Effectiveness Monitoring Progress Report South Santiam ...
Transcript of Effectiveness Monitoring Progress Report South Santiam ...
Effectiveness Monitoring Progress Report
South Santiam, North Santiam and Calapooia Watershed Councils
2011
Eric Andersen, Regional Monitoring Coordinator
4431 Highway 20, Sweet Home OR. 97386
2
Summary
The North Santiam, South Santiam and the Calapooia River watersheds (NSCW) have
experienced extensive anthropomorphic changes to their land base in recent decades
(E&S Environmental Chemistry Inc. 2000, E&S Environmental Chemistry Inc. 2002,
Primozich and Bastasch 2004). As a result of this change, the quantity and quality of in-
stream and adjacent riparian habitat for ESA listed salmonids has been degraded (NOAA
2005). In light of this situation, NSCW Councils have voluntarily formed a unique
regional team, which has been accepted into the Meyer Memorial Trust’s (MMT)
Willamette Model Watershed Program. An integral element of the MMT Willamette
Model Watershed Program is a 10 year effectiveness monitoring program designed to
measure the effectiveness of NSCW Council’s restoration efforts and thus inform future
management decisions. Restoration efforts are focused in seven priority subbasins. In
2011, year 2 of the effectiveness monitoring program, 21 stream segments were surveyed
to characterize instream physical habitat and adjacent riparian conditions.
3
Introduction
The North Santiam, South Santiam and the Calapooia River watersheds (NSCW) have
experienced extensive anthropomorphic changes to their land base in recent decades
(E&S Environmental Chemistry Inc. 2000, E&S Environmental Chemistry Inc. 2002,
Primozich and Bastasch 2004). As a result of this change, the quantity and quality of in-
stream and adjacent riparian habitat for ESA listed winter run steelhead (Oncorhynchus
mykiss) and spring run Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) has been degraded (NOAA
2005). In light of this situation, NSCW Councils have voluntarily formed a unique
regional partnership. The NSCW Councils regional partnership is cost effective, as
personnel and equipment are shared amongst the three separate watershed councils.
Significant savings are transferred to granting entities as a result of the partnership.
The NSCW regional partnership has been accepted into the Meyer Memorial Trust
(MMT) Willamette Model Watershed Program. The Councils are also partnering with
the Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF), the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW), the USDA Farm Service Agency, the Oregon Watershed
Enhancement Board (OWEB), the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (OR
DEQ), the Oregon Governors Fund for the Environment, and private landowners to
address limiting factors to salmonids within the study area. This fosters communication
between the partners, encourages data sharing and collaboration on projects.
Many NSCW streams have a limited ability to support adult and juvenile salmonids due
to the interruption of processes that create and sustain salmonid habitat (Primozich and
Bastasch 2004). Numerous waterways within the NSCW exceed stream temperature
requirements and are listed by the OR DEQ as being 303d impaired. Tributary and
mainstem rivers are often simplified, lack in-stream wood and have little or no off
channel habitat for rearing juveniles. Riparian forests have been reduced or removed,
thus increasing the amount of solar radiation reaching the water’s surface and eliminating
a source of future wood recruitment into streams. A restoration program designed to
reestablish interrupted ecosystem processes within the NSCW has been initiated by local
watershed councils. NSCW and BEF staff have identified seven priority subbasins to
target restoration activity: Stout Creek, Valentine Creek, Bear Branch, Hamilton Creek,
McDowell Creek, Courtney Creek and the ‘Middle Reach’ section of the mainstem
Calapooia River (see Figures 1 through 9). It is assumed that the scale of the study basins
is conducive to detecting a change in ecological conditions due to the NSCW Council’s
restoration activities.
An integral aspect of environmental restoration is the implementation of a monitoring
strategy (Roni 2002). A problem with many effectiveness monitoring projects in the
Pacific Northwest is that the temporal scale is not adequate to answer key research (e.g.
monitoring) questions (Roni et al 2008). To account for an adequate time scale, an
innovative 10 year monitoring program has been undertaken in the NSCW. The goal is
to measure and establish environmental conditions prior to restoration treatments in
priority subbasins and to follow up restoration actions with 10 years of effectiveness
monitoring. The purpose is to determine if the restoration actions that have been
implemented are achieving stated objectives. The 10 year timeframe of the project is at a
4
scale conducive to measuring change in the stated environmental parameters. By posing
restoration actions in the form of a hypothesis we will be able to test our ability to
accelerate environmental change in our study areas. The effectiveness monitoring that is
occurring in the NSCW is part of a larger comprehensive effort occurring in four
additional Willamette Model Watersheds; Long Tom Watershed, Luckiamute Watershed,
Mary’s River Watershed and Middle Fork Willamette Watershed.
We sampled a total of 21 stream segments for in-channel habitat conditions (see Tables 1
and 2). We collected data on stream temperature, thalweg profile, substrate, wetted
width, canopy coverage, riparian condition, invasive species presence and
macroinvertebrates in order to characterize the conditions of the stream reach. The North
Santiam had 4 stream segments sampled: 2 in Stout Creek, 1 in Valentine Creek and 1 in
Bear Branch Creek. The South Santiam had 13 stream segments sampled: 7 in Hamilton
Creek, 2 in Jack Creek and 4 in McDowell Creek. The Calapooia basin had 4 segments
sampled, 2 in Courtney creek, 1 in an unnamed Courtney Creek tributary and 1 on the
Middle Reach of the Calapooia River mainstem. We sampled 21 locations for water
temperature data, both in and adjacent to treatment reaches. The North Santiam had 6
data loggers: 2 on Bear branch, 2 on Stout creek and 2 on Valentine creek. The South
Santiam had 13 data loggers placed, 7 on Hamilton Creek and 6 on McDowell Creek.
The Calapooia had 2 data loggers on Courtney Creek. There were 3 sites that had
macroinvertebrate sampling, all located on Hamilton Creek.
The majority of the data collected in 2011 was the second year of pretreatment data at
future restoration sites. Pretreatment data is a necessary, but often overlooked component
to many restoration implementation projects (Roni 2005). The Willamette Model
Watershed Program provides essential funding for the collection of pretreatment, as well
as post treatment data.
5
Table 1. Key to segment naming conventions. Stream segment CA-CC-S00-2011 would
be interpreted as: Calapooia Watershed – Courtney Creek – Control Segment – Year
2011.
