| Reach:
Rio Cebolla 11
|
Stream:
Rio Cebolla
|
Watershed:
Jemez
|
|
State: NM
Survey Date:
Fri, 10/14/2011 - 3:00pm
|
| Observers:
J. Stone, R. Woodrow, E. Masin, Team E.U.
E-mail: jenniferstone@fs.fed.us
|
|
Address: 228 Commercial St., Nevada City, CA , 95959
Phone: 559-359-8366
|
| (UTM) Zone: 13
Upstream (UTM): 3500075E
Upstream (UTM): 3981613N
Elevation: 2521 meters
|
| NAD: 83
Downstream (UTM): 349109E
Downstream (UTM): 3978813N
Elevation: 2468 meters
|
|
(UTM) Start: 349263E
(UTM) Start: 3980287N
Upstream or down? Downstream
|
|
Scores:
WQ 3.5
HG 3.6
F/AH 2.5
RV 2.3
TWH 2.3
Overall 2.8
|
|
| Water Quality |
|
5 |
1 |
Algal Growth |
%=0 |
| 2 |
2 |
Channel Shading |
%=4.3 |
|
| 3.5 |
|
Mean Score |
| Notes: Very low channel shading |
|
|
| Hydrogeomorphology |
| 3 |
3 |
Floodplain Connection |
| 4 |
4 |
Vertical Bank Stability |
%=9 |
| 5 |
5 |
Hydraulic Habitat Diversity |
| 4 |
6 |
Riparian Area Soil Integrity |
%=2 |
| 2 |
7 |
Beaver Activity |
|
| 3.6 |
|
Mean Score |
|
Notes: Soil disturbance (#6) is clue to hoof action from cattle grazing
|
|
|
| Fish/Aquatic Habitat |
| 1 |
8 |
Riffle-Pool Distribution |
| 2 |
9 |
Underbank Cover |
%=1 |
|
10 |
Cobble Embeddedness |
|
11 |
Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Diversity |
| 2 |
12 |
Large Woody Debris |
| 5 |
13 |
Overbank Cover |
|
| 2.5 |
|
Mean Score |
|
Notes: No cobbles >3" in reach (channel has gravel bottom) so 10 & 11 are not applicable. Overbank cover is all from grasses and carexes.
|
|
|
| Riparian Vegetation |
| 3 |
14 |
Riparian Zone Plant Community Structure |
|
G=99%
S=6%
MC=0%
UC=0%
avg=26.3%
|
| 2 |
15 |
Shrub Demography and Recruitment |
| 1 |
16 |
Tree Demography and Recruitment |
| 3 |
17 |
Non-native Herbaceous Plant Species |
| 5 |
18 |
Non-native Woody Plant Species |
| 1 |
19 |
Grazing Impacts on Ground Cover |
%=98 |
| 1 |
20 |
Browsing Impacts on Shrubs and Small Trees |
|
| 2.3 |
|
Mean Score |
|
Notes: No shrub seedlings or saplings and so many old dead clumps of alders (alnus)are present. The majority of non-native herbaceous species present are annuals. This area was grazed more heavily this season than is common which probably explains the low score in # 19 & 20.
|
|
|
| Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat |
| 2 |
21 |
Shrub Patch Density |
| 1 |
22 |
Mid-canopy Patch Density |
| 1 |
23 |
Upper Canopy Patch Density |
| 5 |
24 |
Fluvial Habitat Density |
|
| 2.3 |
|
Mean Score |
|
Notes: Very small widely scattered shrub patches.
|
|
|
| Scores |
| WQ |
HG |
F/AH |
RV |
TWH |
OVERALL |
| 3.5 |
3.6 |
2.5 |
2.3 |
2.3 |
2.8 |
|
|
|
| Overall Comments |
| Very long reach with medium-gradient channel, resulting in significant sinnuousity across the valley bottom. Valley shape is fairly flat with steep sides, and dense grass extends to the toe slope where conifers begin. Stream channel has a gravel bottom with no riffle-pool habitat or cobbles. Velocity is generally low, and would probably have significant unnderbank cover if the cattle hoof-action were less. Few Fish.
Many springs, seeps and marshes emerge near the floodplain throughout the reach, and at least one fen present near representative site # 1. It has aquite a'bit of cattle damage, as do all spring like features in the valley.
Shrubs are sparse scattered in small patches. There is very little recruitment, and there is an obvious die-off among almost all mature individuals.
There is a very large dam/stock pond mid-reach with the road crossing over the dam.
The entire reach has restricted vehicle traffic access, day-use foot access only. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Javascript is required to view this map.
|