Little Last Chance TAC Meeting Notes

May 2, 2006

Attendees: Ted Ramelli, landowner; Don Guidici, landowner; Mark Dotta, landowner; Bill Dickens, DWR Water Master; Dennis Heiman, RWQCB; Todd Hillaire & Kevin Pond, DWR; Dan Martynn, NRCS; Joe Hoffman & Dave Seiler, USFS; John Hafen & Tim Kurdupski, Trout Unlimited; Leslie Mink, Gia Martynn, & Jim Wilcox, FRCRM

Discussion Points:

1. Visited Guidici Ranch, Leslie gave everyone an overview of the project. The project is located on a one-mile segment of Little Last Chance Creek that winds in and out of the boundary between Plumas National Forest and the Guidici Ranch. The project is just downstream of a Forest Service campground, and about three miles up from Chilcoot on the Frenchman Lake Road. The channel is confined in a gully on the west side of the valley. An adequate floodplain has formed within the gully. However, vegetation, pre-dam deposition, and the existing topography have created a more resistant forested west side of the gully, while the east side is composed primarily of highly erodible alluvial silt. The difference in erodibility has created an actively eroding east side bank 11 feet high, which is contributing to finger gully formation in the meadow. Without treatment, the channel would be expected to continue to migrate to the east until it hits a resistant layer or something else that would develop an angle of repose on which vegetation could become established that equals the vegetative resistance on the west side of the gully. This process would likely erode many acres of meadow and contribute several hundred thousand tons of soil to downstream areas before equilibrium is reached. The concept for restoration would lay back banks, vegetate, and maintain the direction of the flow away from the banks with boulder vanes. Treatment has been identified for the east bank in 11 locations, and the west bank in two locations, totaling 134 boulder vanes. Each vane will consist of approximately 10 cubic yards of 3-foot minus rock. The treatment would halt this source of erosion, and direct the energy of flowing water into controlled vertical bed scour (i.e. pool maintenance) rather than the existing horizontal bank scour. One of the west bank locations is threatening the FS 23N07 road, with active scouring less than 10’ from the road prism. Treatment of that bank will protect the road from further erosion. Please see map showing identified treatment areas. It should also be noted that while this project can be implemented wholly on its own, it is part of a larger project on Little Last Chance Creek. If the RAC funds this project, it will allow the FR-CRM to use those monies as match for a Prop. 40 grant application. Noted that coming down canyon from Frenchman Lake the water was clear, but once we got to the project site it was very turbid. Sediment supply is coming from Guidici project area. As we were looking at one of the cut banks, a large chunk of bank and sagebrush fell into the creek. See photo below.

2. Talked with Water Master about options for diverting water during construction. Landowner’s below need their deliveries. Bill said they are more likely to be willing to forgo deliveries later than earlier. Pumping water may be an option. One problem is there aren’t any other channels to divert the water into. One possibility may be the ranch below Simon’s property, the DNS Ranch, might be able to divert the water into the other main channel (East Creek?). Most of the water used later in the season is for stock watering versus irrigation, but some ranchers may be irrigating as late as October. Another possibility is to wait until November to start construction, pending weather conditions.
3. John asked about grazing management post project. All landowners have agreed to fence off project area for 2-3 years of non-use to allow vegetation recovery.
4. Bill said 2 cfs is maintained for fish; however, nothing is left by the time it reaches the Middle Fork.
5. Downstream of the Guidici project, the project area starts at the splitter dam (divides the water into an east and north branch) and ends at Hwy. 70. Treatment is proposed on both branches, and would involve putting riffles in the channel to raise the base level (similar to Big Flat project). A total of 4 miles of channel would be treated, with riffles every 200 feet for a total of about 200 riffles.
6. Mark and Ted expressed their concerns with allowing flows to access the floodplain. Concerned that frequent flooding would impact landowners downstream of the highway. They do not want the channel spilling out onto the floodplain frequently. Leslie and Jim explained that at current flows, after the riffles were installed the water level would be just at the top of the channel. Based on flow records, spilling over onto the floodplain would probably not occur more than once every ten years. Maximum flows are 100 cfs for deliveries.
7. Questions asked: Is the original channel area under the proposed conceptual design (50 sq. ft.) adequate to handle high flows? Do we know how much sediment is coming from the Guidici project area versus the downstream reach? Leslie stated we could get some idea from turbidity measurements taken above and below the splitter dam. (??)
8. The committee asked the landowners what the purposes of the levies were along the channel. Ted said they hold back the tail water from irrigation dropping back into the channel causing erosion and to hold the irrigation water on the fields.
9. Landowner objectives are to increase irrigation efficiency, raise the channel level so vegetation along the banks can get established, and stop bank erosion.
10. Landowners are working with NRCS to fence off floodplain (70 feet on either side of the creek) and replacing diversion dams. It was noted that diversion dams might need head gates if landowners don’t want the water accessing the floodplain.
11. Dennis questioned the public benefit if we are not restoring the function of the floodplain and can we justify using public funds for this project. Leslie said one of the objectives in the Prop. 40 grant was improvement of irrigation efficiency. She felt the project had many public benefits including water quality and erosion control.

12. Landowners expressed their nervousness with people doing plant and wildlife surveys on their property. Afraid they might find an endangered plant or animal and shut down their ranching operation. Leslie assured them that the information gathered would not go anywhere without their consent. All environmental survey work is being funded by a landowner.

Eroding bank on Guidici Ranch. May 2, 2006