north fork john day river watershed sediment and physical habitat assessment demeter design

8/8/2019 North Fork John Day River Watershed Sediment and Physical Habitat Assessment Demeter Design

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/north-fork-john-day-river-watershed-sediment-and-physical-habitat-assessment 1/87

NorthForkJohnDayRiverWatershed

SedimentandPhysicalHabitatAssessment

Prepared by Demeter Design IncPrepared for the Bureau of Land Management

March 2010Contract # L08PX02763



Contents5 TMDLContextand303(d)SedimentListings

9 ProjectGoals

10 ExecutiveSummary

11 IntroductionandBackground

23 MaterialsandMethods

30 Results

54 Discussion

60 SuggestedReading

Tables

6 Tablei-HistoricalWaterQualityDataandHabitatBenchmarks(PACFISHandHABRATE)

7 Tableii-SedimentListingJusticationofStreamsonthe1998303(d)List

17 Table1-Sedimentation303(d)listedstreamsintheNorthForkJohnDay

20 Table2-TemperatureToleranceofCohoSalmon

23 Table3-SitesVisited

30 Table4-AllBlueMountainReferenceData

30 Table5-AllResistantBlueMountainReferenceData

30 Table6-AllWallCreekData(ComparedtoResistantReferencePopulation)

30 Table7-AllGraniteCreekData(ComparedtoAllReferenceData)30 Table8-AllBaldyCreekStreamData(ComparedtoAllReferenceData)

31 Table9-AllBlueMountainReferenceData

31 Table10-AllResistantBlueMountainReferenceData

31 Table11-AllErodibleBlueMountainReferenceData

32 Table12-All1stOrderBlueMountainReferenceData

32 Table13-All2ndOrderBlueMountainReferenceData

32 Table14-All3rdOrderBlueMountainReferenceData

32 Table15-All4thOrderBlueMountainReferenceData

36 Table16-AllWallCreekData

37 Table17-AllWallCreek2ndOrderData

37 Table18-AllWallCreek3rdandGreaterOrderData44 Table19-AllGraniteCreekData

44 Table20-GraniteCreek1stOrderStreamData

45 Table21-GraniteCreek2ndOrderStreamData

45 Table22-GraniteCreek3rdOrderStreamData

47 Table23-AllBaldyCreekStreamData

53 Table24-NFJDSitesOutofStudyArea

Maps

8 Mapi-Sites,Sands,andListedStreams

12 MapA-Context

13 MapB-Context

14 MapC-Lithology

15 MapD-LandManager

16 MapE-HistoricalVegetation

24 MapF-SiteLocations

34 MapG-AllSitesLRBS

35 MapH-AllSites%SAFN

38 MapI-WallCreekLRBS

39 MapJ-WallCreek%SAFN

40 MapK-WallCreekW:D

41 MapL-WallCreekRP100andRW



42 MapM-WallCreek%SAFNandFireYear

48 MapN-GCWandBCWLRBS

49 MapO-GCWandBCW%SAFNand%Gravels

50 MapP-GCWandBCWRP100

51 MapQ-GCWandBCWW:D

52 MapR-GCWandBCW%SAFNandRW

57 MapS-WallCreekSpawningDataandSandsandFines.



Preface Ecologicalsystemsarecomplicated;therearelayersuponlayersofcomplexity.Onceonelayeris

understood,anotherlayerisexposedandwithitmorequestions.Scienceisourattempttounderstandour

worldwhileremovingbiasandemotion,butitisourbiasandemotionsthatdriveustoaskquestions.When

interpretingthisdatarememberwhyitwascollected.Itisimportanttoremembernottogetsoboggeddownin

thedetailsthatweforgetwhywecollectedthedataintherstplace.*

Special thankstothetechnicalsupportteam:DonButcheroftheODEQ,PaulBoehneoftheUSFS,Caty

CliftonoftheUSFS,DougDrakeoftheODEQ,ChuckHawkinsofUtahStateUniversity,ShannonHublerof

theODEQ,PhilKaufmannoftheEPA,BradLovettoftheUSFS,RosyMazaikaformerlyoftheBLM,Chester

NovakoftheBLM,AnnaSmithoftheBLM,andKarlaUrbanowiczoftheODEQ.Therearenumerousothers

whoprovidedinputandsupporttothisprocess,thankyou!

*ThisprefaceissolelytheopinionoftheauthorsandinnowayrepresentstheBLMortheiremployees.



TMDL Context and 303(d) Sediment ListingsThefollowingisasummaryoftheEPAguidancedocumenttitled,“PrinciplestoConsiderWhenReviewingand

UsingNaturalConditionProvisions”1[SummarizedbyDemeterDesign;emphasisadded]

AllCleanWaterAct(CWA)programs:aregeographicallyspecic;arescienticallydefensible;are

datadrivenandtransparent;allowforpublicreviewandcomment;andareaccessible.Considerationsfallinto

threecategories:determiningWaterQualityStandards(WQS);303(d)ListingandDelisting;andTMDLsand

NPDESPermits.Includea“denitionofanaturalconditionsuchas‘thequalityofsurfacewaterthatexistsin

theabsenceofhuman-causedpollutionordisturbance’;aprovisionthatsite-speciccriteriamaybesetequal

toanaturalconditionandawrittenprocedure…;[a]narrative[of]naturalconditionscriteriafor[themetric]

thatallowsthenaturalcondition[metric]tobecomethecriteriaandsupercedethenumericcriteriawhena

naturalconditiondeterminationismadeonacase-by-casebasis.”Decisionsmadeusinganaturalcondition

provisionwhich allow a water body to be removed or not included on the list should be:“basedonexisting

andreadilyavailabledataandinformation;supportedbyasite-specic,scienticallydefensiblerationalethat

…explainswhyhumanactivitiesinawatershedarenotdirectlyorindirectlythecauseoftheexceedanceof

WQSforthepollutantofconcern,shows there has been virtually no human activity in the watershed that

would affect the water quality parameter in question,explainshownaturalprocessesaloneareadequateto

accountfortheobservedexceedanceofthewaterqualitystandardforthepollutantofconcernOR,showsthat

thewaterqualityinthewatershedissimilartothatmeasuredinanundisturbedreferencelocation.”TMDL

developmentshouldconsiderthefollowingquestions:“Does a suitable reference watershed or referencelocation (with similar size, elevation, geology, climate, fauna, ora, ow, etc.) exist ;Arethereadequatedata

fromthereferencelocation;Isthereanappropriatemodelthatmeetstheprojectobjectives;Isthereavailable

expertisetorunthemodel;Arethereadequatedatatouseasmodelinputparameters;andWhatarethelegal,

resourceandtimeconstraints?”Finally,“naturalconditionisatermusedtodescribethequalityofsurfacewater

untouchedbyhuman-causedpollutionordisturbance...Insomecases,asurfacewatermayexceedthenumeric

criteriaeventhoughtherehavebeennohumandisturbancesinthiswater.Asaresult,statesusuallyincludea

naturalconditionprovisionintheirwaterqualitystandards...Thereisnosinglecorrectapproachtocalculating

anaturalcondition...Thereportisnotregulatoryguidance...I t also does not substitute for Clean Water Act

requirements, EPA’s regulations, or the obligations imposed by consent decrees or enforcement orders...

Youarenotrequiredtousethereport.EPArecognizestheneedforexibilitytoaddressuniquecircumstances

associatedwithindividualwaterbodiesandstateandTribes,as long as water quality is protected ...Asthetermisusedinthisreport,‘naturalconditions’arenotpresentwhen:waterqualityhasbeenorisalteredbyhuman

activityorindustry;irreversiblehumanfeatures,suchasadam,arepresent;ortherehavebeeninuencesfrom

sourcesoutsidethewatershed.”

Theoriginal1998NorthForkJohnDayWatershed303(d)listingsforsedimentwerebasedon

“decliningreddcounts”andcobbleemeddednessdataintheWallEcosystemAnalysis,1995.Foracomplete

synopsisofthelistingspleaserefertotableiiandMapi.Tableiprovideshistoricaldatasummariesand

PACFISHandHABRATEtargetsforwaterqualityandsteelheadhabitatrespectively.

Oneofthemostobviousconcernswhichresultedfromthisassessmentinregardstothelistingisthe

considerationofapproapriatereferenceconditions.AlthoughtheBaldyandGraniteCreekWatershedsare

directlycomparibletothereferencepopulations,theWallCreekWatershed,althoughsimilartotheBlue

MountainEcoregion,isgenerallylowerinelevationandthereforereceivessomewhatlessprecipitation.Two

referencesites(onCabinCreek)aregeographicallycloseandgeologicallysimilartotheWallCreekWatershed.

TheLRBSvaluesaresimilarinrangeandaveragetotheWCWbutthemax%SAFNis25%versus~77%(for

similardrainageareas).AdditionalEMAPandsteelheadspawningandrearingdataintheWCWandCabin

CreekWatershedmaybeuseful.Additionallysedimentinspawninghabitatmaybeanissueinyearswherethe

mainstemofWallCreekistoohot(refertodiscussion).

1 USEPARegion10,OfceofWaterandWatersheds,(January2005).EPARegion10NaturalConditionsWorkgroupReportonPrinciplestoConsiderWhen

ReviewingandUsingNaturalConditionsProvisions(50pages).

NorthForkJohnDayPhysicalHabitatandSedimentAssessment

Page5




Page6

Tablei-HistoricalWaterQualityDataandHabitatBenchmarks(PACFISHandHABRATE)

StreamSegment %SAFN

(Target

<20%)

LWD(PACFISHTarget

>20/mile;HABRATE

Target>20/100meters)

Pools(PACFISHTarget

in(Pools/mile);HAB-

RATE%Pools40-60%*

BankStability

(PACFISH

Target>80%)

W:D!

Wilson1 17 57/3.54 28.2(6.7) 94 22.6

Wilson2 7 10/0.62 29.9(9.0) 94 18.2

Bull1 76 10/0.62 1.2(30) 88 2.2

Bull2 66 19/1.18 nd 70 nd

Porter 26 1/0.06 26.7(14.5) 73 15.3

Colvin1 77 11/0.68 6.7(39) 55 5.9

Colvin2 82 35/2.17 nd 58 nd

BigWall3-97 11 13/0.81 28.2(8.1) 98 18.2

BigWall4 nd 11.6/0.72 16.3(15.7) nd 8.3

BigWall5 nd 15.1/0.94 3.7(23.8) nd 21

BigWall1-97 21 1/0.06 18.9(14.5) 93 26.7

BigWall2-97 8 8/0.5 19.4(9.8) 91 29.6

BigWall1-92 nd 8.9/0.55 10(10.6) nd 24.4BigWall2-92 nd 11/0.68 10(10) nd 22

BigWall3-92 nd 6.4/0.4 5.3(11.3) nd 28.1

GrassyButte 100 3/0.19 5.5(39) 75 8

WillowSprings 50 6/0.37 2.5(39) 80 6.3

Alder1 18 37/2.3 38.8(16.1) 93 12

Alder2 50 28/1.74 28.3(24.6) 97 8.7

Alder3 54 32/1.99 26.3(39) 99 4.5

Alder4 84 22/1.37 10.4(39) 100 3.9

EastForkAlder 53 63/3.91 9.5(39) 99 5.6

Hog1 5 14/0.87 3.8(15.6) 90 20

Hog 4 13/0.81 4.0(17.8) 85 nd

Hog3 18 10/0.62 11.8(18.2) 91 3.5

Skookum1 12 6.1/0.38 16.6(13.5) 100 15.1

Skookum2 19 10.4/0.65 19(15.4) 99 13.9

Skookum3 22 17.5/1.09 29.2(39) 99 6.5

Swale1 12 26.1/1.62 4.2(17.4) 95 3.6

Swale2 18.5 8.9/0.55 0.7(28.4) 88 2.1

Swale3 22 41.4/2.57 0.0(39) 100 n/a

LittleBear 11 42.1/2.61 1.5(39) 98 6.6Bear 9 38/2.36 0.0(39) 96 n/a

DrySwale 12 13.5/0.84 1.0(39) 94 9.3

TwoSprings 16 21.1/1.31 1.5(39) 96 5*TheHABRATEforpoolsisdirectlycomparabletotheEMAPdatacollectedin2008.

!25thpercentileofreferencedatais6,averageisbetween10and12

WildcatVegetativeManagementAquaticsReport,March26,2007andBiologicalEvaluation,Proposed,Engangered,Threatened,andSenstivie(PETS)Fishand

AquaticInvertebrateSpeciesandHabits,NFJDRangerDistrict,August10,2005)




Page7

Tableii-SedimentListingJusticationofStreamsonthe1998303(d)List

Stream BasisforListing

AlderCreek

0to5.5

Steelheadreddshaveshowndecliningtrendsoverpastfewyears,cobbleembeddednessdid

notmeetPACFISHobjectives(WallEcosystemAnalysis,1995).

BaldyCreek

0to5

USFSDatashowslargechangesinerosionhazardbetweennaturalandcurrentconditions.

BigWallCreek

0to21.3


notmeetPACFISHobjectives(WallEcosystemAnalysis,1995).BullRunCreek

0to9.3


Degradationofstreamhabitathasreducedthepotentialforsupportingsh.

GraniteCreek

11.2to16.2


Degradationofstreamhabitathasreducedthepotentialforsupportingsh.

HogCreek

0to4.1



PorterCreek

0to7.4



SwaleCreek

0to11.1



WilsonCreek

0to10.7


notmeetPACFISHobjectives(WallEcosystemAnalysis,1995).*AllsegmentsarelistedforpotentialsedimentimpactstoResidentshandaquaticlife;Salmonidshrearing;Salmonidshspawning

**ShadedstreamsarenotintheWallCreekWatershed

BaldyCreekwasidentiedasareferencewatershedinODEQdataprovidedbyDr.ChuckHawkins.

ItisuncertainhowtheBCWwasoriginallyincludedasareferencewatershed.Onepossibilityraisedwasthe

potentialforthedesignationwasfromDr.Hawkinsmacroinvertebrateworkconductedinthewatershed.From

whattheODEQunderstoodtheODEQcrewshaveneveractuallyvisitedtheBCWandthereferencedesigna-

tioncamefromeldobservationswhichmaynothaveincludedsubstratebutratherwasfocusedonhabitat.

ThisallowedtheODEQtoincludethesitesinthemacroinvertebratemodels.BeforetheBCWisincludedinthepoolofODEQreferencewatershedsthehumandisturbanceindexshouldbeappliedforconsistency.1Baldy

Creekisalsolistedaswaterqualitylimitedforhabitatmodicationandtemperatureinadditiontosedimenta-

tion.2AsdenedbyODEQWatershedAssessmentsection,referenceconditionsarebasedonlevelsofhuman

activities(disturbances)inthewatershed.Referencesitesthusrepresent“leastdisturbedconditions”forany

givenregion.3There’slikelybeenlittleornohistoric(norrecent)loggingintheBCW.In1997,theupperthird

ofthewatershedunderwentanintenseburnfollowedbyabigstormcell,notunusualforthearea.Thegranitic

terrainnaturallydeliversabundantsandtoslightlylargersizedsediment.Miningactivitieswereminimal.Inthe

judgmentofPaulBoehneandBradLovettattheWallowaWhitmanUSFSofce,theBCWhasminimal

humandisturbanceandisingoodecologicalcondition. 4ItwasdecidedbytheworkgrouptoincludetheBCW

inthestudypopulationandnotinthereferencepopulationtoeitherconrmtheBCWasareferencewatershed

ortoconrmthelisting.

