HFQLG MONITORING
STREAM CONDITION INVENTORY (SCI) SUMMARY 2007
December 13, 2007
Introduction: This report summarizes data collected from streams throughout the
Herger-Feinstein QLG program area during 2007. Data was collected to address
questions 18 and 19 of the HFQLG monitoring plan. These questions are intended to
track the trend of selected channel attributes in a series of reference streams, and to
compare changes in selected attributes before and after implementation of HFQLG
project activities. Streams were monitored during the summer and fall of 2007 and are
listed in Table 1. Stream reaches were selected to evaluate conditions before and after
projects, and at a series of reference reaches whose purpose is to assess year to year
variability. In addition, two reaches (one on Plumas NF and one Lassen NF) were
selected for repeat measurement in 2007, to assess variability associated with the
monitoring protocols. Results from all streams monitored in 2007 are summarized in
Appendix A.
Also included in this report is a brief summary of results from benthic invertebrate
monitoring from streams for which physical stream data has been previously reported.
Laboratory processing and identification of the samples takes several months and
results are therefore not available at the time annual reporting is due.
Figure 1. Cub Creek Monitoring Site (Lassen National Forest)
1
HFQLG 2007 Stream Monitoring Report
Stream
Little Last Chance Creek
4th Water Creek
Clarks Creek
Pineleaf Creek
North Carman
Chips
Hopkins
LNFMFFR*
East Branch Nelson
West Branch Nelson
Summit Creek
Rattlesnake Creek
MF Antelope Creek
Panther Creek
SF Bailey Creek
Willow (Lassen) Cr
Coon Hollow Cr
Cub Creek
Lower Kings Creek
Rice Creek
Rock Creek
Merrill Creek
Rock (Tahoe) Creek
Jones Valley Creek
Smithneck Creek
Pauley Creek
Five Lakes Creek
Sagehen Creek
Forest
Plumas
Plumas
Plumas
Plumas
Plumas
Plumas
Plumas
Plumas
Plumas
Plumas
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
LVNP
Lassen
Lassen
Tahoe
Tahoe
Tahoe
Tahoe
Tahoe
Tahoe
Tahoe
Purpose
Pre-Project
Post-Project
Post-Project
Post-Project
Post-Project
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Post Project
Post-Project
Post-Project
Post-Project
Post-Project
Pre-Project
Pre-Project
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Post-Project
Pre-Project
Pre-Project
Post-Project
Reference
Reference
Reference
Project
Stream Restoration
Meadow Valley
Stoney Ridge GS
Meadow Valley
Mabie
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Mineral
Watershed Improvement
Watershed Improvement
Watershed Improvement
Cabin
Feather Aspen
Willow
NA
NA
NA
NA
Scraps DFPZ
Billabong Aspen
07 Aspen
Scraps DFPZ
NA
NA
NA
Table 1. Streams surveyed in 2007 for HFQLG stream monitoring. * LNFMFFR = Little North Fork, Middle Fork
Feather River.
II. Methods
Crews on the Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National Forest utilized the Region Five Stream
Condition Inventory (Frazier et al, 2005) protocols (including the macroinvertebrate
protocols), to collect stream reach data. The protocol includes measurement of channel
parameters important in classifying and assessing relative condition of channel
morphology, fish habitat and water quality. The attributes measured included channel
length, channel gradient, channel bankfull width to depth, channel substrate particle size
distribution (count of 100 at each of four riffles), entrenchment, residual pool depth, pool
tail substrate surface fines, shade, bank stability, bank angle, stream shore depth, and
large wood. Bank angle and stream shore depth are measured only at response channels
(typically, channels of less than two percent channel slope with fine textured channel
2
HFQLG 2007 Stream Monitoring Report
banks). Stream macroinvertebrates were collected at each site, and water temperature was
measured throughout the summer with recording thermographs.
