Effectiveness Monitoring Progress Report South Santiam

Effectiveness Monitoring Progress Report

South Santiam, North Santiam and Calapooia Watershed Councils

2011

Eric Andersen, Regional Monitoring Coordinator

4431 Highway 20, Sweet Home OR. 97386

2

Summary

The North Santiam, South Santiam and the Calapooia River watersheds (NSCW) have

experienced extensive anthropomorphic changes to their land base in recent decades

(E&S Environmental Chemistry Inc. 2000, E&S Environmental Chemistry Inc. 2002,

Primozich and Bastasch 2004). As a result of this change, the quantity and quality of in-

stream and adjacent riparian habitat for ESA listed salmonids has been degraded (NOAA

2005). In light of this situation, NSCW Councils have voluntarily formed a unique

regional team, which has been accepted into the Meyer Memorial Trust’s (MMT)

Willamette Model Watershed Program. An integral element of the MMT Willamette

Model Watershed Program is a 10 year effectiveness monitoring program designed to

measure the effectiveness of NSCW Council’s restoration efforts and thus inform future

management decisions. Restoration efforts are focused in seven priority subbasins. In

2011, year 2 of the effectiveness monitoring program, 21 stream segments were surveyed

to characterize instream physical habitat and adjacent riparian conditions.

3

Introduction

The North Santiam, South Santiam and the Calapooia River watersheds (NSCW) have

experienced extensive anthropomorphic changes to their land base in recent decades

(E&S Environmental Chemistry Inc. 2000, E&S Environmental Chemistry Inc. 2002,

Primozich and Bastasch 2004). As a result of this change, the quantity and quality of in-

stream and adjacent riparian habitat for ESA listed winter run steelhead (Oncorhynchus

mykiss) and spring run Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) has been degraded (NOAA

2005). In light of this situation, NSCW Councils have voluntarily formed a unique

regional partnership. The NSCW Councils regional partnership is cost effective, as

personnel and equipment are shared amongst the three separate watershed councils.

Significant savings are transferred to granting entities as a result of the partnership.

The NSCW regional partnership has been accepted into the Meyer Memorial Trust

(MMT) Willamette Model Watershed Program. The Councils are also partnering with

the Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF), the Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife (ODFW), the USDA Farm Service Agency, the Oregon Watershed

Enhancement Board (OWEB), the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (OR

DEQ), the Oregon Governors Fund for the Environment, and private landowners to

address limiting factors to salmonids within the study area. This fosters communication

between the partners, encourages data sharing and collaboration on projects.

Many NSCW streams have a limited ability to support adult and juvenile salmonids due

to the interruption of processes that create and sustain salmonid habitat (Primozich and

Bastasch 2004). Numerous waterways within the NSCW exceed stream temperature

requirements and are listed by the OR DEQ as being 303d impaired. Tributary and

mainstem rivers are often simplified, lack in-stream wood and have little or no off

channel habitat for rearing juveniles. Riparian forests have been reduced or removed,

thus increasing the amount of solar radiation reaching the water’s surface and eliminating

a source of future wood recruitment into streams. A restoration program designed to

reestablish interrupted ecosystem processes within the NSCW has been initiated by local

watershed councils. NSCW and BEF staff have identified seven priority subbasins to

target restoration activity: Stout Creek, Valentine Creek, Bear Branch, Hamilton Creek,

McDowell Creek, Courtney Creek and the ‘Middle Reach’ section of the mainstem

Calapooia River (see Figures 1 through 9). It is assumed that the scale of the study basins

is conducive to detecting a change in ecological conditions due to the NSCW Council’s

restoration activities.

An integral aspect of environmental restoration is the implementation of a monitoring

strategy (Roni 2002). A problem with many effectiveness monitoring projects in the

Pacific Northwest is that the temporal scale is not adequate to answer key research (e.g.

monitoring) questions (Roni et al 2008). To account for an adequate time scale, an

innovative 10 year monitoring program has been undertaken in the NSCW. The goal is

to measure and establish environmental conditions prior to restoration treatments in

priority subbasins and to follow up restoration actions with 10 years of effectiveness

monitoring. The purpose is to determine if the restoration actions that have been

implemented are achieving stated objectives. The 10 year timeframe of the project is at a

4

scale conducive to measuring change in the stated environmental parameters. By posing

restoration actions in the form of a hypothesis we will be able to test our ability to

accelerate environmental change in our study areas. The effectiveness monitoring that is

occurring in the NSCW is part of a larger comprehensive effort occurring in four

additional Willamette Model Watersheds; Long Tom Watershed, Luckiamute Watershed,

Mary’s River Watershed and Middle Fork Willamette Watershed.

We sampled a total of 21 stream segments for in-channel habitat conditions (see Tables 1

and 2). We collected data on stream temperature, thalweg profile, substrate, wetted

width, canopy coverage, riparian condition, invasive species presence and

macroinvertebrates in order to characterize the conditions of the stream reach. The North

Santiam had 4 stream segments sampled: 2 in Stout Creek, 1 in Valentine Creek and 1 in

Bear Branch Creek. The South Santiam had 13 stream segments sampled: 7 in Hamilton

Creek, 2 in Jack Creek and 4 in McDowell Creek. The Calapooia basin had 4 segments

sampled, 2 in Courtney creek, 1 in an unnamed Courtney Creek tributary and 1 on the

Middle Reach of the Calapooia River mainstem. We sampled 21 locations for water

temperature data, both in and adjacent to treatment reaches. The North Santiam had 6

data loggers: 2 on Bear branch, 2 on Stout creek and 2 on Valentine creek. The South

Santiam had 13 data loggers placed, 7 on Hamilton Creek and 6 on McDowell Creek.

The Calapooia had 2 data loggers on Courtney Creek. There were 3 sites that had

macroinvertebrate sampling, all located on Hamilton Creek.

The majority of the data collected in 2011 was the second year of pretreatment data at

future restoration sites. Pretreatment data is a necessary, but often overlooked component

to many restoration implementation projects (Roni 2005). The Willamette Model

Watershed Program provides essential funding for the collection of pretreatment, as well

as post treatment data.