1 DougDrakeODEQPersonalCommunication

2 KarlaUrbanowiczODEQPersonalCommunication

3 ShannonHublerODEQPersonalCommunication

4 DonButcherODEQPersonalCommunication




Page8

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.5

0.07619

0.32381

0.12381

0.07619

0.133333

0.413462

0.495238

0.307692

0.171429

0.295238

0.228571

0.423077

0.0571430.057143

0.066667

0.238095

0.057143

0.047619

0.095238

0.171429

0.028571

0.180952

0.361905

0.336538

0.457143

0.266667

0.609524

0.571429

0.009524

0.561905

0.2476190.307692

0.228571

0.209524 0.238095

0.066667

0.733333

0.114286

0.104762

0.009524

0.257143

0.142857

0.019048

²

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! 0.161905

0.104762

0.190476

0.161905

0.1619050.9

0.88

0.09901

0.0291260.511364

0.595238

0.798077

0.591837

0.921569

0.372549

0.791667

0.601942

0.1862750.184466

0.067961

0.057143

0.339806

0.113402

0.031579

0.204545

1998 303(d) Sediment Listed Streams NFJDSands and Fines*Baldy included at later date

303dstreams

Non-listed Stream

Listed Stream

²

Mapi-Sites,Sands,andListedStreams




Page9

WallCreekWatershedMeadow

Project Goals TheanalysisisintendedtomeetmultipleobjectivesoftheBLM,USFS,EPA,andODEQ.ODEQs

interestsrelatedtomethodsforanalyzingsedimentimpairmentandwaterqualityprotectionandrestoration,

usingtheTMDLprocessasmechanismforremovingwatersfromthe303(d)list,andtheutilityofthemethod

foraddressingimpairmentandbenecialuseanalysis.

Theresultswereintendedtobeevaluatedforsufciencyinproducinginformationforadequateforde-

listingoryieldingmethodsandtargetssuitablefordeningsedimentationloadallocationsorsurrogates.The

followingquestionsguidedthedevelopmentofthisstudy:

1)Canweidentifyand/orcharacterizesedimentationconcerns(inrelationtothewaterqualitystandard)at

relevantscales?

2)Dotheseconcernswarrantadesignationofimpairment(adverseimpactonbenecialuse)?

3)Issedimentationalimitingorcontrollingfactor,withrespecttoimpairment?

4)Areothertypesofimpairmentindicated?

5)Asappropriate,giventheproposedmethodofanalysisandforthevarioussample/datatypes:arereference

andsampledatapopulationsstatisticallysimilar?

6)Dothesamplepopulationsmeetacceptablethresholds?

TheODEQwaterqualitystandardforbeddedinstreamsedimentsiscurrentlyindevelopment.Previous

benchmarksforsedimentwerebasedonpopulationnesedimentaveragesanddistributionsinminimally

disturbedwatershedswithinthestudypopulationecoregionandlithologicaltype.Additionallyrelativebedstabilityandotherhabitatmetrics(averagesanddistributions)wereconsideredwhendeterminingimpairment.

ThisweightofevidenceapproachwilllikelycontinuetobeadominantcomponentofthefutureODEQ

sedimentbenchmarkbutthenumericalcriteriaforRBSandnesedimentsisgoingtochange.TheODEQis

workingthroughtheSuspendedandBeddedSediments(SABS)processinordertodevelopnumericcriteriafor

evaluatingimpairmentbysedimentation. 1

Thegoalsoftheprojectweremodiedduringtheassessmenttoaddresstheuxuatingbenchmarks.

Questions1-3and6werenotanalyzedgiventhisuxuation.Thisreportfocusedonquestions4and5.The

majorityoftheanalysisaddressedquestion5.Briefanalysiswasdedicatedtoquestion4andwasincludedin

thediscussionsection.

1 FrameworkforDevelopingSuspendedandBeddedSedimentsWaterQualityCriteria




Page10

Executive Summary TheBureauofLandManagement(BLM)contractedanassessmentof303(d)sedimentlistedstreams

withintheNorthForkJohnDayRiver(NF)inpartnershipwiththeUnitedStatesForestService(USFS)and

theOregonDepartmentofEnvironmentalQuality(ODEQ)in2008.Thisassessmentwascompletedaspartof

aprocesstoelucidatethecurrentconditionofthewatershedslistedforsedimentationandtobetterunderstand

therelationshipbetweeninstreamsedimentandthebioticcommunity.TheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency’s

(EPA)EnvironmentalMonitoringandAssessmentProgram(EMAP)physicalhabitatprotocolwasusedto

collectdataatrandomlyseededsitesthroughoutthelistedstreams.

All1storder(NHD1:100kstreamlayer)streamswithintheWallCreekWatershed(WCW)weredropped

fromthesampleduetolackofowduringthesummerincontrastwiththe1storderstreamsintheGranite

CreekWatershed(GCW),BaldyCreek(BCW),andReferenceWatersheds.Thisislikelyaresultofthehigher

elevations.LowowsmayinteractwithsolarinputstolimitthequalityofsummerrearinghabitatintheWCW

especiallyinconjunctionwithdownstreampassagebarriers.TheconuenceofWallCreekwiththemainstem

NFJDwasfoundtobedry,resultinginaowdependentbarriertojuvenilemigration.Furthersmallerstreams

werefoundtobesandieroverallsuggestingthathighsummertemperatureswhichcanforcesalmonidsoutof

largerstreams,mayalsocausesteelheadtospawninlesssuccessfulareas.

Wall Creek Watershed Results

TheWCWisa5theldwatersheddominatedbyaresistantlithology.Forthisreasoncomparisonsto

referencewereconductedusingtheBlueMountainEcoregionresistantlithologyreferencepopulation.LandmanagerswithinthewatershedincludetheUSFS,theBLM,andprivateowners.Thehillslopesaremanaged

formixeduseforestry,grazing,andrecreation.Lowintensityagricultureiscommoninthelowerwatershed.

InstreamconditionswithintheWCWaresimilartothosefoundwithinminimallydisturbedresistant

referencewatersheds.Whencomparedtoreference,theWCWismorestable(i.e.theWCWhaslowerLRBS

values;WCWLRBS=-.28;ReferenceLRBS=-.97),hasasimilarW:D(WCWW:D=12;ReferenceW:D=

11),exhibitsasimilarproportionofinstreamnesediments(WCWFines=6%;ReferenceFines=7%),anda

slightlyhigherproportionofinstreamsandsandnes(WCWSAFN=24%;ReferenceSAFN=18%).

Baldy Creek Watershed Results

TheBCWisunderlainbyglacialdepositssimilartothosewhichunderlietheerodiblereferencesites.

Thehillslopesaredominatedbyplutonic(resistant)rocksandthestreamnetworkisdominatedbysurcial

sediments.ForthisreasoncomparisonstoreferenceweremadeusingtheentireBlueMountainEcoregionreferencedatapopulation.

TheBCWismorestable(BCWLRBS=-.45;ReferenceLRBS=-1.04)andexhibitsalowerproportion

ofsandsandnes(BCW%SAFN=16%;Reference%SAFN=21%)thanreference.Thehistoricalreference

sitecollectedin2001hada%SAFNvalueof40%.Theproportionofsandsandnesisnearly50%less

howeverinBaldythanintheerodiblereferencepopulation.Poolvolumeissimilartoreference(6.6versus7.2).

Woodvolumeandwidthtodepthratiosarealsosimilartoreference(.035;9.3respectively).

Granite Creek Watershed Results

ThelithologywithintheGCWismixedresistantanderodible,forthisreasoncomparisonstoreference

weremadeusingtheentireBlueMountainEcoregionreferencedatapopulation.TheGCWisalmostentirely

managedbytheUSFS(mixeduse).

TheGCWhasthelowestLRBSvalue(bothpopulationaveragesandindividualsitedata;GCW

LRBS=-1.45;mostunstablesiteLRBS=-3.7)andistheleaststablestreamnetworkevaluatedinthisstudy.

Additionally,theGCWhasthehighestproportionofsandsandnes(GCW%SAFN=41%;reference%SAFN

=21%)andnes(17%versus8%respectively).PoolvolumeintheGCWissimilartothatofthereference

population(GCWRP100=6.7;ReferenceRP100=7.2).WoodvolumeintheGCWissimilartothatofthe

referencepopulation(GCWRW=.03;ReferenceRW=.03).WidthtodepthratioswithintheGCWarehalfof

reference(W:D=4.9versus.9.6respectively).




Page11

Introduction and Background Thisassessmentwasconductedbetween2008and2009undercontracttotheBLM.Thepurposeof

thisassessmentwastodeterminetheconditionofseveralwatershedswithintheNF(NFHUC#170702).

ThewatershedsevaluatedduringthisassessmentweretheWallCreekWatershed(WCW;5thFieldHUC#

17070202),theGraniteCreekWatershed(GCW;5thFieldHUC#1707020202;BullRun6thFieldHUC

#170702020202andUpperGranite6thFieldHUC#170702020201),andtheBaldyCreekWatershed(BCW;

6thFieldHUC#170702020101).TheJohnDayRiverBasinisapproximately8100squaremilesindrainage

area,the4thlargestbasininthestate.TheareaoftheNFsubbasinisapproximately1800squaremiles.TheNF

islocatedineastern-centralOregonintheBlueMountainsEcoregion.TheMainstemJohnDayRiveris~284

mileslong.TheJohnDayRiveristhelongest,free-owingriverintheOregonmakingitanimportantriverfor

salmon.AlthoughthemainstemJohnDayRiveristhesecondlongestfree-owingriverintheUnitedStates,

lowowsoftenserveasabarriertoshpassageinmanytributarysystemdespitetheabsenceofdamsand

hightemperaturesserveasbarrierstojuvenilesh.WaterwithdrawoccursthroughouttheNFandmanyofits

tributaries.BenecialusesofwaterintheJohnDaybasinare:publicandprivatewatersupply;industrialwater

supply;irrigation;livestockwatering;anadromousshpassage;salmonidshrearingandspawning;resident

shandaquaticlife;wildlifeandhunting;shing;boating;watercontactrecreation;andaestheticquality.1

ApproximatelyhalfoftheNFiscomprisedofbasaltandmorethanhalfiscomprisedofresistant

materials.TheWCWhasanearlyidenticalproportionofbasaltbutiscomprisedofsignicantlymoremixed

rocktypes(~48%)whichareclassiedintheOregonGeologicDataCompilationdatalayer(OGDC;release5)asprimarilygraniterockforms.TheWCWisrelativelysimpleinregardstogeology.Thereareminimalrock

typesand~98%oftherocktypesbelongtooneoftwoclasses.ThisisincontrasttotheGCWwithonly13%

basaltrocktypeand33%negrainedsedimentsandanother~37%belongingtoeitherintermediateormixed

lithologies.Baldyis~66%intermediatecompositionlithologies,10%negrainedsediments,and20%mixed

grainsedimentswithnobasaltrocktypes. 2

TheNFprovidesnearly120milesofmainstemhabitatbutover2400milesofstreamnetwork.This

distinctionisimportantwhenconsideringthesupplyofsedimentstocriticalsalmonidspawninghabitat.The

NFcontributesroughly60%ofthetotalowtotheJohnDayRiver.TheNFislistedasawildandscenic

riverfromCamasCreektotheheadwaters.Therearesignicanthumanusespresentwithinthewatershed

bothhistoricallyandpresently.Miningwasverycommonhistoricallyandisstillpresenttoasmallerextent.

Hydraulicminingwasusedtowashsoilandgravelawaytoexposethegoldore.Dredgeswereusedinthestreamstodigupthedepositedgravelandsiftoutthegold.TheOregonDepartmentofGeologyandMineral

Industries(DOGAMI)estimatesthatatleast13millioncubicyardsofmaterialwashandledontheNorthFork-

GraniteCreek-ClearCreeksystem.ForestryisanotherdominantlandusewiththemajorityownerinmanyBlue

MountainwatershedsbeingtheUSFS.Grazingonprivateandfederallandsismuchlessprevalenttodaythan

between1850and1900,buthayfarmingandotheragriculturalpracticesarestillcommoninthearea(lesser

commoncropsincludealfalfa,orchardfruits,andmint).Mosthayproducedisusedtofeedwinteringcattle

andalthoughlivestockproductionislesscommonthanhistorically,cattleproductionaccountsforover70%

oftheagriculturalincomeinthearea.Rangeforageprovidesover50%oftheyear-roundcattlefeedwithhay

andpastureprovidingtheremainder.ApproximatelyhalfofthecattleoperationsuseBLMorUSFSrangeon

apermitbasis.(NorthandMiddleForksJohnDayRiverAgriculturalWaterQualityManagementAreaPlan)

HuntingispresentthroughoutmostoftheEcoregiononpubliclands.TheNFhaswaterrights,administeredby

theOregonWaterResourceDepartment(OWRD),for536.0cubicfeetpersecond(cfs),mainlyforirrigation

(291.5cfs)andmining(202.2cfs).Annually,atotalof13,400acresareirrigated,mostlybysprinklers,

requiring17,800acresfeetofwater.Minimumstreamowswereestablishedin1962atMonument(55cfs)and

Dale(30cfs).SomewatermaybedivertedfromtheNorthForktotheUmatillabasin(25-28cfs)andtheNF

BurntRiver(22cfs)forirrigation.Therearecurrently15instreamwaterrights.3

1 http://www.deq.state.or.us/WQ/standards/uses.htm

2 Ma,L.,Madin,I.,Olson,K.,Watzig,R.;OregonGeologicDataCompilation(OGDC)Release5;OregonDOGAMI;2009

3 Local AdvisoryCommit teeMembers; Nort handMi ddleForksJohnDayRi verAgricul tural WaterQualit yManagement AreaPlan; 2002




Page12

!A

!A

!

A !A

!A

!A Ukiah

Dale

MonumentGranite

Hamilton

Fox

North Fork John Day Watershed Assessment

Lake or Pond

Swamp or Marsh

Stream or River

Inundation Area

Artifical Basins

Playa

Glacier

Canal or Ditch

Other

Other Rivers, Streams, and Creeks

Deschutes River

John Day River

North Fork John Day Watershed

John Day River Watershed

Highway

Major Road

²0 40 8020km

MapA-Context(ESRIbackgrounddata;HUCdata)




Page13

MapB-Context(ESRIbackgrounddata;HUCdata)

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

Unity

Reservoir

UkiahDale

Monument

Granite

Hamilton

Fox


Lake or Pond

Swamp or Marsh

Stream or River

Inundation Area

Artifical Basins

Playa

Glacier

Canal or Ditch

Other

Other Rivers, Streams, and Creeks

John Day River

North Fork John Day River

Wall Creek Watershed 5th Field

Baldy Creek Watershed

Granite Creek Watershed


John Day River Watershed

Highway

Major Road

²0 20 4010km




Page14






Lithology

metamorphic

plutonic

sedimentary

surficial sediments

tectonic

volcanic

²0 20 4010km

MapC-Lithology(OGDC;release5)




Page15

MapD-LandManager(ODFPublicLands,2005)






Land Manager

BLM

FERC

National Park Service

Oregon Department of State Lands

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department

Private

Undefined

United States Corps of Engineers

USFS

USFWS

²0 20 4010km




Page16






Alpine tundra-barren

Ash beds

Douglas fir

Grand fir

Subalpine fir

Lodgepole pine

Ponderosa pine

Mixed conifer

Western juniper woodland

Mountain big sagebrush

Wyoming big sagebrush

Bluebunch wheatgrass

Idaho fescue

Open water

Riparian hardwoods

²0 25 5012.5km

MapE-HistoricalVegetation(GAPAnalysis)




Page17

The Wall Creek Watershed

TheWCWislocatedinthenorthwestcorneroftheAssessmentareawhiletheGCWandBCWare

bothlocatedonthesoutheastboundaryoftheAssessmentarea.ThemainstemofWallCreekis~14milesin

lengthandcontainsatotalof240streammiles(NHD1:100kHydroLayer).TheWCWcontributesanestimated

8%totalowtotheNF.TheconuenceofWCwiththeNFisnearthecityofMonument.Precipitationfalls

predominantlyintheformofsnowwithrainrangingfrom15inchesinthelowerWCWupto35inchesin

theupperWCW1.Thereis~30additionalinchesinsnowwaterequivalent(extrapolatedfromMadisonButte

data)2.Peakoweventsareoftentriggeredbyrainonsnoworrainonmeltingsnowbetweenthemonthsof

AprilandJuly.Riparianhabitathasbeendisruptedtothepointthatstreamswithintheassessmentareaoftendonotaccesstheirassociatedoodplains.Beavershavenearlybeenextirpatedthroughouttheassessmentarea.

