DRAFT REPORT Meeks Meadow Restoration and ...campground facilities, and Meeks Bay Resort, among...

Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan

for U.S. Forest Service

December 2008

DRAFT REPORT

Meeks Meadow Restoration and Management Plan Draft Report (December 2008)

i

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


ii

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 Figures1-1 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


iii

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


1

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.


2

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


3

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.


4

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


5

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


6

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).


7

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.


8

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


9

(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.


10

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


11

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


12

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.


13

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).


14

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


15

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).


16

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


17

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


18

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.


19

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.


20

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


21

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 MeadowCommon name Scientific name

HerpetofaunaWestern 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.


22

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.


23

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).


24

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-


25

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,


26

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


27

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


28

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.


29

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.

� Limit natural disturbances to wetlands and increase overall wetland sustainability.

� 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

Comment [KF1]: Check document for this language.


30

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.


31

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.


32

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,


33

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).


34

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



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.


35



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)





� 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)




36





conditions allow.

Plot 4 (1.0 acres)







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)





� Stems and chipped materials will be removed from site.


conditions allow.

� Traditional Washoe methods, such as digging sticks, will be used to disturb the

surface of the land, following prescribed burning.


37

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.


38

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






feet; maintain all snags greater than 8 inches dbh.






39

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:





40







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:











41

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


42

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.


43

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)


44

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


45

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.


46

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


47

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.


48

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.


49

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.


50

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.


51

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.


52

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.


53

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.

SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY

ecological system science hydrology + geomorphology restoration engineering regulatory compliance

MEEKS MEADOW

RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

FIGURES

SWAN

SON

HYD

ROLO

GY

+ G

EOM

ORP

HOLO

GY

500

Seab

right

Ave

, Sui

te 2

02 S

anta

Cru

z, C

A 95

062

PH 8

31.4

27.0

288

F

X 8

31.4

27.0

472

Low

er M

eeks

Cre

ek W

ater

shed

Low

er M

eeks

Cre

ek W

ater

shed

Mee

ks

Mee

ks

Mea

dow

Mea

dow

Mee

ks C

reek

Mee

ks C

reek

W

ater

shed

W

ater

shed

Mee

ks M

eado

wM

eeks

Mea

dow

FIG

URE

1-1

: O

bliq

ue a

eria

l vie

w o

f M

eeks

Cre

ek w

ater

shed

and

Mee

ks M

eado

w r

esto

ratio

n ar

ea.

Mee

ks B

ayM

eeks

Bay

Hwy 89

Hwy 89


500 Seabright Ave, Suite 202 Santa Cruz, CA 95062

PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

FIGURE 2-1: Meeks Creek watershed location map showing study areas from Ecosystem Assessment Report (LTBMU 2006a).

ShorelineShoreline

ZoneZone

Lower Lower

MeadowMeadow

UpperUpper

WatershedWatershed

DESOLATION

WILDERNESS

89

89

LAKE LAKE TAHOE TAHOE

EMERALD BAY

EMERALD BAY

LAKE LAKE TAHOETAHOE

N

0 3/8 3/4 1.5

Miles 1:47,520 LEGEND

HIGHWAYS

STREETS / ROADS

WILDERNESS BOUNDARY

LAKE / POND

PERENNIAL RIVERS / STREAMS

INTERMITTENT STREAM

SEASONAL STREAM

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.05Miles

±

LEGEND

Meeks Creek

Restoration Project Area

Wilderness AccessTrail/Road (Approximate)

Existing Non-System"Loop" Trail/Road



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

Trail to Desolation Trail to Desolation WildernessWilderness

Trail Head and Trail Head and

Parking AreaParking AreaBridgeBridge

Robinson Robinson HomesteadHomestead

Landfi llLandfi ll

Camp Wasiu Camp Wasiu

StructuresStructures

Residential Residential

AreaArea

FIGURE 2-2: Meeks Meadow and selected project landmarks.

Mee

ks Cre

ekM

eeks

Cre

ek

Wilderness Acce

ss Trail/ R

d

Wilderness Acce

ss Trail/ R

d.

LEGEND

N

89



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

!5

Meeks Meadow Meeks Meadow

Project AreaProject Area

Landfi llLandfi ll

LODGEPOLE PINELODGEPOLE PINE

INVASIONINVASION

FIGURE 2-3: Former landfi ll area showing barren, disturbed, hummocky soils/fi ll and lodgepole pine invasion.

BARREN DISTURBED SOILS AND FILL



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

FIGURE 2-4: Historical photos of Highway 89 bridges (circa 1929).

Source: Cal-Trans District 3 after Van Etten, 1994

OLD BRIDGE SUPPORTS

OLD BRIDGE CROSSING

STONE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTED IN 1929

HIGHWAY 89HISTORICAL PHOTOS

ASPEN TREESASPEN TREES



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

CULVERTS ON SECONDARY PERENNIAL CULVERTS ON SECONDARY PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNELSTREAM CHANNEL

FORMER CAMP OUTHOUSEFORMER CAMP OUTHOUSE

ABANDONED CAMP BUILDINGABANDONED CAMP BUILDING

FIGURE 2-5: Photographs of select remnant structures of the former Wasiu Girl Scout Camp at southwest end of the Meeks Meadow restoration area; camp was active from 1950 to 1965.

CAMP WASIU

STRUCTURES



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

Meeks Creek

General CreekMcKinney Creek

LonelyGulch

SierraCreek

InterveningArea

Sugar Pine Point

Intervening AreaParadise Flat South

Intervening AreaRubicon Bay

Unnamed Creekat Meeks Bay

Intervening AreaMeeks Bay

Meeks Creek

Unnamed creekat Paradise Flat

Quail Creek

AreaSugar Pine

Point

13-1

13-3

14-16

13-2

14-15

5-10

14-12

13-4

5-11

14-17

5-12

14-18

Legend

USGS Quad Source: National Geographic TOPO! (2001)

Watershed Boundary

Watershed Boundary Source: Jorgenson et al. (1978)

Mechanical Treatment Area

0 0.5 10.25

Miles

±

Proposed Treatment Stand Boundary

Stream

Hand Treatment Area

1-4

FIGURE 2-6: U.S. Forest Service map showing Quail Vegetation & Fuels Treatment Project stands encompassing upland areas surrounding Meeks Meadow.



