HFQLG
Project Evaluation Form
Project Name: Lyons Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ)
Project Type: Fuel Reduction project implemented to create a Defensible Fuel Profile Zone and
simultaneously incorporate forest health objectives by restoring aspen and eastside pine
communities.
Forest: Lassen NF, Eagle Lake Ranger District
Date: 17 August 2011
Attendance: 30 people
Public – Jim Burke, Headrick Logging; Robert Hoover, Sierra Pacific Industries, Burney; Frank
Stewart, Counties Forester and Quincy Library Group (QLG).
Agency – none
USFS – Jerry Bird, Forest Supervisor, Lassen NF; Ann Carlson, Eagle Lake District Ranger; Linda
Wrenn, Forest Service Representative; Linda Tiffin, Lassen NF Receptionist; Mary Price, Planner on
Hat Creek Ranger District; Mariana Dill, Lassen NF Receptionist; David Pilz, Planner, Lassen NF;
Bobette Jones, Ecologist; Anita Villalovos, District Hydrologist; John Bassman, District
Silviculturist; Rod Vineyard, Biomass Specialist; Fred Ngotel, Timber Sale Administrator; Leo Ray,
Harvest Inspector; Tom Rickman, District Wildlife Biologist; Amy Harrison-Smith, Forester Eagle
Lake; David Wood, HFQLG Implementation Team Leader; Elise Reierson, HFQLG Office Assistant;
Colin Dillingham, HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader; Jeff Watson, HFQLG Management Analyst; and
Eagle Lake Marking Crew including Chrissy Haselton, Douglas Brewer, David Crowther, Philip Jack,
Daniel Brown, Jay Elidechedong, Adam Lefebvre, and John Leicester.
Project Objectives
Reduce ladder fuels by thinning from below with an emphasis of retaining the healthiest, largest
conifers in the stand.
Provide for firefighter safety and produce a healthier better functioning ecosystem.
Connection of five other DFPZ’s within the immediate area, Caboose DFPZ, Railroad DFPZ,
Caldera DFPZ, Elk DFPZ, and North Crater West DFPZ.
Aspen Enhancement
Project Status
Project has been partially completed by Sierra Pacific Industries between January 18,
2008 - March 19, 2008 and November 17, 2010 – March 10, 2011. Project is scheduled
to resume this fall.
Type of Treatment and Acres
Project area includes 1341 acres of treatment including:
280 acres of Aspen Restoration Treatment
1061 acres of Defensible Fuel Profile Zone
See appendix for map of Lyons project and different types of treatments.
Lyons DFPZ and the adjacent completed DFPZ network. Future planned projects, such as
those resulting from the Champs EIS on the northern part of this map, will help to fill in the
incomplete portions of the DFPZ network.
Lyons Project monitoring review
Resource
Attribute
Area
Objective
Source of
Objective
Degree Met
Comments
Stand Density
Reduce Stand
Density to improve
Forest Health
Silviculture
Prescription
Yes
Thinned forest from
approximately 200 down
to 100-120 square feet of
basal area
Snags
Retain 3 snags to
meet wildlife
objectives where
available
HFQLG FEIS
Yes
Where available, snags
were protected through
harvest.
Hydrology
(Aspen
project)
Springs
Prevent impacts to
springs during
harvest activities
Lassen LRMP
Yes
Fuels
Ladder Fuels
Remove ladder fuels
HFQLG FEIS,
Appendix J
Yes
Fuels
Surface Fuels
Reduce surface fuels
HFQLG FEIS,
Appendix J
No, planned
future
treatment
Fuels
Canopy Fuels
Reduce canopy fuels
HFQLG FEIS,
Appendix J
Partial
Soils
Compaction
Do not compact soil
Forest Plan
Standards and
Guidelines
Yes
Archeology
Site Protection
Prevent potential
impacts to historic
structures
EA
Yes
Silviculture
Eastside
Pine forest
Wildlife
Equipment exclusion
zones were implemented
to prevent feller buncher
and skidder impacts to
springs
Whole tree yarding
chipped and removed
smaller diameter trees.
