HFQLG MONITORING
STREAM CONDITION INVENTORY (SCI)
CUMULATIVE REPORT
JANUARY 31, 2013
Chris Mayes
Fisheries Biologist, Lassen National Forest
Ken Roby
Fisheries Biologist, Lassen National Forest (retired)
Executive Summary
Thirty-one streams in the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) program area were
monitored to assess effects of ground-disturbing HFQLG project activities. Both physical and
biological attributes of stream conditions were monitored from 1997 through 2012. Physical and
biological attributes of stream conditions were monitored before and after implementation of
sixteen vegetation management projects, five aspen enhancement projects, four road
decommissioning watershed improvement projects, and four meadow improvement projects. The
sampling strategy also included monitoring of reference streams from largely unmanaged
watersheds. Monitoring started in 1997 and was conducted through 2012. Wildfires in two
previously sampled watersheds provided an opportunity to assess changes following the fires.
Vegetation Management
Sixteen streams were selected to monitor the effects of vegetation management activities upon
physical and biological stream attributes. Activities which would fall under this category include
DFPZ treatments, area thinning, and mastication treatments, among others. Since these actions
typically take place beyond 100 feet from stream channels, the primary concern regarding the
aforementioned activities is sediment delivery to nearby streams. In general, the vegetation
management activities had little to no effect upon stream sedimentation, stream shade or
macroinvertebrate communities. This finding is consistent with HFQLG BMP monitoring, which
found BMPs implemented to prevent erosion were effective in meeting their on-site objectives
(Mitchell-Bruker, 2011).
Aspen Enhancement
Five streams were selected to monitor the effects of aspen enhancement activities. Attributes
measured included channel substrate sediment, stream channel shading, water temperature, and
macroinvertebrate assemblages. Since most aspen enhancement activities take place very close
to stream channels, reductions in stream channel shade immediately following project
implementation are usually expected. Reductions in shade were observed on three of the five
streams selected for monitoring, with Lower Pine Creek exhibiting the greatest reduction in
shade. Water temperature monitoring on Lower Pine Creek showed an increase of approximately
six degrees F in mean water temperature following project activities. However, further analysis
of Lower Pine Creek water and air temperatures did not find evidence that the reduction in
stream channel shade was the sole cause for increased water temperatures. Sediment metrics did
not increase following implementation of aspen enhancement activities, and macroinvertebrate
assemblages did not exhibit significant changes from pre-project conditions.
Near-Stream Road/Culvert Decommissioning
Four streams were monitored to assess effects of near-stream road decommissioning and/or
culvert removal upon physical and biological stream attributes. Two of the three streams
monitored (Scotts John Creek and Jones Creek) showed significant increases in pool tail
sediment following project implementation. Both of these streams had roads decommissioned
adjacent to the monitoring reach. Although the significant increase in pool tail sediment
ii
appeared to adversely affect macroinvertebrate communities immediately following project
implementation, these communities appeared to recover two years after project implementation.
Stream/Meadow Enhancement
Four streams were selected to monitor the effects of in-channel restoration activities. Two of the
streams (South Fork Rock Creek and Little Last Chance Creek) were the site of improvement
activities that included ground-disturbing activities within the stream channel and along its
banks. The other two streams (Red Clover Creek and the Little Truckee River) were selected to
monitor the effects of pond-and-plug improvement activities, which involve use of mechanical
equipment within riparian areas and manipulation of historic stream channels. South Fork Rock
Creek, Little Last Chance Creek, and Red Clover Creek did not exhibit any adverse effects
pertaining to sedimentation or stream channel shading.
The Little Truckee River saw a
significant increase in pool tail sedimentation (from 3 percent pre-project to 38 percent postproject) as a result of failed earthen plugs.
Wildfires
Two streams (Cub Creek and Moonlight Creek) were used to monitor the effects of large
wildfires which burned within their respective watersheds. Significant declines in stream
channel shading and increases in pool tail sedimentation were observed immediately following
wildfire activity, particularly on Moonlight Creek. Channel shade is recovering on both streams,
as deciduous plant species return to riparian areas originally occupied by conifers. Stream
temperatures increased by approximately 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit following the Cub Fire. This
increase in temperature was statistically significant. No significant changes in stream
temperatures were observed in Moonlight Creek following the Moonlight Fire. Sediment levels
in Cub Creek remain above pre-fire conditions since the Cub Fire burned in the watershed in
2008. Sediment levels in Moonlight Creek appear to have returned to pre-fire levels two years
after the Moonlight Fire burned 99 percent of the watershed. Fire effects in Cub Creek resulted
in a significant decline in macroinvertebrate metrics, likely a result of sediment filling in
interstitial spaces in the stream bed and altering the habitat in favor of sediment-preferring
macroinvertebrate groups. Macroinvertebrate communities in Moonlight Creek were not as
affected by sedimentation, likely due to levels of substrate sediment returning to pre-fire
conditions two years after the Moonlight Fire.
iii
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Methods........................................................................................................................................... 3
Physical Stream Attributes .......................................................................................................... 3
Macroinvertebrates ..................................................................................................................... 5
Stream Temperature .................................................................................................................... 6
Results of Pre- and Post-Project Monitoring .................................................................................. 7
Vegetation Management ............................................................................................................. 7
Louse Creek ............................................................................................................................ 9
Roxie Peconom Creek............................................................................................................. 9
Hat Creek .............................................................................................................................. 10
Domingo Creek ..................................................................................................................... 11
Upper Butte Creek ................................................................................................................ 12
Summit Creek ....................................................................................................................... 12
Willow Creek ........................................................................................................................ 14
Beaver Creek ......................................................................................................................... 15
North Carmen Creek ............................................................................................................. 16
Third Water Creek ................................................................................................................ 17
Pineleaf Creek ....................................................................................................................... 17
Fourth Water Creek............................................................................................................... 20
Bonta Creek .......................................................................................................................... 22
Dark Canyon ......................................................................................................................... 22
Independence Creek .............................................................................................................. 23
Smithneck Creek ................................................................................................................... 25
Aspen Enhancement.................................................................................................................. 25
Lower Pine Creek ................................................................................................................. 27
South Fork Bailey Creek ....................................................................................................... 31
Trosi Creek............................................................................................................................ 32
Rock Creek............................................................................................................................ 33
Jones Valley Creek ............................................................................................................... 34
Near-Stream Road / Culvert Decommissioning ....................................................................... 35
Scotts John Creek.................................................................................................................. 36
Jones Creek ........................................................................................................................... 38
Rocky Gulch ......................................................................................................................... 39
iv
Panther Creek ........................................................................................................................ 40
Stream / Meadow Improvement................................................................................................ 41
South Fork Rock Creek ......................................................................................................... 42
Red Clover Creek .................................................................................................................. 43
Little Last Chance Creek ...................................................................................................... 45
Little Truckee River .............................................................................................................. 45
Wildfires ................................................................................................................................... 47
Cub Creek ............................................................................................................................. 48
Moonlight Creek ................................................................................................................... 51
Reference Streams ........................................................................................................................ 55
References ..................................................................................................................................... 57
Appendix A – Analysis of Reference Streams ............................................................................. 59
Appendix B – Stream Reach Maps ............................................................................................... 69
Appendix B1- Louse Creek ...................................................................................................... 70
Appendix B2- Roxie Peconom Creek ....................................................................................... 71
Appendix B3- Hat Creek .......................................................................................................... 72
Appendix B4- Domingo Creek ................................................................................................. 73
Appendix B5- Upper Butte Creek............................................................................................. 74
Appendix B6- Summit Creek.................................................................................................... 75
Appendix B7- Willow Creek .................................................................................................... 76
Appendix B8- Beaver Creek ..................................................................................................... 77
Appendix B9- North Carmen Creek (Mabie Project) ............................................................... 78
Appendix B10- Third Water Creek (Meadow Valley TS)........................................................ 79
Appendix B11- Pineleaf Creek (Guard TS) .............................................................................. 80
Appendix B12- Dark Canyon and Bonta Creeks (Phoenix TS) ............................................... 81
Appendix B13- Independence Creek (Liberty DFPZ) .............................................................. 82
Appendix B14- Smithneck Creek (Scraps DFPZ) .................................................................... 83
Appendix B15- Lower Pine Creek (McKenzie Aspen Enhancement) ..................................... 84
Appendix B16- South Fork Bailey Creek (Cabin Aspen Enhancement) .................................. 85
Appendix B17- Trosi and Rock Creeks (Bilabong Aspen Enhancement) ................................ 86
Appendix B18- Fourth Water Creek (Meadow Valley TS) ...................................................... 87
Appendix B19- Cub Creek........................................................................................................ 88
Appendix B20- Moonlight Creek (Moonlight Fire) ................................................................. 89
Appendix C- Stream Temperature Graphs ................................................................................... 90
v
Appendix C1- Louse Creek (Warner DFPZ) ............................................................................ 91
Appendix C2- Pineleaf Creek (Guard TS) ................................................................................ 92
Appendix C3- Fourth Water Creek (Meadow Valley TS) ........................................................ 93
Appendix C4- Lower Pine Creek (McKenzie Aspen Enhancement) ....................................... 94
Appendix C5- South Fork Bailey Creek (Cabin Aspen Enhancement) .................................... 95
Appendix C6- Rocky Gulch (road/culvert decommissioning) ................................................. 96
Appendix C7- Cub Creek (Cub Fire) ........................................................................................ 97
Appendix C8- Moonlight Creek (Moonlight Fire) ................................................................... 98
Appendix C9- Cottonwood Creek (Reference)......................................................................... 99
Appendix C10- Sagehen Creek (Reference) ........................................................................... 100
Appendix C11- Rock Creek (Reference) ................................................................................ 101
Appendix C12- Rice Creek (Reference) ................................................................................. 102
Appendix D – Summarized Stream Temperatures (Tabular Data) ............................................. 103
vi
Introduction
This report summarizes data collected from streams throughout the Herger-Feinstein Quincy
Library Group (HFQLG) program area from 1997 to 2012. Data was collected to address
Questions 18 and 19 of the HFQLG monitoring plan:
How do attributes (channel, riparian and macroinvertebrate assemblages) of streams in
the pilot project area change over time?
What is the trend in channel and riparian attributes and macroinvertebrate assemblages
in watersheds with the highest concentration of activities?
Reaches for pre-project, post-project comparisons were selected by watershed and aquatic
resource specialists on each unit (Lassen and Plumas National Forests, and Sierraville Ranger
District of Tahoe National Forest), with the intent of selecting reaches in watersheds with the
highest concentration of HFQLG activities. An example of stream reach location is shown in
Figure 1 below. Maps for vegetation treatments, aspen enhancement, and wildfires are provide
in Appendix B. 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
twice, and is further discussed in the reference stream section of this report. Monitoring results
from reference streams are presented and discussed in Appendix A of this report.
Figure 1. Map of the Hat Creek SCI monitoring reach and
adjacent Old Station WUI treatment units.
Streams selected for analysis (Fig 2) were divided into six groups, based on the HFQLG activity
(or activities) that occurred in the watershed upstream of the SCI reach. Categories were: 1)
vegetation management (i.e., DFPZs, area thinning, etc.), 2) aspen enhancement, 3) road/culvert
decommissioning, 4) stream/meadow improvement, 5) wildfires, and 6) reference streams.
Figure 2. Location of streams selected for HFQLG monitoring.
2
Methods
Physical Stream Attributes
Field crews on the Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National Forests utilized the Region Five Stream
Condition Inventory (SCI) (Frazier et. al., 2005) protocols (including the macroinvertebrate
protocols), to collect stream reach data. Stream Condition Inventory data collection began in
1997, with the SCI protocol undergoing five distinct revisions between 1997 and 2005. Most of
the changes were to measurement of channel substrate size distribution. The protocol includes
measurement of channel parameters important in classifying and assessing relative condition of
channel morphology, fish habitat, and water quality. Attributes summarized in this report
include:
•
•
•
•
Channel substrate particle size distribution: Entails counting 100 particles at each of four
riffles selected for macroinvertebrate sampling, in order to identify the dominant
substrate particle size within the monitoring reach. The measurement is also used to
detect changes in small diameter fractions (sediment) on the channel substrate.
Residual pool depth: Measured as the difference between a pool’s tail crest depth (the
deepest point in the channel cross-section at the downstream end of the pool) and the
maximum depth of the pool. Residual pool depth has less variability than actual pool
depths because it accounts for differences in water stage at the time of surveying.
Pool tail substrate surface fines: This measure quantifies the percentage of fine sediment
less than 2mm diameter on the pool tail substrate.
Shade: Stream channel shade is measured mid channel, facing south, at 50 evenly spaced
transects within the survey segment. Shade has a direct influence upon water
temperature, which has impacts on the health, behavior, and survival of aquatic
organisms.
Other SCI Attributes (data included in Attachment 1):
•
•
•
•
•
Channel length: Length, in meters, of the SCI monitoring reach on a stream. Most
monitoring reaches are about 1000 meters.
Channel gradient: The mean water surface gradient within the monitoring reach,
calculated by taking the average of three water surface gradient measurements (one at
each channel cross-section).
Channel bankfull width-to-depth: A key indicator of channel condition in response
stream reaches, a low width-to-depth ratio generally indicates good conditions for aquatic
flora and fauna and riparian vegetation.
Entrenchment: Defined as the ratio of flood prone width to bankfull width as measured at
twice the maximum bankfull depth. This measure is intended to quantify channel
confinement.
Bank angle: The measure of the dominant angle of the streambank between the bottom of
the bank and bankfull stage. Two bank angle measurements (one for left bank, one for
right bank) are taken at each of 50 evenly spaced transects across the survey segment.
3
•
•
Bank angle influences shading vegetation potential, and bank stability. Only measured
on low-gradient streams (<2%) with fine textured banks.
Stream shore depth: Two stream shore depths are measured at each of fifty transects
evenly spaced through the survey segment (one for left bank, one for right bank). This
attribute is an important indicator of channel morphology in low gradient streams.
In-channel large woody debris: A total count of all downed, large wood lying within the
sensitive reach that has some portion having within the bankfull width of the channel.
Large wood is defined as any wood that is longer than half the mean bankfull width of
the channel. In-channel wood influences channel width and meander patterns, provides
for storage of sediment and bedload, provides in-stream cover for fish, and is often most
important in pool formation in streams.
Bank angle and stream shore depth are measured only in response channels (typically, channels
of less than two percent channel slope with fine textured channel banks). Water temperatures
were measured at select sites throughout the summer with recording thermographs, and are
presented in this report where significant declines in stream channel shade were observed
following project activities.
In this report, analysis focuses on four attributes: channel substrate particle size distribution,
residual pool depth, pool tail surface fines, and shade. The first three attributes capture sediment
metrics. Sediment is the primary concern among HFQLG ground-disturbing activities.
Increases in fine sediment deposition have been shown to result in several deleterious effects on
benthic macroinvertebrates. Sediment deposition can reduce the volume of interstitial spaces
within the streambed. A study by Ryder (1989) found that a 12-17% increase in the interstitial
fine sediment of a relatively “sediment-free” substrate was associated with a 16-40% decrease in
the abundance of total invertebrates. Invertebrates that feed on periphyton were found to have a
reduction in feeding efficiency when fine sediment deposited on their food source (Ryan, 1991).
Even low levels of sediment deposition, while not directly harming benthic organisms, can result
in a sudden increase in the drift rate of benthic invertebrates, and in turn lead to a reduction in
benthic invertebrate densities (Ryder, 1989). Increased sediment deposition within a stream can
result in changes in community structure, often favoring sediment-tolerant taxa such as Dipterans
(true flies) and reducing the numbers of sediment-intolerant taxa such as Plecopterans
(stoneflies) and Ephemeropterans (mayflies) (Soroka and MacKenzie-Grieve, 1983).
The adverse effects of sediment deposition on salmonid egg and alevin survival have been welldocumented (Reiser and White, 1988; Kondolf, 2000; Opperman et al, 2004). When suspended
sediment settles on salmonid spawning gravel, it can fill interstitial spaces and subsequently
smother developing salmonid embryos. In addition, many salmonid species will not spawn in
gravels that have become silted (Alabaster and Lloyd, 1982).
As previously mentioned, stream channel shading is highly influential in regulating water
temperature. Thus, measurement of stream channel shade in SCI is useful in assessing the
potential effect near-stream vegetation management activities had on water temperature in the
monitoring reaches. Increased sunlight and energy reaching streams can also lead to an increase
in the primary productivity of the stream. Increases in primary productivity can directly impact
aquatic communities, including macroinvertebrates.
4
Data from pre-project and post project surveys were tested for statistical significance using an
unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test with alpha set at 0.1.
Macroinvertebrates
In addition to measuring physical stream attributes, field crews also collected macroinvertebrate
samples at most SCI monitoring reaches, following the SCI protocol. Approximately 8 square
feet of riffle bottom (two square feet from four separate riffles) was sampled in each monitoring
reach using either a Surber Sampler or D-net. Macroinvertebrates were preserved and later
identified by the National Aquatic Monitoring Center (a.k.a, the Bug Lab), a cooperative venture
between Utah State University and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The Bug Lab used
resulting taxa lists and abundance to generate numerous metrics of benthic community structure
pertinent to water quality assessment. Lassen National Forest fisheries biologists tested these
metrics to find which showed the greatest differences between reference and non-reference
streams, and used these results to develop a biotic index (also referred to as a biologic index) to
be used as a measure of overall stream health in the HFQLG project area. The biotic index (BI)
is comprised of four metrics: Shannon diversity index, percent of population consisting of
scrapers, percent of population consisting of the most dominant taxa, and EphemeropteraPlecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) taxa richness. Results from each stream were scored for each
metric and given ratings from one to five, with one considered “very poor” and five considered
“very healthy.” The BI is the sum of the ratings from the four metrics. The BI can range from a
minimum score of 4 (a very weak benthic community) to a maximum score of 20 (indicating a
very healthy benthic community).
The other primary metric used to describe the benthic community condition was the
Observed/Expected (O/E) score. O/E models compare the macroinvertebrate taxa observed at
sites of unknown biological condition (in this case, all HFQLG monitoring reaches) to the
assemblages expected to be found in the absence of anthropogenic stressors (collected from
reference streams across California). Given the physiographic diversity of California, separate
O/E models for three climatically unique regions have been developed for the state. An O/E
score of 1.0 would indicate that all macroinvertebrate taxa expected to occur there (when
compared with reference streams with comparable conditions) were identified, and would
indicate the stream is in “good” condition. Meanwhile, an O/E score of 0.5 would represent a
stream in “poor” condition, in which only 50 percent of expected taxa were found to occur. The
Bug Lab calculated O/E scores for each macroinvertebrate sample. The O/E score calculated
from a macroinvertebrate sample represents taxonomic “completeness” for the sampled stream.
BI and O/E scores do not necessarily have a direct correlation with one another.
