ISRP Comment:
This project can provide valuable information for stream habitat restoration programs throughout the Columbia River Basin. The presentation to the ISRP was good and alleviated many of our concerns about the soundness of the science behind the proposed work. The proponent’s presentation and response to questions demonstrated a solid grasp of hyporheic and riparian function. However, as the proposal now stands, the information provided was insufficient for scientific review. A response patterned after the presentation would be a good approach in responding to the ISRP’s concerns.
The proponents need to provide more detail concerning study design, work elements, methods, and metrics for this proposal to be sufficient for scientific review. Specifically, the proposal needs to state whether the principal focus is on landscape-scale hyporheic identification using remote sensing tools or a more localized objective of assessing the effect of in-stream restoration activities on hyporheic-surface water interactions. We recommend that the project concentrate on one or the other, with additional details provided on where and how the studies would be carried out and the data would be analyzed and reported. We suggest that better integration with other regional habitat programs is needed. A more fully-developed adaptive management process should be provided.
Response 1:
We refocus our proposal to develop tools supporting two objectives: 1) basin-wide assessments of potential hyporheic exchange (Hyporheic Potential Index – HPI) and stream temperature response in the target watersheds (Walla Walla, Umatilla and Grand Ronde) and 2) reach scale assessments of geomorphic characteristics associated with stream sections where hyporheic response drives variable temperature patterns (a subset of analysis in part 1).
Re-establishment of riparian vegetation is the typical management prescription for addressing violation of water temperature standards, and is likely appropriate for many small streams in the region. However, like most rivers of the inland Pacific Northwest, the Umatilla, Walla Walla and Grand Ronde River’s mainstem and major tributaries are gravel bedded, have flashy flows, and are subject to frequent avulsion (sudden channel migration). These attributes combine to limit riparian vegetation along the bank of the low flow channel (Figure 1). Riparian shading is and always has been naturally sparse in these systems. Recent research suggests that loss of hyporheic exchange, not loss of shade, is the primary cause of water temperature impairments (Arrigoni et al., 2008 ). Past stream and river channelization for flood control and transportation corridors appear to have suppressed hyporheic exchange, removing the associated moderation of diel temperature cycles in the river and thus increasing daily maximum water temperatures.
Figure 1. Image of the Umatilla River on the Umatilla Indian Reservation, shows several age classes of native floodplain vegetation however they are often separated from the river channel by large gravel bars. This near channel disturbance zone is a natrual attrubute of semi-arid rivers and is common throughout the Umatilla Walla Walla and Grand Ronde watersheds.
Basin Assessments
For each of the target basins, including the mainstem river and large tributary streams of the Umatilla, Walla Walla and Grande Ronde watersheds, we will create a Hyporheic Potential Index (O’Daniel 2005). The Hyporheic Potential Index (HPI) represents the physical influences of bi-directional water flow through floodplains. It is reasonable to assume that a physical model, driven by Darcy’s Law will represent the dynamics of hyporheic water movement through the floodplain. Stream reaches that contain hyporheic flow pathways that are long in duration, extensive in spatial area, and transport substantive amounts of water (relative to stream flow) are likely strongly influenced by hyporheic temperature buffering.
Darcy’s Law governs the rate of water flow through a given volume of a porous medium. Darcy’s Law can be written as
[1] Q = A × k × dH/dL
Where:
Q = Rate of water movement through medium (L3/T or Volume/Time)
A = Cross-sectional area perpendicular to flow direction (L2 or Area)
k = Hydraulic conductivity of the porous medium (L/T or Distance/Time)
dH/dL = Hydraulic gradient; change in head per unit distance (L/L or unitless
As an index of relative hyporheic potential would best be a multiplicative index such that it reflects the multiplicative nature of Darcy’s Law (Equ. 1). Hence, Equation 2 describes a Hyporheic Potential (HPI) that would be derived from geomorphic and hydrogeological variables in a multiplicative fashion according to:
[2] RHPI = Ar × kr × Gr
Where:
Ar = Relative cross-sectional area score
kr = Relative hydraulic conductivity score
Gr = Relative hydraulic gradient score
One property of multiplicative indices is that the final index will be equal to zero if any of the component scores is equal to zero.
