university of california, davis - pine creek … lake-pine creek...pine creek meadow assessment page...

PINE CREEK MEADOW ASSESSMENT

December 2015 A report supported by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Results of a broadly collaborative effort to assess and prioritize meadows in the Pine Creek Basin for

restoration.

Pine Creek Meadow Assessment

Page 1


Luke Hunt, Max Odland, and Julie Fair 2015. Pine Creek Meadow Assessment. A

report by American Rivers supported by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.


Page 2

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3

THE PINE CREEK WATERSHED ............................................................................................. 3

PINE CREEK MEADOWS ....................................................................................................... 4

METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF CONDITION DATA ............................................................ 7

Bank Height ............................................................................................................................................... 8

Gullies and Bank Stability ...................................................................................................................... 8

Ditches......................................................................................................................................................... 9

Vegetation and Bare Ground ............................................................................................................. 10

Headcuts.................................................................................................................................................. 11

Encroachment .......................................................................................................................................... 12

PRIORITIES ......................................................................................................................... 12

INFLUENCE OF BEAVER ..................................................................................................... 13

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 13

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 15


Page 3

INTRODUCTION The meadows of Pine Creek watershed are an extremely valuable resource. Meadows provide critical

habitat for migratory birds and sensitive aquatic species, including the Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout as

well as forage for terrestrial species. Meadows reduce peak flows during storms and soak up spring

runoff, recharging groundwater supplies and prolonging spring stream flow. Meadows also filter

sediment and improve water quality and they are important cultural and recreational sites. However,

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) estimates that half of all meadows in the Sierra

Nevada and Southern Cascades are degraded and no longer provide these natural benefits (NFWF

2010). Fortunately, there are methods to restore the condition of unhealthy meadows, and investment

in meadow restoration by foundations, state and federal agencies, corporations, ranchers and land

managers is increasing. Investors seek the largest return on their restoration investment. Therefore, an

important question is: Which meadows, if restored, will provide the greatest value? To answer this

question, American Rivers partnered with the Forest Service and NFWF to develop a scorecard to

rapidly evaluate meadow condition and prioritize meadows for restoration (American Rivers 2012).

The method has been applied in the Yuba, Mokelumne, Kern, Walker, and Tuolumne River watersheds,

and assessment is underway in the Carson, Truckee, and American River basins. UC Davis has

developed a database to store this Meadow Condition Scorecard data

(http://meadows.ucdavis.edu/assessments/map). This assessment method has been used to identify

dozens of high-priority meadows and thereby focused our efforts and accelerated restoration.

Between 2014 and 2015, NFWF funded American Rivers to use the scorecard in the Pine Creek basin

to guide investment and accelerate the pace of restoration in collaboration with Trout Unlimited, Todd

Sloat Biological Consulting, the Lassen National Forest and the Pine Creek Coordinated Resource

Management Program (CRMP).

Meadow restoration is currently a significant focus for the Pine Creek CRMP, a working group that

includes land and resource managers (Lassen National Forest, California Department of Fish and

Wildlife), tribes ( Susanville Indian Rancheria), non-profit organizations (Trout Unlimited, CalTrout and

American Rivers), consultants (Todd Sloat Biological Consulting) and local agencies (the Honey Lake

Resource Conservation District). The presence of the working group in the watershed has already

helped to accelerate the pace of restoration (see prioritization below).

The purpose of this Pine Creek Meadow Assessment report is twofold. First, it provides condition data

and explains why the Pine Creek CRMP chose the first set of meadows as the top priority for

restoration. Second, it provides a basis and identifies next steps for partners to pursue in restoring

meadows in the watershed.

THE PINE CREEK WATERSHED The Pine Creek watershed covers 230 square miles to the east of the Pacific Crest in Lassen County,

CA. From its headwaters near Leaky Louie’s spring, Pine Creek flows eastward for approximately 40

miles and provides 75 to 85 percent of the surface flow to the closed basin of Eagle Lake (Young

1989). There is a steep gradient in annual precipitation across the watershed, from 60 inches in the

headwaters at the western edge of the watershed to 16 inches near the mouth at Eagle Lake (Platts


Page 4

and Jensen 1991). As a result of this precipitation pattern and flow losses to underlying porous,

volcanic rocks, Pine Creek only flows perennially in its uppermost five to seven miles (Vail 1979).

