HFQLG
Project Evaluation Form
Project Name: Last Chance DFPZ and Stream Restoration Project Type: DFPZ and Stream Restoration_
Forest: Plumas Ranger District: Beckwourth Date: Nov 2, 2007_
Attendance:
Agency- None
Public- Bob Schultz, member of public from Quincy (previously Beckwourth District Hydrologist); Mike Yost,
Quincy Library Group (QLG); Harry Reeves, QLG; Frank Stewart, QLG and Counties Forester.
USFS-Barbara Boaz, acting District Ranger; Barbara Drake, Hydrologist from Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest
(previously Beckwourth District Hydrologist); Sabrina Stadler, NEPA planner; Maurice Huynh, assistant NEPA
planner; Deb Bumpus, detailed HFQLG Implementation Team Leader; Angela Parker, assistant HFQLG Team
Leader; Mike Davis, Sale Administrator; Antonio Duenas, Hydrologist; Russell Nickerson, Wildlife Biologist; Alec
Lane, Assistant District Fire Management Officer; Jon Lamb, Fire Ecologist; Colin Dillingham, HFQLG
Monitoring Team Leader
DFPZ Project completed by: Pew Forest Product (mechanical thinning)
Mastication
Date completed: 2002
Fall 2002
Type of treatment and acres:
Mechanical thinning up to 24” diameter.
3348 acres of Service Contract including:
prescribed fire (752 acres),
mastication (811 acres),
biomass thinning (1290 acres),
hand thinning, piling and pile burning (495 acres).
Last Chance Stringer Meadow Restoration
Treated 14 active headcuts and gullies
Restored approximately 9 acres of wetland meadow
Completed 2006
NOTE: see attached document entitled “Last Chance Stringer Meadow Improvement Project,
Beckwourth Ranger District 2006”, for additional information on this project.
Resource
Area
Silviculture
Attribute
Objective
Source of
Objective
Canopy cover
Achieve 40% canopy
cover
HFQLG
Appendix J
Fuels
DFPZ
Create a safe and
effective DFPZ
HFQLG
Appendix J
Silviculture
Plantation
management
Reduce competition
of residual trees
EA
Wildlife
Doyle Deer
herd
Enhance foraging
habitat
EA
Degree
Met
90%
95%
100%
Partial
Comments
Some units could have
had a few more trees
removed. Used 15 – 20
foot spacing to achieve
objective.
First commercially
thinned stand looked
good, some pockets may
torch. Masticated
plantation looked good 5
years post treatment.
Mastication reduced
spacing of residual pines
and reduced brush
competition
Mastication caused some
loss of preferred forage
bitterbrush, but created
younger brush of other
species that is palatable.
HFQLG
Appendix J
Fuels
Wildlife/
Botany
Native Grass
Establish Native
grasses in meadow
HFQLG
Appendix J
Partial
Hydrology
Stream
Channel
Stop head cutting in
stream areas.
EA
100%
Soils
Cover
Maintain cover
during prescribed
fire
EA
100%
Some native grass was
spread on ripped roads
in meadow. Area of road
at bottom of Last Chance
Stringer meadow was not
seeded and had cheat
grass growing on road
bed.
Gravel filling of meadow
areas has prevented
stream head cutting
A good needle fall after
burn allowed for greater
than 50% soil cover after
the prescribed fire.
Discussions:
Cumulative watershed effects analysis indicated that this watershed was over threshold. To mitigate the DFPZ
project 120 miles of existing road were obliterated and/or relocated to areas without the sediment delivery
potential to the streams. We examined one road at the bottom of the Last Chance Stringer Meadow (adjacent to
Stone Dairy Meadow) and it had been successfully ripped and had vegetation starting to recolonize the road bed.
A $700,000 OHV restoration grant was used to obliterate the roads.
There may be an opportunity to manage the DFPZs into the future by utilizing goat herds to manage the
vegetation. We may be able to use goats under either a stewardship contract or under a grazing permit to
effectively maintain the DFPZ shrub component.