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

FIGURE 3-1: Correlation of local paleoclimatic and cultural sequence in the Tahoe Sierra (after Murphy & Knopp, 2000).

YRS YRS Localized PrehistoricBP 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 Holocene10-9000 >12-11,000 cold-dry -cold sagebrush steppe at Osgood Swamp9000-7000 11-9000 warmer-dry -glaciers melt/Lake Lahontan shrinks Pre-Archaic Period

-conifers invade Osgood Swamp (Tahoe Reach Phase)

Middle Holocene7000-4000 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 Archaic1100-900 900-1100 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 average1928-1935 drought -Tahoe drops below its rim1982-1986 wet -snowpack water content 200% of normal1994 drought -Tahoe drops to its recorded low level 1995-present wet -above normal precipitation



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

FIGURE 3-2: Map of geomorphic landforms in the lower area of Meeks Creek watershed, from Ecosystem Assessment Report (LTBMU 2006a).

! !

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!

!!!!!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!!!

!!

!! ! !

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

! !! !

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!! ! !

!! !

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!

! !! !

! ! ! ! !!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!! !

! ! ! !

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!

! ! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

! !!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

! !!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

! ! !!

!! !

!! !

!!!

!!

!!

!! ! !

!!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!! ! !

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!! !

! ! !

N

0 1,000 2,000 4,000

Feet 1:24,000

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

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

LEGEND

STUDY AREA BOUNDARY

STREETS / ROADS

LAKE / POND

PERENNIAL RIVERS / STREAMS

INTERMITTENT STREAM

SEASONAL STREAM

CELIO Gravelly Loamy Coarse Sand

ELMIRA Loamy Coarse Sand, Wet Variant

GEFO Gravelly Loamy Coarse Sand

MEEKS Very Stony Loamy Coarse Sand

MEEKS Extremely Stony Loamy Coarse Sand

ROCK LAND

ROCK OUTCROP - CAGWIN COMPLEX

SOIL TYPES

Co

Ev

Ge

Ms

Mt

Ra

Rc

Co

Ev

Mt

Ge

Ms

Ra

Ge

89

Ms

Co

RcRc

FIGURE 3-3a: Soils in Meeks Meadow.SWANSON HYDROLOGY + GEOMORPHOLOGY


PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

N

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet 1:12,000



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

Soil Types

FIGURE 3-3b: Legend describing soil types in the Meeks Creek Watershed (Hydrologic soil group noted in blue). Source: USDA - NRCS. 1974. Lake Tahoe Basin Area Soil Survey.

CELIO SeriesCo The Celio series consists of poorly drained soils that are 40 to 60 inches deep over a very gravelly hardpan strongly cemented with silica.

D

ELMIRA SeriesEv The Elmira series consists of nearly level to moderately steep, somewhat excessively drained soils that are underlain by sandy granitic alluvium or highly weathered till.

Variations in A & D

GEFO SeriesGe The Gefo series consists of nearly level to moderately steep, somewhat excessively drained soils that are underlain by sandy granitic alluvium.

A

Loamy Alluvial Land

Lo Loamy Alluvial Land consists of small areas of recent alluvium adjacent to stream channels and in meadows.

D

Rock LandRa Rock land is in areas of granitic, metamorphic, and volcanic rocks.D

MEEKS Series The Meeks series consists of level to very steep, somewhat excessively drained , stony soils that are 40 to 71 inches deep over a hardpan cemented with silica.

B

Rock Outcrop - CAGWIN COMPLEXRc

The Cagwin complex rock outcropings occur on granitic uplands and are about 25-50% granitic rock outcrop and 50-75% soils.

C

Rock Outcrop - TOEM COMPLEXRt

The Toem complex rock outcropings occur on granitic uplands and are about 25-50% granitic rock outcrop and 50-75% soils.

C

Ms

Mt



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

FIGURE 3-4: Vegetation map of Lower Meeks Meadow and Shoreline Zone from Ecosystem Assessment Report (LTBMU 2006a).

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)Includes Meeks Creek and minor tributaries

Bare Ground (8.9 Acres)Includes areas devoid of vegetation

Developed Area (12.1 Acres)Includes roads and developed structures0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet 1:12,000

N



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

SELECTED VEGETATION COMMUNITIES COMMON TO MEEKS MEADOW

DRY GRAMINOID MEADOW AND MIXED CONIFER FOREST ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPED ON RECESSIONAL MORAINE DEPOSITS.

Lodgepole Pine Lodgepole Pine

EncroachmentEncroachment

Mixed Conifer ForestMixed Conifer Forest

Bracken FernBracken Fern

Lodgepole PineLodgepole Pine

Jeffrey PineJeffrey Pine

WillowWillow

ManzanitaManzanita

MIXED CONIFER FOREST ALONG MARGIN OF WET GRAMINOID MEADOW

MIXED RIPARIAN SCRUBMIXED RIPARIAN SCRUB

FIGURE 3-5: Photographs of select vegetation communities common in Meeks Meadow.



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

FIGURE 3-6: Large Vernal Pool developed on edge of Dry Graminoid Meadow environment.

VERNAL POOL SEPTEMBER 2005VERNAL POOL SEPTEMBER 2005

Vernal Pool Location Vernal Pool Location

VERNAL POOL JULY 2005VERNAL POOL JULY 2005

Meeks Meadow Meeks Meadow

Project AreaProject Area



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

FIGURE 3-7: Water impounded by recessional moraines and beaver dams enhances vegetation and wildlife habitats in meadow and riparian environments.

