Guide for Quantifying Fuels in the Sagebrush 

and Juniper Woodlands of the Great BasinAndrea Stebleton and Stephen BuntingTechnical Note 430
Available Online at:

http://www.blm.gov (PDF version)http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/GBFuelsGuide (online version of guide)To Order Additional Copies:

Send order with mailing address and phone number to Printed Materials Distribution Section (PMDS), FAX email BLM_NOC_PMDS@blm.govSuggested Citation:Stebleton, A. and S. Bunting. 2009. Guide for Quantifying Fuels in the Sagebrush Steppe and Juniper Wo

Basin. Technical Note 430. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO, BLM/ID/PT-09/002+2824. 81p.BLM/ID/PT-09/002+2824
Contents

1 Abstract2 Introduction4 Methods9 Using the Great Basin Fuels Guide10 Further Information11 References15 Sagebrush Steppe Fuels Guide: 4 Groups29 Pinyon-Juniper Fuels Guide: 3 Phases43 Utah Juniper Fuels Guide: 3 Phases 57 Western Juniper Fuels Guide: 3 Phases70 Appendix I: Species Index72 Appendix II: Glossary of Terms74 Appendix III: Conversion Table75 Appendix IV: Tree Loadings by Size Class76 Appendix V: Shrub Loadings by Size Class80 Appendix VI: Shrub Sample Ranges
This page intentionally left blank.
1

Abstract

Prescribed fi re is increasingly used for fuels management and ecosystem restoration. Managers and fuels Great Basin are often required to estimate fuel loadings to predict fi re behavior, recommend fuel treatmenits natural fi re regime. Because of invasive species and woodland encroachment, there have been extensregimes of sagebrush steppe over the past 150 years. After two years of pre-treatment sampling across sBasin, the Sagebrush Steppe Treatment and Evaluation Project (SageSTEP) measured many variables insoils, hydrology, wildlife, and fuels. These data will be instrumental in assessing the effectiveness of prescand mechanical treatments and provide a better estimate of the vegetation and fuels that currently exist o‘Guide for Quantifying Fuels in the Sagebrush Steppe and Juniper Woodlands of the Great Basin’ assimilapretreatment vegetation and fuels data into an assessment tool that will help users better estimate percenand fuel loadings for their site. Designed similarly to the Natural Fuels Photo Series, produced by USDA FEnvironmental Research Applications team (FERA), this Guide provides the necessary landscape-level inbehavior and fi re effects models along with building custom fuelbeds. Through the use of photographs and 

of values for each vegetation type, a user should be able to quickly appraise their site by fuel stratum. 

AcknowledgementsWe recognize Chad Hoffman, University of Idaho, Dr. Karen Launchbaugh, University of Idaho, and Dr. SuUniversity of Washington, for their expertise and input on this Guide; the SageSTEP fi eld crews lead by JeJessop, Travis Miller, Jamie Ratchford, and Scott Shaff for all the data collection and pictures; Courtney Lovariable derivations; Dr. Chris Williams, University of Idaho, for his statistical counsel; Dr. Roger Ottmar, Uand the FERA team for their expertise; Summer Olsen for layout and design; the SageSTEP team and prifor their guidance and support; Annie Brown, BLM Salt Lake City Field Offi ce, Brook Chadwick, BLM Salt Beth Corbin, Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National Forest, Louisa Evers, Oregon BLM, Albert Flores, Gila NGregory, Nevada Offi ce of Fire and Aviation, Donald Tschida, Prineville BLM, Rivers Division, and DonovaMountain District for their review and suggestions. This is contribution number 04 of the Sagebrush Steppe Treatment Evaluation Project (SageSTEP), suppU.S. Joint Fire Science Program. This is contribution number 1036 of the Idaho Forest, Wildlife, and RangUniversity of Idaho, Moscow. Printing and distribution of this guide was funded by the Bureau of Land ManOffi ce. 

Abstract
2

IntroductionSageSTEP (Sagebrush Steppe Treatment Evaluation Project) is an interdisciplinary, fi ve-year study to evaluate the effects of various restoration treatments in sagebrush steppe communities of the Great Basin (McIver et al. 2005). Sagebrush steppe, characterized by dry, open expanses dominated by sagebrush plant communities, is one of the most threatened vegetation types in North America (Noss et al. 1995). Loss of sagebrush steppe is often attributed to shifting fi re regimes as a result of nonnative grass invasion, especially cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), and pinyon pine (Pinus edulis and Pinus monophylla) and juniper (Juniperus spp.) encroachment (Pellant 1994, Miller and Tausch 2001). SageSTEP is funded by the Joint Fire Science Program and involves collaboration with fi ve universities, six federal agencies, and one non-profi t organization. The overall goal of 

SageSTEP is to identify abotic and biotic thresholds that infl uence the sustainability of sagebrush steppe communities and provide information to managers, ranchers, and the general public to help restore sagebrush steppe to a healthier, more diverse ecosystem.Cheatgrass has invaded nearly 25 million acres of the Great Basin (Olson 2008). Cheatgrass is able to gain a foothold in native communities by providing a continuous bed of fi ne fuel susceptible to fi re at a time when it is most 

harmful to native perennials (Peters and Bunting 1994) because of its ability to germinate and establish before native perennial grasses (Bradford and Lauenroth 2006) and because it cures earlier in the growing season than perennials (Mutch 1967). Figure 1. SageSTEP Site Map; for reference with 

information is available at http://www.sagestep.

Introduction
3

Cheatgrass dominance has shifted the mean fi re return interval from 50–100+ years, in healthy Wyoming 

dominated communities, to less than 10 years (Whisenant 1990). Increased fi re frequency perpetuates ch

quickly depletes the sagebrush seed bank, and converts native vegetation to an annual grassland (Whiseconcern in the Sagebrush/Cheatgrass locations (Figure 1). These will be referred to as the ‘sagebrush siteGuide.Woodland encroachment of pinyon pine and juniper has caused a major shift in species assemblages and 

of sagebrush steppe landscapes (McIver et al. 2005). The average fi re return interval has shifted from 10–

Mountain big sagebrush dominated communities, to more than 50 years (Miller et al. 1999, Miller and Taufi re does burn in these woodlands it is characterized by extreme fi re behavior and results in more stand re

historic sagebrush communities. Native species recover slowly following high intensity fi res, allowing furth

over large areas. This is the major concern in the Sagebrush/Pinyon-Juniper, Sagebrush/Utah Juniper, anJuniper locations (Figure 1). These will be referred to as the ‘woodland sites’ for the rest of the Guide.The ‘Guide for Quantifying Fuels in the Sagebrush Steppe and Juniper Woodlands of the Great Basin’ wapretreatment data collected by fi ve fi eld crews in 2006 and 2007. The SageSTEP network consists of fi ve 21 total sites spanning Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada and Utah (Figure 1). Each site was alone experiment, however because there was a common sampling design, data were aggregated for regWhy is the Guide needed?The Fuels Guide is the only SageSTEP publication summarizing the pretreatment vegetation and fuels daall 5 regions into a usable tool for managers and other land stewards. Modeled after the Natural Fuels Pho2000), it allows users to quickly access percent cover, stem density and fuel loadings by fuel stratum (Ottminformation is often time-consuming and expensive to collect on a fi eld site. The Fuels Guide increases th

users pictures coupled with data to make predictions based on ocular estimates and/or limited fi eld samplgathered from this Guide may be used as inputs for fi re behavior and effects modeling, creating custom fuof other applications, including describing baseline and/or target conditions for restoration projects.

Introduction
4

Methods

SageSTEP employed a randomized design that was implemented across all 18 sites used to create this Gsubplots, within the Great Basin (Figure 1). At each site, subplots were established along a systematic grid distance of 164 ft (50 m) between the center of each subplot. Sagebrush sites were at least 200 acres (80subplots; woodland sites ranged from 25–50 acres (10.1–20.2 ha) with 60 subplots. Each subplot was 98.with 5 vegetation transects and 1 fuels transect (Figure 2). Two fuels transects are represented in Figure 2 different years of sampling. Transects ran parallel to the 108.3 ft (33 m) length allowing a 4.9 ft (1.5 m) bufA common measurement protocol was used across all sites. Refer to Table 1 for specifi c methods and transects used for each reported variable by fuel stratum (Ottmar et al. 2007). Descriptive variables for all subplots included: region name, site name, treatment, subplot number, sampling year, UTM coordinates at zero corner, percent slope, aspect, macrotopography (ridgetop, sideslope, terrace, or bottom), and microtopography (fl at, convex, or concave).Prior to sampling, the Sagebrush/Cheatgrass site managers assigned phases to the subplots in the sagebrush sites based on an ocular estimate of understory grass dominance. Phase 1 was dominated by perennial grasses with very little if any annual grass (primarily cheatgrass) present. In Phase 2 there was a co-dominance between annual and perennial grasses. Phase 3 was an annual grass dominated understory. After sampling was completed for 2006 and 2007, an ANOVA, using SAS9.1, was used to test the signifi cance between the phases based on the canopy cover of perennial and annual grasses. There was no signifi cant difference (α=0.05) between phases. Another ANOVA was run to test signifi cance between all s

on species composition and loading. Again, no signifi cant difference (α=0.05) was found between any of twere combined into one sub-guide, Sagebrush Steppe Fuels Guide. It was separated into four groups cator greater than 25 percent sagebrush cover and less than or greater than 25 percent total grass cover. Thmore effi ciently assign their fi eld site to a group based on an ocular cover estimate.

Figure 2. Subplot and transect layout. Solid transects; dotted lines denote fuels transect

Methods
5

Table 1. Sampling methods used for each of the reported variables by fuel stratum (Ottmar et al. 2007). Refer to Figure reference. 

Stratum Variable(s) Method 

Trees

Density <1.6 ft 

(0.5 m) tall Belt transect (Krebs 1999; Salzer 1994) 

All others Census 

Shrubs

Cover Line point intercept (Bonham 1989) 

Height Nested circular frame (Bonham 1989) 

Density Belt transect (Krebs 1989; Salzer 1994) 

Nested circular frame (Bonham 1989) 

Loading and Bulk 

density

Harvest (Pechanec and Pickford 1937; Riser 1984) 

Nested circular frame (Bonham 1989) 

Nonwoody 

Fuels

Cover Line point intercept (Bonham 1989) 

Height 19.7 in. X 19.7 in. (50 cm X 50 cm) quadrat (Bonham 1989) 

Loading and Bulk 

density

Harvest (Pechanec and Pickford 1937; Riser 1984) 

19.7 in. X 19.7 in. (50 cm X 50 cm) quadrat (Bonham 1989) 

Woody Fuels

10-hour loading Planar intercept (Brown et al. 1982) 

100-hour loading Planar intercept (Brown et al. 1982) 

1000-hour Sound and 

Rotten loading Planar intercept (Brown et al. 1982) 

Litter and Duff

Cover Line point intercept (Bonham 1989) 

Interspace loading 

and Bulk density

Harvest (Pechanec and Pickford 1937; Riser 1984) 

19.7 in. X 19.7 in. (50 cm X 50 cm) quadrat (Bonham 1989) 

Tree litter and duff 

depth, Loading, and 

Bulk density

Harvest (Pechanec and Pickford 1937; Riser 1984) 

9.8 in. X 9.8 in. (25 cm X 25 cm) quadrat (Bonham 1989) 

