HFQLG MONITORING
STREAM CONDITION INVENTORY (SCI) SUMMARY 2006
I. Introduction: This report summarizes data collected from streams throughout the
Herger-Feinstein QLG program area during 2006. Data was collected to address
questions 18 and 19 of the HFQLG monitoring plan. These questions are intended to
track the trend of selected channel attributes in a series of reference streams, and to
compare changes in selected attributes before and after implementation of HFQLG
project activities. Streams were monitored between June 15 and September 22 and are
listed in Table 1. Stream reaches were selected to evaluate conditions before and after
projects, and at a series of reference reaches whose purpose is to assess year to year
variability. A typical pre-project reach is depicted in Figure 4. In addition, three reaches
(one on each forest) were selected for repeat measurement in 2006, to assess variability
associated with the monitoring protocols. Results from all streams monitored in 2006 are
summarized in Appendix A.
Stream
3rd Water Creek
4th Water Creek
Clarks Creek
Cottonwood Creek
Moonlight Creek
Pineleaf Creek
SF Feather River
SF Rock Creek
Willow Creek
Summit Creek
Colby Creek
Rock Creek
Domingo Creek
Roxie Peconom
Rice Creek
Beaver Creek
Bonta Creek
Perazzo Creek
Pass Creek (reach 1)
Pass Creek (reach 2)
Davies Creek
Independence Creek
Merrill Creek
Rice Canyon
Dark Canyon
Little Truckee River
Forest
Plumas
Plumas
Plumas
Plumas
Plumas
Plumas
Plumas
Plumas
Plumas
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
Tahoe
Tahoe
Tahoe
Tahoe
Tahoe
Tahoe
Tahoe
Tahoe
Tahoe
Tahoe
Purpose
Pre-Project
Pre-Project
Post-Project
Post- Project
Pre-Project
Pre-Project
Reference
Post-Project
Reference
Post Project
Pre-Project
Reference
Pre-Project
Post-Project
Reference
Post-Project
Pre-Project
Pre-Project
Pre-Project
Pre-Project
Post-Project
Post-Project
Post-Project
Pre-Project
Pre-Project
Pre-Project
Table 1. Streams surveyed in 2006 for HFQLG stream monitoring
1
HFQLG 2006 Stream Monitoring Report
Project
Meadow Valley
Meadow Valley
Stoney Ridge GS
Last Chance DFPZ
Diamond
Meadow Valley
NA
Stream Restoration
NA
Mineral
Jonesville DFPZ
NA
Warner DFPZ
Southside DFPZ
NA
Pittville DFPZ
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Davies Fst Health
Liberty DFPZ
Scraps DFPZ
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
II. Methods
Crews on the Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National Forest utilized the Region Five Stream
Condition Inventory (SCI) protocols, including the macroinvertebrate protocols, to
collect stream reach data. The protocol includes measurement of channel parameters
important in classifying and assessing relative condition of channel morphology, fish
habitat and water quality. The attributes measured included channel length, channel
gradient, channel bankfull width to depth, channel substrate particle size distribution (at
four riffles), entrenchment, residual pool depth, pool tail substrate surface fines, shade,
bank stability, bank angle, stream shore depth, and large wood. Bank angle and stream
shore depth are measured only at response channels (typically, channels of less than two
percent channel slope with fine textured channel banks). Stream macroinvertebrates were
also collected at each site, and water temperature was measured throughout the summer
with recording thermographs.
In 2006, V* (Lisle and Hilton, 1992) was measured at two stream reaches (Colby, 3rd
Water Creek) prior to implementation of HFQLG activities. V* is a measure of the
amount of pool volume occupied by sediment. The measure was added because sediment
is of particular interest in the monitoring of HFQLG activities. V* should provide
additional evidence of change in support of standard SCI measurements.
Training was provided for all field crews during June of 2006 at a two day session on the
Plumas NF. Reaches for pre-project, post-project comparisons were selected by
watershed and aquatic resource specialists on each unit, with the intent of selecting
reaches in watersheds with the highest concentration of HFQLG activities. Reference
streams were selected by resource specialists from each Forest at the time the HFQLG
monitoring plan was developed. The list of reference streams was revised in 2005 based
on results from repeat sampling of the streams.
