a

Long-Term Economic Impacts of Large

Fires in California from 2018-2021:
Losses and Opportunities

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 SW Washington Street
Portland, OR 97205
503-224-3445
[Link]

September 6, 2023
Funded through grants from CAL FIRE
and the U.S. Forest Service
Table of Contents
Technical Advisory Committee ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Background ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................. 26
References ............................................................................................................................................................................ 27
Appendix A: Detailed Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 29
Appendix B: Additional Data Tables ...................................................................................................................................... 38
Appendix C: Landowner Survey ............................................................................................................................................ 48
Appendix D: Maps ................................................................................................................................................................. 50

1
Technical Advisory Committee
This study was overseen by CAL FIRE and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). CAL FIRE convened a Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) to provide input on the scope to study technical details related to forest management, carbon estimates,
fire impacts, and review the drafts of this report.

TAC members were:

Justin Britton, Wood Products & Bioenergy Forester II, CAL FIRE

John McCarthy, Wood Products & Bioenergy Forester III, CAL FIRE

Tim Robards, Climate and Energy Staff Chief (retired), CAL FIRE

Robin Bellows, Forest Health Development Program Manager, CAL FIRE

Nadia Tase, Climate Change and Forest Inventory Specialist, CAL FIRE

Helena Murray, Wood and Biomass Utilization Program Manager, USFS

Larry Swan, Wood & Biomass Utilization Program Leader (retired), USFS

George “YG” Gentry, Senior Vice President, California Forestry Association

Elliot Vander Kolk, Senior Forest and Climate Advisor, Sierra Nevada Conservancy

Martin Twer, Biomass Program Director, Watershed Research and Training Center

2
Executive Summary
California appears to have entered an era of megafires with more wildfires burning hundreds of thousands of acres, and
a few individual fires burning over 1 million acres. Lives have been lost, thousands of homes destroyed, and communities
forever changed overnight. This report focuses on impacts of the large fires in 2018 through 2021 on the timber industry
sector and characterizes some of the economic impacts caused by these fires. A similar report was completed by Mason,
Bruce & Girard (MB&G) for Oregon after a large series of fires that occurred over the 2020 Labor Day Weekend (Rasmussen
et al. 2021).

CAL FIRE and USFS engaged MB&G to assess forest sector impacts and carbon emissions from large California fires over
10,000 acres in size from 2018 through 2021. The project focuses on fires within a 40-million-acre area across the North
Coast, Cascade Mountains, and Sierra Nevada Mountains (refer to map 1 in Appendix D). MB&G first developed a forest
inventory and calculated the area and severity of selected fires, and then developed a forest carbon loss estimate. MB&G
then modeled a future management scenario to calculate the potential timber harvest volume lost over the next 50 years,
due to fires over 10,000 acres in size from 2018 through 2021. These results are then used to calculate the impact to jobs
and economic production in the forest products sector. The future management scenario is informed by a landowner/land
manager survey conducted as part of this project. The survey responses from Registered Professional Foresters (RPFs)
working with small forestland owners, forest industry staff, and USFS staff provided insight into current forest
management, opportunities, challenges, and impacts of the large fires on landowners.

This analysis found that of the 21.7 million acres of forest in the 40-million-acre project area, over 4 million acres, 20% of
the forest area, burned from 2018 through 2021. This includes 1,570,000 acres of high severity fire, 37% of the total
burned area, where overstory tree mortality typically exceeds 75%. If fires continue to burn at this rate and severity of
distribution, all the forested areas in the project area will experience fire over the next 20 years, and high severity fire
would impact 36% of the forest area. In addition, the 49 fires in the analysis generated nearly 1,500 high severity patches
over 40 acres in size and greater than 100 meters from potential natural seed source where forest regeneration will be
delayed. Due to the distance from potential natural seed sources, these patches are at risk of conversion to non-forest
vegetation. Thirteen high severity fire patches sprawl over 10,000 acres or more. The amount of carbon volatilized from
standing live trees associated with the fires totaled 44 million metric tons, which is equivalent to 160 million metric tons
of carbon dioxide (CO2e) that was previously sequestered by the forest. Actual air pollutant emissions would have been
in a variety of forms, including CO2e, other carbonaceous compounds, and particulate matters.

The large fires in this study will reduce the potential future timber harvest volume by 11,032 million board feet (MMbf)
over the next 50 years, after accounting for legal and policy requirements, and differences in management intensity by
different landowners. Future harvest volume loss will occur on both public and private lands over the next 50 years, with
public losses totaling 8,240 MMbf, private forest industry losses totaling 2,403 MMbf, and private non-industrial losses
totaling 389 MMbf. On average, 221 MMbf will be lost per year, equivalent to 14% of the annual harvest across California
from 2018 through 2021. The value of the lost 11,032 MMbf is $12.7 billion (2022 dollars) based on the value of primary
wood products that could be produced. The lost future timber harvest potential would support an average of 4,800
forestry, logging, and wood products manufacturing jobs in California with a range from 4,300 to 5,900 jobs over the 50-
year period, assuming employment per MMbf remains at 2016 levels. Forestry, logging, and wood products manufacturing
supported nearly 34,000 jobs in California in 2016.

Interviews with California RPFs who work with small forestland owners (owners of tens to a few thousand acres of forest)
and federal land managers pointed to the lack of logging operators and the lack of log market capacity as hindering both
pre-fire, proactive management, and post-fire salvage. The RPFs noted the value of grant programs, such as CAL FIRE’s
California Forest Improvement Program (CFIP), in helping landowners reforest following forest fires. However, the impact

3
of fires and the difficulty of managing lands due to the lack of operators and market capacity has caused some landowners
to question whether continuing to own forestland is desirable and if they should sell their lands.

All private forest industry land managers interviewed reported that portions of the lands they manage had burned in large
fires. They reported that the initial response to fire damage was to salvage timber that was economically viable to harvest,
as well as to repair and upgrade roads. In the long-run, land managers expect to see reduced harvest levels, and possibly
a shift from uneven-aged to even-aged management. This is due to the perception that fire risk remains, even in stands
that have been thinned. All managers expressed a commitment to continue to manage timber in California, with some
managers interested in increasing the area under their management.

Background
California appears to have entered an era of megafires. In recent years, California has experienced fires covering hundreds
of thousands of acres to 1 million acres. These fires have resulted in the loss of human life, extensive property damage,
and environmental impacts, including habitat loss (Stephens et al. 2016), carbon emissions (Christensen et al. 2021), lower
water quality (Oliver et al. 2011), and loss of both commercial-size timber and trees expected to grow into commercial-
size timber over the next 50 years.

The loss of live green trees available for harvest could decrease the economic viability of local mills and logging operators.
Reduced mill and logging capacity will reduce the ability of landowners and land managers to generate revenue from
active forest management, such as commercial timber harvest. Since commercial activities can help pay for activities like
thinning to promote health and vigor of remaining trees, and hazardous fuels reduction, the loss of this capacity will reduce
the area treated. It would also reduce capacity to maintain road access and assist in preparing areas for prescribed burning.
Cumulatively, this will reduce forest restoration efforts, allow more build-up of hazardous fuels, and along with long-term
climate change impacts, it will increase the risk of future megafires. Given decreased revenue potential, increased costs
of management, and increase in risk of large wildfires, more forestland is likely to be sold and converted to other land
uses.

Methods Summary
The following section provides a methods summary for various components of this study. Detailed methods are provided
in Appendix A.

4
Project scope
MB&G, CAL FIRE, and USFS collaborated with a technical advisory committee, including agency staff, non-profit
representatives and industry representatives to develop the scope for this analysis. The committee recommended a
project area defined by the CAL FIRE CALVEG 1 system, including the Great Basin, North Coast, North Interior, North Sierran,
and South Sierran Zones (Figures 1 and 2).
Figure 1. CAL FIRE CALVEG zones used to define the project area (USFS These zones include most commercial forest
2022). land in California and the areas most affected
by large fires. The committee also
recommended a focus on fires over 10,000
acres that occurred from 2018 through 2021.
Initial analysis by MB&G showed that fires
over 10,000 acres accounted for more than
95% of the burned acres in the project area in
these years, based on fire perimeter data.
While large fires occurred prior to 2018, the
2018 through 2021 period includes some of
the most significant large fires in recent years,
including the August Complex, Caldor, Camp,
and Dixie fires.

1
A classification system for existing vegetation that follow USFS standards and procedures following the National Vegetation
Classification Standard. More information available at:
[Link]

5
Forest inventory
MB&G estimated the current forest inventory Figure 2. Project area.
within the project area (Figure 2, Map 1) using a
combination of Landscape Ecology, Modeling,
Mapping, and Analysis (LEMMA), 2 a forest cover
layer developed by American Forests, 3 and the
USFS Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) 4 data.
Both the LEMMA and FIA data reflect 2017
conditions. The American Forests data are based
on re-analysis for LEMMA data to include FIA forest
type groups, reflecting 2017 conditions. Forest
lands in the project area are defined as areas
identified as forest in both LEMMA and American
Forests data. These data sets follow the FIA
definition of forest, which is areas of at least 10%
tree cover. Based on the overlap of LEMMA and the
American Forests data, this analysis shows 21.7
million acres of forest in the project area. The
American Forest layer alone shows 25.1 million
acres of forest in the project area, while FIA data
from the 2017 AB 1504 carbon inventory show 28.5
million acres of forest in the project area (Table 1,
Map 2; Christensen et al. 2019).

The inventory developed for this project assigns

each LEMMA 30m-by-30m cell to a stratum based
on a collection of FIA plots. The LEMMA forest type
(FORTYPBA) was used to translate each LEMMA cell
to an FIA forest type (FORTYPCD) and assigned
quartiles to basal area (BA) and trees per acre. With
these stratum assignments linking each LEMMA cell to a set of FIA plots, plot-level yield forecasts of merchandized volume
and standing live carbon at the stratum level were calculated. The inventory was validated by comparing the average
volume per acre of each of the forest types in the inventory with FIA data (refer to Appendix A for more detail). Looking
across the entire project area, the 2017 average volume per acre in the inventory was 18.17 thousand board feet (Mbf)
per acre in International ¼” (18.54 Mbf per acre Scribner decimal C short scale) 5, compared to 18.56 Mbf per acre in
International ¼” (18.93 Mbf per acre Scribner) in FIA data from counties within the project area, a 2.1% difference.

2
[Link]
3
Unpublished. Developed as part of American Forests’ ongoing project for CAL FIRE, “Effects of Forest Management and Wood
Utilization on Carbon Sequestration and Storage in California”.
4
USFS Inventory and Analysis program maintains field plots in forests nationwide that are remeasured periodically.
5
FIA volume reported in International ¼”. We converted to Scribner using a conversion factor of 1.02, a factor derived by MB&G in
past work with both log scales.

6
For each year, live tree growth was modeled, and the inventory was depleted for the fires in this analysis and timber
harvests. 6 Timber harvest data came from USFS and CAL FIRE Timber Harvest Plan (THP) data to update the inventory to
2021 (Figure 3). 7

Table 1. Comparison of forest acres by CAL FIRE vegetation zone (Cleland et al. 2007) found in this study and in the 2017
AB 1504 carbon inventory using FIA data from Christensen et al. (2019).
2017 AB 1504 carbon
CAL FIRE vegetation zone inventory (ac) This study (ac)
Eastside 2,827,000 1,678,000
Klamath/Interior Coast Ranges 7,877,000 6,882,000
North Coast 2,699,000 2,667,000
Sierra/Cascades 15,146,000 10,475,000
Total 28,549,000 21,701,000

Figure 3. Flow chart showing the steps used to create the post-fire inventory for the project area
FIA plot data
Repeat
stratified
depletions
based on Apply 2018 Apply 2018 Apply 2019 Apply 2019
Grow to Grow to and grow
LEMMA, harvest fire harvest fire
2018 2019 steps
representing depletions depletions depletions depletions
through
the 2017
2021
inventory

Included in the inventory raster dataset is information regarding all the reporting levels required by the USFS and CAL
FIRE, including:

1. Fire name
2. Fire year (Maps 3-7)
3. County (Map 8)
4. Timber Valuation Areas (Map 9)
5. Ownership group (Map 1)
6. Land allocation (Map 10)
7. CAL FIRE-designated High Hazard Zones (Map 11) 8
8. USFS Wildfire Crisis Strategy Firesheds (Maps 12-16)
9. Vegetation zone (Map 17)

6
We did not deplete the inventory using post-fire salvage data. In burned areas, the live tree inventory is reduced, based on fire
severity.
7
USFS data available at [Link]
[Link]
8
High Hazard Zone tiers identify areas where tree mortality has the greatest potential to result in wildfire and/or falling trees and
threaten people and property. Tier 1 lands are areas where tree mortality and assets to be protected coincide. Tier 2 lands are
watersheds that have significant tree mortality as well as significant community and natural resource assets. Tier 3 lands are areas in
both Tiers 1 and 2.