5

Table 1. Key to segment naming conventions. Stream segment CA-CC-S00-2011 would

be interpreted as: Calapooia Watershed – Courtney Creek – Control Segment – Year

2011.

Watershed

CA Calapooia

NS North Santiam

SS South Santiam

Waterbody

CC Courtney Creek

CT Courtney Creek tributary

MC Middle Calapooia

VC Valentine Creek

ST Stout Creek

BB Bear Branch

MD McDowell Creek

HT Hamilton Creek

JK Jack Creek

Segment

S00 Control

S01, S02 Treatment Reach #1, #2, etc

Year

2011 Year 2011

6

Table 2. Stream segment and parameters collected in 2011.

Segm

en

t

Co

de

Len

gth

(m

)Tr

eat

me

nt

Co

ntr

ol

Thal

we

g

De

pth

We

tte

d

Wid

th

BEH

I

Rat

ioSu

bst

rate

Can

op

y

Co

vera

ge

Rip

aria

n

Co

nd

itio

nTe

mp

era

ture

Mac

ro-

inve

rte

bra

tes

CA

-CC

-S00

400

xx

xx

xx

x

CA

-CC

-S01

1500

CA

-CT-

S01

600

xx

x

CA

-MC

-S01

800

xx

NS-

BB

-S01

800

xx

xx

xx

NS-

ST-S

0112

00x

xx

xx

xx

NS-

ST-S

0245

0x

xx

xx

x

NS-

VT-

S01

800

xx

xx

xx

x

SS-H

T-S0

080

0x

xx

xx

xx

x

SS-H

T-S0

160

0x

xx

xx

xx

x

SS-H

T-S0

210

00x

xx

xx

x

SS-H

T-S0

360

0x

xx

xx

xx

SS-H

T-S0

440

0x

xx

xx

xx

SS-H

T-S0

580

0x

xx

xx

xx

SS-H

T-S0

635

0x

xx

xx

xx

x

SS-J

K-S

0050

0x

xx

xx

x

SS-J

K-S

0160

0x

xx

xx

x

SS-M

D-S

0060

0x

xx

xx

xx

SS-M

D-S

0160

0x

xx

xx

xx

SS-M

D-S

0210

00x

xx

xx

xx

SS-M

D-S

0360

0x

xx

xx

xx

7

Methods

Data collection methods were based on existing and widely accepted protocols. Key

factors driving the decision to select parameters for monitoring included responsiveness,

consistency, reliability and relevance (Cole 2010). The restoration activity will

determine which parameter is measured; while the frequency of parameter collection will

be determined by the parameter’s inherent variability (see Table 3). For example, a

riparian planting will be assessed by stream temperature and canopy coverage. Stream

temperature which has high annual variation is collected yearly, while the riparian

condition is collected at years 5 and 10.

Stream reaches were selected based on land owner permission and whether restoration

activities will occur. The scale of the monitoring is at the stream segment level. The

stream segment is determined by measuring the bankfull width of the stream and

multiplying by 40 (Peck 2006). No stream segment will be measured that is smaller than

350 meters. There is no upper limit for the length of a stream segment, however the

majority of stream segments will not be >1,500 meters. As the stream segment increases

the ability to capture representative elements of the reach becomes diluted. In some

cases, the survey is length is adjusted to fit the landowner’s property.

Table 3. Sampling frequency for core parameters.

Action Parameter Pre-project

(years) Post-project

(years)

In-stream Wood/Boulders Thalweg Profile 1 1, 5, 10 & as needed

Riparian Planting, Fencing Water Temperature Up to 4 Annual

Riparian Planting, Fencing Canopy Coverage 1 5 and 10

Either activity Riparian Condition 1 5, 10 & as needed

Either activity Macroinvertebrates Up to 4 Annual

Either activity Substrate 1 5 and 10

Parameters

Water Temperature

Water temperature is a driving force within aquatic ecosystems (Allan and Castillo 2007).

Water temperature was measured continuously at 1 hour intervals during the summer

flow period using Hobo data loggers and accompanying Hoboware software (Onset

Computer Corporation). Hobo data loggers were calibrated to OR DEQ supplied NIST

handheld digital thermometers. Calibration procedures were those outlined in Chapter 6

of the Water Quality Monitoring Guidebook (Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds

1999). Hobo data loggers were distributed within the creeks based on procedures

outlined by Oregon Department of Forestry 2003 “RipStream” study. Data loggers were

anchored to streamside trees and held in place using 1/8” aircraft cable and 10 lb.

8

weights. The seven day average maximum temperature, average daily maximum, daily

average, seven day average and were calculated and plotted. Data loggers were used to

measure the change in temperature at a stream reach due to treatment actions. A

temperature logger was placed at the beginning and end of a treatment reach to measure

the change in temperature of stream water within the reach. Temperature loggers were

also placed at control stream sections. In Hamilton and McDowell Creeks, additional

loggers were placed outside of treatment reaches to measure the rate of warming of larger

sections of those streams. Not all treatment reaches had a temperature logger.

Thalweg

A thalweg profile can be used as a method of assessing juvenile salmonid habitat

(Mossop and Bradford 2006). Thalweg measurements of stream segments were obtained

following methods outlined in EMAP protocol (Peck et al. 2006). Measurement intervals

were approximately 0.5 to 0.25 wetted channel widths, ensuring the capture of a

representative sample of pools and pool tail outs. One surveyor stands at point 0 and the

second surveyor walks directly up the middle of the channel to the established interval

distance. The thalweg, which may not be in the center of the channel, is then measured

and recorded. Points to measure thalweg were distributed longitudinally along the stream

segment. Sites generally had at a minimum 101 points to record thalweg. Graphing

thalweg measurements is used to visualize the thalweg profile. The standard deviation of

the thalweg measurements was used as a means to determine the stream segment’s

complexity. Comparing the standard deviation of the stream reach over time is used to

determine if the channel is becoming more complex. Thalweg profiles are expected to

become more variable (e.g. complex) with placement of log structures.