III. Results
A. Within-Year Repeat Sites (QAQC)
Crews on each of the three National Forests repeated one stream reach in 2006 to assist in
assessing the measurement variability associated with the sampling protocols. Bonta
Creek (Tahoe NF), SF Rock Creek (Plumas NF) and Domingo Creek (Lassen NF) were
sampled twice during the field season. Results from these paired monitoring efforts are
provided in appendix B, and discussed briefly here. Overall, sample variability was low.
Particular attention was paid to the three measures of sediment in the channel, because an
increase in sediment delivery is typically the primary concern with HFQLG project
impacts on aquatic systems. Results from the three parameters used to assess changes in
sediment (percent of pool tail fines, percent of the particle count less than 2mm, and
residual pool depth) are displayed in Figure 1. Differences between the two samplings are
low for all three streams. Increased erosion and sediment delivery from projects would be
expected to increase pool tail fines, and the percentage of the particle count less than
2
HFQLG 2006 Stream Monitoring Report
2mm. Increased sediment delivery might also increase deposition in pools, thereby
reducing residual pool depth. All three changes (increased fines, increase in particles
<2mm and decreased residual pool depth) are considered detrimental to aquatic
condition.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
% pool tail fines
% <2mm
SF Rock
2
SF Rock
1
Domingo
2
Domingo
1
Bonta 2
Res Pool Depth
(mx10)
Bonta 1
%fines, rpd m(x10
QAQC repeat survey results: sediment
Figure 1. Results for sediment measurements from repeated survey reaches
Similarly low differences in the paired samplings were found for nearly all attributes,
including bank stability. Bank stability measurements had shown the greatest amount of
difference between paired samples in previous years. The greatest amount of difference
between samplings occurred for shade measurements in Bonta Creek. Data for bank
stability and shade for the three streams with repeated surveys in 2006 are shown in
Figure 2.
3
HFQLG 2006 Stream Monitoring Report
QAQC repeat survey results: shade and bank
stability
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
shade (%)
SF Rock
2
SF Rock
1
Domingo
2
Domingo
1
Bonta 2
Bonta 1
stability (%)
Figure 2. Results for shade and bank stability measurements from repeated survey
reaches
B. Repeated Reference Reaches
The HFQLG monitoring plan calls for repeated survey of streams from watersheds with
relatively low levels of watershed and streamside disturbance. The intent of this re-survey
is to provide a gauge for natural variation in the attributes measured. The streams used to
assess this reference variability was revised in 2005, based on results from repeat
sampling, and is discussed in detail in the 2005 report (USDA, 2005). Sampling of
streams on the revised list was continued in 2006, and resulted in measurement of four
streams classed as reference. Results from these streams, along with data from previous
surveys of the reaches, are provided in Appendix C. A representative reference stream
(Rice Creek) is shown if Figure 6.
Creek
SF Feather
Willow
Rice
Rock
Percent Pool Tail Fines
initial
5.5
4.4
4
55.3
2006
2.4
0.4
2
24.6
% particles <2mm
initial
2006
2
90
2
34
3.8
40.9
0.4
7
Res. Pool Depth (m)
initial
0.75
0.48
0.54
0.34
2006
0.7
0.51
0.55
0.33
Table 2. Results from repeated reference reaches, indicators of sediment in the channel
As with the QAQC discussion above, attention is given to attributes intended to assess
sediment in the stream channel, due to the importance of these attributes in assessing
project effects. In general, results are consistent between years, but there are a few
differences of note. Rock Creek showed lower pool tail fines and fewer particles in the
2mm fraction over the sampling period, though residual pool depths remained the same.
4
HFQLG 2006 Stream Monitoring Report
Willow Creek also showed a large change in the percentage of the particle count in the
<2mm size fraction. This change is at least partially due to different particle count
procedures used in the two sampling efforts.
