HFQLG

Project Evaluation Form Project Name: Lyons Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ) Project Type: Fuel Reduction project implemented to create a Defensible Fuel Profile Zone and simultaneously incorporate forest health objectives by restoring aspen and eastside pine communities. Forest: Lassen NF, Eagle Lake Ranger District Date: 17 August 2011 Attendance: 30 people Public – Jim Burke, Headrick Logging; Robert Hoover, Sierra Pacific Industries, Burney; Frank Stewart, Counties Forester and Quincy Library Group (QLG). Agency – none USFS – Jerry Bird, Forest Supervisor, Lassen NF; Ann Carlson, Eagle Lake District Ranger; Linda Wrenn, Forest Service Representative; Linda Tiffin, Lassen NF Receptionist; Mary Price, Planner on Hat Creek Ranger District; Mariana Dill, Lassen NF Receptionist; David Pilz, Planner, Lassen NF; Bobette Jones, Ecologist; Anita Villalovos, District Hydrologist; John Bassman, District Silviculturist; Rod Vineyard, Biomass Specialist; Fred Ngotel, Timber Sale Administrator; Leo Ray, Harvest Inspector; Tom Rickman, District Wildlife Biologist; Amy Harrison-Smith, Forester Eagle Lake; David Wood, HFQLG Implementation Team Leader; Elise Reierson, HFQLG Office Assistant; Colin Dillingham, HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader; Jeff Watson, HFQLG Management Analyst; and Eagle Lake Marking Crew including Chrissy Haselton, Douglas Brewer, David Crowther, Philip Jack, Daniel Brown, Jay Elidechedong, Adam Lefebvre, and John Leicester. Project Objectives

Reduce ladder fuels by thinning from below with an emphasis of retaining the healthiest, largest

conifers in the stand.

Provide for firefighter safety and produce a healthier better functioning ecosystem.

Connection of five other DFPZ’s within the immediate area, Caboose DFPZ, Railroad DFPZ,

Caldera DFPZ, Elk DFPZ, and North Crater West DFPZ.

Aspen Enhancement

Project Status

Project has been partially completed by Sierra Pacific Industries between January 18,

2008 - March 19, 2008 and November 17, 2010 – March 10, 2011. Project is scheduled

to resume this fall.

Type of Treatment and Acres

Project area includes 1341 acres of treatment including:

280 acres of Aspen Restoration Treatment

1061 acres of Defensible Fuel Profile Zone

See appendix for map of Lyons project and different types of treatments.

Lyons DFPZ and the adjacent completed DFPZ network. Future planned projects, such as

those resulting from the Champs EIS on the northern part of this map, will help to fill in the

incomplete portions of the DFPZ network.

Lyons Project monitoring review

Discussion of Planned Lassen Projects

Resource

Area

Attribute Objective Source of

Objective

Degree Met Comments

Silviculture

Eastside

Pine forest

Stand Density

Reduce Stand

Density to improve

Forest Health

Silviculture

Prescription Yes

Thinned forest from

approximately 200 down

to 100-120 square feet of

basal area

Wildlife Snags

Retain 3 snags to

meet wildlife

objectives where

available

HFQLG FEIS Yes

Where available, snags

were protected through

harvest.

Hydrology

(Aspen

project)

Springs

Prevent impacts to

springs during

harvest activities

Lassen LRMP Yes

Equipment exclusion

zones were implemented

to prevent feller buncher

and skidder impacts to

springs

Fuels Ladder Fuels Remove ladder fuels HFQLG FEIS,

Appendix J Yes

Whole tree yarding

chipped and removed

smaller diameter trees.

Fuels Surface Fuels Reduce surface fuels HFQLG FEIS,

Appendix J

No, planned

future

treatment

Follow-up burning

necessary to complete

DFPZ effectiveness

Fuels Canopy Fuels Reduce canopy fuels HFQLG FEIS,

Appendix J Partial

Thinning would have

been more effective if

the prescription allowed

thinning of trees 20” to

30” diameter.