Substrate

Steam substrate is widely recognized as an integral element of salmonid habitat (Keeley

and Slaney 1996). Substrate particle size can influence spawning location preference and

dissolved oxygen reaching salmon eggs and alevins (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Substrate

measurements were recorded and classified following the EMAP protocol to produce a

general characterization of substrate within a reach. The percent of substrate in various

size classes and substrate embeddedness was evaluated. Fifty one transects were

established within the surveyed stream segment and scaled to the stream segment. At

each transect five substrate measurements were recorded at 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and

100% of the stream’s wetted width. The water depth and wetted width at the location of

substrate sampling was also recorded. In addition, substrate was examined for invasive

New Zealand mud-snails.

Canopy Coverage

The percent of canopy coverage is an indicator of the amount of solar radiation reaching

the water surface of the stream. Solar radiation is an important driver influencing water

temperature. Many streams have been cleared of riparian vegetation, thus increasing the

solar radiation reaching the stream. Measuring canopy coverage will follow the EMAP

protocol (Peck et al. 2006). At 51 transects, evenly distributed along the stream reach, 6

canopy measurements were taken at a distance of 0.3 meters above the surface of the

water using a convex spherical densiometer. One measurement each on the right and left

9

edge of water and four measurements in the center of the channel (up, right, down and

left). Canopy coverage is expected to increase as riparian reforestation occurs.

Bank Stability

Excessive sedimentation into streams is detrimental to water quality. The bank erosion

hazard index (BEHI) can be calculated to identify areas for treatment (Rosgen 1996).

The stream bank height to bankfull height, root depth to bank height, root density, bank

angle and surface protection are quantified and combined, yielding a ranking of the

erosion hazard. It is expected that the hazard value would decrease as restoration

activities are implemented.

Riparian

The condition of riparian forests is important for determining the future recruitment of

wood into streams. Riparian condition was assessed utilizing EMAP protocol (Peck et al.

2006). Eleven transects were evenly distributed along the stream segment. At each

transect, riparian condition was visually characterized within a 10 meter square plot

extending inland from the stream’s edge on the right and left stream bank. Vegetation

type and percent aerial cover were recorded for three layers of vegetation: canopy >5

meters, mid-canopy < 5 to 0.5 meters and ground cover < 0.5 meters. Invasive plant

species were also recorded when present. This widely used method of assessing riparian

condition yields semi-quantitative information on the quantity and type of vegetation

within the stream reaches.

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

The composition of the macroinvertebrate community is a widely used biological

indicator for instream conditions. Macroinvertebrate samples were collected following

Level 3 protocol outlined in the Chapter 12 of the Water Quality Monitoring Guidebook

(Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds 1999). Macroinvertebrate kick samples were

collected from one control site and two treatment sites during late summer of 2012.

Samples were collected from the lower portion of the treatment and control reaches. Each

sample was composed of a composite of four subsamples taken from four different riffle

habitat units. A 1ft D net with 500 micron mesh was used to obtain each kick sample.

Aquatic invertebrates were preserved in one quart Nalgene bottles with 70% ethyl alcohol

and sent to a qualified laboratory for identification. In the laboratory, experts identified a

500 organism subsample (e.g. ‘occurred’) to genus and species.

The predictive model “PREDATOR” was used to establish an ‘expected’ list of

macroinvertebrates. Two versions of the PREDATOR model were used to account for

sampling occurring in two ecoregions: the Marine Western Coastal Forest (MWCF) and

the Western Cordillera + Columbia Plateau (WCCP). The occurred macroinvertebrates

(e.g. O) were compared to a list of expected macroinvertebrates (e.g. E) to produce an

O/E ratio (e.g. score). The O/E score was then compared to reference site scores to

generate a condition of the sampled sites. Score interpretation varies slightly between the

models. The MWCF model scores describe the biological condition at the site as : >1.24

enriched, 0.92-1.24 least disturbed, 0.86-0.91 moderately disturbed, and <0.85 most

disturbed (Hubler 2008). The WCCP model scores describe the biological condition at

10

the site as : >1.23 enriched, 0.93-1.23 least disturbed, 0.79-0.92 moderately disturbed,

and <0.78 most disturbed (Hubler 2008). It is expected that the O/E scores will not

decrease and will move toward reference site scores as restoration actions are completed.

A Bray-Curtis value, between 0 and 1, is also produced indicating the difference in the

taxonomic assemblage of the observed and reference sites (Van Sickle 2008).

Additional Monitoring

Fish Sampling

Passive fish sampling will be accomplished using hoop traps (winter-spring) and/or

daytime snorkeling (summer) to determine presence/absence and relative abundance,

respectively. Hoop traps will be deployed and maintained by South Santiam Watershed

Council staff and volunteers. Hoop traps also serve as a landowner outreach tool. Traps

are placed in areas of stream flow and checked every 2 days. Species, abundance and

length of fish that swim into the fyke are recorded. Fish are returned to the stream live.

Traps are removed from the stream when winter flows make checking the trap difficult or

could dislodge the trap.

Sites are snorkeled once during summer low flow to determine relative abundance. The

surveyor moves upstream, identifying fish species and counting individuals. Ages are

estimated based on the length of the fish. The surveyor records fish in sections of the

stream reach delineated by the riparian cover transect. This provides a coarse spatial

arrangement of the relative number of fish species throughout the reach. In the office, the

snorkeling results are divided into cold water and warm water species to provide an

estimate of the proportion of warm vs. cold water species throughout the surveyed reach.

Cold water species include sculpin, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, Chinook and Coho.

Warm water species include dace, redside shiner, large scale sucker and introduced game

fish (centrarchids). It is anticipated that the proportion of cold water community fishes

will increase over time or stay the same.

Fish sampling will provide needed relative abundance and presence/absence data in

locations prior to habitat improvement projects. Sampling will occur under an existing

permit obtained by local ODFW STEP biologist.

Photo Points

Photo points are a non-quantitative method of documenting change at a particular

location (see OWEB methods). All stream segments have photographs taken at the

beginning and end points of the survey. In addition, permanent photo points are

established at different locations within project areas to document different treatments.

