2014 Summer Internship: South Creek Watershed …wri.csusb.edu/.../GilbertRomero_FinalReport_31July2014.pdf2014 Summer Internship: South Creek Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Analysis

2014 Summer Internship: South Creek Watershed

and Aquatic Habitat Analysis

Gilbert Romero

California State University of Monterey Bay Aaron Vargas

California State University of Monterey Bay

June 2, 2014 – July 31, 2014

Joshua Courter District Hydrologist

USDA Forest Service – Sequoia National Forest

7/31/2014

Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers

2

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................3

Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................4

Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................5

Project Approach .............................................................................................................................6

Project Outcomes .............................................................................................................................8

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................10

References ......................................................................................................................................11

Appendices ....................................................................................................................................12


3

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no.

2011-38422-31204 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

We would also like to thank:

Joshua Courter, District Hydrologist – Sequoia National Forest

Julie Lappin, WRI Program Manager

Nicole Barnhart, WRI Administrative Assistant

Carina Cisneros, EOP Coordination

Omar Murillo, SSS Retention Specialist

Peppermint Workstation Crew of 2014– Sequoia National Forest

Western Divide Ranger District Office Staff


4

Executive Summary

South Creek is a priority watershed for the Sequoia National Monument. Primary concerns for

the watershed are related to non-point source pollution and its impacts on aquatic habitats.

Students prioritized, collected, and analyzed geomorphologic data of stream channels, meadows,

and aquatic/riparian habitats to determine current conditions. Based on these conditions,

students recommended to the Sequoia National Forest areas to focus restoration efforts in order

to improve South Creek watershed’s aquatic and riparian habitat conditions.


5

Project Objectives

Introduction

The South Creek watershed is located in the Sierra Nevada Mountains approximately 60 miles

southeast of Porterville, Ca and 20 miles north of Kernville, Ca. The watershed is 23 square

miles and compromised of predominately granitic rock in contact with meta-volcanic rocks

approximately three miles before its confluence with the wild and scenic North Fork Kern River.

The headwaters contain roughly 15 mountain meadows that at one time supported population of

mountain yellow legged frog. The watershed drains 49 miles of stream that support Kern River

rainbow hybrids. The area is a favorite of hunters and has numerous dispersed camp sites. The

most recent wildfire was the McNally fire of 2002 which affected the lower third of the

watershed. Standing and down timber provides high concentration of fuels and results in high

fire susceptibility. Due to the constant contacted with civilization many of the streams are being

subjected to degradation. This degradation can come from many different sources; trash, roads,

coverts, and natural erosion. In order to better understand this degradation we were sent out to

survey and analyze the meadows and streams within the South Creek Watershed and bring about

ideas to improve watershed conditions.

Career Pathways

Our project tasks consisted of driving to areas that have and have not been accessed in years.

We used land surveying equipment, such as a laser level and Philadelphia rod, to map out

streams that were located in meadows and mountain terrain. Previous and current condition data

was evaluated to establish aquatic habitat trends and to pinpoint sources contributing to water

quality issues. While doing all this we kept our eyes open for headcuts, riling, and other factors

that could potentially increase sediment delivery into stream channels within and outside of

meadows in the South Creek watershed

Gilbert Romero

Having participated in the 2014 WRI watershed management internship has opened up pathways

to further my learning of the forest. With this experience I expected to not only gain knowledge


6

but also build connections and make lasting memories. Fast-forwarding to now, I can

confidently say that my goals have been met. However, when I was applying to the internship I

imagined the experience to be a lot less remote than it actually was. When I arrived on my first

day we were directed around 7,000 feet up a mountain. I was stunned and excited, but thrown

off by the technological and social isolation we faced at times. Both Aaron and I worried about

communication with school, friends, and family. We combated this obstacle by driving down

the mountain to the nearest city. Nonetheless, hydrology work is an interesting field and this

internship is a great kick starter to the fuel my pursuit of forestry.

Aaron Vargas

Originally my first thoughts and goals when I heard about this internship was that I wanted to

experience something completely new to me and to gain some outdoor experience. I have never

set foot in the Sequoia National Forest nor have I ever had the chance to work there. When my

advisor showed me this opportunity I applied to it and luckily I got accepted. Though at first I

was nervous about what I was getting myself into however, I quickly became accustom to pitch

black nights and no cell and internet services. As I progress over the weeks I began to seriously

consider applying to work in the USDA for a career. I enjoyed working all day in the forest and

finding things I would never see in the city. Though there were rough patches completing the

survey and series of unfortunate events, I would do it all over again.

