Prescribed Burning in the Kings River 

Ecosystems Project Area: Lessons 

Learned1 

David S. McCandliss2 

Abstract 

The prescribed fire program on the Sierra National Forest is in its infancy. Prescription 

burning was initiated in 1994 in two 32,000-acre watersheds in the Kings River District of 

the Sierra National Forest. Primary objectives are to return fire to a more historical role in 

forest ecosystems and to provide opportunities for scientists from the Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, and elsewhere to study various effects of these fires. Approximately 

11,900 acres of prescription burns were completed by the end of 1999, and documents 

required by the National Environmental Policy Act have been completed for burning on 

about 23,000 additional acres. A Draft Landscape Analysis Plan has been prepared and 

reviewed, and a final draft is presently in preparation. Two fuels-reduction projects are 

nearly completed, using small-group selection, thinning of conifers, conversion of brush 

patches to conifer stands, and prescribed burning. A second fuels-reduction project is 

currently being planned. Many lessons have been learned that relate to needed 

equipment, crew size, lighter experience, and ignition methods; indicators of appropriate 

times and places to burn; weather patterns; indicators of desirable flame lengths and fire 

intensities; indicators of the effects of burns on fuels, duff layer, and soil; and measures of 

the extent of brush, surface fuels, and ladder fuels removed by burns differing in intensity. 

Past efforts to underburn with prescribed fire on the Kings River Ranger 

District of the Sierra National Forest consisted of isolated, 100- to 1,000-acre 

projects spread over the district during the 1970’s. The main objective was to 

improve summer forage for mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) of the North Kings 

herd (Eaton 1978). These projects were single-entry burns done mainly during 

fall in mixed-conifer and red fir (Abies magnifica) vegetation types, although 

some burning in the ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) type occurred during 

spring months. Opinions varied about whether these burns were successful 

forest management practices. Some evidence indicated improved forage for deer 

(Bertram and others 1978), although several fire-salvage timber harvests were 

done in the area immediately after the prescribed burns in the 1980s. We have no 

records of underburning between 1980 and 1989. 

With the exception of a 60-acre underburn in 1990 in the area covered by the 

Kings River Sustainable Forest Ecosystems Project, the current underburning 

program began in 1994. We presently have 23,000 acres of underburning covered 

by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents for the Kings River 

District, and all but 3,000 of those acres are within boundaries of the Kings River 

Project (fig. 1). Prescribed burning has been completed on 11,900 acres during the 

past 6 years, 3,900 acres of which are second-entry burns (that is, burned twice). 

Most of the prescribed burns are routinely accomplished without thinning or 

other mechanical pretreatment of fuels. Much of the landbase has not seen fire of 

any type for over 100 years. 

1 An abbreviated version of this 

paper was presented at the 

Symposium on the Kings River 

Sustainable Forest Ecosystems 

Project: Progress and Current 

Status, January 26, 1998, 

Clovis, California. 

2 Fuels Management Officer, 

Kings River Ranger District, 

Sierra National Forest, USDA 

Forest Service, P.O. Box 559, 

Prather, CA 93651. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-183. 2002. 37 
McCandliss Prescribed Burning in the Kings River Ecosystems Project Area: Lessons Learned 

Figure 1—The Kings River 

administrative study area in the 

Sierra National Forest in Central 

California includes the 64,000-acre 

Big Creek and Dinkey Creek 

watersheds (indicated by shading). 

�

Sierra National Forest 

Sierra National Forest 

Study Area 

Dinkey Creek Watershed 

Big Creek Watershed 

Objectives 

Initial underburning was tied to Environmental Assessments for helicopter 

salvage sales, and objectives were to remove activity fuels and natural fuels to 

protect wildlife habitat, mainly for California spotted owls (Strix occidentalis 

occidentalis) using funds from Knudtson-Vandenburg (KV-natural fuels, KVwildlife) and brush disposal (BD) collections from timber sales. In an effort to 

reduce dead-and-downed fuels remaining, sale administrators attempted to yard 

whole trees killed by insects. This effort failed, however, because most of the 

trees were brittle from dessication and fractured during felling operations. 

