Recommended Actions & Key Findings

Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings Following the CZU Lightning Complex Fire Big Basin, Año Nuevo, and Butano State Parks FEBRUARY 2023

Prepared for: California State Parks Santa Cruz District

Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings Following the CZU Lightning Complex Fire Big Basin, Año Nuevo, and Butano State Parks Prepared for:

California State Parks Santa Cruz District Contact: Tim Hyland – Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) – tim.hyland@parks.ca.gov Portia Halbert – Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) – portia.halbert@parks.ca.gov Ashley Weil – Staff Services Analyst – ashley.weil@parks.ca.gov

In Collaboration With:

Save The Redwoods League Contact: Ben Blom – Director of Stewardship and Restoration – bblom@savetheredwoods.org

Prepared by:

Auten Resource Consulting Contact: Shelby Kranich – Assistant Forester III – shelby.kranich.arc@gmail.com Steve R. Auten – Registered Professional Forester #2734 – steve.auten.arc@gmail.com David Van Lennep – Registered Professional Forester #2591 – david.vanlennep.arc@gmail.com

Table of Contents List of Abbreviations & Acronyms ................................................................................................ iv Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................v I.

Purpose & Goals ..................................................................................................................... 1

II.

Prioritized Recommended Actions ....................................................................................... 3 Big Basin Redwoods State Park ................................................................................................ 5 1.

Headquarters and Lower 236 - FHFR, RS, PF ................................................................ 5

2.

Lodge Road - Demonstration Project - FHFR, FDR/LTR, PF, HAZ ................................. 5

3.

Sky Meadow – FHFR, PF, HAZ ......................................................................................... 6

4.

Little Basin Campground & Western Little Basin – FHFR, FDR/LTR, PF, HAZ.............. 6

5.

Johansen, Upper China Grade, & North Escape – FHFR, FDR/LTR, PF, HAZ ............... 6

Año Nuevo State Park ................................................................................................................ 7 1.

Chalks Mountain Fire Road - Grassland Restoration - FHFR, PF, HAZ ........................ 7

2.

Old Woman’s Creek Ridge – FHFR, HAZ ........................................................................ 7

Butano State Park ...................................................................................................................... 8 1.

Approved CalVTP PSA/Addendum – FHFR, PF, HAZ ..................................................... 8

III.

Treatment Unit Maps ....................................................................................................... 10

IV.

Setting ................................................................................................................................ 14

V.

Field Investigation Methodology ......................................................................................... 18 Subwatershed Stand Examination ......................................................................................... 20 Forest Type and Site Quality................................................................................................ 21 Recent Wildfire Burn Information ....................................................................................... 21 Plot Photos ............................................................................................................................ 22 Tree Count ............................................................................................................................ 22 Tree Measurements ............................................................................................................. 22 Radial Growth Measurements ............................................................................................ 23 Understory Vegetation......................................................................................................... 23 Subwatershed Restoration Priority Level .............................................................................. 23 Impaired Forest Class Condition (IFCC) .............................................................................. 23 Criteria................................................................................................................................... 24 Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 24 Field Verification....................................................................................................................... 26

VI.

Assessment Results & Discussion ................................................................................... 28

Subwatershed Stand Examination ......................................................................................... 28 BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| i

Tree Mortality Trends .......................................................................................................... 30 Evidence of Fire Patterns ..................................................................................................... 46 Subwatershed Restoration Priority Level .............................................................................. 50 VII.

Treatment Unit & Prescription Development ................................................................ 57

Pre-field Treatment Area Delineation .................................................................................... 57 Treatment Area Field Verification ........................................................................................... 57 Post-field Treatment Area Prioritization ................................................................................ 58 VIII.

Prioritized Treatment Unit Descriptions ......................................................................... 60

Big Basin Redwoods State Park .............................................................................................. 61 1.

Headquarters and Lower 236 – FHFR, RS, PF ............................................................. 61

2.

Lodge Road – Demonstration Project – FHFR, FDR/LTR, PF, HAZ.............................. 65

3.

Sky Meadow – FHFR, PF, HAZ ....................................................................................... 71

4.

Little Basin Campground & Western Little Basin – FHFR, FDR/LTR, PF, HAZ............ 74

5.

Johansen, Upper China Grade, & North Escape – FHFR, FDR/LTR, PF, HAZ ............. 77

Año Nuevo State Park .............................................................................................................. 81 1.

Chalks Mountain Fire Road – Grassland Restoration – FHFR, PF, HAZ ..................... 81

2.

Old Woman’s Creek Ridge – FHFR, HAZ ...................................................................... 85

Butano State Park .................................................................................................................... 88 1.

Approved CalVTP PSA/Addendum – FHFR, PF, HAZ ................................................... 88

IX. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 91 Summary of Key Findings ........................................................................................................ 91 X.

List of Maps........................................................................................................................... 94 Map 1 – Big Basin Redwoods State Park Prioritized Treatment Units ................................. 95 Map 2 – Año Nuevo State Park Prioritized Treatment Unit .................................................. 96 Map 3 – Butano State Park Forest Health Project – CalVTP PSA/Addendum Treatment Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 97 Map 4 – CZU Fire Burn Severity ............................................................................................... 98 Map 5 – Visited Subwatersheds .............................................................................................. 99 Map 6 – Field Verification Point Coverage ............................................................................ 100 Map 7 – Subwatershed RPL Criteria Scores ......................................................................... 101 Map 8 – Subwatershed RPL Fire Resiliency Scores .............................................................. 102 Map 9 – Subwatershed RPL Marbled Murrelet Habitat Suitability Scores ........................ 103 Map 10 – Field Verified Treatment Areas ............................................................................. 104 Map 11 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – Headquarters & Lower 236 ................................ 105 Map 12 –Prioritized Treatment Areas – Lodge Road ........................................................... 106 BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| ii

Map 13 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – Sky Meadow ......................................................... 107 Map 14 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – Little Basin Campground & Western Little Basin ................................................................................................................................................. 108 Map 15 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – Upper China Grade & North Escape Route ....... 109 Map 16 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – West Johansen ..................................................... 110 Map 17 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – Chalks Mountain Fire Road ................................ 111 Map 18 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – Old Woman’s Creek Ridge .................................. 112 XI.

List of Preparers ............................................................................................................. 113

XII.

References....................................................................................................................... 114

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| iii

List of Abbreviations & Acronyms ANSP ARC BA BBRSP BSP CAL FIRE CalVTP CCI CEQA CNPS CZU CZU Fire DBH FDR FHFR FHG FR FRI FTP FVS GIS HAZ HW IFCC IS LTR MMHS OGG OGRW PA PSA PWG RPF RPL RW SIP SOD State Parks STRL TA TPA WLPZ

Año Nuevo State Park Auten Resource Consulting Basal Area Big Basin Redwoods State Park Butano State Park California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection California Vegetation Treatment Program California Climate Investments California Environmental Quality Act California Native Plant Society San Mateo Santa Cruz Unit August 2020 CZU Lightning Complex Fire Diameter at Breast Height Forest Density Reduction Forest Health Fuel Reduction Forest Health Grant Fire Resiliency Fire Return Interval Forest Trend Plot Forest Vegetation Simulator Geographic Information Systems Hazard Hardwood Impaired Forest Class Condition Invasive Species Large Tree Restoration Marbled Murrelet Habitat Suitability Old Growth Redwood Forest Goals Old Growth Redwood Public Access Project Specific Analysis Park-wide Vegetation and Forest Management Goals Registered Professional Forester Restoration Priority Level Redwood Sediment Input Potential Sudden Oak Death California State Parks Santa Cruz District Save the Redwoods League Treatment Access Trees Per Acre Watercourse & Lake Protection Zone BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| iv

Executive Summary Many areas within the Santa Cruz Mountains have been affected by prolonged and extensive drought, intensive land use and development, wildfire suppression, forest pathogens, and climate change. Forest ecosystems, as a result, have developed functional and structural impairments to their native conditions that often perpetuate a decline in forest health and resilience. As stated in the Save the Redwoods League, 2018 State of Redwoods Conservation Report – A Tale of Two Forests: “Today, 88 percent of the coast redwood ecosystem is burning moderately to significantly less frequently than prior to European settlement. With wildfire frequency predicted to increase with climate change and significant fuels accumulation in the forest today, the ecosystem is vulnerable to severe fire damage.”1 A combination of these forest impairments produced conditions conducive to extreme fire behavior throughout Big Basin Redwoods State Park (BBRSP), Año Nuevo State Park (ANSP), and Butano State Park (BSP) during the 2020 CZU Lightning Complex Fire (CZU Fire) that resulted in “severe fire damage” and burned approximately 24,230 acres total in the three parks. The CZU Fire defined a new, unprecedented disturbance event in the Santa Cruz Mountains, leaving behind variable post-fire conditions and setting the stage for conversations around changing disturbance regimes and dynamic ecosystem resilience.

California State Parks has stated at all administrative and resource management levels that inaction following this event is not an option.

The CZU Fire presented the opportunity and impetus to analyze and monitor post-fire forest trends across BBRSP, ANSP, and BSP as they pertain to forest types, burn severities, and position on slope, among several other factors, and to design site-specific treatments that work to “improve the conditions of forestlands on BBRSP, ANSP, and BSP by conducting ecologically restorative treatments that increase resilience, biological diversity, and reduce the severity of future wildfire”.

Recommended management actions in the parks also consider this statement made in the Save the Redwoods League 2018 State of Redwoods Conservation Report: “In the redwood forest ecosystems, restoration is critical for protecting remaining old-growth forests and encouraging the next generation of old-growth forests to capture and store more greenhouse gases and improve other important ecosystem services, including water filtration, biodiversity, and public enjoyment of open space.

To achieve this requires using science-based forestry techniques to accelerate the

1 “State of Redwoods Conservation Report – A Tale of Two Forests” Save the Redwoods League. 2018. Page 25 and 42. https://www.savetheredwoods.org/wp-content/uploads/State-of-Redwoods-Conservation-Report-Final-web.pdf

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| v

growth of small trees in overly dense and stunted logged forests, encouraging the development of habitat qualities that sustain biodiversity; and investing in the recovery of a natural fire regime, impaired streams, and habitats affected by roads, development, and agriculture. There is substantial need to advance such restoration activities on public lands, yet especially in the coast redwood ecosystem,...”

In 2021, Auten Resource Consulting (ARC), partnered with California State Parks Santa Cruz District (State Parks) and Save the Redwoods League (STRL), conducted a once in a lifetime post-fire field investigation, including Forest Trend Plot (FTP) monitoring and Restoration Priority Level (RPL) analyses, to examine forest health and evaluate post-fire resilience in BBRSP, ANSP, and BSP. These expansive efforts served to aid in the development of a prioritized set of proposed forest management treatments that consider and execute the State Park goals further outlined in the Purpose & Goals section of this document. A greater expanse of secondary treatments will be developed and outlined in the forest management strategy document that is to follow this report.

The data collected provides a snapshot in time of post-fire conditions across BBRSP, ANSP, and BSP properties and various forest types. The FTP and RPL analyses captured forest conditions that will continue to evolve as the forest stands proceed through the various stages of post-fire succession. The post-fire dataset is valuable for monitoring trends in similar forest types across the CZU Fire footprint and Santa Cruz Mountains and corroborates the in-field observations that were collected by 4 Registered Professional Foresters, 5 Assistant Foresters, and 3 Forestry Technicians sampling 264, 1/5th acre fixed plots over 10 months in the three parks.

The four main post-fire data key findings are: Mortality Trends ➢ Fewer trees per acre (TPA) and larger diameter trees indicate increased tree resilience to wildfire. ➢ High TPA in smaller diameter trees (less than or equal to 12-inches) indicate increased susceptibility to tree mortality, including tree mortality in a component of larger diameter trees. ➢ Higher severity burns experience increased tree mortality across all forest types and all diameters. These areas, among other burn severities, include a significant regenerative basal sprouting response from coastal coppice sprouting species.

Fire Patterns ➢ Comparing this study with similar fire-dating studies in the Santa Cruz Mountains suggests that there may have been a large-scale high severity fire between the 1670’s and 1680’s that has since been followed by a mosaic pattern of smaller-scale fires up until the CZU Fire in 2020.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| vi

The data trends summarized from the analysis of 264 FTPs provide a rationale for actively managing these forests: In the face of more frequent fires, there is a need to increase forest stands’ resilience to wildfire and reduce the risk of higher burn severities. ➢ To achieve increased stand resilience to wildfire, the post-fire mortality data in this report suggests that treatments need to be implemented that promote the growth of larger diameter trees, reduce the stand density, and reduce the connectivity of ladder fuels into overstory canopies. Treatment activities should utilize mechanized equipment, manual treatments, prescribed burning, and strategic and limited use of herbicide on invasive species. ➢ Professional observations and FTP data indicate that the lack of frequent low severity fires and disturbance regimes resulted in a high accumulation of ground fuels, duff, and ladder fuels, including the encroachment of Douglas-fir in the understory, that carried fire into the canopies of many trees, influencing fire behavior and increasing stand susceptibility to post-fire damage and mortality in all forest types across all diameters, including redwood dominated forests and the loss of valued old growth trees and marbled murrelet habitat. ➢ In areas of high mortality, the rapid growth of regenerative sprouts, Ceanothus spp. and other shrubs, paired with the inevitable accumulation of downed dead-standing trees exacerbates the risk of extreme fire conditions and is seemingly setting itself up to burn again in the near future. Subjecting forest stands to repeated high severity fires will cause the stands to convert to different vegetation types over time. Without proactive forest restoration treatments, upcoming extreme fire behavior paired with changing climate will be a threat to old growth forests.

This document provides professional recommendations and prioritized actions for consideration at the forefront, followed by a discussion of findings and vegetative treatment prescription rationale in later sections. The recommended prioritized actions should be promptly considered for implementation and permitting. The implementation of forest management treatments should consider that forest restoration is a long-term process that requires dedication to a focused and strategic effort – it took over 100 years for this forest system to develop its existing impairments and it will likely take this amount of time, or more, to restore the ecosystem’s optimum function and health.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| vii

I.

Purpose & Goals

The purpose of this report is to summarize the key findings from conducting post-CZU Fire Forest Trend Plot (FTP) monitoring and Subwatershed Restoration Priority Level (RPL) analyses which will support and guide California State Parks Santa Cruz District’s (State Parks) efforts to actively manage and improve forestlands on Big Basin Redwoods State Park (BBRSP), Año Nuevo State Park (ANSP), and Butano State Park (BSP). These efforts will focus on conducting ecologically restorative treatments that increase resilience, biological diversity, and reduce the severity of future wildfire.

The intent is to utilize this report to outline and identify high priority areas for immediate treatment that can be implemented through applicable permitting and be included in the development of a long-term forest management strategy document for BBRSP, ANSP, and BSP (BSP permit complete) that aligns with State Parks forest and vegetation management goals.

The high priority treatment areas presented in this report establish an achievable and permittable forest management treatment area foundation for State Parks to begin implementation through a balance of restorative treatments and reintroducing visitors back to the greater areas of the park following the CZU Fire. In addition to the prioritized treatment areas provided in this report, a subsequent long-term forest management strategy document is in development that includes the secondary treatment areas evaluated during field analysis, treatment units that build on prioritized and secondary units, prescribed burning units, and road side treatments, all of which that increase the overall treatment area connectivity and provide State Parks with an array of forest management opportunities to be implemented as feasible.

State Parks forest management goals are as follows: Park-wide Vegetation and Forest Management Goals (PWG) • • •

•

PWG 1: Manage vegetation at BBRSP, ANSP, BSP so that it supports a richness of native species.

PWG 2: Maintain or enhance habitat for extant populations of CNPS state or federallylisted species at BBRSP, ANSP, BSP. PWG 3: Maintain flooding, tidal flows, and other disturbance regimes, including fire, that support sustainable populations of most of the species present at BBRSP, ANSP, BSP. PWG 4: Detect new infestations of exotic species while still small and eliminate them where feasible.

Old Growth Redwood Forest Goals (OGG) •

OGG 1: Maintain the current extent and complexity of old growth redwood forest.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 1

•

• • •

OGG 2: Increase connectivity of large diameter forest stands and old growth forest characteristics by managing adjacent redwood stands to enhance old growth characteristics.

OGG 3: Reduce fuel load and vertical continuity of fuels to minimize the probability of stand replacing wildfire.

OGG 4: To the extent possible, approximate the prehistoric burn regime of this forest type.

OGG 5: Maintain the existing suite of herbaceous understory species.

This report focuses on management within forested areas where various types of vegetative and forest stewardship techniques can be applied to achieve State Parks forest management goals. For instance, the site-specific treatment prescriptions outlined in this report include the reduction of understory vegetation and small diameter trees to reduce fuel loads, increase biodiversity, and promote the health and composition of Old Growth Redwood forests, and the selective reduction of mid-range diameter trees in second growth redwood stands to promote the growth of residual trees, improve habitat function, reduce fuels, and create greater connectivity of larger trees across the landscape. Other forms of stewardship, like prescribed fire and roadside treatments, are outlined in this report to be implemented in conjunction with the understory and mid-range diameter treatments to further increase stand resilience, promote biodiversity, and reduce fuel loads. These stewardship techniques are primarily resilience-focused, but hazard tree treatments are also included to establish a balance of post-fire restoration and reintroducing visitors to greater areas of the parks.

Additional goals were achieved during field analysis and subwatershed evaluations which identified exotic species and/or disease infestations, collected fire history data to estimate fire and disturbance regimes, and identified areas that should be monitored or managed for disturbance.

Site-specific treatment prescriptions are outlined in the Prioritized Recommended Actions and the Prioritized Treatment Unit Description sections of this report. This report, associated recommendations, key findings, and goals are specific to BBRSP, ANSP, and BSP.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 2

II.

