Case Study 5

Grande Ronde River Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Project Overview The Grande Ronde River Fish Habitat Restoration Project was implemented in 1995 on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, La Grande Ranger District, near La Grande, Oregon (figure 1). The project is located in a 3.5-mile reach of the Upper Grande Ronde River (UGRR), a tributary of the Columbia River. The UGRR watershed is located in Northeastern Oregon within the Blue Mountain Subprovince of the Columbia River Plateau Physiographic Province. This subprovince is characterized by broad rolling upland surfaces to the north and complex mountains and dissected volcanic plateaus to the south. A variety of rock types exist in the Upper Grande Ronde area with the dominant type being Columbia River Basalt. This basalt flowed through the fissures and dikes, flooding the area with many pulses forming a thick sequence of basalt.

This area experiences a relatively cool, moist climate with a short growing season and little-to-no summer precipitation. Annual precipitation averages 20 inches per year and ranges from 15 to 30 inches, much of it falling as winter snow. Temperatures range from an average summer high of 80 degrees Fahrenheit to an average winter low of 17 degrees Fahrenheit. Summer temperatures fluctuate widely, with hot days and cold nights. Portions of the drainage are located within summer lightning corridors and may experience localized brief, torrential rain events. At higher elevations, frost can occur almost any night of the year. Winter temperatures remain low for long periods, with considerable snow accumulation.

Various past management activities of streams and riparian areas in the Pacific Northwest have reduced the interaction of large woody debris (LWD) with streams, simplifying and thus degrading aquatic habitat for threatened populations of anadromous fish (Keim et al. 1999). In the UGRR, timber was removed from the riparian area along the mainstem Grande Ronde River and tributaries for making railroad grades and Grande Ronde River Fish Habitat Restoration Project building roads. Because trees in and near valley bottoms were easier to reach and transport than trees located further upslope, fewer trees were available for recruitment as LWD to the stream channel. Mining activities in the UGRR took cobble and gravel from the stream channel and deposited it in large tailing piles on the banks, destroying existing vegetation and reducing chances for future vegetative growth (UGRR Watershed Analysis 1995).

In addition, installation of roads 5100 and 5125 constricted lateral movement of the stream channel, reduced effective floodplain area, and restricted interactions between the stream and riparian area. Splash dams used around the turn of the century for transporting logs resulted in high

3—57 Developing Monitoring Plans— Chapter 3

stream energy, thereby removing much-needed sediment-retaining and habitat-forming structure. Moreover, in the 1970s, much of the LWD in the UGRR and tributaries was removed because it was viewed as an unsightly barrier to fish migration (Braudrick and Grant 2000).

LWD is important in forming morphology of stream channels and aquatic habitat, both locally and at the reach scale in streams within forested watersheds (Wing et al.1999). LWD influences stream morphology by dissipating the hydraulic power of the stream (Beschta and Platts 1987) to form pools (Lisle 1986; Montgomery et al.1995) storing sediment in channels and creating gravel bars (Bilby and Ward 1989; Smith et al. 1993b; Nakamura and Swanson 1993). Physical habitat stream surveys of the UGRR conducted in the 1940s and repeated in the 1990s revealed that pool habitat had reduced 78 percent (McIntosh 1992). Pool frequencies for all the reaches in the UGRR watershed are below 7 pools per mile, which is considered very poor. The width-to-depth ratio for all reaches in the UGRR watershed are greater than 15 (>10 considered desirable). Pieces of woody debris per stream mile are less than 40 for (desired future condition) all reaches. Cobble embeddedness has also been shown to be greater than 50 percent, which can potentially be detrimental to spawning salmonids. These conditions identified a need to reestablish the aquatic habitat needed to protect and maintain the three federally listed fish species that occupy the UGRR.

The Grande Ronde River Fish Habitat Restoration Project proposed to create pool habitat, decrease channel widths, and provide fish hiding cover by placing 92 whole conifer trees with root wads and crowns with no permanent anchoring devices (such as cable or rebar). To determine the level of change stream channel surveys, we used photo points and mapped tree locations to measure whether the project reach was meeting the riparian management objectives (RMOs) described in PACFISH (USDA and USDI 1994). The RMOs are described in terms of habitat features.

