Davis, R.; Hines, J.E.; Nichols, J.D.; Forsman, E. 

2012. Neighborhood and habitat effects on vital rates: expansion of the barred 

owl in the Oregon Coast Ranges. Ecology. 93(8): 1953–1966.

Zabel, C.J.; Dunk, J.R.; Stauffer, H.B.; Roberts, L.M.; Mulder, B.S.; Wright, 

A. 2003. Northern spotted owl habitat models for research and management 

application in California (USA). Ecological Applications. 13(4): 1027–1040.

Zabel, C.J.; McKelvey, J.K.; Ward, J.P. 1995. Influence of primary prey on home 

range size and habitat use patterns of spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina). 

Canadian Journal of Zoology. 73: 433–439.

Zimmerman, G.S.; LaHaye, W.S.; Gutiérrez, R.J. 2003. Empirical support for a 

despotic distribution in a California spotted owl population. Behavioral Ecology. 

14(3): 433–437.
468

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247
469

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Air quality is an important consideration in promoting the resilience of socioecological systems because it affects human health and activities, the condition of 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and the ability of land managers to use fire as a tool 

for managing forests. 

Section 8—Air Quality

Tom Iraci
470

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247
471

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Andrzej Bytnerowicz,1 Mark Fenn,2 and Jonathan W. Long 3

Summary

The major pollutants causing ecological harm in the Sierra Nevada are ozone, 

which can be toxic to plants, and nitrogen deposition, which can induce undesirable 

effects on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Other airborne pollutants of concern 

include black carbon, particulate matter (PM), pesticides, and heavy metals, including mercury. Atmospheric pollutants that are delivered in wet and dry forms cause 

deposition of nitrogen to forests and other land areas. The highest potential for 

ozone to injure plants occurs on western, low-elevation slopes that have elevated 

daytime levels that coincide with the highest physiological activity of plants. However, recent evaluations of ozone injury in the Sierra Nevada are lacking. Ozone and 

nitrogen deposition interact with other environmental stressors, especially drought 

and climate change, to predispose forests to impacts of pests and diseases.

Impacts of air quality currently pose threats to public health and recreation along 

the western slopes of the southwestern Sierra Nevada, which experience frequent 

episodes of unhealthy air, as indicated by exceedances of ozone and PM air quality 

standards. High levels and variation in day and nighttime ozone values can also 

occur at remote, high-elevation locations affected by pollution from distant areas; 

these locations can also have sufficient ozone precursors and meteorological conditions that favor localized photochemical ozone formation. 

Emissions from wildfires and prescribed fires have the potential to exceed 

air quality health standards, especially for particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10). 

Because of the relatively low probability of wildfire in any given area, expected 

emissions from a regime of prescribed burning may often exceed those from 

wildfire. However, prescribed burning can be managed more easily to mitigate air 

quality impacts to people. Furthermore, the potential of prescribed fires to generate 

enough ozone to exceed federal or state air quality standards is limited because 

typically they are smaller, are less intense, and occur during periods of low potential for photochemical ozone formation. Better understanding of the impacts of 

wildland and prescribed fires on ambient ozone, nitrogenous pollutants, and nitrogen cycling would help improve understanding of their potential effects on human 

health and the sustainability of forest ecosystems.

Chapter 8.1—Air Quality

1 Ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Dr., Riverside, CA 92507.

2 Research plant pathologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Dr., Riverside, CA 92507.

3 Research ecologist, U. S. Department of Agricultural, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.
472

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Values at Risk From Air Pollution

Air pollution affects a variety of ecosystem services, including supply of clean 

water, public health, regulation of greenhouse gases, and recreational values, as 

well as growth and health of forests and biodiversity (Cisneros et al. 2010). However, quantifying impacts to ecosystem services will require integrative research 

at larger scales than the individual plants and forest stands that have been a focus 

of most research (Serengil et al. 2011). Several recent peer-reviewed publications 

address air pollution status and effects across the Sierra Nevada (Arbaugh and 

Bytnerowicz 2003; Fenn et al. 2003b, 2010), and others focus specifically on the 

central Sierra Nevada (Hunsaker et al. 2007) and Sequoia and Kings Canyon 

National Parks (Bytnerowicz et al. 2002). Impacts of air quality currently pose 

threats to public health and recreation along the western slopes of the southwestern 

Sierra Nevada, which experience frequent episodes of unhealthy air, as indicated 

by exceedances of ozone and particulate matter (PM) air quality standards (Cisneros et al. 2010). In addition, impacts of other pollutants that may have significant 

biological effects, such as pesticides and mercury, are not very well characterized 

in the Sierra Nevada, but should also be taken into account.

Ozone

In many parts of the American West—especially the southwestern portions of the 

Sierra Nevada (Grulke 2003)—increasing background levels of ozone have already 

approached thresholds of phytotoxicity. High levels of ozone have been measured 

in the California Central Valley and southern Sierra Nevada since the early 1970s 

(Miller et al. 1972). These episodes are mainly caused by transport of polluted air 

masses from the highly polluted San Francisco Bay Area and the Central Valley. 

Polluted air masses from the Bay Area move east into the Sacramento Valley, 

where they circulate near Sacramento and move northwest along the western slopes 

of the Sierra Nevada. The polluted Bay Area air masses also move southeast into 

the San Joaquin Valley, where they mix with the locally polluted air. Cool air 

masses descending from the Sierra Nevada at night create the Fresno eddies that 

circulate polluted air within the San Joaquin Valley along the Sierra Nevada slopes 

(Hayes et al. 1992). These air currents, daytime eastward movement of air up the 

canyons into the Sierra crest, and long-range transport of air pollution from southern California affect air pollution distribution in the Sierra Nevada (Carle 2006, 

Hayes et al. 1992). Distribution of ozone concentrations in summer 1999 illustrates 

typical summer patterns in the Sierra Nevada (fig. 1) (Frączek et al. 2003), which 

occur on 72 percent of the warm-season days (Carroll et al. 2003) (see box 8.1-1 

regarding efforts to update these maps). These general patterns were confirmed in 
473

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Figure 1—Distribution of ozone during the second part of August, with the intrusion of ozone into 

the Sierra Nevada from the California Central Valley to the west of the study area, as well as high 

concentrations of ozone in the southern part of the range and in the Owens Valley to the east of the 

study area. Reprinted from Frączek et al. (2003) with permission from Elsevier.
474

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Box 8.1-1

Pending Research on Air Quality in the Sierra Nevada

Pacific Southwest Research Station researchers have obtained information 

on nitrogen air pollution and deposition in the Sierra Nevada using a variety 

of methods. They have generated maps of ozone air pollution for the entire 

Sierra Nevada and for the Lake Tahoe basin, and they are working with the 

University of California–Berkeley’s Center for Forestry and the National 

Park Service to update maps of ozone distribution. They are also developing 

maps of critical levels for ozone, yielding a potential management tool for 

the Sierra Nevada, particularly the southern region. They are also developing 

maps of other pollutants (nitrogen oxides, ammonia, nitric acid, and sulfur 

dioxide) with data collected during 2006–2008 as part of research funded by 

the Joint Fire Sciences Program (JFSP). The southern Sierra Nevada has been 

a focus of air quality research, including a JFSP study that yielded several 

publications (both published and pending publication), including one on the 

ozone status of Devils Postpile National Monument in a low fire year (2007) 

and a high fire year (2008) (Bytnerowicz et al. 2013a). In addition, in 2010, 

research was conducted on characterization of spatial and temporal distribution of ozone, its precursors, and nitrogen deposition in the Lake Tahoe basin 

(Bytnerowicz et al. 2013b). In 2012, intensive study was conducted on ozone 

formation in the low- and high-elevation sites of the Lake Tahoe basin.

various recent studies; for example, elevated concentrations of ozone were reported 

in western parts of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (Bytnerowicz et al. 

2002), western and southern portions of Yosemite National Park (Burley and Ray 

2007), and the western side of the Sequoia National Forest (Cisneros et al. 2010). 

Although ambient mean ozone concentrations show only a slight decline along 

a west-east Sierra Nevada transect along the wide San Joaquin River drainage 

(Cisneros et al. 2010), the highest phytotoxic ozone potential occurs on western, 

low-elevation slopes that have elevated daytime values that coincide with the highest physiological activity of plants. In locations that are close to the urban areas in 

the Central Valley, nighttime ozone concentrations are much lower than daytime 

concentrations owing to titration of ozone by nitric oxide (Burley and Ray 2007, 

Bytnerowicz et al. 2002).

High diurnal ozone variation and elevated daytime values can also occur at 

remote, high-elevation locations affected by long-range transport of polluted air 
475

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

masses; these locations also have sufficient ozone precursors and meteorological 

conditions that favor local photochemical ozone formation (Bytnerowicz et al. 

2013a). Some high-elevation sites may experience elevated evening and nighttime 

concentrations owing to transport of free-troposphere ozone (Burley and Ray 

2007), whereas others may have low nighttime values when such transport does not 

occur and deposition to wet surfaces (meadows) takes place (Burley and Ray 2007, 

Bytnerowicz et al. 2013a). Background summertime ozone concentrations measured 

at remote Sierra Nevada locations are generally comparable with measurements in 

high elevations (2200 to 4340 m) of the White Mountains (fig. 2), with a summertime average of approximately 40 to 50 ppb (Burley and Bytnerowicz 2011). During several summer days, levels at a site at Devils Postpile National Monument 

exceeded the California standards for protection of human health (Bytnerowicz et 

al. 2013a). The same study also showed a potential threat to forest health as levels 

exceeded a secondary standard proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency to protect vegetation. These findings indicate that some remote locations in 

Figure 2—Air pollution monitoring site with active ozone instrument and passive samplers in the White Mountains of California 

during 2007. Research was conducted by collaborators from the USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, University 

of California, and Saint Mary’s College.

Andrzej Bytnerowicz
476

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

the synthesis area occasionally experience potentially phytotoxic ozone exposures. 

Because of a possible increase in background ozone in the Western United States 

caused by a changing climate (Doherty et al. 2013), the potential threat to sensitive 

vegetation may increase in future years. The increase in background concentrations of ozone in the Western United States observed during the 1990s (Jaffe and 

Ray 2007) has recently slowed (Oltmans et al. 2013). However, more frequent and 

prolonged episodes of high temperature caused by climate change may reverse this 

trend (Sitch et al. 2007) and increase the potential impacts of ozone on sensitive 

vegetation in coming years. 

Ozone negatively affects vegetation in the Sierra Nevada; effects on pines and 

other conifers were first reported east of Fresno in the western portions of Sequoia 

National Forest and Sequoia National Park (Miller and Millecan 1971). Permanent 

plots of forest health assessment (including effects of ozone) were established in 

1974 and 1975 by Forest Service Forest Pest Management (FPM). Monitoring 

results showed that chlorotic mottle and premature needle senescence, well-known 

ozone injury symptoms (fig. 3), were common and widespread, especially among 

ponderosa (Pinus ponderosa) and Jeffrey (P. jeffreyi) pines. Such symptoms, 

although less pronounced, were also reported for a few other species (Williams et 

al. 1977). Between 1977 and 1987, a network of ozone injury evaluation plots was 

established throughout the Sierra Nevada. On that network, ozone injury was evaluated using the ozone injury index (OII) method developed by Miller et al. (1996), in 

Figure 3—Symptoms of severe ozone injury in ponderosa pine foliage include chlorotic mottling of current-year foliage (a) and 

older foliage (b), senescence or yellowing (c), and premature falling off of older needles.

Photos by Pierre Vollenweider
477

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

which chlorotic mottle and needle retention are the basis of the assessment (Grulke 

2003). Between 1977 and 1987, symptoms of ozone injury were found all over the 

Sierra Nevada in more than 20 percent of the sampled ponderosa and Jeffrey pines. 

Severity of injury ranged from slight in the north to moderate/severe in the south, 

with the worst injury at elevations below 1800 m. Injury decreased from the west 

to the east across the Sierra Nevada as distance from the source of photochemical 

smog (largely from the Central Valley) increased (Carroll et al. 2003). Highest 

injury to the surveyed pines was determined in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National 

Parks (39 percent of pines with chlorotic mottle), and Yosemite National Park (29 

percent of rated trees with injury symptoms). Ozone injury evaluation was repeated 

on a subset of the FPM plots in the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests in 2000. 

That survey showed a major increase of trees with chlorotic mottle—from 21 

percent of all trees in 1977 to 40 percent in 2000. On the southern Sierra Nevada 

plots, severe ozone injury resulted in 7 percent of mortality of trees over a period of 

23 years (Carroll et al. 2003). Although ozone was a predisposing damaging factor 

in tree mortality, other factors, including drought (exacerbated by climate change, 

densification of stands, and nitrogen deposition) and various species of bark beetles 

(such as western bark beetle (Dendrocronus brevicomis), Jeffrey pine beetle (D. 

jeffreyi), or mountain pine beetle (D. ponderasae)), are the ultimate cause of tree 

mortality (Fenn et al. 2003b, Minnich and Padgett 2003). It should be stressed that 

ozone phytotoxicity depends on the amount (dose) of ozone taken up by stomata 

and various abiotic and biotic factors (Matyssek et al. 2007). For the ponderosa 

pine stands in the foothills, only 37 percent of total ozone deposition was shown to 

occur in summer, and stomatal uptake accounted for less than half of that deposition (Goldstein et al. 2003). More recent evaluation of tree health in relation to 

ozone effects would help improve understanding of the condition of forests in the 

synthesis area. 

Nitrogen Deposition

Forests on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada receive substantial amounts 

of airborne nutritional nitrogen that could have effects on nitrogen cycling, water 

quality, tree health, biodiversity, and sensitive indicator species, including lichens 

(fig. 4) (Fenn et al. 2010). Fenn et al. (2010) showed that overall nitrogen deposition 

ranges from about 2 to 20 ha−1 yr−1 in the Sierra Nevada, with the lowest levels in 

the northern region and the eastern side of the mountains, moderate levels (5 to 12 

ha−1 yr−1) in the central Sierra Nevada, and the highest levels of deposition (ranging from 15 to 20 kg ha−1 yr−1 or greater) occurring in the southwest part of the 

region (fig. 5). Concentrations of the nitrogen pollutants that are the main drivers of 

nitrogen dry deposition drop significantly in the Sierra Nevada as air masses move 
478

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

eastward (Cisneros et al. 2010). Polluted air masses can move deep into the Sierra 

Nevada range up the canyons and valleys; for example, the San Joaquin River 

drainage functions as a corridor for transport of pollutants to the eastern side of 

the Sierra Nevada (Cisneros et al. 2010).

Nitrogen deposition (fig. 5) can have a fertilizing effect on trees, reflected by 

increased aboveground growth and higher nitrogen tissue concentrations. Although 

fertilization has potential to enhance timber production, it poses a threat to forest 

composition, sustainability and function, as it alters nutrient cycles. Forecasting 

effects on forest composition is a challenge, but some have predicted that increases 

in soil nitrogen and ozone may reinforce shifts in forest composition associated 

with fire suppression by favoring firs over pines (Takemoto et al. 2001). Pines are 

generally more sensitive to ozone and excess nitrogen than firs and cedars (Fenn 

et al. 2003b, Grulke et al. 2010, Miller et al. 1983), and they are an important 

component of the mixed-conifer forest. Nitrogen enrichment can have other 

negative effects on biodiversity and ecological functions; for example, increased 

Figure 4—Sierra Nevada communities of tree-inhabiting lichens such as wolf lichen (Letharia vulpina) begin to change with 

atmospheric nitrogen deposition levels as low as 3 kg ha-1 yr-1.

Mark Fenn
479

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

nitrogen can promote invasive grasses (Fenn et al. 2010), including cheatgrass 

(Bromus tectorum) (He et al. 2011), which can in turn have transformative effects 

on ecosystems by altering fire regimes, reducing carbon storage, and degrading 

forage quality (Bradley 2009).

Excess nitrogen deposition can also contaminate streams and groundwater with 

nitrate, although throughout most of the Sierra Nevada, nitrogen appears to be well 

retained in the vegetation and soils. Fenn et al. (2010) identified “critical loads” (CL) 

of atmospheric nitrogen deposition below which sensitive elements of an ecosystem 

Figure 5—Map of total annual nitrogen (N) deposition in California based on simulations. Deposition inputs in the Sierra Nevada and other montane regions have been adjusted based on empirical 

deposition measurements. Reprinted from Fenn et al. (2010) with permission from Elsevier.
480

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

are not harmed (fig. 6). In Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests, they found elevated 

nitrate leaching in streams to be limited, with the most severe leaching losses less 

than 1 kg ha−1 yr−1 (fig. 6b). This is in contrast to epiphytic lichen-related CL (6a), 

which are subject to widespread exceedances of nitrogen deposition throughout 

the range. Exceedances have also been noted for other vegetation types that occur 

in the Sierra Nevada, including pinyon-juniper, chaparral, and oak woodland. 

Furthermore, though nitrate leaching is limited, researchers have suggested that 

high-elevation lakes throughout the region may be experiencing eutrophication, 

which could result in increasingly severe ecological effects in the next several 

decades (Fenn et al. 2003a, Sickman et al. 2003). Accordingly, research is needed 

to evaluate the extent and impact of nitrogen deposition on high-elevation lake 

chemistry and biota in the Sierra Nevada.

Figure 6—Critical load (CL) exceedance map for mixed-conifer forests based on (a) lichen community effects and (b) nitrate leaching. 

Reprinted from Fenn et al. (2010) with permission from Elsevier.
481

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Interactive Effects of Ozone, Nitrogen Deposition, 

and Climate Change

A warmer climate in the Western United States will affect the Sierra Nevada forests 

directly through soil moisture stress and indirectly through increased extent and 

severity of various disturbances. Stress complexes, a combination of biotic and 

abiotic stressors, will compromise vigor and, ultimately, the sustainability of forest 

ecosystems. Increased water deficit will accelerate normal stress complexes, which 

typically involve various combinations of long-term droughts, insects, and fire 

(McKenzie et al. 2008). In that general context, the combination of elevated ozone 

concentrations and nitrogen enrichment has already produced pronounced (and 

mostly negative) effects on California mixed-conifer forest ecosystems (Takemoto 

et al. 2001). These pollutants interact with other environmental stressors, especially 

drought, to predispose forests to impacts of pests and diseases. Through studies 

of nitrogen additions, researchers have found that nitrogen enrichment enhances 

mortality of ponderosa pines caused by bark beetles, as does ozone stress. Grulke et 

al. (2010) highlighted the San Bernardino Mountains as a case study in which multiple stressors, including ozone exposure, nitrogen deposition, and fire suppression, 

have predisposed forests to injury and mortality from bark beetles, drought, and 

fire. Although air pollution effects have been less severe in the Sierra Nevada than 

in the San Bernardino Mountains, chronic ozone exposure and nitrogen deposition 

are expected to become more prevalent, particularly in the southern part of the 

region (Fenn et al. 2003b, Takemoto et al. 2001). Furthermore, studies have shown 

synergistic effects of air pollution with other stressors; for example, in the southern 

Sierra Nevada, the negative effects of ozone on tree growth may be partially offset 

by nitrogen deposition, but the combined effects of ozone and chronic nitrogen 

deposition may lead to severe perturbation of tree physiology and ecosystem sustainability (Fenn et al. 2003b). Additionally, air pollutants may interact with climate 

change in complex ways that significantly differ from the sum of their separate 

effects (Bytnerowicz et al. 2007). 

Further research is needed to evaluate how nitrogen deposition and ozone affect 

carbon sequestration both aboveground and in the soil (Bytnerowicz et al. 2007). 

This information will be critical to climate change mitigation efforts in the region. 

Recent assessments suggest that many ecosystem and environmental responses 

to nitrogen deposition could lead to a net cooling effect, primarily as a result of 

enhanced carbon sequestration in woody biomass and increased haze and particles 

formed from nitrogen air pollution (Erisman et al. 2011), although there are many 

uncertainties in these evaluations. Many studies show that nitrogen enrichment 

and ozone exposure can lead to reduced carbon allocation belowground, resulting 
482

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

in greater carbon in aboveground detritus (Fenn et al. 2003b). Likewise, numerous 

studies confirm that long-term decomposition of litter slows when nitrogen concentrations in litter are elevated; this may result in greater carbon storage in litter, 

especially during long fire-free periods (Whittinghill et al. 2012). However, when 

these polluted forests experience fire, more carbon may be released from burning 

litter.

Impacts of Other Pollutants

Other pollutants of concern include black carbon, PM, pesticides, and heavy metals. 

Black carbon and dust particles pose a threat to water resources by promoting 

earlier melting of snowpack (Hadley et al. 2010). Although levels of methylmercury 

are relatively low in fish from Sierra Nevada lakes (Davis et al. 2009), mercury levels reported from sediments in Lake Tahoe are surprisingly high for alpine regions 

(Heyvaert et al. 2000). There is concern of long-range transport of semivolatile 

organic compounds (SOCs), such as pesticides, polybrominated diphenyl ethers 

(PBDEs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs), in high-elevation aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada. 

Measurements have been performed within the Western Airborne Contaminants 

Assessment Project at the Emerald Lake and Pearl Lake area of Sequoia and Kings 

Canyon National Parks, showing contamination of snowpack, lake sediments, 

vegetation, and fish. Sequoia–Kings Canyon had the highest concentrations of 

current-use pesticides compared with other Western national parks (Landers et al. 

2008). Sources of these pollutants include wildfires, vehicles, urban and agricultural 

areas west of the Sierra Nevada, and, increasingly, long-distance transport from 

Asia (Hadley et al. 2010, Heyvaert et al. 2000). Wildfires have significant potential 

to mobilize heavy metals, including mercury, in ways that pose threats to human 

health (Goldammer et al. 2008) (see chapter 4.3, “Post-Wildfire Management”). 

More research and monitoring of air, snow, vegetation, and lakes throughout the 

Sierra Nevada are needed to better understand spatial and temporal distribution of 

biologically important heavy metal and organic contaminants and their potential 

threats to ecosystems.

Forest Management Strategies to Address Pollutant Effects

In addition to direct pollutant load reduction, a prudent strategy to reduce the 

impacts of air pollution on forests would include treatments to reduce accumulated 

nitrogen in the forest by reducing stand stocking and fuel loads (Fenn et al. 2003b). 

To treat the problem of nitrogen saturation in highly polluted forests, such as the 
483

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

mixed-conifer forests of southern California, several papers have recommended 

the use of prescribed burning (Fenn et al. 2010, Gimeno et al. 2009). Although the 

conditions in the Sierra Nevada are generally less severe than in the mountains 

of southern California, frequent prescribed burning could help mitigate nitrogen 

inputs in forests experiencing elevated deposition. However, because prescribed 

fire has limited ability to reduce nitrogen in the mineral soil, Fenn et al. (2010) 

also suggest testing the potential of thinning to stimulate vegetation growth. Both 

thinning and prescribed fire can be used to proactively reduce the amount of plant 

matter available for combustion and reduce potential emissions of nitrogenous 

pollutants. However, long-term ecosystem protection and sustainability will 

ultimately depend on reductions in nitrogen deposition, and this is the only strategy 

that will protect epiphytic lichen communities. Measures to reduce nitrogen 

deposition through more stringent control of emissions caused by combustions of 

fossil fuels as well as those from the largely uncontrolled agricultural sector are 

needed. The CL analyses and maps of CL exceedances are useful management 

tools for quantifying the severity of the pollution problem and identifying areas 

at risk from chronic nitrogen deposition. Also, there is a clear need for further 

decreases in ozone generation, and this can be accomplished through control of 

emissions of ozone precursors (nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds). 

Strict compliance with the federal and state ozone air pollution standards is needed. 

New measures, such as federally imposed improved mileage standards for motor 

vehicles, could greatly help in reducing emissions of ozone precursors and lowering 

ambient ozone concentrations. If this is accomplished, future forests would be 

less stressed by direct phytotoxic ozone effects as well as secondary effects, such 

as increased susceptibility to drought and bark beetle attacks. Furthermore, the 

impacts of long-range mercury transport on Sierra Nevada aquatic ecosystems 

(especially high-elevation lakes) is still not well understood, and findings from the 

national mercury monitoring network administered by the National Atmospheric 

Deposition Program should be evaluated and monitoring efforts intensified if 

needed. Additional monitoring efforts and research on potential impacts of longrange transport of pesticides and other potentially toxic organic compounds are 

needed to assess potential threats. If such threats are found, recommendations for 

stricter control of their use for agricultural production in the California Central 

Valley should be made.
484

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Fires, Smoke, and Air Quality 

Prescribed fire and managed wildfire use entail a short-term impact to human communities to restore ecological processes and avoid the potential impacts of undesirably severe and poorly controlled wildfires. Fires release pollutants of concern, 

including fine particulate matter (PM2.5), coarse particulate matter (PM10), ammonia, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and various 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (Cisneros et al. 2012, Urbanski et al. 2008). Use 

of prescribed fire as a management tool is constrained by state and federal air quality regulations for human health and visibility (Quinn-Davidson and Varner 2012), 

and potential smoke impacts to human populations (see chapter 9.3, “Sociocultural 

Perspectives on Threats, Risks, and Health”).

A study of historical fire regimes and associated smoke emissions in California concluded that fires historically burned over extensive areas, and that smoke 

emissions were substantial, especially from the large areas of mixed-conifer forests 

that experienced frequent fire prior to the 19th century (Stephens et al. 2007). A 

long history of fire suppression has encouraged residents and visitors to the Sierra 

Nevada to expect exceptional visibility and smoke-free conditions during the 

summer and fall, but this may not be a realistic expectation for the area, especially 

given that a changing climate is projected to increase the likelihood of large, severe 

wildfires (Westerling et al. 2006). Many decades of altered fire regimes have also 

led to a large buildup of living and dead biomass in the understory and forest floor; 

in the Lake Tahoe basin, these accumulations represent a significant store of potential pollutants, whether through high nutrient levels in runoff (Miller et al. 2010) or 

through emissions during combustion.

Pacific Southwest Research Station researchers have worked with Region 5 Air 

Resources managers to study effects of wildland and prescribed fires on air quality in the context of state and national air quality standards. During severe fires, 

accumulated nitrogen in vegetation, litter, and surface soils may also be released 

as ammonia and nitrogen oxides (Urbanski et al. 2008), and these emissions could 

cause nitrogen deposition problems downwind of the fires (Goldammer et al. 2008). 

However, the potential of prescribed fires to generate enough ozone to exceed 

federal or state air quality standards is limited owing to their low thermal intensity 

and geographic scale as well as their application during periods of low potential for 

photochemical ozone formation (Bytnerowicz et al. 2010). Better understanding of 

the impacts of wildland and prescribed fires on ambient ozone and nitrogenous pollutants is needed because of their potential effects on human health and the sustainability of forest ecosystems (Bytnerowicz et al. 2008). For instance, Preisler et al. 

(2010) detected a small but significant effect of wildfires on ambient ozone concentrations using the Blue Sky smoke dispersion model (O’Neill et al. 2008); however, 
485

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

these authors also pointed out serious weaknesses in monitoring and modeling 

approaches related to both wildland and prescribed fires. These are mainly related 

to the difficulty in distinguishing between fire-related ozone precursor emissions 

and emissions from nonfire anthropogenic sources, as well as complicated impacts 

of meteorology and complex mountain topography on ambient ozone concentrations 

(Preisler et al. 2010). 

Effects of Management Strategies

A number of factors influence the amount and quality of emissions from burning, 

including fuel moisture, amount, and quality; these factors in turn are influenced 

heavily by weather and season. For example, burning material with higher moisture 

generally produces more carbon monoxide and ammonia, whereas burning drier 

fuels results in more complete combustion and greater release of smoke, carbon 

dioxide, and nitrogen oxides (Chen et al. 2010). The impacts of burning the forest 

in a prescribed burn are different from intense wildfire in important ways. First, 

intense wildfire often occurs in the summer under dry and windy conditions that 

facilitate smoke dispersal and lofting into the upper atmosphere (Cahill et al. 1996); 

however, dispersal depends upon local topography and weather conditions and is 

not assured. Even wildfires that occur under favorable ventilation conditions are 

still likely to cause emissions that exceed health and visibility standards (Gertler et 

al. 2010). Because wildfires have been relatively infrequent, their long-term average 

impact on respirable PM has often been relatively small (Cahill et al. 1996); however, a worsening of poor air quality days in the Lake Tahoe basin has been linked 

to wildfires (fig. 7) (Green et al. 2012). 

In contrast, managers can generally time and control prescribed burns to alter 

smoke production and transport in response to conditions on a daily basis. Prescribed burns in many parts of the synthesis area, including the Lake Tahoe basin, 

predominantly occur later in the fall when smoke tends to dissipate less readily. As 

a result, models of prescribed burning under typical fall conditions indicate potential to violate air quality standards (Gertler et al. 2010) (see box 8.1-2). However, 

the modest amount of burning during the fall and winter, combined with protective 

measures to limit smoke, typically result in low contributions to PM10 loading in 

inhabited areas (Cahill et al. 1996, Gertler et al. 2010).

A comparison of expected emissions from prescribed burning and wildfire 

would have to consider cumulative effects of prescribed burning. A recent modeling 

study found that prescribed burning would release less carbon dioxide than wildfire 

in frequent-fire forest types of the Western United States, but it assumed that the 

prescribed burning was so mild that it killed no trees and was conducted only once 

(Wiedinmyer and Hurteau 2010). These assumptions underestimate the severity and 
486

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

frequency of prescribed burning needed as a restorative practice in the synthesis 

area. The authors of that study indicated that cumulative prescribed fire emissions 

of carbon dioxide would likely be higher than wildfire emissions in cases where 

reestablishment of trees was relatively fast. However, treatments that prevent severe 

tree mortality from wildfire would likely have an emissions benefit (Wiedinmyer 

and Hurteau 2010).

Research Needs

There is a need to integrate research and management planning to evaluate tradeoffs between wildfires and treatments that include prescribed burning. Sound management of forests, fuels, and air quality will require the scientific community to fill 

a number of research needs (Bytnerowicz et al. 2009). The most pertinent of those 

needs to this synthesis are (1) better characterization of the spatial distribution of 

fuels as well as their physical and chemical properties; (2) improved weather forecasting of changing climate/atmospheric circulations at local to regional scales; (3) 

more accurate empirical and statistical downscaling tools for assessing the impacts 

of climate change on fire behavior and emissions; (4) improved characterization 

Figure 7—Smoke obscured visibility at Lake Tahoe on June 28, 2008. During that time, much of 

northern California was blanketed in smoke from large wildfires that reduced visibility, caused 

hazardous levels of air pollution including particulate matter, and forced cancellation of outdoor 

recreation events such as the Western States 100-mile endurance run. 

Jonathan Long
487

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Box 8.1-2

Comparisons of Wildfires and Prescribed Fire Effects in 

the Lake Tahoe Basin

The air quality effects of smoke under different scenarios have been compared 

in the Lake Tahoe basin. The Lake Tahoe Air Model is a heuristic, cell-based 

predictive model that was developed to analyze the effects of prescribed 

fires and wildfires on fine particle mass (PM2.5) and visibility (Gertler et al. 

2010). The model was used to compare impacts from a hypothesized regime 

of small, non-crowning wildfires burning 30 ac per day in the summer, a 

scenario intended to represent conditions prior to the mid-19th century. The 

results indicated that a regime of these “natural” wildfires would generate 

“spotty but persistent smoke in relatively low concentrations around the 

basin” that would not violate state and federal air quality standards, and have 

little impact on lake clarity (Gertler et al. 2010: 71). The model analyses of 

prescribed burns of 50 and 100 ha in the fall season resulted in much higher 

smoke levels that violated state and federal standards for 2 to 3 days (Gertler 

et al. 2010). The model was also used to examine effects from a moderately 

sized August wildfire (1500 ha); it predicted that smoke from this type of fire 

would completely fill the basin with smoke and exceed air quality standards 

for 4 to 5 days (Cliff and Cahill 1999). These analyses supported the finding 

that severe wildfires in the Lake Tahoe basin have greater potential than lowintensity prescribed burns to contribute to violations of air quality standards, 

obscure visibility across the lake, promote algal blooms, and reduce lake 

clarity (Gertler et al. 2010). Researchers have concluded that the reduction in 

visibility needed to accommodate increases in prescribed burning would be 

counterbalanced by reducing the air quality impacts of potential major wildfires (Gertler et al. 2010).

of emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases during fire events; (5) detailed 

identification and chemical characterization of VOCs to develop markers (gaseous 

and aerosol tracers to distinguish smoke from prescribed vs. wildland fires); 

(6) real-time monitoring of ambient air quality during forest fires; (7) improved 

regional air quality models that include realistic wildland fire emissions; (8) fire 

behavior models coupled with meteorological and chemical models for improved 

understanding of pollution transport; (9) better understanding of ozone and nitrogen 

deposition effects, as well as interactions among various pollutants, drought, and 
488

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

pests on composition, structure, and function of forests and other ecosystems; and 

(10) models aimed at better understanding of the effects of air pollution and climate 

change on forests at the landscape scale.

Management Implications

• Emissions from wildfires and prescribed fires have potential to exceed air 

quality standards; however, prescribed burning can be managed more easily to mitigate air quality impacts to people. Additionally, because of the 

relatively low probability of wildfire in any given area, expected emissions 

from a regime of prescribed burning may often exceed those from wildfire.

• There are sound ecological reasons to promote greater tolerance and application of prescribed fires, and shifting smoke production from uncontrolled 

wildfires to managed fires can help reduce the overall impacts of burning. 

Acceptance of fire as a management tool will also require better largescale monitoring of smoke emissions (including ground level and remotely 

sensed) and development of models that are able to predict spatial and 

temporal distribution of toxic pollutants resulting from fires. 

• A variety of tools are being employed and developed to allow better 

predictions and monitoring about burn activities, including the BlueSky 

smoke modeling framework, which provides real-time predictions of 

smoke impacts from prescribed and wildland fires; and the Fuel 

Characterization and Classification System, First Order Fire Effects Model, 

and Consume for describing fuel loading and predicting emissions. 

• These tools will help managers and the larger public evaluate tradeoffs 

about how to reduce the debt of accumulated fuels and allow the return 

of a more natural fire regime where the impacts can be tolerated. 

Literature Cited

Arbaugh, M.J.; Bytnerowicz, A. 2003. Ambient ozone patterns and effects 

over the Sierra Nevada: synthesis and implications for future research. 

In: Bytnerowicz, A.; Arbaugh, M.J.; Alonso, R., eds. Developments in 

environmental science, vol. 2: ozone air pollution in the Sierra Nevada: 

distribution and effects on forests. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 249–261.

Bradley, B.A. 2009. Regional analysis of the impacts of climate change on 

cheatgrass invasion shows potential risk and opportunity. Global Change 

Biology. 15(1): 196–208.
489

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Burley, J.; Bytnerowicz, A. 2011. Surface ozone in the White Mountains of 

California. Atmospheric Environment. 45(27): 4591–4602.

Burley, J.D.; Ray, J.D. 2007. Surface ozone in Yosemite National Park. 

Atmospheric Environment. 41(28): 6048–6062.

Bytnerowicz, A.; Arbaugh, M.J.; Andersen, C.; Riebau, A.R. 2008. Integrating 

research on wildland fires and air quality: needs and recommendations. In: 

Bytnerowicz, A.; Arbaugh, M.; Riebau, A.; Andersen, C., eds. Developments 

in environmental science, vol. 8: Wildland fires and air pollution. Amsterdam: 

Elsevier: 585–602. Chapter 26.

Bytnerowicz, A.; Burley, J.D.; Cisneros, R.; Preisler, H.K.; Schilling, S.; 

Schweizer, D.; Ray, J.; Dulen, D.; Beck, C.; Auble, B. 2013a. Surface ozone 

at the Devils Postpile National Monument receptor site during low and high 

wildland fire years. Atmospheric Environment. 65: 129–141.

Bytnerowicz, A.; Cayan, D.; Riggan, P.; Schilling, S.; Dawson, P.; Tyree, M.; 

Wolden, L.; Tissell, R.; Preisler, H. 2010. Analysis of the effects of combustion 

emissions and Santa Ana winds on ambient ozone during the October 2007 

southern California wildfires. Atmospheric Environment. 44(5): 678–687.

Bytnerowicz, A.; Fenn, M.; Gertler, A.; Preisler, H.; Zielinska, B.; Ahuja, 

S.; Cisneros, R.; Shaw, G.; Schweizer, D.; Procter, T.; Burley, J.; Schilling, 

S.; Nanus, L.; McDaniel, M.; Thesis, S.; Sickman, J.; Bell, M.; Rorig, M. 

2013b. Distribution of ozone, ozone precursors and gaseous components of 

atmospheric nitrogen deposition in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Final Technical Report 

for SNPLMA Project P063. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 86 p.

Bytnerowicz, A.; Omasa, K.; Paoletti, E. 2007. Integrated effects of air pollution 

and climate change on forests: a northern hemisphere perspective. Environmental 

Pollution. 147(3): 438–445.

Bytnerowicz, A.; Tausz, M.; Alonso, R.; Jones, D.; Johnson, R.; Grulke, N. 

2002. Summer-time distribution of air pollutants in Sequoia National Park, 

California. Environmental Pollution. 118(2): 187–203.

Cahill, T.A.; Carroll, J.J.; Campbell, D.; Gill, T.E. 1996. Air quality. In: 

SNEP Science Team and Special Consultants, ed. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 

Project: Final report to Congress, Vol. II. Assessments and scientific basis for 

management options. Report No. 37. Davis, CA: Centers for Water and Wildland 

Resources, University of California: 1227–1262.
490

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Carle, D. 2006. Introduction to air in California. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press. 273 p.

Carroll, J.J.; Miller, P.R.; Pronos, J. 2003. Historical perspectives on ambient 

ozone and its effects on the Sierra Nevada. In: Bytnerowicz, A.; Arbaugh, M.J.; 

Alonso, R., eds. Developments in environmental science, vol: 2: ozone 

air pollution in the Sierra Nevada. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 33–54.

Chen, L.-W.A.; Verburg, P.; Shackelford, A.; Zhu, D.; Susfalk, R.; Chow, 

J.C.; Watson, J.G. 2010. Moisture effects on carbon and nitrogen emission 

from burning of wildland biomass. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 

10(14): 6617–6625.

Cisneros, R.; Bytnerowicz, A.; Schweizer, D.; Zhong, S.R.; Traina, S.; Bennett, 

D.H. 2010. Ozone, nitric acid, and ammonia air pollution is unhealthy for people 

and ecosystems in southern Sierra Nevada, California. Environmental Pollution. 

158(10): 3261–3271.

Cisneros, R.; Schweizer, D.; Zhong, S.; Hammond, K.; Perez, M.A.; Guo, Q.; 

Traina, S.; Bytnerowicz, A.; Bennett, D.H. 2012. Analysing the effects of the 

2002 McNally fire on air quality in the San Joaquin Valley and southern Sierra 

Nevada, California. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 21(8): 1065–1075.

Cliff, S.S.; Cahill, T.A. 1999. Air quality. In: Murphy, D.D.; Knopp, C.M., eds. 

Lake Tahoe watershed assessment, vol. 1. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-175. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station: 131–211.

Davis, J.A.; Melwani, A.R.; Bezalel, S.N.; Hunt, J.A.; Ichikawa, G.; Bonnema, 

A.; Heim, W.A.; Crane, D.; Swenson, S.; Lamerdin, C.; Stephenson, M. 

2009. Contaminants in fish from California lakes and reservoirs: technical 

report on year one of a two-tear screening survey. A report of the Surface Water 

Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Sacramento, CA: California State 

Water Resources Control Board. 82 p.

Doherty, R.M.; Wild, O.; Shindell, D.T.; Zeng, G.; MacKenzie, I.A.; Collins, 

W.J.; Fiore, A.M.; Stevenson, D.S.; Dentener, F.J.; Schultz, M.G.; Hess, 

P.; Derwent, R.G.; Keating, T.J. 2013. Impacts of climate change on surface 

ozone and intercontinental ozone pollution: a multi-model study. Journal of 

Geophysical Research—Atmospheres. 118(9): 3744–3763.
491

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Erisman, J.W.; Galloway, J.; Seitzinger, S.; Bleeker, A.; Butterbach-Bahl, K. 

2011. Reactive nitrogen in the environment and its effect on climate change. 

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 3(5): 281–290.

Fenn, M.E.; Allen, E.B.; Weiss, S.B.; Jovan, S.; Geiser, L.H.; Tonnesen, G.S.; 

Johnson, R.F.; Rao, L.E.; Gimeno, B.S.; Yuan, F.; Meixner, T.; Bytnerowicz, 

A. 2010. Nitrogen critical loads and management alternatives for N-impacted 

ecosystems in California. Journal of Environmental Management. 91(12): 

2404–2423.

Fenn, M.E.; Baron, J.S.; Allen, E.B.; Rueth, H.M.; Nydick, K.R.; Geiser, L.; 

Bowman, W.D.; Sickman, J.O.; Meixner, T.; Johnson, D.W.; Neitlich, P. 

2003a. Ecological effects of nitrogen deposition in the western United States. 

BioScience. 53(4): 404–420.

Fenn, M.E.; Poth, M.A.; Bytnerowicz, A.; Sickman, J.O.; Takemoto, B. 2003b. 

Effects of ozone, nitrogen deposition, and other stressors on montane ecosystems 

in the Sierra Nevada. In: Bytnerowicz, A.; Arbaugh, M.; Alonso, R., eds. 

Developments in environmental science, vol. 2: Ozone air pollution in the Sierra 

Nevada. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 111–155.

Frączek, W.; Bytnerowicz, A.; Arbaugh, M.J. 2003. Use of geostatistics to 

estimate surface ozone patterns. In: Bytnerowicz, A.; Arbaugh, M.J.; Alonso, R., 

eds. Developments in environmental science, vol. 2: Ozone air pollution in the 

Sierra Nevada. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 215–247.

Gertler, A.W.; Cahill, T.A.; Cahill , T.M.; Cliff, S.C.; Emmett, C.; Koracin, 

J.; Kuhns, H.; Molenar, J.V.; Quashnick, J.; Reuter, J.E. 2010. Air quality. 

In: Hymanson, Z.P.; Collopy, M.W., eds. An integrated science plan for the Lake 

Tahoe basin: conceptual framework and research strategies. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PSW-GTR-226. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station: 37–81.

Gimeno, B.S.; Yuan, F.; Fenn, M.E.; Meixner, T. 2009. Management options 

for mitigating nitrogen (N) losses from N saturated mixed conifer forests in 

California. In: Bytnerowicz, A.; Arbaugh, M.; Riebau, A.; Andersen, C., eds. 

Developments in environmental science, vol. 8: Wildland fires and air pollution. 

Amsterdam: Elsevier: 425–455.
492

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Goldammer, J.G.; Statheropoulos, M.; Andreae, M.O. 2008. Impacts of 

vegetation fire emissions on the environment, human health, and security: a 

global perspective. In: Bytnerowicz, A.; Arbaugh, M.; Riebau, A.; Andersen, 

C., eds. Developments in environmental science, vol. 8: Wildland fires and air 

pollution. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 3–36. 

Goldstein, A.H.; Kurpius, M.R.; Panek, J.A. 2003. Ozone uptake by ponderosa 

pine in the Sierra nevada: a measurement perspective. In: Bytnerowicz, A.; 

Arbaugh, M.J.; Alonso, R., eds. Developments in environmental science, vol. 2: 

Ozone air pollution in the Sierra Nevada. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 83–109.

Green, M.; Chen, A.; DuBois, D.; Molenar, J. 2012. Fine particulate matter 

and visibility in the Lake Tahoe Basin: chemical characterization, trends, and 

source apportionment. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association. 

62(8): 953–965.

Grulke, N.E. 2003. Physiological basis of ozone injury assessment in Sierra 

Nevadan conifers. In: Bytnerowitcz, A.; Arbaugh, M.J.; Alonso, R., eds. 

Developments in environmental science, vol. 2: Ozone air pollution in the 

Sierra Nevada. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 55–81.

Grulke, N.E.; Minnich, R.A.; Paine, T.D.; Riggan, P. 2010. Air pollution 

increases forest susceptibility to wildfires: a case study in the San Bernardino 

Mountains in southern California. In: Pye, J.M.; Rauscher, H.M.; Sands, Y.; 

Lee, D.C.; Beatty, J.S., eds. Advances in threat assessment and their application 

to forest and rangeland management, vol. 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-802. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station: 319–328.

Hadley, O.L.; Corrigan, C.E.; Kirchstetter, T.W.; Cliff, S.S.; Ramanathan, V. 

2010. Measured black carbon deposition on the Sierra Nevada snow pack and 

implication for snow pack retreat. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 10(15): 

7505–7513.

Hayes, T.P.; Kinney, J.J.R.; Wheeler, N.J.M. 1992. California surface wind 

climatology. Sacramento, CA: State of California, Air Resources Board, 

Aerometric Data Division. 73 p.

He, W.M.; Yu, G.L.; Sun, Z.K. 2011. Nitrogen deposition enhances Bromus 

tectorum invasion: biogeographic differences in growth and competitive ability 

between China and North America. Ecography. 34(6): 1059–1066.
493

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Heyvaert, A.C.; Reuter, J.E.; Slotton, D.G.; Goldman, C.R. 2000. 

Paleolimnological reconstruction of historical atmospheric lead and mercury 

deposition at Lake Tahoe, California−Nevada. Environmental Science & 

Technology. 34(17): 3588–3597.

Hunsaker, C.; Bytnerowicz, A.; Auman, J.; Cisneros, R. 2007. Air pollution 

and watershed research in the central Sierra Nevada of California: nitrogen and 

ozone. The Scientific World Journal. 7: 206–221.

Jaffe, D.; Ray, J. 2007. Increase in surface ozone at rural sites in the western US. 

Atmospheric Environment. 41(26): 5452–5463.

Landers, D.H.; Simonich, S.L.; Jaffe, D.A.; Geiser, L.H.; Campbell, D.H.; 

Schwindt, A.R.; Schreck, C.B.; Kent, M.L.; Hafner, W.D.; Taylor, H.E.; 

Hageman, K.J.; Usenko, S.; Ackerman, L.K.; Schrlau, J.E.; Rose, N.L.; 

Blett, T.F.; Erway, M.M. 2008. The fate, transport, and ecological impacts of 

airborne contaminants in western national parks (USA). EPA/600/R-07/138. 

Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and 

Development, NHEERL, Western Ecology Division. 350 p.

Matyssek, R.; Bytnerowicz, A.; Karlsson, P.E.; Paoletti, E.; Sanz, M.; Schaub, 

M.; Wieser, G. 2007. Promoting the O3

 flux concept for European forest trees. 

Environmental Pollution. 146(3): 587–607.

McKenzie, D.; Peterson, D.L.; Littell, J.J. 2008. Global warming and stress 

complexes in forests of western North America. In: Bytnerowicz, A.; Arbaugh, 

M.J.; Riebau, A.R.; Andersen, C., eds. Developments in environmental science, 

vol. 8: Wildland fires and air pollution. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 319–337.

Miller, P.R.; Longbotham, G.J.; Longbotham, C.R. 1983. Sensitivity of selected 

western conifers to ozone. Plant Disease. 67(10): 1113–1115.

Miller, P.R.; McCutchen, M.H.; Milligan, H.P. 1972. Oxidant air pollution 

in the Central Valley, Sierra Nevada, and Mineral King Valley of California. 

Atmospheric Environment. 6: 623–633.

Miller, P.R.; Millecan, A.A. 1971. Extent of oxidant air pollution damage to some 

pines and other conifers in California. Plant Disease Reporter. 55(6): 555–559.

Miller, P.R.; Stolte, K.W.; Duriscoe, D.M.; Pronos, J. 1996. Evaluating ozone air 

pollution effects on pines in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-155. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Soutwest Research Station. 79 p.
494

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Miller, W.W.; Johnson, D.W.; Karam, S.L.; Walker, R.F.; Weisberg, P.J. 2010.

A synthesis of Sierran forest biomass management studies and potential effects 

on water quality. Forests. 1(3): 131–153.

Minnich, R.A.; Padgett, P.E. 2003. Geology, climate and vegetation of the 

Sierra Nevada and the mixed-conifer zone: an introduction to the ecosystem. 

In: Bytnerowicz, A.; Arbaugh, M.J.; Alonso, R., eds. Developments in 

environmental science, vol. 2: Ozone air pollution in the Sierra Nevada. 

Amsterdam: Elsevier: 1–31.

Oltmans, S.J.; Lefohn, A.S.; Shadwick, D.; Harris, J.M.; Scheel, H.E.; 

Galbally, I.; Tarasick, D.W.; Johnson, B.J.; Brunke, E.G.; Claude, H.; Zeng, 

G.; Nichol, S.; Schmidlin, F.; Davies, J.; Cuevas, E.; Redondas, A.; Naoe, H.; 

Nakano, T.; Kawasato, T. 2013. Recent tropospheric ozone changes—a pattern 

dominated by slow or no growth. Atmospheric Environment. 67: 331–351.

O’Neill, S.M.; Larkin, N.K.; Hoadley, J.; Mills, G.; Vaughan, J.K.; Draxler, 

R.R.; Rolph, G.; Ruminski, M.; Ferguson, S.A. 2008. Regional real-time 

smoke prediction systems. In: Bytnerowicz, A.; Arbaugh, M.; Riebau, A.; 

Andersen, C., eds. Developments in environmental science, vol. 2: Ozone air 

pollution in the Sierra Nevada. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 499–534. 

Preisler, H.K.; Zhong, S.Y.; Esperanza, A.; Brown, T.J.; Bytnerowicz, A.; 

Tarnay, L. 2010. Estimating contribution of wildland fires to ambient ozone 

levels in national parks in the Sierra Nevada, California. Environmental 

Pollution. 158(3): 778–787.

Quinn-Davidson, L.; Varner, J.M. 2012. Impediments to prescribed fire 

across agency, landscape and manager: an example from northern California. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. 21(3): 210–218.

Serengil, Y.; Augustaitis, A.; Bytnerowicz, A.; Grulke, N.; Kozovitz, A.R.; 

Matyssek, R.; Muller-Starck, G.; Schaub, M.; Wieser, G.; Coskun, A.A.; 

Paoletti, E. 2011. Adaptation of forest ecosystems to air pollution and climate 

change: a global assessment on research priorities. iForest—Biogeosciences and 

Forestry. 4: 44–48.

Sickman, J.O.; Melack, J.M.; Clow, D.W. 2003. Evidence for nutrient enrichment 

of high-elevation lakes in the Sierra Nevada, California. Limnology and 

Oceanography. 48(5): 1885–1892.
495

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Sitch, S.; Cox, P.M.; Collins, W.J.; Huntingford, C. 2007. Indirect radiative 

forcing of climate change through ozone effects on the land-carbon sink. Nature. 

448(7155): 791–794.

Stephens, S.L.; Martin, R.E.; Clinton, N.E. 2007. Prehistoric fire area and 

emissions from California’s forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 251(3): 205–216.

Takemoto, B.K.; Bytnerowicz, A.; Fenn, M.E. 2001. Current and future effects of 

ozone and atmospheric nitrogen deposition on California’s mixed conifer forests. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 144(1–3): 159–173.

Urbanski, S.P.; Hao, W.M.; Baker, S. 2008. Chemical composition of wildland 

fire emissions. In: Bytnerowicz, A.; Arbaugh, M.; Riebau, A.; Andersen, C., eds. 

Developments in environmental science, vol. 8: Wildland fires and air pollution. 

Amsterdam: Elsevier: 79–107.

Westerling, A.L.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Cayan, D.R.; Swetnam, T.W. 2006. Warming 

and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science. 

313(5789): 940–943.

Whittinghill, K.A.; Currie, W.S.; Zak, D.R.; Burton, A.J.; Pregitzer, K.S. 

2012. Anthropogenic N deposition increases soil C storage by decreasing the 

extent of litter decay: analysis of field observations with an ecosystem model. 

Ecosystems. 15(3): 450–461.

Wiedinmyer, C.; Hurteau, M. 2010. Prescribed fire as a means of reducing 

forest carbon emissions in the western United States. Environmental Science 

& Technology. 44(6): 1926–1932.

Williams, W.T.; Brady, M.; Willison, S.C. 1977. Air pollution damage to the 

forest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. Journal of the Air Pollution 

Control Association. 27: 230–234.
496

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247
497

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Patricia L. Winter,1 Jonathan W. Long,2 and Susan Charnley 3

Previous chapters of this synthesis rely on multiple ecological disciplines to frame 

core aspects of a sustainable, resilient ecosystem. Approaching forest management 

in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range in a manner that promotes socioecological resilience and sustains important forest values requires consideration 

of not only the ecological, but also the social, economic, cultural, and institutional 

components of the ecosystem, using a systems approach (Higgins and Duane 2008). 

The term “socioecological system” has been widely used in scientific literature 

on resilience. Key ideas underpinning the concept of integrated socioecological 

systems are: interactions between biophysical and social factors; linkages across 

spatial, temporal, and organizational scales; regulation of the flow and use of 

critical resources that are natural, socioeconomic, and cultural; and continuous 

adaptation (Redman et al. 2004). In the following six chapters, we draw from published research to improve understanding of forest management for socioecological 

resilience in the synthesis area.

Chapter 9.1 describes the social context of the synthesis area. Drawing from 

the extensive analysis of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final Report (Erman 

and SNEP Science Team 1997), the chapter explores the social complexities of 

the area. Recreation and tourism are used as a specific example of a triple bottom 

line approach to sustainability, which brings together ecological, economic, and 

social considerations (Thomas 

2012). These topics are emphasized 

because of their great importance 

Section 9—Social/Economic/Cultural Components

1 Research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, 4955 Canyon 

Crest Dr., Riverside, CA 92507.

2 Research ecologist, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, 1731 Research 

Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.

3 Research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Forestry 

Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main St., 

Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205.

Forest management 

that promotes socioecological resilience 

considers ecological, 

socioeconomic, cultural, and institutional 

components of the 

ecosystem.

People on a trail in the center of Crescent Meadow, Sequoia National Park.

David Olson
498

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

in this synthesis area and because they are the subject of recent scientific advances 

reflected in published literature (see Bricker et al. 2010, Cottrell and Vaske 2006, 

Cottrell et al. 2007, Winter et al. 2013, WTO and UNEP 2008). 

Chapter 9.2 focuses on how the concept of ecosystem services can be used in 

forest management to frame and describe concerns and tradeoffs as they relate to 

social, economic, and cultural values. This chapter also considers tensions between 

supply and demand for such services, especially in light of the population growth 

described in the first chapter.

Chapter 9.3 examines the connection between social and ecological health and 

well-being in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. It explores, from a 

sociocultural perspective, the ecosystem dynamics that are threats to and stressors 

on ecosystems in the synthesis area—specifically, climate change, wildland fire, 

and invasive species. The chapter also presents and discusses the complexities of 

decisionmaking associated with effective management for resilience.

After considering these broad regional issues in the first three chapters, this 

section turns to the sustainability and resilience of rural communities that lie within 

the synthesis area. The final three chapters examine how benefits for rural communities can be created through forest management that contributes to socioeconomic 

sustainability and enhances overall socioecological resilience within the region.

One way to create local community benefits is to undertake forest management 

in a manner that enhances economic opportunities in local communities. This can 

be accomplished in a number of ways, including through forest restoration, recreation management, and the production of forest products. Chapter 9.4 discusses 

strategies for job creation in forest communities through forest restoration and 

recreation on national forest lands. Chapter 9.5 focuses on strategies for sustaining and improving the production of forest products from public lands, including 

timber, biomass, nontimber forest products, and forage for livestock, to help support 

community residents who depend on these resources for their livelihoods.

The final chapter in the section, 9.6, focuses on institutions, processes, and 

models for collaboration in forest management that use an all-lands approach 

and incorporate traditional and local ecological knowledge. The importance of 

collaboration within the larger context of forest management, discussed in the first 

chapter, loops back here to focus on effective approaches for collaboration across 

scales, regions, and institutions, with examples from throughout the state. These 

collaborative institutions and processes will continue to be an important influence 

on the success of managing for socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada 

synthesis area.
499

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

References

Bricker, K.S.; Winter, P.L.; Schultz, J.R. 2010. Health, economy, & community: 

USDA Forest Service managers’ perspectives on sustainable outdoor recreation. 

Rural Connections. September: 37–42.

Cottrell, S.P.; Vaske, J.J. 2006. A framework for monitoring and modeling 

sustainable tourism. e-Review of Tourism Research. 4(4): 74–84.

Cottrell, S.P.; Vaske, J.J.; Shen, F., Ritter, P. 2007. Resident perceptions of 

sustainable tourism in Chongdugou, China. Society and Natural Resources. 

20(6): 511–525.

Erman, D.C.; SNEP Science Team, eds. 1997. Status of the Sierra Nevada: the 

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project [CD-ROM]. Digital Data Series DDS-43. 

Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. http://pubs.usgs.

gov/dds/dds-43/DDS_43.PDF. (14 May 2013).

Higgins, T.L.; Duane, T.P. 2008. Incorporating complex adaptive systems theory 

into strategic planning: the Sierra Nevada Conservancy. Journal of Environmental 

Planning and Management. 51(1): 141–162.

Redman, C.L.; Grove, J.M.; Kuby, L.H. 2004. Integrating social science into the 

long-term ecological research (LTER) network: social dimensions of ecological 

change and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems. 7(2): 161–171.

Thomas, C. 2012. Using GTR 220 to build stakeholder collaboration. In: North, 

M., ed. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station: 89–93.

Winter, P.L.; Bricker, K.; Schultz, J. 2013. The sustainability of outdoor recreation 

and tourism: findings from a survey of Forest Service managers. In: Cordell, H.K.; 

Betz, C.J.; Zarnoch, S.J., eds. Recreation and protected land resources in the United 

States: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA assessment. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-169. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 198 p. http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/

gtr_srs169/gtr_srs169_appendix_papers.pdf. (19 December 2013).

World Tourism Organization and United Nations Environment Programme 

[WTO and UNEP]. 2008. Climate change and tourism: responding to global 

challenges. Madrid, Spain. http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/

WEBx0142xPA-ClimateChangeandTourismGlobalChallenges.pdf. (23 

December 2013).
500

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247
501

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Patricia L. Winter,1 Jonathan W. Long,2 Frank K. Lake,3 and Susan Charnley4

Summary

This chapter sets the context for the following sociocultural sections of the synthesis by providing information on the broader social, cultural, and economic patterns 

in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. Demographic influences surrounding population change, including those accounted for through amenity migration, are examined. Social and cultural concerns surrounding place meanings and 

place attachments are reviewed next, including potential influences on responses to 

natural resource management. Managing for resilience includes effectively applying 

a “triple bottom line approach,” presented in this chapter through a discussion of 

recreation and tourism, one of the ecosystem services of importance in the assessment region.

Introduction

Thousands of years of indigenous forest management, an influx of settlers during the gold rush, and, more recently, agricultural development and expansion of 

residential developments into foothill and forest communities, are some of the major 

human influences on the Sierra Nevada (Minnich and Padgett 2003). Cornell et al. 

(2010) suggested that to achieve a more integrated understanding of socioecological 

systems, it is important to study how human societies and individuals have adapted 

successfully to constraints. Understanding historical patterns of indigenous groups 

in the Sierra Nevada, including locations of settlements, seasonal migrations, and 

uses of the land (e.g., fishing, gathering, construction of structures), may be instructive in preparing approaches for mitigation and adaptation to expected stressors, 

because traditional cultures have developed lifeways to cope with variability and 

unpredictability (Berkes et al. 2000). This chapter begins by describing some of 

the recent demographic changes within the synthesis area, along with other social 

forces that influenced its development, since the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project 

Chapter 9.1—Broader Context for Social, 

Economic, and Cultural Components

1 Research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Dr., Riverside, CA 92507.

2 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.

3 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002.

