HFQLG MONITORING
STREAM CONDITION INVENTORY (SCI) SUMMARY 2008
December 30, 2008
Introduction: This report summarizes data collected from streams throughout the
Herger-Feinstein QLG program area during 2008. 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 collected from streams in HFQLG
project areas before and after implementation of HFQLG project activities. Streams
were monitored during the summer and fall of 2008 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 during 2008 to assess variability associated with the monitoring
protocols. Results from all streams monitored in 2008 are summarized in Appendix
A, B, C, D, and E.
Figure 1. Rock Creek Monitoring Site (Lassen National Forest)
II. Methods
Crews on the Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National Forest utilized the Region Five Stream
Condition Inventory protocol (Frazier et al, 2005) (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
1
HFQLG 2008 Stream Monitoring Report
Stream
3rd Water Creek
4th Water Creek
West Branch Lights Crk
Moonlight
Lone Rock Creek
Chips
Cow
Silver
LNFMFFR*
West Branch Nelson
Summit Creek
Panther Creek
Willow Colby (Lassen)
Pine Creek
Louse Creek
Domingo Creek
Cub Creek
Lower Kings Creek
Rice Creek
Rock Creek
Cottonwood 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
LVNP
Lassen
Lassen
Tahoe
Tahoe
Tahoe
Tahoe
Purpose
Post-Project
Post-Project
Post-Fire
Post-Fire
Post-Fire
Reference
Pre-Project (repeat)
Pre-Project (repeat)
Reference
Reference
Post Project
Post-Project
Post-Project
Post-Project
Pre-Project
Post-Project
Reference/Post Fire
Reference
Reference
Reference
Pre-Project (repeat)
Reference
Reference
Reference
Project
Meadow Valley
Meadow Valley
Moonlight Fire
Moonlight Fire
Moonlight Fire
NA
Freeman Project
Meadow Valley Project
NA
NA
Mineral
Watershed Improvement
Jonesville DFPZ
McKenzie Aspen
Warner DFPZ
Warner DFPZ
NA
NA
NA
NA
Scraps DFPZ
NA
NA
NA
Table 1. Streams surveyed in 2007 for HFQLG stream monitoring. * LNFMFFR = Little North Fork, Middle Fork
Feather River.
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
banks). Stream macroinvertebrates were collected at each site. Water temperature was
measured throughout the summer with recording thermographs, yet results are not
presented here.
Training was provided for all field crews during June of 2008 on each forest. Ryan Foote
of the Lassen National Forest provided quality control between the three Forests
throughout the field season. 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.
2
HFQLG 2008 Stream Monitoring Report
Statistical analyses were conducted on individual attributes from streams monitored
before and after HFQLG activities, on attributes from streams where repeat
measurements were conducted to assess sampling variability, and on attributes from
reference streams sampled in previous year. A t-test was applied to all comparisons, with
a significance level set at 95% (p=.05).
III. Results
A. Within-Year Repeat Sites (QAQC)
Crews on the Plumas and Lassen National Forests repeated monitoring on one stream
reach for each Forest in 2008 to assess the measurement variability associated with the
sampling protocols. Lone Rock Creek (Plumas NF) and Willow (Colby) Creek (Lassen
NF) were each sampled twice during the field season.
Because a reduction in shade and increase in sediment delivery are typically the primary
concern with HFQLG project impacts on aquatic systems, data evaluation focuses on a
measure of stream shading collected by the SCI Protocol, and three measures of sediment
in the channel. The three measures of in-channel sediment are percent pool tail fines,
percent of the particle count less than 2mm, and residual pool depth. Treatments located
within streamside areas (RHCAs) would be expected to reduce the amount of shade in the
short term. Increased erosion and sediment delivery from projects would be expected to
increase both 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 fish habitat.
Variability between the paired surveys for the four attributes discussed above was very
low (Figure 2 & 3, Appendix A). There were no significant differences for any attribute
for either stream.