Follow-up burning
necessary to complete
DFPZ effectiveness
Thinning would have
been more effective if
the prescription allowed
thinning of trees 20” to
30” diameter.
Harvest operations
occurred over 2-4 feet of
snow which prevented
any soil compaction.
Control Areas adequately
protected, no equipment
entered site.
Discussion of Planned Lassen Projects
Bogard Work Center –
The group met at 9:00 at the Bogard work
center and made introductions. Quincy
Library Group and Counties Forester Frank
Stewart asked Lassen Forest Supervisor Jerry
Bird the status of recent timber sale planning
and award on the Eagle Lake District. Jerry
explained that the first sale of the Ebey
Project, Rim, had been sold. Jerry explained
that the Lassen NF was going to meet their
assigned timber sale target for fiscal year
2011. There were brief discussions of other
timber sales being worked on across the
Lassen Forest including Cowbell, Albertine,
Champs, and Creeks.
Discussion of Lyons Project:
Project Overview – Linda Wrenn gave a project
overview and explained that there were 280 acres of
Aspen restoration treatments and 1061 acres of
Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ) created with
the implementation of this project. She explained
how the Lyons DFPZ connected with previously
completed DFPZs in the immediate vicinity, such as
North Crater West DFPZ, Caboose DFPZ and
Caldera DFPZ.
Lyons DFPZ – monitoring team leader for HergerFeinstein Quincy Library Group, Colin Dillingham,
explained that the original planned fuel treatment
network (orange) is largely completed (purple). The
Lyons DFPZ, in green, connected several other linear
fuel treatments on the landscape. Several planed
projects, once implemented, will essentially complete
the fuel treatment network. Colin explained that the
completed network has been shown to be effective by
monitoring the effects of 20 different wildfires that
have intersected with completed DFPZs. QLG member
Frank Stewart suggested people review the report (see
link below)
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/hfqlg/monitoring/resource_reports/fire_and_smoke/
dfpz_effectiveness/HFQLG%20treatment%20effectiveness%20report.pdf
Discussion of Lyons Aspen Restoration Project (post-treatment):
Aspen Restoration Unit 817 – Linda Wrenn
explains the aspen management prescription.
Conifer trees were removed where they had
encroached into the historical aspen stands
due to the absence of wildfire. This project
removed conifers within approximately 150’
from the most distal aspen tree or sprout
along the edge of the existing aspen clone on
the south, east and west aspects and 100’ on
the north aspect.
This photo shows how the aspens have
regenerated 3 years after the conifer trees
were removed.
Before
Treatment
Lyons aspen restoration unit 817
This permanent photo point shows
before conifer removal above and
following conifer removal below.
Note the stump in the lower left
corner of the photo for reference.
After
Treatment
Aspen restoration unit 817 –
Ecologist Bobette Jones talks about
understory vegetation recovery. She
explained how prior to the restoration
treatment, there was substantial litter and duff
and very little herbaceous vegetation (see
before treatment photo above). She explained
how the understory diversity and abundance
drastically increased dramatically only 3
years after restoration.
Aspen restoration unit 817 –
Jim Burke, operator from Headrick
Logging, discusses issues he had with
the large amount of biomass material
(small diameter trees and tops) that
he had to pile in one log landing
during winter operations. The group
also discussed some of the important
benefits of winter logging including
1) no fire risk and 2) mills need logs
in winter.
Lyons aspen restoration –
The contract required 2 feet of snow to
prevent damage to soils and springs
during logging operations. This spring
was protected by prohibiting any
logging equipment from operating
unless 2 feet of snow was present on the
ground. The group was impressed at
the lack of any damage to soil and
wetland resources throughout the
project area.
