HFQLG
Project Evaluation Form
Project Name: Brush Creek DFPZ___ Project Type: _DFPZ, Commercial Harvest and Service Contract
Forest: __Plumas
Ranger District: Feather River
Date: _7 July 2006____
Attendance:
Agency – None
Public – Harry Reeves and Linda Blum, Quincy Library Group
Ron Hague, Forester for Soper-Wheeler Company
USFS – Cindy Roberts (Wildlife Biologist), Linnea Hanson (Acting Ecosystem Manager), Chris Christofferson
(Botanist), Dan Roskopf (Silviculturalist), Colin Dillingham (HFQLG), Kurt Winchester (HFQLG), Timothy
Evans (HFQLG)
Project completed by: Timber Harvest Contract and Service Contract Date completed: 2005-2006_
Resource
Area
Silviculture
Attribute
Objective
Source of
Objective
DFPZ
Harvest conifer trees
less than 30” dbh in
DFPZ
HFQLG
Botany
Rare plant
management
Treat stand as
planned with
mechanical harvest
(Unit 21) and
mastication (Unit 31)
HFQLG
Wildlife
(Units 21,
31, 32)
Spotted Owl
Habitat
Maintain 40%
canopy and move
stand to later seral
stand structure
Fuels
Fine fuels in
mech harvest
(U-21) and
mastication
(U-31)
Underburn
only in DFPZ
with overstory
forest and
tanoak
understory
Residual fine fuel
would not exceed 5
tons/acre
Soils/
Hydrology
Unit 21
Soil
Compaction
Prevent deleterious
soil compaction and
reduce surface
erosion.
Heritage
No issues
discussed
Fuels
Reduce ground fuels
and reduce ladder
fuels
Degree
Met
yes
DFPZ
objectives
met in
areas with
sensitive
plant
species
HFQLG FEIS
yes
HFQLG FEIS
Interim Rx
has not yet
met
objectives
HFQLG FEIS
Yes
HFQLG FEIS
No
compaction
observed
Comments
Commercial entry was
possible and SoperWheeler company was
satisfied with project that
achieved DFPZ
objectives.
Control areas (no
treatment) are usually
established in areas with
rare plants. Monitoring
results of plant response
to treatment for adaptive
management is ongoing.
Canopy was reduced, but
not below 40%
guidelines. All stands
moved to a larger size
class though treatment
by removing smaller
trees.
Follow-up fuel
treatments are planned
in unit 21 and 31 and
appear necessary.
Underburn appeared
very effective in
achieving desired results
in this stand that was
entered during Brush
Creek Forest Health
Project
Subsoiling has not been
completed and does not
appear necessary.
Shortcomings and Successes: Implementing projects in areas occupied by sensitive plant populations (and
monitoring results of treatment effects for future adaptive management use) rather than eliminating treatments
in areas with sensitive plants was good. Linda Blum did have concerns that we may be spending too much effort
monitoring a few plants. Monitoring coordinator Colin Dillingham thought monitoring effort and adaptive
management strategy was in line with Monitoring Strategy in HFQLG FEIS.
Follow up actions: Roger Elam, Sale Administrator and Kelly Whitsett, Hydrologist, need to investigate whether
subsoiling in Unit 21 should be required. Group felt with timber harvest over dry soil conditions, there is
probably no need to rip soils. Subsoiling at this point would cause unnecessary disturbance to tree roots, and
sensitive plant population present and subsoiling would cause unnecessary added expense to project.
District Ranger: _/s/ Karen L. Hayden__________________ Date:
7-18-06_______