HFQLG
Project Evaluation Form
Project Name: Meadow Valley Snake and Deanes Valley Timber Sales
Project Type: Multiproduct Timber Sale/DFPZ/Group Select
Forest: Plumas
Ranger District: Mt Hough
Date: September 6, 2006
Attendance:
Public – Claude Sanders - private timber faller; Charlie Router, visiting consultant from New Zealand.
Quincy Library Group – Harry Reeves, Linda Blum, Frank Stewart - County Forester, Bill Wickman - American
Forest Resources Council.
USFS – Molly Fuller – Ecosystem Manager, Jason Moghaddas – Fire Ecologist, Terri Simon-Jackson – Forest
Planning Officer, Paul Stancheff – Vegetation Management, Tamara Schmidt – HFQLG Public Affairs, Angela
Parker – HFQLG Assistant Team Leader, Colin Dillingham – HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader, David Evans –
Lassen NF Forest Silviculturalist, Tina Hopkins – Aquatic Biologist.
Project completed by: X Contract; John Marshall of Trinity River Forestry out of Weaverville was operator on
Snake project. Date completed: 2005 - 2006
Type of treatment and acres:
Project Objectives and Prescriptions (from EA pgs 17-29):
Fuel Treatment: Implement a Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ) as a 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 Meadow
Valley in the event of a wildfire.
Deanes Units 28 & 30 – DFPZ Units and WUI
Prescription: Thin stands mainly from below.
Harvest trees less than 30 inches dbh; Retain a minimum of 40% canopy closure
Retain 2 snags per acre
Follow up treatments, including grapple/hand piling and burning, under burning or a combination of
those methods would be implemented to reduce and rearrange excessive surface fuels.
Group Selection: Implement group selection as directed in the HFQLG Act to achieve an all-aged mosaic
of timber stands, while contributing to the local economy through a sustainable output of forest products.
Snake GS Units 213 and 237
Prescription: Group selection harvest ranging in size between 0.5 and 2.0 acres.
Harvest all conifers less than 30 inches dbh except desirable shade-intolerant regeneration
Retain 2 snags per acre
Underburning, or piling and burning, would be used to treat residual slash, fine fuels, and shrubs.
Natural and artificial regeneration would be used to achieve desired stocking levels of new stands
dominated by shade-intolerant species. If necessary, competing brush and grass would be controlled
by grubbing or mastication to assure survival and growth of young conifers.
Meadow Valley Project Statistics:
Meadow Valley EA Alt. C (predicted) 4 Timber sales (actual)3
5,165 ac
4,228 ac1
743 ac
5.7%
36,004 mbf
712 ac
4.7%
30,732 mbf
26,255.8 ccf
$6.06 million
65,512.8 ccf
$4.2 million
DFPZ (mech harvest acres)
GS (acres)
GS (% of landbase)
2
Volume (Sawlogs – mbf)
Volume (Biomass – ccf)
Value
1
Acres of implemented DFPZ were reduced due to RHCAs, Group Selections within the DFPZ, Control Areas, and
removal of the PSW Research Plots.
2
Volume estimates reported in the Environmental Assessment are gross volume estimates and do not reflect rates of
defect. Timber sale volume estimates are net volume estimates and do reflect volume deduction for defect.
3
Silver TSC has yet to be awarded as of Sept 2006. Figures reflect advertised numbers, which were modified in 2006
for Silver TSC.
Quantification of Existing Conditions (Pre-Treatment) and Post-Treatment Conditions 4:
Forest Structure
DFPZ: Pre-Treatment and Post-Treatment Conditions as compared to Desired
conditions as identified by the Meadow Valley EA – Alternative C, Predicted
Effects5 Guard Data from 2005
Pre-Treatment
Post-Treatment
EA: Alternative C,
Conditions
Conditions
Predicted Effects
Trees Per Acre
Mean Diameter
(in)
Mean Height (ft)
Basal Area
255
14.6
99 tpa
19.0” dbh
116 tpa
18.0” dbh
71
324
87 ft
n/a
200 ft / ac
186 ft / ac
66.2
48%
40%
13
21 ft.
19 ft.
6 tpa
5 tpa
4 tpa
2
(ft /ac)
Canopy Cover
(%)
Average
Spacing (ft)
Snags per acre
(>15” dbh)
2
4
2
Reported values are averages per acre, and are not a statistically valid representation of all units in the Meadow
Valley Project
5
Meadow Valley EA, Alternative C predicted sawlog harvest is 2.5 mbf/ac for DFPZs.
