FR-CRM Monitoring TAC

MINUTES

3/17/2008 Plumas Corporation Office @ 1 p.m.

 

Reasonable Accommodations: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting please contact the Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Watershed Coordinator at (530) 283-3739.

 

Attendees:  Christine Meigs, Jim Wilcox, Kim Fluty, Leslie Mink, Kevin Pond, Tina Hopkins, Brian Morris, Joe Hoffman, Dennis Heiman, Lori Powers, Kara Rockett, Gia Martynn, Carol Rush, Betsy Kraemer

 

1.      Review 2007 Monitoring Report

The primary goal of the annual report and the watershed monitoring efforts of the FRCRM is to demonstrate a ten year change in the hydrograph at Doyle Crossing after the completion of Last Chance II (planned for implementation in 2009-2010).  Long-term hope is to see changes further downstream at Notson and Taylorsville for both flows and temperature.  Last Chance I was constructed in 2002-2004, with supplemental projects constructed in 2005-2007.  The 2007 Monitoring Report focuses on temperature and baseflows due to the low water year, resulting in no data for high flow, turbidity, or flood attenuation.

Review questions submitted by CDFG: 

Diurnal fluctuations at Doyle and DWR weir do not seem possible (60 and 40 degrees F, respectively). Need to look at raw data. Lori Powers figured out the problem with the data was the order in which the conversion from C to F and the calculations were being done.  Jessica and Leslie will correct this data and update past years information.

Stream flows at DWR weir and Flournoy don’t correlate with DWR reports for releases from Antelope Dam at 20 cfs;’06 and ’07 data for Flournoy was synthesized due to the transducer being out of the water during low flows.  There is a diversion above the weir for Heart K Ranch. 

Max daily temperatures for 2006 at Notson- found a discrepancy between Sagraves temperature summaries and the raw data sheets. Need to check all 2006 data. 2007 looked ok.  Max weekly temps need to check 2007. Need to be sure we are using the same data sets.

Discussion of Report:  Changes noted in the 2007 report- over time, decreases in water temperatures at Doyle xing, Notson, and Flournoy are being seen due to restoration work upstream.  Regarding temperature, the term “impaired” implies it was better in the past.  Do we know that is the case on Lights, Wolf, and Last Chance or is that the best these systems can do?  Use “not suitable for cold water fisheries”, instead of impaired.  The State uses ‘line of evidence’ (i.e. historical temp data or in the absence, documentation of the existence of cold water species historically in the watershed) to determine 303 listing. This is the case for the Feather River CRM monitoring sites.  Note: Lethal water temp for coldwater fish is >75 degree F; State uses >20 degrees C (approx. 68 degrees F) as “impaired”.  Reason for temp. increases on Wolf and Notson are due to channel aggradation and widening, resulting in shallower water exposed to more solar radiation.  Wolf Creek is our only in-channel restoration work in the Indian Creek watershed.  If we can show this work can decrease water temps, it may be possible to apply/work down Indian Creek to PG&E project for temp reduction vs. thermal curtain.  Ambient air temperatures have an effect. Need to correlate air temps with water temps.  Look at seasons like we do with water, i.e. was it a hot, cool, or average summer?  Take monthly averages overlay with MDT graph.  Jim will help Jessica put this data together.  Air temp information is also available through the State Air Quality Board.  It was suggested that any discrepancies in data be listed under each graph.  Also, report only focuses on Indian Creek data, need to include other watershed monitoring for Spanish and Sulphur Creek.  For future reports it would be optimum to synthesize information and efforts with other partners (USFS and UFWRG) and have one annual watershed-wide report.

 

2.      Status Report on Continuous Recording Stations

A.     2007 Maintenance Completed:

                                                           i.      Wolf Creek @ Main St. Br.: stage plate replaced; transducer box unburied, did not move downstream

                                                         ii.      Indian Creek @ Taylorsville: Plumas County finished guard rail replacement; transducer replaced and relocated to original location on left bank bridge abutment in October 2007

                                                       iii.      Indian Creek @ Flournoy Br: transducer lowered to compensate for changes in channel control downstream; 1 stage plate replaced (2 more need replacement)

                                                       iv.      Lights Creek @ Deadfall Br.: transducer box lowered; data logger errors fixed- was asked why we are maintaining this site.  This is the only subwatershed where no treatment has been done; serves as a control; recently burned; will at some point do work in this subwatershed; good indicator of Indian Valley.

                                                         v.      Sulphur Creek @ Hwy 89: partially dismantled; planned to reinstall after Caltrans weir (riprap control) was reinstalled.  Recent communication with Caltrans indicates the weir will not be rebuilt. 

                                                       vi.      Spanish Creek @ Gansner: transducer & logger moved upstream to vane pool on Dyrr Bank in Oct. 2007; 1 staff plate installed with transducer; 4 staff plates installed on Hwy 70 Bridge pier with Caltrans encroachment permit.  

B.     Future maintenance:

                                                           i.      Last Chance Cr @ Doyle Crossing: Should we install turbidity sensor (from Spanish Creek CRS) for pre-project Last Chance Phase II monitoring?