New NEPA documents later changed objectives to include restoration of fire 

as a functional part of forest ecosystems and to minimize the damaging effects of 

wildfire; a sense of urgency was associated with these objectives. Brush species 

comprise a large part of the understory in the ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer 

forests in the area. During wildfires, increased fuel loads from brush, litter, 

logging slash, and conifer reproduction add fuel, increasing fire intensity and 

damaging the overstory. Brush is generally easy to kill with fire and, considering 

the short fire-return interval in the area (an average of one fire every 5-10 years; 

Drumm 1999), probably did not exist historically in its current volume and 

arrangement. In recent years, patterns of wildfire in the Sierra Nevada pointed to 

increasing damage to forest environments from unhistorically high fire 

intensities. 

Our burning philosophy is based on the concepts of Biswell (1989), which 

call for light underburns twice within 5 years. This reduces brush competition in 

the understory, especially from species that are obligate seeders. Thereafter, 

maintenance involves reentry with fire every 5-10 years. 

38 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-183. 2002. 
Prescribed Burning in the Kings River Ecosystems Project Area: Lessons Learned 

General Methods 

Two underburning projects were developed for 16,000 acres in the Dinkey Creek, 

Big Creek, and Rush Creek drainages. Large-scale (1,000-2,000 continuous acres) 

fuels-reduction projects were planned that combined treatments of thinning 

from below, mastication, pile and burn, herbicide, and underburning in 

ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer vegetation types. The main objectives were to 

reduce the fire hazard and reintroduce a historic fire regime. Defensive fuel 

profiles zones (DFPZs) were established to reduce the effects of potential 

wildfires on key resource values and/or urban areas. Following NEPA 

regulations, Environmental Assessments were developed for these projects, and 

they were categorically excluded from further analysis under Category 31.2(6). 

Three portable, automated weather stations on the District are used to 

monitor and collect hourly weather data from burn sites. These are tied into the 

daily fire-danger weather reporting system, and they can be accessed from the 

District office via computer with radio and/or phone hookups. The stations are 

queried daily at 6:00 a.m., and the weather for the past 24 hrs is waiting for the 

burn bosses when they get to work. The outputs are faxed to the National 

Weather Service, where a Spot Fire Weather Forecast and a Smoke Dispersal 

Forecast specific to the burn site is produced. 

Most control points on the burns are roads and running streams. Firelines are 

constructed around private property where we lack agreements with 

landowners. Both handlines and dozer lines are constructed. In addition to roads 

and streams, control points in the winter and early spring months consist of 

snow banks, north slopes, and brushfields. The pure chaparral stands on the 

District do not burn well outside of fire season because grass is the main carrier 

of fire, and this is green or damp and beaten down then. Burning during fire 

season requires that control lines be constructed to wildfire standards. 

Burns ranging in size from 130 to 1,500+ acres are planned for all aspects at 

elevations from 3,000 to 7,000 ft. Most burn units are adjacent to other units. In 

several areas on the District, continuous burn units now cover several thousand 

acres. Under suitable burning conditions, several areas may be grouped together 

as one unit and ignited aerially. Units are ignited to burn down from their upper 

elevations. Backing fire downhill in this way tends to result in lower flame 

lengths, lower fire intensities, and slower rates of spread. Such a fire is easier to 

control than those that run uphill. 

Burning takes place when burn units come into prescription. This may occur 

at any time of the year, often even during dry spells in the winter. The 10-hr-lagtime, fuel-moisture stick has proven to be the best indicator of when a unit’s 

fuelbed is in prescription and how it will burn. These sticks are produced to set 

standards, using wood with known attributes for absorbing and evaporating 

water. The stick “index” is based on the percentage of its weight comprised of 

water, so a “stick of 8” is 8 percent water. Large areas covered for burning by 

NEPA documents provide considerable flexibility. With many acres covered on 

different aspects and elevations, usually one or more can be selected and burned 

when conditions are appropriate. 

We generally do not apply cut-off dates for burning, as weather patterns 

fluctuate widely from year to year. For example, burning in 1997 was curtailed 

by mid-May because conditions were too dry but, in 1998, we could not begin 

burning until June because of a wet spring, and burning continued into August 

that year. 

