Turbidity Responses from Timber Harvesting, Wildfire, and Post-Fire Logging in the Battle Creek Watershed, Northern California

Article
  • 64 Downloads

Abstract

The Battle Creek wa tershed in northern California was historically important for its Chinook salmon populations, now at remnant levels due to land and water uses. Privately owned portions of the watershed are managed primarily for timber production, which has intensified since 1998, when clearcutting became widespread. Turbidity has been monitored by citizen volunteers at 13 locations in the watershed. Approximately 2000 grab samples were collected in the 5-year analysis period as harvesting progressed, a severe wildfire burned 11,200 ha, and most of the burned area was salvage logged. The data reveal strong associations of turbidity with the proportion of area harvested in watersheds draining to the measurement sites. Turbidity increased significantly over the measurement period in 10 watersheds and decreased at one. Some of these increases may be due to the influence of wildfire, logging roads and haul roads. However, turbidity continued trending upwards in six burned watersheds that were logged after the fire, while decreasing or remaining the same in two that escaped the fire and post-fire logging. Unusually high turbidity measurements (more than seven times the average value for a given flow condition) were very rare (0.0% of measurements) before the fire but began to appear in the first year after the fire (5.0% of measurements) and were most frequent (11.6% of measurements) in the first 9 months after salvage logging. Results suggest that harvesting contributes to road erosion and that current management practices do not fully protect water quality.

Keywords

Turbidity Water quality Timber harvest Cumulative watershed effects Wildfire Salvage logging 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Monitoring by the Battle Creek Alliance was made possible through grants from the California Watershed Protection Fund, Environment Now, Fund for Wild Nature, Lush Cosmetics Charity Pot, Northern California Grassroots Fund, Patagonia, and Wildlands Grassroots Fund. Co-author support was provided by the Center for Biological Diversity.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Jack Lewis received funding from the Battle Creek Alliance in 2015 for an unpublished analysis of these data. Lewis' updated analyses and composition of this article was not funded. Curtis Bradley contributed GIS analysis while employed by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Jon Rhodes received a small fee from CBD for his assistance.