11

Results

The data collected in 2011 provided year 2 base line data for some projects and 1 year

post survey for other projects in the priority subbasins (see Appendix A, B and C).

Water Temperature

All priority subbasins within the North Santiam Watershed and the South Santiam

Watershed’s Hamilton Creek are designated cold core water habitat by DEQ. The

remaining priority subbasins are DEQ designated salmon and trout rearing and migration

use. Streams with these designations should not exceed 60.8°F and 64.4°F, respectively,

for the seven day average of maximum water temperature. Of the 13 temperature loggers

located in cold core water habitat, all recorded temperatures were well above 60.8°F for a

majority of the time the loggers were deployed. Of the 8 temperature loggers located in

the salmon and trout rearing and migration use designated streams, four sites (e.g. control

reaches on McDowell and Courtney creek) did not exceed the state recommended 64.4°F

for the seven day average. The control reach with the highest seven day average

maximum temperature (64.1°F) was SS-MD-S00-2011. The treatment segment with the

highest maximum seven day average maximum temperature (75.5° F) was SS-HT-S01-

2011. Treatment segment SS-MD-S03-2011 had the lowest maximum seven day average

maximum temperature (65.5° F).

Thalweg

Stream segment NS-ST-S02-2011 had the deepest average (mean=80cm) and second

most variable (stdev=34) thalweg profile. Segment NS-ST-S01-2011 had the second

deepest average (mean=65cm) thalweg profile and the most variable thalweg (stdev=39)

profile. Segment CA-CC-S00-2010 is a control reach and had the shallowest

(mean=14cm) and the least variable (stdev=7cm) thalweg profile.

Substrate

Stream segment NS-BB-S01-2011 had the highest percentage of substrate composed of

cobble and coarse gravel (74.9%) and segment CA-CT-S01-2011 had the second highest

percentage of substrate composed of cobble and coarse gravel (69.4%). Stream segment

NS-VT-S01-2011 had the highest percentage of sand and fines (58.4%), while segment

NS-ST-S01-2011 had the second highest percentage of sand and fines (54.1%). Stream

segment SS-MD-S00-2011 had the lowest percentage (8.6%) of fines and sands

composing the reach. The embeddedness of substrate ranged from 16% to 71% for all

reaches surveyed.

Canopy Coverage

Canopy coverage was highly variable overall, at stream banks and in mid-channel for all

sites except the control reaches. Mean overall canopy cover was >34% in all stream

segments. Mean canopy cover at the banks was >52% at all segments, with most

segments >70%. Mean canopy cover at mid-channel was >21% at all segments. Control

reach segments had the highest overall canopy coverage values (>85%).

12

Bank Stability

Bank stability was not measured at any stream segment in 2011.

Riparian

Stream segment SS-JK-S01-2011 had the highest percentage (mean=66%) of the riparian

area in large diameter trees (dbh > 0.3m), while segment SS-MD-S02-2011 had the

smallest (mean=11%). Stream segment SS-MD-S00-2011 had the highest percentage

(mean=43%) of small trees (dbh<0.3m) and segment SS-HT-S04-2011 had the smallest

(mean=3%). The percent of the reach with woody shrubs in the understory was highest at

segment CA-CC-S00-2011 (mean=55%), while the lowest was at CA-CT-S01-2011

(mean=1%). Herbs and grasses in the understory was highest at SS-HT-S03-2011

(mean=62%) and lowest at CA-CT-S01-2011 (mean=22%). Bare earth was highest at

SS-MD-S02-2011 (mean=22%), although most sites were much less. All segments had

three vegetation layers in the canopy. Invasive vegetation was found at all sites in both

the understory and the ground cover. Only three sites had very low amounts of invasive

plants.

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

None of the three locations sampled for macroinvertebrates were considered impaired.

The most disturbed site and lowest score (O/E = 0.82) was found at segment SS-HT-S01-

2011. The sites SS-HT-S00-2011 and SS-HT-S05-2011 both had an O/E = 1.08 and

were considered least disturbed. Bray Curtis values ranged from 0.24 to 0.26 for all sites,

indicating taxonomic macroinvertebrate assemblages were similar between observed sites

and reference (e.g. expected) sites (Van Sickle 2008).

Fish Sampling

No treatment or control sites had passive fish traps during 2011.

Fish Sampling -Snorkeling

All sites in the North Santiam and South Santiam were snorkeled. The Calapooia streams

were not snorkeled because sites had been previously surveyed or had other sampling

methods. Valentine and Bear Branch creeks were 100% and 98%, respectively, warm

water species. Stout Creek was >80% warm water fish species. Hamilton creek was

between 92% and 100% warm water species. Jack creek, a tributary to Hamilton creek,

was >85% cold water species. McDowell Creek ranged from 6% to 96% cool water

species. The proportion of cool water species increased from lower in the basin to higher

in the basin. The trend was most pronounced for McDowell creek. Some fish species

were not seen during the survey (e.g. large scale sucker and sculpin), but are known to

exist in all the surveyed creeks. In addition, it was sometimes difficult to differentiate

young resident rainbow from young cutthroat trout.

Fish Sampling -Electrofishing

One site (CA-CC-S00-2011) was electrofished by local contractor Dynamac for a

separate research project being carried out by the EPA’s Western Ecology Division. The

Councils were able to utilize this data. All fishes captured at the site were considered

13

cold water species by the Council’s Staff. The majority of the fishes captured were

reticulated sculpin (86%). Cutthroat trout (9.3%) and an unknown lamprey species

(4.6%) were also captured. Site CA-MC-S01-S01-2011 on the main stem of the

Calapooia River, sampled by AOI llc., yielded all warm water fish. Redside shiner and

norther pikeminnow each accounted for 41% of the fish captured, with the remainder

composed mainly of dace, sculpin, largescale sucker and yellow bullhead.