We developed effects criteria for each of these metrics. For BI, we set a decline in the BI that
equaled a rating class (a score of 5) as threshold for a negative effect. Our threshold for
interpreting a negative effect in the O/E value was a decline of 10%. This value seems
conservative, as it is somewhat less than the range of .33 typically used to distinguish between
“healthy” (O/E of 1.0) and “fair” (O/E of .67) assemblages when interpreting O/E data from
many streams (versus before and after comparisons). Based on our evaluation of
macroinvertbrate data from reference streams, we believe O/E to be the stronger of the two
5
metrics. BI showed more variability between years in some reference streams than did O/E, and
so has more utility in comparing results from streams collected in different years. O/E scores are
based on the presence or absence of macroinvertebrate taxa, and are probably less influenced on
slight differences in sampling technique than the BI.
Stream Temperature
Water temperatures were a primary concern with HFQLG activities affecting streams, as
increased water temperatures can have deleterious effects upon cold-water aquatic communities.
Some HFQLG activities, such as aspen enhancement, involved the removal of conifers adjacent
to stream courses, which in turn may lead to increased sunlight penetration to streams and
potentially increased water temperatures.
Temperatures were recorded using portable thermographs, which were typically placed within a
SCI monitoring reach beginning in May or June and removed in September. Thermographs were
programmed to record water temperature at one-hour intervals. After retrieval of the
thermographs, water temperature data was streamlined by transforming raw data into a weekly
moving average. Since some years have higher air temperatures than others, air temperature data
was obtained from data collected by Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWS) located in
Chester, Quincy, and Sierraville, California. Air temperatures recorded from RAWS were then
compared with stream temperatures, using data from the RAWS closest to the stream in question.
If stream temperatures were higher and channel shade was lower after project implementation,
air and associated water temperatures for pre- and post-project years were compared using
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Results from ANCOVA were used to determine if the
increased water temperatures were the result of declines in stream channel shading following
project implementation or wildfire activity. In order to draw conclusions with this method of
analysis, ANCOVA assumes that the relationship between air and water temperature is not
significantly different before and after project implementation. If this relationship shows a
significant change between pre- and post-project years (in other words, if the slopes of the
regression equations are significantly different), then conclusions drawn from ANCOVA could
be false or misleading.
Effects of changes to water temperatures vary among vertebrate and invertebrate species. Lethal
temperatures for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) occur once temperatures exceed 23
degrees Celsius (73 degrees Fahrenheit) (Moyle, 2002). Rainbow trout are a native species
occurring in most of the streams within the HFQLG project area, so we looked for results where
stream temperatures exceeded 73 degrees Fahrenheit. Impacts to benthic macro-invertebrates
vary widely according to family and species, so temperatures of concern were not established.
Instead, macroinvertebrate indices (B.I. and O/E) were compared pre- and post-project to
determine if increased water temperatures (in combination with other changes) had negatively
affected macroinvertebrate communities.
Refer to Appendix C (graphs) and Appendix D (tabular) for summarized stream temperature data
collected from streams within the HFQLG project area.
6
Results of Pre- and Post-Project Monitoring
Vegetation Management
Monitoring stream conditions for potential effects from vegetation management covers a range
of activities, with ground-disturbing actions typically occurring upslope of streams and riparian
areas. Activities in this category include Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ, Figure 3)
treatments, area thinning, mastication treatments, and group selections. Since these HFQLG
activities typically took place further than 100 feet from stream channels, the primary concern
relative to water quality was sediment delivery to nearby streams. As a result, monitoring was
focused on attributes which would reflect sediment delivery and deposition into stream channels.
Physical attributes include percent pool tail fines, percent particles less than 2mm diameter found
in riffles, and residual pool depths. Both macroinvertebrate metrics (B.I. and O/E) would also be
affected by increased sedimentation; these metrics are presented where the physical stream
attributes reflected a significant increase in fine sediment following project activities.
Figure 3. Example of a Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ) constructed as part of the Diamond
Project. A handline was constructed through this DFPZ which was used to help contain the Moonlight
Fire in 2007.
To assess change, stream reaches were monitored before and after implementation of HFQLG
activities. Table 1 lists the HFQLG streams monitored to assess effects of vegetation
management activities on stream habitat conditions. Results are summarized in Table 2 and
discussed further in summaries for each stream. Refer to Appendix B for maps depicting
monitoring reach locations and treatment areas for streams listed in Table 1.
7
Table 1. HFQLG streams selected for monitoring the effects of vegetation management activities.
Pre-project data
Post-project data
Forest
Stream
Project Name
collection year
collection year
Lassen
Louse Creek
2004, 2008
2011
Warner DFPZ
Lassen
Roxie Peconom Creek
2002
2006
Southside DFPZ
Lassen
Hat Creek
2002, 2009
2010
Old Station WUI
Lassen
Domingo Creek
2006
2008
Warner DFPZ
Lassen
Upper Butte Creek
2000
2003
Cherry Hill DFPZ
Lassen
Summit Creek
2003
2006-2010
Battle DFPZ
Lassen
Willow Creek
2002
2008
Jonesville DFPZ
Lassen
Beaver Creek
2000
2006
Pittville DFPZ
Plumas
North Carmen Creek
2003
2007, 2009
Mabie Project
Plumas
Third Water Creek
2006
2008
Meadow Valley TS
Plumas
Pineleaf Creek
2002, 2006
2007, 2009
Guard TS
Plumas
Fourth Water Creek
2006
2007-2010
Meadow Valley TS
Tahoe
Bonta Creek
2006
2011
Phoenix TS
Tahoe
Independence Creek
2000
2005, 2006, 2009 Liberty DFPZ
Tahoe
Dark Canyon
2002, 2006
2011
Phoenix TS
Tahoe
Smithneck Creek
2002
2007
Scraps DFPZ
Table 2. HFQLG streams selected for monitoring the effects of vegetation management activities upon physical
stream attributes and macroinvertebrate metrics. Physical stream attributes were given a “Yes” designation if a
statistically significant (α = 0.10) increase in a channel substrate sediment attribute, or significant decrease in shade
was observed between pre- and post-project surveys. A “Yes” designation in macroinvertebrate metrics was given if
the BI decreased by a rating class or more (change in score of 5 or more) or if O/E decreased by more than 10%. For
both physical and macroinvertebrate attributes, “No” indicates no adverse change was detected. RPD = residual pool
depth, PTF = pool tail fines, BI = Biologic Index, O / E = Observed / Expected, n/a = not available. A “No”
designation for temperature indicates no significant difference following project implementation.
Attribute
Macroinvertebrates
Stream
Stream
Temperature
RPD
PTF
Shade
BI
O/E
Louse Creek
Roxie Peconom Creek
Hat Creek
Domingo Creek
Upper Butte Creek
Summit Creek
Willow Creek
Beaver Creek
North Carmen Creek
Third Water Creek
Pineleaf Creek
Fourth Water Creek
Bonta Creek
Independence Creek
Dark Canyon
Smithneck Creek
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
8
n/a
No
n/a
No
No
No
n/a
No
n/a
No
No
No
n/a
No
n/a
No
n/a
No
n/a
No
n/a
No
n/a
No
n/a
No
No
No
n/a
Yes
n/a
No
No
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No
n/a
No
No
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Louse Creek
Project: Warner DFPZ
Pre-project data collection: 2004, 2008
Post-project data collection: 2011
The Louse Creek SCI monitoring reach is located approximately 1 mile downstream of the
Warner DFPZ project area (see Appendix B1). Project activities included approximately 177
acres of mechanical thinning within the Louse Creek watershed downstream of Fleischmann
Lake and Cameron Meadow. No treatment was permitted within 300 feet of Louse Creek or
other perennial streams within the project area. Ephemeral channels within the project area were
given a 100 foot Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) buffer, with a 50 foot inner and 50
foot outer zone. Mechanical equipment was only allowed to enter and treat within the outer
RHCA of ephemeral channels, with a no-turning stipulation within the RHCA. No treatment
units were located adjacent to the SCI monitoring reach. Pre-project data was collected in 2004
and 2008. All treatment units within the Warner DFPZ Project were completed by 2010. Table
3 below summarizes SCI sediment-related attributes measured during pre- and post-project
surveys of the Louse Creek monitoring reach.
Table 3. Residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent particles less than 2mm in
diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Louse Creek SCI monitoring reach during pre-project (2004,
2008) and post-project (2011) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test (α = 0.1) was used to identify
significant differences between combined pre-project (2004, 2008) and post-project (2011) measurements. P-values
in bold indicate statistical significance.
Survey Year
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
% <2mm particles
2004 (pre)
0.27
4.8
5.0
2008 (pre)
0.27
2.2
0
2011 (post)
0.31
0.611
6.0
0.005
3.7
A statistically significant increase in pool tail fines was observed following project activities,
from approximately 2 percent to 6 percent (Table 3). Despite this increase in fines being
statistically significant, an increase of 4 percent is unlikely to be biologically significant, and
well within the range of natural variation found in transport-type reference streams. Additionally,
the other measures of sediment (residual pool depth and percent of particle count in sediment)
did not show changes consistent with an increase in sediment deposition.
Pre-project macroinvertebrate samples were collected in 2004 and 2008, but samples collected
post-project in 2011 were not analyzed in time for this report.
Roxie Peconom Creek
Project: Southside DFPZ
Pre-project data collection: 2002
Post-project data collection: 2006
Roxie Peconom Creek is a transport-type stream located on the Eagle Lake Ranger District of the
LNF. The SCI monitoring reach on Roxie Peconom Creek (see Appendix B2) is located
approximately 0.05 miles northeast (upstream) of the Southside DFPZ, which was completed in
2005. The DFPZ spanned approximately 97.5 acres, and included biomass thinning treatments.
9
A road (29N03C) is situated between the DFPZ unit and Roxie Peconom Creek. No treatments
occurred between the road and the creek. Thus, no changes to stream shade or water temperature
were expected and data analysis focused on changes in sediment loads within the stream channel.
No adverse effects upon stream channel sedimentation were observed following project
implementation. Significant declines in pool tail sediment and increases in residual pool depths
in 2006 were not the result of project activities. Macroinvertebrate indices showed a slight
increase in both BI and O/E in post-project compared to pre-pre project conditions. Pre- and
post-project data for Roxie Peconom Creek is given in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Stream channel shade, residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent particles
less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Roxie Peconom Creek SCI monitoring reach
during pre-project (2002) and post-project (2006) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test (α = 0.1)
was used to identify significant differences between pre-project (2002) and post-project (2006) measurements. Pvalues in bold indicate statistical significance.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2002 (pre)
68.6
0.20
43.8
2.8
2006 (post)
86.4
<0.001
0.26
0.042
17.8
<0.001
2.6
Hat Creek
Project: Old Station Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)
Pre-project data collection: 2002, 2009
Post-project data collection: 2010
Hat Creek is located within the Hat Creek Ranger District of the Lassen National Forest. The
SCI reach is located upstream of Big Pine Campground on Upper Hat Creek. This area of Hat
Creek is a moderate-gradient, transport-type stream. Upper Hat Creek was located within the
Old Station WUI project area (see Appendix B3). Project activities included 1,649 acres of
brush mastication and conifer thinning, with 436 of those acres within the RHCAs of Hat and
Lost creeks (Lost Creek is a tributary of Hat Creek). The Old Station WUI project was
completed in FY2010. Within the RHCA, trees designated as bank stability trees were left
standing. Equipment was only allowed within the RHCA with a straight in and straight out, no
turning stipulation.
Pre-project data was collected in 2009. At that time, most of the pools measured in the SCI
reach were man-made (apparently by recreationists) with small dams consisting of cobbles and
small boulders. High flows during the spring of 2010 wiped out most of the dams and pools.
Only two pools remained for measurements during the post-project survey of 2010. Therefore,
analysis of pre- and post-project data involving pools is limited. Focus here is placed on other
measurements, namely stream shade and bank stability. Table 5 below summarizes SCI data
collected from the Hat Creek monitoring reach before and after project implementation.
10
Table 5. Stream channel shade (% shade), residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent
particles less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Hat Creek SCI monitoring reach during
pre-project (2002, 2009) and post-project (2010) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test (α = 0.1)
was used to identify significant differences between the combined pre- (2002, 2009) and post-project (2010)
measurements. P-values in bold indicate statistical significance.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2002 (pre)
36.0
0.45
17.8
2.0
2009 (pre)
55.1
0.65
2.4
2.3
2010 (post)
48.6
0.274
0.60
0.748
1.7
0.002
3.5
There were no significant declines in stream channel shading in the Hat Creek monitoring reach
following implementation of the Old Station W.U.I. project (Table 5). A significant decline in
pool tail fines was observed in 2010 when compared to data collected in 2002 and 2009, yet this
decline is unlikely to be due to HFQLG project activities.
Domingo Creek
Project: Warner DFPZ
Pre-project data collection: 2006
Post-project data collection: 2008
Domingo Creek is a response-type stream that is a tributary of the North Fork Feather River,
northwest of Lake Almanor. Stream flows are supported primarily by Domingo Springs, which
is considered the headwaters of Domingo Creek. The SCI monitoring reach on Domingo Creek
is located immediately downstream of, and adjacent to, approximately 86 acres of DFPZ
treatment (see Appendix B4). These treatments were completed in 2007. Pre- and post-project
stream channel shade and sediment values are given in Table 6 below.
Table 6. Stream channel shade, residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent particles
less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Domingo Creek SCI monitoring reach during
pre-project (2006) and post-project (2008) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test (α = 0.1) was
used to identify significant differences between pre-project (2006) and post-project (2008) measurements. P-values
in bold indicate statistical significance.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2006
72.0
0.36
2.0
0.5
2008
68.4
0.204
0.21
0.006
3.1
0.211
3.5
A significant decline in residual pool depths was observed following project implementation
(Table 6). However, pool tail fines values and percent particles less than 2mm diameter in riffles
remained unchanged from pre-project conditions. If the decline in residual pool depths was the
result of increased sediment input, then one would also expect to see increases in fine sediment
within pool tails and in riffles. Therefore, it is unclear as to what caused the decline in residual
pool depths within the Domingo Creek monitoring reach.
Pre-post comparison of macroinvertebrate metrics showed no change in the BI and only a slight
decrease (<10%) in the O/E score.
11
Upper Butte Creek
Project: Cherry Hill DFPZ
Pre-project data collection: 2000
Post-project data collection: 2003
Upper Butte Creek is a transport-type stream with a relatively low gradient (approximately 2
percent). The Upper Butte Creek SCI monitoring reach is located 0.15 miles south of
approximately 23 acres of DFPZ treatments implemented as part of the Cherry Hill project (see
Appendix B5). Data for the Upper Butte Creek monitoring reach is presented in Table 7 below.
Table 7. Stream channel shade, residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent particles
less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Upper Butte Creek SCI monitoring reach during
pre-project (2000) and post-project (2003) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test (α = 0.1) was
used to identify significant differences between pre-project (2000) and post-project (2003) measurements. P-values
in bold indicate statistical significance.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2000
71.4
0.25
57.9
15.7
2003
77.1
0.106
0.22
0.456
37.8
0.003
6.0
Post-project surveys in 2003 indicated no adverse effects to stream channel sedimentation
resulting from project activities. Pre-project data showed Upper Butte Creek contained relatively
high amounts of fine sediment, particularly when compared to other LNF streams of similar size
and gradient. Pool tail fines in Upper Butte Creek averaged approximately 57.9 percent during
pre-project conditions, and 37.8 percent during post-project conditions. Percent of particles less
than 2mm diameter in riffles saw a similar decline following project activities. No changes in
residual pool depths were observed. Thus, the data indicate that implementation of the Cherry
Hill DFPZ project adjacent to Upper Butte Creek had no effect upon sediment delivery to the
stream. There was a slight increase in BI post-project. O/E scores were not calculated for this
stream.
Summit Creek
Project: Battle DFPZ
Pre-project data collection: 2003
Post-project data collection: 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010
Summit Creek is a tributary of Battle Creek. The SCI reach on Summit Creek is located
approximately 2.2 miles upstream of Summit Creek’s confluence with Battle Creek (see
Appendix B6). Pre-project sampling was conducted in 2003. There were 61 acres of DFPZ
treatments conducted in two units above the stream reach in 2005. A 200 foot no-treatment
buffer 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 resulted in serious erosion and sediment delivery to Summit Creek from FS Road
29N64, including the failure of a road crossing approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the
monitoring reach. Table 8 below summarizes sediment, residual pool depth, and stream channel
shade data collected over one year of pre-project and five years of post-project surveys.
12
Table 8. Pre- and post-project mean values for pool tail fines, percent of the particle count less than 2mm, residual
pool depth, and percent shade for the Summit Creek monitoring reach. P-values were obtained using an unpaired,
unequal variance student’s t-test (α = 0.1). Values in bold indicate a significant difference between pre- and postproject data.
Pool Tail
% particles
Res. Pool
Shade
Year
p-value*
p-value*
p-value*
Fines (%)
<2mm
Depth (m)
%
2003 (pre)
3.8
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
19
2.2
2.9
8.3
1.9
0.022
0.080
0.106
0.084
<0.001
4.9
0.28
0
2.7
0.8
1.0
6.9
0.31
0.29
0.31
0.35
0.37
63.8
0.327
0.360
0.817
0.873
0.167
64.3
65.0
74.2
74.4
72.2
0.870
0.558
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Though there was essentially no difference in 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 2006
survey. The higher level of fines was attributed to failure of the road crossing previously
mentioned and substantial rilling and gullying of the road during the winter of 2005-2006.
Because of the high fines measured in 2006, another post project survey was conducted in 2007.
Summit Creek was later selected for long-term (annual) post project monitoring. The 2007 to
2010 data for sediment attributes shows a trend toward pre-project conditions. Data from
sediment attributes indicate lower channel substrate sediment in 2010 than the pre-project
condition measured in 2003 (Table 5). Pool tail fines decreased between 2009 and 2010, and are
close to the conditions found during the 2007 and 2008 surveys.
BI and O/E scores calculated from macroinvertebrate collections during SCI surveys are
presented in Table 9 below. Portions of the Summit Creek reach dry up during years with low
precipitation. This may contribute to the high variability in Biotic Index scores exhibited over the
course of monitoring this reach. However, O/E scores remained relatively stable. All BI and
nearly all O/E scores were higher post-project than in 2003. It appears that implementation of
the Battle DFPZ project had no deleterious effects upon macroinvertebrate assemblages within
Summit Creek.
Table 9. Biotic Index (BI) and Observed/Expected (O/E) scores for the Summit Creek SCI monitoring reach. BI
scores range from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 20, with 4 considered “very degraded” and 20 considered “very
healthy.” O/E scores closer to 1 are considered “healthy.”
Year
Biotic Index score
O/E score
2003 (pre-project)
7
1.04
2006
18
1.13
2007
16
1.04
2008
9
0.95
2009
11
1.13
2010
14
1.04
Stream channel shade significantly increased from pre-project conditions in 2008 by
approximately 10 percent (Table 9). However, since all treatments were conducted upstream of
the monitoring reach, the increase in stream channel shade was not the result of project activities.