1.      Will require running second conduit to transducer housing (after high flows & snow gone); wiring setup OK; Cost estimate?  Turbidity sensor requires a lot of calibration. Easier to do at Spanish. Purpose was to look at sediment reduction on Spanihs and Indian Creek (Taylorsville).  Better on Spanish if further down the valley.  Consensus to keep at Spanish in current location.  Won’t buy us much to move to Doyle.

                                                         ii.      Indian Creek @ DWR Weir: transducer may have failed; need to replace after flows have receded   The transducer is ten years old.

                                                       iii.      Wolf Creek @ Main Street: yearly maintenance after high flows to excavate transducer housing  Current site is progressively aggrading.  Agreed to move to the ballpark bridge this year.

                                                       iv.      Sulphur Creek @ Hwy 89: need to relocate, Caltrans will not be replacing weir.  Original purpose of weir was to keep cattle out, which is no longer an issue; however, the bridge footings will be an issue if the weir is not replaced. CRM will bring weir replacement to the transportation committee and add to the EEM grant proposal for the Sulphur Crk. Bank Stabilization Project.  In the interim, move transducer to Wolf Creek for 2008 and then move back to Sulphur in 2009 at the DePaoli bank vane pool if the weir has not been replaced. 

                                                         v.      Spanish Creek @ Gansner: Quincy CSD contract for $13K will cover monitoring and maintenance cost for April 2008- March 2009.

 

3.      Status of Project Monitoring

A.     CRM Restoration Projects

                                                           i.      Last Chance Phase II (Leslie) Monitoring parameters include groundwater, water quality, vegetation, and macro invertebrates.

Groundwater wells: Coyote Flat (5 from Loheide Study); Doyle (5 from Loheide); and Stone Dairy.  One from each site will be monitored for a total of 3.  Vegetation: Carbon sequestration sampling will give total biomass data, collected from 4 transects at mouth of Stone Dairy, Coyote Flat, wide meadow, and above Murdoch xing.  Riparian Veg Condition:  from NRCS Monitoring Manual- Carol will check NRCS for modified “greenline” surveys.

Water Quality: DWR monitoring reach above Doyle is within the project area; CRM site below Murdoch xing; low water xing; at Murdoch xing. 

Macro Invertebrates: DWR- low water xing and Doyle xing; USFS- below project area at Murdoch xing.

                                                         ii.      Red Clover (2nd year post-project): veg, photos, flows, temp, fish, wildlife

When can we expect to get the results of the macroinvertebrate sampling completed by DWR on Red Clover? Same location a fish sampling sites; Pete Coombe is the new wildlife biologist for DWR.

                                                       iii.      Middle Fork Projects (Smith, Long Valley, Little Last Chance, Raap/Guidici, Boulder)

                                                       iv.      Meadow Valley Projects (Spanish and Silver Creek)

                                                         v.      Add’l Photo Monitoring: Artray, Clark’s Creek

                                                       vi.      Well Monitoring: Alkali, Clarks, Hosselkus, Red Clover, LC-Charles (collaborating with Burkhard Bohm on data collection)

                                                     vii.      Noxious Weed Monitoring (Red Clover, Ferris Fields, Middle Fork Projects, Dixie, others?)

                                                   viii.      Greenhorn Creek- CDFG may be able to do electroshocking of Farnsworth project.  Don’t have old data from late 1990’s- Lori will check CDFG files.

 

4.      Carbon Sequestration Monitoring

Overview of carbon market and potential credit revenue for landowners.

A.     Sample Meadows in Last Chance & Red Clover sub-watersheds

                                                           i.      Treated: Red Clover-McReynolds (2006), Cottonwood Cr-Big Flat (1995), Clarks Cr. (2001) upper meadow

                                                         ii.      Untreated: Red Clover-Dotta, Red Clover-Poco, Last Chance-Coyote Flat, Clarks Creek below project

B.     Sampling Methodology: (handout proposed protocol) Samples will be taken mid-summer (July) when vegetation has reached maturation/seed. 

                                                           i.      Stratify sample meadows by Level 1 soil type & existing vegetation communities (soil maps completed)

                                                         ii.      Sample soil/veg complexes with 4 randomly selected points along pre-existing surveyed cross-section

1.      Collect all surface organic material within 1 square-foot frame centered over soil core location

2.      In center of frame, take 1” diameter soil core to depth of 36” (removed in 9”-long segments) to be sent to Oklahoma State lab for soil & organic carbon testing (using LECO TruSpec C & N Analyzer)

3.      Immediately to right of soil core, collect bulk density samples with Soil Moisture 0200 core sampler

 

5.      UC Davis Indian Creek Watershed Model

A.     Focus on project sites & subwatershed outlets: air temp, groundwater temp & level, surface water temp & discharge

                                                           i.      Project Focus: Hosselkus, Wolf Creek, Clarks Creek, Alkali Flat, Red Clover

B.     Measurements: CRS, DWR Weather Stations, DWR flows @ Arlington, portable solar radiometer, groundwater wells, surface water flows & temp

 

 

6.      Citizen Watershed Monitoring

A.     Continuous Recording Stations: Indian Cr. @ Flournoy Br, DWR Weir, Taylorsville Br.; Lights Cr., Wolf Cr., Sulphur Cr. @ Hwy 89

                                                           i.      To monitor transducer shift/error

                                                         ii.      To monitor change in control (ice/beaver dam)

                                                       iii.      Storm event water samples for turbidity

                                                       iv.      Can citizen monitors help with other data collection needs?