Soils Compaction Do not compact soil

Forest Plan

Standards and

Guidelines

Yes

Harvest operations

occurred over 2-4 feet of

snow which prevented

any soil compaction.

Archeology Site Protection

Prevent potential

impacts to historic

structures

EA Yes

Control Areas adequately

protected, no equipment

entered site.

Bogard Work Center –

The group met at 9:00 at the Bogard work

center and made introductions. Quincy

Library Group and Counties Forester Frank

Stewart asked Lassen Forest Supervisor Jerry

Bird the status of recent timber sale planning

and award on the Eagle Lake District. Jerry

explained that the first sale of the Ebey

Project, Rim, had been sold. Jerry explained

that the Lassen NF was going to meet their

assigned timber sale target for fiscal year

2011. There were brief discussions of other

timber sales being worked on across the

Lassen Forest including Cowbell, Albertine,

Champs, and Creeks.

Discussion of Lyons Project:

Discussion of Lyons Aspen Restoration Project (post-treatment):

Project Overview – Linda Wrenn gave a project

overview and explained that there were 280 acres of

Aspen restoration treatments and 1061 acres of

Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ) created with

the implementation of this project. She explained

how the Lyons DFPZ connected with previously

completed DFPZs in the immediate vicinity, such as

North Crater West DFPZ, Caboose DFPZ and

Caldera DFPZ.

Lyons DFPZ – monitoring team leader for Herger-

Feinstein Quincy Library Group, Colin Dillingham,

explained that the original planned fuel treatment

network (orange) is largely completed (purple). The

Lyons DFPZ, in green, connected several other linear

fuel treatments on the landscape. Several planed

projects, once implemented, will essentially complete

the fuel treatment network. Colin explained that the

completed network has been shown to be effective by

monitoring the effects of 20 different wildfires that

have intersected with completed DFPZs. QLG member

Frank Stewart suggested people review the report (see

link below) http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/hfqlg/monitoring/resource_reports/fire_and_smoke/

dfpz_effectiveness/HFQLG%20treatment%20effectiveness%20report.pdf

Aspen Restoration Unit 817 – Linda Wrenn

explains the aspen management prescription.

Conifer trees were removed where they had

encroached into the historical aspen stands

due to the absence of wildfire. This project

removed conifers within approximately 150’

from the most distal aspen tree or sprout

along the edge of the existing aspen clone on

the south, east and west aspects and 100’ on

the north aspect.

This photo shows how the aspens have

regenerated 3 years after the conifer trees

were removed.

Aspen restoration unit 817 – Ecologist Bobette Jones talks about

understory vegetation recovery. She

explained how prior to the restoration

treatment, there was substantial litter and duff

and very little herbaceous vegetation (see

before treatment photo above). She explained

how the understory diversity and abundance

drastically increased dramatically only 3

years after restoration.

Lyons aspen restoration unit 817 This permanent photo point shows

before conifer removal above and

following conifer removal below.

Note the stump in the lower left

corner of the photo for reference.

Before

Treatment

After

Treatment

Aspen restoration unit 817 – Jim Burke, operator from Headrick

Logging, discusses issues he had with

the large amount of biomass material

(small diameter trees and tops) that

he had to pile in one log landing

during winter operations. The group

also discussed some of the important

benefits of winter logging including

1) no fire risk and 2) mills need logs

in winter.

Aspen restoration unit 817 – Robert Hoover, Forester from Sierra Pacific

Industries in Burney, discusses problems having a

contract requirement of 2 feet of snow on the

ground in the harvest units. He discusses that there

were times when there was 5 feet of snow in the

adjacent meadow, but where the harvest was

planned, only 18 inches of snow was present due

to snow interception by the dense tree canopy. He

offered that when the ground was frozen solid,

there should be contract allowances to permit

logging so long as the resources won’t be

damaged. A follow-up meeting is planned with

specialists to discuss this topic and consider

changing future contract requirements.