7
Fire severity
Fire severity was drawn from Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS) fire severity data 9 or, if unavailable, Rapid
Assessment of Vegetation Condition after Wildfire (RAVG) fire severity data. 10 Both data sets show burn severity for 30m-
by-30m cells within a fire perimeter (Figure 4). 11

Fire severity data was resampled using the Focal Statistics tool in ArcPro by Esri. 12 The resampling process re-coded each
raster cell based on the average of the nine surrounding cells. This method was used as it is unlikely that an area identified
in a single 30m-by-30m cell of moderate or lower severity fire would significantly change the likelihood of regeneration.
By resampling a 3-by-3 group of raster cells, which cover about 1 acre, the impact of a single or a few moderate or lower
severity cells is reduced (Figure 5).

Carbon volatilized
Carbon volatilization from standing live trees due to large fires (>10,000 acres) within the project area was estimated
based on data from Maestrini et al. (2017). Volatilized carbon represents carbon consumed by fire. It does not include
carbon in live vegetation that is killed by fire and transferred to other forest carbon pools, such as woody debris. Maestrini
et al. calculated the change in forest carbon stocks in a mixed conifer forest following the 70,000-acre Chips Fire in 2012,
located in the Plumas and Lassen National Forests at the border of the southern Cascade and Sierra Nevada mountain
ranges. Carbon volatilization by fire severity follows the proportions found by Maestrini et al. for live and dead trees (Table
2). California Air Resources Board staff who have completed detailed modeling of carbon volatilized from California
wildfires following the assumptions in USFS First Order Fire Effect Model (FOFEM) reported that live tree volatilization
typically ranges between 20% and 30%. These results are similar to Maestrini et al., but based on a different set of
assumptions. 13 This analysis does not include estimates for carbon volatilized from down dead wood, litter, and understory
vegetation, resulting in an underestimate of the total forest carbon volatilized.

9
[Link]
10
[Link]
11
Burn severity classes in these layers are from USFS Burned Area Emergency Response or Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity
assessments. Within high burn severity areas, forest floor duff is typically nearly entirely consumed, medium and heavy woody
debris are at least partially consumed and at least deeply charred with mostly ash and charcoal remaining, overstory trees typically
exhibit greater than 75% mortality, crown char is typically 100% from torching fire, and significant branch loss is present at the
highest crown levels. Moderate burn severity includes areas that exhibit conditions that are transitional in magnitude and/or
uniformity between characteristics within low and high burn severity classes. Low burn severity typically results in high (up to 100%)
consumption of litter, significant scorch, char, or consumption of low (<1 m) vegetation and shrubs and trees to 5 meters.
Intermediate and large trees may exhibit up to 25% mortality.
12
[Link]
13
Pers. Comm. Klaus Scott, Staff Air Pollution Specialist, California Air Resources Board, 8/24/2022

8
Figure 4. Examples of fire severity in aerial images and corresponding fire severity data: A) high fire severity, B) moderate
fire severity, C) low fire severity. Red indicates high severity, yellow is moderate, teal is low, and dark green is unburned.
A) High severity

B) Moderate severity

C) Low severity

9
Figure 5. Two examples of the resampling. 1a and b) An area of mainly high severity fire (red) with small areas of lower
severity fire (yellow: moderate; teal: low; dark green: unburned). a) is the original MTBS raster, b) is the same area
following resampling. 2a and b) An area with a mosaic of high, moderate, and low severity fire.
1a) b)

2a) b)

Table 2. Summary of the average post-fire carbon in standing trees from Maestrini et al. (2017).
Percent post-fire
Post-fire carbon† in Post-fire pyrogenic†† carbon remaining
standing live and carbon in standing compared to
dead trees trees Total post-fire carbon unburned forests
Fire severity (kg C/m2) (kg C/m2) (kg C/m2) (rounded)
Unburned 31 0 31 100%
Low-to-Moderate 24 0.015 24.015 77%
High 22 0.051 22.051 71%
†Post-fire carbon is carbon in remaining biomass following a fire. For example, carbon in tree stems and branches present after a fire.
††Pyrogenic carbon is carbon-containing materials produced by the incomplete combustion of organic matter. Biochar is an example of pyrogenic
carbon.

High severity fire area

High severity fire patches are defined for this project as areas over 40 acres and greater than 100m from unburned, low
or moderate fire severity areas (Figure 6), criteria of which is consistent with other studies (e.g., LTWRP 2019). The 100m
distance accounts for seed dispersal. Areas beyond 100m from a viable seed source have a low probability of natural
reseeding (Welch et al. 2016). This analysis identifies the extent and number of forest-stand-sized areas that are at risk of
poor natural tree regeneration due to their size, fire severity, and proximity to a natural seed source.

10
Loss of future timber harvest volume
Estimating the future timber harvest volume loss requires two key assumptions about the future: the harvest
prescriptions, and the area that would have been harvested except for the large fires.

The prescriptions are based on survey responses from RPFs working with small forest landowners and staff from industrial
or large forestland owners, as well as input from CAL FIRE and USFS staff (Table 3). Prescriptions apply to commercial
forest types and landowner group. Harvest volume estimates included only volume from commercial species in the
analysis of volume from these forest types. For this analysis, the California Forestry Association provided spatial data for
lands owned and managed by the forest industry. For high level analyses, results for forest industry lands are reported
separately from other private lands. However, to maintain confidentiality, all private lands are grouped for more detailed
analyses.

The estimate of the area that could have been harvested takes into account the severity of the fires, management policies,
and management practices of each landowner. Areas of high and moderate severity fire are assumed to be unavailable
for harvest in the 50-year analysis period. Timber on these lands is assumed to have been consumed by fire or salvaged.
Plantations in these areas, if any, are assumed to be unavailable for harvest until after the analysis period. Federal lands
unavailable for harvest were removed from the analysis, including wilderness areas and other reserves.

A landscape harvest intensity factor was then applied to each landowner group (Table 4). This factor accounts for the area
unavailable for harvest due to regulations, economic limitations, and management practice. This factor was developed by
comparing the volume outcome of applying prescriptions to all commercial forest types in the project area with actual
harvest volumes from 2014 through 2021 from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, 14 and data in
Marcille (2019) (Table 5). Decreasing the harvest intensity factor resulted in less harvest. The lowest factors were applied
to federal lands, based on harvest data, and non-industrial landowners, based on the RPF interviews indicating low levels
of harvest from these lands.

Numerous studies have considered possible impacts of climate change on California’s forests (e.g., Lenihan et al. 2003,
Lenihan et al. 2008, Battles et al. 2008, Williams et al. 2019). Climate change impacts will depend on location, with some
areas increasing in productivity and others decreasing in productivity or transitioning from forest to non-forest vegetation.
Climate change may also impact future disturbance rates, though the impacts will depend on the site and the effects of
forest health treatment and fuels mitigation activities. However, this report is concerned with the potential lost harvest
volume from existing stands affected by large fires. In these stands, a substantial portion of the volume existed prior to
the fires. As a result, impacts on the estimated loss of potential harvest volume are not expected to be greatly affected by
climate change induced changes to productivity. Harvest volume lost estimates in the early decades of this analysis are
more certain than in later decades and will have a greater impact on current planning for investments in harvest
infrastructure. However, volume loss in future disturbances is possible. Climate impacts that do occur will have the
greatest effect on harvest projections in the latter part of the 50-year analysis period.

In addition to climate change, several other factors that may influence harvest prescription and harvest intensity could
not be factored into the model due to the inherent uncertainty associated with such factors. No adjustment in harvest
prescription or harvest intensity was applied to future harvests to account for possible changes in technology, regulations,
or product demand. Changes in product demand and regulations could result in increased or decreased harvest levels
depending on the change. Technology changes would likely increase harvest.

14
[Link]

11
Figure 6. A high severity burn patch in the 2018 Camp Fire near Concow, CA. Photo: Owen Bettis/Deer Creek Resources.

Table 3. General prescriptions used in this analysis to represent typical forest management in commercial forest types in
California by different landowners.
Prescription Harvest method Harvest timing Minimum harvest Residual
Thin through a Harvest when BA exceeds 125 ft2/ac, >
D1 diameter range 15 years between entries 4 Mbf/ac 125 ft2 of BA
Thin through a Harvest when BA exceeds 150 ft /ac, >
2

D2 diameter range 20 years between entries 5 Mbf/ac 150 ft2 of BA

D3 Thin from below 70% canopy cover 7 Mbf/ac 70% canopy cover
Regeneration Clearcut Clear cut at approximately age 80 See Note† NA
Thin through a Harvest when BA exceeds 120 ft /ac, >
2

M1 diameter range 15 years between entries 4 Mbf/ac 2/3 of initial BA

Thin through a Harvest when BA exceeds 150 ft /ac, >
2

M2 diameter range 20 years between entries 5 Mbf/ac 2/3 of initial BA

Harvest when BA exceeds 120 ft /ac, >
2

M3 Thin from below 15 years between entries 4 Mbf/ac 2/3 of initial BA

†
Regeneration harvests are modeled as occurring when stands reach 42 Mbf per acre, or the approximate harvest volume of a
moderately productive unthinned stand at age 80 (mean annual increment = 525 bf per acre per year). In practice, many areas under
even-aged management have been previously thinned and typical even age-management includes commercial thinning activities. As
a result, regeneration harvests rarely produce 42 Mbf per acre. By not including thinning activities as part of the even-age harvest
prescription, the certainty of the timing of volume loss due to fires is reduced, but there is little impact on the overall harvest volume.

Table 4. General prescription applied to each landowner and assumed landscape-level harvest intensity.
Landowner Forest type Prescriptions applied Landscape harvest intensity
BLM All dry types D3 40%
BLM All mesic types M3 20%
Local All forest types Assumed no harvest NA
Other Federal All forest types Assumed no harvest NA

12
 Landowner Forest type Prescriptions applied Landscape harvest intensity
Private – Forest Industry California mixed conifer Regeneration 90%
Private – Forest Industry Other dry types D1 90%
Private – Forest Industry Redwood M1 80%
Private – Forest Industry Other mesic types Regeneration 80%
Private – Small Forestland Owners All dry types D2 20%
Private – Small Forestland Owners All mesic types M2 20%
State All dry types D3 70%
State All mesic types Assume no harvest NA
Tribal All dry types D1 80%
Tribal All mesic types M1 70%
National Forest All dry types D2 40%
National Forest All mesic types M3 20%
†
Dry forest types: California mixed conifer, Jeffrey pine, Ponderosa pine, western white pine
‡
Mesic forest types: Douglas-fir, grand fir, Port Orford cedar, redwood, western hemlock
Table 5. Estimated harvest by landowner type when landscape harvest intensity factors are applied to all commercial
forest types in the project area.
Estimated harvest using intensity 2014-2021 Average 2014-2021 Range
Landowner type values in Table 4 (MMbf/yr) (MMbf/yr) (MMbf/yr)
Public 232 179 114-235
Private (all) 1,378 1,360 1,230-1,586
Total 1,610 1,539

Wood products value estimate

Marcille et al. (2020, pgs. 18 and 32) reported a total harvest volume in California in 2016 of 1,572 MMbf and a total sales
value of California’s primary wood products of $1.524 billion. Dividing California’s 2016 primary wood products value by
the 2016 harvest volume calculates to $969 per Mbf. Adjusting to 2022 dollars, the value is $1,182 per Mbf. Primary wood
products include lumber, biofuel, chips, veneer, and other wood products. This value assumes all timber harvested in
California was processed in California. The value is a slight underestimate due to export of timber prior to milling. In 2016,
about 2% of timber harvested in California was processed in neighboring states, and another 3% was exported
internationally. Inflows of timber from neighboring states was equivalent to less than 1% of the harvest in California and
did not make up for the volume exported prior to milling.

Employment estimate
Marcille et al. (2020, pg. 53) reported that forestry, primary forest products manufacturing, and logging directly employed
33,951 people in 2016, or about 21.6 people per MMbf harvested. This does not include support services jobs, secondary
manufacturing, indirect jobs, or induced jobs.

Land manager survey

The project included a telephone survey of five RPFs in California, seven forestry operations staff from six private industrial
forestland owners, and USFS Regional Sale Administrator, to better understand how larger fires have affected
management of forestlands in California (refer to Appendix 3 for the survey questions). The RPFs’ working areas span most
of the project area, including the length of the Sierras, North Interior, and eastern side of the North Coast. Collectively
they have worked with hundreds of small forestland owners who each own tens to a few thousand acres within the project
area. The forest industry staff manage between 50,000 and 2 million acres of land in the project area, across all CAL FIRE

13
CALVEG zones, except the Great Basin. Industry lands are managed for long-term revenue generation. Managers noted
that to achieve this objective, management for forest resiliency and healthy forest conditions is necessary.

Results and discussion

Burned area
Within the project area, 21.7 million acres are forested, while 18.3 million acres are non-forest (Table 6). Slightly more
than a third of the forested acres are privately owned. The remaining roughly two-thirds of the forestlands are public,
primarily National Forest System lands. Across these forestlands there are 402 billion board feet (Bbf) of post-fire standing
timber volume, with 50% of the volume located on National Forest System lands and 39% on private lands (Table 7).