Restricting burning to seasons that are thought to have been “historical 

burning seasons” (summer-fall) has several disadvantages, particularly high 

smoke emissions and potentially severe fire effects. Because of the heavy fuel 

McCandliss 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-183. 2002. 39 
McCandliss Prescribed Burning in the Kings River Ecosystems Project Area: Lessons Learned 

loads in the southern Sierra Nevada, burning in the summer and fall months, 

when fuel moistures are low, can cause unacceptable resource damage. Flame 

lengths are apt to be longer and scorch heights higher in the trees than desired. 

Complete consumption of snags and downed logs is more probable. Soils are 

more likely to be adversely affected over a larger area. The chance of spot fires, 

which can turn a controlled burn into an uncontrolled wildfire, is higher at that 

time of year. In addition, often the Sierra National Forest’s fire suppression 

resources are at minimum levels (draw down) due to fire suppression activities 

in other areas of California. 

Members of the burn crew are instructed to not attempt ignition over every 

square foot of the burn. For example, wildlife logs and snags are not 

intentionally ignited. Ignition does not occur in riparian areas, although fire is 

allowed to back through them on its own, within prescription. To maintain 

roadside screening for wildlife, burns are generally not brought down to roads, 

but they are allowed to back down and go out naturally. Unburned patches are 

left throughout a burn. If an area will not burn for whatever reason, burners do 

not waste time trying to ignite it. These patches may burn out eventually when 

burning is done during a drying trend. To assure no risk of escape, burns must 

be patrolled until smoke has not been noted for several days. The patrolling 

phase of a burn may last longer than the ignition and holding phases. 

Underburns are done with as few fire-fighting resources as possible. 

Maintaining unneeded personnel and equipment on standby at a burn, to serve 

as a security blanket, is costly. Moreover, too many firefighters carrying torches 

on a burn may lead to rapid ignition and undesirable fire effects. The burn plan 

calls for a minimum staffing level, leaving it up to the burn boss to add forces as 

needed. This does not mean that burns are understaffed, as we have 

experienced no escapes of any consequence. We have learned, however, that 

fewer lighters improve the quality of burns, as the fires are often just tended. 

Add more lighters to lengthen the fire line but not to speed ignition. 

In January, it is not uncommon to have two or three burns active with two or 

three people and maybe a patrol truck on each burn. In May or June, however, 

two or three fully staffed wildland engines and patrols stay out until after 

sundown on each burn. Depending on wildfire activity and the Forest’s ability to 

maintain an aggressive initial attack force, several burns may be active 

simultaneously. The bottom line is simply common sense: burns are staffed 

adequately in direct relation to fire and weather conditions. 

Strategy and Tactics 

The San Joaquin Valley, which is downslope from the Sierra National Forest, is in 

nonattainment regarding the Clean Air Act, with mid-August to mid-November 

being the worst period for air pollution in the valley (Guerra, pers. comm.; 

Martinez, pers. comm.). Acceptable burning periods do occur during the summer 

and fall months, but they are typically too short to implement slow underburning 

in conifer forest types, where only about 50 acres of underburning can be 

completed in a day. However, burn windows then are adequate for shortduration burns in chaparral, where it is possible to complete a 1,000- to 2,000-acre 

burn in one day. Moreover, we have learned that chaparral on the District does 

not burn well, if at all, in any season except summer and fall. A complete cycle of 

two cool-weather burn entries, or a mechanical treatment coupled with a coolweather burn, needs to be done before it is feasible to ask the Air Regulators to 

accept long-duration underburning in the summer or fall. 

Burn plans typically call for meeting resource management objectives with 

multiple entries. It is not necessarily the intent of the prescribed fire program to 

meet all objectives in one entry. Repeated burns allow burning at cooler 

prescriptions, consuming a little more of the fuel profile each time and increasing 

40 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-183. 2002. 
Prescribed Burning in the Kings River Ecosystems Project Area: Lessons Learned 

the distance between the ground and tree crowns. This is safer, results in fewer 

escapes, requires fewer firefighters, and costs less. Lower burn intensities allow 

ecosystems to change over a longer period of time and have less impact on 

wildlife, allowing them to move easily out of the way of slow-moving fires. 

Multiple entries reduce fuel loads over a longer period of time, producing less 

smoke per burn entry. Finally, repeated entries allow more time to monitor the 

effects of the burns so that managers are better able to learn from their experience. 

