Manzanita Lake Campground Thinning

Lassen Volcanic National Park, CA
National Park Service
Submitted by Jon Arnold, Park Forester, Lassen Volcanic National Park and Calvin Farris, Fire Ecologist, National Park Service
    
  
Project ID: 1002

1. Name - Manzanita Lake Campground Thinning


Context | Treatment Goals | Treatment Specifics | Utilization | Targets | Pre Treatmen Data | Post Treatment Data | Links

 
 

The Manzanita Lake Campground (MLC) is the largest and most used campground in Lassen Volcanic National Park. The large, old-growth Jeffrey pine forests that grow in the MLC are a centerpiece scenic attraction and an ecologically valuable ecosystem component. Forests within the MLC have been significantly altered in recent years by fire suppression, development, and insect and disease epidemics. Current stand structure and composition reflect these changes. Old Jeffrey pine have suffered heavy mortality in recent years and are not regenerating in sufficient numbers to maintain their presence in the overstory. Young white fir have developed unchecked in the absence of frequent surface fires and now form dense pole-size thickets of several hundred trees per acre. The result has been accelerated mortality of the large tree component and a shift in composition and structure from open pine to dense young fir.

  

Historic management within the campground has focused on hazard tree removal, primarily of mature overstory pine. The purpose of the MLC project was to initiate a proactive approach and address some of the causes of high tree mortality rather than just the symptoms (i.e., hazard trees) by improving the health and vigor of mature overstory trees and maintaining a mix of tree and shrub species in the campground over time. The treatments promoted the establishment of Jeffrey pine while maintaining adequate screening cover for campers. On the treatment site, white fir densities were as high as 652 trees per acre while Jeffrey pine densities were only 43 trees per acre. Understory shrub and grass vegetation was sparse or nonexistent within the developed loops, and little regeneration of any species was occurring because of soil compaction and high tree densities.

  
 
 

Challenges on the site included extremely high tree densities, soil compaction, highly discontinuous and compact short-needle fuels, and the scarcity and poor vigor of existing large trees. Therefore, opportunities for using prescribed fire were limited. The park focused on manual thinning to reduce tree density and a combination of artificial and natural regeneration to establish young Jeffrey pine. These measures serve as preliminary treatments and do not preclude the use of additional treatments such as spot burning in the future.

Dense, pole-sized thickets of white fir were thinned heavily underneath old-growth pine and fir trees and in interspaces to allow for planting and natural regeneration. More variable thinning intensities (including no treatment) were applied elsewhere to maintain screening cover and spatial heterogeneity. To accomplish the park's goals, two separate contractors were hired. The first, Escareno Reforestation, had a 12 to 20 person handcrew and was responsible for cutting and stacking 1 to 4 inch biomass and piling dead and downed fuels prior to the second contractor removing the larger trees. The second contractor, Wright Timber Contracting, was responsible for removing larger trees, associated slash, and unmerchantable material. Wright Timber Contracting handfell and line skidded all remove trees located in the four active campground loops (approximately 35 to 40 acres) because of the great care he had to excercise to avoid damage to abundant campground infrastructure and numerous obstacles including: paved roads, buildings, bearlockers, fire-rings, parking slot barricades, immovable picnic tables, etc. He used a feller-buncher, grapple skidders, industrial chipper, in the approx 25 to 30 acre unit of the two abandoned campground loops.

After Wright Timber finished, Escareno Reforestation returned to flush cut the stumps and rake out skidder tracks. Escareno Reforestation use chainsaws and hand tools. Escareno Reforestation small diameter removal cost $917 per acre while the large tree removal cost $620 per acre Some small amounts of slash left in the campground were removed and burned after harvesting operations were over.

Soil impacts were not expected because the soils on the site have a large pumice component (very well-drained) and the site is generally flat. To reduce the risk of soil impacts skid routes and landings were designated before work commenced, rubber tired skidders were used, and the contract clause called for stopping work if any adverse impacts to soils were observed. There were also penalty clauses cin the contract to control logging damage to residual stand.

The treatment generated sawlogs (about 60 truckloads), chips (about 55 chip vans), and firewood (about 3 to 5 cords). The chips were trucked to Burney Forest Power (about 50 miles) and Burney Mountain Power (about 50 miles). 


Links

 

  
 
 
 

 2Land Ownership
National Park Service

 
 3Location
Lassen Volcanic National Park, California

 
4Forest Type
Jeffrey Pine

 
 Context
 5Is this project a part of a landscape plan?
No

 
 6In a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)?
Yes

 
 7Acreage treated
66 ac

 
 8Type of contract
Hybrid timber sale/service contract.