Historic land uses such as overgrazing, logging and roadbuilding have degraded the condition of the

watershed. These impacts, which include diversions, entrenched channels and poor meadow forage,

predate monitoring. However, a number of studies have concluded that Pine Creek once flowed longer,

perhaps perennially (Platts and Jensen, 1991), and that upland vegetation has replaced large areas

of former meadow (Young 1989, Norman and Taylor 2005, Pustejovsky 2007)

Flow in Pine Creek is of particular interest because, as the primary inflow to Eagle Lake, it controls the

lake elevation and affects the recreational fishery. In addition, Pine Creek is the native spawning

habitat for the endemic Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout, a species of special management concern.

PINE CREEK MEADOWS The meadow systems in Pine Creek can be separated into five major groupings. 1) Stephens

meadows and Bogard. These meadows are in the relatively steep, perennial reach of Pine Creek. A

single-thread channel is the main form, and the channel is minimally entrenched. 2) McKenzie Cow

Camp and Pine Creek Valley. The gradient of Pine Creek eases below McKenzie Cow Camp and the

channel becomes braided and intermittent through Pine Creek Valley. There are multiple diversions,

constrictions and culverts between McKenzie Cow Camp and upper Pine Creek Valley. The creek was

once split around the cow camp, and at higher flows it remains split downstream where it separates

into north and south channels through Pine Creek Valley. 3) Logan Springs and Confluence Meadow.

Entrenchment increases through the meadows at Logan Springs and at the confluence of Little Harvey

Creek (“Confluence Meadow”). 4) Champs and McCoy Flats. Young (1989) concludes that the large

sage flats at Champs and McCoy were grasslands before the area was overgrazed and the creek

incised. Currently the dry meadows in these flats are restricted to off-channel terraces. 5) Tributary

Meadows off the main stem of Pine Creek include the Harvey Valley area and Little Antelope Valley.

These meadows are fed by springs and runoff from forested slopes, with surface flow that infrequently

connects to Pine Creek.

In general, entrenchment of the channel is least in the upper meadows and greatest in the downstream

flats. This pattern correlates with a decrease in annual rainfall and distance from the perennial sources

of Pine Creek. Wood (1975) pointed out that densely vegetated wet meadows are more resilient to

disturbance than drier areas. In addition, the organic soils of wet meadows have a greater water-

holding capacity than drier, mineral soils and confer drought tolerance (Loheide et al. 2009). Ratliff

(1985) also noted this pattern of moisture conferring resilience when comparing meadows on the

eastern and western slopes of the Sierra. The pattern appears to hold for the meadows of the Pine

Creek watershed, with the greatest loss of meadow area downstream of Pine Creek Valley.

METHODS

We assessed meadows using the Meadow Condition Scorecard (American Rivers 2012). The scorecard

is a rapid field assessment method that allows restoration practitioners to quickly evaluate channel and

vegetation conditions to identify impacted meadows. The scorecard is based on the framework of the

EPA Physical Habitat Assessment (Barbour et al. 1999) and uses metrics from the Bureau of Land


Page 5

Management Multiple Indicators Monitoring (MIM) Protocol and Proper Function Conditions (PFC)

methods (US Department of the Interior (USDI), 2011 and USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service, and USDA-

NRCS 1998), as well as a vegetation indicator developed by Dave Weixelman, Forest Service Range

Ecologist for Region 5 (unpublished data). The scorecard is qualitative in nature; however, the scoring is

based on quantitative measurements, such as bank height, percent bare ground, and length of gullies.

These measurements and methods enable multiple observers to field-calibrate assessments and return

consistent results throughout a watershed.