Training was provided for all field crews during June of 2007 at a two day session on the
Tahoe NF. Reaches for pre-project, post-project comparisons were selected by watershed
and aquatic resource specialists on each unit, with the intent of selecting reaches in
watersheds with the highest concentration of HFQLG activities. Reference streams were
selected by resource specialists from each Forest at the time the HFQLG monitoring plan
was developed. The list of reference streams has been revised twice, and is further
discussed in the Reference Stream section of this report.
III. Results
A. Within-Year Repeat Sites (QAQC)
Crews on each of the Plumas and Lassen National Forests repeated one stream reach in
2007 to assist in assessing the measurement variability associated with the sampling
protocols. 4th Water Creek (Plumas NF, Figure 2) and Willow Creek (Lassen NF) were
sampled twice during the field season.
Figure 2. Monitoring reach, 4th Water Creek, Plumas NF
Because an increase in sediment delivery is typically the primary concern with HFQLG
project impacts on aquatic systems, data evaluation focuses on the three measures of
sediment in the channel collected by the SCI protocol (percent pool tail fines, percent of
3
HFQLG 2007 Stream Monitoring Report
the particle count less than 2mm, and residual pool depth). Increased erosion and
sediment delivery from projects would be expected to increase pool tail fines, and the
percentage of the particle count less than 2mm. Increased sediment delivery might also
increase deposition of sediment in pools, thereby reducing residual pool depth. All three
changes (increased fines, increase in particles <2mm and decreased residual pool depth)
are considered detrimental to aquatic condition. Results from these three parameters are
displayed in Figure 3.
Results for all SCI attributes from these paired monitoring efforts are provided in
appendix D. Overall, variability between the paired surveys was low, with the exception
of pool tail surface fines measured in 4th Water Creek. The original survey recorded an
average of 11.8 percent fines from 38 pools. The repeat survey found an average of 5.4
percent fines from 35 pools. When the comparison is normalized by including pool tails
from only the deepest 35 pools measured in the original survey, the result is slightly
higher fines (12.3 percent). Flows were lower during the second survey (original
conducted July 17, repeat conducted on August 27) with no significant flow events that
might deliver sediment between surveys that could explain the difference. More
experienced crew members participated in the repeat survey and this may account for
some of the difference. As can be seen in Figure 3, there is very little difference in the
other measure of sediment in the channel. Residual pool depth averaged 0.37m in the
original and 0.34m in the repeat. Unfortunately a particle count was not conducted during
the repeat survey.
Because some HFQLG projects include treatment of vegetation in Riparian Habitat
Conservation Areas, results from shade measurements were evaluated, and are included
in Figure 4. The results show little variation in these measurements between the original
and repeat surveys. Similarly low differences in the paired samplings were found for
nearly all attributes, including bank stability. Bank stability measurements have shown
the greatest amount of difference between paired samples during previous years. Bank
stability varied only 5% in Willow Creek and 8% in 4th Water Creek (see Figure 4).
4
HFQLG 2007 Stream Monitoring Report
SCI Repeat Survey: Percent Fines, %<2mm and Residual Pool Depth
14
12
Percent and RPD (m x10)
10
8
<2mm
% Fines
RPD x 10 (m)
6
4
2
0
Willow Orig
Willow Rpt
4th Water Orig
4th Water Rpt
Figure 3. Results for sediment measurements from repeated survey reaches
SCI Repeat Survey: Shade and Stability
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
Shade
Stability
50
40
30
20
10
0
Willow Orig
Willow Rpt
4th Water Orig
4th Water Rpt
Figure 4. Results for shade and channel stability measurements from repeated survey reaches
5
HFQLG 2007 Stream Monitoring Report
B. Repeated Reference Reaches
The HFQLG monitoring plan calls for repeated survey of streams from watersheds with
relatively low levels of watershed and streamside disturbance. The intent of this re-survey
is to provide a gauge for natural variation in the attributes measured. The streams used to
assess this reference variability was revised in 2005, based on results from repeat
sampling, and is discussed in detail in the 2005 report (USDA, 2005). This list was
further refined in 2007. In 2007 the number of reference streams was reduced with the
intent of sampling every reference reach each year for the remainder of the HFQLG
monitoring period. This change was made for two reasons: some original references were
“lost” to HFQLG treatments, and the HFLQG stream monitoring group felt annual
sampling would better capture possible year to year variations. The current list of
reference streams is included as Table 2.