Prioritized Recommended Actions

Below is a list of prioritized recommended actions and treatments to be implemented in BBBRSP, ANSP, and BSP. These actions should be considered in any future budgeting and planning efforts, including the development of long-term forest management strategy document and ongoing discussions regarding permitting paths.

The following recommendations were developed by conducting a parks-wide, post-CZU Fire Subwatershed Restoration Priority Level (RPL) assessment that involved extensive field verification and collaborative efforts between project partners. The resulting site-specific recommendations incorporate resilience-focused stewardship techniques such as Forest Health Fuels Reduction (FHFR), Forest Density Reduction/Large Tree Restoration (FDR/LTR), and/or prescribed fire (PF) treatments. Treatments that reduce hazardous (HAZ) conditions are also included in the site-specific recommended actions below. Roadside (RS) treatments are not delineated in this report but should be considered along major roads and trails to create opportunities to establish greater connectivity between treatment areas.

FHFR understory treatments focus on treating dead and dying trees and live trees (less than 16 inches in diameter) to reduce fuel loading and establish a form of shaded fuel break that can be utilized in PF treatments and wildfire suppression.

Treatments reduce density and connectivity in the understory while retaining a mosaic of understory vegetation by considering specific retentions for shrubland, snags, herbaceous vegetation, and hydrophytic species. Understory treatments will decrease competition for available resources, like sunlight, water, and nutrients, resulting in a greater allocation of resources for the residual stand, ultimately promoting the growth of larger diameter trees over time, while increasing resilience, biological diversity, and reducing the severity of future wildfire.

FDR/LTR treatments will reduce stand density, connectivity, and competition for resources, further increasing the health and vigor of the residual stand through the removal of dense small diameter and mid-range diameter second growth redwoods, promoting the development of large diameter forest stands, increasing the opportunity for old growth characteristics to develop in these stands over time, while increasing resilience, biological diversity, and reducing the severity of future wildfire.

PF treatments can be expected to occur in many areas of the parks and these units will likely employ both pile and burn and broadcast burn methods to increase resilience, biological diversity, and reduce the severity of future wildfire. These details and unit boundaries will continue to be developed and be added to the longterm forest management strategy and permitting.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 3

HAZ treatments will include the use of mechanized and handwork equipment to remove hazardous trees from high use areas around the park.

RS treatments focus on treating dead and dying trees of any size within 50 feet of the road or trail edge and reducing fuel loading of live trees (less than 16 inches in diameter) and shrubs within 25 feet of the road edge. RS treatments should be expanded beyond 25 feet in adjacent areas accessible by mechanical equipment.

The implementation of RS treatments along major roads and trails improves visibility along road corridors, reduces fuels along potential ignition sources, and creates opportunities to establish linkages between treatment units throughout the parks.

Table 1: Prioritized Treatment Acreage by Park

The set of prioritized field verified treatment areas in BBRSP (~571.9 acres of 1,208.9 acres) establishes an achievable forest management foundation for State Parks to reference and build upon to increase forest management connectivity as funding and permitting mechanisms become tangible (Table 1). A total of 1208.9 acres, or approximately 6.6% of the BBRSP property, of feasible treatment units (priority units and secondary units) in BBRSP were field verified and can be considered for inclusion in a long-term forest management strategy or for implementation to increase connectivity (Map 10 – Field Verified Treatment Areas).

This section lists general descriptions of the prioritized recommended actions; further rationale for these treatments is explained and justified under the Prioritized Treatment Unit Descriptions section of this report. It should be noted that the priority treatment units may expand in size during permitting where there are opportunities to further develop connectivity through manual treatments that are not limited by slope, prescribed burn units, RS treatments and implementing the secondary field verified treatment areas.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 4

Big Basin Redwoods State Park 1. Headquarters and Lower 236 - FHFR, RS, PF Purpose

1. Increase Old Growth Redwood (OGRW) resilience, improve habitat value, and increase understory biodiversity through the reduction of fuels and dead standing Douglas-fir or hardwoods – supports PWG 1, PWG 2, PWG 3, OGG 1, OGG 2, OGG 3, and OGG 5.

2. Maintain reduced fuel loads along the Highway 236 entrance corridor and increase infrastructure protection – supports OGG 3.

3. Demonstrate OGRW understory management and prescribed fire to park visitors - supports PWG 1, PWG 2, PWG 3, and OGG 3.

Treatments

Approximately 137.3 acres have been field verified and are delineated for treatment in the Headquarters and Lower 236 units (Map 1 – BBRSP Prioritized Treatment Units). Treatments should include understory FHFR in OGRW stands. Pile and burn or broadcast burning should be conducted with consideration to infrastructure.

Routine roadside FHFR treatments should be conducted along the Highway 236 corridor from the southern entrance to Headquarters. Although HAZ treatments have already been conducted in these locations, predominantly focused on public safety as BBRSP re-opened, routine hazard tree evaluations should continue as the forest proceeds through the stages of succession and conditions change.

2. Lodge Road - Demonstration Project - FHFR, FDR/LTR, PF, HAZ Purpose

1. Forward State Parks Santa Cruz District’s mission of actively managing forests to improve post-fire ecosystem resilience – supports PWG 1 and PWG 3.

2. Demonstrate variable vegetation and forest management prescriptions and treatment activities in redwood forest type with post-fire conditions similar to those throughout BBRSP – supports PWG 1, PWG 2, PWG 3, and OGG 2.

3. Identify a control area to monitor forest conditions over time following treatments.

Treatments

Approximately 96.7 acres have been field verified and are delineated for treatment in this unit (Map 1 – BBRSP Prioritized Treatment Units). Subunit delineation will require further field-analysis to determine precise boundaries for the application of treatment prescriptions described in Prioritized Treatment Unit Descriptions.

Treatments should include a combination of FDR/LTR, FHFR, and PF treatments that are assigned to four sub-units and reflect existing stand conditions.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 5

3. Sky Meadow – FHFR, PF, HAZ Purpose

1. Increase OGRW resilience, improve habitat value, increase understory biodiversity, and maintain a mosaic of vegetative and forested communities – supports PWG 1, PWG 2, PWG 3, OGG 1, OGG 2, OGG 3, and OGG 5.

2. Further reduce hazards around existing and future camping areas to increase infrastructure protection.

3. Establish and maintain a shaded fuel break that promotes a diverse understory – supports PWG 1 and OGG 3.

Treatments

Approximately 82.5 acres have been field verified and are delineated for treatment in this unit (Map 1 – BBRSP Prioritized Treatment Units). Treatments should include a combination of HAZ, FHFR, pile and burn and/or broadcast burning. HAZ treatments should prioritize areas that are slated for campsites or adjacent recreational use areas under the Reimagining Big Basin efforts. Understory FHFR treatments should occur routinely in proximity to existing and future infrastructure.

Prescribed burning should be conducted in combination with the FHFR and HAZ treatments described above.

4. Little Basin Campground & Western Little Basin – FHFR, FDR/LTR, PF, HAZ Purpose

1. Promote the growth of redwoods and increase biodiversity – supports PWG 1, PWG 2, PWG 3, OGG 1, OGG 2, and OGG 3.

2. Reduce hazards around existing and future camping areas to increase infrastructure protection.

3. Establish a roadside shaded fuel break and an alternative escape route that connects to Headquarters – supports PWG 3.

Treatments

Approximately 89.6 acres have been field verified and are delineated for treatment in the Little Basin Campground and Western Little Basin units (Map 1 – BBRSP Prioritized Treatment Units). Treatments should include FDR/LTR, FHFR, HAZ, and pile and burning. The post-fire campground closure has created an opportunity to conduct FDR/LTR treatments in proximity to existing campground infrastructure in combination with FHFR. HAZ treatments should prioritize areas that are slated for campsites or adjacent recreational use areas under the Reimagining Big Basin.

5. Johansen, Upper China Grade, & North Escape – FHFR, FDR/LTR, PF, HAZ Purpose

1. Establish and maintain the bounds of prescribed burn units - supports PWG 3.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 6

2. Establish and maintain a roadside shaded fuel break along a strategic ridgeline to support managing fire - supports PWG 3.

3. Promote the growth of redwoods and increase biodiversity supports PWG 1 and OGG 2.

4. Increase landscape-level connectivity to actively managed forests - supports OGG 2.

Treatments

Approximately 165.8 acres have been field verified and are delineated for treatment in the West Johansen, Upper China Grade, and North Escape Route Units (Map 1 – BBRSP Prioritized Treatment Units). Treatments should include FHFR and HAZ along the property boundary, upper ridges of the major watersheds, and interior ridgeline (North Escape Route Unit). FHFR treatments should focus on establishing and maintaining a shaded fuel break that can be utilized in PF treatments and the ability to manage wildfire. HAZ treatments should be implemented within 50 feet of the road-edge.

Año Nuevo State Park 1. Chalks Mountain Fire Road - Grassland Restoration - FHFR, PF, HAZ Purpose

1. Restore a native grassland that has been encroached by Douglas-fir – supports PWG 1 and PWG 2.

2. Reduce the future fire hazard where Douglas-fir stands that experienced high mortality will result in the accumulation of large, downed fuels and shrubs such as Ceanothus spp. – supports PWG 3.

Treatments

Approximately 22.6 acres are delineated for treatment in this unit B (Map 2 – ANSP Prioritized Treatment Units). Treatments should include a combination of FHFR, HAZ, and pile and burn or broadcast burning. FHFR and HAZ treatments should be focused on reducing Douglas-fir and shrub encroachment on the forest edge.

Additionally, FHFR and HAZ should be implemented along roads and within the interior unit to reduce understory shrubs and remove dead biomass. Prescribed burning can be utilized to further encourage grassland restoration.

2. Old Woman’s Creek Ridge – FHFR, HAZ Purpose

1. Reduce competition and density to increase understory biodiversity – supports PWG 1 and PWG 2.

2. Establish a shaded fuel break along a large, forested ridgeline to create an opportunity to manage fire – supports PWG 3.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 7

Treatments

Approximately 57.9 acres are delineated for treatment in this unit (Map 2 – ANSP Prioritized Treatment Units). Treatments should include understory FHFR and HAZ that focuses on the removal of dead standing trees and reduces the understory fuel load. Pile burning should be considered as a treatment option to process biomass.

Butano State Park 1. Approved CalVTP PSA/Addendum – FHFR, PF, HAZ A California Vegetation Treatment Program (CalVTP)2 Project Specific Analysis (PSA)/ Addendum has been developed by the San Mateo Resource Conservation District, in which State Parks assumed the role of Lead Agency. The Butano State Park Forest Health Project PSA/Addendum3 was approved in the Fall of 2022 and does not expire until conditions change substantially. This PSA/Addendum is companioned with the San Mateo Resource Conservation District’s Forest Health and Fire Resilience Public Works Plan that provides a programmatic mechanism for Coastal Act compliance. This will require PSA/Addendum renewal through the California Coastal Commission on July 7, 2031, as outlined in the Special Conditions of the Notice of Impending Development4.

The Butano State Park CalVTP PSA/Addendum is a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) tool that has permitted a total of 2,103.6 acres, including designated mechanical treatment units, manual treatment units, and prescribed burn units. The PSA/Addendum was developed following the CZU Fire to capture the post-fire conditions and design treatments to improve forest health and increase resilience to future wildfires.

Approximately 432.6 acres of prioritized treatment units are established under a CAL FIRE California Climate Investments (CCI) Forest Health Grant (FHG) in partnership with the San Mateo Resource Conservation District to be treated between 2022 and 2024 (Map 3 – BSP CalVTP PSA/Addendum Treatment Areas).

It is recommended that State Parks continues to utilize the approved PSA/Addendum treatment areas and associated treatment specifications outlined within the PSA/Addendum as funding becomes available. Prioritizing future treatment areas

2 “CalVTP.” Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/calvtp/

“Project Specific Analysis and Addendum to the CalVTP PEIR – Butano State Park Forest Health Project.” San Mateo Resource Conservation District, October 2022, https://bof.fire.ca.gov/media/aouho1dl/butanostateparkforesthealthproject_psaaddendum_noattachments_ada.pdf 4 “F12a-11-2022-report. Notice of Impending Development No. VTP-NOID-0007-22 (Butano State Park Forest Health Project).”

California Coastal Commission Staff, October 2022, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2022/11/F12a/F12a-11-2022report.pdf 3

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 8

should consider the sub-watershed Restoration Priority Level (RPL) scores presented in this report that resulted from field investigations.

It should be noted that the PSA/Addendum can be amended to incorporate additional treatment areas.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 9

III.

Treatment Unit Maps

The following maps provide an overview of the prioritized treatment units in BBRSP and ANSP and delineates the recently approved CalVTP PSA/Addendum treatment areas in BSP, including the prioritized FHG units. More detailed, BBRSP treatment area specific maps are provided in the Prioritized Treatment Unit Descriptions portion of this report.

Map 1: Big Basin Redwoods State Park Prioritized Treatment Units Map 2: Año Nuevo State Park Prioritized Treatment Units Map 3: Butano State Park Forest Health Project – CalVTP PSA/Addendum Treatment Areas

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 10

Map 1: Big Basin Redwoods State Park Prioritized Treatment Units

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 11

Map 1

Map 2: Año Nuevo State Park Prioritized Treatment Un

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 12

Map 2

Map 3 Map 3: Butano State Park Forest Health Project – CalVTP PSA/Addendum Treatment Areas

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 13

IV.

Setting

The Santa Cruz Mountains foster a unique coastal ecology that is comprised of a myriad of coastal coppice sprouting species adapted to disturbance, including, but not limited to coastal redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii), tanoak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus), oak species (Quercus spp.), California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica), huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), and manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.) and several other chaparral species. These species respond to wildfire disturbance with rapid basal sprouting. Several coastal species have thin bark, like Pacific madrone, which provides only a thin layer of cambial protection and influences a greater susceptibility to the mortality of the above ground portion of the tree. However, basal sprouting suggests that the below ground portions of the tree, such as a matrix of root and rhizome systems, are alive and will continue to function, ultimately supporting the next generation of trees that result from basal sprouting. Thick bark, like on coast redwoods, acts as a thick layer of cambial protection and is more resistant to damage from fire, or other structural disturbances, contributing to increased resilience and better above ground survivability of individual stems. Although this report identifies a high rate of mortality in the above ground portion of sprouting species throughout many areas of the parks following the CZU Fire, the coastal species present in the Santa Cruz Mountains prove to be resilient5 to wildfire as the next generation readily develops from basal sprouts and seedlings within these forests. This process has been occurring for centuries in these systems and they will recover, the question is what successional stage will they recover to in the face of changing climates without restorative treatments?

Since 2002, an estimated 18.6 million acres of wildlands have burned in California, a number that represents close to 20% of California’s land area. Almost a quarter of that

Figure 1: Wildfire activity in California has increased over the last two decades both in number of fires and acres burned. Not only are there more fires per year, but the magnitude of each event has increased greatly on average.

“Resilience, in its simplest form, is the capacity of a system to persist or respond positively despite adversity or disruption."

Auten, S. & McFarland, R, “Climate and Habitat Resiliency Plan for Pescadero Creek County Park..” September 2022. Page 9. https://www.smcgov.org/parks/pescadero-creek-park-climate-habitat-resiliency.

5

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 14

acreage burned in 2020 alone – affecting approximately 4.1 million acres, it is the largest wildfire season ever recorded in California (Figure 1). Nevertheless, it is not the presence of fire in wildlands that is problematic, but the magnitude and destructive nature of modern fire seasons that calls for action.

A nearly century-long era of focused fire suppression in the U.S. initiated as a federal policy in the early 1930s6, produced forested landscapes and wilderness areas devoid of an important ecological function7. Eliminating fire from the landscape has resulted in dense forests, significant accumulations of live and dead fuels, loss of wildlife habitat, impairments to forest and soil health, shifts in vegetation dynamics, and heightened risk to developed communities. In the absence of frequent, low-intensity disturbance, firedependent ecosystems have developed an excessive accumulation of fuel, ultimately allowing for the extreme, large-scale high severity events being witnessed across the western landscape.

Additionally, of the 20 largest wildfires in California’s history, at least 9 have been the product of ignition caused by human activity or utility infrastructure.8 While it is primarily weather conditions and fuel composition that determine the scale of a wildland fire, the phenomenon of anthropogenically sourced incidents is one that should be carefully evaluated when considering prudent wildfire risk reduction priorities. Among the primary causes for anthropogenic wildfire are faulty or damaged transmission lines, arson, unattended campfires, recreational pyrotechnics, and discarded cigarettes.

Many humans prefer living near forested ecosystems; however, ignitability has been steadily increasing towards a tipping point, challenging firefighting resources each year to effectively staff and maintain fire season demand. The necessary outcome is that landowners must collaborate and consider ways to increase resilience on their own lands and promote responsibility regarding how we live and interact with the environments we live in and care for.

The 2020 CZU Fire impacted over 86,509 acres across Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties, severely burning the majority of the land in BBRSP, ANSP, and BSP, approximately 24,230 acres of the . The event persisted for 37 days until full containment in September 20209.

The CZU Fire exhibited extreme fire behavior leaving behind forest ecosystems impacted by various severities providing beneficial disturbance in some areas of the burn and resulting in impaired post-fire forest conditions that will take decades to recover from in others.