Relative cross-sectional area score (Ar)
The cross-section of the alluvial aquifer can be estimated by multiplying the width of the aquifer by the aquifer thickness. To estimate the width of the aquifer, we use a surrogate measure of either the bank-full width of the stream or the width of the “potential channel migration zone,” whichever is greater:
[3] W = max(BFW, PCMZ)
Where:
W = Width of the alluvial aquifer
BFW = Bank full channel width
PCMZ = width of the potential channel migration zone
The depth of the alluvial aquifer is dependent on the depth of alluvial deposits that underlie the stream, which is in turn dependent upon stream power and sediment load. We use “upstream basin area” and stream slope, along with concepts presented by others (Montgomery and Buffington 1993) to calculate a relative surrogate for depth of the alluvial aquifer.
As stream power increases, the potential to scour more deeply into underlying sediments also increases. Therefore, one factor influencing the potential depth of the alluvial aquifer is stream power. However, in order for alluvial aquifers to form, sediment supply must be sufficient to replace the sediments transported by the stream during high flow events. Therefore, less powerful stream and streams with low sediment supply are likely to have shallow alluvial aquifers. In contrast, powerful streams with adequate sediment supply are apt to have the deepest alluvial aquifers.
Multiplying flow depth times stream slope can approximate stream power. The square-root of the upstream basin area was used as a coarse surrogate for stream depth and was multiplied by local stream slope to obtain a surrogate for stream power:
[4] P’= UBA0.5 × S
Where:
P’ = Stream power (surrogate)
UBA = Upstream basin area
S = Stream slope
Montgomery and Buffington (1993) divide streams into categories based on stream morphology (Figure 12). They posit that the various morphologic categories result from different relationships between sediment supply and stream power. In the presence of adequate sediment supply, steam power would be a reasonable surrogate for alluvial aquifer depth because the depth of scour would be a function of stream power. However, alluvial aquifer depth is co-limited by sediment availability. Therefore, to assess relative alluvial aquifer depth, we multiplied P’ by a sediment factor that ranged between 0 (zero) and 1 (one) to represent the effect of sediment limitation:
[5] D’ = P’× SLF
= (UBA0.5 × S) × SLF
Where:
D’ = Surrogate for aquifer depth
P’ = Surrogate for stream power
SLF = Sediment limitation factor
(Montgomery and Buffington 1993) suggest a slope of approximately 0.1 is the approximate limit for the presence of substantial amounts of alluvium in a stream, but that accumulation of alluvium occurs rapidly as the stream slope decreases. It is reasonable to assume that streams with slopes greater that 0.1 will lack alluvium. In this stream, an SLF of 0 (zero), then, is appropriate. Since accumulation of alluvium is expected to occur rapidly as slope decreases, as exponential function based on stream slope is appropriate to calculate SLF. The following function allows SLF to vary between 0 (zero) and 1 (one) as a function of stream slope squared when stream slope is less than or equal to 0.1:
[6] S > 0.25 SLF = 0
S £ 0.25 SLF = 1 – (S2/0.12)
Where:
SLF = Sediment limitation factor
S = Stream slope
The surrogate for cross-sectional area can be calculated as a function of aquifer width and depth:
[7] A’ = W × D’
Where:
A’ = Surrogate for aquifer area
W = Aquifer width (from equation [3])
D’ = Surrogate for aquifer depth (from equation [5])
By substituting equations [3] – [6] into equation [7], the final calculation for the surrogate for aquifer area is:
[8] S > 0.25 A’ = 0
S £ 0.25 A’ = [max(BFW, PCMZ)] × [(UBA0.5 × S) × (1 – (S2/0.12))]
Finally, the surrogate for aquifer area is converted to the relative cross-sectional area score by normalizing the surrogate score for each stream reach relative to the maximum score across all stream reaches:
[9] Arj = Aj’/ max(A1’.. An’)
Relative hydraulic conductivity score (kr)
(Montgomery and Buffington 1993) associate typical sediment grain size with various channel categories. An example plot of the log10 of hydraulic conductivity from Figure 1 against geometric mean stream slope for each channel class shows the approximate hydraulic conductivity from the following equation. It is unlikely that hydraulic conductivity for an alluvial aquifer would drop below that of a fine sand (approximately 5.0 m/day) or above the highest measured field values (approximately 2,000 m/day) :
Figure 1.