Desired Fuel Characteristics:
Residual fine fuel (less than 3 inches in diameter) would not exceed five tons per acre. However, where
down logs exist, 10-20 tons per acre of the largest down logs having diameters greater than 12 inches would
be retained. (Design elements from EA pg. 6)
Existing Surface Fuel Characteristics6:
DFPZ: Pre-Treatment (PSW Plot) and Post Treatment “Average” Conditions and Fuel Load
Range. Guard data from 2005 monitoring field trip.
Pre-Treatment
Conditions
(Tons per Acre)
1-Hour Fuels
10-Hour Fuels
100-Hour Fuels
1,000-Hour
Fuels
Litter and Duff
Fuel Depth
Post-Treatment
“Average”
Conditions
(Tons per Acre)
0.8
3.1
3.2
5.7
Post-Treatment
Range
(Tons/Acre)
0.9
6.1
5.6
22
PreTreatment
Range
(Tons /acre
0.1-1.5
3.1-9.1
0-10.8
2.7-57
66
0.9
17-108
0.2-6.3
23.5
5.5 (in)
19.9-23.5
2.5-8.6 (in)
0.7-0.9
2.2-3.9
2.2-4.3
5.6-5.8
Group Selection: Pre-Treatment (PSW Plot)7 and Post-Treatment “Average” Conditions and
Fuel Load Range. Guard data from 2005 monitoring field trip.
Pre-Treatment
Conditions
(Tons per
Acre)
1-Hour
Fuels
10-Hour
Fuels
100-Hour
Fuels
1,000-Hour
Fuels
Litter and
Duff
Fuel Depth
Post-Treatment
“Average” Conditions
(Tons per Acre)
Post-Treatment Range
(Tons per Acre)
0.9
PreTreatment
Range
(Tons/
Acre)
0.1-1.5
0.7
0.6-0.9
6.1
3.1-9.1
2.1
0.9-3.3
5.6
0-10.8
1.8
1.4-2.2
22
2.7-57
15.7
9.6-21.7
66
17-108
21.1
19.9-22.3
0.9
0.2-6.3
3.2 (in)
2.5-3.5 (in)
6
Reported values are averages per acre, and are not a statistically valid representation of all units in the Meadow
Valley Project
7
PSW plot existing condition data are used to represent Group Selection Pre-Treatment conditions.
Resource
Area
Soils
Attribute
Objective
Source of
Objective
Degree
Met
Comments
Bill Wickman suggested
that we consider not
creating water bars on all
skid trails, particularly in
areas with little slope.
Instead use residual
slash to spread out over
skid trails. Provide
logger with options and
give clear specifications.
Extensive evidence of
tracks throughout Snake
Units 237. This
appeared to exceeds 15%
disturbance standards,
need to validate with
admin staff and modify
for remainder of sale.
Retaining, instead of
harvesting, 3 trees in the
24 – 26 inch dbh
category affects
economics of GS units
(trees were not measured
to validate). Make sure
retention trees are
greater than 30” dbh
when marked.
Why aren’t we actively
monitoring to achieve a
40% canopy? Consensus
was that 48% canopy
was too high posttreatment. Consider
reentering stands to
achieve EA objective if
economical to do so at
this time.
Decision that units 213
and 237 met objectives
for planting will save site
preparation costs. Pine
should be planted
because natural
regeneration not
anticipated meeting
needs. Wide spacing vs
lots of trees/acre was
discussed.
Some snags retained in
group select units, no
attempt to quantify
count during trip.
Residual fuels below 5
tons/acre. No need for
fuels treatment
Skid Trails /
Water Bars
Water Bar Skid
Trails
Contract
Water bars
were
created as
required,
but more
damage
caused than
prevented.
Soils
Designated
Skid Trails in
Group Select
Units
Designate skid trails
EA/ Contract
No
Silviculture
Community
Economic
Stability/
Harvest
Guidelines in
Groups
Harvest all trees less
than 30” dbh in
groups
EA/ HFQLG
Most trees
harvested,
but three
white fir
apparently
under 30”
dbh
retained.
Silviculture/
Fuels
Canopy cover
in DFPZ
Thin forest to 40%
canopy cover
EA/ HFQLG
48% canopy
maintained,
exceeded
prescription
Silviculture
Site
Preparation/
Natural
Regeneration
versus
Planting needs
Reduce expense in
site preparation
before planting
Group
discussion
Group felt
several of
the groups
did not
need any
additional
site
preparation
Wildlife
Snag habitat
Retain 2 snags/acre
in group select areas
HFQLG
Yes, at least
partially in
Unit 213.