GrazingisasignicantuseintheWCWwithseveralallotmentsinactiveusethroughoutthewatershed.The

USFShasfencedtheripariancorridoralongstreamswhereactivecattlegrazingoccurs.The~128,287acres

withintheWCWispredominantlymanagedbytheUnitedStatesForestService(USFS;75%;95,677acres)

followedbyprivatelandowners(15%;20,247acres)andtheBLM(10%;12,363acres).

The Granite Creek Watershed

GraniteCreekisadjacenttoBaldyCreekintheupperNF.GraniteCreek(thetwo6theldssurveyed;

28,706acres)provides65milesofstreamnetwork.Precipitationfallspredominantlyintheformofsnowwith

rainrangingfrom30inchesinthelowerGCWupto40inchesintheupperGCW3.Thereis~60additional

inchesinsnowwaterequivalent(GoldCenterdata).

4

TheGCWispredominantlymanagedbytheUSFS(97%)whileprivatelandownersmanageonly948acres(3%).TheentireGraniteCreekWatershedincludes94,485

acresand15subwatershedsalthoughonlystreamswitha303(d)listingforsedimentweresurveyed.Ownership

patternsaresimilarforthelarger5theldwith95%USFSownershipand5%privateownership.Thereare

numerousminingclaims(primarilygoldandsilver)intheGCWandadenseroadnetwork.Asignicant

portionofthe5theldisdesignatedaswildernessbutnoneofthesurveyswerewithinthatdesignation.

The Baldy Creek Watershed

BaldyCreek(a6theld;17,270acres)provides~30milesofstreamnetwork.Precipitationfalls

predominantlyintheformofsnowwithrainrangingfrom35inchesinthelowerGCWupto40inchesinthe

upperGCW5.Thereis~60additionalinchesinsnowwaterequivalent(GoldCenterdata).6TheBCWisalso

predominantlymanagedbytheUSFSwith16,844acres(98%)followedbyprivateownershipat425acres.The

BCWliesmostlywithinadesignatedwildernessarea.

1 ESRIClimateServers

2 JohnDayBasinSNOTELSites





Table1-Sedimentation303(d)listedstreamsintheNorthForkJohnDay

WaterBody(Stream/Lake) RiverMiles

AlderCreek 0to5.5

BaldyCreek(BCW) 0to5

BigWallCreek 0to21.3

BullRunCreek(GCW) 0to9.3

GraniteCreek(GCW) 11.2to16.2

HogCreek 0to4.1

PorterCreek 0to7.4SwaleCreek 0to11.1

WilsonCreek 0to10.7




Page18

Fish Usage

General

TheJohnDayRiverBasinsupportsthelargestremainingexclusivelywildrunsofspringChinookand

summersteelhead,ofwhichtheNorthForksupports70%and43%oftheadultpopulationrespectively.2The

JohnDayRecoveryUnitincludesbulltroutfromthreewatersheds:theNorthForkJohnDayRiver,theMiddle

ForkJohnDayRiverandaportionoftheUpperMainstemJohnDayRiver.Theuppermainstemreaches

arealsooccupiedbybulltrout.However,harvestofbulltroutisprohibitedbecauseoftheirthreatenedstatus

(ESA).Verylittleinformationregardingharvestratesofresidenttroutspeciesisavailable.Catchofwestslope

cutthroatandredbandislimitedbyODFWanglingregulations.CohoandchumareconsideredextinctintheUpperColumbiaandSnakeRiverBasins,atleast5stockshavealsogoneextinct,and60%oftheremaining

stockislistedasdepressed,threatened,orendangered.

Westslope Cutthroat Trout

WestslopecutthroattroutinOregonarefoundonlyintheJohnDayRiverSubbasin.Historically,

westslopecutthroattroutwerelimitedtotheUpperJohnDayRiverandselecttributaries.Today,however,

theyarefoundintheNorthForkJohnDayRiverwatershedaswell.Westslopecutthroatwereintroducedinto

ClearandDesolationcreeks(NorthForkJohnDayRivertributaries)fromDeardorffCreek(UpperMainstem

JohnDayRivertributary)intheearly1960storeestablishasheryafterextensivesprucebudwormspraying

eliminatedaquaticlifeinportionsofthosestreams.

Bull Trout Bulltroutwithinthesubbasinislimitedtotheresidentform,particularlyintheMiddleFork.

Historically,bulltroutexhibitedmorediverselifehistorypatternsthanatpresent.Largerhistoricpopulations

ofchinooksalmon,steelhead,cutthroatandredbandwouldhaveprovidedalargeforagebaseforbulltrout.A

largerforagebasewouldhavefavoredthehighlypredatory,migratory(uvial)form,whichcangrowaslarge

as20to25inchesinlength.Anotheruniquefeatureofbulltroutistheirtoleranceforandgrowthratesincold

water.Optimumgrowthofbulltroutfryoccursat39to40°F.Historically,bulltroutareestimatedtohave

occupiedabout60%oftheColumbiaRiverBasin.Presentlybulltroutoccurin45%oftheirestimatedhistorical

range.Juvenilebulltroututilizetheinterstitialspaceforcovermakingthisspeciessensitivetochangesinbed

loadstructureandowduringincubationandrearingapotentialhazardtosurvival.ItisestimatedthattheNF

couldsupport~2000spawningpairsofbulltroutwerethehabitattorecover.

Steelhead and Redband Trout Priortotheirlistingasthreatenedsteelhead,annualestimatesofsteelheadcaughtbyanglerswas4700

wildshandharvestratesestimatedat12%ofescapement.Afterlistingin1996,steelheadshingislimitedto

marked,hatcheryshstrayingintotheJohnDayRiverfromotherColumbiaRivertributaries(consumptive)

andcatch-and-releaseforwildsh.Redbandtrouthaveadaptedtorelativelywarmerwatertemperatures,with

optimumgrowthat55to64°Fahrenheit.

Chinook

HarvestofspringChinookhasnotbeenallowedintheJohnDayRiverSubbasinsince1976.The

ConfederatedTribesoftheUmatillaIndianReservationisallowedtoharvestnomorethan5%oftheestimated

numberofspringChinookreturningtothesubbasinforsubsistence.Recently,thisharvesthasoccurredonly

intheNFandtheGCW.Anescapementgoalof7000springChinookreturningtothemouthoftheJohnDay

RiverwassetaspartofthesettlementinU.S.versus.Oregon.Thisgoalmustbereachedbeforeanynew

take(eithertribalorrecreational)isallowedinthelargerJohnDaySubbasin.Thequalityofthehabitatused

byspringChinookintheupperJohnDaydrainagehasbeenstabletoimproving,exceptintheareausedby

theGraniteCreekpopulation.ChinooksmoltproductionfortheNFisestimatedat42,130,muchhigherthan

surroundingwatershedsofsimilarsize.ODFWhasestimatedtherecentChinooksmoltproductionfortheJohn

DayRiver:2001–92,900;2002–103,100;2003–83,950;2004–91,400.

1 (Unless noted, this information is summarized from the John Day Subbasin Plan, 2005).

2 NorthForkJohnDayRiverBasinAnadromousFishEnhancementProject;CTUIR;2003




Page19

Fisheries Limitations

CurrentsalmoniduseoftheNorthForkJohnDayRiverismuchlowerthanhistoricaluse.Thisis

attributedtoseveralcauses:damsandotherbarrierstopassage;lowowsfromwithdrawandclimatechange;

decreaseddissolvedoxygenfromalgalbloomsassociatedwithnutrientrichrunoffandincreasesinstream

temperaturefromripariandegradation;decreasedhabitatcomplexityfromhumanuses;andincreasesin

instreamsedimentationfromnumeroussources.Thefollowingsectionsummarizesthetopthreefreshwater

sherieslimitationswithintheJohnDaySubbasin:DamsandBarrierstoPassage;Temperature;andHabitat

Modications(ofwhichincreasedsedimentationandspawninghabitatreductionisone).

Dams, Barriers to Passage, and Hatchery Impacts

ColumbiaRiverdamsserveaspassagebarrierstoadultsalmonids,causemortalityforadultsand

juveniles(~50%-75%ofChinookadultsand~93%ofChinookjuveniles),andreduceindividualvigor.

EstimatesofsalmonidusageoftheColumbiaRiversuggestthatpriortothe1850s~88%ofsalmonidspawning

occurredupstreamoftheBonnevilledam,thisdecreasedto~44%by1980s.Priortothedammingofthearea

betweenthepresentdayBonnevilledamandtheconuenceoftheSnakeRiverwiththeColumbiaRiver,this

regionproducedanestimated340,000chinook,coho,andsteelhead.Anadromoussharenolongerfoundin

theMetoliusRiver,theCrookedRiver,ortheDeschutesRiverupstreamofthePeltonDam.GiventhenumberofdamsontheColumbiaRiverupstreamoftheconuencewiththeJohnDayRiverandthenumberofdams

onmostoftheColumbiaRivertributariesexcludingtheJohnDayRiver,itseemsplausiblethatthemajority

ofthereturningadultsthatspawnupstreamoftheBonnevilledamdosointheJohnDayRiver.TheJohnDay

dam,thethirdlargestdamintheUS,wasbuiltin1968-1971immediatelydownstreamoftheconuenceof

theJohnDaywiththeColumbiaRiver.BeforethedamsconstructiontheJohnDayRiversupportedroughly

26,000salmonids,themajoritybeingSteelhead,andthisnumberisthoughttohavebeenwellbelowwhat

therivercouldactuallysupportgiventheimpactsonshfromminingandagriculture,whichwerealready

extensive.IrrigationandriparianvegetationremovalhadalteredowandtemperaturesomuchsothatChinook

populations(latesummerandfall)weredecimatedbytheearly20thcentury.

Multiplehatcherieswereconstructedpost1950stomitigatetheimpactonnativesalmonidsheriesfrom

dams,shing,andotherfactors.Intheearly1950shatcheriesreceived~50%ofthemitigationplansfunding

whilehabitatimprovementreceived~5%.Hatcheryfundingincreasedto72%ofthetotalmitigationbudgetby

1980withtheremainingfundsgoingtowardspollutionabatementandothermeasures.Therearenohatcheries

intheJohnDaySubbasin.In1966oceanshinghadharvested~27,000ColumbiaRiverhatcheryChinook

salmonor~80%ofthetotalhatcheryproduction.ThespringChinookandsummersteelheadpopulationsin

theJohnDayRiverhavelocalaswellasregionalsignicancebecausetheyarenotsupplementedwithhatchery

sh.TheJohnDayRiverismanagedexclusivelyforwildshproductionandmaybetheonlylargeColumbia

Rivertributarythathasnohatcherystockingprogramforanadromoussh.

JuvenileTroutinWCW-Streamatthissiteexhibitspoorsortingandsiltationofgravels




Page20

Temperature

FollowingdamsasamajorfactorinthedeclineofsalmonidpopulationsinOregonisthedirect

mortalityfromelevatedinstreamtemperature.MostoftheNorthForkJohnDayRiverWatershedislistedfor

elevatedtemperaturesduringrearingseasonexceedingnotonlythestresstemperaturelimitbutthemortality

limitaswell.Thisisexacerbatedbywaterwithdrawl(Flowisalimitingfactorforsummersteelheadandfor

springChinookimpacting40%ofthegeographicareaoftheJohnDayRiverwatershed)andperhapsalsoby

climatechange1,“Thehydrologiccurvehasshiftedfromhistorictimes,withpeakowsgreaterthaninthepast

andlateseasonowsmorediminished.Itissuspectedthattheseeffectsareduetogreatlyreducedratesofsoil

inltration,reducedcapacityforgroundwater/riparianstorage,anddiminishedinchannelstorageinbeaverponds.”2TemperatureisalimitingfactorforspringChinookandsummersteelheadin40to50%oftheirrange

intheJohnDayRiversubbasin.ThepredominantcauseofelevatedinstreamtemperatureswithintheNorth

ForkJohnDayRiverwatershedisareductionofriparianvegetationfrompastloggingintheripariancorridor,

activegrazingtothestreamchannel,andminingactivities.Instreamtemperaturesexceededthestatewater

qualitystandardforsalmonidrearingof64˚Fatallstations(7dayaveragemaximum)asreportedinthe1994

WallCreekEcosystemAnalysis.Additionallytemperaturerangesweresimilartorecordingstaken30years

prior.ThevehotteststationswereSwaleCreekMiddleReach(84.2˚F),LowerIndianCreek(83.4˚F),Wall

CreekattheForestBoundary(80.4˚F),WilsonCreekupstreamofWallCreek(80.0˚F),andWallCreekatthe

mouth(77˚F).Fouroutofveofthesestationsexceedthejuvenilelethaltemperaturelimit.Cutthroatand1+

Steelheadrearingdensitiesdecreaseastemperaturesexceed62.6F.

3

RefertoTable2forCohoSensitivitybyLifeStagetemperaturelimits.

Habitat Modication Habitatmodicationisalsoalimitingfactorofsalmonidproduction.Theremovaloflargewood,

riparianvegetation,andotherhabitatelementscandisturbthesalmonidspawningandrearingcapacityofa

streamnetwork.Surcialnesedimentscancausedirectmortalityofspawnedeggsbyencasingorentombing

developingeggsinashellofclayorbyreducingthetotalavailabledissolvedoxygen(embeddingtheintersticial

spacewithsands).Empiricalevidencesuggeststhateggemergenceisdecreasedwhennesareatorabove

20%embeddedness(volumetricnotsurfacenes;maximumningissetat~24%nesinavolume).4Alackof

suitablespawningandrearinghabitatwasfoundtobealimitationforbothsteelheadandChinookintheJohn

DayRiverwatershed.Instreamsedimentloadingisalimitingfactorfor~30%ofthehistoricalhabitatareaand

60%ofsteelheadhabitatarea.NOAAFisheriesmonitoringsuggestedthattheNFJDsuffersfrommasswasting

andsurfaceerosiontoagreaterdegreethanhistoricallywouldbepresent.5

Decreasesinhabitatdiversitywasfoundtobealimitationin70%ofthegeographicareasofspring

Chinookandsteelhead.Itisestimatedthattherehasbeenalossof60%ofpoolhabitatbetweencurrentand

historicconditionsfortheregion.

