HFQLG
Project Evaluation Form
Project Name: Borda EA, Bosque, Camino and Toro Projects; Project Type: DFPZ
Forest: Tahoe NF; Ranger District: Sierraville; Date: 27 Sept 2006
Attendance:
Agency: John McDonald – Sierra County Fire Safe Council
Public: Linda Blum – Quincy Library Group; Lee Light – Mountain Messenger, Newspaper of
Downieville; Roy Light
USFS: Jeff Leach (NEPA Planner), Timothy Evans (Resource Officer), Bruce Troedson (Sale
Administration), Craig Wilson (Wildlife Biologist), Walter Levings (Timber Program Manager,
Lassen NF), Terry Blanka (NEPA Planner), Dave McComb (Soil Scientist), Larry Ford (District
Silviculturist), Lance Noxon (Fuels Officer), Tony Balderas (Forester – Career Intern Program), Dave
Evans (Lassen NF Forest Silviculturist), Paul Stancheff (Plumas NF Assistant Forest Silviculturist),
Colin Dillingham (HFQLG Monitoring Coordinator), Linda Kanski (HFQLG Management Analyst),
Tamara Schmidt (HFQLG Public Affairs Officer)
Project completed by: Bosque and Camino projects were service contracts, the Toro project was a
timber sale.
Date completed: All stops on this field trip are contracts for work that was covered by the Borda
Project EA. The Borda Decision was signed in August of 2003. The contract work was completed in
2004, 2005 and 2006, is still ongoing for some of the contracts.
•
•
•
Stop 1 – Bosque Service Contract, Units 6 and 7
Stop 2 – Camino Service Contract, Unit 72
Stop 3 – Camino Service Contract Unit 66, and Toro Timber Sale Unit 44 , and Toro Grapple
Piling Service Contract
Bosque Service Contract – Contractor: Randy Pew
Contract Cost
Contract Acres
Contract Cost / Acre
(Includes Thinning and
Mastication)
Product Value Sold to Contractor
(Value / Acre)
Net Cost / Acre to FS
Sawlog Volume
Non-Sawlog Volume
$265,485
409
$649
$10,232
($25)
$625
1,548 CCF
3,771 CCF
Mechanical Thinning
409 Acres
Post Thinning Fuel
Treatment (included in
Bosque Contract)
Mastication
194 Acres (subset of
409 acres)
774 MBF
13,003 Tons
Cost
$192,252
Cost
$73, 233
1.9 MBF/Acre
32 Tons / acre
Cost / Acre
$470
Cost / Acre
$377
Camino Service Contract – Contractor: Randy Pew
Total Contract Cost
Mechanical Thinning
Total Contract Acres
Cost / Acre
Product Value Sold to Contractor
(Value / Acre)
Net Cost / Acre to FS
Sawlog Volume
Non-Sawlog Volume
$380,053
637
$596
$26,998
($42)
$554
2,866 CCF
6,408 CCF
1,433 MBF
22,096 Tons
2.2 MBF/Acre
35 Tons / Acre
Toro DFPZ Timber Sale– Purchaser: Sierra Pacific Industries
Total Product Value Sold
Total Unit Acres
Product Value / Acre
Sawlog Volume
Non-Sawlog Volume
$56,779
852
$66.64
24,233 Tons
18,457 Tons
3,635 MBF
5,352 CCF
4.3 MBF/Acre
22 Tons / acre
Toro DFPZ Grapple Piling – Contractor: Winningham Forest Management
Contract Cost
Contract Acres
Contract Cost / Acre
(Includes hand work and grapple
piling)
$484,661
817
$593 *
* - Underburning would have been $250 - $300 / acre, but would have taken additional years to complete because of short
burning windows. Leave tree mortality would likely have been higher. Smoke management is a critical concern because of
the effects to the adjacent community of Calpine, and would have been more difficult to control with underburning. The
Sierraville District is using more mechanical methods to reduce ground fuels to keep up with the workload being created by
the HFQLG thinning program. Underburning alone would not allow for the timely treatment of ground fuels.
Stop #1
Stop #2
Stop #3
CHANGES TO CANOPY COVER AND BASAL AREA
Pre-Canopy
Target
Post Canopy
Pre Basal
Unit #
Cover (FIA)
Canopy
Cover (Elk
Area (ft²)
Cover
Horn Plots)
Bosque 6 & 7
51 %
40%
45 %
243
Camino 72
53 %
30%
34 %
190
Toro 44
46 %
40%
34 %
243
Camino 66
61 %
40%
38 %
206
Post Basal
Area (ft²)
122
108
104
88
RESOURCE
AREA
ATTRIBUTE
Silviculture
Canopy Cover
Silviculture
Basal Area
OBJECTIVE
SOURCE
OF
OBJECTIVE
DEGREE
MET
EA
Within 6% on
all 5 units
measured
Residual
Stand
40% canopy cover
in Bosque 6, 7,
Toro 44 and
Camino 66. 30%
in Camino 72
No specific
Silviculture
objective for basal
area, other than to
achieve a reduction
in basal area.
