The Resources Agency
Department of Water
Resources
Northern District
CLARKS CREEK STREAM/MEADOW
RESTORATION PROJECT
FISH AND WILDLIFE MONITORING REPORT
District Report
December 2004,
Governor Secretary for Resources Director
State of California The Resources Agency Department of Water Resources
State
of California
The
Resources Agency
Department
of Water Resources
Northern
District
CLARKS
CREEK STREAM/MEADOW
RESTORATION
PROJECT
FISH
AND WILDLIFE MONITORING REPORT
District
Report
December
2004,
Governor Secretary for Resources Director
State of California The Resources Agency Department of Water Resources
Accelerated
erosion of the Feather River watershed has occurred since the 1950s. In response to the rapid degradation of the
watershed, a Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) group was formed in 1985. The 23-member group including the Department
of Water Resources (DWR) developed and signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
wherein manpower, equipment, funding, and technical resources were committed
for restoring the watershed.
The
Clarks Creek Stream/Meadow Restoration Project Fish and Wildlife Monitoring
Study was designed and implemented for providing information to the Feather
River Coordinated Resource Management group on the response of fish and
wildlife resources to stream/meadow restoration.
One
year of pre-restoration data and three years of post-restoration data were
collected to assess the effects of this restoration. Trends in small mammal, deer, and bird populations reflected
vegetative conversion and grazing practices while fish populations were
controlled by natural passage barriers outside the project area.
This
monitoring effort, conducted by DWR’s Northern District, is a contribution by
DWR to ongoing restoration efforts in the Feather River Watershed and was
funded by the State Water Project Analysis Office’s Upper Feather River
Watershed Management Program.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Small Mammals and Small Mammal
Habitat
Small Mammals and Small Mammal
Habitat
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A: Avian species occurrence by study area and
year
APPENDIX B: Project and Control Area avian densities
TABLES
Table 1. Special status bird species recorded within
the study areas.................. 18
Table 2. Bird species recorded in both study areas
during all survey periods..... 19
Table 3. Bird species recorded only within the
control area................................... 19
Table 4. Bird species recorded only within the
project area................................... 20
FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of the Clarks Creek Restoration
Project Area............................ 4
Figure 2. Clarks Creek Restoration Project and Control
Areas............................... 7
Figure 3. Ground cover composition of Transect 1
milliacre plots 2000-2004..... 11
Figure 4. Transect 1 small mammal catch/100 trap
nights by year........................ 11
Figure 5. Ground cover composition of Transect 2
milliacre plots 2000-2004..... 13
Figure 6. Transect 2 small mammal catch/100 trap nights
by year........................ 13
Figure 7. Ground cover composition of Transect 3
milliacre plots 2000-2004..... 14
Figure 8. Transect 3 small mammal catch/100 trap
nights by year........................ 14
Figure 9. Ground cover composition of Transect 4
milliacre plots 2000-2004..... 15
Figure 10. Transect 4 small mammal catch/100 trap
nights by year...................... 15
Figure 11. Transect 5 small mammal catch/100 trap
nights by year...................... 16
Figure 12. Transect 6 small mammal catch/100 trap
nights by year...................... 16
Figure 13. Transect 7 small mammal catch/100 trap
nights by year...................... 17
Figure 14. Average total avian density values by year
and study area.................. 21
Figure 15. Average avian species richness by year and
study area..................... 22
Figure 16. Deer days use/acre in the project and
control areas 2000-2004........ 23
Figure 17. Rainbow trout captured in the project and
control areas
2000-2004..................................................................................................................... 25
State of California
Arnold
Schwarzenegger, Governor
The Resources Agency
Mike
Chrisman, Secretary for Resources
Department of Water
Resources
Lester
A. Snow, Director
P.
Joseph Grindstaff
Chief
Deputy Director
Gerald
E. Johns Vernon T. Glover Peter S. Garris Stephen W. Verigin
Deputy
Director Deputy Director Deputy Director Deputy Director, acting
Nancy
J. Saracino Susan Sims Brian E. White
Chief
Counsel Assistant Director, Public
Affairs
Assistant Director, Legislation
Division of Planning and
Local Assistance
Mark
Cowin, Chief
This report was prepared
under the supervision of
Dwight
P. Russell.................................................................... Chief,
Northern District
Glen S.