4 Research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main St., Suite 400, 

Portland, OR 97205.
502

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

(SNEP) report (Erman and SNEP Science Team 1997) was completed. Because 

much of the population growth in the synthesis area has been associated with 

amenity migration (i.e., movement to forested areas for their amenity values), this 

chapter briefly reviews specific impacts of growing amenity migration on social 

and ecological systems. Population increases within the synthesis area, along with 

other demographic, social, cultural, economic, and political changes occurring both 

within and outside of the area, are expected to continue into the future, including 

increasing ethnically diverse and elderly populations. Place meanings are briefly 

discussed in this chapter in terms of how they influence people’s expectations for 

ecosystem services and their relationships to the synthesis area. Management of 

recreation and tourism is discussed using a triple bottom line approach to sustainability, and the chapter concludes by offering insights into managing for resilience.

Demographic Influences in the Synthesis Area 

The area of focus for the sociocultural chapters of this report coincides with the 

region previously examined in the SNEP report. Stewart (1996) described that 

area as a 20-million-ac zone with mixed federal, state, county, regional, local, and 

private ownership and management areas. The SNEP assessment included 180 

community aggregations and covered 160 unique ZIP codes.

The synthesis area boundaries contain 24 counties in full or in part, though 

some of these were characterized as having a small minority of their county 

population within the SNEP region (see table 2.1 in Stewart 1996). Based on the 12 

counties that fall primarily within the SNEP region, the 1990 regional population 

was 563,000 (see table 2.3 in Stewart 1996). At the time of the SNEP assessment, 

the majority of populations in the remaining counties fell outside of the region, 

thus county-level data were less instructive.5

Population Change, 1990 to 2012

Population estimates for the 12 counties6 reported by Stewart (1996) show a 

dramatic 49.8 percent increase in population since the SNEP assessment (table 1). 

However, regional variations within the assessment area are important to note. 

The overall increase in population is attributable primarily to increases in the 

north-central region, whereas a decrease has been documented in the northern 

5 Another consideration is the variation among communities within any one county, as 

characterized in the SNEP assessment.

6 The majority of these counties’ populations fall within the synthesis boundaries. This 

selection is not intended to diminish the importance of other counties in the region, but 

facilitates comparison with the Stewart (1996) chapter to document population change.
503

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

region. It is also important to consider potential methodological differences in the 

two assessments.7

Between 1990 and 2000, the vast majority of population growth in the Sierra 

Nevada and Sierra Nevada foothills occurred in the wildland-urban interface and 

intermix (Hammer et al. 2007).

Amenity Migration 

Population growth and settlement in the Sierra Nevada continues to be influenced 

by an influx of seasonal and year-round residents who are drawn to the area by 

its unique features (Loeffler and Steinicke 2007). The process of new part-term 

or permanent residents settling in these areas, in part because of natural amenities, has been described as “amenity migration,” or “counterurbanization (fig. 1).” 

This phenomenon has been abundant in the foothills of the central Sierra Nevada 

(Duane 1996) and in the high-altitude regions of the Lake Tahoe basin (Löffler and 

Steinicke 2006, Loeffler and Steinicke 2007, Raumann and Cablk 2008) and Mammoth Lakes (Löffler and Steinicke 2006, Loeffler and Steinicke 2007). A study of 

62 years of land use in the Lake Tahoe basin revealed an increase in developed land 

and decreases in forests, wetlands, and shrublands, which the authors attributed to 

increased regional population and demand for recreation and tourism opportunities 

in the basin (Raumann and Cablk 2008). The expansion of human settlement into 

higher elevations has been particularly notable in the Lake Tahoe region, where 

the upper regions of settlement have moved up in elevation to almost 2400 m, 

compared to the limit of about 2200 m 30 years ago (Löffler and Steinicke 2006). 

7 Methodological differences will also be of concern in the assessment process, as each 

community may have its own approach to arriving at or selecting and then interpreting 

current and projected population numbers. Each reporting and forecasting agency provides 

a methodological description as well as a statement of assumptions and potential sources of 

error. This approach may be prudent for upcoming assessments.

Table 1—Population changes between 1990 and 2012 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) regions

1990 2012 Percentage

County-based region Counties population population of change

North Plumas, Sierra 23,300 22,870 -1.8

North-central Nevada, Placer, El Dorado 383,400 633,222 65.2

South-central Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, Mariposa 126,600 153,510 21.3

East Alpine, Mono, Inyo 29,700 33,949 14.3

 Total 563,000 843,551 49.8

Note: The regions, counties, and 1990 populations are taken from the SNEP assessment (Stewart 1996). The 2012 comparison populations were reported 

by the State of California Department of Finance (2012).
504

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

These increases in higher elevation year-round and seasonal residency may affect 

ecosystems in ways not seen in the past. Counterurbanization, or ex-urban migration, is often associated with impacts to ecosystems through habitat fragmentation, 

dispersal of invasive species, and changes in fire regimes (Abrams et al. 2012). Urban 

development has affected biodiversity in the area, as demonstrated by Manley et al. 

(2009), who found that even small degrees of development have dramatically reduced 

the proportion of habitat that might be suitable for the California spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis occidentalis). Habitat fragmentation and impacts on wildlife as a consequence of amenity migration are further discussed in Haight and Gobster (2009).

Amenity migration has led to dramatic transformations in rural communities as 

traditional land uses, economic activities, and social relations transition from those 

associated with extractive industries to those associated with amenity values (for a 

review, see Gosnell and Abrams 2011). Amenity migration is associated with shifts 

in local sociodemographics—for example, toward a younger, more affluent, more 

educated population (Loeffler and Steinicke 2007, Peterson et al. 2007). Housing 

values and overall costs of living have been shown to increase dramatically with 

ex-urban migration, sometimes outpacing the ability of long-standing residents to 

meet that increase (Loeffler and Steinicke 2007). Housing values have climbed above 

the housing affordability index in several parts of the synthesis area (Löffler and 

Figure 1—Cabins in Wilsonia, a community near the Sequoia National Forest, an example of 

amenity migration prompted by unique natural features in the area.

Elke Schuster

Amenity migration 

has led to dramatic 

transformations in 

rural communities as 

traditional land uses, 

economic activities, 

and social relations 

transition from those 

associated with 

extractive industries 

to those associated 

with amenity values.
505

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Steinicke 2006). Many workers in the area are forced to commute owing to unaffordable housing costs (see box 9.1-1 for an example), and the most affected are Hispanic, 

Asian, and some younger workers (Löffler and Steinicke 2006). This brings to light 

one environmental justice issue related to amenity migration—that of disparate 

impacts on less affluent residents in an area, as well as those who are employed in 

an area but cannot afford to live there. (For further discussion of the benefits and 

impacts of recreation and tourism on local communities and economic conditions, 

see chapter 9.4, “Strategies for Job Creation Through Forest Management.”)

Box 9.1-1

An Example of the Cost of Amenity Migration

A survey of workers and employers in Incline Village and Crystal Bay revealed 

fewer year-round residents and families with children, a near majority of workers in lower income sectors having commutes of 30 minutes or longer or living 

with many others to make housing affordable, and a toll on the local economy 

from lack of workforce housing. The analysis suggested that a median-priced 

townhouse or condominium in 2009 required a household income of $107,180. 

The median annual income in those areas in 2008 was $44,346, and in the 

entertainment, accommodation, and food services sector, the median annual 

income was $30,389. Even households with two full-time wage earners would 

find it difficult to afford the median price accommodations (Praxis Consulting 

Group 2009).

Although opportunities to develop additional physical infrastructure are associated with increased economic capacity through amenity migration, demands on 

local social systems and resources are increased (Kruger et al. 2008b). Substantial 

costs are associated with providing community services and social infrastructure 

(e.g., roads, sewage treatment, schools, fire protection) (Duane 1996, Gosnell and 

Abrams 2011). New residents bring with them different sets of values that may clash 

with those of long-term residents, making collaboration associated with natural 

resource management more challenging (Walker and Hurley 2004). The focus of 

management on private lands tends to shift as a result, from economic generation 

and family tradition to amenity and investment values (Ferranto et al. 2011), as 

well as to environmental protection (Jones et al. 2003). These changing private 

owner motivations and values require shifts in outreach and engagement (Ferranto 

et al. 2012), in part through the collaborative approaches presented in a subsequent 

chapter (9.6). 
506

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Attachment to the natural environment, influenced by natural landscapes and 

views, presence of wildlife, and opportunities for outdoor recreation, has been 

demonstrated as a component of community attachment and well-being (Brehm et 

al. 2004). Environmental quality contributes to sense of place (Stedman 2003). This 

factor is especially important in the Sierra Nevada because of the strong influence 

of amenity migration and the potential independence from length of residence.

Protecting scenery, outdoor recreation opportunities, and environmental quality 

will likely continue to encourage amenity migration (Cordell et al. 2011). Efforts 

to protect the unique features and opportunities on forest lands are more effective when partnered with a focus on maintaining community character and social 

fabric (Kruger et al. 2008b), although adaptation of a community and its character 

is likely. Amenity migration has both positive and negative impacts, and positive 

outcomes are reliant on local adaptive capacity to manage changes in both social 

and physical attributes of community (Krannich et al. 2006). This theme of capacity to change and adapt as part of resilience reflects the broader concept of socioecological resilience put forth in this synthesis. Inability of the system to adapt, 

whether it is physical or social, is viewed as a constraint to resilience. These same 

characteristics are needed to address threats from natural disturbances (Krishnaswamy et al. 2012). Whether all change is desirable cannot be determined here, and 

the quality of social fabric will remain of concern to residents of rural communities 

in the synthesis area. 

Population Increases

Projections of population in 2050 for the same 12-county area described previously 

anticipate an additional 48.5 percent increase above 2012 levels, for an estimated 

total of 1,252,735 (State of California, Department of Finance 2012). Note that not 

all counties are expected to have steady-state increases during this period; in fact, 

some areas are projected to have declines in population. 

Counties and communities within the synthesis area will likely have their own 

projections and estimates to contribute to the plan revision process, similar to the 

assessment conducted by Struglia et al. (2003) for the southern region of the state. 

Thus, the projections offered here should not be viewed as definitive, but as demonstrative of what is anticipated by California’s central planning and demographic 

resource. Projections have been the subject of debate and sometimes dispute (Struglia et al. 2003) because of their association with the allocation of resources from 

federal, state, and regional entities, and because of the local responsibilities that 

may result from them. Social and economic assessments would benefit from considering these multiple and sometimes conflicting sources and their implications, 

where applicable to regional and forest plans. An approach that provides multiple 
507

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

perspectives mirrored after Struglia et al. (2003), wherein the multiple projections 

and their variations are presented and discussed, may help represent these debates 

and foster a continuing collaborative and adaptive approach to management of the 

synthesis area. 

Influences from outside of the synthesis area—

Increasing populations in metro areas surrounding the Sierra Nevada will continue 

to have both indirect and direct impacts, including, for example, demand for water 

(indirect; see box 9.1-2 for an example), and recreation and tourism (direct). The 

Sierra Nevada contains features, species, and areas with heightened social value; 

these values present concerns that extend well beyond local communities (see, for 

example, Kellert et al. 2000, and chapter 9.2, “Ecosystem Services”).

Box 9.1-2

Value of Water to Southern California

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP 2010) outlines 

the significant value of water coming into the Los Angeles Aqueduct from the 

eastern and western watersheds of the Sierra Nevada and the regional benefit 

to southern California water supplies. A period of filling this demand at a 

cost to the Owens River and Mono Lake8 ecosystems demonstrates the need 

to consider broader scale impacts of managing water as a valued ecosystem 

service in the state (see, for example, Fitzhugh and Richter 2004). 

The Sierra Nevada 

contains features, 

species, and areas 

with heightened social 

value; these values 

present concerns that 

extend well beyond 

local communities.

8See Wiens et al. (1993) for a detailed ecological impact assessment from Mono Lake.

Human activities some distance away also affect the ecological quality and 

viability of the Sierra Nevada. For example, chapter 8.1, “Air Quality,” notes 

effects of airborne pollutants from other parts of California and even from across 

the globe. Drift of pesticides from agriculture in the Central Valley in California 

has been detected in various ecosystem components in the Sierra Nevada, raising 

particular concerns about the risks of these contaminants to sensitive amphibian 

populations (see chapter 6.4, “Lakes: Recent Research and Restoration Strategies”). 

These issues of influence from some distance away highlight the varying levels of 

scale that must be considered in managing for socioecological resilience (Engle 

2011), and how larger scales of impact and interaction must be taken into account. 
508

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Influences at even larger scales have some relevance to natural resource 

management and decisionmaking in the Sierra Nevada. For example, community 

well-being must be considered in the context of global economic trends, and the 

effects of local ecological systems and resource management must be distilled from 

broader social forces (see Davidson 2010 and Jackson et al. 2004). 

This is an important consideration in selecting indicators of well-being (e.g., for 

monitoring purposes) and measures that may be relied upon in an adaptive management approach. Changes observed in the sociocultural sphere must be carefully 

evaluated for their degree of association to management actions as well as inaction. 

Not all indicators of well-being are helpful to monitor from a forest management 

perspective. This is because not all indicators can be linked to land management 

through an analysis of cause and effect, or even strong association. Jackson et al. 

(2004) discussed a number of these issues regarding monitoring of community 

impacts. When relying on social indicators, there is a risk of selecting measures that 

are readily available but may not have verifiable linkages to management decisions 

or policies, that may not be at the appropriate scales (e.g., provided at the county 

level when forest boundaries do not align with the county), or that lead to reliance 

on numbers whose validity or reliability are not known or have been affected 

by changes over time. Comparing data across multiple years for even a single 

source can be complex, given changes in measurement or calculation (for further 

discussion, see Struglia et al. 2003). Longitudinal surveys and focus groups are 

recommended by Jackson et al. (2004) as the appropriate approach to monitoring 

and identification of more complex linkages between well-being and land management, although they note the barriers associated with establishing new information 

collections sponsored by federal agencies. Drawing from well-established efforts 

that provide information that is available, verifiable, well-supported, and captures 

multiple dimensions of well-being may be helpful, especially in cases where 

assistance to communities wishing to adopt these measures is offered.9

 Later in this 

report, chapter 9.4 presents issues of resilience and approaches to measurement of 

well-being in rural communities.

Based on larger socioeconomic trends across the United States, Cordell et 

al. (2004) laid out key implications for natural resources applicable to the Sierra 

Nevada, including a smaller and more fragmented rural land base (confirmed by 

patterns of land use reported by Ferranto et al. 2011), disproportionate pressures on 

public lands for recreation and raw materials, increased conflicts and competition 

9 See, for example, the County Health Rankings & Roadmaps report available from the University 

of Wisconsin and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. http://www.countyhealthrankings.org.
509

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

for access, and less connection between people and the land. Place connections 

may have been supplanted among some segments of the population where connections of the digital age include virtual communities and virtual settings (Misra and 

Stokols 2012). These virtual connections may alter the development of place-based 

connections in ways not fully understood. Some authors have outlined concerns 

surrounding disconnections with natural spaces, especially for youth, who represent 

the future of how natural resources may be valued and how they may be used or 

preserved (see Louv 2006 and Schultz 2002).

Changes in ethnic composition within the regions surrounding the Sierra 

Nevada are worthy of note. In the Pacific Coast RPA (Resources Planning Act 10 ) 

region (which includes California) between 1990 and 2008, there was an 80.4 

percent increase in residents self-identifying as Latino or Hispanic, a 59 percent 

increase in those identifying as Asian or Pacific Islander, and an 8.9 percent 

increase in those identifying as African American (Cordell 2012). Research suggests that these demographic changes carry implications for natural resource 

management agencies. For example, some groups have stronger n ties with the 

Forest Service and other managing agencies, whereas others may have little if 

any established relationships, or even a negative history of relationships. Services 

offered through existing communication and information approaches and more 

direct opportunities, such as those represented in recreation and tourism, might be 

a poor fit to the populations that are increasing in the region and surrounding areas 

(see the recreation and tourism section of this chapter for further discussion). 

Planning efforts for the management of forests in the synthesis area would 

benefit from considering these cultural shifts and how they may be met through 

adjustments in local and regional services, including communication and outreach 

to broader publics outside of the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range (see 

Roberts et al. 2009 for a discussion of some of these service adjustments). For 

example, communication may need to be through ethnic media or key contacts 

within communities (Winter et al. 2008) rather than through mainstream Englishspeaking media. Research suggests that messaging that is culturally sensitive and 

addresses issues that matter to the particular community of interest will be more 

effective (Roberts et al. 2009). Sensitivity to cultural differences in relationships to 

government, the land, and land management will aid effective management in this 

diverse region (see Cheng and Daniels 2003). Increased cultural diversity in California will continue to be reflected through immigration of Latinos and Asians into 

10 See http://www.fs.fed.us/research/rpa/.

Sensitivity to cultural 

differences in relationships to government, 

the land, and land 

management will aid 

effective management 

in this diverse region.
510

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Sierra Nevada communities, thus increasing the importance of attending to cultural 

influences and values of long-standing and newly immigrated residents (Sturtevant 

and Donoghue 2008). 

These dimensions of diversity add to the already diverse demographic, economic, and ethnic profile of Sierra Nevada communities. Both new and existing 

populations will challenge modes of outreach, engagement, and approaches to 

public land management. Particular attention will need to be paid to groups who 

may be underserved or underrepresented in opportunities to have their opinions 

heard or their needs and interests represented in decisions about how places will be 

managed, and in opportunities to use their public lands. Some of these groups may 

not have opportunities to translate their “voice” and concerns through traditional 

mechanisms of power and influence in public land management planning, and 

issues of potential bias in participatory processes need to be considered and 

remedied (Brown and Donovan 2013).

Place Meanings Link to a Diverse and 

Growing Population

Because locations and places have substantial variation in meanings and interests, 

discussions of place are characterized by significant complexity and diversity 

(Patterson and Williams 2005). Relationships to natural spaces (such as traditions 

of viewing oneself and nature as part of a whole; see Turner and Berkes 2006, 

Wiggins et al. 2012) may be embedded in culture (Burn et al. 2012, Satterfield et 

al. 2013), religion, or personal experience (such as through recreation and tourism, 

see Wynveen et al. 2008); associated value sets (such as orientations toward the 

environment and nature; see de Groot and Steg 2010); and familial experiences 

or social constructions (see Stedman 2003). Two parties or groups may express 

a particular value or attitude toward a place or location, and these may distinctly 

differ (e.g., sacred area versus lovely place to build a structure; see McAvoy 2002). 

Place meanings and attachments and responses to proposed actions or natural 

resource management approaches will vary in response based on scale of place 

under consideration (Cheng and Daniels 2003, Hernández et al. 2007). Talking 

about landscape scale may result in stakeholders thinking more globally about 

ecosystem resilience, where issues surrounding distinct locations or places at 

smaller scales may reveal more specific issues surrounding place meanings and 

their importance. It is, however, necessary to address these more distinct scales 

because actions even across a landscape are likely to have an effect on areas of 

specific importance.
511

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

These divergent views may also vary in strength of impression and importance, 

as will the ways in which individuals respond to changes in forest management. For 

example, individuals with direct-vested interests in a place may have attitudes that 

are stronger than those whose interests may be equally satisfied by a comparable 

place (Wiggins et al. 2012). Ranges of relationships vary from contained or individualistic parts of association to those described as strong relationality, or embedded 

as the foundation of identity and existence (Wiggins et al. 2012). Seasonal residents, 

year-round residents, and visitors may vary in their place attachments and meanings 

(Stedman 2003), and the mechanisms by which these vary and the influence of each 

is still not entirely understood (Hernández et al. 2007).

Those whose connections or impressions of a place are intertwined with their 

sense of self are likely to hold much stronger attachments and may consider discussions of place as equal to discussions of self-determination and personal identity 

(Clayton and Myers 2009, Hernández et al. 2007, Huntsinger et al. 2010, Knez 

2005). Public land management actions may be of significant concern when viewed 

as a threat to one’s self, or a personal attack (Cheng et al. 2003). Likewise, group 

identities may be attached to a particular place, where meanings and management 

preferences for areas are intertwined with social identity (Cheng et al. 2003, Hull 

et al. 1994, Huntsinger et al. 2010, Opotow and Brook 2003, Schneider and Winter 

1998). Debates over place and attached meanings may then also be interpreted as 

discrimination against a particular group; for example, debates over impacts of 

grazing may be viewed as embedded in discrimination against ranchers and ranching as a way of life (Huntsinger et al. 2010), a fear of loss of community (Miller and 

Sinclair 2012), and a request of a majority to have a minority (ranchers) bear the 

burden of protection (Opotow and Brook 2003). 

An approach that incorporates diverse place meanings may benefit from collaborative stewardship of areas with symbolic or cultural significance for American 

Indians (McAvoy 2002, McAvoy et al. 2003). Tribal traditions and beliefs may be 

connected to active stewardship of lands to maintain place and culture. Taking this 

collaborative stewardship approach would allow for sometimes conflicting views 

and meanings of protected areas, including forestlands containing valued natural 

and cultural resources.

Place-specific attachment has been shown to differ from conceptual attachment, which is held by more technical “experts” with knowledge of natural areas 

(Ryan 2005). Forms of attachment are associated with valuing various aspects or 

features of a place, and thus may be associated with preferences for management 

of that place and differences in how individuals and groups respond to change 
512

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

(Ryan 2005, Stedman 2003, Wagner and Gobster 2007, Yung et al. 2003). As a 

result, generic discussions of landscape scale present a challenge, and it is clear that 

discussions of management are enriched when they also focus on specific landscapes in order to be able to consider social and cultural dimensions (see Asah et 

al. 2012, Brown and Donovan 2013, Cheng and Daniels 2003, Diamant et al. 2003, 

Williams 2006), including place meanings and personal and social identities (Cheng 

et al. 2003, Kruger et al. 2008a, Yung et al. 2003). Understanding meanings of place 

(e.g., places designated as sacred or otherwise valuable) is essential to discussions 

of socioecological resilience (Berkes and Turner 2006, Clayton and Myers 2009, 

McAvoy 2002). This is in contrast to the landscape-scale approach that is needed for 

addressing ecosystem threats, such as climate change. A nested approach to forest 

planning and management may be needed to successfully negotiate the challenge 

of addressing large landscapes while recognizing the unique qualities of the places 

that are situated within that larger whole.

Place-based approaches to planning represent one means of incorporating these 

various place meanings (Hibbard and Madsen 2003), and they provide the path to 

consider “special places,” along with their divergent meanings (Schroeder 2002). 

However, note that proximity is not the sole determinant of meaning. Individuals 

and groups some distance away must also be considered. (For an extended examination of sense of place and implications for management, see Farnum et al. 2005 and 

Kruger et al. 2008b.) This can complicate deliberations over management direction 

when particular groups are not represented in planning approaches that gather input 

through more conventional mechanisms, such as through inviting public comments 

or holding public input meetings (Brown and Donovan 2013, Cheng et al. 2003). 

Although technology can provide new avenues for public engagement, such tools 

may tend to limit the range and representativeness of participation in significant 

ways; for example, a recent study of public participation in using a geographic 

information system (GIS) demonstrated the importance of random sampling to 

ensure broader representation of publics than what would be derived from voluntary 

participation alone (Brown et al. 2013). 

The population of the Sierra Nevada represents a small portion of the statewide 

population, and it is thus a numerical minority centered in a highly valued socioecological and historical context. Statewide decisions or regional decisions to address 

majority interests may adversely impact human and nonhuman populations and 

ecosystems in the Sierra Nevada, sometimes in ways that put long-term sustainability at risk (Mittelbach and Wambem 2003). Competition for scarce ecosystem 

services and opportunities will remain a challenge for management of the forests in 

the synthesis area. 

Understanding 

meanings of place 

(e.g., places designated 

as sacred or otherwise 

valuable) is essential 

to discussions of 

socioecological 

resilience.
513

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

For many of the state’s residents and those who travel to the region from farther 

away, recreation and tourism in the Sierra Nevada are ways to learn about the area’s 

many features and to develop a connection to places within it. These connections 

may be instrumental in efforts to reduce demand on ecosystem services delivered 

far downstream, such as water drawn from the Sierra Nevada to be used in southern 

California, or the need to manage transportation in ways that reduce the transport 

of pollutants into the synthesis area. Recreation and tourism also represent primary 

ecosystem services derived from the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. In 

light of the aforementioned population and sociodemographic changes and the interest 

in socioecological resilience, the next section examines recreation and tourism.

Recreation and Tourism

National trends in recreation use are examined in the National Survey on Recreation 

and the Environment (NSRE). Recreation use on forest lands is examined, by forest, 

every 5 years through the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) survey. Additional use trends are examined by agencies and organizations specific to interests, 

and sites or use-specific issues are at times addressed through studies conducted by 

researchers in academia, agencies, and not-for-profit organizations. Because of its 

national focus and ongoing collection, trends reported as part of RPA (Resources 

Planning Act) are derived primarily from NSRE and NVUM; both are available in 

reports and publications. 

Across the United States, nature-based outdoor recreation increased in total 

number of participants (7.1 percent increase) as well as in number of activity days 

(40 percent increase) between 2000 and 2009 (Cordell 2012). Types of activities have 

changed over time, and the current mixture of reported outdoor activities is different 

from the past. An increased interest in nature was reflected in increased viewing and 

photographing of nature subjects, especially wildflowers, trees, natural scenery, and 

wildlife and birds (see box 9.1-3 on NVUM reports). This form of nature-based recreation showed the greatest increase among activity types over the last decade (fig. 

2). During that same period, site-based activities, including camping in developed 

sites and family gatherings, increased. While other backcountry activities declined 

somewhat (e.g., horseback riding on trails and day hiking), off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) use levels held steady (see Cordell 2012 for additional national trends). Use 

has also been influenced by changes in technologies; for example, geocaching is a 

technology-based activity that has shown a great amount of growth nationally and 

internationally (Schneider and Chavez 2012). National participation levels in different types of activities varied among groups depending on gender, ethnicity and race, 

annual family income, place of residence, and residence status. 
514

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Figure 2—Recreationists reading an interpretive sign at the Big Trees Trail, Sequoia National Park.

Patricia Winter
515

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Box 9.1-3

NVUM Reported Activities in the Area

Visitor Use Reports from 2007 through 2011 (the most recent reports available for the 10 forests in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range) 

show similarities to national trends, but also reflect distinct patterns when 

considering a particular forest. For example, taking into account only those 

activities participated in by one-third or more of interviewees on the national 

forests reveals that fishing was frequently reported by visitors to the Sequoia 

and Plumas; downhill skiing was frequently reported on the Inyo, Eldorado, 

and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit; and cross-country skiing was 

frequently listed on the Modoc.

Future projections for uses and interests are heavily influenced by population and sociodemographic projections and can be found in Bowker et al. (2012). 

Expected increases at the national level may show regional, forest, and site variability, and will be influenced by myriad forces, not all in the scope of influence of 

agency management. One trend that will remain important to management of recreation in the synthesis area is the shift in ethnic and cultural diversity. According 

to Roberts et al. (2009), cultural diversity will continue to increase in California, 

owing primarily to continuing growth of Latino and Asian populations, and this 

trend will have implications for outdoor recreation planning and management. A 

number of studies have revealed cultural variations within and between Latino and 

Asian populations, including recreation patterns and preferences for development, 

underrepresentation in some forested areas, and communication and information 

needs on and off site (Crano et al. 2008, Roberts et al. 2009, Winter et al. 2008).

Roberts et al. (2009) also suggested that California’s senior population, which 

is already the largest in California’s history, will continue to grow and settle in 

foothill and rural counties. Experts also anticipate increases in tourism and secondhome development, related in part to trends in the senior population.

Among the shifts in land use associated with the aforementioned amenity 

migration are demographic differences in forms of recreation engagement that can 

cause conflicts between residents with varying degrees of tenure in an area. New 

recreation approaches may conflict with historical resource use and dependence 

in the region, and recreation management would benefit from understanding and 

considering these conflicts (Mekbeb et al. 2009). Another recreation-related shift 
516

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

associated with amenity migration is greater development in wildlands, which 

could affect public access to outdoor recreation areas (Peterson et al. 2007).

Considering increases in population, continuing increases in demand for 

recreation and tourism on forest lands, agency resources, and the importance of 

recreation and tourism to rural economies presses for a sustainable approach to the 

management of recreation and tourism in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade 

Range. The following section examines recreation and tourism in the synthesis area 

using a “triple bottom line” approach.

The triple bottom line and socioecological resilience—

Approaches to the triple bottom line (ecological, social, and economic components 

of sustainability) have been applied to discussions of recreation and tourism management. Deliberations surrounding management should, according to this body of 

literature, consider each component of the triple bottom line in some detail and in 

as balanced a manner as is possible (Bricker et al. 2010, Cottrell and Vaske 2006, 

Cottrell et al. 2007). Detailed analyses of recreation and tourism sustainability 

incorporate cultural considerations into the social component of sustainability, and 

institutional and organizational considerations are brought into both the social and 

economic components (see, for example, Bricker et al. 2010 and Winter et al. 2013). 

The triple bottom line approach is modeled in this discussion for purposes of demonstrating how it might work in forest planning and management of opportunities 

in the synthesis area; however, the review here is by no means exhaustive regarding 

the scope of information that might be brought to bear on sustainability practices. 

Key to all of these is an incorporation of immediate and longer term impacts, with 

the longer term being essential to our focus on socioecological resilience throughout 

this report (see Heal 2012 for a discussion of measurement and long-term considerations surrounding sustainability). Although each component is discussed separately, there are clearly interactions between components; for example, ecological 

condition can significantly influence other components, such as diminished cultural 

experiences derived from gathering of forest products when the products or their 

surroundings are degraded.

Social and cultural components—

Social dimensions of sustainability include benefits to recreationists from being 

able to engage in desired activities, the ability of the area to sustain a particular 

level of use (social carrying capacity), and the fit between various uses proposed 

for an area (where social conflicts would come into consideration). Cultural dimensions include things like historical traditions and uses, preservation of the culture 

of a community that might be affected by recreation and tourism, and protection 

Considering increases 

in population, continuing increases in 

demand for recreation 

and tourism on 

forest lands, agency 

resources, and 

the importance of 

recreation and tourism 

to rural economies 

presses for a sustainable approach to 

the management of 

recreation and tourism 

in the Sierra Nevada 

and southern Cascade 

Range.
517

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

of cultural resources. California has a rich cultural and natural history that may be 

of value for recreation and tourism. For example, the heritage of California Indians 

can offer recreationists and tourists opportunities to learn about the cultures that 

shaped California’s ecosystems (Evans 1986).

There are myriad social and cultural benefits to managing for quality outdoor 

recreation experiences. Outdoor locations offer unique opportunities for engaging 

in active living through recreation and leisure, thus providing a benefit to physical, 

mental, and social health (Cronan et al. 2008, Gobster 2005b, Kil et al. 2012, Pretty 

et al. 2007, Rosenberger et al. 2005). Physical health benefits of outdoor recreation 

have been documented, including reduced body mass index of those who engage 

more frequently in outdoor activities (Cronan et al. 2008, Kruger et al. 2010). However, the Cronan et al. (2008) study identified variations across ethnic groups; e.g., 

Latino recreationists, especially women, were observed engaging in more sedentary 

activities than white recreationists. These patterns may reflect cultural values (e.g., 

a focus on connecting with family as central to leisure) and structural issues (for 

example, Latino women were observed taking care of young children). What this 

means is that outdoor recreation participation does not necessarily equate to the 

same degree and type of physical benefits for all participants.

Physical risks are also present in the recreation setting, and these can be mitigated either through management (such as increasing visitor safety by managing 

criminal activity in an area) or through increasing visitor awareness that effectively 

results in behavior change (see, for example, Walkosz et al. 2008). Furthermore, not 

all individuals find outdoor natural spaces pleasant to be in (Bixler and Floyd 1997), 

nor are all interested in outdoor recreation activities located on forest lands (Crano 

et al. 2008, Tierney et al. 1998).

Additional social and cultural benefits include a chance to develop connections 

to natural spaces, thus offering a place to develop bases for stewardship and caring that further protection of the physical environment and contribute to resilience 

(Clayton and Myers 2009, Crompton and Kasser 2009, Williams 2006, Winter 

and Chavez 2008, Zavaleta and Chapin 2010); a place to celebrate culture and 

family (see, for example, Anderson et al. 2000, Gunderson and Watson 2007); an 

opportunity for social bonding (Kil et al. 2012); a place for restorative and spiritual 

experiences (Kaplan 1995, Winter 2013); and myriad other important benefits too 

numerous to list here (for reviews, see Clayton and Myers 2009, and specific to wilderness, Cordell et al. 2005; for urban wilderness, Winter 2013). Not all recreation 

uses, patterns of use, and activities result in the same outcomes linked to connection with nature, leading to stewardship and conservation (Cordell et al. 2005, Kil 

et al. 2012, Winter 2013, Zaradic et al. 2009); however, an array of benefits and 
518

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

opportunities are important to consider in a discussion of sustainable recreation 

and tourism.

Constraints to participation are sometimes common across groups (e.g., lack of 

time for recreation), whereas others are more likely to be reported among disadvantaged populations. Of particular importance in this synthesis are those barriers that 

can be changed by public land management agencies. Awareness of these barriers 

may lead to changes in communication approaches on and off site, site design 

and the types of opportunities presented, management interactions with visitors, 

signage, and increases in the presence and number of agency personnel that are 

from underrepresented groups (for reviews, see Chavez 2012, Tierney et al. 1998, 

Winter 2007, Winter et al. 2004). A sustainable future incorporates considerations 

of how to ensure the social and cultural benefits of recreation and tourism are 

available across populations, especially for groups characterized by socioeconomic 

disadvantage that may in effect be in greater need of such benefits because of their 

known vulnerabilities in multiple areas of social concern. A number of partnerships 

are aimed at reconnecting the public, especially youth, with nature (Kruger et al. 

2010), and these have been designed in part to address some of these vulnerabilities.

Economic components—Economic dimensions include benefits to local communities from outside visitation of surrounding areas, economic benefits of recreation 

from local residents, and costs of managing and regulating impacts on the community itself (e.g., through increased traffic on local roads; Bricker et al. 2010). Chapter 

9.4 further examines the economic effects of recreation and tourism on Sierra 

Nevada communities. Although they will not be reviewed here, visitor expenditures 

are gathered as part of NVUM data and are available by forest. Regardless of approach to analysis, outdoor recreation is an important economic contributor to the 

local, regional, and state economy (see box 9.1-4). A per-person, per-trip estimate of 

$43 has been reported (Stynes and White 2005), though type of use showed variation in these estimates. Note that whereas many analyses present visitor expenditures by recreation use types, recent work suggests that specific trip characteristics 

(e.g., local/non-local visitor, day or overnight trip, primary or secondary purpose of 

trip) have a greater influence on visitor expenditures (White and Stynes 2008). 

Economic components also consider costs the agency may impose, for example, 

for using a particular resource or engaging in an opportunity. Economic considerations incorporate nonmarket values to allow for contributions of goods that do not 

directly generate income. These then serve as a proxy for social value of places and 

opportunities. Incorporating nonmarket values helps to capture a more complete 

picture of the contribution of a resilient system, and may help highlight the value of 

maintaining or restoring quality of an area. These nonmarket values are sometimes 
519

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

identified through willingness to pay, or contingent valuation. For example, Colby 

and Smith-Incer (2005) conducted a survey of visitors to examine visitor values 

and economic impacts of riparian habitat preservation on the Kern River Preserve. 

They surveyed visitors to the preserve to explore willingness to pay for preservation, and they reported an annual average of $467,00011 (sic) to $616,000 per year in 

willingness to pay for preservation based on average payments and visitation levels. 

Furthermore, they found that visitor expenditures in the Kern Valley represent $1.3 

million in local business activity.12 Respondents indicated that failure to maintain 

and preserve the ecosystem would likely result in decisions to not visit the area at 

all, or to significantly reduce the number and length of their visits. 

The approach can also be used to quantify “existence” and “bequest values” 

to the non-visiting general public (González-Cabán and Loomis 1997: 64). For 

example, González-Cabán and Loomis (1997) assessed annual willingness to pay 

Box 9.1-4

Reports Estimating Economic Benefits of Outdoor 

Recreation

Annual benefit to the state of California from outdoor recreation on federally 

managed lands in the Sierra Nevada region was estimated at $333 million in 

2008 and another $441 for northern California (BBC Research & Consulting 

2010) (county areas and geographic regions overlap the synthesis area but 

do not directly align). Almost three-fourths of the recreation occurring on 

federally managed lands is managed by the U.S. Forest Service and National 

Park Service (BBC Research & Consulting 2010). Although an NVUM report 

provides data on visitor expenditures, the estimates have been examined as 

an upper-end cost compared to other comparable sources (BBC Research & 

Consulting 2010). Tourism represents a major component of the Sierra Nevada 

economy, accounting for over $3.2 billion in 2000 (Mittelbach and Wambem 

2003). The statewide numbers are different from an estimate provided by 

Richardson (2002), which estimated the economic benefits of wildlands in the 

eastern Sierra Nevada region alone at $700 million per year and showed wildlands to be associated with more than 2,800 jobs in Mono and Inyo Counties. 

11 The low-end estimate of willingness to pay (WTP) based on 6,000 visitors at a mean of 

$77 per visitor would be $462,000.

12 This amount is the resulting multiplier effect of the initial recreation expenditure. That 

is, the initial expenditure generates additional economic activity in the community and the 

total aggregate economic impact on the community of their visits is $1.3 million.
520

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

amounts to preserve the Río Mameyes and Río Fajardo, both in Puerto Rico, by 

conducting a survey of residents through face-to-face interviews conducted houseto-house. For protection of both rivers across all households on the island, they estimated a total willingness to pay ranging from approximately $13 million on the low 

end to approximately $33 million on the high end. In both the Colby and Smith-Incer 

study and the González-Cabán and Loomis study, nonmarket values were identified 

related to continued protection and preservation. Both demonstrate that economic 

considerations are not constrained to direct and incidental economic generation to an 

area from a particular use or range of uses. Furthermore, the approach has become 

an accepted standard in valuing natural resources that have sustained damages and 

as a starting point for administrative and judicial determinations, and it has been 

upheld by the federal courts (U.S. Department of the Interior 1986 and U.S. District 

Court of Appeals 1989, both cited in González-Cabán and Loomis 1997).

Economic considerations also include the economic capacity of the Forest 

Service and other managing agencies to maintain personnel and physical settings 

where recreation and tourism occur. This was often cited as a primary concern of 

managers with recreation and tourism management responsibilities (Bricker et al. 

2010). Sustainably managed recreation and tourism includes the use of partnerships 

and volunteerism to broaden supporting resources and capacity (Bricker et al. 2010). 

Partnership and volunteerism are frequently reported as tools in use by managers, 

though partnerships between businesses or corporations and recreation and tourism 

were less frequently used among respondents in the Bricker et al. (2010) study. 

Ecological components—

Ecological sustainability incorporates several considerations, including the impacts 

on an ecosystem from various uses and ways to manage those impacts that consider 

the other components of sustainability, as well as the ability to take an approach 

that examines feedback between social and ecological systems to adaptively 

manage resources and opportunities over time.13 Decisions addressing ecological 

considerations in isolation are typically not as effective or equitable as those that 

consider the other dimensions of sustainability. As stated previously, increases in 

recreation demand are anticipated, as are concerns regarding access, and the need 

to maintain and restore resilient systems. With these issues in mind, this chapter 

presents research on ecological impacts and how they may be managed. Degraded 

ecological quality diminishes the ability of the environment to continue providing 

13 The Global Sustainable Tourism Council (http://www.gstcouncil.org/) has supported 

development of criteria for sustainable tourism and facilitates certification efforts. Though 

the work is concentrated on recreation and tourism, the context is much larger.

Degraded ecological 

quality diminishes 

the ability of the 

environment to 

continue providing 

the vast array of 

ecosystem services, 

thus, the concern 

here is not just in 

maintaining current 

states, but improving 

conditions and 

resilience for the 

longer term.
521

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Box 9.1-5

Collaborative Development of Sustainability Metrics

Recent adoption of the Global Sustainable Tourism Council’s Criteria in Wyoming parks is a specific application of sustainability metrics. Multiple stakeholders worked in tandem to establish and commit to criteria for sustainability. 

This type of approach might be considered for the synthesis area.

the vast array of ecosystem services, as previously discussed in this and other chapters (see also the following chapters); thus, the concern here is not just in maintaining current states, but improving conditions and resilience for the longer term.

Ecological impacts of recreation and tourism are examined from the field 

of recreation ecology, with degree of impact, approaches to monitoring, and 

approaches to mitigation characterizing this line of inquiry. In summary, “The 

most important factors are amount of use, type and behavior of use, timing of use, 

resistance and resilience of the environment, and the spatial distribution of use” 

(Cole 2004: 110–111; see also Monz et al. 2010). Recreation ecology examines 

ecological impacts on physical settings and wildlife, though longer term impacts 

and broader ranges of impacts (at larger scales) have been less well studied (Monz et 

al. 2010). According to Cole (2004), one of the most important and consistent findings from recreation ecology points to the benefits of concentrating use in specific 

areas, except in the circumstances where use levels are so low or the environment 

is so resistant that recreation impacts would have little to no effect. In that same 

review, Cole points to qualitative impacts among the same types of uses (e.g., hikers 

staying on the trail have different impacts than those going off established trails), 

and quantitative differences linked to type of use (e.g., equestrian use was found 

to have more trail erosion impacts than are typically caused by hiking, mountain 

biking, or llamas). Timing of use is influenced by seasonality; for example, physical 

impacts may be related to soil moisture (though this is affected by soil type; see 

Chavez et al. 1993 for an example of how soil type was related to perceived impacts 

of mountain biking), and for wildlife, there are greater sensitivities during breeding 

or nesting season or at times of day when feeding occurs (Cole 2004). 

Developing and applying approaches to recreation and tourism management 

requires consideration of human response to management actions. Studies have 

examined recreationist perceptions of appropriate management actions to address 

recreation uses and impacts. For example, one of these (Martin et al. 2009) revealed 
522

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

differences by settings classified under the recreation opportunity spectrum, where 

direct or regulatory management actions were least supported among respondents 

who recreated in semiprimitive motorized settings. Another reported differences 

in support for direct management of impacts from hiking and mountain biking 

associated with salience of leisure identity (Schneider and Winter 1998). Yet 

another revealed commonalities and differences in support for management actions 

designed to address impacts on habitat for threatened and endangered species, 

based in part on levels of trust held by publics toward the managing agency (Winter 

and Cvetkovich 2008). Although this collection of work is beyond the scope of this 

review, these selected studies point to an array of influences on public response to 

proposed or actual management actions, and public response is an important factor 

in addressing sustainable recreation management.

Cole (2004) suggests that each of the factors associated with recreation use 

impacts can be managed, manipulated, and limited in order to continue to provide 

recreation and tourism opportunities. A large collection of resources to inform limiting recreation impacts is located at the Leave No Trace research website (http://

lnt.org/teach/research), where research has culminated in ongoing programs to limit 

impacts, including educational and outreach programs. Additional tools and guides 

address specific categories of use, including off-road vehicle use (Wildlands CPR 

and Wild Utah Project 2008) and mountain biking (Marion and Wimpey 2007). A 

handbook has been developed to address these issues; the handbook is widely applicable (i.e., not specific to certain use types), and it outlines the diverse influences on 

recreationist behavior and how to approach analysis in different settings, identifies 

barriers and facilitators to desired actions, develops interventions specific to type 

of barrier, and monitors effectiveness of those interventions (Burn and Winter 

Box 9.1-6

Reviews of Recreation Use and Impacts

Recent reviews of published research, including peer-reviewed work, offer 

updates on recreation use and impacts. Among these is a review by Wimpey 

(2010), which captures ongoing work in various areas across the United States. 

Another is an extensive review by Marzano and Dandy (2012) of completed 

studies on walking and hiking, equestrian use, camping, observing nature, 

cycling and mountain biking, and off-roading. The latter calls for additional 

research on the sociocultural dimensions of managing recreation use impacts 

in order to inform interventions.
523

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

2008). The basis of this handbook is the Proenvironmental Behavior Change Model, 

which reflects on the influence of norms, attitudes, habits, knowledge, and setting 

in determining human behavior (Burn and Winter 2007, 2008; Winter and Burn 

2010). The handbook is of significant value, as it points to steps beyond site and 

trail design and visitor education that may be essential to effective management. 

Monitoring impacts and detecting change, then adjusting management approach 

accordingly (also known as adaptive management), is increasing in importance as 

climate change is associated with effects not previously addressed (Chapin et al. 

2010). (For additional discussion of climate change effects, see chapters 9.3, “Sociocultural Perspectives on Threats, Risks, and Health,” and 1.4, “Synopsis of Climate 

Change”). Monz et al. (2010) discuss the need for expanded research related to 

recreation ecology, including finer scales than previously addressed, hypothesisbased experimental studies, and development of predictive approaches. Meanwhile, 

decisions can be based on the best available science to address concerns related to 

impacts and potential impacts (De Leo and Levin 1997) and strive for a balanced 

approach to socioecological resilience.

Managing for resilience—

Managing for resilience linked to recreation and tourism requires consideration of 

the multiple components of sustainability, as presented previously in this chapter, 

as well as examination of multiple perspectives within each component. 

Fees linked to particular types of use may aid sustainability, such as those 

described in box 9.1-7:

As previously described, sustainability includes volunteerism and partnerships in 

recreation and tourism management, and both have made a significant contribution 

to the management of forests and grasslands, including management of the Sierra 

Nevada and southern Cascade Range (see boxes 9.1-8 and 9.1-9 on volunteerism). 

Box 9.1-7

Use-Generated Fees 

Some types of use generate specific funding from user fees that then can be 

used to address issues of sustainability, including acquisitions, maintenance, 

and restoration. For example, the off-highway vehicle trust fund in California is generated from user fees, including fuel taxes, registration fees, and 

entrance fees. According to the most recent report, the Forest Service has 

benefited from restoration funding through the grants program, which has 

totaled approximately $11.4 million since 2004 (CSP OHMVR 2011). 
524

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Box 9.1-8

Volunteerism in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade 

Range

The 2012 Volunteers and Partners Accomplishment Report for the Pacific 

Southwest Region showed about 467,448 (rounded up to whole number) 

accumulated hours from individual and group volunteers overall, with approximately 70 percent of the hours within the recreation management functional 

area. At $21.79 per hour, the appraised value for recreation management was 

$7,167,051, which represents a significant contribution to sustainability of 

recreation and tourism in the region (FS-1800-16, Pacific Southwest Region, 

FY 2012). However, variations by forest are considerable. For example, 

though the Inyo National Forest total was 42,867 volunteer hours in 2012, 

the Plumas National Forest reported 1,396 hours. Using the 2012 National 

Visitor Use Monitoring master report for the Inyo provided an estimate of 

between 2,529.656 and 2,530,344 forest visits; the Plumas between 525,867 

and 526,133. Thus, the Inyo, which has a much higher number of estimated 

recreation visits, also benefits from the higher level of contributed hours 

towards recreation management. 

Box 9.1-9

Volunteerism and Partnerships on the Inyo National Forest

Following the Devil’s Windstorm (November 30, 2011), employees and 

volunteers worked to clear 290 mi of trail and 4,700 downed trees. The forest 

estimated the value of this effort at $617,160, and 60 percent of the work was 

accomplished through partnerships and volunteers. Groups cited by the forest 

as contributing to this specific effort included the American Conservation 

Experience, Backcountry Horsemen of California, Friends of the Inyo, the 

Pacific Crest Trail Association, the Student Conservation Association, and a 

variety of USDA-affiliated groups, including smoke jumpers, fire crews, trail 

crews, and packers. This example demonstrates an essential and continuing 

role for volunteers and partners in addressing urgent needs and facilitating 

support of multiple ecosystem services and supporting benefits, including the 

“tourist-based economy” (USDA FS 2012).
525

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Many partnerships to engage the public—and especially youth—in nature 

have provided programs of value in the synthesis area (Kruger et al. 2010). Boyers 

et al. (2000) reported on effectiveness of volunteers in restoration of wilderness 

campsites in Yosemite National Park, and Eagan et al. (2000) reported on effective restoration of trails in Tuolumne Meadows, also in Yosemite National Park. 

Because both studies examined restoration efforts across multiple years, they 

represent longitudinal examinations (thus long-term monitoring) of restoration 

efforts and effectiveness, mentioned as an area requiring additional study in chapter 

6.3, “Wet Meadows.”

Participating in hands-on restoration and conservation activities has multiple 

benefits. From an agency perspective, ecological restoration offers an opportunity to 

communicate positive messages, values, and activities to the public while addressing ecosystem threats (Egan et al. 2011, Gobster 2005a), and addresses essential 

functions that may be beyond agency capacity alone. From a community standpoint, participating in restoration enables people to develop or renew their connections and relationships to the land and to a place (Eagan et al. 2000). Participation in 

ecological restoration can also be an empowering and positive experience because 

participants take personal action to address problems and discover successful solutions together with managing agencies (Westphal 2003). It may also foster active 

conservation behavior and supporting norms that further behavior change (Schultz 

2011), helping to close the gap between attitudes and action (Heberlein 2012a and 

2012b). Further, by engaging in restoration with others, collective identities that 

form around improving ecosystems and caring for the land can be developed and 

supported (Clayton and Myers 2009). Engagement may also help increase trust in 

the managing agency and therefore social capital (Yung 2007). However, the success of ecological restoration efforts in positively influencing sociocultural aspects 

of human-environment interactions depends in part on the degree of trust that 

develops between the agencies managing the land, other stakeholder organizations 

involved, and the public (Winter and Cvetkovich 2010), as well as the perceived 

benefit and contribution to the social or ethnic community with which participants 

identify (Marcus et al. 2011).

Agency management and coordination of volunteerism and voluntary associations requires commitment of resources and staff time (Absher 2009), and associations may not always share the same interests and views of desired management 

(Lu and Schuett 2012). For example, the vast majority of respondents to a visitor 

management survey identified barriers or concerns related to partnership-based volunteers, including monitoring, training of volunteers, supporting resources, agreements and paperwork, special training, and performance reporting (Absher 2009). 

Participation in ecological restoration can 

be an empowering and 

positive experience 

because participants 

take personal action to 

address problems and 

discover successful 

solutions together with 

managing agencies.
526

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Recent work points to primary motivations for engagement of volunteer associations with the Forest Service, including promotion of recreation through stewardship activities, public education and communication on recreation and conservation, 

and engagement to influence natural resource decisionmaking (Lu and Schuett 

2012). If association motives and interests are not compatible with agency direction, 

conflicts and disagreements may ensue, and it would be important to address these 

issues in order to avoid dampening of relationships (Lu and Schuett 2012).

Recreation and tourism provide valuable examples of steps for increasing 

socioecological resilience (see section 9 preface, “Social/Economic/Cultural 

Components”). Effects of development are in the hands of responsible agencies and 

surrounding human institutions and communities (Heckmann et al. 2008). Recognizing that ecosystems involve communal places that meet basic human needs and 

are central to planning and development may aid environmental protection efforts 

(Kaplan and Austin 2004, Kaplan and Kaplan 2003). Organizational boundaries 

must be bridged to address issues of shared concern (Barbour and Kueppers 2012, 

Dietz et al. 2003), and institutional supports must be provided. Decisions have to 

move beyond steady states and across scales, and allow for adaptive learning and 

flexibility. Folke (2006) referred to this as adaptive governance. Defining resilience 

and desired outcomes may be informed through active dialogue with stakeholders 

to inform an understanding of desired states and services (De Leo and Levin 1997). 

Forms of active dialogue and how values are defined require flexibility in order to 

effectively incorporate diverse cultural perspectives (Satterfield et al. 2013).

Multiple approaches have been discussed for improving socioecological resilience. Schlüter et al. (2011) offered a dynamic approach that represents feedbacks 

between social and ecological systems; they proposed that social changes affect 

ecological systems, then ecological systems further affect social systems (Berkes 

and Turner 2006). This “codynamic approach” posits a coupling of both systems, 

and considers the resilience or agency of each system to adapt (Engle 2011). 

Adaptive cycle functioning requires system-level awareness and an ability 

to adapt factors that feed back into the next cycle (Folke 2006). The challenge of 

managing for resilience is compounded by increasing populations in areas already 

exhibiting high degrees of stress or impending stresses, such as continuing population increases, increased demands for ecosystem services, and larger global threats 

like climate change (further addressed in chapter 9.3). 

Individual sections in this synthesis address uncertainty within and interrelation among system components. These underscore the importance of clarity 

and full-system description in being able to identify and employ the broadest range 

of management options, and manage for ecosystem service scarcity and disruption 
527

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

(Patterson and Coelho 2009). As demonstrated in chapter 9.2, “Ecosystem Services,” addressing gaps and updating information about the importance and value of 

off-site uses of ecosystem services will be increasingly important in light of projections of future population growth and the continuing need to manage for resilience. 

Literature Cited

Abrams, J.B.; Gosnell, H.; Gill, N.J.; Klepeis, P.J. 2012. Re-creating the rural, 

reconstructing nature: an international literature review of the environmental 

implications of amenity migration. Conservation & Society. 10(3): 270–284.

Absher, J.D. 2009. Partnerships and volunteers in the U.S. Forest Service. 

In: Klenosky, D.B.; Fisher, C.L., eds. Proceedings of the 2008 northeastern 

recreation research symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-42. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station: 110–114.

Anderson, J.A.; Blahna, D.J.; Chavez, D.J. 2000. Fern gathering on the San 

Bernardino National Forest: cultural versus commercial values among Korean 

and Japanese participants. Society & Natural Resources. 13(8): 747–762.

Asah, S.T.; Blahna, D.J.; Ryan, C.M. 2012. Involving forest communities in 

identifying and constructing ecosystem services: millennium assessment and 

place specificity. Journal of Forestry. 110(3): 149–156.

Barbour, E.; Kueppers, L.M. 2012. Conservation and management of ecological 

systems in a changing California. Climatic Change. 111(1): 135–163.

BBC Research & Consulting. 2010. California outdoor recreation economic study: 

statewide contribution and benefits. http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/795/files/

ca%20outdoor%20rec%20econ%20study-statewide%2011-10-11%20for%20

posting.pdf. (9 March 2013).

Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological 

knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications. 10(5): 1251–1262.

Berkes, F.; Turner, N.J. 2006. Knowledge, learning, and the evolution of 

conservation practice for social-ecological system resilience. Human Ecology. 

34(4): 479–494.

Bixler, R.D.; Floyd, M.F. 1997. Nature is scary, disgusting, and uncomfortable. 

Environment and Behavior. 29(4): 443–467.
528

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Bowker, J.M.; Askew, A.E.; Cordell, H.K; Betz, C.J.; Zarnoch, S.J.; Seymour, 

L. 2012. Outdoor recreation participation in the United States—projections to 

2060: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA assessment. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-160. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 34 p.

Boyers, L.; Fincher, M.; van Wagtendonk, J. 2000. Twenty-eight years of 

wilderness campsite monitoring in Yosemite National Park. In: Cole, D.N.; 

McCool, S.F.; Borrie, W.T.; O’Loughlin, J., comps. Wilderness science in a time 

of change conference—Vol. 5. Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management. 

Proceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 105–109.

Brehm, J.M.; Eisenhauer, B.W.; Krannich, R.S. 2004. Dimensions of community 

attachment and their relationship to well-being in the amenity-rich rural west. 

Rural Sociology. 69(3): 405–429.

Bricker, K.S.; Winter, P.L.; Schultz, J.R. 2010. Health, economy & community: 

USDA Forest Service managers’ perspectives on sustainable outdoor recreation. 

Rural Connections. September: 38–42.

Brown, G.G.; Donovan, S. 2013. Escaping the National Forest planning quagmire: 

using public participation GIS to assess acceptable national forest use. Journal of 

Forestry. 111(2): 115–125.

Brown, G.; Kelly, M.; Whitall, D. 2013. Which ‘public’? Sampling effects in 

public participation GIS (PPGIS) and volunteered geographic information (VGI) 

systems for public lands management. Journal of Environmental Planning and 

Management. 57(2): 190–215. doi:10.1080/09640568.2012.741045.

Burn, S.M.; Winter, P.L. 2007. Environmental intervention handbook for resource 

managers: a tool for proenvironmental behavior change. 2nd ed. Riverside, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 47 p. http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/psycd_fac/29/. (13 March 2013).

Burn, S.M.; Winter, P.L. 2008. A behavioral intervention tool for recreation 

managers. Park Science. 25(1): 66–68.

Burn, S.M.; Winter, P.L.; Hori, B.; Silver, N.C. 2012. Gender, ethnic identity, 

and environmental concern in Asian Americans and European Americans. 

Human Ecology Review. 19(2): 136–145.
529

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

California State Parks, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division [CSP 

OHMVR]. 2011. Off-highway vehicle recreation commission program report: 

2011. Sacramento, CA. 216 p. http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/ohmvr%20

2011%20report%20-%20final-web.pdf. (5 June 2013).

Chapin, F.S., III; Zavaleta, E.S.; Welling, L.A.; Deprey, P.; Yung, L. 2010.

Planning in the context of uncertainty: flexibility for adapting to change. In: 

Cole, D.N.; Yung, L., eds. Beyond naturalness: rethinking park and wilderness 

stewardship in an era of rapid change. Washington, DC: Island Press: 216–233.

Chavez, D.J. 2012. Latinos and outdoor recreation. In: Cordell, H.K., ed. Outdoor 

recreation trends and futures: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 

2010 RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-150. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 74–77.

Chavez, D.J.; Winter, P.L.; Baas J.M. 1993. Recreational mountain biking: a 

management perspective. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 

11(3): 29–36. 

Cheng, A.S.; Daniels, S.E. 2003. Examining the interaction between geographic 

scale and ways of knowing in ecosystem management: a case study of placebased collaborative planning. Forest Science. 49(6): 841–854.

Cheng, A.S.; Kruger, L.E.; Daniels, S.E. 2003. “Place” as an integrating concept 

in natural resource politics: propositions for a social science research agenda. 

Society & Natural Resources. 16(2): 87–104.

Clayton, S.; Myers, G. 2009. Conservation psychology: understanding and 

promoting human care for nature. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: 

Wiley-Blackwell. 264 p. 

Colby, B.; Smith-Incer, E. 2005. Visitor values and local economic impacts of 

riparian habitat preservation: California’s Kern River Preserve. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association. 41(3): 709–717.

Cole, D.N. 2004. Environmental impacts of outdoor recreation in wildlands. In: 

Manfredo, M.J.; Vaske, J.J.; Bruyere, B.L.; Field, D.R.; Brown, P.J., eds. Society 

and natural resources: a summary of knowledge. Jefferson City, MO: Modern 

Litho: 107–116.

Cordell, H.K. 2012. Outdoor recreation trends and futures: a technical document 

supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRSGTR-150. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 167 p.
530

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Cordell, H.K.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Betz, C.J.; Green, G.T. 2004. Dominant 

socioeconomic forces shaping the future of the United States. In: Manfredo, 

M.J.; Vaske, J.J.; Bruyere, B.L.; Field, D.R.; Brown, P.J., eds. Society and 

natural resources: a summary of knowledge. Jefferson City, MO: Modern 

Litho: 349–361. 

Cordell, H.K.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Bowker, J.M., eds. 2005. The multiple values of 

wilderness. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. 297 p.

Cordell, H.K.; Heboyan, V.; Santos, F.; Bergstrom, J.C. 2011. Natural amenities 

and rural population migration: a technical document supporting the Forest 

Service 2010 RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-146. Asheville, NC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 23 p.

Cornell, S.; Costanza, R.; Sörlin, S.; Leeuw, S.v.d. 2010. Developing a systematic 

“science of the past” to create our future. Global Environmental Change. 20(3): 

426–427.

Cottrell, S.P.; Vaske, J.J. 2006. A framework for monitoring and modeling 

sustainable tourism. E-Review of Tourism Research. 4(4): 74–84.

Cottrell, S.P.; Vaske, J.J.; Shen, F.; Ritter, P. 2007. Resident perceptions of 

sustainable tourism in Chongdugou, China. Society & Natural Resources. 

