Birch Creek Habitat Restoration

The Birch Creek watershed includes approximately 291 square miles of drainage area extending from the Blue Mountains down through the Umatilla Plain and into the Umatilla River near Pendleton.  The Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan (2005) and document titled “Five Year Action Plan for the Development and Maintenance of Habitat Improvement Projects in the Umatilla Subbasin: 2006-2010” (CTUIR/ODFW, 2006) recognize impediments to anadromous fish passage in the Birch Creek Watershed as high priority sites for rectification.  The majority of impediments are irrigation dams.  Jump heights are excessive and out of compliance with established state and federal standards.  The effects of the structures hinder adults ascending upstream to spawning grounds and interfere with the timing of juvenile migration patterns.  Juveniles can be carried downstream over the structures during high flow events, or during winter fluvial movements, but then are unable to effectively ascend to more favorable summer rearing conditions upstream.  Remediation of fish passage problems would allow both resident and anadromous fish to freely pass upstream with decreased injury and increased survival of steelhead, redband trout and other native fishes.  Retaining in-stream flows during the irrigation season will also contribute to improvements in fish passage as low flow in the lower reach of Birch Creek is identified as a primary limiting factor. 

Restoration of summer steelhead in Birch Creek is an important component of the effort to restore salmon and steelhead in the Umatilla Basin as Birch Creek supports approximately 30% of the wild steelhead production in the basin.  The Umatilla River Basin is located within the boundary defined the National Marine Fisheries Service as the Middle Columbia River Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU).  Steelhead within the Middle Columbia River ESU were listed as Threatened under the federal ESA on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14517), critical habitat was designated on February 16, 2000 (65 FR 7764), and protective regulations were adopted on July 10, 2000 (65 FR 42422).

Mainstem Birch Creek and tributaries support summer steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), resident redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gibbsi), and a variety of non-game fish.  Spawning habitat exists in the headwaters, both the east and west forks.  Summer steelhead adults migrate through the system from November through June.  Juvenile steelhead and redband trout rear throughout the system when water temperature and flow are tenable.   

The EPA lists Birch Creek as Section 303d water quality limited for flow, temperature, and nutrients.  Of those parameters, flow and temperature are the most limiting factors for salmonid reproduction.  Additional habitat limiting factors include:

• Limited large pool habitat
• High width:depth ratio
• Lack of adequate riparian characteristics
• Disconnected floodplain
• Low channel sinuosity
• Unstable flow hydrograph patterns

The work accomplished in Birch Creek since the last provincial review has primarily been fish passage rectification projects.  CTUIR in coordination with the ODFW, Umatilla County Soil & Water Conservation District, and Umatilla Basin Watershed Council have worked with private landowners to rectify or remove diversion dams within Birch Creek and tributaries.  CTUIR has ameliorated two diversion dams on West Birch Creek and partnered with the ODFW to remove three diversions on mainstem Birch Creek and one diversion on West Birch Creek.  Where diversion dams were removed completely projects were designed for proper channel-floodplain function including appropriate width:depth ratios, increased connectivity between the channel and floodplain, increased in-channel habitat complexity and riparian management.  Passage projects have resulted in 10.1 miles of unimpeded upstream and downstream fish habitat access (Table 3).  The following projects have been accomplished since 2007.

West Birch Creek Cunningham Passage Project RM 3.2 - 2007

CTUIR worked with Bio Engineers Inc. to design a roughened channel remedy to address passage concerns on the West Birch Creek Cunningham Passage Project RM 3.2 (Existing Project Document ID: P109208; pages 47-50).  This habitat restoration project was designed to enhance migratory fish passage conditions by incorporating stream channel roughness to restore proper gradient and reduce step height at a road bridge crossing (box culvert).  The bridge (Figure 1) had been identified as a problem for fish passage in a high priority area for migratory salmonids.  The bridge was constructed in 1956-57 to allow access to the other side of the creek for vehicles and sheep.  Over time, the streambed down cut due to the box culvert and created a step height of 1 m (3.3 ft).  The box culvert design and flat concrete floor created an undesirable state of shallow, uniform, sheet-flow during the summer months, posing a passage problem for migrating fish.  An additional concern was the creation of a velocity barrier during higher flows, due to the uniform design which concentrates hydraulic energy.  To rectify this issue, 13 baffles were affixed to the floor of the box culvert Figure 1 shows the bridge post rectification.

Figure 1.  Before-after photo points of the West Birch Creek Cunningham Project, RM 3.2.

West Birch Creek Hoeft Passage Project RM 2.7 - 2008

The Hoeft Dam on West Birch Creek was recognized as the most significant passage impediment for migratory fish in the Birch Creek drainage (Figure 2; Existing Project Document ID: P114105, pages 55-63).  This dam was preventing the migration of adult steelhead ascending upstream to optimal spawning areas and impeding the movement of fish seeking optimal rearing areas and/or cooler water refuge areas during the summer months.  The 30 foot-wide dam provided a gravity head for a screened diversion ditch.  The dam had a drop of seven feet during low water periods.  Although there was a structure on the left bank that was intended to serve as a fish ladder, its width and depth made it ineffective for fish passage under certain flow conditions.  Approximately 40 miles of summer steelhead spawning and rearing habitat existed upstream from the dam but seasonal passage issues limited the abundance of salmonid distribution upstream.  Design drawings for a full-span concrete fish ladder were completed to the 90% level in 1996 but lack of implementation funding stalled the improvement until FY2008.  CTUIR subcontracted McMillen Engineering to construct an engineered fishway to create passage at Hoeft Dam in FY2008 (Figure 2).  Step heights were targeted to fall within the six inches or less guideline as established by the ODFW & NMFS.

Key objectives of the barrier rectification project include: 

• Improve access for salmonids to stream headwater areas and cool water refuges
• Increase the quantity and quality of accessible salmonid habitat
• Approach historical free-flowing migratory corridor through passage improvement
• Approach natural stream slope, function and appearance
• Improve connectivity for populations of listed salmonid species to improve genetic exchange/integrity to improving fitness and long term survival capability
• Increased salmonid population dynamics and carrying capacity of preferred species
• Fulfill tasks identified in restoration plans by addressing limiting factors
• Improve survival rates by reducing stressors on salmonids
• Reduce impacts to various stream biota associated with structural passage barriers

Figure 2.  Before-after photo points of the West Birch Creek Hoeft Dam Project, RM 2.7.