Pearson........................................................ Branch
Chief, Northern District
by
David
J. Bogener......................................................... Staff
Environmental Scientist
with
assistance from
Ryan T. Martin.......................................................................
Environmental
Scientist
Margie L. Graham................................................................. Environmental Scientist
Aric R. Lester......................................................................... Environmental Scientist
Kevin J.
Pond................................................................. Engineer,
Water Resources
Ira A.
Alexander....................................................... Fish
and Wildlife Scientific Aide
This
Clarks Creek study was designed and implemented for providing information to
the Feather River Coordinated Resource Management group on the response of fish
and wildlife resources to a stream/meadow restoration project.
The
Clarks Creek restoration approach employed the “pond and plug” technique. This approach involved removing the flow
from the existing channel/gully and returning the water to a shallow remnant
channel within the meadow system.
Portions of the dewatered gully were plugged using materials excavated
along the now abandoned gully. These
excavations resulted in the creation of 10 ponds ranging in size from 0.5 to
1.5 acres with a maximum width of 100 yards.
The remnant channel was generally not modified.
The
fish and wildlife objectives for the Clarks Creek stream/meadow restoration
included:
Monitoring
of changes in ground cover composition indicate an overall trend toward
replacement of sagebrush (xeric habitat) with grass/forb/sedge (more mesic
habitat). However, areas disturbed by
project construction in 2001 remain poorly vegetated.
Rainbow
trout populations are substantially reduced from baseline (2000) levels. One of the project goals was to increase
late season base stream flow. Changes
in stream flow were not monitored.
However, Clarks Creek remains an ephemeral stream following restoration. Annual immigration and recolonization are
required for fish to be present within the project area. A series of downstream beaver dams
effectively blocked upstream fish passage and recolonization of the project
area during 2002, 2003, and 2004. Thus,
project effects on fisheries cannot be evaluated at this time.
Small
mammal abundance (as measured by catch/100 trap nights) was generally greater
following restoration. However, a clear
increasing trend in small mammal abundance was documented only on Transect
2. Transect 2 is the only monitoring
transect at least partially within the grazing exclosure.
Deer
use (as measured by pellet group counts) increased in both the project and
control areas post-restoration, but remain at low use levels.
Waterfowl
use and production increased following restoration. However, waterfowl nest production and brood survival have
generally been poor. Post-restoration
project and control area waterfowl production are not significantly different. Beaver ponds developed and/or expanded
within the control area during the course of the study provided waterfowl
brooding habitat and served to increase waterfowl use.
Avian
total density and species richness exhibit statistically significant increases
following restoration. Twenty-two species were observed only within the project
area. Nineteen of these species were
observed only after stream/meadow restoration.
Several wetland/lacustrine dependent species including American pipit,
black phoebe, cinnamon teal, bufflehead, gadwall, least sandpiper, long-billed
dowitcher, osprey, snow goose, solitary sandpiper, sora, willit, and
yellow-headed blackbird were only detected after restoration. Eight species exhibited statistically significant
increased densities within the project area during at least one of the three
years of post-project sampling. These
species include Canada goose, dark-eyed junco, Empidonax flycatcher, killdeer,
mallard, red-winged blackbird,
spotted sandpiper and western meadowlark.
Only one species, savannah sparrow, exhibited statistically significant
density decreases within the project area following project
implementation.
Clarks
Creek is a tributary to Last Chance Creek in the East Branch North Fork Feather
River (EBNFFR) watershed (Figure 1).
The EBNFFR watershed contains approximately 776,000 acres. Lands within the watershed are subject to
various land uses including fishing, hunting, mining, timber harvest, and
livestock grazing. Runoff from the
watershed is stored in reservoirs of the State Water Project (SWP) and also
provides a significant amount of hydroelectric power to the SWP as well as to
Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Accelerated
erosion of the watershed has occurred since the 1950s (Mitchell 1986). In response to the rapid degradation of the
watershed, a Coordinated Resource Management group was formed. The group members include:
The
group members, including DWR, developed and signed a Memorandum of
Understanding wherein manpower, equipment, funding, and technical resources
were committed for restoring the watershed.
This monitoring effort is another
contribution by DWR to ongoing restoration efforts in the Feather River Watershed and was funded by the State Water Project Analysis Office’s Upper Feather River Watershed Management Program.