20(6): 511–525.

Crano, W.; Quist, R.; Winter, P.L. 2008. Forest visitation, media consumption, 

and diverse publics: lessons for outreach. In: Chavez, D.J.; Winter, P.L.; Absher, 

J.D., eds. Recreation visitor research: studies of diversity. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-210. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station: 177–194.

Cronan, M.K.; Shinew, K.J.; Schneider, I.; Wilhelm Stanis, S.A.; Chavez, D. 

2008. Physical activity patterns and preferences among Latinos in different types 

of public parks. Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 5(6): 894–908.

Crompton, T.; Kasser, T. 2009. Meeting environmental challenges: the role 

of human identity. Godalming, Surrey, United Kingdom: World Wildlife 

Fund-United Kingdom. 81 p. http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/meeting_

environmental_challenges___the_role_of_human_identity.pdf. (10 June 2013).

Davidson, D.J. 2010. The applicability of the concept of resilience to social 

systems: some sources of optimism and nagging doubts. Society & Natural 

Resources. 23(12): 1135–1149.
531

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

de Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. 2010. Relationships between value orientations, selfdetermined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. 

Journal of Environmental Psychology. 30(4): 368–378.

De Leo, G.A.; Levin, S. 1997. The multifaceted aspects of ecosystem integrity. 

Conservation Ecology. 1(1): article 3. http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art3/. 

(27 July 2012).

Diamant, R.; Eugster, J.G.; Mitchell, N.J. 2003. Reinventing conservation: 

a practitioner’s view. In: Minteer, B.A.; Manning, R.E., eds. Reconstructing 

conservation: finding common ground. Washington, DC: Island Press: 313–326.

Dietz, T.; Ostrom, E.; Stern, P.C. 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. 

Science. 302(5652): 1907–1912.

Duane, T.P. 1996. Human settlement, 1850–2040. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 

Project final report to Congress. Vol. II: Assessments and scientific basis for 

management options. Report No. 37. Davis, CA: Centers for Water and Wildland 

Resources, University of California–Davis: 235–360.

Eagan, S.; Newman, P.; Fritzke, S.; Johnson, L. 2000. Restoration of multiplerut trails in the Tuolumne Meadows of Yosemite National Park. In: Cole, D.N.; 

McCool, S.F.; Borrie, W.T.; O’Loughlin, J., comps. Wilderness science in a time 

of change conference-Vol. 5. Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management. 

RMRS-P-15-Vol-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station: 188–192.

Egan, D.; Hjerpe, E.E.; Abrams, J. 2011. Human dimensions of ecological 

restoration: integrating science, nature, and culture. Washington, DC: Island 

Press. 432 p.

Engle, N.L. 2011. Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental 

Change. 21(2): 647–656.

Erman, D.C.; SNEP Science Team, eds. 1997. Status of the Sierra Nevada: the 

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project [CD-ROM]. Digital Data Series DDS-43. 

Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. http://pubs.usgs.

gov/dds/dds-43/DDS_43.PDF. (14 May 2013).

Evans, N. 1986. The tourism of Indian California—a neglected legacy. Annals of 

Tourism Research. 13: 435–450.
532

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Farnum, J.; Hall, T.; Kruger, L.E. 2005. Sense of place in natural resource 

recreation and tourism: an evaluation and assessment of research findings. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-660. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 59 p.

Ferranto, S.; Huntsinger, L.; Getz, C.; Nakamura, G.; Stewart, W.; Drill, 

S.; Valachovic, Y.; DeLasaux, M.; Kelly, M. 2011. Forest and rangeland 

owners value land for natural amenities and as financial investment. California 

Agriculture. 65(4): 184–191.

Ferranto, S.; Huntsinger, L.; Stewart, W.; Getz, C.; Nakamura, G.; Kelly, M. 

2012. Consider the source: the impact of media and authority in outreach to 

private forest and rangeland owners. Journal of Environmental Management. 

97(1): 131–140.

Fitzhugh, T.W.; Richter, B.D. 2004. Quenching urban thirst: growing cities and 

their impacts on freshwater ecosystems. BioScience. 54(8): 741–754.

Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological 

systems analysis. Global Environmental Change. 16(3): 253–267.

Gobster, P.H. 2005a. Invasive species as ecological threat: Is restoration an 

alternative to fear-based resource management? Ecological Restoration. 

23(4): 261–270.

Gobster, P.H. 2005b. Recreation and leisure research from an active living 

perspective: taking a second look at urban trail use data. Leisure Sciences. 

27(5): 367–383.

González-Cabán, A.; Loomis, J. 1997. Economic benefits of maintaining 

ecological integrity of Río Mameyes, in Puerto Rico. Ecological Economics. 

21: 63–75.

Gosnell, H.; Abrams, J. 2011. Amenity migration: diverse conceptualizations 

of drivers, socioeconomic dimensions, and emerging challenges. GeoJournal. 

76(4): 303–322.

Gunderson, K.; Watson, A. 2007. Understanding place meanings on the Bitterroot 

National Forest, Montana. Society & Natural Resources. 20(8): 705–721.

Haight, R.G.; Gobster, P.H. 2009. Social and economic considerations for 

planning wildlife conservation in large landscapes. In: Millspaugh, J.J.; 

Thompson, F.R., III, eds. Models for planning wildlife conservation in large 

landscapes. Burlington, MA: Elsevier: 123–152.
533

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Hammer, R.B.; Radeloff, V.C.; Fried, J.S.; Stewart, S.I. 2007. Wildlandurban interface housing growth during the 1990s in California, Oregon, and 

Washington. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 16(3): 255–265.

Heal, G. 2012. Reflections—defining and measuring sustainability. Review of 

Environmental Economics and Policy. 6(1): 147–163.

Heberlein, T.A. 2012a. Navigating environmental attitudes. Conservation Biology. 

26(4): 583–585.

Heberlein, T.A. 2012b. Navigating environmental attitudes. New York: Oxford 

University Press. 228 p.

Heckmann, K.E.; Manley, P.N.; Schlesinger, M.D. 2008. Ecological integrity of 

remnant montane forests along an urban gradient in the Sierra Nevada. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 255(7): 2453–2466.

Hernández, B.; Hidalgo, M.C.; Salazar-Laplace, M.E.; Hess, S. 2007. 

Place attachment and place identity in natives and non-natives. Journal of 

Environmental Psychology. 27: 310–319.

Hibbard, M.; Madsen, J. 2003. Environmental resistance to place-based 

collaboration in the U.S. West. Society & Natural Resources. 16(8): 703–718.

Hull, R.B., IV; Lam, M; Vigo, G. 1994. Place identity: symbols of self in the 

urban fabric. Landscape and Urban Planning. 28: 109–120.

Huntsinger, L.; Johnson, M.; Stafford, M.; Fried, J. 2010. Hardwood rangeland 

landowners in California from 1985 to 2004: production, ecosystem services, 

and permanence. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 63(3): 324–334.

Jackson, J.E.; Lee, R.G.; Sommers, P. 2004. Monitoring the community impacts 

of the Northwest Forest Plan: an alternative to social indicators. Society and 

Natural Resources. 17(3): 223–233.

Jones, R.E.; Fly, J.M.; Talley, J.; Cordell, H.K. 2003. Green migration into rural 

America: The new frontier of environmentalism? Society and Natural Resources. 

16(3): 221–238.

Kaplan, S. 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative 

framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 15(3): 169–182.

Kaplan, R.; Austin, M.E. 2004. Out in the country: sprawl and the quest for 

nature nearby. Landscape and Urban Planning. 69(2–3): 235–243.
534

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Kaplan, S.; Kaplan, R. 2003. Health, supportive environments, and the reasonable 

person model. American Journal of Public Health. 93(9): 1484–1489.

Kellert, S.R.; Mehta, J.N.; Ebbin, S.A.; Lichtenfeld, L.L. 2000. Community 

natural resource management: promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society and Natural 

Resources. 13(8): 705–715.

Kil, N.; Holland, S.M.; Stein, T.V. 2012. Identifying differences between offhighway vehicle (OHV) and non-OHV user groups for recreation resource 

planning. Environmental Management. 50: 365–380.

Knez, I. 2005. Attachment and identity as related to a place and its perceived 

climate. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 25(2): 207–218.

Krannich, R.S.; Petrzelka, P.; Brehm, J.M. 2006. Social change and well-being 

in western amenity-growth communities. In: Kandel, W.A.; Brown, D.L., eds. 

Population change and rural society. 16: Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer: 

311–331. Chapter 15. 

Krishnaswamy, A.; Simmons, E.; Joseph, L. 2012. Increasing the resilience 

of British Columbia’s rural communities to natural disturbances and climate 

change. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management. 13(1): 1–15.

Kruger, J.; Nelson, K.; Klein, P.; McCurdy, L.E.; Pride, P.; Ady, J.C. 2010.

Building on partnerships: reconnecting kids with nature for health benefits. 

Health Promotion Practice. 11(3): 340–346.

Kruger, L.E.; Hall, T.E.; Stiefel, M.C.; tech. eds. 2008a. Understanding 

concepts of place in recreation research and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-744. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 204 p. 

Kruger, L.E.; Mazza, R.; Stiefel, M. 2008b. Amenity migration, rural 

communities, and public lands. In: Sturtevant, V.E.; Donoghue, E.M., eds. 

Forest community connections: implications for research, management, and 

governance. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future: 127–142.

Loeffler, R.; Steinicke, E. 2007. Amenity migration in the U.S. Sierra Nevada. 

The Geographical Review. 97(1): 67–88.

Löffler, R.; Steinicke, E. 2006. Counterurbanization and its socioeconomic effects 

in high mountain areas of the Sierra Nevada (California/Nevada). Mountain 

Research and Development. 26(1): 64–71.
535

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power [LADWP]. 2010. Urban water 

management plan. Los Angeles, CA: Department of Water and Power. 539 p. 

http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanwatermanagement/2010uwmps/Los%20

Angeles%20Department%20of%20Water%20and%20Power/LADWP%20

UWMP_2010_LowRes.pdf. (19 December 2013.)

Louv, R. 2006. Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature-deficit 

disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill. 390 p.

Lu, J.; Schuett, M.A. 2012. Examining the role of voluntary associations in 

environmental management: the case of the Sam Houston National Forest. 

Environmental Management. 49: 334–346.

Manley, P.N.; Parks, S.A.; Campbell, L.A.; Schlesinger, M.D. 2009. Modeling 

urban land development as a continuum to address fine-grained habitat 

heterogeneity. Landscape and Urban Planning. 89(1–2): 28–36.

Marcus, B.J.; Omoto, A.M.; Winter, P.L. 2011. Environmentalism and 

community: connections and implications for social action. Ecopsychology. 

3(1): 11–24.

Marion, J.; Wimpey, J. 2007. Environmental impacts of mountain biking: science 

review and best practices. http://www.imba.com/resources/research/trail-science/

environmental-impacts-mountain-biking-science-review-and-best-practices. 

(13 March 2013).

Martin, S.R.; Marsolais, J.; Rolloff, D. 2009. Visitor perceptions of appropriate 

management actions across the recreation opportunity spectrum. Journal of Park 

and Recreation Administration. 27(1): 56–69.

Marzano, M.; Dandy, N. 2012. Recreational use of forests and disturbance of 

wildlife: a literature review. Edinburgh, Scotland: Forestry Commission. 40 p.

McAvoy, L. 2002. American Indians, place meanings and the old/new west. Journal 

of Leisure Research. 34(4): 383–396.

McAvoy, L.; McDonald, D.; Carlson, M. 2003. American Indian/first nation place 

attachment to park lands: the case of the Nuu-chah-nulth of British Columbia. 

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 21(2): 84–104.

Mekbeb, E.T.; Lilieholm, R.J.; Blahna, D.J.; Kruger, L.E. 2009. Resource 

use, dependence and vulnerability: community-resource linkages on 

Alaska’s Tongass National Forest. Ecosystems and Sustainable Development. 

122: 263–272.
536

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Miller, B.; Sinclair, J. 2012. Risk perceptions in a resource community and 

communication implications: emotion, stigma, and identity. Risk Analysis. 

32(3): 483–495.

Minnich, R.A.; Padgett, P.E. 2003. Geology, climate and vegetation of the 

Sierra Nevada and the mixed-conifer zone: an introduction to the ecosystem. 

In: Bytnerowicz, A.; Arbaugh, M.J.; Alonso, R., eds. Ozone air pollution in the 

Sierra Nevada: distribution and effects on forests. Oxford, United Kingdom: 

Elsevier: 1–31.

Misra, S.; Stokols, D. 2012. A typology of people-environment relationships in the 

Digital Age. Technology in Society. 34: 311–325.

Mittelbach, F.; Wambem, D.B. 2003. Six: competition for natural resources in 

California’s Sierra Nevada. Los Angeles, CA: University of California–Los 

Angeles: 89–109.

Monz, C.A.; Cole, D.N.; Leung, Y.; Marion, J.L. 2010. Sustaining visitor use in 

protected areas: future opportunities in recreation ecology research based on the 

USA experience. Environmental Management. 45: 551–562.

Opotow, S.; Brook, A. 2003. Identity and exclusion in rangeland conflict. 

In: Clayton, S.; Opotow, S., eds. Identity and the natural environment: the 

psychological significance of nature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: 249–272.

Patterson, M.E.; Williams, D.R. 2005. Maintaining research traditions on 

place: diversity of thought and scientific progress. Journal of Environmental 

Psychology. 25(4): 361–380.

Patterson, T.M.; Coelho, D.I. 2009. Ecosystem services: foundations, 

opportunities, and challenges for the forest products sector. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 257: 1637–1646.

Peterson, M.N.; Mertig, A.G.; Liu, J. 2007. Influence of urban immigrants on 

outdoor recreation and land use in Teton Valley. Journal of Park and Recreation 

Administration. 25(4): 25–38.

Praxis Consulting Group, LLC. 2009. Workforce housing needs assessment 

of Incline Village and Crystal Bay. http://praxisreno.com/Resources/

InclineStudyFinal12_18C.pdf. (29 November 2012.)

Pretty, J.; Peacock, J.; Hine, R.; Sellens, M.; South, N.; Griffin, M. 2007. Green 

exercise in the UK countryside: effects on health and psychological well-being, 

and implications for policy and planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and 

Management. 50(2): 211–231.
537

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Raumann, C.G.; Cablk, M.E. 2008. Change in the forested and developed 

landscape of the Lake Tahoe basin, California and Nevada, USA, 1940–2002. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 255(8–9): 3424–3439.

Richardson, R.B. 2002. The economic benefits of wildlands in the eastern Sierra 

Nevada region of California. San Francisco, CA: The Wilderness Society. 39 p. 

http://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/

ForestEconomics/Economics-Richardson02.pdf. (11 March 2013.)

Roberts, N.S.; Chavez, D.J.; Lara, B.M.; Sheffield, E.A. 2009. Serving culturally 

diverse visitors to forests in California: a resource guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-222. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. 76 p.

Rosenberger, R.S.; Sneh, Y.; Phipps, T.T.; Gurvitch, R. 2005. A spatial analysis 

of linkages between health care expenditures, physical inactivity, obesity, and 

recreation supply. Journal of Leisure Research. 37(2): 216–235.

Ryan, R.L. 2005. Exploring the effects of environmental experience on attachment 

to urban natural areas. Environment and Behavior. 37(1): 3–42.

Satterfield, T.; Gregory, R.; Klain, S.; Roberts, M.; Chan, K.M. 2013. Culture, 

intangibles and metrics in environmental management. Journal of Environmental 

Management. 117: 103–114.

Schlüter, M.; Mcallister, R.R.J.; Arlinghaus, R.; Bunnefeld, N.; Eisenack, K.; 

Hölker, F.; Milner-Gulland, E.J.; Müller, B.; Nicholson, E.; Quaas, M.; 

Stöven, M. 2011. New horizons for managing the environment: a review of 

coupled social-ecological systems modeling. Natural Resource Modeling. 

25(1): 219–272.

Schneider, I.E.; Chavez, D.J. 2012. Geocaching: form, function, and opportunity. 

In: Cordell, H.K. Outdoor recreation trends and futures: a technical document 

supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRSGTR-150. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station: 55–58.

Schneider, I.E.; Winter, P.B.14 1998. Multiple use management preferences by 

visitors with differing leisure identity salience. Journal of Park and Recreation 

Administration. 16(4): 22–38.

14 Sic; should be Winter, P.L.
538

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Schroeder, H. 2002. Experiencing nature in special places: surveys in the northcentral region. Journal of Forestry. 100(5): 8–14.

Schultz, P.W. 2002. Inclusion with nature: understanding the psychology of humannature interactions. In: Schmuck, P.; Schultz, P.W., eds. The psychology of 

sustainable development. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 3–17.

Schultz, P.W. 2011. Conservation means behavior. Conservation Biology. 

25(6): 1080–1083.

State of California, Department of Finance. 2012. E-1 state/county population 

estimates with annual percent change—January 1, 2011 and 2012. Sacramento, 

CA, May 2012. 

Stedman, R.C. 2003. Is it really just a social construction: the contribution 

of physical environment to sense of place. Society and Natural Resources. 

16(8): 671–685.

Stewart, W.C. 1996. Economic assessment of the ecosystem. Sierra Nevada 

Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress. Vol. III: Assessments, 

commissioned reports, and background information. Report No. 38. Davis, CA: 

Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California–Davis. 

Chapter 23.

Struglia, R.; Winter, P.L.; Meyer, A. 2003. Southern California socioeconomic 

assessment: sociodemographic conditions, projections, and quality of life indices. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-187. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 418 p.

Sturtevant, V.E.; Donoghue, E.M. 2008. Community and forest connections: 

continuity and change. In: Sturtevant, V.E.; Donoghue, E.M., eds. Forest 

community connections: implications for research, management, and 

governance. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future: 3–24.

Stynes, D.J.; White, E.M. 2005. Spending profiles of National Forest visitors, 

NVUM four year report. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/

NVUM4YrSpending.pdf. (11 March 2013).

Tierney, P.T.; Dahl, R.F.; Chavez, D.J. 1998. Cultural diversity of Los Angeles 

County residents using undeveloped natural areas. Res. Pap. PSW-RP-236. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. 76 p.
539

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Turner, N.J.; Berkes, F. 2006. Coming to understanding: developing conservation 

through incremental learning in the Pacific Northwest. Human Ecology Review. 

34(4): 495–513.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2012. Forest 

Service recreation and natural resources briefing paper. Clearing after the 

devil’s windstorm—cutting blowdown trees from trails, Inyo National Forest, 

California. October 24, 2012.

Wagner, M.M.; Gobster, P.H. 2007. Interpreting landscape change: measured 

biophysical change and surrounding social context. Landscape and Urban 

Planning. 81(1–2): 67–80.

Walker, P.A.; Hurley, P.T. 2004. Collaboration derailed: the politics of 

“community-based” resource management in Nevada County. Society and 

Natural Resources. 17(8): 735–751.

Walkosz, B.J.; Buller, D.B.; Anderson, P.A.; Scott, M.D.; Dignan, M.B.; 

Cutter, G.R.; Maloy, J.A. 2008. Increasing sun protection in winter outdoor 

recreation: a theory-based health communication program. American Journal of 

Preventive Medicine. 34(6): 502–509.

Westphal, L.M. 2003. Urban greening and social benefits: a study of empowerment 

outcomes. Journal of Aboriculture. 29(3): 137–147.

White, E.M.; Stynes, D.J. 2008. National forest visitor spending averages and the 

influence of trip-type and recreation activity. Journal of Forestry. 106(1): 17–24.

Wiens, J.A.; Patten, D.T.; Botkin, D.B. 1993. Assessing ecological impact 

assessment: lessons from Mono Lake, California. Ecological Applications. 

3(4): 595–609.

Wiggins, B.J.; Ostenson, J.A.; Wendt, D.C. 2012. The relational foundations of 

conservation psychology. Ecopsychology. 4(3): 209–215.

Wildlands CPR and Wild Utah Project. 2008. Best management practices for offroad vehicle use on forestlands: a guide for designating and managing off-road 

vehicle routes. Missoula, MT: Wildlands CPR. http://www.wildlandscpr.org/files/

ORV_BMP_2008.pdf. (10 June 2013).

Williams, D.R. 2006. Leisure, environment, and the quality of life. In: Jackson, 

E.L., ed. Leisure and the quality of life: impacts on social, economic and cultural 

development. Hangzhhou, China: Zhejiang University Press: 146–163.
540

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Wimpey, J. 2010. Environmental impacts of mountain biking: an update on 

scientific research. IMBA World Summit 2010 Resources. http://www.imba.com/

resources/research/environmental-impacts. (13 March 2013).

Winter, P.L. 2007. Equity in access to recreation opportunities: a synthesis of 

research and management implications. In: Kruger, L.E., Mazza, R., Lawrence, 

K., eds. Proceedings: national workshop on recreation research and management. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-698. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 167–180.

Winter, P.L. 2013. Values of the urban wilderness. In: Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; 

Zarnoch, S.J. 2013. Recreation and protected land resources in the United States: 

a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-169. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station: 68–70.

Winter, P.L.; Bricker, K.; Schultz, J. 2013. The sustainability of outdoor 

recreation and tourism: findings from a survey of Forest Service managers. 

In: Cordell H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Zarnoch, S.J., eds. Recreation and protected land 

resources in the United States: a technical document supporting the Forest 

Service 2010 RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-169. Asheville, NC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 11 p. 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs169/gtr_srs169_appendix_papers.pdf. 

(23 December 2013).

Winter, P.L.; Burn, S.M. 2010. Fostering sustainable operations in a natural 

resource management agency: insights from the field. Journal of Forestry. 

108(2): 86–92.

Winter, P.L.; Chavez, D.J. 2008. Wildland recreationists’ natural resource 

management purposes and preferences: a connection to environmental identity. 

In: Chavez, D.J.; Winter, P.L.; Absher, J.D., eds. Recreation visitor research: 

studies of diversity. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-210. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station: 163–174.

Winter, P.L.; Cvetkovich, G.T. 2008. Southwesterners’ views of threatened 

and endangered species management: Does racial/ethnic diversity make a 

difference? In: Chavez, D.J.; Winter, P.L.; Absher, J.D., eds. Recreation visitor 

research: studies of diversity. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-210. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 

97–111.
541

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Winter, P.L.; Cvetkovich, G.T. 2010. Trust mediates conservation-related behaviors. 

Ecopsychology. 2(4): 211–219.

Winter, P.L.; Jeong, W.C.; Godbey, G.C. 2004. Outdoor recreation among 

Asian Americans: a case study of San Francisco Bay area residents. Journal 

of Park and Recreation Administration. 22(3): 114–136.

Winter, P.L.; Skenderian, J.; Crano, W. 2008. Routes to communicating about 

outdoor recreation with diverse publics: what we know about media. In: Chavez, 

D.J.; Winter, P.L.; Absher, J.D., eds. Recreation visitor research: studies of 

diversity. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-210. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 195–204.

Wynveen, C.J.; Kyle, G.T.; Hammitt, W.E.; Absher, J.D. 2008. Exploring the 

effect of experience use history and place bonding on resource substitution. In: 

LeBlanc, C.; Vogt, C., comp., eds. Proceedings of the 2007 northeastern recreation 

research symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-23. Newton Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 114–122.

Yung, L. 2007. Citizen monitoring and restoration: volunteers and community 

involvement in wilderness stewardship. In: Watson, A.; Sproull, J.; Dean, L., 

comps. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: eighth 

World Wilderness Congress symposium. Proceedings RMRS-P-49. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station: 101–106.

Yung, L.; Freimund, W.A.; Belsky, J.M. 2003. The politics of place: understanding 

meaning, common ground, and political difference on the Rocky Mountain Front. 

Forest Science. 49(6): 855–866.

Zaradic, P.A.; Pergams, O.R.W.; Kareiva, P. 2009. The impact of nature 

experience on willingness to support conservation. PLoS ONE. 4(10): e7367. 

doi:10/1371/journal.pone.0007367.

Zavaleta, E.S.; Chapin, F.S., III. 2010. Resilience frameworks: enhancing the 

capacity to adapt to change. In: Cole, D.N.; Yung, L., eds. Beyond naturalness: 

rethinking park and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid change. 

Washington, DC: Island Press: 142–161.
542

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247
543

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Trista Patterson1

Summary 

Since its inception, the ecosystem service approach has stimulated interest from 

numerous planning, management, and partnership perspectives. To date, however, 

research that quantifies ecosystem services in the study area (in the form of explicit 

ecosystem service studies) has been limited. This chapter reviews and synthesizes the 

concept of ecosystem services, focusing on information to assist forest planners and 

managers in framing and describing concerns and tradeoffs in social, ecological, and 

economic values. It does not repeat information about specific ecosystem services 

that is found throughout the full synthesis document; rather, it provides examples of 

how the term “ecosystem services” may be used and understood in different ways by 

different people.

The Forest Service has a long history of managing and providing what are now 

called ecosystem services, beginning long before the term itself came into use. Many 

individuals in the agency are reporting applications of the concept, advances in quantification of service values, and some successes in engaging more diverse stakeholders 

and promoting interchange between management and research. Although situational 

in nature, these examples illustrate breadth in the potential management application of 

the concept, and they are highlighted in sidebar boxes throughout this chapter.

Owing to the cost of assessment and valuation efforts, it is likely that the team 

performing bioregional assessments will assess the condition and trend of most 

ecosystem services in general terms by selecting only a few to quantify and model. 

The information provided here may help inform which ecosystem services, datasets, 

and approaches could be emphasized during the assessment phase. Themes explored 

in this chapter are not prescriptive, but are intended to help identify information 

and expertise to help inform assessment of ecosystem services. The “Frameworks 

for Adaptive Management” section below reviews how Forest Service assessments 

to date have characterized relationships between elements of the ecosystem service 

system. Although certain relationships are highly quantified and familiar, other relationships are of emerging importance and are less likely to have established quantified 

relationships. The “Frameworks” section underscores the importance of investments 

in data and efforts to understand relationships that are less well known—specifically, 

documenting factors affecting both supply and demand for ecosystem services. This 

information would be particularly important in describing the ability of the study 

Chapter 9.2—Ecosystem Services

1 Senior economist, GRID-Arendal, P.O. Box 183, N-4802 Arendal, Norway. Formerly was 

a research economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, 240 Siginaka Way, Sitka, AK 99835.
544

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

area to provide future ecosystem services and to anticipate deficits or shortfalls. To 

address such shortfalls, this chapter highlights emerging options and broader arrays 

of management interventions and opportunities in agency operations planning. It 

also acknowledges that some challenges may require coordinated effort over time 

(e.g., new datasets, or new strategies to support both supply and demand challenges 

of ecosystem service issues). 

Extensive detail in valuation methodology is beyond the scope of this document. Appropriate experts can be consulted when market or nonmarket services 

need to be valued either in dollar or other social terms. Rather, this chapter is 

intended to enable natural and social scientists from other disciplines to participate 

in meaningful discussion and deliberation over what kind of information regarding 

values might best inform management goals.

Overview and Chapter Organization

The first section of this chapter provides a summary of definitions, concepts, and 

uses of the ecosystem services concept by the U.S. Forest Service. The second section provides a general framework for defining the scope of an ecosystem service 

assessment and characterizing the relationships among its various components. 

Particular emphasis is placed on relationships that reveal new or emerging management options for addressing ecosystem service deficits. The final section describes 

approaches in more detail, as well as methods for valuing ecosystem services.

Information on ecosystem services related to specific land covers, habitats, or 

species is covered in other chapters of this synthesis. The social science chapters 

characterize many of the dynamics of the local community, economy, and visitors, 

which all rely upon these ecosystem services to some extent for their well-being 

and resilience. The majority of data and information regarding ecosystem services 

for the study area is found in non-peer-reviewed sources or working papers (Richardson 2002, Richardson and Loomis 2009), mapping efforts, or other overview 

efforts. Of particular note are extensions of the Natural Capital Project and related 

partnerships (Kareiva et al. 2011, Myers 1997, Polasky 2008, Polasky and Segerson 

2009). 

Although many single-service studies exist for the study area (e.g., carbon, 

water, grazing, etc.), they are often not explored with a specific ecosystem service 

framework as the lens, and the diversity of perspectives, units of quantification, 

and spatial scales that result often render efforts to combine data and information 

somewhat unwieldy (Patterson and Coelho 2009). To date, the most comprehensive 

resource covering ecosystem services (though they are not termed as such) is the 

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) 1996 report to Congress; however, the 
545

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

various chapters of the SNEP report focus almost exclusively on elements of provision. As the “Frameworks” section of this chapter points out, a more systematic 

ecosystem service assessment will complement this supply-side information with 

quantified information about use of ecosystem service benefits on and off site. 

Information about ecosystem service supply and demand is needed to characterize 

ecosystem service scarcity and to articulate present and future value.

Importance of Ecosystem Services Within the 

Synthesis Region 

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), one of the most widely cited 

global assessments of ecosystem services, defines ecosystem services as the benefits people obtain from ecosystems (MEA 2005). These benefits include provisioning, regulating, and cultural services that directly affect people, as well as the 

supporting services needed to maintain other services. Ecosystem services provided 

by the Sierra Nevada contribute to the quality of life for millions of people, many 

living a great distance from the Sierra Nevada. A dramatic example is San Francisco’s drinking water, which originates in Yosemite National Park. More broadly, 

the Sierra Nevada snowpack provides nearly 65 percent of California’s water supply 

(SNEP Science Team 1996). The area produces over $2.2 billion worth of commodities and services annually in water resources, agricultural and timber products, 

ranching, and mining, and provides more than 50 million tourism and recreation 

visitor days annually (SNEP Science Team 1996, White and Stynes 2010). 

Despite the many benefits they provide, many Sierra Nevada ecosystems, 

species, and their respective ecological processes are being negatively affected by 

development trends, rising population, habitat fragmentation, and intensification 

of human activity. By 2040, almost 20 percent of Sierra Nevada private forests 

and rangelands could be affected by projected development (SNEP Science Team 

1996). These effects are of concern from an ecosystem services perspective, as 

they have resulted in diminished, interrupted, suspended, or redirected flows of 

ecosystem services. Primary concerns include forest disturbance events and trends, 

and phenomena such as climate change (Deal et al. 2010, McKenzie et al. 2004), 

erosion (Neary et al. 2009), invasives (Eiswerth et al. 2005, Zavaleta 2000), housing 

development (Stein et al. 2005), losses in species diversity and redundancy (Tilman 1997), and successional phases following timber extraction (Beier et al. 2008). 

Increasingly, studies are attempting to determine the economic impacts and tradeoffs of these losses before they occur (Barbier 2007, Murdoch et al. 2007, Sukhdev 

et al. 2010). As discussed later in this chapter, incentives to restore lost services, or 

to prevent losses before they occur, are becoming increasingly common in marketbased approaches to private forest conservation. 

Ecosystem services 

provided by the Sierra 

Nevada contribute to 

the quality of life for 

millions of people, 

many living a great 

distance from the 

Sierra Nevada.
546

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Characterizing Ecosystem Services 

Ecosystem services are generally described according to how they contribute 

directly and indirectly to human benefit (MEA 2005). Specifically, an introductory 

schema organizes goods and services according to whether they are provisioned 

(e.g., timber, drinking water, fuels, mushrooms, berries, venison, fish); regulate 

(e.g., carbon sequestration, erosion control, riparian forest cleaning, filtering and 

cooling streamside water); provide cultural services (such as recreation, spiritual 

enrichment, educational opportunities); or support the other services (biological 

diversity, nutrient cycling, etc.) (fig. 1). 

Which Definition Is Best, and for Which Purpose?

In part, an articulate depiction and accurate assessment of ecosystem services 

of the Sierra Nevada hinges on how the term “ecosystem services” is used and 

approached. The ecosystem services literature is derived from the fields of ecology 

and economics (Ehrlich et al. 1977, Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981, Krutilla 1967, SCEP 

1970, Westman 1977), and has resulted in a particularly wide range of definitions 

(Kline and Mazzotta 2012, Patterson and Coelho 2009). In general, one can imagine 

a spectrum of increasing need for precise typology and definition to guide selection 

of terms and literature (fig. 2, adapted from Kline and Mazzotta 2012).

Figure 1—Broad categories of ecosystem services (adapted from MEA 2005, used with permission 

from Patterson and Coelho 2009).

Provisioning Services

Food (crops, livestock, wild foods, etc.)

Fiber (timber, cotton/hemp/silk, wood fuel)

Genetic resources

Biochemicals, natural medicines, pharmaceuticals

Fresh water

Regulating Services

Air quality regulation

Climate regulation (global, regional, local)

Water regulation

Erosion regulation

Disease regulation

Pest regulation

Pollination

Natural hazard regulation

Cultural Services

Aesthetic values

Spiritual and religious values

Recreation and ecotourism

Supporting Services

Nutrient cycling

Soil formation

Primary production
547

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Two oft-cited works describe ecosystem services as the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that make them up, 

sustain and fulfill human life, thereby supporting quality of life on earth (Costanza 

et al. 1997, Daily 1997). Forest Service projects designed to raise awareness of 

forested ecosystems and public investment tend to use similarly general language 

(Collins and Larry 2008, Daily 1997, MEA 2005). More specific definitions may be 

used to estimate replacement cost of lost ecosystem services, or to incorporate these 

benefits into conceptual framing of important social issues (Costanza et al. 1997, 

US EPA 2006). The narrowest definitions are needed to provide the criteria for 

specific accounting, tracking, and decisionmaking (Boyd and Banzhaf 2006, Boyd 

2007, see also reviews in Costanza 2008; de Groot et al. 2002, Fisher and Turner 

2008, Kline and Mazzotta 2012). 

Forest Service Use of the Ecosystem Service Concept

Ecosystem services, and their values and meaning to society, are important to 

consider as the Forest Service attempts to grow as a “learning organization” (Apple 

2000), and they are important to consider as one component of emerging and strategic foresight initiatives (Bengston et al. 2012). To this end, the ecosystem service 

concept broadens the scope and the spatial and temporal scales of what scientists, 

managers, and public-private partnerships consider in forest management. An 

ecosystem services approach therefore relies on a mix of traditional and new performance measures that are important to society, based on the management targets 

from the activity site itself, and in conjunction with other measurable outcomes and 

influences experienced in the wider forest area.

Figure 2—Specificity of terms can be based on intended uses of the ecosystem service concept 

(adapted from Kline and Mazzotta 2012). GDP = gross domestic product.

Raise awareness for human

dependence on ecosystems

Establish compensation mechanisms

Evaluate management consequences

Establish ecosystem services markets

Cost-benefit analysis

Green GDP

Increasing need for precise typology/definition
548

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

The Forest Service has managed for ecosystem services since its establishment 

as an agency (MacCleery and Le Master 1999), but it currently uses the concept as 

a means to inform management decisions, to increase funding directed at the management/conservation of ecosystem services, and to raise the visibility of the value 

of forests and the diversity of benefits they provide to the American people (Collins 

and Larry 2008, Kline 2006, Patterson and Coelho 2009, Smith et al. 2011). Box 

9.2-1 details uses of the ecosystem service concept within Forest Service management efforts, as adapted from a summary effort from the Deschutes National Forest 

(Smith et al. 2011). 

Incorporating information about ecosystem service values into management 

planning is important because ecosystem service harvests, uses, and exchange often 

do not take place in markets. They might be collected by individuals, or shared 

among family and friends (e.g., game meat, subsistence salmon, mushroom picking, etc.). They may accrue to everyone publically as part of ecosystem function, 

and may not be particularly visible (e.g., carbon sequestration, water purification, 

etc.). Benefits may flow far from the landscapes where they are produced. Tracking 

indicators of ecosystem service supply and demand, and their status over time, is 

important because most common economic indicators (e.g., gross domestic product 

[GDP]) do not account for quantity or quality of natural capital stocks, or the value 

of many ecosystem services (Boyd and Banzhof 2006). The indicators used in many 

civic decisions often do not weigh the consequences of ecosystem service losses 

(Boyd and Banzhoff 2006, Patterson and Coelho 2009) until after those losses have 

already occurred.

Worldwide, national and international policies are increasingly reporting on 

ecosystem services from public lands (EUSTAFOR and Patterson 2011). The concept is consistent with USDA’s emphasis on collaborative approaches and outreach 

to increasingly diverse stakeholders. Consistent with the USDA 2012 planning 

rule, Forest Service integrated resource management must use the best available 

scientific information to guide management of National Forest System (NFS) lands 

so that they have the capacity to provide people and communities with ecosystem 

services and multiple uses that provide a range of social, economic, and ecological 

benefits for the present and into the future. Changes to NEPA requirements are 

still anticipated, and the extent to which approaches across different forests will be 

coordinated is not known. However, some attempts at guidance documents have 

been made to guide management of NFS lands, and it is anticipated that future 

ecosystem service assessments will be needed to support planners in their work 

to support social and economic sustainability. 

Incorporating information about ecosystem 

service values into 

management planning 

is important because 

ecosystem service 

harvests, uses, and 

exchange often do not 

take place in markets.
549

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Box 9.2-1

Uses of the Ecosystem Service Concept Within 

Forest Service Management 2

1. Describing the value of forests 

The ecosystem service concept has been effectively used to generate awareness of values 

from public and private goods from forest systems and to help improve wider understanding of the ways in which funded, sustainably managed forests can support those benefits 

in perpetuity. 

2. Characterizing and evaluating tradeoffs between different values, functions, 

goods, and services

Forest management activities (e.g., for timber, biomass, recreation, riparian enhancement) 

affect ecosystem services in different ways, and new tools are needed to describe and 

evaluate the benefits that result (e.g., a more complete account of the range of values, a 

better analysis of the relationships between multiple values, or a better analysis of the 

benefits of management activities that are relevant to particular stakeholders or potential 

partners).

3. Identifying ecosystem service decline and providing a wide range of potential 

mitigating or restorative options 

Informed changes to forest policy, actions, and techniques can redress some declines. 

Meanwhile, planning, education, and public-private and federal-state-municipal partnerships can affect ecosystem service use and conservation, reducing pressure on the resource 

and raising awareness of its value. 

4. Providing a basis for consultation and collaboration with stakeholders by defining 

common objectives for forest stewardship

By clearly describing benefits, the ecosystem services approach offers a common language 

for forest owners and interest groups to describe and articulate management objectives.

5. Supporting the emergence of markets, products, and payments for ecosystem services 

Many forest benefits, such as freshwater production, protection of topsoil, carbon sequestration, and preservation of biological and genetic diversity, as well as traditional commodities and services, such as timber, grazing, recreation and aesthetic beauty, and cultural 

and educational benefits, can be supported through various mechanisms, which transfer 

payments to the lands producing those services. 

2 Adapted from Smith et al. 2011.
550

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Frameworks for Adaptive Management 

In 2005, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment reported declines in more than 

two-thirds of the world’s ecosystem service systems. Stemming ecosystem service 

declines will require more than simply quantifying provision of ecosystem services 

or willingness to pay for them, because even the healthiest ecosystem has upper 

limits to the rates at which it can provide ecosystem services in perpetuity (Patterson and Coelho 2008, 2009). When consumption exceeds production of ecosystem 

services, management issues can arise quickly. Harvest/transport/waste systems 

related to ecosystem service consumption can adversely affect ecosystem service 

production systems (Beier et al. 2008, Patterson and Coelho 2009). Exceedances of 

certain thresholds can increase the probability and severity of ecological impairment, and can reduce system resilience to similar shocks over time (Folke et al. 

2004). Reduced ecosystem service flows that result may limit management options 

for present and future generations. Thus, an important component of resilience 

in socioecological systems is the ability of management to keep a system within 

certain system boundaries (Chapin et al. 2009; Toman 1994, 1998; Wackernagel et 

al. 2002). 

One of the most important steps at the outset of any ecosystem service assessment is the declaration of an explicit framework, because it is within this construct 

that system boundaries can be defined, current status can be benchmarked, relations 

between system components can be examined for possible management or intervention options, and with quantification, progress can be tracked against overarching 

goals (Patterson and Coelho 2008). Just as ecosystem services may have various 

definitions, conceptual frameworks also vary widely (Boyd and Banzhaf 2006, 

Brown et al. 2007, de Groot et al. 2002, Fisher et al. 2009, Kline and Mazzotta 

2012, Norgaard 2010, Patterson and Coelho 2009, Smith et al. 2011). Guidance on 

framework selection specific to forest management is only beginning to emerge.

An often overlooked step in declaring an assessment framework is evaluation of whether the system description contains all the necessary components and 

expresses the necessary relationships to address gaps between the present and 

desired state of the system (Patterson and Coelho 2008). Figure 3 reflects elements 

of the most common ecosystem service approaches, as summarized in a pending review of existing frameworks for Forest Service management applications. 

The arrows between system components in figure 3 reflect the relationships most 

frequently emphasized in ecosystem service study: between management decisions 

and forest resources/supply of ecosystem services, between stressors and resources/

conditions, between resources/conditions and the supply of services, between 
551

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

supply of services and human use of them, and between the drivers for services 

and use of services. Each of these relationships lead to net benefits anticipated 

from the system. 

Long-standing resource management challenges can be deeply embedded 

within systems and structures that may push back on efforts to resolve them or reinforce their persistence (Folke et al. 2004). A systems approach to system intervention can assist in identifying intervention that will have more enduring, or systemic, 

impact and can thereby make best use available of scarce funds (Patterson and 

Coelho 2008). A systems assessment begins with articulation of important system 

components and agreement upon relationships and feedbacks among component 

parts. This step is particularly important, as system definition is often assumed as a 

tacit, rather than explicit, element of ecosystem service study (Patterson and Coelho 

2008), and lack of consensus in this regard leaves ecosystem service assessment 

subject to a few typical pitfalls—namely, failure to allocate sufficient resources to 

addressing data, informational, and relational gaps (Patterson and Coelho 2009). 

As data and understanding of interdependency between people and ecosystem 

service systems become more commonplace, these connections and relationships 

will become easier to establish and communicate. For now, this chapter will point 

out three general relationships for which ecosystem service information has tended 

to be less available, but which are critical to establishing the feedback loops that 

Figure 3—Ecosystem services as a framework for forest management (modified from Kline and Mazzotta 

2012 and Patterson and Coelho 2009). Three challenge areas are highlighted with labels A, B, and C.

Forest Service

decisions:

management

actions

Ecosystem Services

(supply of services)

Forest Resources and 

Ecosystem Conditions

Stressors:

(external) (e.g.,

climate change)

Human Activity

(e.g., use of services)

Needs/Drivers

(demand for services)

Benefits

A

C

B
552

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

can govern human use of ecosystem services within the bounds of ecological limits. 

Establishing these relationships is the first step to broadening management actions 

to include them. Each of these connections represents a whole range of possible 

management options to address ecosystem service system resilience. The more 

diverse the suite of management options, the broader the options to ensure effective 

and sustainable management of ecosystem service systems into the future. 

The first connection involves identifying and quantifying ecological system 

capacities and limits (Rockström et al. 2009), in particular in cases where use of 

ecosystem services borders on “over consumption” (Erlich and Goulder 2007, 

Wackernagel et al. 2002) and impairs regenerative capacity or otherwise stresses 

the system (labeled A, fig. 3). A second connection involves examining ways in 

which effective management can inform “best practice,” “informed decisions,” 

and awareness of system vulnerabilities (labeled B, fig. 3). A third connection is 

using information about benefits resulting from forest management to feed back 

into those actions themselves (labeled C, fig. 3). This can serve to raise awareness 

for the benefits of the actions themselves, or to help anticipate system shocks (price 

or otherwise) when ecosystem service deficits arise and management for resulting 

ecosystem service losses is needed. 

Addressing and Assessing Value

A clearly defined system is a necessary starting point for discussions of tradeoffs 

and value. Many disciplines across the social sciences are needed to fully articulate 

the meanings of the word “value.” It is often assumed (incorrectly) that the terms 

“value” or “valuation” are explicitly referring to the use of dollar figures as a 

common denominator, when in fact, a much broader interpretation is being implied. 

If and when it has already been decided that a dollar value is indeed useful, the 

discussion can then progress to whether the dollar value needed should be estimated by market or nonmarket terms, and in which form this information might 

be meaningful in a decisionmaking context. 

Once conceptual and then quantified assessments of ecosystem services have 

been made, moving to application, evaluation of tradeoffs, and characterization of 

value becomes an increasingly specialized effort (Kline and Mazzotta 2012, Patterson and Coelho 2009). There are many ways to approach value, and the social tools 

employed to canvas and incorporate diverse user perspectives also affect ecosystem 

service emphasis (Spash 2008, van den Belt et al. 1998). 

The selection of participants, and their awareness and perception of ecosystem services and their importance, can affect reported values. Studies relying on 

participant perception may not reflect important components of system complexity 

It is often assumed 

(incorrectly) that 

the terms “value” 

or “valuation” are 

explicitly referring 

to the use of dollar 

figures as a common 

denominator, when in 

fact, a much broader 

interpretation is 

being implied.
553

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

(Norgaard 2010), or they may emphasize market over nonmarket contributions or 

reflect other equity and distributional predispositions both within and between 

generations (Brown et al. 2011). More recent approaches designed to control for 

this shortcoming may facilitate group deliberative techniques, wherein a group is 

assembled and facilitated with the goal of coming to common agreement on value 

(Howarth and Wilson 2006, Spash 2007). As with other techniques, a representative sample of the general public needs to be used for the deliberative process to 

yield values generalizable to the broader public (Brown et al. 1995). And, no matter 

which method is used, important equity issues remain.

The total economic value (see fig. 4) is inclusive like the MEA model and is 

suited to the many ecosystem services provided by forests. Although many benefits 

from forests are tangible and benefit people through direct use (such as timber 

products), other forest benefits are harder for people to identify in their daily lives, 

especially in any quantified form that would be easily associated with forest management actions. Some examples might be additional units of carbon sequestration, 

or additional quantities of water that may be “embedded” in production of a final 

consumer product (e.g., Hoekstra and Hung 2005). Whether ecosystem service 

uses are categorized as direct or indirect, it is important to underscore that this 

changes the way they must be accounted for and the clarity and ease by which many 

consumers and citizens understand benefits. It does not change the fact that many 

benefits accrue to people indirectly. For example, biodiversity and scenic, cultural/

recreational uses are particularly challenging to address as ecosystem services. 

Cautions abound in the literature, as each ecosystem service model is only as 

strong as its ability to describe these indirect connections and values (Brown et al. 

2011). Although trends in values are beginning to emerge, meta analyses of existing 

values have suggested that prediction of a value based on previous studies remains 

uncertain, and the need for site-specific valuation efforts remains important (Woodward and Wui 2001). 

Valuation Methodologies

Economic valuation exercises may provide a useful way to compare change in 

certain conditions resulting from a management action to a change in welfare 

experienced by a given set of individuals. This may be relatively straightforward 

in cases where the tradeoffs are well defined, and where market prices exist for 

each element that the user considers of value. However, particularly in the public 

goods context, this is often not the case, and it adds a great deal of complexity to 

the task of evaluating tradeoffs among land use and land management objectives 

(NRC 2005).
554

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Traditional approaches offer many techniques to elicit value. Values may be 

stated (Sugden 2005), revealed in preference studies (Bockstael and McConnell 

2007), queried via willingness to pay (Brouwer et al. 1999, Carson and Mitchell 

1993, Wilson and Carpenter 1999), estimated by travel cost method (Smith and 

Desvousges 1985), or transferred from other studies (Rosenberger and Loomis 

2001), among other approaches.

Nonmarket estimation techniques for ecosystem service valuation have 

advanced a great deal in recent years (Freeman 2003, Loomis 2005). These techniques have included travel-cost methodology and contingent valuation (Loomis 

1999), among others, to estimate use of many ecosystem services. Although valuation efforts of ecosystem services have often focused on direct uses, passive uses 

are also of high value to users of public forest lands (ibid). Existence values, option 

values, and bequest values may be the highest economic values for certain protected 

areas (Loomis 1987, 1989), and also serve as important values to biodiversity, 

science, and education (Balmford et al. 2002). Despite this awareness in general, 

pragmatic and specific decisions are still reliant on effective collaboration between 

ecologists and economists to ensure that the model is accurately reflecting the 

necessary level of ecosystem complexity. As Brown et al. (2011) reported, the devil 

often lies in the details of these valuation exercises.

Quantifying ecosystem service changes that result from changes in ecosystem 

conditions, land use, and land management is a substantial challenge and therefore 

adds costs and, sometimes, barriers to ascertaining value (Kline and Mazzotta 

2012). Benefit transfer techniques (taking an average value from existing valuation 

studies or using estimates from an existing study in a new one) (e.g., Loomis 

and Rosenberger 2006, Rosenberger and Loomis 2001) are therefore attractive, 

particularly where cost, method, and logistics on public lands are otherwise 

Figure 4—Components of total economic value of ecosystem services. Values are less 

tangible the further to the right.

Total economic value

Use value Non-use value

Actual/planned

use Option value For others Existence

Direct use Indirect use Altruism Bequest

Nonmarket estimation 

techniques for ecosystem service 

valuation have 

advanced a great 

deal in recent years.
555

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

prohibitive (Iovanna and Griffiths 2006). However, numerous writers have pointed 

to shortcomings in these techniques (Ready and Navrud 2006, Spash and Vatn 

2006), which require concerted efforts to overcome (Feather and Hellerstein 1997, 

Hoehn 2006, Loomis and Rosenberger 2006, and Smith et al. 2002, as summarized 

by Wainger and Mazzotta 2011). 

Payments for Ecosystem Services

Public goods have long been a challenge in natural resource management (Hardin 

1968). Increasingly, public institutions are relying on the emergence of market 

mechanisms to incentivize the provision of ecosystem services, especially to 

conserve forest as land cover (Collins and Larry 2008). Addressing “provision” of 

ecosystem services represents only a partial solution to rising ecosystem service 

deficits, as addressed in the next section of this chapter. 

A great deal of enthusiasm has been expressed for market-based approaches to 

ecosystem service provision. Overextensions of market-based tools have led to pleas 

for a more “rational exuberance” (see review in Kline et al. 2009). Markets are not a 

complete solution for the challenge of ecosystem service provision, because the vast 

majority of ecosystem services are not and will never be marketable. Certain characteristics of ecosystem services can determine whether a market-based tool may 

result in a useful and efficient way to incentivize production (table 1). Yet even if 

these characteristics fit the ecosystem service issue at hand, distribution and equity 

issues may be left unaddressed, and this also entails management consideration.

Market efficiency assumes that certain characteristics apply to the good or 

service at hand. In the most basic terms, each credit (or equivalent ecosystem 

service unit) must be able to be consumed as a private good (as opposed to collective consumption), and be excluded from those who do not pay (Randall 1993), for 

markets to be efficient in their provision. Table 1 summarizes these characteristics.

Table 1—The public/private nature of goods: markets are generally most 

effective when applied to the ecosystem services categorized here as 

“private goods” 

 Low rivalry High rivalry 

 (collective consumption) (private consumption)

Difficult to exclude Public goods: scenic views, Common goods: fresh water, 

 (unlimited access) biodiversity, clean air, fish stocks

carbon sequestration

Easier to exclude Club goods: private parks, Private goods: timber, food, 

(limited access) car parks, recreation areas, nonwood products

ski areas

Adapted from Randall 1993; see Daly and Farley 2004 for extended discussion.
556

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Increasingly, efforts are being made to move certain explicit and quantified 

ecosystem services from one quadrant to another, by modifying the excludability 

and rivalry characteristics of a well-defined “proxy,” such as design of credits with 

which to track and trade in carbon sequestration (EUSTAFOR and Patterson 2011). 

The Forest Service, in partnership with other private and not-for-profit partners, has 

suggested that this may offer potential for more market-diversified product offerings (Collins and Larry 2008). 

In market-based applications, additionality is a key concept that is often 

overlooked (Engel et al. 2008; Patterson and Coelho 2009; Wunder 2005, 2007). 

Additionality characterizes the extent (if any) to which the action, market, and 

payment increase the provision of the ecosystem services above and beyond that 

which would have been provided under a business-as-usual scenario. Payment 

systems may be initiated with seed funding, but in the absence of additionality, the 

credibility and longevity of ecosystem service market structures over time may be 

undermined (Wunder 2005, 2007). 

Addressing Rising Demands for Ecosystem Services

Successfully addressing emerging deficits in ecosystem services requires stemming 

decline in ecosystem service production, as well as ensuring ecosystem service use 

is not wasteful or needlessly impactful to the systems that provide them (Beier et al. 

2008; Patterson and Coelho 2008, 2009). Management tradeoffs are often considered in planning because they produce different bundles of services (Maness 2007), 

and awareness for and interest in various ecosystem services changes over time. 

Assessment of tradeoffs over space and time will thus require explicit definition 

of the area and time-step being considered, and identification of beneficiaries both 

near and far (information that is often lacking). For this reason, forest management 

and valuation efforts often focus on the supply side of ecosystem service information. Yet public funds can be spent both on maintaining or increasing supply of 

ecosystem services as well as on preventing waste or conserving ecosystem service 

use. The latter options can also be highly cost effective in addressing situations 

where ecosystem services have become particularly scarce. 

Although ecosystem service data describes in general terms human dependence 

on natural systems, this information is difficult to tie to the management 

organizations, municipalities, households, and individuals making decisions about 

ecosystem service use. Visualization efforts have attempted to raise awareness 

of where ecosystem services are produced (Naidoo and Ricketts 2006, Natural 

Capital Project 2010, Ricketts et al. 1999), but only a few studies have mapped 

ecosystem service uses or potential for disturbance (Beier et al. 2008). Synthetic 
557

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

indices (e.g., ecological footprints, carbon calculators, sustainability indicators, 

and sustainability report cards) are increasingly being used by states, cities, 

corporations, and individuals (Patterson and Coelho 2009, USDA FS 2007, 

Wackernagel and Rees 1996, Wackernagel et al. 1999). Forest Service management, 

as a requirement of Executive Order 43514, has targeted reductions in each of seven 

“footprint” areas since 2007 (USDA FS 2007). 

Federal entities, which often have large building footprints, fleets, and equipment 

portfolios, offer valuable opportunities for experimentation, innovation, and investment in conserving resources and reducing pressure on ecosystem service systems. 

The Forest Service Sustainable Operations program3

 works actively to daylight consumption trends of the agency, provide tools for cost-benefit analysis, and promote 

efficiency and behavior change. Decreasing the agency’s demand for resources and 

Figure 5—Riparian area on Sequoia National Forest.

3 http://www.fs.fed.us/sustainableoperations/.

Courtesy of California State University–Fresno research team
558

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

energy affects multiple ecosystem service systems and operating costs simultaneously. These business practices can include behavioral changes, such as turning off 

lights and computers when not in use; watering landscapes less frequently; recycling; 

using fuel efficient vehicles, energy efficient appliances, and electronics, and water 

aerators on faucets; minimizing packaging; and fixing water leaks—these are just a 

few of the items summarized by the Sustainable Operations program. 

Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

This chapter has provided a review and synthesis of the ecosystem service concept, 

which will be important as planners and managers conduct assessments in the 

synthesis area. The chapter discusses different definitions of the ecosystem service 

concept, offering examples of its diverse applications. The “Frameworks” section 

of this chapter highlights the current emphasis on the supply of ecosystem services, 

but it also describes three “challenge areas” that can assist the agency in its aim 

to “tell the story differently” and ultimately utilize a broader range of ecosystem 

service interventions to address deficits before they become acute. 

The Sierra Nevada synthesis area has a unique opportunity to contribute a vivid 

and prominent case study to an emerging area of concern nationwide—specifically, 

quantifying and illustrating the dependence of urban areas, communities, and 

households on surrounding natural systems and the flows of ecosystem services 

that they produce. To date, this has been done in an abstract “ecological footprint” 

approach, but the Sierra Nevada case illustrates an opportunity to be more explicit 

both in spatial and in ecosystem service terms. Habits, lifestyle, technology, social 

norms, and rules, incentives, and penalties all determine the rate at which humans 

collectively use ecosystem services. Urban areas are examples where this use is 

particularly concentrated, and this concept is acutely felt in California because 

of population expansion, land conversion, drought, and other factors that escalate 

demand for ecosystem services, or interrupt their supply. These systems serve 

as valuable test cases that underscore the value of well-managed landscapes, and 

demonstrate the degree to which quality of life is dependent on flows of reliable 

ecosystem services. Unfortunately, the presence of tipping points for provision of 

ecosystem services is often not explicitly understood until after substantial economic, cultural, and social losses have occurred, and by then, the cost to replace 

those services is often prohibitive. 

A wide range of perspectives on the concept of sustainability exists in the literature, and although those are not summarized here, some elements are covered in 

other chapters of this synthesis. Thomas (2012) addressed the important distinction 

between strong and weak sustainability, and how it bears on the agency’s ability 

Unfortunately, the 

presence of tipping 

points for provision of 

ecosystem services 

is often not explicitly 

understood until after 

substantial economic, 

cultural, and social 

losses have occurred, 

and by then, the cost to 

replace those services 

is often prohibitive.
559

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

to use concepts developed or outlined in PSW-GTR-220, An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Sierran Mixed-Conifer Forests (North et al. 2009), to build on 

stakeholder collaboration and system sustainability. Notions of intertemporal social 

well-being (Heal 2012, Jaeger 1996) may also be useful in framing conceptual 

tradeoffs that are examined in future studies. Future research is needed to articulate 

how methods and approaches from information management, systems analysis, 

and business and capital management strategies can help address the challenges 

described above in a cost-effective way. Increasingly, ecosystem service scarcities 

are spurring partnerships between public, private, nongovernmental, and academic 

sectors (Smith et al. 2011). Forest Service Sustainable Operations provides several 

place-based, strategic, and quantified efforts in this regard, and these have been of 

great interest also to partnering organizations from municipal and nongovernmental 

sectors. To date, however, these findings have been post-hoc, with few to no studies 

systematically comparing options, testing hypotheses, or establishing baselines, 

experimental design, or statistical controls. These shortcomings can be overcome 

with some foresight, planning, and sharing of information, particularly between 

scientists familiar with experimental design, engineers familiar with the systems 

(water, electrical, fleet), and members of business operations who can reveal units 

and current and historical billing and prices for the ecosystem services currently 

consumed in agency operations. Systemic solutions that address declines in ecosystem services require a coordinated approach to energy and material inputs to the 

economy (and the resulting waste and emissions), and projections of these for future 

time periods (Folke et al. 2004, Rockstrom et al. 2009). The ecosystem service concept presents an opportunity for the agency to take a more diversified approach, and 

in doing so, it may offer an opportunity for experimentation with a broader, wholesystems strategy to support landscape and community, resilience and sustainability. 

Literature Cited

Apple, D.D. 2000. The Forest Service as a learning organization. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/

publications/policy-analysis/fs_learning.html. (29 July 2011).

Balmford, A.; Bruner, A.; Cooper, P.; Costanza, R.; Farber, S.; Green, R.E.; 

Jenkins, M.; Jefferiss, P.; Jessamay, V.; Madden, J.; Munro, K.; Myers, 

N.; Naeem, S.; Paavola, J.; Rayment, M.; Rosendo, S.; Roughgarden, J.; 

Trumper, K.; Turner, R.K. 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wild 

nature. Science. 297(5583): 950–953.
560

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Barbier, E.B. 2007. Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs. Economic 

Policy. 22(49): 177–229.

Beier, C.M.; Patterson, T.M.; Chapin, F.S., III. 2008. Ecosystem services and 

emergent vulnerability in managed ecosystems: a geospatial decision-support 

tool. Ecosystems. 11(6): 923–938.

Bengston, D.N.; Kubik, G.H.; Bishop, P.C. 2012. Strengthening environmental 

foresight: potential contributions of futures research. Ecology and Society. 

17(2): 10.

Bockstael, N.E.; McConnell, K.E. 2007. Environmental and resource valuation 

with revealed preferences: a theoretical guide to empirical models. Dordrecht, 

The Netherlands: Springer. 374 p.

Boyd, J.W. 2004. What’s nature worth? Using indicators to open the black box of 

ecological valuation. Resources. 154: 18–22.