Temperature Logger Summary:

Logger Watershed SubBasin Start Date End Date

Avg Daily

Mean n1

Avg Daily

Max n2

Avg 7day

Avg Max n3

Max 7day

Avg Max n4

9711526 Calapooia Courtney Creek 6/25/2011 10/4/2011 56.62 102 64.16 102 58.81 96 62.71 96

9898989 Calapooia Courtney Creek 6/25/2011 10/4/2011 56.64 102 63.95 102 58.93 96 62.62 96

9711523 N. Santiam Stout Creek 6/24/2011 10/2/2011 63.42 101 75.77 101 66.85 95 74.13 95

9711524 N. Santiam Bear Branch 6/24/2011 10/2/2011 61.98 101 72.39 101 65.14 95 70.72 95

9711534 N. Santiam Bear Branch 6/23/2011 10/2/2011 62.49 101 73.86 101 66.13 95 71.84 95

9711535 N. Santiam Stout Creek 6/24/2011 10/2/2011 58.01 101 66.43 101 60.38 95 65.19 95

9898987 N. Santiam Valentine Creek 6/24/2011 10/2/2011 62.93 101 75.12 101 67.03 95 73.17 95

9898988 N. Santiam Valentine Creek 6/24/2011 10/2/2011 63.63 101 75.03 101 67.53 95 73.01 95

9711522 S. Santiam Hamilton Creek 6/21/2011 10/4/2011 64.53 106 77.25 106 68.45 100 75.42 100

9711525 S. Santiam McDowell Creek 6/17/2011 10/4/2011 61.38 110 76.03 110 66.91 104 74.02 104












14

Discussion

General

Data collection efforts during 2011 continued to establish conditions at sites prior to

restoration work. After restoration activity is completed, return surveys will document

any changes at the site. It is expected that as restoration efforts progress the conditions at

treatment segments will change over time. In general, the change in the conditions at

various stream segments will be compared by graphing the mean values of the parameters

at treatment and control sites, before and after treatment. A difference in the mean values

over time will indicate a change. For example, it is expected that the seven day average

maximum stream temperature of a control will remain consistent in the coming years.

However, the seven day average maximum stream temperatures should decrease at

downstream treatment segments as riparian plantings become established. While many

factors influence stream temperature, the amount of solar radiation reaching the water’s

surface is a driving factor. It is expected that a reduction in stream temperature at the

treatment segments would occur because we are planting riparian vegetation which will

increase the amount of streamside shade.

The selection of control sites has been a challenge in the monitoring program. Our

control sites are least disturbed areas upstream of treatment sites, with as similar physical

conditions to treatment segments as practical. The priority subbasins have been heavily

altered from industrial timber production, agriculture and urbanization, as in much of the

Willamette Basin. Monitoring efforts can only occur where landowners grant permission.

While landowner participation is increasing, nonparticipants present a bottleneck to

monitoring efforts. In addition, even though the establishment of control reaches is

crucial to the program some landowners feel slighted in not having a project occur on

their property. Communicating the importance of the control sites is essential in the

monitoring program.

Discussion of Results

Numerous factors affect summer stream temperature; however it is expected that summer

stream temperature will decrease over time as streamside plantings increase the riparian

canopy. It may take several years to detect a change in stream temperature and directly

attributing it to streamside vegetation is difficult. The amount of riparian woody

vegetation should increase as riparian plantings continue and become established. In

addition, it is expected that the percent of invasive plants will decrease as treatment

segments undergo site preparation, which includes invasive plant removal.

Splash dams, stream channel straightening and “stream cleaning” (e.g. removal of wood

from streams) have contributed to a decrease in channel complexity at many sites. The

decrease in channel complexity can be seen in a stream’s thalweg profile. Thalweg

profiles should become more variable (e.g. more complex) after placement of instream

structures. Increasing stream complexity within model watershed subbasin streams will

diffuse stream velocities, promote sorting and retention of substrate particles, increase

river length and provide habitat for numerous aquatic organisms.

15

Macroinvertebrate O/E scores are expected to remain the same or increase as treatments

progress. Increased shade from riparian plantings will reduce solar radiation reaching the

creek surface. In addition, placement of instream log structures will help retain stream

gravels and promote hyporheic water exchange. It is expected that cooling of the stream

temperatures will benefit macroinvertebrates.

Acknowledgements

The Watershed Councils are grateful to the many private landowners who granted access

to their properties. Bonneville Environmental Foundation, in addition to several others,

provided technical guidance in the development of the monitoring plan. This project was

funded by the Meyer Memorial Trust and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board.

16

Bibliography

Allan, J. D., and M. M. Castillo. 2007. Stream Ecology, Second edition. Springer.

Bjornn, T. C., and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams.

Pages 83-138 in W. R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland

management of salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society,

Bethesda, MD.

Cole, M., J. Lemke, and R. Blaha. 2010. Regional monitoring framework and

implementation strategy.

E&S Environmental Chemistry Inc. 2000. South Santiam Watershed Assessment.

E&S Environmental Chemistry Inc. 2002. North Santiam Watershed Assessment.

Hubler, S. 2008. PREDATOR: Development and use of RIVPACS-type

macroinvertebrate models to assess the biotic condition of wadeable Oregon

streams. Oregon department of Environmental Quality.DEQ08-LAB-0048-TR.

Keeley, E. R., and P. A. Slaney. 1996. Quantitative measures of rearing and spawning

habitat characteristics for stream-dwelling salmonids: guidelines for habitat

restoration.

Mossop, B., and M. J. Bradford. 2006. Using thalweg profiling to assess and monitor

juvenile salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) habitat in small streams. Canadian Journal

of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 63:1515-1525.

NOAA. 2005. ESA Recovery Planning for Salmon and Steelhead in the Willamette and

Lower Columbia River Basins - Status of Planning Effort and Strategy for

Completing Plans. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OPSW). 1999. Water quality monitoring,

technical guidebook. Version 2.0 Corvallis, OR.

Peck, D. V., and coauthors. 2006. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program-

Surface Waters Western Pilot Study: Field Operations Manual for Wadeable

Streams. EPA/620/R-06/003.

Primozich, D., and R. Bastasch. 2004. Draft Willamette Subbasin Plan. Willamette

Restoration Initiative.

Roni, P., editor. 2005. Monitoring stream and watershed restoration. American Fisheries

Society, Bethesda, Md.