Lodgepole Pine Invasion Lodgepole Pine Invasion

Obligate Sedge MeadowObligate Sedge Meadow

Recessional Moraine RidgeRecessional Moraine Ridge

Woody Riparian Willow Scrub SupportsWoody Riparian Willow Scrub Supports

Willow Flycatcher HabitatWillow Flycatcher Habitat



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

[¦[¦[¦

[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦

[¦[¦5[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦ [¦[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦

[¦5[¦[¦[¦

[¦[¦

[¦

[¦

[¦[¦

[¦

[¦[¦[¦[¦5[¦[¦

5[¦5[¦5[¦[¦

[¦[¦[¦5[¦

[¦

5[¦5[¦[¦[¦

5[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦

[¦

[¦

B-26B-26

LEGEND

BEAVER ACTIVITYSignifi es evidence of recent beaver activity

DAMS

DENS

OTHER (slides, chewed twigs, etc.)

POSSIBLE FISH BARRIER

0 300 600 1,200

Feet 1:7,200

N

WATERSHED BOUNDARY

STUDY AREA BOUNDARY

ROADS/TRAILS

5

B-1B-1B-2B-2B-3B-3

B-4B-4B-5B-5

B-6B-6B-7B-7

B-8B-8

B-9B-9

B-11B-11

B-10B-10

B-12B-12

B-13B-13B-14B-14

B-15B-15

B-16B-16B-18B-18B-17B-17

B-20B-20

B-19B-19B-21B-21B-22B-22B-24B-24

B-23B-23B-25B-25

B-27B-27

B-28B-28

B-29B-29B-30B-30

B-31B-31B-32B-32

B-33B-33

B-34B-34B-35B-35

B-39B-39B-40B-40B-41B-41 B-42B-42

B-36B-36

B-37B-37B-38B-38

B-45B-45B-44B-44

B-43B-43

B-46B-46B-47B-47

B-48B-48B-49B-49

B-50B-50

B-51B-51B-52B-52

B-53B-53

B-54B-54

B-55B-55

B-56B-56B-57B-57

B-58B-58

B-60B-60 B-59B-59

B-61B-61B-62B-62

B-63B-63B-64B-64

B-65B-65

B-66B-66

FIGURE 3-8: Beaver activity observed in Meeks Meadow (September 2007 fi eld survey).

FIG

URE

4-1

: Mid

-188

0s p

hoto

grap

h of

Mee

ks C

reek

at

Mee

ks B

ay b

efor

e si

gnifi

cant

tim

ber

clea

r-cu

ttin

g pr

actic

es.

Cut

logs

rea

dy f

or

tran

spor

t by

bar

ge t

o G

lenb

rook

are

see

n at

far

rig

ht s

hore

line.

The

mou

th o

f M

eeks

Cre

ek n

ear

the

cent

er t

he o

f ph

oto

show

s m

atur

e de

cidu

ous

tres

s (li

kely

Asp

en o

r C

otto

nwoo

d), s

urro

unde

d by

late

-ser

al c

onife

r fo

rest

. Ph

oto

sour

ce:

Goi

n, 1

992.

SWAN

SON

HYD

ROLO

GY

+ G

EOM

ORP

HOLO

GY

500

Seab

right

Ave

, Sui

te 2

02 S

anta

Cru

z, C

A 9

5062

PH 8

31.4

27.0

288

F

X 8

31.4

27.0

472



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

LEGEND

RESTORATION PLANNING REGIONS

LODGEPOLE PINE MANAGEMENT UNITS

WASHOE RESTORATION PROJECT TREATMENT AREAS

STREAM ENVIRONMENT ZONE (SEZ)

112233

445566AA

BB

CC

DD

P L O T SP L O T S

B-1

(27.6 acres)

A-1

(6.5 acres)

C-2

(32.8 acres)

C-1

(5.7 acres)A-2

(3.9 acres)

FIGURE 6.1: Meeks Meadow with regions for restoration planning (A-D) and lodgepole pine treatment units delineated.

N

0 300 600 1,200

Feet 1:12,000



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

FIGURE 6-2: Photos of management Unit A-1. Note the cut stumps in the top photo indicating logging or previous pine management activity. Lodgepole invasion is ongoing (bottom).



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

FIGURE 6-3: Photos of Unit B-1. Previous pine management activites have left slash in place in portions of the Unit (top). Dense early-seral lodgepole pine to be thinned as part of management activities (bottom).



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

FIGURE 6-4: (Top) Photo of treatment Unit C-2, which includes signifcant portions of the 100 acre area that burned in 1995. (Bottom) Area adjacent to Unit C-2 is indicative of desired future conditions.



MEEKS MEADOW


APPENDIX A

BEAVER ACTIVITY SURVEY IN MEEKS MEADOW (2007)

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 - 2007September - 2007


FIGURE 1: Photo comparison showing a large dam (B-57) found in the upper portion of Meeks Meadow. The upper photo shows the dam holding grade and backwatering fl ow on Meeks Creek. This dam inundates an extensive off-channel wetland that supports a unique assemblage of willows and emergent graminoids. The lower photo shows late summer conditions during a dry year.



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

[¦[¦[¦

[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦

[¦[¦5[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦ [¦[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦

[¦5[¦[¦[¦

[¦[¦

[¦

[¦

[¦[¦

[¦

[¦[¦[¦[¦5[¦[¦

5[¦5[¦5[¦[¦

[¦[¦[¦5[¦

[¦

5[¦5[¦[¦[¦

5[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦[¦

[¦

[¦

B-26B-26

LEGEND

BEAVER ACTIVITYSignifi es evidence of recent beaver activity

DAMS

DENS

OTHER (slides, chewed twigs, etc.)

