HFQLG
Project Evaluation Form
Project Name:
Forest:
Ross Ranch Meadow Improvement Project
Plumas
Project Type: Gully/plug and
meadow re-watering
Ranger District: Beckwourth
Date: 10/18/06
_____
Names of evaluators:
FOREST SERVICE: Russell Nickerson, Patti Millet, Barbara Boaz, Jeff Leach, Dave Evans, Mike Davis,
Terry Simon-Jackson, Beth Stewart, Elise Rierson, Thobe Oestrich, Fred Gonzalez, Tamara Schmidt, Kurt
Winchester, Alissa Tanner, Mary Kliejunas, Angela Parker, Terry Miller, Alec Lane, Antonio Dueñas, Bill
Sexton
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Linda Blum, Harry Reeves, Bob Schultz
Project completed by: _Force Account___
Date completed: August, 2006
_____
Types of treatment and acres: 2500’ of nonsystem rd. Bioengineer techniques-reveg, mulch,
biodegrading erosion control mat.
On site evaluation:
Identify resource area, list resource attributes for which project objectives were developed,
identify objectives for each resource area, source of standard or objective, the degree
objective was met (meets, minor departure, or major departure), and comment on findings.
Resource
area
Wildlife
Attribute
N/A
Hydrology
Objective
N/A
Source of
objective
N/A
Degree
met
N/A
Comments
Gully
remove/stop
HFQLG
100%
Hydrology
-Pond/Plug
-Water level
-Capture
sediment
HFQLG
95%
Soils
Erosion
Sheet wash
-HFQLG
95%
Fenced off meadow to
avoid impacts from
OHV “donut makers:
Botany
sensitive
plant species
-Raise water
level
-Natural
gradient
restored
Decrease the
amount of
erosion and
sheeting
Protect the core
area of sticky
pyrrocoma
NEPA
100%
Heritage
Historic
preservation
Protect the
resource
- NEPA, and
SHPO PA
100%
Core area protected;
incidental impacts to
outlying individuals as
designed in NEPA
2 arch. sites were
identified and
protected
Not enough will flow
for WIFL currently.
Excellent job. Totally
reconditioned to
meadow’s grade.
Withstood a 25 year
very high flood event
this year.
NOTE: Evaluation of success at meeting objectives is based strictly on walk-through observations.
Shortcomings and Successes:
See attached write-up entitled “Ross Ranch Meadow Improvement Project – Beckwourth Ranger District
2005 and 2006”. This was handed out to the attendees on the field trip.
Follow up actions:
May need to do further revegetation of open area at the last (southern-most) stop at this project.
District Ranger:
/s/ Fred Gonzalez
Date: 2-8-07
Ross Ranch Meadow Improvement Project
Beckwourth Ranger District 2005 and 2006
ROSS RANCH MEADOW IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
PURPOSE
The USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, Beckwourth Ranger District, proposed to
improve the condition of Ross Ranch Meadow to reduce soil and stream channel erosion,
enhance the herbaceous cover within the meadow and reduce sedimentation levels within the
Middle Fork of the Feather River. This action is consistent with the direction for riparian
management described in the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (the
Act) to provide “a program of riparian management, including wide protection zones and
riparian restoration.” In addition, it addresses the direction in the Environmental Impact
Statement for the Act, that riparian areas would be managed to sustain “healthy aquatic and
riparian ecosystems protected from the impacts of land use activities, but able to adjust to
impacts caused by natural-occurring disturbance processes such as wildfire, flood and drought.
“Streams and their riparian areas would be restored to their proper functioning condition.” This
action is also consistent with the direction for riparian management described in the Sierra
Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement,
Appendix A: Management Direction, Management Goals and Strategies; Aquatic, Riparian, and
Meadow Ecosystems and Associated Species to “maintain and restore, water quality, floodplains
and water tables, watershed connectivity, watershed condition, streamflow patterns and sediment
regimes, streambanks and shorelines.”
NEED
In the late 1800s, ditches were constructed to drain the Ross Ranch Meadow for hay production.
Over time, these ditches have down cut and contributed to the degradation of the channels within
the meadow. Over the past 20 years, several attempts have been made to stabilize both the
ditches and the channel system within the meadow. Numerous rock structures and over 50
headcut controls and check dams, have been constructed to slow accelerated gully erosion within
the meadow. Many of these structures are still functioning. However, many have failed over time
from lack of maintenance and grazing impacts. Some of this work was successful in raising the
base level of the channel in localized areas or in stopping up-meadow migration of head cuts.
However, it was unsuccessful at restoring meadow function and stopping the gully erosion
within the meadow. This Watershed has been cumulatively impacted by timber harvests, roads
situated along stream channels, and grazing. It was hypothesized that low flow and peak flow
conditions, fishery habitat, meadow species composition and cover, and water quality could be
improved through channel and meadow restoration, road relocation and improvement of forest
and range practices throughout the watershed.
ACTION TAKEN
The project included lowering the surface elevation in parts of the meadow to restore sheetflow,
construction of two low water road crossings, elimination of one ditch and a levee, treatment of
several channels, and subsoiling 2500 feet of non-system road. Sections of the east and west
stream channel and ditch were well incised into the meadow, resulting in gully erosion and
meadow decline. Individual headcuts had formed in channels and were treated to stop up-stream
migration. Unstable banks existed throughout the meadow system. Bank slope modification
expedited natural processes and mitigated continued erosion of sediment into the system. These
actions are illustrated in Figure 1. A summary of the treatments is presented below in Table 1.
