HFQLG
Project Evaluation Form
Project Name: Butterfly Multiproduct Thin Timber Sale, project resulting from Empire Environmental
Impact Statement
Project Type: Commercial Timber Sale to create a defensible fuel profile zone and implement group selection
Forest: Plumas NF, Mt Hough Ranger District
Date: 27 July 2011
Attendance: 23 people
Agency – none
Public – 10 - Bill Wickman, American Forest Resources Council and Quincy Library Group (QLG) member;
Frank Stewart, Counties Forester and Quincy Library Group; Doug Stoy, Sale Operator; Wyatt Stoy, son of
Operator; Jerry Hurley, Plumas County Fire Safe Council; John Sheehan, Plumas County Fire Safe Council and
Quincy Library Group member; Tom Downing, Sierra Pacific Industries; Tim Holabird, Congressman Tom
McClintock Representative; Dennis Miller, Butterfly Valley Resident and retired County GIS coordinator; Erik
Homgren, Sierra Institute.
USFS – 13 - Mike Donald, Mt Hough District Ranger; Karen Hayden, Feather River District Ranger; Ryan
Tompkins, Plumas Forest Silviculturist; Linnea Hanson, Feather River District Ecosystem Manager; Tim
Murphy, Soil Scientist; Ryan Bauer, District Fuels Officer; Rick Stumpf, Timber Sale Prep; Curtis Yocum, Timber
Sale Administrator; Jeff Watson, Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Implementation Team
Management Analyst; Kyle Merriam, Province Ecologist for Plumas, Lassen and Modoc National Forests; Nancy
Francine, Plumas NF Ecosystem Staff Officer; Steve Windward, Sale Preparation Forester; and Colin Dillingham,
HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader.
Butterfly timber sale mechanical thinning and group selection units were completed by Stoy Logging.
Type of Treatment:
Empire Vegetation Management Project: The Butterfly Project was planned under the Empire Vegetation
Management Project Final, and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements. It is one of six timber
sales that are planned under the project. The Empire Vegetation Management Project was planned under the
guidelines set forth by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 2004 Record of Decision.
Butterfly Project: proposes to construct 124 acres of Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ), and harvest 14 acres
of group selection, with a value of $48,000.
Objective: Implement a Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ) as part of an extensive fuel treatment network that
is effective in reducing the potential size of wildfires, providing fire suppression personnel safe locations for
taking actions against a wildfire, and providing protection for the community of Butterfly Valley in the event of a
wildfire. The prescription thins from below, i.e. removing the smaller diameter trees and retaining the larger
trees; retains a minimum of 40% canopy closure and treats fuels with a follow-up underburn to reduce excessive
residual surface fuels. Group selection will be implemented as directed in the HFQLG Act to achieve an all-aged
mosaic of timber stands with preference to shade intolerant species, while contributing to the local economy
through a sustainable output of forest products. All trees greater than 30 inches are retained.
Butterfly monitoring review
Resource
Attribute
Area
Silviculture
Objective
Improve
Forest Health
Reduce interspecific
competition
Source of
Objective
Degree Met
EIS
Yes
Stand
Regeneration
Create opening to
allow for new
generation of shade
intolerant pine and
oak
EIS
Opening
created,
regeneration
expected
Silviculture
/Wildlife
Black Oak
Retain oak and
manage for future
reproduction
EIS
Yes
Wildlife
Spotted Owl
Prevent direct
impacts to protected
activity center (PAC)
EIS
Yes
Fuels
Surface Fuels
Less than 5 tons per
acre of surface fuels
HFQLG FEIS,
Appendix J
Future
treatment
planned
Fuels
Ladder Fuels
Remove ladder fuels
HFQLG FEIS,
Appendix J
Yes
Community
Safety
Create DFPZ and
remove fuels
adjacent to homes
EIS
Yes, further
entry
required
Protect Stream from
impacts during
logging operations
EIS
Yes
Protect soils from
excessive
compaction over
15% of area
EIS
Yes
Silviculture
Wildland
Urban
Interface
(WUI)
Stream
Soils
Riparian
Protection
Compaction
Comments
The thinning project
allows for less competition
and increased vigor of
remaining trees
Group selections were
implemented and appear
to have good conditions to
allow pine and oak
regeneration.
Oak retained in thinning
and group selection units,
expected to grow in size
and reach begin
reproducing
Two large units dropped to
prevent direct impacts to
Spotted Owl PAC
Biomass removal removed
some fuels, follow-up
burning planned to
complete DFPZ
construction
Treatment removed ladder
fuels/small trees
Butterfly Valley
community with additional
protection from
implementation of project.
A no entry buffer around
the stream was
implemented to protect
stream. Follow-up
treatments with chainsaws
will thin riparian area.
Project activities were
stopped to prevent
unacceptable resource
damages.
Discussion of Butterfly Multiproduct Thin Timber Sale
Butterfly project overview at Mt Hough
Ranger Station – Colin Dillingham gave an
overview about the original intent of the
HFQLG legislation and discussed the fuel
reduction network and Ryan Tompkins
discussed the silviculture strategies.
Fire Safe Council Map discussion at Mt
Hough Ranger Station–
Jerry Hurley, John Sheehan and Frank
Stewart, members of the Plumas Fire Safe
Council, discuss the base map that was
presented. The group agreed that updates
to the map are needed.