Watershed
CA Calapooia
NS North Santiam
SS South Santiam
Waterbody
CC Courtney Creek
CT Courtney Creek tributary
MC Middle Calapooia
VC Valentine Creek
ST Stout Creek
BB Bear Branch
MD McDowell Creek
HT Hamilton Creek
JK Jack Creek
Segment
S00 Control
S01, S02 Treatment Reach #1, #2, etc
Year
2011 Year 2011
6
Table 2. Stream segment and parameters collected in 2011.
Segm
en
t
Co
de
Len
gth
(m
)Tr
eat
me
nt
Co
ntr
ol
Thal
we
g
De
pth
We
tte
d
Wid
th
BEH
I
Rat
ioSu
bst
rate
Can
op
y
Co
vera
ge
Rip
aria
n
Co
nd
itio
nTe
mp
era
ture
Mac
ro-
inve
rte
bra
tes
CA
-CC
-S00
400
xx
xx
xx
x
CA
-CC
-S01
1500
CA
-CT-
S01
600
xx
x
CA
-MC
-S01
800
xx
NS-
BB
-S01
800
xx
xx
xx
NS-
ST-S
0112
00x
xx
xx
xx
NS-
ST-S
0245
0x
xx
xx
x
NS-
VT-
S01
800
xx
xx
xx
x
SS-H
T-S0
080
0x
xx
xx
xx
x
SS-H
T-S0
160
0x
xx
xx
xx
x
SS-H
T-S0
210
00x
xx
xx
x
SS-H
T-S0
360
0x
xx
xx
xx
SS-H
T-S0
440
0x
xx
xx
xx
SS-H
T-S0
580
0x
xx
xx
xx
SS-H
T-S0
635
0x
xx
xx
xx
x
SS-J
K-S
0050
0x
xx
xx
x
SS-J
K-S
0160
0x
xx
xx
x
SS-M
D-S
0060
0x
xx
xx
xx
SS-M
D-S
0160
0x
xx
xx
xx
SS-M
D-S
0210
00x
xx
xx
xx
SS-M
D-S
0360
0x
xx
xx
xx
7
Methods
Data collection methods were based on existing and widely accepted protocols. Key
factors driving the decision to select parameters for monitoring included responsiveness,
consistency, reliability and relevance (Cole 2010). The restoration activity will
determine which parameter is measured; while the frequency of parameter collection will
be determined by the parameter’s inherent variability (see Table 3). For example, a
riparian planting will be assessed by stream temperature and canopy coverage. Stream
temperature which has high annual variation is collected yearly, while the riparian
condition is collected at years 5 and 10.
Stream reaches were selected based on land owner permission and whether restoration
activities will occur. The scale of the monitoring is at the stream segment level. The
stream segment is determined by measuring the bankfull width of the stream and
multiplying by 40 (Peck 2006). No stream segment will be measured that is smaller than
350 meters. There is no upper limit for the length of a stream segment, however the
majority of stream segments will not be >1,500 meters. As the stream segment increases
the ability to capture representative elements of the reach becomes diluted. In some
cases, the survey is length is adjusted to fit the landowner’s property.
Table 3. Sampling frequency for core parameters.
Action Parameter Pre-project
(years) Post-project
(years)
In-stream Wood/Boulders Thalweg Profile 1 1, 5, 10 & as needed
Riparian Planting, Fencing Water Temperature Up to 4 Annual
Riparian Planting, Fencing Canopy Coverage 1 5 and 10
Either activity Riparian Condition 1 5, 10 & as needed
Either activity Macroinvertebrates Up to 4 Annual
Either activity Substrate 1 5 and 10
Parameters
Water Temperature
Water temperature is a driving force within aquatic ecosystems (Allan and Castillo 2007).
Water temperature was measured continuously at 1 hour intervals during the summer
flow period using Hobo data loggers and accompanying Hoboware software (Onset
Computer Corporation). Hobo data loggers were calibrated to OR DEQ supplied NIST
handheld digital thermometers. Calibration procedures were those outlined in Chapter 6
of the Water Quality Monitoring Guidebook (Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds
1999). Hobo data loggers were distributed within the creeks based on procedures
outlined by Oregon Department of Forestry 2003 “RipStream” study. Data loggers were
anchored to streamside trees and held in place using 1/8” aircraft cable and 10 lb.
8
weights. The seven day average maximum temperature, average daily maximum, daily
average, seven day average and were calculated and plotted. Data loggers were used to
measure the change in temperature at a stream reach due to treatment actions. A
temperature logger was placed at the beginning and end of a treatment reach to measure
the change in temperature of stream water within the reach. Temperature loggers were
also placed at control stream sections. In Hamilton and McDowell Creeks, additional
loggers were placed outside of treatment reaches to measure the rate of warming of larger
sections of those streams. Not all treatment reaches had a temperature logger.
Thalweg
A thalweg profile can be used as a method of assessing juvenile salmonid habitat
(Mossop and Bradford 2006). Thalweg measurements of stream segments were obtained
following methods outlined in EMAP protocol (Peck et al. 2006). Measurement intervals
were approximately 0.5 to 0.25 wetted channel widths, ensuring the capture of a
representative sample of pools and pool tail outs. One surveyor stands at point 0 and the
second surveyor walks directly up the middle of the channel to the established interval
distance. The thalweg, which may not be in the center of the channel, is then measured
and recorded. Points to measure thalweg were distributed longitudinally along the stream
segment. Sites generally had at a minimum 101 points to record thalweg. Graphing
thalweg measurements is used to visualize the thalweg profile. The standard deviation of
the thalweg measurements was used as a means to determine the stream segment’s
complexity. Comparing the standard deviation of the stream reach over time is used to
determine if the channel is becoming more complex. Thalweg profiles are expected to
become more variable (e.g. complex) with placement of log structures.
Substrate
Steam substrate is widely recognized as an integral element of salmonid habitat (Keeley
and Slaney 1996). Substrate particle size can influence spawning location preference and
dissolved oxygen reaching salmon eggs and alevins (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Substrate
measurements were recorded and classified following the EMAP protocol to produce a
general characterization of substrate within a reach. The percent of substrate in various
size classes and substrate embeddedness was evaluated. Fifty one transects were
established within the surveyed stream segment and scaled to the stream segment. At
each transect five substrate measurements were recorded at 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and
100% of the stream’s wetted width. The water depth and wetted width at the location of
substrate sampling was also recorded. In addition, substrate was examined for invasive
New Zealand mud-snails.