Methods
6

The methods were the same for the woodland sites. Site managers assigned phases to each subplot baseor pinyon pine cover. The phases were identifi ed by Miller et al. (2005): Phase 1, the trees may be presenthe shrub and herbaceous layers are the dominant infl uence on ecological processes (hydrologic, nutrientPhase 2, the trees are co-dominant with the shrub and herbaceous layers, and Phase 3, the trees are the as well as the primary layer infl uencing ecological processes. There was a signifi cant difference (α=0.05) 

cover as well as tree and herbaceous cover between the three phases as determined by an ANOVA and Trange statistic in SAS9.1. The three woodland sites were also signifi cantly different (α=0.05) based on spe

loading using the same statistical method. Three different sub-guides, Pinyon-Juniper Fuels Guide, Utah Jand Western Juniper Fuels Guide, were developed to capture the diversity between different woodlands.All reported measurements were converted to English units to allow for quick input into computer fi re beha

models as well as account for manager preference. A conversion table is provided in Appendix III. Minimuvalues are reported to allow the user to better assess their site within the range represented by a particulacommon species are reported in this Guide. All species codes, common names and scientifi c names are iUSDA Plants Database (USDA NRS 2008) and are reported in Appendix I.TreesTotal tree canopy cover for each subplot was calculated based on the area of the longest and perpendiculthe total ground surface area of the sample. All trees rooted in the subplot greater than 1.6 ft (0.5 m) tall wtree was identifi ed by species and recorded as dead or alive. Trees less than 1.6 ft (0.5 m) tall were countbelt on either side of 3 transects giving sapling density (Table 1). Tree density for trees taller than 1.6 ft (0.throughout the whole subplot. All dead trees were tallied. Height to live crown was defi ned as the height to (Reinhardt et al. 2006). Height, height to live crown, longest and perpendicular crown diameters were recoin. (10 cm); diameter at breast height (DBH) and basal diameter were not measured. Tree canopies were even if they intermingled with other canopies. If a tree canopy was completely surrounded by a dominant tindividual stems were within 3.3 ft (1 m) of the dominant tree, they were considered one tree. Live and dead canopy loadings were calculated using allometric equations developed by Sabin (2008) anReported available loading assumes 100% of foliage and 50% of the 1-hour fuels are available to burn at and Reinhart 2001). Since this assumption may not accurately represent pinyon or juniper species, refer tloadings by size class to calculate a more appropriate value for available fuel. Canopy bulk density is calcloading divided by the crown height to give a weight per unit volume. 

Methods
7

Shrubs Total shrub canopy cover for each subplot was derived from 300 intercept points per subplot (60 points ovthe line point intercept method (Bonham 1989; Table 1). For common shrub species, densities were derive3.3-ft (1-m) belt on either side of 3 transects (Table 1). Densities for rare shrubs were derived from counts 9.8-ft (1-, 2-, or 3-m) radius nested circular frames used to measure shrub volumes (Table 1). The most aband height class, 2–6 in. (5–15 cm) tall or greater than 6 in. (15 cm) tall, were tallied; rare shrubs that landrecorded by not separated by height class. Dead shrubs were tallied.All shrub species greater than 6 in. (15 cm) tall were measured at 5 sample points along transect 4 (Table diameter and perpendicular diameter were recorded within either 3.3-, 6.6-, or 9.8-ft (1-, 2-, or 3-m) radius Size of the nested plot was chosen based on the minimum requirement to measure at least 15 of each coper subplot. Shrubs must have been rooted within the nested plot to be counted. Shrubs with less than 10were not recorded. A range of sizes of dominant shrub species, as identifi ed by the site managers, were dand separated into the different fuel classes (1-hour [includes foliage], 10-hour and 100-hour). Samples wfor 48 hours. Total shrub loading was calculated as the difference between the wet fi eld weight and dry wePickford 1937). Statistical regressions were developed from the destructively sampled shrubs to predict shheight, longest diameter, perpendicular diameter and volume as covariates (Rittenhouse and Senva 1977were developed using PROC REG and PROC PRESS in SAS9.1 and were site and species specifi c. RepAppendix VI are the lowest R2 obtained across the different size classes. Available loading, used to calculassumed all foliage and 1-hour fuels consumed while only 50% of the 10-hour fuels consumed (Wright 20size class and available loadings are reported in Appendix V.Nonwoody FuelsTotal perennial and annual grass and forb canopy cover for each subplot were derived from 300 intercept (60 points over 5 transects) using the line point intercept method (Bonham 1989; Table 1). Total loadings wdestructive sampling along the fuels transect. All herbaceous vegetation, standing litter, and surface litter wa 19.7 x 19.7 in. (50 x 50 cm) quadrat (Bonham 1989) with 15 sample points in the woodland sites and 8 ssagebrush sites. Heights of the tallest grass and forb were measured before clipping. All vegetation was re(1 cm) of the ground and sorted as live herbaceous, standing dead herbaceous and litter. Samples were o48 hours. Total herbaceous loading was calculated as the difference between the wet fi eld weight and dry and Pickford 1937). Bulk density was calculated using the total loading, assuming the available fuel is 100landscape average of all grass and forb heights. 

Methods
8

Woody FuelsA modifi cation of the planar intercept method (Brown et al. 1982) was used to sample dead, down woody Ten- and 100-hour fuels were tallied below 6.6 ft (2 m) along 3 transects (297 ft (90 m) total) per subplot (Tfor each 1000-hour fuel was measured at the point of intersection along 5 transects, 492.1 ft (150 m), per class of sound or rotten was assigned to each (Table 1). One-hour fuels were not tallied. Brown’s (1974) eassign loadings, by size class, for each subplot.Litter and DuffInterspace litter was collected from 19.7 x 19.7 in. (50 x 50 cm) quadrats (Bonham 1989) sampled at 15 swoodland sites and at 8 sample points in the sagebrush sites. Litter was collected following the clipping of vegetation within the 19.7 x 19.7 in. (50 x 50 cm) quadrat (Bonham 1989). Samples were oven-dried at 58interspace litter loading was calculated as the difference between the wet fi eld weight and dry weight (Pec

1937).Tree litter and duff samples were collected from 6 trees greater than 6.6 ft (2 m) in crown diameter rooted closest to the center and 1 closest to each of the 4 corners. A 9.8 x 9.8 in. (25 x 25 cm) quadrat (Bonham sample at the base of the tree, 1/3 of the canopy from the base for trees 6.6–13.1 ft (2–4 m) in crown diamcanopy from the base for trees greater than 13.1 ft (4 m) in crown diameter. The litter and duff was separathe fi eld. Samples were oven-dried at 58°F for 48 hours. Total loading was calculated as the difference beweight and dry weight (Pechanec and Pickford 1937). Litter and duff depths were measured from the remathe quadrat once all material was removed. The difference in the wet and dry weights combined with and calculate the litter and duff bulk density assuming all fuel was available.Bare ground percent cover was derived from hits along 300 intercept points per subplot (60 points over 5 line point intercept method (Bonham 1989; Table 1). This is the only measure of fuel continuity.

Methods
9

Using the Great Basin Fuels Guide

The ‘Guide for Quantifying Fuels in the Sagebrush Steppe and Juniper Woodlands of the Great Basin’ will and inexpensively estimate the fuel loadings on their site. Designed similarly to the Natural Fuels Photo Sthe USDA Forest Service Fire and Environmental Research Applications team (FERA), this Guide providelandscape-level inputs required by existing fi re behavior models. Through the use of photographs and tab

of values, users can quickly appraise fuels by the various fuel strata. Because of the high variability of fueindividual sites, it is generally necessary to use more than one site from the Fuels Guide to represent each of a fi eld site. The Fuels Guide is divided into four sub-guides (one sagebrush and three woodland guides) based on regsite physiognomy and ecology: Sagebrush Steppe, Pinyon-Juniper, Utah Juniper, and Western Juniper. Sby sagebrush and total grass cover in the Sagebrush Steppe Guide and by phases (Miller et al. 2005) in t(Refer to Methods section for further explanation). Four photos depict the range of canopy cover by life-fophase. Photos are arranged by increasing cover of the dominant overstory vegetation. The user notes and information box below photographs give more background on specifi c sites sampled. 

for site names and locations. Number of subplots reported is the number of sampling units for that particuElevation range includes the range of all sites sampled within that group or phase. Society of Range ManaSociety of American Foresters (SAF) cover type(s) delineate a descriptive classifi cation of forest and rangpresent occupancy of an area by dominant species (Shifl et 1994; Eyre 1980). The fuel model designation

new 40 fuel models (Scott and Burgan 2005). They were assigned based on the total loadings by size clasphases. The original 13 fuel models (Anderson 1982) are not reported because they do not represent the Due to the range of shrub and herbaceous loadings within group or phase there is often more than one polisted for a group or phase. To assign the correct model, users must pay careful attention to the specifi c sh

loadings at their fi eld site and assign the correct model based on the different loadings’ infl uence on fi re inspread.

Using the Great Basin Fuels Guide
10

Five steps for effective use:

1. Assess each fuel stratum individually (trees, shrubs, nonwoody fuel, woody fuel, and litter).2. Compare the fi eld site to the Fuels Guide group(s) or phase(s) that most closely resembles fi eld obse

groups or phases may need to be used to capture the variability of the fi eld site.

3. Decide where within the range of values the fuel strata of the fi eld site fi ts and/or interpolate between 4. Some strata are not possible to estimate using photos (little and duff depths). A combination of fi eld sa

observations with this Guide should be incorporated for the most accurate results.

5. Repeat these steps for each fuel stratum of interest obtaining the necessary inputs. 

Author Recommendations for Guide UseFor the user to most effectively use this Guide, we recommend accounting for the assumptions and limitat

• Sampling on all sites took place from April to August (See Guide Notes in the sub-guides for more spe

for seasonality was made in the reported variables. When comparing your fi eld site to the photograph

be sure to account for the difference in seasonality. This is especially critical in regards to the loadings herbaceous fuels.

• Minimum and maximum values are included to capture the range of variability within groups or phase

cases, data are not normally distributed and reported means are much closer to minimum than maxim

• It is diffi cult to distinguish woody fuels and litter and duff fuel strata in the photographs. Independent s

observations may be required to gain the most accurate values for these strata.

• One-hour fuels and tree diameters were not collected. If this is required information, the user should m

measurements on their fi eld site.

• Fuel bed depth, a critical input in existing fi re behavior models, was not measured. It is NOT recomme

value using the heights reported in the Guide. This should be measured on the site due to the sensitivsurface fi re spread model (Rothermel 1972) to this input.

Further Information

• Joint Fire Science: http://www.fi rescience.gov• Sagebrush Steppe Treatment and Evaluation Project (SageSTEP): http://www.sagestep.org• University of Idaho, Department of Rangeland Ecology and Management: http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/r• USDA Forest Service Fire and Environmental Research Applications team (FERA): http://www.fs.fed.u• Natural Fuels Photo Series (Digital): http://depts.washington.edu/nwfi re/dps/ 

Using the Great Basin Fuels Guide
11

References

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology and Pacifi c Northwest Forests. Washington D.C.: Island Press. 493p.

Anderson, H.E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fi re behavior. U.S. Department of AgrGTR-PSW-118. Bonham, C.D. 1989. Measurement for Terrestrial Vegetation. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Inc. 33Bradford, J.B. and W.K. Lauenroth. 2006. Controls over invasion of Bromus tectorum: The importance of cdisturbance and seed availability. Journal of Vegetation Science 17:693–704.