1 Graves,D.;AGISAnalysisofClimateChangeandSnowpackonColumbiaBasinTribalLands;TheColumbiaRiverInter-TribalFishCommission;2008

2 JohnDaySubbasinAssessment

3 http://www.krisweb.com/stream/temperature.htm(SensitivitybyLifeStage)

4 McCullough,Dale,M.Greene,“MonitoringFineSediment;GrandeRondeandJohnDayRivers”,2001-2003FinalReport,ProjectNo.199703400,170

electronicpages,(BPAReportDOE/BP-00004272-2)

5 McCullough,Dale,M.Greene,“MonitoringFineSediment;GrandeRondeandJohnDayRivers”,2001-2003FinalReport,ProjectNo.199703400,170

electronicpages,(BPAReportDOE/BP-00004272-2)

Table2-TemperatureToleranceofCohoSalmon*(SensitivitybyLifeStage)

JuvenilesUILT: 26°C 78.8F

CTM: 24.4°C 75.92F

GrowthStops 20.3°C/19.1°C/18C° 68.54F/66.38F/64.4F

OptimumGrowth 12-14°C/10-15.6°C/9-13°C 53.6-57.2F/50-60.1F/48.2-55.4F

GrowthOccurs 5-17°C 41-62.6F*Temperaturetolerancesaresimilarforsalmonidswithbulltroutbeingthemostsensitive.http://www.krisweb.com/stream/temperature.htm




Page21

Habitat Improvement Goals, Strategies, and Actions

TheUSFShasconstructedriparianfencingandremovedminetailingsimpactingroughly72.5miles

ofdegradedstreamreachesintheupperNorthForkoftheJohnDaySubbasin.AdditionallytheOregon

DepartmentofFishandWildlife(ODFW)hasconductedhabitatimprovementprojectswithintheNorthFork

SubbasinsuchasfencingelevenmilesofstreamonCottonwoodandFoxCreeks,fencingtwomilesonCamas

Creek(onprivateproperty),andshladderconstructiononFiveMileCreekwhichprovidedaccessto25miles

ofpreviouslyunavailablespawninghabitatwhichwasblockedbyawaterfall.Astheregionisveryremoteitis

difculttoconductthelandowneroutreachneededtocompletehabitatrestorationonprivatelands.

TheJohnDaySubbasinPlanincludedseveralrestorationgoalsfortheJohnDayRiverWatershed:

Within 25 years:

1.Restorethefreshwaterproductivityofsteelheadandchinookpopulationstothe25-yearlevels;

2.Restoreadultreturnsofsteelheadandchinookpopulationstothe25-yearlevels;

3.Allowlimitedsheriesonthestrongestpopulations;

Within 50 years:

4.Achievethefreshwaterproductivityofsteelheadandchinookpopulationstothe50-yearlevels;

5.Achieveadultreturnsofsteelheadandchinookpopulationstothe50-yearlevels;

6.Supportannualsheriesonallpopulations; 7.Reestablishconnectivitybetweenexistingpopulationstoallowmetapopulationinteractions;

8.Somepopulationsshouldbeexpandingbeyondtheirbaselinedistributions.

The 10 restoration strategies are:

StrategyA:Improveshpassage

StrategyB:Installshscreensonwaterdiversions

StrategyC:Flowrestoration

StrategyD:In-streamactivities

StrategyE:Riparianhabitatimprovements

StrategyF:Controlpollutionsources

StrategyG:Protectexistinghighqualityhabitatareas StrategyH:Uplandimprovementprojects

StrategyI:Education/outreach

StrategyJ:Managerecreational/tribalsheries

Priority Rankings

TheplanidentiesrestorationprioritieswithinthreegeographicareasoftheJohnDaySubbasin:

•LowerandMiddleMainstemJohnDayRiver(belowKimberly)

•MiddleForkandNorthForkJohnDayRiver

•UpperMainstemandSouthForkJohnDayRiver

oFirstpriority–Protectionofexistinghabitat

oSecondpriority–Passageandriparianhabitatimprovements

oThirdpriority–Fishscreens

oFourthpriority–Instreamhabitatimprovements,uplandrestoration,andowrestoration.




Page22

MainstemNorthForkJohnDayRiver




Page23

Materials and MethodsSampling Protocol

SiteselectionwasbasedonprotocolsdevelopedbytheEPAtosupportEMAPsurveysthroughoutthe

nation.Stratiedrandomsamplingwasusedtocharacterizetheconditionofthelistedstreamreachesand

upstreamtributaries.Siteswereeldveriedforstreamconditionsandaccessissuesandwereadjustedas

necessary.Anestimated33%ofthestreamnetworksampleframe(NHD1:100K)isconsideredperennial.This

resultedinadensesampleofmainstemWallCreekanditstributariesandamoderatelydensesampleofGranite

andBaldycreeks.TheEMAPprotocolisconsideredalowowsurveywhichlimitedinstreamtimetolateJuly

throughearlySeptember(accesslimitationsfromsnowbecameanissueinthehigherelevationwatersheds).

Further,somesiteswererevisitedaftertheinitialsurveywerefoundtobedrytowardstheendofthesurvey

window.

BaldyCreekislistedforsedimentationbutalsoisconsideredanODEQreferencewatershed.The

original303(d)listingwasbasedprimarilyonpotentialimpactsofrecentforestresonsoilerosionwhilethe

referencedesignationdoesnottakereintoaccount,andisinsteadbaseduponGISindicatorsoflanduse,andis

nalizedwithaeldverication.BCWdatawasnotincludedinthereferencepool,ratheritwasevaluatedasa

uniquesub-population.ItislikelythattheBCWdatawouldserveasamoreappropriatereferencefortheGCW

thanstreamsinthelargerBlueMountainEcoregion(refertodiscussiononreference).

Siteswereselectedfromthe“MasterSample”producedbytheEPAresearchlabinCorvallis,Oregon.

TheMasterSamplewasdevelopedinsupportofstatewideeffortstocoordinatemonitoringefforts.ItisastatewidepanelofrandomsitesdrawnfromtheNationalHydrographyDatabasePlus(NHDPlus)usingthe

GeneralRandomTesselationStratied(GRTS)algorithm.1Itcontainsthousandsofsitesseededatroughly1

kmintervalsalongthestreamnetwork.ByutilizingasubsectionoftheMasterSample,thedatacollectedinthis

studycannowbeeasilyintegratedintoregionalassessmentsandfuturemonitoring.

Siteswereclippedfromthestatewide“MasterSample”usingthefourstudyareaHydrologicUnit

Codes(HUC;WCW5thFieldHUC#17070202;BullRun6thFieldHUC#170702020201andUpperGranite

6thFieldHUC170702020202;BCW6thFieldHUC#170702020101).Referencesiteswereidentiedby

extractingallMasterSiteswithinreferencewatershedboundariesprovidedbyODEQstaff.Allreference

watershedsarewithintheBlueMountainLevelIIIEcoregion.Onedatalayercomprisestheareasidentied

byODEQasmeetingreferencestandards.AseconddatalayercomprisesareasidentiedbyChuckHawkins

duringthedevelopmentoftheODEQ’smacroinvertebratestressormodel.Ithasbeenobservedthat1storderstreamsontheNHD+aregenerally3rdoreven4thorderbasedonthestreamnetworkdenedusing1:24K

hydrocoverages.Thisshouldbeconsideredwheninterpretingtheresultsofthestudy.Siteswereweighted

duringanalysistoaccountforallchangesinthesampleframeandstudydesign.

Table3-SitesVisited

Watershed HUC FinalSites OriginalSAP

WallCreek5thField 17070202 52 40

UpperGranite6thField 170702020201 10 10

BullRun6thField 170702020202 10 10

Baldy 170702020101 5 5

AdditionalNFJDReferenceSites 17070202 5 5

BlueMountainReferenceSitesOutsidetheNFJD NA 14 20

1 Stevens,D.andOlsen,A.;SpatiallyBalancedSamplingofNaturalResources;JournaloftheAmericanStatisticalAssociationV99(465)pp262-278;2004




Page24

!.

!.

!.

!.

!. !.

U k i ah

D al e

Monument

Gr ani t e

H ami l t on

F ox

1 1 8 ° 0 ' 0 " W

1 1 9 ° 0 ' 0 " W

1 2 0 ° 0 ' 0 " W

4 5 ° 0 ' 0 " N

Nor t h F or k J oh nDayWat er s h ed A s s es s ment

B al d y C r eek S i t es

Gr ani t eC r e

ek S i t es

Wal l C r eek

S i t es

!.

N F J D C i t i es

Nor t h F or k J oh nDayWat er s h ed

B al d yC r eek

Wat er s h ed

G r ani t eC r ee

k Wat er s h ed

Wal l C r eek W

at er s h ed

3 -5 or d er s t r eams

6 +or d er s t r eams

¶

0

5 0

1 0 0

2 5

K

i l omet er s

MapF-SiteLocations(ESRIbackgrounddata;HUCdata)




Page25

Sitesamplingwasproportionaltothesizeofthewatershedcontainingthelistedsegment.Inotherwords

the5theldwatershedcontainsagreaternumberofsitestogetamoreaccurateresultwhereasthesmallest

6theldonlycontains5sitesasthiswillbeadequate(givenlimitedresources)todeterminecurrentcondition.

FurthertheBlueMountainEcoregioncontained30sitesofreferencedata,whichwiththeadditional18sites(23

isBCWisincluded)nearlydoublestheexistingreferencepool.Thesesiteswerelimitedintheirspatialbalance

(unbalancedacrosstheentireEcoregionbutbalancedwithinreferencewatersheds)asveryfewwatershedsmeet

ODEQreferencestandards.

TheOregonGeologicDataCompilationrelease4(obtainedfromDOGAMIfollowingconsultation

withDOGAMIstaff)wasevaluatedtodetermineifstratifyingbylithologywasnecessary.Release5wasusedformappingandanalysispurposesandtoreassessthevalidityoftheoriginalSAP.Allrocktypeswere

dividedintoerodibleandresistantcategories.Sedimentaryandsurcialtypeswereclassiedaserodible,and

allvolcanicorplutonicrocktypeswereclassiedasresistant.Somerocktypes,suchas‘MixedTerrane’could

notbeclassiedeitherway.Basedonthisanalysis,straticationbygeologywasdeemedunnecessary.The

WallCreekWatershedisdominatedbyaresistantlithologywhiletheBaldyCreekWatershedismixedwith

thestreamnetworkunderlainbyglacialsurcialdepositsandthehillslopesinthestudyareadominatedbyan

erodiblelithology,obviatingtheneedforstratication.However,foraconservativecomparison,theBCWwas

comparedtotheentirereferencepopulation.ThegeologyofthetwoGraniteCreeksubwatershedsassessedwas

socomplexthatstraticationbygeologywasnotpractical.

Field Protocols

ThisprojectentailedgatheringtheelddatarequiredtocompletetheRBScalculationsandadditional

parameters.TheRBScalculationusedisthatdescribedinKaufmannetal.20081.Theeldmethodologyused

isthatdescribedintheEMAPmanual. 2

CollectionofEMAPPhysicalHabitatCharacteristicsrequiresaccesstoareachofstream40timesthe

wettedwidthandwading11transectstocollectdepthandsubstratecharacteristics.Theonsetofthelow-ow

seasonisthebestopportunitytoevaluatethestreamconditionforsedimentation.Somestreamsmayrequire

accessbyinatableraft,particularlyindeeppoolareasandlargerstreams.Siteaccesslimitationsmayrequirea

modied,limitedreachandtransectnumber.

Measurementscollectedincluded:

Bankfullwidth&height

Thalwegdepthprole

Pebblecount

Slope

Habitatunits

Largewoodydebrisvolume

Bankcondition

Wettedwidth

1 Kaufmann,P.,Faustini,J.,Larsen,D.,andShirazi,M.;ARoughness-correctedIndexofRelativeBedStabilityforRegionalStreamSurveys;Geomorphol-

ogyV99pp150-170;2008

2 Peck,D.,Lazorchak,J.,andKlemm,D.;EnvironmentalMonitoringAssessmentProgram-SurfaceWaters:WesternPilotStudyFieldOperationsManualfor

WadeableStreams;USEPA2001

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•




Page26

Analytical Methods

Theprimaryfocusoftheanalysiswastoevaluatepopulationandsubpopulationcharacteristics.The

followingkeymetricswereanalyzedduringthisstudy:

RelativeBedStability(LRBS)

PercentageofSandsandFines(%SAFN)

ResidualPoolDepth(RP100)

LargeWoodyDebrisVolume(RW)WidthtoDepthRatio(W:D)

BankCondition

SpawningGravelInventory

Anattemptwasmadetodiscovertherelationshipbetweeninstreamsedimentconditionsandthe

followinginformation:forestreevents;roadconditions;landuse(limited);andsalmonidspawningand

smolting.Forestreimpactoninstreamsedimentswasevaluatedbyvisuallyestimatingthepercentofthe

watershedburnedandrelatingtheburnextentwiththepercentageofinstreamnesedimentssequentially

followingtheres.RoadconditionsisbeinganalyzedbytheUSFSUmatillaDistrictHydrologistusingthe

GeomorphicRoadAnalysisandInventoryProtocol(GRAIP).Alimitedlanduseassessmentwascompletedby

evaluatingreregimes,vegetationchange,andgrazingpractices.Finally,thelimitedrearingandspawningdata

availablewascorrelatedwithpercentinstreamnesedimentsforthestreamandwatershed.

•

•

•

••

•

•

FiguresfromEMAPmanual




Page27

Reference Conditions

EMAPdatawithinthestudyareawerecomparedtoODEQgatheredreferencedatawithintheBlue

MountainLevelIIIEcoregion.ThewatershedassessmentdivisionoftheODEQhascollecteddatafrom

hundredsofminimallydisturbedsitesacrossthestateusingtheEMAPprotocol.Thisincludesthe30previously

collectedsiteswithintheBlueMountainEcoregionIIIand18additionalsitescollectedduringthisAssessment.

Tocollectreferencedataasampleisgeneratedwhichideallycoversallofthegradientsineachecoregionsuch

aselevationandvegetationtype.Allreferencesitesarerequiredtohaveminimalanthropogenicdisturbancein

theriparianzoneanduplandareas.TheODEQ’sapproachexplicitlyincludesnaturaldisturbanceregimesasit

isassumedthatthebiotaofanareaevolvedinconjunctionwiththeseregimes.Themetricvaluesfoundinsiteswithminimalanthropogenicdisturbanceareusedtojudgethequalityofphysicalhabitatintheareasassessed.

ThisapproachisdescribedindetailinODEQTechnicalReportS04-002. 1

Signicance Testing

Signicancetestingisacommonapproachtostatisticalanalysisbutitisnottheonlyonepossible.

Whileitisausefulcomponentoftheanalyticalprocess,overrelianceonsignicancetestingmayyield

misleadingorerroneousresults.First,amajorweaknessisthepervasiveuseofthearbitrarilychosenvalueof

5%toindicatesignicance.Thisbegsthequestionofwhetherapvalueof4%ismeaningfulandavalueof

6%isnot.Astrongerapproachistoreportthepvaluedirectly,asisdoneinthispaper.Second,signicance

testingoveremphasizestheprobabilityoferror(i.e.thepvalue)overthesizeoftheeffect.Inmostcases,includingbiologyandecology,itisthesizeoftheeffectthatismostimportant.Third,anydifferencecan

bemadesignicantwithalargeenoughsample.Thepracticalramicationofthisisthatsignicancecanbe

purchased,whichputsaburdenonsmallerorganizationsthatdonothavefundingforalargestudy.Finally,

numerousauthorshaveelaboratedontheshortcomingsofsignicancetesting.Anexcellentsummaryofthe

issuescanbefoundinthefollowingpaper,“TheInsignicanceofStatisticalSignicanceTesting”byDouglas

Johnson.Hypothesistestingwasusedinthisstudyasonecomponentofaholisticapproachtoanalyzingand

understandingthedata.

Estimates of Mean and Variability

Datawasanalyzedusingcustombuiltspreadsheetsfordataentryandmetriccalculation.Allsubsequent

dataanalysiswascarriedoutusingtheRstatisticalprogram.Alldataanalyzedinthiswaywasweightedaccordingtothefractionofthestreamnetworkwhichitrepresents.Weightedaverageswerecalculatedforthis

Assessment.VariancesfortheAssessmentwerecalculatedusingtheNeighborhoodBasedVariance(NBV)

estimatordevelopedbytheEPA.2NBVisamorepreciseestimateofvariancewhenthereisaspatialpatternto

data,thuscapitalizingonthespatialbalanceoftheGRTSsample.ThepracticaleffectofutilizingtheNBVisto

decreasethevariance.ModelingconductedbytheEPAhasshownthatstandardstatisticalproceduresmayresult

insubstantialoverestimatesofvariancewhenthereisaspatialpatterntothedata.