Once a burn has been completed on a unit, it is scheduled for reentry in 3 to 

5 years. This not only kills freshly sprouted shrubs (Biswell 1989) but also 

reduces the fire-caused accumulation of dead woody fuel from the first burn 

entry (Mutch and Parsons 1998). It is clearly a waste of time, money, and effort to 

burn once and not come back to reburn at an appropriate interval. 

Burning in winter and early spring months is an on-again-off-again 

proposition. Careful monitoring of weather stations, consultation with 

meteorologists and air regulators, and frequent visits to the burn site are needed 

to assure that burn windows are not missed. As the drying trend begins in 

spring, burn windows become more consistent, and possibilities develop to burn 

on cooler aspects and at higher elevations. As one unit goes out of prescription 

because of dryness, another on a different aspect or at a different elevation comes 

into prescription. 

Ideally, underburns have slow rates of spread. On first-entry burns, it is 

common to burn only 10-50 acres per day. Second-entry burns will burn two to 

three times faster because the reduced canopy cover allows more sunlight on the 

forest floor, resulting in drier ground fuels and higher fuel temperatures. 

Strip-head ignition patterns are used when a fire will not back downhill by 

itself (fig. 2). This creates small uphill runs of 50-100 ft, depending on strip width, 

but long uphill runs do not occur because the fire is constantly burning either 

into a control line or into a previously burned strip. Fire intensity and flame 

length are controlled by the width of the strip. If the fire spreads downhill, we 

allow it to do so and make additional ignitions only along control lines. Often the 

best burn results occur when a fire burns downhill on its own, with little or no 

additional igniting from the burners. This is more typical with second- or thirdentry burns (fig. 3), when fuel loads are considerably reduced (fig. 4). 

Not all fire managers accept this style of burning. The thought of having a 

fire burn through the woods for several weeks at a time is unsettling to them, 

especially when a burn window occurs during fire season. Consequently, we 

believe that confidence, patience, and experience with underburns are significant 

traits to look for in burn bosses and lighters. The success of a burn is in the hands 

of the drip-torch operators, just as the success of a silvicultural prescription is in 

the hands of the tree markers (Hurley, pers. comm.) 

McCandliss 

Figure 2—First-entry burn on the 

west-facing slope of Patterson 

Mountain, Dinkey Creek 

Watershed, January 1998. The 

burn was aerially ignited using a 

strip-head ignition pattern, starting 

below the snow line and 

proceeding downhill. Snowfall on 

the third day suppressed the burn. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-183. 2002. 41 
McCandliss 

Figure 3—Second-entry burn on 

Patterson Mountain, Dinkey Creek 

Watershed, December 1999. This 

burn was aerially ignited at the top 

of the unit and allowed to burn 

downhill on its own. Some hand 

ignition was done to maintain a 

straight line of fire across the slope. 

This ignition pattern, together with 

the reduced fuel loads left after the 

first burn, helped control fire 

intensities. This burn was 

suppressed by precipitation on 15 

January 2000. 

Figure 4—Results after the 

second-entry burn on Patterson 

Mountain, Dinkey Creek 

Watershed, photographed in May 

2000. A third-entry burn is 

planned for sometime between 

2008 and 2012. 

Prescribed Burning in the Kings River Ecosystems Project Area: Lessons Learned 

Results: Lessons Learned and Some Indicators 

From 1994 through 2000, we were able to burn substantial acreages during 

January in 4 years—200 acres in 1994, 200 acres in 1997, 1,400 acres in 1998, and 

2,500 acres in 2000. Obviously this burning is low intensity. It occurs on southand west-facing slopes and usually at elevations below 5,000 ft. Pine needles and 

bear clover (Chamaebatia foliolosa) burn, as do the 1- and 10-hr time-lag fuels. 

These fuels create enough heat to break the bark on whiteleaf manzanita 

(Arctostaphylos viscida), which successfully kills the stem. Flame lengths are 

typically 18 inches or less. Duff, medium to large logs, and snags are rarely 

totally consumed, although large stumps will completely burn out. Readers need 

to keep in mind the location of the Kings River Ranger District, its climate, and its 

vegetation types, as some of our results are not likely to apply everywhere. 