Supplementary material

267_2018_1036_MOESM1_ESM.doc (8.3 mb)
Supplemental material

References

  1. Agee JK (1990) The historical role of fire in Pacific Northwest forests. In: Walstad JD, Radosevich SR, Sandberg DV (eds) Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR, pp 25–38 (Chap. 3)Google Scholar
  2. Alley WM (1988) Using exogenous variables in testing for monotonic trends in hydrologic time series. Water Resour Res 24:1955–1961.  https://doi.org/10.1029/WR024i011p01955 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beschta RL, Rhodes JJ, Kauffman JB, Gresswell RE, Minshall GW, Frissell CA, Perry DA, Hauer R, Karr JR (2004) Postfire management on forested public lands of the western United States. Conserv Biol 18:957–967.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00495.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buffington JM, Montgomery DR (1999) Effects of sediment supply on surface textures of gravel-bed rivers. Water Resour Res 35(11):3523–3530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bywater-Reyes S, Segura C, Bladon KD (2017) Geology and geomorphology control suspended sediment yield and modulate increases following timber harvest in temperate headwater streams. J Hydrol 548:754–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CALFIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection), California Department of Fish and Game, Central Valley Regional Water Resource Control Board, and California Geological Survey (2011) A rapid assessment of sediment delivery from clearcut timber harvest activities in the Battle Creek watershed, Shasta and Tehama counties, CA. http://bofdata.fire.ca.gov/board_business/other_board_actions/battle_creek_report/final_battlecreek_taskforce_report.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2015
  7. Cafferata PH, Reid LM (2013) Applications of long-term watershed research to forest management in California: 50 years of learning from the Caspar Creek Experimental Watersheds. California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection, California Forestry Report No. 5 http://www.fire.ca.gov/resource_mgt/downloads/reports/California_Forestry_Report_5.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2015
  8. Cover MR, May CL, Dietrich WE, Resh VH (2008) Quantitative linkages among sediment supply, streambed fine sediment, and benthic macroinvertebrates in northern California streams. J N Am Benthol Soc 27:135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Croke JC, Hairsine PB (2006) Sediment delivery in managed forests: a review. Environ Rev 14:59–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeBano LF, Neary DG, Ffolliott PF (1998) Fire’s effects on ecosystems. Wiley, NewYorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Donato DC, Fontaine JB, Campbell JL, Robinson WD, Kauffman JB, Law BE (2006) Post-wildfire logging hinders regeneration and increases fire risk. Science 311:352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunne T, Agee J, Beissinger S, Dietrich W, Gray D, Power M, Resh V, Rodrigues K (2001) A scientific basis for the prediction of cumulative watershed effects. University of California, Berkeley, Wildland Resources Center Report No. 46Google Scholar
  13. Espinosa Jr FA, Rhodes JJ, McCullough DA (1997) The failure of existing plans to protect salmon habitat on the Clearwater National Forest in Idaho. J Environ Manage 49:205–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foltz RB, Burroughs ER Jr (1990) Sediment production from forest roads with wheel ruts. In: Proceedings of Watershed Planning and Analysis in Action, American Society of Civil Engineers, Durango, CO, pp 266–275Google Scholar
  15. Foltz RB, Rhee H, Yanosek KA (2007) Infiltration, erosion, and vegetation recovery following road obliteration. Trans ASABE 50:1937–1943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. GLEC (Great Lakes Environmental Center) (2008) National level assessment of water quality impairments related to forest roads and their prevention by best management practices. Report prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. GLEC, Transverse City, MIGoogle Scholar
  17. Gucinski H, Furniss MJ, Ziemer RR, Brookes MH (2001) Forest roads: a synthesis of scientific information. US Forest Service, PNW GTR-509, Portland, ORCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hassan MA, Church M, Lisle TE, Brardinoni L, Benda L, Grant G (2005) Sediment transport and channel morphology of small, forested streams. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41:853–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Helsel DR, Hirsch RM (2002) Statistical methods in water resources. Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, Chapter A3. US Geological Survey, p 335Google Scholar
  20. James C, MacDonald L (2012) Greater battle Creek turbidity monitoring: update and additions. http://www.spi-ind.com/research/JamesandMacDonaldGreaterBattleCreekWatershedUpdateAdditions_SPI.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2015
  21. Karr JR, Rhodes JJ, Minshall GW, Hauer FR, Beschta RL, Frissell CA, Perry DA (2004) Post-fire salvage logging’s effects on aquatic ecosystems in the American West. Bioscience 54:1029–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kattelmann R (1996) Hydrology and water resources. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, Wildland Resources Center Report No. 39, Vol. II, Chapter 30. University of California, Davis, pp 885–920Google Scholar
  23. Kier Associates (2009) Aquatic habitat conditions in Battle Creek and their relationship to upland management. Kier Associates, Arcata, CA, http://www.pathiggins.org/documents/Appen_B_Kier_Battle_2009_Aquatics_Link_to_Mgmnt_11_28_09_final.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2015
  24. Klein RD, Lewis J, Buffleben MS (2012) Logging and turbidity in the coastal watersheds of northern California. Geomorphology 139:136–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. LaMarche JL, Lettenmaier DP (2001) Effects of forest roads on flood flows in the Deschutes River, Washington. Earth Surf Proc Land 26:115–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewis J (1996) Turbidity-controlled suspended sediment sampling for runoff-event load estimation. Water Resour Res 32:2299–2310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewis J, Keppeler ET, Ziemer RR, Mori SR (2001) Impacts of logging on storm peak flows, flow volumes and suspended sediment loads in Caspar Creek, California. In: Wigmosta MS, Burges SJ (eds) Land use and watersheds: Human influence on hydrology and geomorphology in urban and forest areas, Water science and application, volume 2. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp 85–125Google Scholar
  28. Lisle TE, Hilton S (1992) The volume of fine sediment in pools: an index of sediment supply in gravel-bed streams. Water Resour Bull 28(2):371–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Litschert SE, MacDonald LH (2009) Frequency and characteristics of sediment delivery pathways from forest harvest units to streams. Ecol Manage 259(2):143–150.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Link TE, Unsworth M, Marks D (2004) The dynamics of rainfall interception by a seasonal temperate rainforest. Agric Meteorol 124:171–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacDonald LH, Huffman EL (2004) Post-fire soil water repellency: persistence and soil moisture thresholds. Soil Sci Soc Am J 68:1729–1734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marchetti GM, Drton M (2010) ggm: Graphical Gaussian Models. R package version 1.0.4. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggm. Accessed 11 Nov 2015
  33. McIntosh BA, Sedell JR, Thurow RF, Clarke SE, Chandler GL (2000) Historical changes in pool habitats in the Columbia River Basin. Ecol Appl 10:1478–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McIver JD, Starr L (2001) A literature review on the environmental effects of post-fire logging. West J Appl For 16:159–168Google Scholar