Canopy Coverage
The percent of canopy coverage is an indicator of the amount of solar radiation reaching
the water surface of the stream. Solar radiation is an important driver influencing water
temperature. Many streams have been cleared of riparian vegetation, thus increasing the
solar radiation reaching the stream. Measuring canopy coverage will follow the EMAP
protocol (Peck et al. 2006). At 51 transects, evenly distributed along the stream reach, 6
canopy measurements were taken at a distance of 0.3 meters above the surface of the
water using a convex spherical densiometer. One measurement each on the right and left
9
edge of water and four measurements in the center of the channel (up, right, down and
left). Canopy coverage is expected to increase as riparian reforestation occurs.
Bank Stability
Excessive sedimentation into streams is detrimental to water quality. The bank erosion
hazard index (BEHI) can be calculated to identify areas for treatment (Rosgen 1996).
The stream bank height to bankfull height, root depth to bank height, root density, bank
angle and surface protection are quantified and combined, yielding a ranking of the
erosion hazard. It is expected that the hazard value would decrease as restoration
activities are implemented.
Riparian
The condition of riparian forests is important for determining the future recruitment of
wood into streams. Riparian condition was assessed utilizing EMAP protocol (Peck et al.
2006). Eleven transects were evenly distributed along the stream segment. At each
transect, riparian condition was visually characterized within a 10 meter square plot
extending inland from the stream’s edge on the right and left stream bank. Vegetation
type and percent aerial cover were recorded for three layers of vegetation: canopy >5
meters, mid-canopy < 5 to 0.5 meters and ground cover < 0.5 meters. Invasive plant
species were also recorded when present. This widely used method of assessing riparian
condition yields semi-quantitative information on the quantity and type of vegetation
within the stream reaches.
Macroinvertebrate Sampling
The composition of the macroinvertebrate community is a widely used biological
indicator for instream conditions. Macroinvertebrate samples were collected following
Level 3 protocol outlined in the Chapter 12 of the Water Quality Monitoring Guidebook
(Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds 1999). Macroinvertebrate kick samples were
collected from one control site and two treatment sites during late summer of 2012.
Samples were collected from the lower portion of the treatment and control reaches. Each
sample was composed of a composite of four subsamples taken from four different riffle
habitat units. A 1ft D net with 500 micron mesh was used to obtain each kick sample.
Aquatic invertebrates were preserved in one quart Nalgene bottles with 70% ethyl alcohol
and sent to a qualified laboratory for identification. In the laboratory, experts identified a
500 organism subsample (e.g. ‘occurred’) to genus and species.
The predictive model “PREDATOR” was used to establish an ‘expected’ list of
macroinvertebrates. Two versions of the PREDATOR model were used to account for
sampling occurring in two ecoregions: the Marine Western Coastal Forest (MWCF) and
the Western Cordillera + Columbia Plateau (WCCP). The occurred macroinvertebrates
(e.g. O) were compared to a list of expected macroinvertebrates (e.g. E) to produce an
O/E ratio (e.g. score). The O/E score was then compared to reference site scores to
generate a condition of the sampled sites. Score interpretation varies slightly between the
models. The MWCF model scores describe the biological condition at the site as : >1.24
enriched, 0.92-1.24 least disturbed, 0.86-0.91 moderately disturbed, and <0.85 most
disturbed (Hubler 2008). The WCCP model scores describe the biological condition at
10
the site as : >1.23 enriched, 0.93-1.23 least disturbed, 0.79-0.92 moderately disturbed,
and <0.78 most disturbed (Hubler 2008). It is expected that the O/E scores will not
decrease and will move toward reference site scores as restoration actions are completed.
A Bray-Curtis value, between 0 and 1, is also produced indicating the difference in the
taxonomic assemblage of the observed and reference sites (Van Sickle 2008).
Additional Monitoring
Fish Sampling
Passive fish sampling will be accomplished using hoop traps (winter-spring) and/or
daytime snorkeling (summer) to determine presence/absence and relative abundance,
respectively. Hoop traps will be deployed and maintained by South Santiam Watershed
Council staff and volunteers. Hoop traps also serve as a landowner outreach tool. Traps
are placed in areas of stream flow and checked every 2 days. Species, abundance and
length of fish that swim into the fyke are recorded. Fish are returned to the stream live.
Traps are removed from the stream when winter flows make checking the trap difficult or
could dislodge the trap.
Sites are snorkeled once during summer low flow to determine relative abundance. The
surveyor moves upstream, identifying fish species and counting individuals. Ages are
estimated based on the length of the fish. The surveyor records fish in sections of the
stream reach delineated by the riparian cover transect. This provides a coarse spatial
arrangement of the relative number of fish species throughout the reach. In the office, the
snorkeling results are divided into cold water and warm water species to provide an
estimate of the proportion of warm vs. cold water species throughout the surveyed reach.
Cold water species include sculpin, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, Chinook and Coho.
Warm water species include dace, redside shiner, large scale sucker and introduced game
fish (centrarchids). It is anticipated that the proportion of cold water community fishes
will increase over time or stay the same.
Fish sampling will provide needed relative abundance and presence/absence data in
locations prior to habitat improvement projects. Sampling will occur under an existing
permit obtained by local ODFW STEP biologist.
Photo Points
Photo points are a non-quantitative method of documenting change at a particular
location (see OWEB methods). All stream segments have photographs taken at the
beginning and end points of the survey. In addition, permanent photo points are
established at different locations within project areas to document different treatments.
11
Results
The data collected in 2011 provided year 2 base line data for some projects and 1 year
post survey for other projects in the priority subbasins (see Appendix A, B and C).
Water Temperature
All priority subbasins within the North Santiam Watershed and the South Santiam
Watershed’s Hamilton Creek are designated cold core water habitat by DEQ. The
remaining priority subbasins are DEQ designated salmon and trout rearing and migration
use. Streams with these designations should not exceed 60.8°F and 64.4°F, respectively,
for the seven day average of maximum water temperature. Of the 13 temperature loggers
located in cold core water habitat, all recorded temperatures were well above 60.8°F for a
majority of the time the loggers were deployed. Of the 8 temperature loggers located in
the salmon and trout rearing and migration use designated streams, four sites (e.g. control
reaches on McDowell and Courtney creek) did not exceed the state recommended 64.4°F
for the seven day average. The control reach with the highest seven day average
maximum temperature (64.1°F) was SS-MD-S00-2011. The treatment segment with the
highest maximum seven day average maximum temperature (75.5° F) was SS-HT-S01-
2011. Treatment segment SS-MD-S03-2011 had the lowest maximum seven day average
maximum temperature (65.5° F).