Grande Ronde River Fish Habitat Restoration Project The objectives for the Upper Grand Ronde River (UGGR) are 26 pools permile, greater than 20 pieces of large woody material (LWM) (greater than12 inches diameter breast height and greater than 35 feet in length) per mile, greater than 80-percent stable streambanks, and width-to-depth ratio of less than 10. We monitored pool frequency, amount of LWM, streambank stability, and width-to-depth ratios for this project (table 1). We monitored project effectiveness by asking and answering the following question: “Did the addition of whole trees with root wads, crowns, and no anchoring in the river basin increase the channel and habitat complexity for anadromous fish?”

3—58 Case Study 5 Grande Ronde River Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Figure 1. General location of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, La Grande Ranger District Grande Ronde River Fish Habitat Restoration Project.

3—59 Developing Monitoring Plans— Chapter 3

Project Methods, Design, and Monitoring The La Grande Ranger District of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest initiated monitoring in 1995 to determine effectiveness of the structures in enhancing channel morphology and assessing vegetative response over time. To conduct stream surveys, we used a USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6) Level III stream inventory methodology developed from modifying Hankin and Reeves (1988) protocol. To measure changes in channel and habitat conditions, we surveyed the entire project area before project implementation in 1995, immediately after project completion in 1996, and again in 2003 (table 2). Immediately after the project began, we tagged all the down LWM meeting the large criteria (greater than 12 inches diameter breast height and greater than 35 feet in length) with metallic tags and mapped them on aerial photo overlays. To measure the movement and stability of all tagged and recruited trees, we recorded tree locations annually for 5 years—using a string box after project implementation—and again in 2003. To visually assess vegetative response, we established monumented photo points at 10 sites throughout the project area. We have repeated the photo points annually since 1995.

The criteria for determining the success of this project were changes in stream channel morphology and habitat compared to the RMOs set by PACFISH (USDA and USDI 1994). Table 1 displays each parameter monitored in the project area, the methodology used, and the monitoring results relative to the RMO that the parameter was intended to meet.

Table 1. Channel and habitat parameters monitored, methodology used, and project success criteria. Parameter Methodology Success Criteria Large woody debris Direct measurements No net loss of LWD stability and photos in project area Grande Ronde River Fish Habitat Restoration Project Large Woody Debris R6 Level II & III > 20 pieces/mile of (pieces per mile) Steam Habitat Survey LWD (>12”:>35’) Pool frequency (pool- R6 Level II & III RMO of 26 pools to-mile, pool depth) Steam Habitat Survey per mile Width-to-depth ratio R6 Level II & III RMO width/depth Steam Habitat Survey ratio of <10 Bank cover R6 Level II & III RMO of >80% (stability) % Steam Habitat Survey stable banks

3—60 Case Study 5

We used the following assumptions for this project: 1. Increased habitat complexity will increase rearing capability and ultimately increase smolt production. 2. Increased amounts of LWD will create more complex habitat and increase floodplain interaction with the channel. 3. Increased riparian vegetation will reduce width-to-depth ratios. 4. LWD added to the channel will stabilize in the stream system. The LWD will trap sediment that will increase the level of the stream bed and raise the water table, and will result in an increase in riparian type vegetation that will help to stabilize the streambanks.

The data limitations in this project are observer bias during collection of stream survey data and the use of a string box for measuring the movement of LWD. The string box is not an acceptable measuring tool for channel unit length for several reasons. First, the string assumes straight-line positions between points and assures that each observer will walk a different line. Second, if the string is not kept taut, the current can easily pull out an unknown amount of string. Third, the string can stretch in the rain. All of these problems can cause inaccurate measurements of tree locations. A more accurate yet resource-demanding method would be using a global positioning system (GPS) and digitizing or inserting the tree locations into a geographical information system (GIS) layer.