American Rivers staff evaluated meadow condition in the Pine Creek watershed using six qualitative

measures that can receive a high score of 4 and a low score of 1:

1. Bank height

2. Bank stability (percent that is unstable)

3. Length of gullies and ditches (compared to the length of the channel)

4. Vegetation cover (graminoid/forb ratio)

5. Bare Ground (percent of meadow area)

6. Conifer or upland shrub encroachment (percent of meadow area)

In addition, the scorecard includes a checklist of anecdotal observations, such as past restoration

efforts, roads in or adjacent to the meadow, grazing observations and evidence of beaver. For these

observations, see the online assessment data for individual meadows at http://meadows.ucdavis.edu/.

We used the UC Davis meadow layer (Fryjoff-Hung & Viers, 2012) to identify meadows in the

watershed (Figure 1). Both the Meadow Condition Scorecard and the UC Davis meadow layer use the

unpublished definition of a meadow proposed by Weixelman, Cooper and Berlow:

“An existing mountain meadow is an ecosystem type that is dominated by herbaceous species

and supports plants that use surface water and/or shallow ground water. Woody vegetation

may occur, and be locally dense, but is not dominant. Historical mountain meadows are areas

that once supported meadow vegetation as above but have been altered either hydrologically

or by disturbance or both. These alterations can be part of natural cycles or induced by human

activity (Weixelman, Cooper and Berlow, unpublished)”.

In the Pine Creek watershed, we were unable to estimate the historical extent of meadows. Others

have concluded that the broad sage terraces of Champs and McCoy Flats were once grassland (Young

1989, Platts and Jensen 1991). We have observed meadows in other watersheds, where large areas

have been converted to sage flat, for example on the Kern Plateau. However, in the Kern, we were

able to use the presence of extensive organic layers to estimate the area of historic meadow. In the

Pine Creek watershed we could not find evidence of a historic meadow in the terraces or uplands. As a

result, we limited our assessment to the areas of current meadow, as defined above and did not

speculate on the extent of former meadow. If we had included former meadow area in our assessment,

scores for vegetation, bare ground and upland tree and shrub encroachment would have been much

lower.

http://meadows.ucdavis.edu/


Page 6

Two meadows were particularly troubling because of their size and complexity: Pine Creek Valley and

Champs Flat. In Pine Creek Valley, the channel was in fairly uniform condition, so we felt comfortable

providing assessment values; however, vegetation and bare ground varied widely. For example,

meadow vegetation is absent on raised grades and in very good condition in depressed borrow

ditches, but we did not think these measures were useful for evaluating restoration potential. In Champs

Flat, the meadow area was fragmented and graded into surrounding areas dominated by sagebrush.

In Champs Flat, the primary impact is the incised channel and complete loss of meadow associated with

the channel. For example, remnant meanders are evident, particularly in the reach below Burgess Flat

in Upper Champs Flat. We excluded Champs Flat from our survey because delineating the meadow

was problematic and any results would depend greatly on the delineation. In addition, the main

impacts to Champs Flat are not in the current meadow area. We also excluded the area around

Corbin Crossing/33N93 because there was no appreciable area of meadow vegetation. We include

Champs Flat and Corbin Crossing in our narrative, but we do not provide quantitative scores. In Pine

Creek Valley, we do not provide scores for vegetation condition or bare ground.

FIGURE 1. THE MEADOWS IN THE PINE CREEK WATERSHED ARE IN GREEN WITH NAMES AS REFERENCED IN THIS REPORT. NOTE

THAT IN CASES SUCH AS CHAMPS FLAT, THE MEADOW AREA IS MUCH SMALLER THAN THE TOTAL AREA OF THE FLAT [FROM

THE UC DAVIS MEADOW LAYER, DELINEATED FROM AERIAL IMAGERY (FRYJOFF-HUNG & VIERS, 2012)].