Project Approach

Gilbert Romero

When I first started learning how to do surveys I was lost and hopeless. Joshua created a check

list for Aaron and I to have so that we did not leave the field missing anything. Several steps had

to be taken to properly gather and document the physical and biological properties of degraded

areas. As a team we had to find portions of the streams that properly portrayed the stream as a

whole. Also, throughout the day we faced different challenges depending on the time. One

being bug control, others being daylight vs. stream clarity. However, like anything you study

and practice routinely it becomes second nature. Eventually Aaron and I were able to

accomplish the documentation needed for surveys much quicker and with ease. Through the


7

course of the internship I learned that going the extra mile is typically better, and that

cooperation and understanding is key.

Aaron Vargas

Every single day on the job some new obstacle or challenge would present itself to Gilbert and I.

We would have learned how to cope with such challenges and it soon became an expected norm.

For example, one survey might require us to jump over fallen trees. Or to cut downs some tree

limbs in order for the laser level’s beam to be received the receiver. I also had the misfortune of

dropping my backpack into the stream which pushed us back by a day due to us having to dry

important documents and gear that were necessary for the job. Though it was tough I believe I

have achieved my goals of experiencing something new as well as gain experience working in

the field.

Riparian Ecotype Impact Rating System

Classifying streams is a lengthy but fairly simple process that has been used for many years. The

Riparian Ecotype Impact Rating (Kaplan-Henry, 2007) system was created locally on the

National Forest in the –late 1980’s. It uses both Rosgen Stream Channel Classification (Rosgen,

1994 and 1996) and Pfankuch’s Stream Stability Rating (Pfankuch, 1975) systems. The results

can tell observers the physical conditions using environmental indicators that are sensitive to

changes.

First a Rosgen Stream Channel Classification is required and obtained through cross section

surveys. Results are then classified from A to G. A pebble count analysis is then required which

consists of counting and measuring 100 rocks within the stream channel. The results are

combined, such as A1, B3, G5, and then are placed into four Riparian Ecotype categories;

Naturally Stable, Naturally Unstable, Stable-Sensitive, and Unstable-Sensitive-Degraded. Once

these results are determined, a Pfankuch Stream Stability Rating is used.

Pfankuch Stream Stability Rating system was developed in 1975and later modified by the

Rosgen Stream Channel Classification system in the late 1990s. This rating system records 15

indicators to help dictate what condition a certain stream channel is in. Using this information,

impact ratings from the Riparian Ecotype and Impact Ratings can be determined. With the


8

exception of Naturally Unstable riparian ecotypes, a stream could fall in to one of six categories

of impact ratings: Minimal, Low, Moderate, Moderate-High, High, or Extreme. For comparison

purposes between past and current collected data, a value system was developed to show a trend.

With the help of Joshua Courter, we developed a numeric value system to correspond with the

Riparian Ecotype Impact Rating to develop a trend. We over-lapped each impact rating with a

number, starting at Minimum (value = 1) to Extreme (value = 6). Within each section of stream

we tally up the points and compared it with the previous data. If our recent surveys determined

impact ratings having a lower score than previously collected data, then the overall health of the

system is getting better. In contrast, if our recent survey determined impact ratings having a

higher score than the previous collected data, then the system is getting worse.

Project Outcomes

Our data consist of surveys completed throughout headwaters of the South Creek Watershed.

Using the numeric value system, as refereed to earlier, in relation to the recent data gathered, we

discovered past surveys no longer represents certain channels types and impact ratings located in

the watershed. All systems with the exception of Horse Meadow, Parker Meadow, and Bear

Stream, received an improved score presenting a recover within these areas. These three areas

that didn’t improved are discussed further below. All collected data has been summarized and

placed in the appendices of this report.

Horse Meadow

Horse Meadow is located on the north-west edge of the South Creek Watershed, consisting of

one low and two moderate impacted areas. There are two roads that run alongside Horse

Meadow, road 22S04 on the western edge of the Meadow and road 22S18 on the southern edge

of the Meadow. Forest Service road 23S62 runs along the lower eastern portion of the meadow.