Boyd, J.W. 2007. The endpoint problem. Resources. 165(Spring): 26–28.

Boyd, J.W.; Banzhaf, S. 2006. What are ecosystem services? The need for 

standardized environmental accounting units. Discussion paper RFF-DP-06-02. 

Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 26 p.

Brouwer, R.; Langford, I.H.; Bateman, I.J.; Turner, R.K. 1999. A metaanalysis 

of wetland contingent valuation studies. Regional Environmental Change. 

1: 47– 57.

Brown, G.; Patterson, T.; Cain, N. 2011. The devil in the details: non-convexities 

in ecosystem services provision. Resource and Energy Economics. 33(2): 

355–365.

Brown, T.C.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Loomis, J.B. 2007. Defining, valuing, and 

providing ecosystem goods and services. Natural Resources Journal. 

47: 229–376.

Brown, T.C.; Peterson, G.L.; Tonn, B.E. 1995. The values jury to aid natural 

resource decisions. Land Economics. 71(2): 250–260. 

Carson, R.T.; Mitchell, R.C. 1993. The value of clean water: the public’s 

willingness to pay for boatable, fishable and swimmable quality water. Water 

Resources Research. 29(7): 2445–2454.

Chapin, F.S., III; Kofinas, G.P.; Folke, C., eds. 2009. Principles of ecosystem 

stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. 

New York: Springer. 402 p.
561

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Collins, S.; Larry, B. 2008. Caring for our natural assets: an ecosystem services 

perspective. In: Deal, R.L., ed. Integrated restoration of forested ecosystems to 

achieve multi-resource benefits: proceedings of the 2007 national silviculture 

workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-733. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 1–11.

Costanza, R. 2008. Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. 

Biological Conservation. 141(2): 350–353.

Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; 

Naeem, S.; Limburg, K.; Paruelo, J.; O’Neill, R.V.; Raskin, R.; Sutton, P.; 

van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural 

capital. Nature. 387: 253–260.

Daily, G.C., ed. 1997. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural 

ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. 392 p.

Daly, H.E.; Farley, J. 2004. Ecological economics: principles and applications. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 450 p.

de Groot, R.S.; Wilson, M.A.; Boumans, R.M.J. 2002. A typology for the 

classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and 

services. Ecological Economics. 41(3): 393–408.

Deal, R.L.; Raymond, C.; Peterson, D.L.; Glick, C. 2010. Ecosystem services 

and climate change: understanding the differences and identifying opportunities 

for forest carbon. In: Integrated management of carbon sequestration and 

biomass utilization opportunities in changing climate: proceedings of the 2009 

national silviculture workshop. Proceedings RMRS-P-61. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 

9–25.

Ehrlich, P.R.; Ehrlich, A.H. 1981. Extinction: the causes and consequences of 

the disappearance of species. New York: Random House. 305 p.

Ehrlich, P.R.; Ehrlich, A.H.; Holdren, J.P. 1977. Ecoscience: population, 

resources, environment. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. 1051 p.

Ehrlich, P.R.; Goulder, L.H. 2007. Is current consumption excessive? A general 

framework and some indications for the United States. Conservation Biology. 

21: 1145–1154.

Eiswerth, M.E.; Darden, T.D.; Johnson, W.S.; Agapoff, J.; Harris, T.R. 2005.

Input-output modeling, outdoor recreation, and the economic impacts of weeds. 

Weed Science. 53(1): 130–137.
562

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Engel, S.; Pagiola, S.; Wunder, S. 2008. Designing payments for environmental 

services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics. 

65: 663–674. 

EUSTAFOR; Patterson, T. 2011. Ecosystem services in European state forests. 

European State Forest Association. Brussels. 40 p.

Feather, P.; Hellerstein, D. 1997. Calibrating benefit function transfer to assess the 

Conservation Reserve Program. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 

79(1): 151–162.

Fisher, B.; Turner, R.K. 2008. Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. 

Biological Conservation. 141: 1167–1169.

Fisher, B.; Turner, R.K.; Morling, P. 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem 

services for decision making. Ecological Economics. 68(3): 643–653.

Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Elmqvist, T.; Gunderson, 

L.; Holling, C.S. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem 

management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 

35: 557–581.

Freeman, A.M., III. 2003. The measurement of environmental and resource 

values: theory and methods. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 

512 p.

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science. 162(3859): 1243–1248.

Hoekstra, A.Y.; Hung, P.Q. 2005. Globalisation of water resources: international 

virtual water flows in relation to crop trade. Global Environmental Change. 

15: 45–56.

Howarth, R.B.; Wilson, M.A. 2006. A theoretical approach to deliberative 

valuation: aggregation by mutual consent. Land Economics. 82: 1–16.

Heal, G. 2012. Reflections—defining and measuring sustainability. Review 

of Environmental Economics and Policy. 6(1): 147–163.

Hoehn, J.P. 2006. Methods to address selection effects in the meta regression 

and transfer of ecosystem values. Ecological Economics. 60(2): 389–398.

Iovanna, R.; Griffiths, C. 2006. Clean water, ecological benefits, and benefits 

transfer: a work in progress at the U.S. EPA. Ecological Economics. 60(2): 

473–482.
563

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Jaeger, W.K. 1996. Is sustainability optimal? Examining the differences between 

economists and environmentalists (vol. 15, p. 43, 1995). [Correction, Addition]. 

Ecological Economics. 17(2): 131–131. 

Kareiva, P.; Tallis, H.; Ricketts, T.H.; Daily, G.C.; Polasky, S. 2011. Natural 

capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. New York: Oxford 

University Press. 432 p.

Kline, J.D. 2006. Defining an economics research program to describe and 

evaluate ecosystem services. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-700. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 46 p. 

Kline, J.D.; Mazzotta, M.J. 2012. Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services 

in the management of public lands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-865. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 48 p.

Kline, J.D.; Mazzotta, M.J.; Patterson, T.M. 2009. Toward a rational exuberance 

for ecosystem services markets. Journal of Forestry. 107(4): 204–212.

Krutilla, J.V. 1967. Conservation reconsidered. The American Economic Review. 

57(4): 777–786.

Loomis, J.B. 1987. Balancing public trust resources of Mono Lake and Los 

Angeles’ water right: an economic approach. Water Resources Research. 

23(8): 1449–1456.

Loomis, J. 1989. Quantifying the economic value of public trust resources using 

the contingent valuation method: a case study of the Mono Lake decision. 

Transactions of the 54th North American wildlife and natural resources 

conference. Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute: 213–223. 

Loomis, J.B. 1999. Do additional designations of wilderness result in increases in 

recreational use? Society and Natural Resources. 12(5): 481–491.

Loomis, J. 2005. Updated outdoor recreation use values on national forests 

and other public lands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-658. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

26 p.

Loomis, J.B.; Rosenberger, R.S. 2006. Reducing barriers in future benefit 

transfers: needed improvements in primary study design and reporting. 

Ecological Economics. 60(2): 343–350.
564

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

MacCleery, D.W.; Le Master, D.C. 1999. The historical foundation and evolving 

context for natural resource management on federal lands. In: Szaro, R.C.; 

Johnson, N.C.; Sexton, W.T.; Malk, A.J., eds. Ecological stewardship: a common 

reference for ecosystem management. Vol. II. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier 

Science: 517–556.

Maness, T. 2007. Trade-off analysis for decision making in natural resources: 

where we are and where we are headed. BC Journal of Ecosystems and 

Management. 8(2): 1–16.

McKenzie, D.; Gedalof, Z.; Peterson, D.L.; Mote, P. 2004. Climatic change, 

wildfire, and conservation. Conservation Biology. 18: 890–902.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA]. 2005. Ecosystems and human 

wellbeing: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. 137 p.

Murdoch, W.; Polasky, S.; Wilson, K.A.; Possingham, H.P.; Kareiva, P.; 

Shaw, R. 2007. Maximizing return on investment in conservation. Biological 

Conservation. 139(3–4): 375–388

Myers, N. 1997. The world’s forests and their ecosystem services. In: Daily, G., ed. 

Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: 

Island Press: 215–235. 

Naidoo, R.; Ricketts, T.H. 2006. Mapping the economic costs and benefits of 

conservation. PLoS Biology. 4(11): e360.

Natural Capital Project. 2010. Integrated valuation of environmental services and 

tradeoffs. http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/InVEST.html. (31 July 2012.)

Neary, D.G.; Ice, G.G.; Jackson, C.R. 2009. Linkages between forest soils and 

water quality and quantity. Forest Ecology and Management. 258: 2269–2281.

Norgaard, R.B. 2010. Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to 

complexity blinder. Ecological Economics. 69(6): 1219–1227.

National Research Council [NRC]. 2005. Valuing ecosystem services: toward 

better environmental decision-making. Washington, DC: National Academies 

Press. 290 p.

Patterson, T.; Coelho, D. 2008. Missing feedback in payments for ecosystem 

services: a systems perspective. In: Chapman, R.L., ed. Creating sustainability 

within our midst: challenges for the 21st century. New York: Pace University 

Press: 61–72.
565

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Patterson, T.M.; Coelho, D.L. 2009. Ecosystem services: foundations, 

opportunities, and challenges for the forest products sector. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 257(8): 1637–1646.

Polasky, S. 2008. What’s nature done for you lately: measuring the value of 

ecosystem services. Choices. 23(2): 42–46.

Polasky, S.; Segerson, K. 2009. Integrating ecology and economics in the study 

of ecosystem services: some lessons learned. Annual Review of Resource 

Economics. 1(1): 409–434.

Randall, A. 1993. The problem of market failure. In: Dorfman, R.; Dorfman, N., 

eds. Economics of the environment. 3rd ed. New York: Norton: 144–161.

Ready, R.; Navrud, S. 2006. International benefit transfer: methods and validity 

tests. Ecological Economics. 60(2): 429–434.

Richardson, L.; Loomis, J. 2009. The total economic value of threatened, 

endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecological Economics. 

68(5): 1535–1548.

Richardson, R. 2002. Economic benefits of wildlands in the eastern Sierra Nevada 

region of California. San Francisco, CA: The Wilderness Society. April. 39 p. 

http://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/

ForestEconomics/Economics-Richardson02.pdf. (23 December 2013).

Ricketts, T.H.; Dinerstein, E.; Olson, D.M.; Loucks, C.; Eichbaum, W.; 

Kavanagh, K.; Hedao, P.; Hurley, P.; Carney, K.; Abell, R.: Walters, S. 

1999. Terrestrial ecoregions of North America: a conservation assessment. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 508 p.

Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, Å.; Chapin, F.S., III; Lambin, 

E.F.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; Nykvist, B.; 

de Wit, C.A.; Hughes, T.; van der Leeuw, S.; Rodhe, H.; Sörlin, S.; Snyder, 

P.K.; Costanza, R.; Svedin, U.; Falkenmark, M.; Karlberg, L.; Corell, R.W.; 

Fabry, V.J.; Hansen, J.; Walker, B.; Liverman, D.; Richardson, K.; Crutzen, 

P.; Foley, J.A. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature. 461: 472–475. 

Rosenberger, R.S.; Loomis, J.B. 2001. Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation use 

values: a technical document supporting the forest service strategic plan (2000 

revision). Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-RMRS-72. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 59 p.
566

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Study of Critical Environmental Problems [SCEP]. 1970. Man’s impact on the 

global environment: assessment and recommendations for action. Cambridge, 

MA: MIT Press. 319 p.

Smith, N.; Deal, R.; Kline, J.D.; Patterson, T.; Spies, T.; Blahna, D. 2011. Using 

ecosystem services as a framework for forest stewardship: executive summary. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-852. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 46 p. 

Smith, V.K.; Desvousges, W.H. 1985. The generalized travel cost model and water 

quality benefits: a reconsideration. Southern Economic Journal. 52: 371–381.

Smith, V.K.; Van Houtven, G.; Pattanayak, S.K. 2002. Benefit transfer via 

preference calibration: ‘‘prudential algebra’’ for policy. Land Economics. 

78(1): 132–152.

SNEP Science Team. 1996. Status of the Sierra Nevada, Sierra Nevada ecosystem 

project: final report to Congress. Vol. I: Assessment summaries and management 

strategies. Report No. 36. Davis, CA: Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 

University of California–Davis. 209 p.

Spash, C.L. 2007. Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): issues in combining 

economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecological 

Economics. 63: 690–699.

Spash, C.L. 2008. Deliberative monetary valuation and the evidence for a new 

value theory. Land Economics. 84(3): 469–488.

Spash, C.L.; Vatn, A. 2006. Transferring environmental value estimates: issues 

and alternatives. Ecological Economics. 60(2): 379–388.

Stein, S.M.; McRoberts, R.E.; Alig, R.J.; Nelson, M.D.; Theobald, D.M.; Eley, 

M.; Dechter, M.; Carr, M. 2005. Forests on the edge: housing development 

on America’s private forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-636. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 16 p.

Sugden, R. 2005. Anomalies and stated preference techniques: a framework for a 

discussion of coping strategies. Environmental and Resource Economics. 

32(1): 1–12.
567

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Sukhdev, P.; Wittmer, H.; Schröter-Schlaack, C.; Nesshöver, C.; Bishop, J.; 

ten Brink, P.; Gundimeda, H.; Kumar, P.; Simmons, B. 2010. Mainstreaming 

the economics of nature—a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and 

recommendations of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) 

Report. Paris: United Nations Environment Program, DTIE. 39 p.

Thomas, C. 2012. Using GTR 220 to build stakeholder collaboration. In: North, M., 

ed. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station: 89–92.

Tilman, D. 1997. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. In: Daily, G., ed. 

Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: 

Island Press: 93–112.

Toman, M.A. 1994. Economics and “sustainability”: balancing trade-offs and 

imperatives. Land Economics. 70(4). 399–413. 

Toman, M.A. 1998. Why not to calculate the value of the world’s ecosystem 

services and natural capital. Ecological Economics. 25(1): 57–60. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2007. Fiscal 

year 2007 national environmental footprint report. Washington, DC: Business 

Operations Reporting Service. 58 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/sustainableoperations/

documents/fy2007-environmental-footprint.pdf. (20 July 2012).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [US EPA]. 2006. Ecological benefits 

assessment strategic plan. EPA-240-R-06-001. Washington, DC: Office of the 

Administrator. http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0485-01.

pdf/$File/EE-0485-01.pdf. (23 December 2013).

van den Belt, M.; Deutsch, L.; Jansson, Å. 1998. A consensus-based simulation 

model for management in the Patagonia coastal zone. Ecological Modelling. 

110(1): 79–103.

Wackernagel, M.; Onisto, L.; Bello, P.; Linares, A.C.; Falfán, I.S.L.; García, 

J.M.; Guerrero, A.I.S.; Guerrero, M.G.S. 1999. National natural capital 

accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics. 

29(3): 375−390.

Wackernagel, M.; Rees, W. 1996. Our ecological footprint: reducing human 

impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. 160 p.
568

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Wackernagel, M.; Schulz, N.B.; Deumling, D.; Linares, A.C.; Jenkins, M.; 

Kapos, V.; Monfreda, C.; Loh, J. et al. 2002. Tracking the ecological overshoot 

of the human economy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America. 99(14): 9266–9271.

Wainger, L.; Mazzotta, M. 2011. Realizing the potential of ecosystem services: 

a framework for relating ecological changes to economic benefits. Journal of 

Environmental Management. 48(4): 710–733.

Westman, W.E. 1977. How much are nature’s services worth? Science. 

197: 960–964.

White, E.M.; Stynes, D.J. 2010. Spending profiles for national forest visitors, 

NVUM round 2 update. Report for USDA FS and OSU Joint Venture Agreement 

No. 10-JV-11261955018. 68 p. http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lulcd/Publicationsalpha_

files/White_Stynes_NVUM2010a.pdf. (23 December 2013).

Wilson, M.A.; Carpenter, S.R. 1999. Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem 

services in the United States, 1971–1997. Ecological Applications. 9(3): 772–783. 

Woodward, R.T.; Wui, Y. 2001. The economic value of wetland services: a metaanalysis. Ecological Economics. 37(2): 257–270.

Wunder, S. 2005. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. 

CIFOR Occasional Paper 42. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry 

Research. 24 p.

Wunder, S. 2007. The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical 

conservation. Conservation Biology. 21(1): 48–58.

Zavaleta E. 2000. The economic value of controlling an invasive shrub. Ambio. 

29(8): 462–467.
569

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Patricia L. Winter,1 Jonathan W. Long,2 and Frank K. Lake 3

Summary

Sociocultural perspectives on threats, risks, and health are explored in this chapter. 

The authors begin with a discussion of the linkages between well-being in the 

Sierra Nevada ecosystem and public health and well-being to set the context of 

socioecological resilience. This is followed by a summary of how trust and confidence influence the management of threats and risk. Selected ecosystem dynamics 

and threats of specific concern in this synthesis are discussed, and include climate 

change, wildland fire, and invasive species. The chapter closes with a discussion of 

research findings on decisionmaking related to threats and risk.

Introduction

This chapter examines the intersections of human and ecological health, and the 

anticipated impacts of ecosystem dynamics and threats in the Sierra Nevada and 

southern Cascade Range. By following the chapter on ecosystem services with this 

discussion of linkages between ecological and human health, we hope to further 

illuminate the importance of socioecological resilience and using an adaptive 

management approach. Common to these dynamics are varying degrees and kinds 

of uncertainty. For example, expected changes in precipitation are very important, 

but still highly uncertain (see chapter 1.4, “Synopsis of Climate Change”); predicted 

increases in temperature will have not been experienced by societies; and the combinations of fire and climate regimes may be entirely novel. Because such changes 

are uncharacteristic of past patterns, readiness to identify, adapt to, and mitigate 

newly recognized impacts to socioecological systems will be essential to effective 

management for resilience. Confronting novel conditions will pose a challenge for 

management and social systems to respond, because trial-and-error learning may 

not have occurred under comparable conditions (Schoon and Cox 2011). The need 

to address uncertainty heightens the importance of trust, confidence, and decisionmaking. These topics are highlighted as factors that may have significant influences 

Chapter 9.3—Sociocultural Perspectives 

on Threats, Risks, and Health

1 Research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Dr., Riverside, CA 92507.

2 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.

3 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002.
570

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

on effective management of risks and threats. This chapter presents selected findings surrounding risk perception and risk management. These are anchored with 

examples of how findings may improve risk management into the future. 

How Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Health Is Related to 

Public Health and Well-Being

The importance of the interaction between environmental and social health has been 

increasingly recognized in scientific endeavors to promote quality of life. Connections between human health and forests hold great potential for improvement of wellbeing (Karjalainen et al. 2010), and understanding the linkages can greatly aid efforts 

to conserve and restore forests (Hernández et al. 2012). By emphasizing the value of 

healthy ecosystems for social, cultural, and economic health, managers, researchers, 

and stakeholders alike have an opportunity to effectively frame why actions to protect or restore an ecosystem are valuable investments. This approach may facilitate 

larger scale discussions of how decisions within the forest boundary may influence 

issues of human health and quality of life well outside of the forest boundary.

Given projections of the diversity of cultures and accompanying diversity of 

values that will continue to characterize visitors and residents in the Sierra Nevada 

and surrounding areas, engaging stakeholders in an ongoing and adaptive process 

for forest management practices and decisionmaking is important. Chapter 9.1, 

“Broader Context for Social, Economic, and Cultural Components,” introduced the 

benefit of recreation and tourism in aiding the development of connections to place, 

among myriad other benefits. Dialogue with stakeholders, including forest community residents, can help in the identification of valued ecosystem services. In addition, discussions of valued services can facilitate stakeholder recognition of benefits 

they may not be aware of or value (Asah et al. 2012). Dialogue with stakeholders 

also reveals perceptions of what characterizes different attributes of a healthy forest 

and management actions required to achieve it (Sulak and Huntsinger 2012). Over 

time, these dialogues may result in shared meanings among participants surrounding forest health, as seen in an adaptive management process in the Sierra Nevada 

(Sulak and Huntsinger 2012). 

Long-term residents and newcomers alike find value in ecosystem quality and 

resilience for a variety of reasons, as may those who have no residency ties but have 

formed other connections to place (Kaltenborn and Williams 2002).

Rural communities in the Sierra Nevada have experienced significant political, 

social, economic, and environmental transitions (see box 9.3-1). As these transitions 

have occurred, economic well-being in a number of Sierra Nevada communities has 

drawn increased attention. Though much attention has been paid to poverty in urban 

By emphasizing 

the value of healthy 

ecosystems for social, 

cultural, and economic 

health, managers, 

researchers, and 

stakeholders alike 

have an opportunity 

to effectively frame 

why actions to 

protect or restore an 

ecosystem are valuable 

investments.
571

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

areas (owing in part to the large proportion of populations in those locales), poverty 

in rural areas has received less attention. Examining rural communities in the Sierra 

Nevada synthesis area offers the opportunity to assess connections between poverty 

and well-being and linkages to ecological quality, short and long term. Identifying 

these linkages reveals the layers of multiple threats facing Sierra Nevada communities. 

Box 9.3-1

Sierra Nevada Community Well-Being

Transition in Sierra Nevada communities was discussed in a Sierra Cascade 

dialogue session (#3, held October 12, 2011). Jonathan Kusel, Ph.D., offered 

evidence that rural communities in the synthesis area were hit especially hard 

by the recession. His analysis suggests that communities are losing families 

with young children, the average age in remaining populations is increasing, 

and the middle class is migrating away from the area. He described community services, including health services, as being drained, and he highlighted 

the need for infrastructure reinvestment.4

Additional assessments of well-being are provided on an annual basis 

by the University of Wisconsin, Population Health Institute and the Robert 

Wood Johnson Foundation.5 Multiple factors of well-being are ranked at the 

county level for most counties in the Nation. Examining the rankings for the 

state of California shows several counties that overlap in whole or in part with 

the assessment area that are doing poorly across a number of outcomes they 

assessed. The indicators used for well-being may be of value in measuring 

socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range.6

4 Notes from this Dialog Session are available upon request from Patricia L. Winter, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Dr., Riverside, CA 92507.

5 Available at http://www.countyhealthrankings.org.

6 Booske et al. (2010) outlined the assignment of weights and assessment of determinants of health underlying the rankings.

Evans et al. (2009) highlighted the experiences of rural youth living in poverty. 

These youths typically experience more day-to-day stressors than their middleincome counterparts. Evans et al. (2009) also reported that the greatest number of 

low-income American children and youth are white, and they are disproportionally 

represented in rural areas. Economic stressors in the Sierra Nevada suggest that 

some communities may be of particular concern. Evans and Rosenbaum (2008) 

documented generational impacts of poverty that are longstanding and affect 
572

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

cognitive and socioemotional processes, influencing life-long development and 

outcomes in adulthood. Evans and Kim (2010) connected multiple environmental 

and social risk exposures to socioeconomic status, highlighting the importance of 

understanding that poverty is typically linked to additional social risks as well as 

environmental risks. Evans (2006) provided linkages between childhood development and environmental quality, pointing to the importance of ecological health in 

proper development of future generations.

These findings are applicable to fostering socioecological resilience because 

environmental condition affects development, environmental quality and opportunity are linked to community and economic resilience, and poor environmental and 

economic conditions impose immediate and long-term impacts on generations of 

youth. The cumulative risk assessment framework presented by deFur et al. (2007) 

is helpful in understanding issues of individual exposure to risk, impacts of cumulative risks upon the same individual, and individual and community resources 

available to respond to risk. Their framework echoes back to the theme of socioecological resilience, as it pairs human and ecological systems and the multiple 

risks each is exposed to as a way to conceptualize vulnerability and understand 

well-being. deFur et al. (2007) also emphasized the multiple scales necessary in 

understanding vulnerability and response to risk. They outlined “receptor characteristics” that include individual and group qualities as well as environmental 

considerations or habitat qualities. Among receptor characteristics are biological 

factors (e.g., genetics and life stage), psychological factors (e.g., mental health and 

activities, including physical activity), and social factors (e.g., socioeconomic status 

(SES) and population size). Habitat quality includes location (e.g., rural vs. urban 

and time indoors vs. outdoors), quality of setting (natural, built, and social environments), and resources (e.g., social capital and system complexity). deFur et al (2007) 

pointed out that discussions of resilience need to consider how some factors, for 

example SES, cut across both individual and environmental conditions. Additionally, they emphasized the importance of psychological and social factors, essential 

to human populations but not typically examined in treatments of vulnerability and 

resilience. Receptors at the group level include community, and would then consider 

aspects of community resilience.

A later chapter of this synthesis (9.4) addresses community resilience and 

management approaches to contribute to community resilience; however, it is useful 

to point out here that the current and future well-being of human populations in the 

Sierra Nevada is directly linked to an array of influences, including resilience of the 

Sierra Nevada ecosystem and its biophysical components, as discussed in earlier 

chapters.
573

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

The increasing cultural diversity within the synthesis area is an additional 

factor in risk management, vulnerability, and resilience, because the different ways 

that risk is perceived and acted upon by individuals are influenced by culture (Earle 

and Cvetkovich 1999, Lindell and Perry 2004). Diversity requires the ability to 

understand and take into account increasingly complex value sets, relationships to 

the synthesis area, and relationships among social groups and institutions.

Another significant factor is the issue of environmental justice (Greenberg et 

al. 2012), including consideration of differential exposure to risks and subsequent 

differential impacts of exposure, the ability of vulnerable communities to adapt 

to or mitigate risk, and effective approaches to working with communities in 

communicating and addressing risk. For example, communities believed to be 

most vulnerable to the effects of climate change on forest lands are the young, 

elderly, and minority communities; rural communities with strong ties to natural 

resource amenities (including those offering recreational opportunities); and Native 

American or tribal communities (Krishnaswamy et al. 2012, Wear and Joyce 2012). 

Specific examples of the link between social and environmental health within the 

Sierra Nevada are represented in other chapters in this synthesis. Chapter 8.1, “Air 

Quality,” presents a series of studies pointing to elevated ozone levels that exceed 

public health standards, thereby presenting a direct risk to health. This elevated 

risk has been identified in multiple locations in the Sierra Nevada, especially on the 

western slopes downwind from pollution sources in the California Central Valley. 

Poor air quality is of special concern in a number of ways. Year-round residents 

situated in areas with documented high concentration levels, or residents who 

frequently travel to those areas in their local surroundings or take short distance 

day trips to nearby locations, are exposed to elevated ozone concentrations. Given 

the temperate climate during most months, and the natural amenities surrounding 

year-round residents, it is likely that residents spend a portion of their time outdoors 

and therefore have a greater exposure than if they were indoors most of the day. 

Sensitive populations that would be more adversely affected by poor air quality 

include the elderly, the very young, and those with respiratory conditions classified 

as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.7

 Additional concerns for the recreating 

public are also worthy of note, as much of the Sierra Nevada is a prime recreation 

and tourism destination. Recreationists engaging in more physically exerting 

activities, such as hiking or mountain biking, would be of greater concern than 

those relaxing or enjoying more stationary activities. It may be prudent to warn the 

recreating public about the risks associated with increased ozone in the southern 

7 For a discussion of threats to human health from ozone, see http://www.epa.gov/apti/

ozonehealth/population.html.
574

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Sierra Nevada during the summer season (Cisneros et al. 2010). Discussions of air 

quality issues in forests offer additional insights into issues surrounding the public 

and risk associated with air pollution (see Winter 1999).

Aside from the commonality of uncertainty, overarching influences are found 

among studies of trust and confidence, as well as studies of decisionmaking. These 

topics are highlighted in order to point to factors that can have significant influence on effective management of risks and threats, not only of the specific threats 

examined in this chapter, but the array of issues and concerns addressed in prior 

chapters.

Understanding Trust and Confidence

The ability to effectively communicate with publics about current and anticipated 

risks and to effectively manage forest lands to decrease adverse impacts of riskrelated events is influenced by myriad factors, including trust and confidence that 

the public has in land management agencies. Trust has been discussed in many 

ways regarding natural resource management, and has also been measured in many 

ways. This chapter cannot characterize the full range of these variations, but the 

following discussion summarizes some of the key findings surrounding trust and 

distrust, as well as some of their implications.

According to Levi (1998), trust has multiple characteristics, including a 

willingness to believe that another has an incentive to act in ways consistent with 

one’s own interests, leading to an initial evaluation of trustworthiness. Trust 

maintenance depends on finding this perceived trustworthiness is confirmed, or 

trust will be withdrawn. A determining factor in the initial and ongoing basis of 

assessment of trust may rely on a perception of similar salient values (including 

goals, thoughts, views, and direction) (Earle and Cvetkovich 1995, Vaske et al. 

2007, Winter and Cvetkovich 2008). Others have discussed the influences of 

perceived competence and fairness in assessment of trust (Levi 1998). These 

may be based on implicit and intuitive processes, or derived from explicit and 

knowledge or fact-based processes (Cvetkovich and Winter 2007). When based on 

explicit processes, judgments can be derived from direct or indirect experiences 

(e.g., through relationships), through reliance on external governing policies or 

regulations, institutionalized accountability, and opportunities to express one’s 

views (Cvetkovich and Winter 2007). These are sources of what have been referred 

to as relational assurances, and include confidence. Therefore, there are myriad 

bases from which trust judgments may be derived, and recommendations to build 

and maintain trust must be crafted with care to avoid oversimplifying the dynamics 

of trust. 

There are myriad 

bases from which 

trust judgments 

may be derived, and 

recommendations to 

build and maintain 

trust must be crafted 

with care to avoid 

oversimplifying the 

dynamics of trust.
575

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Care must also be taken in discussions of trust because there has been a great 

deal of confusion over operational definitions, where measurement of other concerns, such as perceived competence, have been used interchangeably with trust 

but ultimately are not complete determinants of trust. Assumptions of distrust 

have been made when stakeholders have shared stories of concern or mishap in 

interactions with individuals or representatives of agencies; however, when both 

quantitative and qualitative approaches are combined, it is often apparent that trust 

is present, and problems have been presented as stories of exception (Winter and 

Cvetkovich 2013). Research demonstrates that individuals give notable focus and 

consideration to processing of negative information, thus qualitative measures alone 

may be contrived as representative of the absence of trust or outright distrust when 

individuals are merely revealing cognitive and social properties of the treatment of 

negative information (Pidgeon et al. 2007, Winter and Cvetkovich 2013). 

In addition to the components of trust, the nature and impacts of trust have 

been examined. For example, Levi (1998) points out that although many suggest 

trust is always desirable and of high value, distrust may in effect be equally functional in serving the public good. Distrust is functional where decisions and actions 

are carefully evaluated and scrutinized, and thus must meet a higher standard of 

validation and transparency. Distrust can also foster consideration of alternatives 

and reasons behind a course of action that is selected. The sociopolitical environment in California—which includes political distrust, and a trend toward civic 

disengagement—portends greater rather than less difficulty in reaching public 

consensus on policy issues (Baldassare 2000). These trends are not constrained to 

California (Löfstedt 2013), and in some cases, they reflect a detachment, disconnection, and mistrust of anything “governmental” by a segment of the public best 

characterized as angry or “fed up” (Susskind and Field 1996). However, larger 

trends of trust or distrust in agencies or government do not directly translate into 

trust or distrust of the Forest Service or its employees directly involved in management within the synthesis area. For example, Bowker et al. (2008) reported that the 

majority of respondents to a national survey trusted land managers to select the best 

methods for dealing with wildfire.

A number of studies have revealed relatively high levels of trust across a 

number of management issues involving the Forest Service, though these have been 

paired with an identification of other factors that are influential in public response 

to agency actions and proposed actions, including knowledge, personal experience, 

and degree of personal impact versus impact to others (Winter and Cvetkovich 

2013). 
576

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Furthermore, trust in agencies or individuals may be relatively resilient, even 

when actions are taken that appear inconsistent with values (Winter and Cvetkovich 

2013). In such cases, careful communication of reasons for value-inconsistent action 

or actions and decisions that seem counter to shared objectives can be beneficial 

in establishing legitimacy (see, for example, Cvetkovich and Winter 2007, Winter 

and Cvetkovich 2008). Predicting how people will behave based on their stated 

trust levels yields mixed results. It is often assumed that trust encourages people to 

collaborate on important natural resource management issues, but it is also quite 

possible that distrust brings participants into collaborations and keeps them actively 

engaged in order to allow direct monitoring of personal or group interests (Levi 

1998). Others may feel little need to be actively engaged if trust is present, relying 

on managing agencies to make appropriate decisions (Winter and Cvetkovich 2013).

Confusion over outcomes of trust surrounding natural resource management 

comes from a partial understanding or misunderstanding of the distinction between 

generalized trust and public response to specific proposed actions or decisions. 

Trust is, in essence, situation-specific; thus, though general trust may be present, 

specific trust related to a proposed action can evoke a specific response that seems 

contradictory to this aforementioned general trust (Winter and Cvetkovich 2013). 

Likewise, general attitudes do a poor job of predicting specific behaviors (Gifford 

and Sussman 2012); therefore, interacting in broad terms and gaining agreement 

on general direction or goals for management, for example, may ultimately prove 

disappointing when actions in a specific location are carried out. Behavior is 

influenced by a constellation of attitudes, values, knowledge, and other factors 

(Gifford and Sussman 2012, Heberlein 2012), so even when individuals agree on 

overall goals, and trust is present, a competing attitude or issue may bubble to the 

surface and lead to conflict and disagreement (see chapter 9.1 for a discussion of 

the influences of behavior outlined in the Environmental Intervention Handbook). 

Recent advances in public deliberations and engagements have recognized these 

complexities and integrated them into collaborative processes to improve outcomes. 

These advances offer significant value when working in environments where values 

are diverse, can often conflict, and are essential to reflect on and incorporate to 

the degree possible in managing public resources and planning for the future of 

the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range (collaboration methods are further 

discussed in chapter 9.6, “Collaboration in National Forest Management”).

Löfstedt (2013) offered recommendations for communicating scientific 

information regarding risks where uncertainty is involved and distrust is present. 

Although his analysis was specific to food risks and regulations, he offered insights 

that seem valuable to natural resource management and risk communication. These 
577

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

include (1) strengthening communications so they can be proactive instead of 

reactive to help build trust; (2) providing continuing education for agency personnel 

in risk-related communications to improve delivery of clear and concise messages; 

(3) ensuring that communications are clear, consistent, fair, and balanced; (4) 

drawing from third-party experts in science and risk communications to optimize 

effectiveness of communications; (5) considering establishing risk communication 

advisory boards (in part to reflect on how risk-related messages will be perceived 

and reacted to by various target audiences); and (6) strengthening scientific 

expertise and promoting applicable agency science. We now turn to three specific 

ecosystem dynamics and threats to further explore connections between social and 

ecological well-being in the Sierra Nevada.

Ecosystem Dynamics, Threats and Risks

Climate Change

Public perceptions and communication surrounding climate change—

A national study of Americans revealed that there is a high level of belief that 

global climate change is real and is a significant concern. Nevertheless, the impacts 

are overall believed to affect distant peoples and lands, and to be of moderate severity (Leiserowitz 2005). This study also revealed there are two important segments 

on both sides of the majority opinion, including people who believe that climate 

change is a fabricated hoax, as well as those who believe that climate change poses 

extreme risks. Thus, ideas about climate change vary among the public, as they do 

among politicians and environmentalists (Leiserowitz 2005). Strikingly different 

views about the risks of climate change make it difficult to address changes at a 

larger scale (e.g., reducing the demand for water if climate change leads to reduced 

supply) (see Das et al. 2011 and Shaw et al. 2011 for discussion of impacts referred 

to in this example).

Maibach et al. (2008) suggested that tailoring messaging and outreach efforts 

to address this diversity of viewpoints and values will increase the chance of 

changing behavior and policy to address climate change (see box 9.3-2). Addressing 

these diverse viewpoints and values is essential to bridging perceptual divides and 

increasing understanding of climate change impacts, and generating support for the 

actions needed for mitigation and adaptation (Nisbet 2009).

Koger et al. (2011) suggested that framing climate change as a global environmental issue may make it distant or too removed from personal responsibility, thus 

inhibiting actions to mitigate impacts. They suggested reframing climate change 

to focus on the immediacy and local nature of issues and impacts, and emphasizing behavioral control and actions that are problem focused. They also suggested 
578

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Figure 1—View of Lake Isabella and surroundings from Highway 483 in Havilah, a community near 

the Sequoia National Forest.

Elke Schuster

Box 9.3-2

Public Perceptions of Climate Change

A recent study in California demonstrates the ongoing complexities of public 

perceptions of climate change and its impacts. A majority or near majority of 

Californians are very concerned about possible impacts of global warming 

in the state, which include more severe wildfires (56 percent), increased air 

pollution (48 percent), and more severe droughts (45 percent) (Baldassare et al. 

2011). A majority believe the effects of global warming have already begun, 

and it is necessary to take steps to counter the impacts right away. However, 

global warming is not among the top five most often mentioned environmental issues in California. Air pollution remains the top issue for Californians 

in the most recent statewide survey (27 percent), followed by water pollution 

(8 percent), water supply (8 percent), and energy (7 percent) (Baldassare et al. 

2011).
579

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

emphasizing the public health issues involved, and the health benefits of preserving 

nature, thus providing a positive rather than negative framing for promoting action.

Including information about the potential social, demographic, and economic 

disruptions from climate change in addition to physical health impacts broadens 

the consideration of well-being and represents a wider range of values that might 

motivate support for mitigation measures and personal behavioral changes (Bain 

et al. 2012, McMichael et al. 2006). Additionally, climate change is likely to affect 

whole groups or sectors of minority or ethnic groups differently, based on the 

dependence of each cultural group’s traditions and livelihoods on valued resources 

affected by climate in different ways (e.g., for American Indians, see Voggesser et 

al. 2013). Impacts of climate change on rural communities are of pressing concern 

and currently under examination by a group of agency researchers and collaborators 

across the United States (see fig. 1).8

Related research highlights a number of effective strategies for communicating about climate change; these include anchoring climate change discussions in 

ways that demonstrate impact to locales specific to the target audience and peoples 

viewed as similar to them, as well as stressing that impacts are expected soon. 

It is also important to describe the certainty surrounding many of the current 

forecasted effects (see Spence et al. 2012). Likelihood and severity of localized 

impacts has also been suggested as important in the adoption of and investment in 

adaptation measures among agency decisionmakers (Syal et al. 2011). It is clear that 

uncertainty may be acceptable when the audience understands that uncertainties 

are part of a deeper understanding of complex mechanisms such as climate change 

(Rabinovich and Morton 2012). In this case, communicating the role of science, 

and revealing the complexities and uncertainties of impacts, is just as important as 

relaying findings about climate change.9

Impacts of climate change—

Expected impacts of climate change on tourism worldwide vary based on market 

segment and geographic region, but may include a decreased winter sports season, 

heat stress risks for tourists, risks of exposure to infectious diseases, increased competition for recreational opportunities and alternate uses dependent on water, loss of 

natural attractions and species in ecosystems, decreased access and compromised 

experiences from more frequent and larger wildfires, and changes in soils that may 

alter ecosystem impacts of uses (WTO and UNEP 2008).

8 More information about this effort can be found at http://www.cfc.umt.edu/VAC/. 

9 A recent synthesis of the potential and ongoing contributions of psychology to address 

climate change impacts may be helpful to the reader of this report (see Swim et al. 2010).

Climate change is likely 

to affect whole groups 

or sectors of minority 

or ethnic groups 

differently, based 

on the dependence 

of each cultural 

group’s traditions and 

livelihoods on valued 

resources affected 

by climate in different 

ways.
580

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Morris and Walls (2009) examined climate change impacts on outdoor recreation in the United States. The anticipated lessened snowpack in the Sierra Nevada 

is expected to be dramatic in comparison to areas with cooler climates, and thus a 

significant risk to skiing and snowboarding days is expected. Although these may 

be addressed with improved snowmaking technologies and shifting of ski runs to 

higher elevations, the feasibility and financial support for such adaptations will 

likely vary by region (Morris and Walls 2009). Angling and sport fishing may be 

affected by changes in precipitation as well as reduced runoff from snowmelt. The 

effects are expected to be more significant in the West (Morris and Walls 2009). 

Declines in trout habitat and the associated socioeconomic consequences owing to 

climate change are discussed in chapter 6.1, “Watershed and Stream Ecosystems.”

Research has identified many local impacts of climate change, including those 

presented here. Maurer (2007) outlined hydrologic impacts of climate change in 

the Sierra Nevada under two scenarios. With expected increases in temperature, 

he projected an increase in winter streamflow from increased precipitation, and 

decreasing late spring and summer flow associated with lessened snowpack at the 

end of winter. These anticipated shifts will not only have impacts on demands for 

water management (Maurer 2007), but they will also impact ecosystem services 

for California communities that depend heavily on water supply from the Sierra 

Nevada (Morelli et al. 2011), and they will likely have impacts on spring and summer recreation and tourism, especially those activities that are water dependent. 

Researchers have developed models to characterize the potential impacts of 

climate change in the Sierra Nevada, and these models may further aid planning 

and anticipation of impacts. Climate change effects on hydrology and wildfires 

are summarized in chapter 1.4, “Synopsis of Climate Change.” The potential for 

flooding effects on downstream communities for the western Sierra Nevada has 

been studied by Das et al. (2011). Their models predict larger-than-historical floods 

for both the northern Sierra Nevada and the southern Sierra Nevada, with increases 

in flood magnitude projected for the period 2051–2099. These projections highlight 

the importance of planning for increased flood events and considering risk to local 

communities, to the recreation and tourism industry, and to water quality and availability downstream.

Research and modeling efforts have resulted in some tangible management 

implications. For example, Mehta et al. (2011) recommended that climate changeinduced hydrological change be included as a foreseeable future condition in planning and in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing.10 Peterson et al. 

10 This is regarding hydropower and dams. See http://www.ferc.gov/about/ferc-does.asp to 

learn what the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission roles are.
581

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

(2011) produced a guidebook on responding to climate change, and it may be useful 

in larger scale planning and adaptation. It is evident that climate change is incredibly complex, and requires working at a long time scale, large geographic scale, and 

across agency and institutional boundaries, and a willingness to accept a degree of 

uncertainty (Barbour and Kueppers 2012).

Wildland Fire

Public perceptions of wildland fire and risk—

Sociocultural and economic aspects of wildland fire management have been an area 

of intense study for the last decade, stimulated by funding from the National Fire 

Plan that increased support for related work. A number of comprehensive reviews 

are available on this topic (see the appendix for additional references). Some of 

this research emerged from the risk management field, and may be instrumental in 

understanding management of other risks and threats. However, caution should be 

exercised in this approach, as not all risks are viewed equally or are associated with 

the same sociocultural concerns.

A recent national assessment of wildfire risk to human and ecological values 

identified California as having among the highest expected losses, in part owing 

to the density of built structures in fire-prone areas (Thompson et al. 2011). People 

living in high fire risk zones tend to underestimate that risk (Kumagai et al. 2004). 

The risk of wildland fires receives low levels of consideration when prospective 

residents are considering purchasing a home in a fire-prone area; however, once 

residency is established homeowners give some consideration to risk (Vogt 2008). 

In many cases, residents in fire-prone communities have been found to take a number of risk-reduction actions (Absher and Vaske 2007, McCaffrey 2006, Vogt 2008). 

Perceived risk is not the only influence in defensible space actions; for example, 

individuals need to be confident in their ability to perform the action (Martin et al. 

2008), and they need to feel that the action will be effective in reducing risk (Martin 

et al. 2008). 

Collaborative approaches to fire management and risk reduction tend to 

contribute to effective risk management. Successful approaches require addressing knowledge gaps between experts and laypersons to increase effectiveness of 

engagement efforts (Simons and Arvai 2004). A benefit of the collaborative process 

is the opportunity for the risk manager to learn stakeholder perspectives on the 

places of concern or the techniques involved, as well as to address their own gaps in 

knowledge (Slovic 2000). Fostering mutual learning rather than relying on instruction is characteristic of this mode of addressing management. However, building 

public understanding and agreement requires a long-term commitment (Olsen and 
582

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Shindler 2010), and involves fostering and building trust and confidence among 

participants and the managing agencies (see Rivers et al. 2008, Winter et al. 2007). 

Impacts of wildland fire—

The complexities of fire management have increased in the Sierra Nevada mountains and foothills, in part owing to increased development in the wildland-urban 

interface (Hammer et al. 2007). The importance of participating in local and 

regional land use planning efforts and discussions of fire risk has increased, as has 

the need for agencies to collaborate across boundaries, and with citizens and community groups (examples of some of these approaches appear in chapter 9.6). 

Fire can evoke significant emotional distress and panic during a fire event 

(Simons and Arvai 2004), and lingering psychological impacts associated with 

a fire event and fire risk were shown to affect residents near fire-prone forest 

lands (Cvetkovich and Winter 2008). Fires that directly affect forest communities 

can alter community structure; however, engaging community members in 

collaborative approaches to recovery may be effective in restoring community 

and healing impacts of the event (Burns et al. 2008). Smoke is one specific area of 

concern to individual health from wildfires. Fowler (2003) reviewed human health 

impacts of forest fires. She pointed to the importance of evaluating forest fires 

from the perspective of gains (improved social, cultural, economic, and political 

systems) as well as risks (e.g., through short and longer term impacts on public 

health). Chapter 4.2, “Fire and Tribal Cultural Resources,” considers how fires, 

including wildfires, can provide benefits by sustaining tribally valued resources 

and associated lifeways, although the specific impacts of wildfires of different 

size and severity to such resources need further examination. Specific impacts 

of concern to vulnerable populations overlap those for air quality in general 

and include impaired visibility from smoke as well as health effects on young 

children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing conditions (Fowler 2003). 

An additional health concern is the occupational exposure for firefighters (Fowler 

2003). The literature on impacts to infrastructure from impaired air quality may 

be helpful in pointing to additional areas of consideration, for example, the damage 

caused to exteriors of buildings from pollutants (see Winter 1999). Sandburg et 

al. (2002) examined the effects of fire on air quality and provide some analyses of 

impacts from fire and smoke, pointing to the effects of damage to infrastructure 

and reduced highway safety. McCool et al. (2007) provide an extensive review 

of wildland fire impacts on communities at the individual, family, neighborhood, 

social group, and community scales, demonstrating the complexities of scale when 

applying social science to management of fire.
583

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Large wildfires may impact soils, in turn affecting human health. Chapter 

5.1, “Soils,” notes the potential for wildfires to mobilize heavy metals, which may 

also have accumulated in the Sierra Nevada owing to atmospheric deposition 

(see chapter 8.1). Studies examining heavy metal concentrations demonstrate the 

transfer into food supplies, particularly in areas where residents engage in outdoor 

gardening, or where residents and visitors collect edible forest plants and fungi (see, 

for example, Alm et al. 2008). Fire is only one of many ways that heavy metals may 

be introduced into the ecosystem and subsequently into the food supply (Sharma 

and Agrawal 2005), but it remains an important area of concern in the Sierra 

Nevada and other fire-prone regions.11

Impacts on recreation and tourism—Fire has impacts on recreation and tourism that in turn may have economic impacts. For example, a fire in July of 2000 

was associated with decreased economic activity and visitor expenditures when 

fire crews filled up local lodging and smoke lingered in the Kern River Valley for 

several weeks, impairing local scenic views and air quality (Colby and Smith-Incer 

2005). Studies suggest there are a number of economic costs of forest fires that are 

not typically considered (Dunn et al. 2005, Yoder and Blatner 2004), and when they 

are accounted for, investments to reduce fire risk and increase treatments may seem 

more financially prudent (Yoder and Blatner 2004). 

Longer term effects of wildfires on recreation and tourism have also been 

examined. Wilderness visitation is affected by fire succession according to Englin 

et al. (2008), who reported that large wildfires are followed by an increase in the 

number of trips to an area, but over the longer term (40 to 50 years out), large areas 

burned by wildfires experience decreased demand. Further studies are needed to 

understand the dynamics underlying these patterns, but in the interim, these firecaused shifts in demand may be important for planning purposes.

Loomis et al. (2001) reported variable effects of forest fires on recreation and 

tourism associated with the intensity of the fire and recreation use activity. Effects 

can vary, depending on impacts to the landscape and the activity in question; for 

example, hikers find obstructions less of an issue along a trail than do mountain 

bikers. Similar to Englin et al. (2008), Loomis et al. (2001) reported a decrease of 

use in some areas over time; however, this effect was for hikers. Recovery of an 

area was associated with increased mountain biking activity. Loomis et al. (2001) 

suggested practicing agency communications that allow user groups to understand 

fire impacts and make informed choices about where to go based on recency and 

11 Mining is another likely source that has introduced heavy metals into the ecosystems in 

the synthesis area, addressed in chapter 6.1, “Watershed and Stream Ecosystems.”

Studies suggest 

there are a number 

of economic costs 

of forest fires that 

are not typically 

considered, and when 

they are accounted for, 

investments to reduce 

fire risk and increase 

treatments may seem 

more financially 

prudent.
584

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

type of fire (see fig. 2). This approach might help mitigate economic losses associated with reduced tourism after a fire.

Other studies suggest minimal impact of fires on the overall experience of 

recreationists (Winter and Knap 2008) and tourists (Thapa et al. 2008). However, 

high fire danger conditions (Thapa et al. 2008), smoke from a nearby fire (Winter 

and Knap 2008), and health problems from smoke and ash (Thapa et al. 2008) are 

viewed as bothersome, and in some cases, these issues are of sufficient concern to 

inspire changes in travel plans. Fire management activities may need to involve an 

evaluation of the potential for such impacts, and suggest actions to forestall disruptions (see Bricker et al. 2008). 

Social and institutional factors regarding smoke emission—To dramatically reduce the legacy of fire suppression and associated fuel loading and restore the role 

of fire would require a sharp increase in the level of burning and emissions, which 

in turn would require increased political support (Stephens et al. 2007). Public land 

management agencies have an incentive to respond to short-term, local complaints 

about smoke while discounting hypothetical impacts from future wildfires. The fact 

Figure 2—Burned stump of giant sequoia tree, Sequoia National Park.

Patricia Winter
585

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

that wildfires are often excluded from the regulatory constraints that apply to prescribed burns further diminishes the incentive to avoid wildfires through prescribed 

burning. Efforts to increase burning raise equity concerns by asking current residents and tourism-related businesses to bear a burden partially created by prior generations in order to mitigate impacts to future populations. Education, notification, 

and other outreach measures may help to diminish residents’ concerns, but fundamentally, prescribed burning requires sacrifice on the part of current local residents 

for the sake of a greater public good. On the other hand, it may also be important to 

emphasize the potential for planned burns to promote near-term benefits, by stimulating production of desirable habitat conditions, and addressing social and cultural 

benefits, as discussed in chapter 4.2 (see also Venn and Calkin 2009). 

Invasive Species

The impact of invasive species can be extensive, resulting in economic losses, permanent ecological changes (such as the loss of native species), and effects on public 

health and well-being (Andersen et al. 2004). Emphasis on the impacts of invasive 

species, including pathogens or diseases, tends to focus on only a portion of ecosystem services (Charles and Dukes 2007). However, with an increasing need to 

clarify impacts of invasives to the public at large, and to weigh management options 

in terms of costs and benefits of management and prevention, a broader approach is 

suggested. For example, the economic impact of weeds on wildlife-related recreation in the Sierra Nevada was recently estimated between $6 and $12 million per 

year (Eiswerth et al. 2005). This broader approach would incorporate impacts on 

“regulating ecosystem services,” including ecosystem processes affecting air quality, climate, water, disease, and erosion. Charles and Dukes (2007) demonstrated 

the importance, for example, of considering the role of invasives in increasing fire 

risk, thus increasing concerns over degraded air quality and associated effects. 

Impacts to fire regimes of the Sierra Nevada can also occur from invasives (Brooks 

et al. 2004), thus affecting values or conditions of ecosystem goods and services. 

Emergent findings also encourage consideration of invasive impacts on cultural 

ecosystem services, including aesthetic value and tribal uses and access (Pfeiffer 

and Ortiz 2007). Finally, Charles and Dukes (2007) pointed out the need to consider 

impacts on supporting ecosystem services, such as longer term ecosystem dynamics (e.g., photosynthesis or soil nutrient cycling). The authors noted, however, the 

relatively low availability of completed work outlining impacts of invasives on 

regulating and supporting ecosystem services; this represents an important gap in 

the information necessary to fully assess and select appropriate management investments into the future. 
586

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Finnoff et al. (2005) pointed out the importance of examining a bioeconomic 

feedback loop in invasive species management, considering the expected benefits 

of adapting or controlling invasives versus lost benefits expected through inaction. 

An example for native versus exotic fish species demonstrates the complexity of 

recreational values held by the public. Some stakeholders, such as fishermen using 

national forests, may value more “pristine” lake, stream, or river fish communities 

compared with others who want the opportunity to “catch a fish” regardless of the 

species’ origin or ecological function (Moyle et al. 2003). As previously discussed 

in chapter 9.1, a sustainable approach to recreation and tourism considers multiple 

dimensions in order to inform management decisions. Although stocked fish have 

been linked to detrimental effects on native fish and amphibians (see chapter 6.4, 

“Lakes: Recent Research and Restoration Strategies,” recreational fishing on public 

lands has also been supported by stocking of nonnative fish (Deisenroth et al. 2012). 

Benefits to the national economy are derived from anglers, for example, through 

retail sales of fishing equipment and tourism, and some communities may benefit 

from more direct support, as fishing opportunities may bring in recreationists and 

tourists who help support the local economy during their visit. The annual economic contribution to the Western United States is estimated at $2 billion (Deisenroth et al. 2012). However, the economic losses from exotic fish have been estimated 

at more than $1 billion annually (Pimental et al. 2000). As presented in the previous 

discussion of sustainable recreation management, these choices are complex and 

cannot be distilled to assessments of ecosystem services lost or protected when 

considering a singular action or species (DeLeo and Levin 1997). Evaluations of 

the economic impacts of management actions, such as reduced stocking of nonnative fishes, should consider local contexts, because changes in angler demand 

are sensitive to the proportion of angling in streams, banks of lakes, and boats, as 

well as possibly to angler motivations (Loomis and Fix 1998). Both remediation 

and prevention of invasives require an assessment of priorities and the weighing of 

perceived effectiveness (Randall 2010). It further requires a deliberative process to 

address the multiple and sometimes conflicting values that would be outlined in a 

formal decision analysis (see Maguire 2004).

The management of invasive species is especially difficult in areas with high 

land use diversity and increasing division of lands among multiple owners or 

agencies (Epanchin-Niell et al. 2010). Collective action across agency boundaries is 

necessary to effectively address control of invasives and promote socioecological 

resilience.
587

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Decisionmaking Science and Effects on Risk Management

Sustainability assessment tools and the indicators selected within them often reflect 

the values of the evaluators who select the tools and indicators (Gasparatos 2010). 

Chapter 9.1 considers sustainability surrounding recreation and tourism, including 

efforts to encourage global use of metrics for sustainability. Decisions regarding which values are important will influence how ecological, social, economic, 

cultural, and institutional sustainability are conceptualized and measured, as well 

as thresholds for making changes in management direction. These indicators and 

thresholds are an important consideration in an adaptive management framework, 

as described in chapter 1.3, “Synopsis of Emergent Approaches.” To be meaningful 

and promote sustainability, selected indicators and feedback loops should consider 

impacts to affected stakeholders. A mix of indicators and values may be needed to 

represent the interests of diverse stakeholders. 

All considerations are not weighed equally in decisions regarding risk. For 

example, ample evidence suggests that gains tend to be discounted more than losses 

in environmental decisions (Hardisty and Weber 2009). In addition, short-term 

losses gather more attention than longer term ones, in part because of the belief 

that some change intervention will be possible in the future to mitigate longer term 

losses (Wilson et al. 2011). This has been referred to as risk-averse decisionmaking 

(Maguire and Albright 2005). The focus on addressing and preventing short-term 

losses and risks further impedes the ability to address longer-term sustainability 

and resilience. Maguire and Albright (2005) offer solutions to risk aversion in decisionmaking, including increased use of structured decision processes to overcome 

mental shortcuts, a shift in reward systems to encourage adaptive management, and 

increased locally focused collaborations that improve an understanding of management goals and practices. An additional benefit is the improved accessibility and 

usability of local knowledge, also essential to improved decisionmaking processes 

and outcomes (MacGregor and González-Cabán 2008).

Furthermore, institutional, political, and social constraints impinge on public 

land managers’ decisions and should be accounted for in modeling of socioecological resilience, supporting tools, and suggested applications (Dellasala et al. 2004, 

Horan et al. 2011, Quinn-Davidson and Varner 2012). For example, Williamson 

(2007) reported that Forest Service district rangers cited a concern over lack of 

agency support (through limited budgets and the risk of personal liability) in 

decisions surrounding wildland fire use. Air quality regulations were also cited 

as an impediment. Areas of public concern, including smoke, risks to threatened 

and endangered species habitat, and resource damage were also cited as influences 

on decisions about fire use. Thus, recommended approaches need to incorporate 

Decisions regarding 

which values are 

important will influence 

how ecological, social, 

economic, cultural, 

and institutional 

sustainability are 

conceptualized and 

measured, as well 

as thresholds for 

making changes in 

management direction.
588

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

contextual factors, not only in the recommendations offered for management, but 

also in the selected indicators for monitoring. Contextual factors need to be realistically examined in discussions of management of threats, and they need to include a 

feedback loop to account for changes over time.

Literature Cited

Absher, J.D.; Vaske, J.J. 2007. Modelling public support for wildland fire 

policy. In: Reynolds, K.M.; Thompson, A.J.; Köhl, M.; Shannon, M.A.; Ray, 

D.; Rennolls, K., eds. Sustainable forestry: from monitoring and modelling to 

knowledge management and policy science. Wallingford, United Kingdom: 

CABI International: 159–170. 

Alm, J.E.; Blahna, D.J.; Chavez, D.J. 2008. Management assumptions and 

program realities: a case study of noncommercial fern gathering In: Chavez, D.J.; 

Winter, P.L.; Absher, J.D., eds. Recreation visitor research: studies of diversity. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-210. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 87–96.

Andersen, M.C.; Adams, H.; Hope, B.; Powell, M. 2004. Risk assessment for 

invasive species. Risk Analysis. 24(4): 787–793.

Asah, S.T.; Blahna, D.J.; Ryan, C.M. 2012. Involving forest communities in 

identifying and constructing ecosystem services: millennium assessment and 

place specificity. Journal of Forestry. 110(3): 149–156.

Bain, P.G.; Hornsey, M.J.; Bongiorno, R.; Jeffries, C. 2012. Promoting proenvironmental action in climate change deniers. Nature Climate Change: 1–4.

Baldassare, M. 2000. California in the new millennium: the changing social and 

political landscape. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. 265 p.

Baldassare, M.; Bonner, D.; Petek, S.; Shrestha, J. 2011. Californians and the 

environment: PPIC statewide survey. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute 

of California. 36 p.

Barbour, E.; Kueppers, L.M. 2012. Conservation and management of ecological 

systems in a changing California. Climatic Change. 111(1): 135–163.

Booske, B.C.; Athens, J.K.; Kindig, D.A.; Park, H.; Remington, P.L. 2010.

County health rankings working paper: different perspectives for assigning 

weights to determinants of health. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin 

Population Health Institute. http://www.countyhealthrankings.org. (4 April 2013).
589

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Bowker, J.M.; Lim, S.H.; Cordell, H.K.; Green, G.T.; Rideout-Hanzak, S.; 

Johnson, C.Y. 2008. Wildland fire, risk, and recovery: results of a national 

survey with regional and racial perspectives. Journal of Forestry. 106(5): 

268–276.

Bricker, K.S.; Chavez, D.J.; Hendricks, W.W. 2008. Recreation and fire 

management in urban national forests: a study of manager perspectives. In: 

Chavez, D.J.; Absher, J.D.; Winter, P.L., eds. Fire social science research from 

the Pacific Southwest Research Station: studies supported by national fire 

plan funds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-209. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 69–86.