Page 7

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF CONDITION DATA Because information on a meadow’s historical condition is rarely available for comparison, there is

seldom an absolute method to identify and evaluate impacts. The two exceptions in the case of Pine

Creek meadows are conifer encroachment and ditches. Norman and Taylor (2005) used tree rings to

identify periods of conifer encroachment around meadow fringes in the Pine Creek watershed. Trees

from the most-rapid encroachment period would now be over 100 years old and difficult to identify as

encroaching, without this study. Also, no pre-impact data exist for the many ditches, berms and water

holes in the watershed; however, these features are clearly constructed, so the baseline condition is

obvious. All other impacts predate the aerial photographs and other information that we were able to

find in Pine Creek.

The condition score for each meadow is shown in Table 1. In addition to condition data, we include the

number of headcuts that are actively eroding into meadow areas. That is, if a headcut threatens

meadow area upstream it is included; if it is eroding into upland areas it is excluded. See headcut

results, below.

Bank Height

Gullies/ Ditches

Bank Stability Vegetation

Bare Ground Encroachment

Number of Headcuts

Upper Stephens 4 4 4 4 4 3 0

Lower Stephens 4 3 4 4 4 2 1

Bogard 4 4 4 3 4 3 0

McKenzie Cow Camp 3 3 4 4 4 3 0

Pine Creek Valley 3 1 3 not surveyed 3 0

Logan Spring 2 2 3 3 2 3 0

Harvey Valley 3 3 4 3 2 3 0

Burgess Meadow 4 1 4 4 3 4 0

Shoestring Draw 4 2 3 3 2 3 4

Little Harvey Valley 3 1 3 3 3 4 0

Confluence Meadow 1 2 2 3 3 3 1

McCoy Flat 1 2 2 3 2 4 1

Little Antelope Valley 4 4 4 3 1 3 0

TABLE 1. THE CONDITION AND NUMBER OF HEADCUTS . THE SCORES APPLY TO THE MEADOW AREA (SEE MAP AND METHODS)

NOTE THE COLOR AXIS FOR THE HEADCUT COLUMN DIFFERS FROM THE COLORS FOR THE CONDITION SCORES. FOR

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS AT EACH MEADOW (E.G., PRESENCE OF BEAVER, WILLOW COVER, ASPEN, ETC.) SEE

HTTP://MEADOWS.UCDAVIS.EDU/

A score of 1 or 2 indicates either a substantial level of impact or an unusual environmental setting. For

example, the low Gully/Ditch score in Burgess Meadow is a result of a long, shallow, road-width ditch

that does not appear to be capturing flow from the main channel. Meadows with scores in the 1 to 2

range require a closer look to determine if there is a need for restoration, a change in management, or

http://meadows.ucdavis.edu/


Page 8

if the meadow condition is within the normal range for its particular site. The purpose of the data in

Table 1 is to distinguish between meadows that need a closer look and those that are in good

condition. It often takes field visits with an interdisciplinary team to decide whether a meadow is a

candidate for restoration (See accompanying reports by Todd Sloat Biological Consulting and River

Run Consulting, 2015).

Bank Height

Entrenchment was an issue in every flat along Pine Creek downstream of Pine Creek Valley: Confluence

Meadow, Champs, McCoy and at Corbin Crossing (Figure 1). Where meadow vegetation was present,

and a survey was completed, this is indicated by a Bank Height score of 1 or 2.

Gullies and Bank Stability

The Meadow Condition Scorecard combines gullies and ditches into a single attribute because both

often draw down groundwater in areas away from the main channel. Gullies are eroded tributaries

and secondary channels, while ditches are constructed features. We discuss ditches separately (below)

because ditches are such a prevalent feature in the watershed and their impacts vary.

We observed substantial gullying in flats and meadows where Pine Creek has incised. This is common

because as incision occurs headcuts begin at unstable banks in the main channel and erode up

tributaries and swales in a process described as unravelling. Upstream of Confluence Meadow, banks

were generally stable except for isolated areas (including pinch points caused by railroad and road

grade crossings) and outside bends. Banks were unstable downstream, in Confluence Meadow, Champs

and McCoy and at Corbin Crossing (Figure 3).

FIGURE 2. CHANNEL INCISION IN LOGAN SPRING (LEFT) AND MCCOYFLAT (RIGHT).