Brown, J.K. 1974. Handbook for inventorying downed woody material. INT-GTR-16. Ogden, Utah: U.S. DeAgriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26p.Brown, J.K. 1982. Fuel and fi re behavior prediction in big sagebrush. Research paper INT-290. Ogden, UtAgriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 10p.Brown, J.K., R.D. Oberheu, and C.M. Johnston. 1982. Handbook for inventorying surface fuels and biomaNational Wildfi re Coordinating Group NFES-2125. 48p.Davis, K.P. 1959. Forest Fire: Control and Use. New York: McGraw-Hill.Eyre. F.H. 1980. Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada. Washington, D.C.: Society of AmeKimmins, J.P. 1987. Forest Ecology. New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company.Krebs, C.J. 1999. Ecological Methodology. New York, NY: Harper and Row.McIver, J., H. Barrett, M. Brunson, S. Bunting, J. Chambers, C. D’Antonio, P. Doescher, S. Karl, S. Knick, Pierson, D. Pyke, K. Rollins, B. Roundy, G. Schupp, R. Tausch, D. Turner, and M. Wisdom. A Regional ExEffects of Fire and Fire Surrogate Treatments in the Sagebrush Biome. 16 February 2005. <http://www.saSageSTEP_proposal.pdf> Accessed 26 June 2008.

References
12

Miller, M. Fire Effects Guide: Chapter III – Fuels. 31 May 2001. <http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/RxFire/FEG.pd2008. Miller, R.F., J.D. Bates, T.J. Svejcar, F.B. Pierson, and L.E. Eddleman. 2005. Biology, ecology and manage

Juniper (Juniperus occidentalis). Oregon State University Agricultural Experiment Station. Technical BulletMiller, R.F., and R.J. Tausch. 2001. The role of fi re in pinyon and juniper woodlands: A descriptive analysis

K.E.M. Galley and T.P. Wilson, editors. Proceedings of the invasive species workshop: the role of fi re in thinvasive species. Tall Timbers Research Station Miscellaneous Publication 11.Miller, R., R. Tausch, and W. Waichler. 1999. Old-growth juniper and pinyon woodlands. Pages 375-384 in Stevens, compilers. Proceedings: Ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within the inteService Rocky Mountain Research Station Proceedings RMRS-P-9.Mutch, R.W. 1967. Cheatgrass coloration—a key to fl ammability? Journal of Range Management 20(4):25

Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe III, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: A preliminand degradation. National Biological Service Biological Report 28, National Biological Service, WashingtoOdum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals in Ecology 3rd Edition. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company. 574p.Olson, S. Threats to Sagebrush Ecosystems. 20 June 2008. <http://www.sagestep.org/threats.html> AcceOttmar, R.D., R.E. Vihnanek, and J.D. Regelbrugge. 2000. Stereo photo series for quantifying natural fuel

juniper, sagebrush, and chaparral types in the Southwestern United States. PMS-833. Boise, ID: National 

Group, National Interagency Fire Center. 97p.Ottmar, R.D., D.V. Sandberg, C.L. Riccardi, and S.J. Prichard. 2007. An overview of the Fuels CharacterisSystem—Quantifying, classifying, and creating fuelbeds for resource planning. Canadian Journal of Fores

2393.Pechanec, J.F. and G.D. Pickford. 1937. A weight-estimation method for the determination of range or pasJournal of American Society of Agronomists 29: 894–904.

References
13

Pellant, M. 1994. History and applications of the Intermountain greenstripping program. INT-GTR-313. USIntermountain Research Station. pp. 63–68.

Peters, E.F. and S.C. Bunting. 1994. Fire conditions pre- and post-occurrence of annual grasses on the SMonsen, Stephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G., compilers. Proceedings: ecology and management of annual ra18–22; Boise, ID. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountai

31–36.Reinhardt, E., J. Scott, K. Gray, and R. Keane. 2006. Estimating canopy fuel characteristics in fi re conifer 

United States using tree and stand measurements. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36:2803–2814. 

Riccardi, C.L., R.D. Ottmar, D.V. Sandberg, A. Andrew, E. Elman, K. Kopper and J. Long. 2007. The fuelbthe Fuel Characteristic Classifi cation System. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37(12):2394–2412.

Riser, P.G. 1984. Method of inventory and monitoring of vegetation, litter, and soil surface condition. Deverangeland monitoring. National Research Council National Academy of Sciences.Rittenhouse, L.R. and F.A. Sneva. 1977. A technique or estimating big sagebrush production. Journal of R30:68–70. 

Rothermel, R.C. 1972. A mathematical model for predicting fi re spread in wildland fuels. Research Paper. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experimental Station. 40Sabin, B.S. 2008. Relationship between allometric variables and biomass in Western Juniper (Juniperus oThesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.Sandberg, D.V., R.D. Ottmar, and G.H. Cushon. 2001. Characterizing fuels in the 21st century. InternationFire 10:381–387.

Salzer, D.W. 1994. An introduction to sampling and sampling design for vegetation monitoring. UnpublisheBLM Training Course 1730-5. BLM training center, Phoenix, AZ.

References
14

Schroeder, M.J. and C.C. Buck. 1970. Fire weather: A guide for application of meteorological information toperations. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, Agricultural Handbook 360. Scott, J.H. and R.E. Burgan. 2005. Standard fi re behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rfi re spread model. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, RocStation. 72p.Scott, J.H. and E.D. Reinhardt. 2001. Assessing crown fi re potential by linking models of surface and crow

Research Paper. RMRS-RP-29. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain ResearcShifl et, T.N. 1994. Rangeland Cover Types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range ManagemTausch, R.J. 2008. A structurally based analytic model for estimation of biomass and fuel loads of woodlanNatural Resource Modeling.United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). USDA August 2008. <http://www.plants.usda.gov/index.html.> Accessed 14 August 2008.USDA NRCS 1997. National Range and Pasture Handbook. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Serv

Technology Institute. Whisenanat, S.G. 1990. Changing fi re frequencies on Idaho’s Snake River Plains: Ecological and ManageIn: McArthur, ED, EM Romney, SD Smith, PT Tueller, compilers. Proceedings: Symposium on cheatgrass die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and management; 1989 April 5–7; Las Vegas, NV. INT-GTR-27

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. pp 4–10.

Whittaker, R.H. 1975. Communities and Ecosystems. New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company. Wright, C.S. 2008. Personal Communication. Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Pacifi c Northwest 

Pacifi c Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, Seattle, WA.

References
15

Sagebrush Steppe Fuels Guide: 4 Groups

User Notes

Site Notes

• Four groups represent the SageSTEP Sagebrush/Cheatgrass sites characterized by the Loamy 10–1

(NRCS 1997).

• General site information includes: average annual precipitation ranges between 8.5–12.8 in. averagin

10%), all aspects, ‘loamy’ soil texture, and soil depths >20 in. with minimal stoniness.

• Prior to cheatgrass invasion, typical fi re return interval on these sites was from several decades to 10

introduction of cheatgrass the fi res have been larger, often with a return interval of less than 10 years

• Rock Creek and Gray Butte are the only sites that are not within active grazing allotments. All other su

grazed.

Guide Notes

1. Groups are organized by total shrub and total grass cover, perennial and annual grass combined. 

 - Group 1: Shrub cover = 0–25%; Total grass cover = 0–25%

 - Group 2: Shrub cover = 0–25%: Total grass cover = >25%

 - Group 3: Shrub cover = >25%; Total grass cover = 0–25%

 - Group 4: Shrub cover = >25%: Total grass cover = >25%

2. The caption above the photos denotes measured percent cover by fuel stratum for that photo. 3. Sampling took place between April and August in 2006 and 2007. The date of the photo is in the lowe4. Percent bare ground is the only reported measure of fuel continuity.5. Dominant graminoids include: ACHY, ACTH7, BRTE, ELEL5, HECO26, LECI4, PASM, POCU3, POSE6. BRTE is the only annual grass reported with the exception of a small amount of BRAR5 found in Grou7. Shrub loadings are restricted by height, longest diameter, perpendicular diameter and volume. Refer t

Sagebrush Steppe, for sample ranges used in this study and R2 values.

8. Minimum values presented with an asterisk (*) indicate minimum value when present. Mean value inc9. The designation of “NA” indicates data were not available.10. Tables of species codes and metric conversions can be found in Appendix I and III.

Sagebrush Steppe Fuels Guide
16

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 1 (Shrub: 0–25%; Total grass: 0–25%)

Shrubs: 14% Perennial Grass: 3% Total Grass: 6% Bare Ground: 49%

Shrubs: 15% Perennial Grass: 18% Total Grass: 18% Bare Ground: 36%

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 1

06/30/07

08/06/06
17

07/21/06

07/09/06

Shrubs: 22% Perennial Grass: 4% Total Grass: 11% Bare Ground: 43%

Shrubs: 24% Perennial Grass: 3% Total Grass: 23% Bare Ground: 35%

Site Locations: Hart Mountain, Onaqui, 

Owyhee, Roberts, Saddle Mountain; 137 subplots

Elevation Range: 879–5531 feet

SRM Cover Type: 403 – Wyoming Big Sagebrush 

Fuel Model: GS1

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 1
18

NONWOODY FUELS

Min Max Mean

Total cover: Perennial grass (%) 1 24 11Total cover: Annual grass (%) <1* 22 5Total cover: Forbs (%) <1* 32 4Grass height (in.) 1 11 5Forb height (in.) 1* 6 2Live herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 4.48 353.66 41.62Dead herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 4.48* 317.85 49.00Total herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 8.96 617.51 90.62Bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0036 0.0812 0.0252

WOODY FUELS

Load

Diameter (in.) Min 

0.26–1.0 (10-hour) 0.09* 1.1–3.0 (100-hour) 0.05* 

3.1–9.0

(1000-hour: Sound) 0.61* 

3.1–9.0

(1000-hour: Rotten) 0.45* 

Total 1.20* 

LITTER

Total cover (%) 

Min Max Mean 

Interspace litter 4 35 17 <

Bare ground 16 82 40 

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 1

SHRUBS

Total cover (%) Height (in.) Density (#/acre) Total loading (ton/ac) 

Species Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean 

ARTRW8 6 25 16 1 97 18 863 17487 5136 0.06 9.04 2.42 0

CHVI8 <1* 6 1 2 32 8 23* 522 8 <0.01 0.21 0.06 0

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 1 (Shrub: 0–25%; Total grass: 0–25%
19

SHRUBS

Total cover (%) Height (in.) Density (#/acre) Total loading (ton/ac) 

Species Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean M

ARTRW8 <1* 26 15 2 189 25 68* 6518 2288 0.16 7.84 2.00 0.0

CHVI8 <1* 10 1 3 59 12 23* 5428 50 <0.01 0.37 0.05 <0

NONWOODY FUELS

Min Max Mean

Total cover:Perennial grass (%) 3 45 22Total cover: Annual grass (%) 1* 75 18Total cover: Forbs (%) <1* 43 8Grass height (in.) 1 16 7Forb height (in.) 1* 9 3Live herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 4.48 1308.99 265.18Dead herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 4.48* 1844.41 160.22Total herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 8.96* 3153.40 425.40Bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0077 0.2615 0.0455

WOODY FUELS

Load

Diameter (in.) Min 

0.26–1.0 (10-hour) 0.01 1.1–3.0 (100-hour) 0.05* 

3.1–9.0

(1000-hour: Sound) 0.46* 

3.1–9.0

(1000-hour: Rotten) 0.18* 

Total 0.70* 

LITTER

Total cover (%) 

Min Max Mean 

Interspace litter 4 36 14 <

Bare ground 3 89 27 

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 2

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 2 (Shrub: 0–25%; Total grass: >25%
20

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 2 (Shrub: 0–25%; Total grass: >25%)