The large fires (>10,000 acres) that occurred from 2018 through 2021 have resulted in a significant change to California’s
forestlands. The 21.7 million acres of forestland in the project area included about 70 percent of the forested area in
California. 15 Across these forests, nearly 4.8 million acres were within fire perimeters and nearly 4.3 million acres, or 20%
of the total forest areas have burned, 16 not including acres that burned repeatedly in separate fires (Tables 8, 9, and 10;
refer to Appendix B for results by year). Nearly 1.6 million acres, or 7% of the forest area, experienced nearly complete
loss of live tree cover in high severity fire. If fires continue to burn at this rate and severity distribution, all the forest in
the project area will experience fire in 20 years, and high severity fire will impact 36% of the forest area.

All landownership groups were affected by fires, but federal lands collectively had the highest proportion of lands burned.
In this report, federal lands are spilt across the National Forest System, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and other
federal lands. These federally managed ownership groups had the highest proportions of burned forest at 28%, 15%, and
18%, respectively. Private forest industry lands and tribal lands were at the other end of the range, with only 10% and 8%,
respectively burned. In total, National Forest System lands accounted for 73% of the total burned acres in the project area
and 74% of the high severity fire. National Forest System reserved lands (e.g., Late Successional Reserves in the Northwest
Forest Plan area and congressionally designated Wilderness areas) burned at a similar rate to the National Forest System
overall, with 28% of these lands burned. High severity fire was less prevalent on these lands than other National Forest
System lands, accounting for 30% of the burned area, compared to 37% of the burned area on National Forest System
lands as a whole.

High severity fire accounted for 37% of the burned area across all ownerships (Table 9). High severity fire accounted for
more than 30% of the burned acres on federal lands and non-industrial private lands. On private forest industry lands,
high severity fire accounted for 41% of the total burned area. High severity fire was less common on state and local lands
at 25% of the burned area, and tribal lands at only 16% of the burned area. This analysis did not identify whether
differences in area of high severity fire are due to management, environmental differences, or the impacts of fires under
10,000 acres, which are not included in this study.

Within the project area, fires have been particularly common in the northern-most parts of California, as shown by both
the acres burned by County (Table 11), and by CAL FIRE vegetation zone (Table 12). Together, Plumas, Trinity, Siskiyou,
and Shasta counties accounted for 48% of the forest area burned. Plumas County had the largest area of forest burned
with 764,000 acres. Proportionally, Glenn County’s forests area was most affected, with 92% of the county burned in a 4-
year period, and 31% of the forests burned severely. Likewise, northern California vegetation zones experienced the

15
Estimates of the total forest area in California vary. Christensen et al. (2019) reports 31.6 million acres of forests. American Forest
estimates 29 million acres.
16
Fire perimeters contain both burned and unburned areas.

14
highest rates of fire. By percent of forest area, the Klamath/Interior Coast Ranges CAL FIRE Vegetation Zone experienced
the most fire, with 28% of the forest in this vegetation zone burned. The total area burned in the Sierra/Cascades was
larger, but the overall percent of the forest area was lower at 21%. Thirty-six percent of forests in Timber Valuation Zone 17
(TVA) 4, which includes parts of Glenn, Trinity, Siskiyou, and Shasta counties has burned (Table 13). At least 10% of forests
in all TVA burned, except TVA 1, which is on the coast. Finally, fires occurred across all High Hazard Zone tiers, with most
fires in Tier 2 lands (Table 14). 18

Table 6. Forested acres in project area by ownership group.

Ownership category Forested acres Non-forest acres % of forested acres

BLM 886,000 3,422,000 4%
Other Federal 973,000 2,489,000 4%
Private – Forest Industry 4,255,000 234,000 20%
Private – Non-industrial 3,757,000 5,861,000 17%
State and Local 397,000 619,000 2%
Tribal 141,000 43,000 1%
National Forest 11,293,000 5,615,000 52%
All ownerships 21,701,000 18,282,000 100%
Table 7. Standing post-fire volume by ownership group.
Ownership category Standing volume (Bbf) % of total live tree volume
BLM 8.5 2%
Other Federal 20 5%
Private (all) 155 39%
State and Local 13 3%
Tribal 3.1 1%
National Forest 202 50%
All ownerships 402 100%
Table 8. Forested area burned in fires over 10,000 acres from 2018 through 2021, by severity and landowner.
Severity
Moderate % of ownership’s
Ownership category Low (ac) (ac) High (ac) Total forest burned
BLM 40,000 52,000 41,000 133,000 15%
Other Federal 64,000 54,000 56,000 175,000 18%
Private – Forest Industry 129,000 118,000 170,000 417,000 10%
Private – Non-industrial 137,000 133,000 131,000 401,000 11%
State and Local 12,000 12,000 8,000 32,000 8%
Tribal 9,400 6,100 2,900 18,000 13%
National Forest 1,046,000 901,000 1,161,000 3,108,000 28%
All ownerships 1,437,000 1,277,000 1,570,000 4,284,000 20%

17
A TVA is an area defined by the California Department of Tax and Feed Administration and applicable to the assessment of the
timber yield tax. In this report TVAs are used to define a market area.
18
Tier 2 lands are watersheds that have significant tree mortality as well as significant community and natural resource assets.

15
Table 9. Percent forested area burned in fires over 10,000 acres from 2018 through 2021, by severity and landowner.
Severity
Ownership category Low Moderate High Total
BLM 30% 39% 31% 100%
Other Federal 37% 31% 32% 100%
Private – Forest Industry 31% 28% 41% 100%
Private – Non-industrial 34% 33% 33% 100%
State and Local 38% 37% 25% 100%
Tribal 51% 33% 16% 100%
National Forest 34% 29% 37% 100%
All ownerships 34% 30% 37% 100%
Table 10. Forested acres burned in fires over 10,000 acres from 2018 through 2021, by year.
Ownership Year
category 2018 (ac) 2019 (ac) 2020 (ac) 2021 (ac) Total (ac)
BLM 75,000 1,500 44,000 13,000 133,000
Other Federal 38,000 10 17,000 120,000 175,000
Private (all) 183,000 31,000 353,000 251,000 818,000
State and Local 4,300 500 24,000 3,100 32,000
Tribal 69 27 3,100 15,000 18,000
National Forest 434,000 34,000 1,337,000 1,304,000 3,108,000
All ownerships 734,000 67,000 1,779,000 1,705,000 4,284,000
Table 11. Forested acres burned in fires over 10,000 acres from 2018 through 2021, by county.
Forested acres Total forested % of forested acres in the project area
County burned acres burned by fires >10,000 acres by county
Plumas 764,000 1,245,000 61%
Trinity 582,000 1,640,000 35%
Siskiyou 395,000 2,693,000 15%
Shasta 321,000 1,536,000 21%
Tulare 266,000 859,000 31%
Lake 227,000 375,000 61%
Butte 192,000 347,000 55%
Tehama 190,000 473,000 40%
El Dorado 174,000 649,000 27%
Lassen 170,000 1,055,000 16%
Mendocino 147,000 1,634,000 9%
Madera 140,000 330,000 42%
Fresno 137,000 706,000 19%
Glenn 136,000 148,000 92%
Sonoma 87,000 474,000 18%
Mariposa 70,000 378,000 19%
Napa 67,000 157,000 43%
Alpine 46,000 239,000 19%
Humboldt 39,000 1,803,000 2%
Colusa 29,000 41,000 71%

16
 Forested acres Total forested % of forested acres in the project area
County burned acres burned by fires >10,000 acres by county
Modoc 29,000 871,000 3%
Del Norte 27,000 524,000 5%
Kern 17,000 298,000 6%
Tuolumne 16,000 746,000 2%
Mono 8,700 415,000 2%
Sierra 6,100 434,000 1%
Amador 350 131,000 0%
Yolo 17 120 14%
Placer 0 496,000 0%
Nevada 0 376,000 0%
Calaveras 0 239,000 0%
Inyo 0 189,000 0%
Marin 0 101,000 0%
Yuba 0 95,000 0%
Solano 0 6,000 0%
Total 4,284,000 21,701,000 20%
Table 12. Forested acres burned in fires over 10,000 acres from 2018 through 2021, by CAL FIRE vegetation zone.
Forested Total forested % forested area in vegetation
CAL FIRE Vegetation Zone Ownership acres burned acres zone burned, by ownership
Eastside BLM 12,000 266,000 5%
Other 10 1,600 1%
Federal
Private (all) 11,000 384,000 3%
State and 1,500 11,000 14%
Local
Tribal 60 4,900 1%
National 53,000 1,010,000 5%
Forest
Subtotal 78,000 1,678,000 5%
Klamath/Interior Coast BLM 106,000 256,000 41%
Ranges
Other 31,000 78,000 40%
Federal
Private (all) 351,000 2,297,000 15%
State and 6,900 42,000 16%
Local
Tribal 2,800 106,000 3%
National 1,445,000 4,103,000 35%
Forest
Subtotal 1,943,000 6,882,000 28%
North Coast BLM 580 103,000 1%
Other 700 60,000 1%
Federal
Private (all) 74,000 2,224,000 3%

17
 Forested Total forested % forested area in vegetation
CAL FIRE Vegetation Zone Ownership acres burned acres zone burned, by ownership
State and 10,800 258,000 4%
Local
Tribal 0 4,200 0%
National 0 19,000 0%
Forest
Subtotal 86,000 2,667,000 3%
Sierra/Cascades BLM 14,000 261,000 5%
Other 143,000 834,000 17%
Federal
Private (all) 381,000 3,106,000 12%
State and 13,000 86,000 15%
Local
Tribal 15,000 25,700 58%
National 1,610,292 6,162,000 26%
Forest
Subtotal 2,178,000 10,475,000 21%
Total 4,284,000 21,701,000 20%
Table 13. Forested acres burned in fires over 10,000 acres from 2018 through 2021, by timber valuation area.
Timber valuation area Forested acres burned Total forested acres % forested area in each TVA burned
1 66,000 2,327,000 3%
2 302,000 2,371,000 13%
4 1,595,000 4,375,000 36%
5 265,000 2,288,000 12%
6 199,000 1,926,000 10%
7 981,000 3,235,000 30%
8 236,000 2,004,000 12%
9 641,000 3,175,000 20%
All areas 4,284,000 21,701,000 20%
Table 14. Forested acres burned in fires over 10,000 acres from 2018 through 2021, by High Hazard Zone tier (refer to
footnote 8).
High Hazard Forested Total forested % forested area in each High Hazard
Tier Landowner acres burned acres Zone tier burned, by ownership
1 BLM 80 1,700 4%
Other Federal 60 1,200 5%
Private 3,800 28,000 13%
State and Local 10 360 3%
Tribal 2 110 2%
National Forest 3,400 15,000 22%
Subtotal 7,300 47,000 16%
2 BLM 103,000 423,000 24%
Other Federal 154,000 555,000 28%
Private 528,000 4,113,000 13%
State and Local 18,000 135,000 13%

18
 High Hazard Forested Total forested % forested area in each High Hazard
Tier Landowner acres burned acres Zone tier burned, by ownership
Tribal 15,000 71,000 20%
National Forest 2,251,000 8,071,000 28%
Subtotal 3,068,000 13,369,000 23%
3 BLM 1,800 19,000 10%
Other Federal 4,500 20,000 23%
Private 47,000 393,000 12%
State and Local 1,200 12,000 10%
Tribal 1,400 2,900 49%
National Forest 73,000 270,000 27%
Subtotal 129,000 717,000 18%
Non-HHZ BLM 28,000 442,000 6%
Other Federal 16,000 397,000 4%
Private 239,000 3,478,000 7%
State and Local 13,000 249,000 5%
Tribal 2,300 67,000 4%
National Forest 781,000 2,936,000 27%
Subtotal 1,080,000 7,568,000 14%
Total 4,286,000 4,284,000 21,701,000

High severity patches

Though a certain amount of high severity fire is within the natural variation of historic fire regimes, high severity patches
have the potential to cause long-term impacts to timber production as well as environmental services, including natural
carbon storage and sequestration capacity, water resources, recreational opportunities, and wildlife habitat. Large
patches of high severity fire reduce the likelihood that trees will naturally regenerate following the fire (Welch et al. 2016).
Typical seed dispersal distances are under 100 meters for conifer species in California. With a lack of seed source, large
high severity patches are at risk of conversion to shrubland or will remain comparatively unvegetated.

Large fires from 2018 through 2021 in the project area created 1,494 high severity patches greater than 40 acres, and
greater than 100 meters from intact to moderate severity burn areas. These patches cover 668,000 acres (Table 15; Map
18). These high severity patches account for 43% of the area burned at high severity and 16% of the total area burned.
High severity patches account for 17% and 14% of the total fire area on National Forest System and private lands,
respectively, and only 2% of the fire area on tribal lands (Table 16).