Brooks, M.L.; D’Antonio, C.M.; Richardson, D.M.; Grace, J.B.; Keeley, J.E.; 

DiTomaso, J.M.; Hobbs, R.J.; Pellant, M.; Pyke, D. 2004. Effects of invasive 

alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience. 54(7): 677–688.

Burns, M.R.; Taylor, J.G.; Hogan, J.T. 2008. Integrative healing: the importance 

of community collaboration in postfire recovery and prefire planning. In: Martin, 

W.E.; Raish, C.; Kent, B., eds. Wildfire risk: human perceptions and management 

implications. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press: 81–97.

Charles, H.; Dukes, J.S. 2007. Impacts of invasive species on ecosystem services. 

Ecological Studies. 193(5): 217–237.

Cisneros, R.; Bytnerowicz, A.; Schweizer, D.; Zhong, S.; Traina, S.; Bennett, 

D.H. 2010. Ozone, nitric acid, and ammonia air pollution is unhealthy for people 

and ecosystems in southern Sierra Nevada, California. Environmental Pollution. 

158(10): 3261–3271.

Colby, B.; Smith-Incer, E. 2005. Visitor values and local economic impacts of 

riparian habitat preservation: California’s Kern River Preserve. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association. 41(3): 709–717.

Cvetkovich, G.T.; Winter, P.L. 2007. The what, how, and when of social reliance 

and cooperative risk management. In: Siegrist, M.; Earle, T.C.; Gutscher, H., eds. 

Trust in cooperative risk management: uncertainty and skepticism in the public 

mind. London: Earthscan: 187–209.

Cvetkovich, G.T.; Winter, P.L. 2008. The experience of community residents in a 

fire-prone ecosystem: a case study on the San Bernardino National Forest. Res. 

Pap. PSW-RP-257. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 42 p.
590

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Das, T.; Dettinger, M.D.; Cayan, D.R.; Hidalgo, H.G. 2011. Potential increase in 

floods in California’s Sierra Nevada under future climate projections. Climatic 

Change. 109(suppl 1): S71–S94.

deFur, P.L.; Evans, G.W.; Cohen Hubal, E.A.; Kyle, A.D.; Morello-Frosch, 

R.A.; Williams, D.R. 2007. Vulnerability as a function of individual and group 

resources in cumulative risk assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives. 

115(5): 817–824.

Deisenroth, D.B.; Bond, C.A.; Loomis, J.B. 2012. The economic contribution of 

the private, recreation-based aquaculture industry in the western United States. 

Aquaculture Economics and Management. 16(1): 1–21.

DeLeo, G.A.; Levin, S. 1997. The multifaceted aspects of ecosystem integrity. 

Conservation Ecology. 1(1): article 3. http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art3/. 

(27 July 2012).

Dellasala, D.A.; Williams, J.E.; Deacon Williams, C.; Franklin, J.F. 2004.

Beyond smoke and mirrors: a synthesis of fire policy and science. Conservation 

Biology. 18(4): 976–986.

Dunn, A.E.; González-Cabán, A.; Solari, K. 2005. The Old, Grand Prix, 

and Padua wildfires: How much did these fires really cost? Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

17 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/2003_wildfires_report.pdf. 

(14 March 2013).

Earle, T.C.; Cvetkovich, G.T. 1995. Social trust: toward a cosmopolitan society. 

Westport, CT: Praeger. 220 p.

Earle, T.C.; Cvetkovich, G. 1999. Social trust and culture in risk management. 

In: Cvetkovich, G.; Löfstedt, R.E., eds. Social trust and the management of risk. 

London: Earthscan Publications: 9–21.

Eiswerth, M.E.; Darden, T.D.; Johnson, W.S.; Agapoff, J.; Harris, T.R. 2005.

Input-output modeling, outdoor recreation, and the economic impacts of weeds. 

Weed Science. 53(1): 130–137.

Englin, J.; Holmes, T.P.; Lutz, J. 2008. Wildfire and the economic value of 

wilderness recreation. In: Holmes, T.P.; Prestemon, J.P.; Abt, K.L., eds. The 

economics of forest disturbances: wildfires, storms, and invasive species. 

Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science + Business Media B.V.: 191–208.
591

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Epanchin-Niell, R.S.; Hufford, M.B.; Aslan, C.E.; Sexton, J.P.; Port, J.D.; 

Waring, T.M. 2010. Controlling invasive species in complex social landscapes. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 8(4): 210–216.

Evans, G.W. 2006. Child development and the physical environment. Annual 

Review of Psychology. 57: 423–451.

Evans, G.W.; Kim, P. 2010. Multiple risk exposure as a potential explanatory 

mechanism for the socioeconomic status-health gradient. Annals of the New 

York Academy of Sciences. 1186(1): 174–189.

Evans, G.W.; Rosenbaum, J. 2008. Self-regulation and the income-achievement 

gap. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 23(4): 504–514.

Evans, G.W.; Vermeylen, F.M.; Barash, A.; Lefkowitz, E.G.; Hutt, R.L. 2009.

The experience of stressors and hassles among rural adolescents from low- and 

middle-income households in the USA. Children, Youth and Environments. 

19(2): 164–175.

Finnoff, D.; Shogren, J.F.; Leung, B.; Lodge, D. 2005. The importance of 

bioeconomic feedback in invasive species management. Ecological Economics. 

52(3): 367–381.

Fowler, C.T. 2003. Human health impacts of forest fires in the southern United 

States: a literature review. Journal of Ecological Anthropology. 7: 39–63.

Gasparatos, A. 2010. Embedded value systems in sustainability assessment tools 

and their implications. Journal of Environmental Management. 91(8): 1613–1622.

Gifford, R.; Sussman, R. 2012. Environmental attitudes. In: Clayton, S.D., ed. The 

Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology. New York: 

Oxford University Press: 65–80.

Greenberg, M.; Haas, C.; Cox, A., Jr.; Lowrie, K.; McComas, K.; North, W. 

2012. Ten most important accomplishments in risk analysis, 1980–2010. Risk 

Analysis. 32(5): 771–781.

Hammer, R.B.; Radeloff, V.C.; Fried, J.S.; Stewart, S.I. 2007. Wildlandurban interface housing growth during the 1990s in California, Oregon, and 

Washington. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 16(3): 255–265.

Hardisty, D.J.; Weber, E.U. 2009. Discounting future green: money versus the 

environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 138(3): 329–340.
592

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Heberlein, T.A. 2012. Navigating environmental attitudes. New York: Oxford 

University Press. 228 p.

Hernández, B.; Suárez, E.; Corral-Verdugo, V.; Hess, S. 2012. The relationship 

between social and environmental interdependence as an explanation of 

proenvironmental behavior. Human Ecology Review. 19(1): 1–9.

Horan, R.D.; Fenichel, E.P.; Drury, K.L.S.; Lodge, D.M. 2011. Managing 

ecological thresholds in coupled environmental-human systems. PNAS. 

108(18): 7333–7338.

Kaltenborn, B.P.; Williams, D.R. 2002. The meaning of place: attachments to 

Femundsmarka National Park, Norway, among tourists and locals. Norwegian 

Journal of Geography. 56(3): 189–198.

Karjalainen, E.; Sarjala, T.; Raitio, H. 2010. Promoting human health through 

forests: overview and major challenges. Environmental Health and Preventative 

Medicine. 15(1): 1–8.

Koger, S.M.; Leslie, K.E.; Hayes, E.D. 2011. Climate change: psychological 

solutions and strategies for change. Ecopsychology. 3(4): 227–235.

Krishnaswamy, A.; Simmons, E.; Joseph, L. 2012. Increasing the resilience 

of British Columbia’s rural communities to natural disturbances and climate 

change. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management. 13(1): 1–15.

Kumagai, Y.; Carroll, M.S.; Cohn, P. 2004. Coping with interface wildfire as a 

human event: lessons from the disaster/hazards literature. Journal of Forestry. 

102(6): 28–32.

Leiserowitz, A.A. 2005. American risk perceptions: is climate change dangerous? 

Risk Analysis. 25(6): 1433–1442.

Levi, M. 1998. A state of trust. In: Braithwaite, V.; Levi, M., eds. Trust and 

Governance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation: 77–101. 

Lindell, M.K.; Perry, R.W. 2004. Communicating environmental risk in 

multiethnic communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 262 p.

Löfstedt, R. 2013. Communicating food risks in an era of growing public distrust: 

three case studies. Risk Analysis. 33(2): 192–202.

Loomis, J.; Fix, P. 1998. Testing the importance of fish stocking as a determinant 

of the demand for fishing licenses and fishing effort in Colorado. Human 

Dimensions of Wildlife. 3(3): 46–61.
593

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Loomis, J.; González-Cabán, A.; Englin, J. 2001. Testing for differential effects 

of forest fires on hiking and mountain biking demand and benefits. Journal of 

Agricultural and Resource Economics. 26(2): 508–522.

MacGregor, D.G.; González-Cabán, A. 2008. Decision modeling for analyzing 

fire action outcomes. Res. Pap. PSW-RP-258. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 67 p.

Maguire, L.A. 2004. What can decision analysis do for invasive species 

management? Risk Analysis. 24(4): 859–868.

Maguire, L.A.; Albright, E.A. 2005. Can behavioral decision theory explain riskaverse fire management decisions? Forest Ecology and Management. 211: 47–58.

Maibach, E.W.; Roser-Renouf, C.; Leiserowitz, A. 2008. Communication and 

marketing as climate change-intervention assets: a public health perspective. 

American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 35(5): 488–500.

Martin, I.M.; Bender, H.W.; Raish, C. 2008. Making the decision to mitigate 

risk. In: Martin, W.E.; Raish, C.; Kent, B., eds. Wildfire risk: human perceptions 

and management implications. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future: 

117–141.

Maurer, E.P. 2007. Uncertainty in hydrologic impacts of climate change in the 

Sierra Nevada, California, under two emissions scenarios. Climatic Change. 

82(3–4): 309–325.

McCaffrey, S., tech. ed. 2006. The public and wildland fire management: social 

science findings for managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-1. Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Northern Research Station. 

202 p.

McCool, S.F.; Burchfield, J.; Williams, D.R.; Carroll, M.; Cohn, P.; Kumagai, 

Y.; Ubhen, T. 2007. Social science to improve fuels management: a synthesis 

of research on the impacts of wildland fires on communities. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NC-269. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 36 p.

McMichael, A.J.; Woodruff, R.E.; Hales, S. 2006. Climate change and human 

health: present and future risks. Lancet. 367(9513): 859–869.

Mehta, V.K.; Rheinheimer, D.E.; Yates, D.; Purkey, D.R.; Viers, J.H.; Young, 

C.A.; Mount, J.F. 2011. Potential impacts of hydrology and hydropower 

production under climate warming of the Sierra Nevada. Journal of Water and 

Climate Change. 2(1): 29–43.
594

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Morelli, T.L.; McGlinchy, M.C.; Neilson, R.P. 2011. A climate change primer 

for land managers: an example from the Sierra Nevada. Res. Pap. PSW-RP-262. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. 44 p.

Morris, D.; Walls, M. 2009. Climate change and outdoor recreation resources. 

Backgrounder. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 26 p.

Moyle, P.B.; Crain, P.K.; Whitener, K.; Mount, J.F. 2003. Alien fishes in 

natural streams: fish distribution, assemblage structure, and conservation in 

the Consumnes River, California, U.S.A. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 

68(2): 143–162.

Nibset, M.C. 2009. Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public 

engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 

51(2): 12–23.

Olsen, C.S.; Shindler, B.A. 2010. Trust, acceptance, and citizen-agency 

interactions after large fires: influences on planning processes. International 

Journal of Wildland Fire. 19(1): 137–147.

Peterson, D.L.; Millar, C.I.; Joyce, L.A.; Furniss, M.J.; Halofsky, J.E.; Neilson, 

R.P.; Morelli, T.L. 2011. Responding to climate change in national forests: a 

guidebook for developing adaptation options. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-855. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 109 p.

Pfeiffer, J.M.; Ortiz, E.H. 2007. Invasive plants impact California native plants 

used in traditional basketry. Fremontia. 35(1): 7–13.

Pidgeon, N.; Poortinga, W.; Walls, J. 2007. Reliance and skepticism in risk 

managing institutions: towards a model of critical trust. In: Siegrist, M.; Earle, 

T.C.; Gutscher, H., eds. Trust in cooperative risk management: uncertainty and 

skepticism in the public mind. London: Earthscan: 117–171.

Pimental, D.; Lach, L.; Zuniga, R.; Morrison, D. 2000. Environmental and 

economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. BioScience. 

50(1): 53–65.

Quinn-Davidson, L.N.; Varner, J.M. 2012. Impediments to prescribed fire 

across agency, landscape and manager: an example from northern California. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. 21(3): 210–218.
595

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Rabinovich, A.; Morton, T.A. 2012. Unquestioned answers or unanswered 

questions: beliefs about science guide responses to uncertainty in climate change 

risk communication. Risk Analysis. 32(6): 992–1002.

Randall, J.M. 2010. Objectives, priorities, and triage: lessons learned from 

invasive species management. In: Cole, D.N.; Yung, L., eds. Beyond naturalness: 

rethinking park and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid change. 

Washington, DC: Island Press: 162–178.

Rivers, L., III; Wilson, R.; Arvai, J.L. 2008. More than just a message: risk 

communication and the decision-making process. In: Chavez, D.J.; Absher, 

J.D.; Winter, P.L., eds. Fire social science research from the Pacific Southwest 

Research Station: studies supported by national fire plan funds. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PSW-GTR-209. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station: 105–118.

Sandburg, D.V.; Ottmar, R.D.; Peterson, J.L.; Core, J. 2002. Wildland fire in 

ecosystems: effects of fire on air. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.5. Ogden, 

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 79 p.

Schoon, M.L.; Cox, M.E. 2011. Understanding disturbances and responses in 

social-ecological systems. Society and Natural Resources. 25(2): 141–155. 

doi:10.1080/08941920.2010.549933.

Sharma, R.K.; Agrawal, M. 2005. Biological effects of heavy metals: an 

overview. Journal of Environmental Biology. 26(2): 301–313.

Shaw, M.R.; Pendelton, L.; Cameron, D.R.; Morris, B.; Bachelet, D.; 

Klausmeyer, K.; MacKenzie, J.; Conklin, D.R.; Bratman, G.N.; Lenihan, 

J.; Haunreiter, E.; Daly, C.; Roehrdanz, P.R. 2011. The impact of climate 

change on California’s ecosystem services. Climate Change. 20 p.

doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0313-4.

Simons, M.; Arvai, J.L. 2004. Toward improved communication about wildland 

fire: mental models research to identify information needs for natural resource 

management. Risk Analysis. 24(6): 1503–1514.

Slovic, P. 2000. Perception of risk. In: Slovic, P., ed. The perception of risk. 

Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications Ltd: 220–231.

Spence, A.; Poortinga, W.; Pidgeon, N. 2012. The psychological distance of 

climate change. Risk Analysis. 32(6): 957–972.
596

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Stephens, S.L.; Martin, R.E.; Clinton, N.E. 2007. Prehistoric fire area and 

emissions from California’s forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 251(3): 205–216.

Sulak, A.; Huntsinger, L. 2012. Perceptions of forest health among stakeholders 

in an adaptive management project in the Sierra Nevada of California. Journal of 

Forestry. 110(6): 312–317.

Susskind, L.; Field, P. 1996. Dealing with an angry public: the mutual gains 

approach to resolving disputes. New York: The Free Press. 276 p.

Swim, J.; Howard, G.; Clayton, S.; Reser, J.; Doherty, T.; Stern, S.; Gifford, 

R.; Weber, E. 2010. Psychology and global climate change: addressing a 

multifaceted phenomenon and set of challenges. Washington, DC: American 

Psychological Association. 108 p. http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/

climate-change-booklet.pdf. (23 December 2013).

Syal, S.S.; Wilson, R.S.; Crawford, J.M.; Lutz, J. 2011. Climate change and 

human health—What influences the adoption of adaptation programming in 

the United States public health system? Mitigation and Adaptation Strategy for 

Global Change. 16(8): 911–924.

Thapa, B.; Holland, S.M.; Absher, J.D. 2008. Perceived risk, attitude, knowledge, 

and reactionary behaviors toward wildfires among Florida tourists. In: Chavez, 

D.J.; Absher, J.D.; Winter, P.L., eds. Fire social science research from the Pacific 

Southwest Research Station: studies supported by national fire plan funds. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-209. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 87–101.

Thompson, M.P.; Calkin, D.E.; Finney, M.A.; Ager, A.A.; Gilbertson-Day, 

J.W. 2011. Integrated national-scale assessment of wildfire risk to human and 

ecological values. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment. 

25: 761–780.

Vaske, J.J.; Absher, J.D.; Bright, A.D. 2007. Salient value similarity, social trust 

and attitudes toward wildland fire management strategies. Human Ecology 

Review. 14(2): 217–226.

Venn, T.J.; Calkin, D.E. 2009. Challenges of socio-economically evaluating 

wildfire management on non-industrial private and public forestland in the 

western United States. Small-Scale Forestry. 8: 43–61.
597

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Voggesser, G.; Lynn, K.; Daigle, J.; Lake, F.K.; Ranco, D. 2013. Cultural 

impacts to tribes from climate change influences on forests. Climatic Change. 

120: 615–626. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0733-4.

Vogt, C. 2008. Living at the wildland-urban interface: views about wildland fire 

and defensible space practices. In: Chavez, D.J.; Absher, J.D.; Winter, P.L., eds. 

Fire social science research from the Pacific Southwest Research Station: studies 

supported by national fire plan funds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-209. Albany, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station: 193–206.

Wear, D.N.; Joyce, L.A. 2012. Climate change, human communities, and forests 

in rural, urban, and wildland-urban interface environments. In: Vose, J.M.; 

Peterson, D.L.; Patel-Weynand, T., eds. Effects of climatic variability and change 

on forest ecosystem: a comprehensive science synthesis for the U.S. forest sector. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-870. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 97–124.

Williamson, M.A. 2007. Factors in United States Forest Service district rangers’ 

decision to manage a fire for resource benefit. International Journal of Wildland 

Fire. 16(6): 755–762.

Wilson, R.S.; Winter, P.L.; Maguire, L.A.; Ascher, T. 2011. Managing wildfire 

events: risk-based decision making among a group of federal fire managers. Risk 

Analysis. 31(5): 1–14.

Winter, P.L. 1999. Human aspects of air quality in the San Bernardino mountains. 

In: Miller, P.R.; McBride, J.R., eds. Oxidant air pollution in the montane forests 

of Southern California: a case study of the San Bernardino mountains. 134. New 

York: Springer-Verlag: 373–393.

Winter, P.; Absher, J.; Watson, A. 2007. Assess and enhance public trust. In: 

González-Cabán, A.; Haynes, R.W.; McCaffrey, S.; Mercer, E.; Watson, A., tech. 

eds. Fire social science research—selected highlights. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-736. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station: 5–9.

Winter, P.L.; Cvetkovich, G.T. 2008. Southwesterners’ determinations of value/

action consistency, legitimacy of inconsistency, and similar salient values. In: 

Chavez, D.J.; Absher, J.D.; Winter, P.L., eds. Fire social science research from the 

Pacific Southwest Research Station: studies supported by the national fire plan. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-209. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 221–232.
598

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Winter, P.L.; Cvetkovich, G.T. 2013. The intersection of trust and recreation 

management. In: Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Zarnoch, S.J. Recreation and 

protected land resources in the United States: a technical document supporting 

the Forest Service 2010 RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-169. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. Appendix. http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs169/gtr_

srs169_appendix_papers.pdf. (23 December 2013).

Winter, P.L.; Knap, N.E. 2008. Urban-proximate wilderness visitors’ attitudes 

about fire management. In: Chavez, D.J.; Absher, J.D.; Winter, P.L., eds. Fire 

social science research from the Pacific Southwest Research Station: studies 

supported by national fire plan funds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-209. Albany, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station: 57–67.

World Tourism Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme 

[WTO and UNEP]. 2008. Climate change and tourism-responding to global 

challenges. Madrid, Spain. 256 p.

Yoder, J.; Blatner, K. 2004. Incentives and timing of prescribed fire for wildfire 

risk management. Journal of Forestry. 102(6): 38–41.
599

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Susan Charnley 1

Summary

This chapter explores the ways in which national forest managers may contribute 

to community well-being by designing projects that accomplish forest management 

in ways that not only meet their ecological goals, but also create economic opportunities for nearby communities. The chapter summarizes a number of strategies 

for enhancing the economic benefits to communities of forest restoration work, 

infrastructure maintenance and improvement projects, and recreation and tourism; 

these strategies are also summarized near the end of the chapter in the “Management Implications” section. The strategies include (1) making better use of existing 

authorities and tools; (2) being strategic when deciding where and how projects are 

accomplished; (3) implementing projects that build on local community capacities 

and priorities; and (4) maintaining and developing sustainable recreation opportunities, infrastructure, and partnerships. If managers consider how to enhance 

job creation associated with forest management when planning projects, they may 

increase the overall socioeconomic benefits of national forest management while 

helping contribute to community resilience. Investing in communities can also 

benefit the health of forest ecosystems.

Introduction

The literature on community-based forestry in the United States suggests that 

healthy forest ecosystems and healthy forest communities are interdependent 

(Baker and Kusel 2003, Kelly and Bliss 2009, Kusel and Adler 2003). The focus 

of this chapter is on how national forest management may contribute to the 

socioeconomic health and resilience of forest communities in the Sierra Nevada 

through job creation associated with forest restoration, recreation and tourism, and 

infrastructure maintenance and improvement on national forest lands. This chapter 

also draws attention to the ways in which investing in job creation through forest 

management may contribute to the health and resilience of forest ecosystems. Forest 

communities are defined here as communities having social, cultural, and economic 

ties to nearby forest lands. 

Chapter 9.4—Strategies for Job Creation 

Through National Forest Management

1 Research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main St., Suite 400, 

Portland, OR 97205.

If managers consider 

how to enhance job 

creation associated 

with forest management 

when planning projects, 

they may increase the 

overall socioeconomic 

benefits of national forest management while 

helping contribute to 

community resilience.
600

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Creating forest-based jobs by providing a broad range of economic opportunities in local communities is consistent with current Forest Service direction from 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to generate jobs through recreation and 

natural resource conservation, restoration, and management in rural areas (USDA 

2010). It also responds to the USDA’s strategic plan goal of helping rural communities create prosperity so that they are self-sustaining and economically thriving. The 

Forest Service 2012 Planning Rule states that national forest plans must provide for 

social and economic, as well as ecological, sustainability within the plan area (Section 219.8), thereby supporting vibrant communities and rural job opportunities. 

The Forest Service is working to increase the pace of restoration on national forest 

lands and associated job creation (USDA FS 2012). There are additional strategies 

that can be used to enhance job creation through national forest management. What 

follows is a synthesis of the published literature about how forest managers may 

help create economic opportunities in local communities to promote both healthy 

communities and forest ecosystems. 

In the 1990s, forest restoration became the focus of federal forest management 

in order to restore watersheds, control invasive species, reduce fire hazard, enhance 

wildlife habitat, and improve forest health. Growing awareness of the importance 

of connecting people to nature, appreciation of and demand for the broad range of 

ecosystem services that federal forests provide, and the backlog of infrastructure 

maintenance and improvement projects on national forest lands have also come to 

inform management priorities. Thus, current economic opportunities for communities linked to federal forest management in the Sierra Nevada are most likely to be 

in the forest restoration sector, in recreation and tourism, in infrastructure maintenance and improvement (facilities, roads, trails), and from the production of timber, 

biomass, nontimber forest products, and livestock, as addressed in chapter 9.5. 

Payment programs and emerging markets for ecosystem services from federal lands 

(carbon, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat) could potentially yield payments 

to outside organizations that would use these payments to fund needed restoration 

activities on national forests (Deal et al. 2012). However, these programs are still 

under development and do not yet constitute a source of jobs for forest community 

residents.

The chapter begins with an overview of how understandings of the relationship between national forest management and forest community well-being have 

evolved since the mid-1900s. This overview is followed by a discussion of strategies 

for promoting job creation through forest management that could be considered by 

Sierra Nevada national forest managers. It concludes by discussing how these strategies can contribute to the resilience of forest communities and ecosystems. The 
601

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

focus is on rural communities, because the majority of California counties in which 

Sierra Nevada national forest lands are concentrated are classified by the USDA’s 

Economic Research Service as nonmetropolitan.2 Because published literature on 

the links between forest management and community well-being from the Sierra 

Nevada is relatively scarce, findings from the wider literature are also presented 

here that can help inform forest management in the synthesis area. 

Forest-Community Relations 

Understanding of the relations between federal forest management and forest 

community well-being has changed over time. For much of the latter half of the 

20th century, timber harvesting on national forests was thought to be an important 

contributor to economic stability in forest communities. This thinking gave way in 

the 1990s to a focus on how the multiple uses and values of national forests contribute to the well-being of forest communities and their capacity to adapt to change. 

More recent thinking embraces the idea of community resilience as an important 

component of overall socioecological resilience in forest ecosystems.

Community Stability

The Sustained Yield Forest Management Act of 1944 gave the Secretaries of the 

Departments of Agriculture and the Interior the authority to create Sustained Yield 

Units on federal, or combined federal and private, lands to encourage a continuous 

supply of timber that would stabilize forest industries, employment, and communities (16 U.S.C. Section 583). As reflected in the act, from the 1940s through 

the 1980s, the dominant paradigm was one in which national forest management 

was thought to be important in contributing to “community stability,” defined in 

terms of stable timber industry employment and income in forest communities (see 

papers in Le Master and Beuter 1989). Contributing to community stability through 

a policy of sustained yield timber harvesting to provide a nondeclining, even flow 

of forest products and associated jobs and income was one goal of national forest 

management. The importance of community stability as a management goal waxed 

and waned between the 1940s and 1980s (Le Master and Beuter 1989).

The notion that national forest management alone can ensure community 

stability is flawed for several reasons (Charnley et al. 2008a, Nadeau et al. 2003, 

Power 2006, Sturtevant and Donoghue 2008). As Power (2006) noted, jobs in the 

forest products industry are not simply a function of timber supply; demand for 

2 For definitions and more information, see http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/RuralUrbanContinuumCodes/.
602

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

wood fiber and wood products plays an important role in influencing harvest and 

production levels and associated jobs. In addition, changes in harvesting and wood 

processing technology have increased productivity and reduced labor demands, displacing workers. The 1970s and 1980s saw many such changes in the wood products 

industry. Furthermore, trees harvested in one location do not always get processed 

in nearby communities. Federal managers must generally sell to the highest bidder, 

who may not be local. And mills typically obtain logs from a variety of sources, 

including private forest lands over which federal managers have no control (Power 

2006). Finally, a number of variables influence social and economic conditions 

in forest communities; federal forest management is only one of these variables 

(Charnley et al. 2008a, Nadeau et al. 2003). For all of these reasons, national forest 

managers cannot expect to ensure community economic stability through their 

management actions alone. Timber production on national forest lands continues 

to make an important contribution to community economies in some parts of the 

Sierra Nevada, however.

Community Well-Being and Community Capacity

The 1990s saw a dramatic decline in timber production on national forest lands 

in the Pacific Northwest and in California, stemming from concerns about the 

effects of timber harvesting on old-growth forest ecosystems, watershed health, 

and threatened species, such as the northern and California spotted owls, on public 

lands (Berck et al. 2003, Charnley 2006). As the Forest Service adopted ecosystem 

management as its new management paradigm, it grappled with how to create 

quality jobs in ecosystem management and restoration that would provide new economic opportunities for displaced timber workers and communities affected by this 

transition in forest management (Spencer 1999). The Jobs in the Woods program, 

associated with the Northwest Forest Plan and Northwest Economic Adjustment 

Initiative, was an early attempt to do this. At the same time, amenity migration to 

communities around national forests was influencing the economic opportunities 

and social values associated with national forest management (fig. 1). Thus, the 

1990s gave rise to new understandings of community-forest relations that acknowledged the diverse contributions federal forests make to “community well-being.” 

Community well-being studies recognized that (1) well-being in forest communities 

was based on more than just jobs and income, and included other quality of life 

attributes, such as health, safety, political participation, social equity, and access 

to social services; and (2) national forests can contribute to community well-being 

in multiple ways that include both the commodity (e.g., timber, grazing, minerals, 

nontimber forest products) and amenity (e.g., outdoor recreation, scenic beauty, 
603

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

clean air and water, open space, landscape) values associated with them (Kusel 

2001, Nadeau et al. 2003, Sturtevant and Donoghue 2008).

In the context of these shifts in forest management and rural community 

dynamics, community capacity—defined as the ability of community residents to 

respond to internal and external stresses, create and take advantage of opportunities, 

and meet the needs of residents (Kusel 2001)—was found to be critical to well-being 

in forest communities. Community capacity, in turn, is a function of a community’s 

physical, financial, human, cultural, and social capitals (see Kusel 2001 for definitions). Put another way, community capacity is a function of a community’s foundational assets (e.g., physical infrastructure, natural resources, and other attributes 

of a community) and mobilizing assets (e.g., civic and organizational infrastructure, 

social processes and interactions) (Donoghue and Sturtevant 2007). Building on 

these concepts, Beckley et al. (2008) defined community capacity as the collective ability of a community to combine various forms of capital within particular 

institutional and relational contexts to produce desired results or outcomes.

Figure 1—Forest community in the northern Sierra Nevada.

Susan Charnley
604

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Community Resilience

In the early 2000s, concerns over the impacts of wildland fire and climate change 

on forests and forest communities prompted social scientists studying these communities to think in terms of social vulnerability, adaptive capacity, and “community resilience” (e.g., Daniel et al. 2007, Lynn et al. 2011). In general, rural 

communities in the United States tend to be more vulnerable to climate change 

than urban communities because of their demographic characteristics, available 

occupations, lower earning rates, greater incidence of poverty, and higher level of 

dependence on government transfer payments (Lal et al. 2011). In California, people 

residing in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) are also especially vulnerable to fire 

(Sugihara et al. 2006). Climate change and fire risk make the concept of community 

resilience relevant because of its focus on a community’s ability to cope with and 

adapt to natural disturbances and change. The concept of community resilience is 

also relevant in the context of socioeconomic stressors and change, however, as the 

impacts on forest-dependent communities of reduced timber harvesting on federal 

lands illustrated in the 1990s. If local or regional economies are based on a single 

extractive industry, they are more vulnerable to changes in conditions that support 

that industry—such as market fluctuations, new technology, resource depletion, or 

changes in management policy—than if economies are diversified, making them 

less resilient as a result (Chapin et al. 2009). “Resilience thinking” at the community level is not well developed, however (Berkes and Ross 2013). 

The notion of resilience as applied to social systems has been criticized because 

of its use in the biological sciences to refer to the ability of a system to respond to 

stress and shocks in order to maintain function, implying stability and a return to 

equilibrium following disturbance (Folke 2006). Its applicability to social systems 

has also been questioned because social and ecological systems do not necessarily 

exhibit the same properties or behave in the same ways (Davidson 2010). More 

recent thinking about resilience characterizes it as the capacity of socioecological 

systems to cope with, adapt to, and shape change; to persist and develop in the 

face of change or disturbance while retaining their basic function and structure; or 

to innovate and transform into new, more desirable configurations in response to 

disturbance (Folke 2006, Walker and Salt 2006). A formulation by Magis (2010) 

defines community resilience as “the existence, development, and engagement of 

community resources by community members to thrive in an environment characterized by change, uncertainty, unpredictability, and surprise” (Magis 2010: 402). 

Following Magis (2010), Folke (2006), and Walker and Salt (2006), community 

resilience is defined here as the ability of a community to successfully cope with, 

More recent thinking about resilience 

characterizes it as 

the capacity of socioecological systems to 

cope with, adapt to, 

and shape change; to 

persist and develop 

in the face of change 

or disturbance while 

retaining their basic 

function and structure; 

or to innovate and 

transform into new, 

more desirable configurations in response 

to disturbance.
605

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

adapt to, and shape change and still retain its basic function and structure. Community capacity influences resilience in that communities having the capacity to 

recover from, and implement change in response to, stress and disturbance have 

greater resilience (Berkes and Ross 2013, Folke et al. 2010). It is difficult to identify 

critical thresholds beyond which social systems will lose their resilience and break 

down, however (Davidson 2010). Because resilience within socioecological systems 

is multiscalar and interconnected, community resilience can enhance the overall 

resilience of a socioecological system operating at other (e.g., landscape) scales 

(Berkes and Ross 2013). 

Job Creation Through National Forest Management

Given that rural communities in the Sierra Nevada, like rural communities elsewhere, are continually subject to social, economic, and ecological change, their ability to take advantage of job opportunities associated with national forests and their 

management can help strengthen their resilience. Creating and sustaining economic 

opportunities in forest communities contributes to a more diverse employment base 

there; leaves future opportunities for participating in forest-based livelihoods open; 

encourages innovation in developing ways to invest in local communities; and helps 

communities adapt to change—all features that contribute to resilience (Walker 

and Salt 2006). It also maintains a local workforce that has the capacity to carry out 

forest management work that is needed to improve and restore ecological integrity 

and resilience in forest ecosystems (Kelly and Bliss 2009). This section covers four 

broad job creation strategies: (1) making better use of existing authorities and tools; 

(2) investing in project work strategically; (3) implementing projects that build on 

local community capacities and priorities; and (4) investing in recreation infrastructure, opportunities, and partnerships.3

Make Better Use of Existing Authorities and Tools

Between 1994 and 2004, there were at least six regional or national legislative and 

administrative directives that gave the Forest Service authority to consider benefits 

to local communities when undertaking forest restoration work (Moseley and Toth 

2004). These included (1) the Jobs in the Woods program of the 1990s (applicable 

in northern California, Oregon, and Washington counties affected by the Northwest 

Forest Plan); (2) the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act 

of 2000, which made it possible to establish local Resource Advisory Committees 

3 Further ideas and guidance on how forest managers may facilitate job creation 

through national forest management can be found at http://ewp.uoregon.edu/sites/

ewp.uoregon.edu/files/WCF_JobCreation_QG.pdf.
606

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

(RACs) that could use act funding to pay for forest restoration work benefitting 

federal lands, creating local jobs as a result; (3) the 10-year stewardship contracting 

authority approved by Congress in the fiscal year (FY) 2003 appropriations bill; 

(4) the National Fire Plan of 2000; (5) the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) 

of 2003 (Moseley and Toth 2004, Steelman and DuMond 2009); and (6) the Tribal 

Forest Protection Act (TFPA) of 2004. Since 2005, two more can be added to this 

list: the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, designed 

to maintain and create jobs and provide an economic stimulus in counties most 

adversely affected by the economic recession that began in 2007; and Title IV of the 

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which established the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP). Several of these directives 

were initiated in response to declines in federal timber harvesting, acknowledgment 

of the impacts of these declines on jobs in forest communities, and the shift to forest 

restoration as a potential new source of local jobs. The Jobs in the Woods Program, 

the ARRA economic stimulus program, and the Secure Rural Schools Act have 

expired (proposed reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools Act is pending at 

this time). The other authorities are discussed in more detail below.

Stewardship contracting—

Congress authorized a series of pilot stewardship contracting projects as part of 

the FY 1998 appropriations, and gave the Forest Service stewardship contracting 

authority until FY 2013 in the FY 2003 appropriations bill (currently being considered for reauthorization by Congress). Stewardship contracting is a set of authorities 

that were designed to foster integrated forest restoration and local community benefit (Moseley and Charnley 2014). It does the latter in a number of ways: (1) through 

the “goods for services” authority, which allows the Forest Service to combine 

the sale of timber and the purchase of services into a single contract, and use the 

value of timber sold for restoration purposes to pay for services acquired, creating 

a new source of funding for forest restoration; (2) by requiring the use of best value 

contracting (most timber sale instruments call for the lowest bid); (3) by allowing 

the Forest Service to enter into 10-year contracts (as opposed to 5 years, the limit 

for traditional service contracts); (4) by allowing the Forest Service to enter into 

stewardship agreements with nonprofit organizations and other government entities 

to perform restoration activities; and (5) by calling for collaboration in the development and implementation of stewardship projects (Moseley and Charnley 2014). 

Although stewardship contracting can be a beneficial tool, it may not be appropriate 

or useful on every national forest. 
607

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

The non-peer-reviewed literature that has been generated in association with 

required governmental reviews (US GAO 2008) and monitoring (PIC 2011) of 

stewardship contracts points to many successes, both environmental and social. 

Existing peer-reviewed literature concurs that stewardship contracting can be an 

effective administrative tool for enhancing the social and economic benefits to local 

communities associated with national forest management (Donoghue et al. 2010, 

Hausbeck 2007, Kerkvliet 2010). The Eldorado National Forest was an early adopter 

of stewardship contracting, and to date, it is one of the top users of stewardship 

contracts in the National Forest System (Moseley and Charnley 2014). Much can be 

learned from the Eldorado by other Sierra Nevada forests interested in using this 

tool.

The National Fire Plan and best-value contracting—

Under the National Fire Plan, Congress gave the Forest Service authority to direct 

fire hazard reduction work to local contractors and businesses, creating an opportunity for them to hire and train local workers (Moseley and Toth 2004). With the 

shift in agency management focus from timber production to forest restoration, the 

Forest Service has made less use of timber sale contracts for accomplishing work on 

the ground, and increased its use of procurement contracts. Procurement contracts 

are a mechanism for purchasing goods and services from private businesses. The 

Forest Service can use “best-value contracting” criteria—selecting contractors who 

provide the best value to the government rather than those who offer the lowest 

bid—as a tool for directing work to local communities by asking contractors how 

they would create economic opportunities in local communities if awarded a Forest 

Service procurement contract (Moseley and Toth 2004). The use of National Fire 

Plan authorities to target local contractors and businesses for jobs in fire management is a strategy that could be used by Sierra Nevada national forests when 

undertaking fuels reduction and fire suppression work. Doing so would have the 

added benefit of providing training and work experience that could help communities build their capacity to undertake such work on both public and private lands.

Healthy Forests Restoration Act—

The HFRA was passed by Congress in 2003, authorizing $760 million per fiscal 

year for hazardous fuels reduction activities aimed at reducing wildfire damage 

to communities and at-risk lands (Steelman and DuMond 2009). The HFRA was 

one in a series of new policies in the early 2000s that shifted the focus from wildfire suppression to hazardous fuels reduction (Steelman and Burke 2007). It was 

designed in part to benefit local communities (especially those within the WUI). 

The act encourages community involvement through community wildfire protection 
608

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

plan (CWPP) provisions and other measures that give local communities a voice in 

the decisionmaking process regarding fuels reduction treatments in the WUI (see 

chapter 9.6, “Collaboration in National Forest Management”). Once a CWPP is 

developed, communities are eligible to apply for HFRA funding to support hazardous fuels reduction projects (Steelman and Burke 2007, Steelman and DuMond 

2009). Projects funded through HFRA provide opportunities for local employment 

in the forestry sector. The act also authorized spending in the amount of $5 million per fiscal year through the “Rural Revitalization Through Forestry” program 

to encourage adoption of technologies using biomass, and to create and support 

small-scale businesses and community-based enterprises that make use of biomass 

and small-diameter materials (H.R. 1904, Section 202). Steelman and Burke (2007) 

suggested that if agencies set aside more funds for community assistance programs 

such as this, they could help ensure that these programs remain funded, even in bad 

fire years when additional resources are needed for suppression activities.

Tribal Forest Protection Act—

A survey of 31 of the 42 federally recognized tribes in Oregon, Washington, and 

Idaho found that tribes had a strong interest in taking advantage of jobs in fire 

management, including working on wildland fire suppression crews and undertaking hazardous fuels reduction work (Rasmussen et al. 2007). Developing projects 

with tribes using the 2004 TFPA authorities is one potential avenue for creating 

jobs for tribe members in fuels reduction and postfire rehabilitation activities. The 

act allows tribes to propose fire mitigation and environmental restoration activities 

on national forest lands adjacent to or bordering tribal trust lands in order to protect 

tribal lands from fire, insects, disease, and other threats (ITC 2013). The Forest 

Service may enter into contracts or agreements with tribes for this purpose. Today, 

lands owned and controlled by California Indians in the Sierra Nevada are small 

and dispersed (fig. 2), creating potential for exploring use of these authorities for 

collaborative fire management and ecosystem restoration projects in the synthesis 

area. Nationwide, TFPA authorities have been underutilized (ITC 2013). Forest 

Service Region 5 is encouraging the development of contracts or agreements with 

tribes under the TFPA to reduce environmental threats in areas of mutual interest.4

Tribes face several obstacles that limit their capacity to engage in fire management work, however (Rasmussen et al. 2007). These obstacles include the seasonality of the work, obtaining the necessary training required for employees and 

contractors, the cost of investing in the equipment necessary for undertaking the 

4 Tribal Forest Protection Act in Brief, 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/workingtogether/tribalrelations?cid=stelprdb5351850.

Lands owned and 

controlled by California 

Indians in the Sierra 

Nevada are small and 

dispersed, creating 

potential for using 

Tribal Forest Protection 

Act authorities for 

collaborative fire 

management and 

ecosystem restoration 

projects in the 

synthesis area.
609

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

work, a lack of financial capital with which to start businesses, and supportive tribal 

leadership to help form partnerships with public agencies (Rasmussen et al. 2007). 

Differences in communication and operating styles, and Forest Service bureaucratic 

processes—such as contracting and reporting requirements, timelines, and business 

plans—can also create barriers (Charnley et al. 2007). To the extent that the Forest 

Service can assist tribes in addressing some of these obstacles, it may help build the 

capacity of tribal communities to engage in fire management.

Figure 2—California tribal lands and reservations (source = Environmental Protection Agency,

http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/maps/ca_tribe.html).
610

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program—

The CFLRP has a number of goals: to encourage social, economic, and ecological 

sustainability; to support forest restoration activities that meet ecological objectives 

and ultimately reduce fire management costs; to encourage investments in capturing 

the value of restoration byproducts that help contribute to local economies while 

reducing the costs of fuels treatments; and to leverage resources to help support 

social, economic, and ecological goals associated with forest restoration across 

ownerships (Schultz et al. 2012). One criterion for funding eligibility is that projects 

must provide economic benefits to local communities, including supporting local 

jobs through the use of proposed or existing infrastructure to handle restoration 

byproducts. Socioeconomic monitoring to track these benefits is required (Schultz 

et al. 2012). As of FY2012, three CFLRP projects had been funded in California, 

all in the Sierra Nevada.5 These projects provide an opportunity to make local job 

creation through forest restoration a management priority in the area they cover. 

Additional information about the CFLRP appears in chapter 9.6.

Other administrative tools— 

Different administrative tools for accomplishing forest restoration have different 

implications for local community benefit. Stewardship contracts and best-value contracting have already been discussed. Agreements are useful for targeting specific 

local recipients that the Forest Service would like to develop working relationships 

with, direct economic benefits to, and invest in capacity building with because they 

do not have to be awarded competitively. Charnley et al. (2011) provided a number of 

examples—both fire- and nonfire-related—in which national forest managers have 

used agreements to successfully target work to local groups to help build their capacity and provide local workers with jobs in forest restoration on national forest lands.

Agreements and stewardship contracts are not only useful administrative tools 

for creating local jobs; they are also mechanisms that can make it more cost effective for the Forest Service to accomplish mission-related work. Agreements are 

instruments that require a cost share by the partner, and therefore help leverage 

external resources to fund project work. Stewardship contracts make it possible to 

retain receipts from the sale of timber and use any excess income to pay for additional restoration work. Acquisition management staff could be better integrated 

into project planning activities as a means of helping forest managers determine 

how to accomplish their work in the most efficient way while enhancing local job 

opportunities through strategic use of the administrative tools available to them.

5 Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLRP/.
611

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Invest in Project Work Strategically 

Target project work to communities in need—

One method of creating local jobs in specific places is to geographically target 

projects to communities in need. Low-capacity communities, communities with 

high levels of poverty and unemployment, and those with underserved populations 

are examples of places where project investments could potentially make a difference in helping communities gain access to increased economic opportunities. The 

Forest Service used this strategy in implementing ARRA projects. These projects 

were targeted to counties that had experienced high impacts associated with the 

economic recession, under the rationale that these were the most important places 

to create jobs (Charnley et al. 2011). The agency did this by developing economic 

distress rankings for every county in the Nation on the basis of four unemployment 

indicators from the U.S. Census Bureau. Counties were ranked on a scale of 1 to 10, 

with 10 signifying the highest economic distress (fig. 3). Capital improvement and 

maintenance projects were funded on the basis of the economic distress ranking of 

the county in which they were located, with the vast majority of projects going to 

counties that ranked between 7 and 10. Wildland fire management projects were 

funded on the basis of a different index that weighted county economic distress 

ranking at 50 percent, insect and disease hazard at 25 percent, and wildfire hazard 

at 25 percent (Charnley et al. 2011).

Economic distress rankings are one method of targeting project work to create 

jobs in forest communities that have high economic need. They are not necessarily 

the best method; there may be other socioeconomic criteria that are more appropriate for strategically funding projects in communities. Another consideration is 

the ability of the community to respond and take advantage of job opportunities 

provided by the agency. Where they lack this capacity, workforce training programs 

can be one effective means of helping communities build their capacity to engage in 

forest restoration (Nielsen-Pincus and Moseley 2013).

Forest Service social scientists are currently developing methods for undertaking climate change social vulnerability assessments, which may be useful for 

helping the Forest Service invest strategically in highly vulnerable communities 

and help them adapt to climate change. In the context of fire, social scientists have 

developed indicators of social vulnerability and adaptive capacity that can be useful 

for evaluating how to allocate agency resources to communities to help them reduce 

their fire risk (e.g., Ojerio et al. 2011).
612

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

N E V A D A

C A L I F O R N I A

FOREST SERVICE COMPOSITE 

ECONOMIC DISTRESS INDEX BY COUNTY

DECEMBER 2008

O R E G O N I D A H O

A R I Z O N A U T A H

National forest

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Economic distress indicator

= low distress

= high distress

Figure 3—Economic distress rankings of California counties, 2008 (Sierra Nevada national forests are shown in green). 
613

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Structure work in ways that are accessible to local communities—

Another strategy for promoting local job creation is to structure forest restoration 

work in a way that is accessible to local communities and can benefit multiple 

recipients. This strategy entails breaking down project work into different sizes and 

types as appropriate to match local capacity. One example is road maintenance work. 

Many national forests consider roadside brush removal as one component of road 

maintenance, and therefore include it in larger road maintenance contracts. In contrast, the Six Rivers National Forest in northern California separates roadside brush 

removal from other types of road maintenance work, making it possible for small 

operators with less diversified equipment to bid on the projects (Charnley 2011).

Another example comes from the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest in southern 

Oregon, which received over $30 million in ARRA funding for hazardous fuels 

reduction. Much of this work was labor intensive, because it was located on steep 

terrain and entailed hand thinning, pruning, piling, and pile burning (Davis and 

Moseley 2011). In the four-county area that contains Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest lands, there are over 20 local businesses that engage in forestry support work. 

These businesses range in size and experience, having from just a few employees 

to roughly 200 employees. There are also several nongovernmental organizations 

(NGOs) that have natural resource crews in the region. To provide job opportunities 

for this diverse array of local businesses, the Rogue-Siskiyou broke the hazardous 

fuels reduction work up into 53 contracts and seven agreements. Contracts ranged 

in size from $100,000 to $1 million. Agreements were used to target specific 

recipients that the Rogue-Siskiyou wanted to assist, such as youth job corps programs. The agreements and contracts were sorted into different sets of activities 

and into work at different scales to enable a number of businesses to compete for 

them (Davis and Moseley 2011). Implementing projects in a way that breaks the 

work into different sizes and types and uses different funding mechanisms spreads 

the benefits by taking advantage of a range of skills and capacities in local communities. This strategy can be scaled to the availability of funding for project work; it 

does not rely on a large infusion of funding, as happened in this case under ARRA.

Assess the relative merits of labor-intensive versus equipment-intensive work—

The shift from timber production to forest restoration on national forest lands has 

brought about an associated shift from labor-intensive to equipment-intensive work 

(Moseley and Reyes 2008). Labor-intensive work has traditionally been associated 

with intensive timber management in which crews perform tasks such as small tree 

thinning with chain saws and tree planting. Restoration work such as road maintenance and decommissioning tends to be accomplished with equipment. Labor-intensive work creates more jobs than equipment-intensive work; however, job quality 

Another strategy for 

promoting local job 

creation is to structure 

forest restoration 

work in a way that is 

accessible to local 

communities and 

can benefit multiple 

recipients. 
614

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

is typically better with equipment-intensive work, and equipment-intensive work is 

more likely to go to local contractors because of the cost of hauling equipment long 

distances (Moseley and Reyes 2008).

Sometimes Forest Service decisionmakers have choices about whether to 

accomplish specific management tasks in labor- versus equipment-intensive ways. 

Despite the general shift mentioned above, there are many opportunities for 

labor-intensive work associated with forest restoration. In the context of wildland 

fire management, restorative understory burning is typically accomplished by 

fire suppression crews who are employed seasonally by the Forest Service in the 

spring or fall, when not fighting fires (Moseley and Toth 2004). Mechanical fuels 

treatments can be accomplished by hand crews or with equipment. Labor-intensive 

work is more common when fuels reduction occurs on steep slopes, entails thinning 

of small-diameter trees with no commercial tree removal, or involves tree planting 

in rehabilitation efforts (Moseley and Toth 2004). Labor-intensive work is also 

common in habitat improvement and watershed restoration projects (Nielsen-Pincus 

and Moseley 2013). Brush removal along forest roads can also be accomplished 

either mechanically or by hand (Charnley 2011). In these cases, decisionmakers may 

choose to accomplish work in a manner that creates more jobs, assuming that doing 

so is cost effective and meets management objectives.

When deciding how to accomplish restoration work, decisionmakers should be 

aware of the relative merits and drawbacks associated with labor- versus equipmentintensive work. Labor-intensive work creates more jobs than equipment-intensive 

work, which is important in forest communities with high unemployment rates. It 

also creates opportunities for workers who would not otherwise have access to jobs 

on national forests because they lack the financial capital to invest in equipment. 

During the economic recession of 2007–2009, one way that the Forest Service used 

ARRA funds to create jobs in communities experiencing economic distress was 

by choosing to carry out work in labor-intensive ways (Charnley 2011). However, 

researchers have found that labor-intensive jobs in the forestry services sector often 

go to distant workers, are relatively low paying, create less total local economic 

impact than other jobs, may entail poor working conditions and worker abuse, can 

be dangerous, and are seasonal (Moseley 2006, Moseley and Reyes 2007, NielsenPincus and Moseley 2013, Sarathy 2012). In contrast, equipment-intensive work 

tends to be better paid and is more often carried out by local businesses (Moseley 

and Reyes 2008), though it also is typically seasonal. Forest decisionmakers who 

are aware of these patterns can make an effort to overcome them by targeting local 

workers, by ensuring that contracting and labor laws are enforced so that workers 

are paid the required wages, and by promoting fair and safe working conditions. 
615

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Another strategy for job creation is the direct hire of workers using Forest 

Service “1039” employment authority (the employee may not work more than 1039 

hours in one service year), especially in places where there are few forestry support 

businesses (Jakes 2011). Even when jobs—be they labor or equipment intensive—

are short term or seasonal in nature, they can have many benefits beyond short-term 

job creation. These include providing employees with training, skills, and experience for future jobs; improving employee access to the federal job network; improving employee physical and mental health; building teamwork and safety skills; and 

building awareness of nature, national forests, and resource management issues 

among local residents (Charnley et al. 2012).

Implement Projects That Build on Local Community 

Capacities and Priorities

Design projects collaboratively— 

A number of researchers have found that when the Forest Service works collaboratively with local communities to develop forest restoration projects that build 

on local community infrastructure, resources, values, culture, and collaborative 

relationships, and address local needs and priorities, it can be especially effective 

in creating local community benefits and contributing to community well-being 

(Abrams 2011, Burns et al. 2011, Charnley et al. 2012, Hardigg 2011). It is not 

always easy to collaborate, given declines in agency staffing and resources, and 

there can be challenges in the process. Nevertheless, when opportunities exist to 

develop projects collaboratively and align them with community needs and capacity, they are more likely to create local economic opportunities.

Encourage agency decisionmakers at the national forest level to create local 

jobs linked to forest management—

Individual decisionmakers at the ground level make decisions about whether and 

how to implement policies based on direction from above, as well as their own 

interpretations, values, experience, and local circumstances (Moseley and Charnley 

2014). This implies that if contributing to social and economic sustainability in 

forest communities is a priority for the management of Sierra Nevada national 

forests, then doing more to encourage local-level decisionmakers to enhance job 

creation associated with project development and implementation may also help. 

Decisionmakers who have a thorough knowledge of local social and economic 

conditions will also be better positioned to make decisions that draw on the existing 

capacity in a community, and help build local capacities that need to be developed 

by directing resources accordingly. As Charnley et al. (2012) found in the case of 

ARRA projects, national forest employees at the ground level developed a number 

When the Forest 

Service works 

collaboratively with 

local communities to 

develop forest 

restoration projects 

that build on local 

community 

infrastructure, 

resources, values, 

culture, and 

collaborative 

relationships, and 

address local needs 

and priorities, it can be 

especially effective in 

creating local 

community benefits 

and contributing to 

community well-being.
616

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

of strategies for increasing the socioeconomic benefits of projects to local communities, innovating and exhibiting leadership in the process. Individual employees 

make a difference, and those who are committed to enhancing job creation through 

forest management may be able to make choices to implement project work in ways 

that are more likely to do so.

Invest in Recreation Infrastructure, Opportunities, and 

Partnerships

Maintain existing and invest in new recreation and tourism opportunities—

Some social scientists have argued that natural amenity values can be drivers of 

economic development in rural communities near federal lands because rural 

communities having desirable physical and social environments attract tourists, 

new residents, and new businesses, which increases the financial and human capital 

of communities and creates jobs, thereby stimulating local economic development 

(Charnley et al. 2008b). As a result, “jobs follow people” (Goodstein 1999, Nelson 

1999, Vias 1999). National forests are important in this regard because of the natural amenities they provide, including recreation, scenic beauty, open space, clean air 

and water, and desirable environmental features, such as mountains, water bodies, 

and forests (see chapter 9.1, “Broader Context for Social, Economic, and Cultural 

Considerations,” for a discussion of amenity migration and a detailed discussion of 

the social, economic, and ecological dimensions of recreation and tourism in the 

Sierra Nevada).

Recreation and tourism have brought new economic opportunities to many 

communities whose economies were formerly timber based (Charnley et al. 2008a, 

2008b). In places experiencing high levels of recreation and tourism, local economies may be extremely dependent on these activities. For example, an estimated 

38 percent of all jobs in Mammoth Lakes and the Lake Tahoe Basin are directly 

tied to tourism, and 74 percent of all jobs, and 68 percent of all wage payments, are 

indirectly tied to tourism (Löffler and Steinicke 2006). Forest Service managers 

may contribute to recreation and tourism-related development in forest communities through job creation associated with road, trail, and facilities maintenance and 

improvement projects (fig. 4). Trails and facilities projects in particular are conducive to hiring youth through job corps programs like the California Conservation 

Corps. Working on such projects provides youth an opportunity to spend time in 

the woods, build job skills, learn about and connect with the Forest Service, and 

prepare for future jobs (Charnley 2011). Managers may also contribute to local 

community development by maintaining and developing recreation opportunities 

and infrastructure on national forest lands and in local communities that attract 
617

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

visitors, who in turn spend money locally, supporting local businesses (e.g., Burns 

et al. 2011, Sturtevant et al. 2011). In communities that lack local businesses that 

could take advantage of the economic opportunities associated with Forest Service 

investments in recreation and tourism, additional assistance may be needed so that 

they can capture these benefits.

Although recreation and tourism can contribute to local economies, they 

may also have drawbacks. One potential drawback is environmental; recreation 

and tourism impacts can have negative impacts on soils, vegetation, wildlife, and 

aquatic environments if carried out in an unsustainable and ecologically insensitive 

manner (Monz et al. 2010) (see chapter 9.1). Another is economic. Jobs created in 

association with recreation and tourism are often in the services sector (English et 

al. 2000, Shumway and Otterstrom 2001). Although some services jobs pay well 

(Holmes and Hecox 2004), many jobs associated with recreation and tourism are 

seasonal and low wage (McKean et al. 2005). Even if people living in high-growth 

amenity and recreation counties have higher incomes, these may be offset by higher 

costs of living (English et al. 2000, Hunter et al. 2005) (see chapter 9.1 for a discussion of housing costs compared to incomes). Nevertheless, recreation and tourism 

are an important component of many rural economies in the Sierra Nevada (Duane 

1999, Stewart 1996). Investing in them by maintaining and improving recreationrelated infrastructure is one way of helping to diversify the local economic benefits 

Figure 4—Student Conservation Association intern doing trail work on a national forest. 

Susan Charnley
618

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

associated with national forest management. However, it is critical to do so in a 

manner that is ecologically sustainable and that minimizes environmental impacts.

Encourage recreation partnerships—

The Forest Service is increasingly accomplishing recreation management through 

partnerships that build relations with local groups and leverage the resources needed 

to maintain recreation opportunities and facilities in the face of declining agency 

budgets (Seekamp and Cerveny 2010). Seekamp et al. (2011) identified 35 common 

types of recreation partners with whom the Forest Service works. Although volunteerism is common, many partners have a financial relationship with the Forest 

Service, providing the agency with revenue for projects or, conversely, making a 

living from federal lands. These partners include outfitters, guides, concessionaires, 

contractors, environmental groups, and outdoor recreation groups (e.g., all-terrain 

vehicle, equestrian, and trail associations). Recreation partnerships can contribute 

to both forest community and forest ecosystem health. On the community side, they 

provide jobs, job skills, organizational capacity building, and stronger collaborative 

relations with diverse groups. On the national forest side, they support stewardship 

and conservation activities and help build a conservation ethic among members of 

the public (Seekamp and Cerveny 2010, Seekamp et al. 2011). 

Conclusions 

This chapter has examined ways that managers may facilitate job creation associated with national forest management in forest communities to contribute to community well-being, summarized in “Management Implications” below. Its goal is to 

encourage managers to consider how to integrate job creation in forest communities 

with other project objectives when planning and carrying out projects. Conducting 

restoration, recreation, and infrastructure maintenance and improvement projects 

in ways that enhance economic opportunities for residents of forest communities 

can potentially contribute to socioecological resilience. Indicators of resilience 

include social and economic diversity, new business and employment opportunities, 

community infrastructure, innovation, connections between people and places, 

and keeping options open for the future (Berkes and Ross 2013, Chapin et al. 2009, 

Magis 2010, Walker and Salt 2006). Developing diverse economic opportunities 

associated with national forests (including jobs associated with the production 

of forest products; see chapter 9.5) may help foster these characteristics, while at 

the same time addressing some of the underlying causes of social vulnerability in 

rural communities (e.g., poverty, unemployment, lack of economic diversification), 

thereby increasing resilience.

Conducting restoration, recreation, and 

infrastructure maintenance and improvement projects in ways 

that enhance economic 

opportunities for 

residents of forest 

communities can 

potentially contribute 

to socioecological 

resilience.
619

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Management Implications: Strategies for Improving Job 

Creation Through National Forest Management

Make better use of existing authorities and tools—

• Use National Fire Plan authority to direct fuels management work to local 

contractors and businesses using best-value contracting; ask contractors 

how they would create economic opportunities in local communities if 

awarded a Forest Service procurement contract

• Use 2004 Tribal Forest Protection Act authorities to collaboratively develop 

fire mitigation and environmental restoration projects with tribes, and to 

enter into contracts or agreements with tribes to reduce environmental 

threats on national forests bordering Indian trust lands in areas of mutual 

interest.

• Increase use of stewardship contracts and stewardship agreements.

• Make use of agreements (which can be awarded noncompetitively) to target 

work to specific local recipients in order to develop working relationships 

with them, provide local workers with jobs, and build their capacity to 

accomplish work on national forests.