Thalweg
Stream segment NS-ST-S02-2011 had the deepest average (mean=80cm) and second
most variable (stdev=34) thalweg profile. Segment NS-ST-S01-2011 had the second
deepest average (mean=65cm) thalweg profile and the most variable thalweg (stdev=39)
profile. Segment CA-CC-S00-2010 is a control reach and had the shallowest
(mean=14cm) and the least variable (stdev=7cm) thalweg profile.
Substrate
Stream segment NS-BB-S01-2011 had the highest percentage of substrate composed of
cobble and coarse gravel (74.9%) and segment CA-CT-S01-2011 had the second highest
percentage of substrate composed of cobble and coarse gravel (69.4%). Stream segment
NS-VT-S01-2011 had the highest percentage of sand and fines (58.4%), while segment
NS-ST-S01-2011 had the second highest percentage of sand and fines (54.1%). Stream
segment SS-MD-S00-2011 had the lowest percentage (8.6%) of fines and sands
composing the reach. The embeddedness of substrate ranged from 16% to 71% for all
reaches surveyed.
Canopy Coverage
Canopy coverage was highly variable overall, at stream banks and in mid-channel for all
sites except the control reaches. Mean overall canopy cover was >34% in all stream
segments. Mean canopy cover at the banks was >52% at all segments, with most
segments >70%. Mean canopy cover at mid-channel was >21% at all segments. Control
reach segments had the highest overall canopy coverage values (>85%).
12
Bank Stability
Bank stability was not measured at any stream segment in 2011.
Riparian
Stream segment SS-JK-S01-2011 had the highest percentage (mean=66%) of the riparian
area in large diameter trees (dbh > 0.3m), while segment SS-MD-S02-2011 had the
smallest (mean=11%). Stream segment SS-MD-S00-2011 had the highest percentage
(mean=43%) of small trees (dbh<0.3m) and segment SS-HT-S04-2011 had the smallest
(mean=3%). The percent of the reach with woody shrubs in the understory was highest at
segment CA-CC-S00-2011 (mean=55%), while the lowest was at CA-CT-S01-2011
(mean=1%). Herbs and grasses in the understory was highest at SS-HT-S03-2011
(mean=62%) and lowest at CA-CT-S01-2011 (mean=22%). Bare earth was highest at
SS-MD-S02-2011 (mean=22%), although most sites were much less. All segments had
three vegetation layers in the canopy. Invasive vegetation was found at all sites in both
the understory and the ground cover. Only three sites had very low amounts of invasive
plants.
Macroinvertebrate Sampling
None of the three locations sampled for macroinvertebrates were considered impaired.
The most disturbed site and lowest score (O/E = 0.82) was found at segment SS-HT-S01-
2011. The sites SS-HT-S00-2011 and SS-HT-S05-2011 both had an O/E = 1.08 and
were considered least disturbed. Bray Curtis values ranged from 0.24 to 0.26 for all sites,
indicating taxonomic macroinvertebrate assemblages were similar between observed sites
and reference (e.g. expected) sites (Van Sickle 2008).
Fish Sampling
No treatment or control sites had passive fish traps during 2011.
Fish Sampling -Snorkeling
All sites in the North Santiam and South Santiam were snorkeled. The Calapooia streams
were not snorkeled because sites had been previously surveyed or had other sampling
methods. Valentine and Bear Branch creeks were 100% and 98%, respectively, warm
water species. Stout Creek was >80% warm water fish species. Hamilton creek was
between 92% and 100% warm water species. Jack creek, a tributary to Hamilton creek,
was >85% cold water species. McDowell Creek ranged from 6% to 96% cool water
species. The proportion of cool water species increased from lower in the basin to higher
in the basin. The trend was most pronounced for McDowell creek. Some fish species
were not seen during the survey (e.g. large scale sucker and sculpin), but are known to
exist in all the surveyed creeks. In addition, it was sometimes difficult to differentiate
young resident rainbow from young cutthroat trout.
Fish Sampling -Electrofishing
One site (CA-CC-S00-2011) was electrofished by local contractor Dynamac for a
separate research project being carried out by the EPA’s Western Ecology Division. The
Councils were able to utilize this data. All fishes captured at the site were considered
13
cold water species by the Council’s Staff. The majority of the fishes captured were
reticulated sculpin (86%). Cutthroat trout (9.3%) and an unknown lamprey species
(4.6%) were also captured. Site CA-MC-S01-S01-2011 on the main stem of the
Calapooia River, sampled by AOI llc., yielded all warm water fish. Redside shiner and
norther pikeminnow each accounted for 41% of the fish captured, with the remainder
composed mainly of dace, sculpin, largescale sucker and yellow bullhead.