[10] k = min(2000, max(5, 10(11 × S0.4) )
Where:
k = Hydraulic conductivity
S = Stream slope
Since it is unlikely that hydraulic conductivity for an alluvial aquifer would drop below that of a fine sand (approximately 5.0 m/day) or above the highest measured field values (approximately 2,000 m/day). The relative hydraulic conductivity score (kr) is calculated
by normalizing the k for each stream reach relative to the maximum k across all stream reaches:
[11] krj = kj / max(k1..kn)
Relative hydraulic gradient score (Gr)
Hydraulic gradients in the streambed are driven by differences in hydraulic head between the main channel and side channels (including oxbows, springbrooks), variation in stream topography, and channel sinuosity. Therefore, the relative hydraulic gradient score is determined by summing three different relative scores, each ranging from 0 (zero) to 1 (one) and then dividing the sum by 3.
To represent the potential influence of side channels, the width of the alluvial aquifer (from equation [3]) as a fraction of the maximum width:
[12] SCrj = Wj / max(W1..Wn)
Where:
SCr = Relative side channel potential
W = Alluvial aquifer width (from equation [3])
Standard deviation in stream slope across reaches within 1 km upstream and downstream is used as a surrogate for the influence of streambed topography. Again, the value is normalized between 0 (zero) and 1 (one):
[13] Toporj = Svarj / max(Svar1..Svarn)
Where:
Topor = Relative variation in channel topography
Svar = Variance in stream slope +/- .5 km
Relative sinuosity is used to capture the effect of sinuosity. Sinuosity is measured a channel length equal to the width of the alluvial aquifer:
[14] Sinurj = Sinuj / max(Sinu1..Sinun)
Where:
Sinur = Relative sinuosity
Sinu = Sinuosity over a distance equal to the alluvial aquifer width
The three scores are summed and divided by 3 to obtain the relative hydraulic gradient score:
[15] Gr = Sinur + Topor + SCr
Where:
Gr = Relative hydraulic gradient score
Sinur = Relative sinuosity score (from equation [14])
Topor = Relative streambed topography score (from equation [13])
SCr = Relative side channel score (from equation [12])
Finally, equation [2] is applied to calculate the HPI score.
These steps were used for the initial analysis on the mainstem Umatilla River. We anticipate that field conductivities and improved slope calculation to be included in this work.
Stream temperature
Over the past decade states and Tribes have invested considerable resources in the collection of Forward InfraRed (FLIR) datasets to address temperature limitations and develop more appropriate water quality standards. We will assemble and analyze this rich and underused stream temperature data source (Table 1). We will incorperate the methods of Torgerson (1999) in developing thermal longitudinal profiles. Our production of HPI data will cover all major streams in the three basins. Using these FLIR datasets, we will compare the HPI scores to temperature deviations. Specifically, we will compare the HPI scores with negative deviations in stream temperature, calculated from the FLIR data. We will calculate a moving thermal mean and then compare variations (expressed in standard deviations) from the mean to identify contiguous cooling and heating zones. The HPI assessment for the Umatilla River is complete.
|
Watershed Name
|
Stream Name
|
Km of FLIR
|
|
Umatilla
|
Umatilla River
|
143
|
|
|
Meacham Creek
|
56
|
|
Grand Ronde
|
Grand Ronde River
|
280
|
|
|
Catherine Creek
|
87
|
|
|
McCoy Creek
|
14
|
|
|
Meadow Creek
|
34
|
|
Walla Walla
|
Walla Walla River
|
82
|
|
|
SF Walla Walla River
|
27
|
|
Total Kilometers
|
|
724
|
Table 1.
Reach Assessments
Within areas of high Hyporheic Potential, we will conduct a second tier of analysis (see Figure 2) to identify the reach conditions that create and maintain hyporheic driven salmonid habitats. For this smaller population of stream reaches, we will calculate the River Complexity Index (RCI) (Brown 2002) to measure the channel complexity and other geomorphic attributes (ex. bar and island size, length and orientation) related to hyporheic exchange. We will use the FLIR longitudinal profile, and, we will assemble mosaic using the individual FLIR frames and spatially register them to be used as a GIS dataset. With a map of apparent water temperatures in hand, we will examine and report the thermal diversity related to the channel (RCI) and geomorphic diversity (Mertes 1997).
Figure 2. Scale dependent data used to assess hyporheic hydrology and influences on the pattern of water temperatures. We will focus on the basin and reach scales (bordered in blue) in this effort.
Figure 3. The graph above shows a strong, inverse relationship between RCI and stream temperature for the portion of the Umatilla River in the Umatilla Indian Reservation.
By using data intensive approaches (thousands to hundreds of thousands of measurements) we expect to develop realistic patterns of hyporheic potential and temperature dynamics at two distinct scales in these rivers and streams. In turn,we will compare these hyporheic/temperature relationships to the location and densities of redds to better understand the utilization of hyporheic habitats by salmon (more detail is presented in the last response).