The design utilized bioengineering techniques that perform well and do not require frequent
maintenance.
Table 1.0
Site identification
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
West Channel
Central Channel
Above Fence
East Channel
Non-system road
Site identification
Central Channel
below Rd 23N03Y
Treatment Phase 1
Fill ditch approximately 350 feet
Construct a low water crossing, reroute channel into central
channel
Construct a low water crossing
Abandon and fill up stream portion of channel
Redirect flow directly across road and out into meadow
Obliterate levee fill channels in designated area
Fill channel
Complete head cut control structures reslope banks
Adjust base level of channel, construct headcut controls entire
length of channel including tributaries above fence
Construct headcut controls and complete 20 feet of bank work at
designated sites
Recontour 2500 feet of a non-system road leaving a 30 to 36 inch
path for a bike trail.
Proposed treatment Phase 2
Construct several grade control structures using large rock and soil
Revegetation utilized existing plant material and a native seed mix. Vegetation harvested from the
project area was reused to plant in repaired channel bottoms and where slope stabilization occurred.
Plant material salvaged for revegetation consisted of mature and young willows, meadow sod, and
topsoil that contained a seed bank. Application of native seed occurred prior to fall rains on disturbed
soil within the meadow and on the recontoured road. Revegetation is critical to soil protection, habitat
enhancement, and reduction of overland flow velocities.
The Ramelli Grazing allotment was grazed in 2004, and after the project work was completed,
the project area below the fence was grazed for 3 weeks in 2005. The entire allotment will be
allowed to rest until 2006. The area above the fence will be allowed an additional rest period in
2007. In the fall of 2007, the Hydrologist and the Rangeland Management Specialist will review
the project area to determine if an extended rest period or fencing is needed while the stream
system continues to recover. Recommendations to the Beckwourth District Ranger with respect
to the continuation of grazing, including livestock numbers, season of use and duration would be
made based on their findings.
IDENTIFIED RESOURCE CONCERNS
Archeological sites: There were two sites in the project area. The project was designed to
completely avoid the sites.
Sensitive Species: The sites were flagged and avoided. This resulted in some sections of channel
not being treated.
Recreational Opportunities: A bike trail was incorporated into the road obliteration.
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE TREATMENT
With minor exception the treatment was successful. Sheet flow has been returned to the meadow
and sediment transport to the Middle fork of the Feather River has been arrested. Xeric species
such as sagebrush are being replaced by meadow species. Hydrologic function throughout the
meadow and on a ½ mile of road has been improved.
ISSUES TO ADDRESS
Revegetation of the hillslopes did not occur as planned, three things contributed to this.
Issue 1, Soil quality: Soil type and lack of organic mater contributed to reduced soil quality.
Issue 2, High Water Year: Much of the seed and mulch was washed down slope in the above
normal rain fall.
Issue 3, Wind: The surrounding topography causes wind speed to increase as it is funneled
through the meadow. This resulted in some of the mulch being displaced.
Proposed Solution: Purchase erosion cloth or rice paper with an embedded seed mix which can
be applied and staked to the hill. Apply mycorrhizal inoculant to amend soil.
Alternative Solution to be Applied: Seeding will be completed using a hydro-mulcher.
OHV damage continues to be an issue in the meadow and on the bike trail. Shortly after the first
fall rain damage to the project from 4-wheeling was documented. As soon as the ground was
frozen the District hydrologist worked with the fire dozer operator to repair the damage and
reseed the area. Two additional instances of OHVs driving in the meadow have been
documented. Since completion of the project it has been an on going effort to keep mechanized
vehicles off the bike trail. The District fire dozer operator resubsoiled the bike trail in June of
2006, and added woody debris to the entire trail and refortified the entrances with additional
wood and rock in an effort to detour continued use. Much of the original wood had been
collected and used for a bonfire at the road closure entrance.
The following picture show the type of damage resulting from the OHVs.
Proposed Solution: Post a sign designed to educate the public and work with law enforcement
to periodically patrol the area on weekends.
PROJECT BUDGET
Planning Budget
Planned
Spent
Salary Costs
16,467
Salary Costs
16,131
Travel & Training
1,000
Travel & Training
225
Supplies & Other Costs
300
Supplies & Other Costs
108
Fleet Costs
0
Fleet Costs
217
Total Costs
17,767
Total Costs
16,680
Supplies & Other Costs
9,400
Supplies & Other Costs
1,595
Fleet Costs
8,303
Fleet Costs
6,265
Total Costs
40,057
Total Costs
30,343
Supplies & Other Costs
1,000
Supplies & Other Costs
2,939
Fleet Costs
407
Fleet Costs
487
Total Costs
12,632
Total Costs
12,680
Implementation Budget 05
Planned
Spent
Salary Costs
22,354
Salary Costs
22,482
Travel & Training
0
Travel & Training
0
Implementation Budget 06
Planned
Spent
Salary Costs
11,225
Salary Costs
9,254
Total Project Cost
Travel & Training
0
Travel & Training
0
59,703
Figure 1.0
Figure 2.0