• Integrate acquisition management staff into project planning activities to 

help identify how work can be accomplished in ways that enhance local 

economic opportunities through strategic use of available administrative 

tools.

Invest in project work strategically—

• Geographically target project work on national forest lands near communities in need, where this work can make a difference in contributing to local 

economies through job creation

• Implement projects in a way that breaks the work into different sizes and 

types, and uses different funding mechanisms, to spread the benefits by 

taking advantage of the range of skills and capacities present among local 

businesses, NGOs, and other workers.

• Assess the costs and benefits of accomplishing project work in a laborintensive versus an equipment-intensive manner. 

• Promote fair and safe working conditions for forest workers by ensuring 

that labor and safety laws are enforced.

Implement projects that build on local community capacities and priorities—

• Work collaboratively with local communities to develop projects that build 

on local community infrastructure, resources, values, culture, and collaborative relationships, and address local needs and priorities.
620

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

• Encourage agency decisionmakers at the national forest level to consider 

job impacts when making decisions about how and where to implement 

projects.

Invest in recreation infrastructure, opportunities, and partnerships—

• Maintain and develop sustainable recreation opportunities and infrastructure on national forests and in local communities to create jobs and attract 

visitors who support local businesses. 

• Invest in recreation partnerships with diverse groups.

Developing and implementing forest management work in a manner that 

promotes local economic opportunities may sometimes require making tradeoffs 

between promoting socioeconomic goals and meeting other agency objectives 

and requirements (Charnley et al. 2012). Nevertheless, the long-term benefits of 

investing in local communities, helping them build their resilience, and increasing 

their capacity to engage in forest management work may outweigh the short-term 

tradeoffs associated with making community considerations of secondary importance in accomplishing projects. This is because forest-based jobs can benefit 

national forests. Jobs in forest restoration help maintain the local workforce and 

business capacity needed to perform restoration work on federal, private, and tribal 

forest lands, making it more feasible to achieve landscape-scale forest restoration 

goals across ownerships (Charnley et al. 2011). Keeping local mills running and 

maintaining local jobs and a local market for wood products produced through 

forest restoration activities make restoration of national forests more economical. 

Recreation projects that improve trail design and construction, replace ineffective 

waste facilities, and provide developed access to lakes and streams help reduce the 

natural resource impacts of forest recreation by reducing erosion, protecting water 

quality, and contributing to the control of invasive species. Recreation projects that 

enhance the visitor experience can also help build public support for national forests 

and foster values associated with forest stewardship among visitors (Charnley et al. 

2012). Thus, doing more to prioritize the social and economic benefits associated 

with forest management work can ultimately be good for both rural communities 

and national forests.

Literature Cited

Abrams, J. 2011. The policy context of the White Mountain stewardship contract. 

In: Egan, D.; Hjerpe, E.E.; Abrams, J., eds. Human dimensions of ecological 

restoration: integrating science, nature, and culture. Washington, DC: Island 

Press: 163–176. Chapter 12.
621

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Baker, M.; Kusel, J. 2003. Community forestry in the United States: learning 

from the past, crafting the future. Washington, DC: Island Press. 247 p.

Beckley, T.M.; Martz, D.; Nadeau, S.; Wall, E.; Reimer, B. 2008. Multiple 

capacities, multiple outcomes: delving deeper into the meaning of community 

capacity. Journal of Rural and Community Development. 3(3): 56–75.

Berck, P.; Costello, C.; Fortmann, L.; Hoffman, S. 2003. Poverty and 

employment in forest-dependent counties. Forest Science. 49(5): 763–777.

Berkes, F.; Ross, H. 2013. Community resilience: toward an integrated approach. 

Society and Natural Resources. 26(1): 5–20.

Burns, S.; Dietrich, J.; Mattor, K.; Wilson, T. 2011. A socioeconomic assessment 

of Forest Service Recovery Act projects: Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and 

White Mountain Apache tribe, Arizona. In: Charnley, S.; Jakes, P.; Schelhas, J., 

tech. coords. A socioeconomic assessment of Forest Service American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act projects: eight case studies. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-831. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 23–42. Chapter 3.

Chapin, S.F.; Carpenter, S.R.; Kofinas, G.P.; Folke, C.; Abel, N.; Clark, W.C.; 

Olsson, P.; Smith, D.M.S.; Walker, B.; Young, O.R.; Berkes, F.; Biggs, R.; 

Grove, J.M.; Naylor, R.L.; Pinkerton, E.; Steffen, W.; Swanson, F.J. 2009.

Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. 

Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 25(4): 241–249.

Charnley, S. 2006. The Northwest Forest Plan as a model for broad-scale 

ecosystem management: a social perspective. Conservation Biology. 

20(2): 220–240.

Charnley, S. 2011. A socioeconomic assessment of Forest Service Recovery Act 

projects on California’s north coast. In: Charnley, S.; Jakes, P.; Schelhas, J., tech. 

coords. A socioeconomic assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act projects: eight case studies. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-831. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station: 43–70. Chapter 4.

Charnley, S.; Donoghue, E.M.; Moseley, C. 2008a. Forest management policy 

and community well-being in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry. 

106(8): 440–447.
622

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Charnley, S.; Fischer, A.P.; Jones, E.T. 2007. Integrating traditional and local 

ecological knowledge into forest biodiversity conservation in the Pacific 

Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management. 246(1): 14–28.

Charnley, S.; Jakes, P.; Schelhas, J., tech. coords. 2011. A socioeconomic 

assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

Projects: eight case studies. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-831. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 168 p.

Charnley, S.; Jakes, P.; Schelhas, J. 2012. Socioeconomic assessment of Forest 

Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects: key findings and 

lessons learned. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-832. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 44 p.

Charnley, S.; McLain, R.J.; Donoghue, E.M. 2008b. Forest management policy, 

amenity migration, and community well-being in the American West: reflections 

from the Northwest Forest Plan. Human Ecology. 36(5): 743–761.

Daniel, T.C.; Carroll, M.S.; Moseley, C.; Raish, C., eds. 2007. People, fire 

and forests: a synthesis of wildfire social science. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University Press. 240 p.

Davidson, D.J. 2010. The applicability of the concept of resilience to social 

systems: some sources of optimism and nagging doubts. Society and Natural 

Resources. 23(12): 1135–1149.

Davis, E.J.; Moseley, C. 2011. A socioeconomic assessment of Forest Service 

Recovery Act projects: Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Oregon. In: 

Charnley, S.; Jakes, P.; Schelhas, J., tech. coords. A socioeconomic assessment 

of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects: eight 

case studies. Gen. Tech Rep. PNW-GTR-831. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 147–165. 

Chapter 9.

Deal, R.L.; Cochran, B.; LaRocco, G. 2012. Bundling of ecosystem services to 

increase forestland value and enhance sustainable forest management. Forest 

Policy and Economics. 17(April): 69–76.

Donoghue, E.M.; Sturtevant, V.E. 2007. Social science constructs in ecosystem 

assessments: revisiting community capacity and community resiliency. Society 

and Natural Resources. 20(10): 899–912.
623

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Donoghue, E.M.; Thompson, S.A.; Bliss, J.C. 2010. Tribal-federal collaboration 

in resource management. Journal of Ecological Anthropology. 14(1): 22–38.

Duane, T.P. 1999. Shaping the Sierra: nature, culture, and conflict in the changing 

west. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 627 p.

English, D.B.K.; Marcouiller, D.W.; Cordell, H.K. 2000. Tourism dependence in 

rural America: estimates and effects. Society and Natural Resources. 

13(3): 185–202.

Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological 

systems analyses. Global Environmental Change. 16(3): 253–267.

Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.R.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Chapin, T.; Rockstrom, 

J. 2010. Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability, and 

transformability. Ecology and Society. 15(4): 20.

Goodstein, E.S. 1999. The trade-off myth: fact and fiction about jobs and the 

environment. Washington, DC: Island Press. 206 p.

Hardigg, K. 2011. Ecological restoration as the zone of agreement in southeast 

Alaska. In: Egan, D.; Hjerpe, E.E.; Abrams, J., eds. Human dimensions of 

ecological restoration: integrating science, nature, and culture. Washington, DC: 

Island Press: 119–132. Chapter 9.

Hausbeck, K. 2007. The little engine that could: the success of the Stewardship 

Contracting Authority. William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy 

Review. 32(1): 33–55.

Holmes, P.F.; Hecox, W.E. 2004. Does wilderness impoverish rural regions? 

International Journal of Wilderness. 10(3): 34–39.

Hunter, L.M.; Boardman, J.D.; Saint Onge, J.M. 2005. The association between 

natural amenities, rural population growth, and long-term residents’ economic 

well-being. Rural Sociology. 70(4): 452–469.

Intertribal Timber Council [ITC]. 2013. Fulfilling the promise of the Tribal 

Forest Protection Act of 2004. Portland, OR: Intertribal Timber Council. 

Jakes, P. 2011. A socioeconomic assessment of Forest Service Recovery Act 

projects: Huron fuels treatment project, Michigan. In: Charnley, S.; Jakes, 

P.; Schelhas, J., tech. coords. A socioeconomic assessment of Forest Service 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects: eight case studies. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-831. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 87–103. Chapter 6.
624

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Kelly, E.C.; Bliss, J.C. 2009. Healthy forests, healthy communities: An emerging 

paradigm for natural resource-dependent communities? Society and Natural 

Resources. 22(6): 519–537.

Kerkvliet, J. 2010. The practice and economics of stewardship contracting: a case 

study of the Clearwater Stewardship Project. Forest Products Journal. 

60(3): 213–220.

Kusel, J. 2001. Assessing well-being in forest dependent communities. Journal of 

Sustainable Forestry. 13(1–2): 359–384.

Kusel, J.; Adler, E. eds. 2003. Forest communities, community forests: struggles 

and successes in building communities and forests. Lanham, MD: Rowman & 

Littlefield Publishers. 328 p.

Lal, P.; Alavalapati, J.R.R.; Mercer, E.D. 2011. Socio-economic impacts of 

climate change on rural United States. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for 

Global Change. 16(7): 819–844.

Le Master, D.C.; Beuter, J.H. 1989. Community stability in forest-based 

economies: proceedings of a conference in Portland, Oregon. Portland, OR: 

Timber Press. 191 p.

Löffler, R.; Steinicke, E. 2006. Counterurbanization and its socioeconomic effects 

in high mountain areas of the Sierra Nevada (California/Nevada). Mountain 

Research and Development. 26(1): 64–71.

Lynn, K.; MacKendrick, K.; Donoghue, E.M. 2011. Social vulnerability 

and climate change: synthesis of literature. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-838. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 70 p.

Magis, K. 2010. Community resilience: an indicator of social sustainability. 

Society and Natural Resources. 23(5): 401–416.

McKean, J.R.; Johnson, D.M.; Johnson, R.L.; Taylor, R.G. 2005. Can superior 

natural amenities create high-quality employment opportunities? The case of 

nonconsumptive river recreation in central Idaho. Society and Natural Resources. 

18(8): 749–758.

Monz, C.A.; Cole, D.N.; Leung, Y.F.; Marion, J.L. 2010. Sustaining visitor use 

in protected areas: future opportunities in recreation ecology research based on 

the USA Experience. Environmental Management. 45: 551–562.
625

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Moseley, C. 2006. Ethnic differences in job quality among contract forest workers 

on six national forests. Policy Sciences. 39: 113–133.

Moseley, C.; Charnley, S. 2014. Understanding microprocesses of 

institutionalization: stewardship contracting and national forest management. 

Policy Sciences. 47: 69–98.

Moseley, C.; Reyes, Y. 2007. Comparing job quality in logging and forestry 

services in Oregon. Journal of Forestry. 105(6): 293–300.

Moseley, C.; Reyes, Y. 2008. Forest restoration and forest communities: Have 

local communities benefited from Forest Service contracting of ecosystem 

management? Environmental Management. 42: 327–343.

Moseley, C.; Toth, N.A. 2004. Fire hazard reduction and economic opportunity: 

How are the benefits of the National Fire Plan distributed? Society and Natural 

Resources. 17(8): 701–716.

Nadeau, S.; Shindler, B.A.; Kakoyannis, C. 2003. Beyond the economic model: 

assessing sustainability in forest communities. In: Shindler, B.A.; Beckley, T.M.; 

Finley, M.C., eds. Two paths toward sustainable forests: public values in Canada 

and the United States. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 60–74. 

Chapter 4.

Nelson, P.B. 1999. Quality of life, nontraditional income, and economic growth: 

new development opportunities for the rural west. Rural Development 

Perspectives. 14(2): 32–37.

Nielsen-Pincus, M.; Moseley, C. 2013. The economic and employment impacts of 

forest and watershed restoration. Restoration Ecology. 21(2): 207–214.

Ojerio, R.; Moseley, C.; Lynn, K.; Bania, N. 2011. Limited involvement of 

socially vulnerable populations in federal programs to mitigate wildfire risk in 

Arizona. Natural Hazards Review. 12(1): 28–36.

Pinchot Institute for Conservation [PIC]. 2011. The role of communities in 

stewardship contracting: FY 2010 programmatic monitoring report to the USDA 

Forest Service, Washington, DC: Pinchot Institute for Conservation. 135 p.

Power, T.M. 2006. Public timber supply, market adjustments, and local economies: 

economic assumptions of the Northwest Forest Plan. Conservation Biology. 

20(2): 341–350.
626

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Rasmussen, K.; Hibbard, M.; Lynn, K. 2007. Wildland fire management as 

conservation-based development: An opportunity for reservation communities? 

Society and Natural Resources. 20(6): 497–510.

Sarathy, B. 2012. Pineros: Latino labour and the changing face of forestry in the 

Pacific Northwest. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. 208 p.

Schultz, C.A.; Jedd, T.; Beam, R.D. 2012. The collaborative landscape restoration 

program: a history and overview of the first projects. Journal of Forestry. 110(7): 

381–391.

Seekamp, E.; Cerveny, L.K. 2010. Examining USDA Forest Service recreation 

partnerships: institutional and relational interactions. Journal of Park and 

Recreation Administration. 28(4): 1–20.

Seekamp, E.; Cerveny, L.K.; McCreary, A. 2011. Institutional, individual, and 

socio-cultural domains of partnerships: a typology of USDA Forest Service 

recreation partners. Environmental Management. 48(3): 615–630.

Shumway, J.M.; Otterstrom, S.M. 2001. Spatial patterns of migration and income 

change in the Mountain West: the dominance of service-based, amenity-rich 

counties. The Professional Geographer. 53(4): 492–502.

Spencer, C. 1999. Linking forest employment and forest ecosystem objectives in 

the Pacific Northwest. Community Development Journal. 34(1): 47–57.

Steelman, T.A.; Burke, C.A. 2007. Is wildfire policy in the United States 

sustainable? Journal of Forestry. 105(2): 67–72.

Steelman, T.A.; DuMond, M.E. 2009. Serving the common interest in U.S. forest 

policy: a case study of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Environmental 

Management. 43(3): 396–410.

Stewart, W.C. 1996. Economic assessment of the ecosystem. Sierra Nevada 

Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress. Vol. III: Assessments, 

commissioned reports, and background information. Report No. 38. Davis, CA: 

Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California–Davis. 

Chapter 23.

Sturtevant, V.E.; Donoghue, E.M. 2008. Community and forest connections: 

continuity and change. In: Donoghue, E.M.; Sturtevant, V.E., eds. Forest 

community connections: implications for research, management, and 

governance. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future: 3–24.
627

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Sturtevant, V.E.; Kershner, J.; Jakes, P. 2011. A socioeconomic assessment of 

Forest Service Recovery Act projects: route of the Olympian Rails to Trails, 

Montana. In: Charnley, S.; Jakes, P.; Schelhas, J., tech. coords. A socioeconomic 

assessment of Forest Service Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects: eight 

case studies. Gen. Tech Rep. PNW-GTR-831. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 105–124. 

Chapter 7.

Sugihara, N.G.; Van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Fites-Kaufman, J.; Shaffer, K.E.; 

Thode, A.E. 2006. The future of fire in California’s ecosystems. In: Sugihara, 

N.G.; Van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Fites-Kaufman, J.; Shaffer, K.E.; Thode, A.E., eds. 

Fire in California’s ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 

538–543. Chapter 24.

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. 2010. Strategic plan: FY 2010–2015. 

Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2012. Increasing the 

pace of restoration and job creation on our national forests. Washington, DC. 8 p.

U.S. Government Accountability Office [US GAO]. 2008. Federal land 

management: use of stewardship contracting is increasing, but agencies could 

benefit from better data and contracting strategies. GAO-09-23. Washington, 

DC. 66 p.

Vias, A.C. 1999. Jobs follow people in the rural Rocky Mountain West. Rural 

Development Perspectives. 14: 14–23.

Walker, B.; Salt, D. 2006. Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people 

in a changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press. 174 p.
628

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247
629

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Susan Charnley 1 and Jonathan Long2

Summary

Forest products harvesting and use from national forest lands remain important 

to local residents and communities in some parts of the Sierra Nevada science 

synthesis area. Managing national forests for the sustainable production of timber, 

biomass, nontimber forest products, and forage for livestock can help support forestbased livelihoods in parts of the region where they are socially and economically 

important, thereby contributing to social and economic sustainability and community resilience. This chapter provides context for understanding the social and 

economic dimensions of timber production, biomass utilization, nontimber forest 

product harvesting, and grazing in the synthesis area, and associated management 

issues. The chapter also points out ways in which managing forest products for 

community benefit may also benefit forest and rangeland ecosystems. At the end of 

each section is a “Management Implications” discussion that summarizes findings from the literature about the strategies forest managers might pursue to help 

maintain California’s wood products industry, increase biomass utilization from 

national forests, and support nontimber forest product harvesting and grazing on 

Sierra Nevada national forests. 

Introduction

This chapter examines timber production, biomass removal, nontimber forest 

product (NTFP) harvesting, and grazing, synthesizing the scientific literature that 

addresses how these activities can be supported on Sierra Nevada national forests 

to help sustain the livelihoods of community residents who participate in them. 

Mining is not addressed because it is no longer considered to be a significant 

economic activity in the Sierra Nevada (Duane 1999, Stewart 1996), and because of 

a lack of recently published literature about mining in Sierra Nevada communities. 

Recreation and tourism are addressed in chapter 9.1, “Broader Context for Social, 

Economic, and Cultural Components.” 

Chapter 9.5—Managing Forest 

Products for Community Benefit

1 Research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main St., Suite 400, 

Portland, OR 97205.

2 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.
630

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Traditional forms of commodity production (e.g., timber production, grazing, 

and mining) from national forests in the Sierra Nevada are no longer as prominent 

as they were in the past (Duane 1999, Erman and SNEP Science Team 1996). Nevertheless, timber production and grazing remain locally important. Stewart (1996) 

found that recreation, timber, and agriculture were the employment sectors most 

dependent on Sierra Nevada ecosystems, and that the natural resources from these 

ecosystems generating the highest revenues were water, timber, livestock, and other 

agricultural products, in that order.

The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project identified six distinct social and economic subregions in the Sierra Nevada (Doak and Kusel 1996, Stewart 1996). An 

analysis by Duane (1999) also identified six distinct subregions of the Sierra Nevada 

based on social criteria. Although the subregional boundaries differ slightly, their 

overall characterizations are consistent (Duane 1999). Timber production is most 

prevalent in the northern Sierra Nevada counties; grazing is found mainly in the 

eastern Sierra Nevada and in the oak woodland ecosystems of the western Sierra 

Nevada; agriculture occurs largely on the west side, in the central and southern portions of the synthesis area; and recreation and tourism dominate the economies of 

the greater Lake Tahoe basin and the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada. Nevertheless, many communities and counties in the Sierra Nevada subregions have mixed 

economies, as characterized by Doak and Kusel (1996) and Duane (1999). Some 

are still more natural resource dependent (timber, grazing); some have economies 

based largely on natural amenity values; and some are close to large urban areas 

that provide diverse economic opportunities. In addition, many counties contain 

communities that are highly variable in terms of socioeconomic well-being (Doak 

and Kusel 1996). Thus, the relevance of the forest products management strategies 

discussed in this chapter will vary by place across the region, depending upon the 

nature of forest-community relations in particular locations.

Current national forest management policy calls for approaches that both 

accomplish ecological restoration goals and produce forest products to benefit local 

communities and economies (USDA FS 2007, 2010). Such approaches can contribute to socioecological well-being and resilience in a number of ways: (1) supporting 

community residents who maintain forest-based livelihoods in rural areas where 

alternative job opportunities are limited; (2) helping to produce goods valued by 

society; (3) maintaining the workforce and physical infrastructure needed to accomplish forest restoration on federal lands; and (4) helping to conserve the biodiversity 

and ecosystem integrity of working forests and rangelands on the private and tribal 

lands that are ecologically and socioeconomically interdependent with federal lands 

(Charnley et al. 2014).
631

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

This chapter focuses first on timber production and the wood products industry. 

It then moves on to address biomass removal and utilization, NTFPs, and lastly, grazing. The chapter concludes by suggesting some of the ways in which managing forest 

products for community benefit may also benefit forest and rangeland ecosystems.

Timber Production and the Wood Products Industry

Trends in Harvesting, Employment, and the Industry

Detailed accounts of conditions and trends in California’s wood products industry 

can be found in Morgan et al. (2004, 2012), upon which the following discussion 

is based. California has been among the top softwood lumber-producing states 

in the United States since the 1940s. The wood products industry in California is 

influenced by a number of variables, including national and international economic 

conditions, markets, technology, public policy and regulations, and available timber 

inventories. National forests have been an important source of timber for California’s wood products industry since the 1960s. Although a severe recession and weak 

markets caused a drop in timber production and related employment in the early 

1980s, this dip was followed by a recovery that lasted through the end of the 1980s. 

Since the early 1990s, the availability of timber—particularly from federal lands—

has been a major factor influencing California’s wood products industry. Timber 

harvests from national forests declined during the 1990s because of policy and legal 

constraints on harvesting related to the protection of old-growth forests and threatened and endangered species, restrictions on harvesting in unroaded areas, and 

timber sale appeals and litigation. At the same time, state regulations caused timber 

harvests from state and private lands to decrease. In the 2000s, timber harvest on 

California national forests has been driven more by restoration goals (e.g., hazardous fuels reduction) than by timber production goals (Christensen et al. 2008). An 

economic recession in the early 2000s, declines in housing construction since 2006, 

and increased imports of lumber from Canada following expiration of the Canadian 

softwood lumber agreement in 2001 have caused the price of wood products to be 

low for much of the 2000s. Market conditions combined with other factors, such as 

increasing fuel prices and reduced timber availability, caused a further decline in 

California’s wood products industry during the first decade of the 2000s (Morgan et 

al. 2012).

Trends in California’s timber harvests are reflected in figure 1. The total volume 

of timber harvested in California in 1988 was 4.84 billion board feet, and in 2010, 

it was 1.29 billion board feet—73 percent below what it was in 1988 and 74 percent 

below what it was in 1972. The volume of timber harvested from Sierra Nevada 

national forests was 1.29 billion board feet in 1988, and 183.8 million board feet in 
632

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

2010, 86 percent lower than it was in 1988. As figure 1 indicates, the decline in total 

timber harvests in California since 1990 has largely been the result of reductions in 

timber production on national forest lands, though harvests from private lands also 

dropped for reasons explained above. In response to these trends, California mills 

have become increasingly reliant on out-of-state and Canadian sources of timber to 

meet their supply needs (Morgan et al. 2012). Imports have constituted an estimated 

6 percent of the annual volume of timber processed in California in recent years 

(Morgan et al. 2012).

Figure 1—Volume of timber harvested from all lands, private forest lands, national forest lands, and 10 Sierra Nevada national forests 

in California, 1972–2010. Source: Ruderman 1984, 1985; Warren 1989–2011. * = Harvest data from state lands were missing for 

2003–2010, and data from lands overseen by the Bureau of Indian Affairs were missing for 2001–2010; they are not included in the 

totals for those years. Harvest data for Bureau of Land Management lands were <1 million board feet for 2001, 2003, and 2004, and 

are not included for those years. ** = Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, Inyo, and Sequoia National Forests, 

and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Data for Sierra Nevada forest harvests were unavailable prior to 1988 from the Warren 

(1989–2011) and Ruderman (1984, 1985) reports.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1972

1973 1974 1975 19761977

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

1984 1985 19861987 19881989199019911992 1993

19941995 19961997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

20042005 20062007 200820092010

Volume harvested (million board feet Scribner)

Total California harvests*

Private lands

All California national forests

10 Sierra Nevada national forests**
633

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

The number of primary wood processing facilities in California has also been 

declining, a trend ongoing since 1968 (table 1). Reduced timber availability was the 

primary driver of sawmill closures between 1988 and 2006 (Morgan et al. 2012). 

Other factors contributing to sawmill closures over time have been technological advances leading to increased processing efficiency, market conditions, and 

the shift to harvesting smaller logs. Between the late 1980s and 2000, California 

milling capacity dropped by almost 60 percent; since 2000, it has continued to 

drop as mills have closed (Christensen et al. 2008, Morgan et al. 2004). As a result, 

California’s capacity to process sawtimber went from 6 billion board feet in 1988 to 

below 1.8 billion board feet by 2009 (Morgan et al. 2012). In 2006, there remained 

12 sawmills, two medium-density fiberboard and particleboard mills, and no veneer 

mills in counties within the Sierra Nevada synthesis area (Morgan et al. 2012). 

Figure 2 shows the distribution of mills of all types in California as of 2006. 

Table 1—Number of sawmills, veneer and plywood mills, and pulp and board 

mills in California, 1968–2006 

Year 1968 1976 1985 1994 2006

Sawmills 216 142 89 53 33

Veneer and plywood mills 26 21 6 4 2

Pulp and board mills 17 7 11 12 4

Source: Morgan et al. 2012.

Declining mill capacity has important implications for the ability of federal 

and private forest owners to produce timber. Mills provide a market for timber; 

fewer mills mean less competition and lower stumpage prices; and the farther 

the haul distance from the harvest site to the processing facility, the higher the 

transportation costs and less economical the timber sale. Greater haul distances 

also mean an increase in fossil fuel consumption, increasing carbon emissions. 

Maintaining the remaining wood processing infrastructure in the Sierra Nevada 

synthesis area is important for supporting continued timber production from 

national forests to help accomplish ecological restoration goals and maintain jobs in 

the wood products industry.

Employment in California’s forest products industries has fluctuated over time, 

and declined 33 percent between 1989 and 2010, from 112,500 jobs in 1989 to 

75,100 jobs in 2010 (fig. 3). These trends have largely resulted from fluctuations in 

the lumber and wood products sector, rather than in the paper and allied products 

sector. The decline in California’s wood and paper products industry employment 

since 1989 can be attributed mainly to reduced timber harvest and availability, as 

well as increased mill efficiency and the recent economic downturn and housing 

Maintaining the 

remaining wood 

processing infrastructure in the Sierra 

Nevada synthesis 

area is important for 

supporting continued 

timber production 

from national forests 

to help accomplish 

ecological restoration 

goals and maintain jobs 

in the wood products 

industry.
634

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Figure 2—Mills in California, 2006. Source: figure 9 in Morgan et al. (2012).
635

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

decline (Morgan et al. 2012). The effects of declining forest products industry 

employment have been greatest in northern California counties, where the forest 

products industry is concentrated, including the northern Sierra Nevada counties of 

Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, and Sierra (Morgan et al. 2004). 

Wildland fire can also have a substantial economic impact on the timber 

industry and on wood products markets because it reduces the standing inventory of 

timber. Although socially controversial because of environmental concerns, postfire salvage logging has a number of economic benefits for producers of damaged 

timber and consumers (Prestemon and Holmes 2004, Prestemon et al. 2006), and 

is socially acceptable among many residents of fire-prone and fire-affected communities (McCaffrey 2008; Ryan and Hamin 2008, 2009) (see chapter 4.3, “PostWildfire Management”). For example, research from the Sierra Nevada community 

of Arnold, California, near the Stanislaus National Forest, found a strong level of 

support for postfire restoration and rehabilitation activities on Forest Service lands, 

including salvage logging, among community members economically dependent 

on natural resources (Ryan and Hamin 2008, 2009). Reasons included the ability 

of salvage logging to provide local jobs, a supply of material for local industry, 

Figure 3—Employment in the forest products industries in California, 1972–2010. Source: Ruderman 1984, 1985; 

Warren 1992, 2002, 2011.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

19721974197619781980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004

2006

2008

2010

Employment (thousands of people)

Year

Total employment

Lumber and wood products

Paper and allied products
636

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

and income to fund postfire restoration activities, another potential source of local 

jobs. Research on postfire restoration and rehabilitation, and on salvage logging in 

particular, finds that salvage logging is likely to be more socially acceptable if it is 

done in ways that are appropriate to, and do not harm, the local ecology; if scientific 

research supports the approach used; and if the income from salvage logging is 

invested in local postfire restoration or wildfire prevention activities around communities (Ryan and Hamin 2009). Extensive and consistent communication and 

outreach by the Forest Service during the process are also important (Ryan and 

Hamin 2008). In addition, planning and making decisions about how to approach 

salvage harvesting in advance of a wildfire in the context of overall forest restoration objectives at the landscape scale may help reduce debate about salvage operations following a fire (McCool et al. 2006).

Impacts of Reduced Federal Timber Harvesting on Communities

A number of social scientists have studied the impacts of reduced federal timber 

harvesting (fig. 4) on forest communities in the Pacific Northwest, and how communities have been adapting to this change (e.g., Carroll 1995, Charnley et al. 2008a, 

Helvoigt et al. 2003, Kusel et al. 2000). Research on the impacts of reduced federal 

timber harvesting on Sierra Nevada communities is much less prevalent, and existing research has focused primarily on Plumas County, where the Quincy Library 

Group emerged. The community of Quincy is one of many places in California 

and the Pacific Northwest where the “timber wars” of the 1980s were fought, and 

Figure 4—Timber harvesting on the Eldorado National Forest.

Susan Charnley

Salvage logging is 

likely to be more 

socially acceptable 

if it is done in ways 

that are appropriate 

to, and do not harm, 

the local ecology; if 

scientific research 

supports the approach 

used; and if the income 

from salvage logging 

is invested in local 

postfire restoration 

or wildfire prevention 

activities around 

communities.
637

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

there exist many published versions of this story (e.g., Bernard 2010, Bryan and 

Wondolleck 2003, Colburn 2002, Marston 2001) because it led to one of the first 

community-based, collaborative conservation initiatives associated with forestry in 

the Western United States (see chapter 9.6, “Collaboration in National Forest Management”). As in many timber-dependent communities and counties, decreases in 

timber harvests on the Plumas National Forest (which occupies roughly 75 percent 

of Plumas County [Bernard 2010]) led to the loss of logging jobs and mill closures 

with associated job losses in Quincy, home foreclosures, reduced payments in lieu 

of taxes to county governments to fund schools and roads, and declines in Forest 

Service budgets and staffing, making it harder to prepare timber sales and carry out 

treatments to reduce fire hazard and improve forest health (Bernard 2010, Colburn 

2002). Changes in forest management policy that took place in the early 1990s have 

had different effects in different communities, depending on local characteristics 

and relations to national forest lands (Charnley et al. 2008a). 

Quincy and Plumas County, like many communities and counties adversely 

affected by the shift away from intensive timber production on national forests, 

have evolved over the past two decades. Jobs in agriculture and forestry are still 

important, though there are many fewer jobs associated with timber production 

alone, and there is a greater proportion of jobs in forest restoration. Recreation 

and tourism, long important in the area, have expanded to include golfing, wind 

surfing, high-end resort development, and shopping (Bernard 2010, Colburn 2002). 

New residents drawn by the county’s natural amenity values have settled or bought 

second homes there, although the associated rise in real estate values has made it 

difficult for other residents to afford homes. Investment in watershed restoration 

and improvements in the Feather River watershed, an important source of water 

for California, have created local jobs and had significant conservation outcomes; 

water from the Feather River watershed could be a source of greater local economic 

opportunity in the future. However, the economic recession that began in 2007 led 

to closure of Quincy’s last sawmill in 2009, and a slump in real estate development 

(Bernard 2010). 

Elsewhere in California and the Pacific Northwest, decreases in federal timber yields on federal lands had similar effects on forest communities. They have 

responded in a number of ways. Community capacity lost when workers who lost 

jobs in the forest products industry moved away has been gradually rebuilt in some 

communities where new residents have moved in, drawn by recreation, natural 

amenities, and relatively low costs of living (Charnley et al. 2008a). Economic 

diversification has also occurred. Forest community residents have taken advantage 

of economic opportunities associated with recreation and tourism, agriculture, 

nontimber forest products, public and tribal administration, forest restoration, 
638

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

small-diameter wood manufacturing, and being located along major transportation 

corridors or close to regional centers (Charnley et al. 2008a). In California, some 

forest community residents have turned to marijuana growing as an economic 

diversification strategy in response to declines in wood products industry employment, although this trend is much more prevalent in California’s north Coast Range 

than in the Sierra Nevada (Leeper 1990). The emergence of community-based collaborative groups in forest communities in California—such as the Quincy Library 

Group—has been an important mechanism for innovation in seeking new ways to 

link communities and forests to promote economic and ecological health associated 

with forest management (Donoghue and Sturtevant 2008). This topic is discussed 

further in chapter 9.6.

Tools

Some tools have been developed that can help assess how wood products obtained 

from national forests translate into jobs and income that benefit regional economies. These tools are useful for forest planning as well as monitoring. The Bureau 

of Economic Analysis has developed a Regional Input-Output Modeling System 

(RIMS II) that can help planners assess the regional economic impacts of planned 

projects by producing multipliers that estimate the total economic impact a project 

will have on a region.3 Regional Economics Models, Inc. (REMI) has developed 

another model called Policy Insight (PI+) that generates annual estimates of the 

total regional economic and demographic effects of policy initiatives, which can be 

used for forecasting.4 Perhaps the most useful tool for forest managers is IMPLAN, 

developed by MIG, Inc.5 IMPLAN can be used to model the economic impacts of 

management activities down to the ZIP code level. These models are not limited to 

assessing the economic effects of forest plans and proposed projects on the wood 

products industry; they also have application for assessing how the production of 

other forest products and recreation activities on national forests translate into jobs 

and income that benefit regional economies. 

Future Prospects and Management Implications

Demand for wood products in California has been increasing and is predicted to 

continue to do so as a result of population growth (Christensen et al. 2008). The 

majority of wood products produced in the state are consumed there (Morgan et al. 

3 More information about the model can be found at 

https://www.bea.gov/regional/pdf/rims/RIMSII_User_Guide.pdf.

4 More information about PI+ is available at http://www.remi.com/products/pi.

5 IMPLAN, http://implan.com/V4/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=70.
639

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

2004, 2012). High demand for wood products, productive forests, and high-quality 

timber in California mean that the state’s wood products industry has the potential 

to remain viable (Christensen et al. 2008). Maintaining the industry is important 

from the standpoint of both national forest management and jobs in forest communities. A 2002/2003 survey of California’s primary wood products industry leaders 

asked what issues they thought would affect the performance of their operations 

in the coming 5 years, in order of importance (Morgan et al. 2004). Energy costs, 

California regulations, and timber availability from private lands were at the top of 

the list. Timber availability from federal lands ranked number 10; most respondents 

no longer considered federal lands a reliable source of timber, basing their operations instead on timber harvested from private lands. Nevertheless, federal timber 

supplies were critical to the operations of some respondents, and for the future 

viability of their firms (Morgan et al. 2004). 

These findings point to several strategies that could be pursued to support jobs 

in the wood products industry and keep mills operating to maintain wood products 

industry infrastructure so that forest owners (including the Forest Service) can 

accomplish forest restoration and hazardous fuels reduction. One is to provide a 

stable and predictable supply of wood from national forest lands. Especially in 

places where federal lands supply a significant portion of the timber, the ability to 

retain existing infrastructure and to invest in new infrastructure and technologies 

that keep mills competitive depends on having a reliable supply of wood from 

Figure 5—Forest community in the Sierra Nevada foothills. 

Susan Charnley
640

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

national forests (Keegan et al. 2006). Another strategy is to offer financial assistance to mills struggling to stay operational to help them invest in measures that 

improve their efficiency and competitiveness. The Forest Service used American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds to do this during the economic recession of 

2007–2009, with positive results (Charnley et al. 2012). A third strategy is to plan 

timber sales that are scaled in size to the capacity of local community operators, 

so that they can bid on them. The inability of small, local logging businesses to bid 

on big Forest Service timber sales when clearcutting was a common practice was 

one source of controversy in Quincy that brought loggers to the table to search for 

alternative forest management approaches (Colburn 2002). Finally, postfire rehabilitation and restoration activities, particularly salvage logging, can help reduce 

economic losses to the wood products industry following a wildfire. Planning for 

salvage operations in advance of a fire, using science to inform salvage operations 

to minimize environmental risk, investing revenue generated from salvage sales in 

postfire restoration and fire risk-reduction activities, and good communication can 

help salvage logging move forward so that its economic benefits are realized. These 

strategies are summarized in “Management Implications” below.

Management Implications: Maintaining California’s Wood 

Products Industry

• Provide a stable and predictable supply of wood from national forest lands.

• Offer financial or other forms of assistance to mills struggling to stay 

operational to help them invest in measures that improve their efficiency 

and competitiveness, and to maintain what remains of local wood processing infrastructure.

• Plan timber sales that are scaled in size to the capacity of local community 

operators so that they can bid on them.

• When salvage logging is part of postfire recovery plans, take steps to 

make it more socially acceptable, such as planning for salvage operations 

in advance of a fire in the context of broader landscape-scale restoration; 

using science to inform salvage operations to minimize environmental risk; 

investing revenue generated from salvage sales in postfire restoration and 

fire risk reduction activities; and good communication.
641

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

6 Woody Biomass Utilization, http://www.fs.fed.us/woodybiomass/.

Biomass Utilization

The Forest Service defines woody biomass as trees and woody plants—including 

limbs, tops, needles, leaves, and other woody parts—that grow in forests, woodlands, or rangelands and are the byproducts of forest management.6

 Woody biomass 

typically has lower monetary value than timber and cannot be sold in traditional 

wood products markets. Nevertheless, it can potentially be converted into bioenergy 

(such as electricity, heat, gas, and biofuels) and be utilized for other bio-based 

products, such as solid wood products, composites, and paper and pulp. The development of biomass utilization opportunities has received much attention over the 

past decade because (1) biomass holds promise as a domestic source of renewable 

energy; (2) biomass utilization can partially help offset the cost of needed hazardous 

fuels reduction treatments on public lands; (3) it can contribute to economic development opportunities in forest communities (Aguilar and Garrett 2009, Morgan 

et al. 2011, Nechodom et al. 2008); and (4) biomass utilization reduces the onsite 

burning of piled material produced by ongoing fuels treatments on public lands, 

which emits greenhouse gases and reduces air quality (Daugherty and Fried 2007, 

Springsteen et al. 2011).

Noting that treatment costs are a major constraint on the pace and scale of Forest Service fuels treatments in Sierra Nevada national forests (which are well below 

what is needed to mimic fuels reduction under historical fire regimes), North (2012) 

identified biomass utilization as one way of improving the economics of fuels treatments. Nielsen-Pincus et al. (2013) found that national forest ranger districts that are 

close to sawmills and biomass facilities treated more overall hectares for hazardous 

fuels reduction, and more hectares in the wildland-urban interface (WUI), than 

those farther away, and that there was a threshold distance for this effect. Given its 

potential, why has biomass utilization infrastructure not developed more widely in 

association with federal land management in California and elsewhere in the West, 

and what can be done to support its development? These questions are the focus of 

this section. Figure 6 shows the location of biomass power plants in California as of 

2011.

Economic Issues

A nationwide survey of Forest Service district rangers and biomass coordinators 

(Sundstrom et al. 2012) found that respondents in Region 5 (the Pacific Southwest 

Region) perceived the greatest barriers to biomass use to be economics and Forest Service capacity (e.g., declining agency budgets and staffing levels, lack of a 
642

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Figure 6—Biomass power plants in California, 2011. Source: Mayhead and Tittmann 2012. Copyright 2012 Regents of the 

University of California.

Redding

Sacramento

San Francisco

Fresno

Bakersfield

Los Angeles

San Diego

Cogeneration

Facility where waste heat is utilized in another industrial 

process (for example, in kilns drying lumber)

Not cogeneration

Biomass power plants

Cogeneration

Biomass solid fuel

Traditional biomass power plants

Co-fire or conversion from fossil fuels

Fossil fuel-fired facilities that are converting to include

biomass as partial or total replacement fuel

Gasification

An alternative thermal process in which biomass is 

converted to a gas used to fuel an internal combustion 

engine, generating electricity

Plant type

Active project (in transition)

New construction, conversion, 

or restart under way

Idled

Temporary stoppage (months or 

longer) where restarting would 

be a relatively simple process

Nonoperational

Facility has not operated for 

years and may require significant 

capital to restart

Operational

New construction, conversion, 

or restart under way

Pilot project

Small-scale demonstration

Proposed project

In planning

Status

Counties

Utility lines

Landcover type

Forest

Shrub

Grassland

Agriculture

Eureka
643

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

guaranteed supply from federal lands, lack of staff expertise). Economic issues 

associated with developing viable biomass utilization opportunities include the supply of material, lack of industry infrastructure, harvest and transport costs, access 

to markets, and market trends.

For a business to be successful and attract investors, it must have an adequate 

and predictable supply of biomass, which is a concern in places where federal 

land is the main potential source of supply and inconsistent harvests have been a 

problem in the past (Becker et al. 2011, Hjerpe et al. 2009). The supply problem 

could be addressed by diversifying the source of raw material, and through the 

use of stewardship contracts, which can be awarded for up to 10 years and provide 

a supply guarantee (Becker et al. 2011, Hjerpe et al. 2009, Nicholls et al. 2008). 

Factors contributing to inconsistent supply are lengthy National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) processes and the threat of appeals and litigation, which slow 

down removal (Becker et al. 2011, Morgan et al. 2011); the ability to gain access to 

material (Becker and Viers 2007); requirements to conduct biomass inventories at 

the same level of detail as a traditional timber cruise, which is cost prohibitive; and 

lack of institutional support for biomass utilization for whatever reason (Morgan 

et al. 2011). Identifying and addressing institutional barriers, and disincentives to 

biomass utilization among employees, could help.

The presence of wood products industry infrastructure has been found to 

enhance the development or expansion of biomass utilization, which is difficult 

to develop as a stand-alone enterprise (Becker et al. 2011). Companies that use 

biomass often include sawmill residues produced as byproducts from primary wood 

product manufacturing as an inexpensive part of their feedstock, making their 

operations more financially viable. The presence of timber industry infrastructure 

also helps maintain the capacity of the local workforce needed to carry out biomass 

harvesting and utilization (Becker et al. 2011). Furthermore, in places having a local 

market for sawlogs, harvesting timber as a component of hazardous fuels reduction 

treatments can help pay for the cost of biomass removal, making it economically 

feasible to treat larger areas for fire hazard reduction (Barbour et al. 2008, Skog 

et al. 2006). In some contexts, it may be necessary to remove sawlog-sized trees 

in intermediate or mid-canopy layers to reduce crown fire potential to acceptable 

levels (for an example from the synthesis area, see Schmidt et al. 2008). Lack of 

wood products industry infrastructure has been found to be a major barrier to forest 

restoration and associated biomass utilization in many parts of the West, though the 

reasons for this lack are variable (Becker et al. 2009a, Hjerpe et al. 2009). Supporting remaining wood products industry infrastructure in order to prevent its further 

loss can help provide opportunities for biomass removal and utilization.

Harvesting timber 

as a component of 

hazardous fuels 

reduction treatments 

can help pay for 

the cost of biomass 

removal, making it 

economically feasible 

to treat larger areas for 

fire hazard reduction.
644

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

A number of authors have found that the cost of harvesting biomass, combined with the cost of transportation from the forest to the utilization facility, is 

an important factor limiting biomass use (Aguilar and Garrett 2009, Becker et 

al. 2009a, Pan et al. 2008). Becker et al. (2009a) used a financial model called the 

Harvest Cost-Revenue Estimator to estimate cost-to-revenue thresholds for different 

biomass harvesting scenarios under three different categories of policy options and 

applied it to Southwestern ponderosa pine forests. The categories included policies 

to offset the cost of harvesting biomass, policies to reduce transportation costs 

through incentives or subsidies, and policies to stimulate favorable manufacturing and consumer markets for biomass and its products. They found that the cost 

of transporting biomass from the harvest site to the market outlet was the single 

greatest cost associated with biomass utilization, and that decreasing the proximity 

of markets to harvest sites was the only strategy that offset this cost in a meaningful 

way. Thus, locating processing facilities near harvest areas to reduce transportation 

distances and associated costs is an important strategy. The nature of the processing infrastructure is also important, however; if the scale and type of processing 

infrastructure do not match the amount and size of hazardous fuels that need to be 

removed, they can be additional barriers to utilization (Becker et al. 2009b).

Economical haul distances differ by place and depend on the species and 

quality of the material (and therefore its value), ease of access to the site where 

harvesting occurs, and the presence of sawmills (Becker et al. 2011). Developing 

new harvest methods that are more cost efficient can also help offset the cost of 

biomass use (Aguilar and Garrett 2009). For example, Skog et al. (2006) found that, 

in the Western United States, treatments would be cost effective primarily on gentle 

slopes, while treatments on steeper slopes requiring cable-yarding systems would 

require significant subsidies of either $300 or $600 per acre.

Some ways to address these limitations are to establish a network of decentralized processing facilities of an appropriate size and type closer to the source 

where biomass is removed (Aguilar and Garrett 2009, Nielsen-Pincus et al. 2013); 

to develop utilization options that focus on higher value products; to bundle biomass removal with the removal of larger trees that produce higher value products 

(e.g., lumber) to make removal more economical (Barbour et al. 2008); to develop 

transportation subsidies, which Oregon has done (Becker et al. 2011, Nicholls et al. 

2008)—although these may not be desirable)—and to implement financial incentives (e.g., cost shares and grant programs for facility development and equipment 

purchases, and tax incentives for facility development and harvesting and transporting biomass) (Sundstrom et al. 2012). Because biomass produced as a byproduct 

of forest restoration tends to be of low value, strategies associated with national 

forest management are likely to focus on siting smaller processing facilities closer 
645

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

to public lands (Becker et al. 2011). Small and mid-sized facilities that focus on 

electricity generation, firewood, animal bedding, commercial heating, or combined 

heat and power systems may be more feasible than large processing facilities. 

This is because they tend to be less controversial and require a smaller supply of 

biomass to operate (making it easier to obtain in a reliable manner) (Becker et al. 

2011). However, significant economies of scale favor construction of larger plants 

(or retrofitting of existing plants) to utilize diverse feed stocks (Nicholls et al. 2008). 

Daugherty and Fried (2007) found that in northern California and southern Oregon, 

unless small-capacity (< 15 megawatts [MW]) facilities are at least 90 percent as 

efficient as large facilities, they do not represent an economically viable alternative, 

because their lower efficiency offsets the reduced costs they may incur by gathering 

biomass from a smaller supply area (with a shorter average haul distance). 

Biomass market conditions can change dramatically within the timeframes 

required for developing and implementing projects on national forests that include 

biomass removal (Morgan et al. 2011). Federal land managers involved with biomass 

removal from hazardous fuels reduction treatments suggested that placing individuals who are aware of biomass market conditions on NEPA interdisciplinary teams 

would help them plan economical projects (Morgan et al. 2011). Demand for bioenergy is contingent on energy markets, although plants with long-term power purchase 

agreements are sheltered from market volatility during the period of their agreement, 

assuming the agreement price is not tied to a floating market reference point. 

Many existing biomass power plants have 30-year contracts with California’s 

large investor-owned utilities (IOUs), but these often pay low prices for the energy 

produced (though contracts vary), meaning some plants can no longer afford to run, 

and new contracts are not being developed (Mayhead and Tittmann 2012). Consequently, it has not been financially feasible to increase biomass capacity in California, with the possible exception of refurbishing and restarting nonoperational 

facilities or developing co-fire/conversion projects. Increasing the price paid for 

electricity generated from biomass is one way of overcoming these constraints and 

creating an incentive to expand biomass utilization capacity in California, whether 

through small-scale or larger scale facilities (Mayhead and Tittmann 2012).

Nevertheless, California currently has more biomass power plants than any 

other state (Mayhead and Tittmann 2012), and its capacity to utilize biomass 

has been growing (Morgan et al. 2004). Power derived from biomass currently 

contributes only about 2 percent of the state’s electricity, however (Mayhead and 

Tittmann 2012). Under the 2011 California Renewable Energy Resources Act (SB 

X 1-2), electrical utilities are required to obtain 33 percent of the electricity they 

sell to retail customers in California from renewable sources by 2020. Biomass is 

one eligible renewable energy source. However, the largest electrical utilities in 
646

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

California currently favor wind and solar sources of electricity, despite the fact 

that these sources do not provide a consistent baseload of power (unlike biomass) 

(Mayhead and Tittmann 2012). 

California’s Senate Bill 1122, passed in September 2012, aims to address this 

problem by stimulating California’s market for bioenergy from a distributed network of small renewable biomass projects.7

 As of February 2014, California’s Public 

Utilities Commission is working to finalize rules directing the state’s IOUs to collectively procure at least 250 MW of generating capacity from bioenergy projects. 

Of this 250 MW, 50 MW is to come from biomass produced through sustainable 

forest management in high-fire-risk areas within the range of the IOUs. Eligible 

biomass facilities will be required to have an effective capacity of no more than 

3 MW, and to be interconnected with the electricity grid. Final dates for program 

launch have shifted from the June 2013 date defined in the original bill, though final 

rules were expected to be adopted in spring 2014. This bill may alleviate some of 

the market barriers to developing biomass utilization in California.

Social Issues

One study focusing on the social acceptability of biomass utilization comes 

from Oregon, though the findings may be applicable to California (Stidham and 

Simon-Brown 2011). Based on interviews with people representing nine different 

stakeholder groups, the authors found a wide level of support for wood to energy 

projects, and that the main factor behind this support was a recognized need for forest restoration to improve forest conditions, which were viewed by many as being 

overstocked. However, the social acceptability of fuels treatments and associated 

biomass utilization opportunities varied by forest type. Stakeholders were much 

more supportive of active management of lower elevation ponderosa pine forests 

than of upper elevation mixed-conifer forests, where the scientific evidence for an 

ecological need to reduce fuels was sparse. One finding is that science-based planning is an important mechanism for improving the social acceptability of biomass 

utilization projects. Scientific research studies can demonstrate that forests have 

departed from their natural range of variability, and that restoration treatments are 

needed to bring them back into that range (Stidham and Simon-Brown 2011).

Even where scientific evidence attests to the need for forest restoration and 

stakeholders agree on this need, there can be social disagreement on the treatment 

types and specifications used to accomplish it. Restoration can mean different things 

to different people, with the removal of big trees and the intent to make economic 

Science-based 

planning is an 

important mechanism 

for improving the 

social acceptability 

of biomass utilization 

projects.

7 California Senate Bill No. 1122, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm

l;jsessionid=cd36e5138d18004eeb1fc4f367a0?bill_id=201120120SB1122.
647

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

use of restoration byproducts controversial (Hjerpe et al. 2009). Lack of trust in 

agencies by some stakeholders can be another social barrier to developing biomass 

utilization opportunities (Stidham and Simon-Brown 2011). The concern is that 

agencies will overharvest in the name of restoration. Yet limiting the size and number of trees to be removed through restoration can reduce its effectiveness and make 

removal of small-diameter material and biomass even less economical. Developing 

fuels reduction and restoration activities, and biomass utilization projects and infrastructure, through collaborative processes that include stakeholders in planning, 

decisionmaking, and partnerships to promote biomass use is one suggested approach 

for overcoming this social disagreement and lack of trust (Becker et al. 2011, Hjerpe 

et al. 2009, Stidham and Simon-Brown 2011, Sundstrom et al. 2012). Another suggested approach is to develop pilot demonstration projects in the places and forest 

types where activities would be located (Stidham and Simon-Brown 2011).

Tradeoffs

Although biomass utilization holds promise for contributing to the resilience of 

forest ecosystems and communities in the Sierra Nevada, it is important to note that 

it may involve tradeoffs. From an environmental standpoint, biomass utilization 

Figure 7—Biomass power plant in Burney, California.

Susan Charnley
648

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

may encourage harvesting by whole-tree removal, which removes nutrients from 

the forest and poses a threat of nutrient depletion to coarse-textured, low-nutrient 

soils in particular (Raulund-Rasmussen et al. 2008).The California Forest Practice 

Rules may help to mitigate this risk (Evans et al. 2010). Some scientists predict that 

increasing harvests for the purpose of bioenergy in the Sierra Nevada may increase 

carbon emissions compared to “business as usual,” despite the potential for reducing wildfire risk (Hudiburg et al. 2011). Other scientists question this prediction, as 

it depends on the parameters of the life cycle assessment being used (SAB 2012). 

Biomass removal may also threaten the long-term sustainability of forests if smalldiameter trees are overharvested in response to high demand (Aguilar and Garrett 

2009). From a social standpoint, communities may be concerned about traffic 

congestion and emissions associated with biomass facilities (Searcy et al. 2007).

Tools

A number of tools have been developed to help national forest managers assess the 

financial and economic dimensions of biomass removal during fuels treatments. 

They are summarized in Morgan et al. (2011) and described in Loeffler et al. (2010), 

with links for gaining access to them, a summary of data requirements, and key 

contacts provided. Tools that may be most relevant to forest managers in the Sierra 

Nevada are the Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis program’s BioSum 

model (Barbour et al. 2008, Daugherty and Fried 2007, Fried and Christensen 

2004), which assesses how fuels reduction treatments and the siting of biomassbased energy facilities can be optimized to reduce fire hazard at the landscape 

scale;8 the Forest Residue Trucking Simulator, which compares the relative costs 

associated with alternative methods of transporting biomass from the forest to a 

utilization facility;9 the Fuel Reduction Cost Simulator, which estimates the cost of 

fuels reduction projects that entail tree removal for wood products or chips;10 and 

the Southern Research Station’s Moisture Content Converter, which helps managers 

estimate the dry mass of biomass that will be sold and processed from a treatment.11

The management implications of research findings about how to increase 

biomass utilization from national forests discussed here are summarized below.

8 BioSum 3.0, http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fia/biosum/.

9 Forest Residues Transportation Costing Model, http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/forestops/

downloads/FoRTSv5.xls.

10 Fuel Reduction Cost Simulator, http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/data/frcs/frcs.shtml.

11 Moisture Content Converter, http://www.frames.gov/rcs/7000/7670.html.
649

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Management Implications: Opportunities to Increase 

Biomass Utilization From National Forests

• Identify and address internal (Forest Service) institutional barriers to 

producing a predictable supply of biomass from national forests.

• Support establishment of appropriately scaled and typed biomass utilization 

facilities close to harvest areas on national forests to reduce transportation 

distances and associated costs. 

• Develop biomass utilization options that focus on higher value products. 

• Include merchantable trees in biomass removal projects where appropriate 

for fire hazard reduction and to make removal more economical.

• Place individuals who are aware of biomass market conditions on NEPA 

interdisciplinary teams to help plan biomass removal projects that are 

aligned with market opportunities.

• Support science-based planning and engage in collaborative processes 

when developing projects and infrastructure to promote biomass use to 

improve their social acceptability.

• Develop pilot demonstration projects for biomass utilization in the 

places and forest types where they would be located to increase social 

acceptability.

• Take advantage of existing tools to help assess and design financially 

feasible projects.

• Work to improve markets for biomass. 

• Help maintain existing timber industry infrastructure to make biomass 

utilization more feasible.

Nontimber Forest Products

Nontimber forest products (NTFPs) include a wide range of forest plant species 

and their parts—excluding industrial lumber—that people harvest (Jones and 

Lynch 2007). Examples include foods, medicinal plants and fungi, floral greens 

and horticultural stocks, fiber and dye plants, lichens, and oils, resins, and other 

chemical extracts from plants, lichens, and fungi (McLain and Jones 2002), as well 

as poles, posts, Christmas trees, and firewood (Jones and Lynch 2007). There is 

a rich literature documenting historical and more recent Native American uses of 

NTFPs in California, including the Sierra Nevada (e.g., Anderson 2005, Weigand 

2002); there is much less literature available regarding present-day uses by other 

groups. Reduced timber harvesting on national forests in the early 1990s, and 

associated job loss in forest communities in the Sierra Nevada and elsewhere in 

northern California, spurred interest in exploring the potential for commercial 
650

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

NTFP harvesting—especially of medicinal plants—as an alternative source of 

employment (Weigand 2002). Most research on commercial NTFP harvesting 

has been carried out in the Pacific Northwest, however. There is a research gap 

regarding the role of commercial NTFP harvesting in California, and how it 

contributes to rural economies in forest communities. For most commercial 

harvesters, NTFPs provide a supplemental, but important, source of income 

(Jones and Lynch 2008).

Nontimber forest products harvested from Forest Service lands in the Sierra 

Nevada include wild food plants (e.g., mushrooms, fruits, ferns), medicinal plants, 

floral greens, seeds and cones, posts, poles, firewood, transplants, and Christmas 

trees (Richards 1996). Although NTFPs are not as abundant in the Sierra Nevada 

as they are in moister bioregions of California (such as the northern coastal areas), 

they are nevertheless relatively abundant compared with other bioregions in the 

state (Christensen et al. 2008). Most people harvest NTFPs for personal and 

subsistence uses, but commercial harvesting is also important. Nationwide, the 

annual retail value of commercial NTFP harvests from forest lands is estimated at 

$1.4 billion, with about 20 percent of the supply coming from Forest Service lands 

(Alexander et al. 2011). Not only do NTFPs have cultural importance and offer 

economic diversification opportunities in rural communities, but harvesters can 

also contribute to the sustainable management of NTFPs on national forest lands 

(Jones and Lynch 2008). They can do this, for example, by sharing the ecological 

knowledge and management practices they have developed through their harvest 

activities, and participating in NTFP research and monitoring efforts (Ballard and 

Belsky 2010, Charnley et al. 2008b, Jones and Lynch 2008).

A number of authors have examined how national forest management can 

support economic diversification opportunities in forest communities through 

NTFP harvesting (e.g., Charnley et al. 2007, 2008b; Jones and Lynch 2008; Jones 

et al. 2002). Although their findings are based on research carried out in the Pacific 

Northwest, these findings are likely to be relevant to the management of NTFPs 

in the Sierra Nevada also. They are summarized in “Management Implications” 

below. Despite these opportunities, it is important to be aware that commercial 

NTFP harvesting on national forest lands carries with it safety risks. Moreover, 

forest workers who harvest NTFPs on hired crews are vulnerable to exploitation, 

especially if they are undocumented workers (Sarathy 2012). The Northwest Forest 

Worker Center, whose mission is to promote forest stewardship that is respectful of 

all workers, harvesters, and the land, is a support organization for harvesters and a 

Not only do nontimber forest products 

(NTFPs) have cultural 

importance and offer 

economic diversification opportunities in 

rural communities, 

but harvesters can 

also contribute to the 

sustainable management of NTFPs on 

national forest lands.
651

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

resource for national forest managers—especially in northern California—who 

are engaged with these issues.12

Management Implications: Nontimber Forest Product Harvesting

• Engage in active management of commercially valuable NTFPs to sustain 

or increase their diversity, productivity, and availability by integrating them 

into forest management activities.

• Avoid the destruction of important gathering sites when planning timber 

sales and managing for fire.

• Integrate commercial harvesters, buyers, and processers into forest 

management activities associated with NTFPs so that they can share 

their ecological knowledge and insights about these species, and 

information about harvesting activities, with land managers.

• Enlist harvesters in inventorying NTFPs and in monitoring the impacts 

of forest management activities (e.g., timber harvest, grazing, fire 

management) and harvesting on NTFP species populations to support 

their management.