C. Pre-Post Treatment Comparisons
The 2006 monitoring effort includes nine comparisons of stream condition as assessed by
the SCI protocols before and after implementation of HFQLG activities. Eight of the
comparisons monitored vegetation and fuels management projects, the other assessed
changes due to a riparian improvement projects. Pre-project data was collected from 2000
to 2005. Each project is briefly described and results summarized below. Because
increases in sediment from project activities are a primary concern, focus of the
evaluation is on the three measures most closely linked to sediment in the channel
(percent pool tail fines, percent of the particle count <2mm, and residual pool depths). It
should be noted that protocol for the particle count changed in some cases between pre
and post treatment sampling. Results for pre and post project sampling for the three
measures is summarized in Table 3.
Creek
Percent Pool Tail Fines
% particles <2mm
Res. Pool Depth (m)
pre
post
pre
post
pre
post
Summit
3.8
19.7
4.9
0
0.28
0.31
Roxie Peconum
44
17.8
16
2.6
0.19
0.28
Merrill
dry
73.8
11.1
32.5
dry
0.32
Beaver
16.7
21.4
23
0.2
0.24
0.54
Davies
22
20.7
17
12.2
0.07
0.36
Independence*
11.7
3.2
7.1
6.7
0.51
0.54
SF Rock**
7.9
3.4
10
2.6
0.66
0.84
Cottonwood
40.5
dry
21
3.8
0.24
dry
Clarks
39.6
34.6
17
5.1
0.54
Table 3. Results from pre and post project comparisons from ten project sampled in 2006.
0.34
* Pre-project data from 2000 is shown for Independence Creek. Data from 2005 is included in appendices.
** Pre-project data from 2002 is shown for SF Rock Creek. Data from 1998 is included in appendices.
Summit Creek (Battle DFPZ project, Lassen NF)
This stream reach is located on a tributary to Battle Creek on the Almanor RD. Preproject sampling was conducted in 2003. 61 acres of DFPZ treatments were conducted in
two units above the stream reach in 2005. A wide no treatment RHCA was maintained
between the treatments and Summit Creek. On-site BMP evaluations of both units in
2006 found no evidence of sediment transport to the RHCA. Storms in the winter of
2005-06 did cause serious erosion and sediment delivery to Summit Creek from road
29N64, including a failure of the road channel crossing just upstream of the monitoring
reach.
5
HFQLG 2006 Stream Monitoring Report
Though there was essentially no difference in either the particle count (4.9 % in 2003,
and 0% in 2006) or residual pool depth (mean of 0.28m in 2003 and 0.31m in 2006),
sediment as measured by pool tail fines (3.8% in 2003, 19.7% in 2006) was considerably
higher in the post-project survey. Overall the result indicates slightly higher sediment
delivery post-project, with the failure of road 29N64 the likely cause. The creek and
crossing are shown in Figure 8.
Roxie Peconum Creek (South Side DFPZ project, Lassen NF)
The monitoring reach is located on the Eagle Lake RD, on a tributary to the Susan River.
Pre-project sampling was conducted in 2002. The reach lies in close proximity to a 97.5
acre DFPZ unit that included biomass treatment. A road (29N03C) is located between the
treatment unit and the creek. The RHCA between the road and the creek was not treated.
None of the measures of sediment show increases in the post-project sampling. In fact, all
indicate less sediment in the post-treatment survey. There are no notable differences in
any of the other attributes measured. The monitoring reach is shown in Figure 7.
Beaver Creek (Pittville Project, Lassen NF)
Beaver Creek is a tributary to Fall River. The sample reach is located approximately a
half mile downstream of units treated as part of the Pittville project. Pre-project sampling
was conducted in 2000. This site also serves to establish pre-project conditions to
evaluate the effect of nearby unit 13 (202 acres) of the Blacks DFPZ project, which will
probably be treated in 2006.
Both residual pool depth and the particle count (%, 2mm) indicate lower sediment in
channel post treatment. The percent of fines is slightly higher (21.4 vs. 16.7%) in the
post-treatment monitoring. In total, the results do not show a clear change in sediment
post-project. Measures of other attributes were similar in the two sampling periods,
except channel stability (97% stable in 2000, 79% stable in 2006).