13
Willow Creek
Project: Jonesville DFPZ
Pre-project data collection: 2002
Post-project data collection:2008
Willow Creek is a low-gradient, response-type stream that is a tributary of Colby Creek. The
SCI monitoring reach is established immediately upstream of the confluence of Willow Creek
and Colby Creek. Approximately 164 acres of DFPZ treatments were implemented within the
Willow Creek watershed in 2006 and 2007, with all treatments located upstream of the
monitoring reach (see Appendix B7). No treatments were within 200 feet of Willow Creek.
Figure 4. Map identifying Jonesville DFPZ treatments and SCI
monitoring reach location within the Willow Creek watershed.
The pre-project survey was conducted in 2002, and the post-project survey was conducted in
2008. Since no treatments were located within 200 feet of the stream, analysis is focused on
attributes pertaining to sedimentation within the stream. Table 10 below summarizes sediment,
residual pool depth, and stream channel shade measurements observed in 2002 and 2008 within
the Willow Creek SCI monitoring reach.
Table 10. Stream channel shade, residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent particles
less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Willow Creek SCI monitoring reach during preproject (2002) and post-project (2008) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test (α = 0.1) was used to
identify significant differences between pre-project (2002) and post-project (2008) measurements. P-values in bold
indicate statistical significance.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2002 (pre)
53.2
0.69
31.1
12.6
2008 (post)
45.8
0.120
0.61
0.445
9.4
0.016
2.8
14
A statistically significant reduction in pool tail fines was observed following project
implementation (Table 10). Percent particles less than 2mm in diameter in riffles also declined.
The reduction in sediment observed in Willow Creek was unexpected, and was not the result of
project activities since the project did not include road decommissioning, though a road crossing
upstream of the monitoring reached was improved in 2007. .
Macroinvertebrate sampling for Willow Creek was conducted in 2002, but not in 2008.
Beaver Creek
Project: Pittville DFPZ
Pre-project data collection: 2000
Post-project data collection:2006
Beaver Creek is a low-gradient, response-type stream that is a tributary of the Fall River. The
Pittville DFPZ project included approximately 1,336 acres of DFPZ treatments within the Beaver
Creek watershed, with treatment units located up to one mile upstream from the SCI monitoring
reach on Beaver Creek (see Appendix B8). Pre- and post-project data for Beaver Creek are
summarized in Table 11 below.
Table 11. Stream channel shade (% shade), residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent
particles less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Beaver Creek SCI monitoring reach
during pre-project (2000) and post-project (2006) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test (α = 0.1)
was used to identify significant differences between pre- and post-project measurements. P-values in bold indicate
statistical significance.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2000 (pre)
46.5
0.35
16.7
23.0
2006 (post)
52.6
0.026
0.37
0.589
21.5
0.063
1.7
A significant increase in pool tail fine sediment was observed following implementation of the
Pittville DFPZ project (Table 11). However, a significant reduction in percent particles less than
2mm in diameter within riffles was also observed following project implementation. These
findings of increased sediment within pool tails and decreased sediment within riffles are
contradictory, but may be explained by changes in the SCI protocol between 2000 and 2006.
The SCI protocol in 2000 called for 100 particles to be counted within riffles. Meanwhile, the
protocol in 2006 required 400 particles to be counted within riffles. Thus, the smaller sample
size in the 2000 protocol would be expected to be less accurate in determining the average
percentage of particles less than 2mm diameter within Beaver Creek riffles than would the larger
sample size in the 2006 protocol. Methods for pool tail fines measurements did not change
between the 2000 and 2006 protocols. Thus, it appears there was an increase in fine sediment
within the Beaver Creek monitoring reach following implementation of the Pittville DFPZ
project.
A significant increase in stream channel shade was observed within the Beaver Creek monitoring
reach, but this was not the result of project activities since the nearest Pittville DFPZ treatment
units were at least a mile away from the monitoring reach.
15
BI and O/E scores calculated from macroinvertebrate collections during SCI surveys are
presented in Table 12 below.
Table 12. Biotic Index (BI) and Observed/Expected (O/E) scores for the Beaver Creek SCI monitoring reach. BI
scores range from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 20, with 4 considered “very degraded” and 20 considered “very
healthy.” O/E scores closer to 1 are considered “healthy.”
Year
Biotic Index score
O/E score
2000
4
0.46
2006
4
0.46
According to data presented in Table 12 above, there was no change in macroinvertebrate indices
following project implementation. Since the BI score cannot be lower than 4, analysis is focused
on the O/E score. However, the O/E score remained unchanged from pre-project conditions.
The macroinvertebrate community in Beaver Creek remains in the same condition as it did prior
to project implementation.
North Carmen Creek
Project: Mabie Project
Pre-project data collection: 2003
Post-project data collection: 2007, 2009
North Carmen Creek is a low-gradient, response-type stream located in North Carmen Valley.
The SCI monitoring reach is located downstream and adjacent to treatment units associated with
the Mabie Project (see Appendix B9). Activities upstream of the monitoring reach included six
acres of aspen enhancement, 69 acres of mechanical thinning, 40 acres of fuels piling (via
grapple, machine, and hand), 144 acres of underburning, 35 acres of pile burning, and 277 acres
of hand thinning. Of the 277 acres of hand thinning, approximately 132 acres were located
within RHCAs. The North Carmen Creek monitoring reach was dry during the post-project
survey in 2007. Therefore, another post-project survey was conducted in 2009. Table 13 below
summarizes results for stream channel shade and substrate sediment attributes.
Table 13. Stream channel shade (% shade), residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent
particles less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the North Carmen Creek SCI monitoring
reach during pre-project (2003) and post-project (2007, 2009) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s ttest (α = 0.1) was used to identify significant differences between pre- and post-project measurements. P-values in
bold indicate statistical significance. Residual pool depths and percent pool tail fines were not measured in 2007
due to dry stream channel conditions.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2003 (pre)
82.8
0.24
32.9
17.0
2007 (post)
84.2
0.551
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
12.1
2009 (post)
82.0
0.704
0.28
0.136
18.3
0.026
5.0
The 2007 survey did not provide several sediment metrics because the stream was dry. The 2009
survey indicated a significant decline in sediment from pre-project values observed in 2003
(Table 13). This decline was most likely the result of natural processes, since project activities
did not include reduction of near-stream sediment sources. Stream channel shading was
unaffected by project activities.
16
Macroinvertebrate sampling was not conducted in North Carmen Creek.
Third Water Creek
Project: Meadow Valley TS
Pre-project data collection: 2006
Post-project data collection: 2008
The Third Water Creek SCI monitoring reach is located immediately downstream of FS Road
24N28. Watershed area above the sample reach is approximately 1,836 acres. Pre project
sampling occurred in 2006, while post project sampling occurred in 2008. In 2006-07,
approximately 46 acres of group selections, and 378 acres of DFPZ treatment were implemented
upstream or adjacent to the monitoring reach; approximately 12 acres of the DFPZ treatment
occurred in RHCAs (see Appendix B10). Table 14 below summarizes select SCI attributes
regarding stream channel shade and sediment loads within the monitoring reach.
Table 14. Stream channel shade (% shade), residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent
particles less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Third Water Creek SCI monitoring
reach during pre-project (2006) and post-project (2008) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test (α =
0.1) was used to identify significant differences between pre- and post-project measurements. P-values in bold
indicate statistical significance.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2006 (pre)
81.9
0.40
13.9
5.9
2008 (post)
75.4
0.060
0.42
0.890
11.6
0.490
5.0
No increases in sedimentation were observed between pre- and post-project surveys. A slight
decline in stream channel shading (from 81.9 percent to 75.4 percent, Table 14) was observed
within the monitoring reach. This decline is likely the result of the DFPZ treatments within the
riparian area adjacent to Third Water Creek. Stream temperatures were not recorded in Third
Water Creek, so it is unknown whether the decline in channel shade affected water temperatures.
Both macroinvertebrate indices increased post-project (BI: 13 to 16, O/E .62 to .96) so no
adverse impacts were evident in the benthic community.
Pineleaf Creek
Project: Guard TS
Pre-project data collection: 2002, 2006
Post-project data collection: 2007, 2009
Pineleaf Creek is a mid-gradient (4-6 percent) transport-type stream. The SCI monitoring reach
is located downstream and adjacent to approximately 213 acres of DFPZ treatment, and 45 acres
of group selections (see Appendix B11). Approximately 10 acres of DFPZ treatment were
located within the riparian area of Pineleaf Creek. These treatments took place in 2006. In 2007,
an additional 152 acres of commercial thinning and 22 acres of group selections took place
17
within the Pineleaf Creek watershed; these treatments were located greater than 650 feet from the
stream channel.
Post-project sampling was originally conducted in 2007. However, the stream channel was
mostly dry at the time of sampling, and several SCI attributes could not be measured. As a
result, another post-project survey was conducted in 2009 when there was flow in the monitoring
reach. Table 15 below summarizes SCI attributes related to sediment and stream channel
shading within the Pineleaf Creek monitoring reach.
Table 15. Stream channel shade (% shade), residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent
particles less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Pineleaf Creek SCI monitoring reach
during pre-project (2002, 2006) and post-project (2007, 2009) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s ttest (α = 0.1) was used to identify significant differences between the combined pre-project surveys (2002, 2006)
and both post-project (2007, 2009) measurements. P-values in bold indicate statistical significance. Residual pool
depths and percent pool tail fines were not measured in 2007 due to dry stream channel conditions.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2002 (pre)
88.0
0.25
16.1
9.0
2006 (pre)
95.1
0.27
5.0
7.6
2007 (post)
91.2
0.745
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
6.1
2009 (post)
85.8
0.005
0.23
0.471
7.0
0.435
3.4
No significant changes in sediment metrics (percent pool tail fines, percent particles less than
2mm in riffles, residual pool depths) were observed between 2006 and 2009. A significant
reduction in stream channel shade was observed in 2009. However, this decline is unlikely to be
the result of project activities since all treatment acres were located upstream of the monitoring
reach. The decline in stream channel shade was most likely due to natural variation. Water
temperature monitoring was conducted in Pineleaf Creek from May 25 to September 13 for
2006-2008, and is presented in Figure 4 below. There was essentially no change in water
temperatures, despite the observed decline in stream channel shade.
18
120
Temperature (*F)
100
80
2006 water
2006 air
60
2007 water
2007 air
40
2008 water
2008 air
20
7-Sep
31-Aug
24-Aug
17-Aug
10-Aug
3-Aug
27-Jul
20-Jul
13-Jul
6-Jul
29-Jun
22-Jun
15-Jun
8-Jun
1-Jun
25-May
0
Figure 5. Seven-day moving average of maximum water temperatures (°F) within the Pineleaf Creek SCI
monitoring reach for 2006 (pre-project) and 2007-2008 (post-project). Water temperatures were measured from
May 25 to September 13. Associated seven-day moving average of maximum air temperatures are included. Air
temperature data was collected from Quincy, CA.
Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to determine if reductions in stream channel
shade resulted in increased water temperatures. It was found that the regression equations for
pre- and post-project temperatures had significantly different slopes (p = 0.003), therefore
conclusions could not be drawn from ANCOVA.
70
Water Temperature ( F)
65
60
y = 0.1953x + 40.473
55
pre-project
post-project
50
y = 0.2996x + 30.614
Linear (pre-project)
Linear (post-project)
45
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Air Temperature ( F)
Figure 6. Relationship between air temperature and water temperature in Pineleaf Creek before and after the
implementation of the Meadow Valley TS project. Pre-project temperature data was collected in 2006 and 2007;
post-project data was collected in 2008. Regression equations and trend lines are included.
19
Like Summit Creek, macroinvertebrate communities from the Pineleaf reach were affected by
the channel going dry during some years. Both macroinvertebrate indices were higher in 2009
than they were in 2002, but lower than in 2006.
Fourth Water Creek
Project: Meadow Valley TS
Pre-project data collection: 2006
Post-project data collection: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010
Fourth Water Creek is a moderate-gradient (2-4 percent) transport type stream within the Middle
Fork Feather River watershed. The SCI monitoring reach begins immediately upstream of FS
Road 24N28. In 2006, 53 acres of group selections and 275 acres of DFPZ were implemented
upstream or adjacent to the monitoring reach; approximately 9 acres of the treatment occurred in
RHCAs (see Appendix B18). Pre project sampling occurred in 2006. Fourth Water Creek was
selected for long-term (annual) post-project monitoring, so post-project sampling conducted
annually from 2007 through 2010. Table 16 below summarizes sediment, residual pool depth,
and stream channel shade data collected over one year of pre-project and four years of postproject surveys.
Table 16. Pre- and post-project mean values for pool tail fines, percent of the particle count less than 2mm, residual
pool depth, and percent shade for Fourth Water Creek. P-values were obtained using an unpaired, unequal variance
student’s t-test (α = 0.1). Values in bold indicate a significant difference between pre- and post-project data.
Pool Tail
% particles
Res. Pool
Shade
Year
p-value
p-value
p-value
Fines (%)
<2mm
Depth (m)
%
2006 (pre)
5.8
2007
2008
2009
2010
12.3
5.3
7.0
9.0
0.004
0.737
0.516
0.110
1.8
0.35
4.6
1
0
4.1
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.38
63.2
0.750
0.800
0.843
0.400
71.0
68.6
66.8
73.3
0.089
0.291
0.460
0.031
A significant increase in pool tail fines was observed one year after project implementation
(Table 16). However, pool tail sediment values returned to pre-project conditions by 2008 and
have remained unchanged since that time.
Stream temperature monitoring was conducted in the Fourth Water Creek monitoring reach
during summer months from 2006 to 2008. Results of stream temperature monitoring are
presented in Figure 7 below.
20
Figure 7. Seven-day moving average of maximum water temperatures (°F) within the Fourth Water Creek SCI
monitoring reach for 2006 (pre-project) and 2007-2008 (post-project). Water temperatures were measured from
June 8 to September 4. Associated seven-day moving average of maximum air temperatures are included. Air
temperature data was collected from Quincy, CA.
Mean high water temperatures were slightly lower in 2008 than in the previous two years, with a
63 degree average in 2006, 65 degrees in 2007, and 62 degrees in 2008. Mean high air
temperatures were nearly equal across the three years. Water temperatures did not exhibit any
significant differences between the three years.
BI and O/E scores calculated from macroinvertebrate collections during SCI surveys are
presented in Table 17 below.
Table 17. Biotic Index (BI) and Observed/Expected (O/E) scores for the Fourth Water Creek SCI monitoring reach.
BI scores range from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 20, with 4 considered “very degraded” and 20 considered
“very healthy.” O/E scores closer to 1 are considered “healthy.”
Year
Biotic Index score
O/E score
2006
18
1.07
2007
17
1.18
2008
15
1.01
2009
16
1.18
2010
18
1.12
Based on the BI and O/E scores, there appear to be no deleterious effects on macroinvertebrate
assemblages within the Fourth Water Creek monitoring reach.
21
Bonta Creek
Project: Phoenix TS
Pre-project data collection: 2006
Post-project data collection: 2011
Bonta Creek is a mid-gradient (2-6 percent) transport-type stream. Objectives for the Phoenix
project were to complete the DFPZ network and improve forest health while reducing threats of
catastrophic wildfire from overstocked stand conditions. Approximately 186 acres of
mechanical treatment was applied within the Bonta Creek watershed, along with an additional 27
acres of understory vegetation removal via grapple piling or the use of a feller-buncher (see
Appendix B12). An additional 56 acres of mechanical treatment are planned for completion in
2012. On steeper slopes, 320 acres of hand treatment were completed to meet fuel reduction
objectives.
Table 18. Stream channel shade (% shade), residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent
particles less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Bonta Creek SCI monitoring reach
during pre-project (2006) and post-project (2011) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test (α = 0.1)
was used to identify significant differences between pre- and post-project measurements. P-values in bold indicate
statistical significance.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2006 (pre)
59.3
0.66
5.6
6.1
2011 (post)
70.3
0.010
0.44
0.121
4.8
0.727
6.9
Following project implementation, stream channel shade values were significantly higher than
pre-project measurements, with an average increase of approximately 11 percent shade (59.3
percent to 70.3 percent). This increase in shade is likely due to natural variation and not project
activities. No significant differences in pool tail fines or residual pool depths were observed.
Macroinvertebrate sampling was not conducted in Bonta Creek.
Dark Canyon
Project: Phoenix TS
Pre-project data collection: 2002, 2006
Post-project data collection: 2011
Located approximately two miles northwest of the Bonta Creek SCI monitoring reach, the Dark
Canyon SCI monitoring reach is in a low-gradient, response-type section of stream. As stated
previously for Bonta Creek, objectives for the Phoenix project were to complete the DFPZ
network and improve forest health condition while reducing threats of catastrophic wildfire from
overstocked stand conditions. Activities conducted within the Dark Canyon watershed include
ten acres of group selections, 196 acres of mechanical thinning, and 199 acres of hand treatment
(see Appendix B12). All group selections were located outside of RHCAs. Table 19 below
summarizes SCI attributes regarding stream channel shading and sediment loads within the Dark
Canyon monitoring reach.
22
Table 19. Stream channel shade (% shade), residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent
particles less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Dark Canyon SCI monitoring reach
during pre-project (2002, 2006) and post-project (2011) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test (α =
0.1) was used to identify significant differences between the combined pre-project surveys (2002, 2006) and postproject measurements. P-values in bold indicate statistical significance.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2002 (pre)
79.0
0.26
37.1
10.2
2006 (pre)
78.8
0.43
9.3
6.7
2011 (post)
81.1
0.469
0.24
<0.001
4.6
<0.001
12.4
A statistically significant decrease in residual pool depths was observed in 2011 (Table 19).
Residual pool depths decreased by an average of 19 centimeters. The significant decrease in
residual pool depths observed within the Dark Canyon monitoring reach is alarming, though it
would be expected that a decrease in residual pool depths would be accompanied with an
increase in percent pool tail fines. However, pool tail fines measurements only showed a
significant decline following project implementation, rather than an increase. Pre-project data on
Dark Canyon was collected in 2002 and 2006. Reference reaches from the Tahoe NF exhibited a
similar trend in residual pool depth from 2007 to 2011. Table 20 below summarizes mean
residual pool depths observed within three reference streams located within the Tahoe National
Forest.
Table 20. Mean residual pool depths for selected reference streams within the Tahoe National Forest from 2005 to
2011, along with the maximum observed differences in residual pool depth among surveys. Values in bold indicate
the year that a maximum difference in residual pool depths was observed when compared to measurements in 2011.
max. difference
Stream
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
among years
Five Lakes
0.49
n/a
0.68
0.54
0.63
0.57
0.45
0.23
Cottonwood
0.64
n/a
n/a
0.48
0.48
0.52
0.49
0.15
Pauley
0.65
n/a
0.72
0.57
0.59
0.58
0.52
0.20
Since the other attributes of channel substrate sediment did not show a negative trend between
pre- and post-project surveys, it is unclear whether the decline in residual pool depths in Dark
Canyon were the result of project activities upstream, natural variation, or a combination of the
two.
