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
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
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
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
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.
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
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
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
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
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
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
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
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
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
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.
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
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
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
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.
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
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
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
13
Photo 2 – Bear Meadow Stream
Bear Stream Bear Stream
Site # Channel Type
Impact Rating 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
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
14
Photo 3- Double Bunk Meadow
Double Bunk Meadow Double Bunk Meadow
Site # Channel Type
Impact Rating Channel Type
Impact Rating
C6-1 C6 Moderate B5 Moderate
C6-2 C6 Moderate C6b Low
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
15
Photo 4- Double Bunk Stream
Double Bunk Stream (Past) Double Bunk Stream (Current)
Site # Channel Type
Impact Rating 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
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
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 Channel Type
Impact Rating
C6-7 C6 Low E5 Low
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
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 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
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
18
Photo 8- Packsaddle Meadow
Packsaddle Meadow (Past) Packsaddle Meadow (Current)
Site # Channel Type
Impact Rating Channel Type
Impact Rating
C6-1 C6 Moderate B5a Moderate
C6-2 C6 Moderate B6c Low
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
19
Photo 9- Parker Meadow
Parker Meadow (Past) Parker Meadow (Current)
Site # Channel Type
Impact Rating Channel Type
Impact Rating
C6-1 C6 Minimum C6 Minimum
C6-2 C6 Low C6 Moderate
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
20
Photo 10- Parker Stream
Parker Stream (Past) Parker Stream (Current)
Site # Channel Type
Impact Rating Channel Type
Impact Rating
B6-5 B6 Mod-High B5c Moderate
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
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.
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
22
Photo 13- Upper Parker Meadow
Upper Parker Meadow (Past) Upper Parker Meadow (Current)
Site # Channel Type
Impact Rating 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
Watershed Management Experiential Learning For USDA Careers
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
Top Related