We recorded this area having numerous amounts of headcuts and undercutted banks. Moreover,

we located six check dams and five of the six have failed. Check dams were once used as part of

meadow restoration techniques on the Sequoia National Forest. They no longer practice this

method due to the failures and further damage they would cause. Past surveys have found that

Horse Meadow was comprised of one minimum (1), low (2), and moderate (3) impacted areas


9

giving this meadow a rating of 6 at that time. However, recently Gilbert and I have found that the

minimum (1) section of the stream changed to a moderate (3) impacted area. Due to this change

Horse Meadow raised to 8 points.

Parker Meadow

Parker Meadow is located in the northwest corner of the South Creek Watershed and

downstream of Horse Meadow. Adjacent to the meadow is road 22S04 and, because this road

runs near the stream, increased sediment was observed to be attributing impacts to the system.

Previous data presented that Parker Meadow had 3 points in our numerical value system due to

having a minimum (1) and low (2) impacted rating. Recent surveys suggest there is one

minimum (1) and one moderate (3) impacted portion in the system for a total of 4 points. Our

data shows that Parker Meadow has become further impacted since the pervious measurements

were collected.

Bear Stream

Bear Stream is more or less located in the center of South Creek Watershed. Road 23S15 and

road 23S16 remains adjacent to the river for majority of its span. Previous data had Bear stream

with a rating of 8 containing two minimum (1), one low (2), and one moderate-high (4) rating.

Recent survey found that the impacted rating increased to 11 points. It now contains one low (2)

and three moderate (3) impacted portion in the system. Thus, Bear stream overall has become

further impacted since the last measurements occurred.

Upper Parker Meadow

Upper Parker Meadow resides in the headwaters of the South Creek watershed along Parker

Meadow Creek. Forest service road 22S81 parallels the meadow along the western side with

22S04A on the eastern side. Past surveys had an overall impact rating of low (14 points total) for

the meadow with the system being silt dominated for particle size distribution. Recent surveys

discovered a shift towards less impact ratings on the meadow. Impact ratings shifted towards

minimal to low ratings with one shifting to moderate (12 points total). Particle size distribution

has shifted from silt dominated to sand dominated providing potentially better aquatic habitat.


10

Overall a shift in impact ratings has occurred suggesting the system is recovering from past

management activities (14 points to 12 points).

Conclusions

After collecting all the data and analyzing the information gathered, we have come to the

conclusion that Parker Meadow, Horse Meadow, and Bear Stream are the three areas the Sequoia

National Forest should concentrate restoration efforts to improve aquatic habitats. These

systems have become further impacted based off our numeric value system and henceforth

should be considered as high priority areas. Additional information to support the shift towards a

higher impact rating were visual observations while surveying.

Visual observations of impacts in Parker Meadow, Horse Meadow, and Bear Stream were

headcuts, sediment from adjacent roads, some with livestock use/damage, and culverts. These

observations have likely contributed to further degradation of these areas. We have observed

many past attempts to restore meadow systems, i.e. check damns, in the South Creek Watershed

and most have failed. Our recommendation is several years of monitoring regarding meadow

and stream channel restoration efforts. Sometimes what may seem fixed in the short term may

unravel in the long term.

Gilbert Romero

I am very excited to have experienced this experiential learning internship. My knowledge of the

forest has furthered and has cemented my ambition to pursue forestry. Having completed this

internship I have a better understanding of what area of forestry I would like to tap into. Not

forgetting to mention the friendships and connections that I have made to return. The job of a

Hydrologist is not easy but also not bland. I plan on pursuing hydrology work for the USDA and

am excited for the next adventure that shows itself.

Aaron Vargas

After finishing my internship I have serious began looking into what career options the USDA

can provided to me. Of course it might be a tough road ahead of me but I know as long as I set

my mind to it this is possible. Currently, I would want to either become a Forest Ranger or


11

Hydrologist like my mentor Joshua Courter. I have already expressed interest in reapplying next

year to either work in his crew again or join the other crews this forest provides. I believe thanks

to this opportunity I was put in the right path to an amazing career.

References

Kaplan-Henry, Terry. 2007, A METHOD TO EVALUATE AND CLASSIFY RIPARIAN

ECOTYPES in University of California Water Resources Center Report No. 109, ISBN-

13: 978-0-9788896-1-6, ISBN-10: 0-9788896-1-4, July 2007 Proceedings of the

Watershed Management Council Tenth Biennial Conference WATERSHED

MANAGEMENT ON THE EDGE, Scarcity, Quality and Distribution. November 15-19,

2004, San Diego, California, Bruce McGurk and Neil Berg, Technical Coordinators.