07/07/06

08/06/06

Shrubs: 8% Perennial Grass: 16% Total Grass: 56% Bare Ground: 16%

Shrubs: 16% Perennial Grass: 33% Total Grass: 45% Bare Ground: 82%

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 2
21

05/26/06

07/07/06

Site Locations: Hart Mountain, Moses Coulee, 

Onaqui, Owyhee, Roberts, Saddle Mountain; 

213 subplots

SRM Cover Type: 403 – Wyoming Big Sagebrush

Fuel Model: GS1 or GS2

Elevation Range: 846–5531 feet 

Shrubs: 23% Perennial Grass: 30% Total Grass: 58% Bare Ground: 5%

Shrubs: 24% Perennial Grass: 14% Total Grass: 28% Bare Ground: 31%

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 2
22

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 3 (Shrub: >25%; Total grass: 0–25%)

Shrubs: 25% Perennial Grass: 13% Total Grass: 36% Bare Ground: 24%

Shrubs: 31% Perennial Grass: 9% Total Grass: 13% Bare Ground: 37%

07/21/06

08/20/06

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 3
23

06/25/06

06/23/06

Site Locations: Hart Mountain, Onaqui, Owyhee, 

Roberts, Saddle Mountain; 83 subplots

Elevation Range: 846–5531 feet

SRM Cover Type: 403 – Wyoming Big Sagebrush

Fuel Model: GS1 or SH1

Shrubs: 35% Perennial Grass: 21% Total Grass: 21% Bare Ground: 34%

Shrubs: 45% Perennial Grass: 9% Total Grass: 9% Bare Ground: 30%

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 3
24

SHRUBS

Total cover (%) Height (in.) Density (#/acre) Total loading (ton/ac) 

Species Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean 

ARTRW8 12 61 33 3 62 20 1590 14057 5113 0.47 17.16 4.67 0.

CHVI8 <1* 15 1 1 41 12 23* 2180 109 0.01 1.19 0.38 0.

NONWOODY FUELS

Min Max Mean

Total cover:Perennial grass (%) <1* 23 10Total cover: Annual grass (%) <1* 18 3Total cover: Forbs (%) <1* 48 4Grass height (in.) 1* 14 5Forb height (in.) <1* 6 1Live herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 4.48 311.58 52.63Dead herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 4.48* 350.97 33.01Total herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 8.92 662.55 85.64Bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0043 0.0749 0.0210

WOODY FUELS

Load

Diameter (in.) Min 

0.26–1.0 (10-hour) 0.08 1.1–3.0 (100-hour) 0.20* 

3.1–9.0

(1000-hour: Sound) 0.24* 

3.1–9.0

(1000-hour: Rotten) 0.45* 

Total 0.97* 

LITTER

Total cover (%) 

Min Max Mean 

Interspace litter 5 26 14 <

Bare ground 14 52 32 

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 3 (Shrub: >25%; Total grass: 0–25%

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 3
25

SHRUBS

Total cover (%) Height (in.) Density (#/acre) Total loading (ton/ac) 

Species Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean M

ARTRW8 20 47 30 2 70 25 1295 8925 3696 0.08 5.67 1.40 0.0

CHVI8 <1* 6 <1 5 58 12 23* 1385 39 <0.01 0.04 0.01 <0

NONWOODY FUELS

Min Max Mean

Total cover:Perennial grass (%) 4 48 25Total cover: Annual grass (%) <1* 64 13Total cover: Forbs (%) <1* 41 9Grass height (in.) 2 14 6Forb height (in.) 1* 21 1Live herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 8.95 682.25 121.78Dead herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 4.48 750.30 55.70Total herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 13.43 1432.55 177.48Bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0029 0.1994 0.0284

WOODY FUELS

Load

Diameter (in.) Min 

0.26–1.0 (10-hour) 0.01 1.1–3.0 (100-hour) 0.05* 

3.1–9.0

(1000-hour: Sound) 0.24* 

3.1–9.0

(1000-hour: Rotten) 0.45* 

Total 0.75* 

LITTER

Total cover (%) 

Min Max Mean 

Interspace litter 2 31 11 <

Bare ground 4 40 20 

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 4 (Shrub: >25%; Total grass: >25%)

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 4
26

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 4 (Shrub: >25%; Total grass: >25%)

05/10/07

04/25/07

Shrubs: 26% Perennial Grass: 6% Total Grass: 69% Bare Ground: 9%

Shrubs: 29% Perennial Grass: 27% Total Grass: 30% Bare Ground: 22%

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 4
27

06/04/07

05/13/07

Site Locations: Hart Mountain, Moses Coulee, 

Onaqui, Owyhee, Roberts, Saddle Mountain; 

151 subplots

SRM Cover Type: 403 – Wyoming Big Sagebrush

Fuel Model: GS1, GS2 or SH1

Elevation Range: 846–5531 feet

Shrubs: 37% Perennial Grass: 15% Total Grass: 36% Bare Ground: 15%

Shrubs: 45% Perennial Grass: 33% Total Grass: 39% Bare Ground: 18%

Sagebrush Steppe: Group 4
28

This page intentionally left blank.
29

Pinyon-Juniper Fuels Guide: 3 Phases

User Notes

Site Notes

• Three phases represent the SageSTEP Sagebrush/Pinyon-Juniper sites characterized by the Loam

type (NRCS 1997).

• General site information includes: average annual precipitation ranged between 10.2–15.8 in. avera

6–30%, all aspects, ‘loamy’ soil texture, and soil depths >20 in. with minimal stoniness.

• The historical fi re return interval on these sites was 30–40 years. The amount of woodland encroach

sites have not burned since the late 1800s. With increased woodland dominance the fi re regime has 

high intensity fi res.

• All sites are in active grazing allotments, and all subplots may have been grazed.

Guide Notes

1. Phases are organized by tree stand cover and understory characteristics. 

 - Phase 1: Trees are present on the site, but the shrub and herb layer are the dominant infl uence 

processes (hydrologic, nutrient, and energy cycles).

 - Phase 2: Trees are co-dominant with shrub and herb layers. All three layers infl uence ecologica

 - Phase 3: Trees are the dominant vegetation and the primary layer infl uencing ecological proces

2. The caption above the photos denotes measured percent cover by fuel stratum for that photo.3. Sampling took place between May and July in 2006 and 2007. The date of the photo is in the lower 4. Percent bare ground is the only reported measure of fuel continuity. 5. Dominant graminoids include: ACHY, ACNE10, ACTH7, BRTE, HECO26, POSE, and PSSPS.6. BRTE is the only annual grass reported.7. Shrub loadings are restricted by height, long diameter, perpendicular diameter and volume. Refer to 

Juniper, for sample ranges used in this study and R2 values.

8. Minimum values presented with an asterisk (*) indicate minimum value when present. Mean value in9. The designation of “NA” indicates data were not available.10. Tables of species codes and metric conversions can be found in Appendix I and III.

Pinyon-Juniper Fuels Guide
30

Pinyon-Juniper: Phase 1

Trees: 3% Shrubs: 16% Perennial Grass: 31% Total Grass: 31% Bare Ground: 23%

Trees: 5% Shrubs: 25% Perennial Grass: 13% Total Grass: 14% Bare Ground: 23%

07/01/07

07/13/07

Pinyon-Juniper: Phase 1
31

Trees: 7% Shrubs: 17% Perennial Grass: 13% Total Grass: 13% Bare Ground: 29%

Trees: 10% Shrubs: 10% Perennial Grass: 16% Total Grass: 16% Bare Ground: 25%

Site Locations: Marking Corral, Spruce Mountain, 

South Ruby Mountain, Seven Mile; 63 subplots

Elevation Range: 6565–7766 feet 

SRM Cover Type: 403 – Wyoming Big Sagebrush 

or 405 – Black Sagebrush

Fuel Model: GS1, SH1, or TU1

06/30/07

07/01/07

Pinyon-Juniper: Phase 1
32

TREES

JUOS CELE3 

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min 

Total cover (%) <1 30 6 <1* 7 < 1 <1* Density: <1.6 ft tall (stem/ac) 23* 727 29 23* 68 1 23* 

Density: >1.6 ft tall (stem/ac) 8 221 77 4* 29 1 4* Height (ft) 4 11 7 2 16 9 2 Height to live crown (ft) <1* 11 1 5* 8 3 <1* Live loading (ton/ac) 0.02 14.84 2.23 

NA 

<0.01 

Dead loading (ton/ac) <0.01* 1.21 0.13 <0.01* 

Available loading (ton/ac) 0.01 5.37 1.00 <0.01 Canopy bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0001 0.0203 0.0049 <0.0001 

SHRUBS

 Total cover (%) Height (in.) Density (#/acre) Total loading (ton/ac) 

Species Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean M

ARAR8 NA NA NA NA 

ARNO4 1* 33 8 3 37 13 45* 20780 3140 0.01 2.30 1.02 0.0ARTRV <1* 19 1 6 66 20 24 3478 1502 0.01 3.27 0.98 0.0ARTRW8 <1* 22 7 1 72 25 45* 4542 1633 0.10 8.08 1.75 0.0CHVI8 <1* 14 3 1 44 12 24 5870 1382 <0.01 0.41 0.09 <0.0PUTR2 <1* 12 2 7 83 37 23* 954 120 <0.01 2.20 0.55 0.0

Pinyon-Juniper: Phase 1

Pinyon-Juniper: Phase 1
33

NONWOODY FUELS

Min Max Mean

Total cover: Perennial grass (%) 1 45 16 Total cover: Annual grass (%) <1* 17 1 Total cover: Forbs (%) 1* 17 7 

Grass height (in.) 3 16 9 Forb height (in.) 2* 13 5 Live herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 44.78 462.89 193.99 Dead herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 4.48* 257.86 67.95 Total herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 49.26* 720.75 261.94Bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0045 0.0310 0.0129 

WOODY F

Diameter (in.) M

0.26–1.0 (10-hour) 0.0

1.1–3.0 (100-hour) 0.0

3.1–9.0

(1000-hour: Sound) 0.6

3.1–9.0

(1000-hour: Rotten) 0.4

Total 1.6

LITTER and DUFF

Total cover (%) Depth (in.) Total loading (ton/ac) 

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean M

Tree litter NA < 0.1 3.1 1.3 0.02 6.76 1.48 0.08

Tree duff NA < 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.01 3.73 0.64 0.07Interspace litter 8 38 20 NA 0.01 0.78 0.15 Bare ground 10 61 32 NA NA 

Pinyon-Juniper: Phase 1
34 Pinyon-Juniper: Phase 2

Pinyon-Juniper: Phase 2

Trees: 13% Shrubs: 24% Perennial Grass: 17% Total Grass: 17% Bare Ground: 20%

Trees: 20% Shrubs: 8% Perennial Grass: 3% Total Grass: 3% Bare Ground: 55%

06/17/07

07/01/07
35

Trees: 27% Shrubs: 10% Perennial Grass: 13% Total Grass: 13% Bare Ground: 54%

Trees: 33% Shrubs: 10% Perennial Grass: 11% Total Grass: 11% Bare Ground: 26%

Site Locations: Marking Corral, Spruce Mountain, 

South Ruby Mountain, Seven Mile; 90 subplots

Elevation Range: 6565–7766 feet

Fuel Model: SH1 or TU1

SRM Cover Types: 403 – Wyoming Big Sagebrush,

405 – Black Sagebrush, 

412 – Juniper-pinyon Woodland

SAF Cover Types: 239 – Pinyon-Juniper

05/24/07

05/29/07

Pinyon-Juniper: Phase 2
36

TREES

JUOS CELE3 

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min 

Total cover (%) <1 46 14 <1* 33 1 <1* Density: <1.6 ft tall (stem/ac) 23* 727 43 23* 68 1 23* 