POSSIBLE FISH BARRIER

0 300 600 1,200

Feet 1:7,200

N

WATERSHED BOUNDARY

STUDY AREA BOUNDARY

ROADS/TRAILS

5

B-1B-1B-2B-2B-3B-3

B-4B-4B-5B-5

B-6B-6B-7B-7

B-8B-8

B-9B-9

B-11B-11

B-10B-10

B-12B-12

B-13B-13B-14B-14

B-15B-15

B-16B-16B-18B-18B-17B-17

B-20B-20

B-19B-19B-21B-21B-22B-22B-24B-24

B-23B-23B-25B-25

B-27B-27

B-28B-28

B-29B-29B-30B-30

B-31B-31B-32B-32

B-33B-33

B-34B-34B-35B-35

B-39B-39B-40B-40B-41B-41 B-42B-42

B-36B-36

B-37B-37B-38B-38

B-45B-45B-44B-44

B-43B-43

B-46B-46B-47B-47

B-48B-48B-49B-49

B-50B-50

B-51B-51B-52B-52

B-53B-53

B-54B-54

B-55B-55

B-56B-56B-57B-57

B-58B-58

B-60B-60 B-59B-59

B-61B-61B-62B-62

B-63B-63B-64B-64

B-65B-65

B-66B-66

FIGURE 2: Map of beaver activity occurences located during the September, 2007 fi eld survey. See Table 1 for feature descriptions.



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472


October- 2003October- 2003

FIGURE 3: Photos showing beaver dams inside the Highway 89 bridge culvert. Note the stream gage on the left edge of the later photo. This gage was installed following removal of the dam shown in the upper photo. High snowmelt fl ows in the spring typically fl ush the dam out annually. The dam appears to be rebuilt annually.

SWAN

SON

HYD

ROLO

GY

+ G

EOM

ORP

HOLO

GY

500

Seab

right

Ave

, Sui

te 2

02 S

anta

Cru

z, C

A 95

062

PH 8

31.4

27.0

288

F

X 8

31.4

27.0

472

Feat

ure

IDD

escr

ipti

onB-

1Tw

o da

ms

unde

r brid

ge h

oldi

ng a

ppro

xim

atel

y 1

1/2’

of g

rade

. Ba

ckw

ater

s la

rge

area

inclu

ding

sid

e ch

anne

l to

sout

h. M

ultip

le s

lides

loca

lly.

Fres

hly

chew

ed s

ticks

in w

ater

.

B-2

Den

in b

ank

unde

r rot

ten

stum

p - b

eave

r witn

esse

d en

terin

g de

n.

B-3

Slid

es o

n rig

ht b

ank

form

ing

smal

l cha

nnel

/hea

dcut

. W

ell v

eget

ated

and

not

act

ivel

y er

odin

g.

B-4

Slid

es a

nd s

mal

l cha

nnel

s le

adin

g to

war

ds R

obin

son

Cabi

n.

B-5

Very

act

ive

slide

s. M

any

fresh

ly ch

ewed

twig

s se

en in

cha

nnel

, (st

ill b

ackw

ater

ed fr

om d

ams

unde

r Hig

hway

89

brid

ge).

In-c

hann

el tr

ail l

eads

acr

oss

subm

erge

d ba

r.

B-6

Dam

on

tribu

tary

cha

nnel

has

fres

h (w

et) m

ud a

nd tw

igs.

Form

s ba

ckw

ater

on

tribu

tary

cha

nnel

. Ex

tens

ive

slide

s an

d tra

ils le

ad o

nto

the

surro

undi

ng m

eado

w s

urfa

ce.

B-7

Dam

on

tribu

tary

cha

nnel

cov

ered

with

car

ex s

od.

Exte

nsiv

e sli

des

and

trails

lead

ont

o th

e su

rroun

ding

mea

dow

sur

face

.

B-8

Pile

of c

hew

ed tw

igs

on le

ft ba

nk o

f trib

utar

y ch

anne

l. E

xten

sive

slide

s an

d tra

ils le

ad o

nto

the

surro

undi

ng m

eado

w s

urfa

ce.

B-9

Parti

al d

am a

t lar

ge w

oody

deb

ris ja

m -

eith

er w

ashe

d ou

t or n

ot c

ompl

eted

. Po

ssib

le d

en o

n ad

jace

nt le

ft ba

nk b

ar (c

aved

in u

nder

foot

).

B-10

Smal

l dam

mad

e of

drif

twoo

d/br

anch

es, s

ticks

rock

and

mud

. Ho

lds

appr

oxim

atel

y 1-

2’ g

rade

.

B-11

Smal

l dam

mad

e of

bra

nche

s/dr

iftw

ood

posit

ione

d at

in-c

hann

el b

ould

er.

Man

y sli

des

and

trails

lead

to a

nd fr

om m

eado

w s

urfa

ce.

B-12

Smal

l dam

of b

ranc

hes/

drift

woo

d, s

and.

B-13

Larg

e da

m o

f bra

nche

s, sa

nd, g

rave

l and

sod

; loc

ated

at h

ead

of w

oody

deb

ris ja

m.

Lots

of g

rave

l dep

ositi

on d

owns

tream

. Ho

lds

appr

oxim

atel

y 1”

gra

de.

Pote

ntia

l fi s

h ba

rrier

un

der l

ow fl

ow c

ondi

tions

.

B-14

Was

hed

out l

arge

dam

(200

3 pi

ctur

e in

EAR

) - fl

anke

d on

left

bank

. W

illow

recr

uitm

ent o

n th

e da

m.

Bank

ero

sion

on le

ft ba

nk a

s fl o

w is

focu

sed

in th

at d

irect

ion.

Lot

s of

dea

d al

ders

imm

edia

tely

upst

ream

- no

tabl

e ba

thtu

b rin

gs u

pstre

am re

pres

entin

g hi

gh w

ater

con

ditio

ns.

B-15

Smal

l dam

on

tribu

tary

cha

nnel

mad

e of

bra

nche

s, st

icks

and

sand

. Ch

anne

l mos

tly d

ry.