Merril Creek (Scraps DFPZ Project, Tahoe NF)
This monitoring reach is located on the mainstem of Merril Creek, immediately upstream
of the crossing of the Henness Pass Road (#860). Pre-project sampling was conducted in
2000, with post-project sampling occurring in 2006. Between 2001-2006 approximately
250 acres of mechanical thinning occurred upstream or adjacent to the survey reach;
approximately 15 acres of the treatment occurred within the perennial RHCA of Merril
Creek and its tributaries, and 2 acres within the RHCAs of Merril Creek seasonal
tributaries. In general, a wide no treatment RHCA protected both perennial and seasonal
streams from project activities. Project activities implemented in 2006 occurred after
completion of the survey. In addition, a watershed restoration project occurred upstream
of this reach during 2006, also after completion of the survey. A few small-scale road
improvement projects have occurred over the last few years upstream of this reach.
6
HFQLG 2006 Stream Monitoring Report
Note: Portions of units within this watershed were implemented under the Davies Forest
Health Project, rather than the Scraps DFPZ Project.
Results from this pre-post treatment comparison are limited because the creek was dry
during the initial survey in 2000. In addition, though particle counts were collected in
both years, the methods used were different, so comparison of this data is confounded.
Channel width to depth remained essentially unchanged between 2000 and 2006, but
channel stability and shade were lower in 2006. It does appear that Merril Creek has high
levels of pool tail surface fines (73.8%), especially given the steep channel gradient (6%),
though these measurements were taken from only 3 pools. Given the uncertainty with
these results, it is recommended that the reach be re-surveyed in 2007, using both the
current protocols, and replicating the Bevenger particle count procedure.
Davies Creek (Davis Forest Health Project, Tahoe NF)
This monitoring reach is located on the mainstem of Davies Creek, approximately 1.5
miles south of Sardine Peak. This project was developed before HFQLG, but
implemented during the span of HFQLG. Between 2003-2006 approximately 300 acres
of mechanical thinning occurred upstream or adjacent to the survey reach. Approximately
10 acres of the treatment occurred within the perennial RHCA of Davies Creek, and 5
acres within the RHCA of seasonal portions of Davies Creek and its tributaries. In
general, a wide no treatment RHCA separated both perennial and seasonal streams from
the majority of the project activities.
A large watershed restoration project occurred in the immediate vicinity of this reach
during 2006. Numerous in-stream modifications probably render this reach unsuitable
for future monitoring use.
Portions of the watershed were affected by the Cottonwood fire of 1994. Pre-project
sampling was conducted in 2001, with post-project sampling occurring in 2006. Portions
of the habitat monitoring attributes (particle counts) were collected using different
methods between the two surveys, creating difficulties in accurately comparing the 2001
and 2006 data.
None of the attributes linked to sediment indicate more sediment in the post-project
survey. In fact, residual pool depth is considerable greater in 2006 than in the 2001
survey. This may be due to scour from the high flow events of 2005-2006.
Independence Creek (Liberty DFPZ Project Project, Tahoe NF)
This monitoring reach is located on the mainstem of Independence Creek, approximately
1.5 miles upstream of the Little Truckee River confluence. The upstream end of the
reach is located at the crossing of a major forest road, FS road 07-10. Pre-project
sampling was conducted in 2000. Post-project sampling was conducted in 2005 and
2006. The primary purpose of the 2006 survey was to gain information on possible
habitat changes resulting from the flood event of December 2005. Between 2001-2005
7
HFQLG 2006 Stream Monitoring Report
approximately 650 acres of mechanical thinning, some incorporating group selection,
occurred upstream or adjacent to the survey reach; approximately 10 acres of the
treatment occurred within the RHCA of a perennial tributary upstream of the survey
reach. In general, a wide no treatment zone near both perennial and seasonal streams
excluded the vast majority of activity within RHCAs. Between 2002-2005,
approximately 420 acres of grapple piling occurred upstream or adjacent to the
monitoring reach, usually overlapping existing thinning units; approximately 5 acres of
the treatment occurred within the RHCA of a perennial tributary upstream of the survey
reach. In addition, a number of piles were burned between 2001-2005, all or most of
which occurred outside of RHCAs. Numerous small-scale road improvement projects
have been implemented in this watershed within the past five years.