Page 9

Ditches

In the Harvey Valley area, ditches were extensive in every meadow (Harvey Valley, Little Harvey Valley, Burgess Meadow, Shoestring Draw). However, unlike many meadows, where ditches are downcutting because they capture and accelerate flow, the ditches in the Harvey Valley area are vegetated and appear stable. Burgess Meadow and Shoestring Draw appear to have been shallowly bladed along their length, perhaps for a railroad bed; however, in both meadows the ditch is near the valley low point. The areas have completely filled in with sedges and are stable (Figure 1). There were once rock check dams in the ditch in Burgess Meadow, but these are now porous and in some cases covered by vegetation. The ditches in Harvey Valley and Little Harvey Valley are road tracks that cross the valley and these are also vegetated and stable. Despite their extent, the hydrologic impacts from ditches in the Harvey Valley area appear to be diminishing as the ditches fill with vegetation and soil.

FIGURE 3. UNSTABLE BANKS AT A RAILROAD GRADE BELOW LOGAN SPRINGS (LEFT) AND IN CHAMPS FLAT (RIGHT).

FIGURE 4. DITCH IN SHOESTRING DRAW IS COMPLETELY VEGETATED (LEFT). AERIAL IMAGE FROM 1993 SHOWS THE

EXTENT OF THE DITCH, WITH THE APPROXIMATE POSITION OF THE PHOTOGRAPH MARKED IN YELLOW (RIGHT).


Page 10

The ditches in Pine Creek Valley include borrow ditches, depressed road beds and a diversion near the

head of the valley, below McKenzie Cow Camp. Ditches, along with road and railroad grades in Pine

Creek Valley are a major hydrologic impact. They are sources of sediment. They concentrate or

disperse flows, potentially trapping fish, and they are the primary areas of erosion in the upper

watershed.

Vegetation and Bare Ground

The Vegetation score is derived from the graminoid/forb ratio, which correlates with plant functional

groups in Sierra and Cascade meadows (D. Weixelman, unpublished). Except for Shoestring draw,

where forbs are prevalent, graminoids dominate the meadow areas within the Pine Creek watershed.

In disturbed areas, we saw an increase in bare ground, rather than an increase in the percent cover of

forbs. Bare ground is common in Little Antelope Valley, Logan Spring, Harvey Valley, Shoestring Draw

and in the meadow areas of McCoy Flat (Figure 6).

FIGURE 5. DITCHES, ROAD, AND RAILROAD GRADES IN PINE CREEK VALLEY FORM DIVERSIONS AT HIGH FLOW (LEFT). BORROW

DITCH FOR THE ACTIVE RAILROAD GRADE IS SHOWN FILLED WITH WATER AND EMPTY (RIGHT). PHOTOS FROM THE LASSEN

NATIONAL FOREST.


Page 11

Headcuts

In contrast to measures of past impacts, headcuts are an indication of the risk from future erosion.

Often headcuts are a symptom of incision and unstable banks as described above. This is the case in

Confluence Meadow and McCoy Flat, where headcuts may be best treated by fixing the root cause,

namely incision. In contrast, the headcuts in Shoestring Draw and Lower Stephens Meadow appear to

be caused by point impacts (e.g., a stock trail in Stephens Meadow that is capturing flow and a ditch in

shoestring draw) and these headcuts should be monitored for movement and potentially treated.

FIGURE 6. BARE GROUND IN SHOESTRING DRAW (LEFT) AND LITTLE ANTELOPE VALLEY (RIGHT). A HIGH VEGETATION SCORE INDICATES THAT

GRAMINOIDS DOMINATE THE VEGETATION COVER.

FIGURE 7 HEADCUTS IN SHOESTRING DRAW (LEFT) AND LOWER STEPHENS MEADOW (RIGHT). BOTH APPEAR TO BE CAUSED BY POINT

IMPACTS. NONE OF THESE HEADCUTS CAPTURES APPRECIABLE FLOW, SO THE RATE OF SPREAD MAY BE LOW. CATTLE WILL BE ROUTED

AROUND THE HEADCUT AREA IN STEPHENS MEADOW BEGINNING IN 2016.