No

evid

ence

of r

ecen

t act

ivity

, tho

ugh

som

e sli

des

pres

ent-

likel

y fro

m e

arlie

r in

the

sprin

g/su

mm

er.

B-16

Larg

e da

m o

n tri

buta

ry c

hann

el m

ade

of b

ranc

hes,

stick

s an

d sa

nd.

Chan

nel m

ostly

dry

. N

o ev

iden

ce o

f rec

ent a

ctiv

ity, t

houg

h so

me

slide

s pr

esen

t- lik

ely

from

ear

lier i

n th

e sp

ring/

sum

mer

.

B-17

Larg

e da

m o

n tri

buta

ry c

hann

el m

ade

of b

ranc

hes,

stick

s an

d sa

nd.

Chan

nel m

ostly

dry

. N

o ev

iden

ce o

f rec

ent a

ctiv

ity, t

houg

h so

me

slide

s pr

esen

t- lik

ely

from

ear

lier i

n th

e sp

ring/

sum

mer

.

B-18

Very

larg

e da

m a

t hea

d of

trib

utar

y ch

anne

l. B

ackw

ater

s ex

tens

ive

mar

sh (d

ry d

urin

g su

rvey

).

B-19

Larg

e da

m/w

oody

deb

ris ja

m.

No

evid

ence

of r

ecen

t act

ivity

, tho

ugh

som

e sli

des

pres

ent-

likel

y fro

m e

arlie

r in

the

sprin

g/su

mm

er.

B-20

Smal

l dam

mad

e of

stic

ks, g

rave

l, an

d sa

nd.

Was

hed

over

with

sed

imen

t. N

o ev

iden

ce o

f rec

ent a

ctiv

ity.

B-21

Smal

l dam

mad

e of

stic

ks, g

rave

l, an

d sa

nd.

Was

hed

over

with

sed

imen

t. N

o ev

iden

ce o

f rec

ent a

ctiv

ity.

B-22

Parti

al d

am o

f woo

dy d

ebris

with

lots

of s

edim

ent d

epos

ition

.

TABL

E 1:

Des

crip

tions

of

beav

er a

ctiv

ity f

eatu

res

map

ped

durin

g th

e Se

ptem

ber,

2007

fi el

d su

rvey

.

SWAN

SON

HYD

ROLO

GY

+ G

EOM

ORP

HOLO

GY

500

Seab

right

Ave

, Sui

te 2

02 S

anta

Cru

z, C

A 95

062

PH 8

31.4

27.0

288

F

X 8

31.4

27.0

472

Feat

ure

IDD

escr

ipti

onB-

23Pa

rtial

dam

mad

e of

stic

ks b

ranc

hes

and

sedi

men

t. W

ashe

d ou

t on

left

bank

sid

e. R

ecru

iting

ald

ers

on le

ft ba

nk.

B-24

Parti

al d

am m

ade

of s

ticks

bra

nche

s an

d se

dim

ent.

Was

hed

out o

n rig

ht b

ank

side.

B-25

Smal

l dam

mad

e of

stic

ks a

nd m

ud.

B-26

Smal

l dam

of l

arge

woo

dy d

ebris

, bra

nche

s an

d sa

nd.

Hold

s ap

prox

imat

ely

2’ g

rade

. So

me

slide

s pr

esen

t - li

kely

from

ear

lier i

n sp

ring/

sum

mer

.

B-27

Larg

e da

m (a

ppro

xim

atel

y 2’

tall)

mad

e of

larg

e w

oody

deb

ris, b

ranc

hes

and

sedi

men

t with

som

e so

d fo

rmin

g. N

ot h

oldi

ng g

rade

(stre

am fl

ow p

ipin

g th

roug

h da

m).

Som

e sli

des

pres

ent -

like

ly fro

m e

arlie

r in

sprin

g/su

mm

er.

B-28

Med

ium

size

dam

mad

e of

bra

nche

s, st

icks,

sand

, mud

and

sod

. Ho

lds

appr

oxim

atel

y 1’

of g

rade

thou

gh n

o ap

pare

nt fl

ow th

roug

h th

e da

m w

as n

oted

.

B-29

Parti

al s

mal

l dam

und

er la

rge

woo

dy d

ebris

jam

mad

e of

twig

s sa

nd a

nd le

aves

.

B-30

Smal

l dam

mad

e of

stic

ks a

nd s

and.

Hol

ds a

ppro

xim

atel

y 4”

gra

de a

nd is

pos

sibly

a ju

veni

le fi

sh b

arrie

r und

er lo

w fl

ow c

ondi

tions

B-31

Parti

al d

am m

ade

of s

ticks

and

som

e sa

nd.

Hold

s ap

prox

imat

ely

2’ g

rade

.

B-32

Smal

l dam

mad

e of

stic

ks tw

igs

and

sand

loca

ted

on a

spl

it ch

anne

l seg

men

t. C

hann

el w

as d

ry d

urin

g th

e tim

e of

sur

vey.

No

evid

ence

of r

ecen

t act

ivity

.

B-33

Med

ium

size

dam

mad

e of

stic

ks tw

igs

and

sand

loca

ted

on a

spl

it ch

anne

l seg

men

t. C

hann

el w

as d

ry d

urin

g th

e tim

e of

sur

vey.

No

evid

ence

of r

ecen

t act

ivity

.

B-34

Smal

l dam

mad

e of

stic

ks tw

igs

and

sand

loca

ted

on a

spl

it ch

anne

l seg

men

t dow

nstre

am o

f the

spl

it ap

prox

imat

ely

30 fe

et.

Chan

nel w

as d

ry d

urin

g th

e tim

e of

sur

vey.

No

evid

ence

of r

ecen

t act

ivity

.

B-35

Slid

e on

left

bank

. No

signs

of r

ecen

t act

ivity

. Th

e sli

de m

ay b

e re

mna

nt fr

om y

ears

pas

t.

