DRAFT REPORT Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan
for U.S. Forest Service
December 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction...... 1
1.1 Overview...... 1 1.2 Management Context...... 1 1.3 Restoration & Management Elements ...... 2
2.0 Setting and History ...... 4
2.1 Setting ...... 4 2.2 Land Use History ...... 4 2.2.1 Pre-1850...... 4 2.2.2 1850 to Present...... 5
3.0 Existing Conditions...... 10
3.1 Climate...... 10 3.2 Geology and Geomorphology...... 10 3.2.1 Meeks Meadow...... 10 3.2.2 Meeks Creek ...... 11 3.3 Hydrology ...... 12 3.4 Soils...... 12 3.5 Biological Resources ...... 13 3.5.1 Vegetation...... 13 3.5.2 Wildlife ...... 16
4.0 Desired Future Condtions ...... 19
4.1 Vegetation Communities ...... 20 4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife...... 20
5.0 Restoration and Management Strategies...... 22
5.1 Vegetation Management ...... 22 5.1.1 Overview...... 22 5.1.2 Lodgepole Pine Encroachment/Invasion Management Strategies...... 22 5.1.3 Aspen & Cottonwood Reintroduction ...... 25 5.1.4 Fuels Reduction in Surrounding Areas...... 26 5.2 Reestablish Washoe Land Management/Cultural Practices ...... 28 5.2.1 WCP Restoration Goals and Objectives ...... 29 5.2.2 WCP Desired Conditions and Restoration Recommendations...... 29 5.2.3 Culturally Significant Plant Species ...... 31
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan i Draft Report (December 2008)
6.0 Restoration and Management Actions...... 32
6.1 RESTORATION PROJECTS - REGION A ...... 33 6.1.1 Lodgepole Pine Management ...... 33 6.1.2 Other Restoration and Management Actions...... 37 6.2 RESTORATION PROJECTS - REGION B...... 38 6.2.1 Lodgepole Pine Management ...... 38 6.2.2 Other Restoration and Management Actions...... 39 6.3 RESTORATION PROJECTS - REGION C...... 39 6.3.1 Lodgepole Pine Management ...... 39 6.3.2 Other Restoration and Management Actions...... 41 6.4 RESTORATION PROJECTS - REGION D ...... 41 6.4.1 Camp Wasiu Clean-up...... 41
7.0 Monitoring and Adaptive Management...... 43
7.1 Monitoring ...... 43 7.1.1 Vegetation...... 43 7.1.2 Wildlife ...... 44 7.1.3 Hydrology ...... 45 7.1.4 Photo Monitoring...... 45 7.2 Adaptive Management...... 45 7.2.1 Vegetation...... 46 7.2.2 Wildlife ...... 46 7.2.3 Climate Change...... 48
8.0 Conclusion ...... 49
9.0 References...... 50
List of Figures 1-1 Oblique aerial view of Meeks Creek watershed and Meeks Meadow restoration area 2-1 Meeks Creek watershed location map showing study areas from Ecological Assessment Report 2-2 Meeks Meadow and selected project landmarks 2-3 Former landfill area showing barren, disturbed, hummocky soils/fill and lodgepole pine invasion 2-4 Historical photos of Highway 89 bridges 2-5 Photographs of select remnant structures from Wasiu Girl Scout Camp 2-6 U.S. Forest Service map showing Quail Vegetation & Fuels Treatment Project
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan ii Draft Report (December 2008)
3-1 Correlation of local paleoclimatic and cultural sequence in the Tahoe Sierra 3-2 Map of Geomorphic landforms in the lower portion of Meeks Creek Watershed from Ecological Assessment Report. 3-3a-b Soils in Meeks Meadow 3-4 Vegetation map of Meeks Meadow and Shoreline Zone from Ecological Assessment Report 3-5 Photographs of select vegetation communities common in Meeks Meadow 3-6 Large Vernal Pool developed on edge of Dry Graminoid Meadow environment. 3-7 Water impounded by recessional moraines and beaver dams enhances vegetation and wildlife habitats in meadow and riparian environments. 3-8 Beaver activity observed in Meeks Meadow 4-1 Historical photograph of the Meeks Bay shoreline 6-1 Aerial photograph of Meeks Meadow showing proposed restoration and management regions and lodgepole pine treatment units. 6-2 Photos of management Unit A-1 6-3 Photos of management Unit B-1 6-4 Photos of management Unit C-2 and vicinity.
Appendices Appendix A Beaver Activity Survey in Meeks Meadow (2007) Appendix B Washoe Tribe Culturally Significant Plants
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan iii Draft Report (December 2008)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW The Meeks Creek watershed comprises approximately 8.1 square miles of subalpine and montane terrain along the eastern crest of the Sierra Nevada mountain range in California (Figure 1-1). Originating at elevations over 9,000 feet, Meeks Creek courses 7.5 miles through high mountain lakes, steep rocky terrain, and montane meadows in a broad U-shaped valley before passing beneath Highway 89 and emptying into the Meeks Bay Marina and Bay on Lake Tahoe at 6,625 feet elevation. Within the broad valley upstream of Highway 89 lies a 500-acre “meadow” (herein Meeks Meadow or Site) comprised of mixed conifer forest interspersed with graminoid meadows, riparian scrub and diverse wetland features.
The ecological conditions in Meeks Meadow have been altered as a result of Comstock era1 disturbances (i.e., logging and grazing), cessation of the natural and indigenous fire regimes, and climate change. What was once a complex mosaic of riparian, meadow and late successional forest environments has been converted to broad expanses of early seral forest communities dominated by lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta ssp. murrayana). The actions described in this Restoration & Management Plan (RMP) intend to hasten successional processes in an effort to restore late-seral meadow, riparian and forest habitats in the context of the current and future climate regime.
1.2 MANAGEMENT CONTEXT The environmental conditions in Meeks Creek watershed are detailed in the Ecological Assessment Report (EAR) prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service (USFS) Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) (LTBMU, 2006a). Based upon the conclusions of the scientific studies presented in the EAR, the following restoration actions were recommended to restore ecosystem function in the watershed:
1 The Comstock era refers the period of time between the 1850s and 1900 when the magnitude of human influence on the landscape markedly changed due to the logging, grazing, and widespread resource extraction that fed the mining boom in western Nevada. Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 1 Draft Report (December 2008)
1) Restore lower meadow (Meeks Meadow) vegetation to pre-Comstock era conditions; 2) Replace Highway 89 bridge to improve fish passage and reduce hydraulic force during floods; 3) Reconstruct Meeks Creek below Highway 89 through various options designed to provide increasing measures of floodplain restoration and ecosystem function; and 4) Restore native Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi) to isolated reaches of upper Meeks Creek Watershed (above Meeks Meadow).
The purpose of this RMP is to address the first recommendation to restore ecological conditions at Meeks Meadow, including wildlife species and the reintroduction of Native American Washoe Tribe (Washoe) cultural and indigenous land stewardship practices which helped sustain the meadow landscape. Restoration plans for the other recommended actions are being addressed separately. These restoration measures are intended to achieve the goals of the 1988 LTBMU Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) (USDA, 2001), the SNFPA final supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) Record of Decision (ROD) (USDA, 2004), and other USFS guidance and policy directives. A primary directive for this RMP is to implement the Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS) of the 2004 SNFPA (USDA, 2004) to develop a sound framework for ecological restoration of Meeks Meadow. The basic principle of the AMS is to retain, restore, and protect the processes and landforms that provide habitat for aquatic and riparian-dependent organisms while producing the highest levels of water quality. Key elements of the AMS include: attainment of specific AMS goals, watershed restoration, riparian area designation and management, standards and guidelines to maintain natural watershed processes and mitigate management impacts, and development and implementation of monitoring and adaptive management programs.
1.3 RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS Restoring and maintaining high quality meadow, wetland, and riparian habitats at Meeks Meadow are the primary focus of this RMP. Restoring these desired conditions is intended to
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 2 Draft Report (December 2008) enhance native flora and fauna richness and diversity at the Site. Restoration elements addressing vegetation and wildlife conditions at Meeks Meadow include the following: Forest fuels management Management of lodgepole pine encroachment/invasion Beaver (Castor canadensis) monitoring and management Reestablishing Washoe land management/cultural practices
Replacement of the Highway 89 bridge (second restoration goal in EAR) to improve fish passage and hydraulic flow will be conducted as a separate action; however, the bridge replacement will improve the measures of this RMP by enhancing the fisheries and wildlife conditions upstream in Meeks Meadow.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 3 Draft Report (December 2008)
2.0 SETTING AND HISTORY
2.1 SETTING The Meeks Creek watershed comprises three distinct areas: the upper watershed; the lower meadow (i.e., Meeks Meadow), and the shoreline zone (Figure 2-1). Meeks Meadow, the subject of this RMP, covers more than 500 acres of the lower meadow area extending to Highway 89. The Site is approximately 1.7 miles in length and lies within a broad U-shaped valley below an 800-foot glacial step where Meeks Creek cascades from the upper watershed. The upper watershed is located within the Desolation Wilderness, which is managed by the LTBMU and El Dorado National Forest. Highway 89 separates Meeks Meadow from the shoreline zone which has been developed for recreational uses since the 1920s and presently includes a marina, campground facilities, and Meeks Bay Resort, among other amenities.
2.2 LAND USE HISTORY
2.2.1 Pre-1850 Prior to 1850 Meeks Meadow was influenced by natural climatic fluctuations of drought and wet periods, fire, disease, flooding and other natural processes and ecological disturbances. Human activity has also been an important influence on the landscape and ecosystem function at Meeks Meadow before Euro-American settlement in the mid-1800s. The Washoe were present at Tahoe possibly as early as 6,000 years before present (ybp) and their seasonal habitation at Meeks Bay has occurred for at least the last 1,500 years to fish, gather food, medicinal plants, and basket materials, and to manage plant collection areas by cultivation and use of fire (Murphy and Knopp, 2000).
The processes that contributed to the pre- Euro-American vegetation communities thus included the activities of the Washoe, who managed the land by deliberately burning meadows and forests in order to favor the ecology of plants such as bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) (important for basket making) and camas (Camassia quamash), called "potato" by tribe elders, an important food staple found in mesic meadow settings. These cultivation techniques and many others known only to the Washoe influenced the vegetation cover and wildlife habitat at Meeks Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 4 Draft Report (December 2008)
Meadow. Because Washoe cultural and land management practices were carried out over thousands of years prior to 1850, these practices must be considered in the process of planning restoration of the Meeks Meadow system.
2.2.2 1850 to Present Euro-American exploration of the region began in the 1840s, and news accounts regarding hay production from Meeks Meadow indicate regular occupation by these new settlers since the early 1860s (Van Etten, 1994). The incursion of these settlers eventually displaced the original Washoe cultural and land management practices at Meeks Meadow.
Logging and Grazing Major logging of old-growth timber in the valley began around 1880. Logs were transported across Lake Tahoe to Glenbrook for milling on the east shore; these were likely a mix of old- growth Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) and sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana). By the late 1800s all of the old growth timber (trees greater than 15 inches in diameter) in the lower watershed was harvested. These conifer forests likely contained trees over 300 years old which had grown under natural cycles of drought, wet periods, disease, and fire; all characteristics that contribute to diverse vegetation structure and high quality wildlife habitat. Logging also occurred in the meadow area between 1989 and 1995 (LTBMU, 1997); during the 1995 activity, a slash pile burn got out of control and a wildfire swept through approximately 100 acres of the middle third of Meeks Meadow.
Grazing of milk cows in the meadow began as early as 1878, and grazing to support dairy and beef cattle operations occurred in the meadow and surrounding terrain at times over the period from 1884 to 1919 (Murphy and Knopp, 2000).
Meeks Bay and Highway 89 Area Developments The Comstock era activities were followed by an expansion in tourism and development at Meeks Bay from the early 1900s to present day. Meeks Bay’s long history as a popular recreation resort began in the 1920s when the Kehlet family arrived and leased the shoreline Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 5 Draft Report (December 2008) property and built resort facilities along the bay. The Kehlet resort developments persisted under private ownership for almost 50 years, and continue today as a popular resort destination through leasing arrangements under present LTBMU ownership. A homestead (Robinson) and cabin have existed since the early 1900s at Meeks Meadow just upstream from the Highway 89 bridge, and a limited number of residences were established along the lower southeast margin of the meadow area in the 1950s to 1960s (Figure 2-2). Sometime during the early period of resort operation and area development a landfill was established along the southern margin of Meeks Meadow approximately 3,000 ft from the highway (Figure 2-2); available information suggests the landfill became operational around 1940 (Van Etten, 1994). The landfill covers approximately 2-3 acres and was likely formed by excavation and progressive filling with refuse and dirt spoils. Frequent burning and disposal of sewage may have been common along with general refuse disposal (Van Etten, 1994). The landfill is evident today by mounded, barren and disturbed soils/fill and exposed debris such as timber structures, metal fragments and glass (Figure 2-3).
In 1929, a new Highway 89 bridge was constructed at the lower end of the meadow replacing an earlier bridge made of log abutments (Figures 2-2 and 2-4). Hydraulically, the new bridge concentrates the entire flow of Meeks Creek into a very narrow area causing extensive erosion downstream. The bridge also is a barrier to fish migration upstream to Meeks Meadow under many streamflow conditions (LTBMU, 2006a). Although the downstream impacts of the bridge have been highly negative from a geomorphic and ecological standpoint, the bridge has been an effective grade control, thereby preserving geomorphic and ecological function of Meeks Creek in the meadow area upstream of the highway. As noted earlier, this bridge is proposed to be replaced under a separate restoration action identified in the final EAR (LTBMU, 2006a), and this action should enhance fishery resources in the reaches of Meeks Creek upstream of Highway 89. The environmental conditions downstream from the bridge are being addressed separately; see recommended action No. 3 in the EAR (LTBMU, 2006a).
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 6 Draft Report (December 2008)
Camp Wasiu Near the upper or west end of the 500-acre Site are remnants of a Girl Scout Camp named Camp Wasiu (Figures 2-2 and 2-5). Historic accounts suggest that the camp was associated with the Reno Area Girl Scout Council and likely operated from 1950 to about 1965 (Van Etten, 1994). The camp was partially dismantled or left to deteriorate and there are numerous remnant structures spread across several acres, including rock and cinder-block foundations, timber structures (fragmented or collapsed), outhouses, broken glass and debris, and steel culverts in tributaries to Meeks Creek (Figure 2-5). According to historical accounts, in the years following camp operations it became a popular destination for "jeep expeditions of local teenagers" and the area reflects such deterioration and neglect today.
Introduction of Beaver Beaver were introduced to the Tahoe Basin in the 1930s as part of a program to establish a fur trade and as a means to "improve" wetlands and watershed wildlife habitats (Tappe, 1942). Survey results indicate that 7 to 12 beavers inhabited Meeks Meadow by 1978; however, beavers were likely present much earlier based on regional accounts of beaver introduction and history. A 2004 survey identified two areas with active beaver colonies near the lower and upper ends of the meadow complex. Although there is some disagreement over whether the beaver was present as a native species in the Tahoe Basin, the fact that there are no accounts of trapping in the early days and that the Washoe elders have no specific reference to it in their language, suggests the beaver is not native to the watershed.
USFS Management In April 1974, the USFS signed an option to purchase 645 acres in the Meeks Creek drainage, including Meeks Meadow and the resort and campground developed lands east of Highway 89. The resort facility north of Meeks Creek is currently operated by the Washoe Tribe under a 20- year Special Use Permit. A similar use permit is held by California Land Management for the campground facility east of the highway and south of Meeks Creek.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 7 Draft Report (December 2008)
Confronted with a lack of wildfire, the result of fire-suppression since the 1920s and the end of Washoe controlled burns, the LTBMU conducted extensive mechanical thinning and clear cutting of approximately 164 acres at Meeks Meadow between 1989 and 1995 under the Wasiu I and II Timber Sale (LTBMU, 1997); in 1985 a smaller (35 acre) experimental timber sale occurred near Meeks Bay to determine if the stream environment zone (SEZ) soils could be protected by snow cover during log transport.
The primary objective of the Wasiu timber sale was to remove dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.) infected lodgepole and decadent Jeffrey pine and white fir (Abies concolor). These stands were considered highly susceptible to bark beetle infestation, which could generate large volumes of dead wood (undesired fuel) and downed wood in the creek that could obstruct channel flow. A secondary objective of the Wasiu sale was to expand meadow habitat for wildlife and aesthetics (visual improvement). As noted previously, in 1995 a slash-pile burn got out of control during this operation, which resulted in a destructive wildfire sweeping through approximately 100 acres across the middle third of Meeks Meadow.
Since 2005, LTBMU has been implementing thinning and clearing of forest understory to reduce fuel loads in upland forest areas in Meeks watershed and surrounding areas under the Quail Vegetation and Fuel Treatment Environmental Assessment (Quail EA). Figure 2-6 shows the Quail EA management areas in the vicinity of Meeks Meadow. This project includes fuels reduction and pile burning, and future broadcast burning of upland areas around Meeks Meadow (Figure 2-6). More than 400 acres of upland forests lining the moraine ridges above Meeks Meadow were thinned under the Quail EA in 2005. Another 220 acres were planned for thinning in 2006 and 2007, and these projects will be integrated with the restoration approaches and measures of this plan (see additional information in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2).
LTBMU has issued a Special Use Permit for the Washoe to collect native plants in Meeks Meadow and has established a set of Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) with LTBMU ascribing to mutual cooperation in land use management at Meeks and other ancestral lands in the basin. The Washoe previously outlined general restoration goals, desired conditions and projects for Meeks Meadow in its Wetlands Conservation Plan for Meeks and Taylor Creeks
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 8 Draft Report (December 2008)
(Washoe, 2002). During preparation of this draft RMP, Washoe submitted to LTBMU a draft Meeks Meadow Silvicultural Treatment Plan for Lodgepole Pine Intrusions/Encroachments (concept paper) describing some trial restoration projects to address lodgepole pine invasion in selected meadow areas. The trial projects involve six plots totaling approximately 6 acres located along the Desolation Wilderness access road/trail within 0.5 mile of the trailhead at Highway 89. LTBMU is currently working with Washoe to support this trial plan within the framework of this RMP for Meeks Meadow. Additional information on proposed Washoe practices is provided in Section 6.