• Adjust access fees and permit prices so that they do not undermine the 

financial feasibility of commercial harvesting.

• Ensure reliable access to NTFPs, perhaps through forms of access such as 

zoning, stewardship contracts, or leases so that harvesters can engage in 

the stewardship of harvest areas for an extended period of time.

• Include harvesters in forest planning and decisionmaking processes.

Grazing

Researchers studying grazing in California and elsewhere in the West have pointed 

out the important role of grazing on public lands for maintaining viable ranching 

operations (Gentner and Tanaka 2002, Huntsinger et al. 2010, Sulak and Huntsinger 2007). As of 2005, roughly 71,000 cattle used Forest Service rangelands in 

California under approximately 400 permits (Huntsinger et al. 2010). Some of the 

ecological considerations associated with grazing management on Sierra Nevada 

national forests, including potential benefits as an environmental management 

tool in California (e.g., Huntsinger et al. 2012), are addressed in chapter 6.4, “Wet 

Meadows.” Here, the focus is on the social dimensions of public lands grazing. 

California ranchers often maintain livestock herds that are larger than their 

private lands can support because of the number of cattle needed to have a finan12 Northwest Forest Worker Center, http://www.nwforestworkers.org. 
652

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

cially viable ranching enterprise (Sulak and Huntsinger 2007). This means they 

must lease public or other private lands for part of the year. Ranchers living in the 

western foothills of the central Sierra Nevada typically graze their animals in the 

foothills in winter, and in montane meadows on Forest Service lands in summer. 

Because summer range is relatively scarce and of high quality on national forest 

lands, its economic importance is high (Huntsinger et al. 2010). Research among 

grazing permittees using the Tahoe, Stanislaus, and Eldorado National Forests 

found that on average, these ranchers used about 2.6 leases per year per operation, and that the public lands lease contributed an average of 41 percent of the 

income they earned from ranching (Sulak and Huntsinger 2007). The importance 

of public land leases on these forests led one-third of the permittees interviewed 

to state that if they lost their leases, they would probably sell all or part of their 

private ranch. Private rangelands in California are rapidly being converted to more 

intensive land uses given high development pressure, and the rate of rangeland 

conversion to development is increasing annually (Brunson and Huntsinger 2008, 

Sulak and Huntsinger 2007). This trend is leading to a shortage of leases on private 

lands. Thus, the stability of public lands grazing is critical for maintaining ranching operations in the Sierra Nevada and elsewhere in California given the overall 

dependence of ranchers on leased rangelands. Public land grazing enables ranchers 

to maintain ranching as a component of their livelihood strategies and their culture. 

It also contributes to the conservation of private rangelands and their associated 

ecological values by helping prevent the sale of private ranches by ranchers whose 

operations would fold without public leases (Brunson and Huntsinger 2008, Sulak 

and Huntsinger 2007).

Public lands play a critical role in providing a stable forage supply for livestock. 

However, there have been downward trends in authorized grazing and in the number of animal unit months grazed on Forest Service lands in the West over the past 

several decades (Huntsinger et al. 2010). Recent declines are attributed largely to 

drought. In addition, fire suppression has caused a buildup of woody vegetation on 

Forest Service lands, reducing forage productivity. Permittees feel uncertain about 

what the future productivity of their allotments will be because they have little 

control over how national forests are managed, and they perceive increasing restrictions and more costly and complicated management requirements. Maintaining 

stable leases and a stable forage supply through management actions, communicating with ranchers about grazing-related issues and problems, and involving permittees in management decisions by integrating their knowledge and recommendations 

can help sustain ranching in the Sierra Nevada, and the broader socioeconomic and 
653

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

conservation benefits that ranching brings to the area (Huntsinger et al. 2010, Sulak 

and Huntsinger 2007).

Management Implications: Grazing on National Forests

• Maintain stable leases and a stable forage supply for livestock on Forest 

Service allotments through management actions.

• Communicate with grazing permittees about grazing-related issues and 

problems, and involve them in management decisions by considering their 

knowledge and recommendations.

Conclusions

This chapter has sought to provide a social and economic context for understanding 

timber harvesting, biomass utilization, NTFP harvesting, and grazing in the Sierra 

Nevada science synthesis area, as well as associated management issues. The sustainable management of timber, biomass, NTFPs, and forage from national forests 

in the Sierra Nevada can benefit nearby forest communities where these activities 

are important by contributing to both economic and social sustainability, consistent 

with the direction of the 2012 Forest Service Planning Rule. The chapter points 

out a number of strategies forest managers might take—grounded in the published 

social science literature—to support continued production of forest products from 

national forests in the Sierra Nevada in a manner that may benefit local communities. Doing so represents an investment in long-term, sustainable job creation and 

more diversified local economies (Charnley et al. 2012). It may also help the Forest 

Service meet its mission-related goals. For example, national forest timber sale 

programs support local processing infrastructure and maintain markets for sawlogs 

and small-diameter wood, helping the agency accomplish hazardous fuels reduction. They also produce timber sale receipts that can defray the costs of restoration 

projects. Plieninger et al. (2012) found that private landowners in California who 

maintain working forests and rangelands and engage in commercial timber and 

livestock production are much more active than purely residential owners in carrying out management practices related to biodiversity enhancement, soil and water 

protection, and improving “provisioning” ecosystem services associated with 

timber and livestock production. Yet these authors also found that the number of 

owners of working forests and rangelands in California is declining. To the extent 

that managing federal lands for productive uses helps maintain working forests 

and rangelands on private lands, managing forest products on national forests 

for community benefit may have environmental benefits for forest and rangeland 

ecosystems across ownerships.
654

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Literature Cited

Aguilar, F.; Garrett, H.E. 2009. Perspectives of woody biomass for energy: 

survey of state foresters, state energy biomass contacts, and national council 

of forestry association executives. Journal of Forestry. 107(6): 297–306.

Alexander, S.J.; Oswalt, S.N.; Emery, M.R. 2011. Nontimber forest products 

in the United States: Montreal process indicators as measures of current 

conditions and sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-851. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 37 p.

Anderson, M.K. 2005. Tending the wild: Native American knowledge and 

management of California’s natural resources. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press. 526 p.

Ballard, H.L.; Belsky, J.M. 2010. Participatory action research and environmental 

learning: implications for resilient forests and communities. Environmental 

Education Research. 16(5–6): 611–627.

Barbour, J.R.; Fried, J.S.; Daugherty, P.J.; Christensen, G.; Fight, R. 2008. 

Potential biomass and logs from fire hazard reduction treatments in Southwest 

Oregon and Northern California. Forest Policy and Economics. 10(6): 400–407.

Becker, D.R.; Viers, J. 2007. Matching the utilization of forest fuel reduction byproducts to community development opportunities. In: Daniels, T.; Carroll, M.; 

Moseley, C.; Reich, C., eds. People, fire, and forests: a synthesis of wildfire social 

science. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 157–170.

Becker, D.R.; Larson, D.; Lowell, E.C. 2009a. Financial considerations of policy 

options to enhance biomass utilization for reducing wildfire hazards. Forest 

Policy and Economics. 11(8): 628–635.

Becker, D.R.; McCaffrey, S.M.; Abbas, D.; Halvorsen, K.E.; Jakes, P.; Moseley, 

C. 2011. Conventional wisdoms of woody biomass utilization on federal public 

lands. Journal of Forestry. 109(4): 208–218.

Becker, D.R.; Nechodom, M.; Barnett, A.; Mason, T.; Lowell, E.C.; Shelly, 

J.; Graham, D. 2009b. Assessing the role of federal community assistance 

programs to develop biomass utilization capacity in the western United States. 

Forest Policy and Economics. 11: 141–148.

Bernard, T. 2010. Hope and hard times: communities, collaboration, and 

sustainability. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. 324 p.
655

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Brunson, M.W.; Huntsinger, L. 2008. Ranching as a conservation strategy: 

Can old ranchers save the new West? Rangeland Ecology and Management. 

61(2): 137–147.

Bryan, T.A.; Wondolleck, J.M. 2003. When irresolvable becomes resolvable: 

The Quincy Library Group conflict. In: Lewicki, R.J.; Gray, B.; Elliott, M., eds. 

Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts. Washington, DC: Island 

Press: 63–89. Chapter 3.

Carroll, M.S. 1995. Community and the northwestern logger: continuities and 

change in the era of the spotted owl. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 192 p.

Charnley, S.; Donoghue, E.M.; Moseley, C. 2008a. Forest management policy 

and community well-being in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry. 106(8): 

440–447.

Charnley, S.; Fischer, A.P.; Jones, E.T. 2007. Integrating traditional and local 

ecological knowledge into forest biodiversity conservation in the Pacific 

Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management. 246(1): 14–28.

Charnley, S.; Fischer, A.P.; Jones, E.T. 2008b. Traditional and local ecological 

knowledge about forest biodiversity in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-751. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 52 p.

Charnley, S.; Jakes, P.; Schelhas, J., tech. coords. 2012. Socioeconomic 

assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

Projects: key findings and lessons learned. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-832. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 44 p.

Charnley, S.; Sheridan, T.E.; Nabhan, G.P. 2014. Stitching the West back 

together: conserving working landscapes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago 

Press. 352 p.

Christensen, G.A.; Campbell, S.J.; Fried, J.S., tech.eds. 2008. California’s forest 

resources, 2001–2005: five-year Forest Inventory and Analysis report. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-763. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 183 p.

Colburn, C.H. 2002. Forest policy and the Quincy Library Group. In: Brunner, 

R.D.; Colburn, C.H.; Cromley, C.M.; Klein, R.A.; Olson, E.A., eds. Finding 

common ground: governance and natural resources in the American West. New 

Haven, CT: Yale University Press: 159–200. Chapter 5.
656

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Daugherty, P.J.; Fried, J.S. 2007. Jointly optimizing selection of fuel treatments 

and siting of forest biomass-based energy production facilities for landscapescale fire hazard reduction. INFOR. 45(1): 17–30.

Doak, S.C.; Kusel, J. 1996. Well-being in forest-dependent communities, part II: 

a social assessment focus. In: SNEP Science Team and Special Consultants, eds. 

Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress. Vol. II: Assessments 

and scientific basis for management options. Report No. 37. Davis, CA: Centers 

for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California–Davis: 375–402. 

Chapter 13.

Donoghue, E.M.; Sturtevant, V.E. 2008. Taking stock of community and forest 

connections. In: Donoghue, E.M.; Sturtevant, V.E., eds. Forest community 

connections: implications for research, management, and governance. 

Washington, DC: Resources for the Future: 263–274. Chapter 14.

Duane, T.P. 1999. Shaping the Sierra: nature, culture, and conflict in the changing 

West. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 627 p.

Erman, D.C.; SNEP Science Team, eds. 1996. Status of the Sierra Nevada, 

Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress. Vol. I: Assessment 

summaries and management strategies. Report No. 36. Davis, CA: Centers for 

Water and Wildland Resources, University of California. 209 p.

Evans, A.M.; Perschel, R.T.; Kittler, B.A. 2010. Revised assessment of biomass 

harvesting and retention guidelines. Santa Fe, NM: Forest Guild. 33 p.

Fried, J.; Christensen, G. 2004. FIA BioSum: a tool to evaluate financial costs, 

opportunities, and effectiveness of fuel treatments. Western Forester (September/

October): 12–13.

Gentner, B.J.; Tanaka, J.A. 2002. Classifying federal public land grazing 

permittees. Journal of Range Management. 55(1): 2–11.

Helvoigt, T.L.; Adams, D.M.; Ayre, A.L. 2003. Employment transitions 

in Oregon’s wood products sector during the 1990s. Journal of Forestry. 

101(4): 42–46.

Hjerpe, E.; Abrams, J.; Becker, D.R. 2009. Socioeconomic barriers and the role 

of biomass utilization in southwestern ponderosa pine restoration. Ecological 

Restoration. 27(2): 169–177.

Hudiburg, T.W.; Law, B.E.; Wirth, C.; Luyssaert, S. 2011. Regional carbon 

dioxide implications of forest bioenergy production. Nature Climate Change. 

1: 419–423.
657

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Huntsinger, L.; Forero, L.C.; Sulak, A. 2010. Transhumance and pastoralist 

resilience in the western United States. Pastoralism. 1(1): 9–36.

Huntsinger, L.; Sayre, N.F.; Wulfhorst, J.D. 2012. Birds, beasts, and bovines: 

three cases of pastoralism and wildlife in the United States. Pastoralism: 

Research, Policy and Practice. 2: 12.

Jones, E.T.; Lynch, K.A. 2007. Nontimber forest products and biodiversity 

management in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management. 246: 

29–37.

Jones, E.T.; Lynch, K.A. 2008. Integrating commercial nontimber forest product 

harvesters into forest management. In: Donoghue, E.M.; Sturtevant, V.E., eds. 

Forest community connections: implications for research, management, and 

governance Washington, DC: Resources for the Future: 143–161.

Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J. 2002. Nontimber forest products of the 

United States. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press. 445 p.

Keegan, C.E., III; Morgan, T.A.; Gebert, K.M.; Brandt, J.P.; Blatner, K.A.; 

Spoelma, T.P. 2006. Timber-processing capacity and capabilities in the Western 

United States. Journal of Forestry. 104(5): 262–268.

Kusel, J.; Kocher, S.; London, J.; Buttolph, L.; Schuster, E. 2000. Effects of 

displacement and outsourcing on woods workers and their families. Society and 

Natural Resources. 13(2): 115–134.

Leeper, J. 1990. Humboldt County: its role in the emerald triangle. California 

Geographer. XXX: 93–109.

Loeffler, D.; Brandt, J.; Morgan, T.; Jones, G. 2010. Forestry-based biomass 

economic and financial information and tools: an annotated bibliography. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-244WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 52 p.

Marston, E. 2001. The Quincy Library Group: A divisive attempt at peace. 

In: Brick, P.; Snow, D; Ven de Wetering, S., eds. Across the great divide: 

Explorations in collaborative conservation and the American West. Washington, 

DC: Island Press: 79–90.

Mayhead, G.; Tittman, P. 2012. Uncertain future for California’s biomass power 

plants. California Agriculture. 66(1): 6–7.
658

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

McCaffrey, S. 2008. A homeowner view of thinning methods for fire hazard 

reduction: more positive than many think. In: Narog, M.G., ed. Proceedings of 

the 2002 fire conference: managing fire and fuels in the remaining wildlands and 

open spaces of the Southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-189. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station: 15–22.

McCool, S.F.; Burchfield, J.A.; Williams, D.R.; Carroll, M.S. 2006. An 

event-based approach for examining the effects of wildland fire decisions on 

communities. Environmental Management. 37(4): 437–450.

McLain, R.J.; Jones, E.T. 2002. Introduction. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; 

Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: 

University of Kansas Press: xvii–xxv.

Morgan, T.A.; Brandt, J.P.; Baldridge, J.D.; Loeffler, D.R. 2011. Use of financial 

and economic analyses by federal forest managers for woody biomass removal. 

Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 26(1): 5–12.

Morgan, T.A.; Brandt, J.P.; Songster, K.E.; Keegan, C.E., III.; Christensen, 

G.A. 2012. California’s forest products industry and timber harvest, 2006. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-866. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 48 p.

Morgan, T.A.; Keegan, C.E., III; Dillon, T.; Chase, A.L.; Fried, J.S.; Weber, 

M.N. 2004. California’s forest products industry: a descriptive analysis. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-615. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 55 p.

Nechodom, M.; Becker, D.R.; Haynes, R. 2008. Evolving interdependencies 

of community and forest health. In: Donoghue, E.M.; Sturtevant, V.E., eds. 

Forest community connections: implications for research, management, and 

governance. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future: 91–108.

Nicholls, D.L.; Monserud, R.A.; Dykstra, D.P. 2008. A synthesis of biomass 

utilization for bioenergy production in the western United States. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-753. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 48 p.

Nielsen-Pincus, M.; Charnley, S.; Moseley, C. 2013. The influence of market 

proximity on National Forest hazardous fuels treatments. Forest Science. 

59(5): 566–577. 
659

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

North, M. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. 184 p.

Pan, F.; Han, H.S.; Johnson, L.R.; Elliot, W.J. 2008. Production and cost of 

harvesting, processing, and transporting small-diameter (≤ 5 inches) trees for 

energy. Forest Products Journal. 58(5): 47–53.

Plieninger, T.; Ferranto, S.; Huntsinger, L.; Kelly, M.; Getz, C. 2012.

Appreciation, use, and management of biodiversity and ecosystem services in 

California’s working landscapes. Environmental Management. 50: 427–440.

Prestemon, J.P.; Holmes, T.P. 2004. Market dynamics and optimal timber salvage 

after a natural catastrophe. Forest Science. 50(4): 495–511.

Prestemon, J.P.; Wear, D.N.; Stewart, F.J.; Holmes, T.P. 2006. Wildfire, timber 

salvage, and the economics of expediency. Forest Policy and Economics. 8(3): 

312–322.

Raulund-Rasmussen, K.; Stupak, I.; Clarke, N.; Callesen, I.; Helmisaari, H.-

S.; Karltun, E.; Varnagiryte-Kabasinskiene, I. 2008. Effects of very intensive 

forest biomass harvesting on short and long term site productivity. In: Röser, D.; 

Asikainen, A.; Raulund-Rasmussen, K.; Stupak, I., eds. Sustainable use of forest 

biomass for energy. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer: 29–78.

Richards, R.T. 1996. Special forest product harvesting in the Sierra Nevada. In: 

Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress. Vol. III: Assessments, 

commissioned reports, and background information. Report No. 38. Davis, CA: 

Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California–Davis: 

787–884. Chapter 20.

Ruderman, F.K. 1984. Production, prices, employment, and trade in Northwest 

forest industries, third quarter 1983. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-110. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 57 p.

Ruderman, F.K. 1985. Production, prices, employment, and trade in Northwest 

forest industries, fourth quarter 1984. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-125. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 49 p.

Ryan, R.L.; Hamin, E. 2008. Wildfires, communities, and agencies: stakeholders’ 

perceptions of postfire forest restoration and rehabilitation. Journal of Forestry. 

106(7): 370–379.
660

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Ryan, R.L.; Hamin, E. 2009. Wildland-urban interface communities’ response to 

post-fire salvage logging. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 24(1): 36–41.

Sarathy, B. 2012. Pineros: Latino labour and the changing face of forestry in the 

Pacific Northwest. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press. 208 p.

Schmidt, D.A.; Taylor, A.H.; Skinner, C.N. 2008. The influence of fuels 

treatment and landscape arrangement on simulated fire behavior, Southern 

Cascade range, California. Forest Ecology and Management. 255(8–9): 

3170–3184.

Science Advisory Board [SAB]. 2012. SAB review of EPA’s accounting 

framework for biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary sources. Washington, 

DC: U.S Environmental Protection Agency. http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/

sabproduct.nsf/57B7A4F1987D7F7385257A87007977F6/$File/EPA-SAB-12-011-

unsigned.pdf. (24 December 2013).

Searcy, E.; Flynn, P.; Ghafoori, E.; Kumar, A. 2007. The relative cost of biomass 

energy transport. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology. 136–140: 639–652.

Skog, K.; Barbour, J.; Abt, K.; Bilek, T.; Burch, F.; Fight, R.; Hugget, B.; 

Miles, P.; Reinhardt, E.; Sheppard, W. 2006. Evaluation of silvicultural 

treatments and biomass use for reducing fire hazard in Western states. Madison, 

WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products 

Laboratory. 29 p. 

Springsteen, B.; Christofk, T.; Eubanks, S.; Mason, T.; Clavin, C.; Storey, 

B. 2011. Emission reductions from woody biomass waste for energy as 

an alternative to open burning. Journal of the Air and Waste Management 

Association 61(1): 63–68.

Stewart, W.C. 1996. Economic assessment of the ecosystem. In: Sierra Nevada 

ecosystem project: final report to Congress. Vol. III: Assessments, commissioned 

reports, and background information. Report No. 38. Davis, CA: Centers for 

Water and Wildland Resources, University of California–Davis: 973–1064. 

Chapter 23.

Stidham, M.; Simon-Brown, V. 2011. Stakeholder perspectives on converting 

forest biomass to energy in Oregon, USA. Biomass and Bioenergy. 

35(1): 203–213.

Sulak, A.; Huntsinger, L. 2007. Public land grazing in California: Untapped 

conservation potential for private lands? Society for Range Management. 

29(3): 9–12.
661

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Sundstrom, S.; Nielsen-Pincus, M.; Moseley, C.; McCaffrey, S. 2012. Woody 

biomass use trends, barriers, and strategies: perspectives of US Forest Service 

managers. Journal of Forestry. 110(1): 16–24.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2007. USDA Forest 

Service strategic plan: FY 2007–2012. FS-880. Washington, DC. 32 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service[USDA FS]. 2010. USDA Forest 

Service strategic plan: FY 2010–2015. Washington, DC. 50 p.

Warren, D. 1986–2011. Production, prices, employment, and trade in northwest 

forest industries. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-129–PNW-RB-260. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Weigand, J. 2002. Case study: California. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, 

J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University 

of Kansas Press: 81–86.
662

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247
663

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Susan Charnley,1 Jonathan W. Long,2 and Frank K. Lake 3

Summary

National forest management efforts have generally moved toward collaborative 

and participatory approaches at a variety of scales. This includes, at a larger scale, 

greater public participation in transparent and inclusive democratic processes 

and, at a smaller scale, more engagement with local communities. Participatory 

approaches are especially important for an all-lands approach to managing forest 

ecosystems across ownership boundaries.

Despite the challenges (reviewed in this chapter), participatory approaches 

to national forest management have the potential to provide a number of benefits, 

including:

• Yielding more information for decisions so that they can better meet 

the ecological and socioeconomic goals of forest management.

• Sharing data, analysis, and other information more broadly within 

and among communities.

• Reconciling the technical language and outlook of the Forest Service 

with the place-specific knowledge and perspective of communities.

• Enhancing the legitimacy and acceptability of decisions among 

stakeholders. 

• Providing opportunities to redress underrepresentation in resource 

management. 

• Incorporating traditional and local ecological knowledge to enhance 

forest restoration and monitoring.

• Creating multi-stakeholder ownership of forest management processes, 

outcomes, and measures of success.

A number of models for collaborative national forest management, management 

across ownerships, and knowledge integration are presented in this chapter, along 

with insights from the literature about how to develop successful collaborative 

efforts that may be useful in forest management and planning.

Chapter 9.6—Collaboration in National 

Forest Management

1 Research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main St., Suite 400, 

Portland, OR 97205.

2 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618.

3 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002.
664

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Introduction

The Forest Service 2012 Planning Rule calls for greater public participation in the 

planning process. It requires the Forest Service to work with interested members 

of the public, partners, tribes, affected private landowners, and other government 

agencies in each phase of this process (assessment, plan development, revision or 

amendment, and monitoring), using collaborative approaches where feasible and 

appropriate. The rule also proposes an “all-lands approach” to planning, putting 

national forest lands in the context of the larger landscapes in which they are situated in order to improve understanding of management issues that cross ownership 

boundaries, including fire, invasive species, water, and wildlife. In addition, the rule 

directs officials to request information about native knowledge, land ethics, cultural 

issues, and sacred and culturally significant sites from tribes as part of the tribal 

participation and consultation process in land management planning. Accordingly, 

this chapter focuses on processes and models for collaboration in national forest 

management using an all-lands approach and incorporating traditional and local 

ecological knowledge.

The chapter begins with a discussion of processes for collaboration that can be 

used in national forest management, and key characteristics that lead to success. It 

follows with a discussion of the all-lands approach, the challenges managers may 

face in taking such an approach, and potential ways to address those challenges. 

The chapter then provides several models of collaboration associated with national 

forest management, with examples from California, which forest managers in 

the Sierra Nevada may consider in developing and engaging with collaborative 

processes. It also addresses the role of geographic information systems in collaborative planning. This is followed by a discussion of traditional and local ecological 

knowledge and models for integrating these forms of knowledge into collaborative 

forest management. The chapter concludes by discussing the role of collaboration in 

adaptive management and monitoring. 

Collaboration in National Forest Management

Collaboration can be defined as “an approach to solving complex environmental 

problems in which a diverse group of autonomous stakeholders deliberates to build 

consensus and develop networks for translating consensus into results” (Margerum 

2011: 6). Consensus can range from a simple majority to unanimous agreement 

among stakeholders regarding a decision, but it usually means reaching a decision 

that everyone can live with. The more complete the consensus, the more likely that 

stakeholders will support implementation of the decision that is reached (Margerum 

2011). Collaboration in national forest management often takes place through 
665

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

community-based collaborative groups, which are local groups that come together 

at the community scale to address natural resource management issues associated 

with public lands and resources that affect the environmental or economic health 

of the community (Firehock 2011). These groups are composed of a diverse group 

of local stakeholders who make decisions and recommendations to influence the 

management of public lands and resources, and take actions to implement them. 

The Quincy Library Group (QLG), based in Plumas County, California, was 

one of the first community-based collaborative groups in the Western United States 

to form around national forest management issues. It began in the early 1990s in 

response to changing national forest management policy that aimed to protect the 

California spotted owl, but threatened the timber industry in the northern Sierra 

Nevada (see chapter 9.5, “Managing Forest Products for Community Benefit”). 

Figure 1—Pacific Southwest Research Station and Natural Resources Conservation Service scientists, staff from the Sierra National 

Forest, and members of the North Fork Mono Tribe, North Fork Mono Rancheria, and Chukchansi Tribe met to discuss opportunities 

to promote tribal cultural resources using traditional knowledge. 

Jonathan Long
666

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

The QLG’s ultimate goal was to draft a plan for forest management that would 

sustain both the ecological and economic health of national forest lands and forest 

communities locally (Bernard and Young 1997). In 1993, the QLG produced its 

“Community Stability Proposal,” which recommended a forest restoration program 

that would lead to “an all-age, multi-story, fire-resistant forest approximating presettlement conditions” (Bernard and Young 1997: 160). The QLG was unsuccessful 

in getting the Forest Service to adopt and implement their plan through administrative avenues, however (London et al. 2005). Thus, in 1997, U.S. Representative 

Wally Herger (R-Calif.) introduced a bill to Congress that would require the Forest 

Service to implement the Community Stability Proposal. The bill received wide 

support in both the House and the Senate, resulting in the Herger-Feinstein Quincy 

Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG), which was signed into law in 1998 

(Marston 2001). The act provided for a 5-year pilot project to carry out select plans 

outlined in the Community Stability Proposal on roughly 1.5 million ac of the 

Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests.4

The HFQLG Act has been subject to continual lawsuits since the time of its 

passage over questions pertaining to protection for the California spotted owl, thinning methods used for hazardous fuels reduction, and proposed clearcuts (Bernard 

2010, Marston 2000). These lawsuits have contributed to delays in implementing 

forest management projects under the act, resulting in extensions in 2003 and 

again in 2008. Despite these delays, a number of forest restoration and fire hazard 

reduction projects have occurred, along with research to study the effects of these 

projects on wildlife, watershed health, and wildfire risk (see footnote 4). But the 

management plan failed to provide long-term economic stability associated with 

forest-based jobs (Bernard 2010). These problems have been attributed to the failure 

of the QLG to represent the full range of community interests and stakeholders, 

despite strong community support at the outset (Colburn 2002); to mixed support 

for the management plan among Forest Service administrators (London et al. 2005); 

and to strong opposition from many national environmental organizations who 

opposed the use of federal legislation to mandate adoption of a locally developed 

management plan on national forest lands (Hibbard and Madsen 2003). 

Ingredients for Successful Collaborations

Community-based collaborative groups have sprung up all over the West since 

the 1990s to engage with national forest management issues (see Dukes 2011 for 

examples). Over time, extensive research has been carried out to identify how 

collaborative institutions and processes can work best, whether in association 

4 http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/hfqlg/news/2011/HFQLG%20Fact%20Sheet%202011.pdf.
667

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

with Forest Service lands or broader, multi-ownership landscapes. McDermott 

et al. (2011) group the features that lead to successful collaborations into three 

broad categories. The first concerns external sources of support, which include 

involvement in and support from elected officials, agency leaders, and key 

decisionmakers in the group; legal authority and supportive laws and policies that 

make it possible to accomplish the actions proposed; and community involvement. 

The second category pertains to access to resources, including sufficient and 

stable funding, adequate staffing, and access to and exchange of information. The 

third category has to do with the capacity to act. This capacity includes effective 

leadership, trust among participants, and social capital (networks of social relations 

among people and groups that enable them to coordinate and cooperate for mutual 

benefit). 

Harmony among stakeholders is not a key ingredient for success, but stakeholders want to be confident that working relationships will be productive before 

investing in collaboration (Bergmann and Bliss 2004). Perhaps counterintuitively, 

solutions may become more attainable where there is a combination of conflict and 

cooperation between stakeholders (Scheffer et al. 2002). Even though commandand-control approaches commonly fail, the success of some decentralized collaborative networks has been associated with the incentive provided by having the 

threat of regulation as an alternative (Dasse 2002, Scholz and Wang 2006). Having 

a regulatory backstop may help to allay concerns that local collaborative groups 

may compromise national-scale priorities (Bergmann and Bliss 2004, Hibbard and 

Madsen 2003).

Another factor that may open windows of opportunity for collaborative 

approaches is the perception of an impending crisis, as described by Moir and 

Block (2001). During times of “crisis, breakdown, and reorganization”—which 

would include the aftermath of unusually large and severe wildfires—resilience 

theory suggests that moving beyond conventional decision support systems to 

decentralized, participatory, and collaborative approaches can help build adaptive 

capacity (Nelson et al. 2007, Walker et al. 2002). 

Cheng and Sturtevant (2012) propose a framework for assessing the collaborative capacity of communities in the context of federal forest management. Their 

framework identifies six arenas of collaboration and associated capacities: organizing, learning, deciding, acting, evaluating, and legitimizing. They note that the 

three categories identified by McDermott et al. (2011) affect all six of these arenas. 

They suggest that their framework can be used to evaluate what capacities exist 

within local collaborative groups, and what capacities could be enhanced, so that 

investments in building and sustaining these groups can be targeted. For example, 

Harmony among 

stakeholders is not 

a key ingredient 

for success, but 

stakeholders want 

to be confident that 

working relationships 

will be productive 

before investing in 

collaboration.
668

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

because government resource management agencies are typically strong in biophysical expertise, universities or nongovernmental organizations could be encouraged 

to join local collaboratives to contribute economic and social expertise.

Benefits of Collaboration

Several scientists have documented the social benefits of collaborative natural 

resource management. These include (1) creating a sense of shared ownership over 

large and complex environmental problems (Bryan 2004); (2) combining different 

forms of ecological knowledge and promoting better and shared understanding of 

natural resource management issues (Ballard et al. 2008a, Bryan 2004); (3) integrating economic and social concerns together with ecological concerns so that they can 

be addressed together; (4) enhancing opportunities to pool resources and assets in 

addressing resource management issues (Cheng and Sturtevant 2012); (5) improving 

working relationships between agencies, members of the public, and other stakeholders; (6) increasing community understanding of and support for land management (Firehock 2011); and (7) building community resilience (Goldstein 2012). 

The environmental benefits of collaborative forest management are not well 

documented. It remains to be seen to what extent collaborative processes will 

improve environmental conditions (Koontz and Thomas 2006). Nevertheless, 

many groups have documented environmental accomplishments resulting from 

collaborative forest management—such as acres of forest restoration treatments, 

and education and policy changes—that are anticipated to positively affect environmental conditions over the longer term (Fernandez-Gimenez and Ballard 2011). 

And collaborative groups often engage in monitoring and evaluation, producing 

information that can be used to improve environmental management, with positive 

implications for the environment (Fernandez-Gimenez and Ballard 2011).

Lessons Learned From the Dinkey Creek Collaborative

Bartlett (2012) provides lessons learned from a collaborative process used for 

hazardous fuels reduction projects at Dinkey Creek on the Sierra National Forest 

that may be useful elsewhere in the science synthesis area (see also the section on 

Collaborative Forest Landscapes Restoration projects in this chapter). The Dinkey 

Creek North and South project was a 3,000-ac project designed to restore diverse, 

healthy, and fire-resilient forest conditions while protecting California spotted owls 

and Pacific fishers (North and Rojas 2012). The project was located in an area having a long history of conflict and litigation owing to concerns over project impacts 

on threatened wildlife species (Bartlett 2012). Successful collaboration at Dinkey 
669

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Creek was based on a five-stage process: assessment, organization, education, negotiation, and implementation (see Bartlett 2012 for a description of these stages). Key 

elements that helped facilitate successful collaboration during this process included: 

• Bringing a broad range of participants to the table, which helped them 

understand each other’s values;

• Developing a common conceptual framework for management actions, 

including purpose and need and desired conditions over the long term, 

which helped to align knowledge systems;

• Involving scientists to provide technical expertise during group meetings;

• Willingness and ability to move forward in the face of disagreement;

• Conducting site visits during project development;

• Engaging stakeholders in a timely way;

• Taking actions to build trust, such as finding areas of conceptual agreement, designing projects to meet multiple objectives, and engaging stakeholders in project monitoring;

• Testing project implementation methods when developing new approaches, 

and sharing them with the collaborative;

Figure 2—Sign at a collaborative fuels reduction project. 

Susan Charnley
670

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

• Project monitoring to demonstrate a commitment to learning from what 

worked and what didn’t, and to adapt future management actions to 

improve forest conditions; and

• A willingness to be patient with the process.

Another critical ingredient for success was the use of a professional, impartial 

mediator to facilitate the collaborative process, though a mediator may not always 

be necessary. In this case, the mediator played an important role in organizing the 

collaborative process, helping build trust among participants, normalizing conflict 

and promoting problemsolving, managing timeframes, and helping the group reach 

outcomes (Bartlett 2012).

All-Lands Approach to Forest Management: Opportunities 

and Challenges

Under the Forest Service Planning Rule, the all-lands approach proposes to “feature 

collaboration engaging the public early and often to build a common understanding 

of the roles, values and contributions of National Forest System (NFS) lands within 

the broader landscape.” 5 An all-lands approach to forest management is argued 

to be important for promoting the health and productivity of forest ecosystems, 

conserving biodiversity, and sustaining critical ecosystem services (Lindenmeyer 

and Franklin 2002). Forest restoration and fire management, like many environmental management activities, entail large-scale ecological processes and mixed land 

ownership patterns (Bergman and Bliss 2004, Cortner and Moote 1999). Hazardous 

fuels reduction, timber management, and other forest restoration activities also 

occur (to different degrees) on other land ownerships, with Forest Service management potentially affecting adjacent jurisdictions, and vice versa. An all-lands 

approach to forest management calls for cooperation and collaboration with other 

landowners, creating an opportunity for the Forest Service to build relationships 

with its neighbors and to promote broad, landscape-scale restoration. Yet managing 

across ownership boundaries remains challenging.

There is a proliferation of opportunities for cross-boundary collaboration to 

manage forested ecosystems for public benefits. Some of these initiatives are being 

led directly by the Forest Service, such as the Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration Program (see next section). Others are made possible under federal 

laws, such as the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004,6

 which authorizes the 

Forest Service to give special consideration to tribally proposed projects on agency 

5 http://planningrule.blogs.usda.gov/2010/07/16/all-lands-approach/.

6 http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/documents/stewardship/tfpa/TribalForestProtectionAct2004.pdf.
671

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

lands bordering Indian trust lands (see chapter 9.4, “Strategies for Job Creation 

Through National Forest Management”). Still other opportunities are being created 

outside the Forest Service. For instance, the Pacific Forest and Watershed Lands 

Stewardship Council plans to transfer tens of thousands of acres of forested parcels 

throughout the science synthesis area from private ownership by Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company to other entities, which may include local governments, tribes, 

CAL FIRE, or the Forest Service itself. In addition, private land trusts are acquiring 

land for conservation purposes, in some cases in collaboration with tribes (Middleton 2011). Many of these nonfederal holdings are embedded within a larger matrix 

of Forest Service lands. Burgeoning opportunities to collaborate across boundaries 

and to acquire additional lands pose challenges for agency staff who engage in 

these processes. These challenges include how to meet the demands associated with 

collaboration in light of existing workloads, and how to allocate resources among 

efforts. Further developing the agency’s institutional capacity to collaborate across 

boundaries may be an important strategy for increasing its ability to collaborate in 

these and other endeavors.

Another challenge associated with the all-lands approach to forest management 

is how to resolve mismatches of scale between ecological and social processes. 

Many chapters of this synthesis report emphasize the importance of natural 

resource management across boundaries at large landscape scales and over long 

time horizons. But socioeconomic values, economic and political interests, policy 

incentives, and institutional structures all influence whether and how this can occur 

(Cortner 2000, Pritchard and Sanderson 2002). Commonly, ecological processes 

operate at a different scale from the institutions responsible for managing them 

(Cumming et al. 2006). For example, in the Sierra Nevada, there are federal, state, 

and local institutions that have some responsibility for managing fire-prone forests, 

but their jurisdictions do not necessarily align with the spatial units at which fires 

must be managed—for example, “firesheds” (areas that fires are likely to burn 

across) or “smokesheds” (areas where smoke from such fires is likely to go). These 

scale mismatches make it difficult to negotiate tradeoffs between the benefits and 

costs of managing fires within a fireshed versus a smokeshed. An advantage of collaborative processes is that they enable individuals and organizations to think at a 

regional scale, and act at whatever spatial scale is appropriate, often through nested 

efforts that address issues at different scales within the broader landscape (Kemmis 

and McKinny 2011).

These challenges require agencies like the Forest Service to innovate and evolve 

in ways that can be daunting and perhaps paradoxical, raising the question: How 

do we build a “nonbureaucratic bureaucracy” that makes the relationship between 

How do we build a “nonbureaucratic bureaucracy” that makes the 

relationship between 

the agency and communities more workable, 

while increasing capacity to operate at multiple 

and dynamic scales? 

An overall strategy is 

to cultivate flexible 

institutional arrangements that operate at 

different scales and can 

adjust and reorganize in 

response to changes in 

ecosystem conditions 

and associated management challenges.
672

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

the agency and communities more workable, while increasing capacity to operate 

at multiple and dynamic scales (Pritchard and Sanderson 2002)? A general trend 

has been to move from systems dominated by expert bureaucracy toward expanded 

public participation to help balance competing interests. Another less common 

approach has been to move toward more decisionmaking by communities about 

natural resources management (Pritchard and Sanderson 2002). Although there 

are no simple solutions to governance challenges, an overall strategy is to cultivate 

flexible institutional arrangements that operate at different scales and can adjust and 

reorganize in response to changes in ecosystem conditions and associated management challenges (Cumming et al. 2006, Koontz and Thomas 2006, Margerum 2011, 

Pritchard and Sanderson 2002). The various models of collaboration provided in 

this chapter offer examples of these kinds of arrangements.

Cooperation entails working jointly with others to solve a problem or carry out 

an activity (Agranoff 2006). Cooperation can be formal or informal, occur on an 

occasional or regular basis, and take place inside, outside, or between organizations (Agranoff 2006). In the case of cross-boundary cooperation between federal 

agencies and nonindustrial private forest owners for fire hazard reduction in eastern 

Oregon, Fischer and Charnley (2012) identified rural social organization (characterized by isolation and few opportunities for interaction), high rates of absentee 

land ownership, gulfs in values and goals relating to fire management, and fear 

of bureaucratic and regulatory burdens among nonindustrial private forest owners as barriers to cooperation. Nevertheless, they found that roughly one-third of 

surveyed forest owners had cooperated with public agencies in the past to plan, pay 

for, or conduct practices that reduce hazardous fuels, and that owners expressed 

strong willingness to cooperate with public agencies in the future. They also found 

that owners who perceived a risk of wildfire to their properties, and perceived 

neighboring public lands as contributing to that risk, were more likely to cooperate 

with agencies to reduce fire risk. These findings suggest that building a common 

understanding of fire risk across property boundaries and among landowners may 

increase the likelihood of their cooperation (Fischer and Charnley 2012). The 

authors identify several models of cooperation between nonindustrial private forest 

owners and public land management agencies that could potentially be used to 

reduce fire risk across ownership boundaries, and that may be relevant for the Sierra 

Nevada synthesis area (see box 9.6-1 below). These models are also relevant for 

cross-ownership boundary cooperation in forest management more broadly. However, the balance between the costs and benefits of cooperation with the agencies 

like the Forest Service must be favorable to private landowners if they are to engage 

in it (Fischer and Charnley 2012).
673

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Ferranto et al. (2013) surveyed private forest and rangeland owners in 10 California counties, including Plumas, Sierra, and Eldorado, to investigate their willingness to cooperate in ecosystem management on their properties across ownership 

boundaries. They found the strongest support for cross-boundary cooperation to 

reduce fire hazard (relative to other environmental management issues). They also 

found that landowners were most willing to cooperate with neighboring private 

landowners in management activities, and least willing to cooperate with federal 

agencies, though they were not unsupportive of the notion of private-federal cooperation. Finally, they found that landowners whose main motivation for owning forest 

or range land was for its natural amenity values expressed more support for crossboundary cooperation in ecosystem management than owners motivated by rural 

lifestyle, working landscape, or financial investment reasons for land ownership. 

They point out that willingness to cooperate is not the same as intent to cooperate, 

however; just because landowners express support for the idea doesn’t mean that 

they will actually do it.

Box 9.6-1

Models of Cooperation Between Agencies and 

Private Nonindustrial Forest Owners

Informal

Over the fence Neighboring landowners observe each other’s management

practices and do something similar, encourage neighbors to do 

more, or undertake a management activity together.

Wheel and spoke A contractor or natural resource professional works with multiple 

landowners to help them learn from each other, leverage resources, 

access services and markets, and address management problems

and concerns.

Local group A local “change agent” creates a forum in which landowners come 

together to discuss common management issues, thereby promoting communication, learning, cooperation, and leadership.

Formal

Agency-led A natural resource agency provides education and/or technical or 

financial support to help landowners interact around management 

issues, learn from each other, and implement activities.

Collaborative group Landowners commit to a process and product, are organized by a 

coordinator, and are guided by policy documents.
674

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

A study of cross-boundary cooperation in fire management in eastern Oregon 

(Bergmann and Bliss 2004) identified deterrents to cooperation that could also be 

operating in California (Ferranto et al. 2013). These include (1) short tenures and 

high turnover of federal staff; (2) concerns about accountability of managers when 

rural people believe that their livelihoods are at risk; (3) strong ideological differences among stakeholders; (4) concern about administrative burdens and regulatory 

limitations imposed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other 

federal environmental laws; (5) skepticism among environmental groups about 

local collaboratives; and (6) differential risks to landowners and managers owing to 

scale. This last concern is reflected in the statement: “A prescribed fire that burns 

too hot and damages standing timber might have little impact on a national forest 

unit of which it is a small part. A similar fire on a private ranch might eliminate 

college funds and retirement savings and destroy family landmarks and special 

places” (Bergmann and Bliss 2004: 385). 

Many of these deterrents may be beyond the ability of the Forest Service to 

control. Nevertheless, special roles, skills, and tools that could facilitate successful 

cross-boundary cooperation between the Forest Service and other landowners 

have been identified and include:

• Dedicated boundary spanners with special skill sets and incentives to 

facilitate cross-boundary collaboration (Rickenbach et al. 2011);

• Skilled, neutral party facilitators or mediators for collaborative groups 

(Bartlett 2012, Cheng and Mattor 2010);

• People who have cultural competencies in establishing and managing 

collaborative efforts, including respect for local knowledge, flexibility, 

humility, and understanding of the importance of long-term commitments 

(Fortmann and Ballard 2011);

• Memoranda of understanding between the Forest Service and cooperators 

(Fischer and Charnley 2012).

Models for Collaborative Forest Management 

Cortner and Moote (1999) note that models for collaboration should be selected 

based upon the context of the challenge to be addressed. This section describes a 

number of models for implementing collaborative forest management taking an 

all-lands approach that could be fruitful for management efforts in the synthesis 

area. The models are summarized in box 9.6-2 and discussed in more detail in the 

following sections.

Special roles, skills, 

and tools that could 

facilitate successful 

cross-boundary 

cooperation between 

the Forest Service 

and other landowners 

include boundary 

spanners, mediators, 

cultural competencies, 

and agreements with 

cooperators.
675

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Box 9.6-2

Models for Collaborative Forest Management Using an All-Lands Approach

Model Description

Fire Safe Councils Community-based, collaborative groups that form to address wildfire risks 

 on private lands in their communities through education and outreach, 

hazardous fuels reduction projects, creating defensible space around structures, and increasing fire preparedness and emergency response capacity.

Fire Learning Collaborative groups that form at the landscape level in fire-prone ecosystems, and that are connected to one another through regional and 

national networks. They develop and implement strategies for hazardous 

fuels reduction and restoring fire to forest ecosystems locally, and share 

their knowledge, experiences, and best practices with other members of 

the network to encourage learning and innovation in fire management and 

 ecological restoration.

Community Wildfire Plans that communities create in collaboration with land management 

Protection Plans agencies and others that lay out a framework and strategy for managing 

wildfire risk on federal and nonfederal lands locally. They identify priority 

areas to receive hazardous fuels reduction treatments, and recommend 

types and methods of treatments. 

Collaborative Forest Land- Collaborative, science-based forest restoration projects that are developed 

scape Restoration Projects in collaboration with local stakeholders, take place on Forest Service 

lands, and promote both ecological restoration and economic benefits for 

local communities. Projects are funded through the Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration Program and facilitate development of restoration 

projects across ownerships, helping to leverage resources to support such 

projects.

Prescribed Fire Councils Prescribed fire councils are groups that include multiple entities (e.g., local, 

state, and federal agencies, tribes, nongovernmental organizations, academic institutions, and private individuals) and facilitate collaboration 

among members who have an interest in applying prescribed fire. 

Stewardship Contracting An administrative tool for accomplishing forest restoration that fosters 

collaboration in project development and implementation, makes it possible to exchange goods for services and to retain timber receipts on a 

national forest to spend on restoration activities, creates local community 

benefit, and can be used for cross-boundary restoration projects on Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management lands and private lands (under 

the Wyden Authority).

(Continued on next page)
676

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Fire Safe Councils

In 1993, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection established the 

California State Fire Safe Council, which became an independent, nonprofit organization in 2002 (Everett and Fuller 2011). The mission of the Fire Safe Council is 

to help Californians mobilize to protect their homes, communities, and surrounding 

lands from wildfire. It does so by providing educational information to, and serving as a grants clearinghouse for, individual county and community-level fire safe 

councils (FSCs) that have formed across the state through local, grassroots efforts 

to address community-level wildfire risks (Everett and Fuller 2011). Local FSCs 

promote emergency preparedness, the creation of defensible space, and offer a 

forum in which community members can discuss their concerns about forest health 

and wildfire safety (Sturtevant and McCaffrey 2006). 

Research indicates that FSCs are effective community-based, collaborative 

organizations that help serve as a bridge between agencies and community members in fire hazard reduction efforts, and work to effectively define and address 

local priorities for wildfire mitigation (Everett and Fuller 2011, Sturtevant and 

McCaffrey 2006). They do this in multiple ways, ranging from education and 

outreach, to implementing fuels reduction projects on private lands, to creating 

defensible space around homes, to increasing fire preparedness and emergency 

(from page 675)

Wyden Authority Projects Projects funded and implemented under the Watershed Restoration and 

Enhancement Agreement, which gives the Forest Service authority to 

enter into cooperative agreements with partners to undertake activities 

that protect, restore, and enhance resources on public or private lands if 

they benefit a watershed that contains federal lands and contribute to 

 Forest Service management goals.

Participatory Action Research A form of systematic inquiry involving collaboration among people 

affected by an issue—such as scientists, researchers, managers, 

community members, and resource users—so that they can share their 

knowledge and skills, generate new knowledge, jointly solve problems, 

educate, take action, and effect change.

Educational Outreach Education and outreach programs that engage members of the public 

with science information about forest ecosystems are not a form of, 

collaboration but can lead to collaborative ecological restoration 

projects.
677

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

response capacity, to leveraging local funds and volunteer hours that supplement 

federal grants for fuels reduction. Contributing to their success is the fact that 

FSCs operate at three scales (state, county, and community), which allows for the 

development of locally appropriate approaches to wildfire protection in the context 

of a broader support network that provides access to funding, technical assistance, 

and other resources (Sturtevant and McCaffrey 2006). Key challenges they face are 

sustaining community members’ interest and participation in FSC activities, sufficient funding for fuels reduction projects and operations, and implementing fuels 

projects on private lands (Everett and Fuller 2011).

Everett and Fuller (2011) found that there is an important role for agencies like 

the Forest Service in helping support community- and county-level FSCs. This 

role includes (1) actively partnering with them to help support their activities; (2) 

developing memoranda of understanding between the agency and the councils to 

formally recognize a cooperative relationship, and to legitimize agency employee 

participation in their activities; (3) coordinating with the California FSC to make 

funding available through its clearinghouse to help streamline the grant application 

process; (4) recognizing their achievements; and (5) providing consistent engagement and support.

Box 9.6-3

Example of Success: Fire Safe Councils

One example of success for community wildfire preparedness in partnership 

with the Forest Service is from Grizzly Flats, near the Eldorado National Forest. “The Fire Safe Council secured more federal grants to support residents’ 

efforts to reduce fire hazards, turning their homes into models of wildfire 

safety and inspiring neighbors to take similar steps. They also aligned their 

efforts with Forest Service work on nearby public land so the projects would 

complement and strengthen each other” (Jakes et al. 2012: 10).

Fire Learning Networks

The U.S. Fire Learning Network (FLN) was created by The Nature Conservancy, 

the Forest Service, and Department of the Interior land management agencies in 

2001 to foster collaboration across organizations and administrative boundaries in 

developing landscape-scale ecological restoration plans for fire-prone ecosystems 

(Butler and Goldstein 2010, Goldstein et al. 2010). The FLN is one type of “conservation learning network,” a community of people who organize around a core issue, 
678

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

have common objectives, and share their expertise, skills, methods, and techniques 

to solve problems (Goldstein et al. 2010). Conservation learning networks promote 

learning among members by fostering the spread of best practices based on lessons learned from members’ experiences, and identifying barriers and solutions to 

problems. Fire learning networks can improve forest management decisionmaking 

and increase the capacity of fire managers to manage fire and other landscape-scale 

ecological processes (Goldstein et al. 2010).

The national FLN has three levels of organization: national staff, regional 

networks, and local landscapes—the majority of which are affiliated with a regional 

network. Between 2002 and 2011, 15 regional networks formed nationwide, 

encompassing 163 landscapes (not all of which are currently active) (TNC 2012). 

In California, one regional network is operative: the California Klamath-Siskiyou 

(encompassing the Trinity and West Klamath Mountains). There is also one “demonstration landscape” in the state (unaffiliated with a regional network): FireScape 

Monterey (focused on the Monterey District of the Los Padres National Forest) 

(TNC 2012).

The goals of fire learning networks are to develop strategies for reducing 

hazardous fuels and restoring fire to forest ecosystems in ways that are ecologically 

meaningful and socially acceptable, and to create local, regional, and national linkages between collaborative groups involved in these efforts to facilitate dissemination of knowledge and innovation throughout the network (Butler and Goldstein 

2010). At the landscape level, diverse stakeholders that are involved in fire management collaborate to set ecological restoration goals, create fire restoration plans, 

identify priority treatment areas, and develop models and mapping tools that can 

be used to inform implementation of treatments. These activities occur through 

workshops, field trips, collaborative planning exercises, meetings, and Web- and 

print-based communication. To date, fire learning networks have been effective in 

informing agency fire management plans, influencing where fuels reduction work 

takes place on national forest and private forest lands, guiding requests for federal 

funding to support treatments, and influencing policy (e.g., the Forest Landscape 

Restoration Act). By promoting the sharing of resources among participants and 

the dissemination of ideas, experiences, and lessons learned through the regional 

and national network, they are an effective institution for adaptive management and 

can contribute to socioecological resilience (Butler and Goldstein 2010). The Sierra 

Nevada is a region in which a FLN could be developed to address fire management 

issues.

By promoting the 

sharing of resources 

among participants 

and the dissemination 

of ideas, experiences, 

and lessons learned, 

fire learning networks 

are an effective 

institution for adaptive 

management and 

can contribute to 

socioecological 

resilience. The Sierra 

Nevada is a region in 

which a fire learning 

network could be 

developed to address 

fire management 

issues.
679

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Community Wildfire Protection Plans

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 spurred the development of community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs), which communities create in collaboration 

with land management agencies and others that lay out a framework and strategy 

for managing wildfire risk on federal and nonfederal lands locally (Jakes et al. 

2012). CWPPs identify priority areas to receive hazardous fuels reduction treatments, and recommend types and methods of treatments. They are developed 

through a collaborative, multi-stakeholder-driven process that produces plans 

appropriate to local social and ecological circumstances, and at a scale that makes 

it possible to take action to reduce wildfire risk and enhance the resilience of forest 

ecosystems (Jakes et al. 2011). See Jakes et al. (2012) for a guide to best management practices for creating a CWPP. Developing CWPPs not only helps communities address fire risk locally, but it also helps community members build their social 

networks, enhance learning, and build community capacity—all of which foster 

community resilience (Jakes et al. 2007).

Figure 3—Fuels reduction using prescribed burning organized through the Lomakatsi Restoration Project, a forest restoration 

collaboration organization in Oregon. 

Frank Lake
680

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Federal forest managers can support the CWPP process by (1) participating as 

partners in development of CWPPS, providing leadership if needed; (2) providing 

data, information, and expertise; (3) providing funding to support development of 

CWPPs; (4) facilitating network building between stakeholders; (5) helping lower 

capacity communities mobilize to take action; (6) working with communities to 

set fuels treatment and fire mitigation priorities; and (7) considering plan priorities 

and recommendations in implementing fuels treatments (Fleeger and Becker 2010, 

Jakes et al. 2007).

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) Projects

Title IV of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 on Forest Landscape 

Restoration established a fund and a program to support collaborative, sciencebased forest restoration projects (called CFLR projects) in priority landscapes on 

Forest Service lands. The CFLR Program has a number of goals: to encourage 

social, economic, and ecological sustainability; to support forest restoration activities that meet ecological objectives and ultimately reduce fire management costs; 

to encourage investments in capturing the value of restoration byproducts that help 

contribute to local economies while reducing the costs of fuels treatments; and to 

leverage resources to help support social, economic, and ecological goals associated with forest restoration across ownerships (Schultz et al. 2012).7

 Although the 

fund can only be used on NFS lands, project proposals can be for a landscape that 

includes other federal, tribal, state, or private lands. Thus, the CFLR program may 

facilitate development of collaborative forest restoration projects across ownership 

boundaries, helping to leverage resources to undertake such projects. To be eligible 

for funding, projects must be developed collaboratively and provide economic 

benefits to local communities.

One criterion for evaluating CFLR proposals is that they build on past collaborative efforts having a demonstrated record of success. Bartlett (2012) and North and 

Rojas (2012) provide detailed descriptions of a forest restoration project that took 

place in the Dinkey Creek area of the Sierra National Forest that was developed and 

implemented through a successful collaborative process (described in the preceding 

section). This project led to the Dinkey Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

Project, one of the original CFLR projects selected for funding in fiscal year 2010 

following passage of the act. The project includes 130,000 ac of the Sierra National 

Forest and 24,000 ac of private land.8

 The project is one of three CFLR projects in 

7 http://ww.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLRP/; 

http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/documents/cflrp/titleIV.pdf.

8 http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/documents/cflrp/2010Proposals/Region5/Sierra/Sierra_

NF_CFLRP_Proposal.pdf.
681

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

the Sierra Nevada currently. The others are the Burney-Hat Creek Basins Project 

on and around the Lassen National Forest, and the Amador-Calaveras Consensus 

Group Cornerstone Project on and around the Eldorado and Stanislaus National 

Forests (see fig. 1 in chapter 1.5).

It is too soon to tell how successful the CFLR projects will be in meeting their 

objectives. A number of challenges exist (described in Schultz et al. 2012). Nevertheless, they represent an innovative new collaborative approach to forest management that holds promise for achieving forest restoration at a landscape scale and 

across multiple ownerships.

Prescribed Fire Councils

Prescribed fire councils are collaborative groups that include multiple entities, such 

as local, state, and federal agencies, tribes, nongovernmental organizations, academic institutions, and private individuals who have an interest in using prescribed 

fire for forest restoration (Costanza and Moody 2011, Quinn-Davidson and Varner 

2012). In California, these councils are new or just beginning to form. They aim to 

increase the application of prescribed fire in a responsible manner, and overcome 

constraints to its use. Prescribed fire councils serve as forums for disseminating 

knowledge, keeping people who undertake prescribed burns current with information about new research and technological advances, and informing members about 

training opportunities and local fire issues (Wade et. al 2006). The recently formed 

Northern California Prescribed Fire Council seeks to connect interested persons 

and groups and foster discussion about possible barriers to prescribed fire application in northern California, where its use is highly constrained by narrow burn 

windows, air quality regulations, lack of personnel, and environmental laws, among 

other things (Quinn-Davidson and Varner 2012).9

Stewardship Contracting 

As described in chapter 9.4, stewardship contracting is an administrative tool for 

accomplishing community-based forest restoration work that fosters collaboration 

in project development and implementation. This collaboration can take many 

forms. In some cases, local collaborative groups form, or if they already exist, 

morph into stewardship groups to develop projects that contribute to both forest 

restoration and local economic development. The White Mountain Stewardship 

Project on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in Arizona is one example of a 

landscape-scale collaborative restoration effort taking place through the use of a 

10-year stewardship contract. Although it has been extremely successful in building 

9 For more information, see http://www.norcalrxfirecouncil.org.
682

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

social agreement around forest restoration activities in the region, increasing 

community capacity to engage in forest restoration, and accomplishing hazardous 

fuels reduction treatments, it has fallen short of its goals with regard to the latter 

because of a shortage of federal funding to plan, administer, and implement projects 

(Abrams 2011). The use of stewardship contracting and utilization of restoration 

byproducts have helped cover the cost of fuels treatments, but not completely; a 

funding gap remains that has been challenging to fill in the context of dwindling 

federal funding for forest management (Abrams 2011). 

Stewardship contracting authorities apply to the Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM); thus, stewardship projects using these authorities 

typically take place on Forest Service and BLM lands. Stewardship contracting can 

be used to achieve forest restoration across the administrative boundaries of these 

two agencies to achieve broader landscape-scale restoration goals, as in the case of 

the Weaverville Community Forest in Trinity County, California (Frost, in press). 

Stewardship contracting authorities can also be used together with other authorities 

(such as the Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreement, and the Tribal 

Forest Protection Act) to develop forest restoration projects across federal and 

private or federal and tribal boundaries.

Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreement 

(Wyden) Authority

The Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreement (Wyden) Authority 

became permanent in 2011. It gives the Forest Service the ability to enter into 

cooperative agreements with partners in order to undertake activities that protect, 

restore, and enhance habitat and other resources on public or private lands, including activities that reduce risk from natural disasters that threaten public safety. 

These activities must benefit the resources within a watershed and contribute to 

Forest Service goals and objectives.10 Under the Wyden Authority, federal funding 

can be used to implement projects and carry out activities on private lands within 

watersheds that include Forest Service lands in order to achieve watershed restoration goals. This authority makes it possible to collaboratively plan and implement 

projects across ownership boundaries to achieve common management objectives 

that improve watershed health.