Similarly, low differences between paired samples from repeat sites were found for
nearly all attributes, except bank stability. Bank stability measurements have shown the
greatest amount of difference between paired samples during previous years. Bank
stability varied 9% in Lone Rock Creek and 10% in Willow (Colby) Creek (Figure 3).
These differences are higher than those found in past years at paired, within-year
comparisons. In 2007, the two repeated within-year comparisons had differences of 5%
and 8%. High difference between samples from repeat sites makes attributing differences
to treatment effects more difficult.
3
HFQLG 2008 Stream Monitoring Report
SCI Repeat Survey: Percent Fines,%<2mm and Residual Pool Depth
70
60
RPD
Pool Tail Fines
% <2mm
% and RPD x 100
50
40
30
20
10
0
initial
repeat
initial
repeat
Lone Rock
Willow (Colby)
Figure 2. Results for sediment measurements from repeated survey reaches
SCI Repeat Survey: Shade and Bank Stability
90
80
70
Shade (%)
Stability (%)
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
initial
repeat
Lone Rock
initial
repeat
Willow (Colby)
Figure 3. Results for shade and channel stability measurements from repeated survey reaches
B. Repeated Reference Reaches
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
is 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). This list was
4
HFQLG 2008 Stream Monitoring Report
further refined in 2007. 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: 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. Current reference streams
are listed in Table 2.
Stream
Ranger District
Channel
Type
Zone
SIERRAVILLE
T
T
Five Lakes
LVNP
R
T
Lower Kings Creek
FEATHER RIVER
T
W
LNFMFFR
MT. HOUGH/ALMANOR
T
T
Chips Creek
MT. HOUGH
T/R
T
Nelson W.B.
TRUCKEE
R
E-T
Sagehen Creek
ALMANOR
T
T
Cub Creek
YUBA RIVER
T/R
W
Pauley
ALMANOR
T
T
Rice Creek
ALMANOR
R
T-E
Rock
Table 2. HFQLG stream monitoring: reference streams (2007 revision). Channel
Types= T-transport, R-response. Zones= W-west, T-transition, E-east
Sampling of streams on the revised list was continued in 2008 and resulted in
measurement of ten streams. Results from these streams, along with data from previous
surveys of the reaches, are provided in Appendix B. Representative reference streams
Rock and WB Nelson Creeks) are shown in Figures 1 and 4.
% particles < 2mm
% Pool Tail Fines
Res Pool Depth (m)
Shade (%)
2007
2008
2007
2008
2007
2008
2007
2008
0
0.5
0
0.5
0.53
0.54
51.5
52.8
Rice
0.1
0
2.9
1.1
0.6
96.5
94
Cub
0.67*
+
10.8
3.5
37.4
0.33
0.33
74.9
Rock
3.4
86.4+
8.5
7
52.8
0.31
0.4
9
Lower Kings
21.8+
16.8+
0.7
2
1.5
1.9
0.83
0.96
49.5
44.6
Chips
3.5
0
9.9
6.9
0.69
0.72
71.6
73.9
LNFMFFR
*
2.7
0.25
7.6
3.5
0.99
68
66.16
WBR Nelson
0.95
4.2
0.25
4.7
0.68
52.3
50.2
Five Lakes
0.8+
0.54*
0.1
0
3
3.5
0.5
0.43
71.9
63.5
Sagehen
2.3
0
4.9
5.9
0.72
0.57
56.3
58.2
Pauley
Table 3. Results from repeated reference reaches, indicators of sediment in the channel and shade. Pool
values with * indicate the number of pools from either year was revised to compare a consistent number of
pools. 2008 values with + indicate statistically significant differences in comparison with 2007 conditions
(t-test, pvalue=.05).
Stream
As with the QAQC discussion above, attention is given here to attributes intended to
assess sediment in the stream channel and shade due to the importance of these attributes
5
HFQLG 2008 Stream Monitoring Report
in assessing project effects. These data are summarized in Table 3. In general, results are
consistent between years, but there are a few differences to note. As in past years, low
gradient meadow streams displayed fairly high variability between years. Five Lakes,
Lower Kings Creek, and Rock Creek are examples. Five Lakes had shallower pools in
2008 than in 2007, though crews conducting the monitoring in 2008 were unable to find
the reach start and end points, so there is some question if the same pools were compared.