Density: >1.6 ft tall (stem/ac) 4* 352 106 4* 147 4 4* Height (ft) 3 14 8 2 16 7 2 Height to live crown (ft) <1* 8 1 <1* 8 4 <1* Live loading (ton/ac) 0.01 17.21 5.36 

NA 

< 0.01 

Dead loading (ton/ac) <0.01* 1.35 0.34 < 0.01* Available loading (ton/ac) 0.01 7.47 2.26 < 0.01 

Canopy bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0001 0.0304 0.0099 <0.0001 

SHRUBS

Total cover (%) Height (in.) Density (#/acre) Total loading (ton/ac) 

Species Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean M

ARAR8 <1* 9 <1 5 17 9 161 1452 677 0.02 0.35 0.12 0.00ARNO4 <1* 28 5 <1 88 12 23* 11900 2293 0.01 2.30 0.75 0.00ARTRV <1* 10 <1 7 32 17 24 1957 557 <0.01 0.90 0.25 0.00ARTRW8 <1* 18 5 2 65 19 23* 4769 1363 0.02 4.09 1.05 0.00CHVI8 <1* 7 1 6 28 11 24 3478 603 <0.01 0.19 0.03 <0.0PUTR2 <1* 11 2 2 93 31 23* 704 143 0.03 2.14 0.53 0.00

Pinyon-Juniper: Phase 2

Pinyon-Juniper: Phase 2
37

NONWOODY FUELS

Min Max Mean 

Total cover: Perennial grass (%) <1 28 11 Total cover: Annual grass (%) <1* 4 <1 Total cover: Forbs (%) <1 23 5 Grass height (in.) 3 12 7 Forb height (in.) 1 11 4 Live herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 21.49 504.08 132.58 Dead herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 2.69 465.58 51.32 Total herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 24.18 969.66 183.90Bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0027 0.1365 0.0121 

WOODY FU

Diameter (in.) 

Min 

0.26–1.0 (10-hour) 0.08 

1.1–3.0 (100-hour) 0.05 

3.1–9.0 

(1000-hour: Sound) 0.61* 

3.1–9.0 

(1000-hour: Rotten) 0.01* 

Total 0.74* 

LITTER and DUFF

Total cover (%) Depth (in.) Total loading (ton/ac) 

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean M

Tree litter NA 0.9 3.4 1.9 1.06 11.92 4.94 0.4Tree duff NA <0.1 13.1 0.5 0.02 15.85 2.12 0.2Interspace litter 8 55 25 NA <0.01* 0.85 0.10 

Bare ground 7 62 40 NA NA 

Pinyon-Juniper: Phase 2
38 Pinyon-Juniper: Phase 3

Pinyon-Juniper: Phase 3

Trees: 33% Shrubs: 4% Perennial Grass: 6% Total Grass: 6% Bare Ground: 39%

Trees: 41% Shrubs: 5% Perennial Grass: 1% Total Grass: 1% Bare Ground: 40%

06/26/07

05/22/07
39

Site Locations: Marking Corral, Spruce Mountain, 

South Ruby Mountain, Seven Mile; 62 subplots

Elevation Range: 6565–7766 feet

Trees: 45% Shrubs: <1% Perennial Grass: 0% Total Grass: 0% Bare Ground: 41%

Trees: 53% Shrubs: 0% Perennial Grass: 1% Total Grass: 1% Bare Ground: 17%

SRM Cover Types: 412 – Juniper-Pinyon Woodland

SAF Cover Types: 239 – Pinyon-Juniper

Fuel Model: TU1

07/02/07

06/13/07

Pinyon-Juniper: Phase 3
40

TREES

JUOS CELE3 

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min 

Total cover (%) 2 76 29 1* 30 2 <1* Density: <1.6 ft tall (stem/ac) 23* 727 39 23* 182 4 23* 

Density: >1.6 ft tall (stem/ac) 12* 433 136 4* 208 11 4* Height (ft) 7 15 11 4 15 9 2 Height to live crown (ft) <1* 16 2 <1* 10 2 <1* Live loading (ton/ac) 0.88 35.84 11.81 

NA 

<0.01 

Dead loading (ton/ac) 0.06 3.08 0.86 0.02* Available loading (ton/ac) 0.34 12.44 4.74 0.01* 

Canopy bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0014 0.0387 0.0170 0.0001* 

SHRUBS

Total cover (%) Height (in) Density (#/acre) Total loading (ton/ac) B

Species Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min 

ARAR8 <1* 2 <1 5 17 8 167 382 251 0.04 0.10 0.06 0.002ARNO4 <1* 12 1 6 55 12 23* 4565 286 <0.01 0.30 0.13 0.000ARTRV 1* 4 <1 7 37 16 24 1129 213 <0.01 0.60 0.13 0.000ARTRW8 <1* 7 1 6 44 17 23* 2067 460 0.01 0.63 0.23 0.000CHVI8 <1* 2 <1 6 24 11 10 358 120 <0.01 0.02 0.01 <0.00PUTR2 <1* 10 1 2 68 22 23* 613 87 <0.01 0.84 0.21 0.000

Pinyon-Juniper: Phase 3

Pinyon-Juniper: Phase 3
41

LITTER and DUFF

Total cover (%) Depth (in.) Total loading (ton/ac) B

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min 

Tree litter NA 1.0 3.3 1.9 3.45 20.53 9.29 1.223Tree duff NA <0.1 1.6 0.4 0.24 22.47 4.46 1.866Interspace litter 18 82 46 NA <0.01* 0.57 0.04 Bare ground 13 63 37 NA NA 

NONWOODY FUELS

Min Max Mean 

Total cover: Perennial grass (%) <1* 20 4 Total cover: Annual grass (%) <1* 13 1 

Total cover: Forbs (%) <1* 25 2 Grass height (in.) 2* 12 5 Forb height (in.) 1* 7 3 Live herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 2.69* 552.43 72.86 Dead herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 1.79* 326.80 32.59 Total herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 4.48* 879.23 105.45Bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0006 0.0471 0.0095 

WOODY FU

Diameter (in.) 

Min 

0.26–1.0 (10-hour) 0.06 

1.1–3.0 (100-hour) 0.05 

3.1–9.0 

(1000-hour: Sound) 0.61* 

3.1–9.0 

(1000-hour: Rotten) 0.45* 

Total 1.17* 

Pinyon-Juniper: Phase 3
42

This page intentionally left blank.
43

Utah Juniper Fuels Guide: 3 Phases

User Notes

Site Notes

• Three phases represent the SageSTEP Sagebrush/Utah Juniper sites characterized by the Loamy 12

(NRCS 1997).

• General site information includes: average annual precipitation ranges between 12.7–17.5 in. averagi

3–33%, all aspects, ‘loamy’ soil texture, and soil depths >20 in. with minimal stoniness.

• The historical fi re return interval on these sites was 20 to greater than 100 years. The amount of wood

suggests these sites have not burned since the late 1800s. With increased woodland dominance the fi 

to infrequent, high intensity fi res.

• Onaqui is the only site with an active grazing allotments. Some of these subplots may have been graz

within a non-use grazing allotment. Stansbury and Greenville Bench are not currently grazed.

Guide Notes

1. Phases are organized by tree stand cover and understory characteristics.

 - Phase 1: Trees are present on the site, but the shrub and herb layer are the dominant infl uence o

(hydrologic, nutrient, and energy cycles).

 - Phase 2: Trees are co-dominant with shrub and herb layers. All three layers infl uence ecological p

 - Phase 3: Trees are the dominant vegetation and the primary layer infl uencing ecological processe

2. The caption above the photos denotes measured percent cover by fuel stratum for that photo. 3. Sampling took place between May and early August in 2006 and 2007. The date of the photo is in the 

corner.

4. Percent bare ground is the only reported measure of fuel continuity. 5. Dominant graminoids include: ACHY, ACNE10, ACTH7, BRTE, HECO26, POSE, and PSSPS.6. BRTE is the only annual grass reported. 7. Shrub loadings are restricted by height, long diameter, perpendicular diameter and volume. Refer to A

Juniper, for sample ranges used in this study and R2 values.

8. Minimum values presented with an asterisk (*) indicate minimum value when present. Mean value inc9. The designation of “NA” indicates data were not available.10. Tables of species codes and metric conversions can be found in Appendix I and III.

Utah Juniper Fuels Guide
44 Utah Juniper: Phase 1

Utah Juniper: Phase 1

Trees: 4% Shrubs: 23% Perennial Grass: 19% Total Grass: 20% Bare Ground: 33%

Trees: 5% Shrubs: 20% Perennial Grass: 16% Total Grass: 22% Bare Ground: 43%

08/01/06

07/24/06
45

Trees: 11% Shrubs: 10% Perennial Grass: 27% Total Grass: 27% Bare Ground: 24%

Trees: 11% Shrubs: 33% Perennial Grass: 23% Total Grass: 37% Bare Ground: 10%

Site Locations: Greenville Bench, Onaqui, Scipio, 

Stansbury; 65 subplots

Elevation Range: 5558–6024 feet

SRM Cover Types: 104 – Antelope 

bitterbrush-bluebunch wheatgrass 

Fuel Model: SH1, SH2, or TU1

06/27/06

07/20/06

Utah Juniper: Phase 1
46 Utah Juniper: Phase 1

TREES

JUOS PIED

Min Max Mean Min Max 

Total cover (%) 1 31 9 <1 9 Density: <1.6 ft tall (stem/ac) 23* 1453 117 23* 727 

Density: >1.6 ft tall (stem/ac) 16* 143 50 4* 90 

Height (ft) 4 15 9 3 10 

Height to live crown (ft) <1* 6 2 <1 6 

Live loading (ton/ac) 0.11 11.70 2.81 <0.01 2.70 Dead loading (ton/ac) <0.01* 1.04 0.21 <0.01* 0.19 Available loading (ton/ac) 0.06 4.38 1.22 <0.01 1.16 Canopy bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0007 0.0200 0.0059 <0.0001* 0.0053 

SHRUBS

 Total cover (%) Height (in.) Density (#/acre) Total loading (ton/ac) 

Species Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean M

ARTRV <1* 29 5 6 65 28 23* 2316 325 0.06 8.24 2.96 0.00ARTRW8 3* 36 9 2 58 21 772* 4315 1741 0.13 7.23 2.18 0.00CHVI8 <1* 16 2 2 39 11 24 4783 1075 0.02 0.56 0.22 0.00PUTR2 5* 39 7 9 91 50 23* 2021 133 0.40 4.96 2.88 0.00

Utah Juniper: Phase 1
47 Utah Juniper: Phase 1

NONWOODY FUELS

Min Max Mean 

Total cover: Perennial grass (%) 2 49 17 Total cover: Annual grass (%) <1* 65 17 

Total cover: Forbs (%) <1 40 10 

Grass height (in.) 3 16 7 Forb height (in.) 1 13 4 Live herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 9.85 544.37 146.39 Dead herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 7.16 461.10 116.56 Total herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 17.01 1005.47 262.95Bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0019 0.0434 0.0166 

WOODY FU

Diameter (in.) Min 

0.26–1.0 (10-hour) 0.01 

1.1–3.0 (100-hour) 0.10 

3.1–9.0

(1000-hour: Sound) 0.46* 

3.1–9.0 

(1000-hour: Rotten) 0.58* 

Total 1.15* 

LITTER and DUFF

Total cover (%) Depth (in.) Total loading (ton/ac) 