While patches between 40 and 100 acres are most common, at 47% of all patches, patches between 1,000 and 10,000
acres account for the most area with 245,000 acres, or 37% of the high severity patch area. Eight patches in the largest
size class, greater than 10,000 acres, account for 27% of the total area of high severity patches. Two patches are larger
than 30,000 acres, with the largest single patch, located in the 2020 Slater fire, spanning 39,000 acres (Table 17). Impacts
to environmental services are likely particularly acute in these extremely large individual high severity patches as they can
span across multiple watersheds. Just three fires, the August Complex, Claremont, and Dixie fires, account for 54% of the
area of the high severity patches (Appendix B, Table B-5). The Dixie fire alone contains 197,000 acres in high severity
patches, 29% of the total for all fires.

With 668,000 acres, or 3% of the forested area in the project area, in high severity patches larger than 40 acres, the risk
to long-term forest cover loss is substantial. Reforesting this area will require substantial resources. Planting 668,000 acres

19
at 100 to 200 trees per acre 19 (21’ to 15’ spacing) will require 67 million to 134 million seedlings, well beyond the normal
annual requirement of timber managers. In response to lack of seedling production capacity in California and fire damage
to its own lands, Sierra Pacific Industries plans to open a large, modern $10 million dollar tree nursery in Gazelle, CA,
capable of producing 25 million seedlings per year at full production expected in 2026. 20 This nursery is partially supported
by a $3 million grant from CAL FIRE.

Table 15. Acres and number of large high severity patches in fires over 10,000 acres from 2018 through 2021 at risk of
vegetation type conversion by patch size class.
Patch size class (ac)
40 – 100 100 – 1,000 1,000 – 10,000 >10,000 Total
(ac) (ac) (ac) (ac)
Acres 44,000 198,000 245,000 182,000 668,000
% of large patches (area) 7% 30% 37% 27% 100%
Number 702 679 105 8 1,494
% of large patches (number) 47% 45% 7% 1% 100%
Table 16. Acres in large high severity patches in fires over 10,000 acres from 2018 through 2021 at risk of vegetation type
conversion by patch size class and landowner.
Patch size class (ac) % of total fire
area of each
landowner in
40 – 100 100 – 1,000 1,000 – 10,000 >10,000 large high
Ownership (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) Total severity patches
BLM 1,400 6,600 5,400 190 14,000 10%
Other Federal 1,700 5,500 15,000 3,400 25,000 15%
Private 8,400 37,000 28,000 39,000 113,000 14%
State and Local 460 700 380 110 1,700 5%
Tribal 60 260 1 - 320 2%
National Forest 32,000 147,000 196,000 139,000 514,000 17%
Total 43,600 197,600 245,200 181,700 668,200 16%
Table 17. List of high severity patches over 10,000 acres in fires over 10,000 acres from 2018 through 2021 at risk of
vegetation type conversion by fire name. Fire names are repeated if a fire includes multiple patches over 10,000 acres.
High severity patch
Fire Fire year size (ac)
Slater 2020 39,000
Claremont 2020 30,000
Claremont 2020 26,000
Dixie 2021 23,000
Caldor 2021 23,000
Dixie 2021 15,000
Dixie 2021 14,000
Haypress 2021 11,000

19
The minimum standard for replanting varies by site class and ranges from 100 to 200 (Title 14 CCR 9
12.7, 932.7, 952.7)
20
[Link]

20
Carbon volatilized
The fires in this study volatilized into the atmosphere 44 million metric tons (MMt) of carbon. This is equivalent to 11
MMt carbon (C) in annual volatilization. This result is similar to results found by CAL FIRE staff who found carbon
volatilized totaling 7.9 MMt per year between 2001 and 2019, based on emissions assumptions in Stinson et al. (2011),
which do not account for differences in fire severity. 21

The remaining forest contains 873 MMt of carbon in the live tree carbon pool. To help contextualize the result of this
study, the amount of carbon emitted by the fires is equivalent to 160 MMt of CO2, which trees had previously sequestered
from the atmosphere. 22 However, this does not mean that 160 MMt of CO2 have been emitted back to the atmosphere,
as carbon can be emitted in a variety of forms into the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, particulate matters, and
other carbonaceous compounds. Ultimately, these results are an underestimate of the forest carbon consumed by fire
because other pools (e.g., standing dead, down dead wood, litter, understory vegetation) were not included. In addition,
these estimates do not account for post-fire decay of vegetation killed in the fires. Future carbon sequestration will not
mitigate losses from these fires if forests do not regenerate and are instead replaced by non-forest vegetation with lower
carbon storing capability. The risk of this is particularly great on the 668,000 acres in high severity patches.

Consistent with acres burned, three-quarters of the carbon volatilized from fires came from fires on National Forest
System lands (Table 18). Fires on private lands accounted for 17% of carbon volatilized. Geographically, the
Klamath/Interior Coast Ranges and Sierra/Cascades CAL FIRE vegetation zones contributed 97% of the carbon volatilized
from fires (Table 19).

Carbon volatilization from fires in High Hazard Zone tier 2 accounted for 72% of the total carbon volatilized. Lands outside
of High Hazard Zones accounted for most of the rest of the carbon volatilized (25%, Table 20).

Five fires, Dixie, August Complex, Claremont, Creek, and Caldor resulted in 54% of the total carbon volatilization from fires
over 10,000 acres. The Dixie fire and August Complex accounted for 18% and 17% of carbon volatilized, respectively or
over 7.4 million metric tons each (Appendix 2).

Table 18. Carbon volatilization from standing trees to the atmosphere by landowner and fire severity in millions of metric
tons.
Severity
Low Med High All Severities % of total
Landowner (MMt) (MMt) (MMt) (MMt) emissions
BLM 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.0 2%
Other Federal 0.6 0.5 0.7 1.7 4%
Private 2.1 1.9 3.6 7.5 17%
State and Local 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 1%
Tribal 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0%
National Forest 10.2 7.8 15.0 33.0 76%
Total 13.3 10.6 19.8 43.7 100%

21
Pers. Comm. Nadia Tase, Climate Change and Forest Inventory Specialist, CAL FIRE, 9/30/2022
22
California’s CO2 equivalent emissions in 2019 were 418.2 million metric tons (CARB 2021).

21
Table 19. Carbon volatilized from standing trees to the atmosphere from fires by CAL FIRE vegetation zone.
CAL FIRE vegetation zone Carbon emissions (MMt) % of total emissions
Central Coast and Interior Ranges <0.1 <1%
Eastside 0.3 1%
Klamath/Interior Coast Ranges 20.2 46%
North Coast 0.8 2%
Sierra/Cascades 22.5 51%
Total 43.7 100%
Table 20. Carbon volatilized from standing trees to the atmosphere from fires by High Hazard Zone tier.
High Hazard Zone Tier Carbon emissions (MMt) % of total emissions
1 0.1 0%
2 31.3 72%
3 1.4 3%
4 11.0 25%
Total 43.7 100%

Future timber harvest volume loss

The potential future harvest volume lost due to fires over 10,000 acres from 2018 through 2021 is 11,032 MMbf across
the project area over the next 50 years (Table 21, Figure 7). Nearly 75% of the lost potential harvest volume comes from
public lands even though the harvestable area assumed in this analysis excludes areas with no harvest or highly restricted
harvest due to current policies, as well as all lands greater than 0.25 miles from a road. (Table 6). Among private land
ownership groups, most potential future harvest loss is on forest industry lands.

Table 21. Potentially harvestable volume lost in fires over 10,000 acres from 2018 through 2021, by decade (MMbf/yr),
and total over 50 years (MMbf).
Private – Forest Private – Non- Total
Decade Industry (MMbf/yr) industrial (MMbf/yr) Public (MMbf/yr) (MMbf/yr)
2023-2032 61 7 131 199
2033-2042 61 7 131 199
2043-2052 36 7 173 217
2053-2062 36 7 173 217
2063-2072 46 11 215 272

Private – Forest Private – Non-

Industry (MMbf) industrial (MMbf) Public (MMbf) Total (MMbf)
Total volume 2,403 389 8,240 11,032
over 50 years

22
Figure 7. Potentially harvestable volume lost in fires over 10,000 acres from 2018 through 2021, by decade (MMbf/yr).
300

250

200
MMbf/yr

150

100

50

0
2023-2022 2033-2042 2043-2052 2053-2062 2063-2072
Year

Public Private - Forest Industry Private Non-industrial

Value of lost future timber harvest

The economic value of the potentially harvestable timber lost in the large fires is $12.7 billion (2022 dollars) over 50 years,
assuming current primary wood product values. Assuming a 3% discount rate, 23 the present value of the economic loss is
$6.5 billion.

Employment impacts
In 2016, forestry, logging, and wood products manufacturing provided 33,951 direct jobs in California, or 21.6 jobs per
MMbf (Marcille et al., 2020). At that rate, the potential harvest volume lost in large fires from 2018 through 2021 would
have supported an average 4,800 jobs annually, ranging from a low of 4,300 fewer people employed from 2023 through
2042 to a high of 5,900 fewer people employed in the sector from 2063 through 2072. In addition to direct job impacts,
indirect and induced jobs will be affected as well. Marcille et al (2020 pg. 52) report that for every wood products
manufacturing job another 1.3 jobs are supported in related sectors and that $1.50 in labor income is generated for every
$1 of wood product manufacturing labor income.

Employment impact estimates do not include any impacts to forestry support services, secondary wood products, indirect
or induced jobs. Nor do they include impacts of any programs to increase timber harvest or forestry management, such
as the Million Acres Strategy, 24 responses by other market participants, or impacts of technology on productivity in the
sector.

Availability of timber is not the only limitation to forest industry employment. Competition from other sectors for staff is
also a significant factor in retaining and recruiting staff into the industry to maintain current capacity. Mill capacity is also
a factor. Marcille et al. (2020) report California’s forest products industry’s capacity to process sawtimber has decreased

23
3% is described as “the rate at which ‘society’ discounts future consumption flows to their present value” in the Office of
Management and Budget’s OMB Circular A-4.
24
The Million Acres Strategy is a plan from the Governor’s Office California Wildfire & Forest Resilience Task Force to perform forest
health and fuels treatments on minimum of 1 million acres annually by 2025. [Link]
content/uploads/2022/04/roadmap-to-million-acres_2022.pdf

23
from 6,000 MMbf in the late 1980s to 1,870 MMbf. This mill capacity puts a ceiling on the demand for sawtimber and
other forest products.

Long-term effects of lost harvest volume

Fires over 10,000 acres from 2018 through 2021 will have lasting impacts on forests and the forest products industry in
California. Future potential timber harvest levels will be reduced by an average of 221 MMbf less timber available annually
over the next 50 years, the equivalent of about 14% of the average of 1,543 MMbf harvested annually from 2018 through
2021, or about seven years’ worth of harvest. Without structural changes in forest management in California, this decline
in timber projection could contribute to a decline in forest products infrastructure by reducing the supply of timber and
the economic viability of logging operators and sawmills. Loss of this infrastructure could further limit the ability of
landowners to manage forestland for timber and revenue production as well as fire hazard reduction, resilience, and
amenity values. Plans such as the Million Acre Strategy could make up for some or all of the lost potential harvest volume
and support industry capacity.

Land manager survey

Registered Professional Forester
The RPFs interviewed reported that small forestland owners face difficulties throughout the planning and harvesting
process, including:

1) THPs can be uneconomical for small landowners.

2) Loggers are difficult to find.
3) Access to markets is limited after a fire.
4) Seed and seedlings can be difficult to acquire.
5) Net income from harvests is low.

The RPFs noted that the lack of loggers or other operators and the lack of markets for the logs are the top issues for small
forest landowners planning forest management. They also said that due to fires, some landowners are considering selling
their properties, particularly landowners adjacent to federal lands, due to concern of fires spreading from federal lands.

In many cases, landowners are only able to manage on a reactive basis following fires, and are limited by lack of operators,
markets for logs, and in some cases, seedlings. When fire does occur, many forestland owners choose to aggressively
salvage. They do so for several reasons, including the relative ease and lower cost of filing an Emergency Notice to salvage
compared to a THP, and the desire to remove dead and hazardous trees and replant. However, the lack of loggers and
adequate markets means forestland owners are not always able to salvage as planned. Some RPFs noted that landowners
are interested in reducing fuel loading and reducing fire risk prior to a fire occurring but are similarly constrained by lack
of operators and markets for logs.

The RPFs interviewed reported that the CFIP, Natural Resources Conservation Service grants, and other grants and cost
share programs, are widely used by small forestland owners. Some landowners manage their lands specifically to be
eligible for one or more of the various programs. Due to the high costs of operations and low value of timber, small
forestland owners depend on various grant programs to pay for management and reforestation. Without additional
operators and markets, this dependence is likely to continue.

The results of the survey of RPFs highlight that large fires impact small forestland owners’ ability to plan and manage their
lands for values they desire, such as amenity or timber production. Together, the factors discussed above are causing
some landowners to question whether continuing to own forest land is desirable or whether lands should be converted
to other uses, such as housing, potentially resulting in more homes in fire prone areas.

24
Private industrial forestland managers
The private forest industry land managers all reported that portions of the land they manage had been burned in fires
over 10,000 acres between 2018 and 2021, with some noting impacts of large and small fires outside of that time period.
One land manager reported that over 40% of the company’s forestlands had been burned in the large fires included in this
study.