Lower Kings Creek displays slightly deeper mean residual pool depth than in previous
surveys, and this difference was significant (t-test at p=.03), Appendix E). In both Rock
and Lower Kings Creeks, pool tail fines were significantly less in 2008 than in 2007
previous survey. These findings reinforce the practice of assessing differences in all three
of the sediment indicators while assessing change.
Figure 4. West Branch Nelson Creek (Plumas N.F.)
As in previous years, higher gradient transport streams (Cub, Rice, Chips, Nelson, and
LNFMFFR) displayed lower variability in surface fines than the lower gradient streams.
Shade was higher in Rock (p <.01) and Lower Kings (p=.01) in 2008 than in 2007. Both
these differences were significant.
Mining activities in Chips Creek and a wildfire in Cub Creek both occurred in 2008 and
potentially hinder use of the current monitoring reaches as references in the future. In
Chips Creek, mining activity including disturbance of channel banks was observed. For
this reason, it is recommended that the monitoring reach in Chips Creek be moved
upstream of mining activity in 2009. Cub Creek was the site of the Cub Fire during the
summer of 2008. The fire burned much of the riparian zone at moderate intensity.
Approximately 27% of the watershed burned at high severity. It is recommended that this
reach be monitored in the future to assess post-fire effects, but it can not be used as a
reference in the near future. The Cub Creek monitoring reach is pictured below in Figure
5.
6
HFQLG 2008 Stream Monitoring Report
Figure 5. Cub Creek monitoring reach (Lassen NF)
C. Pre-Post Treatment Comparisons
The 2008 monitoring effort includes ten comparisons of stream condition as assessed by
the SCI protocols before and after implementation of HFQLG activities. Six comparisons
are made based on one year of post-treatment data (Table 4). Two reach comparisons
(Summit Creek, 4th Water Creek) include data from multiple-year post-project surveys
(Table 5). Seven of the comparisons monitored vegetation and fuels management
projects, one (Panther Creek) assessed changes due to watershed improvement projects.
And finally, monitoring was conducted on Moonlight Creek (Table 4), West Branch
Lights Creek (Table 6) and Lone Rock Creek (summarized above, and Table 7) to assess
changes as a result of the Moonlight wildfire that burned in 2007. West Branch Lights
Creek and Lone Rock Creek survey reaches were established in 2008, and will be resurveyed in 2009 to assess long-term responses resulting from the Moonlight Fire. Preproject data was collected from 2001 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 2008. Results from measurements of
shade (mean and range) are also included, for reasons discussed previously. Results for
pre and post project sampling for the four measures is summarized in Table 4 & 5 and
Appendix C.
With the exception of increased pool tail fines in Moonlight Creek and shade reduction in
Moonlight Creek and Pine Creek, none of the projects resulted in increases in sediment
(as measured by increased pool tail fines, increase in % particle count <2mm, or
decreased residual pool depth) or decreases in shade that were statistically significant
(Table 4; Appendix E). Statistically significant (p=.002) decreases in pool tail fines were
7
HFQLG 2008 Stream Monitoring Report
observed in Panther Creek. Panther Creek was the site of a road decommissioning
project, and it could be that treatment of this site has resulted in a decrease in sediment
delivery to the monitoring reach. In most other pre-post comparisons metrics aimed at
assessing changes in sediment in the channel decreased between sampling periods. This
may be due to a general lack of large, sediment delivering storms over the sampling
period (storms of 2005-06 the exception). This trend (a decrease within the three
attributes) was also seen in the reference reaches (especially the transport reaches).