B.     Other project monitoring locations for water level & turbidity:

                                                           i.      Sulphur Creek Watershed: Barry Creek Br., Middle Sulphur Cr. (b/w loop rd. bridges), Lower Whitehawk Br.

                                                         ii.      Spanish Creek Watershed: Spanish Cr. @ Spanish Ranch Br., Wapunzie Cr., Rock Cr., Slate Cr.

                                                       iii.      Do we want to establish some citizen monitors in Sierra Valley locations?  Could we coordinate with the UFRW and SVRCD data collection in SV? 

                                                       iv.      Gravel monitoring sites in American Valley, Spanish Creek- do we want to establish a schedule and protocol for FRC students to follow?  Need to work with Darla, Derek, and landowners. 

 

7.      Monitoring Long-term Changes in Channel Morphometry

A.     PNF SCI Sites

                                                           i.      Need to get 2007 SCI data on Little Last Chance Creek from USFS

                                                         ii.      Annual QLG reports on SCI, hydro, soils, and amphibians (ask Joe Hoffman for 2006 and 2007 reports).  QLG sites scheduled for survey in ’08 (per K. Roby): 3rd water; 4th water; Coquette, Cow, Dogwood, Indian (Slapjack Project), Silver, Little North Fork of Middle Fork (FR), Chips, WB Nelson, Hopkins. A few more sites will probably be added.

                                                       iii.      What sites does the PNF plan to complete in 2008?  Could we possibly partner on some of the work?  Has the Forests (Lassen, Plumas & Tahoe) determined the appropriateness or efficacy of using SCI data (or any of its parameters) for general watershed health monitoring?  Could this info be used for the State’s effort in setting up model watersheds to pilot watershed health monitoring?

Possible QLG funding for SCI site work- Tina will look into this. 

B.     DWR Reference Reaches in Last Chance Watershed

                                                           i.      Is it possible to complete these again before implementation of Last Chance II in 2009/2010?  Will do in June 2009

C.     FRCRM Monitoring Reaches

                                                           i.      21 sites completed in 2003.  5-year interval, should replicate in 2008 but no funding.   Priority sites & funding opportunities?  SWAMP funds??  If funding available do we have resources? –would subcontract out.  Need to prioritize (by project?) not necessary to do all 21 sites.  USFS sites more QLG project driven- probably captured ‘05/’06 event with some sites.  USFS has crew, but no money.  Possibly SRWP funds available, but not likely for ’08; looking more at 2009. 

                                                         ii.      Is the SWB still creating a state network?  Should we pursue establishing five long-term sites as part of the state network?  What would be the benefit of doing this?  Will there be any funding attached? 

Watershed Health Monitoring- a long-term tracking by the State looking a many parameters besides water quality, such as noxious weeds, forest health, catastrophic fire, etc.; Social/economic factors; Natural resource economy.  Some funds and assistance available from Sacramento Watershed subcontractors (Fraser Shilling, UC Davis; Anna Pauly, Stillwater).  QLG and CRM monitoring probably will cover many of the parameters.  Something to think about for now.  Dennis will bring back more info. 

 

8.      The Future of FR-CRM’s Monitoring Program

A.     Priority projects for longer-term monitoring

B.     Funding Opportunities for ongoing monitoring; possibly establish an Upper Feather watershed pilot monitoring program with funds from SRWP grant? Funding restrictions limit ability to collect data, reporting, collaboration and synthesizing data with other groups in watershed.  Funding opportunity with the Bonneville Foundation- proposing a baseline request for monitoring of $25-30K/year; program cost is approx. $50K/yr. Comments from Brian- County acknowledges importance of helping to provide baseline funding for continued monitoring.  If USFS and DWR can provide support then we can reduce costs and more likely to get financial support.  Need to collaborate to lessen efforts- CRM is the best to coordinate and put all info on the web.  

C.     Additional Monitoring Needs: Infrared Flight of Red Clover/Last Chance (2005), macroinvertebrate sampling, others? DWR will do macros on LC II; SEBAL Satellite ET Snapshot- DWR may be able to fund

                                                           i.      Would like to get final reports of MGW telemetry work on MYLF in the Spanish Creek watershed.  Possible future studies? 

                                                         ii.      What is the possibility of reintroducing species into restored project areas, such MYLF or Western pond turtle?

 

9.      Other Ongoing Monitoring in the Watershed

A.     UC Extension- Upper Feather River Watershed, Prop 50 Ag Waiver Monitoring

                                                           i.      2008 final year of data collection for UC-Extension, UFRW group monitoring.

B.     Natural Heritage Institute (NHI) mountain meadows study, including Clarks Creek