Temperature Logger Summary:
Logger Watershed SubBasin Start Date End Date
Avg Daily
Mean n1
Avg Daily
Max n2
Avg 7day
Avg Max n3
Max 7day
Avg Max n4
9711526 Calapooia Courtney Creek 6/25/2011 10/4/2011 56.62 102 64.16 102 58.81 96 62.71 96
9898989 Calapooia Courtney Creek 6/25/2011 10/4/2011 56.64 102 63.95 102 58.93 96 62.62 96
9711523 N. Santiam Stout Creek 6/24/2011 10/2/2011 63.42 101 75.77 101 66.85 95 74.13 95
9711524 N. Santiam Bear Branch 6/24/2011 10/2/2011 61.98 101 72.39 101 65.14 95 70.72 95
9711534 N. Santiam Bear Branch 6/23/2011 10/2/2011 62.49 101 73.86 101 66.13 95 71.84 95
9711535 N. Santiam Stout Creek 6/24/2011 10/2/2011 58.01 101 66.43 101 60.38 95 65.19 95
9898987 N. Santiam Valentine Creek 6/24/2011 10/2/2011 62.93 101 75.12 101 67.03 95 73.17 95
9898988 N. Santiam Valentine Creek 6/24/2011 10/2/2011 63.63 101 75.03 101 67.53 95 73.01 95
9711522 S. Santiam Hamilton Creek 6/21/2011 10/4/2011 64.53 106 77.25 106 68.45 100 75.42 100
9711525 S. Santiam McDowell Creek 6/17/2011 10/4/2011 61.38 110 76.03 110 66.91 104 74.02 104
9711527 S. Santiam McDowell Creek 6/17/2011 9/19/2011 57.94 95 67.03 95 60.61 89 65.46 89
9711528 S. Santiam Hamilton Creek 6/21/2011 10/3/2011 62.10 105 74.55 105 66.71 99 72.67 99
9711529 S. Santiam Hamilton Creek 6/21/2011 10/3/2011 63.33 105 77.42 105 68.31 99 75.50 99
9711530 S. Santiam McDowell Creek 6/16/2011 10/5/2011 56.87 110 65.53 110 59.33 104 63.94 104
9711531 S. Santiam Hamilton Creek 6/21/2011 10/3/2011 58.29 105 70.67 105 62.61 99 68.77 99
9711532 S. Santiam McDowell Creek 6/21/2011 10/4/2011 62.45 106 74.99 106 66.29 100 73.23 100
9711533 S. Santiam McDowell Creek 6/17/2011 9/19/2011 57.98 95 67.11 95 60.59 89 65.51 89
9711536 S. Santiam Hamilton Creek 6/28/2011 10/11/2011 64.77 106 75.77 106 67.55 100 73.96 100
9898981 S. Santiam Hamilton Creek 6/23/2011 10/3/2011 58.61 103 69.39 103 62.14 97 67.67 97
9898996 S. Santiam McDowell Creek 6/23/2011 10/4/2011 57.10 104 65.70 104 59.61 98 64.14 98
9899003 S. Santiam Hamilton Creek 6/23/2011 10/3/2011 58.81 103 68.74 103 62.12 97 67.11 97
14
Discussion
General
Data collection efforts during 2011 continued to establish conditions at sites prior to
restoration work. After restoration activity is completed, return surveys will document
any changes at the site. It is expected that as restoration efforts progress the conditions at
treatment segments will change over time. In general, the change in the conditions at
various stream segments will be compared by graphing the mean values of the parameters
at treatment and control sites, before and after treatment. A difference in the mean values
over time will indicate a change. For example, it is expected that the seven day average
maximum stream temperature of a control will remain consistent in the coming years.
However, the seven day average maximum stream temperatures should decrease at
downstream treatment segments as riparian plantings become established. While many
factors influence stream temperature, the amount of solar radiation reaching the water’s
surface is a driving factor. It is expected that a reduction in stream temperature at the
treatment segments would occur because we are planting riparian vegetation which will
increase the amount of streamside shade.
The selection of control sites has been a challenge in the monitoring program. Our
control sites are least disturbed areas upstream of treatment sites, with as similar physical
conditions to treatment segments as practical. The priority subbasins have been heavily
altered from industrial timber production, agriculture and urbanization, as in much of the
Willamette Basin. Monitoring efforts can only occur where landowners grant permission.
While landowner participation is increasing, nonparticipants present a bottleneck to
monitoring efforts. In addition, even though the establishment of control reaches is
crucial to the program some landowners feel slighted in not having a project occur on
their property. Communicating the importance of the control sites is essential in the
monitoring program.
Discussion of Results
Numerous factors affect summer stream temperature; however it is expected that summer
stream temperature will decrease over time as streamside plantings increase the riparian
canopy. It may take several years to detect a change in stream temperature and directly
attributing it to streamside vegetation is difficult. The amount of riparian woody
vegetation should increase as riparian plantings continue and become established. In
addition, it is expected that the percent of invasive plants will decrease as treatment
segments undergo site preparation, which includes invasive plant removal.
Splash dams, stream channel straightening and “stream cleaning” (e.g. removal of wood
from streams) have contributed to a decrease in channel complexity at many sites. The
decrease in channel complexity can be seen in a stream’s thalweg profile. Thalweg
profiles should become more variable (e.g. more complex) after placement of instream
structures. Increasing stream complexity within model watershed subbasin streams will
diffuse stream velocities, promote sorting and retention of substrate particles, increase
river length and provide habitat for numerous aquatic organisms.
15
Macroinvertebrate O/E scores are expected to remain the same or increase as treatments
progress. Increased shade from riparian plantings will reduce solar radiation reaching the
creek surface. In addition, placement of instream log structures will help retain stream
gravels and promote hyporheic water exchange. It is expected that cooling of the stream
temperatures will benefit macroinvertebrates.
Acknowledgements
The Watershed Councils are grateful to the many private landowners who granted access
to their properties. Bonneville Environmental Foundation, in addition to several others,
provided technical guidance in the development of the monitoring plan. This project was
funded by the Meyer Memorial Trust and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board.
16
Bibliography
Allan, J. D., and M. M. Castillo. 2007. Stream Ecology, Second edition. Springer.
Bjornn, T. C., and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams.
Pages 83-138 in W. R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland
management of salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD.
Cole, M., J. Lemke, and R. Blaha. 2010. Regional monitoring framework and
implementation strategy.
E&S Environmental Chemistry Inc. 2000. South Santiam Watershed Assessment.
E&S Environmental Chemistry Inc. 2002. North Santiam Watershed Assessment.
Hubler, S. 2008. PREDATOR: Development and use of RIVPACS-type
macroinvertebrate models to assess the biotic condition of wadeable Oregon
streams. Oregon department of Environmental Quality.DEQ08-LAB-0048-TR.
Keeley, E. R., and P. A. Slaney. 1996. Quantitative measures of rearing and spawning
habitat characteristics for stream-dwelling salmonids: guidelines for habitat
restoration.
Mossop, B., and M. J. Bradford. 2006. Using thalweg profiling to assess and monitor
juvenile salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) habitat in small streams. Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 63:1515-1525.
NOAA. 2005. ESA Recovery Planning for Salmon and Steelhead in the Willamette and
Lower Columbia River Basins - Status of Planning Effort and Strategy for
Completing Plans. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OPSW). 1999. Water quality monitoring,
technical guidebook. Version 2.0 Corvallis, OR.
Peck, D. V., and coauthors. 2006. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program-
Surface Waters Western Pilot Study: Field Operations Manual for Wadeable
Streams. EPA/620/R-06/003.
Primozich, D., and R. Bastasch. 2004. Draft Willamette Subbasin Plan. Willamette
Restoration Initiative.
Roni, P., editor. 2005. Monitoring stream and watershed restoration. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, Md.
Roni, P., and coauthors. 2002. A Review of Stream Restoration Techniques and a
Hierarchical Strategy for Prioritizing Restoration in Pacific Northwest
Watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22(1):1-20.