Pfankuch, Dale J. 1975. Stream reach inventory and channel stability evaluation. R1-75-002.

Government Printing Office #696-260/200. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 26 p.

Rosgen, Dave. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22 (1994):169-199.

Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO. 376

pp.


12

Appendices

Photo 1 - Bear Meadow

Bear Meadow Bear Meadow

Site # Channel Type

Impact Rating Channel Type

Impact Rating

B4-1 B4 High C5 Moderate


13

Photo 2 – Bear Meadow Stream

Bear Stream Bear Stream

Site # Channel Type


Impact Rating

A2-26 A2 Minimum B5c Moderate

A2-27 A2 Minimum B4c Moderate

B2-28 B2 Low E5 Moderate

B3-29 B3 Mod-High E5b Low


14

Photo 3- Double Bunk Meadow

Double Bunk Meadow Double Bunk Meadow

Site # Channel Type


Impact Rating

C6-1 C6 Moderate B5 Moderate

C6-2 C6 Moderate C6b Low


15

Photo 4- Double Bunk Stream

Double Bunk Stream (Past) Double Bunk Stream (Current)

Site # Channel Type


Impact Rating

B3-15 B3 Extreme B4 Moderate

C6-16 C6 Moderate B5 Low

A1-17 A1 Minimum B1a Minimum

B1-18 B1 Low B4 Moderate

B1-19 B1 Minimum B3 Moderate

B1-20 B1 Minimum B5c Moderate

A1-21 A1 Minimum B5 Moderate

B4-22 B4 High C6 Moderate

B4-23 B4 High B4a Moderate

B3-24 B3 Minimum E6 Low


16

Photo 5- French Joe Meadow No data collected as there was no defined stream channel within French Joe Meadow.

Photo 6- Horse Meadow

Horse Meadow (Past) Horse Meadow (Current)

Site # Channel Type


Impact Rating

C6-7 C6 Low E5 Low


17

C6-6 C6 Minimum G5 Moderate

C4-5 C4 Moderate E5b Moderate

Photo 7- Horse Stream

Horse Stream (Past) Horse Stream (Current)

Site # Channel Type


Impact Rating

B6-1 B6 Mod-High B5c Low

B2-2 B2 Low F4 Low

B1-3 B1 Low B5c Moderate

A1-6 A1 Minimum B5 Moderate

B3-7 B3 Extreme E4b Moderate

B3-8 B3 Extreme B5 Moderate-High

A3A-9 A3A Extreme E5b Moderate-High

C6-11 C6 Mod-High B5 Moderate

C6-12 C6 Mod-High E5b Moderate

C6-13 C6 Mod-High B6c Minimum


18

Photo 8- Packsaddle Meadow

Packsaddle Meadow (Past) Packsaddle Meadow (Current)

Site # Channel Type


Impact Rating

C6-1 C6 Moderate B5a Moderate

C6-2 C6 Moderate B6c Low


19

Photo 9- Parker Meadow

Parker Meadow (Past) Parker Meadow (Current)

Site # Channel Type


Impact Rating

C6-1 C6 Minimum C6 Minimum

C6-2 C6 Low C6 Moderate


20

Photo 10- Parker Stream

Parker Stream (Past) Parker Stream (Current)

Site # Channel Type


Impact Rating

B6-5 B6 Mod-High B5c Moderate


21

Photo 11- Powderhorn Meadow No stream data collected due to no define channel within Powderhorn Meadow.

Photo 12- Holey Meadow No stream data collected due to no define channel within Holey Meadow.


22

Photo 13- Upper Parker Meadow

Upper Parker Meadow (Past) Upper Parker Meadow (Current)

Site # Channel Type


Impact Rating

C6-1 C6 Low B5 Low

C6-2 C6 Low E5b Minimum

C6-3 C6 Low C5b Low

C6-4 C6 Low E6b Moderate

C6-5 C6 Low C5 Low

C6-6 C6 Low C5 Minimum

C6-7 C6 Low C5 Minimum


23

Photo 14- Upper Parker Stream

Upper Parker Stream (Past) Upper Parker Stream (Current)

Site # Channel Type

Impact Rating Channel Type Impact Rating

B3-4 B3 Mod-High B5a Low

Documents

2014 Summer Internship: South Creek Watershed …wri.csusb.edu/.../GilbertRomero_FinalReport_31July2014.pdf2014 Summer Internship: South Creek Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Analysis