EMAPdataprovidesestimatesofphysicalhabitatconditionwhichchangeovertime.Inadditionto

naturalchangeserrorsoccurduringdatacollection.Unfortunatelythetwometricswhichhavethebiggest

inuenceonrelativebedstabilityarethetwometricswhicharemostlikelytobeincorrectlymeasured;slope

andbankfullheight.Cautionwastakenduringthisstudytocarefullycalibrateeachsurveyteamtocorrectly

measurebankfullheights.

1 Drake,D.;Sel ecti ngReferenceCondit ionSites: AnApproachforB iologicalCrit eri aandWatershedAssessment ;ODEQWAS04-0022004

2 Stevens,D.andOlsen,A.;VarianceEstimationforSpatiallyBalancedSamplesofEnvironmentalResources;EnvironmetricsV44pp593-610;2003




Page28

Sediment Indicators

TheRelativeBedStability(RBS)metricwasdevelopedspecicallytoaddresstheeffectsofbedded

sedimentsonwadeablestreamchannels.RBSisdenedastheratiooftheobservedmeansubstratediameterto

thepredictedcompetenceofthechannelatbankfull.Channelcompetenceiscalculatedfromeldmeasurements

ofslope,hydraulicradius,andchannelroughness.RBSisaunitlessratioofvalues,andiscommonlyexpressed

aslogRBSorLRBStocompressthevaluesandtonormalizethevariance.Whentheobservedmeanparticle

diameterisequaltothepredicteddiameterofthelargestparticlethesystemcanmoveatbankfull(D_CBF),

theRBSratioisequalto1andLRBSisequalto0.TheobservedmeanparticlediameterandtheD_CBFare

primarilydependentondisturbanceregimes,channelmorphology,geology,andclimate.Forexample,smallchannelswithlowgradientsareexpectedtohaveasmallmeanparticlediameterandarenotexpectedto

haveenoughstreampowertomovelargerparticlesduringabankfullevent.TheexpectedRBSscoreinthese

circumstanceswouldbesimilartoachannelwithlargesedimentsandsteepgradients.Inotherwords,RBS

controlsforstreampoweratacoarselevel.ByloggingtheRBSvalue,thedataisnormalizedsothatparametric

statisticalmethodscanbeapplied.Previousstudieshaveshownthatincreasesinsedimentinputresultina

ningofthestreambedbyoverwhelmingthecapacityofthewatercolumntomovesediments.Decreasesin

theRBSscoreareoftencorrelatedwithanincreasedsedimentsupply.ThereforeRBSisausefulmeasureof

currentsedimentinputaswellasinstreamconditions.Extremelylowvaluesindicateover-sedimentation(an

examplewouldbe-2)whereaslargevaluesindicatearmoringofthestreambed(anextremeexamplewouldbe

+2.)However,thisisnotalwaysthecase.ForinstancesomesystemshavenaturallyhighRBSscores.WithintheMid-Atlantichighlands,RBSscoresarecommonlygreaterthan0.Inthecoastalreferencedata,afew

siteshadLRBSscoresbetween-1and-3.Evaluationofthesystemasawhole,includingpastdisturbances,is

necessaryinordertounderstandthesignicanceoftheLRBSscore.AnadditionalstrengthofRBSisthatitis

acompositemetriccalculatedfromnumerousindependentobservations.Thissignicantlyincreasesthesignal

tonoiseratioandreducesinterobserverbias.OnecaveattousingtheRBSmetricisthatstreamscanadjust

toelevatedsedimentinputsoverlongperiodsoftime(e.g.decades)resultinginstablebedsthatnonetheless

containunnaturallylargequantitiesofnesediments.RBSismostusefulasanindicatorofsedimentimpacts

duetocurrentratherthanpastanthropogenicdisturbance.

Habitat Complexity

QuantitativeindicatorsofhabitatcomplexityaregeneratedaspartoftheRBScalculation.Threeindicatorswereusedinthisstudytoassesshabitatcomplexity;residualpooldepth(RP100),widthtodepth

ratio(W:D),andwoodradius(RW).Theaquatichabitatofmanystreamsisdegradedduetoalackoflarge

woodydebris(LWD)andchannelizedasaresultofhistoricloggingpracticesoractivestreamcleaning.

Thesemodicationsservetodecreasethehydraulicroughnessofthechannel.Roughnesselementstrapne

sedimentsanddecreasethecompetenceofthechanneltomovesediments.Itistheoreticallypossibletomask

anincreaseinsedimentinputwithanincreasedcompetenceduetolackofhydraulicroughness.Inthisscenario

nesedimentwouldnotbeconsideredaprimarystressor,butelementscriticaltomaintaininghealthyaquatic

ecosystemswouldbelacking.Ifthoseelementswererestored,nesedimentcouldbecomealocalstressorif

theelevatedsedimentinputwasnotcorrectedrst.Itiscriticalthathydraulicroughnessbeevaluatedwhen

interpretingdataonsedimentimpairment.




Page29

W:D–Thewidthtodepthratiochangesasafunctionofdisturbance.Insomeinstancesitwillincreasewith

disturbanceduetosustainedbankerosionandelevatedsedimentinputs.Generally,thisisrelatedtodecreased

bedformcomplexityanddegradedriparianvegetation.Asaconsequence,streamswithawidthtodepthratio

greaterthanreferenceconditionscouldresultinincreasedpeaktemperatures.Inotherinstances,thewidth

todepthratiowilldecreasesubstantiallyasthechanneldown-cutsduetochannelconnement.Geologyis

acontrollingfactoronchannelresponsestodisturbance.Adecreasedwidthtodepthratiocouldpotentially

indicatelossofover-winteringshhabitat,increaseddownstreamoodpotential,andlossofoodplain

connectivity.Themetricusedinthisstudywasthebankfullwidthdividedbythebankfullheight.

RW–ThebenetsandimportanceofLWDarewellestablishedintheeldofrestorationbiology.Underthe

protocolusedinthisstudy,allwoodinsidethebankfullchannelwithadiametergreaterthan10centimeters

andalengthgreaterthan1.5meterswastalliedandassignedtoasizeclass.Thesemeasurementswerethen

convertedtoastatisticrepresentingthetotalvolumeofwoodinsidethechannelatbankfullheight.Thisvolume

wasdividedbythesurfaceareaofthestreamreachtogiveanestimateofwoodvolumepersquaremeter.This

controlsfortheabsolutedifferenceinwoodvolumebetweenlargeandsmallchannels.

RP00–Residualpooldepthcanbeconceptualizedaswhatwouldbeleftoverinastreamreachifallow

stopped.Itisameasureofreach-scalebedformcomplexityandisdirectlyproportionaltopoolfrequency.

Qualitativeclassicationsofreachesintohabitatunitssuchasrife,glide,orpoolareowandobserverdependent.Incontrast,residualpooldepthisaow-invariantmetricandisaquantitativemeasure.Itis

thereforemoresuitableforuseinsedimenttransportandregressionanalyses.

JuvenileGreatBasinFenceLizard(Sceloporus occidentalis longipes)-MissingTail;FoundinWallCreekWatershed~3500feet.




Page30

Results Pleaserefertothediscussionsectionforinformationregardingtheapplicabilityofthedata.The

followingtablessummarizetheLRBS,%SAFN,RP100,W:D,andRWresultsfortheprimarypopulations.Not

allmetricsmeasuredwithinthestudypopulationhavebeencollectedwithinthereferencepopulationorhasnot

beenreleasedtothepublicbytheODEQ.Moredetailedresultsarefoundinthesectionwhichfollows.Finally

substratepercentageshavebeenlistedasproportions.

Table4-AllBlueMountainReferenceData

Metric Mean N Lower95%CB Upper95%CBLogRelativeBedStability(LRBS) -1.0444 32 -1.2262 -0.8626

ProportionSands&Fines(%SAFN) 0.2124 32 0.1732 0.2515

WoodVolumeperMeterofBankfullSurfaceArea(RW) 0.0346 32 0.0212 0.0480

ResidualPoolDepth(RP100) 7.1890 32 5.9009 8.4772

WidthtoDepthRatio(W:D) 9.6196 32 7.7747 11.4645

Table5-AllResistantBlueMountainReferenceData

Metric Mean N Lower95%CB Upper95%CB

LogRelativeBedStability(LRBS) -0.9651 22 -1.2021 -0.7282

ProportionSands&Fines(%SAFN) 0.1816 22 0.1310 0.2322WoodVolumeperMeterofBankfullSurfaceArea(RW) 0.0344 22 0.0154 0.0534



Table6-AllWallCreekData(ComparedtoResistantReferencePopulation)





ResidualPoolDepth(RP100) 7.5360 49 6.4146 8.6574WidthtoDepthRatio(W:D) 12.1221 49 11.3348 12.9095

Table7-AllGraniteCreekData(ComparedtoAllReferenceData)







Table8-AllBaldyCreekStreamData(ComparedtoAllReferenceData)










Page31

Reference Data - Key Findings

FewsedimentaryreferencewatershedsareavailablefortheBlueMountainEcoregion.

Referencesitesonaveragehaveahighproportionofbothsandsandnes,andarerelativelyunstable.

Thereisamarkeddifferenceinmetricvaluesbetween3rdand4thorderstreamsinthereferencepopulation.

Threeofthe44thorderstreamsarerelativelycloselyspacedonthemainstemMinamRiver.Incontrast,the

43rdordersitesarewellspacedthroughouttheecoregion.

Erodiblereferencesitesarelessstableandhaveahigherproportionofsandsandnesthanresistant.

Thereisadistinctpatternofincreasingstabilityanddecreasingnesedimentsasstreamorderincreases.Thisisconsistentwiththeideathatsmallerstreamsactassedimentsourcesandmid-sizedstreamsactas

transportreaches.

•

•

•

•

•

Table9-AllBlueMountainReferenceData



PercentSands&Fines(%SAFN) 0.2124 32 0.1732 0.2515

PercentFines 0.0833 32 0.0530 0.1135

PercentBedrock 0.0230 32 0.0088 0.0372

WoodVolumeperSquareMeterSurfaceArea(RW) 0.0346 32 0.0212 0.0480KeyPieceWoodVolume(persq.meters) 0.0166 32 0.0050 0.0282


WidthtoDepthRatioW:D 9.6196 32 7.7747 11.4645

Table10-AllResistantBlueMountainReferenceData




PercentFines 0.0689 22 0.0271 0.1108PercentBedrock 0.0325 22 0.0124 0.0527

WoodVolumeperSquareMeterSurfaceArea(RW) 0.0344 22 0.0154 0.0534

KeyPieceWoodVolume(persq.m) 0.0185 22 0.0021 0.0348



Table11-AllErodibleBlueMountainReferenceData




PercentFines 0.1148 10 0.0818 0.1478

PercentBedrock 0.0019 10 -0.0013 0.0051








Page32

Table12-All1stOrderBlueMountainReferenceData




PercentFines 0.1301 10 0.0447 0.2154

PercentBedrock 0.0174 10 -0.0131 0.0479


KeyPieceWoodVolume(persq.m) 0.0283 10 -0.0021 0.0587



Table13-All2ndOrderBlueMountainReferenceData




PercentFines 0.0760 13 0.0545 0.0974

PercentBedrock 0.0391 13 0.0123 0.0659





Table14-All3rdOrderBlueMountainReferenceData




PercentFines 0.0562 5 0.0148 0.0975

PercentBedrock 0.0000 5 0.0000 0.0000


KeyPieceWoodVolume(persq.m) 0.0130 5 -0.0022 0.0283



Table15-All4thOrderBlueMountainReferenceData




PercentFines 0.0238 4 -0.0159 0.0635

PercentBedrock 0.0132 4 -0.0004 0.0268








Page33

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!( !(!( !(

!(

!( !(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!( !(!(!(!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(


4th Field HUC Watersheds

Relative Bed Stability

!( -1.4 - -3.7

!( -.8 - -1.4

!( -.26 - -.8

!( 0 - -.15

!( 0 - .4

!( .4 - .8 ¶

0 30 6015km

MapG-AllSitesLRBS




Page34

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(

NorthForkJohnDay

WatershedAssessment

SandsandFines(%)

!(

0-10%

!(

10-20%

!(

20-30%

!(

30-50%

!(

50-60%

!(

60%+

huc4

¶

0

50

100

25

km

MapH-AllSites%SAFN




Page35

Wall Creek Watershed (WCW) Results

InstreamconditionswithintheWCWaresimilartoreferenceconditions.Whencomparedtoreference,

theWCWismorestable(i.e.theWCWhaslowerLRBSvalues;WCWLRBS=-.28;ReferenceLRBS=-

.97),hasasimilarW:D(WCWW:D=12;ReferenceW:D=11),exhibitsasimilarproportionofinstreamne

sediments(WCWFines=6%;ReferenceFines=7%),andaslightlyhigherproportionofinstreamsandsand

nes(WCWSAFN=24%;ReferenceSAFN=18%).Gravelproportions(similarbetween2ndand3rd+order

streams)werenotcomparedtoreferenceduetoinaccessibility.

All1storder(NHD1:100kstreamlayer)streamsweredroppedfromthesampleduetolackofow

duringthesummer.ThisislikelyaresultoftheaspectandelevationoftheGraniteandBaldywatershedswhichreceivemoreprecipitationandgreatersnow-pack.Referencewatershedstoowerecommonlyhigherin

elevation.Lowsummerowsstronglylimittheavailablerearinghabitatforjuvenilesalmonids.Lowows

mayinteractwithsolarinputstolimitthequalityofsummerrearinghabitat.Inconjunctionwithdownstream

passagebarriers,thesefactorsarehypothesizedtoconstitutethedominantfactorlimitingsalmonidpopulations

inthewatershed.TheconuenceofWallCreekwiththemainstemNFJDwasfoundtobedry,resultingina

owdependentbarriertojuvenilemigration.


LargerstreamsintheWCWareverystable(WCW3rd+orderstreamsLRBS=.09;Reference3rdorder

streamsLRBS=-.36)andexhibitameanparticlesizegreaterthantheestimatedchannelcompetence.Small

streamswerelessstablethan3

rd

+orderstreamsandmorestablethanreferencestreamsofthesamesize.Anaccessroadrunsalongthemainstemforitslowerlength.Thislimitsoodplainconnectivityandmayincrease

themagnitudeofpeakows.Asinreference,thereisadistinctpatternofincreasingstabilityanddecreasing

nesedimentsasstreamorderincreases.ThedifferencesinLRBSvaluesbetween2ndand3rd+orderstreamsin

WCWisdrivenbyanincreaseinparticlesizefrom2ndto3rd+andadecreaseinchannelcompetencefroman

increasedresidualpooldepth.

Residual Pool Depth

ResidualpooldepthishigherintheWCWthaninreference(WCWRP100=7.5;ReferenceRP100=

6.5).Theresistantlithologyreferencepopulationwasgenerallyconnedtosmallerstreamsaslargerstreams

hadmorealluvialdepositswhichweredenedaserodible.Poolvolumeismorethantwiceashighin3rd+order

(RP100=10)streamsthanin2 ndorder(RP100=5)streams.Itislikelythatasignicantnumberofthepools

observedweretheresultofactivestreamchannelrestorationprojects.1Wood Radius

RWintheWCWis.01whileitishigherinreferenceat.03.Woodvolumeisnearly0in3rd+order

streamsatandclosertoreferenceinsmallerstreamsat.02.Itishypothesizedthathistorically,roughness

waslargelysuppliedbybeaveractivity.Beaverpopulationshavebeensignicantlyreducedinalmostevery

watershedinOregon.Additionallyresuppressionoccurredwithinthewatershedformanydecadesfollowing

Europeansettlement.Thelackofres(bothstandmaintainingandstandreplacingres)mayhavedecreased

thesupplyoflargewoodydebris.Fieldobservationssupportthishypothesis:intheBCWmoredeadconifers

werepresentonthestreambanksfromarecentreascomparedwithfewstreamsideconifers(livingordead)

intheWCW.