Stream
RD
Channel
Type
Zone
Five Lakes
Lower Kings Creek
LNFMFFR
Chips Creek
Nelson W.B.
Sagehen Creek
Cub Creek
Pauley
Rice Creek
Hopkins
Rock
SIERRAVILLE
LVNP
FEATHER R.
MT. HOUGH/ALMANOR
MT. HOUGH
TRUCKEE
ALMANOR
YUBA RIVER
ALMANOR
FEATHER R.
ALMANOR
T
R
T
T
T/R
R
T
T/R
T
T
R
T
T
W
T
T
E-T
T
W
T
W-T
T-E
Table 2. HFQLG stream monitoring: reference streams (2007 revision). Channel Types= Ttransport, R-response. Zones= W-west, T-transition, E-east
Sampling of streams on the revised list was continued in 2007, and resulted in
measurement of eleven streams. Results from these streams, along with data from
previous surveys of the reaches, are provided in Appendix B. Representative reference
streams (Cub Creek and WB Nelson Creeks) are shown in Figures 1 and 5.
6
HFQLG 2007 Stream Monitoring Report
Creek
Rice
Cub
Rock
Lower Kings
Chips
Hopkins
LNFMFFR
WB Nelson
Five Lakes
Sagehen
Pauley
% particles < 2mm
2007
0
0.1
10.8
8.5
0.7
4.5
3.5
2.7
4.2
0.1
2.3
Past
0.4
1
34
15.8
3.4
5.5
10.3
6.2
3.8
13.8
4.5
% Pool Tail Fines
2007
0
2.9
37.4
52.8
1.5
4.4
9.9
7.6
4.7
3
4.9
Res Pool Depth (m)
Past
0.6
2.7
10.4
28.4
1.1
18.4
9.9
8.8
9.9
16
10.7
2007
0.53
0.6
0.33*
0.31
0.83
0.55
0.81*
0.99
0.68
0.5
0.72
Past
0.55
0.54
0.33
0.37
0.76
0.52
0.79
1.02
0.62
0.48*
0.65
Shade (%)
2007
51.5
96.5
74.9
9
49.5
71.1
71.6
68
52.3
71.9
56.3
Past
47.4
94.4
63
13
47.8
70.8
66
72.4
52.4
76.6
59.4
Table 3. Results from repeated reference reaches, indicators of sediment in the channel and shade. Pool values with *
dropped pools from either year to compare consistent number of pools.
As with the QAQC discussion above, attention is given here to attributes intended to
assess sediment in the stream channel, due to the importance of these attributes in
assessing project effects. These data are summarized in Table 3. In general, results are
consistent between years, but there are a few differences of note. In general, low gradient
meadow streams displayed fairly high variability between years. Kings Creek and Rock
Creek are examples. Kings Creek displays slightly shallower mean residual pool depth
than in previous surveys, but the difference is not significant (t-test p value= .42,
Appendix E). In both cases, fine sediment as indicated by the fraction of the particle
count <2mm was less in 2007 than the previous survey. These findings reinforce the
practice of looking for differences in all three of the sediment indicators while assessing
change.