Page 12

Encroachment

Encroachment is evident in Stephens Meadows and the expansion of pines has concentrated cattle in

the area of the headcuts shown in Figure 7. Conifers were removed from this area in 2015, and brush

was placed to disperse the cattle from the headcuts. Pine expansion is also evident into McCoy Flat.

However, encroachment is not within the area currently occupied by meadow vegetation (Figure 8).

Norman and Taylor document pine expansion into other flats within the watershed, although the area

converted to forest is upland sage, rather than meadow area.

By far the largest encroachment of upland plants into meadow areas is the presumed sagebrush

expansion due to dewatering of the meadows (Young 1989, Platts and Jensen 1991). We were

unable to find evidence to quantify the extent of sagebrush expansion. However, dewatering is likely

most substantial in meadows with incised channels and extensive gullies or ditches (Table 1).

PRIORITIES

Since 1987, the Pine Creek CRMP has been successfully advancing projects to improve watershed

conditions. Since the formation of the CRMP, at least three studies have evaluated restoration

opportunities in the watershed (Young 1989, Platts and Jensen 1991, Pustejovsky 2007). Pustejovsky

(2007) states the initial goals of the CRMP, which remain unchanged:

Improve vegetative cover in the Pine Creek watershed

Improve the streambank stability of Pine Creek

Raise the streambed and water table in the drainage and spread out peak flows in

Pine Creek

Restore the natural Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout fishery in Pine Creek

Improve wildlife habitat along Pine Creek

Reduce nutrient and sediment loading into Eagle Lake from Pine Creek

Maintain grazing and timber management

FIGURE 8. STAND DENSITY HAS INCREASED IN AND AROUND MCCOY FLAT BETWEEN 1941 (LEFT) AND 2014 (RIGHT). NO ENCROACHMENT

HAS OCCURRED INTO THE CURRENT MEADOW AREA (GREEN POLYGONS) DEFINED AS THE AREA DOMINATED BY HERBACEOUS VEGETATION.


Page 13

Meet goals in a coordinated effort with all affected parties

Recently, the publication of the Conservation Agreement for the Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout (2015) and

new state funding initiatives, including Proposition 1, have intensified restoration efforts in the

watershed with a focus on improving stream flows and spawning conditions for Eagle Lake rainbow

trout.

Members of the Pine Creek CRMP met multiple times in 2015, including field visits, to identify priorities

and goals for restoration at individual meadows. The CRMP and Lassen National Forest have an

extensive list of watershed improvement projects that will remove berms, diversions, ditches and

waterholes that affect flow in Pine Creek. Planned projects will also treat conifer encroachment along

meadow fringes. NEPA is complete for these projects. The projects have been included in the

Conservation Strategy for Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout and partners have united to submit multiple funding

proposals to state agency grant programs for implementation.

In addition, three near-term projects were identified as a result of the assessment effort. Cattle will be

diverted around the headcutting trail in Stephens Meadow, and the Lassen Lands and Trails Trust will

monitor recovery of the headcut. In a much larger effort, Todd Sloat Biological Consulting will prepare

designs for restoration in Confluence Meadow and Logan Springs. The restoration goal is to raise the

grade of the incised channel to reconnect flows with the historic floodplain.

American Rivers will also monitor the movement of the headcuts in Shoestring Draw and McCoy Flat. If

the headcuts appear to be threating the upstream meadow, we will evaluate treatment options.

INFLUENCE OF BEAVER

We observed beaver activity at three places in the watershed: near McKenzie Cow Camp, above

Logan Springs, and in the aspen stands near Corbin Crossing. There was no sign of recent activity, but

above Highway 44 we counted 13 remnant beaver dams. If meadow restoration in Confluence and

Logan Springs is successful and riparian shrubs return, we may see beaver activity at these sites.

Currently, beaver dams above Highway 44 are breached by the California Department of Fish and

Wildlife to enable Eagle Lake rainbow trout migration.