Width to Depth Ratio

Bankfullwidthtodepthratioswerehigherin3rd+orderstreams(W:D=13)thanin2ndorderstreams

(W:D=11).Thisisconsistentwiththepatternobservedinthereferencepopulation.

Substrate

TheproportionofsandsandnesintheWCWwasslightlyhigherthanintheresistantreference

population(WCW%SAFN=24%;Reference%SAFN=18%)whiletheproportionofneswassimilar(6%

vs.7%respectively).Thepercentageofinstreamgravelswas38%,cobbles25%,smallboulders7%,large

boulders1%,(nocomparisontoreference)andbedrockwas3%inbothtestandreferencepopulations.

1 USFS;WallCreekEcosystemAnalysis;1994




Page36

WALL

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

% Substrate

Table16-AllWallCreekData



LogRelativeBedStability,NoBedrock -0.3213 49 -0.4508 -0.1919

ResidualPoolDepthcm(RP100) 7.5360 49 6.4146 8.6574


KeyPieceWoodVolumeperSquareMeterSurfaceArea 0.0077 49 0.0050 0.0104


PercentFines 0.0581 49 0.0353 0.0808


PercentGravels 0.3878 49 0.3640 0.4117

PercentCobbles 0.2532 49 0.2307 0.2757

PercentSmallBoulders 0.0745 49 0.0638 0.0851

PercentLargeBoulders 0.0155 49 0.0109 0.0200

PercentBedrock 0.0281 49 0.0130 0.0431

BankCondition(1-5) 1.6356 49 1.4491 1.8220

Slope 0.0248 49 0.0216 0.0279BankfullRadius 0.2241 49 0.2082 0.2401

EstimatedBankfullCompetence(m) 0.0293 49 0.0259 0.0327

GeometricMeanParticleSize(m) 24.9983 49 18.8996 31.0970

GeometricMeanParticleSize,nobedrock(mm) 20.0726 49 15.5154 24.6297

GV

SF CB

BS

BL BE




Page37

Table17-AllWallCreek2ndOrderData








PercentFines 0.0631 13 0.0140 0.1122


PercentGravels 0.3944 13 0.3474 0.4414

PercentCobbles 0.2082 13 0.1661 0.2502



PercentBedrock 0.0256 13 0.0018 0.0495

BankCondition(1-5) 1.8713 13 1.5221 2.2205





Table18-AllWallCreek3rdandGreaterOrderData


LogRelativeBedStability(LRBS) 0.0865 30 -0.0008 0.1738

LogRelativeBedStability,NoBedrock 0.0180 30 -0.0787 0.1147

ResidualPoolDepthcm(RP100) 10.7251 30 9.1045 12.3456WoodVolumeperSquareMeterSurfaceArea(RW) 0.0065 30 0.0032 0.0097



PercentFines 0.0471 30 0.0339 0.0602


PercentGravels 0.3814 30 0.3541 0.4086

PercentCobbles 0.3057 30 0.2795 0.3319



PercentBedrock 0.0330 30 0.0124 0.0537

BankCondition(1-5) 1.3652 30 1.2067 1.5236

Slope 0.0164 30 0.0150 0.0179

BankfullRadius 0.2703 30 0.2490 0.2915







Page38

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(




!( -1.4 - -3.7

!( -.8 - -1.4

!( -.26 - -.8

!( 0 - -.15

!( 0 - .4

!( .4 - .8 ¶

0 5 102.5km

MapI-WallCreekLRBS




Page39

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(


Sands and Fines (%)

0 - 10%

10 - 20%

20 - 30%

30 - 50%

50 - 73%

Gravels (%)

!( 18 - 30%

!( 30 - 40%

!( 40 - 50%

!( 50 - 57%


Wall Creek Watershed

¶0 5 102.5

kmMapJ-WallCreek%SAFN




Page40

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(


Width to Depth

!( 4 - 7

!( 8 - 12

!( 13 - 18

!( 18 - 21



¶0 5 102.5

kmMapK-WallCreekW:D




Page41

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(


Residual Pool Depth (cm)

!( 1 - 6

!( 6 - 8

!( 8 - 12

!( 12 - 15

!( 19 - 25

Wood Radius (m3/sqm surface area)

< .01

.01 - <.02

.02 - <.03

.03 - <.04

.04 - <.05

.07

.16



¶0 5 102.5

km

MapL-WallCreekRP100andRW




Page42

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

NorthForkJohnDayWat

ershedAssessment

FireYear

1893-1910

1960-1988

1990-2004

2005

2006

2007

San

dsandFines(%)

!(

0-10%

!(

10-20%

!(

20-30%

!(

30-50%

!(

50-60%

!(

73%

¶

0

5

10

2.5

km

MapM-WallCreek%SAFNandFireYear(FireHistoryBLM)




Page43

Granite Creek Watershed (GCW) Results

TheGraniteCreekWatershed(GCW;5thFieldHUC#1707020202;BullRun6thFieldHUC

#170702020202andUpperGranite6thFieldHUC#170702020201)hasamixedandcomplexlithologyand

ownership.Commonlandusesincludeforestry,mining,agriculture,andruralresidential.TheGCWisalmost

entirelymanagedbytheUSFSwiththeremainderinprivateownership.Approximately30%ofthe5theld

watershedismanagedforwildernessalthoughnowildernessislocatedwithinthetwo6theldstudyareas.

GiventhecomplexityofthelithologytheGCWresultswerecomparedtothegeneralreferencepopulation.

TheGCWhasthelowestLRBSvalue(bothpopulationaveragesandindividualsitedata;GCW

LRBS=-1.45;mostunstablesiteLRBS=-3.7)andistheleaststablestreamnetworkevaluatedinthisstudy.Additionally,theGCWhasthehighestproportionofsandsandnes(GCW%SAFN=41%;reference%SAFN

=21%)andnes(17%versus8%respectively).PoolvolumeintheGCWissimilartothatofthereference

population(GCWRP100=6.7;ReferenceRP100=7.1).WoodvolumeintheGCWissimilartothatofthe

referencepopulation(GCWRW=.03;ReferenceRW=.03).WidthtodepthratioswithintheGCWarehalfof

reference(W:D=4.9versus.9.6respectively).ThisindicateschannelentrenchmentgiventhattheW:Dratios

donotincreasemuchwithstreamsize(GCW2ndorderstreamsW:D=4.47;3 rd+orderstreamsW:D=6.5).


LargerstreamsintheGCWaremoresomewhatstablethanreference(GCW3rdorderstreamsLRBS

=-.59;Reference3rdorderstreamsLRBS=-.36).Smallstreamswerelessstablethan3 rdorderstreamsand

referencestreamsofthesamesize(GCW1

st

orderstreamsLRBS=-2.12;Reference1

st

orderstreamsLRBS=-1.51).

Residual Pool Depth

ResidualpooldepthislowerintheGCWthaninreference(GCWRP100=6.8;ReferenceRP100=

7.2).Poolvolumedidnotvarymuchbetweenstreamsizes.

Wood Radius

RWintheGCWis.03andisthesameasreferencevalues.Thewoodvolumeispredominantlydriven

by1storderstreamswhichhaveawoodvolumeof.05.Woodvolumeisverylowin3rdorderstreamsat<.01.

ItishypothesizedthatthewoodvolumeinthesmallerstreamsoftheGCWaresuppliedbyextremelyunstable

slopes.

Width to Depth Ratio

Bankfullwidthtodepthratiosweresimilarin3rdorderstreams(W:D=6.5)andsmallerstreams(1 stand2ndorderstreamsW:D=4.2-4.5respectively)indicatingentrenchment.

Substrate

TheproportionofsandsandnesintheGCWwasmuchhigherthanintheresistantreference

population(GCW%SAFN=41%;Reference%SAFN=21%)aswastheproportionofnes(17%vs.8%

respectively).Thepercentageofinstreamgravelswas30%,cobbles6%,smallboulders<1%,largeboulders

<1%,(nocomparisontoreference)andbedrockwaslowerat0%intheBCWand2%inreferencepopulations.

Although1stand2ndorderstreamsarewellabovereferenceintermsofsedimentmetrics(61%and35%

respectively),3rdorderstreamsaremuchclosertoreferenceconditions(GCW3rd+orderstreams%SAFN=

23%;reference%SAFN=21%).Whenevaluatingthemobilityofthesenesedimentsfromsource(1storder

streams;6.5%slope)totransport(2 ndorderstreams;3.5%slope),todepositionalstreams(3rdorderstreams;

1.5%slope)itispossibletoconcludethattheGCWisasignicantsourceofnesedimentstothelargerNorth

ForkJohnDayWatershed.




Page44

Table20-GraniteCreek1stOrderStreamData

Metric Mean N Upper95%CB Lower95%CB




KeyPieceWoodVolumeperSquareMeterSurfaceArea 0.0206 7 -0.0125 0.0538


PercentFines 0.2332 7 0.1225 0.3439


PercentGravels 0.3086 7 0.1630 0.4542

PercentCobbles 0.0673 7 -0.0176 0.1523

PercentSmallBoulders 0.0097 7 -0.0036 0.0230

PercentLargeBoulders 0.0042 7 -0.0025 0.0109PercentBedrock 0.0000 7 0.0000 0.0000

BankCondition(1-5) 2.3045 7 1.9396 2.6694

Slope 0.0645 7 0.0312 0.0978

BankfullRadius 0.2908 7 0.2382 0.3434


GeometricMeanParticleSize(m) 5.7485 7 -2.7674 14.2643

GeometricMeanParticleSize,nobedrock(mm) 5.7485 7 -2.7674 14.2643

Table19-AllGraniteCreekData








PercentFines 0.1724 20 0.1140 0.2309


PercentGravels 0.4242 20 0.3436 0.5047

PercentCobbles 0.1405 20 0.0948 0.1862


PercentLargeBoulders 0.0019 20 -0.0006 0.0045

PercentBedrock 0.0000 20 0.0000 0.0000

BankCondition(1-5) 2.3484 20 2.1896 2.5071








Page45

Table21-GraniteCreek2ndOrderStreamData

Metric Mean N Upper95%CB Lower95%CB







PercentFines 0.1444 8 0.0594 0.2293


PercentGravels 0.4823 8 0.3788 0.5858

PercentCobbles 0.1358 8 0.1004 0.1713


PercentLargeBoulders 0.0012 8 -0.0009 0.0033

PercentBedrock 0.0000 8 0.0000 0.0000

BankCondition(1-5) 2.3773 8 2.1840 2.5706





Table22-GraniteCreek3rdOrderStreamData







PercentFines 0.1322 5 -0.0272 0.2917


PercentGravels 0.4930 5 0.3892 0.5968

PercentCobbles 0.2503 5 0.1315 0.3692


PercentLargeBoulders 0.0000 5 0.0000 0.0000PercentBedrock 0.0000 5 0.0000 0.0000

BankCondition(1-5) 2.3636 5 2.0201 2.7072

Slope 0.0163 5 0.0100 0.0226

BankfullRadius 0.3164 5 0.2592 0.3736






GRANITE0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

% Substrate

BALDY

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%45%

50%

% Substrate

GVSF

CB

BSBL BE

GV

SF

CB

BS

BL BE


Page46



Baldy Creek Watershed (BCW) Results

TheBCWislocatedimmediatelynorthoftheGCWandismanagedpredominantlybytheUSFSalmost

entirelyforWilderness.TheBCWisidentiedbytheODEQasbothareferencewatershedanda303(d)listed

stream.The303(d)listingwasbasedonpredictedpotentialforsoilerosionasaresultofreactivity.BCW

datacollectedin2008forthisAssessmentwasnotincludedinthereferencepoolattherequestofODEQ

staff,howeveronesitecollectedin2001wasincludedinthereferencepopulation.TheNorthForkJohnDay

WildernessBaldyCreekUnitis~14,300acresinareaandwasdesignatedasWildernessin1984primarilyto

provideheadwaterprotectionfortributariesoftheNorthForkJohnDayRiver.Alargere(theSloansRidge

Fireof1996)burned7300acresoftheBaldy,Bull,andNorthForkJohnDaydrainageswithintheWilderness. TheBCWismorestable(BCWLRBS=-.45;ReferenceLRBS=-1.04)andexhibitsalowerproportion

ofsandsandnes(BCW%SAFN=16%;Reference%SAFN=21%)thanreference.Thehistoricalreference

sitecollectedin2001hada%SAFNvalueof40%.Onehypothesisisthatthissiteexhibitsanaboveaverage

(whencomparedtoboththeve2008/09sitescollectedintheBCWandtotherstsiteimmediatelyupstream)

SAFNnaturallyasaresultoftheextensiveburns.Thelargeburnthatoccurredveyearspriortothesurvey

ofthe2001siteburnedthemajorityoftheheadwatersoftheBCW.Incombinationwiththelargerwidthto

depthratiosandpoolvolumethissiteislikelytoaccumulatenesedimentssuppliedfromtheremainderofthe

streamnetwork.Arelatedhypothesisisthatlargeandintenseresdestabilizedthestreamnetworkandinitiated

aushofsedimentsfromthesystem.Asthissedimentmovedthroughthesystemandnonewwatershed-scale

disturbancesoccurredanew,lowerbaseline%SAFNwasestablished.Inotherwordstheresresultedinalong-termdecreaseintheaverage%SAFNwithinthewatersheddespitetheshort-termincreasein%SAFN.

TheBaldyCreekstreamnetworkisunderlainbyglacialdepositssimilartothosewhichunderliethe

erodiblereferencesites.Theproportionofsandsandnesisnearly50%lesshoweverintheBCWthaninthe

erodiblereferencepopulation.PoolvolumeislowintheBCW,possiblylimitingthequalityofrearinghabitat.

WoodvolumeisnearlyidenticalbetweentheBCWandsimilarlysizedreferencestreams.Widthtodepthratios

aresimilarbetweentheBCWandthereferencepopulation.Overall,thestablebedsandrelativelylowlevelsof

sandsandnessupporttheconclusionthattheBCWshouldremainareferencewatershed.