Aspen restoration unit 817 –
Robert Hoover, Forester from Sierra Pacific
Industries in Burney, discusses problems having a
contract requirement of 2 feet of snow on the
ground in the harvest units. He discusses that there
were times when there was 5 feet of snow in the
adjacent meadow, but where the harvest was
planned, only 18 inches of snow was present due
to snow interception by the dense tree canopy. He
offered that when the ground was frozen solid,
there should be contract allowances to permit
logging so long as the resources won’t be
damaged. A follow-up meeting is planned with
specialists to discuss this topic and consider
changing future contract requirements.
Lyons aspen restoration unit 816 –
There was a discussion about the retention
of large diameter trees within the aspen
restoration units. The retention of these
large diameter trees are not expected to
have negative impacts on the aspen
regeneration due to the low numbers of
large trees in the project area. Aspen
stands historically had a few conifer trees
present, just not the dense encroachment
of small diameter trees seen commonly
today on the Lassen National Forest.
Lyons aspen restoration unit 816–
There was an objective to designate 3 of
the largest snags/acre, 15 inches
diameter and greater where available as
wildlife trees. This photo illustrates an
area where several snags were available
and retained during the harvest
operations.
Lyons aspen restoration unit 816 –
Lyons Photo Point 8 encompassing an Aspen stand and Meadow restoration area.
Prior to conifer removal left, following conifer removal right.
Aspen Restoration Unit 816 – Bobette Jones,
Ecologist on Eagle Lake Ranger District,
explains how conifer removal to restore aspen
creates the added benefit of maintaining soil
moisture later into the growing season.
Improved soil moisture enhances plant growth
during the growing season and likely yields
more water downstream as well. July 29 (Julian
Day 210) is when the control aspen becomes
too dry for vegetation growth whereas the
treated aspen maintains sufficient moisture for
optimal growth throughout the growing season
(Sept 7 = Julian Day 250).
Lyons DFPZ Unit 140 –
The mechanical thinning portion of the Defensible
Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ) construction has been
completed. A planned underburn will be
completed 2-3 years after harvest operations have
ceased to remove surface fuels and make this a
fully implemented DFPZ. Burns are planned 2-3
years after thinning for several reasons including:
1) increased needle fall which will carry the fire
and 2) the vigor of remaining trees will increase
after they respond to increase light and moisture
availability and they will be more likely to survive
a prescribed fire.
Before
Treatment
Lyons DFPZ Unit 140 –
photo point 23 This photo points
illustrated the untreated
forest condition above
and after Defensible Fuel
Profile Zone construction
below. A follow-up
underburn is planned to
remove surface fuels.
After
Treatment
Lyons DFPZ Unit 140 –
Sierra Pacific Industries Forest Robert Hoover
discusses the economics of the Lyons DFPZ
and Aspen project. Due to the fact that 68% of
the material was biomass and only 32% of the
material was sawlogs, this timber sale was very
marginal for his company. Biomass, unless
harvested within 10 or 15 miles from a
cogeneration plant, does not pay its way out of
the forest. Revenues from sawlogs are
generally used to offset the cost of biomass
removal. They would like to see projects with
at least 50% sawlogs to make them more
economical.
Lyons DFPZ Unit 140 –
This historic structure was constructed during
the railroad era and was within the planned
DFPZ. The site was protected with a notreatment buffer and sale administrators and
contractors worked together to successfully
prevent unwanted impacts to the site.
Lyons DFPZ Unit 140 was planned under the
2001 Framework. There was a discussion on the
2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan “Framework”
management requirement that prohibits trees
with greater than a diameter of 20 inches at
breast height to be harvested, versus the current
(2004) Sierra Nevada Forest Plan “Framework”
management requirement which allows trees up
to 30 inches diameter at breast height to be
included in timber sales. There were some who
felt that portions of the Lyons DFPZ had too
dense a canopy and would still allow a canopy
fire to carry through portions of the DFPZ
because the forest was still too dense.
Lyons DFPZ Unit 140 – Eagle Lake
Silviculturist John Bassman discusses
the need to re-enter stands over time.