Figure 5. West Branch Nelson Creek, Plumas NF
7
HFQLG 2007 Stream Monitoring Report
Pool tail fines in Pauley Creek were much lower in the 2007 survey than in the previous
survey in 2005. The 2005 survey included a greater sample size (45 in 2005, 21 in 2007)
than in 2007, though the same number of pool tails was included in the sample. This
indicates that in 2007, crews did not collect samples from some pool tails, probably
because of algae or other aquatic vegetation on the substrate. It is possible the 2005
survey included such substrate, and contributed to the higher value. In general, higher
gradient transport streams (Cub, Rice, Chips, Nelson, LNFMFFR) have lower variability
in surface fines than the lower gradient streams). Finally, Hopkins Creek indicated less
pool tail fines in 2007 than in 2006. Review of data and comments from this survey
indicate that survey reach is disturbed by periodic suction dredging (as it was in 2006).
Because much of the before-after project comparisons rely on the measures of fines, the
value of Hopkins is diminished by the dredging. The monitoring group will discuss
moving the Hopkins reach such that it is not affected by dredging, or dropping it as a
reference in 2008.
C. Pre-Post Treatment Comparisons
The 2007 monitoring effort includes ten comparisons of stream condition as assessed by
the SCI protocols before and after implementation of HFQLG activities. Eight of the
comparisons monitored vegetation and fuels management projects, two assessed changes
due to watershed improvement projects. Pre-project data was collected from 2000 to
2006. Each project is briefly described and results summarized below. Because increases
in sediment from project activities are a primary concern, focus of the evaluation is on the
three measures most closely linked to sediment in the channel (percent pool tail fines,
percent of the particle count <2mm, and residual pool depths). It should be noted that
protocol for the particle count changed in some cases between pre and post treatment
sampling. In these cases, both the original and revised particle count procedures were
conducted in 2007. Mean shade values are also included, for reasons discussed
previously. Results for pre and post project sampling for the four measures is
summarized in Table 4.
With the exception of shade reduction in SF Bailey Creek as a result of treatments to
release aspen, none of the projects resulted in a statistically significant change in the
attributes of concern. In most cases, metrics aimed at assessing changes in sediment in
the channel decreased between sampling periods. This trend was also seen in the
reference reaches (especially the transport reaches).
8
HFQLG 2007 Stream Monitoring Report
Table 4. Results from pre and post project comparisons from ten project sampled in 2007. Names of creeks are
followed by the year of the pre-project survey
Pool Tail Fines (%) % particles <2mm Res. Pool Depth (m)
pre
post
pre
post
pre
post
Summit (03)
3.8
2.2
4.9
2.7
0.28
0.29
Merril (00)
dry
dry
11.1
5.5
dry
dry
SF Bailey (03)
7.8
9.4
30.0
22.6
0.53
0.50
Pineleaf (06)
5.0
dry
11.8
7.6
0.27
dry
4th Water (06)
5.8
5.4
1.8
4.6
0.35
0.37
North Carman (03) 32.9
dry
17.0
12.1
0.24
dry
Smithneck (02)
25.6
28.6
15.0
10.2
0.40
0.47
Panther (01)
34.0
dry
5.0
2.0
dry
dry
Rattlesnake (04)
5.9
6.0
0.0
3.7
0.61
0.52
Creek*
Shade %
pre
post
64.0
65.0
59.6
62.4
62.0
50.8
95.1
91.2
58.8
71.0
83.0
84.2
36.0
48.6
71.2
86.0
89.2
95.8
Summit Creek (Battle DFPZ project, Lassen NF)
This stream reach is located on a tributary to Battle Creek on the Almanor RD. Preproject sampling was conducted in 2003. 61 acres of DFPZ treatments were conducted in
two units above the stream reach in 2005. A wide no treatment RHCA was maintained
between the treatments and Summit Creek. On-site BMP evaluations of both units in
2006 found no evidence of sediment transport to the RHCA. Storms in the winter of
2005-06 did cause serious erosion and sediment delivery to Summit Creek from road
29N64, including a failure of the road channel crossing just upstream of the monitoring
reach.
Though there was essentially no difference in either the particle count (4.9 % in 2003,
and 0% in 2006) or residual pool depth (mean of 0.28m in 2003 and 0.31m in 2006),
sediment as measured by pool tail fines (3.8% in 2003, 19.7% in 2006) was considerably
higher in the post-project 2006 survey. The higher level of fines was attributed to failure
of a road crossing (road 29N64) and substantial rilling and gullying of the road during the
winter of 2005. Because of the high fines measured in 2006, another post project survey
was conducted in 2007.
2007 results indicate conditions very similar to those measured in the 2003 survey,
particularly in regard to surface fines. Averages for fines, as well as residual pool depth
and % particle count <2mm are presented in Table 6. Overall the results indicate no
change from pre-project conditions. Some work was implemented on the crossing of
road 29N64, but the results probably reflect the lack of flow events large enough to
transport more road source sediment to the channel. Summit Creek is shown in Figure 6.
9
HFQLG 2007 Stream Monitoring Report
Figure 6. Summit Creek, Lassen NF.
Merril Creek (Scraps DFPZ Project, Tahoe NF)
This monitoring reach is located on the mainstem of Merril Creek, immediately upstream
of the crossing of the Henness Pass Road (#860). Pre-project sampling was conducted in
2000, with post-project sampling occurring in 2006. Between 2001-2006 approximately
250 acres of mechanical thinning occurred upstream or adjacent to the survey reach;
approximately 15 acres of the treatment occurred within the perennial RHCA of Merril
Creek and its tributaries, and 2 acres within the RHCAs of Merril Creek seasonal
tributaries. In general, a wide no treatment RHCA protected both perennial and seasonal
streams from project activities. Project activities implemented in 2006 occurred after
completion of the survey. In addition, a watershed restoration project occurred upstream
of this reach during 2006, also after completion of the survey. A few small-scale road
improvement projects have occurred over the last few years upstream of this reach.
Pre and post project comparison in 2006 was limited because the channel was dry during
the survey. To gather more information, the reach was surveyed again in 2007.
Unfortunately the winter of 2006-07 was fairly dry and the channel was not flowing
during the 2007 survey. Of concern in 2006 was a relatively high amount of particles less
than 2mm in the particle count. Comparison of the 2006 with the 2000 survey was
difficult because different methods were used to conduct the count. In 2007, the protocol
used in the original survey was repeated. Results from this pre-post treatment show a
slight decrease (5.1 vs. 11.1 percent) in the particle count fines, this in contrast to the
2006 value of 32.5 % (using a different protocol).
South Fork Bailey Creek (Cabin Project, Lassen National Forest)
10
HFQLG 2007 Stream Monitoring Report
This monitoring reach is located on South Fork Bailey Creek (Figure 7), in Brokeoff
Meadows on the Hat Creek Ranger District of the Lassen National Forest. Pre-project
sampling occurred in 2003, while post-project sampling occurred in 2007. In 2006, 3
units containing 6 acres of aspen were mechanically treated adjacent to the monitoring
reach. Approximately 4 acres of the treatment are located in the RHCA of South Fork
Bailey Creek.
Figure 7. South Fork Bailey Creek. Recent aspen release can be seen in the background.
As with previous aspen treatment adjacent to stream channels (Pine Creek) pre and post
project comparisons at SF Bailey show a significant (t-test p=.01, Appendix E) difference
in shade as a result of aspen release. There appears to be no change in attributes reflecting
sediment in the channel. Two of the indicators (% particle count less 2mm and % surface
fines) showed slight decreases between 2003 and 2007. Residual pool depth declined
slightly. None of these changes was significant (t test, p=.05).
Pineleaf Creek (Meadow Valley Project, Plumas NF)
This monitoring reach is located on Pineleaf Creek, immediately upstream of the
25N25X road, and downstream or adjacent to approximately 45 acres of group selection
and 213 acres of DFPZ treatments implemented in 2006. Approximately 10 acres of
DFPZ treatment occurred in RHCAs. Pre project sampling occurred in 2006, and post
project sampling occurred in 2007. Additional treatments to be completed in the future
include hand piling and burning the approximately 223 acres of DFPZ treatments.