Shortcomings and Successes:
2005 prescribed burn at the first stop was a follow-up treatment to the mechanical thinning and biomass
removal. The stand appeared to all participants to be an excellent DFPZ and would be useful as a safe anchor for
fire fighters. The crown base was effectively raised and the canopy was generally reduced to 40% canopy,
although there was some variation across the DFPZ. Some areas were a little thicker, and others a little more
open.
Masticated stands produced a DFPZ that had younger brush with less dead component. These previous fuel beds
have been turned into a heat sink, at least in the short term (5-years post treatment). The treatment is expected to
continue to be effective for another 5 – 10 years. A “tree farmer” lawn mower type masticator was used and
could not treat greater than about 15% slopes. The original grapple piling prescription, would have been even
better as the tobacco brush would have been set back another 5 to 7 years. The brush grew back quickly from the
mastication treatment, and although it is 2 – 3 feet tall, it does not have the dead component to make it a
problem within the DFPZ.
Follow up actions:
None were recommended at this time. Future monitoring of the DFPZs will indicate when follow-up
maintenance operations are needed. At five years post-treatment, these stands still look like good effective
DFPZs. Consider using goat herds during future DFPZ maintenance activities.
It was also suggested that it would be desirable to overlay fuel treatments with ignitions and determine if there is
any correlation with fire size and adjacency to existing fuel treatments.
Acting District Ranger: _/s/ Barbara R. Boaz___________________________ Date: _11/13/07____
Appendix 1.
Last Chance Stringer Meadow Improvement Project
Beckwourth Ranger District 2006
Last Chance Stringer Meadow Improvement Project
Purpose
The USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, Beckwourth Ranger District proposed to improve the natural
hydrological and biological function of the Last Chance stringer meadow and stream system in the Last Chance
Watershed by reducing soil and stream channel erosion from existing channels, headcuts, and gullies. 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
Over the past 20 years numerous rock and headcut control structures have been constructed within the Stone
Dairy Meadow Complex, located within the Last Chance Watershed, to slow accelerated gully erosion and
improve the natural hydrological and biological function of the stream and meadow systems. Much 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.
The Last Chance Stringer Meadow was identified during field surveys conducted in 2000 and 2005 as a
degraded meadow system. There were approximately fourteen active headcuts and gullies within the
meadow, as well as several areas of unstable and eroding stream channels (Figure 1). In the northern portion
of the meadow the intermittent and ephemeral stream channels that drain from two culverts along the 26N16
road were actively eroding and creating unstable stream channels directly through and along side of the
stringer meadow system. In addition, the intermittent stream channel on the southern portion of the meadow
had created nickpoints, which developed into headcuts and gullies that were actively migrating through the
stringer meadow. Completion of this project complements other restoration project implemented over the
last 5 years.
Figure 1: Vicinity map of Last Chance Stringer Meadow Project including headcuts, resource concerns and
drainages.
Action Taken
The project included mechanical bank alteration to expedite a natural process and stop continued erosion of
sediment into the system. Individual headcuts and gullies were treated to stop upward meadow migration.
The treatment type(s) were determined on a site-specific individual basis (Table 1). Headcuts were treated
by filling the feature with small rock, covering them with soil, seeding and installing bioengineering erosion
control jute mating across the top of the structure and 3ft above the headcut. This is done to keep the headcut
from pulling away from the fill while the vegetation establishes. Approximately 450ft of gully was filled
with small rock and soil graded from adjacent slopes. The entire disturbed area was seeded with native seed
and mulched with weed free straw. Numerous grade control and energy dissipating structures were
constructed in the east channel. Banks were sloped and the excess soil generated from the resloping was used
to bring up the grade of the channel. The stream banks and access paths were seeded and mulched. Below the
confluence of the east channel and the meadow channel earthen plugs were installed to slow flows and
capture sediment. The discontinuous gully will now act as ponds storing and releasing water later in the
season. Design focused on utilizing bioengineering techniques that would perform well and not require
frequent maintenance. Project revegetation utilized a native seed mix, recommended by the District
Botanist.