West Birch Creek Low Barrier Removal and Habitat Restoration Project RM 5.0-6.0 - 2012

The West Birch Creek Low Barrier Removal and Habitat Restoration Project was located on private land along West Birch Creek (river miles 5.0-6.0).  This project, ODFW Umatilla Habitat Project (1987-100-02) and the UCSWCD worked in partnership to implement this work.  ODFW was the lead agency on the project and CTUIR assisted with costs and technical expertise in implementing the West Birch Creek Low Barrier Removal and Habitat Restoration Project.  ODFW worked with the Umatilla County SWCD on project management for bid preparation and contractual requirements, oversaw the survey and design process and provided technical assistance.  CTUIR provided cash match and technical assistance on the design process, project implementation and cultural resource investigations for environmental compliance.

The project activities included removal of one abandoned, full channel spanning, concrete irrigation diversion dam, and restoration and protection of stream bed banks in agricultural lands (Figure 3).  The concrete dam was a barrier to fish passage under certain flow conditions and contributed to channel instability.  This dam limited stream channel morphological function and the upstream and downstream movement of native migratory fish species.   Removal of the diversion dam provided upstream accessibility to high quality spawning and rearing habitat at the headwaters of West Birch Creek and its tributaries.  With the removal of this structure on West Birch Creek, the flood channel capacity was re-established, connectivity restored, and habitat loss and the altered habitat structure and species composition improved.  Enhancement techniques included, but was not limited to, concrete dam removal, rock and woody debris placement in channel and floodplain, bank sloping, channel reconstruction for increased in-stream habitat complexity and stabilization, and native plant and grass restoration.

Figure 3.  Before-after photo points of the West Birch Creek Low Barrier Removal, RM 5.4.

Birch Creek Taylor Barriers Removal and Habitat Restoration Project RM 0.0-0.5 - 2012

The Birch Creek Taylor Diversion Dams Removal and Habitat Restoration Project is located on private land along the lower half mile of Birch Creek (river miles 0-0.5), just above the confluence with the Umatilla River.  This project and ODFW Umatilla Habitat Project (1987-100-02) worked together with UCSWCD to implement this work.  ODFW is the lead agency on the project and CTUIR through this project assisted with costs and technical expertise in implementing the project.  ODFW worked with the Umatilla County SWCD on project management for bid preparation and contractual requirements, oversaw the survey and design process and provided technical assistance. CTUIR provided cash match and technical assistance on the design process, project implementation and cultural resource investigations for environmental compliance.

The project activities included removal of two abandoned, full channel spanning, concrete irrigation diversion dams that were fish barriers near the mouth of Birch Creek (Figure 4).  These dams limited the stream channel morphological function and the upstream and downstream movement of native migratory fish species which needed upstream accessibility to high quality spawning and rearing habitat in the headwaters of Birch Creek and its tributaries.  The approximate length of the project area reach was 1500 ft and bankfull width 32 ft.  Diversion dam #1 was located upstream from the confluence at river mile 0.5 and contains a concrete encased pipe with a jump height of 1.5 ft.  Dam #2 was located 100 yards upstream from dam #1 with a jump height of 3.8 feet.  In addition dam #2 contained a decadent three pool fish ladder which was located on the west bank of the dam; the dam acts as a control structure for the OR Dept. of Water Resources stream flow gauging station and also supports a wood bridge on an agricultural road.  The landowners would normally drive their heavy agricultural equipment through Birch Creek because the prior bridge couldn’t support the equipment weight.  The bridge was replaced with a longer full-spanning bridge providing improved channel sediment transport.  The bridge was built adequately for transporting heavy farm equipment across the stream channel eliminating the need for the landowner to transport heavy equipment across the pre-existing fjord.  The man-made structures were stream barriers, limiting the upstream and downstream movement of native migratory fish species like summer steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), redband trout (O. mykiss), Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus), & bridgelip sucker (Catostomus columbianus) which need upstream accessibility to prime rearing & spawning habitat in the headwaters of Birch Creek & its tributaries. 

An engineering firm specialized in stream restoration activities was hired in 2011 to provide surveys, engineering, & design.  The designs provided a solution to remove the fish barriers and provide implementation techniques for stabilizing the channel and banks in order to restore 3 miles of stream connectivity (Figure 4).  This project completed in 2012 restored fish passage, flood channel capacity, habitat fragmentation/connectivity, and habitat loss and the altered habitat structure and species composition was improved.  Enhancement techniques included concrete dam removal, bridge removal and replacement, rock and woody debris placement in channel and floodplain, road setback, channel reconstruction for increased in-stream habitat complexity and stabilization, and native plant and grass restoration.

Figure 4.  Before-after photo points of the Birch Creek Taylor Diversion Dams Removal and Habitat Restoration Project, RM 0.0-0.5.

Meacham Creek Habitat Restoration

The 114,000 acre Meacham Creek watershed is a 37-mile long tributary of the Umatilla River, entering at river mile 78.8 and contributes approximately half of the flow to the Umatilla River during high flow events and a significant amount to the baseflow (Figure 5).  Meacham Creek originates near the town site of Kamela, Oregon at approximately 4500 feet elevation. Data from CTUIR shows that Meacham Creek runs 2-3 ºC degrees warmer (16 ºC [60.8 ºF] vs. 13.5 ºC [56.3 ºF]) during the summer than the Umatilla River at the confluence.  The USGS maintains a gauging station on Meacham Creek at Gibbon, OR (USGS 14020300) in cooperation with the CTUIR (RM 1.4).  The drainage area covered is 176 mi² with a maximum peak flow recorded as 8,800 cubic feet per second (cfs), while minimums of 7 cfs constitute summer base flows.  Three channel reaches of Meacham Creek flow intermittently and subsurface during the summer months, but provide short reprieve to high temperatures during low summer flows. 

Figure 5.  Meacham Creek Subbasin.

The current property ownership along Meacham Creek and within the watershed is a mixture of Tribal Allotment (under Trust of the Bureau of Indian Affairs), Tribal Fee, Federal (USFS), private land and Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way.  Management of the resources in the watershed is controlled by various Tribal, Federal, private, and corporate interests.  Much effort is devoted to planning and promoting cooperative participation in the restoration process by the various entities.  Communication and coordination over the last decade between agencies, landowners, land managers and the general public have improved significantly resulting in project implementation towards floodplain restoration benefiting aquatic resources.  Historically Meacham Creek was a major spring Chinook, steelhead and coho salmon producing tributary to the Umatilla River, along with healthy populations of bull trout and resident redband trout.  Currently, Meacham Creek provides habitat and refuge for spring Chinook salmon, summer steelhead and bull trout, but at reduced levels due to degraded habitat and water quality conditions. 