Comparison of pool tail fines, particle count <2mm and residual pool depth between the
2002 and 2006 surveys essentially show no changes over the sampling period. Percent
fines was moderately low (11%) relative to other HFQLG streams in 2002, and was
slightly lower in 2006. Portion of the particle count <2mm and residual pool depth were
very similar in the two surveys.
Data from 2005 (pre-flood) is very similar to the 2002 and 2006 results. Percent of the
particle count <2mm is slightly higher in 2005 than the other two years (see Figure 3),
but the pool tail fines and residual pool depth do not follow the same pattern.
Independence Creek
60
50
40
02
05
30
06
20
10
0
% Pool Tail Fines
% Particle Count
<2mm
Res Pl Depth (mx100)
Figure 3. Results from selected attributes from Independence Creek, 2002-06
SF Rock Creek (@Deanes Valley) (Riparian Restoration, Plumas NF)
SF Rock Creek is a tributary to Spanish Creek. The sensitive reach length was surveyed
pre-project in both 1998 and 2002. The 2002 data represents the pre-project condition
8
HFQLG 2006 Stream Monitoring Report
summarized in Table 2. Both survey results are included in the appendices. Originally the
reach was 580 meters in length. The reach was shortened to 313 meters in 2006 due to
upstream restoration project realigning the drainage at the top of the reach. The fact that a
shorter reach was surveyed may explain some of the differences between the 2002 and
2006 results.
In the early fall of 2005 the reach above the bridge was realigned to re-slope an area
disturbed by OHV use and to prevent further erosion of the stream bank. Twelve vortex
weirs and LWD were placed to create pool habitat and riffles. Affected channel banks
were treated with erosion cloth and planted with propagated willows, sedges and rushes.
Upper banks were seeded and mulched. A sediment pond was constructed below the
bridge to catch the turbid water from the project implementation. Due to the heavy rain
on snow event on December 31st, 2005 the drainage realigned again, and most of the
erosion cloth and propagated plants were lost including the mulch and seed.
In addition to the restoration project, other activities have recently been implemented
upstream of the monitoring reach that could conceivably influence results. These include
the Waters 2 Project. This project included hand thinning of the riparian habitat
conservation area (RHCA) from the bridge at the 23N68/24N28 intersection to
approximately 2.5 miles upstream of the SCI reach (approximately 10.5 acres). In
addition implementation of the Meadow Valley project began in 2006 and 3 acres of
Group Selection occurred within the sub watershed above the South Fork Rock Creek.
Comparison of pre and post project data shows a slight reduction in all measures of
sediment. Of note is the increase in residual pool depth. This may be the result of
sampling fewer pools in what was the lower portion of the existing survey reach. In any
case, there does not appear to have been a long-term increase in sediment as a result of
either the restoration activities, realignment of the restored channel as a result of the
2005-06 runoff events, or activities in the watershed above the reach.
Cottonwood Creek (Last Chance GS/DFPZ Project, Plumas NF)
In the fall of 2004 through 2005 approximately 22 acres of Group Select units, 264 acres
of DFPZ (biomass/hand thin/GS) and 276 acres of under burn were completed in the
Stoney Creek HUC 6 watershed above the Cottonwood Creek SCI reach.
Pre-project data was collected in 2004. The creek was dry at the time of the 2006
sampling, so comparison of pre and post treatment conditions is limited. The single
measure of sediment (% particle count <2mm) consistent between the two surveys
showed a smaller fraction (21% in 2004 vs. 3.8% in 2006) in the second survey.
Clarks Creek (Stoney Ridge GS/DFPZ Project, Plumas NF)
In 2005 seventy-eight acres of Group Select units, 325 acres of DFPZ (mechanical thin
and under burn) and 538 acres of under burn were completed by a Timber Sale Contract
in the Clark’s Creek HUC 6 watershed above the Clark’s Creek SCI reach.