Our burns have cost about $70 per acre. The few burns that escaped cost 

twice that amount. One project in January, involving a helicopter equipped with 

a chemical ignition device (CID) and five personnel, underburned 1,400 acres in 

2 days and cost $6.50 per acre. Ignition occurred 2 days before a predicted storm, 

which arrived on time. By burning during the moist seasons, little to no mop up 

is needed, resulting in a significant cost savings. 

For our first underburn in 1994, we used a fuel-moisture stick index of 8 as 

too dry to burn safely. With more experience, however, we learned that 

acceptable burning can be accomplished at readings of 7 and even 6. In mixed42 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-183. 2002. 
Prescribed Burning in the Kings River Ecosystems Project Area: Lessons Learned McCandliss 

conifer forest, the prescription on the dry end now allows for a stick of 6 on south 

and west aspects. A prescription using a stick of 8 was validated to help protect 

white fir (Abies concolor) stands that are predominantly on north- and east-facing 

aspects, because white fir is less fire tolerant than the pine found on hotter 

aspects. Prescription burns are not feasible with fuel-stick values of 12 or 13— 

conditions are simply too wet. Lighting a strip at the top of a burn area when the 

fuel-stick value was 8 allowed us to get a fire to back downhill by itself through 

bear clover and pine needles. When sticks get to 6, watch the burn like a hawk 

and consider putting it out if it goes below 6 for much of the day. This will 

probably occur in late spring or early summer and last for a day or two. It may be 

prudent not to conduct ignitions at this time and to patrol for a few days until the 

weather changes. It is possible to get fuel-stick readings of 6 or below in the 

winter months of some years. 

Flame length is the key indicator of fire effects above the ground on trees and 

brush. Our prescriptions allow for flame lengths of about 4 ft. Combined with 

other prescription parameters, this equates to scorch heights at about 20 ft, 

meaning that it is acceptable to kill everything below 20 ft. This occurs at the hot 

end of the prescription, but underburns are seldom ignited at this end. Usually 

the hot end is reached, if at all, only after several weeks of burning, and most of 

the burning occurs at the lower intensities. It is common to have flame lengths of 

18 inches or less over the majority of a burn. Higher flame lengths occur in 

patches of slash and insect kill, where the intent is to have 4-ft flame lengths and 

20-ft scorch heights so that those patches will be consumed. If the unit is burning 

with consistent flame lengths of 4 ft, however, it is probably too intense and 

needs to be put out or the ignition pattern altered. 

An inventory of the brush on the Barnes Mountain Underburn showed that 

33 percent of the area was covered in brush before the burn. The initial underburn 

left only 16 percent of the area still covered by brush (table 1) (Ballard 1998). 

The desired condition for vegetation taller than 6 ft ranges from 5 to 20 

percent of the area covered, which is intended to provide hiding cover and 

forage for wildlife, minimize fuel ladders, and maintain growth of seedlings and 

saplings. Table 1 may suggest that the desired condition has been met with the 

first burn entry, but it is important to understand that the vegetation described in 

Table 1—Percent cover and height of various species of shrubs before and after prescribed underburning in the Kings 

River Sustainable Forest Ecosystems Project Area 

Species Percent cover Mean height (feet)

Preburn Postburn Preburn Postburn

Arctostaphylos mariposa 26.89 10.55 10.60 10.80 

Arctostaphylos mewukka 0.14 0.14a 5.80 (

1

) 

Ceanothus cuneatus 3.66 3.45 8.10 8.10 

Cercocarpus betuloides 1.93 1.21 10.30 9.90 

Ceanothus integerrimus 0.38 0.17 9.10 9.00 

Rhamnus californica 0.13 0.10 6.70 6.30 

Totals 33.13 15.62 8.40 8.76 

1 Fire top-killed the shrubs; all resprouted. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-183. 2002. 43 
McCandliss Prescribed Burning in the Kings River Ecosystems Project Area: Lessons Learned 

the desired condition includes all vegetation, not just brush. A second fire entry 

is needed to kill off new obligate seeders and to avoid an over-abundance of 

brush by the third entry. At some point in the near future, conifers should begin 

to fill space now occupied by brush. 