“U.S. Forest Service Fire Suppression - Forest History Society.” Forest History Society, https://foresthistory.org/research-explore/usforest-service-history/policy-and-law/fire-u-s-forest-service/u-s-forest-service-fire-suppression/ 7 “Benefits of Fire.” CAL FIRE, https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/5425/benifitsoffire.pdf 8 “Top 20 Largest California Wildfires.” CAL FIRE, 24 Oct. 2022, https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/4jandlhh/top20_acres.pdf 9 “CZU Lightning Complex (Including Warnella Fire) Incident Report.” CAL FIRE, https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2020/8/16/czu-lightning-complex-including-warnella-fire/ 6

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 15

Map 4

Map 4 – CZU Fire Burn Severity in BBRSP, ANSP, and BSP

In areas that experienced low-to-moderate severity burns, there is a significant accumulation of fuels resulting from post-fire regeneration coupled with dead and dying vegetation that was only partially consumed during the fire, ultimately increasing the potential for future wildfire intensity (Map 4 – CZU Fire Burn Severity Map). Areas that burned at higher severities now contain a high component of dead standing overstory trees that will inevitably accumulate on the forest floor, adding significant fuel loads to an already aggressive understory resulting from a flush of sprouting regeneration and uncovered seed banks. Universally, across all forest types and burn severities, the CZU Fire will continue to result in hazardous conditions adjacent to previously publicly accessible portions of all three parks. Presently, two years post-fire, the rural communities and large landowners of Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties are actively recovering and adjusting to the forest conditions that are continuously changing and exhibiting various stages of succession.

The magnitude of the CZU Fire’s landscape-level impact on forested ecosystems within State Park lands has further demonstrated the need to actively manage the ecosystems within BBRSP, ANSP, and BSP. Thus, a collaborative effort between State Parks, Save the Redwoods League (STRL), and Auten Resource Consulting (ARC) aims to analyze the

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 16

impacts of the CZU Fire across forest types and develop strategic forest management treatments with consideration of the Reimagining Big Basin process.

Reimagining Big Basin’s mission is to collaboratively renew BBRSP, protect old growth, and steward the natural lands with respect to post-fire conditions following the devastating loss of infrastructure and forest resources as a result of the CZU Fire. The basis of Reimagining Big Basin’s vision for stewardship encapsulates “park stewardship, based on scientific and Indigenous knowledge, will foster forest health and create opportunities to connect visitors of all backgrounds and abilities with redwood forests for generations to come…10.

Using scientific developments and adaptive management strategies, this cooperative will work to advance forward-thinking conservation and manage these forested ecosystems to promote overall forest health, improve habitat and biodiversity, and gradually increase resilience through dynamic, low-severity disturbance regimes.

10

“Vision .” Reimagining Big Basin | Project to Reimagine Big Basin Redwoods State Park, 13 Aug. 2022, https://reimaginingbigbasin.org/vision/.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 17

V.

Field Investigation Methodology

For the purpose of this analysis, BBRSP, ANSP, and BSP were delineated into 300 subwatersheds total: 208 in BBRSP, 27 in ANSP, and 65 in BSP. Subwatersheds were generally defined by natural land features and existing infrastructure and averaged approximately 50150 acres each (Map 5 – Visited Subwatersheds).

Delineations were intended to compartmentalize assessment areas and ensure sufficient, representative data collection within the three parks.

Three levels of field investigations and analyses were intended to occur within each subwatershed: Subwatershed Stand Examination, Subwatershed Restoration Priority Level (RPL), and Field Verification, described in detail below. Crews of 2-3 individuals, usually comprised of at least one ARC Registered Professional Forester (RPF) or Assistant Forester accompanied by an additional Assistant Forester, Forestry Technician, or State Parks representative, traversed throughout the delineated subwatersheds to conduct the three levels of field investigations.

Of the 300 initially delineated subwatersheds, 264 were visited and analyzed throughout BBRSP, ANSP, Figure 2: ARC Crew Conducting FTP Diameter and BSP – 181, 19, and 64 subwatersheds, respectively.

Measurements in a Low Severity Burn in OGRW (WW_36) Several subwatersheds were left unvisited for data collection and analyses due to poor access or lack of a forested 1/5th acre fixed-plot location within the subwatershed boundaries. Field investigations occurred from August 24, 2021 to June 22, 2022 and were conducted 2-3 days per week as weather permitted (Figure 2).

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 18

(Map 5 – Visited Subwatersheds)

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 19

Map 5

Subwatershed Stand Examination The purpose of the Subwatershed Stand Examination (SSE) is to gather a broad set of Forest Trend Plot (FTP) data using a 500’ x 500’ systematic random sampling system. This system utilizes one 1/5th acre fixed plot within each assessment subwatershed across an arrangement of pre-selected forest types (Figure 3, Table 2). These “snapshots” of forest trend monitoring data can be aggregated across larger Figure 3: Screen Capture of Subwatershed WW_36 Overlaid by the landscapes to make inferences about 500'x500' Grid (Blue Grid), Canopy Heights >200’ (Orange Patches), and current forest conditions. FTPs are not ≤35% Slope Model (Green) equivalent in sampling size to a detailed forest inventory, but they provide an opportunity to measure post-fire trends across broad forest types and gain additional value when they are remeasured overtime to track forest stand changes.

Subwatershed units were assessed by establishing one FTP at any pre-selected 500’ x 500’ grid crosshair within each visited subwatershed that had forested area. It should be noted that as data collection proceeded, consideration was given to sample sizes for forest type and position on slope to make FTP selections, a bias introduced to ensure there was sufficient and representative data collected (Figure 3). Quantitative and qualitative analyses of stand features such as forest type and site quality, recent wildfire burn information, plot photos, tree count, tree measurement, radial growth measurement, and understory vegetation were conducted at each FTP. Data was collected utilizing a mobile survey through Survey123 ®, which stored all collected data for analysis. This section describes the purpose and contents of each of the primary survey questions that were evaluated during FTPs in addition to general plot information.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 20

Table 2: Forest Type Designations

Forest Type and Site Quality Forested stands are classified by their dominant vegetation type and respective site quality classification, which is a measurement of a stand’s productivity potential based on the heights of its dominant and codominant trees at 100 years old. Occupation percentages are used to delineate the forest types in Table 2. Eight forest types were selected to broadly capture the forest types most commonly represented in BBRSP, ANSP, and BSP for data analysis and stratification purposes. Incorporating additional forest types would reduce the sample size within each forest type and ultimately increase realitive statisitcal margins of error, impacting our ability to draw trends from the data collected at the 264 FTPs.

Recent Wildfire Burn Information Examined areas within the CZU Fire burn scar are dynamic and provide valuable insight into the variable current and former stand conditions that provided understanding to help explain highly variable fire severity. Evaluations in these areas include estimation of fire severity, limb, bole, and stump (basal) resprouting on redwood as well as information on height, vigor, and vegetative response to the CZU Fire (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Basal and Bole Sprouting in RW III High Severity Burn (CC_10)

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 21

Plot Photos Five photos were taken at every plot in each cardinal direction from plot center including one overhead photo to capture existing canopy (Figure 5). These photos may be recreated in future visits to each plot center or cataloged for long-term monitoring efforts.

Figure 5: Example Plot Center Photo (Left) and Overhead Canopy Photo (Right) in Low Severity Burn RW III (LB_34)

Tree Count Seedlings and saplings from 1-12 inches Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) within the 1/5th acre FTP were tallied to provide an estimation of stand densities, volume, growth rates, and mortality trends associated with each forest type. Specifically, the tree count was further broken down into two DBH classes, 1-6 inch and 6-12 inch, both of which involved separate counts of live and dead trees. For the purpose of this analysis, trees were considered dead if the above ground portion of the main stem(s) exhibited signs of cambial death, meaning there was no branch sprouting, bole sprouting, or live residual leaves or needles. Basal sprouts did not influence the main stem’s live or dead status and would be counted as separate trees once they reached 1-inch DBH.

Tree Measurements For all trees that were greater than 12 inches DBH within the 1/5th-acre FTP, the species, DBH, live or dead status, and tree heights (height measured for a minimum of BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 22

every 4th tree) were recorded and each tree was assigned a number. Vigor and structural attributes were also noted. Again, for the purpose of this analysis, trees were considered dead if the above ground portion of the main stem(s) exhibited signs of cambial death, meaning there was no branch sprouting, bole sprouting, or live residual leaves or needles. Basal sprouts did not influence the main stem’s live or dead status and would be counted as separate trees once they reached 1-inch DBH.

Radial Growth Measurements Radial core samples were extracted from a minimum of one representative conifer tree within a FTP, or within reasonable proximity to a FTP, and closely examined for tree or stand age, historic wildfire occurrence, growth rates, history of suppression and stand release, major geologic events, and confirming harvest history. Radial core samples may not have been collected in instances where conifers were not located within or in proximity to the FTP. Supports OGG 4.

Understory Vegetation Understory vegetation composition and structure is variable and used to further determine the representative species for FTP stratification as needed for data analysis.

Subwatershed Restoration Priority Level The Subwatershed Restoration Priority Level (RPL) analysis was developed to broadly assess Impaired Forest Class Conditions (IFCC) and a set of three Criteria and five Conditions by subwatershed and create a RPL score to consider and prioritize treatment actions through field-based analysis. The five Conditions were developed with direct alignment to State Park goals and are intended to be considered as conditions that have potential to be treated, such as reducing fuel loads or improving habitat conditions.

This section describes the IFCCs, the three Criteria factors and scoring methodology, and the five Conditions and scoring methodology that were evaluated within each visited subwatershed.

Impaired Forest Class Condition (IFCC) IFCC is not a part of the weighted calculation to determine RPL scores but is used to identify key conditions that appear impaired by prolonged and extensive drought, intensive land use and development, wildfire suppression, forest pathogens, and climate change. IFCC11 is a qualitative indicator developed by Save the Redwoods League, regional foresters, and other scientists that broadly defines an impaired

11

“San Vicente Redwoods Management Plan.” Save The Redwoods League, June 2015.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 23

forest condition. ARC crews noted IFCCs that were present in the subwatershed and provided a justification of reasoning for choosing applicable IFCCs.

Criteria 1. Treatment Access for Restoration (TA) – Is there reasonable and permittable existing infrastructure providing access into the subwatershed to conduct restorative treatments? A single value from 1 – 5 is assigned for each subwatershed, where one (1) is ranked the highest priority for treatment. For example, one (1) would be a subwatershed with direct road access into the interior of the subwatershed whereas a five (5) would be a subwatershed with no road access.

2. Value (V) – What is the value return of conducting restorative treatments in this subwatershed by treating the Conditions? A single value from 1 – 5 is assigned for each subwatershed, where one (1) is ranked the highest priority for treatment.

The score should consider the scale of benefit as it relates to inputs to achieve Condition restoration; including but not limited to habitat restoration value and resilience, regional resource related goals, time, money, permitting, research, and potential collaborations.

3. Public Access (PA) – Are there trails, roads, or camps in this subwatershed providing ease of access for the public to interact with restorative treatments conducted in this subwatershed? A single value from 1 – 5 is assigned for each subwatershed, where one (1) is ranked the highest priority for treatment. For example, one (1) would be direct access for the public to view treatments from trails, roads, or a camp.

Justifying notes are required for each given score. Criteria items 1 through 3 are totaled, and an average is generated for Criteria. Although, each Criteria category score can be evaluated separately to inform treatment decisions.

Conditions 1. Fire Resiliency (FR) – What will be the condition of the subwatershed’s resilience to wildfire in the next 15 years. A single value from 1 – 5 is assigned for each subwatershed, where one (1) is ranked the highest priority for treatment. For example, a five (5) would be a subwatershed where the combination of the existing number of trees per acre and predicted future fuel load would be minimal and most likely NOT exacerbate wildfire conditions resulting in abnormally increased burn severity and tree mortality and a one (1) would be the inverse, suggesting the subwatershed is a high priority for treatment.

Supports PWG 3 and OGG 3.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 24

2. Sediment Input Potential (SIP) – What is the potential for sediment input from a watershed into Class I or Class II watercourse(s) within the next 15 years due to exacerbated conditions resulting from historic activities, current conditions such as wildfire, roads, or other natural or unnatural disturbances? A single value from 1 – 5 is assigned for each subwatershed, where one (1) is ranked the highest priority for management and/or monitoring. A five (5) would be a watershed that does NOT exhibit exacerbated sediment input potential resulting from historic activities, current conditions such as wildfire, roads, or other natural or unnatural disturbances. Supports PWG 3.

3. Sudden Oak Death (SOD) – What is the condition of the forest as it relates to sudden oak death? A single value from 1 – 5 is assigned for each subwatershed, where one (1) is ranked the highest priority for treatment. A five (5) would be a subwatershed with little or no indication of sudden oak death. Supports PWG 4.

4. Marbled Murrelet Habitat Suitability (MMHS) – What is the potential of developing additional suitable habitat for marbled murrelets in this subwatershed in the next 50 years? A single value from 1 – 5 is assigned for each subwatershed, where one (1) is ranked the highest priority for treatment. A one (1) would be a subwatershed with existing habitat structure and a high potential to develop additional structure, whereas a five (5) would be a subwatershed with very little potential to develop additional stand structure within the next 50 years, such as a hardwood stand or a high mortality redwood stand. Supports PWG 2 and OGG 1.

5. Invasive Species (IS) – What is the level of invasive species occupation in this subwatershed from more prevalent exotics such as French broom or pampas grass? A single value from 1 – 5 is assigned for each subwatershed, where one (1) is ranked the highest priority for treatment. A five (5) would be a subwatershed with little or no indication of invasive species occupation. Any invasives witnessed were noted. Supports PWG 4.

Justifying notes are required for each given score. Condition items 1 through 5 are totaled, and an average is generated for Condition. An adjusted Condition score was developed to only consider FR, MMHS, and SIP because the scores for SOD and IS were predominately homogenous and weighted the average. All Condition scores can be isolated to identify specific conditions for treatment, further informing treatment decisions.

The final Restoration Priority Level (RPL) is a value dependent on averaged scores from Conditions and Criteria. A low RPL ranking, or a value closer to 5, does not necessarily mean every Condition and Criteria category in that subwatershed ranked BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 25

low for treatment, but that a low Criteria average score may have weighed a high Condition average score – and vice versa. To address this, we maintained a level of mobility during data processing to be able to stratify and isolate specific categories more pertinent to certain circumstances observed on the ground to inform subwatershed prioritization and treatment decisions.

Field Verification ARC developed internal maps as part of the initial phases of project scoping and development through the use of existing data, such as the CZU Fire burn severity and San Mateo County Fine Scale Vegetation Map Data12. The mobile app software, Avenza Maps ® (Avenza®), supports the use of offline georeferenced maps to locate the user’s location and drop georeferenced pins, or field verification points. ARC utilized Avenza® to drop georeferenced pins with notes and photo data to verify the accuracy of mapped features such as infrastructure, access, burn severity, forest type, and forest conditions and identify unmapped features such as sensitive resources, forest conditions, and potential, appropriate treatment prescriptions for treatment activity resources (Map 6 – Field Verification Point Coverage).

“San Mateo County Fine Scale Vegetation Map Data.” Parks Conservancy, 2022. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=c1d1ea74e5014dcba6331e8ce01e7d49 12

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 26

Map 6 – Field Verification Point Coverage

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 27

Map 6

VI.

Assessment Results & Discussion

Subwatershed Stand Examination The 2020 CZU Fire produced a highly variable array of burn severities and tree mortalities in forested areas across approximately 86,000 acres in the Santa Cruz Mountains and approximately 24,230 acres total in the three parks. Evaluating areas following a catastrophic fire, such as this, provides critical insight into the conditions or factors responsible for the scale, severity, and ecological implications of the event.

Following events of this scale, it is critical to gather data as soon as practical because the forest’s response to disturbance is immediate and complex. Forests impacted by wildfire are in a constant state of change as they proceed through the stages of succession. To effectively and efficiently capture viable post-fire data, ARC found that in ecosystems of this type, data collection should occur within the first 1-2 years following a fire. It should be noted that data collection should consider the impact of the rainy season’s influence on an influx of forest regeneration.

Figure 6 is an example of a plot center photo taken in a high severity RW III plot in EW_16 taken on August 25, 2021, approximately one year since the start of the CZU Fire. This photo exhibits full canopy consumption, meaning all tree needles and leaves were consumed during the fire, leaving behind bare mineral soil with no leaf or needle-drop. At the time this photo was taken, there was very minimal understory regeneration. Comparatively, Figure 7, an example of a high severity RW III plot taken on June 7, 2022, exhibits extreme understory regeneration, in this case predominantly 4–6-foot tall Ceanothus spp., that presents limitations to data collection, such as reduced forest floor visibility for the analysis of downed woody debris and constraints to survey mobility and efficiency.

Figure 6: High Severity Plot Center Photo Taken on 8/25/21 in EW_16

Figure 7: High Severity Plot Center Photo Taken on 6/7/22 in EW_78

For analysis purposes, the 264 FTPs were stratified by plot position on slope and burn severity. Plot position on slope is stratified into “Lower Slopes” and “Upper Slopes” (Figure 8, Table 3). “Lower Slopes” included plots within the watercourse and lake protection zone (WLPZ), Class III watercourses, the lower third of the slope, and the middle third of the BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 28

Figure 8: Diagram of Slope Positions – Lower Slopes (Class III, WLPZ, Lower, Middle) & Upper Slopes (Upper, Ridge)

slope. “Upper Slopes” included plots within the upper third of the slope and along ridges (Figure 8). Within the slope classifications, the data samples were further broken down by burn severity and identified as either “Lower Burn Severities” and “Higher Burn Severities”.

“Lower Burn Severities” included plots in low or moderate severity burns. “Higher Burn Severities” included plots in moderate-high or high severity burns. Six classifications resulted from this stratification strategy: Group A (Lower Slopes, Lower Burn Severities), Group B (Lower Slopes, Higher Burn Severities), Group C (Upper Slopes, Lower Burn Severities), Group D (Upper Slopes, Higher Burn Severities), Group E (Lower Slopes, Unburned), Group F (Upper Slopes, Unburned) (Table 3).