Macroinvertebrate sampling was not conducted in Dark Canyon Creek.
Independence Creek
Project: Liberty DFPZ
Pre-project data collection: 2000
Post-project data collection: 2005, 2006, 2009
Independence Creek is a response-type stream that is a tributary of the Little Truckee River. The
SCI monitoring reach is located approximately 1.5 miles upstream of its confluence with the
Little Truckee River, and approximately 3 miles downstream of a small dam which forms
Independence Lake. 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
23
conducted in 2005 and 2006. Approximately 650 acres of mechanical thinning, some
incorporating group selections, occurred upstream or adjacent to the survey reach were treated
between 2001-2005 (see Appendix B13). There was a wide no-treatment zone near both
perennial and seasonal streams, with the exception of approximately 10 acres of treatment
occurring within the RHCA of a perennial tributary of Independence Creek. This tributary was
located upstream of the SCI monitoring reach. Between 2002-2005, approximately 420 acres of
grapple piling occurred upstream or adjacent to the monitoring reach, usually in thinning units;
approximately 5 acres of this treatment occurred within the RHCA of a perennial tributary
upstream of the survey reach. The resulting grapple piles were burned; none of the burning
occurred within riparian areas. In addition, numerous small-scale road improvement projects
were implemented in the Independence Creek watershed between 2000 and 2005. Table 21
below summarizes SCI data for stream channel shade and channel substrate sediment measured
within the Independence Creek monitoring reach.
Table 21. Stream channel shade (% shade), residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent
particles less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Independence Creek SCI monitoring
reach during pre-project (2000) and post-project (2005, 2006, 2009) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance
student’s t-test (α = 0.1) was used to identify significant differences between pre- (2000) and post-project (2005,
2006, 2009) measurements. P-values in bold indicate statistical significance.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2000 (pre)
28.4
0.51
11.7
7.1
2005 (post)
39.7
0.019
0.51
0.908
3.7
0.040
13.8
2006 (post)
45.6
<0.001
0.54
0.796
3.2
0.032
6.7
2009 (post)
53.8
<0.001
0.51
0.989
2.2
0.015
3.5
When compared to pre-project data collected in 2000, data from post-project surveys did not
indicate any downward trend in either stream channel shade or channel substrate. Pool tail
sediment values declined between 2000 and 2005, from an approximate average of 12 percent to
4 percent. The second post-project survey conducted in 2006 showed an average of 3 percent
pool tail fine sediment. Percent particles less than 2mm diameter in riffles increased between
2000 and 2005 (from 7.1 percent to 13.8 percent), but data collected in 2006 saw percent
particles less than 2mm diameter in riffles return to pre-project levels (approximately 6.7
percent). Stream channel shading increased between pre- and post-project surveys, from 28.4
percent in 2000 to 45.6 percent in 2006, then to 53.8 percent in 2009. This increase was
unexpected, but not a result of project activities.
Table 22. Biotic Index (BI) and Observed/Expected (O/E) scores for the Independence Creek SCI monitoring reach.
BI scores range from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 20, with 4 considered “very degraded” and 20 considered
“very healthy.” O/E scores closer to 1 are considered “healthy.”
Year
Biotic Index score
O/E score
2000 (pre-project)
18
0.76
2005
14
0.99
2006
11
0.68
2009
15
0.75
average post-project
13
0.81
24
Macroinvertebrate indices show a decline in the average post-project condition relative to preproject. In this report, we assumed that a decline in the BI that equaled a rating class (a score of
5) would be cause for concern. Our threshold for changes in O/E was set at 10 percent. Further
analysis of macroinvertebrate data related to the BI indicates that all metrics experienced slight
declines following project implementation. When these slight declines are added together, they
result in the cumulative effect of showing a significant decline in the BI. Meanwhile, the
average O/E score remained relatively unchanged from pre-project conditions. Since sediment
and channel shade metrics all showed improved conditions post-project, it is unclear whether
project activities were the cause for the observed declines in macroinvertebrate indices.
Smithneck Creek
Project: Scraps DFPZ
Pre-project data collection: 2002
Post-project data collection: 2007
Smithneck Creek is a low-gradient (1 to 3 percent) response-type stream. The SCI monitoring
reach on Smithneck Creek is located adjacent to treatment units implemented in the Scraps
DFPZ project. Between 2002 and 2006, approximately 30 acres of commercial thinning, 12
acres of pre-commercial thinning, and 18 acres of mechanical piling and pile burning occurred
either upstream or adjacent to the SCI monitoring reach on Smithneck Creek (see Appendix
B14). No treatments were conducted within 300 feet of Smithneck Creek, or within the riparian
areas of nearby tributaries. Thus, focus is placed on metrics which measure in-channel sediment,
and not stream channel shade.
Table 23. Pre- and post-project mean values for pool tail fines, percent of the particle count less than 2mm, residual
pool depth, and percent shade for Fourth Water Creek. P-values were obtained using an unpaired, unequal variance
student’s t-test (α = 0.1). Values in bold indicate a significant difference between pre- and post-project data.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2002 (pre)
36.3
0.31
25.5
15.0
2007 (post)
48.9
0.019
0.40
0.012
28.6
0.570
10.2
No increases in sediment were observed during the post-project survey when compared to preproject conditions. Pre-post differences in macroinvertebrate indices also showed no adverse
impact (BI: pre-10, post-8; O/E: pre-.66, post-.75).
Aspen Enhancement
Since the advent of formal fire suppression over the past century, the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe
national forests have observed declines in the health and distribution of aspen stands. Aspen
enhancement treatments are aimed at keeping these aspen stands viable. In general, aspen
enhancement treatments involve the removal of most conifers within a 150-200 foot radius
surrounding aspen stands to reduce competition for resources, such as soil moisture and sunlight.
Aspen enhancement activities are a concern for stream health because many aspen stands are
situated very close to water, and conifer removal is often conducted within the riparian areas of
streams. Since conifers are often removed within 100 feet of stream channels under aspen
25
enhancement activities, stream channel shade is often expected to decline following project
implementation. However, this decline is expected to be a short-term effect as newly released
aspen stands grow to replace the shade originally provided by competing conifers.
Figure 8. Aspen enhancement unit prior to treatment, near Lower Pine Creek.
Figure 9. The same aspen enhancement unit as presented in Figure 8 above, eight years
following treatment.
26
Stream channel sedimentation is also a concern, since mechanical equipment is often permitted
to operate within the riparian areas of streams. Thus, when discussing the effects of aspen
enhancement upon streams, focus of analysis is placed on sedimentation, stream channel
shading, and water temperature (where data is available). As both macroinvertebrate community
metrics (B.I. and O/E) are sensitive to changes in both sediment and primary productivity,
analyses of those data are also pertinent to effects of aspen treatments. Table 24 below includes
streams monitored under HFQLG for the effects of aspen enhancement treatments upon nearby
streams. Refer to Appendix B for maps identifying monitoring reach locations and treatment
areas for streams listed in Table 24.
Table 24. HFQLG streams selected for monitoring the effects of aspen enhancement activities.
Pre-project data
Post-project data
Forest
Stream
Project Name
collection year
collection year
Lassen
Lower Pine Creek
2003
2008
McKenzie Aspen Enhancement
Lassen
South Fork Bailey Creek
2003
2007
Cabin
Tahoe
Trosi Creek
2001, 2005
2011, 2012
Bilabong Aspen Enhancement
Tahoe
Rock Creek
2005, 2007
2011
Bilabong Aspen Enhancement
Tahoe
Jones Valley Creek
2005, 2007
2009
Jumbuck Aspen / Scraps DFPZ
Table 25 below summarizes whether stream attributes showed a statistically significant change in
physical stream attributes between pre- and post-project surveys. Refer to each stream’s
discussion for more information.
Table 25. HFQLG streams selected for monitoring the effects of aspen enhancement activities upon physical stream
attributes and macroinvertebrate metrics. Physical stream attributes were given a “Yes” designation if a statistically
increase in a channel substrate sediment attribute, or significant decrease in shade was observed between pre- and
post-project surveys. A “Yes” designation in macroinvertebrate metrics was given if the BI decreased by a rating
class or more (change in score of 5 or more) or if O/E decreased by more than 10%. For both physical and
macroinvertebrate attributes, “No” indicates no adverse change was detected. RPD = residual pool depth, PTF =
pool tail fines, BI = Biologic Index, O / E = Observed / Expected, n/a = not available. A “No” designation for
temperature indicates no significant difference following project implementation
Attribute
Macroinvertebrates
Stream
Stream
Temperature
RPD
PTF
Shade
BI
O/E
Lower Pine Creek
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
South Fork Bailey Creek
No
No
No
No
No
No
Trosi Creek
No
Yes
Yes
No
n/a
No
Rock Creek
No
No
No
No
n/a
n/a
Jones Valley Creek
No
No
Yes
No
No
n/a
Lower Pine Creek
Project: McKenzie Aspen Enhancement
Pre-project data collection: 2003, 2005
Post-project data collection: 2008
The Lower Pine Creek SCI monitoring reach is a low-gradient (1-2 percent) response-type
stream flowing through forested (non-meadow) terrain. The McKenzie Aspen Enhancement
Project was implemented along Pine and Bogard Creeks in three phases, with Phase 1 completed
in 2004, Phase 2 in 2005, and Phase 3 in 2007 (see Appendix B15). Phase 1 involved
27
approximately 60 acres of over-snow conifer removal, with the intent of minimizing soil
compaction with mechanical equipment. Over-snow logging resulted in a large amount of slash
(limbs and tree biomass) being left on the ground following treatment, which did not meet the
desired condition for aspen regeneration. Phase 2 included approximately 200 acres of treatment
conducted in the summer to reduce the amount of slash that would have been left on the ground
following over-snow conifer removal. Finally, Phase 3 included approximately 32 acres of oversnow conifer removal in near-stream areas considered too sensitive for summer operations. In
total, the project spanned a total of 292 acres; approximately 75 of those acres were located
within 300 feet of Pine Creek. Depending on the topography and soil type, mechanical
equipment was allowed to operate up to within 15 feet of Pine Creek in some cases.
The SCI monitoring reach established to measure the potential effects of the McKenzie project is
located downstream (east) of FS Road 32N22 on the Eagle Lake Ranger District (LNF). Table
26 below summarizes SCI attributes that measure stream channel shading and channel substrate
sediment within the Lower Pine Creek monitoring reach.
Table 26. Stream channel shade (% shade), residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent
particles less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Lower Pine Creek SCI monitoring
reach during pre-project (2003, 2004), mid-project (2005) and post-project (2008) surveys. An unpaired, unequal
variance student’s t-test (α = 0.1) was used to identify significant differences between pre- and post-project
measurements. P-values in bold indicate statistical significance. T-tests presented here were run comparing 2003 to
2008 data.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2003 (pre)
70
0.43
8.3
15.5
2004 (mid)
61
0.41
7.0
1.7
2005 (mid)
63
0.55
1.0
4.8
2008 (post)
56
<0.001
0.51
0.427
2.2
<0.001
0.2
Post-project (2008) data indicates no increase in sediment for any in-channel sediment attributes
(pool tail fines, percent particles less than 2mm in riffles, residual pool depths). Stream channel
shading declined from pre-project levels, from 70 percent shade in 2003, to 63 percent in 2005,
and to 56 percent in 2008. Due to the removal of several near-stream conifers, this decline in
stream channel shade was expected. Since there was a significant decline in stream channel
shade following project implementation, elevated water temperatures were a primary concern.
To assess the effects of reduced stream channel shading over Pine Creek, water temperature
monitoring was conducted in 2003 and 2008. Figure 10 below presents 7-day moving averages
of daily maximum water and air temperatures in 2003 and 2008.
28
100
Temperature (*F)
90
80
2003 water
70
2003 air
2008 water
60
2008 air
50
23-Sep
16-Sep
9-Sep
2-Sep
26-Aug
19-Aug
12-Aug
5-Aug
29-Jul
22-Jul
15-Jul
8-Jul
1-Jul
24-Jun
40
Figure 10. Seven-day moving average of maximum water temperatures (°F) within the Lower Pine Creek SCI
monitoring reach for 2003 (pre-project) and 2008 (post-project). Water temperatures were measured from June 24
to September 23. Associated seven-day moving average of maximum air temperatures are included.
Following project implementation, daily maximum stream temperatures within the Lower Pine
Creek monitoring reach increased by an average of six degrees Fahrenheit (F) (Figure 10).
However, air temperatures were also significantly higher in 2008 than they were in 2003 (p <
0.001). An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to determine if the decline in
stream channel shade was the cause for increased water temperatures in Pine Creek following
project implementation. Regression equations are presented in Figure 11 below, showing the
relationship between air temperature and the corresponding water temperatures both before and
after project implementation.
29
75
y = 0.6856x + 6.252
Water Temperature ( F)
70
pre-project
65
post-project
Linear (pre-project)
60
Linear (post-project)
y = 0.4386x + 21.771
55
50
60
70
80
90
100
Air Temperature ( F)
Figure 11. Relationship between air temperature and water temperature in Lower Pine Creek before and after the
implementation of the McKenzie Aspen Enhancement Project. Pre-project temperature data was collected in 2003;
post-project data was collected in 2008. Regression equations and trend lines are included.
Results from ANCOVA showed a significant difference in the slope of the regression lines for
temperatures in 2003 and 2008. One of the assumptions that must be met to run ANCOVA is
that the slopes of the regression lines must not be significantly different. Therefore, no
conclusions can be drawn from ANCOVA in the case of Lower Pine Creek. Factors such as
stream discharge may also have influenced water temperatures in Lower Pine Creek in 2003 and
2008, but stream discharge data is unavailable. Though data show an increase in post-project
water temperatures, the change cannot be solely attributed to the aspen treatment.
BI and O/E scores calculated using macroinvertebrate samples collected from the Lower Pine
Creek monitoring reach are presented in Table 27 below. Results indicate that benthic
assemblages in Lower Pine Creek had relatively low scores for both metrics before and after
implementation of the McKenzie Project. Thus, no treatment effect is evident.
Table 27. Biotic Index (BI) and Observed/Expected (O/E) scores for the Lower Pine Creek SCI monitoring reach.
BI scores range from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 20, with 4 considered “very degraded” and 20 considered
“very healthy.” O/E scores closer to 1 are considered “healthy.”
Year
Biotic Index score
O/E score
2000 (pre-project)
6
0.73
2002 (pre-project)
4
0.88
2003 (pre-project)
4
0.51
2004 (mid-project)
4
0.51
2005 (mid-project)
8
0.80
2008 (post-project)
4
0.66
30
South Fork Bailey Creek
Project: Cabin Project
Pre-project data collection: 2003
Post-project data collection: 2007
South Fork Bailey Creek is a low-gradient response-type stream located on the Hat Creek Ranger
District (LNF), west of Mount Lassen. Approximately 6 acres of aspen enhancement activities
were conducted adjacent to the SCI monitoring reach on South Fork Bailey Creek;
approximately 4 of those acres were within 300 feet of the stream channel (see Appendix B16).
Table 28 below summarizes SCI attributes that measure stream channel shading and channel
substrate sediment within the South Fork Bailey Creek monitoring reach.
Table 28. Stream channel shade (% shade), residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent
particles less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the South Fork Bailey Creek SCI
monitoring reach during pre-project (2003) and post-project (2007) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance
student’s t-test (α = 0.1) was used to identify significant differences between pre- and post-project measurements.
P-values in bold indicate statistical significance.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2003 (pre)
56
0.54
7.7
2.3
2007 (post)
51
0.246
0.50
0.206
9.4
0.466
7.3
No significant changes were observed between pre- and post-project conditions within the SCI
monitoring reach (Table 28). Given the relatively small area being treated (6 acres) and the
mostly flat terrain upon which project activities were conducted, no changes in sediment regime
or other physical habitat attributes were expected.
Temperature monitoring was conducted in 1999, 2007, and 2008 to determine if water
temperatures were significantly different compared to pre-project conditions. Figure 12 below
summarizes mean high water temperatures for South Fork Bailey Creek for the aforementioned
years.
31
Figure12. Seven-day moving average of maximum water temperatures (°F) within the South Fork Bailey Creek SCI
monitoring reach for 1999 (pre-project) and 2007-2008 (post-project). Water temperatures were measured from July
8 to September 18. Associated seven-day moving average of maximum air temperatures are included.
Water temperatures were significantly higher in 2007 and 2008 than in 1999 (p-value < 0.001). However,
air temperatures were also significantly higher in 2007 and 2008 than in 1999 (p-value < 0.001). Given
that stream channel shade was not significantly affected by project activities (see Table 28), the higher
water temperatures observed in South Fork Bailey Creek in 2007 and 2008 were the result of higher
ambient air temperatures during those years, and not project activities.
No negative impacts to the macroinvertebrate community were detected. Comparison of pre and
post project metrics show either a slight upward trend (BI: 16 in 2003, 18 in 2007) or no change
(O/E: 1.16 in both 2003 and 2007).
Trosi Creek
Project: Billabong Aspen Enhancement
Pre-project data collection: 2001, 2005
Post-project data collection: 2011, 2012
Trosi Creek is a moderate-gradient (2-6 percent) transport-type stream. Treatments within the
Trosi Canyon watershed included 35 acres of mechanical treatment, and 270 acres of hand
treatment (see Appendix B17). Mechanical treatment was completed on 33 acres in 2010, and
an additional 17 acres were completed in 2011. In 2012, 20 acres of mechanical treatment and
17 acres of group selections were implemented. The aspen stands are located immediately
adjacent to the stream course. The Billabong project in the Trosi Canyon watershed focused on
treatment of aspen stands. The objective of the Billabong project was to remove encroaching
and competing conifers from aspen stands to reverse the trend in aspen stand decline and
improve associated wildlife habitat. Post-project surveys were conducted in 2011 and 2012.
32
Table 29 below summarizes Trosi Creek stream channel shade and channel substrate sediment
attributes before and following implementation of the Billabong project.
Table 29. Stream channel shade (% shade), residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent
particles less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Trosi Creek SCI monitoring reach
during pre-project (2001, 2005) and post-project (2011, 2012) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s ttest (α = 0.1) was used to identify significant differences between the combined pre-project (2001, 2005) and each
post-project (2011, 2012) survey measurements. P-values in bold indicate statistical significance.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2001 (pre)
84
0.23
75.0
7.0
2005 (pre)
78
0.21
54.3
10.2
2011 (post)
70
0.008
0.24
0.701
20.0
<0.001
15.8
2012 (post)
85
0.170
0.21
0.595
38.3
<0.001
11.0
Stream channel shade values varied between post-project surveys. The 2011 survey indicated a
significant decline in stream channel shading (approximately 8 percent, see Table 29). However,
the 2012 survey indicated a significant increase in stream channel shading from pre-project
levels by approximately the same percentage. Shade appears to have recovered to pre-project
conditions two years after project implementation.