We also want to bring much needed attention to management of the hyporheic zone as a critical componant of rivers. For example the hyporheic zone is mentioned only three times in one example of current region-wide planning protocals , Tributary Habitat Monitoring at the Watershed or Population Scale: Preliminary Recommendations for Standardized Fish Habitat Monitoring in the Columbia River Basin (NOAA/BPA, 2010). Creating tools to measure the influence of hyporheic exchange on stream temperature begins to address one of the most limiting factors for salmonids in the columbia river system.
Deliverables are restructured to correspond with the scale of analysis in each basin.
Deliverables are broken into three classes, 1) analysis of HPI and longitudinal temperature patterns, 2) analysis of RCI and temperature patterns and 3) correlations between predicted high hyporheic exchanges and low temperature areas and documented salmon use.
A more complete approach to the adaptive management component of this project is discussed in Response 6.
The proponents should explain how altered hyporheic flow was identified as an important limiting factor in the drainages to be studied? They also should discuss how the results of this project would be incorporated into watershed and reach scale restoration strategies.
Response 2: Studies in the Umatilla (Poole et al 2008), Walla Walla (Bower et al 2005) and Grand Ronde (Childs 2003, ODEQ 2007) watersheds show that reconnecting surface and hyporheic waters contributes to increased lagging and buffering of stream temperatures (Arrigoni et al 2008). The concepts that reconnecting streams isolated from their floodplains restores hydrological, chemical and thermal functions is not new; however the proposed tools seek to measure the influence of hyporheic exchange at scales that can be incorperated into management and restoration planning efforts.
The results of this project can be incorporated into watershed and reach scale restoration strategies in several ways: 1) the completed datasets will be in a GIS format that will offer broad and intuitive access to the results of this work, 2) through meetings with a range of associated agencies and managers (see adaptive management for more information) and 3) frequent interactions and a decade long wotking relationship within the CTUIR,ensures that the products of this work reach habitat biologists (sensu Jones et al 2008).
Also, see response 3.
1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives
A better understanding of hypothetic processes in the Columbia River Basin could make a significant contribution to habitat and salmon restoration efforts. Although many habitat restoration projects have included increased hyporheic exchange as an objective, virtually none of the monitoring efforts associated with these projects have evaluated this process. This proposal contains the elements that would be required to conduct an evaluation of hyporheic exchange and how it is influenced by the application of stream channel reconstruction or other habitat enhancement measures. The development of a floodplain classification system that characterizes the nature and magnitude of hyporheic exchange based on field and remotely-sensed data sets also would be a valuable tool. But the proposal lacked sufficient detail to enable a through technical review.
See Response 1.
The technical background was well documented, although text was missing from some paragraphs in the Problem Statement. Even so, it was apparent that the proponents were familiar with the subject. One aspect of the technical background information that would have been helpful would have been a more complete discussion of the importance of hyporheic flows to salmonid production, and why the issue is so important in this region of the Columbia River Basin (e.g., water withdrawals have disrupted hyporheic-surface water exchanges).
Response 3: While the thermal influences of the hyporheic zone is found in many river systems; often the thermal expressions in mountain dominated semi-arid rivers results in a diverse set of water temperatures across the floodplain (Arrigoni et al 2008). For example, in the Umatilla River, the mainstem river temperature changes up to 12 C over a year, while a large springbrook (~1 km in length) varies 3 C during the same period. This springbrook is located at about river mile 57, about 10 miles below locations where salmon are commonly reported during this season. It this location the average mainstem river temperature, of the Umatilla River, is too warm for salmon use in the summer season (> 23C). However, the springbrook averages <19 C during the same summer period (CTUIR stream temperature database, (http://data.umatilla.nsn.us/waterquality/temperature.aspx). These data combined with our work (Poole et al 2008) suggest that the large, unaltered floodplains contain features that capture and route water through secondary features (the springbrook, in this case) that provide long sub-surface flowpaths, resulting in hyporheic upwelling that has the capacity to cool mainstem tributary rivers.
The example of the springbrook, mentioned above, is a rare case where these large features (~1 km in length) are expressed on lowland floodplains. Much of the lower portions of the mainstem rivers in the Umatilla and Walla Walla rivers are leveed and subject to considerable effects of irrigation withdrawals. The flow and temperature effects are particularly acute in the late summer. Work proposed here can guide both target flows to maintain hyporheic functions and identify the sections of stream that are likely to be most responsive to hyporheic exchange. Where the natural flow regime is active, restoration of normative floodplain morphology is likely to lead to increased hyporheic exchange.