Table 3: Plot Stratification Breakdown by Forest Type

Table 3 outlines the number of plots within each stratification by forest type. Of the 132 plots located on lower slopes, 76 plots had higher burn severities and of the 123 plots located on the upper slopes, 86 plots had higher burn severities. Without the severity and forest type grouping strategy that is in place, the sample size for lower burn severities might be at risk of being too small to determine trends across forest types. The CZU Fire

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 29

Burn Severity Map, Map 4, indicates that the majority of the three parks burned at higher severities.

Tree Mortality Trends The following section analyzes the current post-fire live and dead13 trees per acre (TPA) trends by burn severity and basal area14 (BA) trends by burn severity across four major forest types (OGRW, RWIII, CHRW, HW) assessed in BBRSP, ANSP, and BSP. The TPA mortality analysis first separates plot data by lower slope FTPs (Group A and Group B) and upper slope FTPs (Group C and Group D) (Table 3). The purpose of analyzing lower slope and upper slope plot data separately, is that forest stand structures vary by position on slope, which may influence various factors, such as TPA, diameter, ladder fuel connectivity, and tree mortality related to wildfire.

The BA mortality analysis is supplemental to the TPA mortality analysis for the upper slope FTP’s (Group C and D) and considers how basal area impacts stand resilience against wildfire.

The graphs displayed in this analysis were developed using the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Vegetation Simulator15 (FVS), a forest growth simulation model capable of producing current and projected outputs for tree volumes, biomass, forest density, fire effects, and many other desired outputs. In this assessment, FVS was used to model current post-fire forest stand data; for the purpose of this analysis, the data displayed does not include any projected stand outputs. The following assessments consider the effects of the CZU Fire’s severity on forest mortality, by TPA and BA. Table 4 outlines the species codes utilized by FVS to analyze data and produce graph outputs.

Table 4: FVS Species Codes

It should be recognized that weather likely played a role in accelerated tree mortality by increasing fire intensity, but it is difficult to quantify this effect based on FTP data. This analysis infers that burn severity is a result of fire intensity that provides an indication of the weather conditions at the time of the fire.

13

In this analysis, trees were considered dead if the above ground portion of the main stem(s) exhibited signs of cambial death, meaning there was no branch sprouting, bole sprouting, or live residual leaves or needles post-fire. Basal sprouts did not influence the main stem’s live or dead status.

14

BA is the cross-sectional area of tree at breast height measured in square feet (ft2). “Basal Area .” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 8 Feb. 2007, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_area 15

“Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS).” US Forest Service, https://www.fs.usda.gov/fvs/

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 30

TPA Mortality in Lower Slope FTPs

This section compares mortality trends in relation to TPA by burn severities for all plots located on lower slopes. The groups considered in this evaluation include Group A (Lower Slopes, Lower Burn Severities) and Group B (Lower Slopes, Higher Burn Severities).

The following graphs are organized vertically by forest type and are displayed in a manner that show correlations between TPA mortality by severity and TPA mortality by forest types (Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12). To reiterate, in this analysis, trees (TPA) were considered dead if the above ground portion of the main stem exhibited cambial death, meaning there was no branch sprouting, bole sprouting, or live residual leaves or needles. Basal sprouting did not influence a tree’s live (represented by the color green) or dead (represented by the color red) status.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 31

Figure 9: Comparison of mortality trends in the RW III Forest Type. Group A (above) and Group B (below). Green (Live), Red (Dead).

Figure 10: Comparison of mortality trends in the OGRW Forest Type. Group A (above) and Group B (below). Green (Live), Red (Dead).

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 32

Figure 11: Comparison of mortality trends in the CHRW Forest Type. Group A (above) and Group B (below). Green (Live), Red (Dead).

Figure 12: Comparison of mortality trends in the HW Forest Type. Group A (above) and Group B (below). Green (Live), Red (Dead).

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 33

Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12 display the live and dead trees per acre (TPA) to compare mortality trends by burn severity in each forest type in plots located on lower slopes. Group A (Lower Slopes, Lower Burn Severities) will be referred to as “Group A (Low S, Low B)” and Group B (Lower Slopes, Higher Burn Severities) will be referred to as “Group B (Low S, High B)”.

Dense understories, as represented by high TPA in the less than or equal to 12-inch DBH classes, experienced high percent mortality in both Group A (Low S, Low B) and Group B (Low S, High B), indicating that concentrations of high TPA appear more susceptible to high mortality rates regardless of burn severity, as demonstrated by the major forest types (Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12).

Group B (Low S, High B) plots have approximately 90-100% TPA mortality in the less than or equal to 12-inch diameter classes and approximately 50% TPA mortality in the 12-24-inch, diameter classes, including a component of large diameter trees above 24 inches, in all forest types, indicating that higher burn severities appear to have a greater effect on the TPA mortality of all diameter classes than lower burn severities (Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12). A decrease in stand resilience in Group B (Low S, High B) plots, as indicated by high mortality rates, suggest that higher burn severities may also increase a stand’s susceptibility to forest type conversion, especially in the face of more frequent wildfires – further supporting the need to reduce the risk of higher burn severities regardless of forest type.

Additionally, in higher burn severities, there is approximately 100% TPA mortality of trees less than or equal to 6 inches DBH, where there is the highest concentration of TPA (Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12). A high TPA of smaller diameter trees creates connectivity into the overstory canopies, contributing to higher TPA mortality rates across all diameters.

Comparatively, where there are fewer TPA, as seen in the larger diameter classes, or greater than 18-inches DBH, there is a lower TPA mortality rate, due to lack of connectivity across all diameters (Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12). These trends suggest there is a correlation between fewer TPA, larger diameter trees, and lower TPA mortality rates. Inversely, this trend suggests a correlation between more TPA, smaller diameter trees, and higher TPA mortality rates.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 34

In OGRW Group A (Low S, Low B) and Group B (Low S, High B) plots, some larger diameter redwoods, as well as larger diameter Douglas-fir, succumbed to fire where only a few TPA were present (Figure 10 and Figure 13). Subsequently, Figure 10 and Figure 13 exhibit a “J-curve” trend in TPA as it transitions from smaller diameter classes into the midrange diameter classes, indicating that the OGRW plots had a high concentration of understory ladder fuels with direct connectivity to mid-range and, subsequently, upper diameter classes that appear responsible for the TPA mortality of larger diameter trees. It can be inferred that the understory ladder fuel connectivity may be attributed to the lack of regular disturbance in the OGRW forest type.

Notably, the hardwood (HW) forest type has a high percent of TPA mortality in both Group A (Low S, Low B) and Group B (Low S, High B), indicating that the hardwood forest type is highly susceptible to fire-induced mortality regardless of burn severity (Figure 12). A breakdown by species in Figure 14 indicates that of the trees that survive in Group A (Low S, Low B), many are tanoaks and the remainder are redwood.

Comparatively, Figure 14 depicts the less than approximately 2 TPA that survived in higher severity burns in Group B (Low S, High B) are comprised only of midrange diameter redwood. Generally, FTP trends indicate that redwoods have higher survival rates than other species across all forest types in both Group A (Low S, Low B) and Group B (Low S, High B) plots. It can be inferred that forest types that lack a significant mid-range to large diameter

Figure 13: Dead TPA by species in the OGRW Forest Type.

Figure 14: Live TPA by species in the HW Forest Type.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 35

redwood composition have decreased stand resilience to wildfire, increasing TPA mortality rates due to species composition. Subsequently, hardwood stands and other areas in the vegetative transition zones outside of redwood dominated forest types are predisposed to forest type conversion in higher burn severities due to their current conditions and high stand TPA mortality rates, especially in instances of increased wildfire frequency.

Summary of TPA mortality trends in lower slope FTPs – Group A (Low S, Low B) and Group B (Low S, High B): ➢ Understory forest density appears to directly affect TPA stand mortality.

▪ Where there is a higher concentration of TPA in the less than or equal to 12inch DBH class there is a higher percent TPA mortality, reducing the stand density of smaller diameter living trees.

▪ Higher severity burns resulted in nearly 100% mortality of trees in the less than or equal to 6-inch DBH classes. ➢ Where there are fewer TPA in larger diameter classes (greater than 18-inches DBH) there appears to be a higher rate of survival.

▪ Where there is a higher connectivity of ladder fuels, TPA mortality rates across all diameters is greater, including the loss of some old growth trees. ➢ Higher burn severities have increased mortality across all forest types.

The data trends summarized in the analysis of plots located on lower slopes suggests that to increase wildfire resilience and lower the risk of higher severity burns, there is a need to promote the growth of larger trees, reduce forest density, and reduce understory connectivity.

TPA Mortality in Upper Slope FTPs

The following section compares mortality trends in relation to TPA by burn severities for all plots located on upper slopes. The groups considered in this evaluation include Group C (Upper Slopes, Lower Burn Severities) and Group D (Upper Slopes, Higher Burn Severities).

Similar to the TPA Mortality in Lower Slope FTPs section above, the following graphs are organized vertically by forest type and are displayed in a manner that show correlations between TPA and mortality, severity and TPA mortality, and forest types and TPA mortality (Figures 15, 16, 17, and 18). To reiterate, in this analysis, trees were considered dead if the above ground portion of the main stem exhibited cambial death, meaning there was no branch sprouting, bole sprouting, or live residual leaves or needles. Basal sprouting did not influence a tree’s live or dead status.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 36

Figure 15: Comparison of mortality trends in the RW III Forest Type. Group C (above) and Group D (below). Green (Live), Red (Dead).

Figure 16: Comparison of mortality trends in the OGRW Forest Type. Group C (above) and Group D (below). Green (Live), Red (Dead).

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 37

Figure 17: Comparison of mortality trends in the CHRW Forest Type. Group C (above) and Group D (below). Green (Live), Red (Dead).

Figure 18: Comparison of mortality trends in the HW Forest Type. Group C (above) and Group D (below). Green (Live), Red (Dead).

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 38

Figures 15, 16, 17 and 18 display the live and dead trees per acre (TPA) to compare TPA mortality trends by burn severity in each forest type in plots located on upper slopes.

Group C (Upper Slopes, Lower Burn Severities) will be referred to as “Group C (Upper S, Low B)” and Group D (Upper Slopes, Higher Burn Severities) will be referred to as “Group D (Upper S, High B)”.

As mentioned in the introduction to Tree Mortality Trends above, the purpose of analyzing lower slope and upper slope plot data separately, is that forest stand structures vary by position on slope, which may influence various factors, such as diameter class distributions and TPA, among others. Through this stratification, trends and inferences can be made specific to position on slope and, on the other hand, the analysis emphasizes that there is an alignment of TPA mortality trends that occur regardless of position on slope, except in the less than or equal to 6-inch class in lower burn severities.

For instance, Group C (Upper S, Low B) and Group D (Upper S, High B) show trends of approximately 100% percent TPA mortality in the less than or equal to 6-inch diameter class, which exhibits the highest concentration of TPA in each forest type (Figures 15, 16, 17, and 18). This indicates that in upper slope forest stands, the less than or equal to 6-inch diameter class is highly susceptible to mortality regardless of burn severity. Recall the discussions regarding TPA mortality trends in the less than or equal to 6-inch diameter class in the TPA Mortality in Lower Slope FTPs section, which indicated that approximately 100% TPA mortality occurred only in higher burn severities. From this comparison, it appears that in upper slope forests, located where there is less available water and nutrients to support the health and vigor of trees, smaller diameter trees are more susceptible to fire than in lower slope forests, where there is more available water and nutrients to support the health and vigor of trees. This suggests that forest position on the slope, density, access to available resources, and exposure to the elements may influence pre-fire forest health conditions that are more conducive to high TPA mortality rates resulting from wildfire.

In both Group C (Upper S, Low B) and Group D (Upper S, High B), the understory component of trees less than or equal to 12-inches DBH exhibit high TPA mortality rates, notably, this is where there is a significant component of the stand’s density, as represented by TPA (Figures 15, 16, 17, and 18). Plot data suggests that wildfire reduces forest stand densities by clearing out smaller diameter trees, reducing the connectivity of ladder fuels to larger diameter trees. The TPA mortality trends in the less than or equal to 6 and 12-inch diameter classes indicate that there is a correlation between a high concentration of TPA, smaller diameter trees, and high percent TPA mortality.

The inverse of this is that upper diameter classes, where there are fewer TPA, experienced lower percent TPA mortality than smaller diameter classes regardless of burn severity BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 39

(Figures 15, 16, 17, and 18). This further suggests that there is a correlation between fewer TPA, larger diameter trees, and lower percent TPA mortality.

Higher burn severities resulted in an overall high percent TPA mortality, as seen in Group D (Upper S, High B) (Figures 15, 16, 17 and 18). Figure 19 displays that the trees that survived in RW III, OGRW, and HW forest types are predominantly redwood, more specifically mid-range to upper-range diameter redwoods. In RW III and OGRW, redwood was the only species to survive, meaning all other species present in these forest types experienced 100% TPA mortality (Figure 19). This indicates that larger diameter redwoods have increased resilience to higher burn severities, compared to smaller diameters and other species.

The hardwood forest type experienced approximately 100% TPA mortality in all diameter classes in Group D (Upper S, High B) (Figure 18). Higher burn severities resulted in hardwood forests having an average of less than one TPA surviving in most diameter classes greater than 6-inches (Figure 19). The high percent TPA mortality indicates a correlation between the absence of a significant component of mid-range to large diameter redwood and a stand’s lower Figure 19: Live TPA by species in RWIII, OGRW, and HW in higher burn severity plots. resilience to wildfire. In the face of more frequent wildfire, forest stands that are less resilient to higher burn severities are subsequently more susceptible to forest type conversion.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 40

Summary of TPA mortality trends in upper slope FTPs – Group C (Upper S, Low B) and Group D (Upper S, High B): ➢ Understory forest density appears to directly affect stand TPA mortality.

▪ Where there is a higher concentration of TPA in the less than or equal to 12-inch DBH class there is a higher percent TPA mortality, reducing the stand density of smaller diameter living trees.

▪ Regardless of burn severity, the less than or equal to 6-inch DBH classes resulted in very high levels of TPA mortality, often near 100%. ➢ Where there are fewer TPA in larger diameter classes (greater than 18 inches DBH) there appears to be a higher rate of survival. ➢ Higher burn severities resulted in increased TPA mortality across all forest types.

The data trends summarized in the analysis of plots located on upper slopes suggests there is a need to increase stand resilience and lower the risk of future wildfire severity.

This can be achieved by promoting the growth of larger diameter trees, reducing forest density, and reducing understory connectivity.

Basal Area Mortality Trends

This section compares volumetric mortality trends utilizing Basal Area (BA) by burn severities. The purpose of this section is to build on the findings discussed in the TPA Mortality in Upper Slope FTPs section above, therefore, the groups considered in this evaluation include Group C (Upper S, Low B) and Group D (Upper S, High B). It should be noted that Group A (Low S, Low B) and Group B (Low S, High B) plots had similar BA trends and are not displayed in this analysis. The BA graphs and analysis are supplemental to the TPA mortality trends and further display the effects of fire on varying forest stand structures.

The following graphs are organized vertically by burn severity and horizontally by forest type (Figure 20). To reiterate, in this analysis, trees were considered dead if the above ground portion of the main stem exhibited cambial death, meaning there was no branch sprouting, bole sprouting, or live residual leaves or needles. Basal sprouting did not influence a tree’s live or dead status.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 41

Figure 20: Live (green) and Dead (red) Basal Area (BA) per acre by Lower Severity Burns (Left Column) and Higher Severity Burns (Right Column) Across Upper Slope Redwood Dominant Forest Types. NOTE: BA/acre scales vary.

Figure 20 shows the FTP data assessed in the TPA Mortality in Upper Slope FTPs section represented by live and dead BA per acre, or the cross-sectional area of a tree at DBH in square feet, for redwood dominated forest types – referencing Figures 15, 16, and 17 will indicate the relative number of TPA that are within each diameter class.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 42

OGRW BA concentrations are highest in the upper diameter classes where the stands had very few TPA, signifying that growth is allocated to a few TPA (Figure 20). Dissimilarly, RW III and CHRW BA concentrations are highest in the mid-range diameter classes where the stands had a moderate amount of TPA, signifying that growth is distributed over many TPA (Figure 20). From this comparison it can be inferred that competition for available resources influences how forest stands allocate annual growth; in dense stands of second growth redwood, available resources are thinly distributed among more TPA, resulting in less annual growth potential per tree, whereas, in well-spaced stands, like OGRW, available resources are allocated to fewer TPA, resulting in greater annual growth potential per tree.

It is likely that the OGRW stands experienced a history of disturbance that reduced the competition of smaller diameter trees, resulting in the concentration of growth on larger individual trees over time.

Additionally, in higher burn severities, the OGRW BA concentrations have a lower percent BA mortality compared to the RW III and CHRW BA concentrations, which have increased percent BA mortality (Figure 20). In lower burn severities, there is seemingly comparable percent BA mortality for smaller diameter trees in OGRW, RW III, and CHRW (aside from the 101+ DBH outlier), suggesting that lower severity fires are thinning out the understory and naturally reducing ladder fuels. Live and dead BA trends indicate that promoting the growth of larger trees over fewer TPA increases resilience to wildfire regardless of burn severity.

Lastly, in Figure 20 (Upper S, High B), it can be expected that the carbon release from the CZU Fire was much greater in RW III and CHRW vs. OGRW. Tree mortality represented in red likely identifies more significant amounts of limb and tree consumption with greater crown continuity translating to many more tons of carbon released as a result of severe wildfire. This infers that if these stands had less connectivity between trees i.e., larger wellspaced trees similar to OGRW, that less carbon would have been released in the wildfire.

Summary of BA mortality trends: ➢ Larger diameter trees that are allocated more annual growth appear to have a higher rate of survival regardless of burn severity.