The color and amount of ash are indicators of fire effects on the soil and root 

systems. The Sierra National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan 

specifies that most of these burn units should retain 50 percent ground cover. In 

the present case, we defined ground cover as any vegetative material (duff, dead 

limbs, trees, burned stems, etc.) that will break the fall of a rain drop before it hits 

the dirt. Commonly lower portions of the duff layer are retained after an 

underburn, but this depends to a large extent on the season of the burn, which 

influences the moisture content of the duff layer. Burning in January removes the 

litter layer but retains most or all of the duff layer. A fire then usually makes one 

run over the area, barely penetrating the duff layer. On the other hand, when the 

duff layer is in a drying trend, as in May and June, burns will make an initial pass 

over the area and smolder in a log or in the duff until the duff has dried out 

sufficiently to allow the fire to smolder through the area again, and again, until 

remaining fuel is insufficient to carry the fire another time. This process has been 

repeated up to three times on some burns in early summer. Because it can cause 

holding problems if the burn is not patrolled properly, this problem should be 

anticipated. 

If the fire quickly passes through each time, the ash will be black, indicating 

low-intensity, short-residence time, and resulting in little if any damage to the 

soil or tree roots. If the fire smolders through the area, burning from the top of 

the duff to the soil, the ash will be white and the soil will be reddish brown and 

powdery. The soil may have been damaged and feeder roots on large trees may 

have been killed (Sackett, pers. comm.). Deep white ash is an indicator of high 

heat areas. This occurs on many burns, especially as the drying trend continues 

and/or in areas where large fuel accumulations burn out. This should be expected 

and monitored to determine whether the burn is meeting management objectives. 

Postscript 

The prescribed fire component of the Kings River Sustainable Forest Ecosystems 

Project is moving ahead rapidly and yielding much useful information. Although 

we are experiencing some resistance to the program as a result of Air Pollution 

Control Standards, our working relations with the local Board have been 

excellent, and the public has generally supported our efforts. This is a result of 

regular, open communication among groups and a growing realization by the 

public that unnatural levels of fuels have accumulated in Sierran forests and 

need to be reduced. Indeed, we expect the full scope of the management proposed 

for the Kings River Project to benefit all resources—water and watersheds, 

wildlife, air quality, recreation, timber supply, and so on. We must continue 

efforts to inform and educate the public about the need to strike a balance 

between full fire suppression and fuels management if we expect to attain our 

ultimate objectives. 

Acknowledgments 

I thank Jerry Hurley and Scott Stephens for their constructive reviews and 

comments on the draft manuscript. 

44 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-183. 2002. 
Prescribed Burning in the Kings River Ecosystems Project Area: Lessons Learned 

References 

Ballard, Keith E. 1998. Surveying vegetation on the Barnes Mountain underburn. Prather, CA: 

Kings River Ranger District, Sierra National Forest, Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture; 3 p. [Unpublished internal report.] 

Bertram, Ronald C.; Ashcraft, Gordon C.; Cook, William P. 1978. Prescribed fire to generate 

mountain whitethorn. Fresno, CA: California Department of Fish and Game; 13 p. [Unpublished 

internal report.] 

Biswell, Harold H. 1989. Prescribed burning in California wildlands vegetation management. 

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 255 p. 

Drumm, Mary K. 1999. Fire history of the mixed conifer series in Kings River adaptive 

management area, Sierra National Forest, California. Arcata, CA: Humboldt State University; 

32 p. M.S. thesis. 

Eaton, Jack. 1978. Hoffman, Brush Meadow, Patterson Mountain, Hall Meadow, burning plans. 

Prather, CA: Kings River Ranger District, Sierra National Forest, Forest Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture; 47 p. [Unpublished internal report.] 

Guerra, Hector. 1995. Environmental Planner, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 

Fresno, CA. [Personal communication]. September 1995. 

Haase, Sally M. 1998. Research Scientist, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 

Riverside, CA. [Personal communication]. August 1998. 

Hurley, Jerry. 1999. District Fire Management Officer, Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National 

Forest, Quincy, CA. [Personal communication]. January 2000. 

Martinez, Jose. 1995. Senior Air Quality Inspector, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 

Fresno, CA. [Personal communication]. September 1995. 

Mutch, Linda S.; Parsons, David J. 1998. Mixed conifer forest mortality and establishment before 

and after prescribed fire in Sequoia National Park, California. Forest Science 44: 341-355. 

Sackett, Steven S. 1998. Research Forester. Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 

Riverside, CA. [Personal communication]. August 1998. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-183. 2002. 

McCandliss 

45 
46