Currently the mainstems of these tributary rivers are considered only for migration, however, both the HPI and the corresponding temperature reductions suggest that late summer habitats exits in the lower Umatilla River. At the present there is not an effort to document salmon use of these habitats or measure the thermal variation across these sites as part of an annual stream temperature campaign.
The proponents should explain how altered hyporheic flow was identified as an important limiting factor in the drainages to be studied? Was the conclusion based on the lack of thermal refugia in the stream channels and evidence that restoring hyporheic flowpaths would create some cool water locations during the summer low flow period?
Response 4:
Hyporheic flow was initially identified as an important input during the development of a temperature TMDL for the Umatilla Indian Reservation (http://www.umatilla.nsn.us/TMDL%20intro%20&%20chap1.pdf). Using the Clean Water Act to combine non-degradation of water quality and the hightest beneficial use (salmon habitat) we became interested in understanding the potential distribution of hyporheic influenced habitats.
Restoration of normative hyporheic processes (sensu Beechie et al. 2010) Pacific salmon life history strategies, in the Columbia basin, are demonstrably tied to hyporheic hydrology (Baxter and Hauer 2000, Geist 2000, Ebersole et al. 2001, Geist et al. 2002, Malcolm et al. 2003). Restoration of normative hyporheic processes (sensu Beechie et al. 2010) should not only provide increased patches of cool water in the summer season, but also provide areas of relatively warm water during limited periods in winter.
The significance of the project to regional programs was inadequately described. The proposal describes how the project is integrated into the CTUIR restoration strategy. To what other restoration projects in these drainage systems is it related?
Response 5: See response 6.
The objectives were clearly stated and reasonably well supported. The objectives contained the only descriptions of the work elements in the proposal.
2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management
This proposal builds from a project on hyporheic processes that was completed last year in a reach of the Umatilla River. An annual report from this project was linked to the proposal, clearly indicating that the proponents of this proposal have the necessary experience and expertise to conduct the work.
There was only a very brief paragraph in the proposal dedicated to adaptive management and this text simply stated that previous work in the Umatilla River had persuaded CTUIR habitat project leaders that hyporheic processes are important. More consideration should be given to the process by which the information and tools generated by this project will be delivered to project leaders and managers and the process by which this information could be used in the future restoration planning. The multi-scale aspects of this work, especially the development of a tool that will enable the identification of floodplain locations with high potential for hyporheic exchange, suggest that this project could have a direct effect on management decisions.
Response 6: Results from this effort will be incorporated into adaptive management decisions in at least three ways, 1) advice and consultation with habitat biologists in each of the basins, 2) presentations at regional BPA forums and 3) frequent discussion at basin/local working groups within each target watershed.
We are currently providing advice and consultation to habitat biologists engaged in planning and executing restoration efforts. Through parallel funding (EPA), we have designed and implemented a hierarchical temperature monitoring design to characterize the variability of stream temperature dynamics a 1.7km reach of Meacham Creek, a major tributary to the Umatilla River, and the site of a large stream restoration effort to aid salmon. The Meacham Creek experimental design and data rich approach from is an example of the transfer on knowledge from this project to on going habitat efforts. Further, we anticipate providing collaborators maps of locations of high HPI and temperature reductions that are candidates for future stream habitat restoration projects. Through the CTUIR/BPA Accords, we have increased our collaborations with state, local and other tribal agencies to affect improvements in salmon habitats. A practical result of this collaboration is that the basins have cohesive working teams that include the active participants in stream habitat restoration projects. We will give semi-annual presentations at these meeting that allow these techniques and results to be widely absorbed into the work of multiple agencies.
We will present at semi-annual discussion at basin/local working groups within each target watershed. Groups identified are engaged with both the Oregon (Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, OWEB) and Washington (Council of Regions, ex. SRRB) state recovery processes. Specifically, we will collaborate with SRRB-Snake River Recovery Board (Walla Walla watershed), Grand Ronde Model Watershed (Grand Ronde Watershed) and the Umatilla Technical Committee (Umatilla watershed).
