EPA910-R-04-005
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 2004
Ecological Condition of
Western Cascades Ecoregion
Streams
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment July 15,2004
Ecological Condition of Western Cascades Ecoregion Streams
an Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Report
Gretchen A. Hayslip, Lillian G. Herger, and Peter T. Leinenbach
July 15,2004
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Publication Number: EPA 910-R-04-005
Suggested Citation:
Hayslip, G.A., L.G. Herger, and P. T. Leinenbach. 2004. Ecological Condition of Western Cascades
Ecoregion Streams. EPA 910-R-04-005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle,
Washington.
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment July 15,2004
Table of Contents
I. PURPOSE 1
II. BACKGROUND 1
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5
A. Design - How to Select Stream Sites to Sample 5
B. Indicators -What to Assess at Each Selected Site 7
IV. METHODS 8
A. Field Measurements 8
B. Data Analysis 12
V. DESCRIPTION - of the overall condition of Western Cascades ecoregion streams 13
A. Introduction 13
B. Stream Water Chemistry 13
C. Physical Habitat Indicators 16
D. Biological Indicators 21
VI. INTERPRETATION - of the ecological condition and stressors in streams of the Western Cascades
ecoregion 26
A. Introduction 26
B. Reference Condition 27
C. Stream Water Chemistry 28
D. Physical Habitat Indicators 30
E. Biological Indicators 34
VII. SUMMARY 37
A. Stream Water Chemistry 37
B. Physical Habitat and Biological Indicators 38
VIII. REFERENCES 41
IX. APPENDICES 45
111
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment July 15,2004
List of Figures
Figure 1. Percent of land in major landtype categories for the Western Cascades ecoregion 3
Figure 2. Percent landownership within significant categories by state in the Western Cascades ecoregion 4
Figures. Status of sites initially selected for sampling following sites evaluation 6
Figure 4. Example cumulative distribution function (CDF) 12
Figures. CDF of Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 14
Figure 6. CDF of pH 14
Figure 7. CDF of stream temperature 14
Figure 8. CDF of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 15
Figure 9. CDF of percent sand/fines 16
Figure 10. CDF of the log of the geometric mean particle diameter 16
Figure 11. CDF of percent of reach with riparian woody vegetation cover (sum of all layers) 17
Figure 12. Pie chart of the mean percent riparian canopy cover by major species types 17
Figure 13. CDF of mid-channel shade (percent of reach) 17
Figure 14. CDF of Large Woody Debris (LWD) quantity for the medium and large categories, expressed as pieces per
100m 18
Figure 15. MeanLWD quantity (pieces per 100m) by size class 18
Figure 16. Frequency of pools by depth class 19
Figure 17. CDF of natural fish cover 19
Figure 18. Mean riparian zone human influence from each of 9 disturbance categories 20
Figure 19. Aquatic vertebrate species presence 22
Figure 20. Aquatic vertebrate species richness 22
Figure 21. CDF of percent relative abundance of sensitive aquatic vertebrate guild individuals 23
Figure 22. CDF of percent relative abundance of coldwater aquatic vertebrate guild individuals 23
Figure 23. CDF of total macroinvertebrate taxa richness 24
Figure 24. CDF of percent EPT 25
Figure 25. CDF of percent Plecoptera 25
Figure 26. CDF of percent intolerant macroinvertebrates 25
Figure 27. CDF of dissolved oxygen showing the % stream length less than 11 mg/L 29
Figure 28. CDF of total phosphorus (mg/L) showing % of stream length less than .lmg/L 30
Figure 29. Bar chart of mean substrate quantity, for probability and reference sites in the Western Cascades ecoregion.
31
Figure 30. Mean percent riparian cover by canopy classes for probability and reference sites 32
Figure 31. Mean LWD quantity (pieces per 100m) by size class for reference and probability sites 32
Figure 32. Mean riparian zone human influence from each of 9 disturbance categories for reference and probability
sites 33
Figure 33. Aquatic vertebrate species richness in reference sites 34
Figure 34. Comparison of relative abundance of sensitive aquatic vertebrate species guilds for the probability sites
versus the reference sites 35
Figure 35. Comparison of relative abundance of coldwater vertebrate species guilds for the probability versus reference
sites 35
Figure 36. Comparison of Shannon-Weiner diversity index for aquatic vertebrates for the probability sites versus the
reference sites 35
Figure 37. Comparison of macroinvertebrate taxa richness metrics calculated for the probability sites versus the
reference sites 36
Figure 38. Comparison of selected macroinvertebrate percent metrics calculated for probability sites versus reference
sites 36
Figure 39. Selected water chemistry indicators 37
Figure 40. Selected physical habitat indicators 38
Figure 41. Selected biological indicators 40
iv
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment July 15,2004
List of Tables
Table 1. Proportion of streams in the Western Cascades ecoregion in each stream order 6
Table 2. General EMAP indicators 7
Table3. Stream water indicators 8
Table 4. Nutrients, expressed as mg/L 15
TableS. Definition of five LWD size classes based on piece length and diameter 18
Table 6. Definition of fish cover categories 19
Table 7. Values for riparian disturbance based on proximity to stream 20
TableS. Categories of human influence based on the proximity-weight disturbance index (PWDI) for each site 20
Table 9. Frequency of occurrence of aquatic vertebrates at probability sites 21
Table 10. Description of benthic macroinvertebrate metrics 24
Table 11. Types of benchmarks or targets used for comparison in the Western Cascades ecoregion 27
Table 12. Table of selected freshwater criteria 29
Table 13. Mean percent shading, for probability and reference sites in the Western Cascades ecoregion 31
List of Maps
Map 1. Map of Western Cascades ecoregion showing sites selected using EMAP probability design and reference sites.
2
Map 2. Western Cascades Lowlands and Valleys subecoregion in green and Western Cascades Montane Highlands
subecoregion in blue 3
Map 3. Western Cascades ecoregion showing sites selected using the EMAP probability design 13
Map 4. Reference sites in the Western Cascades ecoregion 27
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment July 15,2004
Acknowledgements
This project would not be possible without the field efforts of the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). We especially
thank Glen Merritt (Ecology), Shannon Hubler (ODEQ) and Rick Hafele (ODEQ). EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD) in Corvallis, Oregon, provided a great deal of support in the
preparation of this report. We thank Tony Olsen (ORD), Phil Larsen (ORD), Phil Kaufmann
(ORD), and Lorraine Edmond (EPA Region 10) for their assistance, ideas, and critique of our
approach. Marlys Cappaert (Dynamac) was extremely helpful with our questions about data and
database management. Finally, we thank Valentina Haack (INDUS Corp) for her assistance with
GIS products.
VI
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
I. PURPOSE
The purposes of this report are to:
• Assess and report on the condition of
small streams in the Western Cascades
ecoregion of Oregon and Washington
(Map 1)
• Compare the overall condition of small
streams in the Western Cascades
ecoregion to selected streams with
minimum levels of human disturbance
(reference sites).
This report summarizes data collected as part
of the Regional Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (R-EMAP). This R-
EMAP project is a cooperative effort between
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Office of Research and Development, EPA
Region 10, the Washington Department of
Ecology (Ecology), and the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ).
Photo: French Creek, Oregon. Courtesy of Shannon
Hubler, Oregon DEQ
II. BACKGROUND
Ecoregions are distinct geographic areas based
on topography, climate, land use, geology,
soils, and naturally occurring vegetation.
Ecoregions can be viewed at a variety of scales
or levels. The Cascades ecoregion is a level III
ecoregion (Omernik, 1987). There are 76 level
III ecoregions across the conterminous United
States. The Cascades ecoregion is comprised of
the Cascade Mountain Range in Oregon and
Washington. Most of the ecoregion is between
2,000 and 7,000 ft in elevation and is densely
forested (see Map 1).
Each ecoregion can be further refined into sub-
ecoregions, also referred to as level IV
ecoregions. In this project we will be
discussing two sub-ecoregions of the Cascades
ecoregion, the Western Cascades Lowlands and
Valleys sub-ecoregion and the Western
Cascades Montane Highlands sub-ecoregion
(Pater et al, 1998). Map 2 shows the two sub-
ecoregions. We will refer to these two sub-
ecoregions collectively as the Western
Cascades ecoregion.
The Western Cascades ecoregion excludes all
of the high Cascades and Subalpine Cascades
sub-ecoregions. It also excludes all of the
Cascades south of Lane County in Oregon and
all of the Cascades north of about 1-90 in
Washington. The Western Cascades ecoregion
is 10,859 square miles in area (about the size of
Massachusetts) and makes up 63% of the Level
III Cascades ecoregion.
The Western Cascades Lowlands and Valleys
sub-ecoregion is characterized by a network of
steep ridges and narrow valleys. Elevations are
generally less than 3,200 ft and are the lowest
in the Cascades ecoregion. The mild climate
promotes lush forests that are dominated by
Douglas fir and western hemlock.
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Western Cascade Project Area
Regional Environmental Monitoring & Assessment Program
n Reference Sites
• EMAP Sites
^| Western Cascade Project Area
jL INDUS Coipwaaw
T^ f J_..-nll.« 24. 2003
Map 1. Map of Western Cascades ecoregion showing sites selected using EMAP probability design and reference sites.
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
The Western Cascades Montane Highlands sub-
ecoregion is composed of steep, glaciated
mountains that have been dissected by high
gradient streams. It has lower temperatures than
the Western Cascades Lowlands and Valleys
sub-ecoregion and is characterized by a deep
annual snow pack. It supports forest dominated
by Pacific silver fir, western hemlock, mountain
hemlock, Douglas fir and noble fir (Omernik,
1987).
Map 2. Western Cascades Lowlands and Valleys
subecoregion in green and Western Cascades Montane
Highlands subecoregion in blue.
The predominant land cover type in the Western
Cascades ecoregion is forest (87%) (Figure 1).
The next most common land cover type is
transitional, which is defined as areas with
sparse vegetation (<25%) that are dynamically
changing from one land cover to another often
due to land use activities (e.g. forestry clear
cuts, construction) and natural processes (e.g.
fire, flood). There is no urban land cover and
very limited agriculture (1%) in the Western
Cascades ecoregion.
Transitional
7%
Grassland
4%
Wetland
0%
Barren Durban
1% f 0%
Agriculture
1%
Figure 1. Percent of land in major landtype categories for
the Western Cascades ecoregion.
Timber harvest is the major industry in this
area. The primary land ownership is Federal,
followed by private (Figure 2). In Washington,
the federal land ownership is primarily the US
Forest Service (41%) followed by the National
Park Service. In Oregon, the US Forest Service
(58%) is also the primary federal landowner,
followed by the Bureau of Land Management.
The density of roads in Western Cascades
ecoregion (road length/ecoregion area) is
1.23km/square km. The density of roads in
forested portion of this ecoregion is
1.15km/square km.
3
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Significant Washington Ownership
Significant Oregon Ownership
Tribal Land
D Bureau of Land
Management
9%
n Forest Service
58%
Figure 2. Percent landownership within significant categories by state in the Western Cascades ecoregion.
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This document summarizes data collected in
the Western Cascades ecoregion of Washington
and Oregon 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, the
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology),
and the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ). Ecology and ODEQ
conducted all field sampling for this project in
1999-2000.
The Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (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 human disturbances.
The 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. Design - How to Select Stream Sites
to Sample
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 was
needed to assess overall 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 using a systematic grid
based on landscape maps overlaid with stream
traces. 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
estimations from the sample data to the entire
length of stream in a study area (the Western
Cascades ecoregion), such as estimates of the
number of stream miles or kilometers that are
in "poor" condition.
Study sites were selected from a stream
population of all mapped (1:100,000 scale) 2nd
and 3rd order streams in the Western Cascades
ecoregion, 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
July 15, 2004
Stream
Order
*0
1st
>*nd
3rd
>3rd
Percent in
Oregon
.7
31.9
7.5
4.8
3.8
Percent in
Washington
1.4
31.9
9.1
5.4
3.5
Total
Percent
2.1
63.8
16.6
10.2
7.3
*(0 order streams are usually side channels on rivers,
unconnected reaches, canals/ ditches or
intermittent/ephemeral)
Table 1. Proportion of streams in the Western Cascades
ecoregion in each stream order.
Although 1st through 3rd order streams are
usually wadeable and therefore suitable for
sampling using EMAP protocols, this project
was limited to 2nd and 3rd order streams. First
order streams were excluded for two primary
reasons:
• Limited funding - we need to target the
aquatic resource most likely to be
affected by humans.
• Access issues - first order streams are
more likely to be the most costly and
difficult to access and have the most
restrictive time frame of accessibility
(snow for much of the field season).
There are approximately 19,489 total km
(12,100 mi) of streams in the Western Cascades
ecoregion. The 2nd and 3rd order streams
represent 26.8 % or 5224 km (3,246 mi) of
streams in this ecoregion.
The EMAP probability design was used to
select a random sample of the target
population. In this study, the "target"
population is 2nd and 3rd order streams. A total
of 108 sites were evaluated for field sampling.
Of these, 79 were selected as "target sites"
(useable sample sites). Sites determined to be
useable or "target" sites if they were 2nd and 3rd
order streams that were accessible, wadeable,
perennial, and free of physical barriers.
Reasons for excluding the remaining 29 sites
are shown in Figure 3. "Non-target" sites were
sites found to not be a 2nd or 3rd order stream,
for example a wetland, when visited. The
estimated stream length represented by the 79
target samples is 3,779 km of the total 5,224
km. Each of 79 sites was sampled at least once
during the 1999-2000 field season. Sites were
sampled July 5th through October 19th.
Total Sampled
Access Denied
15%
Non-Target
3%
Not Wadable
7%
Figure 3. Status of sites initially selected for sampling
following sites evaluation.
Reference condition represents the biological
potential or goal for the waterbody. The
reference condition establishes the basis for
making comparisons and for detecting
impairment. The most common way to
establish the reference condition is to collect
actual data from a number of sites that
represent condition with minimal human
disturbance. The data is then aggregated from
these sites to develop a reference condition for
that area, ecoregion, or class of waterbody.
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15,2004
For this project, in addition to the 79 sites
selected using the EMAP probability design, an
additional 22 reference sites were selected
(Map 1). The reference condition for each
indicator metric is the average value calculated
from these 22 sites. The reference sites were
selected by the state environmental agencies
(Oregon DEQ and Ecology) from 2nd and 3rd
order streams in the Western Cascades
ecoregion to represent minimal human
disturbance. The reference sites were sampled
using the same field methods as the probability
selected sites, which will enable us to compare
the dataset from these reference sites to the
probability dataset.
B. Indicators - What to Assess 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. To
implement the Clean Water Act, States adopt
water quality standards. These standards are
designed to protect public health or welfare,
enhance the quality of water, and protect
biological integrity.
Biological Integrity:
"a balanced, integrated, adaptive
community of organisms having species
composition, diversity, and functional
organization comparable to that of natural
habitat of the region" (Karr and Dudley,
1981;Frey, 1977)
In general terms, a water quality standard
defines the goals of a waterbody by designating
the use or uses to be made of the water (such as
aquatic life, coldwater biota or salmonid
spawning), setting criteria necessary to protect
those uses, and preventing degradation of water
quality. Therefore, in order to assess the
nation's waters, it is important to measure
water quality (stream water parameters),
physical habitat (watershed, riparian and in-
stream measurements) and biological
(vertebrate and invertebrates communities)
condition. EMAP uses ecological indicators to
quantify these conditions (Lazorchak, et al.
1998). Indicators are measurable characteristics
of the environment, both abiotic and biotic, that
can provide information on ecological
resources.
A general list of the indicator categories used in
EMAP to detect stress in stream ecosystems is
provided in Table 2. The following section
describes EMAP measurements in each of
these indicator categories.
Indicator
Stream water
chemistry
Watershed
condition
Instream
physical
habitat and
riparian
condition
Biological:
fish and
amphibians
Biological:
benthic macro-
invertebrates
Rationale
Water chemistry affects stream biota.
Numeric criteria 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.
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. They are direct measures
of aquatic life uses.
Benthic macroinvertebrates live on the
bottom of streams and reflect the
overall biological integrity of the
stream. They are direct measures of
aquatic life uses.
Table 2. General EMAP indicators.
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
METHODS
Photo: Opal Creek, Oregon. Courtesy of Shannon
Hubler, Oregon DEQ
In this section, we briefly describe the methods
used for collecting stream water chemistry,
physical habitat and biological data. In
addition, the methods used to analyze the data
are presented. EMAP field methods were
primarily used and additional detailed
information is available in Lazorchak et al.,
1998. Any exceptions to the EMAP field
methods are noted below.
A. Field Measurements
Identical field data collection methods were
used for both the probability sites and reference
sites for all indicators described below.
Stream Water Chemistry
Stream 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 11 water quality parameters were
collected at most sites. Measurements of pH,
dissolved oxygen (DO), stream temperature,
conductivity, alkalinity, total phosphorus (TP),
Nitrite-Nitrate (NO2-NO3), ammonia (NH3),
chloride (Cl~), sulfate (SO4) and total
suspended solids were made. The rationale
behind the selection of some of these stream
water measures are presented in Table 3.
Water
chemistry
indicator
Stream
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen (DO)
pH
Conductivity
Nutrients -
Total
phosphorous
(TP), Total
nitrogen
(TPN),
Nitrite-Nitrate
(NO2-NO3),
and Ammonia
(NH3)
Chloride (CT)
Importance to
biota
-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
Examples of
human activities
that influence this
indicator
- Pdparian shade
reduction
- Altered stream
morphology
- Erosion
- Addition of
organic matter
- Pdparian shade
reduction
- Industrial and
municipal waste
- Mining
- Addition of
organic matter
- Fuel burning
emissions (e.g.,
automobiles)
- Agricultural
returns, industrial
input and mining
- Erosion
- Recreation, septic
tanks and livestock
- Stormwater
runoff
- Sewage, livestock
waste, and
agriculture
- Salmon
overharvest
- Industrial
discharge, fertilizer
use, livestock
waste, and sewage
Table 3. Stream water indicators.
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Individual states also collected some additional
parameters (such as dissolved organic carbon)
that will not be discussed in this document.
Physical Habitat Indicators
Physical habitat in streams includes all those
physical attributes that influence or provide
sustenance to organisms within the stream
(Kaufmann in Peck et al., 2003).
Physical habitat varies naturally, as do
biological and chemical characteristics, thus
expectations of habitat condition 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).
Measurements of physical habitat parameters
fall into one of the following three types of
sampling method protocols.
1. Continuous measurements are collected
along the entire length of the sample reach.
Thalweg profile (a survey of depth along the
stream channel), and presence/absence of soft
sediments (fine gravel or smaller) 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) was made at each point. Crews also
tally large woody debris along the reach.
2. Transect measurements are collected
from 11 evenly spaced transects. Measures/
observations of bankfull width, wetted width,
depth, substrate size, shade, and fish cover
were taken at each transect. Measures and/or
visual estimates of riparian vegetation
structure, human disturbance, and stream bank
angle, incision and undercut are also collected
at each transect. Gradient measurements and
compass bearing between each of the 11
stations are collected to calculate reach
gradient and channel sinuosity.
3. Reach measurements apply to the reach
as a whole. Channel morphology class for the
entire reach is determined (Montgomery and
Buffington, 1993) and instantaneous discharge
is measured at one optimally chosen
cross-section.
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 (1.5m) and 4 inches (10.1 cm) 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.
The major types of physical habitat indicators
are channel form, substrate, riparian vegetation,
large woody debris, and fish cover. The
importance of each is described as follows.
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Channel Form
The cross section of a stream channel (width
and depth) provides information for evaluating
total habitat space available for fish and other
organisms. Because the data are collected in a
systematically spaced approach, the means are
estimates of the spatial distribution of the
habitat parameters measured.
Substrate
Substrate describes the grain size of particles
on the stream bottom, and ranges from rocks to
mud. Substrate is an important feature of
stream habitat. Stream substrate size is
influenced by many factors including geology,
gradient, flow and channel shape. 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.
Riparian Vegetation
Riparian (stream bank) vegetation is important
for several reasons: it influences channel form
and bank stability through root strength; it is a
source of recruitment for LWD that influences
channel complexity and provides cover for fish;
it provides inputs of organic matter such as
leaves; and shades the stream which
influences water temperature.
Expressed as a proportion of the reach, riparian
cover data were collected for three vegetation
layers: 1. Canopy - >5m
2. Mid level - .5m to 5m
3. Ground cover - <.5m
Visual estimates of cover density and general
structural/species vegetation classes (e.g.
coniferous, deciduous) of each layer were
recorded. Three types of riparian canopy
(riparian vegetation >5m) cover types were
considered: coniferous, deciduous, and mixed
coniferous and deciduous cover.
Stream Shading
In addition to riparian vegetation presence,
stream shading from riparian canopy was
assessed using densiometer readings at each of
the 11 transects. The amount of riparian
shading influences the amount of solar
radiation that reaches stream. Shade conditions
were estimated for both bank and mid-channel.
Large 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 can be
very important to stream function. Each pieces
of LWD that is at least partially in the baseflow
channel is tallied by length and diameter
classes.
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 the presence
of larger roughness elements (e.g. LWD) all
contribute to the frequency and quality of
pools.
Fish Cover
Many structural components of streams are
used by fish as concealment from predators and
as hydraulic refuge (e.g. bank undercuts, LWD,
boulders). Although this metric is defined by
the likelihood offish use, fish cover is also
indicative of the overall complexity of the
channel which is likely to be beneficial to other
organisms.
10
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Biological Indicators
Fish/Aquatic Vertebrate Assemblage
The physical degradation of streams can cause
changes in the food web and the composition
and distribution of habitats (Lonzarich, 1994).
In some regions, fish are good indicators of
these 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 and therefore may be better
indicators of land-use impacts than single
salmonid species (Karr, 1981).
Some Useful Definitions - Biota
Aquatic Assemblage - an organism group of
interacting populations in a given waterbody, for
example, vertebrate (fish and amphibians)
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
(e.g. aquatic larvae of insects).
Amphibians are also sensitive to alterations in
the environment. When amphibian data are
combined with fish data, the more general term
aquatic vertebrate will be used.
The objectives of the vertebrate assemblage
field methods are to:
1) collect data useful for estimating relative
abundance of all species present in the
assemblage, and
2) collect all species except the most rare
species in the assemblage.
Fish were sampled along the entire length of
the reach with one-pass electro-fishing
(Lazorchak, et al., 1998). All portions of the
sample reach were fished. Fish were identified,
counted, and measured and voucher specimens
were collected for species that were difficult to
identify. Only amphibians that were captured
during electrofishing or found on the banks
were identified and counted. Although these
methods were not used to estimate absolute
abundance, standardized collection techniques
allow for calculation of proportionate
abundance of species (Reynolds, et al, 2003).
Benthic Invertebrate Assemblage
Benthic macroinvertebrates inhabit the
sediment or surface substrates of streams. The
benthic macroinvertebrate assemblage reflects
the overall biological integrity of the benthic
community. Monitoring this assemblage is
useful for assessing the status of the stream and
monitoring trends. Macroinvertebrates 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
assemblage (Klemm et al., 1990). Because
many macroinvertebrates have life cycles of a
year or more and are relatively immobile, the
structure of the macroinvertebrate assemblage
is a function of present conditions and
conditions of the recent past.
Macroinvertebrates were sampled from the
riffles using a D-frame kick net (500//m mesh).
Riffles were defined as the portion of the
stream with relatively fast currents and shallow
depth. A composite sample was collected by
combining five kick samples (10 ft2 total) from
separate riffles. Each composite was then sent
to a laboratory that identified and counted
organisms.
In the laboratory, a random subsample
comprised of one sixth or more of each
composite was processed for macroinvertebrate
identification. For each sample, at least 300
11
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
organisms were identified to the finest practical
taxonomic level. For samples with less than
300 organisms, all individuals were identified.
If less than 100 organisms were identified in a
sample, metrics were not calculated for that
sample. This only happened in three samples
that had a mean abundance of 45, as compared
with the mean abundance for the remainder of
the samples which was 374.
The macroinvertebrate methods used in the
Western Cascades REMAP project are 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. This
difference was to ensure consistency of this
REMAP project with earlier State REMAP
datasets.
B. Data Analysis
In this report, the primary method for
evaluating indicators for sites selected using
the EMAP probability design is the cumulative
distribution function (CDF). A CDF is a graph
that show the distribution of indicator or
parameter data for the entire population. The
"population" in this report is the total length of
2nd and 3rd order (wadeable) streams of the
Western Cascades ecoregion. For example,
Figure 4 (CDF) shows that approximately 50
percent of the 2nd and 3rd order stream length
has an indicator value above 10 (and the other
50% of the stream length are below 10).
l>
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
V. DESCRIPTION - of the overall
condition of Western Cascades
ecoregion streams
Photo: Hideaway Falls, Tumbling Creek, Oregon.
Courtesy of Shannon Hubler, Oregon DEQ
A. Introduction
In this section of the report we will describe the
overall condition of 2nd and 3rd order streams in
the Western Cascades ecoregion of Oregon and
Washington based on analysis of probability
site data. These data were collected from 79
randomly selected sites in the Western
Cascades ecoregion (see Map 3) using the R-
EMAP protocols (described in Section IV). In
the next section (Section VI), we will compare
this assessment of overall ecoregion-wide
condition, with data from the reference sites. In
Sections V and VI, we present only a portion of
the indicators that were generated from the
field data due to the large volume of
information that was collected. Additional
indicators are summarized in Appendices 1-6.
There are approximately 19,489 total
kilometers of streams (all stream orders) in the
Western Cascades ecoregion. The results
presented below are from 2nd and 3rd order
streams that represent 26.8 percent of the
streams in this ecoregion.
j
Map 3. Western Cascades ecoregion showing sites
selected using the EMAP probability design.
B. Stream Water Chemistry
Data for 11 stream water indicators were
collected from most sites. Summary statistics
for all water chemistry indicators are available
in Appendix 2. The results reported below are
for only variables that most influence the biota.
Data interpretation reflects a single view in
time at these representative locations as sites
were not continuously sampled and timing of
sampling was not intended to capture the peak
concentration of chemical indicators. Some
aspects of stream water chemistry are
temporally variable and a single measurement
13
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
is of limited value for characterizing specific
stream water chemistry conditions.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Dissolved oxygen is the oxygen dissolved in
water that is available for organisms to use in
respiration. In the Western Cascades ecoregion,
DO ranged from 7.4 mg/L to 12.4 mg/L, with a
mean of 10 mg/L (Figure 5). This is an
expected condition in streams with low
temperature, hydraulic turbulence and low
primary productivity, typical of 2nd and 3rd
order streams in the Pacific Northwest.
£
re
m
ts
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
PH
s
0.
9 10 11
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) mg/L
12
Figure 5. CDF of Dissolved Oxygen (DO).
EH.
Another important stream water variable, pH, is
a numerical measure of the activity 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
Western Cascades ecoregion sites ranged from
6.2 to 9 with mean 7.3 (Figure 6).
Measurements of pH collected during the day
are typically elevated, as CO2 is depleted due to
photosynthesis which effectively shifts the pH
up.
Figure 6. CDF of pH.
Temperature
Water temperature is a critical stream variable.
Water temperatures ranged from 3.3°C to
17.6°C and the mean temperature was 11.2°C
(see Figure 7). The extent of the sample period
-th
,th\
(July 5 to October 19 ) is likely to influence
the range of these results.
ts
=
0)
Si
8 10 12 14
Temperature (Degrees C)
16
18
Figure 7. CDF of stream temperature.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) is a measure of
the suspended organic and inorganic solids in
water and is expressed in mg/L. TSS is
measured by weighing the particles suspended
14
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
in water which will not pass through a filter.
TSS of streams in the Western Cascades
ecoregion is shown in Figure 8. The mean
value for TSS was 3 lmg/1 and the median was
35mg/l. Approximately, 93 percent of the
stream length had TSS values less than 12mg/l.
Four sites had TSS levels above 275mg/l; all
were glacially fed streams originating from
Mount Rainier, and were in or near the Mount
Rainier National Park.
S
S?-
0 200 400 600
Total suspended solids (mg/L)
Figure 8. CDF of Total Suspended Solids (TSS).
Nutrients
Excessive nutrient inputs from human-caused
sources have been shown to increase algal
growth in a process called eutrophication.
Alternatively, loss of nutrients from human
activities can reduce stream productivity. For
example, calculations by Gresh et al. (2000)
indicate that only 3 percent of the marine-
derived biomass once delivered by anadromous
salmon to the rivers of Puget Sound, the
Washington Coast, Columbia River, and the
Oregon Coast, is currently reaching those
streams. Results for several of the collected
nutrient parameters are presented in Table 4.
Phosphorous
The mean phosphorus concentration from
samples collected during this study was 0.04
mg/L. Mean annual phosphorus concentrations
in small forested streams of the west slope of
the Cascades are typically <0.06 mg/L
(McDonald etal., 1991).
Because of the low phosphorous content, many
streams in the Pacific northwest region are
considered naturally nutrient poor and sensitive
to nutrient inputs (Welch et al., 1998). The
principal means of increase of phosphorous in
Pacific Northwest streams are increased
erosion rates and organic matter inputs.
Nutrient
Total
Phosphorus
Nitrite-Nitrate
Mean
.04
.03
Min.
Value
.003
0
Max.
Value
.52
.5
Table 4. Nutrients, expressed as mg/L.
Nitrogen
Nitrogen is one of the most important nutrients
in aquatic systems. Inorganic nitrogen which
includes, ammonium (NH+4), nitrite (NO-2)
and nitrate (NO-3), is the predominant form of
nitrogen in flowing waters. Increased inorganic
nitrogen stimulates primary production. In
unpolluted streams and rivers, nitrate is the
most common form. The measure of dissolved
nitrogen in this project was nitrate-nitrite. The
usual range in non-enriched streams is 1 - 0.5
mg/L (Welch et al; 1998). All measured values
for this study were within this normal range.
Low nutrients in the form of nitrate are
characteristic of forest streams. This is similar
to stream monitoring results from the Coast
Range ecoregion (Herger and Hayslip, 2000).
15
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
C. Physical Habitat Indicators
In this section we describe the physical
characteristics of streams at a broad scale using
indicators such as channel form and related
measures (Kaufmann, et al. 1999). 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. Summary statistics for all physical
habitat indicators are available in Appendix 3.
Channel Form
In the Western Cascades ecoregion, 2nd and
3rd order streams have a large range (.6% to
33.6%) of mean gradients. However most
streams had a relatively moderate gradient
(median 2.6%). The mean thalweg depth (the
depth along the deepest part of the stream) was
48.1cm. Mean wetted stream width was
11.4m.
Substrate
Substrate is an important feature of stream
habitat in a variety of ways including; cover
and protection for juvenile fish, habitat for
macroinvertebrates and habitat for spawning
salmonids. Excess supplies of fine sediments
can decrease both the abundance and quality of
this habitat by filling spaces between gravels,
cobbles and boulders. Field measurements of
substrate particles are used to quantify the
presence of the various sizes of substrate
present in streams.
The sand/fines sediment size class includes
substrate particles that are less than 2 mm in
diameter. This substrate size class was not
common in the streams of the study area (mean
12.1%). Over 85% of the stream miles had less
than 20 percent sand/fines substrates
(Figure 9)
20 40 60
Percent sands or fines
80
Figure 9. CDF of percent sand/fines.
Another way of looking at the substrate data is
by expressing the average geometric mean
substrate size on a logarithmic scale (logio). In
this way, the range of the distribution of the
various substrate size classes can be viewed on
one graph. In the Western Cascades ecoregion
2nd and 3rd order streams, fine gravel or
smaller (<16mm) was the mean substrate size
in 10% of the stream miles. Most streams had
mean substrate size in the coarse gravel or
larger size classes. A little less than half of the
stream length has an estimated geometric mean
diameter that is smaller than or equal to 100
mm, which is cobble size (Figure 10).
Log of geometric mean substrate diameter in mm
Figure 10. CDF of the log of the geometric mean particle
diameter.
16
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Riparian Vegetation
Expressed as a proportion of the reach, riparian
cover data were collected for three woody
vegetation layers:
1. Canopy - >5m
2. Mid level - .5m to 5m
3. Ground cover - <.5m
Data are collected that describe the areal cover
of ach of these layers. The total woody cover
from the three layers could potentially be 3.0,
or 300%, if the woody cover in each of the
layers was 100%. In the Western Cascades
ecoregion, 2nd and 3rd order streams, about 30
percent of the stream length has a combined
areal cover of canopy, mid-layer, and ground
layer woody vegetation cover of at less than 1.0
(Figure 11). Only about 20 percent of the
stream miles have a combined 3-layer woody
cover greater than 1.5 (Figure 11).
Figure 12. Pie chart of the mean percent riparian canopy
cover by major species types.
Stream Shading
Overall, shade was high with mean bank
shading of 86% and mean mid-channel shade
of 64% (see Figure 13).
0.5 1.0 1.5
Riparian woody cover(sumof all layers)
2.0
Figure 11. CDF of percent of reach with riparian woody
vegetation cover (sum of all layers).
Three types of riparian canopy (riparian
vegetation >5m) cover types were considered:
coniferous, broadleaf deciduous, and mixed
coniferous and deciduous cover. The riparian
tree canopy of most streams is composed of
mixed deciduous species (e.g. alder, maple)
and coniferous (e.g. pine, fir). (Figure 12).
8-
I ^
1
20 40 60 80
Mid-channel canopy shade (% of reach)
100
Figure 13. CDF of mid-channel shade (percent of reach).
Large Woody Debris (LWD)
Larger sized pieces of LWD have a greater
ability to influence channel form than smaller
pieces. Field data were categorized into five
size classes (very small, small, medium, large,
very large) based on the following
17
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
length/diameter matrix (Table 5). Overall,
LWD of all size classes was moderately
abundant (median 13 pieces/100m) with only
1.7% of the stream length without any
measurable LWD.
Diameter Class
(m)
0.1 - 0.3
>0.3 - 0.6
>0.6 - 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 5. Definition of five LWD size classes based on
piece length and diameter.
However, analyzing the medium and larger
sized pieces provides a different view of the
LWD content of the streams (Figure 14).
Larger pieces were somewhat rare. The mean
frequency of very large size was .5
pieces/100m and the mean large size was 2.5
pieces/IOOm (Figure 15).
^
= 2
20 40 60 80 100
LWD medium and larger (pieces/IOOm)
Figure 14. CDF of Large Woody Debris (LWD) quantity
for the medium and large categories, expressed as pieces
per 100m.
Very Large
Large
Medium
Small
Very Small
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
LWD pieces/100m
Figure 15. Mean LWD quantity (pieces per 100m) by size class.
(see Table 5 for definition)
7.00 8.00
J.OO
18
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Pools
Although the pool frequency is high in the
Western Cascades ecoregion (mean 1 pool per
1 channel width of stream length), most of the
pools are shallow (<50cm), with mean pool
depth of 19 cm (see Figure 16).
s§
y .75-lm
P
•3 .5-.75m
<.5m
n
Zl
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Pools (%)
Figure 16. Frequency of pools by depth class.
Fish Cover
The presence and extent offish concealment
features consists of visual estimates of the
cover class category (Table 6) of eight specific
types of features in each of the 11 transects
along each stream sample reach. Fish cover
types are: filamentous algae, aquatic
macrophytes, LWD, brush and small woody
debris, in-channel live trees or roots,
overhanging vegetation, undercut banks,
boulders and artificial structures.
Fish cover category
Absent
Sparse
Moderate
Heavy
Very Heavy
% cover estimate
0
0-10
10-40
40-75
>75
Table 6. Definition offish cover categories.
For each of these fish concealment type, field
crews estimated areal cover in four classes
(Table 6). Reach fish cover metrics are then
calculated by assigning cover class midpoint
values (i.e., 0%, 5%, 25%, 57.5%, and 87.5%)
to each observation and then averaging those
cover values across all 11 stations.
The natural fish cover metric combines several
of the fish cover types in to one metric value.
These cover types are large wood, brush,
overhanging vegetation, boulders and undercut
banks. The mean natural fish areal cover for 2nd
and 3rd order streams in the Western Cascades
ecoregion is 0.6 (Figure 17).
0.5 1.0 1.5
Natural fish cover (areal cover proportion)
2.0
Figure 17. CDF of natural fish cover.
Riparian disturbance
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 (Kaufmann and
Robinson, 1998). Eleven different categories of
disturbance were evaluated. Each disturbance
category is assigned a value based on its
19
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
presence and how close it is (proximity) to the
stream (Table 7).
Value
1.67
1.0
0.67
0
Proximity to
stream
in channel or on
bank
within 10m of
stream
beyond 10m from
stream
not present
Table 7. Values for riparian disturbance based on
proximity to stream.
Data were used to calculate a proximity-weight
disturbance index (PWDI) for each reach
(Kaufman 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 8).
Crops
Pasture
Bank Revetment
Buildings
Trash
Lawns
Pavement/cleared area
Roads
Logging
0.000
All types of disturbance were observed in the
riparian zones of the Western Cascades
ecoregion streams. Some, such as row crops,
were very rare both in overall mean and
frequency of occurrence (number of sites). The
most common forms of riparian disturbance
were logging and roads (both 21%), followed
by pavement and cleared areas (5%) (Figure
18).
Data Range
0-.4
>.4-.8
>.8-1.2
>1.2
Level of Human Influence
Low
Medium
High
Veiy High
Table 8. Categories of human influence based on the
proximity-weight disturbance index (PWDI) for each
site.
0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200
Proximity Weighted Disturbance Index
0.250
Figure 18. Mean riparian zone human influence from each of 9 disturbance categories.
20
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
D. Biological Indicators
Fish and Amphibian Resources
Aquatic vertebrates (fish or amphibians) were
found at 69 sites, 86% of the randomly selected
sites sampled for the project. Ten sites were not
sampled due to restrictions by fisheries
agencies. Of these 69 sites, fish were found at
65 sites, which represents 81% of stream km
represented by the study design. Amphibians
were found at 47 sites, representing 55% of
stream km. A total of 23 different species were
captured, 18 fish species and 5 amphibian
species. Aquatic vertebrate sampling
abundance is summarized in Table 9 and
species are listed in Figure 19. Additional
information is available in Appendix 4.
Information
Sites with
fish
Sites with
amphibians
Sites with
fish, but no
amphibians
Sites with
amphibians,
but no fish
Sites with
salmonids
Sites with
non-native
fish
#of
Sites
65
47
22
4
64
4
%of
Stream
Length1
81%
55%
30%
5%
80%
7%
Comment
Cutthroat trout
was the most
common species
Tailed frogs were
the most common
species
Cutthroat and
rainbow were the
most common
species
Brook trout was
the only non-
native species
1 Based on a total of 69 sites sampled for vertebrates.
Table 9. Frequency of occurrence of aquatic vertebrates
at probability sites.
Non-native species were rare in the basin's 2nd
and 3rd order streams. Only 1 non-native fish
species (brook trout) was encountered, and was
captured at only 4 sites, representing 7% of the
stream length. Although non-native species
were rare, this study does not assess the
presence/abundance of hatchery fish that may
be planted in the streams of the sample area.
The Salmonidae family, which includes trout,
salmon and whitefish, was the most broadly
distributed vertebrate family in the basin,
followed by the Cottidae family (sculpins).
Tailed frogs were the most widely distributed
single vertebrate species. Cutthroat and
rainbow trout were the most broadly distributed
salmonid species (see Figure 19).
The dominant sculpin (cottid) species are
shorthead, torrent and Paiute sculpins, which
are all native to both Oregon and Washington.
Several fish species were found rarely (<2% of
the estimated stream km). These were the
prickly sculpin, longnose sucker, mountain
whitefish and the threespine stickleback
(Figure 19)
Most fish species known to occur in 2nd and 3rd
order streams of the Western Cascades
(Wydoski and Whitney, 2003) were captured in
this study. Several species that range in the 2nd
and 3rd order streams of the Western Cascades
were not collected including bull trout, torrent
sculpin, and mountain sucker. Bull trout and
mountain suckers have limited range in the
ecoregion. Two sites in Washington were not
electrofished because they were designated bull
trout habitat under the Endangered Species Act.
21
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
et\ _,
JC
/-s -Iff
£
f, 30
8 -iff
3 *u
5 1*.
,*°
$
V
./
G
<<
^
?
^
>d
^
^
%
~
^
d=
<.
'/
/
/
~
?•
#
|-i
n n n n
Illlllllnnnnnnnnnn
^^^^^^^^^^^
<& ^ -<$ ^^ <& &* /v^> ^/9 «^ 4 • ^ • ^ ^ ^r ^5 ^
#p//'jf///$tp//
/ * * X
Vertebrate Species
Figure 19. Aquatic vertebrate species presence.
T
I
I
All vertebrates Amphibians Non-salmonid fish
Fish Salmonids
Vertebrate Category
Figure 20. Aquatic vertebrate species richness.
I Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
cn 75%
25%
o Median
o Outliers
o Outliers
o Outliers
* Extremes
22
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
The streams sampled typically had 1-3 fish
species and 0-2 amphibian species (Figure 20).
Most stream kilometers represented by the
probability sites had at least one salmonid
species as well as one non-salmonid fish
species (usually a sculpin species).
Fish Guild descriptions:
The relation offish species to their
environment can be described in terms of
guilds. Sensitivity guilds are used to categorize
fish species by how sensitive they are to
pollution. Likewise, temperature guilds are
used to classify fish by their preference to
various stream temperature conditions. Guild
classifications are useful for describing the fish
assemblage within the ecoregion. The guild
classifications used for this report are from
Zaroban et al. (1999). Guilds were defined as
follows:
Temperature guilds - 3 classifications; warm,
cool, and cold water preference.
Sensitivity guilds - 3 classifications; tolerant,
intermediate, and sensitive based on species
ability to tolerate pollution and human induced
disturbance.
Most aquatic vertebrate species that were
sampled in the ecoregion are in the sensitive
category of the tolerance guild and in the cold-
water temperature guild (Appendix 5). Stream
length was likewise dominated by these two
guilds (Figures 21 and 22)
I
^
E
*
£
20 40 60 80
Sensitive guild relative abundance (%)
100
Figure 21. CDF of percent relative abundance of
sensitive aquatic vertebrate guild individuals.
* #
E °
a «>
13
20 40 60 80
Coldwater guild relative abundance (%)
100
Figure 22. CDF of percent relative abundance of
coldwater aquatic vertebrate guild individuals.
23
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Macroinvertebrate Assemblage
Benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages reflect
overall biological integrity of the stream and
monitoring these assemblages is useful in
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 70 of the 79
randomly selected sample reaches. The benthic
invertebrate data represents 3361km of streams.
The following six metrics were used in this
document: taxa richness, EPT taxa richness,
intolerant richness, percent EPT, percent
Plecoptera, and percent intolerant individuals.
See Table 10 for a more in depth description of
each metric.
The metric "taxa richness" gives an overall
indication of the diversity of macroinvertebrate
assemblages in the Western Cascades
ecoregion (Figure 23). The total number of
taxa among sample reaches ranges from 12 to
55.
20 30 40
Number of taxa (taxa richness)
50
Metric
Taxa
richness
% EPT
EPT
richness
Plecoptera
Intolerant
Intolerant
richness
Description
The total number of
different taxa
describes the overall
variety of the
macroinvertebrate
assemblage. Useful
measure of diversity
of the assemblage.
The percent of all
individuals in the
sample that are in the
orders:
Ephemeroptera
(mayflies), Plecoptera
(stoneflies) and
Trichoptera
(caddisflies).
The number of
different taxa in the
orders:
Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera and
Trichoptera.
The percent of all
individuals in the
sample that are in the
order Plecoptera
The percent of all
individuals in the
sample that are
intolerant of pollution
(using designations in
Wisseman, 1996).
The number of
different taxa
intolerant of pollution
(Wisseman, 1996).
Rationale
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.
In general, these
taxa are sensitive
to human
disturbance.
Plecoptera are
sensitive to
human
disturbance.
Taxa designated
as intolerant are
more sensitive to
human
disturbance than
other taxa.
Taxa designated
as intolerant are
more sensitive to
human
disturbance than
other taxa.
Figure 23. CDF of total macroinvertebrate taxa richness.
Table 10. Description of benthic macroinvertebrate
metrics.
(Resh and Jackson, 1993 andResh, 1995).
24
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Percent EPT has been used extensively to
evaluate stream condition throughout the
United States. It is calculated by adding up the
number of individuals that are found in three
orders of aquatic insects - mayflies
(Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera) and
caddis flies (Trichoptera), by the total number
of individuals. Many of the species in these
three orders are sensitive to pollution and other
stream disturbances (USEPA, 2000), and
percent EPT is a good gauge of stream
disturbance.
Most 2nd and 3rd order streams of the Western
Cascades ecoregion are dominated by EPT
individuals (Figure 24). Approximately 30% of
the stream length had over 80 % of the
individuals made up of EPT taxa (Figure 24).
I 8'
! *
g o
20%
40% 60%
Percent EPT
80%
Figure 24. CDF of percent EPT.
Barbour et al (1994) found the percent of
Stoneflies (Plecoptera) to be a valuable metric
in Middle Rockies - Central ecoregion of
Wyoming. In the Western Cascades ecoregion,
over 80% of the 2nd and 3rd order stream length
had over 20 percent of the individuals from the
order Plecoptera (Figure 25).
5?
e o
S «
3S-
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Percent Plecoptera
Figure 25. CDF of percent Plecoptera .
Intolerant macroinvertebrates are generally
cold water adapted, sensitive to fine sediment
and winter scour/sorting of substrates
(Wisseman, 1996). This designation of
intolerance to pollution is specifically for
macroinvertebrates in western montane streams
and is only for the most sensitive of species.
Half of the 2nd and 3rd order stream length in
the Western Cascades ecoregion have 10% or
less of the macroinvertebrate assemblage made
up of intolerant individuals (Figure 26).
•6
I £
°'
20% 40%
Percent Intolerant Taxa
60%
Figure 26. CDF of percent intolerant macroinvertebrates
Additional macroinvertebrate data from
probability sites is available in Appendix 6.
25
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
VI. INTERPRETATION -ofthe
ecological condition and stressors in
streams of the Western Cascades
eco region
Photo: Alec Creek, Washington. Courtesy of Glenn
Merritt, Washington Department of Ecology.
A. Introduction
Most historic assessments of stream quality
have focused on describing the chemical
quality of streams and, occasionally, on
impacts to sport fisheries. However, under the
Clean Water Act, water quality standards are
designed not to merely meet chemical criteria
but to attain the beneficial uses of water bodies,
such as aquatic life use. Therefore, the ultimate
concern is the health of the biota that inhabit
these streams and rivers.
In this assessment we try to address this issue
by incorporating direct measurements of the
biota themselves. Stream organisms integrate
the many physical and chemical stressors and
factors, including other ecological interactions
(predation, competition, etc.), that are acting in,
and on, the stream ecosystem.
Information on the stream biota is
supplemented by measurements of other stream
characteristics, especially those physical,
chemical, or other factors that might influence
or affect stream condition. These stream
characteristics allow us to assess the stressors
of stream condition, based on expected signals
from major environmental perturbations (e.g.,
habitat modification, forest harvest, mine
drainage, agricultural nutrients, etc.).
This project was designed to evaluate the
overall condition of 2nd and 3rd order stream in
the Western Cascades ecoregion. 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 Western Cascades
ecoregion. Forest is the major land cover type
and forest harvest related activities are the
largest source of human influence in the
riparian area. Therefore, we will evaluate some
indicators thought to be sensitive to forest
harvest activities in the northwest (McDonald
etal., 1991).
To assess whether or not a specific metric
indicates good or poor condition, a benchmark,
standard or target is needed for comparison
(Table 11). For stream water chemistry, state
water quality agencies, under the Clean Water
Act, develop water quality criteria for many of
the most important parameters. We will use
these criteria, as they are developed to be
protective of aquatic life.
26
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
INDICATORS OF STRESS
Indicator
Water chemistry
Stream channel
condition
Riparian habitat
Benchmark
Chemical and physical criteria
established for aquatic life
protection by the states of
Oregon and Washington.
Reference condition based on
data from 22 reference sites in
the Western Cascades
ecoregion.
Reference condition based on
data from 22 reference sites in
the Western Cascades
ecoregion.
INDICATORS OF CONDITION
Indicator
Fish Assemblage
Macroinvertebrate
Assemblage
Benchmark
Reference condition based on
data from 21 reference sites in
the Western Cascades
ecoregion.
Reference condition based on
data from 18 reference sites in
the Western Cascades
ecoregion.
Table 11. Types of benchmarks or targets used for
comparison in the Western Cascades ecoregion.
There are currently no water quality criteria for
all of the other indicators (physical habitat and
biological assemblages) in this project.
However, they are critical for assessing the
support for the goals of the Clean Water Act.
For these indicators, we compare site condition
with that determined from data collected at 18-
22 reference sites from least disturbed sites
(reference sites) from the Western Cascades
ecoregion. The reference sites (Map 4) are all
2nd and 3rd order streams, and the data collected
at these sites uses the same R-EMAP protocols
as all of the other data. Due to the large number
of indicators measured at each site, we will
present results for only a few indicators.
Additional indicators are summarized for
reference conditions in Appendices 7 and 8.
Map 4. Reference sites in the Western Cascades
ecoregion.
B. Reference Condition
Reference condition should be based on data
from reference sites that represent the best
range of environments that can be achieved by
similar streams within a particular ecoregion.
The two primary considerations for evaluating
the suitability of reference sites are:
representativeness, and minimal human
disturbance.
To evaluate these factors, we compared the
landscape data from the upstream contributing
areas of reference sites to that of probability
sites. Based on the information presented
below, we concluded that the reference sites
were both representative of the 2nd and 3rd order
streams in the Western Cascades ecoregion and
showed minimal human disturbance.
27
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Some Useful Definitions
Reference Sites - a specific locality on a
waterbody which is minimally impaired and is
representative of the expected ecological
integrity of other location on the same
waterbody or nearby waterbodies (USEPA,
1996).
Reference Condition - the overall condition of
minimally impaired waterbodies characteristic
of a waterbody type of a region. Often the
aggregation of information gathered at
reference sites.
Upstream Contributing Area - all land above a
point on a stream that drains to that point.
Thus, disturbance or alteration to this land area
can impact the stream.
Representativeness
Reference sites are a little higher in the
watershed than probability sites (the median
elevation for the contributing area were 3716
feet and 3376 feet, respectively). The slope
conditions for the upstream contributing areas
were similarly steep (median values of the
mean slope were 22 and 19 degrees,
respectively).
Stream density (defined as stream distance
(km) divided by area (km2)) was also very
similar between probability and reference sites
(median values of 0.71 and 0.76 km/km2,
respectively.
Land cover is primarily forested condition for
both probability and reference sites: the median
forest land cover was respectively 91 and 98
percent. In addition, the distribution of forest
"type" was also very similar, with both data
sets being comprised primarily of coniferous
forest (median values of 81 and 95 percent,
respectively.)
Minimal human disturbance
The Western Cascades ecoregion is a sparsely
populated area. Very few people reside within
these upstream contributing areas, with a vast
majority of watersheds for both datasets having
zero residents.
Harvest activities within the upstream
contributing areas for reference sites were very
sparse, and often absent (median value of zero
percent). Harvest within contributing areas of
the probability sites was also low (median
value of 5 percent), but several of these sites
had fairly high (>50%) level of past harvest
activities. The GIS dataset used to calculate
summaries of harvest activities had a filter of
.02 square kilometers. Thus, many smaller
harvest activities were not included in this
dataset.
Finally, road densities were much greater
within upstream contribution areas for
probability sites than observed for reference
sites (median of 1.3 and 0.1 km of roads per
square kilometer, respectively).
C. Stream Water Chemistry
In general terms, water quality standards define
the goals for a waterbody by designating the
use or uses to be made of the water, setting
criteria necessary to protect those uses (such as
aquatic life, coldwater biota and salmonid
spawning), and preventing degradation of water
quality through antidegradation provisions.
Under the Clean Water Act, each State
establishes water quality standards, which are
approved by EPA. The States of Washington
and Oregon have established water quality
standards that include water quality criteria
28
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
representing maximum concentrations of
pollutants that are acceptable if State waters are
to meet their designated uses. The stream water
data from the probability sites is compared to
current water quality criteria of Oregon and
Washington (Table 12).
Indicator
Dissolved
Oxygen
(DO)
pH
Water
Temperature
Criteria for
Oregon1
>1 1.0 mg/L for
salmonid
spawning
>8 mg/L for
cold water
aquatic life
6.5 to 8.5 for all
waters
18°C salmonid
rearing, 16°C
for core rearing
and 12°C for
salmonid
spawning
Criteria for
Washington2'3
>9.5 mg/L-Class AA
>8 mg/L-Class A
6. 5 to 8. 5 for both
Class A and Class AA
Waters
16°C - Class AA
18°C -Class A
Table 12. Table of selected freshwater criteria.
('Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, and
Washington State, 1992). 2Streams in the Western
Cascades ecoregion are either Class A or AA, which are
state designated use classifications. 3Further details for
pH and temperature relating to point source pollution or
unusual natural conditions are in the Washington
Administrative Code Chapter 173-201A.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
The Washington state criteria is >9.5 mg/L for
AA and >8.0 mg/L for A streams, the Oregon
state criteria is >11.0 mg/L for salmonid
spawning and >8 mg/L for cold water aquatic
life. Approximately, 3% of the stream length in
the Western Cascades ecoregion was below 8
the 8.0 mg/L criteria and 80% of the stream
kilometers were below 1 Img/L (see Figure
27).
«
CD
9 10 11
Dissolved Oxygen(DO)
12
Figure 27. CDF of dissolved oxygen showing the %
stream length less than 1 1 mg/L.
The available literature indicates that pH is not
sensitive to most forest management activities
(McDonald et al., 1991). Most (98%) of the
stream length was within the state criteria of
6.5 to 8.5. One site was below 6.5 and one site
was above 8.5.
Temperature
Forest cover provides shade to streams and a
reduction in the forest cover along streams can
increase the solar radiation reaching the stream
surface, which in turn can lead to increased
stream temperatures. In this project, using a
single measurement, two percent of the stream
length was above 16°C (Washington's criteria
for class AA waters). Most of the streams were
cold, 61% were below Oregon's 12°C criteria
for salmonid spawning. However, this criteria
only applies during the season and location of
salmonid spawning. We found a mean
temperature of 1 1.2°C. However, using a single
measurement, it is unlikely to represent peak
stream temperatures. Data collected from
continuous recording data loggers from 35 of
the Oregon sites showed that the maximum
temperature was not captured by the single
29
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
measurement. However, the single
measurement was similar to the mean
temperature recorded over the summer by the
continuous data loggers.
Nutrients
Phosphorous
Studies in the Pacific northwest indicate that
forest management activities are unlikely to
substantially increase phosphate concentrations
in aquatic ecosystems (McDonald et al., 1991).
Although there are no State criteria for
phosphorus, EPA recommends a limit of <0.05
mg/L for streams that deliver to lakes and a
suggested limit of 0.1 mg/L in streams that do
not deliver to lakes (MacKenthun, 1973 in
MacDonald et al., 1991). In 93% of the stream
length phosphorus was below 0.1 mg/L (Figure
28).
•a
J#
S 8
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Phosphorus (mg/L)
0.5
Figure 28. CDF of total phosphorus (mg/L) showing %
of stream length less than. Img/L.
Nitrite-nitrate
Forest management activities can alter many
parts of the nitrogen cycle, and this makes it
difficult to generalize about the effect of these
activities. There is no national criterion for
nitrate but concentrations of <0.3 mg/L would
probably prevent eutrophication (Cline 1973, in
MacDonald et al., 1991). Most (95%) of the
streams have <0.3 mg/L nitrite-nitrate.
D. 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 with
other physical habitat features. In this section,
we compare the results of the ecoregion-wide
assessment (using probability sites) of the
Western Cascades ecoregi on of habitat
condition to the reference condition. Other
relevant benchmarks or targets from the
literature are also discussed.
Substrate
Stream substrate size is influenced by many
factors including geology, gradient, flow and
channel shape. Many human activities, both on
the land and in streams, directly or indirectly
alter the composition and size of stream
substrates. The transport and deposition of
excess sediment in streams and rivers is a
major problem in waters throughout the United
States. Accumulations of fine substrate
particles fill the spaces between coarser
streambed materials, thereby reducing habitat
space and its availability for benthic fish and
macroinvertebrates (Platts et al., 1983).
Substrate class distribution was similar for the
two data sets (Figure 29). For the probability
and reference sites, cobble (<64 to 250 mm)
sized substrate was the most common surface
substrate. For the probability sites, boulders
were the next most common surface substrate.
For the reference sites, the next most common
substrate was coarse gravel (Figure 29).
30
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
JU.U
o c n
ZJ.U
on n
ZU.U
i c n
ij.U
1 U.U
.0
ft n
n
i
r
—
^_^
—
1 — 1
1— I—I
D Probability Sites
Q Reference Sites
<
Substrate Class
Figure 29. Bar chart of mean substrate quantity, for probability and reference sites in the Western Cascades ecoregion.
Riparian Vegetation
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 broadleaf species
are effective in stream shading.
The amount of shade was fairly high for both
the probability sites and the reference sites.
The mean shading was 86% for probability
and 94% for reference sites when shade was
measured near the streambank (Table 13).
Mean mid-channel shading was 64% for the
probability sites and 81% for the reference
sites.
Shade Parameters
Mean percent shade as
measured at the banks
Mean percent shade as
measured mid-channel
Probability
sites- Mean
85.6
63.7
Reference
sites- Mean
94.2
81.3
Table 13. Mean percent shading, for probability and
reference sites in the Western Cascades ecoregion.
Three types of riparian canopy (riparian
vegetation >5m) cover types were
considered: coniferous, deciduous, and mixed
coniferous and deciduous cover (Figure 30).
Mixed cover was the most common type of
riparian canopy cover for both reference and
probability sites. For the probability sites, the
next most common riparian cover was
broadleaf deciduous. For the reference sites,
the next most common riparian cover was
coniferous. Coniferous trees provide much
greater structural function in streams due to
the size and decay-resistance of the wood
they contribute to streams.
31
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
o ^o
*? 0 40
n
o o ^o
o U-3U
^ 0 90
0 10 -
n nn
1 — l_
D Probablity Sites
D Reference Sites
Coniferous
Broadleaf Deciduous
Mixed
No Cover
Figure 30. Mean percent riparian cover by canopy
classes for probability and reference sites.
Large Woody Debris (LWD)
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. The amount of
LWD in streams of the Pacific northwest has
been reduced from historical levels by forest
management activities.
For the west side of the Cascades, the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
suggests "properly functioning" stream
channels should have >80 pieces per mile (5
pieces per 100m) of LWD >24 inches
(>60cm) in diameter (NMFS, 1996). For the
probability sites, the mean number of pieces
in this large and very large size class was 3
pieces per 100m. For the reference sites, the
mean number of pieces in these two
categories was 6.6 pieces per 100m. In
addition, LWD was generally more
prevalent in the reference sites in all
categories, including the large class (Figure
31).
Very Large
>->
& T
-
\/[ A'
CO
g Small
VPTV S 11
v ery aman
3
•
i
i
i
i
i
m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
LWDpieces/lOOm
Figure 31. Mean LWD quantity (pieces per 100m) by size class for reference and probability sites.
(see Table 5 for definition)
32
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Riparian Disturbance
Removal or alteration of riparian vegetation
reduces habitat quality and can result in
negative effects to the stream biota.
A proximity-weight disturbance index (PWDI)
for each reach (Kaufman 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 6).
Generally the level of human influence is low
(<0.4) for all the separate categories based on
mean values (see Appendices 3 & 6) for both
the probability and reference sites. However,
for the probability sites, when all disturbance
categories are accounted for, most sites have a
medium level of total human influence (mean
.6 and median .4). The reference sites have a
lower level of total human influence (mean .1
and median 0). This is to be expected, as
reference sites were selected to represent
minimal levels of human disturbance.
•e
3
«
Q
Crops
Pasture
Bank Revetment
Buildings
Trash
T
Logging
b
=i
m
P
B^
i
j
j
m
i
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.2
D Probability Sites
D Reference Sites
Proximity Weighted Disturbance Index
Figure 32. Mean riparian zone human influence from each of 9 disturbance categories for reference and probability sites.
33
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
E. Biological Indicators
While there are currently no numeric water
quality criteria for biological indicators,
measuring the condition of the biological
assemblages is very important, as they provide
a direct measure of the aquatic life designated
use and directly support the goal of the Clean
Water Act. For both macroinvertebrate and
aquatic vertebrate assemblages, we compare
the results of the ecoregion-wide assessment
(using probability sites) to that of the reference
condition.
Fish and Amphibians
Aquatic vertebrate richness calculated for the
probability sites was generally similar to that of
the reference condition (Figure 19 and Figure
33). A summary of metrics for aquatic
vertebrates for reference sites is available in
Appendix 8. The means and medians were
similar, although the range of values was
greater for the probability sites. The reference
sites had higher amphibian species richness and
lower fish richness that the probability sites.
The ratio offish to amphibian richness was
reversed in the reference condition dataset,
which had typically one fish species and two
amphibian species. As with the probability
dataset, salmonid species occurrence is
common. Reference sites differed from the
probability data in the occurrence of non-
salmonids (number of species and relative
abundance), which were less common.
The reference sites are dominated by sensitive
and coldwater guild species. The range among
reference sites was much smaller than that of
the probability sites for both of these aquatic
vertebrate metrics (Figure 34 and Figure 35).
CD 3
.0 °
0
All vertebrates Fish Amphibians Salmonids Non-salmonids
Vertebrate Category
Figure 33. Aquatic vertebrate species richness in reference sites.
I Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
I I 75%
25%
a Median
o Outliers
o Outliers
* Extremes
o Outliers
34
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
Probability Reference
Site category
July 15, 2004
I Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
CD 75%
25%
D Median
* Extremes
Probability
l Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
I I 75%
25%
n Median
Figure 34. Comparison of relative abundance of
sensitive aquatic vertebrate species guilds for the
probability sites versus the reference sites.
Figure 36. Comparison of Shannon-Weiner diversity
index for aquatic vertebrates for the probability sites
versus the reference sites.
120
100
S
0)
n:
Probability
Reference
Site category
HI Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
I I 75%
25%
n Median
* Extremes
Figure 35. Comparison of relative abundance of
coldwater vertebrate species guilds for the probability
versus reference sites.
Overall diversity of aquatic vertebrates was
characterized with the Shannon-Wiener
diversity index, which incorporates not only
maximum richness but 'evenness' in the
abundances of species within sites. The
probability sites have slightly lower diversity
than the reference sites (Figure 36).
Macroinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrate data can be
evaluated using a number of different attributes
or metrics. Taxa richness metrics enumerate the
various taxa, either singly or by groups. For the
probability sites, overall macroinvertebrate taxa
richness was generally similar to that of the
reference condition (Figure 37). The means
and medians were similar, although the range
of values was greater for the probability sites.
Taxa richness metrics for EPT, non-insect and
long-lived taxa for the probability sites were
also similar to that of the reference condition
(Appendix 9). The reference sites had a slightly
higher mean number of sensitive taxa.
35
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment July 15, 2004
35 i
S 9S
3 25
^H 90
o AV '
* IS
J in
3 IU
n
percent of the sample made up of Plecoptera,
DProbablity Sites
D Reference Sites
was sligntly lower (mean izybj tor me
probability sites as compared to that of the
reference condition (mean 16%). The percent
of the sample made up of sensitive insects, was
lower (mean 15%) for the probability sites as
compared to that of the reference condition
(m^n 99%">
Taxa richness
EPT richness Intolerant richness
Figure 37. Comparison of macroinvertebrate taxa
richness metrics calculated for the probability sites
versus the reference sites.
Another type of metric for evaluating
macroinvertebrate assemblages is the percent
of all individuals in the sample that are in each
different taxonomic or sensitivity group. For
the probability sites, the percent of the
individuals in the sample that were in the
orders Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera
(stoneflies) and Trichoptera (caddis flies), was
lower (mean 69.0%) than that of the reference
condition (mean 76.9%) (Figure 38). The
n &
n -
DProbabhtySit
D Reference Sits
3S
;s
1 — 1 1 1 —
% EPT
% Plecoptera
% Intolerant
Figure 38. Comparison of selected macroinvertebrate
percent metrics calculated for probability sites
versus reference sites.
36
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
VII. SUMMARY
The often complex results of environmental
data analyses must be communicated in a
straightforward manner to water resource
managers and the public. In order to determine
the extent of the 2nd and 3rd order streams in the
Western Cascades ecoregion that are in good,
fair and poor condition, we measured chemical,
physical and biological indicators in a
statistical probability sample of stream reaches
(probability sites). The indicator values used to
designate good, fair and poor are in Appendix
10.
A. Stream Water Chemistry
For stream water chemistry indicators, we
compared these results to water quality criteria
for Oregon and Washington or literature values
where no criteria existed (Figure 39). Over
90% of the 2nd and 3rd order stream length in
the Western Cascades ecoregion was in "good"
condition for pH, phosphorus and nitrite-
nitrate. Streams were determined to be in
"good" condition for pH between 6.5-8.8,
below 0.1 mg/L for phosphorus and below 0.3
mg/L for nitrate-nitrite. For temperature, 61%
the 2nd and 3rd order stream length in the
Western Cascades ecoregion was in "good"
condition. We defined "good" as below 12°C.
Thirty-seven percent of the stream length was
in "fair" condition (between 12°C and 16.0°C).
Only 2% of the stream length was in "poor"
condition (warmer than 16°C). However, the
use of a single measurement is unlikely to catch
peak stream temperatures.
Nitrate-nitrite
Phosphorus
PH
Temperature
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% stream length
Figure 39. Selected water chemistry indicators.
37
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
B. Physical Habitat and Biological
Indicators
For physical habitat and biological
assemblages, we compare the results of the
ecoregion-wide assessment (using probability
sites) to that of the reference condition (using
reference sites) as there are no applicable
numeric water quality criteria. The range of
scores at reference sites for each habitat and
biological indicator describes a distribution that
we used to define reference condition. We
believe that the reference sites are minimally
disturbed by human influence, however we
may have included sites with some level of
human disturbance as reference sites.
Therefore, we have set our scoring criteria
conservatively. The 25th percentile of this
reference distribution is the criteria that we
used to distinguish probability sites in "good"
condition from those in "fair" condition
(Harbour, et al. 1999). The 5th percentile value
of reference separates sites in fair condition
from those in "poor" condition (Figures 39
and 40). These criteria provide a margin of
safety, as they would designate 5% of the
reference sites in "poor" condition. All specific
indicator values are in Appendix 10.
Generally, LWD was more prevalent in the
reference sites in all categories, including the
large class. For the amount of LWD in the large
and very large size classes, 23% of the of the
2nd and 3rd order stream length in the Western
Cascades ecoregion was in "poor" condition as
compared to the reference sites. An additional,
49% of the stream length was in "fair"
condition for large and very large LWD
(Figure 40)
% Sands/Fines
% Coniferous/Mixed
Cover
Mid-Channel Shade
Large/Very Large
LWD
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% stream miles
Figure 40. Selected physical habitat indicators.
38
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
•>nd
The amount of mid-channel shade was fairly
high for both the probability and reference
sites. However, 34% percent of the of the 2"
and 3rd order stream length in the Western
Cascades ecoregion was in "poor" condition for
percent mid-channel canopy cover as compared
to the reference sites. An additional, 30% of the
stream length was in "fair" condition for mid-
channel shade (Figure 40).
Mixed cover was the most common type of
riparian canopy cover for both reference and
probability sites. For the probability sites, the
next most common riparian cover was
broadleaf deciduous. For the reference sites, the
next most common riparian cover was
coniferous. Thirty-seven percent of the of the
2nd and 3rd order stream length in the Western
Cascades ecoregion was in "poor" condition as
compared to the reference sites for percent
coniferous plus mixed canopy cover types
(Figure 40)
Cobble (<64 to 250 mm) sized substrate was
the most common surface substrate for both the
probability and reference sites. For the percent
of the substrate made up of sands or fines, 27%
of the of the 2nd and 3rd order stream length in
the Western Cascades ecoregion was in "poor"
condition as compared to the reference sites.
An additional, 16% of the stream length was in
"fair" condition for percent sands or fines
(Figure 40)
Salmonids were common in both with
ecoregion-wide sites having slightly higher
salmonid richness. Coldwater guild species
were the dominant temperature guild in both
datasets. Reference sites differed from the
probability sites in that they had higher
amphibian species richness. For total vertebrate
richness, 8% of the 2nd and 3rd order stream
length in the Western Cascades ecoregion was
in "poor" condition as compared to reference
sites (Figure 41). The reference sites also had
higher relative abundance of sensitive aquatic
vertebrate guild species. Twenty-seven percent
of the of the 2nd and 3rd order stream length in
the Western Cascades ecoregion was in "poor"
condition as compared to the reference sites for
sensitive aquatic vertebrate species relative
abundance. Finally, using the Shannon-Weiner
diversity index for aquatic vertebrates, 16% of
the 2nd and 3rd order stream length in the
Western Cascades ecoregion was in "poor"
condition as compared to the reference sites
(Figure 41)
For benthic macroinvertebrates (Figure 41),
the percent of the individuals in the sample that
were EPT, Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and sensitive
insects, were lower for the probability sites as
compared to that of the reference condition. For
the percent of the individuals in the sample that
were EPT (% EPT), 17% of the of the 2nd and
3rd order stream length in the Western Cascades
ecoregion were in "poor" condition as
compared to the reference sites. Fourteen
percent of the of the 2nd and 3rd order stream
length in the Western Cascades ecoregion was
in "poor" condition as compared to the
reference sites for the percent of the individuals
in the sample that were Stoneflies (%
Plecoptera).
For the percent of individuals in the sample that
are sensitive individuals, 22% of the of the 2nd
and 3rd order stream length in the Western
Cascades ecoregion was in "poor" condition as
compared to the reference sites. An additional,
21% of the stream length was in "fair"
condition for percent sensitive (Figure 41).
39
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Shannon-Weiner diversity
index for vertebrates
Sensitive vertebrate species
relative abundance
Total vertebrate richness
% Intolerant
macroinvertebrates
% Plecoptera
%EPT
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
% stream miles
90% 100%
Figure 41. Selected biological indicators.
This project was designed to evaluate the
overall condition of 2nd and 3rd order streams in
the Western Cascades ecoregion. In this
assessment we used direct measurements of the
biota themselves as indicators of ecological
condition. The organisms that live in a stream
integrate many of the physical and chemical
stressors and factors that are acting in, and on,
the stream ecosystem. Information on the
stream biota is supplemented by indicators of
stress, which are measurements of other stream
characteristics or factors that might influence or
affect stream condition, especially stream water
chemistry and physical habitat.
In conclusion, very few (3-8%) of the of the 2nd
and 3rd order stream kilometers in the Western
Cascades ecoregion were in "poor" condition
using stream water indicators. However,
physical habitat indicators showed a greater
extent of the 2nd and 3rd order stream length in
the Western Cascades ecoregion were in "poor"
condition (22-38%). The biological indicators
(fish, amphibians, and macroinvertebrates) are
likely responding to many of these alterations
in physical habitat condition, as 8-27 percent of
the 2nd and 3rd order stream kilometers in the
Western Cascades ecoregion were in "poor"
condition using biological indicators.
40
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment July 15,2004
VIII. REFERENCES
Barbour, M.T., M.L. Bowman, and J.S. White. 1994. Evaluation of the biological condition of streams
in the Middle Rockies - Central ecoregion. Prepared for Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality.
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for
Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish,
Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water;
Washington, D.C.
Canale, G. 1999. Oregon Coast Range Macoinvertebrate Analysis and Monitoring Status 1991-1997.
Department of Environmental Quality Biomonitoring Section. Portland, Oregon. Technical
Report BIOOO-005.
Cline, C. 1973. The effects of forest fertilization on the Tahuya River, Kitsap Peninsula, Washington.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia. 55pp.
Frey, D.G. 1977. Biological integrity of water- an historical approach. Pages 127-140 in R.K.
Ballentine and LJ. Guarraia (editors). The Integrity of Water. Proceedings of a Symposium,
March 10-12, 1975. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Gresh, T., J. Lichatowich, and P. Schoonmaker. 2000. An estimation of historic and current levels of
salmon production in the northeast Pacific ecosystem: evidence of a nutrient deficit in the
freshwater systems of the Pacific Northwest. Fisheries 25(1):15-21..
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., J.L. Stoddard, and C.B. Johnson. 1998. The relationship between stream chemistry and
watershed land cover data in the mid-Atlantic region. U.S. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution.
105:377-386.
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.
41
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment July 15,2004
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, IJ. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological
integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey, Special
Publication 5. State of Illinois. Champaign.
Karr J.R. and D.R. Dudley, 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environmental
Management 5:55-68.
Kaufmann, P.R. and E.G. Robison. 1998. Physical Habitat Characterization, pp 77-118 In: J.M.
Lazorchak, D. J. Klemm and D. V. Peck (eds.). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program — Surface Waters: Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological
Condition of Wadeable Streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
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., Blocksom, K.A., Thoeny, W.T., Fulk, F.A., Herlihy, A.T. , Kaufmann P.R., and
Cormier, S.M. 2002. Methods development and use of macroinvertebrates as indicators of
ecological conditions for streams in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands region. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 78(2): 169-212.
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.
Lazorchak, J.M., DJ. Klemm 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. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. EPA/620/R-94/004F.
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 andN.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.
42
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment July 15,2004
Montgomery, D.R. and J.M. Buffmgton. 1993. Channel classification, prediction of channel response,
and assessment of channel conditions. Report for TFW-SH10-93-002. University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Appendix II in Coastal salmon conservation: working
guidance for comprehensive salmon restoration initiatives on the Pacific Coast. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Protected Resources Division, Portland, OR.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of
American geographers 77:118-125.
Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340
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.
Pater, D.E., S.A. Bryce, T.D. Thorson, J. Kagan, C. Chappell, J.M. Omernik, S.H. Azevedo, and A. J.
Woods. 1998. Ecoregions of Western Washington and Oregon (2 sided color poster with map,
descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Scale
1:1,350,000.
Peck, D.V., J.M. Lazorchak, and D.J. Klemm (editors). 2003. Draft. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program -Surface Waters: Western Pilot Study Field Operations Manual for
Wadeable Streams. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Peterson, S.A., D.P. Larsen, S.G. Paulsen, andN.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. Sample representativeness: a must for reliable regional
lake condition estimates. Environmental Science and Technology. 33:1559-1565.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish.
EPA/444-4-89-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Platts , W.S., W.F. Megahan, and G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for Evaluating Stream, Riparian, and
Biotic Conditions. General Technical Report No. INT-138. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.
43
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment July 15,2004
Resh, V.H. 1995. Freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates and rapid assessment procedures for water
quality monitoring in developing newly industrialized countries. Pages 167-177 in W.S. Davis
and T.P. Simon, editors. Biological assessment and criteria; tools for water resource planning
and decision making. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Fl.
Resh V.H. and J.K. Jackson. 1993. Rapid assessment approaches to biomonitoring using benthic
macroinvertebrates. Pages 195-223 in D.M. Rosenberg and V.H. Resh, editors. Freshwater
biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall. New York.
Reynolds, L., A.T. Herlihy, P.R. Kaufmann, S.V. Gregory, and R.M. Hughes. 2003. Electrofishing
effort requirements for assessing species richness and biotic integrity in western Oregon streams.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:450-461.
USEPA, 1996. Biological Criteria - Technical Guidance for Streams and Small Rivers. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC. EPA 822-B-96-001.
USEPA, 2000. Mid-Atlantic Highlands Stream Assessment. EPA Region 3, Philadelphia, PA.
EPA/903/R-00/015.
USEPA, 2003. Analytical Tools Interface for Landscape Assessments; Version 4.0. EPA Office of
Research and Development, Las Vegas, NV.
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. Olympia, 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.
Williams, J.E.; Johnson, J.E.; Hendrickson, D.A.; Conreras-Balderas, S.; Williams, J.D.; Navarro-
Mendoza, M.; McAllister, D.E.; Bacon, J.E. 1989. Fishes of North America endangered,
threatened, and of special concern. Fisheries. 14(6):2-20.
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. 2003. 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.
44
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
IX. APPENDICES
Appendix 1. List of probability (ecoregion-wide) sites with associated stream identification number.
Probability Site
Identification
Code
ROCE99-001
ROCE99-004
ROCE99-007
ROCE99-008
ROCE99-009
ROCE99-011
ROCE99-012
ROCE99-013
ROCE99-015
ROCE99-016
ROCE99-017
ROCE99-018
ROCE99-019
ROCE99-020
ROCE99-021
ROCE99-022
ROCE99-025
ROCE99-026
ROCE99-029
ROCE99-030
ROCE99-032
ROCE99-033
ROCE99-037
ROCE99-040
ROCE99-042
ROCE99-043
ROCE99-044
ROCE99-045
ROCE99-046
ROCE99-047
ROCE99-048
ROCE99-049
ROCE99-050
ROCE99-052
State
WA
OR
WA
WA
OR
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
WA
OR
OR
OR
WA
WA
OR
OR
WA
WA
WA
OR
OR
OR
County
THURSTON
LINN
YAKIMA
PIERCE
LANE
PIERCE
YAKIMA
YAKIMA
LANE
SKAMANIA
SKAMANIA
KING
MARION
LANE
MULTNOMAH
CLACKAMAS
LANE
MULTNOMAH
CLACKAMAS
LANE
SKAMANIA
HOOD RIVER
CLACKAMAS
LANE
SKAMANIA
KING
CLACKAMAS
LANE
LEWIS
LEWIS
PIERCE
LINN
LANE
CLACKAMAS
Site Name
DESCHUTES R
CLEAR CR.N FK
GREENWATER
R
LOOKOUT CR
KAUTZ CR
TEITONR.SFK
DEEP CR
ALEC CREEK
BATTLE CREEK
BULL RUN R
EIGHT CR
BULL RUN R
TABLE ROCK
FK
REBEL CREEK
HOOD R.W FK
NORTH FORK
EAGLE CR
JUNIPER CREEK
GREEN R
REXR
NOHORN CR
WFNBERRY
CR.N FK
SKATE CR
JOHNSON CR
CARBON R
CANYON CR
BOHEMIA CR
7.5 (24K) Quad Map
Bald Hill
Mill City South
Spiral Butte
Greenwater
McKenzie Bridge
Wahpenayo Peak
Pinegrass Ridge
Bumping Lake
Rose Hill
Gumboot Mountain
Quartz Creek Butte
Hobart
Mother Lode
Mountain
Mount June
Hickman Butte
High Rock
Westfir East
Tanner Butte
Gawley Creek
Cougar Reservoir
Bobs Mountain
Bull Run Lake
Estacada
McCredie Springs
Spirit Lake East
Cougar Mountain
Bagby Hot Spring
Saddleblanket
Mountain
Tatoosh Lakes
Packwood Lake
Golden Lakes
Swamp Mountain
Warner Mountain
Mount Lowe
Longitude
(Decimal
Degrees)
122.4010
122.3956
121.3513
121.6287
122.2335
121.8448
121.2744
121.3201
122.6360
122.1424
121.8577
121.8929
122.0718
122.6760
121.8883
121.8804
122.3935
121.9329
122.3829
122.1510
122.2442
121.7811
122.2515
122.3152
122.0879
121.6792
122.1923
122.6086
121.7006
121.6183
121.9501
122.3888
122.4864
121.9016
Latitude
(Decimal
Degrees)
46.79846
44.69910
46.65625
47.15351
44.22566
46.74753
46.50979
46.80735
43.74313
45.83448
46.18070
47.48160
44.84753
43.82877
45.48151
45.23331
43.83500
45.50834
44.98133
44.01687
45.68818
45.46444
45.31402
43.62610
46.34761
47.36246
44.94622
43.90107
46.6289
46.53533
46.99203
44.37382
43.56533
44.93674
Weight
65.905
36.778
65.905
65.905
36.778
65.905
65.905
65.905
36.778
65.905
65.905
65.905
36.778
36.778
36.778
36.778
36.778
36.778
36.778
36.778
65.905
36.778
36.778
36.778
65.905
65.905
36.778
36.778
65.905
65.905
65.905
36.778
36.778
36.778
45
-------
:PA Region 10
)ffice of Environmental Assessment Julv 15,
Probability Site
Identification
Code
ROCE99-053
ROCE99-054
ROCE99-055
ROCE99-057
ROCE99-059
ROCE99-060
ROCE99-064
ROCE99-065
ROCE99-071
ROCE99-081
ROCE99-082
ROCE99-084
ROCE99-085
ROCE99-086
ROCE99-087
ROCE99-088
ROCE99-089
ROCE99-090
ROCE99-091
ROCE99-092
ROCE99-093
ROCE99-094
ROCE99-095
ROCE99-096
ROCE99-097
ROCE99-098
ROCE99-099
ROCE99-100
ROCE99-101
ROCE99-103
ROCE99-104
ROCE99-106
ROCE99-107
State
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
WA
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
WA
WA
WA
OR
OR
WA
OR
OR
OR
OR
WA
WA
OR
WA
WA
County
LINN
LANE
LANE
CLACKAMAS
CLACKAMAS
LANE
LINN
LANE
HOOD RIVER
LEWIS
CLACKAMAS
LINN
DOUGLAS
MULTNOMAH
CLACKAMAS
MARION
CLACKAMAS
LANE
LEWIS
YAKIMA
PIERCE
LINN
LANE
SKAMANIA
CLACKAMAS
MARION
LANE
LANE
CLARK
KING
MARION
LEWIS
LEWIS
Site Name
CRABTREE CR
LITTLE FALL
CR
BLACK CR
FISH CR
TABLE ROCK
FK
WILLAMETTE
R.M FK.N FK
THOMAS CR
LOST CR
EAGLE CR
LITTLE
NISQUALLYR
LITTLE SANDY
CR
MIDDLE
SANTIAMR
TUMBLEBUG
CR
BULL RUN R
FISH CR
FRENCH CR
BEAVER CREEK
WALLCR
LYNXCR
TEITONR.NFK
NISQUALLYR
BLUER
BRICE CR
ROCK CR
ZIGZAG R
BREITENBUSH
R.SFK
MARTEN CR
BLACK CR
CEDAR CR
KIONA CR
7.5 (24K) Quad Map
Keel Mountain
Goat Mountain
Waldo Lake
Wanderers Peak
Rooster Rock
Sardine Butte
Snow Peak
Kloster Mountain
Walitum Lake
Eatonville
Brightwood
Yellowstone
Mountain
Rigdon Point
Brightwood
Wanderers Peak
Detroit
Wilhoit
Huckleberry
Mountain
Randle
Pinegrass Ridge
Mount Rainier West
Carpenter Mountain
Bearbones Mountain
Bonneville Dam
Rhododendron
Breitenbush Hot
Spring
Goat Mountain
Mount David
Douglas
Ariel
Lester
Lyons
Kiona Peak
Tower Rock
Longitude
(Decimal
Degrees)
122.5722
122.6016
122.0999
122.1609
122.2889
122.2881
122.5506
122.7638
121.8684
122.3107
122.0991
122.3787
122.2502
122.0169
122.1671
122.1549
122.6127
122.3020
121.9329
121.3680
121.7598
122.2008
122.5859
121.9277
121.9218
121.9383
122.5095
122.1772
122.5070
121.4656
122.5758
122.0168
121.8523
Latitude
(Decimal
Degrees)
44.57779
44.02250
43.69998
45.06435
44.98745
43.88818
44.69758
43.82124
45.59532
46.76024
45.41619
44.51245
43.43759
45.49421
45.09738
44.74877
45.03728
43.81883
46.59884
46.55650
46.78256
44.26785
43.62256
45.72157
45.33885
44.76994
44.11275
43.71492
45.92629
47.24525
44.85975
46.52887
46.43783
2004
Weight
36.778
36.778
36.778
36.778
36.778
36.778
36.778
36.778
36.778
65.905
36.778
36.778
36.778
36.778
36.778
36.778
36.778
36.778
65.905
65.905
65.905
36.778
36.778
65.905
36.778
36.778
36.778
36.778
65.905
65.905
36.778
65.905
65.905
46
-------
:PA Region 10
)ffice of Environmental Assessment Julv 15,
Probability Site
Identification
Code
ROCE99-108
ROCE99-109
ROCE99-110
ROCE99-111
ROCE99-113
ROCE99-114
ROCE99-115
ROCE99-116
ROCE99-117
ROCE99-118
ROCE99-119
ROCE99-120
State
WA
OR
OR
WA
WA
OR
OR
WA
WA
WA
OR
OR
County
PIERCE
LINN
LANE
LEWIS
YAKIMA
LINN
LINN
SKAMANIA
SKAMANIA
KITTITAS
CLACKAMAS
LANE
Site Name
OHOP CR
WILEY CR
LAYNG CR
WINSTON CR
MIDDLE
SANTIAMR
COPPER CREEK
CURLY CREEK
CABIN CR
7.5 (24K) Quad Map
Tanwax Lake
Fanners Butte
Rose Hill
Coyote Mountain
Norse Peak
Harter Mountain
Tamolitch Falls
Gumboot Mountain
Burnt Peak
Easton
Bull of the Woods
Blue River
Longitude
(Decimal
Degrees)
122.2543
122.5310
122.6911
122.3800
121.4100
122.1469
122.1061
122.2126
121.9478
121.2238
122.0383
122.2550
Latitude
(Decimal
Degrees)
46.91662
44.32169
43.73071
46.45726
46.88836
44.46141
44.27184
45.78460
46.05240
47.21701
44.96758
44.12664
2004
Weight
65.905
36.778
36.778
65.905
65.905
36.778
36.778
65.905
65.905
65.905
36.778
36.778
47
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Appendix 2. Summary' statistics for water chemistry indicators for probability sites.
Water Chemistry - PROBABILITY SITES
Indicator
Alkalinity
Chloride
Conductivity
Dissolved
Oxygen (DO)
Ammonia
(NH3 N)
Nitrate-
Nitrite
(NO2 NO3)
Total
Phosphorus
pH
TSS
S04
Grab Water
Temperature
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pH
units
mg/L
mg/L
deg. C
N
78
78
77
77
78
78
78
70
78
61
78
Mean
18.623
0.921
3.553
10.098
0.017
0.033
0.039
7.312
31.358
2.295
11.177
95%
Confidence
18.841
0.947
44.030
10.128
0.017
0.036
0.042
7.327
35.082
2.401
11.265
Median
18.000
0.934
44.000
10.000
0.010
0.010
0.017
7.400
1.000
1.050
11.200
Minimum
5.430
0.000
13.700
7.400
0.010
0.000
0.003
6.210
0.500
0.000
3.300
Maximum
34.500
4.690
81.000
12.400
0.049
0.495
0.524
9.000
665.000
17.100
17.600
Range
29.070
4.690
67.300
5.000
0.039
0.495
0.522
2.790
664.500
17.100
14.300
Variance
46.458
0.647
218.070
0.869
0.000
0.008
0.008
0.184
13544.315
9.282
7.543
Standard
Deviation
6.816
0.804
14.767
0.932
0.010
0.089
0.089
0.429
116.380
3.047
2.747
Standar
d Error
0.111
0.013
0.243
0.015
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.008
1.899
0.054
0.045
Total Weight
3742.5
3742.5
3676.6
3676.6
3742.5
3742.5
3742.5
3244.4
3742.5
3117.3
3742.5
% Stream
Miles
99.034
99.034
97.290
97.290
99.034
99.034
99.034
85.853
99.034
82.490
99.034
48
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
A
)|)endix 3. Summary statistics for physical habitat metrics for probability sites (see Kaufmann, et al. 1999 for further definition and method of calculation)
Physical Habitat - PROBABILITY SITES
Type
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
cover
cover
cover
human
human
Indicator
Reach with cascades
Reach with dry /submerged flow
Reach with falls
Percent reach with fast water
types
Reach with glides
Reach with pools
Reach with rapids
Reach with riffles
Reach with slow water types
Reach length
Reach length/mean bankfull width
Standard deviation thalweg depth
Sinuosity
Mean bankfull height above water
surface
Mean bankfull width
Mean thalweg depth
Mean water slope of reach
Mean undercut bank distance
Wetted width/depth ration
Mean wetted width
Area covered by all types but
algae
Area covered by large objects
Area covered by natural objects
Agricultural human disturbance
All human disturbance
Units
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
m
count
cm
m/m
m
m
cm
m
m
%
m
prox. wtd. sum
prox. wtd. sum
Code
PCT CA
PCT DRS
PCT FA
PCT FAST
PCT GL
PCT POOL
PCT RA
PCT RI
PCT SLOW
REACHLEN
#CH WID
SDDEPTH
SINU
XBKF H
XBKF W
XDEPTH
XSLOPE
XUN
XWD RAT
XWIDTH
XFC ALL
XFC BIG
XFC NAT
Wl HAG
Wl HALL
Mean
2.326
0.000
0.476
62.203
14.546
14.830
6.081
20.417
37.797
328.959
0.158
22.128
1.177
1.257
16.513
48.144
4.137
0.026
29.019
11.402
0.606
0.457
0.603
0.011
0.587
95%
Conf.
2.537
0.526
62.920
15.068
15.239
6.529
21.108
38.514
337.246
0.162
22.559
1.187
1.327
17.032
48.771
4.270
0.027
29.798
11.903
0.614
0.463
0.611
0.013
0.605
Median
0.000
0.000
0.000
61.364
9.000
12.000
0.000
10.000
38.636
280.000
0.138
18.270
1.113
0.700
13.664
47.960
2.640
0.014
24.308
9.275
0.580
0.450
0.580
0.000
0.424
Min.
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
0.000
7.268
1.012
0.320
3.336
12.926
0.645
0.000
9.499
2.505
0.216
0.073
0.216
0.000
0.000
Max.
49.000
0.000
8.000
100.000
56.000
52.000
88.000
76.000
100.000
1960.000
0.667
99.301
4.103
13.900
125.900
98.570
33.570
0.152
187.843
125.188
1.940
1.100
1.940
0.886
2.250
Range
49.000
0.000
8.000
100.000
56.000
52.000
88.000
76.000
100.000
1860.000
0.667
92.033
3.092
13.580
122.564
85.644
32.925
0.152
178.344
122.683
1.724
1.027
1.724
0.886
2.250
Variance
43.958
0.000
2.388
507.152
268.366
165.155
197.673
470.518
507.152
67757.258
0.016
183.228
0.103
4.732
266.462
387.080
17.312
0.001
598.471
247.940
0.064
0.043
0.062
0.008
0.328
Standard
Deviation
6.630
0.000
1.545
22.520
16.382
12.851
14.060
21.691
22.520
260.302
0.125
13.536
0.321
2.175
16.324
19.674
4.161
0.036
24.464
15.746
0.253
0.208
0.250
0.087
0.573
Standar
d Error
0.108
0.000
0.025
0.366
0.266
0.209
0.228
0.352
0.366
4.227
0.002
0.220
0.005
0.035
0.265
0.319
0.068
0.001
0.397
0.256
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.001
0.009
49
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Physical Habitat - PROBABILITY SITES
Type
human
human
human
human
human
human
human
human
human
human
human
human
Lwd
Lwd
Lwd
Lwd
Lwd
Lwd
Lwd
Lwd
Lwd
Lwd
pool
Indicator
Non-agricultural human
disturbance
Buildings
Row crops
Landfill/trash
Logging
Mines
Park
Pipes
Pasture
Pavement
Road
Channel revetment
Count large woody debris class 1
Count large woody debris class 2
Count large woody debris class 3
Count large woody debris class 4
Count large woody debris class 5
Volume large woody debris class
1
Volume large woody debris class
2
Volume large woody debris class
3
Volume large woody debris class
4
Volume large woody debris class
5
Number of residual pools
Units
prox. wtd. sum
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
#/100m
#/100m
#/100m
#/100m
#/100m
m3/m2
m3/m2
m3/m2
m3/m2
m3/m2
count
Code
Wl HNOAG
W1H BLDG
W1H CROP
W1H LDFL
W1H LOG
W1H MINE
W1H PARK
W1H_PIPE
W1H_PSTR
W1H_PVMT
W1H_ROAD
W1H_WALL
C1WM100
C2WM100
C3WM100
C4WM100
C5WM100
V1W_MSQ
V2WM100
V3WM100
V4W_MSQ
V5WM100
NRP
Mean
0.576
0.015
0.001
0.028
0.212
0.002
0.042
0.002
0.009
0.053
0.211
0.012
21.039
12.845
6.226
2.978
0.524
0.027
31.502
28.957
0.020
11.864
19.385
95%
Conf.
0.595
0.018
0.002
0.031
0.223
0.002
0.046
0.002
0.012
0.057
0.218
0.014
21.779
13.336
6.528
3.170
0.580
0.029
33.649
31.064
0.022
13.116
19.598
Median
0.402
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.091
0.000
13.333
8.214
2.708
1.111
0.000
0.009
10.801
8.737
0.005
0.000
19.000
Min.
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Max.
2.250
0.652
0.045
0.490
1.455
0.068
0.742
0.094
0.886
0.758
0.758
0.375
160.000
114.500
67.500
36.500
10.556
0.325
403.917
399.677
0.307
238.767
38.000
Range
2.250
0.652
0.045
0.490
1.455
0.068
0.742
0.094
0.886
0.758
0.758
0.375
160.000
114.500
67.500
36.500
10.556
0.325
403.917
399.677
0.307
238.767
38.000
Variance
0.323
0.008
0.000
0.005
0.117
0.000
0.022
0.000
0.008
0.022
0.056
0.003
541.295
238.009
89.836
36.555
3.024
0.003
4549.176
4380.831
0.002
1547.249
44.826
Standard
Deviation
0.569
0.087
0.007
0.073
0.342
0.010
0.147
0.011
0.087
0.149
0.237
0.052
23.266
15.428
9.478
6.046
1.739
0.052
67.448
66.188
0.048
39.335
6.695
Standar
d Error
0.009
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.006
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.004
0.001
0.378
0.250
0.154
0.098
0.028
0.001
1.095
1.075
0.001
0.639
0. 109
50
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Physical Habitat - PROBABILITY SITES
Type
pool
pool
pool
pool
pool
pool
pool
pool
pool
pool
pool
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
Indicator
Number of pools, depth >100 cm
Number of pools, depth >50 cm
Number of pools, depth >75 cm
Vertical profile of largest residual
pool
Maximum residual depth of
deepest pool
Maximum pool volume
Mean residual pool area
Mean residual pool depth
Mean residual pool length
Mean residual pool volume
Mean residual pool width
Fraction of reach with coniferous
dominant canopy
Fraction of reach with broadleaf
deciduous dominant canopy
Fraction of reach with mixed
canopy
Fraction of reach without canopy
vegetation
Mean riparian canopy cover
Mean canopy density left and
right banks
Mean canopy density midstream
Fraction of reach with riparian
canopy density > 0.3m DBH
Riparian cover, sum of 3 layers
Riparian woody cover, sum of 3
layers
Units
count
count
count
m2
cm
m3
in2
cm
m
m3
m
%
%
Code
RPGT100
RPGT50
RPGT75
RPMAREA
RPMDEP
RPMVOL
RPXAREA
RPXDEP
RPXLEN
RRXVOL
RPXWID
PCAN_C
PCAN_D
PCAN_M
PCAN_N
XC
XCDENBK
XCDENMID
XCL
XCMG
XCMGW
Mean
0.449
1.991
0.867
13.167
93.395
57.837
2.660
19.296
11.133
11.829
3.258
0.176
0.243
0.521
0.060
0.539
85 555
63.671
0.248
1.645
1.161
95%
Conf.
0.476
2.049
0.908
13.650
95.646
61.758
2.750
19.636
11.360
12.953
3.412
0.185
0.251
0.531
0.063
0.545
86.161
64.532
0.254
1.661
1.172
Median
0.000
2.000
0.000
7.490
71.440
17.056
1.671
16.639
9.733
2.951
2.407
0.045
0.182
0.500
0.000
0.517
92.513
69.519
0.253
1.656
1.169
Min.
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.105
0.000
0.000
0.053
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.039
4.813
0.000
0.006
0.239
0.182
Max.
4.000
8.000
5.000
93.233
443.470
734.563
14.641
64.036
33.200
257.212
38.037
1.000
0.905
1.000
0.682
1.061
100.000
100.000
0.727
2.899
2.182
Range
4.000
8.000
5.000
93.233
443.470
734.563
14.536
64.036
33.200
257.158
38.037
1.000
0.905
1.000
0.682
1.022
95.187
100.000
0.722
2.660
2.000
Variance
0.723
3.355
1.617
230.119
5000.314
15173.540
7.856
114.410
51.089
1226.509
23.339
0.081
0.066
0.097
0.014
0.039
362.148
731.829
0.026
0.246
0.128
Standard
Deviation
0.850
1.832
1.272
15.170
70.713
123.181
2.803
10.696
7.148
35.022
4.831
0.284
0.257
0.312
0.117
0.197
19.030
27.052
0.161
0.496
0.357
Standar
d Error
0.014
0.030
0.021
0.246
1.148
2.000
0.046
0.174
0.116
0.574
0.078
0.005
0.004
0.005
0.002
0.003
0.309
0.439
0.003
0.008
0.006
51
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Physical Habitat - PROBABILITY SITES
Type
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
Indicator
Riparian canopy + mid-layer
woodv cover
Riparian ground-layer vegetation
cover
Faction of reach with canopy
present
Fraction with both canopy and
understory present
Fraction of reach with all 3
vegetation classes present
Faction of reach with understory
present
Log 10 [Relative Bed Stability]
substrate - mean LoglO (diameter
class)
substrate bedrock class
substrate > fine gravel
substrate boulder class
substrate cobble class
substrate fines class
substrate coarse gravel class
substrate fine gravel class
substrate hardpan class
substrate wood or organic class
substrate other class
substrate sand class
substrate sand or fines
substrate < coarse gravel
Mean substrate embeddedness
Units
mm
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Code
XCMW
XG
XPCAN
XPCM
XPCMG
XPMID
LRBS_BW5
LSUB_DMM
PCT_BDRK
PCT_BIGR
PCT_BL
PCT_CB
PCT_FN
PCT_GC
PCT_GF
PCTJfP
PCT_ORG
PCT_OT
PCT_SA
PCT_SAFN
PCT_SFGF
XEMBED
Mean
0.933
0.586
0.940
0.930
0.927
0.966
-0.381
1.927
11.608
80.417
21.782
27.917
7.249
12.330
4.312
0.103
2.354
0.422
4.849
12.097
16.607
33.665
95%
Conf.
0.942
0.592
0.943
0.934
0.931
0.969
-0.359
1.949
12.018
80.966
22.284
28.287
7.610
12.635
4.483
0.122
2.498
0.506
5.053
12.544
17.085
34.130
Median
0.926
0.580
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
-0.276
2.041
9.091
83.636
20.000
27.273
2.500
9.091
1.818
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.818
9.091
12.727
33.364
Min.
0.127
0.079
0.318
0.286
0.300
0.476
-2.841
-0.995
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
8.615
Max.
1.622
1.052
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.638
2.983
49.091
100.000
74.545
56.364
65.455
36.364
29.091
5.455
21.818
20.000
23.636
81.818
83.636
79.012
Range
1.494
0.974
0.682
0.714
0.700
0.524
3.479
3.977
49.091
100.000
74.545
56.364
65.455
36.364
29.091
5.455
21.818
20.000
23.636
81.818
83.636
87.636
Variance
0.083
0.040
0.014
0.016
0.016
0.007
0.465
0.474
165.146
297.078
248.810
135.105
129.101
91.814
28.797
0.370
20.686
7.040
41.320
196.846
225.252
213.358
Standard
Deviation
0.289
0.200
0.118
0.127
0.126
0.085
0.682
0.688
12.851
17.236
15.774
11.623
11.362
9.582
5.366
0.608
4.548
2.653
6.428
14.030
15.008
14.607
Standar
d Error
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.011
0.011
0.209
0.280
0.256
0.189
0.184
0.156
0.087
0.010
0.074
0.043
0.104
0.228
0.244
0.237
52
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Appendix 4. Summary statistics for aquatic vertebrate (fish and amphibian) metrics for probability sites.
Aquatic Vertebrates - PROBABILITY SITES
Metric
% offish non-saknonids
% offish salmonids
% of fish species non-salmonids
% of fish species that are
salmonids
# of amphibian individuals
% relative abundance of
amphibian individuals
# amphibian species
% amphibian species
# of coldwater individuals
% relative abundance of
coldwater individuals
% coldwater species
% relative abundance of
coolwater individuals
# of coolwater individuals
% coolwater species
# offish individuals
# offish species present
% relative abundance of
intermediate sensitive individuals
% intermediate sensitive species
intermediately sensitive
individuals
# non-sahnonid fish individuals
% relative abundance of non-
sahnonid fish
% all species mat are non-
salmonids
# non-sahnonid fish species
Shannon- Weiner diversity index
(absolute value)
# sahnonid individuals
% relative abundance of sahnonid
individuals
# sahnonid species
% sahnonid species
# of sensitive individuals
% relative abundance of sensitive
individuals
% sensitive species
# of all vertebrate individuals
# of vertebrate species present
Stream
Ion
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
3249
Mean
41.446
53.106
31.482
63.070
6.977
22.228
1.035
33.595
40.558
89.986
91.580
10.907
5.436
7.281
40.075
2.212
28.534
22.244
14.848
21.700
37.335
27.913
0.970
0.743
18.334
38.993
1.242
41.641
31.038
71.290
77.079
47.051
3.247
+95%
Conf.
40.206
51.836
30.566
62.049
6.560
21.191
1.004
32.560
39.299
89.106
90.882
9.980
4.752
6.670
38.771
2.159
27.406
21.400
13.964
20.713
36.144
27.041
0.931
0.730
17.467
38.026
1.220
40.871
29.904
70.158
76.209
45.701
3.198
Median
42.857
50.000
50.000
50.000
2.000
7.692
1.000
33.333
32.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
32.000
2.000
14.286
20.000
1.000
10.000
38.235
33.333
1.000
0.784
11.000
40.000
1.000
33.333
22.000
85.714
80.000
36.000
3.000
Min.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
79.00
100.00
3.00
100.00
196.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
123.00
100.00
176.00
8.00
100.00
100.00
123.00
123.00
100.00
100.00
6.00
1.52
176.00
100.00
3.00
100.00
196.00
100.00
100.00
196.00
8.00
Range
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
79.00
100.00
3.00
100.00
196.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
123.00
100.00
176.00
8.00
100.00
100.00
123.00
123.00
100.00
100.00
6.00
1.52
176.00
100.00
3.00
100.00
196.00
100.00
100.00
195.00
7.00
Variance
1299.267
1362.808
708.664
880.804
146.453
908.284
0.836
905.236
1340.396
654.695
411.997
725.301
395.649
315.967
1436.154
2.351
1075.167
602.009
660.562
823.442
1198.821
642.661
1.242
0.133
634.868
790.507
0.402
500.915
1088.586
1081.954
639.151
1540.554
2.020
Standard
Deviation
36.045
36.916
26.621
29.678
12.102
30.138
0.914
30.087
36.611
25.587
20.298
26.931
19.891
17.775
37.897
1.533
32.790
24.536
25.701
28.696
34.624
25.351
1.115
0.365
25.197
28.116
0.634
22.381
32.994
32.893
25.281
39.250
1.421
Standard
Error
0.632
0.648
0.467
0.521
0.212
0.529
0.016
0.528
0.642
0.449
0.356
0.472
0.349
0.312
0.665
0.027
0.575
0.430
0.451
0.503
0.607
0.445
0.020
0.006
0.442
0.493
0.011
0.393
0.579
0.577
0.444
0.689
0.025
53
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Appendix 5. Species characteristics classification for aquatic vertebrate species. Classification based on Zaroban et al.
(1999).
Family/Species
Common Name
Tolerance
Habitat
remperature
Feeding
Fish Species
Catostomidae
Catostomus catostomus
Cottidae
Cottus rhotheus
Cottus beldingi
Cottus asper
Cottus perplexus
Cottus gulosus
Cottus confuses
Cyprinidae
Rhinichthys cataractae
Rhinichthys osculus
Gasterosteidae
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus clarki
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Salvelinus fontinalis
Prosopium williamsoni
longnose sucker
torrent sculpin
Paiute sculpin
prickly sculpin
reticulate sculpin
riffle sculpin
shorthead sculpin
longnose dace
speckled dace
threespine
stickleback
chinook salmon
coho salmon
cutthroat trout
rainbow trout
brook trout
mountain whitefish
intermediate
intermediate
intermediate
intermediate
intermediate
intermediate
sensitive
intermediate
intennediate
tolerant
sensitive
sensitive
sensitive
sensitive
intermediate
intermediate
benthic
benthic
benthic
benthic
benthic
benthic
benthic
benthic
benthic
hider
water
column
water
column
water
column
hider
hider
Benthic
cold
cold
cold
cool
cool
cool
cold
cool
cool
cool
cold
cold
cold
cold
cold
cold
invertivore
invert/
piscivore
Invertivore
invert/
piscivore
invertivore
invertivore
invertivore
invertivore
invertivore
invertivore
invertivore
invertivore
invert/
piscivore
invert/
piscivore
invert/
piscivore
invert/
piscivore
54
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Family/Species
Common Name
Tolerance
Habitat
Temperature
Feeding
Amphibians
Leiopelmatidae
Ascaphus truei
Ranidae
Rana aurora
Rana cascadae
Bufonidae
Bufo boreas
Dicamptodontidae
Dicamptodon copei
Dicamptodon tenebrosus
tailed frog
red-legged frog
Cascade frog
western toad
Copes giant
salamander
Pacific giant
salamander
sensitive
intolerant
sensitive
intolerant
intolerant
benthic/
hider
edge
lentic
hider
benthic/
hider
cold
none
none
cold
cold
invert/
carnivore
invert/
carnivore
invert/
carnivore
invert/
carnivore
invert/
carnivore
55
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Appendix 6. Summary Statistics for selected benthic macroinvertebrate metrics for probability sites.
Benthic Macroinvertebrates - PROBABILITY SITES
Metric
Taxa richness
Total count
(abundance)
Ephemeroptera
richness
% Ephemeroptera
Plecoptera richness
% Plecoptera
Trichoptera richness
%Trichoptera
EPT richness
% EPT
Non-insect richness
% Non-insect
Long-lived richness
% Long-lived
Intolerant richness
% Intolerant
Mean
33.134
373.769
9.125
0.427
6.700
0.124
8.256
0.139
24.082
0.690
2.333
0.060
3.272
0.073
5.288
0.151
95%
Conf.
33.424
378.422
9.256
0.433
6.795
0.127
8.371
0.143
24.341
0.696
2.380
0.064
3.344
0.076
5.402
0.156
Median
34.000
345.000
9.000
0.441
6.000
0.090
9.000
0.103
24.000
0.731
2.000
0.028
3.000
0.049
4.000
0.093
Minimum
12.000
100.000
2.000
0.015
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
9.000
0.087
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Maximum
55.000
1220.000
27.000
0.856
13.000
0.436
19.000
0.482
52.000
0.964
7.000
0.676
12.000
0.401
15.000
0.708
Range
43.000
1120.000
25.000
0.841
13.000
0.436
19.000
0.482
43.000
0.877
7.000
0.676
12.000
0.401
15.000
0.708
Variance
73.722
19002.082
15.127
7.886
0.009
0.012
58.998
1.942
0.011
0.007
11.397
0.010877
4.632041
0.007344
11.39652
0.023367
Standard
Deviation
8.586
137.848
3.889
2.808
0.095
0.107
7.681
1.394
0.104
0.086
3.376
0.104294
2.152218
0.085696
3.375873
0.152863
Standard
Error
0.148
2.374
0.067
0.048
0.002
0.002
0.132
0.024
0.002
0.001
0.058
0.001796
0.037058
0.001476
0.058127
0.002632
56
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Appendix 7. Summary Statistics for physical habitat for reference sites (n=22) (see Kaufmann, et al. 1999, for further definition and method of calculation)
Physical kakitat - REFERENCE SITES
Type
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel
cover
cover
cover
liuman
human
human
Indicator
Reach with cascades
Reach with dry /submerged flow
Reach with falls
Reach with fast water types
Reach with glides
Reach with pools
Reach with riffles
Reach with rapids
Reach with slow water types
Reach length
Standard deviation thalweg depth
Sinuosity
Mean bankfull height above water surface
Mean bankfull width
Mean thalweg depth
Mean water slope of reach
Mean undercut bank distance
Wetted width/depth ratio
Mean wetted width
Area covered by all types but algae
Area covered by large objects
Area covered by natural objects
Agricultural human disturbance
All human disturbance
Non-agricultural human disturbance
Units
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
m
cm
m/m
m
m
cm
m
m
%
m
prox. wd. sum
prox. wtd. sum
prox. wtd. sum
Code
PCT CA
PCT DRS
PCT FA
PCT FAST
PCT GL
PCT POOL
PCT RI
PCT RA
PCT SLOW
REACHLEN
SDDEPTH
SINU
XBKF H
XBKF W
XDEPTH
XSLOPE
XUN
XWD RAT
XWIDTH
XFC ALL
XFC BIG
XFC NAT
Wl HAG
Wl HALL
Wl HNOAG
Mean
5.153
2.444
0.613
61.777
15.992
19.787
45.539
10.472
35.779
214.400
16.516
1.215
0.622
9.816
32.115
6.231
0.027
24.316
5.816
0.775
0.587
0.775
0.000
0.124
0.124
Median
0.667
0.000
0.000
71.167
11.028
19.500
45.000
0.000
28.833
150.000
13.524
1.120
0.615
8.282
26.560
5.358
0.017
22.358
4.402
0.760
0.589
0.760
0.000
0.000
0.000
Minimum
0.000
0.000
0.000
15.000
0.000
2.000
0.000
0.000
12.000
150.000
6.900
1.042
0.336
4.373
9.787
1.200
0.000
11.525
1.980
0.132
0.109
0.132
0.000
0.000
0.000
Maximum
44.000
35.000
6.667
88.000
35.000
40.000
84.000
71.000
60.667
600.000
48.760
1.755
0.964
25.282
63.680
17.860
0.112
61.407
16.845
1.359
1.102
1.359
0.000
1.530
1.530
Variance
97.623
65.987
2.702
419.429
138.652
86.765
496.901
372.714
269.174
14372.327
79.451
0.036
0.034
32.469
254.648
17.740
0.001
114.124
16.296
0.090
0.066
0.090
0.000
0.131
0.131
Standard
Deviation
9.880
8.123
1.644
20.480
11.775
9.315
22.291
19.306
16.407
119.885
8.914
0.191
0.183
5.698
15.958
4.212
0.032
10.683
4.037
0.301
0.257
0.301
0.000
0.362
0.362
Standard
Error
2.017
1.658
0.336
4.180
2.404
1.901
4.550
3.941
3.349
24.471
1.819
0.039
0.037
1.163
3.257
0.860
0.007
2.181
0.824
0.061
0.052
0.061
0.000
0.074
0.074
57
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Physical natitat - REFERENCE SITES
Type
liuman
human
human
human
human
human
human
human
human
human
human
Lwd
Lwd
Lwd
Lwd
Lwd
Lwd
Lwd
Lwd
Lwd
Lwd
pool
pool
pool
pool
pool
Indicator
Buildings
Row crops
Landfill/trash
Logging
Mines
Park
Pipes
Pasture
Pavement
Road
Channel revetment
Count large woody debris class 1
Count large woody debris class 2
Count large woody debris class 3
Count large woody debris class 4
Count large woody debris class 5
Volume large woody debris class 1
Volume large woody debris class 2
Volume large woody debris class 4
Volume large woody debris class 3
Volume large woody debris class 5
Number of residual pools
Number of pools, depth >100 cm
Number of pools, depth >50 cm
Number of pools, depth >75 cm
Vertical profile of largest residual pool
Units
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
prox. wtd. index
#/100m
#/100m
#/100m
#/100m
#/100m
ni3/m2
m3/m2
m3/m2
ni3/m2
ni3/m2
count
count
count
count
m2
Code
W1H BLDG
W1H CROP
W1H LDFL
W1H LOG
W1H MINE
W1H PARK
W1H.PIPE
W1H PSTR
W1H.PVMT
W1H ROAD
W1H.WALL
C1WM100
C2WM100
C3WM100
C4WM100
C5WM100
V1W.MSQ
V2WM100
V4W.MSQ
V3WM100
V5WM100
NRP
RPGT100
RPGT50
RPGT75
RPMAREA
Mean
0.014
0.000
0.002
0.006
0.076
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.021
0.000
42.888
28.213
13.567
6.633
0.592
0.073
55.534
0.056
50.511
13.383
25.208
0.083
1.625
0.583
6.000
Median
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
30.000
18.000
8.174
4.273
0.000
0.040
35.881
0.024
32.653
0.000
25.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
2.670
Minimum
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.609
2.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
2.039
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Maximum
0.333
0.000
0.030
0.091
1.500
0.000
0.121
0.000
0.000
0.318
0.000
182.000
126.000
51.333
24.000
3.333
0.241
199.037
0.211
188.487
75.400
39.000
1.000
5.000
4.000
63.122
Variance
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.097
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.000
1639.566
843.062
202.734
52.839
0.859
0.006
3594.092
0.004
3208.529
439.298
87.216
0.080
2.505
1.210
157.680
Standard
Deviation
0.068
0.000
0.008
0.020
0.311
0.000
0.025
0.000
0.000
0.068
0.000
40.492
29.036
14.238
7.269
0.927
0.078
59.951
0.066
56.644
20.959
9.339
0.282
1.583
1.100
12.557
Standard
Error
0.014
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.063
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.014
0.000
8.265
5.927
2.906
1.484
0.189
0.016
12.237
0.013
11.562
4.278
1.906
0.058
0.323
0.225
2.563
58
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Physical natitat - REFERENCE SITES
Type
pool
pool
pool
pool
pool
pool
pool
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
riparian
Indicator
Maximum residual depth of deepest pool
Maximum pool volume
Mean residual pool area
Mean residual pool depth
Mean residual pool length
Mean residual pool volume
Mean residual pool width
Fraction of reach with coniferous dominant
canopy
Fraction of reach with broadleaf deciduous
dominant canopy
Fraction of reach with mixed canopy
Fraction of reach without canopy vegetation
Mean riparian canopy cover
Mean canopy density at left and right banks
Mean canopy density midstream
Fraction of reach with riparian canopy density
>0.3mDBH
Riparian cover, sum of 3 layers
Riparian woody cover, sum of 3 layers
Riparian canopy + mid-layer woody cover
Riparian ground-layer vegetation cover
Faction of reach with canopy present
Fraction with both canopy and understory
present
Fraction of reach with all 3 vegetation classes
present
Faction of reach with understory present
Units
cm
m3
m2
cm
m
m3
m
%
%
Code
RPMDEP
RPMVOL
RPXAREA
RPXDEP
RPXLEN
RPXVOL
RPXWID
PCAN C
PCAN D
PCAN M
PCAN N
xc
XCDENBK
XCDENMTD
XCL
XCMG
XCMGW
XCMW
XG
XPCAN
XPCM
XPCMG
XPMID
Mean
66.979
23.635
1.189
14.273
5.801
3.256
1.788
0.381
0.096
0.509
0.011
0.604
94.239
81.280
0.309
1.684
1.108
0.916
0.604
0.989
0.981
0.979
0.989
Median
59.626
3.611
0.561
12.391
3.516
0.597
1.395
0.239
0.045
0.564
0.000
0.624
96.925
86.163
0.296
1.699
1.096
0.916
0.609
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Minimum
0.000
0.000
0.159
0.000
0.000
0.087
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.240
75.668
37.166
0.016
0.876
0.644
0.463
0.313
0.905
0.762
0.762
0.864
Maximum
241.896
390.822
8.242
32.512
25.350
39.215
5.480
1.000
0.409
1.000
0.091
0.864
100.000
98.128
0.643
2.484
1.730
1.394
0.997
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Variance
2002.523
6222.259
3.305
54.494
32.563
69.459
1.672
0.159
0.015
0.137
0.001
0.025
50.135
256.278
0.028
0.140
0.081
0.062
0.028
0.001
0.003
0.003
0.001
Standard
Deviation
44.750
78.881
1.818
7.382
5.706
8.334
1.293
0.398
0.122
0.370
0.027
0.158
7.081
16.009
0.169
0.374
0.285
0.250
0.167
0.028
0.055
0.055
0.034
Standard
Error
9.134
16.102
0.379
1.507
1.165
1.738
0.264
0.081
0.025
0.076
0.006
0.032
1.445
3.268
0.034
0.076
0.058
0.051
0.034
0.006
0.011
0.011
0.007
59
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Physical natitat - REFERENCE SITES
Type
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
substrate
Indicator
LoglO[Relative Bed Stability]
substrate - meanLoglO (diameter class
substrate bedrock class
substrate > fine gravel
substrate boulder class
substrate cobble class
substrate fines class
substrate coarse gravel class
substrate fine gravel class
substrate hardpan class
substrate wood or organic class
substrate other class
substrate sand class
substrate sand or fines
substrate < coarse gravel
Mean substrate embeddedness
Units
mm
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Code
LRBS BW5
LSUB DMM
PCT BDRK
PCX BIGR
PCT BL
PCT CB
PCT FN
PCT GC
PCT GF
PCT HP
PCT ORG
PCT OT
PCT SA
PCT SAFN
PCT SFGF
XEMBED
Mean
-0.392
1.961
9.842
82.557
21.723
28.245
5.398
22.746
5.461
0.152
2.247
0.221
3.965
9.362
14.823
30.235
Median
-0.371
2.048
0.000
83.636
20.000
29.091
3.636
16.364
4.545
0.000
1.818
0.000
3.636
7.273
14.545
31.000
Minimum
-1.582
0.318
0.000
47.273
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.636
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.909
Maximum
0.584
2.956
52.727
100.000
49.091
58.182
29.091
70.909
16.667
1.818
10.909
3.636
16.364
45.455
45.455
50.364
Variance
0.234
0.327
313.414
109.225
220.980
172.390
42.522
215.923
17.875
0.264
7.194
0.645
17.353
77.398
89.238
133.302
Standard
Deviation
0.483
0.572
17.703
10.451
14.865
13.130
6.521
14.694
4.228
0.513
2.682
0.803
4.166
8.798
9.447
11.546
Standard
Error
0.099
0.117
3.614
2.133
3.034
2.680
1.331
2.999
0.863
0.105
0.547
0.164
0.850
1.796
1.928
2.357
60
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Appendix 8. Summary statistics for aquatic vertebrate (fish and amphibian) metrics for reference sites (n=21).
Aquatic vertebrates - REFERENCE SITES
Metric
% of fish non-salmonids
% offish salmonids
% offish species non-salmonids
% offish species that are salmonids
# of amphibian individuals
% relative abundance of amphibian
individuals
# amphibian species
% amphibian species
# of coldwater individuals
% relative abundance of coldwater
individuals
% coldwater species
% relative abundance of coolwater
individuals
# of coolwater individuals
% coolwater species
# offish individuals
# offish species present
% relative abundance of intennediate
sensitive individuals
% intennediate sensitive species
intermediately sensitive individuals
# non-salmonid fish individuals
% relative abundance of non-salmonid
fish
% all species that are non-salmonids
# non-salmonid fish species
Shannon- Weiner diversity index
(absolute value)
#salmonid individuals
% relative abundance of salmonid
individuals
# salmonid species
% salmonid species
# of sensitive individuals
% relative abundance of sensitive
individuals
% sensitive species
# of all vertebrate individuals
# of vertebrate species present
Mean
19.910
67.047
21.739
65.217
60.696
40.578
1.783
55.072
118.130
95.009
94.638
4.991
4.913
5.362
68.565
1.478
9.108
9.275
5.435
20.652
13.864
14.203
0.565
0.852
47.913
45.558
0.913
30.725
119.478
90.892
90.725
129.261
3.261
+95%
Conf.
7.397
50.411
9.411
49.005
21.043
27.389
1.392
43.086
53.687
89.153
89.342
-0.864
-1.859
0.066
34.334
1.029
0.281
1.627
-1.449
5.289
4.610
5.612
0.178
0.700
21.980
32.771
0.733
21.606
53.955
82.065
83.076
63.020
2.736
Median
0.000
90.909
0.000
50.000
15.000
33.333
2.000
50.000
34.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
29.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.826
20.000
45.455
1.000
25.000
34.000
100.000
100.000
44.000
3.000
Min.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
50.79
60.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
25.00
40.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
79.17
100.00
75.00
100.00
310.00
100.00
4.00
100.00
600.00
100.00
100.00
49.21
70.00
40.00
290.00
4.00
75.00
60.00
70.00
115.00
60.22
60.00
3.00
1.44
175.00
100.00
2.00
100.00
600.00
100.00
100.00
600.00
6.00
Range
79.17
100.00
75.00
100.00
310.00
100.00
4.00
100.00
599.00
49.21
40.00
49.21
70.00
40.00
290.00
4.00
75.00
60.00
70.00
115.00
60.22
60.00
3.00
1.44
175.00
100.00
2.00
100.00
599.00
75.00
60.00
599.00
5.00
Variance
837.241
1480.021
812.747
1405.632
8408.221
930.304
0.814
768.303
22208.391
183.363
149.989
183.363
245.265
149.989
6266.166
1.079
416.680
312.835
253.439
1262.237
457.956
394.664
0.802
0.123
3596.447
874.277
0.174
444.653
22958.806
416.680
312.835
23464.474
1.474
Standard
Deviation
28.935
38.471
28.509
37.492
91.696
30.501
0.902
27.718
149.025
13.541
12.247
13.541
15.661
12.247
79.159
1.039
20.413
17.687
15.920
35.528
21.400
19.866
0.896
0.351
59.970
29.568
0.417
21.087
151.522
20.413
17.687
153.181
1.214
Standard
Error
6.033
8.022
5.944
7.818
19.120
6.360
0.188
5.780
31.074
2.824
2.554
2.824
3.266
2.554
16.506
0.217
4.256
3.688
3.319
7.408
4.462
4.142
0.187
0.073
12.505
6.165
0.087
4.397
31.594
4.256
3.688
31.940
0.253
61
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Appendix 9. Summary statistics for benthic macroinvertebrate metrics for reference sites (n=18).
Bentkic Macroinvertekrates - REFERENCE SITES
Metric
Taxa richness
Total count (abundance)
Ephemeroptera richness
% Ephemeroptera
Plecoptera richness
% Plecoptera
Trichoptera richness
% Trichoptera
EPT richness
% EPT
Non-insect taxa richness
% Non-insect
Long-lived richness
% Long-lived
Intolerant richness
% Intolerant taxa
Mean
32.833
318.222
8.611
0.443
7.722
0.158
8.056
0.158
24.389
0.759
2.278
0.047
3.222
0.060
6.222
0.222
Median
32.000
298.000
9.000
0.462
7.500
0.136
8.000
0.135
23.500
0.766
3.000
0.032
3.000
0.033
6.000
0.158
Minimum
21.000
146.000
5.000
0.085
4.000
0.040
3.000
0.017
18.000
0.523
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.000
0.034
Maximum
49.000
580.000
12.000
0.719
16.000
0.347
12.000
0.546
38.000
0.976
5.000
0.175
5.000
0.332
13.000
0.761
Variance
49.676
9749.830
4.840
8.801
0.009
0.013
26.487
2.212
0.002
0.006
9.007
0.002
2.654
0.006
9.007
0.035
Standard
Deviation
7.048
98.741
2.200
2.967
0.097
0.113
5.147
1.487
0.049
0.075
3.001
0.049
1.629
0.075
3.001
0.187
Standard Error
1.661
23.274
0.519
0.699
0.023
0.027
1.213
0.351
0.011
0.018
0.707
0.011
0.384
0.018
0.707
0.044
62
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
July 15, 2004
Appendix 10. Metric values used for figures 38-40.
INDICATOR
Nitrate-nitrite
Phosphorus
PH
Temperature
Percent sands/fines
% Coniferous/mixed cover
Mid-channel shade
Large/very large LWD
%EPT
% Plecoptera
% Intolerant macroinvertebrates
Total vertebrate richness
% Relative abundance of sensitive
vertebrate species
Shannon- Weiner index (absolute value)
POOR
>.3mg/l
>.lmg/l
<6.5or>8.8
> 16.0 °C
> 16%
< 66%
< 57%
< .001 m3/m2
< 56%
<4%
<4%
1 species
< 44%
<.37
FAIR
n/a
n/a
n/a
Between 12°C and 16.0°C
Between 12% and 16%
Between 66% and 82%
Between 57% and 75%
Between .001 and .009 m3/m2
Between 56% and 63%
Between 4% and 9%
Between 4% and 7%
2 species
Between 44% and 95%
Between .37 and .64
GOOD
<3mg/l
<.lmg/l
6.5-8.8
<12°C
< 12%
> 82%
> 75%
>.009 m3/m2
> 63%
>9%
>7%
3 species or more
> 95%
>.64
63
------- |