Recreation Developments A recreation trailhead at the northeast corner of the meadow provides access to the Desolation Wilderness in the upper watershed; approximately half of the nearly 18,000 annual visitors use this location to access the wilderness area (Figure 2-2). The trailhead is unpaved and includes a wood cabin/shelter structure. The area supports dispersed recreation for hikers, backpackers, mountain bikers, bird watchers, and wildflower enthusiasts that visit Meeks Meadow, the upper watershed and wilderness areas. The main access to Meeks Meadow and Desolation Wilderness is a dirt road that runs from the parking area along the length of the meadows’ north boundary before turning into a foot trail near the northwest boundary of the Site.
A partially developed secondary trail crosses Meeks Creek near this area (herein "loop trail") passing through part of Camp Wasiu and sensitive meadow areas along the southern boundary before passing by the landfill and connecting to the local residential access road along the southeast margin of Meeks Meadow (Figure 2-2). A portion of this loop trail is identified as "Mapped as Road in ATM Inventories" on the LTBMU Meeks Bay Access and Trail Management Plan (ATM) (LTBMU, 2006b). The loop trail is considered a "non-system" trail by LTBMU recreation standards. This existing loop trail is generally in poor condition and often includes multiple paths through forest and sensitive meadow areas. Some of these trail segments exhibit preferential erosion and local gully development where vegetation has been denuded, including some meadow areas. Damage to wet sensitive meadow areas and other soil disturbances from truck tire (historic) and mountain bike traffic (recent) are evident in some areas. Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 9 Draft Report (December 2008)
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 CLIMATE Climatic variability occurring at multiple temporal scales has been a governing factor in the development of the physical landscape and biotic communities of Meeks Meadow. Figure 3-1, taken from the Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment (LTWA) (Murphy and Knopp, 2000), provides a climate record for the Tahoe Basin from the late Pleistocene (~13,000 ybp) through the twentieth century. The physical landscape of Meeks Meadow was largely formed as the glaciers of the late Pleistocene receded due to the warming trend of the early Holocene (Figure 3- 1). Climate patterns at the century and decadal levels have played a significant role in the development of the biological communities of the meadow and surrounding areas. For example, the Little Ice Age (1000 – 1850 A.D) marked a period of cool temperatures and low fire frequency leading to the development of old growth forests (Millar and Woolfenden, 1999; Murphy and Knopp, 2000). The climate conditions of the Little Ice Age, along with Washoe land management practices, likely maintained large open areas of graminoid meadow habitat and discouraged lodgepole pine invasion. The climate warmed coincident with the Comstock era and decadal level variability in precipitation became an important factor in the composition of vegetation communities in the region. Millar et al. (2004) showed strong correlation between multiple conifer growth parameters (including meadow invasion) and multi-decadal climate patterns of the twentieth century in subalpine regions of the Sierra. In Meeks Meadow, climate patterns at the decadal and interannual levels likely play a role in vegetation recruitment, diversity and structure; however, it is difficult to elucidate the effects of climate alone on vegetation dynamics given the overlay of other anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., logging, fire suppression).
3.2 GEOLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY
3.2.1 Meeks Meadow Meeks Meadow is underlain by granitic rocks of the Sierra Batholith and a variety of surficial glacial deposits (till, moraine, and outwash) and recent alluvium. These geologic materials form diverse soil and hydrologic environments along the valley floor. The Meeks Meadow valley Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 10 Draft Report (December 2008) developed from glacial scouring from repeated advances and retreat of ice during the last two million years; hydrologic conditions were highly variable during this period with more powerful stream conditions and higher and sometimes coarser-grained sediment loads influencing the landscape. During this period, glacial ice accumulated in the higher western side of the Meeks Creek Watershed, and flowed eastward toward Lake Tahoe shaping the valley before terminating as much as 500 feet (ft) below the present elevation of the lake (LTBMU, 2006a). These glacial advances formed large and distinctive lateral moraines which define the Meeks Meadow valley on its north and south boundaries (Figure 3-2). The bounding lateral moraines rise approximately 400 to 1,000 ft above the valley/meadow floor. A series of at least five, 15-foot high recessional moraines consisting of boulder till cross portions of the valley floor in several locations, creating low topographic ridges which form natural grade controls behind which stream channels have shifted and glacial lake complexes formed during historic times. These glacial processes led to a variety of depositional environments, including glacial lakes, fluvial, and outwash delta/fan complexes creating the diverse landforms and surficial geologic features observed within the valley today. The sedimentary deposits from these glacial and inter-glacial periods include fine- grained lacustrine (lake) deposits, fluvial deltaic deposits, glacial outwash fan/terrace deposits, variable alluvium, peat soils and cobble/boulder lag deposits. The varied soils and hydrologic conditions sustain a mosaic of vegetation communities and habitats throughout Meeks Meadow, including conifer forest, mixed riparian scrub, emergent marsh, vernal pool, dry and wet graminoid meadows and obligate sedge meadow.
3.2.2 Meeks Creek Meeks Creek which courses through the meadow area is generally in good condition with regard to geomorphic function and the resultant riparian, aquatic and wetland habitats it supports. These conditions are the result of a naturally high resilience to abrupt geomorphic change; this resilience is the result of geologic characteristics of the under-fit stream flowing over grade controls where coarse cobble/boulder lag deposits have formed in association with recessional moraines and the stabilization effects of dense wetland vegetation. Meeks Creek has a relatively low width to depth ratio, contains large woody debris and provides complex and varied aquatic cover and habitat. The modern Meeks Creek generates only a fraction of the hydraulic force of
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 11 Draft Report (December 2008) the prior glacial period stream responsible for the formation of the U-shaped valley and its landform features. Under the current climatic/hydrologic conditions the creek channel in Meeks Meadow is generally stable in its current configuration with appropriate channel morphology and floodplain function.
3.3 HYDROLOGY The hydrology of Meeks Creek is driven by the seasonal precipitation patterns (rain and snow), temperature and surface-groundwater interactions. The majority of precipitation falls as snow in the months of November to April, and the highest volume of runoff is generated by spring snowmelt of the upper watershed snowpack from April through June; mean daily flows are typically 30-50 cubic feet per second (cfs) during this period (LTBMU, 2006a). Warm winter rains that fall on snow, typical of El Niño year (e.g., 1955, 1964, 1986 and 1997) storms, can contribute the highest instantaneous peak runoff and flood potential in the meadow environment. During the summer months from July through September, little rain falls, but this may be interrupted locally with brief thunderstorm events. Streamflow is intermittent through significant portions of Meeks Meadow as a result of localized substrate and groundwater conditions.
3.4 SOILS The Celio (Co) and Elmira (Ev) soil series dominate Meeks Meadow with inclusion of Gefo series along the meadow margins (Figure 3-3). All of these soils are formed in alluvium, as would be expected given the geomorphology of Meeks Meadow. The Celio series soils are poorly drained, 40 to 60 inches deep over a very gravelly hardpan with strongly cemented silica. The hardpan is thought to have formed due to translocation of silica from pressure of the glacial ice sheets. By contrast, the Elmira series are well drained soils underlain by sandy granitic alluvium or highly weathered till. The landscape-scale soils units have some influence on vegetation composition in Meeks Meadow, but it is not a clear governing factor; microtopography and hydrology appear to have a greater influence on the spatial distribution vegetation communities in the meadow. Local occurrences of peats and silts have a strong influence on vegetation type, such as in areas of marsh and vernal pool plant communities.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 12 Draft Report (December 2008)
3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.5.1 Vegetation Meeks Meadow supports a wide range of montane vegetation communities (Figure 3-4) including: Lower Montane Forest Communities o Mixed Conifer Forest o Lodgepole Pine Forest Montane Riparian Communities o Mixed Riparian Scrub Montane Herbaceous Communities o Wet Graminoid Meadow o Obligate Sedge Meadow o Vernal Pool (Psilocarphus sp. dominant) o Dry Graminoid Meadow Miscellaneous Land Types o Aquatic Riverine o Developed Area (trailhead parking and private homes along lower meadow margin)
The upland slopes above the meadow consist of mixed conifer forest with some mixed shrub understory; these forest communities extend to the margins of the meadow and across portions of the valley floor creating interwoven patches of forest among dry and wet graminoid meadows (Figure 3-5). Flat or internally drained conditions occur locally in some areas supporting vernal pools (Figure 3-6). Seasonally wet marshes are found in areas both with and without mineral sediment deposition. Several species of willow (Salix spp.) and mountain alder (Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia) dominate woody riparian vegetation along Meeks Creek; alder are found primarily along the edges of recessional moraines in at least five locations on the valley floor. Obligate sedge meadow and open water areas surrounding large clumps of willow are found near recessional moraine impoundments and in the vicinity of beaver dams where fluvial impoundment has increased soil saturation and created desired habitat for willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) (Figure 3-7). Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 13 Draft Report (December 2008)
Vegetation Ecology
The pre-Comstock era vegetation of Meeks Meadow was likely characterized by old-growth conifers (predominantly white fir, sugar pine and Jeffrey pine) interspersed among graminoid meadows, riparian scrub and backwater wetlands. These habitats were maintained by low intensity fires that burned within and adjacent to the meadow at fairly regular intervals. Tree ring studies show that fires burned in the Tahoe Basin every 5 to 20 years on average (LTBMU, 2008), with lightning and application by the Washoe being the sources of ignition. In the specific case of Meeks Meadow, historical records suggest that the Washoe Tribe used fire as a tool to manage the land, burning meadows and forests to favor the ecology of plants such as bracken fern and chamas. These cultivation techniques and many others known only to the Washoe influenced the vegetation cover and wildlife habitat of the watershed, especially the lower meadow.
As described previously, between the 1850s and the late 1800s much of the old growth timber was harvested. In addition, widespread grazing of sheep and cattle became commonplace, and the incidence of fire in the meadow (and elsewhere) steadily decreased. These changes in the disturbance regime, along with a climate warming trend, triggered a series of changes in vegetation ecology that continue to this day, most notably the proliferation of early seral lodgepole pine forest.
Lodgepole pine ecology
The autecology of lodgepole pine is largely responsible for its success throughout much of the Sierra. The species can tolerate a wide range of soil moisture conditions and rapidly occupy disturbed areas (Whitney, 1979). Lodgepole pine is a prolific, reliable seed producer and may bear cones at less than 10 years of age. By 5-10 years of age it produces seed with germination rates comparable to that of mature individuals. The percentage of viable seed is high (>70%) and the seeds remain viable for up to 17 years. Lodgepole pine can grow on a broad spectrum of soil types, from water-logged organic soils to well-drained glacial outwashes. The species is an early successional species, establishing soon after disturbance (Cope, 1993; Ratliff, 1985); shade tolerant species such as red and white fir eventually replace lodgepole pine. Lodgepole seeds
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 14 Draft Report (December 2008) require a small amount of light for germination, but the seedlings require considerable light for establishment (Ratliff, 1985). Lodgepole pine can become established and reproduce in soil environments that are unfavorable to other conifers. It is tolerant of soil saturation and consequently extremely successful in meadows and other moist areas, often forming dense, “doghair” thickets that frequently invade meadows (Barbour and Major, 1988). Lodgepole is characterized as an aggressive pioneer species, combining rapid juvenile growth and an ability to survive within a broad range of ecological conditions.
Several studies (Vale, 1981; DeBennedetti and Parsons, 1984) have linked lodgepole pine invasion of meadow habitats to changes fire and grazing regimes. As discussed above, review of the historical records and current conditions clearly suggest a clear correlation between dense conifer establishment and reproduction in Meeks Meadow with suppression (and lack of application) of fire and grazing, and the removal of large, mature trees in and along the edges of the meadow.
Conifer invasion of meadows in the western U.S. has also been linked to historical climate variability (Millar et al., 2004; Cooper et al. 2006). Climate fluctuations at multiple time scales can affect vegetation community composition and the frequency of natural disturbance such as fire. In general, lodgepole pine establishment is favored during warm, dry climate periods when fire is frequent and other species (e.g., firs) have difficulty establishing due to low moisture availability. Cooper et al. (2006) found that lodgepole pine invasion at Tuolumne Meadows in Yosemite National Park is linked to periods of low precipitation and low year-to-year variability in moisture conditions. Given the complex history of anthropogenic disturbance in Meeks Meadow the role that climate plays in lodgepole pine dynamics at the Site is difficult to discern. It is clear that recent timber harvest operations have exacerbated the lodgepole pine invasion/encroachment problem. Review of historic aerial photographs and the Meeks Bay timber harvest maps indicate that the overwhelming majority of Lodgepole Pine Forest community mapped on site consists of early-seral stage forest that has invaded Meeks Meadow following logging activities (and the associated wildfire) that occurred between 1987 and 1995 (i.e., the Wasiu Timber Sales).
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 15 Draft Report (December 2008)
Once lodgepole pine have invaded meadow environments their impact on biological and hydrologic process can be significant. Griffith et al. (2005) documented import changes in soil biogeochemistry (e.g., nitrogen availability) in meadows following conifer invasion. These changes may alter soils so that they are more likely to support trees rather than graminoid species. There is widespread anecdotal evidence suggesting lodgepole encroachment/invasion desiccates meadows and potentially reduce streamflow, though no studies testing this hypothesis were identified during preparation of this document.
3.5.2 Wildlife
Terrestrial Wildlife Meeks Meadow contains diverse habitats supporting a variety of terrestrial wildlife. Small mammals common to the meadow include deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), shadow chipmunk (Tamias senex), golden-mantled ground squirrel (Citellus lateralis) and yellow-pine chipmunk (Tamias amoenus). Medium to large mammals known to occur in the meadow include beaver, pine marten (Martes pennanti), raccoon (Procyon lotor), coyote (Canis latrans), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and black bear (Ursus americanus). Popular Washoe hunt species include mountain cottontail (Slyvilagus nuttallii) and ground squirrel (Spermophilus spp.). Common waterbird species found in Meeks Meadow include Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and Wilson’s snipe (Gallinago gallinago). A variety of neotropical migratory birds are found including warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus), western wood-pewee (Contopus sordidulus), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata) and MacGillivray’s warbler (Oporornis tolmiei). Tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) are common cavity nesters in the area. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and osprey (Pandion haliaetus) might have nested in lower Meeks Meadow and the shoreline zone prior to human encroachment, but are not currently present.
Wildlife surveys have recently been completed in the project area for butterflies, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and small to medium-large mammals (Borgmann and Morrison, 2001, 2005, and 2006; LTBMU, 2006a). These surveys document baseline (or pre-restoration) conditions in
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 16 Draft Report (December 2008)
Meeks Meadow and General Creek (reference site) for focal species and will be compared to data collected during the monitoring phase of the project.
Beaver Influences Beaver activity in Meeks Meadow is of particular interest because they can have profound effects on meadow hydrology, channel morphology and riparian habitat. The effects of beaver on the landscape can be beneficial or detrimental, depending on multiple factors including population size, vegetation resources and fluvial processes. Beaver altered environments are generally acknowledged to increase habitat suitability for waterfowl, furbearers, amphibians, upland game and deer (Reed, 1980; Muller-Schwarze and Sun, 2003). Detrimental effects of beaver may include channel instability and increased flooding (potential damage to private property), impeded fish passage and tree loss.
Modern beaver colonies in Tahoe area streams show successful adaptation to a wide range of stream conditions, from ephemeral streams on the dry east shore to seasonal presence in the Upper Truckee River, Trout Creek and Blackwood Creek basins (LTBMU, 2006a). An investigation carried out in the Upper Truckee River watershed found evidence of wetland creation and diversification due to beaver activities, including the development of good habitat conditions for willow flycatcher (SH+G, 2004). There were also instances where beaver were causing channel avulsion, meadow destruction and degradation of highly valued aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands, all of which were viewed as a negative impact by affected landowners who used nearby meadows for grazing. Beaver activity has been reported to cause the loss of aspen stands locally in the Lower Truckee River (Beier and Barrett, 1987), and has caused flooding of structures located in the floodplains of larger tributaries (USDA, 2004).
In Meeks Meadow, beavers have an influence on creek function and hydrologic conditions, which affect riparian vegetation and habitat; there are over 15 acres (10%) of Meeks Meadow estimated to be affected by beaver (LTBMU, 2006a). Beaver dams up to five feet high impede the low-flow channel of Meeks Creek, which likely affects fish passage during low flow conditions. At the same time, water impoundment associated with beaver has converted large
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 17 Draft Report (December 2008) areas of seasonally wet meadow to perennially wet conditions with large areas of standing water. These areas support diverse wetland habitat, including high quality habitat for willow flycatcher breeding and habitat for waterfowl and amphibians.
SH+G conducted an assessment of beaver activity in Meeks Meadow in the fall of 2007. The results of this assessment are included as Appendix A to this document. The assessment found that beaver activity occurs throughout Meeks Meadow but is more prevalent at the downstream and upstream ends of the Meadow (Figure 3-8) where streamflow is perennial. Beaver dams appear to have some positive influences on channel and riparian function in that they retain sediment, provide grade control, encourage overbank flow and deposition of fine sediment, and encourage wetland development and riparian plant colonization. It is likely that beaver dams present partial fish migration barriers during low flow conditions, but the net result on fish populations in Meeks Creek was deemed to be limited.
Fisheries Fisheries resources in Meeks Creek are dominated by introduced species including brown trout (Salmo trutta), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). The native Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT), a species relied upon heavily as a food source by Washoe, has been eliminated due to past over-fishing and competition from non-native species. Trout observed in Meeks Meadow above Highway 89 are predominantly rainbow trout, which, owing to their spring time adfluvial, upstream migration during seasonally high flows, are able to negotiate the low flow passage barrier at Highway 89 and reach spawning areas upstream. The conditions above Highway 89 generally seem to favor other species such as brook trout.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 18 Draft Report (December 2008)
4.0 DESIRED FUTURE CONDTIONS
It can be safely assumed that late seral, fire-adapted vegetation communities supported and maintained by the quasi-equilibrium floodplain processes of Meeks Creek characterized the pre- 1850 conditions in Meeks Meadow. Early accounts and photographs taken of the shoreline zone and Meeks riparian areas downstream of Meeks Meadow suggest that high quality vegetation communities and wildlife habitats were present (Figure 4-1). Restoring these conditions, particularly meadow communities, is important for several reasons as: meadows support distinctive plant communities and wildlife habitat; they create natural fire breaks in forested landscapes; they regulate stream hydrology including flooding and temperature; and they offer high quality aesthetics and recreational opportunities.