The BA trends analyzed above indicate that resilience to wildfire can be increased through promoting the growth of larger trees.

Conclusion of Tree Mortality Trends This section summarizes the key findings that resulted from the analyses of TPA mortality trends in both the lower slope FTPs – Group A (Low S, Low B) and Group B (Low S, High B) – and the upper slope FTPs – Group C (Upper S, Low B) and Group D (Upper S, High B) – and BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 43

BA mortality trends. The alignment of mortality trends across forest stand position on slope emphasizes the value of these mortality trends. ➢ Fewer TPA and larger diameter trees indicate increased tree resilience to wildfire. ➢ High TPA in smaller diameter trees (less than or equal to 12-inches) indicate increased susceptibility to tree mortality, including tree mortality in a component of larger diameter trees. ➢ Higher severity burns experience increased tree mortality across all forest types and all diameters. These areas, among other burn severities, include a significant regenerative basal sprouting response from coastal sprouting species.

The data trends summarized in the analysis of plots located on lower slopes and upper slopes provide a rationale for actively managing these forests: In the face of more frequent fires, there is a need to increase forest stands’ resilience to wildfire and reduce the risk of higher burn severities.

To achieve increased stand resilience to wildfire, the post-fire mortality data in this report suggests that treatments need to be implemented that promote the growth of larger diameter trees, reduce the stand density, and reduce the connectivity of ladder fuels into overstory canopies. Treatment activities should utilize mechanized equipment, handwork, prescribed burning, and strategic and limited use of herbicide on invasive species.

The data summarized above was collected in 264 FTPs throughout BBRSP, ANSP, and BSP. FTPs are not equivalent in sampling size to a detailed forest inventory, but they provide an opportunity to measure post-fire trends across broad forest types and gain additional value when they are remeasured overtime to track forest stand changes. The post-fire tree mortality data presented in this report corroborates the in-field observations that were collected by the field investigation crews comprised of 4 Registered Professional Foresters, 5 Assistant Foresters, and 3 Forestry Technicians over a 10-month period.

Professional observations and FTP data indicate that smaller diameter trees are most susceptible to fire-induced mortality suggesting that fires act as a natural process to reduce understory density, competition, and ladder fuel connectivity. It appears that the lack of frequent, low-severity fires and disturbance regimes has resulted in an accumulation of ladder fuels that carried fire into the canopies of larger diameter trees, increasing their susceptibility to post-fire damage and mortality in all forest types, including redwood dominated forests and the loss of valued old growth trees and marbled murrelet habitat.

This indicates there is a need to reduce ladder fuels to increase stand resilience.

Additionally, reducing forest densities in mid-range diameter trees on previously clear-cut park land will create greater spacing between overstory trees, further reducing fuel connectivity, and reduce competition, allocating more available resources to the retained BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 44

larger trees and, subsequently, increasing annual growth of the larger trees to have similar characteristics to old growth trees. This kind of forest treatment will promote the growth of second growth redwood stands to develop old growth characteristics, increasing overall stand resilience to wildfire as supported by Save the Redwoods League in 201816, which indicates that restoration is needed to improve ecosystems services and encourage the next generation of old growth forests on public land.

The foresters conducting field investigations observed high accumulations of regenerative resprouting and understory shrubs, particularly Ceanothus spp.¸ that aggressively occupied available space and reached maximum heights of approximately 8 feet in some locations

by June 2022. In areas of high mortality, the high accumulation of Ceanothus spp. and other shrubs paired with the forthcoming accumulation of downed dead standing trees exacerbates the risk of extreme fire behavior by establishing the conditions to burn again at high intensity in the near future. Although carbon is currently being stored in the dead standing trees, it will likely be released in the next fire due to the increased fuel loads that will continue to develop as a result of the CZU Fire. This event has created a continuity of fuels across vegetative canopies, establishing a cycle that promotes vegetation system succession where there are high mortality rates and increased carbon release. The inverse of this is that a stand with fewer larger trees that are more resilient to wildfire, the carbon would have a much higher likelihood of remaining stored. These observations bolster the need to promote the growth of larger trees through the reduction of understory density and mid-range diameter connectivity.

Subjecting forest stands to repeated high severity fires causes stands to convert to different vegetation types over time. Without a proactive forest management strategy, future extreme fire behavior in conjunction with changing climate patterns will pose a significant threat to old growth and large diameter forests and their associated habitat.

16

“State of Redwoods Conservation Report – A Tale of Two Forests” Save the Redwoods League. 2018. Page 25 and 42. https://www.savetheredwoods.org/wp-content/uploads/State-of-Redwoods-Conservation-Report-Final-web.pdf

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 45

Evidence of Fire Patterns An 18” Haglof increment corer was used to core approximately 279 conifer trees across the 264 FTPs to perform a general field dendrochronological analysis (Figure 21). Radial tree cores are used to confirm disturbance history dates, such as fire or harvest history.

Fire scars on a radial tree core are usually identified by an annual tree ring that is comprised of charcoal or having black coloration and possible deterioration (Figure 22). However, it is possible that radial tree cores may not capture charcoal or discoloration from fire if the fire did not burn the bark thoroughly. Instead, a release of growth, or abrupt increase in annual growth ring size, may be indicative of such a disturbance as seen in Figure 23 and 24, but is also not always present following disturbance.

Figure 22 depicts a radial tree core from a 77-inch old growth redwood tree. Each black line on the core contains 10 annual growth rings, representing 10 years of time; the bottom of this image is the outermost annual growth rings, or most recent growth rings, located closest to the bark. For scale, the most recent 200 years account for 6.1 inches in length (Figure 22). Counting back from the core’s extraction date at the bottom of the image, approximately 336 years ago, in 1686, the most recent fire scar appears and is preceded by an additional fire scar approximately 10 years prior, in 1676.

Figure 21: ARC Crew Extracting a Radial Tree Core Sample in WW_9, a RW II Forest

Figure 22: Increment Core #1 in EW_43 Showing Fire History

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 46

Table 5: Fire Scar Dates & Corresponding Release Event Dates in BBRSP. ANSP, and BSP

Under optimal circumstances, more than one representative tree per plot would be cored to confirm approximate dates and potentially gather additional information. For instance, in subwatershed EW_43, two trees were cored, one old growth redwood within the plot as seen in Figure 22, and an additional old growth redwood in close proximity to the plot boundary as seen in Figure 23. The tree cored in Figure 23 did not have a fire scar, instead it showed a small release event around the year 1671 as identified by the red arrow (Table 5). It is possible that the 1671 and 1676 dates represent the same historic fire event and that there may be manual error in counting tree rings, which may be why the dates do not align exactly. Table 5 intends to show all confirmed fire scars and their approximate dates and the potential relationship with other historic release events across the landscape, including release events within 1-2 years of the fire scar dates, except in the subwatershed EW_43 scenario above. The lack of consistent fire scars in all trees indicates a history of smaller lower intensity fires.

The red arrow in Figure 24 depicts a comprehensible example of a release event that occurred in a 40-inch redwood located next to a cut stump in subwatershed GC_3. Like the radial tree cores in Figure 22 and Figure 23, each black pen mark on the core counts 10 annual growth rings. The red arrow in Figure 24 marks a point that the annual growth rings significantly increased in size,

Figure 23: Radial Growth Figure 24: Radial Growth Increment Core #2 in EW_43 Core in GC_3

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 47

marking a time that this tree had more available resources to increase its annual growth; the release event was estimated to occur in the year 1965. Another subwatershed, GO_2 produced a verified fire scar in a Douglas-fir increment core that same year (1965) and several other subwatersheds across the three parks have release events with similar dates (Table 5). This suggests that the release event in Figure 24 may be related to the Lincoln Fire (~1962) and/or a harvesting event.

Fire history and fire return intervals (FRI) appear similar to previous studies conducted within the Santa Cruz Mountains (Table 5). A Master’s Theses conducted by Gregory Jones17 and a similar study conducted by Scott L. Stephens and Danny L. Fry18 describe fire scars observed in neighboring major watersheds that appear to align with the estimated fire scar dates listed in Table 5, such as the 1670s-1680s as far away as Huddart County Park, ~13 miles North and Big Creek, ~9 miles to the South. Discussions with other foresters throughout the Santa Cruz Mountains provided similar accounts of evidence of a fire that occurred around this time based on known stand ages of old growth. Based on collected data and comparison to similar fire-dating studies in the Santa Cruz Mountains, it appears that there may have been a large-scale high severity fire between the 1670’s and 1680’s prior to European contact.

Figure 25: Redwood in Pescadero Creek County Park - Evidence of Canopy Reinvention

Also of interest, subwatershed EW_9 has FRIs of approximately 62, 34, and 10 years, while other subwatershed radial tree cores have up to 100 years between fire scars, as seen in Table 5.

Evidence of fire history in the Santa Cruz Mountains is well established; however, FRIs in the region’s coast redwood forests vary significantly. This study was only able to capture a glimpse of the fire history that has occurred in BBRSP, ANSP, and BSP Figure 26: Overhead Canopy Photo Taken and more comprehensive information on its spatial and from Plot Center in EW_16 temporal scales is warranted. That being said, the collected data suggests a mosaic pattern of smaller-scale, more frequent fires that occurred across the landscape following the 1670’s fire and prior to the 2020 CZU Fire.

17

Jones, Gregory (2014). Master’s Thesis, San Jose State University. Coast Redwood Fire History and Land Use in

the Santa Cruz Mountains, California. https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=8016&context=etd_theses 18

Stephens, S. L., & Fry, D. L. (2005). Fire history in Coast Redwood stands in the northeastern Santa Cruz

Mountains, California. Fire Ecology, 1(1), 2–19. https://doi.org/10.4996/fireecology.0101002

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 48

Aside from dendrochronological methodology, evidence of fire across the landscape may appear in the form of physical exterior indicators, such as fire spikes19, burned bark, hollowed basal cavities, or large residual old growth limbs encompassed by new growth limbs. Figure 25 is an example of a redwood tree that has experienced a historic high severity fire that likely killed most of the original limbs’ cambium20, causing the limbs to self-prune; one remnant limb, as indicated by the red arrow, likely survived the first fire where the cambium surrounding the limb was not killed and it was able to produce new needles to continue the photosynthetic processes. Eventually this tree was surrounded by the growth of new limbs that formed from sprouting along the tree bole, like the bole sprouts seen in Figure 26. Figure 26 is an example of a high severity RW III plot where the redwood limbs appear to have cambial death due to the lack of branch sprouting. It is likely that limbs lacking branch sprouting on the trees in Figure 26 will self-prune and bole sprouts will become new limbs, eventually resembling the tree canopy in Figure 25.

Summary of the evidence of fire patterns in BBRSP, ANSP, and BSP: ➢ There is evidence to support the possible occurrence of one large-scale high severity wildfire that occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains between the 1670’s and 1680’s, pre-European contact, likely comparable to the CZU Fire. ➢ There appears to be a mosaic pattern of smaller-scale fires across the landscape that followed the 1670’s. ➢ Redwoods with vigorously sprouting tree boles will most likely turn those sprouts into new tree limbs thereby new tree crowns.

The evidence of fire patterns analyzed above confirms that fire has occurred in BBRSP, ANSP, and BSP prior to European contact to present day and should be expected to occur over time in perpetuity. The certainty that fires will continue to occur in these parks demonstrates the value in managing these forestlands to be better prepared and more resilient to future fires, regardless of fire severity and scale.

A fire spike refers to a tree, usually a smaller diameter, that likely died in a previous fire and has since been intombed by a larger tree, in which only the top of the intombed tree spikes out of the bole of the larger tree and exhibits branch-like characteristics, usually in a more upright angle.

19

20 Cambium is a cellular plant tissue from which phloem, xylem, or cork grows by division, resulting (in woody plants)

in secondary thickening.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 49

Subwatershed Restoration Priority Level The purpose of Subwatershed Restoration Priority Level (RPL) analyses is to broadly assess a set of three Criteria and five Conditions per subwatershed and score a RPL to consider treatment actions through field-based analysis.

Data collected during field analyses can be sorted in a manner that isolates or stratifies specific Criteria and/or Conditions. From this, State Parks can identify a specific treatment goal, such as implementing fuel reductions, and look at the corresponding condition scores and justification notes. For example, Fire Resiliency (FR) would inform fuel reduction treatment specifications and locate specific subwatersheds that should be considered a high priority for this type of treatment (Map 8 – RPL Fire Resiliency Scores). Crossreferencing the Criteria Average map with condition maps can further indicate which subwatersheds are treatable and hold the highest value for treatment (Map 7 – Criteria Average Scores).

The Criteria Average scores were used to sort the data set into priority rankings within Criteria categories as they indicated whether any existing conditions could be treated. For instance, high ranking Treatment Access (TA) scores (1’s, 2’s, and 3’s) are indicative of subwatersheds that can be feasibly accessed for treating a set of Conditions; without feasible access into a subwatershed (4’s, 5’s), costs to treat Conditions may be higher. Pairing TA with the value (V) of the Conditions being treated is arguably the most important consideration when designing a treatment area because without access for treatments, then the Conditions cannot be treated. In reference to Figure 27, for example, subwatershed WW_28 received a score of 1 for FR, meaning there are conditions that could exacerbate extreme fire behavior in the next 15 years and should be considered for fuel reduction treatments; however, subwatershed WW_28 had a Criteria Average score of 4.6, indicating that a careful consideration of TA, V, and PA determined that this subwatershed is not feasible for treatments to be conducted.

Fire Resiliency – 1

Criteria Average – 4.6 Figure 27: Snapshot of Subwatershed WW_28 Depicting Contradicting RPL Scores

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 50

Importantly, through the analysis of the RPL data set, the isolation of each condition category (FR, MMHS, SIP, SOD, and IS) scores proved to be essential in developing potential treatment areas and treatment purposes. Utilizing the same subwatershed example as above in Figure 27, WW_28 received a FR score of 1 and contradictorily received a MMHS score of 4 (Figure 28, Map 9 – RPL MMHS – 4 MMHS Scores), meaning that treatments could be Figure 28: Snapshot of Subwatershed WW_28 Depicting done to potentially improve FR, but there are MMHS Score factors that influenced this subwatershed to be a lower priority for marbled murrelet-focused treatments. In a direct comparison of FR and MMHS rankings in Figure 29, it appears that many subwatersheds in the Western Waddell watershed of BBRSP exhibit high priority FR conditions as indicated by shades of green, but the same subwatersheds appear to have nearly opposing MMHS scores as indicated by orange and red shades. Interestingly, subwatersheds WW_36 (BBRSP, Figure 29) and LB_1 (BSP, not pictured) exhibit opposite FR and MMHS scores, in which they had a low ranking Fire Resiliency

MMHS

Figure 29: Snapshot of Western Waddell (BBRSP) Subwatershed RPL Condition Scores, the Red Arrow Indicates Subwatershed WW_36

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 51

for FR treatments (red) and high ranking for MMHS (dark green) (Map 8 and Map 9). Both WW_36 and LB_1 are OGRW dominant subwatersheds that burned at a low to moderate severity and received similar FR and MMHS scores (Figure 29 – WW_36, Figure 30 – LB_1). It can be inferred that the lower severity burns in the OGRW stands left existing marbled murrelet habitat intact, influencing a higher MMHS rank, and reduced future fire hazard and the potential for the forest stand to exacerbate extreme wildfire conditions in the next 15 years by consuming vegetative fuels in the understory and smaller diameter tree classes, influencing a lower priority score for FR treatments. Of particular note, Figure 30 depicts the postfire conditions in LB_1 and the well-spaced characteristics of an OGRW stand; these conditions were similar in WW_36 as displayed early in this document in Figure 2.

Figure 30: OGRW stand in BSP (LB_1)

The Adjusted Condition Average was established to consider the most common Conditions and exclude Conditions that received predominantly homogenous scores, which weighted and influenced the final overall RPL scores. For this analysis, Sudden Oak Death (SOD) and Invasive Species (IS) were not prevalent throughout the parks, therefore, many subwatersheds received scores of 5, meaning these Conditions were not present, or 4, meaning the Condition was observed but was not substantial. These scores weighed the Condition Averages and were not used to sort the data set. Although, some subwatersheds did score above 4-5’s for SOD and IS, indicating that the Condition(s) were present and more suitable for treatment to occur. This further emphasizes the importance of isolating Condition scores for each subwatershed, rather than grouping and averaging the Condition scores.

It should be noted that although Condition may warrant a high priority for a restorative treatment, it is paired with the weighted set of Criteria that considers Value (V), Treatment Access (TA), and Public Access (PA) to support the prioritization for treatment. Arguably, the set of Criteria is a key indicator of whether or not a Condition can feasibly be treated. For instance, some subwatersheds ranked high for restorative treatments for certain Conditions but ranked poorly for Criteria.

The following tables identify the top ranking subwatersheds for treatments to occur within each park. The tables are sorted by Criteria Average score, which considers Treatment Access (TA), Value (V) of treatment, and Public Access (PA), then further sorted by the Adjusted Condition Average score, which considers Fire Resiliency (FR), Marbled Murrelet Habitat Suitability (MMHS), and Sediment Input Potential (SIP) (Table 6, 7, and 8). Table 8 BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 52

identifies locations for phasing treatments to treat Conditions that align with the goal and purpose of the Butano State Park Forest Health Project PSA/Addendum and identifies whether or not the established and approved mechanical and manual treatment areas overlap with the top 25 ranked subwatersheds; subsequently, the approved prescribed burn area footprints also have overlap and BSP treatment area maps should be crossreferenced with RPL score maps to identify areas for prescribed burning, or other treatments (Map 3 – BSP PSA/Addendum Treatment Areas, Map 7 – Subwatershed RPL Criteria Scores, Map 8 – Subwatershed RPL Fire Resiliency Scores, and Map 9 – Subwatershed RPL MMHS Scores).