For many years beaver dams were also removed to benefit salmon in the Pacific Northwest. However,

Pollock et al (2004) others demonstrated that dams were seldom a migration barrier and provided a

net benefit to Coho by improving rearing habit. As a result, beaver management has changed for

Coho. We think it wise to reevaluate the effect of beavers in the upper watershed, particularly before

there is a possibility of conflict in restored meadows downstream.

CONCLUSION

In the Pine Creek watershed, incision is the largest impact below Pine Creek Valley—in Logan Spring,

Confluence Meadow, Champs, McCoy, and at Corbin Crossing. Logan Spring and Confluence Meadow

have areas of intact vegetation that will facilitate restoration. The terraces in Champs and McCoy Flats

are dominated by sagebrush, and there is very little meadow vegetation near the channel to stabilize

restoration activities. For this reason, the project team identified Logan Spring and Confluence


Page 14

Meadow as top candidates for restoration actions that will raise the channel bed and re-water the

meadow floodplain.

Upstream of Confluence Meadow, the primary meadow and stream impacts are berms, diversions,

road and railroad grades and impoundments. These are areas of concentrated impact to flow in Pine

Creek and sources of sediment. The Pine Creek CRMP and Lassen National Forest have long-standing

goals for watershed improvement and a list of priority projects developed by at least three studies

conducted prior to our assessment effort.

The next steps by partners will be to: 1) design projects to re-water Logan Spring and Confluence

meadow; 2) Remove diversions and impoundments that are already identified; 3) Monitor the

advancement of headcuts and repair them, if needed; and 4) Develop management recommendations

for meadow areas with excessive bare ground.

The Pine Creek Watershed is a special place with a long history of collaborative restoration and

stewardship led by the Pine Creek CRMP and Eagle Lake Ranger District. Partner capacity is

expanding in the region, so this is a great time to identify new projects and to move forward

previously-identified projects that will enhance the watershed and provide multiple benefits to fish,

wildlife and people.


Page 15

REFERENCES

American Rivers. 2012. “Evaluating and Prioritizing Meadow Restoration in the Sierra.” Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, BD Snyder, and JB Stribling. 1999. “Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in

Streams and Wadeable Rivers.” USEPA, Washington. Burton, T.A., S.J. Smith, and E.R. Crowley. 2011. “MIM Protocol BLM.” California Department of Fish and Wildlife, USDA Forest Service, and US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015.

“Conservation Agreement for the Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout,” 53. Fryjoff-Hung, A., and J. Viers. 2012. “Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 1.0).”

Center for Watershed Sciences, UC Davis. Loheide, S.P., R.S. Deitchman, D.J. Cooper, E.C. Wolf, C.T. Hammersmark, and J.D. Lundquist. 2009. “A

Framework for Understanding the Hydroecology of Impacted Wet Meadows in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges, California, USA.” Hydrogeology Journal 17 (1): 229–46.

NFWF. 2010. “Business Plan: Sierra Nevada Meadow Restoration.” National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Norman, Steven P., and Alan H. Taylor. 2005. “Pine Forest Expansion along a Forest-Meadow Ecotone in

Northeastern California, USA.” Forest Ecology and Management 215 (1): 51–68. Platts, W. S., and S. Jensen. 1991. “Pine Creek Assessment.” Report prepared for the Eagle Lake Ranger

District, Lassen National Forest. Pustejovsky, Teresa. 2007. “A Conservation Plan for Pine Creek and Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout.” Lassen

County Resource Advisory Council. Susanville, CA, 90. Ratliff, R.D. 1985. Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of California: State of Knowledge. Vol. 84. US Dept. of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service, and USDA-NRCS. 1998. “A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning

Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas Tech. Rep. 1737‐15.” Wood, S.H. 1975. “Holocene Stratigraphy and Chronology of Mountain Meadows, Sierra Nevada,

California.” Young, S. 1989. “Pine Creek Watershed Report.” Eagle Lake Ranger District, Lassen National Forest.

university of california, davis - pine creek … lake-pine creek...pine creek meadow assessment page...

Documents