The desired conditions for restoring the wetland, riparian and meadow ecosystems in Meeks Meadow must integrate USFS restoration and multiple resource guidelines and policies. Based on the 2004 SNFPA (USDA, 2004), the desired condition for meadow and riparian ecosystems such as those along Meeks Creek and through Meeks Meadow are as follows:
The ecological conditions of meadow vegetation is late seral (50 percent or more of the relative cover of herbaceous layer is late seral with high similarity to the potential natural community). A diversity of age classes of hardwood shrubs is present and regeneration is occurring without maintenance.
Meadows are hydrologically functional where areas of accelerated erosion are stabilizing and healing and vegetation rooting occurs throughout the available soil profile. Meadows exposed to perennial and intermittent streams have the following characteristics: stream energy from high flows is dissipated, reducing erosion and improving water quality; sediments are filtered and bedload captured, thereby aiding floodplain development; flood water retention and groundwater recharge are enhanced; and streambanks are stabilized by root masses against erosive action.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 19 Draft Report (December 2008)
These desired conditions may be translated from 2004 SNFPA AMS into the following restoration goals for Meeks Meadow:
1) Restore late seral vegetation communities by implementing management actions that accelerate natural succession processes; 2) Monitor and maintain hydrologic and geomorphic function in Meeks Creeks, which is important to the sustenance of vegetation communities, as well as aquatic and terrestrial wildlife species diversity.
In the process of developing action that will promote the desired future conditions it is also important to include sustainable land management practices carried out by the Washoe people, specifically through coordination and use of Native American cultural practices for vegetation management and ecosystem restoration as addressed in the 2004 SNFPA (USDA, 2004; pp 25- 26).
4.1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES The desired condition for Meeks Meadow would include a mosaic of vegetation communities that favors riparian scrub, graminoid and obligate sedge meadows in spatial extent and minimizes dense, early seral conifer stands. Aspen and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera L. ssp. trichocarpa), which were present in the meadow prior to human disturbance (Figures 2-4 and 4-1), should also be a component of the riparian and meadow habitats.
4.2 TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE Restoration efforts will seek to improve habitat structure, connectivity and complexity to increase wildlife abundance and diversity. The desired assemblage of terrestrial vertebrates includes species that are relatively common throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin and thus should be present at Meeks, and those that are relatively rare throughout the Basin and could be attracted by meadow restoration activities. The species listed in Table 1 are: (1) thought to have declined in abundance and distribution within the Lake Tahoe Basin; and/or (2) were detected in survey reference areas, and will thus be emphasized for restoration activities. These species were
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 20 Draft Report (December 2008) selected by comparing the reported status (usually based on abundance and distribution in the Basin) in historic records (e.g., Orr and Moffitt as summarized in Murphy and Knopp, 2000) with those from more recent surveys (generally unpublished data).
Table 1. Focal wildlife species for restoration in Meeks Meadow Common name Scientific name Herpetofauna Western toad Bufo boreas Pacific chorus frog Pseudacris (=Hyla) regilla Western aquatic garter snake Thamnophis couchii Western terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis elegans Gilbert skink Eumeces gilbert Birds Common nighthawk (feeding only) Chordeiles minor Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia Calliope hummingbird Stellula calliope Mammals Coyote Canis latrans Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Broad-footed mole Scapanus latimanus Mountain beaver Aplodontia rufa Belding’s ground squirrel Spermophilus beldingi Trowbridge’s shrew Sorex trowbridgii
Post-project monitoring will focus on a subset of these species that are indicative of meadow conditions. Proposed monitoring activities are discussed in Section 7.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 21 Draft Report (December 2008)
5.0 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
To achieve the desired future conditions the restoration strategies will focus on managing succession i.e., accelerating successional process in early seral environments to promote late- seral stage forest, riparian scrub and meadow wetland communities. The restoration strategies include several vegetation management techniques, as well as Washoe practices involving management of meadow and forest areas for cultivation and harvest of culturally important plants.
5.1 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
5.1.1 Overview Using mechanical and manual treatments lodgepole pine stands will be thinned or removed from the meadow. Dense stands of white fir will also be thinned to encourage Jeffrey pine recovery and more varied canopy and understory structure and composition. These measures are intended to expand habitat types and diversity, and to create transitional areas supporting niche environments important to desired wildlife species (e.g., willow flycatcher). Once the dense lodgepole canopy fuels are reduced, periodic controlled burning of meadows and undergrowth in conifer stands is envisioned. Another goal of vegetation recovery is to restore aspen and cottonwood stands along meadow, riparian and fringe forest areas where soil and hydrologic conditions are favorable.
5.1.2 Lodgepole Pine Encroachment/Invasion Management Strategies
Management of lodgepole pine invasion/encroachment is the focal point of the meadow restoration strategy. Lodgepole pine management will focus on the meadow and immediate fringe forest areas in order to maximize the potential for dispersal of meadow species (Swanson, 2007); upland forest areas are addressed under current projects (i.e., the Quail EA) as described in the Section 5.1.4. These adjoining areas can further influence vegetation in the meadow and fringe areas, and therefore some level of management of these areas is recommended to support long-term restoration goals for the meadow environments on the valley floor. Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 22 Draft Report (December 2008)
Thinning and prescribed burning are the primary treatments that will be implemented to facilitate meadow restoration. These two treatments will be implemented in a manner that allows for the reestablishment of meadow and riparian vegetation species. Restoring a low intensity, high frequency fire regime is the desired treatment for returning habitat invaded by lodgepole back to a meadow community because it is a natural process and it helped control or prevent meadow invasion in the past. Fire also stimulates aspen regeneration, and the coarse woody debris created by fire-caused conifer mortality may be important in protecting seedlings and re-sprouts from browsing animals (Turner et al., 2003). However, canopy fuels will need to be sufficiently reduced through thinning before prescribed burning can be safely applied as a management tool.
Thinning techniques Hand Thinning There are many areas within the meadow where manual thinning methods can be effective in managing lodgepole invasion/encroachment. Manual thinning methods would be used where soils are excessively moist or where mechanical treatment is not necessary (e.g., small patches or small diameter trees). Manual thinning techniques may include cutting with chainsaws, lopers or brush cutters with metal blades. Slash generated from thinning would either be removed from the meadow to be chipped or burned, or scattered to be burned onsite by prescribed fire.
Mechanical Thinning Mechanical thinning treatments can be an efficient and effective means to manage pine encroachment/invasion. Until recently, only hand thinning methods have been approved for fuels reduction projects in SEZs and meadows environments in the Basin. The LTBMU has recently undertaken the Heavenly Creek SEZ Demonstration Project (Heavenly SEZ Project), which utilized low ground pressure cut-to-length (CTL) harvester and forwarder equipment for fuels reduction. LTBMU conducted extensive monitoring in conjunction with the Heavenly SEZ Project and determined that mechanical removal methods can be implemented under favorable soil conditions (e.g., high hydraulic conductivity and low moisture content) without significant disturbance to the SEZ soils (LTBMU, 2008).
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 23 Draft Report (December 2008)
For mechanical thinning to take place in Meeks Meadow some preliminary soils data would need to be collected including hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to groundwater, and soil moisture and texture. These data will be used to determine if the soils meet the LTBMU, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan Water Board) and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s (TRPA) criteria for use of mechanical thinning equipment. We assume that most areas of Meeks Meadow will meet these criteria because late summer/fall soil moisture tends to be relatively low; mechanical treatment will not be used in areas with very moist or wet soils such as wetlands and wet meadow habitats. If the soils do meet the regulatory agency criteria then mechanical treatments would only be implemented when the meadow is dry to reduce impacts to soils. The number of entry points to the meadow would be limited. Slash generated from thinning would be removed from the meadow and chipped or burned outside of the meadow environment.
Prescribed fire Once the initial thinning has occurred, fire treatments are recommended for the meadow areas where lodgepole invasions stands dominate and are overtaking meadow environments. Generally, fire is viewed as an important factor in the maintenance of grassland ecosystems, and studies have shown that fire plays a role in maintaining meadow habitats and controlling invasive trees (Vale 1981; DeBennedetti and Parsons 1984). Mid-summer lightning fires in meadows of Yosemite National Park have been very effective in controlling lodgepole pine (Jan van Wagtendonk, personal communication to Dennis Odion, September 2005). Fire has many beneficial effects including increasing abundance and diversity of plant types, improving forage and cover for wildlife species, controlling insects and disease, removal of dead materials and recycling of nutrients.
Prior to fire suppression in the early 1900s, natural fires were usually ignited by lightning from thunderstorms which are most common in the Sierra’s in mid-late summer. Indigenous burning by tribes for cultural resource development typically occurred in late summer through the fall season (Anderson, 2005). The ideal time for burning at Meeks Meadow would likely be late-
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 24 Draft Report (December 2008) summer or fall; however, this is dependent on seasonal moisture levels and fuel levels, especially where burning may involve forested areas during early implementation phase. Prescribed burning in the meadow would need to be implemented on a recurring basis in order to replicate the historical fire regime and prevent re-invasion of the meadow by lodgepole. Prescribed fire would consist of broadcast burning of meadow species, understory vegetation and potentially scattered slash from thinning operations. Natural barriers would be used to assist fire containment to the extent feasible and multiple, smaller prescribed burns may be needed in areas. Some burned lodgepole stands/snags would be retained for their wildlife habitat value. Prescribed fire treatments would be coordinated with Quail EA treatments and with Washoe land management practices.
5.1.3 Aspen & Cottonwood Reintroduction Aspen The decline of aspen is a general trend of concern in the Sierra Nevada (Jones et al., 2005; Shepperd et al., 2006). Aspen groves in the Basin are considered Ecologically Significant Areas for their rarity and associated biodiversity (Murphy and Knopp, 2000). A specific objective of this RMP is to reintroduce aspen to areas of suitable habitat within Meeks Meadow, particularly riparian and meadow fringe environments. Aspen is an early seral, shade intolerant species and follows successional patterns similar to lodgepole pine. Field observations suggest that portions of the meadow are capable of supporting aspen as evidenced by the presence of aspen-associated vegetation such as California false hellebore (Veratrum californicum) adjacent to Meeks Creek. We speculate that aspen was present in Meeks Meadow prior to Comstock-era disturbances and the introduction of beaver, which are known to have a strong preference for aspen as a food source and for dam and lodging material (Shepperd et al., 2006). A photograph taken circa 1929 of a bridge crossing over Meeks Creek shows trees that appear to be aspen (Figure 2-4)
Reintroducing aspen to Meeks Meadow would require planting of nursery stock or direct transplants. Aspen recruitment from seed is rare in the Sierra (Shepperd et al., 2006) and there are physical barriers to root expansion from existing populations in adjacent watersheds. Successful aspen reintroduction in Meeks Meadow would increase species and habitat diversity,
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 25 Draft Report (December 2008) promote additional resource competition for species of pine, and enhance the aesthetic value of the meadow.
Cottonwood Cottonwood is widespread in the riparian areas of the Basin. Historically, cottonwoods may have occurred throughout Meeks Meadow and were likely present around the shoreline area. The earliest photographs of the area show deciduous trees along the shoreline that were likely to include cottonwood. These mature trees along the shoreline likely provided nesting habitat for raptors including bald eagle and osprey.
Like aspen, cottonwood reintroduction would require planting of nursery stock, direct transplants or cuttings. After reintroduction cottonwood recruitment from seed can be very successful, particularly in and along watercourses subject to flooding. The reintroduction of cottonwoods in selected locations in Meeks Meadow would increase species and habitat diversity, provide additional competition for pine species, improve raptor nesting and roosting habitat and enhance the aesthetic value of the meadow. In the long-term, cottonwood trees would serve as a source of complex, large woody debris to Meeks Creek.
5.1.4 Fuels Reduction in Surrounding Areas High fuel loads, in understory structure and as ground fuel, are common in forested areas bordering Meeks Meadow and within forests covering portions of the meadow area on the valley floor. These forest conditions threaten nearby residential communities (lower Meeks area) and wildlife habitat with severe wildfire potential. LTBMU is in the process of implementing thinning and clearing of forest understory across significant portions of lower Meeks watershed as part of the Quail EA. This program utilizes mechanical and manual treatments (thinning and removal), pile burning and future broadcast burning of upland areas to reduce fuel loads and interrupt potentially damaging wildfire.
The Quail EA stands include nearly all upland areas surrounding Meeks Meadow (Figure 2-6). Treatments for Stands 14-12 (148 acres) and 14-16 (285 acres) were implemented in summer/fall
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 26 Draft Report (December 2008)
2005 using hand thinning and piling methods. This encompasses nearly half of the moraine ridge north of Meeks Meadow and most of the moraine ridge to the south of Meeks Meadow; note that treatment area 14-16 is shown to extend across portions of the meadow area at the southwest end, but field observations show that this treatment generally terminates at the slope break transition to the meadow environment. Stand 14-15 (200 acres) were cleared in 2006, and Stands 14-17 (16 acres) and 14-18 (6 acres) will be contracted in 2006, but not implemented until 2007. The piles in Quail EA Stands 14-12 and 14-16 will not be cured for burning until possibly the fall of 2006. Prescribed under-burning of forests is not expected for five years following clearing/thinning treatments under current FS plans; thus, the first prescribed burn within upland forests at Meeks is scheduled around 2010 to 2012.
The Meeks Meadow restoration team is working with LTBMU fire specialists and resource managers to integrate Quail EA efforts with future fuel management needs for Meeks Meadow. The Quail EA encompasses most upland areas envisioned for fuel reduction under this RMP. One exception might be limited forest areas at the south/west end of the site below the lower cascading reach of Meeks Creek; this area will be inspected following Quail EA treatments to determine if additional clearing/thinning is desired.
Within the meadow area, most fuel reduction is related to lodgepole pine invasion and encroachment management areas addressed in the section below. However, some forest stands in the meadow will require thinning and clearing of fuels to support future prescribed burning. These areas will be confirmed early during implementation of restoration of Meeks Meadow, and similar practices used for upland forests will likely be applied in these limited forested areas on the valley floor.
5.1.4.1 Invasive Species
Lodgepole pine is the principal invasive plant species identified for management under this plan. However, other invasive plant species could impact the vegetation communities and wildlife habitats at Meeks Meadow. Periodic inspections of the various meadow environments and
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 27 Draft Report (December 2008) ecosystem conditions by a qualified botanist should be part of the long-term management plan for the meadow complex.
5.2 REESTABLISH WASHOE LAND MANAGEMENT/CULTURAL PRACTICES The Washoe people have a sovereign right to be involved in management of their ancestral lands, and the USFS is working with the Washoe Tribe on a government-to-government basis to bridge LTBMU and Washoe resource management goals and interests. Engaging Native American Tribes in forest land management is envisioned in the 2004 SNFPA (USDA, 2004), and the Washoe Meeks Creek and Taylor Creek Wetland Conservation Plan (Washoe WCP) embraces ecosystem restoration and management measures using cultural practices (Washoe, 2002). An MOU between the LTBMU and Washoe envisions a close partnership in land management activities and a return of Native American practices to management of ancestral lands within the LTBMU, including Meeks Meadow. The Washoe and LTBMU have recently collaborated on the development of the Meeks Meadow Washoe Restoration Project, which is being planned and implemented in conjunction with this RMP. Details of the Meeks Meadow Washoe Restoration Project are provided in Section 6.
Commitments made on behalf of the USFS include consideration of the following elements generally applicable to Meeks Meadow restoration (USDA, 2004): Native American vegetation management strategies; Consideration of relationship between fire management and culturally important plants; Maintaining or increasing availability of traditionally used plants; and Monitoring for culturally significant species and maintaining access to sacred and ceremonial sites.
The Washoe desire to use environmental restoration as a means to reintegrate their cultural practices, promote ecotourism and cultural interpretive programs; they presently have a Special Use Permit with LTBMU to gather plant materials and conduct vegetation management in Meeks Meadow consistent with these practices. The Washoe view their involvement at Meeks Meadow as an opportunity to reestablish these practices and to educate their people and others as a means of sustaining Washoe culture and traditions. Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 28 Draft Report (December 2008)
5.2.1 WCP Restoration Goals and Objectives The Washoe WCP includes specific restoration goals and objectives to meet desired conditions for Meeks Meadow. The WCP restoration goals and objectives are, in general, consistent with the primary restoration components of this RMP. The environmental restoration goals summarized from the WCP include the following:
Apply Washoe knowledge and ethics in all planning, demonstration, and monitoring activities. Restore and enhance wetlands and expand high quality wetland habitat. Comment [KF1]: Check document for Limit natural disturbances to wetlands and increase overall wetland sustainability. this language. Establish functional wetland systems requiring minimal on-going maintenance. Restore native flora and fauna and preserve or re-establish natural ecosystem functions and processes. Restore or improve native biodiversity and eliminate non-native species.