Project work in Meacham Creek is supported by the Meacham Creek Assessment and Action Plan (2003).  The development of action alternatives also draws from knowledge gained from other restoration and assessment efforts.  As a result of these efforts, the portion of the mainstem Meacham Creek from the confluence of the North Fork Meacham Creek downstream to the confluence with the Umatilla River (approximately 15 river miles) has been identified as the highest priority for active watershed restoration and termed the “Focus Area” (Figure 6).  The proposed project actions build on restoration activities since 2006 (Table 4).  As a multi-year and multi-funded effort, the implementation actions overlap locations within the 15-mile Focal Area and may include the same action being implemented over several years.  For example, there have been and will continue to be multiple efforts of riparian planting in the Meacham Creek floodplain during the spring and fall that will overlap with whole tree additions and natural channel construction.  These efforts are integrated and designed to provide support to each other (Figure 7).

Figure 6.  Meacham Creek Restoration Project Focus Area.

Table 4.  Meacham Creek Project Action Summary

 Figure 7.  Project areas in lower Meacham Creek, 2006-2011.

Meacham Creek habitat restoration efforts fit within a holistic watershed approach supporting capacity building and long-term progress towards 1) achievement of the CTUIR DNR ecological river vision and first foods mission statements, 2) Endangered Species Act delisting of Columbia River bull trout and middle Columbia River steelhead, and 3) addresses water quality limiting factors per the Clean Water Act 303d list.

The Middle Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan supports this project by identifying the actions of reconnecting Meacham Creek to the floodplain, removing dikes and levees, as well as reconnecting side channels and off-channel habitat as the first priority under Strategy 3.  Restoring natural channel form, placing stable wood and other large organic debris in the streambed, stabilizing and protecting streambanks, and constructing rock and log weirs to create pool habitat or elevating incised channels have also been identified as first priorities in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan under Strategy 4.  Degraded floodplain and channel structure, altered sediment routing, altered hydrology, and water quality (temperature) have been identified in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan as major factors limiting steelhead populations in Meacham Creek (NMFS 2009).

Exploring solutions with Union Pacific Railroad for improving migratory habitat in the Meacham Creek Subbasin is identified as the highest priority in the Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan within the Umatilla/Walla Walla Recovery Unit (RU).  Furthermore, restoring floodplain function and channel complexity is the second highest priority identified in the Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan within the Umatilla/Walla Walla RU.  Altering the dike in the mainstem of Meacham Creek has been identified in the Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan as an action that would improve channel complexity and improve fish habitat and potential use by bull trout.  The construction and maintenance of the Union Pacific Railroad, which parallels mainstem Meacham Creek, along with dikes or levees in place to protect the railroad from flooding, is identified in the Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan as significantly altering stream and channel complexity, riparian shade, and likely affecting stream temperatures (USFWS 2002).

The CTUIR was able to purchase (non-BPA funded) three large acreage parcels of property during the Spring 2006 and two additional properties in 2009 within the Meacham Creek Restoration Project Focus Area that provide the CTUIR Fish Habitat Program management control of a significant and important length of the floodplain.  These properties included reaches of stream that have been impacted by past land and livestock management.  These properties also adjoin with other parcels in Federal Trust status on which the CTUIR has an opportunity to implement projects.

Meacham Creek Large Wood Implementation Project 2006

Following the assessment and action plan, the first large action accomplished was the purchase, transport, and placement of 175 whole conifer trees into 36 pre-selected locations within the Meacham Creek floodplain and channel between RM 4.6 and 8.3.  Trees used for the project were harvested from overstocked timber stands with the intent of both providing large woody material and improving timber stand conditions in two upslope areas located adjacent to Meacham Creek.  All placement activities were in the high water/active channel and were not incorporated into the wetted channel as in-stream structures.  Trees were placed by helicopter into constructed jams of two to eight pieces and were not anchored or attached by any unnatural mean.  Large wood structures control hydraulic energy (dissipation) assisting in channel form or directly provide in-stream habitat.  A large part of the funding for the 2006 large wood placement was provided through an EPA 319 grant with additional funds from BPA.

Fish Passage Barrier Rectification Project 2007

In 2007, CTUIR addressed the removal of three fish passage barriers located on Meacham Creek and Camp Creek.  This effort targeted a juvenile fish barrier located near the confluence with the Umatilla River at RM 1.2, and two abandoned diversion dams located on Meacham Creek at RM 20.2 and Camp Creek, a tributary to lower Meacham Creek.

Meacham Creek Levee Assessment 2008

CTUIR completed a field effort in 2008 that included identifying levees that limit stream channel-floodplain connectivity and provide benefits for achieving project objectives if removed/modified, prioritized specific levees through a collection of detailed survey information and coordination with landowners and land managers on making those changes acceptable.  This effort included surveying, mapping, and prioritizing levees for removal or modification in the floodplain (Figure 8).  This task required the detailed refinement of the property boundary layer within the CTUIR Geographical Information System (GIS) system and associated ground-truth for both property boundaries and levee/dike locations.

Figure 8.  Meacham Creek levee reconnaissance.

Meacham Creek Levee Removal Project 2009

During 2009, four high priority levees were removed from RM’s 5-6. The trees and vegetation growing on the levees were cleared and sorted by size and set aside.  Three longitudinal river levees totaling 2,961 linear feet were removed as well as 200 linear feet of an angular levee with an average width of 44 ft and height of 4.5 ft.  Approximately 27,250 yds³ rock and soil material making up the levees was transported away from channel and toward the railroad grade (Figure 7).  The smaller woody material was redistributed across the disturbed levee surfaces for roughness (Figure 9), while the larger trees were stockpiled for later use in the proposed 2011 implementation project for planned channel construction and floodplain inputs.

Figure 9. Before-after photos of a levee removed on Meacham Creek, RM 5.8.

Meacham Creek Floodplain Restoration and In-stream Improvement Phase I Project 2011-2012

The Meacham Creek Floodplain Restoration and In-stream Improvement Phase I Project (RM 6-7.1) was completed in 2011 to address channel geomorphology and floodplain connectivity (Figure 7).  This reach of Meacham Creek was prioritized for an aggressive approach to restoring natural channel geometry and increasing floodplain connection because of the channelized and simplified form of the existing condition.  A project design for recreating a meandering and diverse natural channel form as well as improved in-stream fish habitat has was developed and finalized in 2010-2011 (Figure 10).  This design was developed in partnership with the USFS and private engineering consultant.  The design team also coordinated with the Union Pacific Railroad for their input and review of the draft and final design.

