HFQLG
Project Evaluation Form
For
Post-Treatment Site Visit
Project Name: Cabin Project Type: DFPZ, Plantation Thinning/mastication and Aspen Release
Forest: Lassen Ranger District: Hat Creek RD Date: 25 July 2007
Attendance:
Public- Frank Stewart, Counties QLG Forester and QLG; Linda Blum, QLG; Harry Reeves, QLG; Bill Wickman,
QLG and American Forest Resources Council (AFRC); Tom Partin, AFRC, Portland, Oregon; Jerry Jensen, AFRC,
Tuolumne; Rick Svilich, AFRC, Yreka; Bruce Van Zee, AFRC, Nevada City; Bruce Olson, Franklin Logging, Bella
Vista; Robert Hoover, Sierra Pacific Industries, Burney.
USFS- Kit Mullen, Hat Creek District Ranger; Dave Evans, Lassen Forest Silviculturist; Mary Price, NEPA
Planner; Deb Bumpus, HFQLG Implementation Team Leader; Angela Parker, HFQLG Assistant Team Leader;
Colin Dillingham, HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader; Tamara Schmidt, HFQLG Public Affairs Officer; Linda
Kanski, HFQLG Management Analyst; Matt Staudacher, District Silviculturist; Naomi Brown, Sale Prep; Rhonda
Barnhart, Timber Management Officer; Debbie Mayer, District Fuels Officer; Kym Ganz, Presale Forester; Greg
Mayer, Timber Sale Officer; Paul White, District Culturist; Melanie McFarland, Forest Fisheries Biologist; Tom
Frolli, Forest Wildlife Biologist; Danny Burton, Fisheries Biologist; Russell Nickerson, Wildlife Biologist; Ben
DeBlois, Hat Creek RD; Steve Goodson, Plumas NF Sale Preparation Officer; Paul Stancheff, Plumas National
Forest Silviculture; Nancy Francine, Ecosystems Staff Officer.
Type of Treatment:
The Cabin project consisted of mechanical thinning, mastication, and aspen restoration units. See Appendix 1 for
more detailed information.
Resource
Area
Silviculture
Silviculture
Wildlife
Attribute
Objective
DFPZ
Reduce stocking t0
improve growth and
vigor.
Aspen release
Restore native
vegetation by
reducing competing
conifers.
Snag Habitat
Retain 4 snags/acre
where available.
Retain 2-3
trees/acre with
unique branching,
spike or multiple
tops (when
available).
Source of
Objective
HFQLG EIS
NEPA
document
NEPA
document
Fuels
DFPZ
Reduce fuel loading,
ladder fuels and
canopy cover
HFQLG EIS
Hydrology/
Fisheries
Bailey Creek
riparian
protection
Retain streambank
stability trees
NEPA
document
Objective
achieved?
Yes
Yes
Yes, where
available
Yes
Yes
Comments
DFPZ thinning appears
effective, although
additional thinning
would further increase
growth.
Numerous seedlings
coming in near clone,
but none in landing.
Could have removed
more trees around aspen
clone.
Few snags were available
prior to treatment.
Several snags were
noted post-treatment,
but some hazard trees
were cut, especially
along roads.
Cabin DFPZ reduced
canopy cover and ladder
fuels effectively.
Additional surface fuels
work planned to meet
objectives.
Project did a good job of
retaining trees within 25
feet of creek as
prescribed.
Discussion Topics:
The Cabin project was completed under the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA), and therefore
had no group selections. There was a 50% canopy retention objective and a 20 inch dbh upper diameter limit on
the project. Under current SNFPA (2004) guidelines the project would likely have a prescription to lower the
canopy to 40% and would include trees between 20 and 30 diameter in the project. Frank Stewart suggested that
the Cabin project be treated again with another DFPZ treatment, perhaps implemented under the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act with a categorical exclusion document, to achieve 40% canopy objectives to increase the yield to
the local communities. A stewardship project could possibly be used to implement the project. The relative
merits of treating this ground again were discussed. Additional treatment on this site would require new NEPA
analysis because the analysis for the Cabin project did not consider treatment below 50% canopy objectives.