All land managers reported undertaking salvage harvest and replanting following the fires. The extent of these activities
depended on economic feasibility. Salvage was more likely to occur in areas of high fire severity and higher site quality.
All expressed the objective of returning lands to timber production where it is economical.

Long-term impacts of the fires varied by landowner, depending on the extent and severity of the fires on their lands. Most
reported that there will be a decline in long-term timber harvest after an initial spike in volume from salvage harvest. On
some lands, damage to roads was identified as a concern, particularly following heavy rain. However, managers noted
that salvage harvests and the resulting revenue provided an opportunity to reinvest in roads, including moving roads to
better locations, controlling erosion, and installing larger culverts. Managers of lands that are intermingled with federal
lands reported that delayed repair of federal roads hindered access following fire. These impacts negatively affect land
managers’ ability to achieve management objectives for their lands.

In response to large fires, and the increase in fires in general, land managers report building, or planning to build fuel
breaks. They also report increasing collaboration with neighbors to better plan treatments, fuel breaks, and wildfire
response. The fires also have caused some managers to rethink the use of uneven-aged management. One manager noted
that after thinning, retained trees are at risk of fire under the prevailing fire conditions. They are considering whether
more intensive removals or even-aged management might provide better returns and reduce risk. However, all managers
expressed a commitment to continue to manage timber in California, with some interested in expanding the area under
management.

The land managers noted that public data such as RAVG and public grants have helped in the post-fire response to large
fires. They also credit qualified professional foresters and operations staff. They report a need for more qualified staff,
logging operators, truckers, and mills to support increased salvage and green timber harvest. One manager noted the
need for more firefighters and more accountability in the firefighting response.

USFS
USFS noted issues similar to those facing small forest landowners, as well as some unique challenges and opportunities.
Like lands owned by small forest landowners, post-fire salvage has replaced planned uneven-aged management for some
stands. However, USFS has been able to access operators and markets for both post-fire salvage sales and sale of green
timber in unburned areas. USFS attributes this to long duration contracts that give operators flexibility to work on post-
fire salvage activities without losing green timber contracts.

USFS also faces challenges in adequately staffing contract and procurement offices. Following fires, USFS frequently has
access to federal disaster recovery funding, but this funding creates significant workload for procurement staff.

USFS post-fire salvage response is more limited than that of small private landowners. Typically, on National Forest System
lands, salvage is limited to hazard tree removal in high severity burn areas near roads as well as some trails and
campgrounds. The salvage operation is then followed by reforestation and rehabilitation, such as erosion control, road
repair, bridge repair, facilities repair, and fuel reduction. The planning process for salvage activities is slow, with some
plans taking so long to complete that what might have been salvageable timber becomes commercially non-viable. This
can result in USFS paying operators to remove timber that could have otherwise been part of a commercial sale and not

25
require a subsidy. Funds used to pay for removal of burned timber reduces the budget available for other salvage,
rehabilitation, and reforestation activities.

Conclusion
From 2018 to 2021, California experienced some of the largest fires in recent decades with some burning over 1 million
acres. These fires burned 20% of the forestland in the North Coast, Cascades, and Sierras, and created 668,000 acres of
large high severity burn patches where forest regeneration will be slow or unsuccessful due to lack of seed sources. This
increases the risk of long-term land cover changes to shrubland or other vegetation. In addition to affecting forest cover,
large fires and a lack of timber operators and adequate log markets have affected the ability of small forestland owners
to manage their forests. Many are unable to proactively manage their forests prior to fires occurring, and instead are likely
to attempt to salvage harvest and replant following fires. This results in a change in silviculture from planned uneven-aged
pre-fire treatment to even-aged post-fire salvage. Small forestland owners frequently utilize CAL FIRE’s CFIP or another
landowner assistance program to help pay for post-fire operation and restoration because salvage harvest may not
generate enough revenue to pay for these activities.

The impact of these fires will be apparent for decades and will affect the local forest products industry. The fires have
reduced potential harvest volume by 11,032 MMbf over the next 50 years or an average 221 MMbf per year. Harvest of
221 MMbf per year would have supported 4,800 jobs and produced primary forest products valued at $253 million. The
loss of this harvest, if not replaced by increased forest and fuels management activities in other areas, will result in a
contraction of the forest industry infrastructure, including logging operators, mills, and support services. Industry
infrastructure is already a limiting factor for management in California and an impediment to forest landowners trying to
achieve their management objectives, including increasing forest resilience and hazardous fuels reduction. Further
contraction will only exacerbate the challenges facing forestland owners in the state.

26
References
Battles, J.J., T. Robards, A. Das, K. Waring, J.K. Gilless, G. Biging, and F. Schurr. 2006. Climate change impacts on forest
growth and tree mortality: a data-driven study in the mixed-conifer forest of the Sierra Nevada, California. Climatic
Change 87(Suppl 1): S193-S213.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2021. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019: Trends of Emissions
and Other Indicators. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento.
[Link]

Cleland, D.T.; Freeouf, J.A.; Keys, J.E.; Nowacki, G.J.; Carpenter, C.A.; McNab, W.H. 2007. Ecological subregions: sections
and subsections for the conterminous United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-76D. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 1 p. [Link]

Christensen, G.A., A.N. Gray, O. Kuegler, N.A. Tase, M. Rosenberg, D. Loeffler, N. Anderson, K. Stockmann, T.A. Morgan.
2018. AB 1504 California Forest Ecosystem and Harvested Wood Product Carbon Inventory: 2017 Reporting Period. Final
Report. USFS agreement no. 18-CO-11052021-214, 17-CO-11261979-086, California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection agreement no. 8CA04056 and 8CA03714 and the University of Montana. Sacramento, CA: California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. 539 p.

Lenihan, J.M., R. Drapek, D. Bachelet, and R.P. Neilson. 2003. Climate change effects on vegetation distribution, carbon,
and fire in California. Ecological Applications 13(6): 1667-1681.

Lenihna, J.M., D. Bachelet, R.P. Neilson, and R. Drapek. 2008. Response of vegetation distribution, ecosystem productivity,
and fire to climate change scenarios for California. Climatic Change 87: 215-230.

LTWRP (Lake Tahoe West Restoration Partnership). 2019. Lake Tahoe West Restoration Strategy.
[Link]

Maestrini, B., E.C. Alvey, M.D. Hurteau, H. Safford, J.R. Miesel. 2017. Fire severity alters the distribution of pyrogen carbon
stocks across ecosystem pools in a Californian mix-conifer forest. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 122,
2338-2355.

Marcille, K.C. 2019. Forest Industry fact sheet no.3: California’s forest products industry and timber harvest, 2016.

Marcille, K.C., T.A. Morgan, C.P. McIver, G.A. Christensen. 2020. California’s forest products industry and timber harvest,
2016. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-994. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station. 58 p.

Oliver, A.A., J.E. Reuter, A.C. Heyvaert, R.A. Dahlgren. Water quality response to the Angora Fire, Lake Tahoe, California.
Biochemistry 111, 361-376.

Rasmussen, M., R. Lord, R. Fay. T. Baribault, R. Goodnow. 2021. Economic Impacts to Oregon’s Forest Sector: Fully Report.
[Link]

Stinson G., W.A. Kutz, C.E. Smyth, E.T. Neilson, C.C. Dymond, J.M. Metsaranta, C. Boisvenue, G.J. Rampley, Q. Li. T.M.
White, and D. Blain. An inventory-based analysis of Canada’s managed forest carbon dynamics, 1990 to 2008. Global
Change Biology. [Link]

27
USFS. 2022. Vegetation classification & mapping.
[Link]

Welch, K.R., H.D. Stafford, T.P. Young. 2016. Predicting conifer establishment post wildfire in mixed conifer forests of the
North American Mediterranean-climate zone. Ecosphere 7(12). [Link]

Williams, A.P., J.T. Abatzoglou, [Link], J. Guzman-Morales, D.A. Bishop, J.K. Balch, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2019.
Observed impacts of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire in California. Earth Future 7: 892-910.
[Link]

28
Appendix A: Detailed Methods
Overview
Wildfire impacts in California are distributed across political boundaries, biomes, ownership, land use, and forest types.
For this study, the combination of all spatial factors, including forest inventory, are called a Land Type (LT) 25, denoting the
unique set of biophysical and management factors that have influenced past land use patterns.

Spatial Data Sources

Data was acquired from multiple federal and state sources (Table A-1). All data layers were set to the same extent and
snapped to the resolution and coordinate reference system of the Landscape Ecology, Modeling, Mapping & Analysis 26
LEMMA forest type layer. Layers with total coverage (Counties, TVA, California Vegetation Zones, ownership, firesheds)
were unmodified. Layers with partial coverage (LEMMA, fire severity 27,28, HHZ, silviculture) were augmented with a non-
null value to indicate no data so that the resulting combined raster would retain complete coverage. Layers acquired in
vector format were converted to raster format for this analysis.

Table A-1. Spatial data sources, purpose, Land Type sub-deliverable file name, and current web source.
Component Data Element Web Source
Fire Severity Fire Name MTBS ([Link] RAVG
([Link]
Fire Year As above
Geographic County [Link]
Areas Marketing areas [Link]
CALVEG zones [Link]
Ownership CA Ownership [Link]
and Land (public)
Use NWFP LUA [Link]
[Link]
National Roadless [Link]
Areas sArea_2001.[Link]
Wilderness [Link]
[Link]
High Hazard High Hazard Zone [Link]
Zones
Firesheds USFS crisis strategy [Link]
firesheds
Harvest CA THP [Link]
Depletions fire-timber-harvesting-plans-all-ta83/about
USFS timber [Link]
harvests _TimberHarvest.[Link]

25
USFS and BLM Northwest Forest Plan uses the term, “Land Use Allocation” (LUA) to define the set of allowed management
practices on federal forest land. The federal LUA is one component of the Land Type definition. All lands in the project area have a
Land Type; only lands in the NWFP have a LUA.
26
[Link]
27
[Link]
28
[Link]

29
Inventory
The most recent LEMMA data release occurred in 2020, representing inventory year 2017. Although the LEMMA program
had provided tree lists for prior iterations at least through 2016, beginning with this latest release, tree lists are no longer
made available publicly. This project delivers acreage and carbon estimates, which can be done directly from LEMMA with
reasonable accuracy. However, this project also requires growth from 2017, which would be unavailable without a model-
grown inventory. Merchandized timber for the economic assessments would also not be possible without an inventory
based on tree lists. The inventory is constructed from USFS FIA plots and stratified according to the LEMMA protocol,
grown in FVS, with annual harvest and fire depletions, and merchandising done using proprietary MBGTools Software
(Figure A-1).

Figure A-1. Diagram of the inventory development process from FIA plot stratification through the 2021.

LEMMA
stratified
Apply 2018 Apply 2018 Apply 2019 Apply 2019 And so on
using FIA Grow to Grow to
harvest fire harvest fire through
plot data 2018 2019
depletions depletions depletions depletions 2021
(represent
2017)

The FORTYBA forest type layer from LEMMA was the basis for stratification. This layer is a forest type constructed from
the relative BA of dominant tree species in the 2017 vegetation. The FORTYPBA protocol 29 classified plots into conifer-
dominant (fraction of hardwood BA < 20%), mixed hardwood/conifer (20% <= hardwood BA fraction < 65%), and
hardwood-dominant (hardwood BA >= 65%). In mixed plots, the type was defined as both the top conifer and top
hardwood species by BA, with the greater BA listed to the first (leftmost). In conifer-dominated plots, where a single
conifer species accounted for more than 80% of the total BA, the type consisted solely of that species. If no single species
exceeded 80%, the type included the top two species. The same method was applied for hardwood-dominated plots. If
total canopy cover was less than 10%, the type was classified as a remnant and translated to FIA non-stocked.

LEMMA FORTYPBA rules were applied to all USFS FIA P2 30 plots in the in the California database. 31 This identified 5,554
distinct PLOT_CN (plot-year combinations) from which to construct inventory strata. The final strata comprised USFS FIA
forest type (FORTYPCD) with several possible combinations of BA and trees per acre (TPA). A ‘complete’ FORTYPCD
stratum, with four BA quartiles and four TPA quartiles within each BA quartile, requires 96 plots, equitably distributed
over each BA and TPA combination. If at least 48 FIA plots were available in a FORTYPCD, but fewer than 96, two BA groups
were used, with two TPA groups in each. For FORTPYCD with between 16 and 48 plots, there are no BA groups but two
TPA groups. With fewer than 16 FIA plots, no further strata beyond FORTPYD were designated; this never impacted
commercial species. For each LEMMA grid cell, BA and TPA quartile was assigned from LEMMA layers BA_GE_3 and
TPH_GE_3. LEMMA provides a reasonably unbiased estimate of BA, but generally an upward-biased TPA estimate. LEMMA
BA and TPA were mapped to FIA BA and TPA by quartile rather than by a direct comparison of magnitude. Of 58,369
original combinations of LEMMA FORTYPBA x BA x TPA, only a few hundred could not be matched directly to an FIA plot.
For the unmatched, a sequential replacement strategy was used. First, the first and second species were switched, and a
new match sought. Second, if both species together did not work, single species were tried in dominance order. Finally,

29
[Link]
30
[Link]
31
[Link]

30
the 40 remaining LEMMA groups that could not match directly or with substitution were manually assigned the FIA
FORTYPCD most similar or commonly used by adjacent LEMMA FORTYPBA.