Taking advantage of existing meander scars in the floodplain and historical photographs, the new channel was designed and constructed back into its historic channel alignment and excavating historic meanders in the floodplain, resulting in 5,780 feet of new, reconfigured stream channel (Figures10&11).  The project included removal or modification of six large spur dikes, and removal of a 2,800 ft levee along the existing channel resulting in increased floodplain connectivity and geomorphic and hydrologic complexity (Table 5).  The new channel base elevation averages 4 to 6 feet higher than prior conditions.  In-stream complexity and roughness has been improved by the addition of 7 complex pools and 10 major and 286 medium rock and log features.  The sinuosity of the stream was increased by 50% with significantly increased side-channel and off-channel fish habitat along the 1.1 mile reach (Table 5).  The Meacham Creek Project Completion Report fully describes the project and benefits to ecological processes and limiting factors (Existing Project Document ID: P130092).

Figure 10.  Natural channel design, Meacham Creek, RM 6-7.1.

Figure 11.  Before-after photos of the 2011 Meacham Creek Floodplain Restoration and In-stream Enhancement Project, RM 6-7.1. 

Table 5.  Comparison of Pre-Project, Design, and As-Built Conditions for the Meacham Creek Floodplain Restoration and In-stream Enhancement Project, RM 6-7.1.

Meacham Creek Floodplain Restoration and In-stream Improvement Phase II Project 2013-2014

The Meacham Creek Floodplain Restoration and In-stream Improvement Phase II Project (RM 6-8.5) is planned for 2013-2014 construction (Figure 12).  The purpose of the project is to improve floodplain connectivity and in-stream and riparian habitat for listed and non-listed fish species in Meacham Creek by restoring channel morphology and hydrologic, riparian, and in-stream processes.  The need for the project has resulted from past impacts and current factors limiting aquatic productivity; specifically, levees and spur dikes limit floodplain connectivity and riparian shade, and lack of large wood or other structures limits in-stream habitat complexity and quantity.  Based on post-construction assessments and monitoring of the Phase I project between RM 6 and 7.1, and the existence of additional levees and spur dikes between RM 6 and 8.5 affecting geomorphic and hydrologic processes, the following needs were identified:

• Address placing backfill material in the floodplain between RM 6 to 7 to provide more representative floodplain characteristics and to reduce the potential that Meacham Creek will recapture the 2010 channel location.
• Address channel geometry changes that resulted from flooding in 2011 prior to construction in the Phase I reach.
• Evaluate existing islands and bars in the Phase II reach to determine their current state and expected duration and their role in affecting channel grade and alignment, flood elevations, sediment transport and deposition, and habitat complexity.
• Evaluate removal of levees and spur dikes that continue to impact floodplain and riparian connectivity, aquatic habitat, and geomorphic processes in the Phase II reach.
• Evaluate the adequacy of 100-year flood protection to the UPRR access road based on removal of levees and spur dikes in the Phase II reach.
• Identify locations where the addition of LWD will improve habitat complexity in the Phase II reach.
• Address habitat complexity, including off-channel and side channel habitat, floodplain connectivity, and riparian function in the Phase II reach.

 As described above, the need for the project has resulted from past impacts and current factors limiting aquatic productivity.  To address these, specific project actions include:

• Placing backfill material in a portion of the floodplain of the Phase I reach.
• Removing or modifying levees and spur dikes in the Phase II reach to increase floodplain connectivity.
• Placing log jams and LWD structures in the Phase II reach to increase habitat complexity and side channel habitat.
• Lowering the elevation of the floodplain in a portion of the reach between RM 6 to 7.
• Excavating a portion of floodplain between RM 7 to 8.5 reach to reinitiate a side channel to increase off-channel and side channel habitat.
• Re-vegetating areas disturbed by Project activities with native plant species.

The proposed actions will help meet the overall project objectives of improving floodplain connectivity and in-stream and riparian habitat for listed and non-listed fish species in Meacham Creek by restoring channel morphology and hydrologic, riparian, and in-stream processes.

Figure 12.  Meacham Creek Floodplain Restoration and In-stream Enhancement Phase II Project Design Features, RM 6-8.5.

Riparian Restoration and Management

Continuous use of the valley for livestock grazing impacted shrub and tree regeneration as well as degraded herbaceous vegetation.  In addition, a combination of high-grade logging activity and floodplain cleaning has removed much of the larger, mature trees from the Meacham Creek valley.  This created unstable floodplain conditions during flood events that allowed remaining vegetation and fine soils to be removed and resulted in degraded channel form.  For facilitating riparian function, restoring floodplain building processes, and improving channel stability multiple projects of riparian planting have taken place within lower Meacham Creek (Figure 7).  Plantings have included over 5,000 cottonwood saplings planted adjacent to the whole tree placement sites and approximately another 16,000 plants of a variety of native species in other areas. Passive floodplain and riparian plant restoration included a livestock enclosure fence, constructed in 2009 and 2011 from RMs 2.0-8.5 to exclude trespass cattle migrating into the project area from open range management in the headwaters of Meacham Creek.

Project Monitoring and Evaluation

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have over 1.6 million acres of ceded ancestral lands in the Umatilla Subbasin of Oregon.  On these lands, the Umatilla Anadromous Fish Habitat Project (UAFHP) is implementing restoration projects to improve habitat for salmonids and other species of concern.  These restoration projects are focused on improving hydrology, geomorphology, habitat connectivity, and riparian vegetation to benefit aquatic biota, more specifically salmon and steelhead.  The Umatilla River Vision (document ID P130339) provides the overall guidance for CTUIR restoration projects in the Umatilla Subbasin, and highlights the dynamic interactions between hydrology, geomorphology, habitat connectivity, aquatic biota, and riparian vegetation that are necessary to restore and sustain foods of cultural significance or First Foods.

As part of the 2008 Accords agreement between CTUIR and the BPA, the CTUIR Department of Natural Resources is required to independently defend the results of their restoration projects that are implemented to address limiting factors for salmonids identified in the Biological Opinion on operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS; NOAA, 2008).  In response to this, the UAFHP implements a long-term monitoring strategy to assess the effects of restoration projects on biological and physical factors documented to be important to target fish production, survival and longevity.  This strategy is intended to monitor both biological and physical trends at a basin scale while also monitoring physical and biological metrics at a finer scale at stream enhancement project areas or tributaries.  These finer scale monitoring efforts are used for effectiveness monitoring in relation to in-stream and floodplain enhancement as well as informative data to be applied to future restoration planning and projects.

