HFQLG
Project Evaluation Form
Project Name: Crystal Adams Project Type: _DFPZ________
Forest: Plumas
Ranger District: Beckwourth Date: 15 August 2006
Attendance:
Agency – None
Public – Frank Stewart, Harry Reeves and Linda Blum, Quincy Library Group
USFS – Sabrina Stadler (NEPA Planner), Russell Nickerson (Wildlife Biologist), Barb Boaz
(Ecosystem Manager), Terry Miller (Botanist), Janice Sangunitto (Silviculturalist), Alissa Tanner
(Fuels), Mike Davis (Implementation Contract COR), Mary Kliejunas (Archaeologist), Barbara Drake
(Hydrologist), Bill Diekmann (Logging Systems), Colin Dillingham (HFQLG)
Project completed by: Service Contract_______________
Date completed: _Contract
terminates October
2006_______
Type of treatment and acres:
Bid Item 1
Hand Thin less than 8 inches and pile - RHCA
Hand Thin less than 6 inches, lop and scatter
Hand Thin less than 8 inches, lop and scatter
Hand Thin less than 8 inches and pile
Hand thin less than 6 inches and hand pile
Hand thin less than 12 inches and grapple pile
Mechanical thin less than 6 inches and remove
Mechanical thin less than 12 inches and remove
Burn all piles
524 acres
488 acres
554 acres
261 acres
91 acres
77 acres
75 acres
412 acres
1,498 acres
Bid Item 2
Underburn
Hand thin less than 8 inches RHCA
Burn hand piles on acres in RHCA
1,185 acres
241 acres
241 acres
DFPZ Acres
4,760 acres
Resource
Area
Community
Stability
Attribute
Objective
Source of
Objective
Objective
Met?
Comments
Group
selection
Produce timber and
economic return to
local communities
HFQLG FEIS
No
Project was litigated,
under settlement group
select units dropped.
Ground Cover,
Ladder fuels,
Increase Live
Crown Base
Heights
To reduce potential
for high-intensity
surface fire and the
probability of future
crown fires by using
thinning and
prescribed burning
to remove at least
90% of existing
ground and ladder
fuels and to increase
the height of live
crowns
Appendix J,
HFQLG FEIS
No in unit
36,
although
partially
met on unit
12.
Silviculture
Canopy Cover
DFPZ 40% canopy
cover
HFQLG FEIS
No
Wildlife
Goshawk PAC
Avoid entrance into
PACs.
SNFPA 2001
N/A
Heritage
Archaeological
Site Integrity
Map shows
mechanical thin.
Therefore protection
measures are total
site avoidance.
However, we can
allow hand thinning
within site
boundaries as long
as the piles are
stacked and burnt
outside flagged site
boundaries.
National
Historic
Preservation Act
& Programmatic
Agreement with
State Historic
Preservation
Officer (SHPO).
No.
The canopy cover
restrictions were too
limiting with the 2001
SNFPA (see silviculture
resource area
comments). Stands had
high amounts of ladder
fuels and the live crown
base heights were too
low. In some of the units
the “lop and scatter”
prescription left high
amounts of residual fuel
loads post treatment. In
other units high fuel
loading, coupled with a
vast number of hand
piles, pose a risk to
residual stands when the
piles are burned.
The 2001 SNFPA did not
permit canopy cover to
drop below 40% in the
DFPZ regardless of the
vegetation type.
Modeling outputs used to
meet the canopy
objectives showed that
the majority of stands
would need minimal
treatment to meet the
40% CC, in most cases
only trees < 8” dbh
needed to be removed.
This resulted in most of
the project area being
implemented as a
service contract. The
stocking levels in these
eastside pine conditions
remain too high. A
second entry should be
considered.
All PACs were located
outside of the DFPZ and
completely avoided.
Aug. 2004 hand piles
were observed within site
boundaries, unit 81.
I asked them to be
moved.
Site was reflagged during
the winter of 2004.
On the 8/15/06 site visit
I observed that the piles
were not moved and
approx. 10 piles were
burnt within site
boundaries.
Fuels
Shortcomings and Successes:
Contracted out entire NEPA planning process. The result was that there was little site specificity and
stands did not achieve adequate prescriptions. Project was planned under 2001 framework, upper
diameter limits were restrictive and prevented economically viable commercial entry.
DFPZ in unit 36 did not fully meet ladder fuels or residual spacing objectives. Overall DFPZ was
partially successful in that ladder fuels were reduced.
DFPZ in unit 12 has too much fuel both in form of residual down material as well as too many piles
underneath remaining white fir stand. IDT felt that burning piles would result in unacceptable levels
of mortality to residual stand. See follow up action below.
Standard resource protection measures, flag and avoid archaeological sites, were not followed in unit
81.
Follow up actions:
Consider terminating some portions of the contract (unit 12 and other similar units) for convenience
to government where burning piles is expected to result in unacceptable resource damages.
The Forest contacted the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding our failure to follow
standard resource protection measures in unit 81 and the possibility of an inadvertent effect to the
archaeological site. The archaeologists will evaluate the site under the National Register criteria to
determine if it is eligible and assess the effects to this archaeological site. Consultation with SHPO
will continue.
District Ranger: ___/s/Fred Gonzalez______________________ Date: 10/27/06_____