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 53

Table 6: Top 45 BBRSP Subwatershed RPL Scores

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 54

Table 7: All Visited ANSP Subwatershed RPL Scores

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 55

Table 8: Top 25 BSP Subwatershed RPL Scores

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 56

VII.

Treatment Unit & Prescription Development

Pre-field Treatment Area Delineation In the development of BBRSP and ANSP treatment units, ARC imported the previously collected Subwatershed Restoration Priority Level (RPL) score data, including the averages and each individual Condition and Criteria scores, to ArcGIS Pro and displayed the scores as a color grade over the respective subwatersheds, recall Figure 27, Figure 28, and Figure 29.

Specifically, the Criteria RPL scores were overlaid with topographical features, infrastructure data, and forest types to begin delineating potential treatment units based on overlapping subwateshed RPL scores (Map 7 – Subwatershed RPL Criteria Scores). Consideration of all three Criteria categories, including Treatment Access, Value, and Public Access, guided delineations. Delineated treatment units were not limited to the boundaries of the individual subwatersheds, instead, delineations built on the continuity of treatable ground, considering slope and equipment access, and forest types. Potential treatment units were considered to be “treatable ground” if they were readily accessible and had slopes predominately below 35% where mechanical equipment could be utilized to implement treatments, which is generally more cost and time efficient to treat than manual treatments. Treatment unit delineations did not include slopes greater than 50%, where manual work is most feasible, nor the extent of existing or planned prescribed burn units at this time. During permitting, the delineated units could be identified for potential expansion through manual treatments, prescribed burn units, or roadside treatments.

During GIS analysis delineations, treatment unit polygons were speculated to have either direct access, meaning GIS data indicates that there is existing access into the treatment polygons, or indirect access, meaning there appeared to be potential access into the treatment polygons based on available GIS data but access needs to be confirmed through field verification.

Subwatersheds of the highest ranking RPL scores generally consisted of a high-ranking Criteria score accompanied with a high-ranking individual, treatable Condition score, such as Marbled Murrelet Habitat Suitability (MMHS) and Fire Resiliency (FR). Other Conditions were considered during treatment area delineation, but MMHS and FR had high RPL score variability making it easier to identify subwatersheds that had treatable conditions. Other Condition categories, such as Invasive Species (IS) or Sudden Oak Death (SOD), had more homogenous scores, meaning many subwatersheds scored a five (5) and very few subwatersheds noted the presence of those conditions at the time of field investigations.

Treatment Area Field Verification Once the potential treatment units were mapped in BBRSP, ARC crews began field verifying the treatment polygons, including several field meetings and discussions with State Parks and Save the Redwoods League. Through the utilization of georeferenced treatment unit BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 57

maps in Avenza®, ARC dropped georeferenced pins to verify the forest conditions, treatment access into direct and indirect polygons, reshaped the boundaries of units if needed, and noted appropriate treatment prescriptions and activities that could be applied to the treatment units, or sub-units. As a result, approximately 1,208.9 acres of feasible treatment areas were verified in the field (Map 10 – Field Verified Treatment Areas).

The possibility for expanding treatment units through the connectivity of manual treatments, prescribed burn units, and roadside treatments was considered during field verification and can be included in permitting.

Post-field Treatment Area Prioritization The collected field verification Avenza ® points were imported to ArcGIS Pro and referenced to revise the shapes of treatment units and compile a list of potential treatment prescriptions (Map 10 – Field Verified Treatment Areas). New areas that were identified as accessible, operable, and adjacent to the delineated treatment units were added. Sub-units or discrete areas that were identified as inaccessible or infeasible were removed from treatment units in order to get more accurate acreage estimates.

A combination of referencing RPL data, both Criteria and Conditions, and discussions with State Parks to ensure that treatment prescriptions maintain alignment with forest and vegetation management goals resulted in the development of the top 5 prioritized treatment units in BBRSP (Map 1 – BBRSP Prioritized Treatment Units). This set of prioritized field verified treatment areas (~571.9 acres of 1,208.9 acres) establishes an achievable forest management foundation, which can be treated efficiently and effectively, for State Parks to reference and build upon as funding and permitting mechanisms become tangible. The remaining field verified treatment units are intended to be incorporated into a long-term forest management strategy for BBRSP or considered for expansion and increased connectivity of the top 5 priority treatment areas, ultimately working towards achieving greater landscape-level goals (Map 10 – Field Verified Treatment Areas).

Regarding the treatment units in ANSP, the combination of thorough GIS analysis, RPL analysis, and crew familiarity with the treatable ground determined the inclusion treatment units and unit prioritization. The ANSP units were not further field verified following delineations due to adequate data collection during initial field investigations and the limited amount of treatable ground in forested areas within ANSP. For the purpose of this report, treatment units were not delineated in BSP due to a total of 2,103.6 acres being permitted in a recently approved CalVTP PSA, see the Prioritized Treatment Unit Descriptions – Butano State Park section below for more details.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 58

Map 10 – Field Verified Treatment Areas

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 59

Map 10

VIII.

Prioritized Treatment Unit Descriptions

This section revisits each of the prioritized recommended actions to further describe their purpose, explains the proposed treatments, and justifies the need for action in more detail supported by the key findings that resulted from the FTP’s and RPL’s. The resulting resilience-focused Forest Health Fuel Reduction (FHFR) and Forest Density Reduction/Large Tree Restoration (FDR/LTR) treatments, Prescribed Fire (PF), and hazardous tree (HAZ) treatment prescriptions were derived from in-field notes and are specific to each field verified treatment unit. Treatment activities proposed to achieve FHFR, FDR/LTR, PF, and HAZ will utilize mechanized equipment, handwork, prescribed burning, and strategic and limited use of herbicide on invasive species. Roadside (RS) treatments are not delineated in this report but should be considered along major roads and trails to create opportunities to establish greater connectivity between treatment areas.

FHFR understory treatments focus on treating dead and dying trees and live trees (less than 16 inches in diameter) to reduce fuel loading and establish a form of shaded fuel break that can be utilized in PF treatments and wildfire suppression.

Treatments reduce density and connectivity in the understory while retaining a mosaic of understory vegetation by considering specific retentions for shrubland, snags, herbaceous vegetation, and hydrophytic species. Understory treatments will decrease competition for available resources, like sunlight, water, and nutrients, resulting in a greater allocation of resources for the residual stand, ultimately promoting the growth of larger diameter trees over time, while increasing resilience, biological diversity, and reducing the severity of future wildfire.

FDR/LTR treatments will reduce stand density, connectivity, and competition for resources, further increasing the health and vigor of the residual stand through the removal of dense small diameter and mid-range diameter second growth redwoods, promoting the development of large diameter forest stands, increasing the opportunity for old growth characteristics to develop in these stands over time, while increasing resilience, biological diversity, and reducing the severity of future wildfire.

PF treatments can be expected to occur in many areas of the parks and these units will likely employ both pile and burn and broadcast burn methods to increase resilience, biological diversity, and reduce the severity of future wildfire. These details and unit boundaries will continue to be developed and be added to the longterm forest management strategy and permitting.

HAZ treatments will include the use of mechanized and handwork equipment to remove hazardous trees from high use areas around the park.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 60

RS treatments focus on treating dead and dying trees of any size within 50 feet of the road or trail edge and reducing fuel loading of live trees (less than 16 inches in diameter) and shrubs within 25 feet of the road edge. RS treatments should be expanded beyond 25 feet in adjacent areas accessible by mechanical equipment.

The implementation of RS treatments along major roads and trails improves visibility along road corridors, reduces fuels along potential ignition sources, and creates opportunities to establish linkages between treatment units throughout the parks.

The vegetative and forest stewardship techniques listed above can be applied within the prioritized treatment units and other areas of the parks to achieve State Parks forest management goals. For instance, the site-specific treatment prescriptions outlined for the treatment units below include the reduction of understory vegetation and small diameter trees to reduce fuel loads (FHFR), increase biodiversity, and promote the health and composition of Old Growth Redwood forests, and the selective reduction of mid-range diameter trees in second growth redwood stands (FDR/LTR) to promote the growth of residual trees, improve habitat function, reduce fuels, and create greater connectivity of larger trees across the landscape. Other forms of stewardship, like prescribed fire (PF) and roadside treatments (RS), are outlined in site-specific units below to be implemented in conjunction with the understory and mid-range diameter treatments to further increase stand resilience, promote biodiversity, and reduce fuel loads. These stewardship techniques are primarily resilience-focused, but hazard tree treatments (HAZ) are also included to establish a balance of post-fire restoration and reintroducing visitors to greater areas of the parks.

The set of prioritized field verified treatment areas in BBRSP (~571.9 acres of 1,208.9 acres) establishes an achievable forest management foundation for State Parks to reference and build upon to increase forest management connectivity as funding and permitting mechanisms become tangible.

Big Basin Redwoods State Park 1. Headquarters and Lower 236 – FHFR, RS, PF Purpose

1. Increase Old Growth Redwood (OGRW) resilience, improve habitat value, and increase understory biodiversity through the reduction of fuels and dead standing Douglas-fir or hardwoods – supports Park-wide Goal (PWG) 1, PWG 2, PWG 3, Old Growth Goal (OGG) 1, OGG 2, OGG 3, and OGG 5.

2. Maintain reduced fuel loads along the Highway 236 entrance corridor and increase infrastructure protection – supports OGG 3.

3. Demonstrate OGRW understory management and prescribed fire to park visitors - supports PWG 1, PWG 2, PWG 3, and OGG 3.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 61

Treatment Explanation

Approximately 137.3 acres have been field verified and are delineated for treatment in the Headquarters and Lower 236 units (Map 11 – Headquarters & Lower 236 Treatment Unit). Treatments should include understory FHFR in OGRW stands. Pile and burn or broadcast burning should be conducted with consideration to infrastructure. Routine roadside FHFR treatments should be conducted along the Highway 236 corridor from the southern entrance to Headquarters. Although HAZ treatments have already been conducted in these locations, predominantly focused on public safety as BBRSP re-opened, routine hazard tree evaluations should continue as the forest proceeds through the stages of succession and conditions change. These prioritized treatment areas present opportunities to further develop connectivity through manual treatments that are not limited by slope, prescribed burn units, RS treatments, and establishing other field verified treatment areas (Map 10 – Field Verified Treatment Areas) that expand on the proposed Headquarters and Lower 236 unit boundaries. Expansion of the presented unit boundaries should be considered during permitting.

Treatment Prescription

•

FHFR: o Remove all dead trees and vegetation less than or equal to 16” DBH. o Remove dead Douglas-fir and hardwoods of any size that have potential to result in damage to infrastructure or an increased accumulation of fuels in proximity to redwood groves to reduce the risk of exacerbated fire intensity within redwood groves. o Remove all dead limbs on redwoods in locations that are in proximity to existing or future campsite infrastructure.

▪ A redwood that is considered an eminent threat should be considered for removal. o Removed material less than or equal to 16” DBH may be masticated and left on site. Removed material 12-20” DBH may be chipped or piled and burned.

Curtain burners and other means of biomass utilization are encouraged for consideration.

Justification

BBRSP Headquarters and the Highway 236 corridor have the highest visitor frequency and are home to many OGRW trees that draw in the public. Understory FHFR treatments will promote the growth of larger redwoods through the reduction of competition and connectivity of ladder fuels, ultimately creating a more resilient forest stand. Treatment of post-fire understory vegetation that is often nearly homogenous, or dominated by Ceanothus spp., will increase biodiversity and further reduce fuel continuity. Additionally, implementing roadside treatments along this BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 62

scenic route will increase the public’s visibility of the OGRW stands that the interior FHFR treatments promote. Pile burning is recommended due to its planning and logistical flexibility around infrastructure; however, this recommendation does not intend to totally exclude broadcast burning, which would reduce dense stands of smaller diameter trees.

FHFR treatments will support fire resilience goals, ultimately establishing a forest stand that can withstand future wildfires and maintain existing and newly developed habitat. FHFR treatments will improve infrastructure protection and safety as the BBRSP Headquarters and recreational facilities are re-established.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 63

Map 11

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 64

2. Lodge Road – Demonstration Project – FHFR, FDR/LTR, PF, HAZ Purpose

1. Forward State Parks Santa Cruz District’s mission of actively managing forests to improve post-fire ecosystem resilience – supports PWG 1 and PWG 3.

2. Demonstrate variable vegetation and forest management prescriptions and treatment activities in redwood forest type with post-fire conditions similar to those throughout BBRSP – supports PWG 1, PWG 2, PWG 3, and OGG 2.

3. Identify a control area to monitor forest conditions over time following treatments.

Treatment Explanation

Approximately 96.7 acres have been field verified and are delineated for potential treatment in this unit (Map 12 – Lodge Road Treatment Unit). Subunit delineation will require further field-analysis to determine precise boundaries for the application of treatment prescriptions described below. Treatments should include a combination of FDR/LTR, FHFR, and prescribed burning treatments that are assigned to four sub-units and reflect existing stand conditions. These prioritized treatment areas present opportunities to further develop connectivity through manual treatments that are not limited by slope, prescribed burn units, RS treatments, and establishing other field verified treatment areas (Map 10 – Field Verified Treatment Areas) that expand on the proposed Lodge Road boundaries.

Expansion of the presented unit boundaries should be considered during permitting.

Treatment Prescription

•

Treatment Unit A includes FHFR and FDR/LTR to occur simultaneously and prescribed broadcast burn, including necessary site preparation, to occur as feasible. HAZ treatments should occur as necessary. o FHFR: ▪ Remove all dead trees and vegetation less than or equal to 12” DBH within 50’ of redwood groves and road infrastructure.

▪ Remove all dead hardwoods of any size that increase the risk of exacerbated fire intensity in proximity to redwoods due to the accumulation of fuels or are a hazard to redwood groves or infrastructure.

▪ Removed material may be masticated or chipped and left onsite.

Curtain burners and other means of biomass utilization are encouraged for consideration.

• Chipping should not occur if prescribed burn is planned to occur within 2 years of treatment. If prescribed burning will not

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 65

occur within 2 years of treatment, chipping may occur along treatment edges.

• Chip depths should not exceed 6” and should average 3”.

FDR/LTR: ▪ Selectively thin redwood trees 12-24” DBH. o HAZ: ▪ Remove dead Douglas-fir and hardwoods of any size that increase the risk of exacerbated fire intensity in proximity to redwoods due to the accumulation of fuels or are a hazard to redwood groves or infrastructure.

▪ A redwood that is considered an eminent threat should be considered for removal.

▪ Removed material less than or equal to 12” DBH may be masticated and left on site. Removed material 12-20” DBH may be chipped or piled and burned.

• Chipping should not occur if prescribed burn is planned to occur within 2 years of treatment. If prescribed burning will not occur within 2 years of treatment, chipping may occur along treatment edges.

• Chip depths should not exceed 6” and should average 3”.

▪ Treatment Unit B includes FDR/LTR and prescribed broadcast burn, including necessary site preparation. HAZ treatments should be conducted as necessary. o FDR/LTR: ▪ Thin all redwood trees less than or equal to 24” DBH. Understory vegetation may be crushed by equipment, but not intentionally masticated. o HAZ: ▪ Remove dead Douglas-fir and hardwoods of any size that increase the risk of exacerbated fire intensity in proximity to redwoods due to the accumulation of fuels or are a hazard to redwood groves or infrastructure.

▪ A redwood that is considered an eminent threat should be considered for removal.

▪ Removed material less than or equal to 12” DBH may be masticated and left on site. Removed material 12-20” DBH may be chipped or piled and burned.

• Chipping should not occur if prescribed burn is planned to occur within 2 years of treatment. If prescribed burning will not o

•

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 66

•

occur within 2 years of treatment, chipping may occur along treatment edges.

• Chip depths should not exceed 6” and should average 3”.

Treatment Unit C includes FHFR and FDR/LTR to occur simultaneously and prescribed broadcast burn, including necessary site preparation, to occur as feasible. o FHFR: ▪ Remove all dead trees and vegetation less than or equal to 12” DBH within 50’ of redwood groves and road infrastructure.

▪ Remove all dead Douglas-fir and hardwoods of any size that increase the risk of exacerbated fire intensity in proximity to redwoods due to the accumulation of fuels or are a hazard to redwood groves or infrastructure.

▪ Removed material may be masticated or chipped and left onsite.

Curtain burners and other means of biomass utilization are encouraged for consideration.

• Chipping should not occur if prescribed burn is planned to occur within 2 years of treatment. If prescribed burning will not occur within 2 years of treatment, chipping may occur along treatment edges.

• Chip depths should not exceed 6” and should average 3”. o FDR/LTR: ▪ Only uneven-aged silvicultural methods shall be applied that meet the following standards: • A 10-year re-entry period shall apply to plans that propose to remove ≤50 percent of trees >18” DBH. • Density reduction treatments will retain 50% or more of trees >18” DBH. • For second growth trees >38” DBH, a minimum retention average of 10-15 trees per acre shall be maintained across a treatment area when existing stand conditions allow for it.

•

During any 10-year re-entry period, no more than 33% of second growth trees >38” DBH may be removed within any treatment area.

•

Within treatment areas, an average of 10-15 trees >38” DBH per acre at a minimum shall be marked with a “W”, or in some other acceptable manner, on the bole to be retained as a “development tree”. Development Trees are those selected for long-term resilience in a stand as individuals with potential for BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 67

becoming future old growth trees. “W”s marked on trees shall face away from roads, trails, and the public viewshed to the extent feasible.

•

o

•

It is possible these trees may need to be substituted or replaced for various issues over time including, but not limited to, becoming a hazard, death or dying, damage by fire, or its position in the grove is compromised with respect to another tree that is healthier, more vigorous and has taken the appropriate dominant position in the grove to become the new “W” tree.