As stated in the proposal, the project has been active for less than a year so there are few accomplishments to date. However, results of floodplain hyporheic flow mapping that are apparently in press were displayed. These results suggest that locations in the mainstem Umatilla River where hyporheic-surface water exchanges are significant are patchily distributed, as would be expected. Knowing where these places are is helpful in designing habitat restoration projects.
Response 7: Maps of reach and basin scale hyporheic interactions – temperature interactions with the HPI and RCI will be made available to project biologists and river managers to through a variety of means (see adaptive management approach).
There was little explicit discussion of how the results of this project would be incorporated into either overall watershed restoration strategies or into different types of restoration actions.
See the examples in Response 6.
3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)
More information is needed on project relationships, particularly details on how this project would be integrated with other habitat restoration efforts – both CTUIR and other programs. A list of projects was provided with which this effort will “directly coordinate.” But the nature of the interaction was not described. Presumably, some of these projects will provide habitat treatments for before-after assessments of hyporheic processes. If so, these projects should be identified and a brief description of the types of habitat projects provided. One project was listed that did not seem to have any relationship with the proposed effort. Since this project will occur in the Walla Walla, Grande Ronde and Umatilla watersheds, why is the North Fork John Day River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat Enhancement indicated as an effort with which this project will directly coordinate?
See Response 5. Also, there is a high rate transfer of techniques with in the CTUIR
Climate change or other emerging factors are not explicitly addressed in this proposal.
Response 8: If expected influences of climate change on the Mid-Columbia and Blue Mountain region deliver more winter precip. as rain rather than snow and summer temperatures are higher and more frequent, then the influence of hyporheic exchange as a buffer against climate change may be great. Restoring topographic diversity by allowing inundation of floodplains during annual flows may be an important step in managing stream temperatures in the future. Additionally, the role of the riparian forest is likely important in providing shade and a thermal buffer across the non-channel portions of semi-arid floodplains. An increasing emphasis on hyporheic restoration and management for stream temperature diversity
Emerging threats of floodplain development and persistent simplification of hyporheic functions by transportation corridors are causes for concern in several Columbia River tributaries.
4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods
Only a single deliverable is provided in the proposal: “Assess spatial and temporal relationships of hyporheic exchange, changing channel forms, geomorphic setting and altered temperature patterns.” As a generic deliverable, this is fine. But the introductory material in the proposal described a project that included a field effort at the project and reach scale coupled with a remote-sensing component to expand the finer-scale results. Deliverables articulated by spatial scale might have provided a clearer indication of project organization as the work elements associated with each scale are quite different.
Although only a single deliverable was given, the executive summary gives two major objectives: (1) “the Multi-Scale Hyporheic Exchange project seeks to conduct a suite of field tests to document the changes in physical habitats related to surface/groundwater exchange. We anticipate that these activities will include field components for data collection and analysis, including, topographic data collection, dye releases and monitoring, temperature monitoring and tracer tests, as well as, analysis of field and remotely sensed data” and (2) “The second portion of this work seeks to develop a remote sensing-based classification of floodplains in the target watersheds (Umatilla, Walla Walla and Grand Ronde).” These two objectives should generate multiple deliverables.
See Response 1.
The work elements, metrics, and methods are only very briefly described in the proposal. These project elements appear to be generally appropriate for the objective and deliverable, but much more detail is required to enable a thorough evaluation of the experimental design and methodologies. Limited information was given on the field techniques and modeling methods, other than to list them without providing details about how they would be implemented at the proposed study sites. It is unclear how this project will be conducted, the locations of study sites, what measurement will be made and how they will be made. A major shortcoming of the proposal was that a study design was not provided. The lack of detail prevented a scientific assessment of the proposal’s merits.
Response 9: See response 1.
It appears that the evaluation of hyporheic functioning will take place at only one spatial scale (floodplain segments). What are the larger spatial scales and how will floodplain information be “rolled up” to these scales? What “distribution and characteristics of floodplain segments” will be assessed and how? How will floodplain characteristics be related to “salmon diversity and productivity?” The proponent states that they will evaluate how “geomorphically and thermally complex habitats affect growth and survival of juvenile salmon by using existing productivity datasets.” How will the relationship between habitat factors (presumably hyporheic influenced, but this is not clear) and fish growth and survival be determined? What data sets will be used?
Response 10: I provide feedback relevant to some of these questions in Response 1. Each section below is an individual response to the questions posed above.
