______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group
Special Aquatic Habitats Monitoring Report - 2007
Prepared 12 December 2007
by Colin Dillingham, HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader and with input from Ken Roby, Almanor Ranger
District Fisheries Biologist; Andrew Breibart, Lassen NF Hydrologist; and Fred Levitan, Mt Hough RD
Hydrologist (detailed).
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to document findings of the monitoring efforts accomplished between 2002
and 2007 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
goal was to determine if special habitats are identified during planning and protected according to
Scientific Analysis Team guidelines during implementation. The following question was addressed.
Question 10: Are springs, seeps, and other small aquatic habitats protected during project
activities?
The question was broken down into two parts.
a) Presence/Absence – Were all special aquatic habitats identified during project planning, or
were additional features found during random unit sampling (i.e. missed during project
planning)? The goal of the field survey is to verify presence or absence of special aquatic
habitats.
b) Disturbance – Were all identified special aquatic habitats protected during project
implementation? Determine the number and types of identified special aquatic habitats.
Find the recommended control measures from the NEPA documentation and Scientific
Analysis Team guidelines. Conduct a field survey and make a determination if they have
met the required protection measures.
Protection Measures (from HFQLG FEIS page 5-4)
300 feet on perennial fish bearing streams and lakes
150 feet on perennial non-fish bearing streams, ponds, wetlands and lakes
100 feet on intermittent and ephemeral streams, wetlands less than 1 acre
Sample Sizes
An annual sample size of 30 units was used to answer each of the two parts of question 10; (30 units
for presence/absence sampling and 30 units for disturbance monitoring). Sixty units were monitored
annually from 2002 through 2005 (Tables 1, 2). Because the monitoring indicated that special aquatic
habitats were being adequately protected, the sample size was reduced from 60 units in the monitoring
z Page 2
April 3, 2008
plan down to 45 units in 2006 and 19 units in 2007. No further sampling is recommended because the
sample size is large enough to answer this monitoring question.
Sample Pools
Sample pools were developed annually. All units treated during the previous fiscal year were put into
the pool. From 2002 to 2005, 30 units were randomly selected for presence/absence sampling. To
answer the disturbance question, a different pool of units was developed for all units treated the
previous fiscal year that contained springs, seeps, meadows, fens or headwater streams. A random
sample of 30 units was selected from this pool annually between 2002 and 2005. In 2006 and 2007,
fewer units were selected due to higher monitoring priorities.
RESULTS
In 2007, fourteen evaluations were conducted on selected units to determine if any special aquatic
habitats (springs, seeps, or other small aquatic habitats) were present that had not been identified
during the NEPA planning process. No unidentified special aquatic habitats were discovered (Table
1). Five evaluations were conducted in 2007 to assess if special aquatic habitats were protected as
planned (Table 2).
Table 1. Monitoring results to determine if special aquatic habitats were present in treatment
units that were not identified during the NEPA process.
Year
Number of Treatment
Units Monitored
2002
30
Number of special aquatic
features not identified during
the NEPA process discovered
during monitoring effort
0
2003
30
0
2004
30
0
2005
30
0
2006
24
0
2007
14
0
Total
158
0
Table 2. Monitoring results to determine if prescribed management occurred in identified
special aquatic habitats.
Year
2002
Number Special Habitats
monitored
30
Percent of Special Habitats
successfully protected
100%
2003
30
100%
2004
30
100%
2005
30
100%
2006
21
100%
2007
5
100%*
Total
141
100%
z Page 3
April 3, 2008
* - Four of 5 sites monitored had no treatment buffers protected through implementation phase.
However, during 2007 five-year post-treatment evaluations, it was determined that the untreated
riparian zones had burned during 2006 and 2007 wildfires and had crown consuming wildfire events
that eliminated the canopy in the riparian zones. Plots in adjacent treated units retained canopy
(Antelope-Border units).
KEY FINDINGS
Question 10: Are springs, seeps, and other small aquatic habitats protected during project
activities?
All aquatic habitats were protected during project activities as planned from 2002 to 2007. Wildfires in
2001, 2006 and 2007 affected riparian zones in the Antelope-Border project, as well as the Hungry
DFPZ, North Antelope DFPZ, Poison DFPZ and Stony DFPZ. “No treatment” prescriptions in the
Antelope-Border DFPZ riparian zones contributed to stand replacing wildfire events. Such events
include the Stream Fire, which burned 5,000 acres in 2001; the Boulder Complex, which burned 3,000
acres in 2006; the Antelope-Complex, which burned 23,420 acres in 2007 and the Moonlight Fire which
burned 65,000 acres in 2007. Cumulatively there were approximately 9,146 acres of riparian habitat
consumed between 2001 and 2007; roughly as 5,500 acres burned in Moonlight, 1,500 acres
burned in the Antelope Complex, 1,400 acres burned in the Boulder/Hungry fires, and 1,000
acres burned in the Stream Fire (there were some acres burned in more than one fire).
Management prescriptions were changed after the Antelope-border project which allowed limited entry
into the riparian zones in an effort to prevent stand replacing fire severity during wildfire events.