Field Trip Evaluations
In 2007, project evaluations were combined with interagency reviews as each district
conducted at least one on-site evaluation of projects implemented. These included
vegetation management or riparian and watershed improvement projects. The reviews
took place at the project site and specialists from other districts within the HFQLG Pilot
Project area, other agencies, and the public were invited to participate. The primary
purpose of these reviews is for multi-forest interdisciplinary team members, together with
Quincy Library Group members, members of the public, district rangers, forest
supervisors, forest staff officers and members of the public to interact and make an onsite assessment of the outcomes from the various treatments. In 2007, 13 project
evaluations were conducted on field trips. These reviews were documented and reviewed
by district rangers and are filed on the HFQLG web site.
Key Project Successes and Shortcomings
•
•
•
•
•
•
California Waterfowl Association was interested in the Plug and Pond projects on the
Sierraville RD and saw the ponds and associated habitat as providing important
waterfowl nesting habitat.
The Wilson Creek Road relocation project on the Almanor RD was very successful in
removing a road from a stream bottom that had both chronic sediment problems and
occasionally produced mass sediment delivery during storm events. The project also
reduced long-term road maintenance costs, returned the road acres to land suitable
for growing timber and upgraded the alternate road to be able to handle a 100-year
storm event, as well as providing for safer public travel along Tehama County Road
769. The cooperative nature of the project with Forest Service, Collins Pine Company
and Tehama County helped produce a successful project.
The Calf Creek Road 27N06 project on the Almanor RD, with road surfacing,
outsloping, diversion potential dips, cross drains and culvert upgrades, was reviewed.
It was explained that a native surface road produces 20 times the sediment of a
rocked road. Also, by disconnecting the runoff of the road and in slope ditch from the
creek, the forest is able to filter the sediment before water delivery to the creek.
Outsloping the road, removing the in slope ditch and installing cross drains where in
slope ditches are necessary, all accomplished the disconnection objective.
The Summit DFPZ on the Eagle Lake RD was determined to be a highly successful
DFPZ with excellent economic return to federal treasury in an area without high
value resources. The purchaser (Franklin Logging) has a small log mill and was able
to get added value material (7 – 9.9” diameter logs) made into boards rather than
biomass. Although the advertised volume had 13,404 green tons of sawtimber and
54,746 tons of biomass (20% sawtimber) the purchaser was able, through utilizing
small material, to harvest the material as 52% sawlogs and 48% biomass chips. The
sealed bid resulted in a relatively high bid and brought a $581,319.50 sale value.
The Sierraville Ranger District examined two successful DFPZ projects; the Bits
DFPZ and Pieces DFPZ projects. These DFPZ projects successfully met stand
restructuring objectives and fuels objectives are expected to be achieved after
implementation of the follow-up underburn activities.
At the Last Chance DFPZ on the Beckwourth RD a 2005 prescribed burn was a
follow-up treatment to the mechanical thinning and biomass removal. The stand
appeared to all participants to be an excellent DFPZ and would be useful as a safe
anchor for fire fighters. The crown base was effectively raised and the canopy was
generally reduced to 40% canopy, although there was moderate variation in canopy
retention across the DFPZ.
•
•
•
•
•
The Bald Onion DFPZ project on the Feather River RD did not reduce the canopy to
40% canopy. Because the units were placed on the ridge tops, a running crown fire
would not be expected to drop to the ground, and therefore could not be used as a
Defensible Fuel Profile Zone. The treatment under the 2001 framework did not meet
the objectives because of restrictions on log sizes that could be removed. The
implemented portion of the project that was reviewed was 600 feet wide. There was
discussion that this was not wide enough to meet the needs of the DFPZ network.
The Hungry DFPZ on the Mt Hough RD was used to stop the Hungry Fire, Irish Fire,
Davis Fire, Moonlight Fire and Wheeler Fire. This strategically located DFPZ has
been used to fight 5 wildfires in 2 years. Due to extreme fire weather, portions of the
DFPZ were burned over during the Moonlight Fire due to long-range fire spotting
and high fire intensity. The DFPZ may have been more useful if it had been wider
(suggested one mile wide) rather than ¼ mile wide. QLG members countered that it
would be better to get a complete network of narrower DFPZs first, and then start
treating the landscape between the DFPZs.
The North Antelope DFPZ on the Mt Hough RD, even without significant fire fighting
resources, sustained limited tree mortality as the Moonlight wildfire burned through
it. A portion of the North Antelope DFPZ was used to stop the forward progression of
the Moonlight Fire.