% particles
<2mm
Pool Tail Fines (%)
Res Pool Depth (m)
Shade (%)
Stream
pre
post
p-value*
pre
post
pre
post
p-value*
pre
post
p-value*
3.8
3.1
0.21
0.5
3.5
0.31
0.21
0.16
72
68.4
0.2
Domingo (05)
34.3
11.7
0.002
5
2
n/a
0.30
n/a
70
83
0.006
Panther (01)
3rd Water
13.9
11.6
0.49
5.9
5
0.4
0.42
0.89
81.9
75.4
0.06
(06)
18.9
12.1
0.16
13.7
2.8
0.69
0.61
0.40
53.1
45.8
0.12
Willow (02)
Moonlight
-14
4.2
15.7*
1.06x10
9.2
15.2
0.45
0.42
0.39
78
57.7
3.0x10-10
(05)
1
2.2
0.07
4.8
0.2
0.55
0.51
0.07
63.2
55.8
0.02
Pine (05)
Table 4. Results from pre and post project comparisons from seven project sampled in 2008. Names of creeks are
followed by the year of the pre-project survey. T-test analyses (p-values) are included for Pool Tail Fines, Residual
Pool Depths, and Shade. *t-test (p value= 0.05)
Stream
Pool
Tail
Fines
(%)
p-value
%
particles
<2mm
Res.
Pool
Depth
(m)
pvalue
Shade
%
p-value
4th Water Creek (PNF)
0.72*
1.8
0.35
0.8*
63.2
0.29*
0.003**
4.6
0.34
0.5**
71.0
0.59**
1
0.34
68.6
Summit Creek (LNF)
2003 (pre)
3.8
0.14*
4.9
0.28
0.36*
63.8
<0.005*
2006
19
0
0.31
64.3
2007
2.2
0.48**
2.7
0.29 0.57**
65.0
<0.005**
2008
2.9
0.75
0.31
74.2
Table 5. Results from post-project long-term annual monitoring reaches. *= ttest (pvalue=0.05)
comparison between pre project and 2008 conditions. **= ttest (pvalue=0.05) comparison between 2007
and 2008 conditions.
2006 (pre)
2007
2008
5.8
12.3
5.3
Willow (Colby) Creek (Jonesville DFPZ Project, Lasssen NF)
Willow Creek is a tributary to Colby Creek, located just upstream of where Colby Creek
joins Butte Creek. Pre-project sampling of the reach was conducted in 2002. In the
watershed above the sampled reach, approximately 135 acres of DFPZ were treated with
mechanized equipment during 2006 and 2007. A wide no treatment RHCA was
8
HFQLG 2008 Stream Monitoring Report
maintained along Willow Creek. Post project pool tail fines were lower than pre-project
conditions, though not significantly (t-test p=.16; Appendix A, E). Residual pool depths
were slightly lower post project, though this difference was also not significant (t-test
p=.41). The shallowest pool was dropped from the 2008 data to normalize comparisons
of both attributes. Percent of particles <2mm was lower post project (2.8 vs 13.7). Shade
was lower post project than pre-project, though this difference was also not significant.
Moonlight Creek (lower) (Post Moonlight Fire, Plumas NF)
The Moonlight Creek reach is located approximately 1½ miles upstream of Moonlight
Creek’s confluence with Lights Creek. 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 5579 acres). Of these acres, approximately 1,100 were burned
at low severity (1-25% vegetation mortality), 613 acres burned at moderate severity (2650% vegetation mortality), and 3,866 burned at high severity (>50% vegetation
mortality). Most of streamside areas within the watershed were burned, with a high
percentage of these areas burned at high severity. Part of the upper watershed is located
on private land, and is located approximately 5 miles upstream of the reach. This area
was salvage logged using a combination of high-lead and ground-based systems in the
winter of 2007-08 and the spring and summer of 2008.
Post fire pool tail fines and particles <2mm were higher, and residual pool depths and
shade were slightly lower than results from the pre-fire survey (Appendix C). The
increase in pool tail fines was significant (t test at p <.001; Appendix E). Sample size for
pool tail fines measurements were less in 2008 (79) than 2005 (117) due to the presence
of filamentous algae that prevented measurement at numerous sites. Surveyors noted the
widespread distribution of algae, which completely covered the surface of several pools.