Umatilla Subbasin Monitoring and Evaluation – Biological Response

The UAFHP coordinates with multiple local CTUIR and ODFW research projects that monitor and evaluate the success of the Umatilla Fisheries Program as a whole.  These projects deal with natural production or fish life cycle monitoring (CTUIR Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project; 1990-005-01 and ODFW Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River; 1989-024-01) and are critical for evaluating natural production relative to sustainable habitat for salmonids.  The UAFHP utilizes data from these projects in the basin to identify trends in response to habitat management actions which will help prioritize future restoration actions.  Specific protocols for these projects can be found on monitoringmethods.com (Protocol IDs: 456, 757, 169, 173, and 174 and Method IDs: 478 and 480).  Juvenile production and adult spawning surveys and telemetry studies from the above fish monitoring projects are used to examine relationships between production and restored function in the Umatilla River Basin and help to document fish benefits to restoration actions. 

Habitat Restoration Biological Effectiveness Monitoring & Evaluation

Trend analysis of production and survival data collected at Three Mile Falls Dam by the Umatilla River Outmigration & Survival project (#1989-024-01) suggests steelhead abundance in the Umatilla River is limited by freshwater habitat conditions.  While much of the observed inter-annual variation in smolt abundance (Figure 13) and egg-to-smolt survival (Figure 14) is likely a result of natural (i.e., climate) and density dependent factors, the observed trends suggest past habitat enhancement work has had little or no effect on the Umatilla River steelhead population.  However, the majority of habitat enhancement work is concentrated in tributary streams and above seven irrigation diversion dams located in the lower river. 

Figure 13.  Abundance estimates for natural summer steelhead smolts at Three Mile Falls Dam, Umatilla River, 1995-2012.

Figure 14.  Egg-to-smolt survival for Umatilla River summer steelhead, brood years 1993-2010.

For the past 5 years the UAFHP has focused habitat enhancement work in Meacham Creek.  Available survival data (2009-2011) for natural summer steelhead smolts shows poor survival (Mean=45.3%) from Meacham Creek to Three Mile Falls Dam.  The survival rate (2004-2012) for hatchery summer steelhead, released in Meacham Creek is even lower (38.7%).  This trend indicates the loss of smolts in the Umatilla River during outmigration may mask any gains in smolt production from upstream habitat enhancement.  This and other variables (i.e., supplementation) confound our trend analysis.  To minimize confounding factors, a comprehensive monitoring program to evaluate and assess the effectiveness of habitat enhancement in the Upper Umatilla River and Meacham Creek in a credible, scientific manner in the Umatilla River Subbasin is needed.

A recent proposal (RMECAT-1989-024-01) submitted by ODFW attempted to fill this information gap but the habitat effectiveness monitoring elements of the proposal were not funded.  However, implementation of CTUIR’s Biomonitoring of Fish Enhancement (RMECAT-2009-014-00) is planned for this year (see next section).

Fish out migration outside the Upper Umatilla River and Meacham Creek remain without a comprehensive effectiveness monitoring plan but fish out monitoring has been established in the Birch Creek watershed.  The Umatilla River Outmigration & Survival project began operating a fixed site smolt trap near the mouth of Birch Creek in January 2012.  The project also implemented a spatially balanced random sample (Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified) within a temporally based panel design to determine the spatial distribution and density of summer steelhead redds in the Umatilla River Subbasin.  GRTS based summer steelhead redd surveys began in the spring of 2012.

In addition to ODFW’s fish out monitoring in Birch Creek, CTUIR’s Umatilla Basin Natural Production M&E project began running a smolt trap in Meacham Creek (Umatilla RM 78) in 2009 and one in the upper Umatilla River (RM 79) in 2012.  When paired with GRTS based summer steelhead redds survey there is the potential to monitor trends in tributary-specific adult and smolt counts for steelhead.  The two projects will review data as it becomes available to determine the feasibility of partitioning redd data by those tributaries with fish out monitoring (Figure 15).  This effort to quantify the relationship between adult steelhead returning and smolts migrating out of tributaries receiving (Meacham & Birch Creeks) and not receiving (upper Umatilla River) habitat enhancement will be useful in determining the benefits of habitat improvement.

The 2010 proposal submitted by ODFW also included status and trend monitoring of essential fish habitat in the Umatilla River Subbasin.  The monitoring was proposed under the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) following habitat monitoring protocols recommended by the Integrated Status and Trend Monitoring Program.  CHaMP monitoring in the Umatilla River went unfunded and uncertainty remains for CHaMP implementation.  However, CTUIR as part of this project recognized the need for some level of standardized physical monitoring to evaluate status and trend monitoring of essential fish habitat in Meacham Creek.  In 2012, before-after comparisons of a treatment, pre-treatment and control reaches using CHaMP and further analysis of CHaMP collected data including channel function and estimated rearing and spawning area.  CHaMP results are described later in this section.

Figure 15.  Location of smolt traps (green points), potential sites for steelhead redd surveys (black points), and proposed data partitioning.

Prior to implementation of the Meacham Creek Floodplain Restoration and In-Stream Enhancement Phase I Project RM 6-7.1 (2011-2012) a topographic survey was conducted.  This topographic survey was used to model (HEC-RAS) depths and velocities across the existing stream reach and related them to preferred spawning and rearing habitats for salmonids.  As expected, both spawning and rearing habitat was extremely limited and a remediation to this was incorporated into design features for the Meacham Creek Floodplain Restoration and In-Stream Enhancement Project (Phase I-RM 6-7.1).  One full water year after project completion a repeat topographic survey was conducted in the newly designed channel to examine pre and post project conditions, in terms of potential spawning and rearing habitat, and see if project design objectives were met.  Again, the topographic survey was used to model potential spawning and rearing habitat (based on modeled depth and velocity preferences) within the newly designed channel.  Based on modeling results a significant amount of habitat was created from the new project design.  Potential spawning area went from 0.5 acres to 2.1 acres (320% increase) and potential rearing area went from 0.1 acres to 6.3 acres (6,200% increase).  Summer snorkel surveys by habitat unit to account for relative abundance and use within the project area to validate modeling results.  For a more detailed view of changes in spawning and rearing habitat view document ID P130714.

CTUIR Biological Monitoring Plan Implementation – Biological Project Response

In 2008, CTUIR initiated a planning project to address the effects of habitat restoration on fish population, survival, abundance or condition.  Since initiation a conceptual design was presented during the RME/AP Categorical review (RMECAT-2009-014-00) and received a “Meets Scientific Criteria (Qualified).” However, ISRP/NPPC requested an additional review of the final and completed plan.  CTUIR is currently preparing to present final plans to the ISRP during the upcoming Geographic Review and is planning to begin implementation in 2013 upon approval.  The goal of the biomonitoring plan is to evaluate CTUIR fish habitat restoration projects throughout five subbasins: the Grande Ronde, John Day, Tucannon, Umatilla, and Walla Walla Rivers.  CTUIR sponsored restoration projects in the Umatilla River and its tributaries will be assessed using a before-after-control-impact design.  Data will primarily be collected through expansion of existing juvenile and adult sampling of spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead by the Umatilla Basin Natural Production M&E project (#1990-005-01).

