HFQLG
Project Evaluation Form
Project Name: Bald Onion and Bald Mountain Project Type: Individual Tree Selection, DFPZ and Group
Selection
Forest: Plumas Ranger District: Feather River RD Date: 27 July 2007
Attendance:
Agency- none
Public- Jean Crist, Magalia, representing Sierra Club and Butte County Fire Safe Council; Nigel Parkhurst,
Magalia; Frank Stewart, County Forester and QLG; Linda Blum, QLG; Harry Reeves, QLG; John Forno, Sierra
Pacific Industries
USFS- Alice B. Carlton, Plumas Forest Supervisor; Karen Hayden, Feather River District Ranger; Deb Bumpus,
HFQLG Implementation Team Leader; Angela Parker, HFQLG Assistant Team Leader; Colin Dillingham,
HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader; Tamara Schmidt, HFQLG Public Affairs Officer; Elise Reierson, HFQLG
Implementation Team; Linda Kanski, HFQLG Management Analyst; Judy Welles, District Silviculturist; Lori
Cayo, Sale Prep; Bob Groom, TEAMS Enterprise Team Forest Service Representative on Sale Contract (FSR);
Roger Powell, FSR Trainee; Nick Sablan, District Fuels Officer; Micah Grondin, Presale Forester; Linnea Hanson,
District Botanist; Kelly Whitsett, District Hydrologist; Joanna Arroyo, Wildlife Biologist; Steve Goodson, Plumas
NF Sale Prep Forester; Jessie Ayala, SCEP Public Affairs; Oswaldo Angulo, Hydrologist Trainee; Dawn Alvarez,
Fisheries Biologist SCEP student; Stephanie Bertaina, Mt Hough Ranger District Sale Prep.
Bald Mountain Project completed by Roseberry Lumber from Crescent, Oregon in 2007.
Mastication project at Bald Onion was completed in 2006 by Professional Slashbusting Services.
Type of Treatment:
The Bald Mountain project consisted of Individual Tree Selection (ITS) and Group Selection (GS) Units.
The Bald Onion project was a Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ) implemented under 2001 Framework
objectives.
Stand Conditions for Bald Mountain ITS Units 13C and 14D
Attribute
Basal Area
Trees per acre
Canopy cover
Pre-treatment Conditions
Unit 13C
Unit 14D
269
294
186
115
86
76
Objectives
13C
Minimum 108
N/A
50
14D
Minimum 118
N/A
50
Post-treatment Conditions
13C
14D
183
167
132
59
51
52
Discussion Topics:
Canopy cover retention requirements in the ITS units was 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
and asked for follow-up clarification from the HFQLG Steering Committee.
Linda Blum made a point that the USFWS considers that group selection units do not fragment suitable owl
habitat. Group selections should not be considered as fragmentation. Linda also made a point that the current
groups should not be placed next to adjacent openings, such as pine regeneration alongside the road adjacent to
Unit 14D.
Attribute
Objective
Silviculture
Group
Selection
Shade intolerant
species
regeneration, open
gaps in forest
canopy
Silviculture
Individual
Tree Selection
Reduce
competition,
increase growth
Wildlife
Bald Eagle
Habitat
Retain large trees
for roosting and nest
trees. Attain uneven
age management.
Fuels
Individual
Tree Selection
Fuels
Hydrology/
Fisheries
Resource
Area
Source of
Objective
Objective
achieved?
HFQLG EIS
HFQLG EIS
Yes
Yes, but
could have
opened
stand more
NEPA
document
Yes
Reduce fuel loading,
ladder fuels and
canopy cover
HFQLG EIS
Yes
DFPZ
Reduce fuel
loading, ladder fuels
and canopy cover
HFQLG EIS
South Fork
Feather River
Riparian
Restoration
Restore downcut
channel and trout
spawning habitat
Bald Mountain
NEPA
document
No
Not
implemented
yet
Comments
Bald Mountain unit 14D
had a fair number of
trees >30” dbh retained,
but pine regeneration
should be achievable
Bald Mountain unit 13C
retained52% canopy
cover, which met
objectives. Some
members of group felt
stand should have been
opened up more.
Project retained largest
trees in area and
maintained 50% canopy
to meet bald eagle
objectives.
Fuel loading reduced,
ladder fuels removed.
Canopy cover still
relatively high, but
satisfactory.
Bald Onion DFPZ
treated under 2001
framework did not
separate canopy
sufficiently to stage
firefighters at the top of
a ridge. Additional work
required to meet
objectives.