9
HFQLG 2006 Stream Monitoring Report
Pre-project survey was conducted in 2003. Post treatment results are mixed in terms of
changes in sediment. The 2006 measurements show a reduction in % particles <2mm, a
slight reduction in pool tail fines, and a substantial reduction in residual pool depth. The
reductions in pool depth are consistent across the reach. The deepest pools lost the most
depth between 2003 and 2006, but almost all pools were shallower, indicating an increase
in sediment deposition. These results warrant further investigation to see if changes were
the result of channel changing flows in 2005-06, or may be tied to treatments in the
watershed. Other measures do not indicate a downward trend in condition, as channel
width to depth, stability and shade are all slightly improved in 2006 vs. 2003. Figure 5 is
a photograph of Clarks Creek in the monitoring reach.
IV. Recommendations
Add measurement of discharge at time of sampling to better judge best time for repeat
sampling. This is especially of concern during early summer of wet years such as 2006.
Repeat the post-project survey in Merrill Creek, using both current and 2000 particle
count protocols so a better comparison of pre-post conditions can be made.
Visit Clarks Creek to investigate the reduction in pool depths between 2003 and 2006.
Changes in the SCI protocols for particle counts make comparisons difficult, in the
future, duplicate the original methodology, in addition to sampling with the current 400
count, to provide for increased ability to compare reaches over time.
V. Key Findings
Comparisons of reaches monitored before and after implementation of HFQLG projects
indicates a lack of adverse impacts. Eight vegetation treatments were monitored.
Sediment from one measure (pool tail fines) was increased substantially in Summit
Creek. The increase in sediment at this site appeared to be the result of increased road
erosion upstream of the site, rather than from the vegetation treatments. The other
vegetation and fuels projects monitored result in either no changes to sediment, or
reduced in-channel sediment as measured by the selected attributes.
Reaches downstream of two riparian restoration projects showed no substantial changes
in selected attributes following implementation of the project.
Within year variability of attributes measured was quite low for all attributes measured,
except stream shading as measured by the Tahoe crew on Bonta Creek.
Between year variability between reference streams was low for most attributes in most
of the five streams where repeat measurements were taken in 2006. Two notable
exceptions were pool tail fines measurements from Rock Creek (Lassen NF) and particle
10
HFQLG 2006 Stream Monitoring Report
count (<2mm) measurements from Willow Creek (Plumas NF), which were substantially
lower in the 2006 sample.
VI. References:
Lisle, Thomas E.; Hilton, Sue. 1992. The volume of fine sediment in pools: An index of
sediment supply in gravel-bed streams. Water Resources Bulletin 28(2): 371-383
USDA. 2005. HFLQG Monitoring, Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) Summary, 2005.
HFQLG Monitoring Report. 8pp.
Prepared By
Ken Roby
Fisheries Biologist, Lassen NF
Tina Hopkins
Fisheries Biologist, Plumas NF
Debra Urich
Fisheries Biologist, Tahoe NF
Chris Mease
Fisheries Biologist, Tahoe NF
Elina Lin
Biological Technician, Plumas NF
11
HFQLG 2006 Stream Monitoring Report
Figure 4. 3rd Water Creek, a pre-treatment monitoring reach on Plumas NF.
Figure 5. Clarks Creek, Plumas NF, this reach showed relatively high amounts of sediment in the channel
in pre and post treatment surveys, with lower pool depths in 2006
Figure 6. Rice Ceek, a reference reach, Lassen NF
Figure 7. Roxie Peconum Creek, Lassen NF Forest. No substantial differences were detected in this creek between
surveys in 2002 and 2006.
Figure 8. Summit Creek, Lassen NF. Increased pool fines were detected in the monitoring reach located a short
distance below this road crossing failure.