No such comments were made during the 2005 survey. Although shallower, residual pool
depths were not significantly reduced (t test, p=0.39). The reduction of shade was
significant (t test at p <.001).
Summit Creek (Battle DFPZ project, Lassen NF)
The Summit Creek reach is a tributary to Battle Creek on the Almanor RD. Pre-project
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 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 (Appendix E). The higher level of fines was attributed to failure
9
HFQLG 2008 Stream Monitoring Report
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.
This stream was selected for long-term (annual) post project sampling, so it was sampled
again in 2008. 2008 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 5. Overall the results
indicate no negative change from pre-project conditions. Work was implemented on the
crossing of road 29N64 including the problem crossing, but the results probably reflect
the lack of flow events large enough to transport more road source sediment to the
channel.
3rd Water Creek (Meadow Valley Project (Guard Timber Sale), Plumas NF)
The 3rd Water Creek monitoring reach is located in the Middle Fork Feather River
watershed, immediately downstream of the 24N28 Road. 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 were implemented upstream or adjacent to the
monitoring reach; approximately 12 acres of the treatment occurred in RHCAs.
Comparison of pre project (2006) and post project conditions show a decrease in pool tail
fines (13.9 vs 11.6), <2mm particles (5.9 vs 5), and shade (81.9 vs 75.4) (Appendix C).
This reduction in shade (t-test p=0.06) is most likely a result of the treatment occurring
within RHCAs. A change in residual pool depths was also observed, with depths
increasing from 0.4m to 0.42m following project implementation. This change was not
statistically significant (t-test p=0.89) (Appendix E).
4th Water Creek (Meadow Valley Project (Guard Timber Sale), Plumas NF)
The 4th Water Creek reach is located in the Middle Fork Feather River watershed,
immediately upstream of the 24N28 Road. Pre project sampling occurred in 2006, while
post project sampling occurred in 2007 and 2008. 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 including 9 acres of
RHCA.
This stream was selected for long-term (annual) post project sampling, so it was sampled
again in 2008. 2008 results indicate conditions very similar for all four metrics to those
measured in the 2006 survey (Table 5, Appendix C). Overall the results indicate no
negative change from pre-project conditions two years following implementation.
10
HFQLG 2008 Stream Monitoring Report
Panther Creek (Battle Creek Wildlife-Watershed Restoration Project, Lassen NF)
The Panther Creek reach is located in the South Battle Creek watershed approximately
0.2 miles downstream of the 29N12Y road. Pre-project sampling occurred in 2001, while
post-project sampling occurred in 2007 and 2008 because the stream was dry at the time
of sampling 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.
Comparison of pre-post conditions show a statistically significant reduction in pool tail
fines (34.3% vs 11.7%; t-test p=0.002), and increased shade (70% vs 83%; t-test
p=0.006) (Appendix C, E). A 2% reduction in <2mm particles was also observed from
2006 to 2008. This decrease of in-channel fine sediment is likely associated with the
elimination of sediment sources attributed to the decommissioned road, removed culvert
and crossing. Due to dry conditions observed in 2001 and 2007, comparisons of residual
pool depths are not possible.
Domingo Creek (Warner DFPZ project, Lassen NF)
The Domingo Creek reach is located just upstream of the 29N97 crossing and within 0.5
miles of the creeks confluence with the North Fork Feather River. Pre-project sampling
occurred in 2007, while post-project sampling occurred in 2008. In late 2007,
approximately 86 acres of DFPZ occurred upstream of and adjacent to the monitoring
reach.
2008 results indicate in-channel conditions similar to that observed in 2005 (Appendix
C). Though no statistically significant differences were detected in pool tail fines,
residual depths, or shade, slight decreases were observed for all three metrics (Table 4).
During the same period an increase in <2mm particles increased from 0.5% to 3.5%.