This plan aims to detect measurable changes in biotic conditions, specifically changes to growth, survival and abundance of various salmon life stages.  These biotic conditions were guided by NOAA’s Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters for determining the long-term viability of salmonid populations—abundance, productivity, spatial structure and diversity (McElhany et al. 2000).  The following objectives were identified for the CTUIR Biomonitoring program:

1. Quantify the biotic outcome of specific restoration actions on the population abundance, distribution and productivity for the three focal species.
2. Differentiate the effects of alternative restoration actions on target species, to better understand the individual or combination of actions that yield the most significant population response.
3. Quantify the degree of correlation between a given action or suite of actions and their effect(s) on limiting life stages for each the three focal species.
4. Extrapolate the results of CTUIR biomonitoring to guide future restoration actions in other parts of the Umatilla Subbasin

The biomonitoring plan will address a range of spatial scales of restoration effectiveness: (1) the reach scale (a short length of channel, usually defined by homogenous gradient and riffle/pool sequence, <10²m), (2) the segment scale (homogenous segment of second or third order tributary within a watershed e.g. Meacham Creek), (3) the watershed scale (e.g., major forks or tributaries), and (4) the Subbasin scale (e.g., the mainstem rivers and catchment areas of the Umatilla, Walla Walla, Grande Ronde rivers).  And will focus on 3 species:

• spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 
• summer steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 
• bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) populations 

Although the scope of this biomonitoring plan does not include the direct measurement of the nature or persistence of habitat improvements, the benefits of systematically collecting habitat data in conjunction with the biological data generated in this study is needed in order to gain the greatest understanding of mechanistic relationships of restoration actions.  The complete Biomonitoring Plan and additional information on the plan can be viewed in referenced document ID #P130747.

 Project Effectiveness Monitoring

The CTUIR-Umatilla Fisheries Habitat Program continues to invest substantial resources in restoring the fisheries habitat within the Umatilla Subbasin and its tributaries.  In order to ensure that investments result in actual improvements to biological productivity, extensive long-term physical monitoring occurs.  This monitoring plan aims to evaluate the effects on physical processes as a result of habitat restoration efforts.  With time, we expect watershed treatments to improve stream functions by 1) diversifying channel morphology 2) increasing floodplain connectivity 3) decreasing annual maximum stream temperatures 4) increasing summer base flows 5) increasing abundance of and diversity of riparian vegetation 6) increasing stream complexity and 7) increasing macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity.  Within the Subbasin we have setup baseline monitoring to help understand relationships between our in-stream restoration efforts and aforementioned ecological processes.  In order to accomplish this we continue to conduct a combination of monitoring activities and methods included within the Umatilla Subbasin Fish Habitat Restoration Monitoring Plan located at the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership website (Citation URL: http://www.monitoringmethods.org/Protocol/Details/681 ).  This protocol is specific to physical monitoring (except for aquatic macroinvertebrate monitoring) and is continually being refined in order to appropriately monitor project objectives.  All stream enhancement projects are designed to address limited factors.  Physical monitoring conducted specifically by UAFHP staff and contractors is directed to track changes set forth in project objectives.  Physical habitat monitoring can be summarized by the following key objectives:

• Evaluate changes in physical characteristics that are documented to be vital to fish survival as a result of stream restoration within the Umatilla Subbasin
• Track changes in summer low flow periods as a result of stream restoration within the Umatilla Subbasin
• Study changes in thermal regime as a result of stream restoration projects within the Umatilla Subbasin
• Evaluate changes in riparian stands as a result of stream restoration projects within the Umatilla Subbasin.
• Track changes in biotic and abiotic ecological process within the Umatilla Subbasin, specifically in and around restoration project areas.
• Track the effectiveness of designed stream restoration features/projects to create and increase habitat and complexity for fish species within the Umatilla Subbasin
• Track the changes in macroinvertebrate populations and food availability within the Umatilla Subbasin
• Track changes in flood duration as a result of increased floodplain interaction and connection

Macroinvertebrate Study

Macroinvertebrate baseline data has been collected since 2005 using a modified EPA EMAP protocol for targeted riffle sampling (Peck et al. 2006).  Prior to macroinvertebrate sampling, a suite of environmental variables were collected and measured at 16 site locations encompassing two large reach project areas in Meacham Creek.  These reaches were between RMs 2-4.5 and RMs 5-7.  The variables collected include habitat metrics such as: slope, substrate composition, water depth, water velocity, wetted width, cover, woody debris, percentage of filamentous algae, and water quality measurements (turbidity, conductance and dissolved oxygen).  These metrics were collected to correlate macroinvertebrate composition to the collected habitat metrics and the effect they may have on each other.  The primary objective of the macroinvertebrate sampling to date was to provide pre-restoration data on the macroinvertebrate community within Meacham Creek so that it can be used to compare after large restoration projects.  Secondary objectives include: a) an examination of environmental variables that correlate with macroinvertebrate community structure.  This provides insights into the variables that are important in driving macroinvertebrate community structure in Meacham Creek and b) a comparison of the macroinvertebrate community in Meacham Creek to that in the North Fork of the Umatilla River which flows out of a wilderness area (independent, reference site).  This study provides post-restoration effectiveness of inference to temperature and habitat complexity both limiting factors in Meacham Creek.

Data analysis included a multivariate analysis (ordination) and an examination of five metrics commonly used in macroinvertebrate biological assessments: 1-Assemlage Tolerance Index (ATI) 2-Inferred Temperature 3-Taxa Richness 4- Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera Taxa Richness (EPT) and 5-Assemblage Diversity.  A comparison of the regression slopes for the “within-project” sites and the control sites revealed that, as predicted for the before restoration data, no differences in slopes existed for any of the five metrics examined (Table 6).  In addition, none of the regression equations were significantly indicating that the metrics are not displaying any linear trends through time (Table 6).  Results are preliminary to date and only represent one year of post restoration data analysis for one project area.  Additional information in reference to the ongoing macro invertebrete sampling can be viewed in the UAFHP 2011 annual report (document ID #P130463).

Table 6.  Regression equations for control and within-project sites for each of the five metrics.  Significance values for each regression are also given.  The last column “Slope comparison” is a test of the control and within-project regression slopes.

Temperature Monitoring

Temperature is a critical water quality parameter that influences both the distribution of aquatic organisms and the amount of dissolved oxygen that is available to them.  Stream temperatures in Meacham Creek have been recorded for nearly two decades.  These data may aid our understanding of the decadal dynamics associated with the geomorphic changes, introduction of large wood and boulder habitat complexity and riparian vegetation from project activities.  Our approach to stream temperature assessment stems from the work of O’Daniel et al (2003 and 2005) that focuses on the role of the alluvial aquifer in moderating stream temperatures in alluvial rivers.  We have built a set of methods to monitor stream temperature from the DRDiSE project (O’Daniel et al 2005) that incorporates the placement of temperature sensors in field inferred up and down-welling zones throughout both of the restoration reaches.  In an effort to monitor long term changes in summer water temperatures a longitudinal profile of HOBO pendant stream temperature loggers have been deployed in Meacham Creek since 2005.  Eleven temperature monitors are arranged in a longitudinal fashion starting at RM 2 and ending at RM 16.5 from July through September.  Additional temperature sites are setup in off channel pools, spring brooks and other similar features that are only connected to Meacham Creek during the summer months through hyporheic/groundwater exchange.  These sites are meant to monitor the effectiveness of the 2011 Meacham Creek project (RM 6-7.1) and future reach level floodplain/channel connectivity projects to contribute cool thermal refugees for rearing fish.  These sites are also meant to complement the Meacham Creek Geomorphic-Hyporheic Flow Study, being conducted by Montana State University, which is described below. 

In order to analyze stream temperature data and the effectiveness of aforementioned restoration projects CTUIR has adopted the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s standards of generating a 7 day maximum average daily temperature (7DADMax) for each site (Figures 16&17).  Although stream temperature monitoring has been conducted since 2005 it is still too early to make any assumptions on restoration project effectiveness to affect stream temperature.

Figure 16.  Temperature monitoring sites located within the Meacham Creek subbasin between RM 0-16.5, 2005 to present. 

Figure 17.  Seven consecutive day average of the daily maximum temperatures (7-DADMax) at all Meacham Creek Sites since 2005.

Alluvial rivers with active beds display high variation in water temperatures across floodplain surfaces.  To characterize spatial variation in water temperatures, we installed 60 temperature loggers for a two month period throughout the Meacham Creek floodplain.  During 2011, unusually high precipitation combined with lower than average air temperatures provided a unique hydrologic condition of significantly delayed flow recession.  From late-July to mid-September 2011 these loggers captured peak annual water temperatures across a variety of low flow inundated surfaces (off channel habitat).  A suite of summary statistics were calculated for spatially discrete floodplain waters (ex. mainstem channel, isolated pools, spring brooks and secondary channels).  These data reveled that a variety of surface isolated floodplain waters display reduced thermal variation compared to the mainstem channel (Figure 18).  The range of thermal variation in floodplain water types provides important habitats for native aquatic biota, including juvenile salmonids.  The results of this work help aid and guide the development of project features within UAFHP stream enhancement designs.

Figure 18.  Diurnal temperature fluctuations from 7/30/11 to 9/21/2011 in various off-channel habitats.

Meacham Creek Geomorphic-Hyporheic Flow Study

Protocol: Meacham Creek Geomorphic-Hyporheic Flow Study (URL Citation: http://www.monitoringmethods.org/Protocol/Details/677 ).

 The Meacham Creek Geomorphic-Hyporheic Flow Study aims to document the effects of a large scale channel realignment restoration project on hyporheic exchange and water temperature.  The focus of the study is to answer the following questions while documenting the changes that occur: 1) How are interactions between surface and subsurface hydrology influenced by channel realignment and large wood additions associated with stream restoration and 2) How will water temperature respond to restoration induced changes in hyporheic hydrology?

 The monitoring project combines a variety of field and numeric modeling techniques to create a complete picture of the residence time distribution for hyporheic water at the restoration site for both pre- and post- restoration conditions and will document the effects of channel re-alignment on hyporheic exchange (rates, magnitude, and volume), hyporheic flow path lengths, residence time, and ultimately, channel temperature.  The groundwater and surface water monitoring study was designed to meet the following three objectives:

1. Quantify ground the rate and magnitude of surface water - groundwater exchange and groundwater residence time both prior to and after restoration actions to assess changes in recharge and discharge between Meacham Creek and its alluvial aquifer (hyporheic exchange).
2. Establish a monitoring network of stream temperature loggers and water level loggers to measure changes in the surface and subsurface water elevation and temperature due to restoration actions.
3. Pilot a new method of stream restoration monitoring that will have broad utility to other restoration efforts in the region.

Actions to meet these objectives to date are presented below.

Groundwater Modeling

In late 2010 and early 2011, groundwater hydrology of the baseline and restored channel alluvial aquifers was modeled using the USGS groundwater modeling software MODFLOW (Harbaugh, 2005), where the main input into the aquifer was the water surface elevation of the creek plan form.  Surface water elevation was derived from first-return LiDAR for the baseline condition, and under the restored condition it was based on "filling" the design channel pools and the riffle ground elevations.  In either case, aquifer thickness was assumed to be 5 m in the valley center, tapering to .5 m at the valley wall using the LiDAR terrain model as the surface.  Once the potentiometric flow surface was developed, subsurface flow path lines through the potentiometric flow field were generated by releasing "particles" along the creek using the USGS solute modeling software MODPATH (Pollock, 1994).

The groundwater modeling predicted that there would be a substantial shift in groundwater surface elevation, as well as in the pattern and magnitude of exchange between groundwater and surface water in the project reach.  Based on these initial hydrologic simulations of the site (Figure 19), it is predicted that the residence time distribution of hyporheic water will shift to include a higher number of intermediate duration hyporheic flow paths, but that the magnitude of gross hyporheic exchange may either increase or decrease, depending on the change in hydraulic conductivity (Figure 20).

 Figure 19.  Results from MODFLOW simulation showing expected influence of restoration on hyporheic flow paths (grey lines) on the Meacham Cr. restoration site.  Dots show locations of installed monitoring wells in the project site area.

Figure 20.  Simulated hyporheic flow-path residence time distributions based on MODFLOW groundwater models depicted in Figure 19.

