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