5.2.2 WCP Desired Conditions and Restoration Recommendations The WCP outlines specific desired conditions and restoration recommendation for Meeks Meadow, which are again generally consistent with other recommendations described in this RMP. These include:
Vegetation. Maintain areas for fire-adapted species like bracken fern and create openings for sun-tolerant species such as yampah (Perideridia sp.), wild onion (Allium platycaule) and brodiea (Triteleia sp.). Maintain seasonally wet montane meadows by maintaining current hydrologic conditions. Eliminate exotic species and favor native plant and grass species, and use "riparian compatible" herbicides if necessary to control exotic species. Lodgepole Pine. Thin lodgepole pine using manual methods and reduce fuel loads (e.g., chipping methods). Conduct small-scale fire treatments and conduct controlled burning in phases over several years and monitor vegetation response. Selectively log dense stands, control seedling establishment, and manually remove seedlings. Prescribed Fire. Conduct periodic low-intensity burns to maintain a mosaic of plant communities. Set low intensity fires to reduce excessive fuel build-up and woody debris
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 29 Draft Report (December 2008)
in stream channels. Conduct frequent low-intensity prescribed burns to re-establish natural ecological cycles. Wildlife. Maintain large growth overstory by water bodies to encourage eagle nesting and foraging habitat, and study opportunities for enhancing waterfowl habitat. Monitor the riparian corridor for beaver damage to woody species and coordinate with LTBMU on any beaver control activities, if necessary. Encourage populations of Washoe hunt species such as rabbits, prairie dogs, and ground squirrels. Maintain and enhance conditions for amphibians and reptiles and bring back yellow-legged frog (through non- native predatory fish control). Promote recovery of understory vegetation to support terrestrial wildlife species. Fisheries. Replace Highway 89 bridge to allow upstream fish passage and study impact of brown trout and kokanee salmon on native fish species (e.g., LCT). Eliminate non- native fish species. Hydrology/Soils. Maintain current levels of water inundation to maintain hydric soils for wetlands. Maintain current Meeks channel configuration and function and reduce or control channel instability from beaver activity. Implement restoration projects with native vegetation to increase habitat and contribute to channel stability and function. Structures. Remove all discarded structures and debris from Meeks Meadow to facilitate traditional gathering and improve scenic quality. Support restoration of the trailhead cabin and facility along Highway 89 to facilitate environmental education and communication of ecological information and cultural practices. Education/Cultural Development. Install interpretive signs about Washoe use of meadows and conduct birding tours. Implement cultural exchange through activities such as interpretive meadow walks and basket making teachings. Conduct Washoe rituals and spiritual practices among restored ecological environments in the Meeks Meadow complex. Recreation. Encourage low impact winter recreation (e.g., snow-shoeing and cross- country skiing) to protect wildlife sensitive areas and eliminate snowmobile activity in sensitive areas. Assess low impact activity on sensitive wildlife species. Human Impacts. Identify and mitigate impacts from foot traffic and recreation.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 30 Draft Report (December 2008)
Many of the Washoe techniques for vegetation and wildlife management are closely held cultural practices. In order for these to be implemented, the USFS and LTBMU laws, regulations and policies must be followed to ensure their proper implementation in restoration. These include: public health and safety; USFS multiple objectives as stated in the LRMP and 2004 SNFPA; recreation; and tribal relations guidance policies.
5.2.3 Culturally Significant Plant Species Plant species of interest to Washoe culture were researched to facilitate tribal restoration of native vegetation communities and Washoe harvest practice. The plant information was compiled from several sources, including: published sources (e.g., d’Azevedo, 1986; Fowler, 1986; Nevers, 1976) presented in Lindström (2000); an unpublished list by Ms. Penny Rucks dated 1999 (provided by LTBMU); a plant list presented to LTBMU by the Washoe Tribe in 2005; and LTBMU field work for the EAR preparation. The plant information is summarized in three tables presented in Appendix B. The plant lists reflect information that Washoe practitioners are comfortable sharing, and is not considered to be an exhaustive list of plants used by or of interest to the Washoe.
Table B-1 is a master list of the plants identified from the various sources of interest to Washoe culture. The plants are organized alphabetically by scientific name and cross-referenced to plant community type mapped in Meeks Meadow in 2003-2004 (LTBMU, 2006a). In Table B-2 the plant list is reorganized and sorted by plant community and ecological setting in which each species is most commonly found; individual species response to burning is also noted where information has been identified. Finally, Table B-3 presents all fire-tolerant plants present or likely present at Meeks Meadow sorted by plant community and ecological setting. The plant lists are a resource for Washoe to consider in developing specific restoration plans for the various environments at Meeks Meadow. These lists and the restoration goals and recommendations outlined in this section provide the framework for planning and implementing Washoe-supported restoration projects at Meeks Meadow. These projects would be coordinated with LTBMU, and several may be integrated with other LTBMU projects where feasible and appropriate without intruding on cultural customs or traditions.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 31 Draft Report (December 2008)
6.0 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
Four management “regions” have been delineated in Meeks Meadow to facilitate planning, communication and implementation of restoration actions (Figure 6-1). Each region possesses somewhat unique environmental attributes, although the boundaries were not established using definitive criteria. In some cases the proposed restoration treatments overlap the boundaries of the four regions.
Regions A and B span the lower portion of the Meeks Meadow and extend to a topographic transition zone on the valley floor where recessional moraine deposits straddle the valley and divide the Site roughly in half. Regions C and D comprise the upper end of the meadow and contain more varied topography and diverse vegetation communities and environmental settings. Meeks Creek physically separates the northwestern (A and C) and southeastern (B and D) regions.
Recommended restoration actions are outlined by region in the sections below. Depending on available resources and LTBMU priority, restoration actions can be implemented in phases by region or integrated across multiple regions involving one or more of the individual restoration elements. LTBMU resources and priorities should be reviewed to develop a general implementation plan to integrate restoration actions across the Meeks Meadow complex.
The primary lodgepole management areas are shown on Figure 6-1. Treatment units were delineated based upon several factors including lodgepole density, soil types, cultural constraints, and access considerations. The identified treatment units target those areas where lodgepole encroachment is most evident; areas of mixed conifer forest with elements of lodgepole may also be treated under future actions but area considered a secondary priority at this time. In addition, preference was given to areas that may be treated with a forwarder/harvester mechanical thinning or with manual thinning followed by burning; secondary treatment units may require different tree and fuel removal strategies than those developed for the primary units. It is therefore expected that treatment within the identified units will be the first of several future actions of thinning and burning within Meeks Meadow to gradually shift the forested areas from dense,
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 32 Draft Report (December 2008) young thickets of regenerating lodgepole and firs to mature, open canopies of mixed conifer forest with an understory of meadow grasses and forbs.
Treatment prescriptions recommended in this document are preliminary and are subject to refinement upon collection of stand examination and fuel loading data. To achieve the desired future conditions thinning and burning treatments will need to be implemented at reoccurring intervals of approximately 5-7 years over a period of approximately 25-35 years. Detailed plans for implementation of lodgepole management actions will be developed with a planning team of LTBMU resource managers, fire specialists and recreation managers. The restoration actions involving lodgepole pine thinning and prescribed fire will require a contractor experienced in controlled burns and timber harvesting in sensitive areas. The LTBMU forest improvement program would manage this work in conjunction with the Ecosystem Restoration Group and the Washoe Tribe.
6.1 RESTORATION PROJECTS - REGION A
Region A includes the trailhead area and the largest mixed riparian scrub environment in the meadow complex (Figure 6-1).
6.1.1 Lodgepole Pine Management Lodgepole pine encroachment is common in this area and lodgepole invasion occurs in its western portion between Meeks Creek and the access trail leading to Desolation Wilderness. Approximately 10.5 acres are identified for lodgepole management in Region A. Lodgepole management areas in Region A are divided into two Units: A-1 and A-2. Treatment areas for the Meeks Meadow Washoe Restoration Project are also within Region A.
Unit A-1 Unit A-1 covers approximately 6.5 acres and is dominated by wet meadow. This unit is bordered by mixed conifer forest and mixed riparian scrub (alder-willow complex). Most of the Unit A-1 is within a mapped SEZ. Slopes are mostly flat and the unit drains to the southeast towards Meeks Creek, which traverses the southern end of the unit. This area appears to have been cleared of conifers in the past, as there are numerous cut stumps throughout the unit (Figure 6-2). Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 33 Draft Report (December 2008)
Conifer invasion/encroachment is only moderate (Figure 6-2), but it is important to maintain this high quality wet meadow with ongoing hand thinning.
Soils types include Elmira Loamy Coarse Sand, Wet Variant (Elmira) and Celio Gravelly Loamy Coarse Sand (Celio). The Soil Survey of the Tahoe Basin Area rated soils in the Tahoe Basin by their ability to withstand timber management activities. Factors used in determining this rating included erosion hazard and suitability of the soil to heavy equipment use. Celio and Elmira soils have a slight erosion hazard and a moderate to severe equipment limitation. Based on these considerations, the following treatments guidelines are recommended: Desired future overstory tree density of approximately 8 to 10 trees per acre. Future actions should manage for open wet meadow and aspen forest. Hand thinning of lodgepole pine less than 20 inches dbh. Maintain all snags greater than 8 inches dbh. Slash material should be removed from the meadow to an upland location and chipped or burned off site. Prescribed fire may be applied after thinning is complete. Preferred timing of prescribed fire treatments is fall.
Unit A-2 Unit A-2 covers approximately 3.9 acres and includes a mixture of dense lodgepole pine forest with open patches of wet meadow. The unit is bordered by mixed conifer forest, dry and wet meadow. Unit A-2 is not located within an SEZ. Slopes are mostly flat and the unit drains to the southeast towards Meeks Creek. Soils types include Celio and Elmira. Based on these considerations, the following treatments guidelines are recommended: Desired future overstory tree density of approximately 8 to 10 trees per acre. Future actions should manage for open canopy closure (lodgepole/mixed conifer climax forest) with a forb/grass understory. Hand thinning of lodgepole pine less than 20 inches dbh; leave one tree per 100 square feet; maintain all snags greater than 8 inch dbh. Slash material should be removed from the meadow and chipped or burned off site, or scattered for a broadcast burn. Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 34 Draft Report (December 2008)
Prescribed fire may be applied after thinning is complete. Preferred timing of prescribed fire treatments is fall.
Washoe Treatment Areas As mentioned in Section 5, the LTBMU and the Washoe tribe have recently been coordinating to implement the Meeks Meadow Washoe Restoration Project. This project includes six plots over approximately 10 acres of Region A (Figure 6-2). All plots are dominated by lodgepole pine. Five plots will receive treatments consisting of hand thinning, low intensity broadcast burning, disturbance (e.g., Washoe digging sticks) and natural reseeding; the sixth plot will serve as the control plot. All plots will be monitored pre and post-treatment to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatments. The specifics of the treatments are as follows:
Plot 1 (2.0 acres) Plot 1 will be hand thinned. All lodgepole and fir less than 20 inches dbh will be removed. Cedar and Jeffery pine will be retained. Trees designated to leave (Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, trees greater than 20 inches dbh) will have fuels reduced around the base to a distance based on crown diameter. Stems and chipped materials will be removed from site
Plot 2 (1.0 acres) Plot 2 will be hand thinned. All lodgepole and fir less than 20 inches dbh will be removed. Cedar and Jeffery pine will be retained. Trees designated to leave (Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, trees greater than 20 inches dbh) will have fuels reduced around the base to a distance based on crown diameter. Stems and chipped materials will be removed from site. A low intensity broadcast burn will be conducted during fall months as burn conditions allow.
Plot 3 (1.0 acres) Plot 3 will be hand thinned. All lodgepole and fir less than 20 inches dbh will be removed. Cedar and Jeffery pine will be retained.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 35 Draft Report (December 2008)
Trees designated to leave (Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, trees greater than 20 inches dbh) will have fuels reduced around the base to a distance based on crown diameter. Stems and chipped materials will be removed from site A low intensity broadcast burn will be conducted during fall months as burn conditions allow.
Plot 4 (1.0 acres) Plot 4 will be hand thinned. All lodgepole and fir less than 20 inches dbh will be removed. Cedar and Jeffery pine will be retained. Trees designated to leave (Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, trees greater than 20 inches dbh) will have fuels reduced around the base to a distance based on crown diameter. Stems and chipped materials will be removed from site A low intensity broadcast burn will be conducted during fall months as burn conditions allow. Traditional Washoe methods, such as digging sticks, will be used to disturb the surface of the land, following prescribed burning.
Plot 5 (1.52 acres) Plot 5 will be hand thinned. All lodgepole and fir less than 20 inches dbh will be removed. Cedar and Jeffery pine will be retained. Trees designated to leave (Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, trees greater than 20 inches dbh) will have fuels reduced around the base to a distance based on crown diameter. Stems and chipped materials will be removed from site. A low intensity broadcast burn will be conducted during fall months as burn conditions allow. Traditional Washoe methods, such as digging sticks, will be used to disturb the surface of the land, following prescribed burning.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 36 Draft Report (December 2008)
Plot 6 (1.0 acre) Plot 6 will serve as a control plot. The plot will be similar in respect to vegetative cover, geographic location, age classes, and hydrologic function to treatment plots 1-5 and existing surrounding meadow vegetation. Monitoring will be identical to the other stands. This stand will include the two distinct conditions in the prescribed meadow area.
6.1.2 Other Restoration and Management Actions Additional recommended restoration actions for Region A include the following:
Aspen and Cottonwood Reforestation Aspen and cottonwood reforestation efforts would be concentrated in the eastern portion of Region A. Wet meadow and riparian areas in the eastern portion of Region A are likely capable of supporting aspen and cottonwood growth as evidenced by historical photographs showing these species growing in this area (Figures 2-4 and 4-1). Cottonwood planted in the lower portion of Meeks Meadow would eventually provide perch sites for bald eagles and osprey that may over-winter in this area.
Aspen and cottonwood revegetation stock should be propagated from plant materials (e.g., root and above ground cuttings) sourced from the west-side of the Basin to ensure appropriate ecotype. The density of the plantings would be determined based on the quantity of plant materials available for reforestation. Unfortunately, there is a significant level of beaver activity in this area, so aspen and cottonwood that are planted here would require browse protection such as tree cages or fencing. The plants would likely be installed when dormant in the late fall. Some irrigation in the first year or two after planting may be necessary.
Trailhead Improvements Plans for a new trailhead and parking facility are under consideration by LTMBU and partnering agencies. TRPA Plan Area Statements support the enlargement and relocation of the trailhead and parking facilities (TRPA, 2002). Any modifications made at the trailhead should consider potential stormwater management improvements for the parking area and Highway 89 drainage.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 37 Draft Report (December 2008)
It is recommended that any trailhead improvements include interpretive signage or kiosks describing restoration projects in the lower Meeks area.
6.2 RESTORATION PROJECTS - REGION B
Region B includes expansive areas of lodgepole pine invasion and the former landfill situated on the south side of approximately 40 acres of upland dry graminoid meadow and mixed conifer forest.
6.2.1 Lodgepole Pine Management Approximately 27.5 acres are identified for lodgepole management in Region B in one Unit: B-1.
Unit B-1 Unit B-1 is dominated by very dense, early seral lodgepole pine forest (Figure 6-3) with small patches of wet meadow. The vast majority of lodgepole pines in this unit are less than 14 feet in height and 4 inches dbh. Most of the unit is mapped as wet meadow, but recent surveys conducted in 2008 indicate that the meadow has become desiccated, which is likely the result of lodgepole pine growth. The unit is bordered by mixed conifer, wet and dry meadow. The majority of the unit is located within an SEZ. Slopes are mostly flat and the unit drains to the northwest towards Meeks Creek. The lone soil type within the unit is Celio. Based on these considerations, the following treatments guidelines are recommended: Desired future overstory tree density of approximately 8 to 10 trees per acre. Future actions should manage for open canopy closure (lodgepole/mixed conifer climax forest) with a forb/grass understory. Hand thinning of lodgepole pine less than 20 inches dbh; leave one tree per 100 square feet; maintain all snags greater than 8 inches dbh. Slash material should be removed from the meadow and chipped or burned off site, or scattered for a broadcast burn. Prescribed fire may be applied after thinning is complete. Preferred timing of prescribed fire treatments is fall.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 38 Draft Report (December 2008)
6.2.2 Other Restoration and Management Actions Recommended restoration elements for Region B include the following:
Landfill Assessment The former landfill located along the southern margin of the meadow should be evaluated to determine its environmental condition and cultural significance. Incidental observations of the ground surface do not suggest that the landfill presents an environmental or public safety concern, but this assumption should be verified by conducting a subsurface investigation carried out by a qualified hazardous materials professional. LTBMU cultural resource staff should be present to observe any excavation activities and characterize the cultural significance of the landfill material, if any.
6.3 RESTORATION PROJECTS - REGION C
Region C includes the greatest diversity of meadow vegetation communities and an extensive area of lodgepole pine invasion along the path of the 1995 100-acre wildfire.
6.3.1 Lodgepole Pine Management Approximately 36 acres are identified for lodgepole management in Region C (Figure 6-1). Lodgepole management areas in Region B are divided into two Units: C-1 and C-2.
Unit C-1 Unit C-1 covers approximately 5.7 acres of a mixture of dense lodgepole pine forest with open patches of wet meadow. The unit is bordered by mixed conifer forest and wet meadow. The unit is not located within an SEZ. Slopes are flat to moderate and the unit drains to the southeast towards Meeks Creek. Soils types include Elmira and Gefo Gravelly Loamy Coarse Sand, 9 to 20 percent slopes (Gefo). Ev soils have a slight erosion hazard and a moderate to severe equipment limitation. Gefo soils have a high erosion hazard and a moderate equipment limitation. Based on these considerations, the following treatments guidelines are recommended: Desired future overstory tree density of approximately 8 to 10 trees per acre. Future actions should manage for open canopy closure (lodgepole/mixed conifer climax forest) with a forb/grass understory. Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 39 Draft Report (December 2008)
Hand thinning of lodgepole pine less than 20 inches dbh; leave one tree per 100 square feet; maintain all snags greater than 8 inches dbh. Slash material should be removed from the meadow and chipped or burned off site, or scattered for a broadcast burn. Prescribed fire may be applied after thinning is complete. Preferred timing of prescribed fire treatments is fall.
Unit C-2 Unit C-2 is a large unit (30.6 acres) dominated by very dense, early seral lodgepole pine forest (Figure 6-4) with small open patches of wet meadow and obligate sedge meadow. The vast majority of lodgepole pines in this unit are less than 14 feet in height and 4 inches dbh. This unit comprises a significant portion of the meadow that was burned in during the 1995 fire. Consequently, there is a significant number of standing dead trees throughout the unit. The unit is bordered by mixed conifer forest, wet meadow, and obligate sedge meadow. The unit is not located within an SEZ. Slopes are mostly flat and the unit drains towards Meeks Creek, which bisects the unit. The lone soil type within the unit is Elmira. Based on these considerations, the following treatment guidelines are recommended: Desired future overstory tree density of approximately 12 to 16 trees per acre. Future actions should manage for open canopy closure (lodgepole/mixed conifer climax forest) with a forb/grass understory. Hand thinning of lodgepole pine less than 20 inches dbh; leave one tree per 100 square feet; maintain all snags greater than 8 inches dbh. Slash material should be removed from the meadow and chipped or burned off site, or scattered for a broadcast burn. Prescribed fire may be applied after thinning is complete. Preferred timing of prescribed fire treatments is fall.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 40 Draft Report (December 2008)
6.3.2 Other Restoration and Management Actions Recommended restoration elements for Region C include the following:
Water Quality/Recreation/Aesthetics Restoration/realignment of access road/trail to Desolation Wilderness Construction of educational overlook at former Camp Wasiu dining hall foundation outcrop Non-system trail decommissioning or combination trail restoration/realignment
The specific plan for possible non-system trail restoration/realignment will depend on LTBMU and partner agency interest in any loop trail development around the south side of the meadow complex.