Table23-AllBaldyCreekStreamData


LogRelativeBedStability(LRBS) -0.4573 5 -0.5693 -0.3452LogRelativeBedStability,NoBedrock -0.4855 5 -0.6198 -0.3513





PercentFines 0.0171 5 -0.0006 0.0348


PercentGravels 0.4286 5 0.2976 0.5596

PercentCobbles 0.2648 5 0.1961 0.3334



PercentBedrock 0.0210 5 -0.0149 0.0568

BankCondition(1-5) 2.0764 5 1.7374 2.4153

Slope 0.0494 5 0.0154 0.0833

BankfullRadius 0.2758 5 0.2458 0.3057






!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(




!( -1.4 - -3.7

!( -.8 - -1.4

!( -.26 - -.8

!( 0 - -.15

!( 0 - .4

!( .4 - .8 ¶0 2.5 51.25

km

MapN-GCWandBCWLRBS


Page48



!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(


Sands and Fines (%)

!( 2 - 10%

!( 10 - 20%

!( 30 - 40%

!( 50 - 60%

!( 80 - 92%

Gravels (%)

!( 0 - 20%

!( 20 - 30%

!( 30 - 40%

!( 40 - 50%

!( 50 - 74%




¶

0 2.5 51.25km

MapO-GCWandBCW%SAFNand%Gravels


Page49




Page50

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(



!( 0 - 6

!( 7 - 10

!( 13

!( 24




¶

0 2.5 51.25km

MapP-GCWandBCWRP100




Page51

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(


Width to Depth

!( 2 - 4

!( 5 - 7

!( 7 - 12




¶

0 2.5 51.25km

MapQ-GCWandBCWW:D




Page52

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(


Sands and Fines (%)

!( 2 - 10%

!( 10 - 20%

!( 30 - 40%

!( 50 - 60%

!( 80 - 92%

Wood Radius

!( 0 - .02

!( .03

!( .05 - .07

!( .08

!( .16




¶

0 2.5 51.25km

MapR-GCWandBCW%SAFNandRW




Page53

Historical EMAP Data Results North Fork John Day River Watershed Twentysitesweresurveyedbetween1997and2002withintheNorthForkJohnDayusingtheEMAP

protocol(doesnotincludereferencedataorstudyareas).Thisdatawasanalyzedduringthisstudyandthe

resultsreportedbelow.Thissub-population(NFJDW)wasfoundtohavearelativebedstabilityvaluecloserto

referencepopulationsthaneithertheWCWortheBCW(NFJDWLRBS~-.79vs.Reference~-1.04;WCW

LRBS~-.28).SandsandnesproportionsweresimilarwiththeNFJDWexhibitingalower%SAFN(~14.4%)

thanBlueMountainreferencewatersheds(~21%).WoodVolumeisalmostdoublethatofreferencewatersheds

(.062vs..034).Widthtodepthratiosaresimilartoreference(10.6vs.9.6respectively)althoughresidualpool

depthislowerthanreference(5.6vs.7.2respectively).

Table24-NFJDSitesOutofStudyArea

Metric Mean N Lower95%CB Lower95%CB



PercentFines 0.0728 20 0.0502 0.0953

WoodVolumeperSquareMeterofSurfaceArea(RW) 0.0626 20 0.0300 0.0952



NorthForkJohnDay




Page54

Discussion -The following sections address the data in regards to Question 4 - Are other types of impairment

indicated; and Question 5 - As appropriate, given the proposed method of analysis and for the various sample/

data types: are reference and sample data populations statistically similar.

Part - Study Design: Goals and Limitations

Aseriesofquestionsweredevelopedbythetechnicalguidanceteamformedforthisproject.Someof

thesequestionswereansweredwithcondenceduringthisstudy.Thesixprimaryquestionsraisedtoguidethis

assessmentandtheassociatedanswersare:

) Can we identify and/or characterize sedimentation concerns (in relation to the water quality standard)

at relevant scales?

Notreleventatthistimegiventheabsenceofaformalsedimentlegalstandard.Werealegalstandard

tobeset,thestudydesignisrobustenoughtoutilizethisdatatomakethatdetermination.Noassessmentwas

madeatthelistedstreamscaleasstreamlistingsareapplicableforthewatershedupstreamofthelowestlisted

segmentwhichincludestheentireWCW,thetwo6theldsintheGCW,andtheBCW.

2) Do these concerns warrant a designation of impairment (adverse impact on benecial use)?

Notreleventatthistimegiventheabsenceofaformalsedimentlegalstandard.Additionallythedata

availableforbioticusageisspatiallylimitedandthereforedifculttocomparetothephysicalhabitatdata.

3) Is sedimentation a limiting or controlling factor, with respect to impairment?

Notreleventatthistimegiventheabsenceofaformalsedimentlegalstandard.Additionallybioticdataislimited.Inordertoaddressthisquestion(withrespecttoalimitingfactorforsalmonidproduction)

winterandsummerjuvenilesalmonidrearingdatawouldneedtobecollectedandacompletespawninggravel

inventorywouldneedtobeconducted.Thiswouldformthebasisofawatershedsalmonidproductionmodel

whichcouldthenbeusedtoidentifylimitationsonsalmonidproduction.Giventhealmostcompleteabsenceof

spawninggravels,lackofcomplexhabitat,andtemperatureissues,itisdifculttoconceivethatthelimitation

orcontrollingfactoronsalmonidproductionisnesediment.

4) Are other types of impairment indicated?

Yes.Spawninghabitatislimitedfromalackofwellsortedgravelsandhightemperatures.Largewood,

althoughpresent(largewoodpresentwasalsolikelyplacedduringhistoricalrestorationprojects),isnotevenly

distributedthroughouttheWCWandislikelylimitinggravelsorting,pooldevelopment,andchannelmigration.

Summerrearinghabitatislimitedfromhighsummertemperatures,lowchannelcomplexityandcover,andlowpoolvolumes.CanopycoverislowinmanypartsoftheWCW.Onlyoneinstanceofcattlegrazing

wasencounteredduringtheassessmentsuggestingthatthefencingworkconductedbytheUSFSislargely

successful.Additionallytheripariancanopypresentalmostalwaysconsistedofwillowsandothershrubsand

therewereveryfewconifers.Inconjuctionwithlowowsandlimitedpoolhabitat,alowcanopycovercan

leadtopoorsummerrearing.AlmostnoundercutbankswereobservedintheWCW.Flowisalsopotentially

impactingbenecialuses.SeveralmainstemreachesoftheWCWwentdryduringthesummer.Onebeaver

pondwasobservedintheWCW.ItistheorizedthatbeaversplayalargeroleinowregulationintheWCWin

regardstosummerdischarge.

5) As appropriate, given the proposed method of analysis and for the various sample/data types: are

reference and sample data populations statistically similar?

Thisquestionwasansweredandaddressedindetailintheresultssection.Generally,sandsandnes

proportionsaresimilarbetweentheWCWandthereferencepopulationbuttheWCWhassomewhatlower

woodvolumesandismorestable.TheGCWhasahighersandsandnesproportionsthanreferenceandis

moreunstable.TheBCWissimilartoreference.

6) Do the sample populations meet acceptable thresholds?

Notreleventatthistimegiventheabsenceofaformalsedimentlegalstandard.




Page55

Part 2 - The Primary Metrics and their Signicance

Relative Bed Stability (RBS) –Inordertounderstandthefunctioningconditionofawatershedinrelationto

RBS,itisnecessarytounderstandwhatRBSisandisnot;howthemetricistreatedandanalyzed;andwhat

changesinRBSmeaninaeldsituation.RBSislogged(LRBS)tonormalizethedataandallowforparametric

statisticalteststobeperformed.LRBSisamulti-metricindicatorandaccountsforstreampower(bankfull

depthandheight;gradient)androughness(bedformandparticleroughness;woodandpoolvolume;bedded

sediments).LRBSissensitivetochangesinstreamslope(meaningthataminorchangeinslopecanchangethe

LRBSscoreagreatdeal)butislesssensitivetosmallchangesinsubstrate.

LargechangestosubstrateproportionsdoaffectLRBShowever.Forinstanceifastreamexperiencesalargescoureventastheresultofa100yearoodoradebrisslideLRBSwilllikelyincrease(becomemore

positive).However,thissameeventcandepositnegrainedsedimentsdownstreamofthisscour.TheLRBS

valueatthispointwouldlikelyindicateadecreaseinstability(assumingallothermetricsremainedthesame).

TheLRBSvalueforthisexamplepopulationmaynotchangesignicantlyeventhoughthereweresignicant

changesinthesedimentregimeintheexamplewatershed.

UsingtheWCWasanexample,sandsandnesarenearreferenceaveragesbutRBSindicates

signicantstability.AdditionallywoodintheWCWisbelowreferencewithmostsitesexhibitingnowood.If

woodvolumesreturnedtoreferencelevelsthismightresultinachangeinRBS.Althoughanincreaseinwood

volumecouldincreasethestabilityofthewatershed(resultinginamorepositiveRBSvalue),woodcanalso

trapmorenesedimentsandleadtochannelmigrationandslopemodications.ThismayleadtoachangeinRBSasaresultofnesedimentandgravelaggradationandslopemodications(dependinguponthesizeofthe

woodandthemannerinwhichthewoodsettlesinthechannel).

Substrate Proportions (%SAFN, % Cobbles, et cetera) –The%SAFNisafairlystraightforwardmetricand

istheproportionofthestreambed(asmeasuredat105points;11transects,10additionalpebblecounts,5

pointsacrossthestream)whichexhibitssandsandnes.Sedimenttransportisacomplicatedscience.Although

extremelylowbedstabilityvalues(LRBS=-2.5)areoftencorrelatedwithhighproportionsofsandsandnes,

highproportionsofsandsandnesarenotalwaysassociatedwithunstablesystems.Forinstanceinalow

gradient,lowow,andsmallstreamwithahighvolumeofwoodinawatersheddominatedbyanerodible

lithology,bedstabilitymaybepositive.Additionally,bedstabilityinasystemwith50%sandsandnesmay

exhibitapositiveLRBSvalueiftheother50%substrateisbedrock.Asstatedpreviously,althoughsandsandnesintheWCWarenearreferencevaluesthebedstabilityindicatespossiblescour.Thismightindicatethat

thesystemhasresultedinanequilibriumwherenesedimentinputlevelsaresimilartoreferencebutother

physicalparametersaredissimilartominimallydisturbedconditions(eitherfromlanduseorfromnaturally

occurringdifferences).

Additionallythemannerinwhichsedimentsaredistributedthroughoutawatershediscriticalfor

salmonidsurvival.Wellsortedgravelatsbetween.5-2.5%slopeatapoolcresttail-outarenecessaryfor

salmonidspawning.VeryfewofthesewereencounteredintheWCWalthoughshwereobservedinJuneand

inAugustof2008(juvenilesteelheadandredbandtrout/1+steelhead).Itishypothesizedthatnesedimentis

notlimitingsalmonidspawningbychokingdevelopingeggsbutpoorgravelsortingislimitingspawning.

IntheWCWareaswithhighsandproportionsdooverlapwithbenecialuses.Themainstemdominates

potentialspawninghabitatintotallengthbutappearstobeusedinonlythebestofyears(itispossiblethat

temperatureistoohighforspawninginthemainstembylatespring/earlysummer).Whenthemainstemis

unsuitableforspawninghabitatthetributariesareutilizedtoagreaterdegree.Thecaveattothisisthatthe

spawningdataisonlyspatiallyexplicittothestream,nottoapointonthestream.Ingeneralthoughitappears

thatsandsinspawninghabitatmaybemoreofanissueduringyearsthatexceedthetemperaturestandard

duringspawningseasoninthespawninghabitat(asopposedtoawatershedtemperatureaverage)thanwhenit

doesnot.Inthe2003spawningseason(May20-June15)thesevendaymaximumaveragewithinWallCreek

was22.4ºC.Everydaywithinthistimeframeexceededthespawningcriteriaof55ºF.




Page56

Thiscorrelatedwithextremelylowspawninginthewatershedandnospawninginthemainstem.Analternative

hypothesisisthatowexceededthemaximumpreferredrangeforspawningandspawnerssoughtoutsmaller

tributariesforthisreason.Inbothcasessandsandnesinthesetributariesareanissuebecausethespawners

areforcedintoareaswhereeggtoemergencesurvivalratesmightbelowerfromembeddednessofne

sediments.Inotherwordssedimentmaybenegativelyimpactingbenecialusesbecause ofhightemperatures

duringspawningseason.Ifsummertemperatureswerenotanissuesalmonidswouldhavemorechoicein

wherespawningoccurred,asitisnowtheyaredriventoareaswithhighersandsandnes(onaverage).Refer

toMapS-WallCreekSpawningDataandSandsandFines.

Residual Pool Volume (RP100)–RP100iscanbeimaginedastheremainingwaterleftinastreamifallow

ceased.Itisacontrolonbedstabilityinthattheamountofenergyneededtomoveaparticlefromthebottom

ofapoolisgreaterthantheenergyneededtomoveaparticlefromabedrockchute(assumingallothermetrics

remainthesame).PoolvolumeisanimportantmetricofconsiderationwithintheWCWinregardstosalmonid

rearing.Almostalldeeppoolsobservedwereinconjunctionwithhistoricalrestoration(eitherwoodand/or

boulderplacement).PoolsareveryimportantintheWCWgiventheowregime(themainstemofWallCreek

attheconuencewiththeNorthForkJohnDayowssubsurfaceforaspanof~15-30meters).

Width to Depth Ratio (W:D)–W:Distheratioofthebankfullwidthtothebankfulldepth.Widthtodepth

canindicatethetemporaltrajectoryofastreamchannel.Forinstancewhenastreamexperiencesaprolongeddisturbance(suchaslargewoodremoval,largewoodinputreduction,orchannelization)itoftenundergoesa

seriesofmorphologicalchanges.Firstdown-cuttingoccursasstreampowerincreases.Thenashighwaterscan

nolongeraccesstheiroodplainsbankdestabilizationoccursfollowedbychannelmigrationandawideningof

thechannel(anincreasedW:Dcanindicatethatastreamisinthismorphologicalstate).Finallynesediments

aredepositedonthechannelmarginsrebuildingthetrapazoidalshapeandcreatinganewoodplain.The

historicaloodplainsthenarecharacterizedasterraces.Thisisagrossgeneralizationfoundtobetrueinmany

cases.AdditionallystreamsizeneedstobeconsideredwheninterpretingW:D.Smallerstreams(1storderfor

exampleorstreamswithsmalldrainageareas)oftenhavesmallerpooldepths(andaregenerallyshallowerover

all)thanlargerstreams.AlowW:Dcanindicateentrenchmentonalargestreamorcansimplybeindicativeof

asmallstream.Thisisoneoftheprimaryreasonsforstraticationbystreamorder. HighW:Dalongwithlow

sandsandnesappeartoexplainthestabilityofthemainstem.

Wood Radius (RW)–Thisisdenedasthecubicmetersofwoodpersquaremeterofstreamsurfaceareaover

thelengthofasurvey.MostoftheWCWhas0wood,thewoodthatispresentisoftenconnedtoheadwaters

wherethevolumesareinatedasaresultofthesmallstreamsize.RWisoften(eveninreferencestreams)not

higherthan.06howeversomestreamsexhibitwoodvolumesof.86ormore.AdditionallyapopulationRWis

non-normalmeaningthatmostsiteshaveextremelylowvalueswhileafewsiteshaveRWvaluesgreaterthan1.

Thereareseveralissuesassociatedwiththisoccurrence.Therstisthatafewsiteswithextremewoodvolumes

(10%ofpopulationwithRWof1)candominatetheRWscoreofapopulationwithverylowwoodvolumes

overall(90%ofpopulationwithRWof.01).Thesecondisthatitisdifculttounderstandwhatreference

woodvolumesmean.AlthoughtheODEQhasavigorouscriteriaforselectingreferencesitesthesewatersheds

representthemostminimallydisturbedareaswithinOregon.Giventhehistoryofinstreamwoodremoval,

streamcleaning,andriparianharvestwithinOregonitisunlikelythatthesewatershedsrepresentanythingclose

topre-disturbanceconditions.Giventhatwoodvolumesinuencesomanyphysicalcharacteristicsofchannel

morphologytheimportanceofunderstandingwhathistoricalwoodvolumeswereisofcriticalimportregarding

settingaslegalstandardforsedimentation.




Page58

Part 3 – Data Interpretations and Limitations

Stream Order –Morphologicaldifferencesbetweenstreamorderarepresentashasbeenshowninprevious

literature.Generallyhighgradientstreamshaveagreatersedimenttransportcapacitythanlow-gradient

streams.Thishasbeenextensivelydiscussedinthefollowing:Channel-reachMorphologyinMountain

DrainageBasinsbyMontgomeryandBufngton.1Wheninterpretingthisdata,itisappropriatetocompare

resultswithinthestreamorderclassicationschema.Furtheritwasnotedduringthisassessmentthatthere

weresignicantdifferencesinowbetween1storderstreamsintheWCWandtheBCWandtheGCW.Itmay

beappropriatetocontrolforelevationandprecipitationwhencomparingthesepopulations.