A statistically significant decline of approximately 34 percent in pool tail fines was observed in
the Trosi Creek SCI reach in 2011 (Table 29). Given that Trosi Creek exhibited higher pool tail
fines values during pre-project conditions in 2005, the observed decline in pool tail fines in 2011
was unexpected. Pool tail fines values measured in 2012 were higher than those observed in
2011, yet remained below pre-project levels. Although it is unclear as to the cause for such
widely fluctuating pool tail fines values in Trosi Creek, both post-project surveys indicated that
PTF values remained below those observed during the pre-project survey conducted in 2005. In
addition, residual pool depths and particles less than 2mm observed in riffles remained relatively
unchanged (Table 29). Therefore, it is unlikely that activities conducted during the Billabong
project contributed a significant amount of sediment to Trosi Creek.
Macroinvertebrate sampling was not conducted in Trosi Creek.
Rock Creek
Project: Billabong Aspen Enhancement, Scraps DFPZ
Pre-project data collection: 2005, 2007
Post-project data collection: 2011
The Rock Creek watershed has been included in two HFQLG projects: Scraps DFPZ, and
Billabong Aspen Enhancement (see Appendix B17). The Scraps project included 203 acres of
commercial thinning, 1 acre of group selection and 25 acres of pre-commercial, mechanical
treatment. The purpose of the Billabong project was to remove encroaching and competing
conifers from aspen stands to reverse the trend in aspen stand decline and improve associated
wildlife habitat. To remove the conifers, mechanical treatment has been completed on 7 acres in
2009, 24 acres in 2010, and 9 acres in 2011. Treatments included the removal of most conifers
within RHCAs, with an upper diameter limit of 30 inches DBH. The SCI monitoring site is
33
approximately ¼ mile downstream of the aspen stands; therefore, no changes to stream channel
shade were expected to occur within the SCI monitoring reach. Table 30 below summarizes
sediment metrics collected within the Rock Creek SCI monitoring reach before and following
project implementation.
Table 30. Residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent particles less than 2mm in
diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Rock Creek SCI monitoring reach during pre-project (2005, 2007)
and post-project (2011) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test (α = 0.1) was used to identify
significant differences between the latest pre- (2007) and post-project (2011) measurements. P-values in bold
indicate statistical significance.
Survey Year
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
% <2mm particles
2005 (pre)
0.28
13.9
5.6
2007 (pre)
0.31
6.0
5.3
2011 (post)
0.27
0.552
10.6
0.883
7.0
No significant differences in pool tail fines, residual pool depths, or stream channel shade were
observed between pre- and post-project conditions.
Macroinvertebrate sampling was not conducted in Rock Creek.
Jones Valley Creek
Project: Jumbuck Aspen Enhancement, Scraps DFPZ
Pre-project data collection: 2005, 2007
Post-project data collection: 2009
Jones Valley Creek is a moderate to high gradient (5 to 10 percent) transport-type stream. The
Jones Valley watershed upstream of the SCI monitoring site spans approximately 1,116 acres.
From 2007 to 2009, two projects were conducted at least partially within the Jones Valley
watershed: Jumbuck Aspen Enhancement, and Scraps DFPZ. Of the two projects, Jumbuck units
were much larger and closer to the stream course than units completed under the Scraps DFPZ
project. Therefore, this analysis emphasizes the effects of the Jumbuck project.
The Jumbuck project included conifer removal around aspen stands to release them from
overtopping and competition for resources. Treated aspen units ranged from 1.8 to over 56 acres
in size, and all units were located within the riparian area of Jones Valley Creek and its
tributaries. In order to treat these aspen units, mechanical equipment was permitted to operate
within riparian areas and relatively close to stream channels coursing through the project area.
Treatments completed for the Scraps project were much smaller in scale than those completed in
the Jumbuck project. Within the Jones Valley watershed, the Scraps DFPZ project included 28
acres of mechanical thinning, and .025 acres of hand thinning. Some of these treatments
occurred within riparian areas adjacent to stream channels, with an equipment exclusion zone of
25 feet. Table 31 below summarizes monitoring results for stream channel shading and sediment
attributes within the Jones Valley monitoring reach.
34
Table 31. Stream channel shade (% shade), residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent
particles less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Jones Valley Creek SCI monitoring
reach during pre-project (2005) and post-project (2007, 2009) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s ttest (α = 0.1) was used to identify significant differences between the combined pre-project (2005, 2007) and postproject (2009) survey measurements. P-values in bold indicate statistical significance.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2005 (pre)
72
0.22
80.2
13.1
2007 (pre)
80
0.26
56.9
11.8
2009 (post)
71
0.069
0.35
0.330
62.7
0.551
21.8
SCI metrics measured in 2009 did not show any increases in fine sediment within the stream
channel substrate when compared to pre-project conditions.
Stream channel shading
significantly declined from pre-project conditions, from 80 percent in 2007 to 71 percent in
2009. This decline in stream channel shading was expected, due to removal of conifers from
within the riparian area of Jones Valley. Over time, released aspen stands should grow to replace
stream channel shading lost when conifers were removed.
Macroinvertebrate sampling was not conducted in Jones Valley Creek.
Near-Stream Road / Culvert Decommissioning
Native surface roads have been shown to deliver significant volumes of sediment to aquatic
systems (Luce and Black, 1999; Luce and Black, 2001; Coe, 2006). Thus, decommissioning of
near-stream roads and stream channel crossings is a primary tool used in watershed improvement
activities to reduce long-term sediment delivery.
Because activities related to road
decommissioning and culvert removal projects are by necessity located in or in close proximity
to stream channels, they are expected to result in a brief increase in stream channel sedimentation
during and immediately following implementation.
Figure 13. Culvert removal from Rocky Gulch, September 2003.
35
As treated areas recover, sediment levels are expected to decline below pre-project levels. This
recovery may take several years, and typically occurs once vegetation is established on the
decommissioned road surface. Table 32 below includes HFQLG streams with SCI monitoring
reaches established to monitor the effects of decommissioning near-stream roads and/or culvert
removal.
Table 32. HFQLG streams selected for monitoring the effects of decommissioning near-stream roads and/or culvert
removal.
Pre-project data Post-project data
Forest
Stream
Project Name
collection year
collection year
Lassen Scotts John Creek 1998
2002, 2003, 2004 Watershed restoration
Lassen Jones Creek
2000
2003, 2004
Watershed restoration
Lassen Rocky Gulch
2002
2004, 2005
Watershed restoration
Lassen Panther Creek
2001
2008
Battle Creek Wildlife/Watershed Restoration
A brief discussion of each stream follows Table 33, which presents a summary of results.
Table 33. HFQLG streams selected for monitoring the effects of near-stream road/culvert decommissioning
activities upon physical stream attributes and macroinvertebrate metrics. Physical stream attributes were given a
“Yes” designation if a statistically increase in a channel substrate sediment attribute, or significant decrease in shade
was observed between pre- and post-project surveys. A “Yes” designation in macroinvertebrate metrics was given if
the BI decreased by a rating class or more (change in score of 5 or more) or if O/E decreased by more than 10%. For
both physical and macroinvertebrate attributes, “No” indicates no adverse change was detected. RPD = residual pool
depth, PTF = pool tail fines, BI = Biologic Index, O / E = Observed / Expected, n/a = not available. A “No”
designation for temperature indicates no significant difference following project implementation
Attribute
Macroinvertebrates
Stream
Stream Temperature
RPD
PTF
BI
O/E
Scotts John Creek
No
Yes
No
No
n/a
Jones Creek
No
Yes
No
No
n/a
Rocky Gulch
No
Yes
n/a
n/a
No
Panther Creek
n/a
No
n/a
n/a
n/a
Scotts John Creek
Project: watershed restoration (road and landing decommissioning)
Pre-project data collection: 1998
Post-project data collection: 2003, 2004
Scotts John Creek is a low-gradient (0.5-2 percent), response-type stream that is a tributary of
Butte Creek. Beginning in 2001, several roads and landings located near the stream were
decommissioned. The roads and landings were located from 25 to 75 feet from the creek. A
total of 1 mile of road was decommissioned, along with approximately 2 acres of landings.
Decommissioning in this area consisted of ripping of the road surface to increase soil porosity,
and recontouring of the road and landing surfaces. No fuels or vegetation management activities
were conducted within the Scotts John watershed between pre- and post-project surveys (1998
and 2003-04). Primary concerns regarding project activities adjacent to Scotts John Creek
include attributes measuring channel sedimentation. Since no vegetation or fuels treatments
were conducted, stream channel shade and large wood recruitment were not affected by project
36
activities, and are not analyzed here. Table 34 below summarizes SCI attributes regarding
channel sedimentation measured for Scotts John Creek during pre- and post-project surveys.
Table 34. Residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent particles less than 2mm in
diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Scotts John Creek SCI monitoring reach during pre-project (1998)
and post-project (2002, 2003, 2004) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test (α = 0.1) was used to
identify significant differences between pre- and post-project measurements. P-values in bold indicate statistical
significance. n/a = not available.
Survey Year
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
% <2mm particles
1998 (pre)
0.32
8.2
30.0
2002 (post)
0.45
0.050
12.2
0.128
n/a
2003 (post)
0.54
0.002
28.4
<0.001
38.0
2004 (post)
0.44
0.073
23.8
0.002
7.0
Pool tail fines increased significantly from pre-project conditions in 2003. The goal of the
restoration project along Scotts John Creek was to reduce chronic sources of sediment.
However, the data suggests that restoration activities resulted in a significant increase in
sediment within the stream channel. Pool tail fines measurements in the subsequent 2004 survey
remained similar to those observed in the 2003 survey (Table 34). Given the close proximity of
the ripped road surface to Scotts John Creek (up to within 20 feet of the stream channel in some
areas), it is likely that sediment could easily enter the stream channel following ripping and recontouring of the road surface. Context of the treatments relative to remaining sediment sources
in the watershed is also worth noting. Though treatment of some near stream sites was
conducted, numerous roads in close proximity to the Creek remain, and continue to deliver
sediment. Residual pool depths significantly increased following project activities, and were
variable among the three post-project surveys. Pool depths significantly increased in 2003 when
compared to 2002, then returned to 2002 levels in the 2004 survey. The cause of pool depth
variability in the Scotts John monitoring reach is unclear.
Analysis of macroinvertebrate samples collected from the Scotts John monitoring reach was
conducted to determine if elevated sediment levels observed following project implementation
adversely impacted macroinvertebrate communities. Biotic Index and O/E scores for pre- and
post-project surveys are presented in Table 35 below. BI and O/E scores were very low one year
after project implementation, and then significantly improved two years following project
implementation. The poor BI and O/E scores in 2003 could be expected, given the significant
increase in sediment observed within the monitoring reach. However, macroinvertebrate
analysis for 2004 indicates substantial recovery in both macroinvertebrate metrics, although
physical measurement of sediment remained high. According to data presented in Table 35,
increases in sediment loads in 2003 adversely impacted macroinvertebrate communities in Scotts
John Creek. However, these communities appear to have recovered.
Table 35. Biotic Index (BI) and Observed/Expected (O/E) scores for the Scotts John Creek SCI monitoring reach.
BI scores range from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 20, with 4 considered “very degraded” and 20 considered
“very healthy.” O/E scores closer to 1 are considered “healthy.”
Year
Biotic Index score
O/E score
1998 (pre-project)
10
0.62
2003 (post-project)
4
0.54
2004 (post-project)
14
0.86
37
Future surveys of the Scotts John SCI monitoring reach are recommended to determine whether
sediment loads within the stream channel decline as vegetation returns to the adjacent
decommissioned road surface.
Jones Creek
Project: watershed restoration (road and landing decommissioning)
Pre-project data collection: 2000
Post-project data collection: 2003, 2004
Jones Creek is a mid-gradient (2-6 percent) transport-type stream. The SCI monitoring reach
begins immediately upstream of the 26N27 road crossing over Jones Creek. Project activities in
this area included decommissioning of approximately one mile of near-stream road, and two
landings. Decommissioning of these sites included ripping of the road and landing surfaces to
increase soil porosity and infiltration rates, removal of drainage features (i.e., culverts, inboard
ditches, etc.), and recontouring of the former road and landing surfaces. All decommissioned
roads and landings were located within 50 feet of Jones Creek and the SCI monitoring reach.
Since no vegetation was removed in this project, the primary concern with watershed restoration
activities is increases in fine sediment within adjacent stream channels. Table 36 below
summarizes SCI attributes regarding channel sedimentation measured for Jones Creek during
pre- and post-project surveys.
Table 36. Residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent particles less than 2mm in
diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Jones Creek SCI monitoring reach during pre-project (2000) and
post-project (2003, 2004) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test (α = 0.1) was used to identify
significant differences between pre- and post-project measurements. P-values in bold indicate statistical
significance.
Survey Year
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
% <2mm particles
2000 (pre)
0.29
7.0
12.0
2003 (post)
0.27
0.675
29.0
<0.001
8.1
2004 (post)
0.27
0.683
27.0
<0.001
1.5
A significant increase in pool tail sediment was observed between pre- and post-project surveys,
from approximately 7 percent pool tail fines in 2000 to 29 percent in 2003 (a 22 percent
increase). A second post-project survey conducted in 2004 confirmed high pool tail fines,
remaining close to 30 percent. Results are not conclusive however, because other metrics used
to monitor in-channel sediment (percent of particles less than 2mm in diameter in riffles and
residual pool depths) did not show the same trend observed in pool tail fines. Residual pool
depths remained relatively unchanged between pre- and post-project surveys, and the percent of
sediment in particle count measurements (% <2mm particles) declined.
BI and O/E scores calculated from macroinvertebrate samples collected from the Jones Creek
monitoring reach are presented in Table 37 below.
38
Table 37. Biotic Index (BI) and Observed/Expected (O/E) scores for the Jones Creek SCI monitoring reach. BI
scores range from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 20, with 4 considered “very degraded” and 20 considered “very
healthy.” O/E scores closer to 1 are considered “healthy.”
Year
Biotic Index score
O/E score
2000 (pre-project)
12
0.71
2003 (post-project)
8
0.71
2004 (post-project)
12
0.89
A slight decline in the BI score for Jones Creek was observed immediately following project
implementation in 2003. However, the BI score returned to pre-project conditions the following
year. The O/E score remained unchanged from pre-project conditions in 2003 and then
increased the following year. It appears that although sediment measured in pool tails increased
following project implementation, the invertebrate community was only slightly impaired in the
short-term. Macroinvertebrates rebounded quickly in 2004 despite the continued presence of
higher pool tail sediment, and is similar to the recovery observed in Scotts John Creek (Table
26). It should also be noted that relatively little sediment was observed within riffles (% <2mm
particles, Table 36) following project implementation. All macroinvertebrate sampling occurred
within riffle habitats.
As recommended with Scotts John Creek above, future monitoring efforts are recommended for
Jones Creek to determine if pool tail sediment levels are declining since 2004, as would be
expected.
Rocky Gulch
Project: watershed restoration (road decommissioning, culvert removal)
Pre-project data collection: 2002
Post-project data collection: 2004, 2005
Rocky Gulch is a high-gradient (8-12 percent) transport-type stream that is a tributary of Mill
Creek, a stream that supports anadromous fishes. The SCI monitoring reach begins at the
confluence of Rocky Gulch and Mill Creek. Project activities in the Rocky Gulch watershed
included approximately 1.5 miles of road decommissioning and the removal of several culverts,
including a large (greater than 6 feet in diameter) culvert over Rocky Gulch. This culvert had
overtopped and nearly failed in 1997, and the decision was made to remove it rather than replace
it with a larger structure. The road and culvert over Rocky Gulch were less than one mile from
anadromous fish habitat in Mill Creek, with the SCI monitoring reach ending at the crossing.
Monitoring of stream conditions following project implementation was a high priority, given the
proximity of anadromous fishery resources. This watershed restoration project was partially
funded with HFQLG restoration funds. The primary concern was an increase in short-term
sediment delivery.
Pre-project data was collected in 2002. Immediately following project implementation in 2004,
a post-project survey was completed in summer 2004, along with another post-project survey one
year later in 2005. Table 38 below summarizes SCI attributes regarding sediment loads within
the Rocky Gulch monitoring reach.
39
Table 38. Residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent particles less than 2mm in
diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Rocky Gulch SCI monitoring reach during pre-project (2002) and
post-project (2004, 2005) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test (α = 0.1) was used to identify
significant differences between pre- and post-project measurements. P-values in bold indicate statistical
significance.
Survey Year
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
% <2mm particles
2002 (pre)
0.46
0.8
0
2004 (mid)
0.53
0.247
3.7
<0.001
2.2
2005 (post)
0.48
0.761
1.8
0.054
1.6
There was a slight increase in pool tail fines between 2002 and 2004, from an average of 1
percent to about 4 percent. In addition, a slight increase in percent particles less than 2mm in
riffles was observed (from 0 percent in 2002 to 2 percent in 2004). No changes in residual pool
depths were observed. Another post-project survey conducted in 2005 saw sediment levels
return to near pre-project conditions, with pool tail fines declining to 2 percent, and percent
particles less than 2mm in riffles also seeing a slight decline (1.6 percent). Residual pool depths
in 2005 were very close to pre-project conditions. Though pool tail fines values were
significantly higher following project activities, the values observed remained very low, and
were unlikely to have adverse effects upon aquatic organisms or their habitat. Stream
temperature monitoring conducted in 1999 and 2006 showed no significant differences in mean
high water temperatures (see Appendices C6 and D).
Panther Creek
Project: Battle Creek Wildlife/Watershed Restoration Project
Pre-project data collection: 2001
Post-project data collection:2008
Panther Creek is a mid-gradient (5-7 percent) transport-type stream that is a tributary of South
Fork Battle Creek, a stream that supports anadromous fishes. The SCI monitoring reach is
located on an intermittent section of Panther Creek, with stream flows in dry years often ceasing
by August. In 2007, approximately 0.8 mile of road was decommissioned upstream of the
Panther Creek SCI monitoring reach. In addition, a culvert and road crossing were also removed
from Panther Creek. These activities were located approximately 0.2 mile upstream of the
monitoring reach on Panther Creek. Since the stream was dry during the 2001 survey, residual
pool depths could not be measured prior to project implementation. Table 39 below summarizes
SCI attributes regarding channel sedimentation measured for Panther Creek during pre- and postproject surveys.
Table 39. Residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent particles less than 2mm in
diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Panther Creek SCI monitoring reach during pre-project (2001) and
post-project (2008) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test (α = 0.1) was used to identify significant
differences between pre- and post-project measurements. P-values in bold indicate statistical significance. Residual
pool depths could not be measured in 2001 due to the stream being dry during the time of the survey.