Region C has generally good access along its north boundary using the Desolation Wilderness road/trail to support restoration projects; the western end includes more topography and riparian complexity making access more difficult. Access from the road/trail should be made on/along upland areas as much as possible to minimize disturbance of sensitive meadow environments.
6.4 RESTORATION PROJECTS - REGION D
Region D includes most of the Camp Wasiu structures and approximately 20 acres of high quality wet graminoid meadow. This region includes one or more vernal pools and diverse mixed conifer forest over a variable topographic landscape.
Recommended restoration elements for Region D include the following:
6.4.1 Camp Wasiu Clean-up Numerous structures associated with the former Girl Scout Camp are spread across several acres at the southwest or upper end of the 500-acre Site (Figure 2-5). Theses structures are unsightly and may present hazards to visitors, and therefore should be removed. The former camp is nearly
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 41 Draft Report (December 2008) accessible by truck along the roadway/trail that follows the north boundary of the meadow in this area. The following actions are recommended for Camp Wasiu: Inventory all structures to determine volumes and types of materials to be handled and appropriate methods to safely remove them while minimizing cost and disturbance to vegetation and soils. Dismantle all concrete and cinder-block foundations and remove for offsite disposal; consider retaining a portion of the old dining hall foundation located on the elevated rock outcrop near the northwest corner of the Site to be reconstructed into an interpretive station. Remove all glass, plastic, metal and other anthropogenic materials and dispose offsite; burning timber from former wood buildings/structures in a designated area of the Site should be feasible if properly coordinated with other restoration actions. Fill exposed pits and other soil disturbances to restore ground surfaces to adjacent grades. Determine if any soil amendments or replanting is warranted to support desired conditions and implement these or other supplemental actions, as appropriate.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 42 Draft Report (December 2008)
7.0 MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
As mentioned in the previous section, it is estimated that it will take several decades of restoration and management activities to achieve the desired future conditions for Meeks Meadow. Once the foundations for late-seral vegetation communities are set, the need for active management will be limited, though some fuels management may still be necessary. Over the next few decades LTBMU and its partners should engage in an Adaptive Management and Monitoring Program (AMMP) to guide the restoration actions and ensure that the desired future conditions are on target to be met. The components of the AMMP are described in this section.
7.1 MONITORING The outcome of restoration and management actions in Meeks Meadow will primarily be assessed by monitoring and evaluating biological responses (i.e., vegetation and wildlife). The monitoring activities would include also include some hydrologic measurements and photo documentation. Details of these monitoring efforts are discussed below.
7.1.1 Vegetation
Lodgepole Pine Treatment Areas Monitoring of lodgepole pine management activities would include quantitative assessments of the treatment areas described in Section 6 and reference or control sites. Treatment areas should be monitored prior to and following implementation of management actions or every five years, which ever is more frequent. Permanent monitoring plots would be established within each treatment area to expedite the monitoring and data analysis. Parameters to be measured should include: community composition and species richness. tree size (diameter, height) tree age (by class) stand basal area fuel load estimates (by strata) Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 43 Draft Report (December 2008)
Aspen & Cottonwood Reforestation Areas These areas would be monitored for the success of the planted container stock/transplants and the presence of volunteer or recruited individuals. If edaphic conditions are appropriate the success rate for container stock should be relatively high (greater than 60 percent) provided that animal browse and disease are not prevalent. Container stock should be evaluated annually in the first five years after planting for percent survival and vigor. If the container stock is successful then regeneration of aspen will likely occur through asexual (vegetative reproduction), and cottonwoods will likely disperse to suitable habitat through asexual or sexual (seed) reproduction.
7.1.2 Wildlife
This monitoring will document the effects of the vegetation management actions on wildlife and the progress toward attaining the desired future conditions. The key indicators selected to monitor attainment of the desired condition for wildlife and to quantify the response of species to change over time are divided by three levels of intensity:
Presence-absence: measured for all focal species (Section 4, Table 1); Abundance: measured for a subset of species determined to be of high priority for determining population direction (increasing or decreasing in numbers); and Productivity: measured for a subset of species (for which abundance is measured) determined to be of highest priority for determining the causes of population changes.
A detailed wildlife monitoring plan, including description of reference sites, sampling protocols, and analytical methods would be developed in LTBMU.
It will also be important to monitor beaver during implementation of restoration measures described in this plan in order to observe the effects of these measures on beaver activity and population. Because the LTBMU is responsible for managing wildlife habitats, coordination with state wildlife authorities and possibly other affected property owners in the vicinity is essential for beaver management (USDA, 2004). Additional site-specific assessments may be needed
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 44 Draft Report (December 2008) during implementation phases to adjust management plans to ensure population control and minimize any reduction of habitat and wildlife conditions.
7.1.3 Hydrology Groundwater elevation is the hydrologic parameter most likely to be influenced by the proposed management actions; surface water discharge (i.e., streamflow) may also be affected by lodgepole management activities, but these changes would likely be difficult to detect. Piezometers should be installed within treatment units and control areas to monitoring shallow groundwater elevations before and after implementation of management activities. Groundwater data can be recorded manually or with instrumentation such pressure transducers with continuous dataloggers. Theoretically, removal of dense lodgepole pine would increase shallow groundwater elevations, which would promote the herbaceous meadow species.
7.1.4 Photo Monitoring Photo monitoring is a simple, cost-effective means for documenting environmental change over time. Photo monitoring for the project would consist of establishing permanent ground-based photo stations. Approximately 50 photo stations would be established in the meadow and fringe areas, with a high concentration in lodgepole treatment areas, aspen/cottonwood reintroduction areas, and sensitive habitats such as wetlands. Photo monitoring would be completed in conjunction with other monitoring activities.
7.2 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Achieving the desired future conditions and compliance with the SNFPA 2004 AMS goals are the principle objectives of adaptive management at Meeks Meadow. The desired future conditions are discussed in Section 5; the AMS goals of SNFPA 2004 are specifically intended to restore the physical and biological processes to riparian and meadow ecosystems as a means to create self-sustaining riparian dependent plants and wildlife species and stable wildlife populations. Adaptive management will allow decisions regarding implementation of the RMP treatments to be guided by applying specific objectives and results of the monitoring data review. Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 45 Draft Report (December 2008)
This will allow informed decision-making that is responsive to the dynamic conditions of the meadow. It is recognized that several factors independent of the restoration program (e.g., climate change) may influence the biological and physical functions of the meadow system. Thus, evidence of landscape-scale changes affecting the meadow will be incorporated in the adaptive management program.
7.2.1 Vegetation The vegetation monitoring activities will evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration actions described in Section 6. Adjustments to the treatment plans may be made as necessary to meet restoration objectives and desired conditions. For example, if monitoring data show that lodgepole pine management has been successful, treatment areas may then be expand. Conversely, if the management measures are ineffective, then a change in the approach will be necessary. It should be the overall goal of the AMMP to maintain variability within the habitats of Meeks Meadow. Variability in the system will provide resilience to disturbance regimes such as fire, disease and climate change.
7.2.2 Wildlife The response of wildlife to restoration activities at Meeks Meadow will be determined by comparing the species composition, abundance, and other response variables (as described above) with the same data collected at non-treated reference sites. Response to restoration is inferred by comparing values for the variable at Meeks through time relative to a reference site. A different direction of response through time infers an effect of restoration activities.
Ideally, the project would identify what is causing a change in abundance and distribution of a species so that specific management actions can be considered. Changes in abundance are driven by a host of interacting factors, including reproductive success, recruitment of animals into the breeding population, and adult survival. Animals breeding within the Basin could come from local production or by immigration from locations outside the Basin. Further, the key demographic parameters of survival of individuals, recruitment, and breeding success can interact at varying levels to result in the same population abundance (e.g., lowered adult survival
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 46 Draft Report (December 2008) can be compensated by increased recruitment or breeding success). Thus, without a thorough demographic study, it is not possible to have complete knowledge on the factors responsible for changes in abundance.
Monitoring animal distribution (presence-absence) and abundance will provide an overall understanding of animal status. This will include monitoring of reproductive performance for a subset of species to serve as a surrogate for population performance to obtain an understanding of what might be driving changes in abundance and distribution. A decline in abundance and distribution accompanied by reproductive values that are low relative to published data for stable populations will trigger more intensive study and evaluation of restoration actions.
Beaver Management In spite of some of the potential adverse effects of beaver noted earlier in this plan, beaver activity at Meeks Meadow has created habitat conditions which support willow flycatcher habitat, and wet meadow areas have expanded due to hydrologic impoundment associated with beaver dam structures. The riparian vegetation observed along the creek also exhibits good vigor and a variety of age classes, and no lack of regeneration or loss of individual plants due to beaver foraging has been documented, with the possible exception of aspen and/or cottonwood. Considering that beavers have occupied Meeks Creek for several decades or more, the evidence of beaver damage to riparian or geomorphic function is relatively minimal.
Field evidence suggests that the presence of beaver at current population levels enhances habitat diversity and wildlife conditions. The presence of beaver at current levels also appears to support vegetation diversity and wildlife habitat of interest to the Washoe. An increase in beaver population could destabilize Meeks Creek channel and hydraulic conditions, and present further barriers to fish migration. Predation of beaver by coyotes or black bear are likely insufficient to control any expansion of beaver populations. Thus, if beavers are to remain in Meeks Meadow at approximate current levels, their population should be monitored and managed, if necessary.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 47 Draft Report (December 2008)
7.2.3 Climate Change Vegetation dynamics in Meeks Meadow are governed by a host of biotic and abiotic factors including climate change. Scientists are in agreement that climate in the Sierra region will warm in the foreseeable future (Hayoe et al., 2004); this may lead to earlier snowmelt and subsequent declines in late season streamflow and groundwater levels, creating dryer meadow conditions (Cooper et. al., 2006). In most cases, drier meadow conditions would favor lodgepole pine establishment and growth. This does not mean that the management actions prescribed here are in vain. On the contrary, these management actions would promote late successional vegetation communities capable of resisting invasion of shade-intolerant species such as lodgepole pine. For the AMMP to be effectively implemented more research is needed to predict how vegetation communities will respond to the forecasted climate change so that land managers can distinguish the cause of these changes and respond accordingly.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 48 Draft Report (December 2008)
8.0 CONCLUSION
In the absence of the actions prescribed in this RMP large portions of Meeks Meadow will continue to be invaded by lodgepole pine resulting in dense, early seral forests for the foreseeable future. This condition is not desirable from an ecological, fire management or aesthetic perspective and will likely cause irreversible changes to meadow hydrology, soil chemistry and vegetation community composition. The restoration and management actions presented in this document intend to help restore the vegetation communities in Meeks Meadow to a late seral stage similar to that which existed prior to 1850. It is recognized that environmental variables have changed since that time and certain thresholds may exist that would preclude complete restoration of the Site, but the vision for managing the meadow to favor resilient, late seral vegetation communities is attainable and sustainable.
Achieving the desired future condition will require significant resources in the form of time, labor and money. It will be important to investigate opportunities with projects that could mutually benefit the restoration goals. For example, the stands of lodgepole pine in Meeks Meadow represent a substantial firewood resource; LTBMU could consider developing a program with the Washoe for tree cutting and firewood removal providing seasonal work opportunities and other economic incentives.
The restoration and management actions described in this plan are compatible with the 2004 SNFPA AMS goals (USDA, 2004) and other USFS guidance and policy directives that aim to achieve desired vegetation cover conditions of late-seral stage old growth forest and riparian meadow wetland communities. If the need arises, the desired future conditions for Meeks Meadow may need to be modified through the AMMP to reflect changing environmental conditions and/or management objectives. The restoration and management practices envisioned for Meeks Meadow are some of those recommended in the Washoe WCP (Washoe, 2002) and will involve Washoe participation in the long-term management of Meeks Meadow for growing culturally important plants and a return of Native American practices to management of ancestral lands. Thus, the actions prescribed in this plan address environmental, cultural and social values pertinent to the management and restoration of Meeks Meadow.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 49 Draft Report (December 2008)
9.0 REFERENCES
Anderson, K.M. 2005. Tending the Wild, Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources, University of California Press, 2005.
Barbour, M.G. and Major, J. 1988. Terrestrial vegetation of California, California Native Plant Society.
Beier, P. and Barrett, R. H. 1987. Beaver habitat use and impact in the Truckee Basin, California. J. Wildlife Management 50(4):704-705.
Borgmann, K.L. and Morrison, M.L. 2001. Wildlife inventory and monitoring at Meeks Creek and General Creek: pre restoration (Chapter 3), In Wildlife Inventory and Monitoring in the Lake Tahoe Basin: Pre Restoration, Prepared for USDA Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, 2001.
Borgmann, K.I., and M.L. Morrison. 2005. Wildlife inventory and monitoring in the Lake Tahoe Basin, California: Pre-Restoration. Unpublished report, USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, South Lake Tahoe, CA.
Borgmann, K.I. and M.L. Morrison. 2006. Monitoring bird species richness and abundance at Meeks Creek and General Creek: Pre-Restoration year two. Unpublished report, USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, South Lake Tahoe, CA.
Cooper, D.L., J. D. Lundquist, J. King, A. Flint, L. Flint, E. Wolf, and F. C. Lott. 2006. Effects of the Tioga Road on Hydrologic Processes and Lodgepole Pine Invasion into Tuolumne Meadows, Yosemite National Park. Prepared for Yosemite National Park.
Cope, Amy B. 1993. Pinus contorta var. murrayana. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis d’Azevedo, W.L. 1986. The Washoe. In The Great Basin, W.L. d’Azevedo Ed., pp. 466-499. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, W.G Sturtevant Ed., Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
DeBennedetti, S. H. and D. J. Parsons. 1984. Post-fire succession in a Sierran subalpine meadow. American Midland Naturalist 111: 118-125.
Fowler, C. 1986. Historical Perspectives on Timbisha Shoshone Land Management Practices, Death Valley, California. In Case Studies in Environmental Archaeology, E.J. Reitz, L.A. Newsom, and S.J. Scudder Eds. Plenum Press, NY.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 50 Draft Report (December 2008)
Griffiths, R., M. Madritch, and A. Swanson (2005). Conifer invasion of forest meadows transforms soil characteristics in the Pacific Northwest. Forest ecology and management. 2005, vol. 208, no1-3, pp. 347-358
Hayhoe, K., D. Cayan, C.B. Field, P.C. Frumhoff, E.P. Maurer, N.L. Miller, S.C. Moser, S.H. Schneider, K. N. Cahill, E.E. Cleland, L. Dale, R. Drapek, R.M. Hanemann, L.S. Kalkstein, J. Lenihan, C.K. Lunch, R.P. Neilson, S.C. Sheridan, and J.H. Verville. 2004. Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Volume 101. No. 34.
Jan van Wagtendonk. Personal communication D. Odion, project ecologist with Jan van Wagtendonk, USGS Yosemite National Park, September 2005.
Jones, B.E.; Rickman, T.H.; Vazquez, A.; Sado, Y.; Tate, K.W. 2005. Removal of encroaching conifers to regenerate degraded aspen stands in the Sierra Nevada. Restoration Ecology. 13(2): 373-379.
Keifer, M., N.L. Stephenson, and J. Manley. 2000. Prescribed fire as the minimum tool for wilderness forest and fire regime restoration: a case study from the Sierra Nevada, California, pp266-269, in: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change conference—Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5, Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Lindström, S. 2000. A contextual overview of human land use and environmental conditions, in: Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment, Chapter 2, Volumes I and II, USDA Forest Service, May 2000.
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU). 1997. Wasiu I and Wasiu II Timber Sale, Water Quality Monitoring Report 1980-1995, USDA Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, April 1997.
------. 2006a. Meeks Creek Watershed Ecosystem Assessment Report, Prepared for U.S. Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit by Swanson Hydrology and Geomorphology, June 2006.
------. 2006b. Meeks Bay Access and Trail Management Plan, pdf map prepared by USDA Forest Service, May 19, 2006.
Millar, C. I. and Woolfenden, W.B. 1999. Sierra Nevada Forests: Where did they come from? Where are they going? What does it mean? In McCabe, R. and Loos, S. (eds.) Natural Resource Management: Perceptions and Realities. Transactions of the 64th North American wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, San Francisco, March 26-30, 1999, wildlife Managment Institute, Washington, DC. Pgs 206-236.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 51 Draft Report (December 2008)
Millar, C.I., L.J. Graumlich, D.L. Delany, R.D. Westfall, and J.K. King. 2004. Response of subalpine conifers in the Sierra Nevada, California, U.S.A., to 20th-century warming and decadal climate variability. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 36(2):181-200.
Muller-Schwarze, D. and L. Sun. 2003. The Beaver Natural History of a Wetland Engineer. Comstack Publishing Associates Division, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Murphy, D.M., and C.M. Knopp. 2000. Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-175, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.
Nevers, J. 1976. Wa She Shu: A Washo Tribal History. Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada, Reno.
Ratliff, R.D. 1985. Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of California: state of knowledge, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-84, September 1985.
Reed, S.B. 1980. Beaver management plan. USDA Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Report on File USFS-LTBMU, South Lake Tahoe, CA, 1980.
Shepperd, W.D., P.C. Rogers, D. Burton, and D.L. Bartos. 2006. Ecology, biodiversity, management, and restoration of aspen in the Sierra Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- 178. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station 122 p.
Swanson, F. 2007. Mountain meadows- here today, gone tomorrow? Meadow science and restoration. Science Findings, issue 94, June 2007.
Swanson Hydrology + Geomorphology (SH+G). 2004. Upper Truckee River - Upper Reach Environmental Assessment, prepared for Bureau of Reclamation, Tahoe Resource Conservation District, and Regional Water Quality Control Board – Lahontan Region. Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology, March 2004.