Roni, P., and coauthors. 2002. A Review of Stream Restoration Techniques and a

Hierarchical Strategy for Prioritizing Restoration in Pacific Northwest

Watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22(1):1-20.

Roni, P., K. Hanson, and T. Beechie. 2008. Global Review of the Physical and Biological

Effectiveness of Stream Habitat Rehabilitation Techniques. North American

Journal of Fisheries Management 28(3):856-890.

Van Sickle, J. 2008. An index of compositional dissimilarity between observed and

expected assemblages. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27(2):227–

235.

17

Figure 1. Map of the North Santiam Watershed Council’s priority subbasins and

monitoring locations.

18

Figure 2. Detail map of Bear Branch Creek, illustrating monitoring locations.

19

Figure 3. Detail map of Stout Creek, illustrating monitoring locations.

20

Figure 4. Detail map of Valentine Creek, illustrating monitoring locations.

21

Figure 5. Map of the South Santiam Watershed Council’s priority subbasins and

monitoring locations.

22

Figure 6. Detail map of Hamiliton Creek, illustrating monitoring locations.

23

Figure 7. Detail map of McDowell Creek, illustrating monitoring locations.

24

Figure 8. Map of the Calapooia Watershed Council’s priority subbasins and monitoring

locations.

25

Figure 9. Detail map of the Calapooia River and Courtney Creek monitoring locations.

26

Appendix A

Results of individual temperature loggers for years 2011. Not all treatment segments had

temperature loggers placed in the stream. The actual number of days that recorded water

temperture varied amongst loggers. See Figures 1 - 9 for locations.

40

50

60

70

80

Tem

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

Courtney Creek, upper control Logger 9898989

7-day avg max

Average of Temp, °F

Max of Temp, °F64.4o

40

50

60

70

80

Tem

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

Courtney Creek, lower control Logger 9711526

7-day avg max


Max of Temp, °F64.4oF

27

40

50

60

70

80

Tem

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

Stout Creek,upper Logger 9711535

7-day avg max


Max of Temp, °F

60.8 oF

40

50

60

70

80

Tem

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

Stout Creek, lower Logger 9711523

7-day avg max


Max of Temp, °F

60.8 oF

28

40

50

60

70

80

Tem

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

Bear Branch, upper Logger 9711534

7-day avg max


Max of Temp, °F

60.8oF

40

50

60

70

80

Tem

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

Bear Branch, lower Logger 9711524

7-day avg max


Max of Temp, °F

60.8oF

29

40

50

60

70

80T

em

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

Valentine Creek, upper Logger 9898987

7-day avg max


Max of Temp, °F

60.8o

40

50

60

70

80

Tem

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

Valentine Creek, lower Logger 9898988

7-day avg max


Max of Temp, °F

60.8o

30

40

50

60

70

80T

em

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

Hamilton Creek, control upper Logger 9898981

7-day avg max


Max of Temp, °F

60.8o

40

50

60

70

80

Tem

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

Hamilton Creek, control lower Logger 9899003

7-day avg max


Max of Temp, °F

60.8o

31

40

50

60

70

80T

em

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

Hamilton Creek, upper Logger 9711531

7-day avg max


Max of Temp, °F 60.8oF

40

50

60

70

80

Tem

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

Hamilton Creek, upper middle Logger 9711528

7-day avg max


Max of Temp, °F

60.8oF

32

40

50

60

70

80T

em

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

Hamilton Creek, lower middle Logger 9711529

7-day avg max


Max of Temp, °F

60.8oF

40

50

60

70

80

Tem

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

Hamilton Creek, lower Logger 9711522

7-day avg Max


Max of Temp, °F

60.8° F

33

40

50

60

70

80T

em

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

Hamilton Creek, mouth Logger 9711536

7-day avg max


Max of Temp, °F

60.8oF

34

40

50

60

70

80T

em

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

McDowell Creek, control upper Logger 9711530

7-day avg max



40

50

60

70

80

Tem

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

McDowell Creek, control lower Logger 9898996

7-day avg max



35

40

50

60

70

80T

em

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

McDowell Creek, upper middle Logger 9711527

7-day avg max



40

50

60

70

80

Tem

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

McDowell Creek, upper middle 2 Logger 9711533

7-day avg max



36

40

50

60

70

80T

em

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

McDowell Creek, lower middle Logger 9711525

7-day avg max


Max of Temp, °F

64.4oF

40

50

60

70

80

Tem

pera

ture

(F

)

Date

McDowell Creek, mouth Logger 9711532

7-day avg max


Max of Temp, °F

64.4oF

37

Appendix B

Summary data for all stream segments. Error bars denote one standard deviation.

Thalweg profile all sites:

Overall Substrate Composition:

0

50

100

150

200

250

De

pth

(cm

)

Stream Segment

Thalweg, All Stream Segments

MEAN

MIN

MAX

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

Stream Segment

Substrate Composition: Coarse vs Fine

Sand and Fines

Coarse Substrate

38

Substrate characterization for stream segments:

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

Site

Substrate, All Sites

Other

Concrete/Asphalt

Wood

Hardpan

Bedrock

Large Boulder

Small Boulder

Cobble

Gravel Coarse

Gravel Fine

Sand

Fines

39

Average embeddedness of substrate:

Wetted width all sites:

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pro

po

rtio

n

Stream Segment

Average Embeddedness

0

5

10

15

20

Wid

th (

m)

Stream Segment

Wetted Width

MEAN

MIN

MAX

40

Overall canopy coverage:

Canopy coverage of river banks:

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

Stream Segment

Canopy Coverage: Overall

MEAN

MIN

MAX

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

Stream Segment

Canopy Coverage: Banks

MEAN

MIN

MAX

41

Canopy coverage at streams mid channel:

Riparian condition, percent large trees:

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

Stream Segment

Canopy Coverage: Mid-channel

MEAN

MIN

MAX

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

Stream Segment

Riparian Canopy: Trees >12" dbh

MEAN

MIN

MAX

42

Riparian condition, small trees:

Riparian condition, percent woody shrubs:

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

Stream Segment

Riparian Canopy: Trees <12" dbh

MEAN

MIN

MAX

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

Stream Segment

Riparian Understory: Woody Shrubs

MEAN

MIN

MAX

43

Riparian condition, percent herbs and grasses:

Riparian condition, percent bare earth:

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

Stream Segment

Riparian Understory: Herbs and Grasses

MEAN

MIN

MAX

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

Stream Segment

Riparian Ground Cover: Bare Earth

MEAN

MIN

MAX

44

Proportion of riparian with three vegetation layers:

Riparian condtion, proportion of invasive plants in the ground cover:

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pro

po

rtio

n

Stream Segment

Proportion of Riparian Zone with all Three Layers

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pro

po

rtio

n

Stream Segment

Proportion of Riparian Zone with Invasives in Ground Cover

45

Riparian condition, proportion of invasives in mid canopy:

Riparian condition, percent of ground layer in invasives:

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pro

po

rtio

n

Stream Segment

Proportion of Riparian Zone with Invasives in Understory

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

Stream Segment

Percent Ground Cover in Invasives

46

Riparian condition, percent mid-canopy in invasives:

Macroinvertebrate Observed/Expected scores:

P > 0.5

Site MODEL O E O/E BC

SS-HT-S00-2011 WCCP 19 17.60 1.08 0.24

SS-HT-S01-2011 MWCF 17 20.64 0.82 0.26

SS-HT-S05-2011 WCCP 19 17.63 1.08 0.24

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

Stream Segment

Percent Understory in Invasives

47

Percentage of warm water vs cold water fish species in Hamilton Creek stream segments.

Stream reaches proceed upstream:

Cold 1%

Warm 99%

Warm vs. Cold Fish Species: HT-S01

Cold 0%

Warm 100%


Cold 2%

Warm 98%


Cold 7%

Warm 93%


Cold 8%

Warm 92%


Warm water fish species

were not recorded for

HTS00 or HT-S06

48

Percentage of warm water vs cold water fish species in Jack Creek stream segments:

Percentage of warm water vs cold water fish species in McDowell Creek stream

segments. Stream reaches proceed upstream:

Cold 88%

Warm 12%

Warm vs. Cold Fish Jack Creek-S01

Cold 85%

Warm 15%

Warm vs. Cold Fish Jack Creek-S00

Cold 6%

Warm 94%

Warm vs. Cold Fish McDowell Creek-S01 Cold

5%

Warm 95%

Warm vs. Cold Fish McDowell Creek-S02

Cold 31%

Warm 69%


Cold 96%

Warm 4%


49

Percentage of warm water vs cold water fish species in Valentine Creek stream segment.

Start of snorkeled segment is within 0.3 km of Valentine Creek mouth.

Percentage of warm water vs cold water fish species in Bear Branch Creek stream

segment. Start of snorkeled segment is within 0.6 km of Bear Branch Creek mouth.

Cold 0%

Warm 100%

Warm vs. Cold Fish Valentine Creek-S01

Cold 2%

Warm 98%

Warm vs. Cold Fish Bear Branch-S01

50

Percentage of warm water vs cold water fish species in Stout Creek stream segment.

Start of snorkeled segment is within 50 m of Stout Creek mouth.

Percentage of warm water vs cold water fish species in Courtney Creek stream segment.

Site was electrofished and is approximately 21 km from the mouth of the Courtney creek.

Percentage of warm water vs cold water fish species in the middle reach Calapooia River

stream segment. Site was electrofished and is approximately 55 km from the mouth.

Cold 11%

Warm 89%

Warm vs. Cold Fish Stout Creek-S01

Cold 17%

Warm 83%

Warm vs. Cold Fish Stout Creek-S02

cold 100%

Warm vs. Cold Fish Courtney Creek-S00

Cold 5%

Warm 95%

Warm vs. Cold Fish Middle Calapooia -S01

51

Appendix C Details for stream segment thalweg profile, substrate characterization and habitat units.

Stream Segment: CA-CC-S00-2011

0

15

30

45

0 100 200 300 400

De

pth

(cm

)

Distance (m)

Thalweg Profile: CA-CC-S00-2011

StDev = 7

9.0 6.3

26.3 31.0

9.4 1.6 0.0

12.9 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0

0

25

50

75

100

Pe

rce

nt

Substrate Type

Substrate Composition: CA-CC-S00-2011

Pool 12%

Glide 26%

Riffle 61%

Cascade 1%

Habitat Units: CA-CC-S00-2011

52

Stream Segment: CA-MC-S01-2011

0

100

200

300

400

0 160 320 480 640 800

De

pth

(cm

)

Distance (m)

Thalweg Depth: CA-MC-S01-2011

StDev = 73

Pool 32%

Glide 49%

Riffle 19%

Habitat Units: CC-MC-S01-2011

Substrate composition not recorded for this segment.

53

Stream Segment: CA-CC-S01-2011

0

50

100

150

0 300 600 900 1200 1500

De

pth

(cm

)

Distance (m)

Thalweg Profile: CA-CC-S01-2011

StDev = 21

13.7 5.9 7.8

42.0

26.3

1.2 0.0 0.8 0.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 0

25

50

75

100

Pe

rce

nt

Substrate Type

Substrate Composition: CA-CC-S01-2011

Pool 22%

Glide 44%

Riffle 34%

Habitat Units: CA-CC-S01-2011

54

Stream Segment: NS-ST-S01-2011

0

50

100

150

200

0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200

De

pth

(cm

)

Distance (m)

Thalweg Profile: NS-ST-S01-2011

StDev = 39

42.8

11.4 2.8 6.7

22.8 12.2

0.0 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0

25

50

75

100

Pe

rce

nt

Substrate Type

Substrate Compsition: NS-ST-S01-2011

Pool 61%

Glide 20%

Riffle 19%

Habitat Units: NS-ST-S01-2011

55

Stream Segment: SS-ST-S02-2011

0

50

100

150

200

0 75 150 225 300 375 450

De

pth

(cm

)

Distance (m)