Survey Year
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
% <2mm particles
2001 (pre)
n/a
34.3
5.0
2008 (post)
0.30
n/a
12.0
0.003
4.2
40
A significant reduction in pool tail sediment was observed one year following project activities
(Table 39). Percent particles less than 2mm diameter in riffles also declined, from an average of
5 percent to 4.2 percent. These findings are attributable to the reduction in near-stream sediment
sources (roads) that were decommissioned in 2007. Over time, fine sediment levels could be
expected to decline even further as the decommissioned road surface becomes vegetated and
sediment input from the road continues to decline.
Macroinvertebrate sampling for Panther Creek was conducted in 2008, but could not be
completed in 2001 due to dry stream conditions.
Stream / Meadow Improvement
This group of monitored streams include a wide range of activities. What these activities have in
common is that work was conducted within stream channels. In some cases, such as pond-andplug restoration, stream courses were diverted from their original channels and directed into
remnant (historic) channels.
Figure 14. Completed pond-and-plug restoration work on Red Clover Creek.
SCI monitoring reaches were established below these projects to assess impacts of in-channel
work on downstream aquatic habitats. Table 40 below lists streams where data was collected
before and after HFQLG in-channel improvement work.
41
Table 40. HFQLG streams selected for monitoring the
upon downstream aquatic habitats.
Pre-project data
Forest
Stream
collection year
Plumas South Fork Rock Creek
1998, 2002
Plumas Red Clover Creek
2010
Plumas Little Last Chance Creek 2007
Tahoe
Little Truckee River
2006
effects of in-channel stream and riparian habitat restoration
Post-project data
collection year
2006
2011, 2012
2010
2010
Project Name
Stream restoration
Red Clover Poco (pond and plug)
Little Last Chance Restoration Project
Perazzo Pond and Plug
A brief discussion of each stream follows Table 41 which presents a summary of results.
Table 41. HFQLG streams selected for monitoring the effects of stream/meadow restoration activities upon physical
stream attributes and macroinvertebrate metrics. Physical stream attributes were given a “Yes” designation if a
statistically significant (α = 0.1) increase in a channel substrate sediment attribute was observed, or significant
decrease in shade was observed between pre- and post-project surveys. A “Yes” designation in macroinvertebrate
metrics was given if the BI decreased by a rating class or more (change in score of 5 or more) or if O/E decreased by
more than 10%. For both physical and macroinvertebrate attributes, “No” indicates no adverse change was detected.
RPD = residual pool depth, PTF = pool tail fines, BI = Biologic Index, O / E = Observed / Expected, n/a = not
available.
Attribute
Macroinvertebrates
Stream
Stream Temperature
RPD
PTF
Shade
BI
O/E
South Fork Rock Creek
No
No
No
No
No
n/a
Red Clover Creek
No
No
Yes
n/a
n/a
n/a
Little Last Chance Creek
No
No
No
n/a
n/a
n/a
Little Truckee River
No
Yes
No
No
No
n/a
South Fork Rock Creek
Project: stream restoration
Pre-project data collection: 1998, 2002
Post-project data collection: 2006
South Fork (SF) Rock Creek is a low-gradient (1-2 percent) response-type stream that is a
tributary of Spanish Creek. Pre-project surveys in 1998 and 2002 spanned a reach approximately
580 meters in length. However, post-project sampling in 2006 was reduced to 313 meters due to
upstream restoration actions realigning the drainage at the top of the reach.
Project implementation took place in fall 2005. Activities included realigning stream banks to
re-slope an area disturbed by OHV use and to prevent further erosion of the stream bank, and the
installation of twelve vortex weirs and placement of large woody debris to increase aquatic
habitat heterogeneity. Channel banks were treated with erosion cloth and planted with willows,
sedges, and rushes to provide stream bank stability. Upper banks were seeded and mulched. A
sediment pond was constructed downstream of project activities to capture suspended sediments
produced from project activities. A large rain-on-snow event occurred within the SF Rock Creek
watershed in December 2005. This event washed away most of the erosion cloth, seed, and
newly planted riparian vegetation.
42
Additional work within the SF Rock Creek watershed that was not part of stream restoration
activities included hand thinning within the SF Rock Creek riparian area along approximately 2.5
miles of stream (including the portion of stream containing the SCI monitoring reach).
Table 42. Stream channel shade (% shade), residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent
particles less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the South Fork Rock Creek SCI monitoring
reach during pre-project (1998, 2002) and post-project (2006) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s ttest (α = 0.1) was used to identify significant differences between the combined pre-project (1998, 2002) and the
post-project (2006) measurements. P-values in bold indicate statistical significance.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
1998 (pre)
58.0
1.01
35.9
6.0
2002 (pre)
55.0
0.75
7.9
5.0
2006 (post)
59.0
0.614
0.94
0.683
3.4
<0.001
2.3
No negative effects in sediment, stream channel shading, or stream bank stability were observed
following project implementation. Despite the rain-on-snow event in 2005 washing away most
of the mitigation measures put in place to maintain stream bank stability and reduce erosion, no
increases in stream channel sediment were observed. Conifer thinning adjacent to the stream
appeared to have no effect upon stream channel shading within the SCI monitoring reach. Table
43 below summarizes B.I. and O/E scores for South Fork Rock Creek before and following
project implementation.
Table 43. Biotic Index (BI) and Observed/Expected (O/E) scores for the South Fork Rock Creek SCI monitoring
reach. BI scores range from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 20, with 4 considered “very degraded” and 20
considered “very healthy.” O/E scores closer to 1 are considered “healthy.”
Year
Biotic Index score
O/E score
2002
10
0.83
2006
6
0.75
A slight decline in both B.I. and O/E metrics was observed immediately following project
implementation. Whether this decline was the result of natural variation or project activities is
unclear, because virtually no changes in physical stream attributes were observed during SCI
surveys (with the exception of a reduction in pool tail sediment after 1998).
Red Clover Creek
Project: Red Clover Poco (pond and plug)
Pre-project data collection: 2010
Post-project data collection: 2011
Red Clover Creek in Red Clover Valley has been the site of “pond and plug” meadow
improvement activities since 2006. Red Clover Creek and its tributaries had become deeply
incised, resulting in severe gully erosion and loss of connection between the stream channel and
floodplain. This degraded situation was common throughout the entire 78,000 acre Red Clover
Creek drainage. It had resulted in an ongoing and synergistic cycle of continuing degradation,
which included loss in meadow productivity, conversion of wet meadow vegetation to sagebrush,
erosion from gully walls, loss of riparian vegetation, increased water temperatures and daily
fluctuations, excessive in-stream sedimentation, and degraded fish and wildlife habitat.
43
The “pond and plug” prescription consists of the installation of a series of earthen plugs in
incised stream channels. The earthen plugs re-direct stream flows into existing remnant channels
that are nearly at the same elevation as the meadow. Behind the earthen plugs, “ponds” are
created within the old incised channel in areas excavated for plug material. Groundwater table
elevations within the meadow are raised as a result of “pond and plug” activities, which have
been shown in other “pond and plug” projects to effectively improve wet-meadow vegetation
and wildlife habitat.
Pond-and-plug activities were first conducted within the Red Clover watershed in 2006. That
project included work on 11,250 feet of the mainstem of Red Clover Creek and 5,000 feet on
McReynolds Creek, a tributary of Red Clover Creek that is located on private property.
The pond/plug prescription was implemented on another three miles of Red Clover Creek in the
fall of 2010 on FS lands with approximately 68,000 to 85,000 cubic yards of material being
excavated to build twenty-nine gully plugs and ponds. Flows were re-directed from the gully
into an existing remnant channel on the north side of the meadow.
In the winter of 2010-2011, high stream flows damaged multiple earthen plugs within the
restoration project area. As a result, approximately 13 plugs required rebuilding using
mechanical equipment, planting of riparian vegetation, and placement of rock structures within
the channel. These actions were implemented after the SCI reach was surveyed in summer of
2011. Therefore, measurements in 2011 were aimed at analyzing the effects of the failed plug
structures on downstream habitat. Table 44 below summarizes SCI in-channel sediment
attributes.
Table 44. Stream channel shade (% shade), residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent
particles less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Red Clover Creek SCI monitoring reach
during pre-project (2010) and post-project (2011) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test (α = 0.1)
was used to identify significant differences between the pre- (2010) and both post-project (2011, 2012)
measurements. P-values in bold indicate statistical significance.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2010 (pre)
7.6
0.57
6.3
11.1
2011 (post)
4.7
0.068
0.68
0.450
3.6
0.106
13.1
2012 (post)
8.2
0.683
0.87
0.223
6.4
0.952
2.9
In general, little change was observed between 2010 and the following two years’ post-project
surveys (Table 44). A statistically significant decline in stream channel shade was observed
between 2010 and 2011; however, stream channel shade in 2012 increased to pre-project levels.
Therefore, the decline in stream channel shade observed in 2011 was likely the result of
sampling error.
44
Little Last Chance Creek
Project: Little Last Chance Restoration Project
Pre-project data collection: 2007
Post-project data collection: 2010
Little Last Chance Creek is a low-gradient, response-type stream in the Plumas NF. The SCI
reach is located in the middle of the Little Last Chance Restoration Project area, a project
designed for riparian restoration along the stream channel. Work included re-shaping of vertical
banks, vegetating, installing boulder vanes to redirect stream flows away from erodible terrace
banks, and riffle augmentation to allow high stream flows to spill onto the floodplain. Preproject data was collected in 2007, with post-project monitoring conducted in 2010. Table 45
below summarizes results for SCI shade and in-channel sediment measurements.
Table 45. Stream channel shade (% shade), residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent
particles less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Little Last Chance Creek SCI
monitoring reach during pre-project (2007) and post-project (2010) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance
student’s t-test (α = 0.1) was used to identify significant differences between pre- and post-project measurements.
P-values in bold indicate statistical significance.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2007(pre)
29.4
0.79
8.3
14.0
2010 (post)
37.5
0.053
0.64
0.174
5.9
0.154
6.7
No significant changes in pool tail fines or residual pool depths were observed between pre- and
post-project sampling. A significant increase in stream channel shading was observed following
project activities, from an average of 29.4 percent to 37.5 percent (Table 45). This increase in
channel shade is an indication that riparian vegetation is returning to the stream banks following
project implementation, which was one of the goals of the project. Future monitoring of this
reach is recommended to track the status and effects of restoration actions upon Little Last
Chance Creek.
Little Truckee River
Project: Perazzo Pond and Plug
Pre-project data collection: 2006
Post-project data collection: 2010
The Little Truckee River originates from Webber Lake, and flows in a generally southeast
direction before its confluence with the Truckee River. The SCI reach is located east of Webber
Lake in Perazzo Meadows, and is within the Perazzo Restoration Project. In 2009,
approximately 152 acres of wetlands were improved via pond-and-plug activities, rock riffle
construction, and restoration of flow to a historic channel within Perazzo Meadows. Planned
activities for the future include improvement of 155 acres of wetlands by installing earthen
plugs, diversion of flow from a degraded channel into stable channels on the meadow surface,
and construction of more rock riffles to reduce future erosion.
A combination of factors, coupled with the rain-on-snow event in May 2010, resulted in three
plugs within the original stream channel being breached. According to Tahoe National Forest
45
soils scientist Randy Westmoreland (personal communication, November 30, 2010), the
channel/floodplain outlet area was not opened enough to provide for the high flows resulting
from the rain-on-snow event. In addition, a newly constructed beaver dam nearby further
restricted flows and forced water over the plugs. Westmoreland also pointed to a poor plug
design as another contributing factor for water breaching the plugs. The rain-on-snow event also
triggered extensive scouring of the floodplain. The breached plugs were subsequently redesigned and repaired.
Table 46. Stream channel shade (% shade), residual pool depths (RPD), percent pool tail fines (% PTF), and percent
particles less than 2mm in diameter in riffles (% <2mm particles) within the Little Truckee River SCI monitoring
reach during pre-project (2006) and post-project (2010) surveys. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test (α =
0.1) was used to identify significant differences between pre- and post-project measurements. P-values in bold
indicate statistical significance.
% <2mm
Survey Year
% shade
P-value
RPD (m)
P-value
% PTF
P-value
particles
2006 (pre)
4.6
0.93
3.0
2.2
2010 (post)
4.1
0.656
0.92
0.892
34.3
<0.001
3.2
Pre-project sampling for the Little Truckee River was conducted in 2006. Data collected in 2010
indicated a large increase in pool tail fines; from pre-project levels of 3% fines to over 34% fines
post-project (Table 46). All other 2010 measurements were similar to pre-project conditions.
BI and O/E scores obtained through analysis of benthic macroinvertebrate samples collected
during pre- and post-project surveys are presented in Table 47 below.
Table 47. Biotic Index (BI) and Observed/Expected (O/E) scores for the Little Truckee River SCI monitoring reach.
BI scores range from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 20, with 4 considered “very degraded” and 20 considered
“very healthy.” O/E scores closer to 1 are considered “healthy.”
Year
Biotic Index score
O/E score
2006
6
0.44
2010
5
0.44
Despite the significant increase in pool tail fines observed following project activities,
macroinvertebrate samples collected in 2006 and 2010 were essentially the same (Table 47).
One possible reason for the lack of change in BI and O/E scores may be due to the
macroinvertebrate community already being dominated by insect families which prefer higher
amounts of deposited sediment. This is reflected in the low B.I. and O/E scores observed in
2006, prior to project implementation. An increase in fine sediment deposition would have less
impact upon macroinvertebrate communities which prefer sediment over other types of channel
substrate.
The significant increase in pool tail fines observed during the post-project survey would certainly
warrant future monitoring efforts within the Little Truckee River monitoring reach. However,
pond-and-plug activities took place within the monitoring reach during fall of 2010. This
activity made the current monitoring reach unsuitable for future monitoring efforts. It is
recommended that a new, long-term monitoring reach be established downstream of all past and
future project activities linked to the Perazzo Restoration Project, in order to assess the
magnitude and duration of post-project effects to the stream.
46
Wildfires
Fire can directly and indirectly affect aquatic and riparian ecosystems (Beche et al, 2005). Over
the course of the HFQLG pilot project, a number of watersheds containing SCI monitoring
reaches were burned by wildfires. Although not originally intended to monitor the effects of
wildfire, the availability of pre-wildfire data from these reaches provides an opportunity to
monitor the effects of wildfire on physical and biological stream attributes.
Figure 15. Burned hillslope along the Cub Creek SCI monitoring reach (2008).
Table 48 below lists HFQLG streams where wildfire effects were monitored. Refer to Appendix
B for maps identifying monitoring reach locations and wildfire perimeters. Results are
summarized in Table 49.
Table 48. HFQLG streams selected for monitoring the effects of wildfire upon physical and biological stream
attributes.
Pre-fire data
Post-fire data
Forest
Stream
Fire Name
collection year
collection year
Lassen
Cub Creek
2003, 2007
2009-2012
Cub Fire
Plumas
Moonlight Creek
2005
2008-2011
Moonlight Fire
Table 49. HFQLG streams selected for monitoring the effects of wildfire on physical stream attributes and
macroinvertebrate metrics. Physical stream attributes were given a “Yes” designation if a statistically significant (α
= 0.1) increase in a channel substrate sediment attribute, or significant decrease in shade was observed between preand post-project surveys. A “Yes” designation in macroinvertebrate metrics was given if the BI decreased by a
rating class or more (change in score of 5 or more) or if O/E decreased by more than 10%. For both physical and
macroinvertebrate attributes, “No” indicates no adverse change was detected. RPD = residual pool depth, PTF =
pool tail fines, BI = Biologic Index, O / E = Observed / Expected, n/a = not available.
Attribute
Macroinvertebrates
Stream
Stream
Temperature
RPD
PTF
Shade
BI
O/E
Cub Creek
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Moonlight Creek
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
47
Cub Creek
Fire: Cub Fire
Pre-fire data collection: 1997, 2003, 2007, 2008
Post-fire data collection: 2009-2012
Cub Creek is a mid- to high-gradient, transport-type stream that is a tributary of Deer Creek (an
anadromous fishery). The SCI monitoring reach on Cub Creek is located on the lowermost 150
meters of the stream (see Appendix B19). The Cub Creek watershed is a Research Natural Area,
and the monitoring reach served as a reference reach for several years. In 2008, the Cub
Wildfire burned approximately 80% of the watershed, with 27% of this burning at high severity.
Though the majority of high severity burn was located on the mid-slope and ridge tops, a large
portion of the RHCA was also burned. The Cub Creek watershed is roadless and part of the
“Off-Base” land allocation designated by HFQLG that prohibits commercial vegetation
management activities. Therefore, future management will be limited and will provide for a
good opportunity to assess wildfire impacts upon physical and biological stream attributes.
Table 50. Summarized data for Cub Creek. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test (α = 0.10) was used to
compare data between the combined pre-fire (1997, 2003, 2007, 2008) and post-fire stream conditions. Values in
bold indicate a significant difference between pre-fire and post-fire data for that given year.
Pool Tail
Res. Pool
Year
p-value % particles <2mm
p-value Shade % p-value
Fines (%)
Depth (m)
1997 (pre-fire)
3.8
5.50
0.48
92.5
2003 (pre-fire)
2.7
1.00
0.48
96.4
2007 (pre-fire)
2.9
0.72
0.62
96.5
2008 (pre-fire)
1.1
0.00
0.55
94.0
2009
2010
2011
2012
9.3
9.3
2.5
13.3
1.72
3.48
3.64
1.70
0.56
0.63
0.53
0.58
0.012
0.427
0.994
<0.001
0.880
0.696
0.962
0.649
88.9
92.5
91.7
94.6
<0.001
0.005
<0.001
0.764
As shown in Table 50 above, a significant increase in pool tail fines was observed in Cub Creek
in 2009, immediately following the Cub Fire. This increase in pool tail fines was also
significantly higher than the fines values observed in 2011, and is more similar to fines values
observed in 2009 and 2010 (Table 50). Of the four years of post-wildfire data collection, only
one year (2011) showed a marked decline in pool tail sediment to pre-fire conditions. Therefore,
pool tail fines data collected in 2011 appears to be an outlier when compared to all other years’
worth of post-wildfire data collection. Pool tail fines values four years after the Cub Fire remain
significantly higher than those observed during pre-fire conditions.
Stream channel shade values declined slightly following the Cub Fire, as the fire burned riparian
vegetation within the monitoring reach. Stream channel shade values remained below pre-fire
conditions until 2012. The reduction in stream channel shade probably had little (if any)
significance pertaining to aquatic biology and stream health since shade values still remained
close to or above 90 percent. In-stream temperature monitoring was conducted from June 30 to
48
September 19 for 1999 and 2007-2009. Results from temperature monitoring are presented in
Figure 16 below.
