HFQLG
Project Evaluation Form
Project Name:
Forest:
Mabie (Pilot Timber Sale)
Plumas
Project Type: DFPZ
Ranger District: Beckwourth
__
Date: 10/18/06
_____
Names of evaluators:
FOREST SERVICE: Russell Nickerson, Patti Millet, Barbara Boaz, Jeff Leach, Dave Evans, Mike Davis,
Terry Simon-Jackson, Beth Stewart, Elise Rierson, Thobe Oestrich, Fred Gonzalez, Tamara Schmidt, Kurt
Winchester, Alissa Tanner, Mary Kliejunas, Angela Parker, Terry Miller, Alec Lane, Antonio Dueñas, Bill
Sexton
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Linda Bloom, Harry Reeves, Bob Schultz
Project completed by: Timber Sales
Date completed: September, 2006__
Types of treatment and acres: 5,956 acres of DFPZ
On site evaluation:
Identify resource area, list resource attributes for which project objectives were developed,
identify objectives for each resource area, source of standard or objective, the degree
objective was met (meets, minor departure, or major departure), and comment on findings.
Resource
Attribute
area
SILVICULTURE
Unit 1-Delleker T. Canopy Cover
Objective
Source of
objective
Degree
met
40% CC
HFQLG as
described in
Framework
2004 Table
2.
Canopy cover
looked a bit
high, but no
measurements
were taken.
Basal Area
Retention
30% of existing
BA for eastside
pine types
Same as
above.
120-140 BA in
eastside pine
Damage to
the residual
stand
Low amount of
skin-ups on
sides of trees.
SOP and
contracting
language
Low amount
of skin-ups
observed.
Comments
Canopy cover rather
than basal area
requirements were
used for eastside
pine types. Some
confusion during
planning due to
change from SNF #1
to SNF #2; FS
employees were
unsure which S&G
they should use in
the DFPZ.
Basal Area retained
seemed a bit high to
the silviculturists,
more trees should
have been removed.
Problems conveying
the marking
guidelines to
inexperienced
markers.
Good job
Conifer
encroachment
Remove all
conifer <30”
dbh except
those
anchoring
streambank
NEPA
document &
RMOs
90%. Some
conifers <30”
left due to
operational
constraints of
mechanized
equipment.
See notation under
Follow-Up Actions
(below)
Aspen
Regeneration
Increase
sprouting
NEPA
document
and RMOs
Initial
sprouting
response
looks good
Need another
season or two to
better assess
sprouting response.
Canopy cover
40% canopy
cover (DFPZ).
BA 135 to 140
HFQLG,
marking
guides
mark was
light; no BA
measuring
tools
Could have taken
more trees. Stand
may have been mistyped during
planning.
Ground and
ladder fuels
Reduced
sufficiently to
achieve 1-4’
flame length
HFQLG
Appendix J
95% for
material that
could be
addressed
through
timber sale.
Follow-up
unburning will
reduce remaining
ground and ladder
fuels. Large
amounts of
bitterbrush may
cause convection
burning
Handpiles in
handthinning
areas
Compact,
teepee shaped
piles
<10%
piles loose, flat,
falling apart. Not
very burnable.
canopy cover
60% cc in
RHCA where it
exists
HFQLG
SATs and
RMOs
100%
Prescription met
where cc was
available, but most
cc started at less
than 60%.
Unit #121
stream
crossing
mitigate stream
crossing
BMPs
100%
Good use of bedrock
and streamside
armoring when
selecting crossing
site for logging
activities. NOTE:
opening the stand
appears to have
increased OHV use
and impacts.
SOILS
Ground cover
50% ground
cover
R5 soils S &
G’s
95%
Generally met in all
units. May need to
mitigate landings
with chips or other
ground cover,
particularly in unit
146.
Unit 121 (aspen
unit)
Unit #146 (south
end of project on
Highway 89)
FUELS
Unit #1
Unit #146
HYDROLOGY
Unit #1
BOTANY
Unit #1
HERITAGE
Unit #146
Pyrrocoma
tucida
flag and avoid
SOPs
100%
historic
preservation
Flag and avoid
SOPs
100%
Good job
coordinating
between sale admin
and botany
regarding fresh
flagging.
NOTE: Evaluation of success at meeting objectives is based strictly on walk-through observations.
Shortcomings and Successes and Lessons Learned:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Prescriptions and subsequent marking seems to have been consistently light. Need to do monitoring
of marking.
The Rx should maybe be designed for a desired condition 5-10 years out, not just here and now.
Consider doing LTM rather than ITM; this may make it easier to mark to prescription.
May want to consider more aggressive treatment in WUIs so as to reduce re-entries (decreasing soils
disturbance, disturbance to adjacent landowners).
Need to do site-specific review for any subsoiling needs following harvest activities.
Consider doing before-and-after photos at key locations in these projects.
There are inconsistent interpretations of the Standards and Guides for upper diameter limits in aspen
stands; some districts feel that there are no limits under the 2004 Framework, and others feel that the
30” diameter limit applies.
Follow up actions:
•
•
•
•
Need to do hand removal of small conifers left in aspen Unit 121. These small trees had been left
due to operational constraints of the mechanized equipment. NOTE: this follow-up was completed
by Force Account within two weeks of this monitoring trip.
Fuels and contract prep – Fuels and contract prep folks need to work together before next year’s
contracts to improve contract language for acceptable hand piles.
Consider underburning Unit 1, even if not needed to meet fuels objectives, in order to increase
bitterbrush for wildlife use.
Access to large landing in Unit 146 needs to be blocked off.
District Ranger:
/s/ Fred Gonzalez
Date: 2-8-07