Tappe, D.T. 1942. The status of beavers in California, State of California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Game, Game Bulletin No. 3.
Turner, M. G., W. H. Romme and D. B. Tinker. 2003. Surprises and lessons from the 1988 Yellowstone fires. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 1: 351-358.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment: Final Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region 5, January 2001.
------. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region 5, January 2004.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 52 Draft Report (December 2008)
Vale, T. 1981. Tree invasion of montane meadows in Oregon. American Midland Naturalist 105: 61-69.
Van Etten, C. 1994. Meeks Bay Memories. Silver Syndicate Press, Reno, NV. Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California (Washoe). 2002. Meeks Creek (Ma’ yala wata) and Taylor Creek (Dagachu wata) Wetland Conservation Plan. April.
Whitney, S. 1979. A Sierra Club Naturalists’Guide to the Sierra Nevada. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, CA.
Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan 53 Draft Report (December 2008) SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY
MEEKS MEADOW RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
FIGURES
ecological system science hydrology + geomorphology restoration engineering regulatory compliance Lower Meeks Creek Watershed Meeks Creek Watershed
Meeks Meadow Meeks Meadow
Meeks Bay
Hwy 89
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 1-1: Oblique aerial view of Meeks Creek watershed and Meeks Meadow restoration area. 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 0 3/8 3/4 1.5 Miles 1:47,520 LEGEND N Shoreline HIGHWAYS Zone STREETS / ROADS WILDERNESS BOUNDARY LAKE / POND PERENNIAL RIVERS / STREAMS Lower 89 Meadow INTERMITTENT STREAM SEASONAL STREAM
LAKE TAHOE
Upper Watershed
DESOLATION WILDERNESS
LAKE TAHOE
EMERALD BAY 89
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 2-1: Meeks Creek watershed location map showing study areas from 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 Ecosystem Assessment Report (LTBMU 2006a). PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 Trail Head and 89 LEGENDLEGEND Parking Area Wilderness Access Bridge Trail/Road (Approximate) Existing Non-System "Loop" Trail/Road d. Meeks Creek R ail/ Robinson s Tr es Homestead cc Restoration Project Area s A es ern Wild
ek re C Residential s k e e Area
M
Landfi ll Trail to Desolation Wilderness
Camp Wasiu Structures ±N 00.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Miles SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 2-2: Meeks Meadow and selected project landmarks. 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 LODGEPOLE PINE INVASION
Meeks Meadow Project Area
5! BARREN DISTURBED Landfi ll SOILS AND FILL
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 2-3: Former landfi ll area showing barren, disturbed, hummocky soils/fi ll and lodgepole pine 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 invasion. PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 HIGHWAY 89 HISTORICAL PHOTOS
OLD BRIDGE SUPPORTS
ASPEN TREES
OLD BRIDGE CROSSING
STONE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTED IN 1929 Source: Cal-Trans District 3 after Van Etten, 1994
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 2-4: Historical photos of Highway 89 bridges (circa 1929). 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 CAMP WASIU STRUCTURES
CULVERTS ON SECONDARY PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL
FORMER CAMP OUTHOUSE
ABANDONED CAMP BUILDING
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 2-5: Photographs of select remnant structures of the former Wasiu Girl Scout 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 Camp at southwest end of the Meeks Meadow restoration area; camp was active PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 from 1950 to 1965. Area Sugar Pine Point 13-2 Quail Creek Intervening Area Sugar Pine Point
13-1
13-3
13-4
Unnamed Creek at Meeks Bay McKinney Creek General Creek Intervening Area 14-12 Meeks Bay
14-15
Meeks Creek
Intervening Area Rubicon Bay 14-18 Legend 14-17 14-16
1-4 Proposed Treatment Stand Boundary 5-10 Mechanical Treatment Area
Hand Treatment Area Sierra Watershed Boundary Creek Stream Intervening Area ± Paradise Flat South
00.510.25 Meeks Creek 5-12 5-11 Miles Lonely Gulch USGS Quad Source: National Geographic TOPO! (2001) Watershed Boundary Source: Jorgenson et al. (1978) Unnamed creek at Paradise Flat
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 2-6: U.S. Forest Service map showing Quail Vegetation & Fuels Treatment 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 Project stands encompassing upland areas surrounding Meeks Meadow. PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 YRS YRS Localized Prehistoric BP BC/AD Climate Environmental Conditions Sequence
BC Late Pleistocene >13,000 >15,000 cold-wet -ancient Lake Lahontan floods Great Basin -glaciers in Tahoe basin -ice dam(s) dam Truckee R/raise Tahoe 100' Early Holocene 10-9000 >12-11,000 cold-dry -cold sagebrush steppe at Osgood Swamp 9000-7000 11-9000 warmer-dry -glaciers melt/Lake Lahontan shrinks Pre-Archaic Period -conifers invade Osgood Swamp (Tahoe Reach Phase) Middle Holocene 7000-4000 9000-6000 warm-dry -desiccation of many lakes in Great Basin -woodlands retreated to higher elevations -drought-tolerant species at Osgood Swamp Early Archaic -conifers grow 20' below surface of Tahoe Period -Walker Lake and Carson Sink dry up (Spooner Phase) 5500 7500 wet -conifers drowned by rise in Lake Tahoe 4700 6700 wet -Walker River fills Walker Lake
BC/AD Late Holocene “Neoglacial” 4000-2000 2000BC- cool-moist/ -rebirth of Great Basin lakes/minor glacial advances 0AD winter-wet -conifers reinvade Osgood Swamp Middle Archaic -rise in ground water floods Taylor Ck Marsh (Martis Phase) -increased flows in Squaw Creek -increased Truckee R flows/Pyramid L rises
AD Dry-Wet Intervals ~2000-1600 0-400 drought -xeric vegetation invades Little Valley -rise in fire frequency around Little Valley -Pyramid Lake falls 1300-1200 800-900 drought -trees grow on Ralston Ridge Bog -Cave Rock woodrat middens contain xeric plants 1100 900 wet -buried sand lens at Taylor Marsh/rise in Tahoe Late Archaic 1100-900 900-1100 drought -trees grow in Walker Lake and River (Kings Beach Phase) 700-500 1300-1500 drought -Truckee River stream flows reduced/conifers stressed -trees grow in Walker River -conifers grow in Donner and Independence lakes 370-365 1580-1585 drought -Truckee River stream flows reduced/conifers stressed -Cave Rock woodrat middens contain xeric plants “Little Ice Age” 350-175 1600-1775 cold-wet -lake levels rise -glaciers reach greatest extent since Late Pleistocene -cold conditions in Little Valley and at Lead Lake -”old growth” forests develop in Tahoe basin Washoe Dry-Wet Intervals ~200-100 1700s-1800s dry -retrenchment of forests to higher elevations -increased fire frequency -conifers grow in lakes Tahoe/Independence/Donner 1875-1915 wet -Truckee River flows above average 1928-1935 drought -Tahoe drops below its rim 1982-1986 wet -snowpack water content 200% of normal 1994 drought -Tahoe drops to its recorded low level 1995-present wet -above normal precipitation
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 3-1: Correlation of local paleoclimatic and cultural sequence in the Tahoe 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 Sierra (after Murphy & Knopp, 2000). PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 LEGEND
LATERAL MORAINES (Tioga and Tahoe)
RECESSIONAL MORAINES
ERODED MORAINAL MATERIAL - GLACIO/FLUVIAL, ALLUVIAL AND COLLUVIUM
GLACIAL TILL, FLUVIAL, LACUSTRINE AND OUTWASH DEPOSITS
BEACH AND LAGOON
LATE HOLOCENE FLUVIAL MATERIAL
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !!! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
N !
!
! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0 1,000 2,000 ! 4,000
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! 1:24,000
! Feet !
!
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 3-2: Map of geomorphic landforms in the lower area of Meeks Creek watershed, 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 from Ecosystem Assessment Report (LTBMU 2006a). PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 Ms 89
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
Mt !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
Co Co
Ge
Ms Ge
Ra Ev
LEGEND
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!!! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! STUDY AREA BOUNDARY ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! STREETS / ROADS !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! LAKE / POND !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! PERENNIAL RIVERS / STREAMS
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! INTERMITTENT STREAM
! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! SEASONAL STREAM
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! SOIL TYPES
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! Co
! CELIO Gravelly Loamy Coarse Sand
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !!!
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ELMIRA Loamy Coarse Sand, Wet Variant
!
! Ev
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! Rc !
! Ge GEFO Gravelly Loamy Coarse Sand
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
! MEEKS Very Stony Loamy Coarse Sand
!
!
!
! Ms !
! !
N ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! MEEKS Extremely Stony Loamy Coarse Sand !
! ! ! Mt
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ROCK LAND !
! !
!
! Ra
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! ROCK OUTCROP - CAGWIN COMPLEX
!
! !
! ! Rc !
!
! !
! ! 0 500 ! 1,000 2,000
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! Feet 1:12,000
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 3-3a: Soils in Meeks Meadow. 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 Soil Types
Co CELIO Series The Celio series consists of poorly drained soils that D are 40 to 60 inches deep over a very gravelly hardpan strongly cemented with silica.
Ev ELMIRA Series The Elmira series consists of nearly level to moderately Variations in steep, somewhat excessively drained soils that are underlain by sandy granitic alluvium or highly A & D weathered till.
Ge GEFO Series The Gefo series consists of nearly level to moderately A steep, somewhat excessively drained soils that are underlain by sandy granitic alluvium.
Lo Loamy Alluvial Loamy Alluvial Land consists of small areas of recent Land alluvium adjacent to stream channels and in meadows. D
Ms MEEKS Series The Meeks series consists of level to very steep, Mt B somewhat excessively drained , stony soils that are 40 to 71 inches deep over a hardpan cemented with silica.
Ra Rock Land Rock land is in areas of granitic, metamorphic, and D volcanic rocks.
Rc Rock Outcrop - CAGWIN COMPLEX C The Cagwin complex rock outcropings occur on granitic uplands and are about 25-50% granitic rock outcrop and 50-75% soils.
Rt Rock Outcrop - TOEM COMPLEX C The Toem complex rock outcropings occur on granitic uplands and are about 25-50% granitic rock outcrop and 50-75% soils.
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 3-3b: Legend describing soil types in the Meeks Creek Watershed (Hydrologic soil 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 group noted in blue). Source: USDA - NRCS. 1974. Lake Tahoe Basin Area Soil Survey. PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 LEGEND
Vegetation Survey Boundary LOWER MONTANE FOREST COMMUNITIES Mixed Conifer Forest (301.7 Acres) Lodgepole Pine Forest (40.2 Acres) MONTANE RIPARIAN COMMUNITIES Mixed Riparian Scrub (16.5 Acres) MONTANE HERBACEOUS COMMUNITIES Wet Graminoid Meadow (92.7 Acres)
Obligate Sedge Meadow (4.3 Acres) Vernal Pool (1.2 Acres) Dry Graminoid Meadow (34.0 Acres) MISCELLANEOUS LAND TYPES Aquatic Riverine (5.8 Total Acres) N Includes Meeks Creek and minor tributaries Bare Ground (8.9 Acres) Includes areas devoid of vegetation
Developed Area (12.1 Acres) 0 500 1,000 2,000 Includes roads and developed structures
Feet 1:12,000
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 3-4: Vegetation map of Lower Meeks Meadow and Shoreline Zone from 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 Ecosystem Assessment Report (LTBMU 2006a). PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 SELECTED VEGETATION COMMUNITIES COMMON TO MEEKS MEADOW Jeffrey Pine
Lodgepole Pine Willow
MIXED RIPARIAN SCRUB Mixed Conifer Forest
Lodgepole Pine Encroachment
Bracken Fern
MIXED CONIFER FOREST ALONG MARGIN OF WET GRAMINOID MEADOW
Manzanita
DRY GRAMINOID MEADOW AND MIXED CONIFER FOREST ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPED ON RECESSIONAL MORAINE DEPOSITS.
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 3-5: Photographs of select vegetation communities common in Meeks 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 Meadow. PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 Meeks Meadow Project Area VERNAL POOL JULY 2005
Vernal Pool Location
VERNAL POOL SEPTEMBER 2005
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 3-6: Large Vernal Pool developed on edge of Dry Graminoid Meadow 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 environment. PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 Lodgepole Pine Invasion
Obligate Sedge Meadow
Recessional Moraine Ridge
Woody Riparian Willow Scrub Supports Willow Flycatcher Habitat
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 3-7: Water impounded by recessional moraines and beaver dams enhances 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 vegetation and wildlife habitats in meadow and riparian environments. PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 LEGEND
WATERSHED BOUNDARY
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
ROADS/TRAILS B-11 BEAVER ACTIVITY B-14 B-10 B-8 ¦[B-1 Signifi es evidence of recent beaver activity B-16 B-13 B-18 B-9 ¦[B-2 DAMS B-17 B-155¦[¦[ ¦[ ¦[ B-3 ¦[¦[¦[ ¦[ ¦[ ¦[¦[ B-20 ¦[¦[ B-12 ¦[ ¦[B-4 DENS B-25 B-23 ¦[ ¦[ ¦[¦[ B-19 B-5 OTHER (slides, chewed twigs, etc.) B-28 ¦[ B-7 ¦[ ¦[¦[ B-21 B-6 5 POSSIBLE FISH BARRIER B-30 ¦[ B-22 5¦[ B-29 B-26 B-32 B-27 B-24 B-33 ¦[ ¦[B-31 ¦[ ¦[B-34 B-35 ¦[
¦[B-36
¦[ B-37 B-38 ¦[
¦[B-39 B-40 B-41 ¦[¦[ B-42 ¦[ ¦[5¦[B-44 B-43 ¦[B-45
5¦[B-46 5¦[B-47 B-49 B-48 B-50 ¦[ 5¦[ ¦[¦[ B-52 ¦[ B-51 5¦[ B-53 ¦[B-54 B-55 5¦[ 5¦[B-56 B-57 ¦[¦[B-58
B-60 5¦[B-59 B-62 ¦[ ¦[ B-61 ¦[ B-63 B-64 ¦[
¦[B-65
¦[B-66 N
0 300 600 1,200
Feet 1:7,200
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 3-8: Beaver activity observed in Meeks Meadow (September 2007 fi eld survey). 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 + SWANSON HYDROLOGY GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 4-1: Mid-1880s photograph of Meeks Creek at Meeks Bay before signifi cant timber clear-cutting practices. Cut logs ready for 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 transport by barge to Glenbrook are seen at far right shoreline. The mouth of Meeks Creek near the center the of photo shows mature PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 deciduous tress (likely Aspen or Cottonwood), surrounded by late-seral conifer forest. Photo source: Goin, 1992. LEGEND
RESTORATION PLANNING REGIONS
LODGEPOLE PINE MANAGEMENT UNITS
WASHOE RESTORATION PROJECT TREATMENT AREAS
STREAM ENVIRONMENT ZONE (SEZ)
C P C-1 L O T A-2 6 5 4 S A 3 (5.7 acres) (3.9 acres) 2 1
C-2 (32.8 acres)
A-1 B (6.5 acres)
D B-1 (27.6 acres)
N
0 300 600 1,200
Feet 1:12,000
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 6.1: Meeks Meadow with regions for restoration planning (A-D) and lodgepole pine treatment units delineated. 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 6-2: Photos of management Unit A-1. Note the cut stumps in the top photo 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 indicating logging or previous pine management activity. Lodgepole invasion is PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 ongoing (bottom). SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 6-3: Photos of Unit B-1. Previous pine management activites have left slash in 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 place in portions of the Unit (top). Dense early-seral lodgepole pine to be thinned as PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 part of management activities (bottom). SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 6-4: (Top) Photo of treatment Unit C-2, which includes signifcant portions 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 of the 100 acre area that burned in 1995. (Bottom) Area adjacent to Unit C-2 is PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 indicative of desired future conditions. SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY
MEEKS MEADOW RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX A
BEAVER ACTIVITY SURVEY IN MEEKS MEADOW (2007)
ecological system science hydrology + geomorphology restoration engineering regulatory compliance
January 30, 2008
Ms. Stephanie Heller USFS – Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 35 College Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
RE: Beaver activity and associated geomorphic implications
Overview
The Meeks Creek Watershed Ecosystem Assessment Report (EAR; USDA 2006) includes recommendations for restoring vegetation and wildlife conditions in the lower meadow area of the Meeks Creek Watershed. An issue of concern in Meeks Meadow is the level of beaver activity and how beaver dams affects fish passage and channel stability. Previous documentation of beaver activity in Meeks Meadow (EAR and Meadow Restoration Plan) state that the presence of beaver can have both positive and negative consequences. Beaver are known to build and maintain dams that impound streams. This has been shown to inundate meadow areas, enhancing the formation of in-channel and off-channel wetlands (Figure 1) that support other valuable wildlife habitats for species such as willow flycatcher. However, these dams can also increase overbank flows, can accelerate channel avulsions, and cause localized bank erosion. Beaver dams are also potential fish passage barriers under low flow conditions. Since beavers have been documented in the meadow for over thirty years it is assumed that any negative consequences to geomorphic conditions and the functional value of the stream habitat would have been realized by now. However, increases in the population beyond an undetermined threshold could have a cumulative effect on channel stability and fish passage.
Two previous field assessments documented beaver activity in Meeks Meadow. The first occurred in 2003 as part of watershed-scale studies for the Meeks Creek Watershed Ecosystem Assessment Report (EAR). The EAR surveys documented the presence of two beaver activity centers along Meeks Creek, though no data regarding specific locations and extent of activities was collected. The results of the survey outlined general effects the beaver were having on the Meeks Creek, including in-channel dam building and impoundment of large wetland areas. The EAR concluded that beaver activities created unique and valuable ecosystem assemblages in Meeks Meadow.
The second field survey occurred in September, 2006, during development of restoration approaches for Meeks Meadow. The 2006 survey included mapping and documentation of various features within Meeks Meadow related to the restoration planning efforts. A component of the survey effort included mapping beaver activity along Meeks Creek. The data
collection approach included mapping features in the field using GPS in conjunction with field measurements, photos and notes. The 2006 survey represented an initial census of beaver activity along the creek, although the scope did not permit a comprehensive survey of the entire Meeks Creek channel through the Meadow.