Pine Creek (McKenzie Aspen Project, Lassen NF)
The Pine Creek reach is located downstream of the 32N22 road on the Eagle Lake RD.
Pre-project sampling occurred in 2005, while post-project sampling occurred in 2008. In
the fall of 2005 and winter of 2008 approximately 200 acres of aspen were mechanically
treated adjacent to the monitoring reach. Approximately 75 of these acres were located
within the RHCA of Pine Creek.
As with previous aspen treatments adjacent to stream channels (Pine Creek; Bogard
Aspen Project and South Fork Bailey Creek; Cabin Project) pre and post project
comparisons at Pine Creek show a significant (t-test p=.02, Appendix C) 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 residual
pool depth) showed slight decreases between 2005 and 2008. Pool tail fines increased
slightly. None of these changes were significant.
11
HFQLG 2008 Stream Monitoring Report
West Branch Lights Creek (Post Moonlight Fire, Plumas NF)
The West Branch Lights Creek reach was added and sampled in 2008 to assess impact to
and recovery of a stream from wildfire. The Moonlight Fire burned approximately 98%
of the watershed upstream of the reach. Because pre-fire data was not collected,
comparison with pre-fire conditions cannot be made. Results found a high level of both
pool tail fines (14.5%) and % particles <2mm (15.3 %) relative to other streams of
similar gradient (Cub, Chips, Nelson, 3rd Water, 4th Water). The only transport stream
with similarly high sediment is the other stream in a burned watershed (Moonlight).
Shade measured also varied low relative to comparable streams. Results from this stream
are shown in Table 6 and Appendix D.
Pool Tail Fines
(%)
14.5
% Particles
<2mm
15.3
Residual Pool
Depth (m)
0.38
Shade (%)
30.2
Table 6. Results (means) from West Branch Lights Creek.
Lone Rock Creek (Post Moonlight Fire, Plumas NF)
The Lone Rock Creek monitoring reach, summarized above in the Within-Year Repeat
monitoring section, was established in 2008 to assess impact to and recovery of a stream
from wildfire. The Moonlight Fire burned approximately 99% of the watershed upstream
of the reach. Because pre-fire data was not collected, comparison with pre-fire conditions
cannot be made. Results found very high levels of percent pool tail fines when compared
to other monitoring reaches of similar gradient (<2%). The only other response reach
with higher pool tail fines in 2008 was Cow Creek (91.8%). Pool tail fines on the
remaining response reaches ranged from 21.8% (Lower Kings Creek) to 0.5% (Rice
Creek). Shade measured also varied low relative to comparable streams. Results from
this stream are shown in Table 7 and Appendix A. Lone Rock Creek is shown in Figure
6 below.
Pool Tail Fines
(%)
55.5
% Particles
<2mm
4.5
Residual Pool
Depth (m)
0.54
Table 7. Results (means) from the first survey of Lone Rock Creek.
12
HFQLG 2008 Stream Monitoring Report
Shade (%)
33.7
Figure 6. Lone Rock monitoring reach (Plumas National Forest).
IV. Recommendations
Ensure that QAQC samples are completed on the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe NFs.
Ensure that each forest completes monitoring of designated post-project long-term annual
monitoring reaches.
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.
Attempt to establish an additional reference reach on the Plumas NF as a result of losing
Hopkins Creek, LNFMFFR, West Branch Nelson Creek, and Chips Creek as a reference
due to mining activity. Situate the reach such that watershed size upstream of the reach is
comparable to likely pre-post streams’ watershed size.
If streams are flowing during the 2009 field season, repeat sampling of streams that were
dry in 2008. These are Merril, Pineleaf and North Carmen.
Find a replacement for the Cub Creek reference reach due to the Cub Fire that burned in
the summer of 2008.
V. Key Findings
Comparisons of reaches monitored before and after implementation of HFQLG projects
indicate a lack of adverse impacts. Seven post-project treatments were monitored in 2008
(Domingo, 3rd Water, Willow (Colby), Panther, Summit, 4th Water and Pine Creeks).