Table 1: Site-specific situation and treatment types.
Situation
Treatment
Gully draining meadow and
Fill approximately 450 feet of 2’x3’ to 6’x6’ gully with
actively eroding
soil graded from hillslope and surround area
Actively migrating headcuts
Repair headcuts of various sizes using 4” minus basalt
rock and soil
East channel has vertical eroding
Improve base level, reslope vertical banks and add grade
banks and is incised at 3’ to 4’.
controls and energy dissipater structures to slow water
and increase base level
Channel below confluence has
Install grade drop structures and install earthen gully
migrating headcuts and actively
plugs with large rock keys
eroding gully as deep as 6’x6’
Revegetation and erosion control BMPs included reuse of topsoil that contained a seed bank, application of native seed and coverage of bare soil using weed free
straw and/or erosion cloth or jute mating. This work occurred prior to fall rains. Revegetation is critical to soil protection, habitat enhancement, and reduction of
overland flow velocities.
Twenty six loads of rock were used during the construction of this project.
The Northern part of the project area is within the Lone Spring Unit of the Fitch Canyon grazing Allotment,
which was grazed in 2006, shortly after project implementation. The project area below the fence is within
the Stone Dairy Unit of Ridenour Allotment and has not been grazed since 2002. However, this section of
the Ridenour Allotment is scheduled to be incorporated into the Fitch Canyon grazing allotment and will be
actively grazed in 2008. The area above the fence is permitted for 317 head of cattle from 06/03 to 09/02 and
167 head of cattle from 09/03 to 10/02 and authorized for 175 head of cattle from 06/29 to 08/18.
Effectiveness of the Treatment
With few exceptions, the treatment was successful. All headcuts and gullies have been repaired and energy
dissipaters are in place to slow the flow of surface water. Approximately 3,960 ft3 (147 yd3) of soil and
stream channel erosion has been arrested. The project restored hydrologic function on approximately 9
acres.
Issues to Address
Issue 1 The hillslope where soil was graded for gully fill did not revegetate as planned. Three things
contributed to this:
• Soil quality and water retention: Soil type and lack of organic mater contributed to reduced soil
quality. This harsher environment make revegetation more difficult. In addition, the soils are also
porous and drain rapidly. Seed germination is more difficult when there is little or no soil moisture
retention.
• Lower than normal water year: Adequate precipitation did not occur to aid germination on the dry,
well drained slopes.
• Mulch displacement. Wind and slope worked to displace mulch that retains moisture and shelters
sprouting seeds.
Proposed Solution to be Applied: Seeding will be completed using a hydro-mulcher in the fall.
An obstacle encountered during restoration was the saturated meadow. This was due to the time of year the
project was implemented and the previous high water year. An access road had to be constructed down the
eastside of the meadow to avoid unacceptable damage to the meadow.
Project Budget
Salary Costs
Fleet Costs
11,575.76
4,525.20
Total Project Cost
Supplies & Other Costs
3,310.48
19,411.44
Planning Budget
Planned
Spent
Salary Costs
6,011
Salary Costs
1,945
Travel & Training
0
Travel & Training
0
Supplies & Other Costs
0
Supplies & Other Costs
0
Fleet Costs
583
Fleet Costs
348
Total Costs
6,594
Total Costs
2,293
Supplies & Other Costs
8,160
Supplies & Other Costs
3,310
Fleet Costs
5,978
Fleet Costs
4,177
Total Costs
17,594
Total Costs
17,117
Implementation Budget 06
Planned
Spent
Salary Costs
3,456
Salary Costs
9,630
Travel & Training
0
Travel & Training
0
Total Project Cost (Planning + Implementation)
Planned: $24,188
Spent: $19,410