All LEMMA FORTYPBA groups translated into 41 USFS FIA FORTPYCD. The LEMMA product was developed in large part
from FIA, so in principle a reverse translation should be accurate. The FIA plot count is proportional to LEMMA cell count
within translated FORTYPCD (Figure A-1). Following the plot count rationale above, those 41 FORTYPCD expanded further
into 382 individual strata representing unique combinations of forest type, BA, and TPA. Every LEMMA grid cell from
FORTYPBA was reassigned to one of these 382 USFS FIA FORTYPCD-BA-TPA strata. Volume (Mbf per acre) and carbon
(metric tons per acre) were calculated over the plots in each stratum weighted by their FIA expansion factor. A 383rd non-
forested stratum was introduced to enable complete acreage reporting; this was distinct from the FIA non-stocked
stratum.

To assess validity of the stratification, MB&G reconstructed regional inventory using the stratified LEMMA raster assigned
the USFS FIA board-foot volume projected to 2018. The basis of comparison was the county-level 2018 population
evaluation group FIA summary of gross board-foot volume. The live tree volume in 21.7 million acres in the study area
using this stratification is 402 Bbf. Calculating the sum of FIA gross volume in all the counties in the study area, the volume
is 536 Bbf on 28.8 million acres. Note that stratified quantity was merchandized in Scribner decimal C short scale, while
the FIA native unit is International ¼ inch. 32 In other work MB&G has found near parity between short-scale Scribner and
International ¼ inch, typically these scales differ by less than 2%. The LEMMA results in 18.49 Mbf per acre (Scribner) or
18.13 Mbf per acre (International), while the FIA reports 18.56 Mbf per acre (International) or 18.93 Mbf per acre
(Scribner). Comparing on the same unit scale, the recovered stratified LEMMA result differs from the FIA regional result
by 2.3%. Most individual FORTYPCD strata groups followed a strong positive linear relationship with FIA (Figure A-1). A
single stratum, the Sitka Spruce group, under-estimated FIA by about two-thirds, but this stratum encompassed only
36,000 acres in LEMMA (19,000 acres in FIA), about 0.1% of the study area.

Figure A-2. FIA plot (PLOT_CN) count of FORTPYCD assigned LEMMA FORTYPBA (left). Reconstructing the study area
inventory from stratified LEMMA assigned 2018 FIA projections from a common 2017 start date results in less than 0.5%
difference in regional inventory and strong positive linear correlation between LEMMA and FIA (right).

Species groups retained for inventory reporting reflect California taxation groups: Ponderosa pine, hem/fir, Douglas-fir,
incense cedar, redwood, Port Orford cedar. Other species (hardwoods, non-commercial species) were retained in ‘other

32
Log scale rules provide a mathematical method for estimating timber volume. Both Scribner decimal C and International ¼ provide
estimates in units of board feet, or the quality of lumber that can be produced, based on a set of assumption about production.
These assumptions differ, resulting in different estimates of volume.

31
softwoods’ or ‘other hardwoods’ groups. All species, including non-commercial, were merchandized on a short-log scale
with maximum log length 16 feet and minimum log length 10 feet using MBGTools. Only trees with at least 4.6” DHB were
merchandized, and to a minimum top diameter of 2.6 inches with 2.5% trim and a stump height of 1 foot. Aboveground
live carbon was calculated for species groups and in total using the Jenkins equations as implemented in the FVS keyword
CARBCALC.

Composite Burn Index: Fire Severity

The Composite Burn Index (CBI) is available from two data sources, the MTBS and the RAVG. For the study area and focal
time period, neither dataset contained all fires. Where both MTBS and RAVG provided data, MTBS was used. Specifically,
MTBS …[Link] files, and RAVG …[Link] files are used in this analysis. These both represent the CBI converted into four
categories: 1 unburned within fire perimeter, 2 “low severity”, 3 “medium severity”, and 4 “high severity”. The MBTS data
also report a value 5 representing areas that increased greenness after fire—these are treated as unburned. A category 6
in MTBS reflects data errors and are unattributed in this analysis. The RAVG data do not include green-up or unknown
categories. In the mosaic raster containing all MBTS and RAVG data, values outside fire perimeters were set to null.

County, Timber Value Area, and California Vegetation Zone

These layers were grouped together because they share a similar spatial scale. Timber Value Area is coincident with
counties except where Interstate 5 divides Shasta, Siskiyou, and Tehama Counties. California vegetation zones span up to
several counties, or somewhat smaller than a single county in certain instances. The combined raster value represents
each unique combination of County, TVA, and CVZ, and there were 65 unique values. These combinations are a complete
coverage.

Ownership and Land Use Allocations

A public land ownership layer was provided to MB&G for this project by CAL FIRE. Lands in the National Forest System,
BLM, and tribal lands retain their original designation. All other federal lands are grouped into a category “Other Federal”.
The public lands layer included land owned by NGO’s, which are grouped with private land. Other groups include CAL FIRE,
several State agencies, and Local or Municipal governments—these are merged into a State and Local category for
reporting but retained in their original form in intermediate raster sub-deliverables. Report tables will therefore be
organized, alphabetically, as: BLM, other federal, private, tribal, state and local, and national forest. For some analyses
private industrial lands are identified by a layer provided by the California Forestry Association. In others, all private lands
are grouped to maintain confidentiality.

There are several land use categories within federal ownership that are relevant to forest management, including those
from the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), the National Roadless Areas, and Federal Wilderness designation. These areas
are included in the spatial data used in this analysis. There were minor inconsistencies (<3,000 acres) or overlap of non-
federal ownership with NWFP areas. The public ownership layer from CAL FIRE is treated as definitive. Any private
ownership with a land use area (LUA) was considered a spatial inaccuracy and eliminated. Federally designated Wilderness
or National Roadless areas could occur on any federal lands, National Forest, BLM, or Other Federal. There were again
some minor spatial inaccuracies of a few thousand acres where wilderness or roadless areas on private land were
eliminated. Each unique combination of ownership and land use was encoded as a raster with 92 unique values.

High Hazard Zones and Firesheds

Acres and carbon volatilized by tree mortality by High Hazard Zone (HHZ) and fireshed are reported. These layers were
acquired from publicly available sources (Table 1).

32
There are two damage tiers in HHZ, Tier 1, where excessive tree mortality coincides with infrastructure, and Tier 2,
excessive tree mortality in areas where watersheds are prioritized for forest restoration. Where Tiers 1 and 2 overlap,
they are designated as HHZ value 3. Areas without HHZ designation are set to value 4 to allow for complete coverage.

Firesheds are a contiguous layer with 211 complete or partial firesheds within the study area.

Timber Harvest Depletion

Timber harvest layers included National Forest System timber harvests and the California THP database (Table 1). The
method to estimate carbon volatilized to the atmosphere due to wildfire applied conversion factors from Maestrini et al.
(2015) to current standing live carbon. However, carbon volatilized from wildfire are lower in areas where forest
management recently removed timber volume. To account for impact of harvest on pre-fire standing live carbon, MB&G
reduced inventory each year in areas that had received harvests after 2017 but before the date of any fire. Where harvest
and fire were concurrent, the harvest was applied first.

Management action descriptions from the silviculture layers were interpreted as even-aged, uneven-aged, thinning, or no
removal (Table 2). Even-aged management was assumed to remove 80% of volume and carbon, reflecting residuals to
accommodate CA harvest regulations and riparian area management requirements. Uneven-aged management was
assumed to remove 40% of volume and carbon, while thinning would remove 20%. These depletion factors were
multiplied by merchantable volume and standing live carbon to produce a pre-fire estimate. Where no fire occurred,
depletion was multiplied by the inventory grown to 2021. Depleted inventory—merchandized volume or standing live
carbon—was the final input before representing combustion by the Maestrini et al. (2015) factors.

33
Table A-2. Silviculture activity translated to regime category, even-aged, uneven-aged, thinning, or none.
Ac�vity Category Deple�on Factor
Group Selec�on Cut (UA/RH/FH) Even-aged 0.8
Harvest without Restocking Even-aged 0.8
Patch Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) Even-aged 0.8
Patch Clearcut (with leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) Even-aged 0.8
Permanent Land Clearing Even-aged 0.8
Seed-tree Final Cut (EA/NRH/FH) Even-aged 0.8
Seed-tree Preparatory Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) Even-aged 0.8
Seed-tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) Even-aged 0.8
Shelterwood Removal Cut (EA/NRH/FH) Even-aged 0.8
Shelterwood Removal Cut (with leave trees) (EA/NRH/FH) Even-aged 0.8
Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) Even-aged 0.8
Stand Clearcut (with leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) Even-aged 0.8
Two-aged Patch Clearcut (with res) (2A/RH/FH) Even-aged 0.8
Two-aged Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with res) (2A/RH/NFH) Even-aged 0.8
Two-aged Stand Clearcut (with res) (2A/RH/FH) Even-aged 0.8
Coppice Cut (with leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) Uneven-aged 0.4
Improvement Cut Uneven-aged 0.4
Overstory Removal Cut (from advanced regenera�on) (EA/RH/FH) Uneven-aged 0.4
Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, not regenera�on) Uneven-aged 0.4
Sanita�on Cut Uneven-aged 0.4
Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) Uneven-aged 0.4
Shelterwood Preparatory Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) Uneven-aged 0.4
Single-tree Selec�on Cut (UA/RH/FH) Uneven-aged 0.4
Special Products Removal Uneven-aged 0.4
Two-aged Preparatory Cut (with res) (2A/NRH/NFH) Uneven-aged 0.4
Commercial Thin Thinning 0.2
Natural Changes (excludes fire) Thinning 0.2
Administra�ve Changes None 0
Permanent Flooding None 0

Raster Combination
Data retained for the raster combination included each of the sub-deliverables above: FIA-derived inventory stratified
according to LEMMA FORTYPCD and attributed to the LEMMA raster, County-TVA-Veg Zone, CBI severity, Ownership and
land use, tree mortality High Hazard Zones, Firesheds, and silviculture factors for inventory depletion. All possible
combinations of these factors produced a raster with 474,606 unique combinations. The raster attribute table of this
combined layer was exported from ArcGIS Pro as a .csv file for further operations. Where the raster attribute value directly
encoded a meaningful quantity (stratum, fire severity, HHZ), those values were suitably named. Where further
interpretation was required, field values were either parsed into their correct meaning, or linked to other attribute tables.
An intermediate tabular data product representing all unique combinations with their recovered meaning, but prior to
rejoining yields or calculating depletion, was produced. 33

33
calfire_combined_attribs_MEANING_RECOVERED.csv

34
Yields and Carbon Losses by Fire Severity
Stratified yields were linked to the combined raster by stratum ID and by fire year. Yields for 2018 were linked to fires in
2018, etc.; where no fire occurred, the 2021 yields were used. Timber volume and carbon were modeled in FVS. Timber
harvest volume was merchandized in MBGTools.

The carbon emissions work of Maestrini et al. (2015) was the source for carbon and merchandized volume reduction as a
result of fire combustion. Results suggested that in high severity fires, 29.03% of standing live and dead tree carbon would
be converted into atmospheric emissions. In low or medium severity fires, the combusted fraction was the same for each,
at 22.58%. These were strictly conversions to atmospheric carbon released, not CO2 equivalents or the other particulate
matters or carbonaceous compounds released during a fire. The same fractions are applied to the standing merchantable
inventory to estimate residual inventory on burned areas based on fire severity data from MTBS, or RAVG where MTBS
data was not available. Depleted Mbf and C were also multiplied by the appropriate emissions factors for the fire severity
level to estimate (a) volume inventory lost to combustion and (b) carbon converted to emissions. A residual factor, the
emissions fraction subtracted from 1, was also multiplied by the depleted inventory to represent the remaining volume
or standing carbon. The final tabular output therefore contains an estimate of both the remaining Mbf or C, and the loss
of Mbf or C to combustion.

High Severity Patches

Fire severity mosaics were sourced from the same MTBS and RAVG locations as in the acreage and carbon summary (Table
A-1). Only fires with more than perimeter 10,000 acres interior to the study area were processed for high severity. For
fires spanning the study area border, portions outside the border were removed. The six-class CBI was used for fires from
MTBS, and the four-class CBI for fires from RAVG. All fires were assigned a sequential numeric identifier and corresponding
English name; these designations are identical to the content in the acre and carbon summary. Each fire was resampled
to eliminate isolated cells of locally inconsistent severity. The ArcGIS tool Focal Statistics was used to modify cell severity
values, taking on the majority value of the nine cells surrounding each focal cell.