10 https://www.cfda.gov/?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=73c38aa3683fc789cedce

7aa16f1df53.
683

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Participatory Action Research

Participatory action research (PAR) is a form of systematic inquiry that entails 

collaboration among people who are affected by an issue being studied so that they 

can educate, take action, and effect change (Ballard and Belsky 2010). It emphasizes joint problemsolving and reflection by collaborative groups that can include 

scientists, academic researchers, managers, community members, and natural 

resource users who share their site-specific knowledge, skills, and expertise in 

solving natural resource management problems (Everett 2001). Models of PAR to 

address natural resource management on Forest Service lands can be found from 

the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in northern California (Everett 2001) and the 

Olympic National Forest in Washington (Ballard and Belsky 2010, Ballard and 

Huntsinger 2006). Examples of participatory action research on tribal lands come 

from the Olympic Peninsula in Washington (Ballard et al. 2008b) and from Arizona 

(Long et al. 2008). Because of its emphasis on environmental learning, Ballard and 

Belsky (2010) argue that participatory action research can promote socioecological resilience in forests and forest communities. A substantive body of research 

provides guidance for how to conduct participatory action research, and reflects 

on its challenges and benefits (Fortmann 2008, Wilmsen et al. 2008). Participatory 

action research is a tool that could be used by researchers, Forest Service managers, 

and others in forest management and planning by (1) inviting people affected by 

an issue—such as scientists, managers, community members, and forest users—to 

share their knowledge; (2) treating that knowledge with respect and considering it 

in decisionmaking; and (3) actively engaging stakeholders as colleagues in scientific 

inquiries and experiments designed to promote sustainable forest management.

Educational Outreach to Promote Collaboration

One means of engaging local community members in collaborative efforts on 

national forest lands is through educational outreach. The Sagehen Experimental 

Forest, part of the Tahoe National Forest and administered together with the Forest 

Service’s Pacific Southwest Research Station, provides an excellent example of this 

approach. At Sagehen, school children, university students, and community members participate in education and outreach programs related to watershed restoration 

and hydrologic systems (Cerveny and Charnley, in press). For example, 16 ha (40 

ac) were committed to the local school district for science programs. A partnership 

between the University of California–Berkeley and local elementary schools, as 

well as a summer speaker series that engages the public in science, has also been 

established. Sagehen staff members collaborate with the Truckee River Watershed 

Council on watershed restoration projects. And the Sagehen website has links to 
684

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

a “Fish Cam,” news blogs, and podcasts about ongoing research. Each fall, 500 

to 600 community members work together on a variety of watershed restoration 

projects on the Sagehen (Cerveny and Charnley, in press). Thus, active outreach and 

education programs, and an emphasis on citizen science, can lead to collaborative 

projects and build support for collaborative forest restoration.

GIS as a Tool for Collaborative Land Management 

Over the past decade, geographic information systems (GIS) have been increasingly used to broaden public input into land management processes. The term GIS 

describes computer applications with which spatial data can be stored, manipulated, 

displayed, and analyzed (Dunn 2007, Gonzalez 2002). Since its inception in the 

1960s, GIS has developed into a valuable tool for incorporating local knowledge, 

public opinion, human values, and community concerns into land management 

and conservation projects (Gonzalez 2002). Public participation GIS (PPGIS), also 

termed participatory GIS or community-integrated GIS, seeks to involve communities in the production and use of geographic information (Dunn 2007). It is one 

form of human ecology mapping, which aims to map the relations between people 

and landscapes (for an overview of spatial approaches to integrating social information into environmental planning, see McLain et al. 2013). 

Several methods of PPGIS have been used in the context of national forest planning and management in the Western United States (Brown et al. 2013). It has most 

often been used to identify places in national forests that have important values to 

members of the public, helping to inform planning, and to assess whether the uses 

and activities being managed in these locations under the forest plan are compatible 

with the values identified by members of the public (Brown et al. 2013). By mapping areas of potential conflict over multiple uses and the nature of those conflicts, 

agencies may be able to target resources to address land use conflicts through 

collaborative processes (Brown and Donovan 2013). PPGIS also has the potential 

to help forest planners conducting suitability analysis during forest plan revision 

identify areas suitable for different forest uses, as is called for in the 2012 Forest 

Service Planning Rule (Brown and Donovan 2013). In 2012, a PPGIS pilot study 

was carried out on the Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests to test an Internetbased PPGIS method using a Google MapsTM interface, and to provide spatial data 

pertaining to national forest values and use preferences to inform the forest plan 

revision process (Brown et al. 2013).

Researchers and facilitators often rely on a combination of methods in 

PPGIS projects. Participation can take many different forms, and can be based 

on either face-to-face participation or distributed participation, which is typically 

By mapping areas of 

potential conflict over 

multiple uses and 

the nature of those 

conflicts, agencies 

may be able to target 

resources to address 

land use conflicts 

through collaborative 

processes.
685

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

undertaken using Web-based tools (Jankowski 2009). For instance, participatory 

rural assessment methods may be used to collect social and environmental data 

from participants, whereas GIS may be used to organize, display, and analyze those 

data (Ahamed et al. 2009). Other methods employed in PPGIS projects include 

the identification of features in aerial photographs (Gonzalez 2002); interviews or 

focus groups during which socially significant locations are identified and mapped 

(Hall et al. 2009); email and Internet surveys containing maps that ask respondents 

to mark meaningful locations on them, which are later digitized and displayed 

(Beverly et al. 2008, Brown 2004); and the digital placement of markers on maps 

via Web-based GIS applications (Brown and Weber 2011). Like all participatory 

work, PPGIS projects range from high participation to low participation, depending 

on the resources available, public interest in the project, the capacity of individuals 

to participate, and other variables.

Prior to the development of more participatory approaches, GIS had been used 

primarily by highly educated individuals who were responsible for producing and 

synthesizing spatial information for academic or government institutions (Dunn 

2007). Public participation GIS has made these technologies accessible to a more 

diverse audience, and provided a new medium for land managers seeking public 

input or local knowledge for integration into land use planning and management. 

As a result, PPGIS enables nontechnologically skilled members of the public to 

contribute their spatial knowledge to projects that can benefit from local input, 

augmenting the knowledge of experts. It provides a new avenue for citizen involvement in decisionmaking, community empowerment, and legitimacy for local forms 

of geographical and spatial knowledge (Dunn 2007, Jankowski 2009). 

Despite these benefits, there remain some lingering challenges with PPGIS 

and human ecology mapping efforts more broadly (summarized in McLain et al. 

2013). For instance, there are inherent issues with applying technology such as 

GIS to projects involving local stakeholders; some people believe that GIS inevitably requires too much expert knowledge to be a truly bottom-up tool in land 

management (Bussink 2003, Dunn 2007, Kyem 2000). This concern has prompted 

innovation, with more easily accessible Web-based tools arising as a step toward 

democratization (Dunn 2007, Jankowski 2009). Free and open-sourced GIS software has also become more ubiquitous, increasing the accessibility of technologies 

that were once limited to expensive commercial products (Dunn 2007, Jankowski 

2009). Technological innovations such as microcomputers have also been crucial 

in bringing GIS technologies to developing countries and low-income communities 

(Mersey et al. 2002). Another concern is that through the conversion of indigenous 

knowledge to spatial data, that knowledge becomes vulnerable to extraction and 
686

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

exploitation (Dunn 2007, Kyem 2000). Following PPGIS guidelines for good governance can help to address this problem (e.g., by recognizing intellectual property 

rights), as can maximizing participants’ control over the data and maps produced 

(McLain et al. 2013). The specific methods used to gather spatial information from 

members of the public have been found to influence who participates in producing 

that information, and the results (Brown et al. 2013). This finding means that land 

managers may get different signals about what uses and values are important where, 

with implications for future land management decisions (Brown et al. 2013). These 

disparities may be addressed by focusing data collection on values rather than land 

use preferences, allowing managers to make decisions about land uses based on 

their compatibility with mapped values, and through defensible sampling strategies that include randomly sampling members of the public (Brown et al. 2013). 

Although concerns surrounding the use of GIS for more collaborative approaches 

to land management remain, PPGIS presents an opportunity for forest managers to 

obtain valuable spatial information pertaining to human uses and values of national 

forests from members of the public that can be integrated with biophysical GIS data 

layers, and that might not otherwise be represented during the planning process. 

Traditional and Local Ecological Knowledge

As noted earlier in this chapter, one of the benefits of collaboration is that it creates 

an opportunity to combine different forms of ecological knowledge to improve 

understanding of natural resource management issues. Every society and culture 

has knowledge systems that guide their interactions with their environment, including utilization of natural resources. Local ecological knowledge (LEK) is defined 

as “knowledge, practices, and beliefs regarding ecological relationships that are 

gained through extensive personal observation of and interaction with local ecosystems, and shared among local resource users” (Charnley et al. 2008: 2). Traditional 

ecological knowledge (TEK) is defined by Berkes et al. (2000: 1252) as “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and 

handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship 

of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment.” 

Tribal TEK is intergenerational knowledge derived from long-term relationships 

with places, but it is also dynamic, adapting to conditions of resources and ecosystems (Berkes et al. 2000). Native Americans view many aspects of the natural 

environment as vitally important to the perpetuation of tribal cultures, economies, 

and societies. The special relationship between the federal government and tribes 

provides opportunities and responsibilities to cooperatively protect and restore 

those values. In 2006, the Forest Service adopted an interagency policy to support 
687

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

traditional gathering of culturally important plants to promote ecosystem health 

using traditional management practices through collaborative relationships with 

tribes, tribal communities, tribal organizations, and native traditional practitioners. 

Relevance of TEK/LEK 

Traditional and local ecological knowledge can facilitate understanding of the 

objectives, location, frequency, seasonality, and other characteristics of practices 

by indigenous people and more recent settlers who have influenced ecological 

characteristics across the landscape. Uses of these forms of knowledge for forest 

biodiversity conservation in the Pacific Northwest are discussed in detail by Charnley et al. (2007, 2008). Ecological baselines are often founded upon conditions that 

prevailed prior to Euro-American settlement, so an understanding of past uses and 

management can provide information valuable in restoring ecosystems (Charnley 

et al. 2008). A theme that emerges from this science synthesis is the importance of 

reestablishing reference fire regimes. In many areas, indigenous burning practices 

were an important part of those reference conditions (Van de Water and Safford 

2011). Therefore, traditional burning practices are important to consider in formulating strategies to restore fire regimes and the numerous species that depend on 

fire, whose abundance and quality likely suffer owing to the legacy of widespread 

fire suppression (see chapter 4.2, “Fire and Tribal Cultural Resources”).

Traditional and local ecological knowledge may also be used to complement and refine monitoring efforts to understand changes in culturally important 

resources, especially those that are harvested, and their broader environments. As 

an example, Shebitz et al. (2008) described how TEK practitioners identified beargrass as a culturally important plant undergoing declines owing to changes in fire 

regimes and the impacts of commercial harvest, and they applied their knowledge 

in restoration projects. In collaboration with Forest Service managers or researchers, tribal practitioners who have TEK pertaining to species, habitats, or ecological 

processes could use it to help improve monitoring, restoration, and conservation 

activities. Traditional knowledge of phenology could also be valuable in identifying 

environmental responses to climate change (Nabhan 2010). In addition, collaborations among Forest Service managers, researchers, and tribal practitioners holding 

TEK may suggest appropriate metrics for evaluating socioecological resilience, 

such as the quality and quantity of acorns, basketry materials, or other key 

resources derived from “cultural keystone species” (Garibaldi and Turner 2004) 

that support community health and livelihoods.

Collaborations 

among Forest Service 

managers, researchers, 

and tribal practitioners 

holding TEK may 

suggest appropriate 

metrics for evaluating 

socioecological 

resilience, such as the 

quality and quantity 

of acorns, basketry 

materials, or other 

key resources derived 

from “cultural keystone 

species” that support 

community health and 

livelihoods.
688

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Engagement With TEK/LEK Holders and Practitioners

The Sierra Nevada is the aboriginal territory of dozens of Indian tribes and other 

Indian communities (Reynolds 1996). Because of the unique status of Indian tribes 

as sovereign entities, their special government-to-government relationship with the 

federal government, and the federal trust responsibility, Indian tribes are distinct 

from all other stakeholders (Getches et al. 2011).11 The Leadership Intent document 

regarding ecological restoration policy in Forest Service Region 5 notes that collaborations with regard to TEK are particularly important. Tribal communities within 

the Sierra Nevada present distinct opportunities for mutually beneficial partnerships 

to restore ecologically and culturally significant resources, and to promote socioecological resilience (Reynolds 1996). Culturally appropriate communications and 

procedures for information management are important to maintain trust, respect, 

and productive relationships between the agency and tribes.

Efforts to engage TEK and LEK in forest management are more likely to be 

successful when the knowledge holders are directly engaged as active partners in 

pursuit of mutual goals. Charnley et al. (2008) noted that engaging local forest users 

in “joint forest management” will aid in the practical application of these forms of 

knowledge. An example of this type of partnership is a collaborative forest restoration project involving the Maidu community and the Plumas and Lassen National 

Forests (Charnley et al. 2008, Donoghue et al. 2010). As demonstrated by this 

example, possible tools to facilitate partnerships may include stewardship contracts 

or other agreements that allow tribes to have sustained access to resources for an 

extended period in order to engage in long-term ongoing management (Charnley et 

al. 2008). The models for Collaborative Forest Management described in the previous section of this chapter can be extended to include tribes and tribal traditional 

ecological knowledge. Additional examples of collaborations between the Forest 

Service and tribes are included in chapter 4.2.

Efforts to incorporate TEK and LEK into forest plan revision will be easier 

where local collaborations are already underway and can overcome many of the 

challenges to sharing information in productive ways. In suggesting strategies to 

incorporate TEK into environmental plans, Usher (2000) explained that treating 

TEK as a dataset may decontextualize the information and is likely to be viewed as 

disrespectful. He recommended using multiple methods that are complementary, 

including interviews, reports, and direct statements at public hearings, to include 

information at different stages of the assessment and planning process. Similarly, 

Raymond et al. (2010) emphasized the importance of integrating TEK into 

11 http://www.fs.fed.us/people/tribal/trib-1.pdf.
689

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

management as a cyclical process for solving problems rather than as a product. 

These findings reinforce the importance of successful collaborations, which can 

help to overcome communication challenges by developing shared understandings 

of key terms, and the different decisionmaking processes of TEK/LEK holders 

and the Forest Service. A series of case studies on the role of TEK in tribal-federal 

collaborations reported by Donoghue et al. (2010) highlight a variety of approaches, 

and some of the benefits that can be achieved through tribal-federal collaborations 

when the parties share in project implementation, and the transfer of knowledge is 

ongoing throughout the process. 

Filling Gaps in Knowledge

Charnley et al. (2008) noted that present models and examples for integrating TEK 

and LEK into forest management focus mainly on Native Americans. More detail 

is needed about the degree of integration of TEK and LEK held by forest workers, 

immigrant harvesters of nontimber forest products (NTFPs), ranchers, and other 

forest users into management, as well as information about variables that are either 

barriers to or facilitate successful knowledge integration. Although Donoghue et 

al. (2010) started to fill this gap, additional research would address the diversity of 

communities and issues in socioecological restoration in the Sierra Nevada. 

The first priority research area regarding Native American land use practices 

identified by Anderson and Moratto (1996) in the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project 

report to Congress was whether Native American uses of fire and other forms of 

vegetation management should be reintroduced. Additional participatory research 

partnerships in this vein would help answer important conservation questions, 

including the expected effects of traditional light burns, as well as more severe 

wildfires, on valued resources. The Forest Service and many indigenous groups are 

likely to have mutual interests in restoration using fire for a number of plants valued 

for their cultural and ecological significance. Several examples in chapter 4.2, “Fire 

and Tribal Cultural Resources,” show that progress is underway on national forests 

in the Sierra Nevada and surrounding regions. 

Research is also needed to go beyond describing ecological knowledge systems 

to understanding how TEK and LEK are implemented, and what the associated 

ecological outcomes are in order to determine their potential contributions to conservation and restoration (Charnley et al. 2008). It is important to consider how adaptive learning will be perpetuated over the long term when establishing partnerships 

intended to share information to address complex sociocultural and environmental 

issues. Turner and Berkes (2006) highlighted the need to practice incremental learning and knowledge dissemination. Promoting systems to track partnerships and their 
690

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

outcomes throughout the region would provide data to evaluate success of those 

efforts and would facilitate social learning about incorporating TEK and LEK into 

management strategies.

Collaboration in Monitoring and Adaptive Management

Adaptive management is broadly characterized as learning through management, 

with adjustments made as understanding improves (Williams 2011). Adaptive 

management is commonly conceived as a structured approach that involves cycles 

of planning, action, monitoring, and evaluation. Adaptive management is often 

described along a continuum from passive to active, with the more active formulations involving management interventions implemented as experiments (Williams 

2011). A core characteristic of adaptive management systems is a design that facilitates responses based upon previously tested policies and accumulated knowledge, 

and that promotes social learning as a way to respond to novel challenges (Berkes 

and Folke 2002).

Components of adaptive management systems, such as modeling and stakeholder collaboration, can facilitate learning and adaptive responses; however, 

feedback processes are particularly critical for facilitating effective responses to 

and learning from surprises (Berkes and Folke 2002). These processes may include 

formal monitoring of quantifiable indicators, such as counts of species, as well as 

more qualitative and integrated socioecological indicators that are embedded in traditional and local ecological knowledge systems, including the accumulated knowledge of long-time agency employees, harvesters and other forest resource users, and 

local residents (Berkes and Folke 2002). Both approaches may be complementary, 

because systems based upon traditional or local ecological knowledge may be well 

attuned to recognizing perturbations that portend major shifts in system function 

(Berkes and Folke 2002). As an example from the Sierra Nevada, the invasion of 

Asian clam into various locations in Lake Tahoe was detected both by researchers 

conducting routine near-shore monitoring and by citizens who recognized the clams 

as unusual and alerted specialists.

Critics have noted that initiatives labeled as adaptive management often do not 

address underlying problems, and that despite the rhetoric around the concept, it 

has rarely been implemented on the ground in the context of forest management 

(Stankey et al. 2003). Costs are often steep if active adaptive management, with 

the research it entails, is the goal. For the Forest Service, the annual appropriations 

model severely constrains the ability to sustain major projects. An important 

demonstration project in the region is the ongoing Sierra Nevada Adaptive 

Management Project, a regionally based, well-funded endeavor to practice project 
691

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

implementation through the collaborative study of forest land management by 

researchers, personnel from multiple public agencies, and stakeholders.12 Chapter 

1.2, “ Integrative Approaches: Promoting Socioecological Resilience,” points out 

that this and similar research projects provide valuable opportunities to advance 

learning, but they have not sustained sufficient funding and support to evaluate 

long-term ecological responses.

There may be numerous barriers, including funding and bureaucratic resistance, to transitioning from relatively short-term projects to long-term and larger 

adaptive management systems. Pritchard and Sanderson (2002) suggest that when 

adaptive management is adopted by bureaucracies, there are strong tendencies to 

revert back to more conventional technocratic approaches. Barriers to adaptive 

management within the Forest Service include dwindling resources, growing workloads for staff, lack of leadership, and institutional and regulatory constraints on 

innovation (Stankey et al. 2003). Nadasdy (2007) noted that many current management frameworks pay insufficient attention to the social and political dimensions 

of who the winners and losers are under different management approaches; these 

frameworks may winnow consideration of baselines and approaches based upon 

present political factors, rather than long-term sustainability.

Another critique of adaptive management is that monitoring is often not done 

well enough and for long enough periods to evaluate important and potentially 

surprising effects of management (Moir and Block 2001). Because management 

systems are typically scaled to the immediate future, they may not be well suited 

for dealing with slower, long-term ecosystem responses and surprises (Moir and 

Block 2001), both of which may be expected under climate change. As a result, 

combinations of different types of monitoring and even some research applications 

may be needed to evaluate impacts and outcomes across different scales. The challenge of developing science capacity is even more important when trying to address 

complex, long-term changes in ecological systems. A key knowledge gap is to 

identify likely thresholds that should be the target of monitoring, even if they have 

not been encountered (Walker et al. 2002), and the appropriate response if monitoring suggests that a threshold has been reached (Moir and Block 2001).

Collaborative, multiparty monitoring of select key indicators has been 

recommended as an approach to tracking long-term ecological changes, the 

outcomes of restoration projects, and changing views of forest management (Bliss 

et al. 2001, DeLuca et al. 2010, Moir and Block 2001). Multiparty monitoring entails 

community members or groups of interested stakeholders who organize to monitor 

forest resources or forest management activities and their social or ecological 

12 http://vtm.berkeley.edu/.

Barriers to adaptive 

management within 

the Forest Service 

include dwindling 

resources, growing 

workloads for staff, 

lack of leadership, 

and institutional and 

regulatory constraints 

on innovation.
692

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

effects (e.g., Bliss et al. 2001, Charnley 2008). It is also a way to allow verification 

of Forest Service findings, build confidence in Forest Service management, reduce 

the cost of monitoring to the agency, and promote mutual learning (DeLuca et 

al. 2010). There are several examples of multiparty monitoring for national forest 

management (see Charnley 2008 and Fernandez-Jimenez et al. 2008). Several 

organizations have developed handbooks to guide the participatory monitoring 

process (e.g., Davis-Case 1998, Moseley and Wilson 2002, Pilz et al. 2006, USDA 

FS 2005).13

Participatory monitoring initiatives face many of the same fundamental challenges of time, funding, and staffing as does agency monitoring. They also face 

added challenges in obtaining broad-based and sustained community participation 

for long-term monitoring, and in securing technical assistance and science capacity 

to ensure data validity and credibility (Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2008). Emerging 

technologies and accompanying paradigm shifts are aiding development of capacity 

to facilitate these efforts (Newman et al. 2012).

Although collaborative approaches have been considered a means of reducing 

the high costs of monitoring required for certain regulatory approaches (Dasse 

2002) and a means to facilitate community participation, case-control comparisons 

of costs and benefits of collaborative versus conventional agency monitoring are 

needed (Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2008). Therefore, although scientists studying resilience have suggested important elements of robust adaptive management 

systems, it would be difficult to quantify the benefits of incorporating them, especially given the short amount of time that has passed since more modern systems of 

adaptive management have been established.

Despite these potential problems, studies have documented that collaborative monitoring can yield social benefits, such as improved relationships and trust 

that build social capital to make collaborative natural resource management more 

successful (Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2005, 2008; Kusel et al. 2000). It also leads 

to shared understandings of ecosystems and increased ecological knowledge 

among participants, social learning, community building, greater adaptive capacity, 

communication of monitoring results, and to some degree, adaptive management 

(Cheng and Sturtevant 2012, Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2008). Increasing attention 

is also being given to various “citizen science” projects and other forms of public 

participation as opportunities to conduct monitoring and research, especially at 

broad spatial scales, and to better engage the public (Dickinson et al. 2012). 

13 For more resources relating to monitoring socioeconomic indicators in the context of 

restoration on Forest Service lands, go to http://ewp.uoregon.edu/sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/

files/WP_36.pdf.
693

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Conclusions

A critical ingredient for increasing the rate and scale of forest restoration in the 

Sierra Nevada is social agreement about how to carry it out. Community-based 

collaborative processes have been successful in many places at addressing the 

social and ecological issues associated with national forest management so that 

social agreement can be reached and management actions implemented. This 

chapter has synthesized recent scientific literature on a range of topics relevant to 

collaboration in national forest management. This information may assist Forest 

Service managers, community members, and interested stakeholders in becoming 

more informed about options and approaches for collaboration to help them engage 

in more successful collaborations and better achieve their forest management goals. 

Collaborative efforts may focus on NFS lands or extend across multiple ownerships 

to achieve landscape-scale objectives; take many different forms; incorporate a 

mix of knowledge types from different stakeholders; and coalesce around different 

stages of the forest planning process. The nature of collaboration will vary by place 

and circumstance, depending on local issues and capacities.

The 2012 Forest Service Planning Rule—with its emphasis on greater public 

participation in the planning process, an all-lands approach to planning, considering 

native knowledge and cultural issues, and monitoring—points to a growing role for 

collaboration in the national forest planning process in the future. Not only does 

this trend hold promise for improving national forest management; it may contribute 

to socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada by facilitating the development 

of trust, leadership, and social networks; by building community capacity to work 

together to solve problems, enhancing adaptive capacity; by increasing knowledge, 

skills, and learning among participants; by deepening the connections between 

people and places to build a stronger sense of place; and through engaged governance (Ballard and Belsky 2010, Berkes and Ross 2012, Walker and Salt 2006).

Literature Cited

Abrams, J. 2011. The policy context of the White Mountain stewardship contract. 

In: Egan, D.; Hjerpe, E.E.; Abrams, J., eds. Human dimensions of ecological 

restoration: integrating science, nature, and culture. Washington, DC: Island 

Press: 163–176. Chapter 12.

Agranoff, R. 2006. Inside collaborative networks: ten lessons for public managers. 

Public Administration Review. (Special Issue): 56–65.

A critical ingredient 

for increasing the rate 

and scale of forest 

restoration in the 

Sierra Nevada is social 

agreement about how 

to carry it out.
694

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Ahamed, T.; Khan, M.I.N.; Takigawa, T.; Koike, M.; Tasnim, F.; Zaman, 

J.M.Q. 2009. Resource management for sustainable development: a communityand GIS-based approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 11(5): 

933–954.

Anderson, M.K.; Moratto, M.J. 1996. Native American land-use practices and 

ecological impacts. In: SNEP Science Team and Special Consultants, eds. Sierra 

Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress. Vol. II: Assessments and 

scientific basis for management options. Report No. 37. Davis, CA: Centers 

for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California–Davis: 187–206. 

Chapter 9.

Ballard, H.L.; Belsky, J.M. 2010. Participatory action research and environmental 

learning: Implications for resilient forests and communities. Environmental 

Education Research. 16(5–6): 611–627.

Ballard, H.L.; Fernandez-Gimenez, M.; Sturtevant, V.E. 2008a. Integration 

of local ecological knowledge and conventional science: a study of seven 

community-based forestry organizations in the USA. Ecology and Society. 

13(2): 37.

Ballard, H.L.; Huntsinger, L. 2006. Salal harvester local ecological knowledge, 

harvest practices, and understory management on the Olympic Peninsula, 

Washington. Human Ecology. 34(4): 529–547.

Ballard, H.L.; Joyce, A.T.; Collins, D. 2008b. Comparing participatory ecological 

research in two contexts: an immigrant community and a Native American 

community on Olympic Peninsula, Washington. In: Wilmsen, C.; Elemendorf, 

E.; Ross, L.; Sarathy, B.; Wells, G., eds. Partnerships for empowerment: 

participatory research for community-based natural resource management. 

London, United Kingdom, and Sterling, VA: Earthscan: 187–215. Chapter 9.

Bartlett, G. 2012. Developing collaboration and cooperation. In: North, M., ed. 

Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station: 81–88. Chapter 7.

Bergmann, S.A.; Bliss, J.C. 2004. Foundations of cross-boundary cooperation: 

resource management at the public-private interface. Society and Natural 

Resources. 17(5): 377–393.

Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological 

knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications. 10 (5): 1251–1262.
695

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Berkes, F.; Folke, C. 2002. Ecosystem dynamics and local knowledge. In: 

Gunderson, L.; Holling, C.S., eds. Panarchy: understanding transformations in 

human and natural systems. Washington DC: Island Press: 121–146.

Berkes, F.; Ross, H. 2012. Community resilience: toward an integrated approach. 

Society and Natural Resources. 26: 5–20.

Bernard, T. 2010. Hope and hard times: communities, collaboration, and 

sustainability. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. 234 p.

Bernard, T.; Young, J. 1997. The ecology of hope: communities collaborate for 

sustainability. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. 325 p.

Beverly, J.L.; Uto, K.; Wilkes, J.; Bothwell, P. 2008. Assessing spatial attributes 

of forest landscape values: an internet-based participatory mapping approach. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 38: 289–303.

Bliss, J.; Aplet, G.; Hartzell, C.; Harwood, P.; Jahnige, P.; Kittredge, D.; 

Lewandowski, S.; Soscia, M.L. 2001. Community-based ecosystem monitoring. 

In: Gray, G.J.; Enzer, M.J.; Kusel, J., eds. Understanding community-based forest 

ecosystem management. Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press: 143–167.

Brown, G.G. 2004. Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural 

resource management: methods and applications. Society and Natural Resources. 

18(1): 17–39.

Brown, G.G.; Donovan, S. 2013. Escaping the national forest planning quagmire: 

using public participation GIS to assess acceptable national forest use. Journal of 

Forestry. 111(2): 115–125.

Brown, G.G.; Kelly, M.; Whitall, D. 2013. Which ‘public’? Sampling effects in 

public participation GIS (PPGIS) and volunteered geographic information (VGI) 

systems for public lands management. Journal of Environmental Planning and 

Management. doi:10.1080/09640568.2012.741045.

Brown, G.; Weber, D. 2011. Public Participation GIS: a new method for national 

park planning. Landscape and Urban Planning. 102(1): 1–15.

Bryan, T.A. 2004. Tragedy averted: the promise of collaboration. Society and 

Natural Resources. 17(10): 881–896.

Bussink, C. 2003. GIS as a tool in participatory natural resource management: 

Examples from the Peruvian Andes. Mountain Research and Development. 

23(4): 320–323.
696

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Butler, W.H.; Goldstein, B.E. 2010. The U.S. Fire Learning Network: providing 

a narrative framework for restoring ecosystems, professions, and institutions. 

Society and Natural Resources. 23(10): 935–951.

Cerveny, L.; Charnley, S. [In press.] Public use and citizen outreach at 

experimental forests and ranges. In: Hayes, D.C.; Stout, S.L.; Crawford, R.F.; 

Hoover, A.P., eds. USDA Forest Service experimental forests and ranges: 

research for the long term. New York: Springer.

Charnley, S. 2008. Socioeconomic monitoring and forest management. In: 

Donoghue, E.M.; Sturtevant, V., eds. Community-forest connections: 

implications for research, management, and governance. Washington, DC: 

Resources for the Future Press: 45–65.

Charnley, S.; Fischer, A.P.; Jones, E.T. 2007. Integrating traditional and local 

ecological knowledge into forest biodiversity conservation in the Pacific 

Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management. 246(1): 14–28.

Charnley, S.; Fischer, A.P.; Jones, E.T. 2008. Traditional and local ecological 

knowledge about forest biodiversity in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-751. Portland, OR: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 52 p.

Cheng, A.S.; Mattor, K.M. 2010. Place-based planning as a platform for social 

learning: insights from a national forest landscape assessment process in western 

Colorado. Society and Natural Resources. 23(5): 385–400.

Cheng, A.; Sturtevant, V.E. 2012. A framework for assessing collaborative 

capacity in communtiy-based public forest management. Environmental 

Management. 49: 675–689.

Colburn, C.H. 2002. Forest policy and the Quincy Library Group. In: Brunner, 

R.D.; Colburn, C.H.; Klein, R.A.; Olson, E.A., eds. Finding common ground: 

governance and natural resources in the American West. New Haven, CT: Yale 

University Press: 159–200. Chapter 5.

Collaborative Forest Restoration Program. 2005. Monitoring social and 

economic effects of forest restoration. Handbook 5, the multiparty monitoring 

handbook series. Flagstaff, AZ: Ecological Restoration Institute. 55 p.

Cortner, H.J. 2000. Making science relevant to environmental policy. 

Environmental Science and Policy. 3: 21–30.
697

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Cortner, H.J.; Moote, M.A. 1999. The politics of ecosystem management. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 181 p.

Costanza, J.K.; Moody, A. 2011. Deciding where to burn: stakeholder priorities 

for prescribed burning of a fire-dependent ecosystem. Ecology and Society. 

16(1): 14.

Cumming, G.S.; Cumming, D.H.M.; Redman, C.L. 2006. Scale mismatches 

in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecology and 

Society. 11(1): 14.

Dasse, C.M. 2002. Adopting collaborative management programs. International 

Journal of Economic Development. 4(3–4). http://www.spaef.com/article/670/

Adopting-Collaborative-Management-Programs. (16 June 2014).

Davis-Case, D. 1998. Community forestry: participatory assessment, monitoring 

and evaluation. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations. 150 p.

DeLuca, T.H.; Aplet, G.H.; Wilmer, B.; Burchfield, J. 2010. The unknown 

trajectory of forest restoration: a call for ecosystem monitoring. Journal of 

Forestry. 108(6): 288–295.

Dickinson, J.L.; Shirk, J.; Bonter, D.; Bonney, R.; Crain, R.L.; Martin, J.; 

Phillips, T.; Purcell, K. 2012. The current state of citizen science as a tool 

for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment. 10(6): 291–297.

Donoghue, E.M.; Thompson, S.A.; Bliss, J.C. 2010. Tribal-federal collaboration 

in resource management. Journal of Ecological Anthropology. 14(1): 22–38.

Dukes, E.F. 2011. The promise of community-based collaboration: agenda 

for an authentic future. In: Dukes, E.F.; Firehock, K.E.; Birkhoff, J.E., eds. 

Community-based collaboration: bridging socio-ecological research and practice. 

Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press: 191–216. Chapter 7.

Dunn, C.E. 2007. Participatory GIS a people’s GIS? Progress in Human 

Geography. 31(5): 616–637.

Everett, Y. 2001. Participatory research for adaptive management: a case of 

nontimber forest products. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 13(1/2): 335–357.

Everett, Y.; Fuller, M. 2011. Fire safe councils in the interface. Society and 

Natural Resources. 24(4): 319–333.
698

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E.; Ballard, H.L. 2011. How CBCs learn: ecological 

monitoring and adaptive management. In: Dukes, E.F.; Firehock, K.E.; Birkhoff, 

J.E., eds. Community-based collaboration: bridging socio-ecological research 

and practice. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press: 45–80. Chapter 3.

Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E.; Ballard, H.L.; Sturtevant, V.E. 2008. Adaptive 

management and social learning in collaborative and community-based 

monitoring: a study of five community-based forestry organizations in the 

western USA. Ecology and Society. 13(2): 4. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/

vol13/iss2/art4/. (26 December 2013).

Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E.; Ruyle, G.; McClaran, S.J. 2005. An evaluation 

of Arizona cooperative extension’s rangeland monitoring program. Rangeland 

Ecology and Management. 58(1): 89–98.

Ferranto, S.; Huntsinger, L.; Getz, C.; Lahiff, M.; Stewart, W.; Nakamura, 

G.; Kelly, M. 2013. Management without borders? A survey of landowner 

practices and attitudes toward cross-boundary cooperation. Society and Natural 

Resources. 26(9): 1086–1100. doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.779343.

Firehock, K.E. 2011. The community-based collaborative movement in the United 

States. In: Dukes, E.F.; Firehock, K.E.; Birkhoff, J.E., eds. Community-based 

collaboration: bridging socio-ecological research and practice. Charlottesville, 

VA: University of Virginia Press: 1–18.

Fischer, P.A.; Charnley, S. 2012. Risk and cooperation: managing hazardous fuel 

in mixed ownership landscapes. Environmental Management. 49(6): 1192–1207.

Fleeger, W.E.; Becker, M.L. 2010. Decision processes for multijurisdictional 

planning and management: community wildfire protection planning in Oregon. 

Society and Natural Resources. 23(4): 351–365.

Fortmann, L. ed. 2008. Participatory research in conservation and rural 

livelihoods: doing science together. Oxford, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell 

and Zoological Society of London. 284 p.

Fortmann, L.; Ballard, H. 2011. Sciences, knowledges, and the practice of 

forestry. European Journal of Forest Research. 130(3): 467–477.

Frost, P. [In press]. Stewardship agreements: the Weaverville Community Forest, 

California. In: Charnley, S.; Sheridan, T.E.; Nabhan, G.P., eds. Stitching the 

West back together: conserving working landscapes. Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press.
699

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Garibaldi, A.; Turner, N. 2004. Cultural keystone species: implications for 

conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society. 9(3): 1.

Getches, D.H.; Wilkinson, C.F.; Williams, J.; Robert, A.; Fletcher, M.L.M. 

2011. Cases and materials on federal Indian law. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. 

1088 p.

Goldstein, B.E. 2012. Collaborative resilience: moving through crisis to 

opportunity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 424 p.

Goldstein, B.E.; Butler, W.H.; Hull, B. 2010. The fire learning network: a 

promising conservation strategy. Journal of Forestry. 108(3): 120–125.

Gonzalez, R. 2002. Joint learning with GIS: multi-actor resource management. 

Agricultural Systems. 73: 99–111.

Hall, G.B.; Moore, A.; Knight, P.; Hankey, N. 2009. The extraction and 

utilization of local and scientific geospatial knowledge within the Bluff oyster 

fishery, New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Management. 90(6): 2055–2070.

Hibbard, M.; Madsen, J. 2003. Environmental resistance to place-based 

collaboration in the U.S. West. Society and Natural Resources. 16(8): 703–718.

Jakes, P.; Burns, S.; Cheng, A.; Saeli, E.; Nelson, K.; Brummel, R.; Grayzeck, 

S.; Sturtevant, V.; Williams, D. 2007. Critical elements in the development and 

implementation of Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs). In: Butler, 

B.W.; Cook, W., comps. The fire environment—innovations, management, and 

policy; conference proceedings. Proceedings RMRS-P-46CD. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station: 613–624. 

Jakes, P.J.; Esposito, C.; Burns, S.; Nelson, K.C.; Cheng, A.S.; Sturtevant, 

V.E.; Williams, D.R. 2012. Best management practices for creating a 

Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-89. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 27 p.

Jakes, P.J.; Nelson, K.C.; Enzler, S.A.; Burns, S.; Cheng, A.S.; Sturtevant, 

V.E.; Williams, D.R.; Bujak, A.; Brummel, R.F.; Grayzeck-Souter, S.; 

Staychock, E. 2011. Community wildfire protection planning: Is the Healthy 

Forests Restoration Act’s vagueness genius? International Journal of Wildland 

Fire. 20(3): 350–363.
700

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Jankowski, P. 2009. Towards participatory geographic information systems for 

community-based environmental decision making. Journal of Environmental 

Management. 90(6): 1966–1971.

Kemmis, D.; McKinney, M. 2011. Collaboration and the ecology of democracy. 

Sustainable Development Law & Policy. 12(1): 46–50, 69–70.

Koontz, T.M.; Thomas, C. 2006. What do we know and need to know about the 

environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Administration 

Review. 66(s1): 111–121.

Kusel, J.; Kocher, S.; London, J.; Buttolph, L.; Schuster, E. 2000. Effects of 

displacement and outsourcing on woods workers and their families. Society and 

Natural Resources. 13(2): 115–134.

Kyem, P.A.K. 2000. Embedding GIS applications into resource management and 

planning activities of local and indigenous communities: A desirable innovation 

or a destabilizing enterprise? Journal of Planning Education and Research. 

20(2): 176–186.

Lindenmayer, D.B.; Franklin, J.F. 2002. Conserving forest biodiversity: a 

comprehensive multiscaled approach. Washington, DC: Island Press. 351 p.

London, J.; Starrs, P.F.; Fortmann, L. 2005. Power plants and forest plans: two 

decades of mobilization in a mountain forest community. In: Lee, R.G.; Field, 

D.R., eds. Communities and forests: where people meet the land. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon State University Press: 116–137. Chapter 7.

Long, J.; Burnette, M.; Endfield, D.; Lupe, C. 2008. Battle and the bridge: 

using participatory approaches to develop community researchers in ecological 

management. In: Wilmsen, C.; Elemendorf, E.; Ross, L.; Sarathy, B.; Wells, G., 

eds. Partnerships for empowerment: participatory research for community-based 

natural resource management. London, United Kingdom, and Sterling, VA: 

Earthscan: 217–237. Chapter 10.

Margerum, R.D. 2011. Beyond consensus: improving collaborative planning and 

management. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 395 p.

Marston, E. 2000. The Quincy Library Group: a divisive attempt at peace. 

In: Brick, P.; Snow, D.; Van de Wetering, S., eds. Across the great divide: 

explorations in collaborative conservation and the American West. Washington, 

DC: Island Press: 79–90.
701

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

McDermott, M.H.; Moote, M.A.; Danks, C. 2011. Effective collaboration: 

overcoming external obstacles. In: Dukes, E.F.; Firehock, K.E.; Birkhoff, J.E., 

eds. Community-based collaboration: bridging socio-ecological research and 

practice. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press: 81–110. Chapter 4.

McLain, R.; Poe, M.; Biedenweg, K.; Cerveny, L.; Besser, D.; Blahna, D. 

2013. Making sense of human ecology mapping: an overview of approaches to 

integrating socio-spatial data into environmental planning. Human Ecology. 

41: 651–665. doi:10.1007/s10745-013-9573-0.

Mersey, J.E.; Millward, A.A.; Martinez, L.M. 2002. Realizing the potential of 

GIS in community-based management of protected areas. International Journal 

of Sustainable Development and World Ecology. 9(3): 208–222.

Middleton, B.R. 2011. Trust in the land: new directions in tribal conservation. 

Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. 352 p.

Moir, W.H.; Block, W.M. 2001. Adaptive management on public lands in the 

United States: Commitment or rhetoric? Environmental Management. 

28(2): 141–148.

Moseley, C.; Wilson, L.J. 2002. Multiparty monitoring for sustainable natural 

resource management. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Institute for a 

Sustainable Environment. 93 p.

Nabhan, G.P. 2010. Perspectives in ethnobiology: ethnophenology and climate 

change. Journal of Ethnobiology. 30(1): 1–4.

Nadasdy, P. 2007. Adaptive co-management and the gospel of resilience. In: 

Armitage, D.; Berkes, F.; Doubleday, N., eds. Adaptive co-management: 

collaboration, learning, and multilevel governance. Vancouver, BC: University 

of British Columbia Press: 208–227. Chapter 11.

Nelson, D.R.; Adger, W.N.; Brown, K. 2007. Adaptation to environmental change: 

contributions of a resilience framework. Annual Review of Environment and 

Resources. 32: 395–419.

Newman, G.; Wiggins, A.; Crall, A.; Graham, E.; Newman, S.; Crowston, 

K. 2012. The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting 

paradigms. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 10(6): 298–304.

North, M.; Rojas, R. 2012. Dinkey North and South Project. In: North, M., ed. 

Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 117–126. Chapter 11.
702

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Pilz, D.; Ballard, H.; Jones, E.T. 2006. Broadening participation in biological 

monitoring: handbook for scientists and managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-680. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 131 p.

Pritchard, L.; Sanderson, S.E. 2002. The dynamics of political discourse 

in seeking sustainability. In: Gunderson, L.; Holling, C.S., eds. Panarchy: 

understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, 

DC: Island Press: 147–172.

Quinn-Davidson, L.N.; Varner, M. 2012. Impediments to prescribed fire across 

agency, landscape, and management: an example from northern California. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. 21(3): 210–218.

Raymond, C.M.; Fazey, I.; Reed, M.S.; Stringer, L.C.; Robinson, G.M.; 

Eveley, A.C. 2010. Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental 

management. Journal of Environmental Management. 91(8): 1766–1777.

Reynolds, L.A. 1996. The role of Indian tribal governments and communities in 

regional land management. In: SNEP Science Team and Special Consultants, 

eds. Status of the Sierra Nevada, Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report 

to Congress. Vol. II: Assessments and scientific basis for management options. 

Report No. 37. Davis, CA: Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University 

of California–Davis: 207–233.

Rickenbach, M.; Schulte, L.A.; Kittredge, D.B.; Labich, W.G.; Shinneman, 

D.J. 2011. Cross-boundary cooperation: a mechanism for sustaining ecosystem 

services from private lands. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 66(4): 

91a–96a.

Scheffer, M.; Westley, F.; Brock, W.A.; Holmgren, M. 2002. Dynamic 

interactions of societies and ecosystems—linking theories from ecology, 

economy, and sociology. In: Gunderson, L.; Holling, C.S., eds. Panarchy: 

understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, 

DC: Island Press: 195–240.

Scholz, J.T.; Wang, C.L. 2006. Cooptation of transformation? Local policy 

networks and federal regulatory enforcement. American Journal of Political 

Science. 50(1): 81–97.

Schultz, C.A.; Jedd, T.; Beam, R.D. 2012. The Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration Program: a history and overview of the first projects. Journal of 

Forestry. 110(7): 381–391.
703

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Shebitz, D.J.; Reichard, S.H.; Woubneh, W. 2008. Beargrass (Xerophyllum 

tenax) on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington: autecology and population status. 

Northwest Science. 82(2): 128–140.

Stankey, G.H.; Bormann, B.T.; Ryan, C.; Shindler, B.; Sturtevant, V.; Clark, 

R.N.; Philpot, C. 2003. Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan—

rhetoric and reality. Journal of Forestry. 101(1): 40–46.

Sturtevant, V.; McCaffrey, S.M. 2006. Encouraging wildland fire preparedness: 

lessons learned from three wildfire education programs. In: McCaffrey, S.M., ed. 

The public and wildland fire management: social science findings for managers. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-1. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 125–136.

The Nature Conservancy [TNC]. 2012. U.S. fire learning network field guide. 

Arlington, VA. 102 p.

Turner, N.; Berkes, F. 2006. Coming to understanding: developing conservation 

through incremental learning in the Pacific Northwest. Human Ecology. 

34: 495–513.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2005. Southwestern 

Region State and Private Forestry—Collaborative Forest Restoration Program. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r3/workingtogether/grants/?cid=fsBdev3_022022. 

(7 March 2013).

Usher, P.J. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment 

and management. Arctic. 53(2): 183–193.

Van de Water, K.M.; Safford, H.D. 2011. A summary of fire frequency estimates 

for California vegetation before Euro-American settlement. Fire Ecology. 

7(3): 26–58.

Wade, D.; Miller, S.; Stowe, J.; Brenner, J. 2006. Rx fire laws: tools to protect 

fire: the ‘ecological imperative’. In: Dickinson, M.B., ed. Fire in eastern oak 

forests: delivering science to land managers, proceedings of a conference. GTRNRS-P-1. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station: 233–262.

Walker, B.; Carpenter, S.; Anderies, J.; Abel, N.; Cumming, G.; Janssen, 

M.; Lebel, L.; Norberg, J.; Peterson, G.D.; Pritchard, R. 2002. Resilience 

management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a 

participatory approach. Conservation Ecology. 6(1): 14.
704

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Walker, B.; Salt, D. 2006. Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people 

in a changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press. 174 p.

Williams, B.K. 2011. Passive and active adaptive management: approaches and an 

example. Journal of Environmental Management. 92(5): 1371–1378.

Wilmsen, C.; Elmendorf, W.; Fisher, L.; Ross, J.; Sarathy, B.; Wells, G., eds. 

2008. Partnerships for empowerment: participatory research for communitybased natural resource management. London, United Kingdom, and Sterling, 

VA: Earthscan. 292 p.

Acknowledgments 

The editors wish to acknowledge the contributions of all the synthesis team to this 

endeavor, along with many others who provided input and reviews of previous 

drafts. The team wishes to thank leadership from Region 5 and the Pacific Southwest (PSW) Research Station for investing significant resources into this effort. In 

particular, we wish to acknowledge Joe Stringer, Deb Whitall, and Ron Pugh from 

the Region 5 planning staff for their support, Becky Estes and Michelle Coppoletta 

from the Region 5 Ecology program for timely and pertinent feedback on drafts, as 

well as Jane Hayes and Rick Bottoms from PSW Research Station leadership for 

overseeing coordination of this project and for Jane’s comprehensive review and 

editing. We acknowledge representatives of the California Forestry Association 

and Sierra Forest Legacy for their important role in bringing this science synthesis 

to fruition and providing feedback on draft versions. In addition, we thank other 

members of the public who provided comments through the Sierra Cascades Dialog 

sessions and direct correspondence to the PSW Research Station and Lenya QuinnDavidson.
705

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

English Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Millimeters (mm) 0.0394 Inches

Centimeters (cm) .394 Inches

Meters (m) 3.28 Feet

Meters 1.094 Yards

Meters per second (m/s) 2.24 Miles per hour

Kilometers (km) .621 Miles

Hectares (ha) 2.47 Acres

Square millimeters (mm2) .00155 Square inches

Square meters (m2) 10.76 Square feet

Square kilometers (km2) .386 Square miles

Cubic meters (m3) 35.3 Cubic feet

Cubic meters 60,975 Cubic inches

Cubic meters .000811 Acre-feet

Hectare-meters (ha-m) 8.11 Acre-feet

Liters (L) .0353 Cubic feet

Milliliters (mL) .061 Cubic inches

Liters .265 Gallons

Liters 33.78 Ounces (fluid)

Milliliters (or cubic centimeters [cc]) .0338 Ounces (fluid)

Cubic meters per hour (m3

/hr) .00981 Cubic feet per second

Cubic meters per hour (m3/hr) 4.4 Gallons per minute

Grams (g) .0352 Ounces

Grams .0022 Pounds

Kilograms (kg) 2.205 Pounds

Kilograms .0011 Tons

Tonnes (t) or megagrams (Mg) 1.102 Tons

Kilograms per hectare (kg/ha) .893 Pounds per acre

Tonnes per hectare (t/ha) 893 Pounds per acre

Tonnes or megagrams per hectare (t/ha) (Mg/ha) .446 Tons per acre

Square meters per hectare (m2/ha) 4.37 Square feet per acre

Cubic meters per hectare (m3/ha) 14.29 Cubic feet per acre

Trees per hectare .405 Trees per acre

Degrees Celsius (°C) 1.8 °C + 32 Degrees Fahrenheit
706

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Appendix: Recent Topical Syntheses

Many of the recent topical synthesis reports cited in this report are listed below. 

Readers are urged to review the reference sections of each chapter for a more 

complete list.

Great Basin Ecosystems (also see “Meadows” below)

Chambers, J.C.; Brooks, M.L.; Pendleton, B.K.; Raish, C.B., eds. 2013. The 

southern Nevada agency partnership science and research synthesis: science to 

support land management in southern Nevada. Executive summary. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-GTR-304. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 79 p.

Chambers, J.C.; Brooks, M.L.; Pendleton, B.K.; Raish, C.B., eds. 2013. The 

southern Nevada agency partnership science and research synthesis: science 

to support land management in southern Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-303. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 207 p.

Chambers, J.C.; Devoe, N.; Evenden, A., eds. 2008. Collaborative management 

and research in the Great Basin—examining the issues and developing a 

framework for action. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 66 p.

Lake Tahoe Basin

Hymanson, Z.P.; Collopy, M.W., eds. 2010. An integrated science plan for the 

Lake Tahoe basin: conceptual framework and research strategies. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-226. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 368 p.

Forest Ecology Including Climate Change

Busse, M.D.; Hubbert, K.D.; Moghaddas, E.Y. 2014. Fuel reduction practices and 

their effects on soil quality. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-241. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

156 p. 

Elliot, W.J.; Miller, I.-S.; Audin, L., eds. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects 

of fuel management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 299 p.
707

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Jain, T.B.; Battaglia, M.A.; Han, H.-S.; Graham, R.T.; Keyes, C.R.; Fried, 

J.S.; Sandquist, J.E. 2012. A comprehensive guide to fuel management 

practices for dry mixed conifer forests in the northwestern United States. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-292. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 331 p.

Joyce, L.A., Blate, G.M.; Littell, J.S.; McNulty, S.G.; Millar, C.I.; Moser, S.C.; 

Neilson, R.P.; O’Halloran, K.; Peterson, D.L. 2008. Adaptation options for 

climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources: national forests: preliminary review 

of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. Synthesis 

and Assessment Product 4.4. Washington, DC: U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program. 126 p. Chapter 3.

Keane, R.E.; Tomback, D.F.; Aubry, C.A.; Bower, A.D.; Campbell, E.M.; 

Cripps, C.L.; Jenkins, M.B.; Mahalovich, M.F.; Manning, M.; McKinney, 

S.T.; Murray, M.P.; Perkins, D.L.; Reinhart, D.P.; Ryan, C.; Schoettle, A.W.; 

Smith, C.M. 2012. A range-wide restoration strategy for whitebark pine (Pinus 

albicaulis). Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-279. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 108 p.

Kliejunas, J.T. 2011. A risk assessment of climate change and the impact of forest 

diseases on forest ecosystems in the Western United States and Canada. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-236. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 70 p.

Kliejunas, J.T.; Geils, B.W.; Glaeser, J.M.; Goheen, E.M.; Hennon, P.; Kim, 

M.-S.; Kope, H.; Stone, J.; Sturrock, R.; Frankel, S.J. 2009. Review of 

literature on climate change and forest diseases of western North America. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-225. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 54 p.

Knapp, E.E.; Estes, B.L.; Skinner, C.N. 2009. Ecological effects of prescribed 

fire season: a literature review and synthesis for managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PSW-GTR-224. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 80 p.

Luce, C.; Morgan, P.; Dwire, K.; Isaak, D.; Holden, Z.; Rieman, B. 2012.

Climate change, forests, fire, water, and fish: building resilient landscapes, 

streams, and managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-290. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 207 p.
708

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

McDonald, P.M.; Fiddler, G.O. 2010. Twenty-five years of managing vegetation 

in conifer plantations in northern and central California: results, application, 

principles, and challenges. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-231. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

87 p.

McIver, J.D.; Stephens, S.L.; Agee, J.K.; Barbour, J.; Boerner, R.E.J.; 

Edminster, C.B.; Erickson, K.L.; Farris, K.L.; Fettig, C.J.; Fiedler, 

C.E.; Haase, S.; Hart, S.C.; Keeley, J.E.; Knapp, E.E.; Lehmkuhl, J.F.; 

Moghaddas, J.J.; Otrosina, W.; Outcalt, K.W.; Schwilk, D.W.; Skinner, 

C.N.; Waldrop, T.A.; Weatherspoon, C.P.; Yaussy, D.A.; Youngblood, 

A.; Zack, S. 2012. Ecological effects of alternative fuel reduction treatments: 

principal findings of the national Fire and Fire Surrogates study (FFS). 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF11130. (13 

December 2013).

North, M., ed. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. 184 p.

North, M.; Stine, P.; O’Hara, K.; Zielinski, W.; Stephens, S. 2009. An 

ecosystem management strategy for Sierran mixed-conifer forests. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49 p.

Peterson, D.L.; Agee, J.K.; Aplet, G.H.; Dykstra, D.P.; Graham, R.T.; 

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Piliod, D.S.; Potts, D.F.; Powers, R.F.; Stuart, J.D. 2009. 

Effects of timber harvest following wildfire in western North America. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-776. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 p.

Peterson, D.L.; Millar, C.I.; Joyce, L.A.; Furniss, M.J.; Halofsky, J.E.; Neilson, 

R.P.; Morelli, T.-L. 2011. Responding to climate change in national forests: a 

guidebook for developing adaptation options. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-855. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 109 p.

Reinhardt, E.; Keane, R.; Calkin, D.; Cohen, J. 2008. Objectives and 

considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior 

western United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 256(12): 1997–2006.
709

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Ryan, K.C.; Jones, A.T.; Koerner, C.L.; Lee, K.M., tech. eds. 2012. Wildland 

fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on cultural resources and archaeology. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 3. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 224 p.

Shepperd, W.D.; Rogers, P.; Burton, D.; Bartos, D.L. 2006. Ecology, 

biodiversity, management, and restoration of aspen in the Sierra Nevada. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-178. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 122 p.

Stephens, S.L.; McIver, J.D.; Boerner, R.E.J.; Fettig, C.J.; Fontaine, J.B.; 

Hartsough, B.R.; Kennedy, P.L.; Schwilk, D.W. 2012. The effects of forest 

fuel-reduction treatments in the United States. BioScience. 62(6): 549–560.

Vose, J.M.; Peterson, D.L.; Patel-Weynand, T. 2012. Effects of climatic 

variability and change on forest ecosystems: a comprehensive science synthesis 

for the U.S. forest sector. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-870. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 265 p.

Wiens, J.A.; Hayward, G.D.; Safford, H.D.; Giffen, C.M. 2012. Historical 

environmental variation in conservation and natural resource management. 

Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons. 352 p.

Post-Wildfire Management

Foltz, R.B.; Robichaud, P.R. 2013. Effectiveness of post-fire burned area 

emergency response (BAER) road treatments: results from three wildfires. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-313. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 40 p.

Foltz, R.B.; Robichaud, P.R.; Rhee, H. 2008. A synthesis of postfire 

road treatments for BAER teams: methods, treatment effectiveness, and 

decisionmaking tools for rehabilitation. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-228. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 152 p.
710

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Meadows

Chambers, J.C.; Miller, J.R., eds. 2011. Geomorphology, hydrology, and 

ecology of Great Basin meadow complexes—implications for management 

and restoration. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-258. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

125 p.

Ramstead, K.M.; Allen, J.A.; Springer, A.E. 2012. Have wet meadow restoration 

projects in the southwestern U.S. been effective in restoring geomorphology, 

hydrology, soils, and plant species composition? Environmental Evidence. 

1(11): 16.

All-Terrain Vehicles

Meadows, D.; Foltz, R.B.; Geehan, N. 2008. Effects of all terrain vehicles on 

forested lands. Report No. 0823 1811-SDTDC. San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, National Technology and Development Program. 124 p.

Rangeland Management 

Briske, D.D., ed. 2011. Conservation benefits of rangeland practices: assessment, 

recommendations, and knowledge gaps. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 429 p.

Social Science

Absher, J.D.; Vaske, J.J.; Shelby, L.B. 2009. Residents’ responses to wildland fire 

programs: a review of cognitive and behavioral studies. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-223. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. 31 p.

Chavez, D.J.; Absher, J.D.; Winter, P.L. 2008. Fire social science research 

from the Pacific Southwest research station: studies supported by national fire 

plan funds Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-209. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 251 p.

Chavez, D.J.; Winter, P.L.; Absher, J.D., eds. 2008. Recreation visitor research: 

studies of diversity. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-210. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

216 p.
711

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range

Daniel, T.C.; Carroll, M.S.; Moseley, C.; Raish, C. 2007. People, fire and forests: 

a synthesis of wildfire social science. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University 

Press. 240 p.

Foti, R.; Ramirez, J.A.; Brown, T.C. 2012. Vulnerability of U.S. water 

supply to shortage: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 

RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-295. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 147 p.

Kruger, L.E.; Hall, T.E.; Stiefel, M.C., tech. eds. 2008. Understanding concepts 

of place in recreation research and management. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-744. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 204 p.

Lynn, K.; MacKendrick, K.; Donoghue, E.M. 2011. Social vulnerability 

and climate change: synthesis of literature. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-838. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 70 p.

McCaffrey, S.M. 2006. The public and wildland fire management: social science 

findings for managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-1. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 202 p.

McCaffrey, S.M.; Olsen, C.S. 2012. Research perspectives on the public and 

fire management: a synthesis of current social science on eight essential 

questions. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-104. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 40 p.

McCaffrey, S.M.; Toman, E.; Stidham, M.; Shindler, B. 2012. Social science 

research related to wildfire management: an overview of recent findings and 

future research needs. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 22: 15–24.

McCool, S.F.; Burchfield, J.; Williams, D.R.; Carroll, M.; Cohn, P.; Kumagai, 

Y.; Ubhen, T. 2007. Social science to improve fuels management: a synthesis 

of research on the impacts of wildland fires on communities. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NC-269. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 36 p.
712

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247

Peterson, D.L.; Millar, C.I.; Joyce, L.A.; Furniss, M.J.; Halofsky, J.E.; Neilson, 

R.P.; Morelli, T.L. 2011. Responding to climate change in national forests: a 

guidebook for developing adaptation options. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-855. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 109 p.

Smith, N.; Deal, R.; Kline, J.D.; Patterson, T.; Spies, T.; Blahna, D. 2011. Using 

ecosystem services as a framework for forest stewardship: executive summary. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-852. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 46 p.

Stein, S.M.; Menakis, J.; Carr, M.A.; Comas, S.J.; Stewart, S.I.; Cleveland, 

H.; Bramwell, L.; Radeloff, V.C. 2013. Wildfire, wildlands, and people: 

understanding and preparing for wildfire in the wildland-urban interface—a 

Forests on the Edge report. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 36 p.
This publication is available online at www.fs.fed.us/psw/. You may also order additional 

copies of it by sending your mailing information in label form through one of the following 

means. Please specify the publication title and series number.

Fort Collins Service Center 

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1122

E-mail rmrspubrequest@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution 

 Rocky Mountain Research Station 

 240 West Prospect Road 

 Fort Collins, CO 80526-2098

Pacific Southwest Research Station

800 Buchanan Street

Albany, CA 94710