Fuels
Residual fuels do not
exceed 5 tons/acre
EA, pg 6
10-20 tons/acre of
largest down logs
would be retained
Treat fuels in RHCA
EA, pg 6
Hydrology/
fuels
Residual fuels
in Snake
Group Select
units
1,000 hour
fuels/ large
down wood
RHCA
management
Botany/
No issues
Fuels/
wildlife
yes
yes
yes
17 - 22 tons/acre total
fuels retained post
treatment
RHCA to be hand
thinned in Deanes Unit
30. This will help make
RHCA fire resilient in
future.
Shortcomings and Successes:
Group selection units look like they treated stand well to achieve canopy opening while providing economic
return to community. Ground cover maintained in unit at approximately 50% objective. Why are trees
under 30” dbh being marked for retention? Need to work with marking crews to ensure harvestable trees
that are scheduled for harvest are allowed to be harvested by the operators.
Water bars on moderate and gentle slopes were seen as a negative impact on the resource rather than a
beneficial mitigation. Bill Wickman suggested that instead of running an additional piece of equipment on
the land, further compacting the soil, we should have instead use the same piece of equipment that was
already there to scatter and spread the existing residual slash onto the skid trails. This would have the dual
benefit of improving the soil condition and also would have allowed for more natural regeneration and
planting spots because of more scattered, open, disturbed soils.
Group discussed future fuels issue in group select units within a DFPZ. Some members of group felt that
future management of plantations within DFPZ would impact management of the DFPZ, but overall an acre
here or there would not significantly impact effective use of DFPZ. There will likely be an added fuels
management cost within group selection units to prevent losing the seedling/pole size trees during DFPZ
maintenance.
Tina Hopkins discussed mountain yellow-legged frog monitoring. Monitoring showed that frogs stay within
1 meter of creek during summer, and only move out 22 meters during breeding season or fall rainy season.
This has timber sale implementation implications because it allows for specific guidelines to be developed,
which allow mechanical treatment within mountain yellow-legged frog occupied riparian habitat
conservation areas.
Deanes unit 28 had too much residual canopy. What are we doing about this? There was discussion
regarding what is being done on Empire Project and how basal area relationships for this stand type can be
used more accurately and easily by contract prep crews to achieve the 40% canopy cover objective. Bill
Wickman and Frank Stewart suggested that we can’t leave the stand in this condition. David Evans
suggested that stand would not meet forest health standards in 20 years time. Another entry to meet the
Meadow Valley EA objectives should be strongly considered. Possible use existing contract additional
volume clause before it closes, or set something new up. Potentially no new decision or planning required
since meeting project objective would be achieved.
Claude Sanders suggested that we consider using commercial fuelwood operations to meet some DFPZ
objectives in areas where a small operator could thin the forest, remove landing piles, or otherwise help us to
meet our objectives.
Follow-up Actions:
1) Consider getting silviculturist out ahead of logger on Snake and Silver, to ensure that basal area
retained is going to meet the 40% canopy cover objective. If not, work with timber sale admin staff
to include additional volume to reach objective. Consider either a remark in the existing Deanes
timber sale contract or offering a second timber contract to harvest additional volume to reach
objectives in EA. The scattered landing piles that the district wants to have removed could be
incorporated into this sale. These objectives are primarily fuel reduction/ canopy cover reduction to
have a fully functional DFPZ. Lead responsible official, Mt Hough District Ranger.
2) Regional office review of program effectiveness in September will provide opportunity to appeal for
a split appraisal. Saw logs to nearest mill (Quincy) and biomass to nearest biomass plant that needs
biomass (consider Loyalton, Westwood, Burney or Honey Lake). Appraising biomass to Quincy’s
biomass plant is not appropriate because saw mill produces more waste biomass material than it can
3)
4)
5)
6)
handle already. The policy needs to be adjusted. Consider involving fuels folks in Regional Office
to help. In addition, consider suggestions for biomass measurement requirements that would be
simple and cost effective. Biomass cruise plots are extensive and costly, for products that we pay to
have removed. Could this burden be moved to the purchaser? The current policy was set up during
an era of saw logs and now we are in an era of biomass removal. Terri Simon-Jackson will forward
information to Regional Office.