HAZ: ▪

Remove dead Douglas-fir and hardwoods of any size that increase the risk of exacerbated fire intensity in proximity to redwoods due to the accumulation of fuels or are a hazard to redwood groves or infrastructure.

▪ A redwood that is considered an eminent threat should be considered for removal.

▪ Removed material less than or equal to 12” DBH may be masticated and left on site. Removed material 12-20” DBH may be chipped or piled and burned.

• Chipping should not occur if prescribed burn is planned to occur within 2 years of treatment. If prescribed burning will not occur within 2 years of treatment, chipping may occur along treatment edges.

• Chip depths should not exceed 6” and should average 3”.

Treatment Unit D is the control and will only include prescribed broadcast burn, including necessary site preparation, and any necessary HAZ treatments. o HAZ: ▪ Remove dead Douglas-fir and hardwoods of any size that increase the risk of exacerbated fire intensity in proximity to redwoods due to the accumulation of fuels or are a hazard to redwood groves or infrastructure.

▪ A redwood that is considered an eminent threat should be considered for removal.

▪ Removed material less than or equal to 12” DBH may be masticated and left on site. Removed material 12-20” DBH may be chipped or piled and burned.

• Chipping should not occur if prescribed burn is planned to occur within 2 years of treatment. If prescribed burning will not BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 68

•

occur within 2 years of treatment, chipping may occur along treatment edges.

Chip depths should not exceed 6” and should average 3”.

The described FHFR, FDR/LTR, and HAZ treatments can be permitted through a Forest Fire Prevention Exemption.

Justification

The treatments described above for the Lodge Road Demonstration Project are designed to promote the growth of larger redwoods, to further improve future resistance to fire, and improve forest health in a second growth redwood stand.

Post-fire conditions have increased understory fuel loads that may increase future burn intensity around redwood groves, which is common throughout the burn area.

Promoting the growth of larger trees will ultimately increase the connectivity of late seral characteristics and habitat across the landscape. As supported by the TPA Mortality in Lower Slope FTPs data trends, larger diameter trees have lower mortality rates across all severities compared to trees less than 12-inches DBH, which have high mortality rates, especially in the higher burn severities and thick concentrations that mostly likely increase burn severity.

By introducing various forms of active management in BBRSP, this project can demonstrate the importance of FDR/LTR treatments in RW II and RW III forest types and display the benefits and purpose of sustainable forestry practices in a conservation setting such as the State Parks in the Santa Cruz District.

The treatment unit was harvested near the turn of the 20th century and is generally dense, has direct access from Lodge Road and has several existing skid trails that can be utilized in the unit interior. These factors greatly influenced high ranking Criteria scores for the overlapping subwatersheds. This unit is not directly public facing, but is often visited on tours of BBRSP, and would provide an excellent opportunity to monitor how the redwood forest responds to such treatments.

Lodge Road has two main subwatersheds that were scoped during the field analysis, and each has an existing FTP. Additional FTP’s can be installed throughout these units to monitor forest trends before and following treatments.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 69

Map 12

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 70

3. Sky Meadow – FHFR, PF, HAZ Purpose

1. Increase OGRW resilience, improve habitat value, increase understory biodiversity, and maintain a mosaic of vegetative and forested communities – supports PWG 1, PWG 2, PWG 3, OGG 1, OGG 2, OGG 3, and OGG 5.

2. Further reduce hazards around existing and future camping areas to increase infrastructure protection.

3. Establish and maintain a shaded fuel break that promotes a diverse understory – supports PWG 1 and OGG 3.

Treatment Explanation

Approximately 82.5 acres have been field verified and are delineated for treatment in this unit (Map 13 – Sky Meadow Treatment Unit). Treatments should include a combination of HAZ, FHFR, pile and burn and/or broadcast burning. HAZ treatments should prioritize areas that are slated for campsites or adjacent recreational use areas under the Reimagining Big Basin efforts. Understory FHFR treatments should occur routinely and in proximity to existing and future infrastructure. Prescribed burning methods should be conducted in combination with the FHFR and HAZ treatments described above. These prioritized treatment areas present opportunities to further develop connectivity through manual treatments that are not limited by slope, prescribed burn units, RS treatments, and establishing other field verified treatment areas (Map 10 – Field Verified Treatment Areas) that expand on the proposed Sky Meadow unit boundaries. Expansion of the presented unit boundaries should be considered during permitting.

Treatment Prescription

•

•

FHFR: o Remove all dead trees and vegetation less than or equal to 16” DBH. o Material may be masticated or chipped and left on site. Consideration of curtain burners and other means of biomass utilization is encouraged.

▪ Chipping should not occur if prescribed burn is planned to occur within 2 years of treatment. If prescribed burning will not occur within 2 years of treatment, chipping may occur along treatment edges.

• Chip depths should not exceed 6” and should average 3”.

HAZ: o Remove dead Douglas-fir and hardwoods of any size that increase the risk of exacerbated fire intensity in proximity to redwoods due to the accumulation of fuels or are a hazard to redwood groves or infrastructure. o Remove all dead limbs on redwoods in locations that are in proximity to existing or future campsite infrastructure.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 71

A redwood that is considered an eminent threat should be considered for removal.

Removed material less than or equal to 16” DBH may be masticated and left on site. Removed material 12-20” DBH may be chipped or piled and burned.

▪

▪

Justification

The Sky Meadow treatment area occupies Sky Meadow and Huckleberry Campgrounds, which are likely to be re-established as recreational areas and/or staff residencies following the CZU Fire. There are a significant number of hazardous trees and limbs located in the Sky Meadow portion of the unit that need to be treated prior to establishing recreational sites. Routine FHFR treatments will promote a more resilient forest by promoting forest health through the reduction of competition and ladder fuels, ultimately reducing fuel loads for greater infrastructure protection. Additionally, this unit is topographically significant as it is a large flat, central area with access to several key ridgelines that can be utilized as initial attack points for future wildfire or used as an active fuel break.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 72

Map 13

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 73

4. Little Basin Campground & Western Little Basin – FHFR, FDR/LTR, PF, HAZ Purpose

1. Promote the growth of redwoods and increase biodiversity – supports PWG 1, PWG 2, PWG 3, OGG 1, OGG 2, and OGG 3.

2. Reduce hazards around existing and future camping areas to increase infrastructure protection.

3. Establish a roadside shaded fuel break and an alternative escape route that connects to Headquarters – supports PWG 3.

Treatment Explanation

Approximately 89.6 acres have been field verified and are delineated for treatment in the Little Basin Campground and Western Little Basin units (Map 14 – Little Basin Campground & Western Little Basin Treatment Unit). Treatments should include FDR/LTR, FHFR, HAZ, and pile and burning. The post-fire campground closure has created an opportunity to conduct FDR/LTR treatments in proximity to existing campground infrastructure in combination with FHFR. HAZ treatments should prioritize areas that are slated for campsites or adjacent recreational use areas under the Reimagining Big Basin. These prioritized treatment areas present opportunities to further develop connectivity through manual treatments that are not limited by slope, prescribed burn units, RS treatments, and establishing other field verified treatment areas (Map 10 – Field Verified Treatment Areas) that expand on the proposed Little Basin Campground & Western Little Basin unit boundaries.

Expansion of the presented unit boundaries should be considered during permitting.

Treatment Prescription

•

•

•

FHFR: o Remove all live and dead trees and vegetation less than or equal to 12” DBH. o Material may be masticated or chipped and left on site. Consideration of curtain burners and other means of biomass utilization is encouraged.

▪ Chipping should not occur if prescribed burn is planned to occur within 2 years of treatment. If prescribed burning will not occur within 2 years of treatment, chipping may occur along treatment edges.

▪ Chip depths should not exceed 6” and should average 3”.

FDR/LTR: o Selectively thin approximately 2 of every 3 redwood trees 12-24” DBH and approximately 1 of every 3 redwood trees 24-36” DBH. HAZ:

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 74

o

o o

Remove dead Douglas-fir and hardwoods of any size that increase the risk of exacerbated fire intensity in proximity to redwoods due to the accumulation of fuels or are a hazard to redwood groves or infrastructure.

Remove all dead limbs on redwoods in locations that are in proximity to existing or future campsite infrastructure.

Removed material less than or equal to 12” DBH may be masticated and left on site. Removed material 12-20” DBH may be chipped or piled and burned.

▪ Chipping should not occur if prescribed burn is planned to occur within 2 years of treatment. If prescribed burning will not occur within 2 years of treatment, chipping may occur along treatment edges.

▪ Chip depths should not exceed 6” and should average 3”.

Justification

The Little Basin Campground unit is likely to be re-established as a recreational area following the CZU Fire. The Western Little Basin Unit was designed to create continuity and increase the scale of treatments. Post-fire campground closures have created an opportunity to conduct FDR/LTR treatments in Little Basin Campground that will promote the growth of the residual redwood stands and increase fire resilience around the campground. FHFR treatments are intended to reduce competition in the understory to promote biodiversity and to increase fire resilience by reducing understory fuel loads, including ladder fuels. Contiguous treatment areas further reduce the risk of extreme fire behavior during future wildfires and increase infrastructure protection. There are several hazardous trees and limbs located in the Little Basin Campground unit that need to be treated prior to establishing recreational sites. Prior to the re-establishment of the Little Basin Campground, a combination of the treatments described above should be implemented to effectively use the opportunity of accessibility to promote a healthier and more resilient forest stand.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 75

Map 14

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 76

5. Johansen, Upper China Grade, & North Escape – FHFR, FDR/LTR, PF, HAZ Purpose

1. Establish and maintain the bounds of prescribed burn units - supports PWG 3.

2. Establish and maintain a roadside shaded fuel break along a strategic ridgeline to support managing fire - supports PWG 3.

3. Promote the growth of redwoods and increase biodiversity supports PWG 1 and OGG 2.

4. Increase landscape-level connectivity to actively managed forests - supports OGG 2.

Treatment Explanation

Approximately 165.8 acres have been field verified and are delineated for treatment in the West Johansen, Upper China Grade, and North Escape Route Units (Map 15 – Upper China Grade & North Escape Route Treatment Units, and Map 16 – Johansen Treatment Units). Treatments should include FHFR and HAZ along the property boundary, upper ridges of the major watersheds, and interior ridgeline (North Escape Route Unit). FHFR treatments should focus on establishing and maintaining a shaded fuel break that can be utilized in PF treatments and the ability to manage wildfire. HAZ treatments should be implemented within 50 feet of the road edge.

These prioritized treatment areas present opportunities to further develop connectivity through manual treatments that are not limited by slope, prescribed burn units, RS treatments, and establishing other field verified treatment areas (Map 10 – Field Verified Treatment Areas) that expand on the proposed Johansen, Upper China Grade, & North Escape Route unit boundaries. Expansion of the presented unit boundaries should be considered during permitting.

Treatment Prescription

•

•

FHFR: o Remove all live and dead trees and vegetation less than or equal to 12-inch DBH. o Material may be masticated or chipped and left on site. Consideration of curtain burners and other means of biomass utilization is encouraged.

▪ Chipping should not occur if prescribed burn is planned to occur within 2 years of treatment. If prescribed burning will not occur within 2 years of treatment, chipping may occur along treatment edges.

▪ Chip depths should not exceed 6” and should average 3”.

FDR/LTR: o Only uneven-aged silvicultural methods shall be applied that meet the following standards: ▪ a 10-year re-entry period shall apply to plans that propose to remove ≤50 percent of trees >18” DBH. BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 77

▪ ▪

▪ ▪

▪

•

HAZ: o

o

Density reduction treatments will retain 50% or more of trees >18” DBH. For second growth trees >38” DBH, a minimum retention average of 10-15 trees per acre shall be maintained across a treatment area when existing stand conditions allow for it.

During any 10-year re-entry period, no more than 33% of second growth trees >38” DBH may be removed within any treatment area.

Within treatment areas, an average of 10-15 trees >38” DBH per acre at a minimum shall be marked with a “W” on the bole to be retained as a “development tree”. Development Trees are those selected for long-term resilience in a stand as individuals with potential for becoming future old growth trees. “W”s marked on trees shall face away from roads, trails, and the public viewshed to the extent feasible.

It is possible these trees may need to be substituted or replaced for various issues over time including, but not limited to, becoming a hazard, death or dying, damage by fire, or its position in the grove is compromised with respect to another tree that is healthier, more vigorous and has taken the appropriate dominant position in the grove to become the new “W” tree.

Fall and leave or fall and remove all dead standing trees of any size within 50 feet of the road edge depending on overall fuel loading. Trees shall be felled away from the road and directed to the interior of the subwatersheds.

Removed material less than or equal to 12-inch DBH may be masticated and left on site. Removed material greater than 12-inch DBH may be left on site.

Justification

The Johansen, Upper China Grade, and North Escape Route treatment areas are comprised of the upper ridge of the East and West Waddell watersheds that constitute the northern-most boundary of BBRSP. Since this ridgeline nearly contains the northern portion of BBRSP, it is a significant location that presents an opportunity to establish a shaded fuel break that can be utilized in PF vegetation management treatments as well as the ability to manage wildfire. The implementation of FHFR and HAZ treatments will reduce fuel continuity, density, and, subsequently, competition, ultimately promoting the growth larger trees and developing a more resilient residual forest stand. This treatment area is adjacent to several forestland owners that conduct active forest management, significantly improving the value of establishing a strategic treatment area by increasing the

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 78

connectivity of managed forestlands and benefiting State Park lands as well as neighboring landowners.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 79

Map 16 15 Map

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 80

Año Nuevo State Park The prioritized ANSP treatment areas below are specific to the forested areas of the property where assessments occurred (Map 2 – ANSP Prioritized Treatment Areas). The non-forested areas of ANSP are under a separate assessment conducted by Rob Cuthrell, Ph.D. Cuthrell’s work will result in non-forested management strategies that will likely hold priority for treatment in ANSP. The forested treatment areas could be considered in conjunction with non-forested recommendations and permitting and should be considered for their beneficial impacts to biodiversity and forest health.

1. Chalks Mountain Fire Road – Grassland Restoration – FHFR, PF, HAZ Purpose

1. Restore a native grassland that has been encroached by Douglas-fir – supports PWG 1 and PWG 2.

2. Reduce the future fire hazard where Douglas-fir stands that experienced high mortality will result in the accumulation of large, downed fuels and shrubs such as Ceanothus spp. – supports PWG 3.

Treatment Explanation

Approximately 22.6 acres are delineated for treatment in this unit (Map 17 – Chalks Mountain Fire Road Treatment Unit). Treatments should include a combination of FHFR, HAZ, and pile and burn or broadcast burning. FHFR and HAZ treatments should be focused on reducing Douglas-fir and shrub encroachment on the forest edge. Additionally, FHFR and HAZ should be implemented along roads and within the Interior unit to reduce understory shrubs and remove dead biomass. This prioritized treatment area presents opportunities to further develop connectivity through manual treatments that are not limited by slope, RS treatments, nonforested treatment areas, and potential collaboration with adjacent landowners that expand on the proposed Chalks Mountain Fire Road boundary. Expansion of the presented unit boundaries should be considered during permitting.

Treatment Prescription

•

•

FHFR: o Remove all live and dead trees and vegetation less than or equal to 16” DBH, especially on the forest edge where grassland encroachment is occurring. o Remove all dead Douglas-fir 12-24” DBH. o Material may be masticated and left on site. Curtain burners and other means of biomass utilization are encouraged for consideration.

HAZ: o Remove all dead Douglas-fir and hardwoods of any size that are in proximity to infrastructure.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 81

Justification

The 1941 aerial imagery in Figure 31 indicates that the delineated treatment area, outlined in green, was comprised predominantly of grassland and shrubland. Since 1941, the treatment area has been overtaken by Douglas-fir that experienced high severity burn during the CZU Fire, leaving behind a dead-standing Douglas-fir forest and a dense understory of Ceanothus spp. Grassland ecosystems are decreasing in size and population from encroachment of shrub and conifer species, like Douglasfir.

Figure 31: 1941 Aerial Imagery (left) and 2009 Aerial Imagery (right) of Chalks Mountain Fire Road Treatment Area (Green)

Douglas-fir trees of any size are less resilient to wildfire than redwoods, as can be interpreted from the FTP Live and Dead TPA in the Douglas-fir (DF) forest type, exhibiting approximately 100% mortality (Figure 32).

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 82

Figure 32: Live and Dead TPA in DF on Upper Slopes with Higher Burn Severities–- Conditions that Best Represent the Chalks Mountain Fire Road Treatment Areas

Restoring this area to its historic grassland would reduce a significant fuel load, increase biodiversity, and promote a species composition that is more resilient to wildfire, ultimately lowering the risk of carrying extreme fire behavior into neighboring forest stands.

Due to the severity of the fire in this treatment area, there is high mortality and, subsequently, a large quantity of biomass that should be removed. This removal can be costly and alternative methods of biomass processing should be considered to treat this area effectively and efficiently.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 83

Map 17

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 84

2. Old Woman’s Creek Ridge – FHFR, HAZ Purpose

1. Reduce competition and density to increase understory biodiversity – supports PWG 1 and PWG 2.

2. Establish a shaded fuel break along a large, forested ridgeline to create an opportunity to manage fire – supports PWG 3.

Treatment Explanation

Approximately 57.9 acres are delineated for treatment in this unit (Map 18 - Old Woman’s Creek Ridge Treatment Unit). Treatments should include understory FHFR and HAZ that focuses on the removal of dead standing trees and reduces the understory fuel load. Pile burning should be considered as a tool to process biomass. This prioritized treatment area presents opportunities to further develop connectivity through manual treatments that are not limited by slope, establishing prescribed burning units, RS treatments, non-forested treatment areas, and potential collaboration with adjacent landowners that expand on the proposed Old Woman’s Creek Ridge boundary. Expansion of the presented unit boundaries should be considered during permitting.

