HFQLG
Project Evaluation Form
Project Name: Jumbuck Aspen Restoration Project and Merrill Davies Watershed Restoration Project
Project Type: Jumbuck Aspen restoration project implemented mechanical conifer saw log and biomass
removal with a timber sale contract. The Merrill Davies watershed restoration project was a stream restoration
project using pond and plug and culvert replacement/addition techniques.
Forest: Tahoe Ranger District: Sierraville Field Trip Date: June 23, 2009
Attendance: 24 people
Agency- Tim Holabird, Congressman Tom McClintock Representative; Gale Dupree, Sierra Valley Resource
Conservation District & Sierra County Fish and Game Commission; Robert Eschleman, Sierra County Fire Safe
Council; Laurenc DeVita, Sierra County Fire Safe Council; and Anne Eldred of the Sierra County Planning
Commission.
Public – Pamela Payen and Sam Lewis Payen, 5th generation local landowners and Cattle Allotment Permittees;
Frank Stewart, Quincy Library Group and Counties Forester.
USFS- Quentin Youngblood, District Ranger; Randy Westmoreland, Eastside Watershed Specialist; Craig Wilson,
District Wildlife Biologist; Ruby Burks, District Fuels Officer; Mark Brown, Forest Silviculturist; Walt Levings,
Forest Natural Resource Officer; Teri Banka, District Silviculturist; Karie Wiltshire, District NEPA Planner;
Brandy Richardson, Assistant District Wildlife Biologist; Sharon Falvey, District Hydrologist; Bruce Troedson,
Timber Management Officer; Mike Baldrica, District Archeologist; Dave Wood, HFQLG Team Leader; Colin
Dillingham, HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader; Elise Reierson, HFQLG Implementation Team assistant; John
Yembu, HFQLG GIS Volunteer.
Type of treatment and acres:
The Jumbuck Aspen project treated a total of 138 acres and produced 2.3 million board feet of saw logs. The
smaller material (limbs, tops, small diameter understory trees) was removed as biomass wood product (chips).
Wood chips were delivered to cogeneration plant to create electricity.
The Merrill Davies watershed restoration project is a series of stream restoration projects using pond and plug
and culvert replacement/addition techniques. We visited site #9, a pond and plug stream restoration reach and
site #10, a combination pond and plug stream restoration and culvert installation project site.
Discussions:
The first stop was at a small conifer
removal site intended to improve the
aspen stand. The aspen were
expected to begin to sucker after the
soil temperature increased to 56◦F.
Teri Banka took soil temperature
measurements and there was a large
contrast between bare soil (72◦F)
versus in an area with 6 inches of
duff (48◦F).
Resource
Area
Attribute
Objective
Regenerate aspen in
areas of conifer
encroachment
Source of
Objective
Objectives
Met?
Partial,
expected to
be
successful
Silviculture
Aspen
Regeneration
Economics
Restore
ecosystem in
economically
viable
method
Restore project area
utilizing a method
that pays the
taxpayer rather
than be a taxpayer
burden
EA
Range
Forage
Improve range
conditions in
meadow
EA
Archeology
Arborglyph
(Basque
carvings)
Protect carvings in
aspen trees
EA
Wildlife
Songbirds
and Deer
Improve habitat for
wildlife
EA
Yes
Hydrology
Water
Storage
Increase Floodplain
water storage
EA
Yes
Hydrology
Riparian
Protection
Allow ground based
logging system to
cross stream and
protect stream
Project layout
Yes
Soils
Soil
compaction
Prevent excessive
soil compaction
Tahoe LRMP
Yes
EA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Comments
The conifer removal was
successfully
implemented. Very
limited aspen
regeneration has
occurred, but it is
anticipated later this
year.
The Jumbuck project
was a timber sale
producing a limited
amount of money for
the government and
products to Loyalton
and Quincy
Meadow and Stream
Restoration project
increased forage volume
dramatically.
Aspen trees with
carvings were protected
during harvest activities
Aspen restoration is
beneficial to songbirds
and deer
Although not
quantified, increase of
many acre-feet of water
storage in meadow
system.
Corduroy log structure
was used to protect
riparian zone during
logging operation
Equipment was limited
to operations when soil
was dry to protect it.
When questioned why a burn wasn’t
planned to improve the aspen,
District Wildlife Biologist Craig
Wilson responded that research
indicated that aspen responded
favorably without underburning.
The district plans to experiment with
underburning in other aspen
enhancement project areas.
Pamela Payen, 5th generation local
landowner and Cattle Allotment
Permittee explained that aspen used
to be much more extensive in this
area in historical times. She
explained that her family has been
here since 1852 and range Permittees
on this allotment since 1896.
Gale Dupree, Sierra Valley Resource
Conservation District & Sierra
County Fish and Game Commission;
Robert Eschleman, Sierra County
Fire Safe Council; and Anne Eldred
of the Sierra County Planning
Commission listen to discussion.
The second unit visited was a more
extensive conifer removal area to enhance
the aspen. Some conifers greater than 30
inches in diameter were left in this area.
The third stop was at the uppermost
pond in the Merrill Davies stream
restoration project. There was a deep
gully that was blocked with the fill
material pulled out of this pond.
Randy Westmoreland explained that
the pond is an artifact of the need for
fill material, and not an objective of
the project. The meadow
downstream is lush and green,
drastically improved from preproject conditions.
The next stop was to view the Merrill Davies project site 10, where Randy Westmoreland explained how
the water table was raised by the pond and plug project. As evidenced in this photograph, the sagebrush,
now in saturated meadow conditions, is dying back allowing for the meadow system to expand back into
the historical riparian meadow zone. In the foreground, the healthy riparian vegetation responded to new
culvert installation, allowing for a more natural flow regime below the road which bisects the meadow.
As the water backs up in the ponds, it spreads out over the meadow system and finds old stream channels.
As the flow runs across the floodplain at high flows, there is much less energy than when constricted to the
stream channel. There is less erosion, delayed peak flows, and a healthier riparian system in the restored
project area.
Follow up actions:
Follow-up monitoring to be sure aspen regeneration is successful. Protect aspen seedlings from over grazing if
determined to be necessary.
Notes prepared by: /s/ Colin Dillingham
Monitoring Team Leader, HFQLG Implementation Team
Date: 13 July 2009
District Ranger: _/s/ Quentin Youngblood
Sierraville District Ranger
Date: 13 August 2009
__________