Limit damage to
residual stand
Contract
Wildlife
Snag
management
Retain at least 3 of
the largest snags
per acre.
EA & 2001
SNFPA ROD
Snags retained
where
possible.
Fuels
Fuel loading underburn
EA
Yes, effective
DFPZ
Fuels
Fuel loading
– Grapple
Piles
EA
Yes, effective
DFPZ
Soils
Soil
compaction
EA
Yes
Soils
Ground Cover
EA
Yes
Hydrology/
fuels
Riparian
Zones –
RHCA
management
No items
discussed.
EA
Yes, RHCA
managed.
EA
Yes, effective
Sale
Administration
Botany/
Heritage
EA
Reduce fuel
loading to allow
for flame lengths
of 2 to 4 feet.
Reduce fuel
loading to allow
for flame lengths
of 2 to 4 feet.
Prevent
detrimental soil
compaction and
mitigate where
present
Maintain 50%
ground cover
Meet the 10 RMOs
in Appendix L of
HFQLG FEIS
Heritage and
Sensitive Plant
sites are protected
in all the contract
areas
Yes, basal
area reduced
as planned.
Yes
COMMENTS
Canopy ranged from 34 – 45%
for the 4 units with a target of
40% and was at 34% for
Camino Unit 72.
Bosque 6/7 reduced from 243
ft2 to 122 ft2. Camino 72
reduced from 190 ft2 to 108
ft2. Toro 44 reduced from 243
ft2 to 104 ft2. Camino 66
reduced from 206 ft2 to 88 ft2.
Operator of grapple piling was
highly successful in protecting
residual stand.
Project areas were snag deficit
prior to project
implementation. Proposed
underburns are expected to
recruit snags.
Plan to evaluate need for
underburn after mastication in
Bosque Units 6/7
Underburn after grapple pile
burning in Toro and Camino
projects.
Soils were tilled at landings
and highly impacted skid
trails. Group was pleased to
see that tilling was not
implemented on a wide scale
where unnecessary.
Toro unit 44 had
approximately 90% cover, and
other plots showed at least
60% cover.
Limited dollars for hand
treating riparian zones.
Extensive surveys completed
during the planning phase
allow for the protection of
these sensitive sites.
Discussion Items - Shortcomings and Successes:
The project area was snag deficit prior to project implementation. Stands were previously railroad
logged and large snags were not present in area. The planned under burn projects are expected to
recruit snags in areas where limited torching is anticipated to kill isolated pockets of trees.
Service contract was expensive to implement (see project statistics above). A portion of the expense of
the Toro timber sale was $100,000 road package. Road maintenance benefits are often not included as
a benefit of the HFQLG projects. The group wanted it noted that road maintenance is occurring
primarily due to timber sale road packages.
We had a discussion about underburning versus grapple pile burning. Although underburning is less
expensive, the Sierraville RD has a large backlog of acres to treat. The short burning windows and
smoke management issues limit the district’s ability to accomplish the burn program. Leave tree
mortality would likely be at an unacceptably high level as well because of the high fuel loading in Toro
Unit 44 and Camino Unit 66 (200 – 400 tons per acre).
The group felt the overall DFPZ implementation was highly successful for the stand restructuring, fuel
reduction through biomass removal and grapple piling portion of the treatment. The follow-up burning
and mastication treatments have not been accomplished yet, and appear to be necessary. The
integration of the DFPZ network across forest boundaries (with the Beckwourth RD of the Plumas NF)
was recognized and applauded.
Some of the inner portions of the Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas appeared to have been left
untreated. Jeff Leach emphasized that the outer portions where mechanical treatment is feasible was
treated, but for RHCA protection, the inner 25 feet (no equipment zone) is sometimes incompletely
treated and therefore left for follow-up hand treatment. The potential high severity wildfire effects of
incomplete treatment in the RHCAs, as seen in the Cottonwood and Boulder fire, were discussed.
Follow up actions:
Linda Blum discussed the possibility of retaining some Grapple Piles in areas post-treatment, rather
than burning all of them up. Furbearers such as American marten use log piles for shelter and hunting.
Linda specifically requested that the piles with larger logs be retained, so that subnivean habitat is
retained. Lance Noxon said that some grapple piles are retained by default because the fire crews can’t
get some piles to burn. Linda further emphasized that some piles with larger logs should be
specifically protected. Craig Wilson said that he has been specifically retaining some piles during
burning operations and would continue to do so into the future.
Sam J Wilbanks__________ Date:__10/16/06_____
District Ranger: _____/s/_