Figure 16. Mean water temperatures for Cub Creek from June 30 through September 19 of select years (1999 and
2007 pre-fire, 2008 and 2009 mid/post-fire). Air temperatures were collected using data from the Chester Remote
Automated Weather Station (RAWS), located approximately 12 miles northeast of the Cub Creek monitoring reach.
An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to determine if the relationship between
air and water temperature was affected by the burning of shade-providing vegetation.
Regression equations are presented in Figure 17 below, showing the relationship between air
temperature and the corresponding water temperatures both before and after the Cub Fire.
49
70
Water Temperature (°F)
65
y = 0.3524x + 28.251
60
pre-fire
55
post-fire
50
Linear (pre-fire)
y = 0.3512x + 26.437
Linear (post-fire)
45
40
60
70
80
90
100
Air Temperature ( F)
Figure 17. Relationship between air temperature and water temperature in Cub Creek before and after the Cub Fire,
which burned in 2008. Pre-fire temperature data was collected in 2001 and 2005; post-fire data was collected in
2009. Regression equations and trend lines are included.
Results from ANCOVA showed a significant, positive shift in the y-intercept of the post-fire
regression line, showing an average temperature increase of approximately 1.9 degrees F from
pre-fire conditions under a given air temperature. For example, assume the air temperature is 80
degrees F on a given day. Using the regression equation for pre-fire conditions (y = 0.3512x +
26.437) and substituting ‘x’ with 80 degrees F, pre-fire conditions would estimate a Cub Creek
water temperature of approximately 54.5 degrees F. Meanwhile, the regression equation for
post-fire conditions (y = 0.3524x + 28.251) estimates that on an 80 degree F day, water
temperatures would be estimated to be approximately 56.4 degrees F. The ANCOVA also
showed no significant difference in the slopes of the regression lines (p = 0.975). If there was a
significant difference in the slopes of the regression lines (if p < 0.05), then ANCOVA would be
invalid and not useful for this analysis. Despite the increase in water temperatures in Cub Creek
following the Cub Fire, this increase is relatively small and unlikely to adversely affect aquatic
communities.
Macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted from 2000 to 2010 in the Cub Creek monitoring
reach. Biologic indices and O/E scores calculated from this sampling is presented in Table 51
below.
50
Table 51. Biotic Index (BI) and Observed/Expected (O/E) scores for the Cub Creek SCI monitoring reach. BI
scores range from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 20, with 4 considered “very degraded” and 20 considered “very
healthy.” O/E scores closer to 1 are considered “healthy.”
Year
Biotic Index score
O/E score
2000 (pre-fire)
14
1.15
2003 (pre-fire)
11
0.93
2007 (pre-fire)
8
0.93
2008 (pre-fire)
10
0.93
2009 (post-fire)
13
1.15
2010 (post-fire)
4
0.79
The first post-fire sampling year (2009) exhibited little difference in macroinvertebrate metrics
when compared to pre-fire samples. However, a significant decline in both the BI and O/E
scores was observed in 2010 (Table 51). As previously stated, physical stream attributes
measured during SCI surveys showed a marked increase in pool tail sediment following the Cub
Fire (Table 50). It is likely that increases in sediment within the monitoring reach filled
interstitial spaces in the stream bed, thus altering the habitat in favor of sediment-preferring
macroinvertebrate groups. The 2010 macroinvertebrate sample was dominated by insects of the
family Chironomidae, many of which prefer substrates consisting of fine sediment.
Macroinvertebrate samples were also collected in 2011 and 2012; however, these samples were
not analyzed in time to be included in this report.
Moonlight Creek
Fire: Moonlight Fire
Pre-fire data collection: 2005
Post-fire data collection: 2008-2011
The Moonlight Creek SCI reach is located approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Moonlight
Creek’s confluence with Lights Creek (see Appendix B20). Most of the watershed upstream of
the reach was burned by the Moonlight Fire in the summer of 2007. The fire burned nearly 99%
of the watershed, approximately 5,579 acres. Of these acres, approximately 1,100 acres burned at
low severity (1-25% vegetation mortality), 613 acres burned at moderate severity (26-50%
vegetation mortality), and 3,866 acres burned at high severity (>50% vegetation mortality). The
majority of streamside areas in the upper watershed experienced high-severity burning. Part of
the upper watershed is on private land, and is located approximately 5 miles upstream of the
reach. The private land portion was where the majority of high intensity fire occurred and was
extensively salvage logged using a combination of high-lead and ground-based systems from the
winter of 2007 through the summer of 2008.
In 2009, approximately 1,490 acres of tractor salvage occurred on federal lands. Monitoring
completed in 2010 and 2011 is intended to assess the post-fire and fire salvage conditions.
51
Table 52. Summarized data for Moonlight Creek. An unpaired, unequal variance student’s t-test (α = 0.10) was
used to compare data between combined pre-fire and each post-fire stream survey. Values in bold indicate a
significant difference between pre-fire and post-fire data for that given year.
Pool Tail
% particles
Res. Pool
Year
p-value
p-value Shade %
p-value
Fines (%)
<2mm
Depth (m)
1998 (pre-fire)
9.36
3.0
0.46
64.1
2000 (pre-fire)
2.76
3.0
0.45
70.3
2001 (pre-fire
6.73
10.0
0.48
96.3
2005 (pre-fire)
4.12
9.5
0.45
77.8
2008
2009
2010
2011
15.70
4.50
4.07
4.96
15.2
0
8.0
0.8
0.40
0.43
0.50
0.50
<0.001
0.264
0.138
0.413
0.076
0.436
0.291
0.219
57.7
28.8
27.6
42.2
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
A significant increase in pool tail fines and a substantial increase in fines in the particle count
were found the first year after the fire. Residual pool depths significantly declined in 2008
following the Moonlight Fire, before returning to pre-fire conditions in 2009. Stream shade was
also significantly less than in pre-fire conditions. The increase in sediment appeared to be shortlived, as pool tail fines and particle counts less than 2mm in diameter in riffles returned to near
pre-fire conditions in 2009 and remained near those levels through 2011.
Stream channel shade for 2011 remained significantly reduced from pre-fire conditions;
however, channel shade has significantly increased between 2010 and 2011 (p-value = 0.0002).
This trend in channel shade is attributable to a resurgence of riparian vegetation along the stream
corridor, particularly willows. The decrease in stream shade between 2008 and 2009 post-fire
surveys is likely the result of falling dead timber between the survey dates. This theory is
supported by the fact that large woody debris counts dramatically increased between 2008 and
2010. In 2008, a total of 66 pieces of LWD were counted. The following two years saw LWD
counts increase to 122 pieces in 2009, and 213 pieces in 2010 (Attachment 1). No adverse
effects were observed resulting from tractor salvage operations in 2009. While it appears
Moonlight Creek is returning to pre-fire conditions pertaining to sediment deposition, future
monitoring will be required to track recovery of stream channel canopy cover. Stream
temperature data were recorded within the Moonlight Creek monitoring reach in 2001, 2005,
2009, and 2010, and are presented in Figure 18 below.
52
Figure 18. Mean water temperatures for Moonlight Creek from June 19 through September 15 of select years (2001
and 2005 pre-fire, 2009 and 2010 post-fire). Air temperatures were obtained using data from the Quincy Remote
Automated Weather Station (RAWS).
As with Cub Creek, ANCOVA was conducted for Moonlight Creek temperature data to
determine the effects of decreased stream channel shade upon water temperature. Regression
equations are presented in Figure 19 below, showing the relationship between air temperature
and the corresponding water temperatures both before and after the Moonlight Fire.
53
Figure 19. Relationship between air temperature and water temperature in Moonlight Creek before and after the
Moonlight Fire, which burned in 2007. Pre-fire temperature data was collected in 2001 and 2005; post-fire data was
collected in 2009 and 2010. Regression equations and trend lines are included.
Results from ANCOVA for Moonlight Creek temperatures did not show a significant difference
in the y-intercepts of the regression lines (p = 0.842). Thus, it cannot be said that water
temperatures were significantly affected by the reduction of channel shade over Moonlight
Creek. This finding was unexpected due to the relatively dramatic reduction in stream channel
shade over Moonlight Creek following the Moonlight Fire. However, it indicates that factors
other than air temperature, such as groundwater input, may be having greater influence on
Moonlight Creek water temperatures than do ambient air temperatures.
Macroinvertebrate sampling conducted during SCI surveys took place from 2000 to 2010 within
the Moonlight Creek monitoring reach. Biologic indices and O/E scores calculated from this
sampling are presented in Table 53 below.
Table 53. Biotic Index (BI) and Observed/Expected (O/E) scores for the Moonlight Creek SCI monitoring reach.
BI scores range from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 20, with 4 considered “very degraded” and 20 considered
“very healthy.” O/E scores closer to 1 are considered “healthy.”
Year
Biotic Index score
O/E score
2000 (pre-fire)
7
0.75
2001 (pre-fire)
10
0.82
2005 (pre-fire)
4
0.89
2008 (post-fire)
10
1.03
2010 (post-fire)
14
0.75
Interestingly, there appears to have been no decline in macroinvertebrate indices collected from
the Moonlight Creek monitoring reach, despite increases in fine sediment observed in 2008
54
(Tables 52, 53). Biologic indices and O/E scores were higher following the 2007 Moonlight Fire
than they were pre-fire, despite the significant increase in fine sediment post-fire. One possible
explanation for the increases in BI and O/E scores following the Moonlight Fire is increased
productivity within the riparian area. Field notes collected in 2010 indicated a significant
increase in the abundance of riparian hardwood species (particularly willow), as the Moonlight
Fire burned the vast majority of conifers within the watershed and allowed increased sunlight
penetration into the Moonlight Creek riparian zone. Many macroinvertebrate species feed upon
the leaves of deciduous hardwoods such as willows. Thus, an increase in the abundance of
riparian hardwoods may have led to an increase in macroinvertebrate species richness and
abundance as well.
Reference Streams
The HFQLG monitoring plan calls for annual survey of streams from watersheds with relatively
low levels of watershed and streamside disturbance. The intent of re-surveying was to provide a
gauge for natural variation in the attributes measured. The list of 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). In 2007 the number of reference streams was reduced
to allow for sampling each reach annually for the remainder of the HFQLG monitoring period.
This change was made for two reasons: first, some original references were “lost” to increased
land management activities such as HFQLG vegetation management, wildland fire and salvage,
and suction dredging. Secondly, the HFQLG stream monitoring team felt annual sampling would
better capture possible year to year variations. HFQLG reference streams are listed in Table 54.
Table 54. HFQLG stream monitoring: reference streams. Channel Types= T-transport, R-response. Zones= W-west,
T-transition, E-east. LVNP = Lassen Volcanic National Park. n/a = not applicable. CP = Conklin Park.
LNFMFFR = Little North Fork Middle Fork Feather River.
Total
Ranger
Stream
Stream
Forest
Zone
Years sampled
sample
District
Type
years
Rice Creek
Lassen
Almanor
T
T
1998, 2001, 2006-2012
9
Rock Creek
Lassen
Almanor
R
T-E
2000, 2006-2012
8
Lower Kings Creek
LVNP
n/a
R
T
2005, 2007, 2008, 2011
4
EB Nelson Creek
Plumas
Mt. Hough
R
T-E
2005, 2007, 2009-2011
5
WB Nelson Creek
Plumas
Mt. Hough
T
T
2004, 2007, 2008, 2010
4
Willow Creek
Plumas
Mt. Hough
T
T
1997, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2006
5
Willow Creek @ CP Plumas
Beckwourth
R
E
1997, 1998, 2003
3
SF Feather River
Plumas
Feather River
T
W
1997, 2000, 2006
3
Frazier Creek
Plumas
Beckwourth
T
T
1997, 2002, 2003
3
Chips Creek
Plumas
Mt. Hough
T
T
1998, 2005, 2007, 2008
4
LNFMFFR
Plumas
Feather River
T
W
1999, 2004, 2007, 2008
4
Cottonwood Creek
Tahoe
Sierraville
R
E
2003, 2005, 2008-2012
7
Five Lakes Creek
Tahoe
Sierraville
T
T
2005, 2007-2012
7
Pauley Creek
Tahoe
Yuba River
T-R
W
2005, 2007-2012
7
Sagehen Creek
Tahoe
Truckee
T-R
E-T
2004, 2007-2012
7
55
Response-type streams typically had higher levels of channel substrate variability than transporttype streams. This is chiefly due to the typically low gradient (less than two percent) of most
response-type systems, and less ability to transport bedload due to reduced stream power.
Transport-type streams typically store less sediment than response-type streams due to higher
stream power and higher gradient, allowing transport-type reaches to “transport” sediment
downstream.
Stream channel shading remained relatively stable year to year on both response- and transporttype monitoring reaches. Discrepancies between years appeared to result from either large
winter blow-down events that knocked down shade-providing conifers, or timing SCI surveys
prior to full leaf-bloom of adjacent deciduous hardwood species.
Macroinvertebrate metrics exhibited high variability between years for some reference streams.
This variability appeared to result from episodic events, such as wildfires or landslides, which
dramatically altered physical stream attributes. Most reference streams that with declines in BI
and O/E scores often displayed recovery within 1-2 years, indicating macroinvertebrate
communities are resilient to episodic events. Given the high variability in macroinvertebrate
metrics within reference streams, it is recommended that multiple years of post-project
macroinvertebrate samples be collected from project-affected streams to determine if declines in
macroinvertebrate communities were the result of episodic (short-term) or chronic (long-term)
events affecting their habitat.
Stream temperature monitoring of reference streams showed that the volume of water supplied
by groundwater accretion to a stream has greater influence on water temperatures than stream
channel shade. In streams that are mostly supplied by surface runoff, stream channel shading
plays a much greater role in maintaining water temperatures.
Refer to Appendix A for in-depth analysis of reference stream data.
56
References
Alabaster, J.S., & R. Lloyd. 1982. Water quality criteria for freshwater fish. London,
Butterworth. 361 p.
Beche, L.A., S.L. Stephens, & V.H. Resh. 2005. Effects of prescribed fire on a Sierra Nevada
(California, USA) stream and its riparian zone. Forest Ecology and Management, 218:
37-59.
Frazier, J.W., K.B. Roby, J.A. Boberg, K. Kenfield, J.B. Reiner, D.L. Azuma, J.L. Furnish, B.P.
Staab, S.L. Grant. 2005. Stream Condition Inventory Technical Guide. USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Region-Ecosystem Conservation Staff. Vallejo, CA. 111 pp.
Herbst, D. B., & J.M. Kane. 2009. Responses of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates to Stream
Channel Reconstruction in a Degraded Rangeland Creek in the Sierra Nevada.
Ecological Restoration, 27: 76-88.
Kondolf, G. M. 2000. Assessing salmonid spawning gravel quality. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society, 129: 262-281.
Luce, C. H. and T. A. Black. 1999. Sediment production from forest roads in western Oregon.
Water Resources Research 35(8): 2561-2570.
Luce, C. H. and T. A. Black. 2001. Effects of traffic and ditch maintenance on forest road
sediment production. In Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation
Conference, March 25-29, 2001, Reno, NV. pp. V67-V74. (180 kb)
MacDonald, L., and D. Coe. 2005. Sediment production and delivery from unpaved forest roads in the
Sierra Nevada, California. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 7: 08831.
Mitchell-Bruker, 2011. 2011 Best Management Practices Evaluation Program Report. USDA
Forest Service HFQLG Pilot Project Area Lassen National Forest, Plumas National
Forest, and Sierraville Ranger District of Tahoe National Forest. USDA, Plumas
National Forest. 16 p.
Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los
Angeles, California. 502 p.
Opperman, J.J., K.A. Lohse, C. Brooks, N. Maggi Kelly, & A.M. Merenlender. 2004. Influence
of land use on fine sediment in salmonid spawning gravels within the Russian River
Basin, California. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 62: 2740-2751.
Reiser, D.W., and R.G. White. 1988. Effects of two sediment size-classes on survival of
steelhead and chinook salmon eggs. North American Journal of Fisheries Management,
8: 432 – 437.
57
Ryan, P. A. 1991. Environmental effects of sediment on New Zealand streams: a review. New
Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 25: 207-221.
Ryder, G. I. 1989. Experimental studies on the effects of fine sediment on lotic invertebrates.
Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of Zoology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New
Zealand. 216 p.
Soroka, I. K., & G. McKenzie-Grieve. 1983. A biological and water quality assessment at a
placer mine on Little Gold Creek, Yukon Territory. Environment Canada, Environmental
Protection Service, Pacific Region, Regional Program Report, 83-06.
USDA, 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Volume 4, Appendix I.
USDA. 2005. HFLQG Monitoring, Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) Summary, 2007. HFQLG
Monitoring Report. 8pp.
Contributors:
Ryan Foote
Fisheries Biologist
Lassen National Forest
Tina Hopkins
Fisheries Biologist
Plumas National Forest
Deborah Urich
Fisheries Biologist
Tahoe National Forest
Ralph Martinez
GIS Coordinator
Plumas National Forest
58
Pamela J Edwards
Research Hydrologist
Northern Research Station
Appendix A – Analysis of Reference Streams
Reference Streams
Data is presented here from 17 streams used as long-term reference reaches surveyed through the
course of the HFQLG pilot project. Data is presented in two categories: response-type streams
(gradients less than 2 percent, fine-textured bank material), and transport-type streams (gradients
greater than 2 percent, coarse bank material).
Response-Type Reference Streams
Five reference reaches were classified as response-type reaches. These low-gradient reaches
typically have more sediment deposition than higher-gradient reaches. Thus, the amount of
sediment in the channel substrate is high, relative to steeper stream types, and as a result, small
changes in sediment delivery are harder to detect. Table A.2 below summarizes residual pool
depths and pool tail sediment values for HFQLG response-type stream reaches observed over the
course of the HFQLG pilot project.
Table A.1. Mean residual pool depths (meters) and pool tail fine sediment values (%) for HFQLG response-type
reference stream reaches. EB = East Branch.
Rock Creek
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
RPD
0.34
% PTF
Lower Kings
Creek
RPD
% PTF
Willow Creek @
Conklin Park
RPD
% PTF
0.63
16.0
0.38
49.1
RPD
% PTF
Cottonwood Creek
RPD
% PTF
55.3
0.27
0.33
0.33
0.36
0.38
0.44
0.40
0.24
EB Nelson Creek
24.6
37.4
4.3
10.4
3.1
2.5
15.4
35.3
0.37
28.4
0.58
42.1
0.31
0.37
52.8
21.8
0.53
38.2
0.53
0.73
0.63
0.49
15.0
19.9
8.2
15.7
0.45
27.5
0.64
97.6
0.48
0.48
0.52
0.49
0.51
41.4
49.5
60.3
39.0
73.9
Changes in residual pool depths are thought to be associated with changes in sediment delivery
retention. Fine sediment can accumulate in the bottoms of pools, thus reducing their depth.
Similarly, large flow events can shift bedload out of pools and may increase their depth.