Roni, P., K. Hanson, and T. Beechie. 2008. Global Review of the Physical and Biological
Effectiveness of Stream Habitat Rehabilitation Techniques. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 28(3):856-890.
Van Sickle, J. 2008. An index of compositional dissimilarity between observed and
expected assemblages. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27(2):227–
235.
17
Figure 1. Map of the North Santiam Watershed Council’s priority subbasins and
monitoring locations.
18
Figure 2. Detail map of Bear Branch Creek, illustrating monitoring locations.
19
Figure 3. Detail map of Stout Creek, illustrating monitoring locations.
20
Figure 4. Detail map of Valentine Creek, illustrating monitoring locations.
21
Figure 5. Map of the South Santiam Watershed Council’s priority subbasins and
monitoring locations.
22
Figure 6. Detail map of Hamiliton Creek, illustrating monitoring locations.
23
Figure 7. Detail map of McDowell Creek, illustrating monitoring locations.
24
Figure 8. Map of the Calapooia Watershed Council’s priority subbasins and monitoring
locations.
25
Figure 9. Detail map of the Calapooia River and Courtney Creek monitoring locations.
26
Appendix A
Results of individual temperature loggers for years 2011. Not all treatment segments had
temperature loggers placed in the stream. The actual number of days that recorded water
temperture varied amongst loggers. See Figures 1 - 9 for locations.
40
50
60
70
80
Tem
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
Courtney Creek, upper control Logger 9898989
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F64.4o
40
50
60
70
80
Tem
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
Courtney Creek, lower control Logger 9711526
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F64.4oF
27
40
50
60
70
80
Tem
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
Stout Creek,upper Logger 9711535
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F
60.8 oF
40
50
60
70
80
Tem
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
Stout Creek, lower Logger 9711523
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F
60.8 oF
28
40
50
60
70
80
Tem
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
Bear Branch, upper Logger 9711534
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F
60.8oF
40
50
60
70
80
Tem
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
Bear Branch, lower Logger 9711524
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F
60.8oF
29
40
50
60
70
80T
em
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
Valentine Creek, upper Logger 9898987
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F
60.8o
40
50
60
70
80
Tem
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
Valentine Creek, lower Logger 9898988
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F
60.8o
30
40
50
60
70
80T
em
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
Hamilton Creek, control upper Logger 9898981
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F
60.8o
40
50
60
70
80
Tem
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
Hamilton Creek, control lower Logger 9899003
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F
60.8o
31
40
50
60
70
80T
em
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
Hamilton Creek, upper Logger 9711531
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F 60.8oF
40
50
60
70
80
Tem
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
Hamilton Creek, upper middle Logger 9711528
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F
60.8oF
32
40
50
60
70
80T
em
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
Hamilton Creek, lower middle Logger 9711529
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F
60.8oF
40
50
60
70
80
Tem
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
Hamilton Creek, lower Logger 9711522
7-day avg Max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F
60.8° F
33
40
50
60
70
80T
em
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
Hamilton Creek, mouth Logger 9711536
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F
60.8oF
34
40
50
60
70
80T
em
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
McDowell Creek, control upper Logger 9711530
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F64.4oF
40
50
60
70
80
Tem
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
McDowell Creek, control lower Logger 9898996
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F 64.4oF
35
40
50
60
70
80T
em
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
McDowell Creek, upper middle Logger 9711527
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F 64.4oF
40
50
60
70
80
Tem
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
McDowell Creek, upper middle 2 Logger 9711533
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F64.4oF
36
40
50
60
70
80T
em
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
McDowell Creek, lower middle Logger 9711525
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F
64.4oF
40
50
60
70
80
Tem
pera
ture
(F
)
Date
McDowell Creek, mouth Logger 9711532
7-day avg max
Average of Temp, °F
Max of Temp, °F
64.4oF
37
Appendix B
Summary data for all stream segments. Error bars denote one standard deviation.
Thalweg profile all sites:
Overall Substrate Composition:
0
50
100
150
200
250
De
pth
(cm
)
Stream Segment
Thalweg, All Stream Segments
MEAN
MIN
MAX
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
Stream Segment
Substrate Composition: Coarse vs Fine
Sand and Fines
Coarse Substrate
38
Substrate characterization for stream segments:
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
Site
Substrate, All Sites
Other
Concrete/Asphalt
Wood
Hardpan
Bedrock
Large Boulder
Small Boulder
Cobble
Gravel Coarse
Gravel Fine
Sand
Fines
39
Average embeddedness of substrate:
Wetted width all sites:
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pro
po
rtio
n
Stream Segment
Average Embeddedness
0
5
10
15
20
Wid
th (
m)
Stream Segment
Wetted Width
MEAN
MIN
MAX
40
Overall canopy coverage:
Canopy coverage of river banks:
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
Stream Segment
Canopy Coverage: Overall
MEAN
MIN
MAX
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
Stream Segment
Canopy Coverage: Banks
MEAN
MIN
MAX
41
Canopy coverage at streams mid channel:
Riparian condition, percent large trees:
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
Stream Segment
Canopy Coverage: Mid-channel
MEAN
MIN
MAX
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
Stream Segment
Riparian Canopy: Trees >12" dbh
MEAN
MIN
MAX
42
Riparian condition, small trees:
Riparian condition, percent woody shrubs:
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
Stream Segment
Riparian Canopy: Trees <12" dbh
MEAN
MIN
MAX
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
Stream Segment
Riparian Understory: Woody Shrubs
MEAN
MIN
MAX
43
Riparian condition, percent herbs and grasses:
Riparian condition, percent bare earth:
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
Stream Segment
Riparian Understory: Herbs and Grasses
MEAN
MIN
MAX
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
Stream Segment
Riparian Ground Cover: Bare Earth
MEAN
MIN
MAX
44
Proportion of riparian with three vegetation layers:
Riparian condtion, proportion of invasive plants in the ground cover:
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pro
po
rtio
n
Stream Segment
Proportion of Riparian Zone with all Three Layers
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pro
po
rtio
n
Stream Segment
Proportion of Riparian Zone with Invasives in Ground Cover
45
Riparian condition, proportion of invasives in mid canopy:
Riparian condition, percent of ground layer in invasives:
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pro
po
rtio
n
Stream Segment
Proportion of Riparian Zone with Invasives in Understory
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
Stream Segment
Percent Ground Cover in Invasives
46
Riparian condition, percent mid-canopy in invasives:
Macroinvertebrate Observed/Expected scores:
P > 0.5
Site MODEL O E O/E BC
SS-HT-S00-2011 WCCP 19 17.60 1.08 0.24
SS-HT-S01-2011 MWCF 17 20.64 0.82 0.26
SS-HT-S05-2011 WCCP 19 17.63 1.08 0.24
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
Stream Segment
Percent Understory in Invasives
47
Percentage of warm water vs cold water fish species in Hamilton Creek stream segments.