Appendix D: Data Summary for HFQLG Pre-Post Treatment Stream Monitoring, 2006
Stream
Name
Summit 03
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
Summit 05
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
Roxie
Peconum 02
Mean
Range
Number
Sensitive
Particle
Number of
Reach
Number of Key
Count %
LWD Key
Length
of Aggs Pieces in
< 2mm
pieces / 100 m
Aggs
(m)
712
163
22.8
4
22
D50
4.9
36.9
Wolman
304
Wolman
304
630.3
163
22.8
3
18
0
401
UNC
14.4
7.9-19.3
nd
3
41.1
401
2.7
1.2-3.8
30
2.88
2.57-5.80
202
16
202
Wolman
3
2.6
46.3
0.28
0.18-.49
3.8
0-14
% Shade
3
26
78
0.31
.21-.58
19.7
0-66
46
4
64.3
24-95
26
39
100
46
50
44.0
3.0-100
41
69
29-97
37
100
50
8
26
1.2
1.1-2.0
11.6
10.0-23.3
12.5
10.0-23.3
0.19
0.10-0.38
6
3
6
13
Stream
Shore
Depth
(m)
64
37-83
26
3
Bank
Angle
100
51
50
1000.0
83
8
1
5
Mean
1000
99
20
46
482
4
0
0
24
0
0
13
1
4.3
2.7
13.1
17.1
0.28
17.8
86.4
3.6-4.7
1.1-5.5
10.9-15.3
10.9-19.3
0.16-.055
0-92
63-100
3
8
3
8
18
18
2
54
1.1
5.05
1.96
33.4
dry
dry
dry
Bevenger
100
3
Range
Merril 00
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
Merril 06
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
2.6
1.9-3.6
26.8
24.4
21.1-29.1 10.15-40.7
n
Count or %
Roxie Pea 06
n
Count or %
%
W:D Ratio
Residual Wood % Pool
%
Entrench (Monumen W:D Ratio Pool Depth formed Tail Surf Stable
Gradient
ts)
(m)
Pools
Fines
Banks
Wolman
385
Wolman
385
32.5
20.3
Wolman
400
Wolman
400
6.06
6.04-6.1
3
3
unc
3.8-unc
8
34.5
17.7-45.2
3
100
37
98
100
58.9
17.7-153
8
0.32
0.31-0.34
3
3
1
73.8
0-100
9
70
100
59.6
6-100
50
37.4
2-90
50
158.8
90-180
100
0
0
Appendix D: Data Summary for HFQLG Pre-Post Treatment Stream Monitoring, 2006
Stream
Name
Beaver 00
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
Beaver 06
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
Davies Creek
01
Mean
Range
Number
Sensitive
Particle
Number of
Reach
Number of Key
Count %
LWD Key
Length
of Aggs Pieces in
< 2mm
pieces / 100 m
Aggs
(m)
23
438
438
13
0
0
0
0
24.0
Bevenger Bevenger
100
100
0.2
20.3
Wolman
408
Wolman
408
1.0
0.3-2.1
3
3.7
1.7-6.3
8
26.7
11.8-35.6
3
17.4
8.4-35.6
8
0.24
.06-.6
22
1.2
0.9-1.6
3
3.6
2.7-5.4
8
13.3
9.6-18.7
3
14.8
8.9-18.7
8
0.54
0.17-0.75
25
1.33
0.70-2.34
1.7
1.2-2.8
13.9
10.3-18.9
22.5
10.3-40.9
0.07
0.00-0.60
3
8
3
8
4
1
16.7
0-46
66
1
21.4
0-60
66
100
97
100
79
% Shade
Bank
Angle
Stream
Shore
Depth
(m)
46.5
21-74
50
52.3
20-78
50
1234.5
Bevenger
38
n
Count or %
Davies 06
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
16
D50
%
W:D Ratio
Residual Wood % Pool
%
Entrench (Monumen W:D Ratio Pool Depth formed Tail Surf Stable
Gradient
ts)
(m)
Pools
Fines
Banks
89
0.4
16
0
1
0
5
1402.8
17
22
0-100
48
0
12.2
45.0
2.22
9
1.37-3.37 3.1-18.6
Wolman
379
Wolman
379
3
7.10
68.50
2.00
1.0-3.3
3
13.6
7.8-18.2
14.1
7.8-18.2
0.36
0.15-0.76