There was lengthy discussion about the aspen restoration project. This is the first aspen restoration project
under HFQLG on Hat Creek RD. Three units along Bailey Creek that were treated on the south side of aspen
clones to open up the canopy and increase regeneration were reviewed. In all three units aspen was regenerating
by the clones sending out runners and suckers. The aspen shoots were several feet tall and growing vigorously as
demonstrated by the large leaves they carried. In one unit it was noted that many small diameter white fir were
left within a few feet of the aspen trees and shoots, and the units did not open the canopy to 150 feet from the
clone as has been prescribed on the Eagle Lake RD, and reviewed during other HFQLG project field trips. Linda
Blum offered that the units were not treated to maximize growth of the aspen clones. It was discussed that
perhaps too many fir within one aspen tree height were remaining around the aspen trees and that on unit 3 the
release went out too far to the south on the uplands surrounding the clones. It was noted that the Cabin Project
was developed under the SNFPA when aspen restoration treatments were still being tested. After NEPA analysis
and project approval the treatments could not be changed significantly to meet emerging information and goals
for aspen restoration. These factors would be used in future aspen treatments. The surface fuels have not been
treated yet, and the aspen has not expanded into the landings on the south side of the clones. It was decided that
it would be beneficial to revisit this site after another 2 or 3 years, post-fuel treatment, and take another look at
the regeneration to make a final call on the effectiveness of the treatment at this site. Current conditions (less
than one year post logging) do not allow an accurate representation of the effectiveness at this time.
Melanie McFarland, Forest Fisheries Biologist, led a discussion about the Long Term Strategy for anadromous
fish in Bailey Creek adjacent to the Cabin Aspen restoration project. Trees were retained adjacent to all of the
streams, often within the aspen clones, to retain shade for cooler water temperatures and stream bank stability.
There was discussion about the percent of biomass to sawlog ratio being offered sales. The American Forest
Resources Council led a discussion about the trend of Forest Service sales being offered having too high a
percentage of biomass. Dave Evans and Naomi Brown offered that even though some projects end up being
deficit, the Forest Service still attempts to sell them because it is preferable to have projects sold as a timber sale
rather than pay to have all the work done as a service contract. AFRC emphasized that many projects with high
biomass to sawlog ratios sell because companies are making bids that they can’t sustain themselves on, but are on
the brink of going out of business, and these are the only options they have. Bill Wickman further encouraged the
Forest Service to offer sales with greater than 14” dbh average sawlogs. It was noted that the Forest Service
should work toward having projects designed with less than 50% biomass to sawlog ratio to make the sales more
viable.
Linda Blum asked if Hat Creek RD was planning any future black oak restoration projects on Hat Creek RD. Kit
Mullen responded that the District is actively pursuing locations for black oak and aspen restoration projects.
Shortcomings and Successes:
American Forest Resources Council president Tom Partin summarized the project review by stating that overall
they thought that these were good silvicultural projects and they would like to see additional similar projects with
the caveat that the stands are still a little too dense, and opening up the canopy would make the projects better.
Bill Wickman and Frank Stewart emphasized that removing additional trees in the 20 – 30 inch size category
would make these projects far more economical and there would not be a need for deficit sales. There was
general agreement that this would be helpful and possible under the 2004 SNFPA that would guide future
projects..
Follow up actions:
Revisit the Cabin aspen restoration project in two years after fuels treatment to make another assessment of the
effectiveness of the treatment.
_____/s/_______________________
Kit T. Mullen
Hat Creek District Ranger
February 1, 2008__
Date
Appendix 1.
Cabin Project
Hat Creek Ranger District
Project Objectives and Prescriptions (from EA pgs 8-11):
The Decision Notice for the Cabin Project analysis was signed on August 18, 2003 by then Forest Supervisor
Ed Cole. Some of the objectives of the project include the following:
Develop a Defensible Fuel Profile Zone along FS road 17 from Highway 44 to Digger Creek:
A DFPZ network was identified in the HFQLG FEIS. This project would complete a portion of the network
on the Hat Creek Ranger District. Values at risk in the event of a large wildfire in or adjacent to the project
area include 1) the residences at Brokeoff Meadows, the residences east of Bailey Creek Meadows, and the
administrative site at Manzanita Lake, 2) spotted owl and old forest habitat, 3) the proposed Heart Lake
Wilderness Area, and 4) Lassen Volcanic National Park. Upon completion of this project, there would be a
continuity of thinned, machine piled, and/or underburned DFPZs along the western border of the Hat Creek
Ranger District, completing the network in that particular location of the pilot project area.
Silvicultural and fuels treatments were designed to construct a DFPZ network that complies with the Quincy
Library Group Community Stability Proposal and the resulting HFQLG Forest Recovery Act Final
Environmental Impact Statement. This strategy was designed to reintroduce fire, reduce fuel levels, and
mitigate the consequences of large damaging wildfires. The project would also provide areas from which
wildfires could be more safely fought. Other desired conditions include developing a desired forest structure
where periodic low-intensity surface fires can be safely re-introduced. Other objectives include reducing
flamelengths and fire rates of spread in brushfields. Improve public and firefighter safety, reduce surface
fuel loadings in plantations and forested lands, reduce ladder fuels, and increase base heights in plantations
and forested lands. Reduce tree stocking to improve growth and vigor of dominant and codominant trees
reduce the risk for insect and disease outbreaks, and increase tree spacing to a minimum range of 16-20 feet
to allow for mechanical fuel treatment.
