HFQLG
Project Evaluation Form
Project Name: Gordon Aspen Enhancement
Caboose DFPZ
Project Type: Aspen Restoration
DFPZ Construction
Forest: Lassen Ranger District: Eagle Lake Ranger District
Date: July 30, 2009
Attendance: 17 People
Agency- Taylor Farnum, State of California, California Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Public- Frank Stewart, Counties Forester and Quincy Library Group; Jeff Bryant, Concerned Citizen of Susanville;
and Jeff Withroe, Concerned Citizen of Susanville.
USFS- Tom Rickman, Eagle Lake District Wildlife Biologist; Dave Evans, Forest Silviculturist; Linda WrennJohnson, Forest Service Representative; Bobette Jones, Ecologist; Serge Birk, Lassen NF Ecosystem Manager; Fred
Ngotel, Sale Administrator; David Wood, HFQLG Implementation Team Leader; Colin Dillingham, HFQLG
Monitoring Team Leader; John Yembu, HFQLG GIS Support; Leo Ray, Harvest Inspector; Adam Bianchi, Harvest
Inspector; Terre Pearson-Ramirez, Project Forester; Kevin Kyle, Project Forester.
DFPZ project completed by: Franklin Logging Date completed: Oct 27, 2008 – Feb 5, 2009.
Aspen project completed by: Little Bit Logging, Janesville Date completed: Nov 6, - Dec 4, 2008
Type of treatment and acres:
Caboose DFPZ: 400 acres of harvest in Caboose DFPZ project. 8860 green tons of sawlogs removed; and 6300 green
tons of biomass removed. This project was completed under Sierra Nevada 2001 Framework direction. There were
only limited numbers of trees over 20 inches diameter at breast height, so the 20 inch upper diameter limit had very
limited impact on project implementation.
Gordon Aspen Enhancement: 100 acres of harvest; 1940 green tons of sawtimber (30%) and 4275 tons of biomass
(70%). The ratio sold was higher (40%) sawlogs, but because of the low sawlog market a portion of lower quality logs
was converted to biomass. This project was completed under a Categorical Exclusion document written in 2007 under
Sierra Nevada Framework 2004 direction. There were no appeals on the project and Sierra Forest Legacy wrote a
letter of support for the project.
Resource
Area
Attribute
Objective
Source of
Objective
Degree Met
Comments
Yes,
treatment
objective
completed,
aspen
response
anticipated.
Both Unit 809 and 812
with open canopy ready
for aspen response.
Follow-up monitoring
will confirm aspen
response to treatment
Aspen Stand
Health and
Regeneration
Reduce Conifer
component to
improve aspen health
and regeneration
EA
Water Quality
Prevent Sediment
Delivery
EA –
Lahontan
Water Quality
Control Board
Yes
Hydrology
Water Yield
Increase Water Yield
through forest
thinning
EA
Yes
Wildlife
Bird Species
Diversity/
Cavity nesting
birds
Maintain species
diversity and cavity
nesting birds
EA – 2001
Framework
Yes
Fuels
Surface Fuels
Less than 5 tons per
acre of surface fuels
HFQLG FEIS,
Appendix J
Yes
Fuels
Ladder Fuels
Develop Caboose
DFPZ into an
effective part of
DFPZ network
EA
Yes
Archeology
Control Area
Protection
EA
Yes
Botany
Sensitive Plant
Resources
EA
Yes
Site protected during
harvest activities
Soils
Soil
disturbance at
Caboose
DFPZ
Yes
Limited soil disturbance
and loss of soil cover,
post-treatment meets
LRMP objectives
Silviculture
Hydrology
Prevent ground
disturbing activities
in Archeology sites
Protect Sensitive
Plant site in Gordon
Aspen Enhancement
Project, Unit 812
Meet LRMP
objectives to
minimize soil
disturbance
Lassen NF
LRMP
Zero sediment delivery
concern with low
gradient and high rock
content.
Modeling of HFQLG
area indicates thinning
increase water yield.
Retained 25% of area in
no treatment leave
islands and retained
snags for cavity nesting
birds.
Post treatment fuel
loading about 2-3 tons
per acre, follow-up
underburn in 3-5 years
desirable.
Ladder fuels reduced,
fuel loading reduced.
DFPZ appears highly
effective. Follow-up
burning need will be
evaluated.
Site protected during
Caboose DFPZ
implementation.
Discussion:
Stop 1: Linda Wrenn from Eagle Lake RD
explains Caboose DFPZ project to the group.
The Caboose DFPZ was created to connect
with Lyons DFPZ, Railroad DFPZ and
Logan DFPZ to the north and south. Ladder,
surface and canopy fuels were all reduced to
meet DFPZ objectives. Field trip attendees
felt the DFPZ would be highly effective in
the event of a wildfire because it met all
goals of the fuel reduction treatment.
Discussion (continued):
Tom Rickman and Bobette Jones explain
large tree retention. Several larger trees were
retained in groups to mimic natural
distribution patterns. The reintroduction of
fire is a longer term goal in the project area.
Snags and broken top trees are retained for
wildlife objectives. Frank Stewart, Counties
Forester and QLG member congratulated the
district on completing a highly effective
DFPZ.
Stop 2: Gordon Aspen Enhancement unit
812. Tom Rickman explains how pine
retention in aspen restoration units is
sometimes desirable. Old growth and
replacement pine trees were retained at the
same level as the number of legacy trees and
stumps that were historically in the project
area. It was explained that pine was a
component of many of the historical aspen
stands in the project area.
Gordon Aspen enhancement unit 812 has an
aspen stand that is expected to respond
positively to the new canopy opening and
disturbance created by the project. Oldgrowth pines were retained in the opening.
Some patches of pines were retained in the
aspen project riparian area. Some trees were
retained for old growth retention purposes
and others were retained in the inner riparian
zone for bank stability purposes. The aspen
enhancement project was still considered an
overwhelming success. It was considered
desirable to retain pockets of pine within
aspen stands.
Stop 3: Gordon Aspen Enhancement Unit
809. This aspen stand had the highest risk
rating for loss. The adult aspen had been cut
down 30 – 40 years previously for pine
enhancement and few aspen saplings
remained. Follow-up monitoring on Unit 809
will be enlightening to determine
effectiveness of treatment of remnant stand.
Frank Stewart, QLG member, thanked the
district for producing such an excellent
project as well as quality field trip handouts.
Stop 3: Gordon Aspen Enhancement Unit
809. Same photo point as above, during a
field trip prior to treatment in 2003. Note
that Bobette Jones (beige shirt, blue jeans) is
standing in approximate location in both
photos.
Stop 3: Taylor Farnum from Lahontan Water
Quality Control Board discusses riparian
protection needs with Susanville residents
Jeff Withroe and Jeff Bryant. This project
produced very little concern for sediment
delivery with the low gradient, lack of
incised creek channels and high rock content.
Follow up actions:
Aspen enhancement monitoring on the Eagle Lake RD has documented the need for continued aspen enhancement
projects within the HFQLG project area and provides treatment recommendations.
Follow-up underburn in 3 – 5 years recommended in Caboose DFPZ for DFPZ maintenance. Currently the DFPZ is
anticipated to be highly effective.
Notes prepared by: /s/ Colin Dillingham, HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader
Reviewed by District Ranger:
__/s/ Theresa M. Frolli
Date: 8/12/2009
Date: 9/2/2009