 
 9Funding source
National Fire Funds and Shasta County RAC (USFS)

 
 10Collaborators and partners
USFS (Lassen National Forest), Shasta County RAC

 
 11Project start date
2006

 
12Project completion date
May 2008

 
 Treatment Goals
 13Restoration, watershed, or habitat improvement

 
 14Reduce fuel load

 
 15Fire break

 
 16

 
17Forest Stand Improvement

 
 Treatment Specifics
 18Primary treatment objective
1) improve vigor and survival of overstory 2) regenerate Jeffrey pine 3) reduce risk of crown fire and insect/disease mortality.
 
 19How does biomass removal fit with other objectives?
Removal of biomass (white fir) is a great deal what this project is about.
 
 20Treatment description
Phase I: remove competing vegetation from around existing healthy Jeffrey pine.
Phase II: reduce overall stocking to more sustainable levels and reduce ladder fuels.
 
 21Description of contractors
Contractor #1: Handcrew responsible for cutting and stacking biomass.
Contractor #2: Removed larger trees, associated slash, and unmerchantable material.
 
 22Travel distance for contractors
Contractor #1: 110 miles roundtrip from home.
Contractor #2: camping on site or 100 miles roundtrip from hotel.
 
 23Type of equipment used
Contractor #1: chainsaws and hand tools. Contractor #2: Grapple skidders, line skidder, feller buncher with hot saw attachment, industrial sized chipper (live deck), tree-service sized chipper for limbs and slash, dump truck, bobcat.
 
 24Treatment of residual slash if any
Contractor #2 is under contract to remove all slash >1" in diameter and 3' in length. Some small material piled and burned
 
 25Treatment cost per acre
Contractor #1: $917.00/ac
Contractor #2: $620.00/ac
 
26Trucking costs
About $330/ton
 
 Utilization
 27Products from project
Sawlogs: approx. 60 truckloads
Chips: approx. 55 chip vans
Firewood: approx. 3-5 cords
 
 28Price for products 

 
 29Date of Sale

 
 30Did biomass markets exist previous to project?
Yes
 
 31Type of utilization
Energy generation
 
 32How well did the woody biomass match the utilization options?
Well
 
33Distance to utilization
50 miles
 
 Treatment guidelines, targets, limitations
 34Diameter limit
Remove all white fir ≤12"dbh; Remove all white fir up to 24" dbh and unhealthy smaller pine within the canopy dripline of healthy pine.
 
 35Basal area reduction
Reduce BA from 332 sq ft/ac to approx 183 sq ft/ac.
 
 36Crown coverage

 
 37Fuel loading
Reduce to about 20 tons per acre
 
 38Retention guidelines
Retain small fir for campsite screening in critical areas as marked. Retain marked ≤12" dbh fir for aesthetics (e.g. vertical diversity) or stand structure (e.g. spacing).
 
 39Treatment of snags and downed logs
In general, down logs ≤18" diameter were piled and burned. Snags were retained unless they posed a safety hazard.
 
 40Soil impacts
None expected - well drained soils. Harvest designed to minimized potential impacts.
 
41Other ecological impacts monitored

 
 Pre Treatment
 42Fuel load
Approximately 40 tons per acre.
 
 43Stem density (stems/ac)
550
 
 44Basal area (ft2/ac)
332
 
 45Canopy closure (%)

 
 46Height to live crown base
About 2'
 
 47Snags and downed woody material

 
 48Size class distribution
See figure
 
 49Tree species composition
White fir 91% of TPA 75% of BA;   Jeffery pine 9% of TPA 25% of BA
 
 50Presence/absence of invasive species
Minor amounts of bullthistle and wooly mullein.
 
51Soil and other ecological data
Stand Density Index (SDI) = 474 (130% of Maximum). Quadratic Mean Diameter (QMD) = 8" dbh (white fir) and 18"dbh (Jeffrey pine). Stand Resiliencey Index (SRI) = 5.2 (high crown fire risk).
 
 Post Treatment
 52Fuel load

 
 53Stem density (stems/ac)

 
 54Basal area (ft2/ac)

 
 55Canopy closure (%)

 
 56Height to live crown base

 
 57Snags and downed woody material

 
 58Size class distribution

 
 59Tree species composition

 
 60Presence/absence of invasive species

 
 61Soil and other ecological data

 

 
PDFPrintE-mail
 
< Prev   Next >