A patch was defined as any area connected by at least 200m width of a shared severity level. Areas connected by thin
extensions (‘stringers’) were to be excluded from adjacent patches. Each resampled fire raster was converted to a vector
retaining solely the high severity patches. To eliminate stringers, the vectorized high severity patches were buffered by
negative 100 m, converted the resulting vector layer to a multi-polygon, and assigned new polygon ID. This result was
dissolved, and any stringers connected by areas with width less than 200m were eliminated. This vector result represents
the high area of high severity patches greater than 100m to unburned, low, or moderate severity fir; each polygon was
assigned a unique ID. The polygon high severity patches were rasterized, with the raster value of the unique ID.

Estimating future timber harvest loss

Prescriptions and mechanizing
The raster layer described above was converted to a vector layer for further analysis. It was added to a data layer showing
ownership of industrial forestlands and buffered roads by quarter mile on National Forest System lands. The layer was
dissolved on stratum, based on BA and trees per acre values identified when developing the inventory. Then the layer was
joined with the tabular data from this layer and harvest volume data produced in MBGTools for a series of modeled
prescriptions and assumed landscape-scale harvest intensities (Tables 3 and 4). In MBGTools, the appropriate FVS variant
for each stratum based on location information for the FIA plots was used to develop tree lists for each stratum. Tree lists
were modeled in 5-year timesteps and merchandized the results in each timestep into log size categories in Table (A-3).
Timber was merchandized into 16-foot logs, with 8-foot minimum logs. Initial results showed large changes in apparent
harvest levels due to the simplified prescriptions and lack of constraints on change in harvest level from period to period

35
in the model. As a result, the results were averaged across three time periods: 2023 through 2042, 2043 through 2062,
and 2063 through 2072. For reporting, results are provided by decade instead of by 5-year period. Additionally, for
reporting, the largest two log size classes were combined as were the smallest two size classes.

Table A-3. Log diameter specifications for merchandizing.

Log small end inside the
bark diameter (inches) Reporting group
24+ 2S and better
12-24 2S and better
8-12 3S
6-8 4S
5-6 4S

Landscape harvest intensity

A landscape harvest intensity was used to adjust harvest volumes produced in modeling to better reflect actual harvest
levels based on tax data. 34 Total annual harvest from 2014 to 2021 stayed within a narrow range from 1,400 to
1,650 MMbf. Total harvest appears relatively unaffected by the amount of salvage, likely due to salvage replacing non-
salvage harvest and not in addition to non-salvage harvests. This is consistent with the RPF interviews indicating that
industry infrastructure is a limiting factor to harvest, not available of harvestable timber.

Figure A-3. Timber harvest by year from public and private lands from counties within the project area.

1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
MMbf

800
600
400
200
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Year

Private Public

Different harvest intensities were used for different landowners or landowner groups, based on the following assumptions
about management by each of the landowners or owner groups:

• BLM: Managed at the same intensity as National Forest System lands. Wilderness areas and other reserves on
BLM lands are excluded from the analysis.

34
Available at: [Link]

36
• Local: No harvest on local lands. No data were available showing harvest rates on these lands, local ownership
constitutes less than 1% of the total forest area, so it is not a significant contributor of timber harvest volume.
• Private Forest Industry: Based on the survey of forest industry staff, intensity reflects only the estimated impacts
of riparian buffers, leave tree requirements, and other regulatory impacts. Lower intensity in mesic forest types
due to higher stream density and wider buffers due to larger buffers for salmon streams.
• Private (other): Based on the survey of RFPs, management by small forestland owners is limited by the cost of THP
preparation, lack of logging operators, lack of access to mills, and poor economic performance. Further, based on
data from Marcille (2019), non-industrial and tribal lands account for about 13% of the total harvest volume in
California. Harvest by small forestland owners is scaled to a low level, assuming that tribes have more active timber
management programs and to account for the limited volume production from these lands.
• State: An active harvest program on state lands in dry forest types, though with less intensity than private forest
industry lands but more intensity than federal lands, reflecting multiple management objectives. No harvest in
mesic forest types reflecting current limited harvest activity. As the large fires had little impact on state lands in
mesic forests, the impact of this assumption on the projections of lost timber harvest is negligible.
• Tribal: In this report tribal land refers only to reservation lands. These lands are managed at different levels of
intensity. This report assumes active harvest programs on tribal lands in dry and mesic forest types, that is less
intensity than private forest industry lands but more intensity than federal lands. As tribal lands as whole account
for a 0.6% of the total forest area in the analysis area and 0.3% of the total burned area, the volume of potential
future timber harvest from tribal lands is small.
• National Forest System: The intensity of harvest on National Forest System lands is scaled to reflect actual recent
harvest levels. Wilderness areas and other reserves, as well as lands more than a quarter mile from a road are
excluded from the analysis, based on input from USFS staff.

37
Appendix B: Additional Data Tables
Figure B-1. Forest and total burned acres by fire based on MTBS or RAVG data.
Fire name Forested acres burned Total acres burned
Antelope 107,885 147,679
August Complex 810,132 1,035,352
Caldor 187,289 225,149
Caldwell 15,015 81,602
Camp 56,601 68,907
Carr 169,368 223,264
Castle 129,539 171,653
Claremont 279,687 303,215
Creek 289,623 372,282
Delta 56,521 61,694
Dixie 786,922 973,065
Donnell 26,844 36,152
Ferguson 78,072 95,466
French 18,550 20,310
Glass 47,301 68,049
Gold 17,982 22,018
Haypress 170,211 202,911
Hennessey 54,685 133,754
Hirz 43,522 45,845
Kincade 41,055 77,076
Klamathon 10,962 35,839
KNP Complex 79,076 88,792
Lava 19,126 26,913
Lions 9,947 13,240
Loyalton 9,564 45,483
McCash 80,650 95,761
McFarland 49,705 75,966
Monument 201,878 225,529
Mountain View 5,083 11,957
Natchez 29,173 34,019
North 38 2,652
Ranch 250,078 423,020
Red Salmon Complex 126,645 148,308
River 23,646 48,919
Salt 12,093 12,823
Sheep 19,532 28,766
Slater 98,418 112,168
Slink 13,902 26,439
Stone 25,815 39,640
Sugar 62,348 108,334
Tamarack 32,437 55,794

38
 Fire name Forested acres burned Total acres burned
Tennant 9,580 11,612
Tucker 622 14,128
W-5 Cold Springs 14,915 70,197
Walker 41,676 54,333
Wallbridge 46,252 55,195
Whaleback 16,344 18,641
Windy 83,113 93,993
Zogg 11,130 18,990
Total 4,770,552 6,404,061
Table B-2. Forested area burned by severity and landowner, by year.
Severity
Moderate % of ownership’s
Year Ownership Low (ac) (ac) High (ac) Total forest burned
2018 BLM 21,000 31,000 22,000 75,000 8%
Other 6,100 11,000 20,000 38,000 4%
Federal
Private 64,000 68,000 51,000 183,000 2%
State and 2,300 1,400 700 4,300 1%
local
Tribal 2 10 57 69 0%
National 167,000 160,000 106,000 434,000 4%
Forest
2019 BLM 350 720 410 1,500 0%
Other 8 2 - 10 0%
Federal
Private 17,000 9,100 4,700 31,000 0%
State and 180 200 140 520 0%
local
Tribal 20 6 - 27 0%
National 16,000 10,000 8,000 34,000 0%
Forest
2020 BLM 15,000 17,000 12,000 44,000 5%
Other 9,900 6,000 2,000 17,000 2%
Federal
Private 107,000 111,000 134,000 353,000 4%
State and 8,800 9,400 6,000 24,200 6%
local
Tribal 2,100 640 310 3,060 2%
National 460,000 408,000 469,000 1,337,000 12%
Forest
2021 BLM 3,200 3,600 5,900 13,000 1%
Other 48,000 37,000 34,000 120,000 12%
Federal
Private 77,000 62,000 111,000 251,000 3%
State and 1,100 900 1,100 3,100 1%
local

39
 Tribal 7,200 5,400 2,500 15,000 11%
National 402,000 323,000 578,000 1,304,000 12%
Forest
Total 1,437,000 1,277,000 1,570,000 4,284,000
Table B-3. Percent forested area burned by severity and landowner, by year.
Severity
Year Ownership Low (ac) Moderate (ac) High (ac) Total
2018 BLM 28% 42% 30% 100%
Other Federal 16% 30% 54% 100%
Private 35% 37% 28% 100%
State and local 53% 32% 15% 100%
Tribal 3% 15% 83% 100%
National Forest 39% 37% 25% 100%
2019 BLM 24% 49% 28% 100%
Other Federal 82% 18% 0% 100%
Private 56% 29% 15% 100%
State and local 35% 38% 27% 100%
Tribal 77% 23% 0% 100%
National Forest 47% 31% 23% 100%
2020 BLM 34% 38% 27% 100%
Other Federal 57% 34% 10% 100%
Private 30% 32% 38% 100%
State and local 36% 39% 25% 100%
Tribal 69% 21% 10% 100%
National Forest 34% 30% 35% 100%
2021 BLM 25% 28% 47% 100%
Other Federal 40% 31% 29% 100%
Private 31% 25% 44% 100%
State and local 37% 28% 36% 100%
Tribal 48% 36% 17% 100%
National Forest 31% 25% 44% 100%
Total 34% 30% 37% 100%
Table B-4: Carbon volatilized from standing trees to the atmosphere by fire.
Carbon volatilized % of total carbon
Fire Name Year (metric tons, thousands) volatilized
Dixie 2021 7,725 18%
August Complex 2020 7,458 17%
Claremont 2020 3,583 8%
Creek 2020 2,420 6%
Caldor 2021 2,171 5%
Monument 2021 1,762 4%
Ranch 2018 1,751 4%
Haypress 2021 1,591 4%
Slater 2020 1,443 3%

40
 Carbon volatilized % of total carbon
Fire Name Year (metric tons, thousands) volatilized
Carr 2018 1,438 3%
Red Salmon Complex 2020 1,367 3%
Castle 2020 1,149 3%
Windy 2021 887 2%
Antelope 2021 807 2%
McCash 2021 729 2%
KNP Complex 2021 727 2%
Delta 2018 625 1%
Ferguson 2018 568 1%
Camp 2018 537 1%
McFarland 2021 507 1%
Wallbridge 2020 408 1%
Hirz 2018 398 1%
Natchez 2018 361 1%
Sugar 2021 359 1%
Glass 2020 334 1%
Walker 2019 283 1%
Hennessey 2020 255 1%
Kincade 2019 233 1%
Tamarack 2021 232 1%
Donnell 2018 227 1%
French 2021 179 0%
Sheep 2020 171 0%
River 2018 137 0%
Lava 2021 131 0%
Salt 2021 107 0%
Stone 2018 93 0%
Slink 2020 83 0%
Lions 2018 73 0%
Gold 2020 65 0%
W-5 Cold Springs 2020 60 0%
Zogg 2020 54 0%
Whaleback 2018 53 0%
Loyalton 2020 52 0%
Tennant 2021 49 0%
Caldwell 2020 45 0%
Klamathon 2018 36 0%
Mountain View 2020 12 0%
Tucker 2019 1 0%
Grand Total 43,735 100%

41
Table B-5. Area in high severity patches> 40 acres by fire.
Area of high severity % of total high severity
Fire name Fire year patches > 40 acres patches >40 acres area
Dixie 2021 196,965 29%
August Complex 2020 94,308 14%
Claremont 2020 68,265 10%
Caldor 2021 44,972 7%
Slater 2020 44,354 7%
Antelope 2021 32,710 5%
Sugar 2021 31,184 5%
Carr 2018 23,860 4%
Haypress 2021 23,054 3%
Tamarack 2021 10,833 2%
McFarland 2021 10,070 2%
Ranch 2018 10,029 2%
Creek 2020 9,811 1%
Delta 2018 9,745 1%
Lava 2021 7,389 1%
Monument 2021 7,356 1%
Windy 2021 6,598 1%
Red Salmon Complex 2020 4,537 1%
McCash 2021 3,930 1%
Castle 2020 2,919 0%
Donnell 2018 2,820 0%
Sheep 2020 2,570 0%
Glass 2020 2,354 0%
Tennant 2021 2,249 0%
French 2021 1,849 0%
Walker 2019 1,531 0%
Zogg 2020 1,519 0%
KNP Complex 2021 1,454 0%
Wallbridge 2020 1,253 0%
Loyalton 2020 1,194 0%
Caldwell 2020 943 0%
Kincade 2019 905 0%
Salt 2021 772 0%
Camp 2018 602 0%
Whaleback 2018 558 0%
Stone 2018 527 0%
Hennessey 2020 470 0%
Ferguson 2018 455 0%
Natchez 2018 442 0%
Hirz 2018 246 0%
Klamathon 2018 205 0%
River 2018 112 0%