Stream reaches proceed upstream:
Cold 1%
Warm 99%
Warm vs. Cold Fish Species: HT-S01
Cold 0%
Warm 100%
Warm vs. Cold Fish Species: HT-S02
Cold 2%
Warm 98%
Warm vs. Cold Fish Species: HT-S03
Cold 7%
Warm 93%
Warm vs. Cold Fish Species: HT-S04
Cold 8%
Warm 92%
Warm vs. Cold Fish Species: HT-S05
Warm water fish species
were not recorded for
HTS00 or HT-S06
48
Percentage of warm water vs cold water fish species in Jack Creek stream segments:
Percentage of warm water vs cold water fish species in McDowell Creek stream
segments. Stream reaches proceed upstream:
Cold 88%
Warm 12%
Warm vs. Cold Fish Jack Creek-S01
Cold 85%
Warm 15%
Warm vs. Cold Fish Jack Creek-S00
Cold 6%
Warm 94%
Warm vs. Cold Fish McDowell Creek-S01 Cold
5%
Warm 95%
Warm vs. Cold Fish McDowell Creek-S02
Cold 31%
Warm 69%
Warm vs. Cold Fish McDowell Creek-S03
Cold 96%
Warm 4%
Warm vs. Cold Fish McDowell Creek-S00
49
Percentage of warm water vs cold water fish species in Valentine Creek stream segment.
Start of snorkeled segment is within 0.3 km of Valentine Creek mouth.
Percentage of warm water vs cold water fish species in Bear Branch Creek stream
segment. Start of snorkeled segment is within 0.6 km of Bear Branch Creek mouth.
Cold 0%
Warm 100%
Warm vs. Cold Fish Valentine Creek-S01
Cold 2%
Warm 98%
Warm vs. Cold Fish Bear Branch-S01
50
Percentage of warm water vs cold water fish species in Stout Creek stream segment.
Start of snorkeled segment is within 50 m of Stout Creek mouth.
Percentage of warm water vs cold water fish species in Courtney Creek stream segment.
Site was electrofished and is approximately 21 km from the mouth of the Courtney creek.
Percentage of warm water vs cold water fish species in the middle reach Calapooia River
stream segment. Site was electrofished and is approximately 55 km from the mouth.
Cold 11%
Warm 89%
Warm vs. Cold Fish Stout Creek-S01
Cold 17%
Warm 83%
Warm vs. Cold Fish Stout Creek-S02
cold 100%
Warm vs. Cold Fish Courtney Creek-S00
Cold 5%
Warm 95%
Warm vs. Cold Fish Middle Calapooia -S01
51
Appendix C Details for stream segment thalweg profile, substrate characterization and habitat units.
Stream Segment: CA-CC-S00-2011
0
15
30
45
0 100 200 300 400
De
pth
(cm
)
Distance (m)
Thalweg Profile: CA-CC-S00-2011
StDev = 7
9.0 6.3
26.3 31.0
9.4 1.6 0.0
12.9 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0
0
25
50
75
100
Pe
rce
nt
Substrate Type
Substrate Composition: CA-CC-S00-2011
Pool 12%
Glide 26%
Riffle 61%
Cascade 1%
Habitat Units: CA-CC-S00-2011
52
Stream Segment: CA-MC-S01-2011
0
100
200
300
400
0 160 320 480 640 800
De
pth
(cm
)
Distance (m)
Thalweg Depth: CA-MC-S01-2011
StDev = 73
Pool 32%
Glide 49%
Riffle 19%
Habitat Units: CC-MC-S01-2011
Substrate composition not recorded for this segment.
53
Stream Segment: CA-CC-S01-2011
0
50
100
150
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
De
pth
(cm
)
Distance (m)
Thalweg Profile: CA-CC-S01-2011
StDev = 21
13.7 5.9 7.8
42.0
26.3
1.2 0.0 0.8 0.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 0
25
50
75
100
Pe
rce
nt
Substrate Type
Substrate Composition: CA-CC-S01-2011
Pool 22%
Glide 44%
Riffle 34%
Habitat Units: CA-CC-S01-2011
54
Stream Segment: NS-ST-S01-2011
0
50
100
150
200
0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200
De
pth
(cm
)
Distance (m)
Thalweg Profile: NS-ST-S01-2011
StDev = 39
42.8
11.4 2.8 6.7
22.8 12.2
0.0 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0
25
50
75
100
Pe
rce
nt
Substrate Type
Substrate Compsition: NS-ST-S01-2011
Pool 61%
Glide 20%
Riffle 19%
Habitat Units: NS-ST-S01-2011
55
Stream Segment: SS-ST-S02-2011
0
50
100
150
200
0 75 150 225 300 375 450
De
pth
(cm
)
Distance (m)
Thalweg Depth: NS-ST-S02-2011
StDev = 34
37.7
9.4 3.9 16.5 13.3
3.9 0.4 8.2
0.4 6.3
0.0 0.0 0
25
50
75
100
Pe
rce
nt
Substrate Type
Substrate Composition: NS-ST-S02-2011
Pool 64%
Glide 30%
Riffle 6%
Habitat Units: NS-ST-S02-2011
56
Stream Segment: NS-BB-S01-2011
0
50
100
150
200
0 200 400 600 800
De
pth
(cm
)
Distance (m)
Thalweg profile: NS-BB-S01-2011
StDev = 23
4.0 7.1 8.2
45.1
29.8
0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 4.3 0.8 0.0 0
25
50
75
100
Pe
rce
nt
Substrate Type
Substrate Compositon: NS-BB-S01-2011
Pool 15%
Glide 38%
Riffle 47%
Habitat Units: NS-BB-S01-2011
57
Stream Segment: SS-VT-S01-2011
0
50
100
150
200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
De
pth
(cm
)
Distance (m)
Thalweg Depth: NS-VT-S01-2011
StDev = 33
51.4
7.1 2.8 16.1 16.9
2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
Substrate Type
Substrate Compsition: NS-VT-S01-2011