8
3
8
38
>3
17.7
6.6-30
3.0
15.80
6.6-30
8
0.51
0.31-0.98
8
27
0-92
45
36
20.7
0-100
38
3
114
100
39
50
45
20
21.9
0-100
156.8
125-180
50
100
Independence
Creek 2000
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
Independence
Creek 2005
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
Independence
06
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
675.00
674.00
649
147
21.80
23.10
36
12.00
10.00
3
81.00
56.00
92
Bevenger Bevenger
99
99
13.80
74.60
Wolman
457
Wolman
457
6.7
77.0
Wolman
401
Wolman
401
8
11.70
0-66
24
0
1.74
0.8-3.1
3
>3
7
12.1
8.7-15.1
3.0
12.70
8.7-16.8
8
0.51
.28-1.01
13
3.70
0-22
39
5
1.73
5.3
1.14-2.66 1.2-10.2
3
8
14.5
13.9-14.9
20.7
13.9-32.2
0.54
0.3-1.2
3
8
10
100
87
100
49
3.2
0-32
10
2
30
100
4
28.40
6-88
50
108.80
40-170
100
0.26
.2-.35
44.00
39.70
10-86
50
115.20
30-170
100
0.19
.02-.65
43.00
45.6
13-88
123.0
40-170
0.21
0.1-0.35
50
100
27
Appendix D: Data Summary for HFQLG Pre-Post Treatment Stream Monitoring, 2006
Stream
Name
SF Rock 02
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
SF Rock 98
Mean
Range
Number
Sensitive
Particle
Number of
Reach
Number of Key
Count %
LWD Key
Length
of Aggs Pieces in
< 2mm
pieces / 100 m
Aggs
(m)
580
46
8
0
199
10
0.97
0.80-1.85
1.7
1.0-3.9
32.2
12.7-66.5
36.5
12.7-88.6
0.66
0.22-1.29
199
Wolman
3
6
3
6
13
Stream
Shore
Depth
(m)
7.9
0.0-20.0
36
55
20-98
149
0.44
0.13-0.90
39
100
50
100
7
58
19-96
147.74
42.0-175
0.02
0-.54
3
1.43
3.16
1.07-2.05 1.86-5.82
n
Count or %
313.1
Cottonwood
04
Mean
Range
1281.4
10.5
5
28
6
N/A
7.984669435
3
18
2.261307
23.5
25.3
14.3444.03
1.01
.81-1.40
n=24
1.02
0.01-1.97
2.9
1.2-5.3
19.81
11.8131.31
35.92
2.0-86.0
1
0.45
0.27-1.76
7
6.5
3.4
0-14
0
15
n
Count or %
Cottonwood
06
Mean
Range
225
29
1
12
206
21
206
Wolman
1.56
1.98
7.89
13.35
1.29-2.86 1.49-4.71 9.95-11.27 9.03-42.40
3
6
3
7
0.24
0.2-0.37
12
n/a
0.098716683
0
0
3.816794
25.4
0.81
0.18-1.68
2.6
1.4-5.4
16.7
9-22.7
12
7
n/a
59
13-100
136.36
0.27
40-175 0.03-0.65
40
40.5
17.3-100
70
79
12-100
131
0.09
0.02-0.35
30
47
47
47
24
8
0-47
143.95
45-175
dry
surveyed
35
18
0-78
155
.16
0-.38
100
50
100
4
45
14-95
146.05
40-175
0.21667
0.08-0.4
n/a
stream was
surveyed
dry
3
56
1013
1477.9
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
Clarks 06
Mean
Range
40
% Shade
Bank
Angle
580
n
Count or %
SF Rock 06
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
Clarks 03
0
D50
%
W:D Ratio
Residual Wood % Pool
%
Entrench (Monumen W:D Ratio Pool Depth formed Tail Surf Stable
Gradient
ts)
(m)
Pools
Fines
Banks
3
0
0
0
401
17
5.797680928
4
26
5.050505
21
1.38
.74-2.4
4.34
1.00-7.75
301
Wolman
3
8
0.84
4.9
0.61-1.16 1.8-18.7
19.15
16.3824.23
3
13.7
8.01-24.5
23.51
.54
13.5-71.36 0.00-1.00
8
38
0.36
0.18-0.88
0
0
40
39.57
.00100.00
111
34.97
0-100
n
Count or %
40
1000.4
36.21
32
0