The broadest spatial scale considered in this work includes the floodplains associated with the mainstem and major tributaries of the Walla Walla , Umatilla and Grand Ronde Rivers. For example, in the Umatilla River watershed, the mainstem Umatilla River, Meacham Creek, Iskuulpa Creek, Wildhorse Creek, McKay Creek, Birch Creek and Butter Creek have sufficiently mature/large floodplains to drive course scale hyporheic exchange. Initial work from the Umatilla River shows that hyporheic exchange is driven by varying flowpath lengths through a variety of floodplain features (Poole et al 2008). Features at the site (bars and small islands), reach (springbrooks) and valley scale (geomorphic constraints in valley form or knick points) each show a different pattern of seasonal temperature buffering and lagging. These are examples of a complex system (Kay and Schneider 1994): “rolling up” to the basin scale includes the spatial arrangement of the hyporheic nodes but not the all dynamics.
The distribution and characterization of floodplain segments will addressed at two scales, basin and reach (see Figure 2). At the basin scale we will use the HPI and longitudinal FLIR temperature profile to evaluate relationships between hight HPI scores and declining temperatures. At the reach scale, we will use the RCI and temperature imagery to compare the functions of channel features with stream temperature patterns.
We will compare areas of high HPI and declining temperature with available datasets of redds for the basins (CTUIR salmon database - http://data.umatilla.nsn.us/fisheries/escapement/index.aspx) using regression techniques. Additionally, we will use the entire population of HPI scores across all three basins to explore relationships between stream characteristics, HPI scores and redd densities. Where spatially explicit data exists for index sites (or sites where growth studies have been completed) we will calculate the respose (growth) associated with areas of high HPI vs. areas of mean HPI.
Bibliography
Bencala, K.E., and Walters, R.A., 1983, Simulation of solute transport in a mountain
pool-and-riffle stream: A transient storage model: Water Resources Research, v.
19, p. 718-724.
Bernhardt, E.S., Palmer, M.A., Allan, J.D., Alexander, G., Barnas, K., Brooks, S., Carr,
J., Clayton, S., Dahm, C., Follstad-Shah, J., Galat, D., Gloss, S., Goodwin, P.,
Hart, D., Hassett, B., Jenkinson, R., Katz, S., Kondolf, G.M., Lake, P.S., Lave, R.,
Meyer, J.L., O'Donnell, T.K., Pagano, L., Powell, B., and Sudduth, E., 2005,
Ecology - Synthesizing US river restoration efforts: Science, v. 308, p. 636-637.
Brown, A. G., 2002. Learning from the past: palaeohydrology and palaeoecology, Freshwater
Biology 47:817-29
Boulton, A.J., Datry, T., Kasahara, T., Mutz, M., and Stanford, J.A., 2010, Ecology and
management of the hyporheic zone: stream-groundwater interactions of running
waters and their floodplains: Journal of the North American Benthological
Society, v. 29, p. 26-40.
Buffington, J.M., and Tonina, D., 2009. Hyporheic exchange in mountain rivers II:
Effects of channel morphology on mechanics, scales and rates of exchange:
Geography Compass, 3(3): 1038–1062.
Burkholder, B. K., Grant, G. E., Haggerty, R., Khangaonkar, T., and Wampler, P. J.,
2008, Influence of hyporheic flow and geomorphology on temperature of a large,
gravel-bed river, Clackamas River, Oregon, USA: Hydrological Processes 22:
941-953.
Crispell, J.K., Endreny, T.A., 2009, Hyporheic exchange flow around constructed inchannel
structures and implications for restoration design: Hydrologic Processes:
23(8), 1158–1168.
DeBano, S. and Wooster, D., 2004, Draft Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan: Prepared for
the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.
Ebersole, J. L., Liss, W. J., and Frissell, C. A., 2001, Relationship between stream
temperature, thermal refugia, and rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss abundance
in arid-land streams in the northwestern United States: Ecology of Freshwater
Fishes 10:1-10.
Evans, E. C., and Petts, G. E., 1997, Hyporheic temperature patterns within riffles:
Hydrological Sciences Journal 42:199-213.
Fernald, A. G., Landers, D. H., and Wigington, P. J., 2006, Water quality changes in
hyporheic flow paths between a large gravel bed river and off-channel alcoves in
Oregon, USA: River Research and Applications 22:1111-1124.
Fetter, C. W., Applied Hydrogeology, 3rd ed., 691 pp., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
N. J., 1994.
Geist, D. R. 2000. Hyporheic discharge of river water into fall Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) spawning areas in the Hanford Reach, Columbia
River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:1647-1656.