Pool 44%
Glide 40%
Riffle 16%
Habitat Units: NS-VT-S01-2011
58
Stream Segment: SS-HT-S00-2011
0
50
100
150
0 200 400 600 800
De
pth
(cm
)
Distance
Thalweg Profile SS-HT-S00-2011
StDev = 17
10.2 6.7 6.3
34.5 29.8
3.5 0.0 6.7
0.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 0
25
50
75
100
Pe
rce
nt
Substrate Type
Substrate Compsition: SS-HT-S00-2011
Pool 19%
Glide 33%
Riffle 47%
Rapid 1%
Habitat Units: SS-HT-S00-2011
59
Stream Segment: SS-HT-S01-2011
0
50
100
150
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
De
pth
(cm
)
Distance (m)
Thalweg Profile: SS-HT-S01-2011
StDev = 23
21.2 12.2 6.7
34.5
12.6 1.2 0.0 0.0
10.6 1.2 0.0 0.0
0
25
50
75
100
Pe
rce
nt
Substrate Type
Substrate Compsition: SS-HT-S01-2011
Pool 30%
Glide 43%
Riffle 27%
Habitat Units: SS-HT-S01-2011
60
Stream Segment: SS-HT-S02-2011
0
50
100
150
200
0 250 500 750 1000
Thalweg Depth: SS-HT-S02-2011
StDev = 26
23.5
7.5 4.3
34.1
12.6 1.6 0.0
14.5 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.0
0
25
50
75
100
Pe
rce
nt
Substrate Type
Substrate Composition: SS-HT-S02-2011
Pool 17%
Glide 53%
Riffle 28%
Rapid 2%
Habitat Units: SS-HT-S02-2011
61
Stream Segment: SS-HT-S03-2011
0
50
100
150
0 150 300 450 600
Thalweg Depth: SS-HT-S03-2011
StDev = 21
11.4 7.1 6.7
25.1
8.2 1.2 0.0
35.3
5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
25
50
75
100
Pe
rce
nt
Substrate Type
Substrate Compsition: SS-HT-S03-2011
Pool 14%
Glide 51%
Riffle 35%
Habitat Units: SS-HT-S03-2011
62
Stream Segment: SS-HT-S04-2011
0
50
100
150
0 80 160 240 320 400
Thalweg Depth: SS-HT-S04-2011
StDev = 25
6.3 11.0 7.8
33.7 23.1
1.2 0.0 7.8 7.1 1.6 0.0 0.4
0
25
50
75
100
Pe
rce
nt
Substrate Type
Substrate CompositionSS-HT-S04-2011
Pool 40%
Glide 20%
Riffle 40%
Habitat Units: SS-HT-S04-2011
63
Stream Segment: SS-HT-S05-2011
0
50
100
150
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Thalweg Depth: SS-HT-S05-2011
StDev = 25
12.1 8.4 6.4
39.8
24.1
0.8 0.0 1.2 6.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0
25
50
75
100
Pe
rce
nt
Substrate Type
Substrate Composition: SS-HT-S05-2011
Pool 26%
Glide 33%
Riffle 41%
Habitat Units: SS-HT-S05-2011
64
Stream Segment: SS-HT-S06-2011
0
50
100
150
0 70 140 210 280 350
De
pth
(cm
)
Distance (m)
Thalweg Depth: SS-HT-S06-2011
StDev = 22
5.9 17.3
8.6
38.0 24.3
3.5 0.0 0.8 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
Substrate Type
Substrate Compsition: SS-HT-S06-2011
Pool 20%
Glide 41%
Riffle 39%
Habitat Units: SS-HT-S06-2011
65
Stream Segment: SS-JK-S00-2011
0
20
40
60
0 100 200 300 400 500
Thalweg Depth: SS-JK-S00-2011
StDev = 8
5.9 6.3 10.2
26.8 19.3
2.8 0.0
26.8
0.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 0
25
50
75
100
Pe
rce
nt
Substrate Type
Substrate Compsition: SS-JK-S00-2011
Pool 16%
Glide 31%
Riffle 53%
Habitat Units: SS-JK-S00-2011
66
Stream Segment: SS-JK-S01-2011
0
25
50
75
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
De
pth
(cm
)
Distance (m)
Thalweg Profile: SS-JK-S01-2011
StDev = 11
6.7 12.6 9.8
42.4
18.4
0.8 0.0 7.1
0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
Substrate Type
Substrate Compsition: SS-JK-S01-2011
POOL 9%
GLIDE 31%
RIFFLE 60%
Habitat Units: SS-JK-S01-2011
67
Stream Segment: SS-MD-S00-2011
0
50
100
150
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Thalweg Depth: SS-MD-S00-2011
StDev = 20
2.8 5.9 4.7
20.4 24.3 14.9
0.0
17.3 9.4
0.4 0.0 0.0 0
25
50
75
100
Pe
rce
nt
Substrate Type
Substrate Composition: SS-MD-S00-2011
Pool 9%
Glide 33%
Riffle 56%
Rapid 1%
Cascade 1%
Habitat Units: SS-MD-S00-2011
68
Stream Segment: SS-MD-S01-2011
0
50
100
150
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Thalweg Depth: SS-MD-S01-2011
StDev = 25
10.6 14.1 8.6
33.7 23.9
6.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
Substrate Type
Substrate Compsition: SS-MD-S01-2011
Pool 29%
Glide 47%
Riffle 24%
Habitat Units: SS-MD-S01-2011
69
Stream Segment: SS-MD-S02-2011
0
50
100
150
200
0 150 300 450 600 750 900
Thalweg Depth: SS-MD-S02-2011
StDev = 31
16.5 9.8 5.9
39.6 26.7
1.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
Substrate Type
Substrate Compsition: SS-MD-S02-2011
Pool 25%
Glide 42%
Riffle 33%
Habitat Units: SS-MD-S02-2011
70
Stream Segment: SS-MD-S03-2011
0
50
100
150
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Thalweg Depth: SS-MD-S03-2011
StDev = 21
5.5 11.8
5.1
20.4 34.5
5.5 0.4 13.3
2.4 0.8 0.4 0.0 0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
Substrate Type
Substrate Compsition: SS-MD-S03-2011
Pool 15%
Glide 45%
Riffle 40%
Habitat Units: SS-MD-S03-2011