Monitoring Results and Interpretation We achieved the main objective—adding LWM to increase habitat complexity to the level that the individual stream attributes met RMOs— with the exception of width-to-depth ratios (tables 2 and 3). The width- to-depth ratio for the UGRR in the project reach is close to equilibrium and should not further increase, because of the restrictions to the channel imposed by the 5100 and 5125 roads. The reach is also a Rosgen B-type

channel, is moderately confined, and has a natural width-to-depth ratio Grande Ronde River Fish Habitat Restoration Project of greater than 12. The LWD additions met the RMO requirement of 26 pools per mile, with 27 pools per mile.

Bank stability, as measured by percent of bank cover, was rated at 75 percent, 5 percent-below the greater than 80-percent RMO requirement.

Even though we achieved the objective of adding LWM in the project reach to restore large wood complexes and provide hiding cover for anadromous fish, the river appears to be dynamic (figures 2, 3, 4, and 5). In 1995, we tagged 176 trees in the project reach. In 1996, we counted 181 trees, meaning that 5 trees were recruited into the project reach after a 100-year flood event (1996 flood). In 2003, we counted 110 trees in the

3—61 Developing Monitoring Plans— Chapter 3

project area. Of the 110 trees, 67 were part of the 176 originally tagged (table 4). These counts result in approximately 38 pieces of LWD per mile and a 40-percent net loss of LWD (or 8 trees per year lost over 8 years) in this reach of stream. However, however, this number still meets the RMO requirement of greater than 20 pieces of LWM per mile to support anadromous fish.

The addition of LWD resulted in an increase in habitat complexity supportive of anadromous fish. However, the net loss of LWD (both artificially and naturally recruited) affirmed the dynamic nature of stream ecosystems, showing that they are continually changing and moving toward some dynamic equilibrium over time.

Table 2. R6 level II stream habitat survey summary for the upper grande ronde river, including the project area. Stream Attribute 1990 1991 1995 2003 Pieces of LWD per mile 77 16 6 38 Number of pools per mile 18 3 7 27 Mean pool depth (feet) 2 2 1.7 1.9 Wetted width-to-depth ratio 18 26 22 22 Bank cover (stability) percent 66 69 63 75

Table 3. R6 Level III stream habitat survey summary at the three sites in the project area. Stream Attribute Site Number 1995 1996 2003 Average Stream Length 1 2,723 2,340 1,848 (feet) 2 2,316 2,208 2,165

Grande Ronde River Fish Habitat Restoration Project 3 3,390 2,739 2,218 Average Stream Width 1 14.9 16.5 17.4 (feet) 2 14.7 20.8 16.9 3 13.9 20.4 17.3 Average Maximum Pool 1 0.82 0.93 1.97 Depth (feet) 2 0.90 1.09 1.96 3 0.76 1.07 1.90 Average Width-to-Depth 1 18.2 17.8 8.8 Ratio 2 16.3 19.1 8.6 3 18.3 19.1 9.1 Large Woody Debris 1 6 8 6 (pieces) 2 10 21 10 3 48 48 21 3—62 Case Study 5

Table 4. Results of measuring stability of tagged and recruited trees in the project area. LWM Tree Measurements 1995 1996 2003 Total number of tagged trees 176 136 67 Total number of trees (tagged and recruited) 176 181 110

Figure 2. Photo point 3 in 1995 just after project implementation.

Figure 3. Photo point 3 in 1996 after a 100-year flood event.

Figure 4. Photo point 3 in 2001 after a major windstorm that increased downed LWM. Grande Ronde River Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Figure 5. Photo point 3 in 2003 illustrated the lack of stability of the recruited LWM.

3—63 Developing Monitoring Plans— Chapter 3

Project Monitoring Partnerships and Costs Partners in this monitoring effort include the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). The OWEB and BPA assisted with funding for project implementation, and La Grande Ranger District personnel conducted the R6 Level II and III stream surveys, photo point monitoring, and tree mapping. Table 5 summarizes the tasks and costs needed to continue collecting, summarizing, and reporting the data for this project.