  35. Moody JA, Martin DA (2001) Initial hydrologic and geomorphic response following a wildfire in the Colorado front range. Earth Surf Proc Land 26:1049–1070.  https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Myers T (2012) Cumulative watershed effects of timber harvest and other activities: Battle Creek Watershed, Northern California. Report prepared for Battle Creek Alliance, Manton, CA. http://www.thebattlecreekalliance.org/uploads/myers_FINAL_battle_creek_watershed_analysis_070312.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2015
  37. NCRWQCB (North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board) (2006) Watershed-wide waste discharge requirements for timber harvesting plan activities, Salmon Creek Corporation, and the Pacific Lumber Corporation in the Elk River watershed. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Order No. R1-2006-0039Google Scholar
  38. NRC (National Research Council) (2008) Hydrologic effects of a changing forest landscape. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Pannkuk CD, Robichaud PR (2003) Effectiveness of needle cast at reducing erosion after forest fires. Water Resour Res 39:1333–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rashin EB, Clishe CJ, Loch AT, Bell JM (2006) Effectiveness of timber harvest practices for controlling sediment. J Am Water Resour Assoc 42:1307–1347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reid LM, Dunne T, Cederholm CJ (1981) Application of sediment budget studies to the evaluation of logging road impact. J Hydrol 29:49–62Google Scholar
  42. Reid LM (1998) Forest roads, chronic turbidity, and salmon. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 79(45):F285Google Scholar
  43. Reid LM, Lewis J (2009) Rates, timing, and mechanisms of rainfall interception loss in a coastal redwood forest. J Hydrol 375(3-4):459–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reid LM, Dewey NJ, Lisle TE, Hilton S (2010) The incidence and role of gullies after logging in a coastal redwood forest. Geomorphology 117(1-2):115–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rhoades CC, Entwistle D, Butler D (2011) The influence of wildfire extent and severity on streamwater chemistry, sediment and temperature following the Hayman Fire Colorado. Int J Wildland Fire 20(3):430–442.  https://doi.org/10.1071/wf09086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rhodes JJ, McCullough DA, Espinosa Jr FA (1994) A coarse screening process for evaluation of the effects of land management activities on salmon spawning and rearing habitat in ESA consultations. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, OR, Technical Report 94-4Google Scholar
  47. Robichaud PR, Brown RE (1999) What happened after the smoke cleared:onsite erosion rates after a wildfire in eastern Oregon. In: Olson DS, Potyondy JP (eds) Proceedings AWRA Specialty Conference Wildland Hydrology. American Water Resources Association, Herndon, VA, 30 June–2 July 1999, Bozeman, MT pp 419–426Google Scholar
  48. Robichaud PR, MacDonald LH, Foltz RB (2010) Fuel management and erosion. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the western United States. US Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO, RMRS-GTR-231 79–100Google Scholar
  49. Shakesby RA, Doerr SH (2006) Wildfire as a hydrological and geomorphological agent. Earth Sci Rev 74(3–4):269–307.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2005.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Silins U, Stone M, Emelko MB, Bladon KD (2009) Sediment production following severe wildfire and post-fire salvage logging in the Rocky Mountain headwaters of the Oldman River Basin, Alberta. Catena 79:189–197.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2009.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith HG, Hopmans P, Sheridan GJ, Lane PNJ, Noske PJ, Bren LJ (2012) Impacts of wildfire and salvage harvesting on water quality and nutrient exports from radiata pine and eucalypt forest catchments in south-eastern Australia. Ecol Manage 263:160–169.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Surfleet CG, Dietterick B, Skaugset A (2014) Change detection of storm runoff and sediment yield using hydrologic models following wildfire in a coastal redwood forest, California. Can J Res 44:572–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Suttle KB, Power ME, Levine JM, McNeely C (2004) How fine sediment in riverbeds impairs growth and survival of juvenile salmonids. Ecol Appl 14:969–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. US Census Bureau (2014) 2014 TIGER/Line Shapefiles (machine-readable data files)Google Scholar
  55. USDA (US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service), in cooperation with University of California Agricultural Experiment Station (1967) Soil survey, Tehama County, California. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  56. USDA (US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service), in cooperation with University of California Agricultural Experiment Station (1974) Soil Survey of Shasta County Area, California. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  57. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2000) National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, DC, EPA841-F- 00-006Google Scholar
  58. USFS (US Department of Agriculture Forest Service), National Marine Fisheries Service, US Bureau of Land Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US National Park Service, US Environmental Protection Agency (1993) Forest ecosystem management: An ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the forest ecosystem management assessment team. USFS PNW Region, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  59. USFS (US Department of Agriculture Forest Service) (2008) Using Subsoiling to Reduce Soil Compaction. Forest Service Technology & Development Program. 3400-Forest Health Protection. 0834-2828-MTDCGoogle Scholar
  60. USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service) (2015) Memo to California Regional Water Quality Board Re: Increase in fine sediment in South Fork Battle Creek. USFWS, Red Bluff, CAGoogle Scholar
  61. USGS (US Geological Survey) (2012) The StreamStats program. http://streamstats.usgs.gov. Accessed 11 Nov 2015
  62. Wagenbrenner JW, MacDonald LH, Coats RN, Robichaud PR, Brown RE (2015) Effects of post-fire salvage logging and a skid trail treatment on ground cover, soils, and sediment production in the interior western United States. Ecol Manage 335:176–193.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.09.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wagenbrenner JW, Robichaud PR, Brown RE (2016) Rill erosion in burned and salvage logged western montane forests: effects of logging equipment type, traffic level, and slash treatment. J Hydrol 541(B):889–901.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.07.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wondzell SM, King J (2003) Post-fire erosional processes in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain regions. Ecol Manage 178:75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yoshiyama RM, Fisher WF, Moyle PB (1998) Historical abundance and decline of chinook salmon in the Central Valley Region of California. North Am J Fish Manage 18(3):487–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ziemer RR, Lisle TE (1993) Evaluating sediment production by activities related to forest uses—a Northwest perspective. In: Proceedings Technical workshop on sediments, 1992, Corvallis, Oregon. Terrene Institute, Washington, DC, pp 71–74Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research StationArcataUSA
  2. 2.Planeto Azul HydrologyPortlandUSA
  3. 3.Center for Biological DiversityTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations