- = A ui',.n. .- -. .-
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Si
Sixth
Ecological Condition of the
Upper Chehalis Basin Streams
-------
Ecological Condition of Upper Chehalis Basin Streams
an Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Report
Gretchen Hayslip and Lillian G. Herger
June 21,2001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Publication Number: EPA-910-R-01-005
Suggested Citation:
Hayslip, G.A. and L.G. Herger, 2001. Ecological Condition of Upper Chehalis Basin Streams. EPA-
910-R-01-005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington.
-------
EPA Region 10 Upper Chehalis River Basin
Office of Environmental Assessment EMAP
Table of Contents
List of Tables i
List of Maps and Figures i
List of Appendices i
I. Basin Description 1
n. Project Description 3
m. Results 8
Water Column Chemistry 9
Physical Habitat Indicators 12
Biological Indicators 18
IV. Discussion 23
V. References 27
VI. Appendices 30
-------
EPA Region 10 Upper Chehalis River Basin
Office of Environmental Assessment EMAP
List of Tables
Table 1. - Streams in the upper Chehalis basin by stream order 4
Table 2. - General EMAP indicators 4
Table 3. - Water column indicators 5
Table 4. - Table of standards for freshwater (Washington State, 1992) 9
Table 5. - Nutrients in the upper Chehalis basin 12
Table 6. - Definition of five Large Woody Debris (LWD) size classes based on piece length and
diameter 13
Table 7. - Levels of human influence 18
Table 8. - Frequency of occurrence of aquatic vertebrates, upper Chehalis basin 2nd order streams,
1997 18
Table 9. - Description of benthic macroinvertebrate indicator metrics 21
Table 10. - Sensitivity of selected monitoring parameters to forest management activities 24
Table 11. - Expected direction of response for selected monitoring parameters to forest management
activities compared to what was found in the upper Chehalis basin 24
List of Maps and Figures
Map 1. - Map of the upper Chehalis basin 2
Figure 1. - Percent of landuse/landcover in the upper Chehalis basin 1
Figure 2. - Stream categories 9
Figure 3. - Stream temperature 10
Figure 4. - Stream Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 10
Figure 5. - pH of streams 10
Figure 6. - Total suspended solids (TSS) of streams 10
Figure 7. - Bar chart of mean substrate quantity by size class in 2nd order streams 13
Figure 8. - Pie chart of percent of streambed with dominant particle size 13
Figure 9. - Large Woody Debris (LWD) quantity for the medium and larger categories 15
Figure 10. - Mean LWD quantity by (pieces per 100m) class 14
Figure 11. - Frequency of pools by depth class 15
Figure 12. - Natural fish cover 15
Figure 13. - Riparian vegetation cover (both canopy and mid-layer) 17
Figure 14. - Pie chart of the mean percent riparian cover by species types in second order streams . 16
Figure 15. - Mid-channel shade 17
Figure 16. - Mean riparian zone human influence from each of 10 disturbance categories 18
Figure 17. - All riparian disturbance, all types 17
Figure 18. - Fish species found in the upper Chehalis basin 2nd order streams, 1997 20
Figure 19. - Percent of vertebrate species within each temperature guild 20
Figure 20. - Percent of vertebrate species within each sensitivity guild 20
Figure 21. - Total invertebrate taxa richness 22
Figure 22. - EPT taxa richness 22
Figure 23. - Intolerant taxa richness 22
11
-------
EPA Region 10 Upper Chehalis River Basin
Office of Environmental Assessment EMAP
List of Appendices
Appendix 1. - List of sites with associated stream identification number 30
Appendix 2. - Summary statistics for water chemistry indicators 31
Appendix 3. - Summary statistics for physical habitat metrics 32
Appendix 4. - List of fish and amphibian species captured in the upper Chehalis basin 36
Appendix 5. - Species characteristics for aquatic vertebrate species 37
Appendix 6. - Summary statistics for vertebrate (fish and amphibian) metrics 38
Appendix 7. - Summary statistics for selected invertebrate metrics 39
m
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
I. BASIN DESCRIPTION
The Chehalis River is a major basin in
southwestern Washington state draining to the
west into Grays Harbor. The upper portion of
the Chehalis Basin is large, comprising almost
1300 square miles (see Map 1). The upper
Chehalis lies within 2 main "ecoregions".
Ecoregions are distinct geographic areas based
on topography, climate, land uses, soils,
geology, and naturally occurring vegetation. The
upper Chehalis basin is primarily divided
between the Puget Lowlands ecoregion
(Omernik, 1987), in the eastern portion and the
Coast Range ecoregion, in the west.
The Puget Lowland Ecoregion includes the open
hills and tablelands of glacial and lacustrine
deposits in the Puget Sound valley (Omernik and
Gallant, 1986). The upper Chehalis basin is in
the southern portion of the ecoregion where the
terrain consists of hills and low mountains. In
the hilly areas, relief varies from 800 to 1,000
feet with some peaks exceeding 2,500 feet. Most
of the land is forested with Douglas fir as the
predominant tree species. Timber harvest is an
important land use in the ecoregion. Cleared
areas are farmed for grains, wheat, vegetables
and other crops. Urban development is
concentrated along waterways and near
Interstate-5, which runs through the ecoregion.
The western portion of the basin is within the
Coast Range ecoregion, which is characterized
by higher elevations, and the primary land use is
commercial forestry. The Coast Range ecoregion
includes the Pacific Coast Range mountains and
coastal valley and terraces (Omernik and Gallant,
1986). The combination of maritime weather
system and high local topographic relief results
in large differences in local precipitation, which
ranges from 55-125 inches average annual
rainfall.
Percent of Basin in each land
cover type
Agric.
Forest
Figure 1. Percent of Landuse/Landcover in the
upper Chehalis basin
The predominant land cover type in the upper
Chehalis basin is forest (81%). Followed by
agriculture (1 l%)(Figure 1). Urban use is
concentrated in the lowlands, near the mainstem
Chehalis River and the 1-5 corridor. The cities
of Chehalis and Centralia are the main urban
centers.
-------
Upper Chehalis
Legend
o Sample Points
Cities
,/V Interstate 5
US and State Highways
Chehalis River
/\/ Stream Order 1 -2
/\/ Stream Order 3 - 4
Location Map
&EPA
25 Miles
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This document summarizes data collected in the
upper Chehalis basin of Washington as part of
the Regional Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (R-EMAP). The project is
a cooperative effort between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research
and Development, EPA Region 10, and the
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology).
Ecology conducted all field sampling for this
project in 1997.
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP)
EMAP was initiated by EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD) to estimate
the current status and trends of the nation's
ecological resources and to examine
associations between ecological condition and
natural and anthropogenic influences. The long-
term goal of EMAP is to develop ecological
methods and procedures that advance the
science of measuring environmental resources to
determine if they are in an acceptable or
unacceptable condition. Two major features of
EMAP are:
• the use of ecological indicators, and
• the probability-based selection of sample
sites.
Regional EMAP (R-EMAP) uses EMAP's
indicator concepts and statistical design, and
applies them to projects of smaller geographic
scale and time frames. R-EMAP provides States
and EPA Regional offices opportunities to use
EMAP indicators to answer questions of
regional interest. The following are general
descriptions of the EMAP sample design and
indicators. A more in-depth description can be
found in Section n.
A. DESIGN-How to Select Stream
Sites to Sample?
Background
Environmental monitoring and assessments are
typically based on subjectively selected stream
reaches. Peterson et al. (1998; 1999) compared
subjectively selected localized lake data with
probability-based sample selection and showed
the results for the same area to be substantially
different. The primary reason for these
differences was lack of regional sample
representativeness of subjectively selected sites.
Stream studies have been plagued by the same
problem. A more objective approach is needed
to assess stream quality on a regional scale.
EMAP uses a statistical sampling design that
views streams as a continuous resource. This
allows statements to be made in terms of length
of the stream resource in various conditions
(Herlihy et al., 2000). Sample sites are randomly
selected from a systematic grid based on
landscape maps overlaid with hydrography. The
EMAP systematic grid provides uniform spatial
coverage, making it possible to select stream
sample locations in proportion to their
occurrence (Overton et al., 1990). This design
allows one to make statistically valid
interpolations from the sample data to the entire
length of stream in a study area, such as
estimates of stream that are in "poor" condition.
Site Selection in the Upper Chehalis
Study sites were selected from a sample
population of all mapped (1:100,000 scale) 2nd
order streams in the upper Chehalis basin, using
EMAP-Surface Water protocols (Herlihy et. al.,
2000). See Map 1 for the location of the sites.
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
vv EMAP
o. Stream Order *
0*
1st
2"
3-
>3-
Percent "^
1
58
19
14
7
Table 1. Streams in the upper Chehalis basin by stream
order. * (0 order streams are primarily unconnected
reaches, side channels on large rivers or canals/ditches)
Although 1st through 3rd order streams are
usually wadeable and therefore suitable for
sampling using EMAP protocols, this project
was limited to 2nd order streams. Due to budget
limitations, the sample size was restricted to 30
sites. This is generally considered an adequate
sample number in which to describe this
particular stream size. There are approximately
454 km of 2nd order streams in the upper
Chehalis basin.
B. INDICATORS - What to Measure
at Each Selected Site?
The objective of the Clean Water Act is to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters. In
order to assess the nation's waters it is important
to measure water quality (water column
parameters), physical habitat (watershed and in-
stream measurements) and biological (fish and
invertebrates communities) condition. EMAP
uses ecological indicators to quantify these
conditions. Indicators are simply measurable
characteristics of the environment, both abiotic
and biotic, that can provide information on
ecological resources. Table 2 is a general list of
the indicator categories used in EMAP to detect
stress in stream ecosystems. The following
section describes EMAP measurements in each
of these indicator categories.
Water
column
chemistry
Watershed
condition
Instream
physical
habitat and
riparian
condition
Biological -
Benthic
macro
invertebrates
Biological -
Fish and
amphibians
Water chemistry affects stream biota.
Numeric standards are available to
evaluate some water quality
parameters.
Disturbance related to land use
affects biota and water quality.
Instream and riparian alterations
affect stream biota and water quality.
Physical habitat in streams includes
all physical attributes that influence
organisms.
Benthic macroinvertebrates live on
the bottom of streams and reflect the
overall biological integrity of the
stream. Monitoring benthic
invertebrates is useful in assessing
the condition of the stream.
Fish and amphibians are meaningful
indicators of biological integrity.
They occupy the upper levels of the
aquatic food web and are affected by
chemical and physical changes in
their environment.
Table 2.
General EMAP Indicators
Water Column Chemistry
Water chemistry characteristics influence the
organisms that reside in streams. A great deal of
information is available on the effects of
specific chemicals on aquatic biota. Data for 13
water quality parameters were collected at all
sites. Measurements of pH, dissolved oxygen
(DO), stream temperature, conductivity,
dissolved organic carbon (DOC), alkalinity,
total nitrogen (TPN), total phosphorus (TP),
Nitrite-Nitrate (NO2-NO3), ammonia (NH3),
chloride (CT), sulfate (SO4) and total suspended
solids. The rationale behind the selection of
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
some of these water column measures is
presented in Table 3.
Stream
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen (DO)
Conductivity
Nutrients -
Total
phosphorous
(TP), Total
nitrogen
(TPN),
Mtrite-Nitrate
(N02-N03),
and Ammonia
Chloride (Cr)
- Influences
biological
activity
- Growth and
survival of
biota
- Growth and
survival of fish
- Sustains
sensitive
benthic
invertebrates
- Organic
material
processing
-Fish
production
- Benthic
invertebrate
survival
- Indicator of
dissolved ions
- Stimulates
primary
production
-Accumulation
can result in
nutrient
enrichment
- A surrogate
for human
disturbance
(Herlihy et al.
1998)
- Riparian shade
reduction
- Altered stream
morphology
- Erosion
- Addition of
organic matter
- Riparian shade
reduction
- Industrial and
municipal waste
-Mining
- Addition of
organic matter
- Agricultural
returns,
industrial input
and mining.
- Erosion
- Recreation,
septic tanks and
livestock
- Stormwater
runoff
- Fertilization
from agriculture,
livestock waste
and sewage.
- Salmon
overharvest
- Industrial
discharge,
fertilizer use,
livestock waste,
and sewage.
Physical Habitat Indicators
Physical habitat in streams includes all those
physical attributes that influence or provide
sustenance to organisms within the stream.
Some Useful Definitions- Habitat:
Bankfull width - The stream width measured at
the average flood water mark.
Canopy - A layer of foliage in a forest stand.
This most often refers to the uppermost layer of
foliage, but it can be used to describe lower
layers in a multistoried stand.
Channel - An area that contains continuously
or periodically flowing water that is confined by
banks and a stream bed.
Large Woody Debris •• Pieces of wood larger
than 5 feet long and 4 inches in diameter, in a
stream channel.
Riparian area - An area of land and vegetation
adjacent to a stream that has a direct effect on
the stream. This includes woodlands,
vegetation, and floodplains.
Sinuosity - The amount of bending, winding
and curving in a stream or river.
Stream gradient - A general slope or rate of
change in vertical elevation per unit of
horizontal distance of the water surface of a
flowing stream.
Substrate - The composition of the grain size
of the sediments in the stream or river bottom,
ranging from rocks to mud.
Thalweg - The deepest part of the stream
Physical habitat varies naturally, as do
biological characteristics, thus expectations
differ even in the absence of human caused
disturbance. Degradation of aquatic habitats by
nonpoint source activities is recognized as one
of the major causes for the decline of
anadromous and resident fish stocks in the
Pacific Northwest (Williams et al. 1989).
Table 3.
Water Column Indicators
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
FF EMAP
The following three types of habitat variables
are measured or estimated:
Continuous Parameters:
Thalweg profile (a survey of depth along the
stream channel), and presence/absence of fine
sediments were collected at either 100 or 150
equally spaced points along the stream reach.
An observation of the geomorphic channel type
(e.g. riffle, glide, pool) were made at each point.
Crews also tally large woody debris along the
reach.
Transect Parameters:
Measures/observations of bankfull width, wetted
width, depth, substrate size, canopy closure, and
fish cover were taken at eleven evenly spaced
transects in each reach. Gradient measurements
and compass bearing between each of the 11
stations are collected to calculate reach gradient
and channel sinuosity. This category also
includes measures and/or visual estimates of
riparian vegetation structure, human
disturbance, and stream bank angle, incision and
undercut.
Reach Parameters:
Channel morphology class for the entire reach is
determined (Montgomery and Buffington, 1993)
and instantaneous discharge is measured at one
optimally chosen cross-section.
Biological Indicators
Fish/Aquatic Vertebrate Assemblage
In some regions, fish are good indicators of
long-term effects and broad habitat conditions
because they are relatively long-lived and
mobile (Karr et al., 1986). Fish assemblages
integrate various features of environmental
quality, such as food abundance and habitat
quality. The physical degradation of streams
can cause changes in the food web and the
composition and distribution of habitats
(Lonzarich, 1994). These are some of the
reasons that stream fish assemblages may be
better indicators of land-use impacts than single
salmonid species (Karr, 1981).
When amphibians are
collected in addition
to fish the more
general term aquatic
vertebrate will be
used. The objectives
of the vertebrate
assemblage
assessments are to:
1) collect data for
estimates of relative
abundance of all
species present in the
assemblage, and
2) collect all except
the most rare species
in the assemblage.
Some Useful
Definitions - Rota
Aquatic Assemblage •
an organism group of
interacting
populations in a given
waterbody, for
example, fish
assemblage or a
benthic
macroinvertebrate
assemblage.
Benthic
Macroinvertebrates -
animals without
backbones, living in
or on the sediments,
and of a large enough
size to be seen by the
unaided eye (as
captured with a
500pm mesh net).
Also referred to as
macroinvertebrates or
benthos.
Fish were sampled
with one-pass
electro-fishing in all
portions of the
sample reach. Fish
were identified,
counted, and
measured and
voucher specimens
were collected for
species that were
difficult to identify.
Amphibians that were captured during
electrofishing were identified and counted only.
Although these methods were not used to
estimate absolute abundance, standardized
collection techniques were important for
consistent measures of proportionate abundance
of species.
-------
EPA Region 10 Upper Chehalis River Basin
Office of Environmental Assessment EMAP
Benthic Invertebrates Assemblage
Benthic invertebrates inhabit the sediment or
surface substrates of streams. The benthic
macroinvertebrate assemblages in streams
reflect overall biological integrity of the benthic
community. Monitoring these assemblages is
useful for assessing the status of the water body
and monitoring trends. Benthic communities
respond to a wide array of stressors in different
ways, thus it is often possible to determine the
type of stress that has affected a
macroinvertebrate community (Klemm et al.,
1990). Because many macroinvertebrates have
relatively long life cycles of a year or more and
are relatively immobile, macroinvertebrate
community structure is a function of past
conditions.
Macroinvertebrates are sampled from the two
predominant habitat types (riffles and pools)
using a D-frame kick net (SOOum mesh). The
habitat types are described below:
Riffle - a portion of the stream with
relatively fast currents and
shallow depth.
Pool- a portion of a stream with
reduced current velocity and
greater depth.
Five kick samples are collected from each
habitat type and are composited by habitat type.
A subsample of each composite, representing a
predetermined equivalent substrate area, is
processed for macroinvertebrates. For each
sample, 300 organisms are identified to the
finest practical taxonomic level. The
macroinvertebrate method used in the upper
Chehalis is slightly different than that used in
other EMAP studies (Lazorchak et al., 1998)
where macroinvertebrate data is collected at
each transect regardless of habitat type.
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
Photo: Overview of Chehalis basin from Ceres Hill Road (source: Washington Department of Ecology).
III. RESULTS
A. Introduction
Using the R-EMAP protocols described, data
were collected from 26 upper Chehalis sites. In
this report, we will only be presenting a portion
of the indicators that were generated from the
field data. This is due to the large volume of
information that was collected. Additional
indicators are summarized in Appendices 1-7.
Description of the Upper Chehalis River Basin
There are 455km of 2nd order streams in the
upper Chehalis basin representing 19.4% of the
total 2342km of streams in the basin (see Table
1 in Section II).
Using the EMAP sampling design to select a
random sample of the 2nd order streams, 46 sites
were evaluated for field sampling. Of these,
only 26 were selected as "target sites" (useable
sample sites). Reasons for exclusion of the
remaining 20 sites are shown on the next page
in Figure 2. The estimated stream length
represented by the 26 samples is 345.3km of the
total 454km, as the sample is assumed to be
representative of both the "target" portion as
well as reaches where access was denied (76%
of the total). Each of 26 sites was sampled at
least once during the 1997 field season.
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
No channel
11%
Figure 2.
Stream Categories
Data Analysis and Interpretation
In this report, the primary method for evaluating
indicators was cumulative distribution
frequencies (CDFs). CDFs are graphs that show
the complete data population above or below a
particular value. The "population" in this report
is the 2nd order streams of the upper Chehalis
basin. For example, Figure 3 shows that 40
percent of the 2nd order stream miles have
temperatures below 14°C.
B. Water Column Chemistry
In general terms, a water quality standard
defines the goals for a waterbody by designating
the use or uses to be made of the water, setting
criteria necessary to protect those uses, and
preventing degradation of water quality through
antidegradation provisions. Water quality
standards apply to surface waters of the United
States, including rivers, streams, lakes, oceans,
estuaries and wetlands.
Under the Clean Water Act, each State
establishes water quality standards which are
approved by EPA. The State of Washington has
established water quality standards that include
water quality criteria representing maximum
concentrations of pollutants that are acceptable,
if State waters are to meet their designated uses.
Data for 13 water column indicators were
collected from 26 sites. The data from these
sites were compared to current water quality
standards of Washington (Table 4). Water
quality criteria do not exist for all of the water
column variables measured during the study.
Indicator
Water Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
(DO)
pH
Standard for Washington'
16°C (Class AA)
18°C (Class A)
>9.5 mg/L (Class AA) >8
mg/L(A)
6.5 to 8.5 for both Class A
and Class AA Waters
Table 4. Table of standards for freshwater (Washington
State, 1992). 'Streams in the upper Chehalis are
either Class A or AA, which are state designated
use classifications (Merritt et al., 1999).
The results reported below are for only those
variables that have an applicable criteria and/or
those that influence the biota. Sites were not
continuously sampled and timing of sampling
was not intended to capture the peak
concentration of chemical indicators. Data
interpretation reflects a single view in time at
these representative locations.
Temperature
Because stream temperature is temporally
variable, dependent on climatic conditions, a
single measurement is of limited value in
characterizing stream conditions. Temperature
ranged from 10.7°C to 18.0°C. Using the
Washington State criteria, no sites exceeded
18.0°C at the time of sampling. The median
temperature was 14.4°C (see Figure 3). The
sample period was from July 2nd to September
23rd.
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
E S
I
c
13 14 15 16
Temperature (deg.C)
18
7.0
7.5 8.0
PH
8.5
Figure 3. Stream temperature
Figure 5. pH of streams.
s
10 11 12 13 14
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)
Figure 4. Stream Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
1 1 1 1 ]
2 4 6 8 10
Total suspended solids (mg/L)
Figure 6. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) of
streams.
—i—
12
10
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
Dissolved Oxveen (DO)
Dissolved oxygen is simply the oxygen
dissolved in water that is available for
organisms to use for respiration. Like
temperature, DO is temporally variable and a
single measurement is of limited value for
characterizing stream condition. In the upper
Chehalis basin, DO ranged from 8.6 mg/L to
15.7 mg/L (mean 12.2 mg/L). The State
standard is >9.5 mg/L for AA and >8 for A
streams. Less than 2% of the streams were
below the AA standard (see Figure 4). Overall
DO is relatively high (near saturation) based on
these daytime measurements. This is an
expected condition in streams with low
temperature, good turbulence (relatively
shallow, cobble bedded) and low primary
productivity which is typical of forested
streams.
EH.
Another important water column variable, pH,
is a numerical measure of the concentration of
the constituents that determine water acidity. It
is measured on a logarithmic scale of 1.0
(acidic) to 14.0 (basic) and 7.0 is neutral. The
pH of the upper Chehalis basin study sites
ranged from 6.8 to 8.7 with mean 7.5. Most
(98%) of the stream miles were within the state
criteria of 6.5 to 8.5 as shown in Figure 5 (one
site above 8.5). Measurements of pH collected
during the day are typically elevated, as CO2 is
depleted due to photosynthesis which
effectively shifts the pH up.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Inputs of fine sediment that result in high TSS
in streams occur during high winter flows as
there is a strong relation between turbidity and
discharge. Summer low flows provide data for
'background' TSS levels which is useful as
turbidity criteria are given in terms of amount of
TSS beyond background. Washington State
standards allow for an increase of 5 NTU for
domestic water supplies when background is
less than 50 NTU and no more that a 10%
increase when turbidity is above 50 NTUs. TSS
of streams in the upper Chehalis basin is shown
in Figure 6.
Nutrients
Nutrient inputs to streams are important as
substantial inputs (eutrophication) from
anthropogenic sources can result in increased
algal growth which can upset the ecological
balance of the stream. Likewise, loss of
nutrients from human activities can reduce
stream productivity. For sample reductions in
anadromous salmonid populations has diverted
large quantities of nutrients away from
Washington and Oregon streams and rivers
(WDFW, 2000).
Phosphorous
Although there are no State criteria for
phosphorus, EPA recommends a limit of <0.05
mg/L for streams that deliver to lakes and
suggested limit of 0.1 mg/L in streams that do
not deliver to lakes (MacKenthun, 1973 in
MacDonald et al., 1991). Because of the low
phosphorous content, streams in the Pacific
northwest region are considered naturally
nutrient poor and sensitive to nutrient inputs
(Welch et al., 1998). None of the streams
exceed the 0.1 mg/L limit. Mean annual
phosphorus concentrations in small forested
streams of the west slope of the Cascades are
typically <0.06 mg/L (see McDonald et al.,
1991). The principal means of increase of
phosphorous in Pacific northwest streams are
increased erosion rates and organic matter
inputs.
Nitrite-Nitrate (NO2' NO3)
Inorganic nitrogen is the predominant form of
nitrogen in lotic systems (Welch et al., 1998)
and is readily assimilated by plants for growth.
There is no national criteria for nitrate but
11
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
concentrations of <0.3 mg/L (<300 eq/L) would
probably prevent eutrophication (Cline 1973, in
MacDonald et al., 1991).
Approximately 75% of the streams have <0.3
mg/L nitrite-nitrate. The usual range in non-
enriched streams is 1 - 0.5 mg/L so all are
within this normal range (Welch et al, 1998).
Low nutrients in the form of nitrate are
characteristic of forest streams. This is similar
to stream monitoring results from other Coast
Range Ecoregion areas (Merger and Hayslip,
2000). As with other water quality measures,
amounts of nitrogen are highly dependent on
flow.
Table 5. Nutrients in the upper Chehalis basin, expressed
as mg/L
C. Physical Habitat Indicators
While there are currently no water quality
criteria for physical habitat variables, they are
very important for supporting designated uses
and directly support the goal of the Clean Water
Act. Watershed scale features (stream order,
basin size, and gradient) describe the stream in
the context of the overall landscape and provide
context for the relationship of other physical
habitat features.
In this section we describe the physical
characteristics of streams at a broad scale using
indicators such as channel form and related
measures. We also describe the physical
characteristics of streams at a finer reach scale
using indicators such as substrate size and pool
habitat. We focus on those indicators of greatest
importance to the biota.
Channel Farm
In the upper Chehalis basin, 2nd order streams
have a relatively small range of watershed area
(mean 5,034 ac) and range of gradients (1.1 to
4.1%). Most of the channels of the upper
Chehalis basin have a pool-riffle type channel
(Montgomery and Buffington, 1998). In this
channel type, flow converges and scours on
alternating banks resulting in a laterally
oscillating sequence of bars, pools, and riffles.
Also the presence of large roughness elements
(large woody debris, boulders, etc.) act to force
the flow, thereby influencing the channel form
and complexity.
The cross section of a stream channel (width
and depth) provides information for evaluating
total habitat space available for fish and other
organisms. In the upper Chehalis basin, the
mean thalweg depth (the depth along the
deepest part of the stream) was 39.3 cm. Mean
wetted stream width was 5.5m.
Substrate
Substrate describes the grain size of particles on
the stream bottom, and ranges from rocks to
mud. Stream substrate size is influenced by
many factors including geology, gradient, flow
and channel shape.
The following describes the characteristics of
surface substrate particle size in the basin.
Substrate particle size data were collected at
five locations along each of the 11 evenly
spaced transects at each sample site. Data were
expanded to reflect the proportion of the stream
channel area.
Overall, sand and fine (<0.06 mm) sized
substrate was the most common (mean 32% and
median 25% of the surface substrate) followed
by coarse gravel (Figure 7). Although the fine
sized substrate fraction was common, coarser
substrate was more often the dominant substrate
size (defined as > 50% of the streambed) in
streams that had a dominant substrate type. In
12
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
Mean substrate distribution
Substrate Class
Figure 7. Bar chart of mean substrate quantity by size
class in 2nd order streams.
other words fines were present in most streams,
but many streams had well sorted gravel and
cobble substrate. Note, many channels did not
have a dominant substrate size class and no
streams were boulder dominated (Figure 8).
Sand/fines
19%
Bedrock/
hardpan
4%
Gra\«l/cobble
50%
Figure 8. Pie chart of percent of streambed with
dominant particle size.
Larse Woody Debris (LWD}
Large woody debris (LWD), as single pieces or
in accumulations (i.e. logjams), alters flow and
traps sediment, thus influencing channel form
and related habitat features. The quantity, type
and size of LWD recruited to the channel from
the riparian zone and from hillslopes is
important to stream function in channels that are
influenced by LWD of various sizes. Loss of
LWD without a recruitment source can result in
long-term alteration of channel form as well as
loss of habitat complexity in the form of pools,
overhead cover, flow velocity variations, and
retention and sorting of spawning-sized gravels.
Field data were categorized into five size
classes (very small, small, medium, large, very
large) based on the following length/diameter
matrix (Table 6).
Diameter
Class (m)
0.1 -0.3
>0.3 - 0.6
>0.5 - 0.8
>0.8
Length Class (m)
1.5-5
Very
Small
Small
Small
Medium
>5 - 15
Small
Medium
Large
Large
>15
Medium
Large
Large
Very
Large
Table 6. Definition of five LWD size classes based on
piece length and diameter.
LWD of all sizes was generally abundant
(median 22 pieces/100m and mean 32 pieces).
Only 4% of the streams had no LWD. Because
larger sized pieces of LWD have a greater
ability to influence channel form, analyzing the
medium and larger sized pieces provides a
different view of the LWD content of the
streams (Figure 9). Larger pieces, capable of
influencing channel form, were rare. No very
13
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
large pieces were counted and the mean large
size was 3 pieces/ 100m, median 1 piece/100m
(Figure 10).
Very large
Large
Medium
Small
-I
Very small
0.00
5.00 10.00
LWD pieces/100m
15.00
Figure 10. Mean LWD quantity (pieces per 100m)
by class.
For the west side of the Cascades, the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) suggests
stream channels should have >80 pieces per
mile (5 pieces per 100m) of LWD >24in
(>60cm) diameter in order to be "properly
functioning" (NMFS, 1996). Some of the
streams of the basin met the NMFS criterion as
the mean number of pieces in this large and
very large size class averaged 2.5 pieces per
100m.
Pools
In streams, pools are areas of deeper, slower
flowing water that are important habitat features
for fish. The abundance of pools and their size
and depth depends on the stream's power and
channel complexity. Stream size, substrate size
and abundance, and larger roughness element
(e.g. LWD) availability all contribute to the
frequency and quality of pools. Although the
pool frequency is fairly high in the upper
Chehalis basin (mean 1 pool per 2 channel
widths of stream length), most of the pools are
shallow, with mean pool depth of 24 cm (see
Figure 11). Therefore, the deep pools useable
by salmon were rare.
Fish Cover
Many structural components of streams are used
by fish as concealment from predators and as
hydraulic refugia (e.g. bank undercuts, LWD,
boulders). Although this metric is defined by
fish use, fish cover is also indicative of the
overall complexity of the channel which is
likely to be beneficial to other organisms.
Using the metric of natural fish cover (includes
overhanging vegetation, undercut banks, LWD,
brush, and boulders), the mean areal cover
proportion of 0.37 was estimated for the basin
as shown in Figure 12. Using quartiles to define
low, medium, high and very high, most streams
are in the moderate range of natural fish cover.
Few have very high amount of fish cover.
Riparian Vegetation
Riparian (stream bank) vegetation is important
for several reasons:
• influences channel form and bank
stability through root strength;
• source of recruitment for LWD that
influences channel complexity and
provide cover for fish;
• provides inputs of organic matter such as
leaves, and shades the stream which
influences water temperature.
14
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
Ol
C
£
E
n
S
i
S.
5 10 16 20
LWD medium and larger (pieces/IOOm)
25
Figure 9. Large Woody Debris (LWD) quantity for
The Medium and larger categories
expressed as pieces per 100m.
8 >1m
I
^ .75-1 m
B
Q.
•§ .5-.75m
0
Q. <5m
Mean perce
^4
ntof p
i
oolsb
ydepl
hclas
s
i
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Pools (%)
Figure 11. Frequency of pools by depth class.
«
E
i?
e
£ *
0.2 04 0.6
Natural fish cover (areal cover proportion)
08
Figure 12. Natural fish cover (undercut banks,
overhanging vegegation, LWD, brush and
boulders)
15
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
Expressed as a proportion of the reach, riparian
cover data were collected for three vegetation
heights:
1. Canopy
2. Mid level
3. Ground cover
>5m
.5m to 5 m
<.5m
Visual estimates of cover density and general
structural/species vegetation classes (e.g.
coniferous, deciduous) of each layer were
recorded. Overall, riparian vegetation was
dense and most streams had abundant riparian
vegetation (Figure 13). The proportion of
streams with riparian coverage was
approximately 100% for most streams (mean
92%).
Three types of riparian canopy (riparian
vegetation >5m) cover types were considered,
coniferous, deciduous, and mixed coniferous
and deciduous cover. The riparian tree canopy
of most streams is composed of deciduous
species (e.g. alder, maple). Coniferous riparian
canopy was generally rare (Figure 14).
Coniferous
None ]%
8%
Mixed
28%
Deciduous
63%
Figure 14. Pie chart of the mean percent riparian canopy
cover by species types in second order
streams of the upper Chehalis.
In addition to riparian vegetation presence,
stream shading from riparian canopy was
assessed using densiometer readings at each of
the 11 transects. Separate calculations from the
bank and mid-channel were made. Overall,
shade was high with mean bank shading of 91%
and mean mid-channel shade of 77% (see
Figure 15).
Riparian Disturbance Indicators
Removal or alteration of riparian vegetation
reduces habitat quality and can result in
negative effects to the stream biota. Riparian
disturbance data were collected by examining
the channel, bank and riparian area on both
sides of the stream at each of the 11 transects
and visually estimating the presence and
proximity of disturbance (Hayslip et al., 1994).
Eleven different categories of disturbance were
evaluated. Each disturbance category is
assigned a value based on its presence and
proximity to the stream (1.67, in channel or on
bank; 1.0, within 10m of stream; 0.67, beyond
1 Om from stream;, and 0, not present).
All types of disturbance were observed in the
riparian zones of the upper Chehalis streams.
Some, such as row crops, mining, and pipes,
were very rare both in overall mean and
frequency of occurrence (number of sites). The
most common form of riparian disturbance was
logging (31%), followed by pasture (25%) and
roads (21%) (Figure 16).
Data were expanded to calculate a proximity-
weight disturbance index for each reach
(Kaufrnann et al., 1999). This index combines
the extent of disturbance (based on presence or
absence) as well as the proximity of the
disturbance to the stream. Categories of
disturbance were defined using quartile ranges
of the data (Table 7).
16
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
§
I-
ft
04 0:6 0.7 OJ 0.*
Riparian canopy (proportion of raach)
1.0
Figure 13. Riparian vegetation cover (both canopy
and mid layer
30 40 $0 60 70 10 10 100
lid-channel canopy shade (*)
Figure 15. Mid-channel shade
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Al riparian disturbanc* typw (pfoxknlty wHUum)
Figure 17. All riparian disturbance all types
17
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehaiis River Basin
EMAP
Huron influence in riparian zone
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 a25
Ptoxinity weighted index
ax as
Figure 16. Mean riparian zone human influence from
each of 10 disturbance categories.
Data Range
0-.4
> .4 - .8
>.8- 1.2
> 1.2
Level
of Human Influence
Low
Medium
High
Very High
Table 7. Levels of human influence
Generally the level of human influence is low
(<0.4) for the separate categories based on mean
values (see Appendix 3). However, when all
disturbance categories are accounted for, most
sites have a high level of human influence
(mean 1.34 and median 1.1) (Figure 17).
Approximately 40% of the stream km have very
high evidence of human influence when all
sources were combined.
D. Biological Indicators
Fish and Amphibian Resources
Fish were sampled at all sites and amphibians
were observed in 42% of stream km. A total of
20 different species were sampled, representing
15 fish species and 5 amphibian species. Fish
species are listed in Figure 18 and the relevant
statistics are in Table 8.
Statistic
Sites with Fish
Sites with
salmonids
Sites with
Amphibians
Sites with non-
native fish
Sites with non-
native
amphibians
Sites with non-
native
vertebrates
#of
Sites
26
26
11
1
1
2
%of
Stream
Length
100
100
42
4
4
8
Comment
15 species
5 species
Pumpkinseed
Bull frog
Table 8. Frequency of occurrence of aquatic vertebrates,
upper Chehaiis 2nd order streams, 1997.
Non-native species were rare in the basin's 2nd
order streams. Only 1 non-native fish species
(pumpkinseed) was sampled at one site,
representing 4% of the stream km. In addition,
only one non-native amphibian (bull frog) was
sampled at one site. Although non-native
species were rare, this study does not assess the
presence/abundance of hatchery fish.
The Salmonidae family, which includes trout
and salmon, was the most broadly distributed
vertebrate family in the basin, followed by the
Cottidae family (sculpins). Coho salmon and
coastal cutthroat trout were the most broadly
distributed salmonid species (see Figure 18).
Coho salmon occur along the Pacific coast from
northern California to Alaska (Wydoski and
Whitney, 1979). This anadromous fish spawns
and juveniles rear in freshwater from 1 to 2
years before migrating to the ocean. Coho are
an important commercial and popular sport fish
18
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
and are one of the more commonly found
salmonids in Western Washington.
Coastal cutthroat trout are the only cutthroat
sub-species that is native to the west coast of
North America from northern California to
southeast Alaska (Wydoski and Whitney, 1979).
Coastal cutthroat trout use a variety of habitats,
including large and small rivers, very small,
ocean-connected, streams and isolated stream
reaches above migration barriers. Often, coastal
cutthroat trout are the only salmonid species
present hi high elevation streams (Connelly and
Hall, 1999). This species has a variety of life
history strategies with anadromous, fluvial and
resident forms as well as intermediates (Trotter,
1989). Currently, coastal cutthroat trout are
proposed as a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act for Washington State.
The dominant sculpin (cottid) species are the
reticulate and riffle sculpin, both of which are
native to coastal streams of Washington and
Oregon north to the Puget Sound with disjunct
distribution in central and northern California
(Lee et al., 1980). We grouped these two species
together as they were often indistinguishable
from one another.
Several native fish were found rarely (<5% of
the estimated stream miles). These were the
redside shiner, longnose dace and the northern
pikeminnow.
Fish Guild descriptions:
It is useful to group fish by how sensitive they
are to pollution and other human disturbances.
Also, fish can be grouped by then- temperature
preferences. These groups are called guilds.
The fish guild classification that we use in this
report is based on Zaroban et al. (1999). The
following classifications are used to build
indices of biological integrity (Bis) but they are
also useful for providing an overview of the
species within the ecoregion:
Temperature guilds - 3 classifications; warm,
cool, and cold water preference.
Sensitivity guilds - tolerant, intermediate, and
sensitive are classifications based on species
ability to tolerate pollution and disturbance that
is human induced.
Most upper Chehalis basin vertebrates are cool
and coldwater species and are of intermediate
sensitivity to human disturbance (see Figures
19 and 20, respectively).
Benthic invertebrates
Bentbic macroinvertebrate assemblages reflect
overall biological integrity of the stream and
monitoring these assemblages is useful hi
assessing the current status of the water body as
well as long-term changes (Plafkin et al., 1989).
Benthic invertebrate data collected from riffle
habitats were available from all sample reaches.
The following four metrics were used in the
analysis: taxa richness, EPT taxa richness,
intolerant taxa richness and percent EPT. See
Table 9 for a more in depth description of each
metric.
The metric "taxa richness" gives an overall
indication of the variability of
macroinvertebrate communities in the upper
Chehalis basin (Figure 21). The total number
of taxa ranges from 5 to 60 species.
In an assessment of Oregon Coast Range
Ecoregion streams, Canale (1999) found critical
levels of total taxa richness of less 30 taxa and
EPT taxa richness of less than 18 taxa as
indicative of impaired stream condition based
on analyses developed from Oregon reference
sites. In an assessment of Puget Lowland
Ecoregion streams in the King County area
(Karr and Chu,1999), EPT taxa richness of less
19
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
of c$
£> x®
v%^.
fcV ,-
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
than 15 taxa was found to be indicative of an
impaired condition based on reference sites
from the Puget Lowlands Ecoregion.
In the upper Chehalis, approximately 90% of
stream km had <30 taxa richness (Figure 21)
and approximately 32% had <18 EPT taxa
(Figure 22).
Taxa
richness
EPT taxa
richness
Percent
EPT
Intolerant
taxa
richness
The total number of
different taxa
describes the overall
variety of the
macroinvertebrate
assemblage. Useful
measure of diversity
or variety of the
assemblage.
Number of taxa in the
orders Ephemeroptera
(mayflies), Plecoptera
(stoneflies) and
Trichoptera (caddis
flies).
Percent of the total
sample organisms that
are Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera and
Trichoptera.
Taxa richness of those
organisms considered
to be sensitive to.
perturbation
Decreases with
low water quality
associated with
increasing human
influence.
Sensitive to most
types of human
disturbance.
In general, these
taxa are sensitive
to human
disturbance.
A composite
measure for
identity and
dominance.
Taxa that are
intolerant to
pollution based
on classification
from Wisseman,
1996.
Table 9. Description of benthic macroinvertebrate
indicator metrics (Resh and Jackson ,1993 and
Resh, 1995).
As with fish, invertebrates can be grouped by
their sensitivity to pollution. Figure 23 shows
the total number of taxa (taxa richness) of those
organisms considered to be sensitive to
pollution.
21
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
e *
i s
30 36 40 45
Invertebrate taxa (number)
Figure 21. Total invertebrate taxa richness
so
55
f
»
1
E
«
c !
8
3 4 5 6
Intolerant taxa (number)
Figure 23. Intolerant taxa richness
li
10 15 20 25
EPT taxa(number)
30
Figure 22. EPT taxa richness
22
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
Photo: Sage Creek, Upper Chehalis basin. (Source: Washington Department of Ecology)
IV. DISCUSSION
When examining the effect of human influences
on aquatic ecosystems, it is often difficult to
decide which indicators to examine. In the
upper Chehalis basin, the major land cover type
and the largest source of human influence in the
riparian area is forestry. Therefore, we will
evaluate some indicators that have been
suggested to be sensitive to forestry in the
northwest (McDonald et al., 1991). In Table 10,
indicators are ranked according to their
sensitivity to forest activities as follows:
In the upper Chehalis basin the primary land
cover type is forest (81%). Much of this
forested land is currently being actively
managed, or has been harvested at some point in
the past. The second largest land cover type in
the basin is agriculture (11%). We found that
40% of the stream miles had very high evidence
of human influence in the riparian area (when all
sources of human influence were combined). The
largest sources of human influence in the riparian
areas were logging, pasture and roads.
The R-EMAP project was designed to evaluate
the overall condition of the basin. The data
provides a large base of information, which
while not necessarily designed to investigate
specific activities, can be used to assess human
influence on streams in the upper Chehalis basin.
1
2
3
4
directly affected and highly
sensitive
moderately affected and
somewhat sensitive
indirectly affected and not very
sensitive
largely unaffected
23
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
Parameter
PH
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Temperature
Canopy
opening
LWD
Riparian
vegetation
Pool
Parameters
Macro
invertebrates
Forest
Harvest
3
2
2
1-2
1-3
1
1-3
2
I
Road building
and maintenance
3
3
3
3
2
4
3
1
1
(a suggested level to prevent eutrophication).
All streams in the upper Chehalis basin fall
within the usual range found in non-enriched
streams which is 1.5 mg/L (Welch et al, 1998).
Table 10. Sensitivity of selected monitoring parameters
to forest management activities, assuming
average management practices (from
McDonald et al., 1991).
In the following discussion and in Table 11, the
results from the upper Chehalis basin are
compared to what we would expect based on
examining indicators that are sensitive to forest
management activities. Note, that we are only
evaluating some of the indicators measured by
the R-EMAP study.
Water Column Chemistry
The available data indicates that pH is not
sensitive to most forest management activities
(McDonald et al., 1991). In the upper Chehalis
basin, we found only 2% of the stream miles
were above the Washington State pH criteria.
Forest management activities can alter many
parts of the nitrogen cycle, and this makes it
difficult to generalize about the effect of these
activities. In the upper Chehalis basin, 75% of
the streams have < .03 mg/L nitrite-nitrate
Parameter
pH
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Temperature
Canopy
opening
LWD
Deciduous
Riparian
Vegetation
Pool Depth
Pool
Frequency
Macro
invertebrate
(EPT taxa
richness)
Expected
direction of
response to Forest
Management
activities
•i
*
t
±
+
A
^r
a
4
Direction
of response
found in
Upper
Chehalis
L~Z-~1
C=3
[___'
a
=
*
*
,7,
-
4
Table 11. Expected direction of response for selected
monitoring parameters to forest management
activities compared to what was found in the
upper Chehalis basin.
Studies in the Pacific northwest indicate that
forest management activities are unlikely to
substantially increase phosphate concentrations
on aquatic ecosystems (McDonald et al., 1991).
24
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
In the second order streams of the upper
Chehalis basin we found no streams had
phosphorus above .1 mg/L (a suggested level).
Forest cover provides shade to streams and a
reduction in the forest cover along streams can
increase the solar radiation and hence peak
summer stream temperatures. In this project,
using a single measurement, we found no
streams that were above the Washington State
criteria of 18°C. This is not unexpected as
stream temperature is variable and dependent on
climatic conditions. Using a single
measurement, it is unlikely to represent peak
stream temperatures.
Physical Habitat
The primary influence of management activities
on the riparian areas is the direct removal of
vegetation. The removal of the riparian canopy,
by increasing direct solar radiation to the stream,
can cause marked increases in water
temperature. Both coniferous and deciduous
species are effective in stream shading.
In the upper Chehalis basin, the amount of shade
was high, 91% of the stream miles were
classified as shaded when shade was measured
near the streambank. When measured in the
middle of the stream, 77% of the stream miles
were shaded. Therefore, decreased bank
stability and increased solar radiation from
riparian vegetation removal would not appear to
be a widespread problem.
Although the riparian canopy provides adequate
shade to these streams, these trees are mostly
deciduous. Conifierous trees, which provide
much greater structural function in streams due
to their size, were a much less common
component of the riparian vegetation.
The amount of LWD in streams of the Pacific
northwest has been reduced from historical
levels by forest management activities. No
streams in the upper Chehalis basin had very
large pieces (> 0.8 m in diameter) of LWD. The
mean number of large sized LWD (.8 m - >.5 m)
was 2.5 pieces per 100 meters of stream. NMFS
recommends 5 pieces per 100 meters of stream.
The abundance of pools and their size and depth
depends on the stream's power and channel
complexity. Stream size, substrate size
and abundance, and larger roughness element
(e.g. LWD) availability all contribute to the
frequency and quality of pools. la the upper
Chehalis, while pools were frequent, they were
also quite shallow (mean depth 25cm), with
63% of the pools in the less than .5m depth
category.
Aquatic Biota
Benthic macroinvertebrates reflect the overall
biological integrity of streams. The number of
mayfly, stonefly and caddisfly taxa (EPT taxa
richness) is one of the most commonly used
measures of the invertebrate community. EPT
taxa richness was found to decrease with
increasing forest management activities in the
Umpqua National Forest in Oregon (Fore et al.,
1996). In an assessment of Oregon Coast Range
streams, Canale (1999) found a EPT taxa
richness of 18 and below as indicative of
impaired stream condition based on analyses
developed from Oregon reference sites. In the
upper Chehalis basin, approximately 32% of the
stream miles had less than 18 EPT taxa.
25
-------
EPA Region 10 Upper Chehalis River Basin
Office of Environmental Assessment EMAP
SUMMARY
The objective of this R-EMAP project was to
evaluate the condition of 2nd order streams in
the upper Chehalis basin. The primary human
activity in the upper Chehalis basin is forest
management. We found little evidence of acute
or severe impairment, as might be expected
from the relatively low level of industrial
development in the basin. However, we did find
evidence of nonpoint source impairment.
In general, the parameters we measured in the
upper Chehalis basin R-EMAP study responded
as we would have expected them to respond to
forest management activities. The exception to
this was temperature, which was largely due to
our measurement method. However, LWD and
pool depth were low and deciduous riparian
vegetation was increased as would be expected
to result from forest management. Sensitive
macroinvertebrate taxa were also low.
26
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
V. REFERENCES
Canale,G. 1999. BORIS Benthic evaluation of
ORegon rlverS. Draft report.
Department of Environmental Quality
Laboratory - Biomonitoring Section.
Portland, Oregon.
Cline.C 1973. The effects of forest
fertilization on the Tahuya River, Kitsap
Peninsula, Washington. Washington
State Department of Ecology. Olympia.
55pp.
Connolly, P.J. and J.D. Hall. 1999. Biomassof
coastal cutthroat trout in unlogged and
previously clear-cut basins in the central
Coast Range of Oregon. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society 128:890-
899.
Fore, L.S, J.R. Karr, and R.W. Wisseman. 1996.
Assessing invertebrate responses to
human activities: evaluating alternative
approaches. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society.
Volumnel5(2):212-231.
Hayslip, G., DJ. Klemm and J.M. Lazorchak.
1994. 1994 Field Operations and
Methods Manual For Streams in the
Coast Range Ecoregion of Oregon and
Washington and the Yakima River Basin
of Washington. Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Herger, L.G. and G. Hayslip. 2000. Ecological
condition of streams in the Coast Range
ecoregion of Oregon and Washington.
EPA-910-R-00-002. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle,
Washington.
Herlihy, A.T., D.P. Larsen, S.G. Paulsen, N.S.
Urquhart, and BJ. Rosenbaum. 2000.
Designing a spatially balanced
randomized site selection process for
regional stream surveys: the EMAP mid-
Atlantic pilot study. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 63:95-113.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity
using fish communities. Fisheries
6(6)21-27.
Karr, J.R., and E.W. Chu. (1999). Restoring
Life in Running: Better Biological
Monitoring. Island Press, Washington,
D.C. 206pp.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R.
Yant, I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing
biological integrity in running waters: a
method and its rationale. Illinois Natural
History Survey, Special Publication 5.
State of Illinois, Champaign.
Kaufmann, P.R., P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C.
Seeliger, and D.V. Peck. 1999.
Quantifying physical habitat in wadeable
streams. EPA 620/R-99/003.
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Corvallis, OR.
Klemm, D. J., P.A. Lewis, F. Fulk, and J.M.
Lazorchak. 1990. Macroinvertebrate
field and laboratory methods for
evaluating the biological integrity of
surface waters. Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA-600-4-90-030.
27
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
Lazorchak, J.M., Klemm, D. J., and D.V. Peck
(editors). 1998. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program -
Surface Waters: Field Operations and
Methods for Measuring the Ecological
Condition of Wadeable Streams.
EPA/620/R-94/004R U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E.
Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R.
StauflferJr. 1980-etseq. Atlas of
North American freshwater fishes.
Publication #1980-12 North Carolina
Biological Survey. North Carolina State
Museum of Natural History.
Lonzarich, D. 1994. Dynamics of stream fish
assemblages and the application of a
habitat-species index to Washington
Streams, in The Effect of Forest
Practices on Fish Populations. T.P.
Quinn and N.P. Peterson. Timber, Fish
and Wildlife (TFW-F4-94-001). School
of Fisheries and Center for Streamside
Studies. University of Washington.
Seattle, Washington.
MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C.
Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines
to evaluate effects of forestry activities
on streams in the Pacific Northwest and
Alaska. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Water Division,
Nonpoint Source Section. EPA/910/9-
91-001. Seattle, WA.
MacKenthun, K.M. 1973. Toward a cleaner
environment. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington D.C.
Merritt, G.D., B. Dickes, and J.S. White. 1999.
Biological assessment of small streams in
the Coast Range ecoregion and the
Yakima River Basin. Washington State
Department of Ecology. Publication No.
99-302. Olympia, Washington.
Montgomery, D.R. and J.M. Buffington. 1993.
Channel classification, prediction of
channel response, and assessment of
channel conditions. Report for TFW-
SH10-93-002. University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington.
Montgomery, D.F. and J.M. Buffington. 1998.
Channel processes, classification and
espouse in River ecology and
Management: lessons from the Pacific
Coastal Ecoregion. R. J. Naiman and R.
E. Bilby editors. Springer Press, New
York.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Aquatic ecoregions of the
conterminous United States—map
supplement. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers. 77:118-125.
Omernik, J.M. and A. Gallant, 1986. Ecoregions
of the Pacific Northwest. EPA
600/3-86/033. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development. Corvallis, OR.
Overton, W.S., D. White, and D.L. Stevens, Jr.
1990. Design Report for EMAP,
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. EPA
600/3-91/053. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.
28
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
Peterson, S.A., D.P. Larsen, S.G. Paulsen, and
N.S. Urquhart. 1998. Regional lake
trophic patterns in the northeastern
United States: three approaches.
Environmental Management 22:789-801.
Peterson, S.A., N.S. Urquhart, and E.B. Welch.
1999. Sample representativeness: a must
for reliable regional lake condition
estimates. Environmental Science and
Technology. 33:1559-1565.
Trotter P.C. 1989. Coastal cutthroat trout: a
life history compendium. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society 118:463-
473.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
2000. Pacific Salmon and Wildlife:
Ecological Context, Relationships and
Implications for Management. WDFW
Special Edition Technical Report.
Orympia, Washington.
Washington State. 1992. Chapter 173-201
WAC, Water Quality Standards for
surface waters of the State of
Washington. Statutory Authority:
Chapter 90.48 RCW. 92-24-037 (Order
92-29), 173-201A-010, filed 11/25/92.
Otympia, Washington.
Welch, E.B., J.M. Jacoby, and C.W. May. 1998.
Stream quality in River ecology and
Management: lessons from the Pacific
Coastal Ecoregion. R. J. Naiman and R.
E. Bilby editors. Springer Press, New
York.
Wisseman, R. 1996. Benthic Invertebrate
Biomonitoring and Bioassessment in
Western Montane Streams. Aquatic
Biology Associates, Inc. Corvallis, OR.
Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland
fishes of Washington. University of
Washington Press. Seattle, Washington.
Zaroban, D.W., M.P. Mulvey, T.R. Maret, R.M.
Hughes, and G. D. Merritt. 1999.
Classification of species attributes for
Pacific Northwest freshwater fishes.
Northwest Science. 73(2) 81-93.
29
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
VI. APPENDICES
Appendix 1. List of sites with associated stream identification number.
Map#
Site ID
LatHude
WACH97-005
46.7552583333
123.096347222
T15N-R3W-S29 LEWIS
WACH97-006
46.4733027778
123.171486111
T11N-R4W-S3 LEWIS
10
WACH97-010
46.496575
123.282072222
T12N-R5W-S27 LEWIS
14
WACH97-014
46.5690722222
123.29545
T13N-R5W-S34 LEWIS
WACH97-015
46.7624305556
123.315294444
T15N-R5W-S28 LEWIS
WACH97-017
46.6101416667
122.619944444
T13N-R1E-S13 LEWIS
1L
22
WACH97-019
46.6556027778
123.263708333
T14N-R5W-S35 LEWIS
WACH97-022
46.9599888889
123.081538889
T17N-R3W-S17 ffHURSTON
25_
28_
29_
30_
33
WACH97-025
46.8167611111
122.769194444
T15N-R1W-S2 rTHURSTON
WACH97-028
46.7093527778
123.19475
T14N-R4W-S9 LEWIS
WACH97-029
46.8979138889
123.018972222
T16N-R3W-S2 frHURSTON
WACH97-030
46.4486111111
123.338511111
T11N-R5W-S7 LEWIS
Elochoman Pass
WACH97-033
46.9144055556
123.050716667
T17N-R3W-S34 fTHURSTON
37.
39
WACH97-037
46.9890388889
123.22595
T17N-R4W-S6
3RAYS
HARBOR
WACH97-039
46.57415
122.972430556
T13N-R2W-S31 LEWIS
WACH97-041
46.6816944444
122.734955556
T14N-R1E-S19 LEWIS
42
WACH97-042
46.3705055556
123.151405556
T10N-R4W-S11 COWLITZ
Elochoman Lake
43
45_
58
WACH97-043
46.9450805556
123.161516667
T17N-R4W-S22
3RAYS
HARBOR
apitol Peak
WACH97-045
46.870325
122.816219444
T16N-R1W-S16 rTHURSTON
WACH97-048
46.6334638889
123.193097222
T13N-R4W-S9 LEWIS
Rainbow Falls
5p_
53_
54
WACH97-050
46.9890722222
123.204141667
T17N-R4W-S5
5RAYS
HARBOR
pitol Peak
WACH97-053
46.8717694444
123.146186111
T16N-R4W-S14 rTHURSTON
)akville
WACH97-054
46.406475
123.108716667
T11N-R3W-S30 LEWIS
ildwood
56
WACH97-056
46.7366638889
123.269391667
T14N-R5W-S2 LEWIS
Doty
58
WACH97-058
46.7047277778
123.117238889
T14N-R3W-S18 LEWIS
Adna
59
WACH97-059
46.5203138889
123.161822222
T12N-R4W-S15 LEWIS
Boistfort
30
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
Appendix 2. Summary statistics for water chemistry indicators.
Chloride (CI-)
Conductivity
issolved oxygen (DO)
Dissolved organic carbon
(DOC)
monia (NH.N)
Nitrate-nitrite (NO
otal phosphorus
Sulfate (SO.)
otal persulfate nitrogen
Stream flow
ater temperature
otal susnended solids
AIK, DOC, Cl each had one estimated value.
SO4INO23_N, NHjJSI, and TSS had 3,1,20, and 4 undectable readings.
31
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
Appendix 3. Summary statistics for physical habitat metrics
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
cover
cover
cover
Iwd
Iwd
Iwd
Iwd
Iwd
reach length / mean bankfull width
mean undercut bank distance
mean bankfull width
mean bankfull
reach length
height
mean water slope of reach
sinuosity
mean thalweg depth
std. dev. thalweg depth
mean wetted width
wetted width/depth
% reach with glides
% reach with riffles
% reach with falls
% reach with rapids
% reach with cascades
% reach with fast water types
% reach with slow water types
% reach with pools
% reach with dry/submerged flow
#ch widths/#residual pools
area covered by all types but algae
area covered by natural, obj.
area covered by large obj.
volume LWD class 1
volume LWD class 2
volume LWD class 3
volume LWD class 4
volume LWD class 5
count
m
m
m
m
%
unitless
cm
cm
m
unitless
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
unitless
frac
frac
frac
m3/m2
m3/m2
m3/m2
m3/m2
m3/m2
#ch widths
XUN
XBKF W
XBKF H
REACHLEN
XSLOPE
SINU
XDEPTH
SDDEPTH
XWIDTH
XWD.RAT
PCT_GL
PCT_RI
PCT_FA
PCT_RA
PCT_CA
PCT_FAST
PCT_SLOW
PCT_POOL
PCT_DRS
pooljreq
XFC_ALL
XFC_NAT
XFC_BIG
V1W_MSQ
V2W_MSQ
V3W_MSQ
V4W_MSQ
V5W MSQ
Hi
23.8
0.0
9.3
0.7
200.4
1.5
1.3
39.3
22.8
5.5
20.7
53.2
29.7
0.1
5.9
0.3
36.0
64.0
10.7
OO
2.1
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
sGonfr
3.234
0.016
1.630
0.089
28.250
0.533
0.112
5.426
3.698
0.929
3.196
9.805
6.962
0.105
3.656
0.313
8.968
8.968
4.505
0.000
0.486
0.075
0.073
0.051
0.021
0.021
0.017
0.011
0.000
, *$
Median
22.9
0.1
9.3
0.7
150.0
1.1
1.2
42.6
23.1
5.2
21.1
46.3
31.5
0.0
1.3
0.0
38.5
61.5
8.8
0.0
1.9
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
• - '^*
Mint
11.0
0.0
3.8
0.3
150.0
0.0
1.0
17.2
8.9
1.5
5.5
20.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Max.
39.5
0.1
19.2
1.4
360.0
4.1
2.4
64.5
49.2
11.6
35.2
100.0
64.0
1.0
29.0
3.3
70.0
100.0
40.0
OO
4.9
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
Range
28.5
0.1
15.4
1.1
210.0
4.1
1.4
47.2
40.3
10.1
29.7
79.3
64.0
1.0
29.0
3.3
70.0
70.0
40.0
0.0
4.5
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
Variance
64.105
0.002
16.276
0.048
4891.846
1.743
0.076
180.437
83.826
5.290
62.624
589.259
297.071
0.067
81.952
0.602
492.954
492.954
124.391
0.000
1.451
0.034
0.033
0.016
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.000
Standard
Deviation
8.007
0.039
4.034
0.219
69.942
1.320
0.277
13.433
9.156
2.300
7.914
24.275
17.236
0.259
9.053
0.776
22.203
22.203
11.153
0.000
1.204
0.184
0.181
0.126
0.053
0.051
0.041
0.027
0.000
Standard
" Error
1.570
0.008
0.791
0.043
13.717
0.259
0.054
2.634
1.796
0.451
1.552
4.761
3.380
0.051
1.775
0.152
4.354
4.354
2.187
0.000
i
0.236
0.036
0.035
0.025
0.010
0.010
0.008
0.005
0.000
32
-------
Iwd
Iwd
Iwd
Iwd
Iwd
pool
pool
pool
pool
pool
pool
pool
pool
pool
pool
pool
pool
human
human
human
human
human
human
human
human
human
human
human
human
human
human
count LWD class 1
count LWD class 2
count LWD class 3
count LWD class 4
count LWD class 5
number of residual pools
number of pools depth> 50 cm
number of pools depth> 75 cm
number of pools depth> 100 cm
max res. depth of deepest pool
vert, profile of largest res. pool
max. pool volume
mean res. pool width
mean res. pool depth
mean pool length
mean res. pool area
mean pool volume
all human dist. (prox. wtd. sum)
non-agric. human dist. (prox. wtd
sum)
agric. human dist. (prox. wtd. sum)
channel revetment (prox. wtd.
index)
logging dist.(prox. wtd. index)
road (prox. wtd. index)
pipes (prox. wtd. index)
landfill/trash (prox. wtd. index)
park (prox. wtd. index)
row crops (prox. wtd. index)
pasture (prox. wtd. index)
mines (prox. wtd. index)
buildings torox. wtd. index)
pavement (prox. wtd. index)
#/100m
#/100m
#/100m
#/100m
#/100m
count
count
count
count
cm
m2
m3
m
cm
m
m2
m3
frac
frac
frac
frac
frac
frac
frac
frac
frac
frac
frac
frac
frac
frac
%i;;T'' V'$;:\i"''^-"&^H* L -^
:; ^;; ;':^£vls>'!%:J'^^ !f If i';?^1'
iiiiiiiilKi
C1WM100
C2WM100
C3WM100
C4WM100
C5WM100
NRP
RPGT50
RPGT75
RPGT100
RPMDEP
RPMAREA
RPMVOL
RPXWID
RPXDEP
RPXLEN
RPXAREA
RPXVOL
W1JHALL
W1_HNOAG
W1 HAG
W1H_WALL
W1H LOG
W1H_ROAD
W1H_PIPE
W1HJ.DFL
W1H_PARK
W1H_CROP
W1H_PSTR
W1H_MINE
W1H_BLDG
W1H_PVMT
ill
32.3
19.1
7.7
2.5
0.0
13.7
2.5
1.3
0.5
100.6
18.2
42.9
2.5
24.2
14.9
4.1
8.3
1.3
1.1
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
?&$$&3Jjj&
^>^^4;;^£-|||
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.3
1.8
2.5
0.9
9.1
3.1
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
HI
124.0
63.3
25.0
10.0
0.0
31.0
6.0
3.0
2.0
360.8
49.7
153.8
5.2
46.6
31.0
9.9
33.5
3.7
3.1
1.5
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.2
1.0
0.7
0.2
1.5
0.1
0.7
0.7
IB
124.0
63.3
25.0
10.0
0.0
26.0
6.0
3.0
2.0
323.5
47.9
151.4
4.2
37.5
27.9
9.6
33.1
3.7
3.1
1.5
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.2
1.0
0.7
0.2
1.5
0.1
0.7
0.7
936.231
295.604
54.397
7.349
0.000
41.502
3.058
1.325
0.418
4121.087
181.150
1815.868
1.048
99.738
65.667
9.174
65.602
0.941
0.605
0.186
0.006
0.089
0.031
0.001
0.057
0.047
0.001
0.183
0.000
0.057
0.055
30.598
17.193
7.375
2.711
0.000
6.442
1.749
1.151
0.647
64.196
13.459
42.613
1.024
9.987
8.104
3.029
8.100
0.970
0.778
0.431
0.080
0.298
0.177
0.036
0.240
0.216
0.033
0.428
0.014
0.239
0.235
6.001
3.372
1.446
0.532
0.000
1.263
0.343
0.226
0.127
12.590
2.640
8.357
0.201
1.959
1.589
0.594
1.588
0.190
0.153
0.085
0.016
0.058
0.035
0.007
0.047
0.042
0.006
0.084
0.003
0.047
0.046
33
-------
imp
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
subst
subst
subst
subst
subst
subst
subst
subst
subst
subst
subst
f rac of reach with canopy
frac of reach with understory
f rac with both canopy and
understory
frac with all three veg classes
frac of reach covered by canopy
frac of reach covered by
groundcover
frac of reach covered by large
woody veg
frac of reach with any veg cover
frac of reach covered by any woody
veg
frac of reach with coniferous dom
canopy
frac of reach with deciduous dom
canopy
frac of reach with mixed canopy
frac of reach without canopy veg
mean %canopy cover at LF & RT
banks
mean % canopy cover
midstream
mean substrate embeddedness
Iog10(est geom mean substr dia.
mm)
% substrate fines class
% substrate fine gravel class
% substrate sand class
% substrate hardpan class
% substrate boulder class
% substrate cobble class
% substrate coarse gravel class
% substrate bedrock class
% substrate other class
IIP
frac
frac
frac
frac
frac
frac
frac
frac
frac
frac
frac
frac
frac
%
%
%
unitless
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Sf!2i^fiSs-i*E;*;S
§3roliSi>tor^
XPCAN
XPMID
XPCM
XPCMG
XC
XG
XCMW
XCMG
XCMGW
PCAN_C
PCAN_D
PCAN M
PCAN_N
XCDENBK
XCDENMID
XEMBED
LSUB_DMM
PCT FN
PCT_GF
PCT_SA
PCT_HP
PCT_BL
PCT_CB
PCT_GC
PCT_BDRK
PCT_OT
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.7
1.6
0.9
0.0
0.6
0.3
0.1
91.0
77.4
55.1
1.2
20.0
11.7
12.0
4.1
7.9
14.9
19.6
8.8
0.1
IP
0.062
0.005
0.062
0.062
0.067
0.066
0.105
0.094
0.141
0.015
0.103
0.100
0.061
3.420
7.413
9.234
0.452
9.870
3.865
5.839
3.314
5.041
5.704
4.641
5.729
0.144
Median
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.7
0.7
1.6
1.0
0.0
0.6
0.2
0.0
93.4
81.8
51.3
1.5
7.3
9.1
7.3
0.9
1.8
13.6
18.2
1.8
0.0
'"•"•"">$!&.„
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.4
0.2
1.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
73.5
23.8
13.9
-2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
IvVMSjtsI
IPL
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.0
1.1
2.0
1.4
0.2
1.0
0.9
0.5
100.0
99.7
100.0
3.0
94.5
36.4
63.6
36.4
47.3
45.5
38.2
54.5
1.8
;-Bangl!
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.9
1.2
0.2
0.9
0.9
0.5
26.5
75.9
86.1
5.3
94.5
36.4
63.6
36.4
47.3
45.5
38.2
54.5
1.8
0.024
0.000
0.024
0.024
0.028
0.026
0.068
0.054
0.121
0.001
0.065
0.062
0.023
71.688
336.860
522.694
1.250
597.157
91.565
208.971
67.321
155.753
199.410
132.048
201.175
0.127
0.154
0.013
0.154
0.155
0.166
0.163
0.260
0.232
0.348
0.037
0.254
0.249
0.151
8.467
18.354
22.863
1.118
24.437
9.569
14.456
8.205
12.480
14.121
11.491
14.184
0.357
Standard
lilError:
0.030
0.002
0.030
0.030
0.033
0.032
0.051
0.045
0.068
0.007
0.050
0.049
0.030
1.660
3.599
4.484
0.219
4.792
1.877
2.835
1.609
2.448
2.769
2.254
2.782
0.070
34
-------
subst
]%substrate wood or oraanic class
PCT ORG
0.8
0.596
0.0
0.0
5.5
5.5
2.177
1.475
0.289
All LWD counts are for the active channel
26 samples for all physical habitat indicators
35
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
Appendix 4. List of fish and amphibians species. Extent of distribution indicated by percent
stream km represented by the sample.
of the total
™ « &fsv « t± K
, 1 «% <
"H
*.. Family
<•
Genus
Species :
,^\'>& , %", • -" "
ll^jDoinm'oh^Haroe^ I'
#0f ,.:
/sites,'
% stream
£ v.-km-j I
Fishes
Catostomidae
Centrarchidae
Cottidae
Cottidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Gasterosteidae
'etromyzontidae
5etromyzontidae
Salmonidae
Salmonidae
Salmonidae
Umbridae
Catostomus
.epomis
Cottus
Cottus
Rhinichthys
Richardsonius
3tychocheilus
Rhinichthys
Gasterosteus
.ampetra
.ampetra
Oncorhynchus
Oncorhynchus
Oncorhynchus
Novumbra
macrocheilus
gibbosus
gulosus/perplexus
rhotheus
osculus
balteatus
oregonensis
cataractae
aculeatus
tridentata
richardsoni
clarki
(isutch
mykiss
lubbsi
largescale sucker
pumpkinseed
riffle/reticulate sculpin
torrent sculpin
speckled dace
redside shiner
northern pikeminnow
longnose dace
threespine stickleback
Pacific lamprey
western brook lamprey
cutthroat trout
coho salmon
rainbow trout/steelhead
Olympic mudminnow
2
1
23
20
5
1
1
1
5
14
5
22
24
14
2
8
4
88
77
19
4
4
4
19
54
19
85
92
54
8
Amphibians
Hylidae
Leiopelmatidae
Ranidae
tenidae
Salamandridae
Pseudacris
Ascaphus
Rana
Rana
Taricha
regilla
true!
aurora
catesbiana
aranulosa
Pacific treefrog
tailed frog
red-legged frog
bullfrog
roueh-skin newt
3
3
6
1
1
12
12
23
4
4
36
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
Appendix 5. Species characteristics classification for aquatic vertebrate species. Classification based on
Zarobanetal. (1999).
Fish Species
atostomidae
Catostomus macrocheilus
largescale sucker
tolerant
jenthic
cool
omnivore
sntrarchidae
Lepomis gibbosus'
pumpkinseed
tolerant
water column
cool
invert/piscivore
Cottus perplexus
reticulate sculpin
intermediate
benthic
cool
invertivore
Cottus gulosus
riffle sculpin
intermediate
benthic
cool
invertivore
Cottus rhotheus
torrent sculpin
intermediate
benthic
cold
invert/piscivore
Drinidae
Ptychocheilus oregonensis northern pikeminnow
tolerant
water column
cool
invert/piscivore
Rhinichthys cataractae jlongnose dace
intermediate
benthic
cool
invertivore
Rhinichthys osculus
speckled dace
intermediate
benthic
cool
invertivore
Richardsonius balteatus
redside shiner
intermediate
water column
cool
invertivore
aasterosteidae
Gasterosteus aculeatus
ireespme
tickleback
tolerant
hider
cool
invertivore
jPetromyzontidae
Lampetra tridentata
Pacific lamprey
intermediate
hider
cool
filter feeder
Lampetra richardsoni
srn brook
llamprey
intermediate
hider
cool
filter feeder
tlmonidae
Oncorhynchus kisutch
3ho salmon
sensitive
water column
cold
invertivore
Oncorhynchus clarki
cutthroat trout
sensitive
water column
cold
invert/piscivore
Oncorhynchus mykiss
rainbow trout
sensitive
hider
cold
invert/piscivore
lUmbridae
Novumbra hubbsi
)lympic mudminnow [tolerant
hider
warm
invertivore
Amphibians
jLeiopelmatidae
Ascaphus truei
ailed frog
sensitive
aenthic/hider
cold
nvert/carnivore
Hylidae
Pseudacris regilla
3acific tree frog
tolerant
entic
none
nvert/carnivore
iRanidae
Rana aurora
red-legged frog
intolerant
edge
none
invert/carnivore
Rana catesbiana1
)ullfrog
tolerant
entic
warm
invert/carnivore
ISalamandridae
Taricha granulosa
rough-skinned newt
tolerant
sdge
none
invert/carnivore
37
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
Appendix 6. Summary Statistics for vertebrate (fish and amphibian) metrics.
I " , „ , H -
[Metric (% individuals)
[sensitive
[intermediate
(Tolerant
IBenthic
Wider
[Water column
ICold
Icool
(Warm
[Filter feeder
lOmnivore
[invertivore
llnvert/oiscivore
Mean
34.6
62.9
2.5
61.8
14.1
24.1
61.6
38.0
0.4
1.1
0.0
55.7
43.2
«S%
Conf.
8.9
9.3
4.0
9.2
9.0
6.2
12.2
12.1
0.8
0.6
0.1
11.2
11.2
Median
30.3
66.9
0.0
65.5
5.3
20.5
67.9
32.1
0.0
0.7
0.0
49.7
48.3
^
Min. -
4.9
4.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
3.4
4.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
!!
96.0
92.8
49.6
92.5
92.7
63.1
100.0
95.1
10.1
6.3
0.9
100.0
100.0
>n\ , ^
Range
91.1
88.8
49.6
88.6
92.7
59.7
95.1
95.1
10.1
6.3
0.9
100.0
100.0
v "~
Variance
490.001
527.123
97.436
517.203
491.342
233.856
916.100
892.323
3.911
2.049
0.034
774.027
771.192
Standard
Deviation
22.136
22.959
9.871
22.742
22.166
15.292
30.267
29.872
1.978
1.431
0.184
27.821
27.770
•dj8taii4iftbv
4.341
4.505
1.93C
4.46C
4.347
2.99S
5.936
5.858
0.38E
0.281
0.036
5.456
5.446
38
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Upper Chehalis River Basin
EMAP
Appendix 7. Summary statistics for selected invertebrate metrics.
otal invertebrate
undance
Intolerant
•H^HMH^HHIK^
No. Lena-lived taxa
39
------- |