| | 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 | | | | 2 | Land Ownership National Park Service
| | | | 3 | Location Lassen Volcanic National Park, California
| | | 4 | Forest Type Jeffrey Pine
| | | | Context |  | | | 5 | Is this project a part of a landscape plan? No
| | | | 6 | In a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)? Yes
| | | | 7 | Acreage treated 66 ac
| | | | 8 | Type of contract Hybrid timber sale/service contract.
| | | | 9 | Funding source National Fire Funds and Shasta County RAC (USFS)
| | | | 10 | Collaborators and partners USFS (Lassen National Forest), Shasta County RAC
| | | | 11 | Project start date 2006
| | | 12 | Project completion date May 2008
| | | | Treatment Goals |  | | | 13 | Restoration, watershed, or habitat improvement
| | | | 14 | Reduce fuel load
| | | | 15 | Fire break
| | | | 16 |
| | | 17 | Forest Stand Improvement
| | | | Treatment Specifics |  | | | 18 | Primary treatment objective 1) improve vigor and survival of overstory 2) regenerate Jeffrey pine 3) reduce risk of crown fire and insect/disease mortality.
| | | | 19 | How does biomass removal fit with other objectives? Removal of biomass (white fir) is a great deal what this project is about.
| | | | 20 | Treatment 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.
| | | | 21 | Description of contractors Contractor #1: Handcrew responsible for cutting and stacking biomass. Contractor #2: Removed larger trees, associated slash, and unmerchantable material.
| | | | 22 | Travel distance for contractors Contractor #1: 110 miles roundtrip from home. Contractor #2: camping on site or 100 miles roundtrip from hotel.
| | | | 23 | Type 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.
| | | | 24 | Treatment 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
| | | | 25 | Treatment cost per acre Contractor #1: $917.00/ac Contractor #2: $620.00/ac
| | | 26 | Trucking costs About $330/ton
| | | | Utilization |  | | | 27 | Products from project Sawlogs: approx. 60 truckloads Chips: approx. 55 chip vans Firewood: approx. 3-5 cords
| | | | 28 | Price for products
| | | | 29 | Date of Sale
| | | | 30 | Did biomass markets exist previous to project? Yes
| | | | 31 | Type of utilization Energy generation | | | | 32 | How well did the woody biomass match the utilization options? Well
| | | 33 | Distance to utilization 50 miles
| | | | Treatment guidelines, targets, limitations |  | | | 34 | Diameter 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.
| | | | 35 | Basal area reduction Reduce BA from 332 sq ft/ac to approx 183 sq ft/ac.
| | | | 36 | Crown coverage
| | | | 37 | Fuel loading Reduce to about 20 tons per acre | | | | 38 | Retention 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).
| | | | 39 | Treatment of snags and downed logs In general, down logs ≤18" diameter were piled and burned. Snags were retained unless they posed a safety hazard.
| | | | 40 | Soil impacts None expected - well drained soils. Harvest designed to minimized potential impacts.
| | | 41 | Other ecological impacts monitored
| | | | Pre Treatment |  | | | 42 | Fuel load Approximately 40 tons per acre.
| | | | 43 | Stem density (stems/ac) 550
| | | | 44 | Basal area (ft2/ac) 332
| | | | 45 | Canopy closure (%)
| | | | 46 | Height to live crown base About 2'
| | | | 47 | Snags and downed woody material
| | | | 48 | Size class distribution See figure
| | | | 49 | Tree species composition White fir 91% of TPA 75% of BA; Jeffery pine 9% of TPA 25% of BA
| | | | 50 | Presence/absence of invasive species Minor amounts of bullthistle and wooly mullein.
| | | 51 | Soil 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 |  | | | 52 | Fuel load
| | | | 53 | Stem density (stems/ac)
| | | | 54 | Basal area (ft2/ac)
| | | | 55 | Canopy closure (%)
| | | | 56 | Height to live crown base
| | | | 57 | Snags and downed woody material
| | | | 58 | Size class distribution
| | | | 59 | Tree species composition
| | | | 60 | Presence/absence of invasive species
| | | | 61 | Soil and other ecological data
| |
| |