American Forest Resources Council president Tom Partin summarized the field
review of the Cabin DFPZ project on the Hat Creek RD by stating that overall he
thought that these were good silvicultural projects and they would like to see
additional similar projects with the caveat that they are still a little too dense, and
opening up the canopy would make the projects better. Others present emphasized
that removing additional trees in the 20 – 30 inch size category would make these
projects far more economical and there wouldn’t be a need for deficit sales. There
was general agreement by the group.
The group selection and individual tree selection units in the Bald Mountain project
on the Feather River RD met silvicultural objectives, provided saw logs to the local
sawmills, and the ITS units reduced potential fuel hazards.
Lessons Learned Applicable Across the HFQLG Pilot Project
•
•
•
Canopy cover retention requirements in the Bald Mountain ITS units were calculated
to include the group selection units within the overall ITS unit boundary. Therefore,
canopy cover in the ITS unit outside of the group selection units was actually greater
than the 52% as represented in the table above because it includes plots with little or
no canopy in the group selection units. Calculating canopy using this method
increases the amount of canopy required for retention in the ITS unit. QLG members
were adamant that the current interpretation being used was incorrect. Follow-up
clarification and direction from the HFQLG Steering Committee was provided to
districts in the Pilot Project Area – group selection units should be designated as
separate units and not included in canopy cover estimates of ITS units.
The Bits project on Sierraville RD was implemented under Sierra Nevada Framework
1, which did not allow the removal of trees greater than 20” in diameter. If
implemented under Framework 2, the project may have been able to be sold as a
timber sale and contributed money to the federal treasury, instead of put out as a
service contract, consequently using taxpayer dollars. Implementation under
Framework 2 would have allowed inclusion of additional sawlogs 20 – 30 inches in
diameter, and would have made the project more economical.
Bobette Jones discussed using a restoration approach to adaptive management
rather than implementing diameter limits. She suggested that we use the ecosystem
processes that drove the forest to current conditions to help us develop stand
•
•
•
•
•
•
objectives. She suggested we ask ourselves how we can use restoration objectives to
manage the forest. A potentially useful website that discusses Ecological Restoration
Models by the Ecological Restoration Institute can be found at
http://www.eri.nau.edu/joomla/
The Sierraville RD learned that flagging boundaries of groups was not satisfactory
alone. Group selection boundaries need to be tagged and marked with GPS units as
well.
There is currently no ability to treat the upland forests in the Deer Creek Watershed
on the Almanor RD because it is in “Off Base” and “Deferred” land status as
designated in the HFQLG Forest Recovery Act. Future wildfires threaten this
watershed and without timber sales, watershed improvement funding is limited.
Allowing treatment in future versions of the HFQLG Act extensions may allow future
improvements.
There may be an opportunity to manage the DFPZs into the future by utilizing goat
herds to manage the vegetation. The Beckwourth RD discussed the possibility of
using goats under either a stewardship contract or under a grazing permit to
effectively maintain the DFPZ shrub component.
Masticated stands within the Last Chance DFPZ on the Beckwourth RD produced a
DFPZ that had younger brush with less dead component. These previous fuel beds
have been turned into a heat sink, at least in the short term (5-years post treatment).
The treatment is expected to continue to be effective for another 5 – 10 years. A
“tree farmer” lawn mower type masticator was used and could not treat greater than
about 15% slopes. The original grapple piling prescription, would have been even
better as the tobacco brush would have been set back another 5 to 7 years. The brush
grew back quickly from the mastication treatment, and although it is 2 – 3 feet tall, it
does not have the dead component and therefore not a problem within the DFPZ.
A diverse group discussed during the Mt Hough RD field trip the potential for using
more prescribed fire to help make the DFPZs more effective. Folks agreed that a final
treatment of prescribed fire helps make the DFPZs more effective. There is a
problem with smoke management and getting significant landscapes treated with
prescribed fire. Rich Fairbanks from the Wilderness Society suggested that the
HFQLG Pilot project should attempt to use Wildland Fire Use more to implement
additional prescribed fire acres. His understanding is that smoke management is not
considered when the ignition source is “an act of god”.
There was a detailed discussion during the Mt Hough Field Trip to the Moonlight
Fire regarding adaptive management in Spotted Owl PACs. Within the HFQLG Pilot
Project Area current legislation requires that “all spotted owl habitat areas and
protected activity centers designated under (the HFQLG Forest Recovery Act) will be
deferred from resource management activities and timber harvesting during the term
of the pilot project”. Linda Blum explained why the QLG group was hesitant to allow
the Forest Service to treat spotted owl PACs during the development of the HFQLG
legislation. However, the QLG members present on the field trip indicated that they
would like to see treatment in the future. All field trip attendees that voiced their
opinions indicated that some level of management within PACs would be desirable in
the future, including members of Sierra Forest Legacy, The Wilderness Society, John
Muir Project, Sierra Nevada Research Center and Forest Service Employees.