Thalweg Depth: NS-ST-S02-2011

StDev = 34

37.7

9.4 3.9 16.5 13.3

3.9 0.4 8.2

0.4 6.3

0.0 0.0 0

25

50

75

100

Pe

rce

nt

Substrate Type

Substrate Composition: NS-ST-S02-2011

Pool 64%

Glide 30%

Riffle 6%

Habitat Units: NS-ST-S02-2011

56

Stream Segment: NS-BB-S01-2011

0

50

100

150

200

0 200 400 600 800

De

pth

(cm

)

Distance (m)

Thalweg profile: NS-BB-S01-2011

StDev = 23

4.0 7.1 8.2

45.1

29.8

0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 4.3 0.8 0.0 0

25

50

75

100

Pe

rce

nt

Substrate Type

Substrate Compositon: NS-BB-S01-2011

Pool 15%

Glide 38%

Riffle 47%

Habitat Units: NS-BB-S01-2011

57

Stream Segment: SS-VT-S01-2011

0

50

100

150

200

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

De

pth

(cm

)

Distance (m)

Thalweg Depth: NS-VT-S01-2011

StDev = 33

51.4

7.1 2.8 16.1 16.9

2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

Substrate Type

Substrate Compsition: NS-VT-S01-2011

Pool 44%

Glide 40%

Riffle 16%

Habitat Units: NS-VT-S01-2011

58

Stream Segment: SS-HT-S00-2011

0

50

100

150

0 200 400 600 800

De

pth

(cm

)

Distance

Thalweg Profile SS-HT-S00-2011

StDev = 17

10.2 6.7 6.3

34.5 29.8

3.5 0.0 6.7

0.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 0

25

50

75

100

Pe

rce

nt

Substrate Type

Substrate Compsition: SS-HT-S00-2011

Pool 19%

Glide 33%

Riffle 47%

Rapid 1%

Habitat Units: SS-HT-S00-2011

59


0

50

100

150

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

De

pth

(cm

)

Distance (m)

Thalweg Profile: SS-HT-S01-2011

StDev = 23

21.2 12.2 6.7

34.5

12.6 1.2 0.0 0.0

10.6 1.2 0.0 0.0

0

25

50

75

100

Pe

rce

nt

Substrate Type


Pool 30%

Glide 43%

Riffle 27%


60


0

50

100

150

200

0 250 500 750 1000

Thalweg Depth: SS-HT-S02-2011

StDev = 26

23.5

7.5 4.3

34.1

12.6 1.6 0.0

14.5 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.0

0

25

50

75

100

Pe

rce

nt

Substrate Type

Substrate Composition: SS-HT-S02-2011

Pool 17%

Glide 53%

Riffle 28%

Rapid 2%


61


0

50

100

150

0 150 300 450 600


StDev = 21

11.4 7.1 6.7

25.1

8.2 1.2 0.0

35.3

5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

25

50

75

100

Pe

rce

nt

Substrate Type


Pool 14%

Glide 51%

Riffle 35%


62


0

50

100

150

0 80 160 240 320 400


StDev = 25

6.3 11.0 7.8

33.7 23.1

1.2 0.0 7.8 7.1 1.6 0.0 0.4

0

25

50

75

100

Pe

rce

nt

Substrate Type

Substrate CompositionSS-HT-S04-2011

Pool 40%

Glide 20%

Riffle 40%


63


0

50

100

150

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800


StDev = 25

12.1 8.4 6.4

39.8

24.1

0.8 0.0 1.2 6.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0

25

50

75

100

Pe

rce

nt

Substrate Type

Substrate Composition: SS-HT-S05-2011

Pool 26%

Glide 33%

Riffle 41%


64


0

50

100

150

0 70 140 210 280 350

De

pth

(cm

)

Distance (m)


StDev = 22

5.9 17.3

8.6

38.0 24.3

3.5 0.0 0.8 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

Substrate Type


Pool 20%

Glide 41%

Riffle 39%


65

Stream Segment: SS-JK-S00-2011

0

20

40

60

0 100 200 300 400 500

Thalweg Depth: SS-JK-S00-2011

StDev = 8

5.9 6.3 10.2

26.8 19.3

2.8 0.0

26.8

0.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 0

25

50

75

100

Pe

rce

nt

Substrate Type

Substrate Compsition: SS-JK-S00-2011

Pool 16%

Glide 31%

Riffle 53%

Habitat Units: SS-JK-S00-2011

66

Stream Segment: SS-JK-S01-2011

0

25

50

75

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

De

pth

(cm

)

Distance (m)

Thalweg Profile: SS-JK-S01-2011

StDev = 11

6.7 12.6 9.8

42.4

18.4

0.8 0.0 7.1

0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

Substrate Type

Substrate Compsition: SS-JK-S01-2011

POOL 9%

GLIDE 31%

RIFFLE 60%

Habitat Units: SS-JK-S01-2011

67

Stream Segment: SS-MD-S00-2011

0

50

100

150

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Thalweg Depth: SS-MD-S00-2011

StDev = 20

2.8 5.9 4.7

20.4 24.3 14.9

0.0

17.3 9.4

0.4 0.0 0.0 0

25

50

75

100

Pe

rce

nt

Substrate Type

Substrate Composition: SS-MD-S00-2011

Pool 9%

Glide 33%

Riffle 56%

Rapid 1%

Cascade 1%

Habitat Units: SS-MD-S00-2011

68


0

50

100

150

0 100 200 300 400 500 600


StDev = 25

10.6 14.1 8.6

33.7 23.9

6.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

Substrate Type

Substrate Compsition: SS-MD-S01-2011

Pool 29%

Glide 47%

Riffle 24%


69


0

50

100

150

200

0 150 300 450 600 750 900


StDev = 31

16.5 9.8 5.9

39.6 26.7

1.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

Substrate Type


Pool 25%

Glide 42%

Riffle 33%


70


0

50

100

150

0 100 200 300 400 500 600


StDev = 21

5.5 11.8

5.1

20.4 34.5

5.5 0.4 13.3

2.4 0.8 0.4 0.0 0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

Substrate Type


Pool 15%

Glide 45%

Riffle 40%


Documents

Effectiveness Monitoring Progress Report South Santiam