42
 Area of high severity % of total high severity
Fire name Fire year patches > 40 acres patches >40 acres area
Slink 2020 99 0%
W-5 Cold Springs 2020 78 0%
Gold 2020 75 0%
Lions 2018 0 0%
Mountain View 2020 0 0%
Tucker 2019 0 0%
Total 668,170 100%
Table B-6. Volume loss by species and grade by decade.
Species and grade (MMbf/year)
Decade Douglas-fir 2S or better Douglas-fir 3S Douglas-fir 4S
2023-2032 46 13 2
2033-2042 46 13 2
2043-2052 25 13 3
2053-2062 25 13 3
2063-2072 40 16 3

Incense-cedar 2S or better Incense-cedar 3S Incense-cedar 4S

2023-2032 7 4 1
2033-2042 7 4 1
2043-2052 8 5 1
2053-2062 8 5 1
2063-2072 15 8 2

Mixed pine† 2S or better Mixed pine 3S Mixed pine 4S

2023-2032 31 6 1
2033-2042 31 6 1
2043-2052 28 9 2
2053-2062 28 9 2
2063-2072 44 11 2

Ponderosa pine 2S or better Ponderosa pine 3S Ponderosa pine 4S

2023-2032 16 4 1
2033-2042 16 4 1
2043-2052 17 7 1
2053-2062 17 7 1
2063-2072 24 9 2

Red fir 2S or better Red fir 3S Red fir 4S

2023-2032 9 2 1
2033-2042 9 2 1
2043-2052 9 4 1
2053-2062 9 4 1
2063-2072 9 3 1

Western redcedar 2S or better Western redcedar 3S Western redcedar 4S

2023-2032 0.3 0.1 0.0

43
 2033-2042 0.3 0.1 0.0
2043-2052 0.1 0.0 0.0
2053-2062 0.1 0.0 0.0
2063-2072 0.2 0.0 0.0

Whitewood‡ 2S or better Whitewood 3S Whitewood 4S

2023-2032 29 19 4
2033-2042 29 19 4
2043-2052 36 40 8
2053-2062 36 40 8
2063-2072 51 27 5
† Mixed pine includes Jeffery pine, lodgepole pine, sugar pine, and western white pine, depending on the region FVS
variant.
‡ Whitewood includes fir species, hemlock species, and spruce species.
Table B-7. Volume loss by county by decade.
County Decade Public (MMbf/yr) Private (MMbf/yr) Total (MMbf/yr)
Alpine 2023-2032 1.1 0.0 1.2
2033-2042 1.1 0.0 1.2
2043-2052 0.1 0.1 1.7
2053-2062 1.7 0.1 1.7
2063-2072 2.2 0.1 2.3
Amador 2023-2032 0.0 0.0 0.0
2033-2042 0.0 0.0 0.0
2043-2052 0.0 0.0 0.0
2053-2062 0.0 0.0 0.0
2063-2072 0.0 0.0 0.0
Butte 2023-2032 6.1 8.5 14.6
2033-2042 6.1 8.5 14.6
2043-2052 4.7 4.7 11.1
2053-2062 6.4 4.7 11.1
2063-2072 8.3 6.1 14.4
Colusa 2023-2032 0.3 0.0 0.3
2033-2042 0.3 0.0 0.3
2043-2052 0.0 0.0 0.7
2053-2062 0.7 0.0 0.7
2063-2072 0.8 0.0 0.9
Del Norte 2023-2032 1.3 0.6 1.9
2033-2042 1.3 0.6 1.9
2043-2052 0.3 0.3 1.8
2053-2062 1.5 0.3 1.8
2063-2072 1.7 0.4 2.0
El Dorado 2023-2032 12.9 2.9 15.8
2033-2042 12.9 2.9 15.8
2043-2052 2.7 2.7 13.7
2053-2062 11.0 2.7 13.7
2063-2072 16.4 3.5 19.9
Fresno 2023-2032 4.1 0.2 4.3
2033-2042 4.1 0.2 4.3
2043-2052 0.3 0.3 4.6

44
County Decade Public (MMbf/yr) Private (MMbf/yr) Total (MMbf/yr)
2053-2062 4.3 0.3 4.6
2063-2072 6.3 0.5 6.8
Glenn 2023-2032 3.0 0.1 3.1
2033-2042 3.0 0.1 3.1
2043-2052 0.1 0.1 6.2
2053-2062 6.1 0.1 6.2
2063-2072 6.5 0.1 6.6
Humboldt 2023-2032 0.7 0.0 0.7
2033-2042 0.7 0.0 0.7
2043-2052 0.0 0.0 1.5
2053-2062 1.5 0.0 1.5
2063-2072 1.4 0.0 1.4
Kern 2023-2032 0.7 0.0 0.7
2033-2042 0.7 0.0 0.7
2043-2052 0.0 0.0 0.8
2053-2062 0.8 0.0 0.8
2063-2072 1.2 0.0 1.2
Lake 2023-2032 2.6 0.3 2.8
2033-2042 2.6 0.3 2.8
2043-2052 0.5 0.5 5.9
2053-2062 5.4 0.5 5.9
2063-2072 6.4 0.6 7.0
Lassen 2023-2032 3.0 4.9 7.9
2033-2042 3.0 4.9 7.9
2043-2052 2.9 2.9 7.2
2053-2062 4.4 2.9 7.2
2063-2072 5.7 4.3 10.0
Madera 2023-2032 4.9 0.0 4.9
2033-2042 4.9 0.0 4.9
2043-2052 0.0 0.0 6.2
2053-2062 6.2 0.0 6.2
2063-2072 9.0 0.0 9.0
Mariposa 2023-2032 1.4 0.0 1.5
2033-2042 1.4 0.0 1.5
2043-2052 0.0 0.0 1.9
2053-2062 1.8 0.0 1.9
2063-2072 2.6 0.1 2.7
Mendocino 2023-2032 2.9 0.5 3.4
2033-2042 2.9 0.5 3.4
2043-2052 0.4 0.4 6.3
2053-2062 5.9 0.4 6.3
2063-2072 5.7 0.5 6.2
Modoc 2023-2032 0.1 0.0 0.1
2033-2042 0.1 0.0 0.1
2043-2052 0.0 0.0 0.3
2053-2062 0.3 0.0 0.3
2063-2072 0.5 0.0 0.5
Mono 2023-2032 0.0 0.0 0.0
2033-2042 0.0 0.0 0.0

45
County Decade Public (MMbf/yr) Private (MMbf/yr) Total (MMbf/yr)
2043-2052 0.0 0.0 0.0
2053-2062 0.0 0.0 0.0
2063-2072 0.1 0.0 0.1
Napa 2023-2032 0.0 0.2 0.2
2033-2042 0.0 0.2 0.2
2043-2052 0.4 0.4 0.4
2053-2062 0.0 0.4 0.4
2063-2072 0.0 0.5 0.6
Plumas 2023-2032 29.8 22.4 52.2
2033-2042 29.8 22.4 52.2
2043-2052 13.8 13.8 57.0
2053-2062 43.2 13.8 57.0
2063-2072 52.8 17.5 70.3
Shasta 2023-2032 3.5 4.5 8.0
2033-2042 3.5 4.5 8.0
2043-2052 3.6 3.6 9.9
2053-2062 6.3 3.6 9.9
2063-2072 7.0 4.7 11.7
Sierra 2023-2032 0.0 0.1 0.1
2033-2042 0.0 0.1 0.1
2043-2052 0.1 0.1 0.1
2053-2062 0.1 0.1 0.1
2063-2072 0.1 0.1 0.2
Siskiyou 2023-2032 12.9 1.1 13.9
2033-2042 12.9 1.1 13.9
2043-2052 1.0 1.0 19.4
2053-2062 18.4 1.0 19.4
2063-2072 21.8 1.7 23.5
Sonoma 2023-2032 0.0 0.4 0.4
2033-2042 0.0 0.4 0.4
2043-2052 0.7 0.7 0.7
2053-2062 0.0 0.7 0.7
2063-2072 0.0 0.8 0.8
Tehama 2023-2032 4.6 5.2 9.8
2033-2042 4.6 5.2 9.8
2043-2052 2.4 2.4 9.8
2053-2062 7.4 2.4 9.8
2063-2072 8.2 3.4 11.6
Trinity 2023-2032 20.6 2.6 23.2
2033-2042 20.6 2.6 23.2
2043-2052 2.0 2.0 30.3
2053-2062 28.3 2.0 30.3
2063-2072 33.1 2.8 35.9
Tulare 2023-2032 12.3 2.0 14.3
2033-2042 12.3 2.0 14.3
2043-2052 1.0 1.0 10.3
2053-2062 9.3 1.0 10.3
2063-2072 13.8 1.7 15.5
Tuolumne 2023-2032 1.0 0.0 1.0

46
County Decade Public (MMbf/yr) Private (MMbf/yr) Total (MMbf/yr)
2033-2042 1.0 0.0 1.0
2043-2052 0.0 0.0 1.0
2053-2062 1.0 0.0 1.0
2063-2072 1.4 0.0 1.4

47
Appendix C: Landowner Survey
Questions – Private landowners
1) Demographic information
a. Type of landowner
i. Family/individual
ii. Industrial
iii. Other (e.g. consulting forester)
b. Where are the lands you own or manage located (North Coast, North Interior, North Sierra, Central
Sierra, South Sierra, Great Basin)?
c. What is the primary species or species mix on the lands you own or manage?
d. How many acres do you own or manage?
e. How many acres of the lands you own or manage were burned severely enough to change previously
anticipated management?

2) What are the management objectives for your forest lands?

3) What are your management objectives in areas burned in large fires (e.g.; restore/retain access, timber
production, erosion control, maintain water quality, carbon credits)?

4) How have the fires affected:

a. Planned harvest levels over the next 10 years
b. Road infrastructure
c. Silviculture plans
d. Investments to maintain current infrastructure on existing lands in California
e. Investments in new infrastructure on existing lands in California
f. Purchase of additional lands in California

5) When a stand is partially damaged by a fire, how do you decide what management actions to take?

6) Is there a burn area threshold below which do you not consider salvage? If so, what percent of the stand needs
to burn to consider salvage (e.g., if below a quarter of the stand is burned, no salvage is conducted)?

7) For areas not salvaged, is there a burn area threshold below which do you not consider reforestation? If so,
what percent of the stand needs to burn to consider reforestation (e.g., if below a quarter of the stand is burned,
no salvage is conducted)?

8) How do larger fires affect your long-term forest management planning?

9) What resources helped you most in making decisions about responding to the wildfire(s) that affected lands
you own or manage?

10) What resources did you need that you were unable to access in a timely manner after wildfire(s) occurred?

48
Additional questions for forest industry land managers
1) What are typical harvest prescriptions used by other large private land landowners in your area?
a. The response should note even or uneven-aged management, timing, and intensity of removal.
2) What are factors that limit the area of harvest in your area (e.g., riparian buffers, potentially unstable slopes
etc.)?
3) In general, for other large landowners in your area, roughly how much area is unavailable for harvest in due to
these factors?

Additional question for federal land managers

1) How many acres that burned would have likely been harvested over the next 50 years?

49
Appendix D: Maps

50
Map 1

51
 Map 2

Forested Land Inside

Project Area

52
Map 3

53
Map 4

54
Map 5

55
Map 6

56
Map 7

57
Map 8

58
 Fremont
Steens
Map 9
National Forest
Mountain
Cooperative
Management
and Protection
Area

Sheldon
National Wildlife Fort McDer
Refuge Indian
Reservatio

Black Rock
Desert I High
Rock Canyon

City

Nevad

Modesto
0

l
Tonopah
0

•
\
Fresno Nellis Air Fo
0 Range

Visalia Nevada Natio

C Security Site

Bakers fie
0 Nava/Air
�
Garmin, FbQ����mYSGS, Bureau of Land
Lake Management, EPA, NPS

MASON
Timber Value Areas (TVA) [Link]J Project Area
BRUCE&
Inside Project Area GIRARD
N

A
This product is for informational purposes only
C]TVA and may not be suftable for legal, engineering,
or surveying purposes. lnfonmation is provided
0 45 90 180 Kilometers with the understanding that conclusions drawn

I I
I
I
I
II I
I
I
I
c=J CA State Boundary are the responsibility of the user.

Basemap: ESRI World Terrain

0 30 60 120 Miles Coordinate System: NAD83, UTM Zone 10N
Date Exported: 8/3012023 7:36 AM 59
 Map 10

Land Use Allocation Inside Project Area

60
 Map 11

High Hazard Zones Inside

Project Area

61
Map 12

62
Map 13

63
Map 14

64
Map 15

65
Map 16

66
 Map 17

Vegetation Zones Inside

Project Area

67
 Map 18

High Severity Patches in Large Fires in Project Area

MASON
BRUCE&
[Link]J Project Area GIRARD
N 1111 High Severity Patches
This product is for informational purposes only

A
and may not be suftable for legal, engineering,
0 25 50 100 Kilometers
I
or surveying purposes. lnfonmation is provided
I
II II I II
with the understanding that conclusions drawn
I are the responsibility of the user.

0 30 60 120 Miles Large Fires Basemap: ESRI World Terrain

Coordinate System: NAD83, UTM Zone 10N
Date Exported: 7/3112023 12: 19 PM 68