To better understand the extent to which beaver are using Meeks Meadow and the impacts beaver activity is having on channel stability and fish passage, a comprehensive field survey of beaver activity was conducted in September 2007. The assessment was conducted in two phases with the following objectives:
1. Beaver Activity Survey: The initial assessment consisted of a comprehensive survey of beaver activity within the mainstem of Meeks Creek through Meeks Meadow. All beaver activity was mapped including dams, slides, dens, and evidence of recent dam building activities. The fall 2007 survey represents the most comprehensive dataset of beaver activity along Meeks Creek and likely serves as a baseline dataset enabling comparison to subsequent years.
2. Fish Passage and Channel Stability Assessment: Following mapping of beaver activity, a subsequent survey focused on key areas of concern, identified in the beaver activity survey, related to fish passage and channel stability.
This memo provides observations from recent field surveys, comparisons to previous survey efforts and seeks to establish a baseline dataset of beaver activity in Meeks Meadow to use in determining what effect beaver have on vegetative and wildlife resources and the geomorphic function of Meeks Creek and Meadow. The data collected in 2007 is also meant to provide a baseline to evaluate changes in beaver activity over time.
Methods
SH+G staff conducted a survey of beaver activity along the Meadow portion of Meeks Creek on September 26, 2007. The survey accounted for evidence of beaver activity by documenting the location and description of features including dams, dens, chewed sticks and slides/trails leading to and away from the stream channel. The survey included walking the entire stream channel and overflow areas from the Highway 89 Bridge to the upper end of the Meadow at the boulder cascade. A Trimble GeoXT global positioning system (GPS) with hurricane antennae was used to collect the field data. Additional notes were summarized in a field notebook identifying features that potentially pose fish passage impediments or affects to geomorphic function of Meeks Creek. The field data was post-processed in the office to minimize GPS error and plotted over 2005, 1-meter pixel resolution orthophotos for further field reconnaissance and review.
Following the beaver activity survey, SH+G staff conducted a subsequent survey on October 10 and 11, 2007 to qualitatively evaluate each site that was initially identified as either a potential fish passage barrier or a potential impact to the channel (e.g. – bank instability, avulsions, etc). The assessment took into consideration the likelihood of one beaver dam being backwatered by
a downstream dam, how the dam functioned for fish passage under a range of flow conditions, and whether there were alternate flow paths under certain flow conditions to allow for passage. The assessment also qualitatively evaluated how the potential impacts on fish passage and channel stability from log jams differed from beaver dam construction.
Results and Observations
The results from both phases of the assessment are presented in Table 1 and Figure 2. The results suggest that beaver activity occurs throughout Meeks Meadow but is more prevalent at the downstream and upstream ends of the Meadow where stream flow persists year-round. Much of the recent activity, at the time of the survey, was confined to the lower portion of the Meadow, largely within ¼ mile of the Highway 89 Bridge (Figure 3), where a large backwatered area is created. This conclusion was based on the density and condition of observed evidence (i.e. chewed “green” branches, fresh mud on dams, footprints in mud). Based on these observations it is assumed that the beaver migrate seasonally to areas where stream flow is perennial, mostly downstream to the ponded area upstream of Highway 89.
During the field survey it was noted that beaver seemed to favor channel constrictions and existing hard structures (i.e. boulder grade controls and large woody debris jams) as dam building sites. It was also noted that many of the dams were constructed from downed wood and that the beaver were not cutting down many woody shrubs or trees for use as dam building materials. A large number of downed trees exist throughout the meadow associated with either fire or changes in the local hydroperiod associated with beaver activity. Consequently, Meeks Creek appears to have an unnaturally high density of downed large wood within the stream channel and vicinity. Despite some concern about the affect of high large wood densities on bank erosion and channel stability, the wood appears to play a positive role, similar to the benefits of beaver dams, in that they retain sediment, limit channel incisions, encourage overbank flow and deposition of fine sediment onto the floodplain, and encourage wetland development and riparian plant colonization.
Comparison with previous survey photos (2006 Survey), improvements to existing dams have occurred over the last year in many places (Figure 4). Many dams, built from cut willows, are sprouting new growth. The new willow growth results from beaver “planting” vegetative propagules as they integrate freshly cut branches into their new or existing dams. The willows likely lend to the stability of the dams as roots become intertwined through the structures. In essence, some of the dams function as large willow fascines that cross Meeks Creek and fortify the dam structure. The noted persistence of dams from one year to the next should be evaluated in future years since the 2006-2007 Water Year was extremely dry and snowmelt did not produce a significant flow event in the spring that would typically wash out established beaver dams.
Over relatively short time scales the beaver dams appear to become degraded and fail, draining wetland areas created due to dams impounding the creek (Figure 5). In most cases a considerable quantity of sediment has built up behind these large dam structures. Once failure of a dam occurs, there is the potential for the channel to headcut back through the sediment
deposits built up behind the dam. In most cases that does not occur because the failed dam is often backwatered by a downstream dam, limiting the impact that a single failure has on channel and bank stability.
The impact the beaver dams have on fish passage is to limit passage under low flow conditions. Based on our field observations, dams are often constructed in series, with one dam backwatering the next upstream dam. Although the dam may be large, relative to the bed of the creek, the absolute difference in water surface elevation from one dam to the next is typically only 3-6 inches. Consequently, under moderate to high flow conditions, when adults are migrating, the dams can be negotiated. A total of ten potential fish barriers associated with beaver dam activity were noted along Meeks Creek through Meeks Meadow. In all cases the potential fish passage barriers were determined to be passable under all flow conditions except for low flows.
Conclusions and Recommendations
It appears that many of the large dam structures that beavers build modify Meeks Creek in a way that creates unique and valuable habitat for aquatic, avian and terrestrial organisms. Some impoundments formed by beaver dams extend out onto the meadow surface, creating extensive shallow marsh areas with complex mosaics of willow and emergent vegetation. Individual dam structures are often rare. Instead the beavers tend to build a series of dam structures along the mainstem and in tributary and secondary channels. Failure of a single dam does not impact the overall integrity of the dam complex.
The apparent redundancy in the construction of beaver dams is an important point in that it fosters long term stability of the dam complexes, while at the same time limiting the impact of individual dam failures. This also affects the extent to which the beaver dams have impacts on fish populations. The best spawning habitat through Meeks Meadow on Meeks Creek appears to be in the upper 1/4 mile of the Meadow, just downstream of the boulder cascade. Consequently, this also appears to be the best oversummering habitat because it provides cool water temperatures with perennial stream flow and large pools with adequate cover habitat. Adfluvial populations of trout migrating to higher quality spawning habitat in the upper portion of the Meadow have the potential to be affected by beaver dams in any given year, especially under low flow conditions or during drought. The overall impact on adult migration appears to be limited since many of the dams, including the larger ones, are breached under moderate and high flow conditions and these dams are not likely to be rebuilt until after peak spring snowmelt floods dissipate.
The primary impact of beaver dams on fish populations appears to be during the summer months as flows decrease and portions of Meeks Creek begins to dry out. In the spring, fish spawned in the upper portion of the Meadow redistribute into rearing habitat located throughout the Meadow. In the summer, especially during dry years, those habitats begin to dry out, confining fish to isolated pools. Because of beaver dams, many fish are unable to move upstream or downstream into perennial reaches. Consequently, many fish die as the pools dry up and/or as dissolved oxygen levels become lethal. Although this situation appears to have a
significant impact on total fish abundance throughout the Meadow, the perennial habitat that remains in the lower and upper Meadow is most likely at carrying capacity and could not support additional fish even if migration from the desiccated habitat was possible.
Over longer time scales, as the larger dams ultimately fail, some channel instability as well as changes in vegetation composition and structure in formerly inundated areas was observed. Smaller dams appear to be less permanent and are easily washed away during spring snowmelt flows. Smaller dams also present less of an effect to the geomorphic function of the creek as they typically do not block the entire channel. Since beaver dams appear to have similar geomorphic implications as woody debris jams, their overall affect on geomorphic function and channel stability appear to be neutral. Localized bank erosion often occurs when a beaver dam fails and secondary flow paths can headcut around a beaver dam, but these same situations occur when logjams form. These processes are part of the natural function of alluvial, meadow channels.
Recommendations derived from this work include the following:
Subsequent surveys should be undertaken to monitor and compare beaver activity from the baseline condition, assumed to be represented by the 2007 data collection effort, as compared to subsequent years. Ideally, this survey would be conducted annually to evaluate yearly trends in beaver activity and to assess how high flow events and snowmelt floods affect the integrity of the dams and the rate at which dams are repaired and replaced. If resources are not available to conduct annual surveys, we recommend that surveys be conducted every 3-5 years to assess long-term trends in beaver activity.
Surveys should be conducted to document beaver population dynamics in Meeks Meadow. This should be undertaken with the goal of determining a carrying capacity for the area that could potentially define a population threshold, with the assumption that abundance estimates that exceed the threshold would result in detrimental effects to the overall value of the ecosystem.
Fish populations should be monitored in the upper Meadow to evaluate trends in fish abundance in relation to beaver activity and stream flow conditions. The survey data could also provide a valuable baseline for assessing the benefits of removing the partial fish passage barrier at the Hwy 89 Bridge.
September - 2006
September - 2007
FIGURE 1: Photo comparison showing a large dam (B-57) found in the upper SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY portion of Meeks Meadow. The upper photo shows the dam holding grade and 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 backwatering fl ow on Meeks Creek. This dam inundates an extensive off-channel PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 wetland that supports a unique assemblage of willows and emergent graminoids. The lower photo shows late summer conditions during a dry year. LEGEND
WATERSHED BOUNDARY
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
ROADS/TRAILS B-11 BEAVER ACTIVITY B-14 B-10 B-8 ¦[B-1 Signifi es evidence of recent beaver activity B-16 B-13 B-18 B-9 ¦[B-2 DAMS B-17 B-155¦[¦[ ¦[ ¦[ B-3 ¦[¦[¦[ ¦[ ¦[ ¦[¦[ B-20 ¦[¦[ B-12 ¦[ ¦[B-4 DENS B-25 B-23 ¦[ ¦[ ¦[¦[ B-19 B-5 OTHER (slides, chewed twigs, etc.) B-28 ¦[ B-7 ¦[ ¦[¦[ B-21 B-6 5 POSSIBLE FISH BARRIER B-30 ¦[ B-22 5¦[ B-29 B-26 B-32 B-27 B-24 B-33 ¦[ ¦[B-31 ¦[ ¦[B-34 B-35 ¦[
¦[B-36
¦[ B-37 B-38 ¦[
¦[B-39 B-40 B-41 ¦[¦[ B-42 ¦[ ¦[5¦[B-44 B-43 ¦[B-45
5¦[B-46 5¦[B-47 B-49 B-48 B-50 ¦[ 5¦[ ¦[¦[ B-52 ¦[ B-51 5¦[ B-53 ¦[B-54 B-55 5¦[ 5¦[B-56 B-57 ¦[¦[B-58
B-60 5¦[B-59 B-62 ¦[ ¦[ B-61 ¦[ B-63 B-64 ¦[
¦[B-65
¦[B-66 N
0 300 600 1,200
Feet 1:7,200
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 2: Map of beaver activity occurences located during the September, 2007 fi eld survey. See Table 1 for feature descriptions. 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 October- 2003
September - 2007
FIGURE 3: Photos showing beaver dams inside the Highway 89 bridge culvert. Note SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY the stream gage on the left edge of the later photo. This gage was installed following 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 removal of the dam shown in the upper photo. High snowmelt fl ows in the spring PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 typically fl ush the dam out annually. The dam appears to be rebuilt annually. Feature ID Description B-1 Two dams under bridge holding approximately 1 1/2’ of grade. Backwaters large area including side channel to south. Multiple slides locally. Freshly chewed sticks in water. B-2 Den in bank under rotten stump - beaver witnessed entering den. B-3 Slides on right bank forming small channel/headcut. Well vegetated and not actively eroding. B-4 Slides and small channels leading towards Robinson Cabin. B-5 Very active slides. Many freshly chewed twigs seen in channel, (still backwatered from dams under Highway 89 bridge). In-channel trail leads across submerged bar. B-6 Dam on tributary channel has fresh (wet) mud and twigs. Forms backwater on tributary channel. Extensive slides and trails lead onto the surrounding meadow surface. B-7 Dam on tributary channel covered with carex sod. Extensive slides and trails lead onto the surrounding meadow surface. B-8 Pile of chewed twigs on left bank of tributary channel. Extensive slides and trails lead onto the surrounding meadow surface. B-9 Partial dam at large woody debris jam - either washed out or not completed. Possible den on adjacent left bank bar (caved in under foot). B-10 Small dam made of driftwood/branches, sticks rock and mud. Holds approximately 1-2’ grade. B-11 Small dam made of branches/driftwood positioned at in-channel boulder. Many slides and trails lead to and from meadow surface. B-12 Small dam of branches/driftwood, sand. Large dam of branches, sand, gravel and sod; located at head of woody debris jam. Lots of gravel deposition downstream. Holds approximately 1” grade. Potential fi sh barrier B-13 under low fl ow conditions. Washed out large dam (2003 picture in EAR) - fl anked on left bank. Willow recruitment on the dam. Bank erosion on left bank as fl ow is focused in that direction. Lots of dead B-14 alders immediately upstream - notable bathtub rings upstream representing high water conditions. Small dam on tributary channel made of branches, sticks and sand. Channel mostly dry. No evidence of recent activity, though some slides present- likely from earlier in the B-15 spring/summer. Large dam on tributary channel made of branches, sticks and sand. Channel mostly dry. No evidence of recent activity, though some slides present- likely from earlier in the B-16 spring/summer. Large dam on tributary channel made of branches, sticks and sand. Channel mostly dry. No evidence of recent activity, though some slides present- likely from earlier in the B-17 spring/summer. B-18 Very large dam at head of tributary channel. Backwaters extensive marsh (dry during survey). B-19 Large dam/woody debris jam. No evidence of recent activity, though some slides present- likely from earlier in the spring/summer. B-20 Small dam made of sticks, gravel, and sand. Washed over with sediment. No evidence of recent activity. B-21 Small dam made of sticks, gravel, and sand. Washed over with sediment. No evidence of recent activity. B-22 Partial dam of woody debris with lots of sediment deposition.
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY TABLE 1: Descriptions of beaver activity features mapped during the September, 2007 fi eld survey. 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 Feature ID Description B-23 Partial dam made of sticks branches and sediment. Washed out on left bank side. Recruiting alders on left bank. B-24 Partial dam made of sticks branches and sediment. Washed out on right bank side. B-25 Small dam made of sticks and mud. B-26 Small dam of large woody debris, branches and sand. Holds approximately 2’ grade. Some slides present - likely from earlier in spring/summer. Large dam (approximately 2’ tall) made of large woody debris, branches and sediment with some sod forming. Not holding grade (stream fl ow piping through dam). Some slides B-27 present - likely from earlier in spring/summer. B-28 Medium size dam made of branches, sticks, sand, mud and sod. Holds approximately 1’ of grade though no apparent fl ow through the dam was noted. B-29 Partial small dam under large woody debris jam made of twigs sand and leaves. B-30 Small dam made of sticks and sand. Holds approximately 4” grade and is possibly a juvenile fi sh barrier under low fl ow conditions B-31 Partial dam made of sticks and some sand. Holds approximately 2’ grade. B-32 Small dam made of sticks twigs and sand located on a split channel segment. Channel was dry during the time of survey. No evidence of recent activity. B-33 Medium size dam made of sticks twigs and sand located on a split channel segment. Channel was dry during the time of survey. No evidence of recent activity. Small dam made of sticks twigs and sand located on a split channel segment downstream of the split approximately 30 feet. Channel was dry during the time of survey. No B-34 evidence of recent activity. B-35 Slide on left bank. No signs of recent activity. The slide may be remnant from years past. B-36 Recent (likely this year) and old chew marks on white fi r at top of right bank. Possible old dam site. B-37 Recently (this year) chewed alder branches on point bar. B-38 Recently chewed willow on bank. B-39 Large dam under woody debris jam made of branches, twigs and sediment. Channel was generally dry with some small puddles during survey. B-40 Small dam made of twigs, leaves, and needles under large log. Located in split channel downstream of the fl ow split approximately 70’. No evidence of recent activity. B-41 Small dam or woody debris jam? Partially washed out. Located in split channel downstream of the fl ow split approximately 50’. No evidence of recent activity. Small dam made of logs, branches, brush and grass. Partially fl anked/washed out. Located in split channel downstream of the fl ow split approximately 30’. No evidence of B-42 recent activity. B-43 Washed out dam or woody debris jam. Large dam made of branches, sticks, sand, mud and grass. Holds back big slug of sand/sediment and more than 3 feet of grade. Scour pool downstream. Possible fi sh barrier B-44 under low fl ow condtions.
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY TABLE 1 (cont.): Descriptions of beaver activity features mapped during the September, 2007 fi eld survey. 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 Feature ID Description Large neatly stacked (mostly in one direction) pile of chewed (dry) brush in channel. Additional heavily chewed material just upstream. Some willow sprigs have sprouted from B-45 pile. B-46 Medium sized dam made of logs, branches and sand. No evidence of recent activity. Possible fi sh barrier at low fl ows. B-47 Large dam made of logs, branches, twigs and sand. Willows sprouting on the dam. Possible fi sh barrier at low fl ows. Very large dam made of logs, branches, sticks, sand, mud and organic materials that backwaters wetland area (Cover pic in 2003 draft EAR). Willows sprouting on the dam. B-48 Adjacent overfl ow channel dammed also. Pile of chewed branched found nearby. Possible fi sh barrier at low fl ows. B-49 Medium sized failed dam/woody debris jam. Evidence of accumulated sediment upstream that has subsequently washed out. B-50 Small dam made of bunches and sand located in between ends of sawn log. B-51 Small dam made of branches, twigs, and sand located at a woody debris jam. B-52 Small dam made of branches, twigs, sand and leaves. No evidence of recent activity. B-53 Medium sized dam made of branches, twigs, sand, leaves and needles. Nearby slides on bank. Possible fi sh barrier under low fl ow conditions. B-54 Old remnant large dam located on a large woody debris jam. B-55 Medium size dam made of branches, twigs and sand. Possible fi sh barrier under low fl ow conditions. B-56 Medium size dam made of branches, twigs, sand and some logs. Possible fi sh barrier under low fl ow conditions. Very large dam made of branches, twigs, leaves, needles, sand and mud. Holds approximately 1-2’ of grade backwatering extensive wetland area. Channel and most of wetland B-57 area dry during survey. No evidence of recent activity. B-58 Small ancillary dam to B-57 made of branches, twigs, sand, leaves, needles and mud. B-59 Large woody debris jam/possible beaver dam. Large stagnant pool immediately downstream holding trout. Possible fi sh barrier under low fl ow conditions. B-60 Small washed out dam made of sticks and gravel with nearby slide. B-61 Large dam with woody debris jam. Dam is undercut. B-62 Small failed dam made of branches, twigs and gravel. B-63 Recently (this year) chewed alder branches. B-64 Recently (this year) chewed branches and mound of sediment interspersed with branches and twigs (possible remnant dam). B-65 Large woody debris with small beaver dam across face. The dam is incomplete or was abandoned and does not hold grade or pose a barrier to fi sh. B-66 Partial remnant dam.