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean M

Tree litter NA 0.4 2.1 1.2 0.27 10.40 2.57 0.1Tree duff NA <0.1 0.5 0.2 0.04 3.43 0.64 0.2Interspace litter 3 34 15 NA <0.01 0.24 0.04 Bare ground 2 49 23 NA NA 
48 Utah Juniper: Phase 2

Utah Juniper: Phase 2

Trees: 11% Shrubs: 11% Perennial Grass: 15% Total Grass: 15% Bare Ground: 43%

Trees: 17% Shrubs: 41% Perennial Grass: 12% Total Grass: 28% Bare Ground: 14%

06/14/06

08/01/06
49

Site Locations: Greenville Bench, Onaqui, 

Scipio, Stansbury; 90 subplots

Elevation Range: 5558–6024 feet

Fuel Model: SH1 or TU1

SRM Cover Types: 104 – Antelope bitterbrushBluebunch wheatgrass, 412 – Juniper-Pinyon 

woodland

SAF Cover Type: 239 – Pinyon-Juniper

Trees: 20% Shrubs: 4% Perennial Grass: 15% Total Grass: 18% Bare Ground: 30%

Trees: 34% Shrubs: 7% Perennial Grass: 8% Total Grass: 18% Bare Ground: 26%

07/06/06

05/12/06

Utah Juniper: Phase 2
50 Utah Juniper: Phase 2

TREES

JUOS PIED 

Min Max Mean Min Max 

Total cover (%) <1 50 17 <1* 20 Density: <1.6 ft tall (stem/ac) 23* 363 18 23* 2180 

Density: >1.6 ft tall (stem/ac) 4* 294 85 4* 180 

Height (ft) 5 15 10 2 14 Height to live crown (ft) <1* 7 3 <1 7 Live loading (ton/ac) 0.10 18.63 5.56 <0.01* 5.47 Dead loading (ton/ac) <0.01 1.60 0.42 <0.01* 0.44 Available loading (ton/ac) 0.05 7.33 2.39 0.01* 2.41 Canopy bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0006 0.0248 0.0106 0.0001* 0.0137 

SHRUBS

 Total cover (%) Height (in) Density (#/acre) Total loading (ton/ac) 

Species Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Mi

ARTRV 1* 30 2 6 77 27 45* 2407 180 0.05 6.39 2.50 0.00ARTRW8 <1* 25 6 3 110 21 182* 4020 1400 0.06 6.61 1.25 0.00CHVI8 <1* 11 1 5 34 11 24 5870 837 <0.01 0.52 1.15 <0.0PUTR2 <1* 30 3 7 89 45 23* 658 31 <0.01 4.54 1.56 0.00

Utah Juniper: Phase 2
51 Utah Juniper: Phase 2

NONWOODY FUELS

Min Max Mean 

Total cover: Perennial grass (%) <1 43 16 

Total cover: Annual grass (%) <1* 50 12 

Total cover: Forbs (%) <1* 34 9 Grass height (in.) 2 15 6 Forb height (in.) 1 13 3 Live herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 2.69 547.05 111.56 Dead herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 2.69* 305.31 72.75 Total herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 5.38* 852.36 184.31Bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0012 0.0387 0.0131 

WOODY FU

Diameter (in.) Min 

0.26–1.0 (10-hour) 0.02 

1.1–3.0 (100-hour) 0.05* 

3.1–9.0 

(1000-hour: Sound) 0.46* 

3.1–9.0 

(1000-hour: Rotten) 0.45* 

Total 0.98* 

LITTER and DUFF

Total cover (%) Depth (in.) Total loading (ton/ac) 

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean M

Tree litter NA 0.6 2.2 1.2 0.47 18.01 4.72 0.20Tree duff NA <0.1* 0.7 0.1 0.06* 5.70 1.11 0.44Interspace litter 4 36 17 NA <0.01 0.25 0.04 Bare ground 3 57 29 NA NA 
52 Utah Juniper: Phase 3

Utah Juniper: Phase 3

Trees: 24% Shrubs: 5% Perennial Grass: 3% Total Grass: 22% Bare Ground: 35%

Trees: 31% Shrubs: 5% Perennial Grass: 8% Total Grass: 40% Bare Ground: 26%

07/17/06

07/10/06
53

Trees: 33% Shrubs: 2% Perennial Grass: 2% Total Grass: 2% Bare Ground: 59%

Trees: 48% Shrubs: 5% Perennial Grass: 6% Total Grass: 6% Bare Ground: 28%

Site Locations: Greenville Bench, Onaqui, 

Scipio, Stansbury; 81 subplots

Elevation Range: 5558–6024 feet

SRM Cover Types: 412 – Juniper-Pinyon Woodland

SAF Cover Types: 239 – Pinyon-Juniper

Fuel Model: TU1

08/03/06

08/01/06

Utah Juniper: Phase 3
54 Utah Juniper: Phase 3

TREES

JUOS PIED 

Min Max Mean Min Max 

Total cover (%) 9 65 28 <1 42 Density: <1.6 ft tall (stem/ac) 23* 2907 40 23* 1453 

Density: >1.6 ft tall (stem/ac) 45* 490 147 4* 348 Height (ft) 7 15 10 6 15 Height to live crown (ft) <1* 10 3 <1 8 Live loading (ton/ac) 2.75 19.79 8.92 0.06 11.79 Dead loading (ton/ac) 0.18 1.60 0.65 0.02* 0.85 Available loading (ton/ac) 1.30 9.92 3.98 0.03 5.24 Canopy bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0062 0.0417 0.0175 <0.0001* 0.0240 

SHRUBS

Total cover (%) Height (in.) Density (#/acre) Total loading (ton/ac) 

Species Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Mi

ARTRV <1* 11 1 6 55 22 182* 1385 152 0.02 1.74 0.62 0.00ARTRW8 <1* 12 2 4 57 20 23* 3021 550 0.01 2.26 0.52 0.00CHVI8 <1* 4 < 1 6 27 9 24 1344 248 <0.01 0.05 0.02 <0.0PUTR2 1* 20 2 7 73 40 23* 1295 51 0.01 2.27 0.67 0.00

Utah Juniper: Phase 3
55 Utah Juniper: Phase 3

LITTER and DUFF

Total cover (%) Depth (in.) Total loading (ton/ac) 

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Mi

Tree litter NA 0.6 2.1 1.2 2.14 18.01 8.12 1.25Tree duff NA <0.1 0.9 0.2 0.11 10.86 1.89 1.49

Interspace litter 8 55 21 NA <0.01 0.07 0.02 

Bare ground 6 68 34 NA NA 

NONWOODY FUELS

Min Max Mean 

Total cover: Perennial grass (%) <1* 33 12 

Total cover: Annual grass (%) <1* 38 9 Total cover: Forbs (%) <1 39 8 

Grass height (in.) 2 17 6 Forb height (in.) 1 24 3 Live herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 2.69 255.17 66.15 Dead herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 2.69 240.85 45.01 Total herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 5.38 496.02 111.16Bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0007 0.0418 0.0093 

WOODY FU

Diameter (in.) 

Min 

0.26–1.0 (10-hour) 0.04 

1.1–3.0 (100-hour) 0.05 

3.1–9.0 

(1000-hour: Sound) 0.61* 

3.1–9.0

(1000-hour: Rotten) 0.45* 

Total 1.15* 
56

This page intentionally left blank.
57

Western Juniper Fuels Guide: 3 Phases

User Notes

Site Notes

• Three phases represent the SageSTEP Sagebrush/Western Juniper sites characterized by the Loam

type (NRCS 1997).

• General site information includes: average annual precipitation ranges between 10.2–19.4 in. avera

0–41%, all aspects, ‘loamy’ soil texture, and soil depths > 20 in. with minimal stoniness.

• The historical fi re return interval on these sites was 10–70 years with low to moderate severity fi res. 

of woodland encroachment suggests these sites have not burned since the late 1800s. With increasdominance the fi re regime has shifted to infrequent, high intensity fi res.

• Bridge Creek is the only site without an active grazing allotments and has not been grazed. All other 

been grazed.

Guide Notes

1. Phases are organized by tree stand cover and understory characteristics. 

 - Phase 1: Trees are present on the site, but the shrub and herb layer are the dominant infl uence 

processes (hydrologic, nutrient, and energy cycles).

 - Phase 2: Trees are co-dominant with shrub and herb layers. All three layers infl uence ecologica

 - Phase 3: Trees are the dominant vegetation and the primary layer infl uencing ecological proces

2. The caption above the photos denotes measured percent cover by fuel stratum for that photo.3. Sampling took place between May and early August in 2006 and 2007. The date of the photo is in th

corner.

4. Percent bare ground is the only reported measure of fuel continuity. 5. Dominant graminoids include: ACHY, ACNE10, ACTH7, BRTE, HECO26, POSE, and PSSPS.6. BRTE is the only annual grass reported. 7. Shrub loadings are restricted by height, long diameter, perpendicular diameter and volume. Refer to 

Western Juniper, for sample ranges used in this study and R2 values.

8. Minimum values presented with an asterisk (*) indicate minimum value when present. Mean value in9. The designation of “NA” indicates data were not available.10. Tables of species codes and metric conversions can be found in Appendix I and III.

Western Juniper Fuels Guide
58 Western Juniper: Phase 1

Western Juniper: Phase 1

Trees: 0% Shrubs: 34% Perennial Grass: 34% Total Grass: 38% Bare Ground: 17%

Trees: 3% Shrubs: 23% Perennial Grass: 35% Total Grass: 35% Bare Ground: 27%

06/06/06

06/24/07
59

Site Locations: Bridge Creek, Blue Mountain, 

Castlehead, Devine Ridge, Walker Butte; 

94 subplots

Trees: 5% Shrubs: 5% Perennial Grass: 42% Total Grass: 42% Bare Ground: 38%

Trees: 7% Shrubs: 13% Perennial Grass: 31% Total Grass: 34% Bare Ground: 22%

SRM Cover Types: 402 – Mountain Big Sagebrush 

Fuel Model: GS1, SH1, or TU1

Elevation Range: 2838–5689 feet

05/18/07

06/12/06

Western Juniper: Phase 1
60 Western Juniper: Phase 1

TREES

JUOC CELE3

Min Max Mean Min Max 

Total cover (%) <1 31 8 <1* 22 

Density: <1.6 ft tall (stem/ac) 23* 1817 36 23* 114 

Density: >1.6 ft tall (stem/ac) 4* 115 46 8 139 

Height (ft) 2 35 11 2 20 Height to live crown (ft) <1* 7 1 <1* 8 Live loading (ton/ac) 0.03 14.20 3.33 

NA 

Dead loading (ton/ac) 0.01* 1.95 0.30 Available loading (ton/ac) 0.04 6.49 1.60Canopy bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0002* 0.0063 0.0026 

SHRUBS

 Total cover (%) Height (in.) Density (#/acre) Total loading (ton/ac) 

Species Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean M

ARAR8 <1* 23 1 4 58 12 23* 5110 191 0.02 0.91 0.42 0.00ARTRV <1* 25 8 6 67 26 23* 5996 1104 0.10 4.89 1.07 0.00CHVI8 <1* 7 1 5 37 15 23* 1998 104 <0.01 0.13 0.03 <0.0PUTR2 <1* 12 2 5 95 37 23* 1272 164 <0.01 2.37 0.70 0.00

Western Juniper: Phase 1
61 Western Juniper: Phase 1

LITTER and DUFF

Total cover (%) Depth (in.) Total loading (ton/ac) 

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean M

Tree litter NA 0.1 1.3 0.6 0.01 4.20 0.43 0.0Tree duff NA 0.1 3.9 1.4 0.09 4.67 1.20 0.0Interspace litter 5 32 18 NA <0.01* 3.03 0.36 Bare ground 2 52 23 NA NA 

NONWOODY FUELS

 Min Max Mean

Total cover: Perennial grass (%) 12 53 32

Total cover: Annual grass (%) <1* 21 3

Total cover: Forbs (%) <1* 19 4Grass height (in.) 4 20 9Forb height (in.) 1* 9 4Live herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 54.62 720.75 240.47Dead herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 2.67* 809.39 158.10Total herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 57.29* 1530.14 398.57Bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0043 0.0577 0.0189

WOODY FU

Diameter (in.) 