Water temperature too
high, low number of
pools. Plan to restore
channel, add structures
to provide pools and
improve water
temperature conditions
by planting willows.
Discussion Topics (continued):
A brief explanation of how Spotted Owl protected activity centers (PACs) and home range core areas (HRCAs)
relate to forest management was presented. It was explained that the HFQLG Act does not allow for any
treatment, other than a light underburn, within the PACs. There are no restrictions on management within
HRCAs within the HFQLG Pilot Project area. There was some discussion as to how the Bald Onion and Bald
Mountain projects were discontinuous because of PACs as well as private land and other issues.
There was a good explanation of the objectives of group selections in the HFQLG Act. Three primary objectives
were discussed. First is to provide for economic community stability, to provide for a continuous supply of
timber as directed by the Organic Act. Second is to provide for silvicultural objectives. To provide for
regeneration of shade intolerant species, such as black oak, aspen, ponderosa and sugar pine. Third is to provide
for wildlife objectives. Group selections establish small scale mosaic within the forest. Shade intolerant species
provide important wildlife habitat, such as black oak for fisher resting structures or food for small mammals
which are key prey items for predators such as spotted owls.
The Office of General Council has provided advice that timber sales from the Slapjack and Freeman EIS projects
not be awarded to purchasers. There is no court ordered injunction from awarding these sales. QLG members
and John Forno from SPI explained how critical these sales are to local purchasers that are nearly out of
business. They explained that they see a critical need to implement these projects now, so that the DFPZ network
is implemented and before a fire such as the Antelope Complex, that burned 8 spotted owl PACs. They hoped
that a decision could be made to allow these sales to proceed. Plumas Forest Supervisor Alice Carlton responded
that there are many issues surrounding her decision on these sales. She explained that she would make a timely
decision as to whether she should proceed with awarding these projects or heed the advice from OGC.
There was a discussion about why this project was implemented here now, and not in higher priority WUI areas.
Karen Hayden explained that other projects, such as Slapjack and Brush Creek, are in WUI areas. Brush Creek
has been visited in recent years, and the district wanted to highlight another area this year. Additionally, she
discussed the spotted owl conservation strategy and how many projects were shifted to the east side outside of
the range of the spotted owl in early years of the HFQLG project implementation.
Bald Onion DFPZ was implemented under the 2001 framework. The treatment was to masticate the trees up to
9.9 inches in diameter. Many trees less than 10 inches remained, but the masticator could not remove some of
these trees because of adjacent retention trees in many areas within the stand. There were discussions about how
restrictive the 2001 framework was on what the Forest Service could implement on the ground.
Shortcomings and Successes:
The group selection and individual tree selection units in the Bald Mountain project met silvicultural objectives,
provided saw logs to the local sawmills, and the ITS units reduced potential fuel hazards.
The Bald Onion DFPZ project did not reduce the canopy to 40% canopy. Because the units were placed on the
ridgetops, 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.
Future treatments will reflect the Bald Onion EA decision to implement a ¼ mile wide DFPZ to be completed as
funding allows. The NEPA would need to be refreshed because it is over 5 years old. The expensive part of the
DFPZ project, the biomass treatment, has been accomplished. Further treatment to reduce the canopy could be
an economical timber sale or stewardship contract.
Follow up actions:
Frank Stewart and Linda Blum suggested that the Bald Onion project be treated again with another DFPZ
treatment, perhaps implemented under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act with a categorical exclusion
document, to achieve the canopy objectives to make this a useful part of the DFPZ network. A stewardship
project could possibly be used to implement the project. Karen Hayden and Alice Carlton will begin discussions
to determine feasibility of this idea. Frank Stewart also suggested that both Upper and Lower Slate DFPZ be
considered for another treatment as well so that DFPZ objectives are met.
Provide a map at the beginning of all field trips that shows the DFPZ network and how the projects to be reviewed
fit into the overall network similar to the map presented on this field trip. HFQLG Implementation Team will
create a map of the implemented network, and include the planned network on the maps to present at future field
trips.
The HFQLG Implementation Team needs to work with the HFQLG Steering Committee to provide consistent
direction on how to interpret canopy retention requirements in Individual Tree Selection areas when groups are
imbedded in the sale units. Angela Parker will lead a discussion with the HFQLG Steering Committee to reach a
consensus and provide direction to districts in the Pilot Project Area.
District Ranger: _/s/ Karen L. Hayden__________ Date: _8/20/2007____