11
HFQLG 2007 Stream Monitoring Report
Comparison of 2006 and 2007 results are limited because the reach was dry during the
time of the 2007. For this reason, it is recommended that the reach be resurveyed in 2008
if there is flow. Neither particle counts nor shade show differences of concern.
4th Water Creek (Meadow Valley Project, Plumas NF)
This monitoring reach is located in the Middle Fork Feather River watershed on 4th Water
Creek, immediately upstream of the 24N28 Road. Pre project sampling occurred in 2006,
while post project sampling occurred in 2007. 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. Future treatments associated
with this project include hand piling and under burning of 284 acres (9 acres of RHCA).
As discussed earlier, there were differences in the measurement of percent fines during
the two surveys done on 4th Water Creek in 2007. Results from the second survey of the
creek are used in the pre-post comparison. Based on that survey, the results show no
changes of concern in shade or any of the three sediment in-channel metrics.
North Carman Valley Creek (Mabie Project, Plumas NF)
This monitoring reach is located in North Carman Valley Creek, downstream or adjacent
to treatment units associated with the Mabie Project on the Beckworth Ranger District.
Pre project data was collected in 2003, while post project data was collected in 2007.
Since the initial survey, hand thinning of approximately 277 acres (132 acres located in
the RHCA of North Carman Creek), and six acres of aspen stand treatment were
completed. Additionally, 69 acres of mechanical thinning and biomass, and 40 acres of
grapple, hand, and machine pilling were completed.
As with several streams surveyed in 2007, comparison of before and after conditions is
limited because the channel was dry during the 2007 survey. Attributes of concern that
can be compared are the percentage of the particle count less than 2mm and shade.
Neither of the attributes displayed a negative change between pre and post project values.
Smithneck Creek (Scraps Project, Tahoe NF)
This monitoring reach is located on Smithneck Creek, and is associated with the Scraps
Project on the Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest. Pre project
sampling occurred in 2002, while post project sampling occurred in 2007. Between 2002
and 2006, approximately 30 acres where commercially thinned, 12 acres were precommercially thinned, and pile burning occurred on 18 acres either upstream or adjacent
to Smithneck Creek. None of these treatments occurred in the RHCA of Smithneck
Creek, or tributaries.
12
HFQLG 2007 Stream Monitoring Report
Comparison of pre project with 2007 post project conditions shows an increase in
residual pool depths, with essentially no difference in pool tail fines and a slight decrease
in the percentage of the particle count less than 2mm. Shade also increased between 2002
and 2007.
The reach on Smithneck Creek is notable because it was first monitored in 1995 to assess
changes resulting from the Cottonwood Fire that burned over 40,000 acres in 1994. Data
from several attributes collected in 1995, 2002 and 2007 are presented in Table 5. The
data indicates steady recovery from the fire in terms of shade and channel stability, but
less recovery in the sediment in channel indicators.
Year
1995
2002
2007
Pool Tail
Stability
% < 2mm RPD (m) Shade (%)
(%)
Fines
6.6
54
0.43
34
16
25.6
15
0.39
36
56
28.6
10.2
0.46
47
66
Table 5. Stream Condition Inventory Data (mean values) from Smithneck Creek 1995-2007 (RPD
= residual pool depth).
Panther Creek (Battle Creek Wildlife-Watershed Restoration Project, Lassen NF)
This monitoring reach is located on Panther Creek approximately 0.2 miles downstream
of the 29N12Y road. Pre-project sampling occurred in 2001, while post-project sampling
occurred in 2007. The purpose of monitoring was to assess changes to aquatic habitat
and channel conditions associated with the decommissioning of approximately 0.6 miles
of the 29N12Y road, 0.2 miles of the 29N21B road, and the removal of an undersized
culvert at the 29N12Y crossing.
This channel was dry during both pre and post project surveys. Percentage of fine
particles in the pebble count showed no change. Shade increased between 2001 and 2007.