B-36

Rece

nt (l

ikel

y th

is ye

ar) a

nd o

ld c

hew

mar

ks o

n w

hite

fi r a

t top

of r

ight

ban

k. P

ossib

le o

ld d

am s

ite.

B-37

Rece

ntly

(this

year

) che

wed

ald

er b

ranc

hes

on p

oint

bar

.

B-38

Rece

ntly

chew

ed w

illow

on

bank

.

B-39

Larg

e da

m u

nder

woo

dy d

ebris

jam

mad

e of

bra

nche

s, tw

igs

and

sedi

men

t. C

hann

el w

as g

ener

ally

dry

with

som

e sm

all p

uddl

es d

urin

g su

rvey

.

B-40

Smal

l dam

mad

e of

twig

s, le

aves

, and

nee

dles

und

er la

rge

log.

Loc

ated

in s

plit

chan

nel d

owns

tream

of t

he fl

ow s

plit

appr

oxim

atel

y 70

’. N

o ev

iden

ce o

f rec

ent a

ctiv

ity.

B-41

Smal

l dam

or w

oody

deb

ris ja

m?

Par

tially

was

hed

out.

Loc

ated

in s

plit

chan

nel d

owns

tream

of t

he fl

ow s

plit

appr

oxim

atel

y 50

’. N

o ev

iden

ce o

f rec

ent a

ctiv

ity.

B-42

Smal

l dam

mad

e of

logs

, bra

nche

s, br

ush

and

gras

s. P

artia

lly fl

anke

d/w

ashe

d ou

t. L

ocat

ed in

spl

it ch

anne

l dow

nstre

am o

f the

fl ow

spl

it ap

prox

imat

ely

30’.

No

evid

ence

of

rece

nt a

ctiv

ity.

B-43

Was

hed

out d

am o

r woo

dy d

ebris

jam

.

B-44

Larg

e da

m m

ade

of b

ranc

hes,

stick

s, sa

nd, m

ud a

nd g

rass

. Ho

lds

back

big

slu

g of

san

d/se

dim

ent a

nd m

ore

than

3 fe

et o

f gra

de.

Scou

r poo

l dow

nstre

am.

Poss

ible

fi sh

bar

rier

unde

r low

fl ow

con

dtio

ns.

TABL

E 1

(con

t.):

Des

crip

tions

of

beav

er a

ctiv

ity f

eatu

res

map

ped

durin

g th

e Se

ptem

ber,

2007

fi el

d su

rvey

.

SWAN

SON

HYD

ROLO

GY

+ G

EOM

ORP

HOLO

GY

500

Seab

right

Ave

, Sui

te 2

02 S

anta

Cru

z, C

A 95

062

PH 8

31.4

27.0

288

F

X 8

31.4

27.0

472

Feat

ure

IDD

escr

ipti

on

B-45

Larg

e ne

atly

stac

ked

(mos

tly in

one

dire

ctio

n) p

ile o

f che

wed

(dry

) bru

sh in

cha

nnel

. Ad

ditio

nal h

eavi

ly ch

ewed

mat

eria

l jus

t ups

tream

. So

me

will

ow s

prig

s ha

ve s

prou

ted

from

pi

le.

B-46

Med

ium

size

d da

m m

ade

of lo

gs, b

ranc

hes

and

sand

. N

o ev

iden

ce o

f rec

ent a

ctiv

ity.

Poss

ible

fi sh

bar

rier a

t low

fl ow

s.

B-47

Larg

e da

m m

ade

of lo

gs, b

ranc

hes,

twig

s an

d sa

nd.

Will

ows

spro

utin

g on

the

dam

. Po

ssib

le fi

sh b

arrie

r at l

ow fl

ows.

B-48

Very

larg

e da

m m

ade

of lo

gs, b

ranc

hes,

stick

s, sa

nd, m

ud a

nd o

rgan

ic m

ater

ials

that

bac

kwat

ers

wet

land

are

a (C

over

pic

in 2

003

draf

t EAR

). W

illow

s sp

rout

ing

on th

e da

m.

Adja

cent

ove

rfl ow

cha

nnel

dam

med

also

. Pi

le o

f che

wed

bra

nche

d fo

und

near

by.

Poss

ible

fi sh

bar

rier a

t low

fl ow

s.

B-49

Med

ium

size

d fa

iled

dam

/woo

dy d

ebris

jam

. Evi

denc

e of

acc

umul

ated

sed

imen

t ups

tream

that

has

sub

sequ

ently

was

hed

out.

B-50

Smal

l dam

mad

e of

bun

ches

and

san

d lo

cate

d in

bet

wee

n en

ds o

f saw

n lo

g.

B-51

Smal

l dam

mad

e of

bra

nche

s, tw

igs,

and

sand

loca

ted

at a

woo

dy d

ebris

jam

.

B-52

Smal

l dam

mad

e of

bra

nche

s, tw

igs,

sand

and

leav

es.

No

evid

ence

of r

ecen

t act

ivity

.

B-53

Med

ium

size

d da

m m

ade

of b

ranc

hes,

twig

s, sa

nd, l

eave

s an

d ne

edle

s. N

earb

y sli

des

on b

ank.

Pos

sible

fi sh

bar

rier u

nder

low

fl ow

con

ditio

ns.

B-54

Old

rem

nant

larg

e da

m lo

cate

d on

a la

rge

woo

dy d

ebris

jam

.

B-55

Med

ium

size

dam

mad

e of

bra

nche

s, tw

igs

and

sand

. Po

ssib

le fi

sh b

arrie

r und

er lo

w fl

ow c

ondi

tions

.

B-56

Med

ium

size

dam

mad

e of

bra

nche

s, tw

igs,

sand

and

som

e lo

gs.

Poss

ible

fi sh

bar

rier u

nder

low

fl ow

con

ditio

ns.