Geist, D. R., Hanrahna, T. P., Arntzen, E. V., McMichael, G. A., Murray, C. J., and
Chien, Y., 2002, Physiochemical characteristics of the hyporheic zone affect redd
site selection by chum salmon and fall Chinook salmon in the Columbia River:
North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 22: 1107-1085.
Gooseff, M.N., Anderson, J.K., Wondzell, S., LaNier, J., and Haggerty, R., 2006, A
modeling study of hyporheic exchange pattern and the sequence, size, and spacing
of stream bedforms in mountain stream networks, Oregon, USA (Retraction of
vol 19, pg 2915, 2005): Hydrological Processes, v. 20, p. 2441-+.
Haggerty, R., Wondzell, S.M., and Johnson, M.A., 2002, Power-law residence time
distribution in the hyporheic zone of a 2nd-order mountain stream: Geophysical
Research Letters, v. 29.
Hanrahan, T. P., 2008, Effects of river discharge on hyporheic exchange flows in salmon
spawning areas of a large gravel-bed river: Hydrological Processes 22:127-141.
Hester, E.T., and Gooseff, M.N., 2010, Moving Beyond the Banks: Hyporheic restoration
is fundamental to restoring ecological services and functions of streams:
Environmental Science and Technology: 44, 1521–1525.
Hester, E. T., Doyle, M. W., and Poole, G. C., 2009, The influence of in-stream structures
on summer water temperature via induced hyporheic exchange: Limnology and
Oceanography 51:355-367.
Jones, K., Queampts, E. J., Poole, G.C., O’Daniel, S. J., and Beetchie, T. J., 2008,
Umatilla River Vision: File Report of the Department of Natural Resources,
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. Pendleton, OR.
Hoehn, E., and Cirpka, O.A., 2006, Assessing residence times of hyporheic ground water
in two alluvial flood plains of the Southern Alps using water temperature and
tracers: Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, v. 10, p. 553-563.
Lamontagne, S., and Cook, P.G., 2007, Estimation of hyporheic water residence time in
situ using Rn-222 disequilibrium: Limnology and Oceanography-Methods, v. 5,
p. 407-416.
Malcolm, I. A., Soulsby, C., Youngson, A. F., and Petry, J., 2003, Heterogeneity in
ground water-surface water interactions in the hyporheic zone of a salmonid
spawning stream: Hydrological Processes 17:601-617.
Poole, G.C., O'Daniel, S.J., Jones, K.L., Woessner, W.W., Bernhardt, E.S., Helton, A.M.,
Stanford, J.A., Boer, B.R., and Beechie, T.J., 2008, Hydrologic spiraling: The role
of multiple interactive flow paths in stream ecosystems: River Research and
Applications, v. 24, p. 1018-1031.
Stanford, J. A., Ward, J. V., Liss, W. J., Frissell, C. A., Williams, R. N., Lichatowich, J.
A., and Coutant, C. C., 1996, A general protocol for restoration of regulated
rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 12:391-413.
Stanford, J. A., and Ward, J. V., 1993, An ecosystem perspective of alluvial rivers:
connectivity and the hyporheic corridor: Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 12:48-60.
Tonina, D., and Buffington, J.M., 2009, Hyporheic exchange in mountain rivers I:
mechanics and environmental effects: Geography Compass 3(3): 1063–1086.
Toth, J., 1963, A theoretical analysis of groundwater flow in small drainage basins:
Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 68, p. 4795-4812.
Ward, J. V., 1989, The four-dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems: Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 8:2-8.
White, D. S., Elzinga, C. H., and Hendricks, S. P., 1987, Temperature patterns within the
hyporheic zone of a northern Michigan river: Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 6:85-91.
White, T., Jewett, S., Hanson, J., Carmichael, R., 1989, Evaluation of juvenile salmonid
outmigration and survival in the lower Umatilla River basin: Project No. 1989-
02401, 122 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP-00004340-3).
Wohl, E., Angermeier, P.L., Bledsoe, B., Kondolf, G.M., MacDonnell, L., Merritt, D.M.,
Palmer, M.A., Poff, N.L., and Tarboton, D., 2005, River restoration: Water
Resources Research, v. 41.
Wondzell, S.M., and Swanson, F.J., 1996, Seasonal and storm dynamics of the hyporheic
zone of a 4th-order mountain stream .2. Nitrogen cycling: Journal of the North
American Benthological Society, v. 15, p. 20-34.
Help
Mitigation work
Reporting
Funding
Search
Log in