Change administration of water bar requirement in Snake timber sale to prevent further resource
damage. Objectives can be met with spreading slash over skid trails on gentle slopes. Molly Fuller
will work with Sale Administrators Sharon Brockman and Frank Hanson and Soil Scientist Emily
Moghaddas to resolve issue in Snake Timber Sale.
Work with sale administration and operators to ensure skid trail designations are planned and adhered
to. Molly Fuller will work with Sale Administrators Sharon Brockman and Frank Hanson and Soil
Scientist Emily Moghaddas to resolve issue in Snake Timber Sale.
Work with marking crew in group selection units to be sure trees less than 30 inches dbh scheduled
for removal are not marked for retention, unless called for in the prescription. Molly Fuller to follow
up with marking crew.
Ground based operations are often restricted by moisture content of the soil. In areas like Deanes
unit 28 where there is abundant residual organic matter, compaction is mitigated. Incorporate
Residual Organic Matter into regional guidelines. Follow-up with Regional Soil Scientist Brent
Roath.
Acting District Ranger:
/s/ Molly Fuller
Date: ___September 15, 2006____
Meadow Valley Re-mark Evaluation
DFPZ units within the four Meadow Valley Timber Sales were visited to evaluate whether or not
the treatments met the project objectives and design criteria as specified within the EA, and to
assess the potential for additional marking. The units we selected for field evaluation were
largely based on timber prep and sale admin experience, monitoring data, site quality, and stand
density.
This effort was based on monitoring data from Jon Lamb and data from the HFQLG monitoring
field trip in order to assess whether treatments were meeting the desired canopy covers identified
within the Meadow Valley EA. The DFPZ design criteria/treatment effects disclosed in the EA
are as follows:
Defense Zone WUI
Threat Zone/ General Forest
Old Forest Emphasis:
Basal
Area
184
186
186
Canopy Cover
Volume Harvested
UDL
~30-40%
~40%
~40%
4.7 MBF/ac
2.5 MBF/ac
2.5 MBF/ac
30 “ dbh
20 “ dbh
20 “ dbh
Based on our field evaluation, I would recommend considering marking additional timber within
the units that the timber contractors have not yet entered. I believe this would maximize the
volume return for the cost of remarking while eliminating any additional logging costs. We have
identified three to four more units that have not yet been entered and where re-marking should be
considered; these are listed in order of priority:
1. Silver Sale unit 13 (220 acres): This unit includes some of the highest site quality and stand
densities within the Meadow Valley Timber sales. This unit is within the Defense zone and has
approximately 220 square feet of basal area per acre. We estimate approximately 1-2 mbf of
additional volume per acre on the high sites. As I understand from Molly and Sharon, Randy
Pew wants to start operating on this sale in the beginning of November so this would be the
highest priority.
Since there are inclusions of poorer serpentine sites within this unit, I would recommend having
the crew only remark the higher sites within the unit. The poor sites have lower than desirable
basal areas and are not recommended for remark. This would eliminate ~30% of the unit.
2. Guard Sale Unit 29 (11 acres): This unit is within the WUI, the only unit on Guard that has a
30" upper diameter limit and lower canopy cover guidelines. This unit has approximately 220
square feet of basal area per acre. We estimate approximately 2mbf of additional volume per acre
due to the larger average stand diameter.
3. Snake Sale Units 6 (83 acres): This unit is within the threat zone and design criteria specify a
20" UDL and 40% canopy cover. This unit has 184 square feet of basal area per acre which is
within the desirable range; however monitoring data from previously logged units on the Deanes
sale indicates that these basal areas may result in higher than desired canopy covers. Remarking
this unit would yield approximately 1mbf per acre.
4. Snake Sale Unit 8 (108 acres): We would consider evaluating this unit for remark, but due to
travel distance and limited time, this unit wasn’t evaluated. This unit could be evaluated later this
fall or next spring depending on weather and road conditions (poor road access).
There are additional units within the Guard, Snake and Silver Sales which have not been entered
to this date. However, I do not recommend remarking these units due to the already poor existing
conditions such as low site, low volume per acre, and existing stand structure.
I would not recommend re-entering previously completed and accepted units as the costs of
remarking , and the costs of logging would likely be higher than the volume return. Re-marking
costs would include crew time, paint, and diversion from other projects). Logging costs would
include the costs of moving equipment back in and out, re-opening roads, landings, skid trails that
have already been "put to bed", roving the unit for more scattered volume, and re-closing roads,
landings, and skid trails (including subsoiling costs). I would also be concerned about incurring
additional resource damage due to “skin ups” as we observed trees that were marked, but not cut
due to operability constrained by residual leave trees. I do not recommend re-marking any units
on the Deanes Sale and those completed on the Guard Sale for the aforementioned reasons.