B-57

Very

larg

e da

m m

ade

of b

ranc

hes,

twig

s, le

aves

, nee

dles

, san

d an

d m

ud.

Hold

s ap

prox

imat

ely

1-2’

of g

rade

bac

kwat

erin

g ex

tens

ive

wet

land

are

a. C

hann

el a

nd m

ost o

f wet

land

ar

ea d

ry d

urin

g su

rvey

. N

o ev

iden

ce o

f rec

ent a

ctiv

ity.

B-58

Smal

l anc

illar

y da

m to

B-5

7 m

ade

of b

ranc

hes,

twig

s, sa

nd, l

eave

s, ne

edle

s an

d m

ud.

B-59

Larg

e w

oody

deb

ris ja

m/p

ossib

le b

eave

r dam

. La

rge

stag

nant

poo

l im

med

iate

ly do

wns

tream

hol

ding

trou

t. P

ossib

le fi

sh b

arrie

r und

er lo

w fl

ow c

ondi

tions

.

B-60

Smal

l was

hed

out d

am m

ade

of s

ticks

and

gra

vel w

ith n

earb

y sli

de.

B-61

Larg

e da

m w

ith w

oody

deb

ris ja

m.

Dam

is u

nder

cut.

B-62

Smal

l fai

led

dam

mad

e of

bra

nche

s, tw

igs

and

grav

el.

B-63

Rece

ntly

(this

year

) che

wed

ald

er b

ranc

hes.

B-64

Rece

ntly

(this

year

) che

wed

bra

nche

s an

d m

ound

of s

edim

ent i

nter

sper

sed

with

bra

nche

s an

d tw

igs

(pos

sible

rem

nant

dam

).

B-65

Larg

e w

oody

deb

ris w

ith s

mal

l bea

ver d

am a

cros

s fa

ce.

The

dam

is in

com

plet

e or

was

aba

ndon

ed a

nd d

oes

not h

old

grad

e or

pos

e a

barri

er to

fi sh

.

B-66

Parti

al re

mna

nt d

am.

TABL

E 1

(con

t.):

Des

crip

tions

of

beav

er a

ctiv

ity f

eatu

res

map

ped

durin

g th

e Se

ptem

ber,

2007

fi el

d su

rvey

.



PH 831.427.0288 FX 831.427.0472

June - 2004June - 2004


Log on top of beaver damLog on top of beaver dam

Log behind/beneath beaver damLog behind/beneath beaver dam

Estimated 2004 water surface elevationEstimated 2004 water surface elevation

FIGURE 4: Photo comparison of a large beaver dam located on Meeks Creek mainstem (B-43) showing conditions in 2004 and 2007. Dam building activities between the years is evidenced by exposure of the large log in 2004 with subsequent burial beneath branches and sediment in 2007.

SWAN

SON

HYD

ROLO

GY

+ G

EOM

ORP

HOLO

GY

500

Seab

right

Ave

, Sui

te 2

02 S

anta

Cru

z, C

A 95

062

PH 8

31.4

27.0

288

F

X 8

31.4

27.0

472

FIG

URE

5: P

hoto

s sh

owin

g pr

e (A

) and

pos

t-fa

ilure

(B a

nd C

) of

one

of t

he la

rger

bea

ver

dam

s fo

und

in t

he s

tudy

are

a (B

-14)

. Fa

ilure

of

the

dam

occ

urre

d ad

jace

nt t

o th

e le

ft b

ank

and

show

s so

me

bank

ero

sion

as

the

rem

aini

ng p

ortio

n of

the

dam

for

ces

fl ow

aga

inst

the

ban

k.

Not

e th

e ne

w d

am o

f si

mila

r si

ze d

owns

trea

m o

f th

e fa

iled

dam

(D).

Fre

sh m

ud a

nd c

hew

ed b

ranc

hes

wer

e no

ted

on t

he n

ewer

dam

du

ring

the

fi eld

sur

vey

sugg

estin

g re

cent

act

ivity

.

AA

June

- 20

03Ju

ne -

2003

BB

Sept

embe

r - 2

006

Sept

embe

r - 2

006

CC

Sept

embe

r - 2

007

Sept

embe

r - 2

007

DD

Sept

embe

r - 2

007

Sept

embe

r - 2

007

Bank

Ero

sion

Bank

Ero

sion

New

Bea

ver

New

Bea

ver

Dam

Dam

Fres

h M

ud a

nd

Fres

h M

ud a

nd

Bran

ches

Bran

ches



MEEKS MEADOW


APPENDIX B

WASHOE TRIBE CULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT PLANTS

Appendix B

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


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


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 listpresented 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 Plant Communities Scientific Name1

CommonName Habit2

Response to Burning3 Notes

Cicuta douglasii Water hemlock perennial herb Not applicable Aquatic Riverine:

Meeks Creek channel environment.

Typha latifolia cattail Perennial herb Favorable or neutral

Alnus spp. alder shrub or small tree not favorable if frequent

Does not re-sprout after being top-killed

Cornus sericea creek dogwood shrub uncertain

Populus tremuloides aspen tree favorable, but high frequency may not be

Rubus parviflorus thimbleberry shrub uncertain

Salix spp. willow shrub uncertain

Sium suave water parsnip perennial herb uncertain

Sphenoscadiumcapitellatum

ranger’s buttons perennial herb uncertain

Mixed Riparian Scrub:

Streamside habitat dominated by woody vegetation such as willows. Dominant plants are non-arborescent, except where large aspens are found. Herbaceous species also found.

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


CommonName Habit2


Allium validum swamp onion geophyte favorable

Camassia quamash blue camas geophyte very favorable Uncommon, may have been reduced by grazing and lack of fire.