Lyons aspen restoration – The contract required 2 feet of snow to

prevent damage to soils and springs

during logging operations. This spring

was protected by prohibiting any

logging equipment from operating

unless 2 feet of snow was present on the

ground. The group was impressed at

the lack of any damage to soil and

wetland resources throughout the

project area.

Lyons aspen restoration unit 816 – There was a discussion about the retention

of large diameter trees within the aspen

restoration units. The retention of these

large diameter trees are not expected to

have negative impacts on the aspen

regeneration due to the low numbers of

large trees in the project area. Aspen

stands historically had a few conifer trees

present, just not the dense encroachment

of small diameter trees seen commonly

today on the Lassen National Forest.

Lyons aspen restoration unit 816– There was an objective to designate 3 of

the largest snags/acre, 15 inches

diameter and greater where available as

wildlife trees. This photo illustrates an

area where several snags were available

and retained during the harvest

operations.

Lyons aspen restoration unit 816 –

Lyons Photo Point 8 encompassing an Aspen stand and Meadow restoration area.

Prior to conifer removal left, following conifer removal right.

Aspen Restoration Unit 816 – Bobette Jones,

Ecologist on Eagle Lake Ranger District,

explains how conifer removal to restore aspen

creates the added benefit of maintaining soil

moisture later into the growing season.

Improved soil moisture enhances plant growth

during the growing season and likely yields

more water downstream as well. July 29 (Julian

Day 210) is when the control aspen becomes

too dry for vegetation growth whereas the

treated aspen maintains sufficient moisture for

optimal growth throughout the growing season

(Sept 7 = Julian Day 250).

Lyons DFPZ Unit 140 – The mechanical thinning portion of the Defensible

Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ) construction has been

completed. A planned underburn will be

completed 2-3 years after harvest operations have

ceased to remove surface fuels and make this a

fully implemented DFPZ. Burns are planned 2-3

years after thinning for several reasons including:

1) increased needle fall which will carry the fire

and 2) the vigor of remaining trees will increase

after they respond to increase light and moisture

availability and they will be more likely to survive

a prescribed fire.

Lyons DFPZ Unit 140 – photo point 23 - This photo points

illustrated the untreated

forest condition above

and after Defensible Fuel

Profile Zone construction

below. A follow-up

underburn is planned to

remove surface fuels.

Before

Treatment

After

Treatment

Lyons DFPZ Unit 140 – This historic structure was constructed during

the railroad era and was within the planned

DFPZ. The site was protected with a no-

treatment buffer and sale administrators and

contractors worked together to successfully

prevent unwanted impacts to the site.

Lyons DFPZ Unit 140 was planned under the

2001 Framework. There was a discussion on the

2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan “Framework”

management requirement that prohibits trees

with greater than a diameter of 20 inches at

breast height to be harvested, versus the current

(2004) Sierra Nevada Forest Plan “Framework”

management requirement which allows trees up

to 30 inches diameter at breast height to be

included in timber sales. There were some who

felt that portions of the Lyons DFPZ had too

dense a canopy and would still allow a canopy

fire to carry through portions of the DFPZ

because the forest was still too dense.

Lyons DFPZ Unit 140 – Sierra Pacific Industries Forest Robert Hoover

discusses the economics of the Lyons DFPZ

and Aspen project. Due to the fact that 68% of

the material was biomass and only 32% of the

material was sawlogs, this timber sale was very

marginal for his company. Biomass, unless

harvested within 10 or 15 miles from a

cogeneration plant, does not pay its way out of

the forest. Revenues from sawlogs are

generally used to offset the cost of biomass

removal. They would like to see projects with

at least 50% sawlogs to make them more

economical.

Follow up actions:

Complete surface fuel treatments (underburning) in Lyons Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ).