Treatment Prescription

•

FHFR: o Remove all live and dead trees and vegetation less than or equal to 16” DBH. o Material may be masticated or chipped and left on site.

• Chipping should not occur if prescribed burn is planned to occur within 2 years of treatment. If prescribed burning will not occur within 2 years of treatment, chipping may occur along treatment edges.

• Chip depths should not exceed 6” and should average 3”.

•

HAZ: o

o

Remove all dead Douglas-fir and hardwood trees of any size. Trees shall be felled away from the ridge and directed to the interior of the subwatersheds.

Removed material less than or equal to 16” DBH may be masticated and left on site. Removed material greater than 16” DBH may be left on site.

Justification

The Old Women’s Creek Ridge is a forested ridgeline that connects Old Woman’s Creek Road to the eastern ANSP property boundary. Reducing the fuels along this ridge can establish a strategic location to potentially stop or slow future wildfire. In addition, implementation and maintenance of a shaded fuel break can create an BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 85

opportunity to establish prescribed burn plots within the forested areas of ANSP. The reduction of fuels along the ridgeline will reduce competition, increase understory biodiversity, and promote a more resilient forest through the growth of larger diameter trees, ultimately creating an opportunity for landscape level continuity and future projects that can interconnect managed forestlands within ANSP, BBRSP, and BSP. The value of forest health fuel reduction treatments multiplies with greater connectivity to other managed lands.

ANSP has minimal forested ground suitable for FHFR treatments, although, forest conditions often exhibited conditions that were likely to exacerbate extreme fire conditions (Map 8 - Subwatershed RPL Fire Resiliency Scores). Implementing treatments along this ridgeline creates more opportunity for further management beyond the ridgeline and ultimately lowers the risk of extreme fire behavior that could decimate the forested stands on both the northern and southern sides of the ridge.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 86

Map 18

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 87

Butano State Park 1. Approved CalVTP PSA/Addendum – FHFR, PF, HAZ A CalVTP PSA/Addendum has been developed by the San Mateo Resource Conservation District, in which State Parks acts as the Lead Agency. The Butano State Park Forest Health Project PSA/Addendum21 was approved in the Fall of 2022 and does not expire until conditions change substantially. This PSA/Addendum is companioned with the San Mateo Resource Conservation District’s Forest Health and Fire Resilience Public Works Plan that provides a programmatic mechanism for Coastal Act compliance. This will require PSA/Addendum renewal through the California Coastal Commission on July 7, 2031, as outlined in the Special Conditions of the Notice of Impending Development22.

The CalVTP PSA/Addendum is a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process that has permitted a total of 2,103.6 acres, including designated mechanical treatment units, manual treatment units, and prescribed burn units. The PSA/Addendum was developed following the CZU Fire to capture the post-fire conditions and design treatments to improve forest health and increase resilience to future wildfires.

432.6 acres designated prioritized treatment units are established under a CAL FIRE CCI FHG in partnership with the San Mateo Resource Conservation District to be treated between 2022 and 2024 (Map 3 - BSP PSA/Addendum Treatment Areas).

It is recommended that State Parks continues to utilize the approved PSA/Addendum treatment areas and associated treatment specifications outlined within the PSA/Addendum as funding becomes available. Prioritizing future treatment areas should consider the subwatershed RPL scores presented in this report that resulted from field investigations.

The top 10 RPL ranking subwatersheds in BSP all have approved treatment areas delineated within them (Table 8). Utilizing Table 8 can be used to identify treatment area rotations, phases, and specific treatable conditions that can be implemented under an approved permit. It should be noted that the PSA/Addendum can be amended to incorporate additional treatment areas.

Although the FTP and RPL analyses did not result in the development of treatment areas for BSP due to the CalVTP PSA/Addendum treatment areas already being in development at the time analyses took place, the data collected provides a snapshot in time of post-fire

21

“Project Specific Analysis and Addendum to the CalVTP PEIR – Butano State Park Forest Health Project.” San Mateo Resource Conservation District, October 2022, https://bof.fire.ca.gov/media/aouho1dl/butanostateparkforesthealthproject_psaaddendum_noattachments_ada.pdf 22

“F12a-11-2022-report. Notice of Impending Development No. VTP-NOID-0007-22 (Butano State Park Forest Health Project).”

California Coastal Commission Staff, October 2022, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2022/11/F12a/F12a-11-2022report.pdf

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 88

conditions across the property and various forest types. The FTP and RPL analyses captured forest conditions that will continue to evolve as the forest stands continue through the various stages of post-fire succession and the dataset holds a high value for similar forest types across the CZU Fire footprint. Additional FTPs can be installed or existing FTPs can be revisited prior to and following treatments being implemented to further capture the forest’s succession overtime.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 89

Map 3

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 90

IX. Conclusions ARC’s intent in conducting field examinations, mapping and GIS analysis, Subwatershed Forest Trend Plot (FTP) monitoring, and a Subwatershed Restoration Priority Level (RPL) analysis was to generate qualitative and quantitative trend monitoring over a representative area of BBRSP, ANSP, and BSP for the purpose of developing this general assessment, a set of prioritized treatment units, and data-supported recommendations that State Parks can implement following the development of a forest management strategy document and appropriate permitting. The basis of this analysis considered State Park’s goals to manage their forestlands by conducting ecologically restorative treatments that increase resilience, biological diversity, and reduce the severity of future wildfire.

The data collected provides a once in a lifetime snapshot of post-fire conditions across the BBRSP, ANSP, and BSP properties and various forest types following the CZU Fire that caused “severe fire damage”23 and burned approximately 24,230 acres total in the three parks. The FTP and RPL analyses captured forests conditions that will continue to evolve as the forest stands proceed through the various stages of post-fire succession. The dataset holds a high value for monitoring trends in similar forest types across the CZU Fire footprint that may have great applicability to pre-fire stands in similar conditions in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

Summary of Key Findings The following key findings summarize the post-fire mortality and fire pattern trends that are discussed in the Assessment Results & Discussion - Subwatershed Stand Examination section of this report.

Mortality Trends ➢ Fewer trees per acre (TPA) and larger diameter trees indicate increased tree resilience to wildfire. ➢ High TPA in smaller diameter trees (less than or equal to 12-inches) indicate increased susceptibility to tree mortality, including tree mortality in a component of larger diameter trees. ➢ Higher severity burns experience increased tree mortality across all forest types and all diameters. These areas, among other burn severities, include a significant regenerative basal sprouting response from coastal coppice sprouting species.

Fire Patterns ➢ Comparing this study with similar fire-dating studies in the Santa Cruz Mountains suggests that there may have been a large-scale high severity fire between the

“State of Redwoods Conservation Report – A Tale of Two Forests” Save the Redwoods League. 2018. https://www.savetheredwoods.org/wp-content/uploads/State-of-Redwoods-Conservation-Report-Final-web.pdf 23

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 91

1670’s and 1680’s that has since been followed by a mosaic pattern of smaller-scale fires up until the CZU Fire in 2020.

The mortality trends, evidence of fire patterns, and expectation of more frequent wildfire occurring in BBRSP, ANSP, and BSP provide a rationale for actively managing these forests: In the face of more frequent fires, there is a need to increase forest stands’ resilience to wildfire and reduce the risk of higher burn severities. ➢ To achieve increased stand resilience to wildfire, the post-fire mortality data in this report suggests that treatments need to be implemented that promote the growth of larger diameter trees, reduce the stand density, and reduce the connectivity of ladder fuels into overstory canopies. Treatment activities should utilize mechanized equipment, manual treatments, prescribed burning, and strategic and limited use of herbicide on invasive species. ➢ Professional observations and FTP data indicate that the lack of frequent low severity fires and disturbance regimes resulted in a high accumulation of ground fuels, duff, and ladder fuels, including the encroachment of Douglas-fir in the understory, that carried fire into the canopies of many trees, influencing fire behavior and increasing stand susceptibility to post-fire damage and mortality in all forest types across all diameters, including redwood dominated forests and the loss of valued old growth trees and marbled murrelet habitat. ➢ In areas of high mortality, the rapid growth of regenerative sprouts, Ceanothus spp. and other shrubs, paired with the inevitable accumulation of downed dead-standing trees exacerbates the risk of extreme fire conditions and is seemingly setting itself up to burn again in the near future. Subjecting forest stands to repeated high severity fires will cause the stands to convert to different vegetation types over time. Without proactive forest restoration treatments, upcoming extreme fire behavior paired with changing climate will be a threat to old growth forests.

To implement the recommended treatments in BBRSP and ANSP, State Parks will need to obtain applicable vegetation and forest management permits, such as a CalVTP Project Specific Analysis similar to the Butano State Park Forest Health Project PSA/Addendum, a Forest Fire Prevention Exemption, a Timber Harvest Plan, or implement appropriate activities under the Governor’s Executive Order N-81-2024; alternative permitting mechanisms should be considered by State Parks to determine the most suitable pathway(s). BSP treatment planning should utilize the recently approved CalVTP

“EXECUTIVE ORDER N-81-20.” EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA , 25 Sept. 2020, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/local-assistance/documents/erp/dec/eo-n-81-20-20200925-sa.pdf 24

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 92

PSA/Addendum25. Future planning efforts and further treatment unit development will be incorporated into a forest management strategy document that will establish long-term forest planning and permitting pathways to follow this prioritized recommended actions report.

The implementation of forest management treatments should consider that forest restoration is a long-term process that requires dedication to a focused and strategic effort – it took over 100 years for this forest system to develop its existing impairments and it will likely take this amount of time, or more, to restore the ecosystem’s optimum function and health. We appreciate the opportunity to provide State Parks, in partnership with Save the Redwoods League, this assessment and recommended actions.

Steve R. Auten, RPF #2734

Shelby Kranich, Assistant Forester III

25

“Project Specific Analysis and Addendum to the CalVTP PEIR – Butano State Park Forest Health Project.” San Mateo Resource Conservation District, October 2022, https://bof.fire.ca.gov/media/aouho1dl/butanostateparkforesthealthproject_psaaddendum_noattachments_ada.pdf

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 93

X.

List of Maps Map 1 – Big Basin Redwoods State Park Prioritized Treatment Units Map 2 – Año Nuevo State Park Prioritized Treatment Units Map 3 – Butano State Park Forest Health Project – CalVTP PSA/Addendum Treatment

Areas Map 4 – CZU Fire Burn Severity Map 5 – Visited Subwatersheds Map 6 – Field Verification Point Coverage Map 7 – Subwatershed RPL Criteria Scores Map 8 – Subwatershed RPL Fire Resiliency Scores Map 9 – Subwatershed RPL Marbled Murrelet Habitat Suitability Scores Map 10 – Field Verified Treatment Areas Map 11 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – Headquarters & Lower 236 Map 12 –Prioritized Treatment Areas – Lodge Road Map 13 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – Sky Meadow Map 14 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – Little Basin Campground & Western Little

Basin Map 15 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – Upper China Grade & North Escape Route Map 16 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – West Johansen Map 17 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – Chalks Mountain Fire Road Map 18 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – Old Woman’s Creek Ridge

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 94

Map 1 – Big Basin Redwoods State Park Prioritized Treatment Units

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 95

Map 1

Map 2 – Año Nuevo State Park Prioritized Treatment Unit

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 96

Map 2

Map 3 – Butano State Park Forest Health Project – CalVTP PSA/Addendum Treatment Areas

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 97

Map 3

Map 4 Map 4 – CZU Fire Burn Severity

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 98

Map 5 Map 5 – Visited Subwatersheds

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 99

Map 6

Map 6 – Field Verification Point Coverage

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 100

Map 7 – Subwatershed RPL Criteria Scores

Map 7

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 101

Map 8 – Subwatershed RPL Fire Resiliency Scores

Map 8

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 102

Map 9 – Subwatershed RPL Marbled Murrelet Habitat Suitability Scores

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 103

Map 9

Map 10 – Field Verified Treatment Areas

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 104

Map 10

Map 11 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – Headquarters & Lower 236

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 105

Map 11

Map 12 –Prioritized Treatment Areas – Lodge Road

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 106

Map 12

Map 13 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – Sky Meadow

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 107

Map 13

Map 14 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – Little Basin Campground & Western Little Basin

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 108

Map 14

Map 15 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – Upper China Grade & North Escape Route

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 109

Map 15

Map 16 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – West Johansen

Map 16

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 110

Map 17 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – Chalks Mountain Fire Road

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 111

Map 17

Map 18 – Prioritized Treatment Areas – Old Woman’s Creek Ridge

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 112

Map 18

XI.

List of Preparers

Auten Resource Consulting Shelby Kranich – Assistant Forester III – Lead Author, Field Investigation Lead, Data Processing, Data Management, Data Analysis, Map Development & GIS analysis Steve R. Auten – Registered Professional Forester #2734 – Author, Field Investigation Lead, Data Analysis David Van Lennep – Registered Professional Forester #2591 – Field Investigation Lead, Data Analysis, Editor Riley McFarland – Assistant Forester II – Contributing Author, Field Investigation Lead, Data Processing, Editor Chloe Knowd – Assistant Forester I – Field Investigation Lead, Editor Joseph Dubeau – Assistant Forester I – Field Investigation Lead, Map Development Daniel Auten – Forestry Technician – Field Investigation Assistant Nolan Hayes – Forestry Technician – Field Investigation Assistant Javier Jenkins-Sorensen – Forestry Technician – Field Investigation Assistant

Consulting Foresters Joe Culver – Coastal Forestry, Registered Professional Forester #2674 - Field Investigation Lead, Review Bill Vaughan – Vaughan Forestry, Registered Professional Forester #2685 - Field Investigation Lead, Review Alex Birkhofer – Vaughan Forestry, Assistant Forester – Field Investigation Lead Kristy Peterson – Hamey Woods, Assistant Forester – Field Investigation Assistant Clare Lacey – Hamey Woods, Assistant Forester – Field Investigation Assistant

California State Parks – Santa Cruz District Tim Hyland – Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) – Field Investigation Assistant, Forest Strategy Planning, Review Portia Halbert – Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) – Forest Strategy Planning, Review Tim Reilly – Environmental Scientist – Field Investigation Assistant, Forest Strategy Planning Ashley Weil – Staff Services Analyst – Field Investigation Assistant, Forest Strategy Planning, Review Will Fourt – Parks California, Senior Project Planner – Forest Strategy Planning, Review Ryan Diller – Environmental Scientist – Field Investigation Assistant, Forest Strategy Planning Dmitrik Berlanga – Forestry Aide – Field Investigation Assistant, Forest Strategy Planning

Save The Redwoods League Ben Blom – Director of Stewardship and Restoration – Field Investigation Assistant, Forest Strategy Planning, Review Daniel Schmidt – Institutional Grant Officer – Forest Strategy Planning, Review Anthony Castaños – Land Stewardship Manager – Field Investigation Assistant BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 113

XII. References Auten, S. & McFarland, R. “Climate and Habitat Resiliency Plan for Pescadero Creek County Park.” September 2022. Page 9. https://www.smcgov.org/parks/pescadero-creekpark-climate-habitat-resiliency “Basal Area .” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 8 Feb. 2007, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_area “Benefits of Fire.” CAL FIRE, https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/5425/benifitsoffire.pdf “CalVTP.” Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and- programs/calvtp/ “CZU Lightning Complex (Including Warnella Fire) Incident Report.” CAL FIRE, https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2020/8/16/czu-lightning-complex-includingwarnella-fire/ “EXECUTIVE ORDER N-81-20.” EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA , 25 Sept. 2020, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/localassistance/documents/erp/dec/eo-n-81-20-20200925-sa.pdf “Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS).” US Forest Service, https://www.fs.usda.gov/fvs/ “F12a-11-2022-report. Notice of Impending Development No. VTP-NOID-0007-22 (Butano State Park Forest Health Project).” California Coastal Commission Staff, October 2022, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2022/11/F12a/F12a-11-2022-report.pdf Jones, Gregory (2014). Master’s Thesis, San Jose State University. Coast Redwood Fire History and Land Use in the Santa Cruz Mountains, California. https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=80 16&context=etd_theses “Project Specific Analysis and Addendum to the CalVTP PEIR – Butano State Park Forest Health Project.” San Mateo Resource Conservation District, October 2022, https://bof.fire.ca.gov/media/aouho1dl/butanostateparkforesthealthproject_psaaddendum_noattachments_ada.pdf “San Mateo County Fine Scale Vegetation Map Data.” Parks Conservancy, 2022. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=c1d1ea74e5014dcba6331e8ce01e7d49 “San Vicente Redwoods Management Plan.” Save The Redwoods League, June 2015.

“State of Redwoods Conservation Report – A Tale of Two Forests” Save the Redwoods League. 2018. Page 25 and 42. https://www.savetheredwoods.org/wpcontent/uploads/State-of-Redwoods-Conservation-Report-Final-web.pdf

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 114

Stephens, S. L., & Fry, D. L. (2005). Fire history in Coast Redwood stands in the northeastern Santa Cruz Mountains, California. Fire Ecology, 1(1), 2–19. https://doi.org/10.4996/fireecology.0101002 “Top 20 Largest California Wildfires.” CAL FIRE, 24 Oct. 2022, https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/4jandlhh/top20_acres.pdf “U.S. Forest Service Fire Suppression - Forest History Society.” Forest History Society, https://foresthistory.org/research-explore/us-forest-service-history/policy-andlaw/fire-u-s-forest-service/u-s-forest-service-fire-suppression/ “Vision .” Reimagining Big Basin | Project to Reimagine Big Basin Redwoods State Park, 13 Aug. 2022, https://reimaginingbigbasin.org/vision/.

BBRSP, ANSP, & BSP – Prioritized Recommended Actions & Key Findings| 115