Rattlesnake Creek (Deer Creek Watershed Restoration Project, Lassen National
Forest)
This monitoring reach is located on Rattlesnake Creek, upstream from the confluence
with Deer Creek. Pre-project sampling occurred in 2003, while post-project sampling
occurred in 2007. The purpose of monitoring was to assess channel and aquatic habitat
changes associated the decommissioning of approximately 2.5 miles of road (27N12) and
removal of a bridge.
No differences were detected between the 2003 and 2007 sampling though shade did
increase slightly. Measures of sediment in the channel remained essentially the same.
13
HFQLG 2007 Stream Monitoring Report
IV. Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrates are collected as a part of the SCI monitoring protocol.
Results on pre-post comparisons are presented here. Results from the physical habitat
monitoring was presented in previous annual reports. Results from the macroinvertebrate
analysis are delayed due to the time required to sort and identify the samples.
Results from four comparisons are presented in Table 6. Two of the streams (Upper Butte
and Pine) are from reaches that monitored HFQLG vegetation projects, the other two
were located to monitor watershed improvement activities.
Stream
Jones
Upper
Butte
Pine
Scotts
John
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Shannon
Diversity
Density
(#m2)
Richness
(# taxa)
%
Dominant
Taxa
%
Chironomidae
EPT
2.77
2.75
1.34
1.73
2.36
2.40
1.62
1.60
1875
1341
131
1280
7511
2119
1143
2511
43
42
26
27
41
44
12
26
26.8
22.4
68.0
66.1
46.7
44.0
56.6
61.5
33.3
12.2
71.4
72.3
49.4
45.4
2.2
8.7
26
17
16
17
25
26
13
15
Table 6. Results from pre and post project comparisons of macroinvertebrate data from four HFQLG projects
Six metrics that have been shown to be useful in detecting change in benthic communities
resulting from timber harvest and roads were used to compare pre and post project
benthic communities. These are shown in Table 5. EPT is the number of Mayfly,
Stonefly and Caddisfly taxa in the sample. A detrimental effect in these metrics would
consist of a reduction in diversity, and increase in density (as a result of increased
productivity), decreases in both taxa richness and EPT taxa and increases in the
percentages of dominant taxa and chironomidae.
Results show considerable difference between streams in most of the metrics, but very
little difference in pre and post project comparisons. The number of EPT in the post
project sampling of Jones Creek declined but is not accompanied by a similar trend in
any of the other metrics. Likewise, the density at Pine Creek is reduced over the sampling
period, but the other metrics show no change. In general, these data are consistent with
findings from Stream Condition Inventory for these streams presented in earlier annual
reports that showed no difference in physical parameters measured before and after
project implementation.
V. Recommendations
14
HFQLG 2007 Stream Monitoring Report
If streams are flowing during the 2008 field season, repeat sampling of streams that were
dry in 2007. These are Merril, Pineleaf and North Carman.
Continue to duplicate the original particle count sampling methodology, in addition to
sampling with the current 400 count, to provide for increased ability to compare reaches
over time.
Drop or move Hopkins Creek monitoring reach to eliminate influence of mining on this
reference reach.
V. Key Findings
Comparisons of reaches monitored before and after implementation of HFQLG projects
indicate a lack of adverse impacts. Eight vegetation treatments were monitored. Shade
was significantly decreased (as expected) by an aspen treatment adjacent to SF Bailey
Creek. Implementation of vegetation treatments did not result in greater in-channel
sediment at any of the sites.
Reaches downstream of two riparian restoration projects showed no substantial changes
in selected attributes following implementation of the projects.
Within year variability of attributes measured was quite low for all attributes measured,
except for the pool tail fines measurement at 4th Water Creek.
Between year variability between reference streams was low for most attributes in most
of the eleven streams where repeat measurements were taken in 2007. Two notable
exceptions were pool tail fines measurements from Rock Creek (Lassen NF) and Lower
Kings Creek (LVNP). These measurements were substantially higher in 2007 than in the
previous survey.