Elevation - Elevationwasadominantfactorinstreampower.Firstorderstreams(NHD1:100Kstreamlayer)

weredroppedfromthesampleafteritwasfoundthatmost1storderstreamswithintheWCWweredryduring

thelowowseason.The1storderstreamswithintheGCWandtheBCWwerenotdryduringthesametime

periodhowever.Generallythereferencepopulationsiteswerelocatedatelevationsbetween3000’and6000’.

Itispossiblethat1storderstreamshigherinelevationmayprovidemorestreampowerandsupplymorene

sedimentsthanthoselowerinelevation.

Lithology-Allvolcanicsareconsideredresistant.ThelimitedworkrelatingEMAP/RBShasbeensuccessful

atrelatingchannelmetricstogeologyatagrossscale,butnotane-detailone.Itisimportanttoconsider

lithologywheninterpretingEMAPphysicalhabitatdata.Firstlithologyalmostalwaysdrivestheproportionofinstreamsandsandnespresent.Secondlithologydetermineshowlongbeforegravelsareabradedintoner

grainedsediments.Thisgivessomeindicationofsedimentsources.Forexampleifastreamexhibits50%sand

andisfoundwithinanerodiblewatersheddominatedbylowgradientstreams,itislikelythatasignicant

proportionofthesandsarecomingeitherfrominstreamgravelabrasionorfromlocalizedchannelmigration.In

contrastifthisstreamwerelocatedinaresistantwatershedthesesandsmightbecomingfromasourcefarther

away.TherewasahigherproportionoferodiblematerialinboththeGCWandBCWstudyareas.Itispossible

thatbankerosionandgravelabrasionisasignicantsourceofthesandsobservedintheGCWstudyarea.This

studydidnottestthishypothesis.

The Wall Creek Watershed (WCW)–TheWCWisdominatedbyaresistantlithology(~94%resistantasdened

bytheOGDCdatalayer).Forthisreasonstraticationbygeologywasdeemedunnecessary.TheWCWexhibitsahighermean%SAFNthantheresistantreferencepopulation(WCW%SAFN~24%vs.ResistantReference

%SAFN~18%;ResistantReferencePopulationN=22).Relativebedstability(LRBS)withintheWCWis

higherthantheresistantreferencepopulation(-.28versus-.97respectively)indicatingthattheWCWismore

stablethantheresistantreferencepopulation.Thesetwometrics(%SAFNandLRBS)canbeinterpreted

togethertobetterunderstandthecurrentconditionofthewatershed.Itispossiblethatadecreaseinbedstability

(whichwouldbringtheWCWclosertotheBlueMountainEcoregionresistantreferencepopulation)mightlead

toanincreaseinthepercentageofsandsandnes.GenerallyassandsandnesbecomemoreabundantLRBS

decreases.LRBSintheWCWmainstemislargelydrivenbywidth.

Nocorrelationwasobservedbetweenreoccurranceandthe%SAFNintheWCW.Threehypotheses

weregeneratedfromthisresult:themostrecentrehadnoinuenceonthesedimenttransportregimeof

thesystem;themostrecentredidincreaseinstreamsandsandnesbutthesewereushedquicklyfrom

thesystem;anincreaseofinstreamsandsandneswilloccurinthefollowingdecade.Thenalhypothesis

islooselysupportedbythelimiteddatacorrelatingelevatedsandsandnesintheBaldyCreekWatershed

followingthe1996re.

1 (GSABulletin;May1997;v.109;no.5;p.596-611;DOI:10.1130/0016-7606;1997)




Page59

The Granite Creek Watershed (GCW)–TheGCWhasamixedlithology.Forthisreasonnostraticationby

lithologywasconductedandtheGCWpopulationdatawascomparedtotheentireBlueMountainEcoregion

(BME)referencepopulation.RelativebedstabilitywithintheGCWisgreaterthantheBMEreference

population(GCWLRBS=-1.45;BMEReferenceLRBS=-1.04).Thisisequivalenttoroughlya3times

decreaseinrelativebedstability.Further1storderstreamswithintheBMEreferencepopulationexhibitmore

bedstabilitythanintheGCW(GCW1 storderLRBS~-2.12;BMEreferencepopulation1storderLRBS~

-1.51).Additionally,althoughroughlyone-thirdoftheGCWpopulationiscomprisedof1storderstreams,

themeanLRBSvalueoftheGCWpopulationissimilartothemeanoftheentire1storderBMEreference

population.InotherwordstheoverallmeanrelativebedstabilitywithintheGCWismuchhigherthantheBMEreferencepopulationbecauseoftheextremeinstabilityofthe1st(andtoalesserextent2nd)orderstreams.

The Baldy Creek Wilderness (BCW) –TheBCWstreamnetworkisdominatedbyglaciallydepositedsurcial

sediments.Thehillslopelithologyisamixofsedimentaryandplutonicsediments.Forthisreason,theBCW

wascomparedtotheentireBMEreferencepopulation.RelativebedstabilityintheBCWishigherthanthe

referencepopulation(BCWLRBS=-.45;BMEReferenceLRBS=-1.044).Thisisequivalenttoroughlya4

timesincreaseinstabilityfromreferencetotheBCWpopulation.TheBCWpopulationhasalowerproportion

ofnesedimentsthanthereferencepopulation(BCW%SAFN=15.6%;BCW%Fines=1.7%;BME

Reference%SAFN=21.4%;BMEReference%Fines=8.3%).Therelativelylowproportionofnesediments

isinpartresponsibleforthestablebedsobservedintheBCWpopulation.Thehigh%SAFN(40%)valueatthesinglehistoricalsiteavailablefortheBCWsuggeststhatthestreamnetworkmaybeushingnesediments

generatedduringthe1996re.

Part 4 – Data Applicability and Interpretation within this Project

Stratication –Straticationisconductedtocompareaunique(eitherknownorhypothesized;referto

discussionofsignicancetesting)sub-populationtoacontrolpopulation.Forinstancetwowatershedsare

differentinlocationbuttheymayhaveasimilarproportionofinstreamnesediments.Straticationinthis

casewouldbeconductedatmultiplelevelstodeterminewhythesetwodifferentpopulationshavesimilaror

dissimilarnesedimentproportions.Onestraticationcouldincludeasub-populationdenedasresistantand

erodiblelithologies,anothermightincludesub-populationsdenedbylandownership,gradient,etcetera.With

thisstudythemajorstraticationwhichoccurredwasbywatershed.Althoughitisknownthatthewatershedsaredifferent(inphysicallocation,elevation,averagestreamsize,lithology,etcetera)itwasunknownhowthese

differencesinuencednesediments.Otherstraticationswereconductedbyanalyzingthereferencedatainits

entirety,bylithology,andbystreamorder.Themostappropriatereferencesub-populationwasthencompared

tothetestpopulation(forinstance1stordersiteswerecomparedto1stordersites,resistantwatershedswere

comparedtoresistantwatersheds).AstheWCWwasnotsimilarinlithologyorelevationtothemajorityofthe

referencedataortheBCWandtheGCWitwasdeemedunnecessarytoanalyzetheentiretestpopulationtothe

entirereferencepopulation.

Hypothesis Testing–Hypothesistestingwasnotconductedduringthisassessmentforavarietyofreasons

(pleaserefertotheNorthForkSiuslawPhysicalHabitatandSedimentAssessmentdocumentforacomplete

discussion).Briey,hypothesistestingonlyelucidatesthestatisticalpowerofatestandsaysnothingabout

effectsize.Inmostecologicalstudies,itisnotalackofpowerthatlimitsthestudy,rathertheissuesassociated

withinterpretation.Hypothesistestingdoesnotelucidatedifferences,ratheritonlydeterminesifthereare

differences.Inecologicalstudies,itisalreadyknownthatthepopulationsaredifferent.Inotherwords,astream

networkmayhavemoreunstablebedsandahigherproportionofsandsandnesthananother,butahypothesis

testdoesnotexplainhowthatimpactsbenecialuses,itonlystateswhetherornotastudyhasenoughsitesto

statetosomedegreeofcertaintythatthepopulationsaredifferent.




Page60

QuestionsforFutureStudy

•WhatisthespawningandrearingcapacityoftheWCW,theGCW,andtheBCW?

•Whatistheseasonalhabitatlimitation:spawning,summerrearing,orwinterrearing?

•Aresteelheaddriventositeswithlowerspawningpotentialasaresultofhighstreamtemperatures?

•Inwhatwaydobeaverpondsregulatesummerowandsedimenttransport/storageregimes?

•Isriparianvegetationlimitedbywildungulategrazing?

•Howdissimilararethereferencewoodvolumesfrompre-settlementconditions?

•WhatroledoeswoodserveintheWCWinregardstosedimenttrappingandsorting?•IfwoodwerereturnedtoreferencelevelswillnesedimentbecomeanissueintheWCW?




Page61

Suggested Reading

Bell,M.C.1973.Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria.USArmyCorpsof

Engineers.FishPassageDevelopmentandEvaluationProgram,NorthPacicDivision,Portland,Oregon.Con-

tractDACW57-68-0086.

Brosofske,K.B.,J.Chen,R.J.Naiman,andJ.F.Franklin.1997.Harvesting effects on microclimatic gradients

from small streams to uplands in western Washington.EcologicalApplications7(4):1188-1200.

GeologyDataSource-OregonGeologicDataCompilation(OGDC)-Release5IssuedbytheOregonDepart-

mentofGeologyandMineralIndustriesDOGAMI)

Hagans,D.K.,W.E.Weaver,andM.A.Madej.1986.Long term on-site and off-site effects of logging and ero-

sion in the Redwood Creek Basin in Northern California.TechnicalBulletinNo.460.NationalCouncilofAir

andStreams,NewYork,NewYork.

Kaufmann,P.R.,P.Levine,etal.(1999).Quantifying physical habitat in wadeable streams.Washington,D.C.,

U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency:102.

McCullough(1999)notedthateggsizeanddevelopmentwassubstantiallyalteredwhenadultswereexposedto

temperaturesover17.5°C.(http://www.krisweb.com/stream/temperature.htm)

Mico,C.andMicoL.Sediment, Shade, and Complexity: Characterizing Ambient Water Quality & Physical

Habitat in the Upper Nestucca River Stream Network .TechnicalReportPreparedfortheBureauofLandMan-

agement,Contract#HAP064172.2007

Mico,C.andMicoL.North Fork Siuslaw Sediment and Physical Habitat Assessment .TechnicalReportPre-

paredfortheSiuslawWatershedCouncil.2008.

Naiman,R.J.,H.Decamps,andM.Pollock.1993.The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodi-versity.EcologicalApplications3(2):209-212.

Peck,D.V.,A.T.Herlihy,B.H.Hill,R.M.Hughes,P.R.Kaufmann,D.Klemm,J.M.Laazorchak,F.H.Mc-

cormick,S.A.Peterson,P.L.Ringold,T.Magee,andM.Cappaert.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

Program-Surface Waters Western Pilot Study: Field Operations Manual for Wadeable Streams.U.S.Environ-

mentalProtectionAgency,Washington,DC,EPA/620/R-06/003,2006.

Poole,G.C.,andC.H.Berman.2000.Pathways of Human Inuence on Water Temperature Dynamics in Stream

Channels.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Region10.Seattle,WA.20p.

Reeves,G.H.,F.H.Everest,andJ.D.Hall.1987. Interaction between redside shiner (Richarsonius balteatus)

and the steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) in western Oregon: the inuence of water temperature.Can.J.Fisher-

iesandAquaticSciences44:1603-1613.

Reiser,D.andT.Bjornn.1979.Habitat Requirements of Anadromous Salmonids.IntheseriesInuenceofFor -

estandRangeManagementonAnadromousFishHabitatinWesternNorthAmerica.U.S.ForestServiceForest

andRangeExperimentStation,Portland,OR.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-96.54p.




Page62

Richter,AnnandKolmes,StevenA.(2005)‘MaximumTemperatureLimitsforChinook,Coho,andChum

Salmon,andSteelheadTroutinthePacicNorthwest’,ReviewsinFisheriesScience,13:1,23—49,Firstpub-

lishedon:23February2005(iFirst)

Spence,B.C,G.A.Lomnicky,R.M.HughesandR.P.Novitski.1996.An ecosystem approach to salmonid con-

servation.TR-4501-96-6057.ManTechCorp,Corvalis,OR.http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1habcon/habweb/Man-

Tech/front.htm#TOC

Stevens,D.L.,Jr.andA.R.Olsen(2004).Spatially-balanced sampling of natural resources.JournalofAmeri-canStatisticalAssociation99(465):262-278.

Sullivan,K.,D.J.Martin,R.D.Cardwell,J.E.Toll,andS.Duke.2000.An analysis of the effects of temperature

on salmonids of the Pacic Northwest with implications for selecting temperature criteria.SustainableEcosys-

temsInstitute.Portland,OR.192pp.http://www.sei.org/downloads/reports/salmon2000.pdf

USEPARegion10,OfceofWaterandWatersheds,(January2005).EPARegion10NaturalConditionsWork -

groupReportonPrinciplestoConsiderWhenReviewingandUsingNaturalConditionsProvisions(50pages).

USFS(1997)Upper North Fork John Day Watershed Analysis

USFS(1997)Granite Creek Watershed Analysis

USFS(1995)Wall Ecosystem Analysis



NorthForkJohnDayatNight


Page63



−1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Log Relative Bed Stability

Percent Stream Length

CDF estimate

95% Confidence Limits

Big Wall LRBS Distribution



0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

Proportion Sands & Fines


CDF estimate


Big Wall %SAFN Distribution



0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

Proportion Fines


CDF estimate


Big Wall %Fines Distribution



0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

0

20

40

60

80

100

Wood Radius (m)


CDF estimate


Big Wall RW Distribution



5 10 15 20 25

0

20

40

60

80

100



CDF estimate


Big Wall RP100 Distribution



5 10 15 20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Bankfull Width to Depth Ratio


CDF estimate


Big Wall W:D Distribution



−0.6 −0.5 −0.4 −0.3

0

20

40

60

80

100



CDF estimate


Baldy LRBS Distribution



0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18

0

20

40

60

80

100



CDF estimate


Baldy %SAFN Distribution



0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

0

20

40

60

80

100

Proportion Fines


CDF estimate


Baldy %Fines Distribution



0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

0

20

40

60

80

100

Wood Radius (m)


CDF estimate


Baldy RW Distribution



5 6 7 8 9 10

0

20

40

60

80

100



CDF estimate


Baldy RP100 Distribution



7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5

0

20

40

60

80

100



CDF estimate


Baldy W:D Distribution



−3 −2 −1 0

0

20

40

60

80

100



CDF estimate


Granite LRBS Distribution



0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

0

20

40

60

80

100



CDF estimate


Granite %SAFN Distribution



0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Proportion Fines


CDF estimate


Granite %Fines Distribution



0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

0

20

40

60

80

100

Wood Radius (m)


CDF estimate


Granite RW Distribution



0 5 10 15 20 25

0

20

40

60

80

100



CDF estimate


Granite RP100 Distribution



3 4 5 6 7 8

0

20

40

60

80

100



CDF estimate


Granite W:D Distribution



−2.0 −1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0.0

0

20

40

60

80

100



CDF estimate


Reference LRBS Distribution



0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

0

20

40

60

80

100



CDF estimate


Reference %SAFN Distribution



0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Proportion Fines


CDF estimate


Reference %Fines Distribution



0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Wood Radius (m)


CDF estimate


Reference RW Distribution



0 5 10 15

0

20

40

60

80

100



CDF estimate


Reference RP100 Distribution



20

40

60

80

100


CDF estimate


Reference W:D Distribution

north fork john day river watershed sediment and physical habitat assessment demeter design

Documents