Furthermore, in threat zones, general forest and old forest emphasis zones, the 20 inch UDL
appears to be the limiting variable in reducing canopy cover and basal areas to the levels
identified in the EA. This observation should be applied with caution outside of the Guard Sale
as the true fir dominated stands are on higher than average sites for the MHRD in general and
cannot be used to typify the sales on the North end of the Valley (Snake and Silver). However,
within these sites and stand densities on the Guard Sale, the 20 inch UDL limits the ability to
reduce canopy cover to the desired ranges.
10/8/2007
Meadow Valley Remark – Marking Guidelines
Prescription Objectives
•
•
Reduce hazardous live fuels by removing ladder fuels and reducing the horizontal continuity of the
tree canopy, while maintaining irregular tree spacing through retention of the largest, most vigorous
trees.
Reduce tree density to improve the health and vigor of retained trees.
Prescription
Mark trees in the specified dbh range for removal while following the tree selection criteria and retaining
the specified canopy cover and basal area.
Prescription
Cut tree dbh range
Minimum canopy
Average Basal Area Retained
in inches
cover retention
in square feet
Rx1
10.0 to 29.9
40%
180-200
• Rx1 – Rx1 applies to units 29 (Guard Sale) and 13 (Silver Sale)
• All Rx’s – Trees under 10 inches dbh will not be marked, but they will be designated by description
and shall be spaced at 20 feet where residual dominant/codominant trees are not present. Snags were
already marked, therefore do not mark additional snags unless they are a hazard.
Please reference field map for appropriate Rx.
Tree Selection Criteria
Apply the following prescription criteria in the priority they are shown. The higher priority criteria take
precedence over the next higher criteria.
1.
Crown Position and Tree Vigor: Vigorous dominant and codominant trees have precedence as
leave trees. Generally, marking will result in the priority removal of suppressed and intermediate
crown class trees. Thereafter, co-dominant trees may be removed to achieve the target basal area.
Vigorous trees generally have the following characteristics: live crowns of 40% or more; dense
crowns; no evidence of damage to the bole or leader; and they have more distance between branch
whorls than their neighbors.
2.
Disease and/or Damage: Give preference to retain conifer trees exhibiting the healthiest live
crowns that are free from disease and damage, while removing trees that display signs of the
following damage:
(a) true fir with live crowns less than 40% and/or other conifers with live crowns less than 30%,
(b) sugar pine with blister rust,
(c) dead tops,
(d) dwarf mistletoe on the trunk or in the upper ½ of the crown,
(e) mechanical damage, forked boles, crooks, broken tops, and
(f) trees larger than 10 inches in dbh that are growing closely together or in clumps that cannot be
cut without damage to the desired leave tree shall be considered as one tree and either both cut
or left as a clump.
Note: trees that are not optimally desirable may need to be left to maintain desired canopy cover and
basal area.
3.
Leave Tree Species Preference: Utilize the following species preference for leave trees in order:
sugar pine > ponderosa pine > Douglas-fir > incense cedar > white fir, while maintaining a mixture of
all species where present. Retain all healthy sugar pine (not infected with blister rust) that are not
competing with other larger sugar pine. Retain all black oak & other hardwoods. Thin conifers of
equivalent or subordinate size surrounding healthy vigorous black oak > 12” dbh.
See other side for definitions of crown classes.
Page 1 of 2
10/8/2007
Definitions:
Dominant. Trees with crowns extending above the general level of the crown cover and receiving full light
from above and partly from the sides; larger than the average trees in the stands and with crowns well
developed but possibly somewhat crowed on the sides.
Codominant. Trees with crowns at the general level of the crown canopy. Crowns receive full light from
above but little direct sunlight penetrates to their sides. Usually they have medium-sized crowns and are
somewhat crowded from the sides.
Intermediate. Trees that are shorter than dominants and co-dominants, but their crowns extend into the
canopy of dominant and co-dominant trees. They receive little direct light from above and none from the
sides. As a result, intermediates usually have small crowns and are very crowded from the sides.
Suppressed. Trees with crowns entirely below the general level of the crown canopy that receive no direct
sunlight either from above or the sides.
Page 2 of 2