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY TABLE 1 (cont.): Descriptions of beaver activity features mapped during the September, 2007 fi eld survey. 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 June - 2004
Log on top of beaver dam
September - 2007
Log behind/beneath beaver dam
Estimated 2004 water surface elevation
FIGURE 4: Photo comparison of a large beaver dam located on Meeks Creek mainstem (B- SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY 43) showing conditions in 2004 and 2007. Dam building activities between the years is 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 evidenced by exposure of the large log in 2004 with subsequent burial beneath branches PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 and sediment in 2007. A C June - 2003 September - 2007
Bank Erosion
B D September - 2006 September - 2007
New Beaver Dam
Fresh Mud and Branches
SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY FIGURE 5: Photos showing pre (A) and post-failure (B and C) of one of the larger beaver dams found in the study area (B-14). Failure of the dam occurred adjacent to the left bank and shows some bank erosion as the remaining portion of the dam forces fl ow against the bank. 500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 Note the new dam of similar size downstream of the failed dam (D). Fresh mud and chewed branches were noted on the newer dam PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472 during the fi eld survey suggesting recent activity. SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY
MEEKS MEADOW RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX B
WASHOE TRIBE CULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT PLANTS
ecological system science hydrology + geomorphology restoration engineering regulatory compliance Table B-1. Plants important to Washoe culture. The plant communities in which each species is most commonly found is shown. Species are not necessarily confined to the plant communities indicated, but are most common there. See notes at the end of table for source information.
Scientific Name Common Name Plant Community1 Observed
Acer glabrum Rocky Mountain Maple MCF x Achillea millefolium yarrow DGM, WGM x Alnus spp. alder MRS x (incana) Allium campanulatum Sierra onion DGM Allium platycaule wild onion DGM Allium validum swamp onion WGM, OSM x Amelanchier alnifolia serviceberry MCF, shrublands x Angelica breweri angelica MCF Arctostaphylos spp. manzanita MCG, shrublands x Balsamorhiza sagittta arrow-leaf balsam DGM, MCF Camassia quamash blue camas WGM, OSM, full sun x Calocedrus decurrens incense cedar MCF Castilleja spp. Indian paintbrush DRM Ceanothus velutinus tobacco brush MCF (openings, burns) x Chrysolopsis chrysophylla golden chinquapin MCF (openings) x Cicuta douglasii water hemlock aquatic Cornus sericea creek dogwood MRS x Descurainia pinnata tansy mustard DGM x Eriogonum umbellatum buckwheat DGM, rocky areas Equisetum arvense horsetail WGM, MRS x Fragraria virginiana wild strawberry DGM, WGM x Heracleum lanatum cow parsnip WGM, MRS
1 Plant community codes are as follows: MCF = Mixed conifer forest, LPF = Lodgepole pine forest, MRS = Mixed riparian scrub, WGM = Wet graminoid meadow, OSM = Obligate sedge meadow, VP = Vernal pool, DRM = Dry graminoid meadow.
Appendix B Scientific Name Common Name Plant Community1 Observed
Lewisia sp. bitter root DGM, MCF x Ligusticum grayi Gray’s lovage WGM Lilium parvum alpine lily WGM, MRS x Lomatium dissectum fern-leaved Lomatium MCF Lupinus latifolius lupine MCF Lupinus polyphyllus big leaf lupine WGM x Nicotiana attenuata coyote tobacco DGM Orobanche uniflora broom rape (Thalesia) DGM Osmorhiza occidentalis sweet cicely MCF Pedicularis groenlandica elephant heads WGM x Perideridia sp. yampah DGM x Pinus jeffreyi Jeffrey pine MCF Pinus lambertiana sugar pine Platanthera spp. rein orchid WGM x Populus tremuloides aspen MRS x Prunus virginiana western choke cherry MCF, MRS Pteridium aquilinum bracken fern WGM, DGM, MCF, MRS x Potentilla gracilis cinquefoil DGM x Ribes aureum golden currant MRS Ribes roezelii Sierra gooseberry MRS, MCF x Rosa spp. wild rose MCF, MRS x Rubus parviflorus thimbleberry MRS x Salix spp. willow MRS, WGM x Sambucus mexicana blue elderberry MCF, MRS x Sium suave water parsnip MRS Smilacena stellata false Solomon’s seal MCF, MRS x Sphenoscadium capitellatum ranger’s buttons MRS, WGM Spiraea (red) mountain spiraea MCF x (densiflora)
Appendix B Scientific Name Common Name Plant Community1 Observed
Symphoricarpos spp. snowberry MCF, MRS x (mollis) Thalictrum fendleri meadow rue MRS, WGM x Triteleia hyacinthina white brodiaea WGM x Triteleia ixiodes golden brodiae DGM, MCF Typha latifolia cattail Freshwater Marsh Veratrum californicum corn lily WGM x Wyethia mollis mule’s ear DGM, MCF Zigadenus venenosus death camas WGM
Table information compiled from: LTBMU field work for Ecological Assessment Report; published sources (e.g., d’Azevedo 1986; Fowler 1986; Nevers 1976) presented in Lindström (2000); an unpublished list by P. Rucks dated 1999 (provided by USFS-LTBMU); and a list presented to USFS-LTBMU by the Washoe Tribe in 2005. The plant list reflects information that Washoe practitioners are comfortable sharing; it is not an exhaustive list of plants used or of interest to Washoe. Observed status is based on the unpublished 1999 species list, a 2004 species list (LTBMU 2005), and field observations in 2005. Nomenclature follows Hickman ed. (1993, The Jepson Manual).
Appendix B Table B-2. Washoe plants by ecological setting and plant community. The ecological setting and plant communities in which each species is most commonly found is shown. Species are not necessarily confined to the ecological setting indicated, but are most common there. See notes at end of table for source information and other descriptions. Species in bold type have been observed in the meadow.
Ecological Setting and Common Response to Plant Communities Scientific Name1 Name Habit2 Burning3 Notes
Aquatic Riverine: Cicuta douglasii Water hemlock perennial herb Not applicable
Meeks Creek channel Typha latifolia cattail Perennial herb Favorable or neutral environment.
Mixed Riparian Scrub: Alnus spp. alder shrub or small tree not favorable if Does not re-sprout after frequent being top-killed Streamside habitat dominated Cornus sericea creek dogwood shrub uncertain by woody vegetation such as willows. Dominant plants are Populus tremuloides aspen tree favorable, but high non-arborescent, except where frequency may not large aspens are found. be Herbaceous species also found. Rubus parviflorus thimbleberry shrub uncertain Salix spp. willow shrub uncertain Sium suave water parsnip perennial herb uncertain Sphenoscadium ranger’s buttons perennial herb uncertain capitellatum Thalictrum fendleri meadow rue geophyte uncertain Fire probably favorable
1 Species in bold have been observed in Meeks Meadow. 2 See explanation following table. 3 Based on information in K.M. Anderson, “Tending The Wild” and the general ecology of plants of different habits.
Appendix B Ecological Setting and Common Response to Plant Communities Scientific Name1 Name Habit2 Burning3 Notes
Wet Meadow: Allium validum swamp onion geophyte favorable
Includes Wet Graminoid Camassia quamash blue camas geophyte very favorable Uncommon, may have Meadow (WGM) and Obligate been reduced by grazing Sedge Meadow (OSM) mapped and lack of fire. communities. Soils are more or Equisetum arvense horsetail perennial herb uncertain less permanently saturated at or near the ground surface. Heracleum lanatum cow parsnip perennial herb uncertain Burning probably Dominated by dense swards of favorable obligate wetland grasses and Ligusticum grayi Gray’s lovage perennial herb uncertain Burning probably sedges and perennial herbs with favorable interlocking root systems. Lilium parvum alpine lily perennial herb favorable Organic matter accumulates beneath this vegetation. It is Lupinus polyphyllus big leaf lupine perennial herb favorable very tolerant of flooding and fluvial disturbances as well as Pedicularis elephant heads perennial herb uncertain light fires, but disturbances like groenlandica trampling from livestock can break down rhizomes and roots Platanthera spp. rein orchid perennial herb uncertain that stabilize underlying organic bracken fern perennial herb favorable Cultivated with tilling layers, leading to degradation. Pteridium aquilinum Veratrum californicum corn lily perennial herb uncertain Burning probably favorable Zigadenus venenosus death camas perennial herb favorable Seasonally Dry Meadow: Achillea millefolium yarrow geophyte favorable
Includes both Dry Graminoid Allium campanulatum Sierra onion geophyte favorable Meadow (DGM) and vernal pool (VP) mapped Allium platycaule wild onion geophyte favorable
Appendix B Ecological Setting and Common Response to Plant Communities Scientific Name1 Name Habit2 Burning3 Notes
communities. These areas have Castilleja spp. Indian paintbrush perennial herb uncertain saturated soils during spring and early summer, but the upper soil Fragraria virginiana wild strawberry perennial herb favorable layers dry out gradually. Less organic matter accumulates. Perideridia sp. yampah geophyte favorable Grasses and sedges often dominate, but they may be Potentilla gracilis cinquefoil Perennial herb uncertain obligate or facultative wetland species. Dry meadow Triteleia ixiodes golden brodiae geophyte favorable vegetation is well adapted to fire and flooding. Much of this Triteleia hyacinthina white brodiaea geophyte favorable environment has been invaded by lodgepole pine.
Uplands: Acer glabrum Rocky Mountain shrub uncertain maple Habitat dominated by Mixed Amelanchier alnifolia serviceberry shrub or small tree uncertain Conifer Forests (MCF) or shrub vegetation. In valley bottom at Angelica breweri angelica perennial herb Meeks includes open rocky areas underlain by glacial Arctostaphylos spp. manzanita shrub frequent fire Does not re-sprout after outwash or moraine deposits. (patula and nevadensis) detrimental fire. Infrequent fire favorable. Balsamorhiza sagittta arrow-leaf balsam perennial herb uncertain Calocedrus decurrens incense cedar coniferous tree Tolerant of low to moderate severity fire Ceanothus velutinus tobacco brush shrub frequent fire Does not re-sprout after detrimental fire. Infrequent fire favorable.
Appendix B Ecological Setting and Common Response to Plant Communities Scientific Name1 Name Habit2 Burning3 Notes
Uplands cont’d Chrysolopsis golden chinquapin shrub Periodic fire Can re-sprout from base. chrysophylla favorable Descurainia pinnata tansy mustard Annual herb uncertain Open disturbed areas Eriogonum umbellatum buckwheat Low shrub uncertain Dry rocky areas. Lewisia sp. bitter root geophyte uncertain Fire probably favorable. Lomatium dissectum fern-leaved geophyte uncertain Fire probably favorable. lomatium Lupinus latifolius lupine perennial herb favorable Nicotiana attenuata coyote tobacco annual herb favorable Orobanche uniflora broom rape perennial herb uncertain Old scientific name is Thalesia Osmorhiza occidentalis sweet cicely perennial herb uncertain Pinus jeffreyi Jeffrey pine coniferous tree Fire resistant Pinus lambertiana sugar pine coniferous tree fire sensitive Prunus virginiana western choke shrub uncertain Can re-sprout from base. cherry Ribes roezelii Sierra gooseberry shrub uncertain Can re-sprout from base. Ribes aureum golden currant shrub uncertain Occurs in many habitats. Can re-sprout. Rosa spp. wild rose shrub uncertain Can re-sprout from base. Sambucus mexicana blue elderberry small tree or shrub uncertain Occasionally in riparian Uplands cont’d scrub. Can re-sprout from base.
Appendix B Ecological Setting and Common Response to Plant Communities Scientific Name1 Name Habit2 Burning3 Notes
Smilacena stellata false Solomon’s perennial herb uncertain seal Spiraea (red) mountain spiraea shrub uncertain Can re-sprout. Symphoricarpos spp. snowberry vine uncertain Occasionally in riparian scrub. Wyethia mollis mule’s ear perennial herb favorable
Table information compiled from: LTBMU field work for Ecological Assessment Report; published sources (e.g., d’Azevedo 1986; Fowler 1986; Nevers 1976) presented in Lindström (2000); an unpublished list by P. Rucks dated 1999 (provided by USFS-LTBMU); and a list presented to USFS-LTBMU by the Washoe Tribe in 2005. The plant list reflects information that Washoe practitioners are comfortable sharing; it is not an exhaustive list of plants used or of interest to Washoe. Observed status is based on the unpublished 1999 species list, a 2004 species list (LTBMU 2005), and field observations in 2005. Nomenclature follows Hickman ed. (1993, The Jepson Manual). Species in bold type have been observed in the meadow.
Habit: Geophytes are plants that re-sprout every year from long-lived bulbs, underground bulbs, tubers or rhizomes. These underground organs were important food for Native Americans. Geophytes are well adapted to frequent fire, and were maintained and enhanced by fall burning. Perennial herbs were mainly eaten as greens. Some are well-adapted to fire. Shrubs were mainly used in basketry. Those that sprout (e.g. willow and dogwood) can tolerate fairly frequent fire. Those that do not sprout (manzanita and Ceanothus) cannot tolerate frequent fire, even though these species are largely dependent on periodic fire for sexual reproduction. Coniferous trees were used medicinally, for tools, and the nuts of pines were consumed.
Appendix B Table B-3. Fire tolerant Washoe plants present or likely present in Meeks Lower Meadow. The ecological setting and plant communities in which each species is most commonly found is shown. Species are not necessarily confined to the ecological setting indicated, but are most common there. See notes at the end to the table for source identification and other information.
Common Ecological Setting and Plant Communities Scientific Name Name Habit1 Notes
Mixed Riparian Scrub: Cornus sericea creek dogwood shrub
Streamside habitat dominated by woody vegetation Populus tremuloides aspen tree such as willows. Dominant plants are non-arborescent, except where large aspens are found. Herbaceous Salix spp. willow shrub species also found.
Wet Meadow: Allium validum swamp onion geophyte
Includes both Wet Graminoid Meadow (WGM) and Camassia quamash blue camas geophyte Uncommon, may have been Obligate Sedge Meadow (OSM) mapped communities. reduced by grazing and lack Soils are more or less permanently saturated at or near of fire. the ground surface. Dominated by dense swards of Lilium parvum alpine lily perennial herb obligate wetland grasses and sedges and perennial herbs with interlocking root systems. Organic matter Lupinus polyphyllus big leaf lupine perennial herb accumulates beneath this vegetation. It is very tolerant of flooding and fluvial disturbances as well as light Pteridium aquilinum bracken fern perennial herb Cultivated with tilling fires, but disturbances like trampling from livestock can death camas perennial herb break down rhizomes and roots that stabilize Zigadenus venenosus underlying organic layers, leading to degradation.
Seasonally Dry Meadow: Achillea millefolium yarrow perennial Achillea millefolium
Includes Dry Graminoid Meadow (DGM) and vernal Allium campanulatum Sierra onion geophyte pool (VP) mapped communities. These areas have saturated soils during spring and early summer, but Allium platycaule wild onion geophyte
Appendix B Common Ecological Setting and Plant Communities Scientific Name Name Habit1 Notes
upper soil layers gradually dry out. Less organic matter Fragraria virginiana wild strawberry perennial herb accumulates. Grasses and sedges often dominate, but they may be obligate or facultative wetland species. Perideridia sp. yampah geophyte Dry meadow vegetation is well adapted to fire and flooding. Much of it has been invaded by lodgepole Triteleia ixiodes golden brodiae geophyte pine. Triteleia hyacinthina white brodiaea geophyte Uplands: Nicotiana attenuata coyote tobacco annual herb May need to be introduced.
Habitat dominated by Mixed Conifer Forests (MCF) or Pinus jeffreyi Jeffrey pine coniferous tree shrub vegetation. In Meeks valley bottom includes open rocky areas underlain by glacial outwash or Pinus lambertiana sugar pine coniferous tree moraine deposits. Wyethia mollis mule’s ear perennial herb
Table information compiled from: LTBMU field work for Ecological Assessment Report; published sources (e.g., d’Azevedo 1986; Fowler 1986; Nevers 1976) presented in Lindström (2000); an unpublished list by P. Rucks dated 1999 (provided by USFS-LTBMU); and a list presented to USFS-LTBMU by the Washoe Tribe in 2005. The plant list reflects information that Washoe practitioners are comfortable sharing; it is not an exhaustive list of plants used or of interest to Washoe. Observed status is based on the unpublished 1999 species list, a 2004 species list (LTBMU 2005), and field observations in 2005. Nomenclature follows Hickman ed. (1993, The Jepson Manual). Species in bold type have been observed in the meadow.
1 Habit: Geophytes are plants that re-sprout every year from long-lived bulbs, underground bulbs, tubers or rhizomes. These underground organs were important food for Native Americans. Geophytes are well adapted to frequent fire, and were maintained and enhanced by fall burning. Perennial herbs were mainly eaten as greens. Some are well-adapted to fire. Shrubs were mainly used in basketry. Those that sprout (e.g. willow and dogwood) can tolerate fairly frequent fire. Those that do not sprout (manzanita and Ceanothus) cannot tolerate frequent fire, even though these species are largely dependent on periodic fire for sexual reproduction. Coniferous trees were used medicinally, for tools, and nuts from pines were consumed.
Appendix B