Min 

0.26–1.0 (10-hour) 0.06 

1.1–3.0 (100-hour) 0.05* 

3.1–9.0 

(1000-hour: Sound) 0.46* 

3.1–9.0

(1000-hour: Rotten) 0.86* 

Total 1.43* 
62 Western Juniper: Phase 2

Western Juniper: Phase 2

Trees: 5% Shrubs: 22% Perennial Grass: 28% Total Grass: 28% Bare Ground: 11%

Trees: 10% Shrubs: 11% Perennial Grass: 21% Total Grass: 22% Bare Ground: 40%

06/23/07

08/07/07
63

Site Locations: Bridge Creek, Blue Mountain, 

Castlehead, Devine Ridge, Walker Butte; 

86 subplots

Elevation Range: 2838–6168 feet

Trees: 14% Shrubs: 24% Perennial Grass: 26% Total Grass: 26% Bare Ground: 20%

Trees: 21% Shrubs: 8% Perennial Grass: 15% Total Grass: 16% Bare Ground: 34%

05/21/07

06/25/07

SRM Cover Types: 107 – Western Juniper–Big 

Sagebrush–Bluebunch Wheatgrass 

SAF Cover Type: 238 – Western Juniper

Fuel Model: SH1 or TU1

Western Juniper: Phase 2
64 Western Juniper: Phase 2

TREES

JUOC CELE3 

Min Max Mean Min Max 

Total cover (%) 4 55 20 <1* 18 Density: <1.6 ft tall (stem/ac) 23* 1453 48 23* 2180 

Density: >1.6 ft tall (stem/ac) 21* 180 52 4* 45 

Height (ft) <1* 54 13 5 25 Height to live crown (ft) <1* 13 2 1 13 Live loading (ton/ac) 1.40 23.50 8.66

NA 

Dead loading (ton/ac) 0.04 3.79 1.00 Available loading (ton/ac) 0.78 11.37 4.12

Canopy bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0017 0.0161 0.0062 

SHRUBS

 Total cover (%) Height (in.) Density (#/acre) Total loading (ton/ac) B

Species Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min 

ARAR8 <1* 6 <1 4 23 11 182* 1771 74 <0.01 0.77 0.20 0.000ARTRV <1* 25 7 2 63 24 159* 3452 958 0.08 2.78 0.63 0.001CHVI8 <1* 11 1 6 31 14 23* 1935 67 <0.01 0.15 0.02 <0.00PUTR2 <1* 23 4 6 109 34 23* 1385 241 0.03 2.51 0.84 0.000

Western Juniper: Phase 2
65 Western Juniper: Phase 2

LITTER and DUFF

Total cover (%) Depth (in.) Total loading (ton/ac) 

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean M

Tree litter NA 0.1 1.2 0.6 0.07 2.90 0.87 0.1Tree duff NA 0.3 2.9 1.3 0.40 10.84 3.12 0.2Interspace litter 7 52 21 NA <0.01* 5.62 0.66 

Bare ground 4 50 23 NA NA 

NONWOODY FUELS

Min Max Mean 

Total cover: Perennial grass (%) 8 56 27 Total cover: Annual grass (%) <1* 25 3 

Total cover: Forbs (%) <1 43 8 Grass height (in.) 4 19 9 Forb height (in.) 1 11 4 Live herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 11.64 658.97 171.53 Dead herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 2.69* 804.91 98.69 Total herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 14.33* 1463.88 270.22Bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0027 0.0365 0.0135 

WOODY FU

Diameter (in.) 

Min 

0.26–1.0 (10-hour) 0.01 

1.1–3.0 (100-hour) 0.05* 

3.1–9.0 

(1000-hour: Sound) 0.61* 

3.1–9.0

(1000-hour: Rotten) 0.45* 

Total 1.12* 
66 Western Juniper: Phase 3

Western Juniper: Phase 3

Trees: 26% Shrubs: 1% Perennial Grass: 12% Total Grass: 12% Bare Ground: 23%

Trees: 27% Shrubs: 4% Perennial Grass: 25% Total Grass: 25% Bare Ground: 37%

06/11/06

06/21/06
67

Site Locations: Bridge Creek, Blue Mountain, 

Castlehead, Devine Ridge, Walker Butte; 

44 subplots

Elevation Range: 2838–6168 feet

SRM Cover Types: 107 – Western Juniper–Big 

Sagebrush–Bluebunch Wheatgrass

SAF Cover Types: 238 – Western Juniper

Fuel Model: TU1

Trees: 40% Shrubs: 7% Perennial Grass: 24% Total Grass: 24% Bare Ground: 23%

Trees: 51% Shrubs: 9% Perennial Grass: 1% Total Grass: 45% Bare Ground: 16%

07/16/07

07/17/07

Western Juniper: Phase 3
68 Western Juniper: Phase 3

TREES

JUOC CELE3 

Min Max Mean Min Max 

Total cover (%) 10 87 35 <1* 14 Density: <1.6 ft tall (stem/ac) 23* 1817 62 23* 10174 

Density: >1.6 ft tall (stem/ac) 45* 311 109 4* 41 

Height (ft) 1 62 17 9 33 Height to live crown (ft) <1* 23 3 1 14 Live loading (ton/ac) 3.36 41.92 16.18

NA 

Dead loading (ton/ac) 0.29 6.31 1.95 Available loading (ton/ac) 1.76 20.62 7.89Canopy bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0044 0.0287 0.0098 

SHRUBS

 Total cover (%) Height (in.) Density (#/acre) Total loading (ton/ac) B

Species Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min 

ARAR8 3* 3 <1 9 26 16 23* 1771 39 <0.01 0.02 0.01 <0.000ARTRV <1* 10 3 1 50 23 23* 3565 375 0.01 0.64 0.16 0.000CHVI8 <1* 2 <1 2 30 13 23* 1022 57 <0.01 0.05 0.01 0.000PUTR2 <1* 11 2 6 83 35 23* 1113 158 0.02 1.60 0.56 0.000

Western Juniper: Phase 3
69 Western Juniper: Phase 3

LITTER and DUFF

Total cover (%) Depth (in.) Total loading (ton/ac) 

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean M

Tree litter NA 0.2 1.2 0.6 0.07 5.74 1.73 0.0Tree duff NA 0.1 2.3 1.1 0.24 13.86 4.72 0.2Interspace litter 11 56 27 NA 0.01 14.09 1.05 

Bare ground 8 48 23 NA NA 

NONWOODY FUELS

Min Max Mean 

Total cover: Perennial grass (%) 5 45 21 Total cover: Annual grass (%) <1* 10 2 

Total cover: Forbs (%) 1 27 6 

Grass height (in.) 4 17 8 Forb height (in.) 1 11 4 Live herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 11.64 333.96 101.91 Dead herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 2.69* 1463.88 73.92 Total herbaceous loading (lbs/ac) 14.33* 1797.84 175.83Bulk density (lbs/ft3) 0.0011 0.0100 0.0101 

WOODY F

Diameter (in.) M

0.26–1.0 (10-hour) 0.0

1.1–3.0 (100-hour) 0.0

3.1–9.0

(1000-hour: Sound) 0.7

3.1–9.0

(1000-hour: Rotten) 0.7

Total 1.5
70

Appendix I: Species Index

Stratum Code1 Scientifi c Name Commo

Trees

CELE3 Cercocarpus ledifolius curl-leaf mount

JUOC Juniperus occidentalis western 

JUOS Juniperus osteosperma little Uta

PIED Pinus edulis twoneedle 

PIMO Pinus monophylla singleleaf p

Shrubs

ARAR8 Artemisia arbuscula little sag

ARNO4 Artemisia nova black sa

ARTRV Artemisia tridentata (vaseyana) mountain big 

ARTRW8 Artemisia tridentata (wyomingensis) Wyoming big 

CHVI8 Chrysothamnus viscidifl orus yellow ra

PUTR2 Purshia tridentata antelope b

1USDA NRCS 2008

Appendix I: Species Index
71

Stratum Code1 Scientifi c Name Commo

Graminoids

ACHY Achnatherum hymenoides Indian ri

ACNE10 Achnatherum nevadense Nevada ne

ACTH7 Achnatherum thurberianum Thurber’s n

BRAR5 Bromus arvensis fi eld b

BRTE Bromus tectorum cheat

ELEL5 Elymus elymoides squir

FEID Festuca idahoensis Idaho 

HECO26 Hesperostipa comata needle an

LECI4 Leymus cinereus basin wild 

PASM Pasceopyrum smithii western w

PLJA Pleuraphis jamesii James’ 

POCU3 Poa cusickii Cusick’s b

POSE Poa secunda Sandberg 

PSSPS Pseudoroegneria spicata spicata bluebunch w

1USDA NRCS 2008

Appendix I: Species Index
72

Appendix II: Glossary of Terms

Available fuel loading: Fuel that could be readily consumed at any given time. Highly dependent of fuel mand arrangement (Miller 2001). Biomass: All vegetation on the site (Miller 2001).Bulk density: Weight of biomass per unit volume; loading/fuel depth (Brown 1982).Common species: Species that have the highest abundance on the site.Community: An assemblage of plants, animals, bacteria and fungi that live in an environment, interact wia distinctive living system within its own composition, structure, environmental relations, development and 1975). It is the biotic component of the ecosystem and has no implicit defi nition of spatial extent or boundaDominant species: Species that exerts ecological infl uence over other species on the site.

Duff: The fermentation and humus layers of the forest fl oor. Needles, leaves, and other castoff vegetation distinguishable due to decomposition (Brown 1974). Ecosystem: The community and non-living environment functioning together as an ecological system (Oddefi nition of spatial extent or boundaries (Kimmins 1987). Fire behavior fuel model: General description of fuel properties and fuel characteristics, including loadinvolume, created for the purpose of fi re behavior prediction (Anderson 1982).Fire behavior model: A computer model that uses a set of physically based mathematical equations to prfi re behavior. Inputs include fuel characteristics and environmental conditions for a particular site (RothermFire regime: A general description of the role fi re plays in an ecosystem. It can be described by character(type, frequency, predictability, extent, magnitude, synergism or timing), a summary of the ecological effecpotential vegetation of the ecosystems, or the fi re severity on dominant vegetation (Agee 1993).Fire return interval: The number of years between two successive fi re events at a specifi c site or an area 

(Agee 1993). 