As Table A.1 above shows, pool tail sediment values were typically high, with considerable
variability between years. In many cases, an inverse relationship between residual pool depths
and pool tail sediment was observed with a decrease in residual pool depths as pool tail fines
59
increase (Table A.1). Cottonwood Creek was the exception with little to no change in pool
depths even though pool tail sediment values fluctuated year to year.
With the exception of the Cottonwood Creek in 2005, year to year variation is stream shade was
fairly low. Table A.2 below summarizes mean channel shade values for reference response-type
stream reaches.
Table A.2. Mean channel shade values (%) for HFQLG response-type reference stream reaches. EB = East Branch.
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
range
Rock Creek
Lower Kings Creek
Willow Creek @
Conklin Park
42.0
47.7
EB Nelson Creek
Cottonwood Creek
66.5
67.0
79.4
74.9
86.4
78.2
82.0
76.8
74.1
66.5-86.4
13.0
50.1
9.0
16.8
62.7
13.3
9.0-16.8
42.0-67.0
62.3
60.4
72.7
60.2
50.1-72.7
27.7
44.1
53.2
60.1
61.1
51.4
27.7-61.1
Macroinvertebrate Sampling of Response-Type Reference Streams
Analysis of macroinvertebrate samples collected from HFQLG response-type reference streams
was conducted to aid in identifying natural variation within response-type systems. Biologic
indices and O/E scores calculated from these samples are presented in Table A.3 below.
60
Table A.3. Biologic index and O/E scores for HFQLG response-type reference streams. BI scores range from a
minimum of 4 to a maximum of 20, with 4 considered “very degraded” and 20 considered “very healthy.” O/E
scores closer to 1 are considered “healthy.”
Rock Creek
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
BI
O/E
7
0.84
Lower Kings
Creek
BI
O/E
7
Willow Creek @
Conklin Park
BI
O/E
0.84
1.00
0.69
0.84
0.84
BI
O/E
Cottonwood Creek
BI
O/E
1.20
9
12
11
10
9
12
EB Nelson Creek
0.79
7
1.25
13
1.17
14
12
1.16
1.16
12
1.17
5
7
1.08
0.81
7
0.62
7
6
4
0.71
0.62
0.53
Response streams displayed relatively low BI scores, as compared to transport streams (Tables A
9-10) with relatively higher O/E scores. BI displayed greater year to year variability than O/E.
Water Temperature Monitoring within Response-Type Streams
Temperatures were recorded using portable thermographs, in Rock Creek and Cottonwood
Creeks. Recorders were typically placed in May or June and removed in September.
Thermographs were programmed to record water temperature at one-hour intervals. After
retrieval of the thermographs, water temperature data was streamlined by transforming raw data
into a weekly moving average. Graphical representations of weekly moving average water
temperatures for Rock Creek and Cottonwood Creek are presented in Figures A.1 and A.2
below.
61
70
65
Temperature (*F)
60
2004
55
2005
2006
50
2007
45
2008
2009
40
2010
35
28-Sep
21-Sep
14-Sep
7-Sep
31-Aug
24-Aug
17-Aug
10-Aug
3-Aug
27-Jul
20-Jul
13-Jul
6-Jul
29-Jun
22-Jun
15-Jun
8-Jun
1-Jun
30
Figure A.1. Seven-day moving average for water temperatures (°F) within the Rock Creek SCI monitoring reach
from 2004 to 2010. Temperature monitoring was conducted from June through September for each year.
70
65
Temperature (*F)
60
55
2003
50
2008
45
40
35
30
1-Jul
8-Jul
15-Jul
22-Jul
29-Jul
5-Aug
12-Aug 19-Aug 26-Aug
2-Sep
Figure A.2. Seven-day moving average for water temperatures (°F) within the Cottonwood Creek SCI monitoring
reach for 2003 and 2008. Temperature monitoring was conducted from July to September for each year.
As Figure A.1 above shows, annual fluctuations in water temperatures within Rock Creek
typically ranged from 4 to 8 degrees F (with the exception of data collected in 2005).
Cottonwood Creek exhibited little fluctuation between the two years when temperature was
62
monitored. Peaks in average water temperatures were typically reached in July and August, as
would be expected. Three primary factors contributing to water temperature fluctuations within
a stream include 1) amount of solar exposure (lack of stream channel shading), 2) contribution of
groundwater accretion to stream flow, and 3) fluctuations in air temperature. A well-shaded,
mostly spring-fed system would likely have very stable water temperatures. On the other hand, a
stream with little overhanging shade that receives most of its water via surface runoff would be
expected to exhibit much wider fluctuations in water temperatures (both annually and daily).
Rock Creek is mostly well-shaded (average shade values of 67 to 87 percent), and springs
contribute the majority of stream flows. Cottonwood Creek is only moderately shaded (average
shade values of 28 to 60 percent), but nearly all its flows are supplied by groundwater accretion.
Thus, it appears that the contribution of groundwater accretion to stream flows strongly
influences stream temperature.
Transport-Type Reference Streams
Twelve reference reaches are classified as transport-type reaches. Transport-type stream reaches
have a greater ability to transport sediment and bedload than do response-type reaches due to
their higher gradient (typically greater than 2 percent). As a result, pool tail sediment values are
typically lower than in response streams. Tables A.4 and A.5 below summarize residual pool
depths and pool tail sediment values for HFQLG transport-type stream reaches observed over the
course of the HFQLG pilot project. Although Pauley and Sagehen creeks are considered to have
elements representative of both response- and transport-type reaches, they are included with
transport-type reaches in this report.
Table A.4. Mean residual pool depths (meters) and pool tail fine sediment values (%) for HFQLG transport-type
reference stream reaches. WB = West Branch, and SF = South Fork.
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Rice Creek
RPD
% PTF
0.71
3.7
0.41
4.0
0.55
0.53
0.54
0.65
0.65
0.48
0.45
2.0
0.0
0.3
2.3
0.7
1.5
0.0
WB Nelson Creek
RPD
% PTF
1.02
8.8
0.99
0.95
0.76
0.79
7.6
3.5
5.7
6.9
Willow Creek
RPD
% PTF
0.29
3.0
0.48
4.4
0.51
0.4
63
SF Feather River
RPD
% PTF
1.09
6.0
0.75
Frazier Creek
RPD
% PTF
0.98
15.0
5.5
0.77
0.43
0.70
2.4
7.0
1.7
Table A.5. Mean residual pool depths (meters) and pool tail fine sediment values (%) for HFQLG transport-type
reference stream reaches. LNFMFFR = Little North Fork Middle Fork Feather River.
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Chips Creek
RPD
% PTF
0.87
LNFMFFR
RPD
% PTF
1.35
24.0
Five Lakes Creek
RPD
% PTF
6.0
0.76
1.1
0.83
0.96
1.5
1.9
Pauley Creek
RPD
% PTF
0.51
0.82
16.0
0.79
9.9
0.69
0.72
0.65
9.9
6.9
6.2
0.78
9.6
13.0
0.49
9.9
0.65
10.7
0.68
0.54
0.63
0.57
0.45
0.47
4.7
1.6
2.4
3.1
1.7
6.3
0.72
0.57
0.59
0.58
0.52
0.54
4.9
5.9
2.3
2.9
3.2
1.7
Sagehen Creek
RPD
% PTF
0.50
11.0
0.53
35.8
0.48
16.0
0.50
0.43
0.32
0.32
0.43
0.36
3.0
3.5
15.8
15.8
2.0
1.7
As shown in Tables A.4 and A.5 above, the transport reference reaches had pool tail fines values
are lower than response reaches. Residual pool depths displayed more variability.
Mean channel shade values for transport-type reference stream reaches are given in Tables A.6
and A.7 below.
Table A.6. Mean channel shade values (%) for HFQLG transport-type reference stream reaches. WB = West
Branch, and SF = South Fork.
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
range
Rice Creek
WB Nelson Creek
Willow Creek
SF Feather River
50.7
Frazier Creek
63.6
48.1
51.0
55.6
64.0
61.0
60.0
71.0
72.4
47.4
51.5
52.8
55.7
57.4
56.0
58.3
47.1-64.0
53.9
61.5
51.0-61.0
50.7-61.5
68.0
66.2
70.1
66.6
66.2-72.4
64
60.0-71.0
Table A.7. Mean channel shade values (%) for HFQLG transport-type reference stream reaches. LNFMFFR =
Little North Fork Middle Fork Feather River.
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
range
Chips Creek
LNFMFFR
Five Lakes Creek
Pauley Creek
65.6
30.6
42.3
Sagehen Creek
57.6
70.6
70.4
66.0
76.6
47.8
49.5
44.6
30.6-49.5
71.6
73.9
71.4
74.2
65.6-73.9
52.4
59.4
52.3
50.2
56.6
56.3
55.0
61.1
50.2-61.1
56.3
58.2
56.2
54.9
55.8
58.3
42.3-59.4
71.9
63.5
71.4
71.4
55.2
81.6
55.2-81.6
Stream channel shade values remain relatively steady on transport-type reference stream reaches
(Tables A.6, A.7). Occasionally, changes were observed, such as the 16 percent decline in
channel shade between 2010 and 2011 on Sagehen Creek (Table A.7). These declines are
explained in detail in the annual HFQLG SCI reports. In general, changes are the result of either
1) winter blow-down events that knock down shade-providing conifers, and 2) conducting SCI
surveys prior to full leaf bloom of shade-providing deciduous plants. Winter blow-down events
can be accounted for by observing the amount of large woody debris (LWD) within the
monitoring reach; blow-down events typically result in a significant increase in large wood in the
stream channel. Although full leaf bloom does not occur on a specific date, one can infer
whether it has occurred or not by simply observing the date the survey was conducted. In
higher-elevation streams above 5,000 feet, full leaf bloom typically occurs after July 1. Given
the steady channel shade values observed on reference stream reaches and the ability to discern
whether winter blow-down events or pre-leaf bloom SCI surveys played a role in observed
declines in stream channel shade, significant changes in channel shade on pre-post monitoring
reaches can be confidently attributed to project activities.
Macroinvertebrate Sampling of Transport-Type Reference Streams
As described for response-type reference streams, macroinvertebrate sampling within transporttype reference streams was conducted in order to identify natural variation within transport-type
systems. Biologic indices and O/E scores calculated from these samples are presented in Tables
A.8 and A.9 below.
65
Tables A.8. Biologic index and O/E scores for HFQLG transport-type reference streams. BI scores range from a
minimum of 4 to a maximum of 20, with 4 considered “very degraded” and 20 considered “very healthy.” O/E
scores closer to 1 are considered “healthy.”
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Rice Creek
BI
O/E
5
14
13
7
WB Nelson Creek
BI
O/E
Willow Creek
BI
O/E
14
1.05
9
0.90
14
1.05
SF Feather River
BI
O/E
13
Frazier Creek
BI
O/E
0.85
1.01
1.08
1.08
1.16
20
14
11
12
16
5
11
0.77
0.45
0.85
1.14
1.29
0.98
0.98
Table A.9. Biologic index and O/E scores for HFQLG transport-type reference streams. BI scores range from a
minimum of 4 to a maximum of 20, with 4 considered “very degraded” and 20 considered “very healthy.” O/E
scores closer to 1 are considered “healthy.”
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Chips Creek
BI
O/E
8
0.59
13
12
0.96
0.85
LNFMFFR
BI
O/E
13
0.80
Five Lakes Creek
BI
O/E
Pauley Creek
BI
O/E
16
1.08
12
1.01
18
1.23
15
15
20
15
1.01
0.84
0.93
1.09
6
4
6
17
0.69
0.77
1.00
1.23
Sagehen Creek
BI
O/E
18
10
0.97
0.78
6
5
9
11
0.97
0.88
0.78
0.97
According to Tables A.8 and A.9 above, some reference streams show significant variability in
BI and O/E scores over time, such as Pauley Creek. These variations are likely in response to
episodic events such as drought years or unusually large floods. Physical stream attributes
measured in SCI surveys such as pool tail sediment and channel shading do not appear to be
closely linked with the fluctuations in BI and O/E scores observed in transport-type reference
streams. The wide fluctuations observed in some reference transport-type streams, along with
their lack of correlation with stream sedimentation and channel shading, make it difficult to
66
determine the effects of HFQLG project activities upon sensitive macroinvertebrate taxa in
adjacent streams.
Water Temperature Monitoring within Transport-Type Streams
Stream temperature monitoring was conducted within Rice Creek and Sagehen Creek over
several years to identify trends in stream temperatures within transport-type systems. As
previously described for stream temperature monitoring within response-type streams,
temperatures were recorded using portable thermographs. These thermographs were typically
placed within a SCI monitoring reach beginning in May or June and removed in September.
Thermographs were programmed to record water temperature at one-hour intervals. After
retrieval of the thermographs, water temperature data was streamlined by transforming raw data
into a weekly moving average. Graphical representations of weekly moving average water
temperatures for Rice Creek and Sagehen Creek are presented in Figures A.3 and A.4 below.
70
65
60
55
2006
50
2009
45
2010
40
35
30
Figure A.3. Seven-day moving average for water temperatures (°F) within the Rice Creek SCI monitoring reach for
2006, 2009, and 2010. Temperature monitoring began in June for each year and extended at least into late August.
67
70
65
Temperature (*F)
60
55
50
2004
2008
45
40
35
30
Figure A.4. Seven-day moving average for water temperatures (°F) within the Sagehen Creek SCI monitoring reach
for 2004 and 2008. Temperature monitoring was conducted from June 20 to September 30 for each year.
Stream temperatures within transport-type streams appear to follow trends similar to those
observed in response-type systems, with peaks in average daily water temperatures occurring in
late July and August. Water temperatures for Rice Creek were relatively stable in June during
spring snowmelt, and then begin to show greater variability by mid-July (Figure A.3) as water
flows decline. Rice Creek is moderately shaded (average shade of 47 to 61 percent), but receives
most of its water via surface runoff. Thus, one would expect greater variability in stream
temperatures in Rice Creek if the previous winter’s snowpack was small. Conversely, a large
snowpack would extend the period of spring runoff, and water temperatures would be expected
to be less variable. Sagehen Creek is mostly well-shaded (average shade of 55 to 81 percent),
and its flows consist of a combination of groundwater accretion and surface runoff. Water
temperatures in Sagehen Creek show some variability, but are not as stable as those observed on
mostly spring-fed systems such as Cottonwood Creek (Figure A.2). Using the above data, it
appears that water temperatures in streams predominantly supplied with surface runoff are more
affected by stream channel shading and the volume of water currently present within the stream
than streams that receive most of their water through groundwater accretion.
68
Appendix B – Stream Reach Maps
69
Appendix B1- Louse Creek
70
Appendix B2- Roxie Peconom Creek
71
Appendix B3- Hat Creek
72
Appendix B4- Domingo Creek
73
Appendix B5- Upper Butte Creek
74
Appendix B6- Summit Creek
75
Appendix B7- Willow Creek
76
Appendix B8- Beaver Creek
77
Appendix B9- North Carmen Creek (Mabie Project)
78
Appendix B10- Third Water Creek (Meadow Valley TS)
79
Appendix B11- Pineleaf Creek (Guard TS)
80
Appendix B12- Dark Canyon and Bonta Creeks (Phoenix TS)
81
Appendix B13- Independence Creek (Liberty DFPZ)
82
Appendix B14- Smithneck Creek (Scraps DFPZ)
83
Appendix B15- Lower Pine Creek (McKenzie Aspen Enhancement)
84
Appendix B16- South Fork Bailey Creek (Cabin Aspen Enhancement)
85
Appendix B17- Trosi and Rock Creeks (Bilabong Aspen Enhancement)
86
Appendix B18- Fourth Water Creek (Meadow Valley TS)
87
Appendix B19- Cub Creek
88
Appendix B20- Moonlight Creek (Moonlight Fire)
89
Appendix C- Stream Temperature Graphs
90
Appendix C1- Louse Creek (Warner DFPZ)
Figure C1. Mean water temperatures for Louse Creek from June 18 to September 15 of 2004 (pre-project) and 2008 (postproject). Air temperatures were obtained using data from the Chester Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS).
Appendix C2- Pineleaf Creek (Guard TS)
Figure C2. Mean water temperatures for Pineleaf Creek from May 25 to September 13 of select years (2006 pre-project,
2007 and 2008 post-project). Air temperatures were obtained using data from the Quincy Remote Automated Weather
Station (RAWS).
92
Appendix C3- Fourth Water Creek (Meadow Valley TS)
Figure C3. Mean water temperatures for Fourth Water Creek from June 8 to September 4 of select years (2006 pre-project,
2007 and 2008 post-project). Air temperatures were obtained using data from the Quincy Remote Automated Weather Station.
93
Appendix C4- Lower Pine Creek (McKenzie Aspen Enhancement)
Figure C4. Mean water temperatures for Lower Pine Creek from June 24 to September 23 of select years (2003 pre-project,
2008 post-project). Air temperatures were obtained using data from the Chester Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS).
94
Appendix C5- South Fork Bailey Creek (Cabin Aspen Enhancement)
Figure C5. Mean water temperatures for South Fork Bailey Creek from July 8 to September 18 of select years (1999 pre-project,
2007 and 2008 post-project). Air temperatures were obtained from the Chester Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS).
95
Appendix C6- Rocky Gulch (road/culvert decommissioning)
Figure C6. Mean water temperatures for Rocky Gulch from June 21 to September 30 of select years (1999 pre-project, 2006
post-project). Air temperatures were obtained from the Chester Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS).
96
Appendix C7- Cub Creek (Cub Fire)
Figure C7. Mean water temperatures for Cub Creek from June 30 to September 19 of select years (1999 and 2007 pre-wildfire,
2008 mid/post-wildfire, 2009 post-wildfire). Air temperatures were obtained from the Chester Remote Automated Weather
Station (RAWS).
97
Appendix C8- Moonlight Creek (Moonlight Fire)
Figure C8. Mean water temperatures for Moonlight Creek from June 19 to September 15 of select years (2001 and 2005 prewildfire, 2009 post-wildfire). Air temperatures were obtained using data from the Quincy Remote Automated Weather Station.
98
Appendix C9- Cottonwood Creek (Reference)
Figure C9. Mean water temperatures for Cottonwood Creek (TNF) from July 1 to September 8 of select years. Air
temperatures were obtained using data from the Sierraville Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS).
99
Appendix C10- Sagehen Creek (Reference)
Figure C10. Mean water temperatures for Sagehen Creek from June 20 to September 30 of select years. Air temperatures were
obtained using data from the Sierraville Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS).
100
Appendix C11- Rock Creek (Reference)
Figure C11. Mean water temperatures for Rock Creek (LNF) from June 1 to September 30 of select years.
101
Appendix C12- Rice Creek (Reference)
Figure C12. Mean water temperatures for Rice Creek from June 1 to September 26 of select years.
102
Appendix D – Summarized Stream Temperatures (Tabular Data)
103