Frank Stewart emphasized the value of the
map and that the map should be provided to
the “Collaborative Cohesive Strategy”.
A follow-up meeting to improve the map is
needed.
Butterfly MP Thin Unit 21–
The thinned forest (photo at left) was directly compared to the portion of unit 21 that had not yet been
thinned (photo at right). Small diameter trees have been removed which created a more fire resilient
forest and a forest that can grow faster and is more resistant to insects and disease. There was some
discussion if the forest was thinned enough. The group discussed the possibility of adding a few more
trees to the contract to meet the project objective of thinning to a 40% canopy. Ryan Tompkins
suggested we met our silvicultural objectives and canopy objectives are a poor metric to strive to meet.
Discussion of Butterfly Multiproduct Thin Timber Sale (continued):
Butterfly MP Thin Unit 21–
Bill Wickman of American Forest Resources Council asks soil scientist Tim Murphy about why the
operation was shut down earlier in the spring. Bill specifically asked about the large amounts of duff and
limbs on the ground (photo on right) and if soil compaction concerns were sufficient to justify shutting
down a logging operation. The operator, Doug Stoy, was forced to remove all of his equipment and
move to another logging operation to prevent further economic hardship. Tim Murphy and Sale
Administrator Curtis Yocum explained that because of the wet spring and the clay soil types in the unit
they were observing deep compaction occurring underneath the low ground pressure feller-buncher and it
was causing unacceptable resource damage above what is allowed under the EIS. They shut down
operations until the soil became drier. Tom Downing from Sierra Pacific Industries suggested that in
future projects the Forest Service analyze for additional compaction within the Defensible Fuel Profile
Zones where we might not want extensive regrowth of the understory and perhaps we should consider
allowing additional compaction on a small percentage of the overall landscape within the DFPZ network.
Butterfly MP Thin Unit 21- Tom Downing opened
discussion about issue with stump diameter relationship
to breast height diameter in units like unit 21 where
biomass trees are cut by description and not painted.
Forest Silviculturist Ryan Tompkins suggested that we
resolve issue by increasing allowable stump diameter to
be 14 or 15 inches so that it incorporates taper of trees
up to 9.9 inches diameter at breast height. Tom
countered that in the red fir zone sometimes a 9.9 inch
tree at breast height might flare to 15 inches at stump
height. Tom asked that the Forest Service measure trees
in representative units in the sales and specifically
describe stump diameters in the contract to allow
operators to remove all unpainted biomass trees without
risk of being at risk of contract violation.
A question was raised about the possibility of making sales like this one purchaser designated tree removal similar
to how private lands select and remove trees in thinning operations. Operator Doug Stoy said he would like that if
there was a good working relationship between the purchaser and the sale administrators, but didn’t want to have
this if there was constant conflict on every portion of the contract. There is concern at the regional office level for
accountability. There is also concern about the large amount of money spent on marking timber sales, sometimes
outweighing the total value of the sale, which precludes the development of other projects.
Butterfly MP Group Select Unit 963–All trees
greater than 30 inches in diameter as well as all
black oak trees were retained in the group
selection units. There appeared to still be plenty
of light reaching the forest floor to allow for
regeneration.
Butterfly MP Group Select Unit 979There were questions about why group selection
units are planted rather than allowed for natural
regeneration to occur. Ryan Tompkins countered
that in situations where we are likely to have
natural regeneration of the correct species, first
stocking surveys are conducted, and then planting
is completed only when necessary.
Butterfly MP Group Select Unit 979/thinning
Unit 21–
Biomass removed from thinning and group
selection operations was piled on the landing
and is ready to be chipped and hauled to the
biomass electrical cogeneration facility in
Quincy.
Shelf Stock Discussion –
Fire Safe Council representative Jerry Hurley
describes the need to get project through the
NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act)
requirements so that projects are ready “on
the shelf” for implementation when funding
becomes available. He emphasized that
money often comes to the attention of Fire
Safe Councils but it is for project
implementation and not the planning of
projects.
Butterfly MP Thin Unit 21The group went to portion of the harvest unit
where active operations were occurring. The
feller buncher is shown here cutting small
diameter trees, and holding them for eventual
placement on the ground. Later, a skidder will
come in to drag the trees to the landing.
Butterfly MP Thin Unit 21The feller-buncher, which costs
approximately $500,000, has just set down
a group of small diameter trees it had cut.
The cutting head, which is always spinning
while operating, cuts trees rapidly. There is
a risk of fire when the cutting head comes
in contact with rocks, so fire patrols and
limited operating periods are enforced to
reduce the threat of accidental fire starts.
Butterfly MP Thin Unit 21The feller-buncher had finished cutting the
trees in this portion of the unit. The trees
remain on the ground are awaiting the
skidder to move them to the landing.
Follow up actions:
Complete surface fuel treatments in Butterfly DFPZ with planned underburn treatments.
Force Account crews will chainsaw thin the untreated Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas to meet EIS
objectives.
Fire Safe Council and Forest Service GIS staff will update the Plumas County Fire Safe Council base map.
Notes prepared by:
HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader: /s/
Reviewed by District Ranger:
Colin Dillingham
/s/ Michael Donald
Date: July 27, 2011
Date: July 29, 2011