Appendix II: Glossary of Terms
73

Fuel: Live and dead biomass that contribute to wildland fi re (Davis 1959). Often defi ned by loading depth, 

density. Fuelbed: Measured or averaged physical characteristics of reactively uniform unit on the landscape that r

environment (Riccardi et al. 2001).Fuelbed depth: Depth of surface fuel available to the fl aming front (Miller 2001).Fuel continuity: Relates to the proximity of individual fuel particles as well as different fuel strata. It affect

rates and area and how much consumption takes place (Miller 2001).Fuel loading: Weight of fuel per unit area (Brown 1982).Fuel strata: A horizontal layer of fuel having approximately the same composition throughout; parallel layetop of another. Identifi ed in this Guide as trees, shrubs, nonwoody fuel, woody fuels, litter and duff (Ottmaet al. 2001).Litter: The surface layer of the site consisting of freshly fallen leaves, needles, twigs, bark and fruits (BrowTime lag: The length of time it takes a fuel particle to reach 63 percent equilibrium moisture content with tstandard conditions of 80oF and 20 percent relative humidity (Schroeder and Buck 1970).1-hour fuel: Fuel particles with 0.00–0.24 in. (0–0.6 cm) diameter; fuel size class distinction (Brown 1974the timelag.10-hour fuel: Fuel particles with 0.25–0.99 in. (0.6–2.5 cm) diameter; fuel size class distinction (Brown 19the timelag.100-hour fuel: Fuel particles with 1.00–2.99 in. (2.5–7.6 cm) diameter; fuel size class distinction (Brown 1refers to the timelag. 1000-hour fuel: Fuel particles with greater than 3.00 in. (7.6 cm) diameter; fuel size class distinction (Browhour refers to the timelag. 

Appendix II: Glossary of Terms
74

Appendix III: Conversion Table

Reported Unit Conversions

1 ac 0.4050 ha; 4046.8560 m21 in. 2.5400 cm

1 ft 0.3048 m

1 lb 0.0005 ton; 0.4520 kg

1 lb/ac 0.0005 ton/ac; 0.0001 kg/m2; 1.1200 kg/ha

1 ton 907.2000 kg

1 ton/ac 0.2242 kg/m2; 2241.7023 kg/ha

1 lb/ft3 16.0000 kg/m3 

Appendix III: Conversion Table
75

Appendix IV: Tree Loadings by Size Class 

Size class loadings were calculated using allometric equations developed by Sabin (2008) and Tausch (20will be useful as more accurate information becomes available about the percentage of various size classto burn under certain environmental conditions. The authors recommend users make their own assumptiocanopy fuels based on their experience or current literature.

Guide Phase Species

Foliar loading 

(ton/ac)

1-hour loading 

(ton/ac)

10-hour loading 

(ton/ac)

100-hour loa

(ton/ac)

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max M

Pinyon-Juniper

1

JUOS 0.01 3.23 0.65 <0.01 1.34 0.20 <0.01 1.78 0.31 <0.01 2.88 

PIMO <0.01 1.05 0.22 <0.01 0.89 0.16 <0.01 0.01 0.19 <0.01 1.33 

2

JUOS 0.01 4.85 1.43 <0.01 1.71 0.48 <0.01 2.45 0.72 <0.01 3.34 

PIMO <0.01 2.65 0.83 <0.01 2.16 0.61 <0.01 2.52 0.72 <0.01 3.13 

3

JUOS 0.21 4.15 2.92 0.07 3.20 1.06 0.12 4.18 1.53 0.17 6.96 

PIMO 0.01 3.58 1.85 0.01 3.15 1.44 0.02 3.74 1.70 0.01 4.23 

Utah Juniper

1

JUOS 0.04 2.61 0.76 0.01 1.12 0.27 0.02 1.47 0.39 0.02 2.27 

PIED <0.01 0.55 0.19 0.01 0.38 0.13 0.01 0.46 0.16 <0.01 0.60 

2

JUOS 0.04 4.35 1.48 0.01 1.77 0.52 0.02 2.42 0.76 0.02 3.62 

PIED 0.01 1.13 0.42 <0.01 0.80 0.29 <0.01 0.96 0.35 <0.01 1.21 

3

JUOS 0.83 6.50 2.50 0.26 2.16 0.85 0.41 3.19 1.26 0.53 3.84 

PIED 0.02 2.51 0.84 0.01 1.70 0.57 0.02 2.05 0.69 0.01 2.62 

Western Juniper

1 JUOC <0.01 2.67 0.14 0.04 5.13 1.28 0.02 2.71 0.66 <0.01 3.71 2 JUOC 0.01 4.32 0.35 0.62 9.00 3.27 0.31 4.75 1.70 0.21 6.37 3 JUOC <0.01 4.74 0.33 1.40 16.33 6.10 0.71 8.58 3.18 0.67 10.17 

Appendix IV: Tree Loadings by Size Class
76

Appendix V: Shrub Loadings by Size Class 

Size class loadings were calculated from site- and species-specifi c linear regressions developed from har

(Pechanec and Pickford 1937, Riser 1984). Various combinations of shrub height, longest diameter, perpeand volume were used as predictor variables in the regressions. One-hour loading includes foliage and 1-shrub canopy. The available loading assumes 100% of the 1-hour and 50% of the 10-hour fuels will consu

(Wright 2008).

Guide Group Species 1-hour loading (ton/ac) 10-hour loading (ton/ac) Avail

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min 

Sagebrush 

Steppe

1 

ARTRW8 0.15 2.19 1.27 0.04 2.47 0.80 0.05 CHVI8 <0.01 0.19 0.05 <0.01 0.05 0.01 <0.0

2 

ARTRW8 <0.01 2.40 0.71 <0.01 2.89 0.78 0.12 CHVI8 <0.01 0.30 0.04 <0.01 0.10 0.01 <0.0

3 

ARTRW8 0.39 13.27 4.57 0.04 3.71 0.73 0.46 CHVI8 <0.01 0.97 0.31 <0.01 0.39 0.13 0.01 

4 

ARTRW8 0.04 2.17 0.59 0.04 1.92 0.53 0.06 CHVI8 <0.01 0.04 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.0

Appendix V: Shrub Loadings by Size Class
77

Guide Phase Species 1-hour loading (ton/ac) 10-hour loading (ton/ac) Avail

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min 

PinyonJuniper 

1 

ARAR8 NA ARNO4 <0.01 1.38 0.58 <0.01 1.00 0.42 <0.0ARTRV 0.01 0.97 0.29 <0.01 0.68 0.26 <0.0ARTRW8 0.02 1.35 0.50 0.01 1.82 0.34 0.06 CHVI8 <0.01 0.41 0.09 <0.01 0.07 0.01 <0.0PUTR2 0.01 0.77 0.22 <0.01 0.88 0.19 <0.0

2 

ARAR8 0.01 0.21 0.07 <0.01 0.15 0.05 0.02 ARNO4 0.08 1.15 0.41 0.03 0.89 0.28 <0.0ARTRV <0.01 0.42 0.08 <0.01 0.24 0.08 <0.0ARTRW8 <0.01 1.19 0.40 <0.01 0.55 0.16 0.01 CHVI8 <0.01 0.17 0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.01 <0.0PUTR2 0.03 0.67 0.19 0.01 0.83 0.19 0.03 

3 

ARAR8 <0.01 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 ARNO4 0.01 0.19 0.07 <0.01 0.60 0.13 <0.0ARTRV <0.01 0.23 0.05 <0.01 0.16 0.04 <0.0ARTRW8 0.01 0.23 0.09 <0.01 0.09 0.03 <0.0CHVI8 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.0PUTR2 0.01 0.29 0.09 <0.01 0.30 0.08 <0.0

Appendix V: Shrub Loadings by Size Class
78

Guide Phase Species 1-hour loading (ton/ac) 10-hour loading (ton/ac) Availa

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min 

Utah 

Juniper

1

ARTRV 0.04 2.10 0.86 0.03 2.50 0.95 0.05 ARTRW8 0.11 1.81 0.79 0.09 2.04 0.85 0.12 CHVI8 0.02 0.56 0.22 NA 0.01 

PUTR2 0.30 1.87 0.92 0.32 2.11 1.13 0.37 

2

ARTRV 0.01 1.81 0.55 0.01 2.02 0.62 0.02 ARTRW8 <0.01 1.56 0.49 < 0.01 2.08 0.53 0.04 CHVI8 <0.01 0.44 0.10 NA <0.01 PUTR2 0.05 1.25 0.46 0.05 1.67 0.61 <0.01 

3

ARTRV 0.01 0.44 0.20 0.01 0.52 0.21 0.01 ARTRW8 <0.01 0.73 0.19 0.01 1.08 0.24 0.01 CHVI8 <0.01 0.03 0.01 NA <0.01 PUTR2 0.01 0.58 0.19 0.01 0.80 0.24 0.01 

Appendix V: Shrub Loadings by Size Class
79

Guide Phase Species 1-hour loading (ton/ac) 10-hour loading (ton/ac) Avai

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min 

Western 

Juniper

1

ARAR8 0.01 0.60 0.28 0.01 0.34 0.17 0.01 ARTRV 0.05 2.36 0.53 0.06 1.84 0.45 0.08 CHVI8 <0.01 0.13 0.03 NA <0.0PUTR2 <0.01 0.99 0.28 <0.01 2.06 0.45 <0.0

2

ARAR8 <0.01 0.49 0.13 <0.01 0.33 0.08 <0.0ARTRV 0.03 1.33 0.32 0.03 1.04 0.29 0.05 CHVI8 <0.01 0.15 0.02 NA <0.0PUTR2 0.02 1.03 0.35 <0.01 2.18 0.53 0.02 

3

ARAR8 <0.01 0.08 0.02 <0.01 0.03 0.01 <0.0

ARTRV <0.01 0.26 0.07 <0.01 0.28 0.07 <0.0CHVI8 <0.01 0.05 0.01 NA <0.0PUTR2 0.01 0.71 0.25 0.01 1.07 0.35 0.01 

Appendix V: Shrub Loadings by Size Class
80

Appendix VI: Shrub Sample Ranges

Sagebrush Steppe: Sample ranges used to predict shrub loadings. R2 values are the lowest calculated developed regressions.Pinyon-Juniper: Sample ranges used to predict shrub loadings. R2 values are the lowest calculated valdeveloped regressions.

Height (in.) Longest Diameter (in.) Perpendicular Diameter (in.) Volum

ARTRW8 8–57 7–75 3–57 61–12CHVI8 10–28 9–48 5–42 332–1

Height (in.) Longest Diameter (in.) Perpendicular Diameter (in.) Volum

ARAR8 4–19 9–34 7–31 164–ARNO4 3–24 2–55 2–35 5–19ARTRV 6–39 6–49 4–17 82–5ARTRW8 2–55 3–63 2–51 9–75CHVI8 4–51 5–73 4–31 62–6PUTR2 5–75 4–146 4–91 38–51

Appendix VI: Shrub Sample Ranges
81

Utah Juniper: Sample ranges used to predict shrub loadings. R2 values are the lowest calculated valueregressionsWestern Juniper: Sample ranges used to predict shrub loadings. R2 values are the lowest calculated vadeveloped regressions.

Height (in.) Longest Diameter (in.) Perpendicular Diameter (in.) Volum

ARAR8 6–17 7–32 2–24 66–5ARTRV 8–51 7–66 6–62 194–1CHVI8 7–29 4–38 2–33 43–1PUTR2 7–89 10–119 5–101 268–5

Height (in.) Longest Diameter (in.) Perpendicular Diameter (in.) Volum

ARTRV 6–64 8–78 8–45 215–9ARTRW8 6–52 6–72 4–61 111–8CHVI8 7–24 7–31 7–22 229–PUTR2 6–79 13–149 7–138 305–7

Appendix VI: Shrub Sample Ranges
The mention of company names, trade names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use b