These treatments did not result in statistically significant differences in in-channel
13
HFQLG 2008 Stream Monitoring Report
sediment conditions. Shade was significantly decreased (as expected) by an aspen
treatment adjacent to Pine Creek.
Panther Creek was monitored again in 2008 to assess a watershed improvement project
(road decommissioning, and stream crossing rehabilitation). Implementation of this
project apparently resulted in a statistically significant decrease in percentage of pool tail
fines.
Moonlight Creek, West Branch Lights Creek and Lone Rock Creek were monitored to
assess effects of the Moonlight Fire that occurred in 2007. Pre-fire data were available
for Moonlight Creek. Comparison with post-fire data found significant differences pool
tail fines in shade, likely due to a large portion of the watershed and stream side zones
burned at high severity. West Branch Lights Creek data suggested high in-channel
sediment and low shade relative to other transport streams.
Within year variability of attributes measured was quite low for all attributes measured,
except for bank stability, which has been shown to have the greatest amount of difference
between paired samples.
Between year variability between reference streams was low for most attributes in most
of the ten streams where repeat measurements were taken in 2008. Two notable
exceptions were pool tail fines, and shade measurements from Rock Creek (Lassen NF).
Pool tail fines were significantly lower, while shade was significantly higher in 2008
when compared to 2007.
14
HFQLG 2008 Stream Monitoring Report
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, 2007.
HFQLG Monitoring Report. 8pp.
Prepared By
Ryan Foote
Fisheries Biologist, Lassen NF
Ken Roby
Fisheries Biologist, Lassen NF
Tina Hopkins
Fisheries Biologist, Plumas NF
Deborah Urich
Fisheries Biologist, Tahoe NF
Arik Krueger
Biological Technician, Plumas NF
15
HFQLG 2008 Stream Monitoring Report
Appendix A: Data Summaries: HFQLG Within Year Repeat Surveys (2008)
Stream
Name
Number of
Number
Sensitive
LWD Key Number of Key
Reach
pieces / 100 of Aggs Pieces in
Length (m)
m
Aggs
Particle
Count %
< 2mm
D50
Lone Rock
08 (1)
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
Lone Rock
08 (2)
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
Willow
(Colby)
2008
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
Willow
(Colby)
2008 rpt
Mean
Range
n
Count or %
677
683
316
316
3.84
0
0
4.25
15.3
18.3
0
1
1
0
12
12
405.00
405.00
4.5
27.5
415
415.00
5
22.6
400.00
400.00
2.8
32.6
400.00
400.00
1.9
32.8
Residual
% Pool
W:D Ratio
Pool Depth Tail Surf
(Monuments)
(m)
Fines
%
Gradient
Entrench
0.75
2.90
12.17
0.54
55.50
0.48-0.97
1.9-4.11
10.4-14.4
0.22-0.89
2-100
3.00
8.00
3.00
33.00
99.00
Bank
Angle
Stream
Shore Depth
(m)
33.7
144.00
0.26
8-100
30-180
0-0.55
50
100.00
10.00
% Stable
% Shade
Banks
100.0
70.0
0.69
2.47
15.10
0.52
55.10
31.80
133.50
0.27
0.54-0.85
1.6-4.0
11.4-17.1
0.2-0.91
2-100
2-96
40-175
0.05-0.47
3.00
8.00
3.00
33.00
99.00
50.00
100.00
15.00
45.8
9-95
50
137.00
30-175
100.00
0.26
.05-1.01
13.00
47.1
9-89
50
141.20
40-175
100.00
0.20
.07-.49
11.00
100.0
78.0
1.71
1.2-2.1
3.00
1.90
1.7-2.5
8.00
13.80
10.5-19.5
3.00
0.61
0.45-0.74
3.00
12.10
0-36
9.00
100.0
39.0
2.20
2.2-2.3
3.00
1.50
1.2-4
8.00
17.40
14.9-18.9
3.00
0.60
0.47-0.74
3.00
11.10
2-26
9.00
100.0
29.0