Equisetum arvense horsetail perennial herb uncertain

Heracleum lanatum cow parsnip perennial herb uncertain Burning probably favorable

Ligusticum grayi Gray’s lovage perennial herb uncertain Burning probably favorable

Lilium parvum alpine lily perennial herb favorable

Lupinus polyphyllus big leaf lupine perennial herb favorable

Pedicularisgroenlandica

elephant heads perennial herb uncertain

Platanthera spp. rein orchid perennial herb uncertain

Pteridium aquilinum bracken fern perennial herb favorable Cultivated with tilling

Veratrum californicum corn lily perennial herb uncertain Burning probably favorable

Wet Meadow:

Includes Wet Graminoid Meadow (WGM) and Obligate Sedge Meadow (OSM) mapped communities. Soils are more or less permanently saturated at or near the ground surface. Dominated by dense swards of obligate wetland grasses and sedges and perennial herbs with interlocking root systems. Organic matter accumulates beneath this vegetation. It is very tolerant of flooding and fluvial disturbances as well as light fires, but disturbances like trampling from livestock can break down rhizomes and roots that stabilize underlying organic layers, leading to degradation.

Zigadenus venenosus death camas perennial herb favorable

Achillea millefolium yarrow geophyte favorable

Allium campanulatum Sierra onion geophyte favorable

Seasonally Dry Meadow:

Includes both Dry Graminoid Meadow (DGM) and vernal pool (VP) mapped Allium platycaule wild onion geophyte favorable

Appendix B


CommonName Habit2


Castilleja spp. Indian paintbrush perennial herb uncertain

Fragraria virginiana wild strawberry perennial herb favorable

Perideridia sp. yampah geophyte favorable

Potentilla gracilis cinquefoil Perennial herb uncertain

Triteleia ixiodes golden brodiae geophyte favorable

communities. These areas have saturated soils during spring and early summer, but the upper soil layers dry out gradually. Less organic matter accumulates. Grasses and sedges often dominate, but they may be obligate or facultative wetland species. Dry meadow vegetation is well adapted to fire and flooding. Much of this environment has been invaded by lodgepole pine.

Triteleia hyacinthina white brodiaea geophyte favorable

Acer glabrum Rocky Mountain maple

shrub uncertain

Amelanchier alnifolia serviceberry shrub or small tree uncertain

Angelica breweri angelica perennial herb

Arctostaphylos spp.(patula and nevadensis)

manzanita shrub frequent fire detrimental

Does not re-sprout after 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

Uplands:

Habitat dominated by Mixed Conifer Forests (MCF) or shrub vegetation. In valley bottom at Meeks includes open rocky areas underlain by glacial outwash or moraine deposits.

Ceanothus velutinus tobacco brush shrub frequent fire detrimental

Does not re-sprout after fire. Infrequent fire favorable.

Appendix B


CommonName Habit2


Chrysolopsischrysophylla

golden chinquapin shrub Periodic fire favorable

Can re-sprout from base.

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 lomatium

geophyte uncertain Fire probably favorable.

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 cherry

shrub uncertain Can re-sprout from base.

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.

Uplands cont’d

Uplands cont’d Sambucus mexicana blue elderberry small tree or shrub uncertain Occasionally in riparian scrub. Can re-sprout from base.

Appendix B


CommonName Habit2


Smilacena stellata false Solomon’s seal

perennial herb uncertain

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.

Ecological Setting and Plant Communities Scientific Name Common

Name Habit1 Notes

Cornus sericea creek dogwood shrub

Populus tremuloides aspen tree

Mixed Riparian Scrub:

Streamside habitat dominated by woody vegetation such as willows. Dominant plants are non-arborescent, except where large aspens are found. Herbaceous species also found.

Salix spp. willow shrub

Allium validum swamp onion geophyte

Camassia quamash blue camas geophyte Uncommon, may have been reduced by grazing and lack of fire.

Lilium parvum alpine lily perennial herb

Lupinus polyphyllus big leaf lupine perennial herb

Pteridium aquilinum bracken fern perennial herb Cultivated with tilling

Wet Meadow:

Includes both Wet Graminoid Meadow (WGM) and Obligate Sedge Meadow (OSM) mapped communities. Soils are more or less permanently saturated at or near the ground surface. Dominated by dense swards of obligate wetland grasses and sedges and perennial herbs with interlocking root systems. Organic matter accumulates beneath this vegetation. It is very tolerant of flooding and fluvial disturbances as well as light fires, but disturbances like trampling from livestock can break down rhizomes and roots that stabilize underlying organic layers, leading to degradation.

Zigadenus venenosus death camas perennial herb

Achillea millefolium yarrow perennial Achillea millefolium

Allium campanulatum Sierra onion geophyte

Seasonally Dry Meadow:

Includes Dry Graminoid Meadow (DGM) and vernal pool (VP) mapped communities. These areas have saturated soils during spring and early summer, but Allium platycaule wild onion geophyte

Appendix B

Ecological Setting and Plant Communities Scientific Name Common

Name Habit1 Notes

Fragraria virginiana wild strawberry perennial herb

Perideridia sp. yampah geophyte

Triteleia ixiodes golden brodiae geophyte

upper soil layers gradually dry out. Less organic matter accumulates. Grasses and sedges often dominate, but they may be obligate or facultative wetland species. Dry meadow vegetation is well adapted to fire and flooding. Much of it has been invaded by lodgepole pine.

Triteleia hyacinthina white brodiaea geophyte

Nicotiana attenuata coyote tobacco annual herb May need to be introduced.

Pinus jeffreyi Jeffrey pine coniferous tree

Pinus lambertiana sugar pine coniferous tree

Uplands:

Habitat dominated by Mixed Conifer Forests (MCF) or shrub vegetation. In Meeks valley bottom includes open rocky areas underlain by glacial outwash or 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.

DRAFT REPORT Meeks Meadow Restoration and ...campground facilities, and Meeks Bay Resort, among...

Documents

Transcript of DRAFT REPORT Meeks Meadow Restoration and ...campground facilities, and Meeks Bay Resort, among...