Vegetation Management Solutions
875 Mitchell Avenue
Oroville, CA 95965
(530)532-7454
A Forest Service Enterprise
Fax. (530)532-1210
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group
Special Aquatic Habitats Monitoring Report - 2006
Prepared 25 November 2006 by Colin Dillingham, VMS Enterprise Team Ecologist
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to document findings of the monitoring efforts accomplished in 2006 on the
Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National Forests in the HFQLG Pilot Project Area. The intent of the
monitoring was to determine if special aquatic habitats are being recognized during project planning
and also if they are being protected or managed as planned. This annual monitoring is required under
the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG).
METHODS
The methodology described in the Feb 18, 2005 version of the HFQLG Monitoring Plan was used. The
following question was addressed.
Implementation Monitoring Question
Question 10: Are springs, seeps, and other small aquatic habitats protected during project
activities?
Sample Sizes
The results from past years efforts indicate that special aquatic habitats are being successfully
protected. Therefore, a large sample size was deemed unnecessary. The sample size was reduced
from 60 units in the monitoring plan down to 45 units in 2006.
Sample Pools
Because of successful protection of special aquatic habitats and partially due to monetary constraints,
unique sample pools to answer this question were not developed in 2006. Instead, units that were
randomly selected to answer other monitoring questions were also used to answer question 10.
Twenty-four units were examined to determine if special aquatic habitats were present that weren’t
identified in the NEPA process and 21 units were examined to ensure protection measures were
implemented as planned.
United States Department of Agriculture
z Page 2
October 8, 2007
RESULTS
Evaluations were conducted on selected units for springs, seeps, or other small aquatic habitats.
Disturbance evaluations concluded that all 21 special aquatic habitats monitored were protected as
planned (Table 1, 2). A second group of units was examined to determine whether any special aquatic
habitats were present that had not been identified during the NEPA planning process. No units
examined had special aquatic features (Table 3).
Table 1. Monitoring results of Special Aquatic Habitats in the HFQLG Pilot Project area
Year
2005
Number Special Habitats
monitored
30
Percent of Special Habitats
successfully protected
100%
2006
21
100%
Table 2. Monitoring results of disturbance surveys in the HFQLG Pilot Project area.
Project Name
Bosque
Bosque
Camino
Battle
Battle
Jonesville
Jonesville
District
Sierraville
Sierraville
Sierraville
Almanor
Almanor
Almanor
Almanor
Unit
6
7
72
77
105
95
95
Bidwell
Kybos
North Crater West
North Crater West
Blacks Ridge
Blacks Ridge
Cabin
South Station
South Station
Crystal Adams
Crystal Adams
Eagle Lake
Eagle Lake
Eagle Lake
Eagle Lake
Hat Creek
Hat Creek
Hat Creek
Hat Creek
Hat Creek
Beckwourth
Beckwourth
62
21
97
135
25
26
26
7
75
12
36
Mabie
Brush Creek
Hungry
Beckwourth
Feather River
Mt Hough
121
21
9
Habitat
Type
Protected?
RHCA
Yes
RHCA
Yes
RHCA
Yes
RHCA
Yes
RHCA
Yes
Fen
Yes
Spring
Yes
Aspen
Yes
Meadow
Meadow
Yes
Vernal Pool
Yes
Vernal Pool
Yes
Lake
Yes
Lake
Yes
Spring
Yes
RHCA
Yes
RHCA
Yes
RHCA
Yes
RHCA
Yes
Aspen
Yes
Meadow
RHCA
Yes
Spring
Yes
z Page 3
October 8, 2007
Table 3. Monitoring results of presence/absence surveys in the HFQLG Pilot Project area.
Project Name
Toro
Camino
Camino
Battle DFPZ
Prattville
Bizz DFPZ
Bizz DFPZ
Kybos DFPZ
Kybos DFPZ
Blacks Ridge DFPZ
North Coble DFPZ
North Coble GS
Pittville
Buck Underburn
Buck Underburn
Stony GS
Stony GS
Brush Creek DFPZ
Brush Creek DFPZ
Brush Creek DFPZ
Brush Creek DFPZ
Snake GS
Snake GS
Deanes DFPZ
District
Sierraville
Sierraville
Sierraville
Almanor
Almanor
Eagle Lake
Eagle Lake
Eagle Lake
Eagle Lake
Hat Creek
Hat Creek
Hat Creek
Hat Creek
Beckwourth
Beckwourth
Beckwourth
Beckwourth
Feather River
Feather River
Feather River
Feather River
Mt Hough
Mt Hough
Mt Hough
Unit
44
66
55
96
32D
482
484
252
253
28
43-58
96
27-84
1
2
56
89
24
31
36
132
213
237
28
Aquatic
Habitat
found?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
KEY FINDINGS
Question 10: Are springs, seeps, and other small aquatic habitats protected during project
activities?
Twenty-one special aquatic habitats were monitored to determine if they received adequate protection
during project implementation. All aquatic habitats were protected during project activities.