Table 5. Summary of the typical annual costs for the project monitoring. Tasks People Days Cost ($) Photographs 1 1 150.00 Tree mapping 2 1.5 450.00 Stream survey (Level II and III) 3 8 3,600.00 Map production 1 5 1,500.00 Data analysis report 1 10 3,000.00 Total 8,700.00

Lessons Learned 1. This was a well-designed and implemented project. The objectives were specific, and the methodologies we used to measure the success of the project were, for the most part, effective. The R6 Level II survey provides fairly consistent data, with little observer bias. However, the Level III survey is very difficult to repeat consistently and is susceptible to observer bias. The string-box methodology for measuring tree location did not supply specific, reliable, repeatable data. Wing et al. (1999) have

Grande Ronde River Fish Habitat Restoration Project shown that mapping the trees on overlays of aerial photos and inputting the locations into GIS provides a quantitative approach for examining movement and distribution of LWM in streams. The application of GIS to this project would provide an accurate method of measuring stability and impart export of the LWM.

2. The stability of the LWM did not meet our assumptions. Although potentially fewer trees would be lost if the structures had been anchored, the tree loss was mainly a product of a dynamic system attempting to reach equilibrium. To better assess the stability of the LWM and the changes occurring over time, we need to collect data that compares the amount of

3—64 Case Study 5

natural recruitment to the amount artificially introduced. An assessment of the condition of the riparian area to recruit LWM over time would include an inventory (mapping) of trees, in the riparian area, that are of the class size defined as LWM. We would then monitor these standing recruits for their contribution to the stream channel over time, in addition to the LWM that we would import into the project reach from upstream locations.

For more information, contact: Teena Ballard, fishery biologist, La Grande Ranger District, La Grande, Oregon; phone: 541–523–1382; e-mail: [email protected]

References Cited Beschta, R. L.; Platts, W. S. 1987. Morphological features of small streams: significance and function. Water Resources Bulletin 22:369-379.

Bilby, R. E.; Ward, J. W. 1989. Changes in characteristics and function of large woody debris with increasing size of streams in western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118:368-378.

Braudrick, C. A.; Grant, G. E. 2000. When do logs move in rivers? Water Resources Research 36:571-583.

Hankin, D. G.; Reeves, G. H. 1988. Estimating total fish abundance and total habitat area in small streams based on visual estimation methods. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 43:883-884.

Keim, R. F.; Skaugset, A. E.; Bateman, D. S. 2000. Dynamics of coarse woody debris placed in three Oregon streams. Forest Science 46:13-22

Lisle, T. E. 1986. Stabilization of a gravel channel by large streamside obstructions and bedrock bends Jacoby Creek, northwestern California. Geological Society of America Bulletin 97: 999-1011. Grande Ronde River Fish Habitat Restoration Project McIntosh, B. A.1992. Historical changes in anadromous fish habitat in the Upper Grande Ronde River, Oregon, 1941-1990. Thesis. Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon.

Montgomery, D. R.; Buffington, J. M.; Smith, R. D.; Schmidt, K. M.; Pess, G. 1995. Pool spacing in forest channels. Water Resources Research 31:1097-1105.

Nakamura, F.; Swanson, F. J. 1993. Effects of coarse woody debris on morphology and sediment storage of a mountain stream system in western Oregon. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 18: 43.61.

3—65 Developing Monitoring Plans— Chapter 3

Smith, R. D.; Sidle, R. C.; Porter, P. E. 1993b. Effects on bedload transport of experimental removal of woody debris from a forest, gravel-bed stream. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 18:455-468

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Environmental assessment for the implementation of interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California (PACFISH).

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1994. Upper Grande Ronde Watershed Analysis. La Grande, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, La Grande Ranger District.

Wing, M. G.; Keim, R. F.; Skaugset, A. E. 1999. Applying geostatistics to quantify distribution of large woody debris in streams. Computers and Geosciences 25:801-807. Grande Ronde River Fish Habitat Restoration Project

3—66