A follow-up meeting is planned with specialists to discuss contract requirement of 2 feet of snow during

winter logging operations to consider changing future contract requirements and include resources objectives

rather than strict snow depth requirements.

Notes prepared by:

HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader: /s/ Colin Dillingham Date: 18 August 2011

Reviewed by Eagle Lake District Ranger: /s/ Ann Carlson Date: 19 August 2011

Lyons DFPZ Unit 140 – Eagle Lake

Silviculturist John Bassman discusses

the need to re-enter stands over time.

Restoration is not a one-time entry; it is

a process with multiple entries to

achieve the desired objective. These

trees will grow, the crowns will close,

and another thinning will likely be

necessary in 10 – 20 years. A second

underburn will be needed 5-15 years

after the first underburn to maintain low

surface fuel loading.

Appendix 1 – Field Trip Handout

LYONS DFPZ

General overview of the Sale:

Sale prepared: June 2005

Total acres harvested: 1340

Sawtimber volume harvested: 30,036 GT

Biomass volume harvested: 48,703 GT

Harvested value: $370,865.00

Harvested value after ERR $116,850.00

Harvesting dates: January 18, 2008 - March 19, 2008

November 17, 2010 – March 10, 2011

Objectives of the timber sale:

Reduce ladder fuels by thinning from below with an emphasis of retaining the healthiest, largest conifers in the

stand while removing the smaller, suppressed or diseased trees. In addition provide for firefighter safety and

produce a healthier better functioning ecosystem.

Connection of five other DFPZ’s within the immediate area, Caboose DFPZ, Railroad DFPZ, Caldera DFPZ,

Elk DFPZ, and North Crater West DFPZ.

DFPZ width is approximately ¼ to ¾ mile.

Sale design:

Leave tree mark in yellow paint.

Leave islands marked in yellow paint.

Unit boundaries marked in orange paint.

25% of the stands were to be left untreated as directed by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 2001.

The size of the leave islands range from ¼ acre to 5 acres.

Primary zone is from the road edge to 200 feet.

Secondary zone is 200’ to 1320’.

Removal consisted of trees 3 to 20” DBH within the DFPZ and 3 to 30” DBH within the aspen units.

Basal area prior to harvest was approximately 200 sq. ft.

Desired basal area in the primary zone is approximately 100-110 sq ft. and in the secondary zone is

approximately 110-120 sq ft.

Radial thin 20-30 feet from the large diameter ponderosa, Jeffery and sugar pines with a minimum diameter of

18” DBH.

Post harvest canopy closure to be approximately 30 - 50%.

Designate 3 of the largest snags/acre, 15” and greater where available as wildlife trees within the secondary

zone.

Mechanically harvested utilizing whole tree yarding.

Within the aspen stands remove conifers within approximately 150’ from the most distal aspen tree or sprout

along the edge of the existing aspen clone on the south, east and west aspects and 100’ on the north aspect.

Within Subdivision 1 the contract required a minimum of 24” of snow in the aspen units in addition to the MH

provision which requires the packing of the felled timber to the designated trail.

Post harvest treatment will be underburning.

This sale was sold with a mix of 38% sawtimber and 62% biomass.

The sale was harvested using tracked feller bunchers and skidded with rubber tired skidders and a dozer.

On the average the snow depths during the 2008 harvesting season was approximately 2-4 feet and during the 2010

harvesting season approximately 24-30 inches.

A 15’ buffer was placed along streamcourses and springs. The fellerbunchers were required to stop at the boundary

and reach in with the cutting head and remove the timber and pack it out to the designated trail. No equipment was

allowed within these buffer strips.

Sierra Pacific Industries was the only bidder on this sale.

Map of Lyons Defensible Fuel Profile Zone and Aspen Restoration Project – yellow indicates the

aspen restoration units and green indicates the DFPZ areas. Areas hatch marked or white were areas

of no treatment within the sale area.