Groundwater Elevation and Temperature Monitoring

During the spring and summer of 2011 and 2012, a series of 32 monitoring wells were established prior to and during stream restoration activities (Figure 21).  In each well a water temperature and level data logger was deployed (Onset HOBO U20 Water Level Data Logger model U20-001-01 [pressure accurate to 0.05% and temperature to 0.1 °C] or Solinst Model 3001 Levelogger Junior Edge [pressure accurate to 0.1% and temperature to 0.1 °C]).  Twenty of the well loggers were deployed six weeks before the restoration project began, and another twelve were deployed just prior to diversion of flow to the new channel, and two were install in July 2012; 26 loggers remain deployed, while the remainder were either accidentally broken during construction or were removed during construction or prior to the onset of seasonal high flows (Figure 21). 

Results from the initial MODFLOW modeling (Figure 19) were used to select well locations that captured the expected range of hyporheic residence times across the alluvial aquifer, both prior to and after channel realignment.  Because daily and seasonal temperature signals are useful tracers of groundwater movement as well as indicators of systematic changes in the temperature status of water as it moves through the hyporheic zone (Arrigoni et al., 2008; Hoehn & Cirpka, 2006; Stonestrom & Constantz, 2003), it is expected changes in the patterns of water temperature across this well network that reflect the restructuring of hyporheic hydrology within the alluvial aquifer.

Figure 21.  The location of surface water temperature logger and groundwater monitoring wells at the Meacham Creek Restoration site in 2012.

Surface Water Temperature Monitoring

 In 2011 thirty temperature loggers were deployed in surface water features along the restored stream channel prior to diversion of flow into it (Onset HOBO Pendant Temperature/Light Data Logger model 64K - UA-002-64 (accurate to 0.53 °C), or Maxim Dallas  iButton model DS1922L (accurate to 0.5 °C) encased in waterproof resin (sold as iBcod by Alpha Mach, Inc)).  In addition to those loggers deployed along the restored channel reach, approximately 20 more temperature loggers were deployed in the main channel above and below the project reach as well as in groundwater upwelling features near the channel and in the floodplain.  The groundwater upwelling features include springs, flowing backwater areas, and spring brooks far-removed from the channel.  In 2012, 54 surface water temperature loggers were deployed (Figure 21).  Twenty-eight of those were placed in the main flow of Meacham Creek along the restored reach at hydrologic breaks roughly corresponding to typically-defined aquatic habitat features (e.g. pool, riffle, etc.).  The remaining temperature loggers were deployed in groundwater upwelling features similar to 2011.  In September 2012, all of the surface water loggers in the main channel were removed to protect them from being lost away in high winter flows.  However, all of the loggers in off-channel springs far from the main channel were re-deployed after being downloaded.  In addition, a temperature logger was placed in the open channel flow bolted to a bedrock outcrop.  Theses latter deployments were to record over-winter temperatures and capture the full seasonal cycle of water temperature variation at the restoration site.

 Results to Date

Work on the Groundwater and Surface Water Hydrologic and Temperature Monitoring is ongoing, and aside from the preliminary hydrologic modeling, no substantive results are yet available.  However, observation of over 25 groundwater upwelling features along the restored channel (Figure 22) demonstrated that there has been a shift in groundwater hydrology at the restoration site.  These features include a range of types from strongly flowing springs to seeps along the downstream margin of point bars marked by filamentous algae growing in these nutrient-enriched outflows (Figure 23).  In addition, observations of groundwater flow into the exposed portions of the baseline channel and in other areas throughout the floodplain suggest substantial changes in groundwater hydrology.  It is expected that there has been concomitant changes in the thermal processes of the aquifer as well.  Cursory exploration of level logger confirms these observations.

Figure 22. The location of easily-observed groundwater upwelling features along the restored reach of Meacham Creek observed in summer 2012.

Figure 23.  An actively flowing groundwater spring and seep (note filimentaous algae growing in nutrient-rich outflow) along the restored reach of Meacham Creek in summer 2012.

Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) Surveys

In 2012, CTUIR completed CHaMP based surveys on Meacham Creek to provide a robust set of baseline data for monitoring the effectiveness of restoration actions in Meacham Creek over time.  CHaMP surveys were performed to assess both the physical and biological state of three sites over time at treated, untreated, and future restoration enhancement sites.  With future years of monitoring data, the CTUIR will be able to track changes in the habitat quality and quantity of the restoration areas as compared to unrestored areas.  Repeat surveys are slated to be done in 3-5 year intervals or after significant bankfull events.  Besides assessing in-stream geomorphic characteristics, this protocol helps assess riparian stand condition and LWD recruitment.  More information on CHaMP survey protocols can be found on monitoringmethods.org (protocol ID 416).  Below is a summary of geomorphic features within the 3 sites surveyed (Figure 24).  Complete comparison results from the initial CHaMP surveys can be reviewed in reference documents ID #P130476 and ID#P130714. 

Figure 24.  CHaMP geomorphic assessment comparisons between selected Meacham Creek locations.  The locations selected for monitoring included between RM 2.5 to 3 (Lower Site; future treatment reach), RM 5.5 to 6 (Middle Site; treated reach) and RM 8.5 to 9 (Upper Site; untreated reach).

Extensive Habitat Assessment of the Umatilla River Watershed

In order to inform fisheries management, we used widely available spatial datasets to apply models over large areas to produce rapid, comparable stream habitat assessments.  Geologic, hydrologic, and geomorphic variables that influence channel morphology across the Umatilla subbasin were measured.  We use several digital elevation model (DEM) derived measures (channel slope, sinuosity, floodplain width, valley slope, wavelength of the channel meander belt and ratio of channel segment length to floodplain width) to produce both standard and statistically derived stream classifications.  We create channel classifications using both Montgomery and Buffington (1997) methods and a statistical classification using K-means clustering and fuzzy sets.  Using information from this stream classification we compare target segments to all similar segments using a probability distribution rather than analog or reference segments.  Classification and regression trees (CART) and neural networks were evaluated in predicting spawning areas (redds) for Oncorhynchus mykiss (summer steelhead) and Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (spring Chinook salmon).  Classification and regression trees and neural networks were used to predict potential stream segments capable of redds occupation.  In the Umatilla basin, the results of CART produced an R^ of 0.68 for summer steelhead and 0.79 for spring Chinook.  In the Umatilla basin, these results suggest that the sum segment length of summer steelhead redds distribution may increase from 1.3% to 4.2% of the network, while outputs for spring Chinook suggest that redds distribution change from 1.9% to 3.6% across the watershed.  These results provide an adaptive management tool used to direct more detailed assessment and scoping for fisheries restoration and population management.  Full analysis and modeling is summarized in the standalone report in the project annual progress report (reference document ID#P128565; Appendix B).