Restoration is not a one-time entry; it is
a process with multiple entries to
achieve the desired objective. These
trees will grow, the crowns will close,
and another thinning will likely be
necessary in 10 – 20 years. A second
underburn will be needed 5-15 years
after the first underburn to maintain low
surface fuel loading.
Follow up actions:
Complete surface fuel treatments (underburning) in Lyons Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ).
A follow-up meeting is planned with specialists to discuss contract requirement of 2 feet of snow during
winter logging operations to consider changing future contract requirements and include resources objectives
rather than strict snow depth requirements.
Notes prepared by:
HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader: /s/
Colin Dillingham
Reviewed by Eagle Lake District Ranger:
Date: 18 August 2011
/s/ Ann Carlson
Date: 19 August 2011
Appendix 1 – Field Trip Handout
LYONS DFPZ
General overview of the Sale:
Sale prepared:
Total acres harvested:
Sawtimber volume harvested:
Biomass volume harvested:
Harvested value:
Harvested value after ERR
Harvesting dates:
June 2005
1340
30,036 GT
48,703 GT
$370,865.00
$116,850.00
January 18, 2008 - March 19, 2008
November 17, 2010 – March 10, 2011
Objectives of the timber sale:
Reduce ladder fuels by thinning from below with an emphasis of retaining the healthiest, largest conifers in the
stand while removing the smaller, suppressed or diseased trees. In addition provide for firefighter safety and
produce a healthier better functioning ecosystem.
Connection of five other DFPZ’s within the immediate area, Caboose DFPZ, Railroad DFPZ, Caldera DFPZ,
Elk DFPZ, and North Crater West DFPZ.
DFPZ width is approximately ¼ to ¾ mile.
Sale design:
Leave tree mark in yellow paint.
Leave islands marked in yellow paint.
Unit boundaries marked in orange paint.
25% of the stands were to be left untreated as directed by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 2001.
The size of the leave islands range from ¼ acre to 5 acres.
Primary zone is from the road edge to 200 feet.
Secondary zone is 200’ to 1320’.
Removal consisted of trees 3 to 20” DBH within the DFPZ and 3 to 30” DBH within the aspen units.
Basal area prior to harvest was approximately 200 sq. ft.
Desired basal area in the primary zone is approximately 100-110 sq ft. and in the secondary zone is
approximately 110-120 sq ft.
Radial thin 20-30 feet from the large diameter ponderosa, Jeffery and sugar pines with a minimum diameter of
18” DBH.
Post harvest canopy closure to be approximately 30 - 50%.
Designate 3 of the largest snags/acre, 15” and greater where available as wildlife trees within the secondary
zone.
Mechanically harvested utilizing whole tree yarding.
Within the aspen stands remove conifers within approximately 150’ from the most distal aspen tree or sprout
along the edge of the existing aspen clone on the south, east and west aspects and 100’ on the north aspect.
Within Subdivision 1 the contract required a minimum of 24” of snow in the aspen units in addition to the MH
provision which requires the packing of the felled timber to the designated trail.
Post harvest treatment will be underburning.
This sale was sold with a mix of 38% sawtimber and 62% biomass.
The sale was harvested using tracked feller bunchers and skidded with rubber tired skidders and a dozer.
On the average the snow depths during the 2008 harvesting season was approximately 2-4 feet and during the 2010
harvesting season approximately 24-30 inches.
A 15’ buffer was placed along streamcourses and springs. The fellerbunchers were required to stop at the boundary
and reach in with the cutting head and remove the timber and pack it out to the designated trail. No equipment was
allowed within these buffer strips.
Sierra Pacific Industries was the only bidder on this sale.
Map of Lyons Defensible Fuel Profile Zone and Aspen Restoration Project – yellow indicates the
aspen restoration units and green indicates the DFPZ areas. Areas hatch marked or white were areas
of no treatment within the sale area.