VI. References:
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.
USDA. 2005. HFLQG Monitoring, Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) Summary, 2005.
HFQLG Monitoring Report. 8pp.
Prepared By
Ken Roby
Fisheries Biologist, Lassen NF
15
HFQLG 2007 Stream Monitoring Report
Ryan Foote Fisheries Biologist, Lassen NF
Debra Urich
Fisheries Biologist, Tahoe NF
Aric Krueger
Biological Technician, Plumas NF
16
HFQLG 2007 Stream Monitoring Report
Appendix C: Data Summaries: HFQLG Pre-Project Surveys (2007)
Stream
Name
Willow 07 L
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
Lit Last
Chance 07 P
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
Coon Hollow
07 L
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
Rock 07 T
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
Jones Valley
07 T
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
Number
Sensitive
Number
of LWD
Particle
Reach
Number of Key
Key
Count %
Length
of Aggs Pieces in
pieces /
< 2mm
(m)
Aggs
100 m
235.8
919.1
704.5
473.9
505.7
4.2
1.7
8
27.2
44.5
0
0
3
4
11
0
0
12
128
227
D50
407.00
407.00
3.4
48.4
403.00
403.00
14
50.7
413.00
413.00
7
38.5
394.00
394.00
5.3
38.4
414.00
414.00
11.8
16.1
W:D Ratio Residual % Pool
%
% Stable
Entrench (Monumen
Pool
Tail Surf
% Shade
Gradient
Banks
ts)
Depth (m) Fines
0.90
0.8-1.0
3.00
1.17
13.80
12.3-16.8
3.00
0.29
.22-.42
6.00
12.70
0-34
18.00
100.0
Bank
Angle
Stream
Shore
Depth (m)
62.2
8-100
50
133.20
30-180
100.00
0.10
.01-.51
21.00
29.4
3-94
50
140.00
40-175
100.00
0.35
.08-.84
12.00
78.2
19-100
50
135.20
35-180
100.00
0.75
.01-.18
10
80.2
45-100
50
138.90
65-170
100.00
0.05
.03-.06
2
90.0
1.00
0.5-2.0
3.00
3.30
1.5-6.3
8.00
17.90
11.6-25.8
3.00
0.79
0.4-1.19
12.00
8.30
0-26
36.00
100.0
69.0
1.30
1.50
0.8-1.5
1.2-2.1
3.00
5.00
17.90
0.45
11.7-21.7 0.27-0.66
3.00
14.00
4.60
54.90
0-28
2-93
39.00
100.0
50.00
49.0
7.20
3.3-10.7
3.00
4.50
1.1-17
8.00
18.90
10.4-32.1
3.00
0.31
.23-.41
5.00
6.0
0-10
10.0
100.00
82
5.60
3.6-8.3
3.00
3.50
1.1-9.1
8.00
19.80
7.4-31.4
3.00
0.26
.16-.48
18.00
56.8
4-100
40.0
100.00
65
Appendix E
HFQLG SCI Monitoring Report
Data and p test values for 2007 statistical tests
Residual Pool Depths (m)
Kings Creek LVNP
2007
2005
0.44
0.36
0.22
0.46
0.27
0.3
0.35
0.42
0.3
t test p value=.417
SF Bailey Creek
2003
2007
shade
shade
52
54
45
39
40
45
60
64
68
75
66
93
94
88
50
64
86
63
64
63
64
65
32
23
59
67
62
90
57
33
50
60
79
78
82
88
76
72
91
73
61
57
82
48
68
47
42
59
88
46
48
13
30
61
5
60
25
8
72
11
64
10
90
11
75
70
26
37
76
85
72
11
50
15
42
15
46
51
48
48
81
20
80
37
72
33
76
92
74
31
86
42
62
74
54
63
58
56
70
30
mean
t test
62
0.0128875
50.76