Treatments:
a. Natural Forest Stands: Thin up to 1,142 acres followed by machine piling and/or underburning.
Thinning from below would primarily consist of removing suppressed and intermediate tree
(smaller diameter tree classes). Machine piling would be completed where existing heavy fuels
and/or brush cover preclude underburning. Underburning would be completed after machine
piling and in areas where existing heavy fuels and/or brush cover are at low levels to allow for the
safe use of prescribed fire. Hand thinning and piling would be competed as needed.
b. Natural Forest Stands: Underburn up to 426 acres (Previously thinned stands) where existing
heavy fuels and/or brush cover are at low levels to allow for the use of prescribed fire.
c. Plantations: Thin up to 682 acres followed by underburning in plantations where brush was
previously masticated.
d. Plantations: Thin/masticate up to 364 acres in young plantations (chip small trees and brush).
e. Brush aggregations: Broadcast burn and machine pile up 112 acres in brushfields.
f. Plantations/Brush aggregations: Handpile and burn/or masticate/machine pile up to 140 acres of
brush and small trees within a 50-300 foot variable width strip adjacent to the 17 Road (both sides)
in sections 13, 14, and 23 (T.31 N., R. 3 E.).
Treatments
EA selected alternative
(predicted)
Completed to Date*
Natural Forested
Stands
Thinning
1,142
697
Underburning
1,568
Not Completed Yet
Plantation
Treatments
Thinning
682
660
Thin/Masticate
364
273
Broadcast Burn
112
Not Completed Yet
Handpile within
brush/plantation
aggregations located
near the 17 road
140
Brush Aggregations
*Treatments have been completed under the following projects: Cabin Timber
Sale, Cabin Plantation Timber Sale, Chutes Mastication and Thinning
Implement a riparian and watershed improvement strategy that contributes to the maintenance and
restoration of aquatic and riparian ecosystem health:
Restore native vegetation by removing competing conifers to restore and expand remnant stands of shadeintolerant aspen. Aspen needs full sunlight for successful establishments and growth.
Treatment: Restore and improve declining remnant aspen stands in riparian areas (approximately 16
acres) by removing encroaching conifers.
Treatment
Aspen Release
EA selected alternative
(predicted)
16 ac
Completed to
Date
14 ac
Projects generated as a result of the Cabin Analysis:
™
™
™
Cabin Timber Sale,
Cabin Plantation Timber Sale
Chutes Biomass Thinning and Mastication Service Contract.
Pre-Treatment and Post-Treatment Conditions:
Forest Structure
Stop #1 Unit #47
DFPZ: Pre-Treatment and Post-Treatment Conditions
Trees Per Acre
Mean Diameter (in)
2
Basal Area (ft /ac)
Canopy Cover (%)
Pre-Treatment Conditions
Post-Treatment
Conditions*
482
11
307 ft2/ac
93
18
164 ft2/ac
69%
36%
Stop #2 Unit #46
DFPZ: Pre-Treatment and Post-Treatment Conditions
Trees Per Acre
Mean Diameter (in)
2
Basal Area (ft /ac)
Canopy Cover (%)
Pre-Treatment Conditions
Post-Treatment
Conditions*
404
11
272 ft2/ac
93
19
180 ft2/ac
64%
46%
Stop # 4 Unit # 23 – Plantations
DFPZ: Pre-Treatment and Post-Treatment Conditions
Trees Per Acre
Mean Diameter (in)
2
Basal Area (ft /ac)
Canopy Cover (%)
Pre-Treatment Conditions
Post-Treatment
Conditions*
258
12
228
161
12
133 ft2/ac.
66%
48%
*In preparation for this fieldtrip, 5 stand exam plots were completed in each stand to support field discussion.
These plots were not done to monitoring standards and are not statistically valid, but were taken to give some
preliminary post treatment information. Plots were implemented using a 20 BAF prism. Tree species and
diameter were recorded for each tree in the plot. Five and ten year growth was recorded for 3-5 trees/plot.
Desired Fuel Characteristics:
Desired fuel conditions include reducing surface fuel loadings in plantations. Greenleaf manzanita is the
primary surface fuel in all plantations.
Reduce surface fuel loading in forested stands. Decrease the intensity and spread of wildfires by treating
surface fuels. Reduce 75% of the surface fuels by 0-1 inches in diameter and 50% of the surface fuels 1-3
inches in diameter. Retain 505 of existing ground cover. Existing surface fuel loading in the stand proposed
for treatment ranges between 15 and 30 tons per acre (the desired condition is 3 tons per acre of large
diameter down woody material). These fuels would produce average flame lengths of 7 to 10 feet. Average
flame lengths of 10-15 feet would be expected in areas with heavy brush cover. The SNFPA Amendment
fire and fuels management strategy is to achieve and average flame length of 6 feet or less.
.