4 CHANNEL HABITAT TYPING

Transcription

1 Upper Williamson River Watershed Assessment 4 CHANNEL HABITAT TYPING INTRODUCTION METHODS Classification of stream channels within a watershed is an important part of understanding the inherent spatial variation in aquatic habitat conditions and is important for prioritizing and understanding the limitations to possible restoration activities. The underlying assumption in any channel-typing scheme is that the morphological channel characteristics are the result of geologic, climatic, hydrologic, and vegetative interactions. Furthermore, similar channel types can be expected to respond in a similar manner to natural or human-caused changes within a watershed in the supply of water, sediment, or wood inputs. The intent of this chapter is to differentiate the channel habitat types within the upper Williamson River subbasin and to address the following two critical questions: 1. What is the distribution of channel habitat types throughout the subbasin? 2. What is the location of channel habitat types that are liely to provide specific aquatic features, as well as those areas that may be the most sensitive to changes in watershed conditions? Because there are approximately 1,300 miles of mapped stream within the assessment area, it was determined that this assessment would use an abbreviated form of the Channel Habitat Type (CHT) classification scheme included in the Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual. The classification scheme used in this analysis is based on the Rosgen methodology (Rosgen 1996). The Rosgen methodology utilizes a hierarchical approach to channel classification. The most extensive classification within the methodology, the Level I classification, is based on broad-scale features that can be remotely derived (Table 4-1). Table 4-1. General Stream Type Descriptions Rosgen Stream Type Comparable OWEB Stream Type(s) General description Entrenchment ratio W/D ratio Sinuosity Slope Landform/soils/features Aa + VH SV Very steep, deeply entrenched, debris transport streams. < 1.4 < to 1.1 >0.10 Very high relief. Erosional, bedroc or depositional features; debris flow potential. Deeply entrenched streams. Vertical steps with/deep scour pools; waterfalls. FINAL June 2005 Page 57

2 Watershed Assessment Upper Williamson River Rosgen Stream Type Comparable OWEB Stream Type(s) General description Entrenchment ratio W/D ratio Sinuosity Slope Landform/soils/features A B C D DA SV BC MV MH MH MM LM FP1 FP3 AF FP2 LM LC Steep, entrenched, cascading, step/pool streams. High energy/debris transport associated with depositional soils. Very stable if bedroc or boulder dominated channel. Moderately entrenched, moderate gradient, riffle dominated channel, with infrequently spaced pools. Very stable plan and profile. Stable bans. Low gradient, meandering, point-bar, riffle/pool, alluvial channels with broad, well defined floodplains Braided channel with longitudinal and transverse bars. Very wide channel with eroding bans. Anastomosing (multiple channels) narrow and deep with expansive well vegetated floodplain and associated wetlands. Very gentle relief with highly variable sinuosities. Stable streambans. E FP1 Low gradient, meandering riffle/pool stream with low width/depth ratio and little deposition. Very efficient and stable. High meander width ratio. < 1.4 < to to to 2.2 > 12 > to > 2.2 > 12 > 1.4 < 0.02 N/A > 40 n/a < 0.04 > 4.0 < 40 Variable < > 2.2 < 12 > 1.5 < 0.02 High relief. Erosional or depositional and bedroc forms. Entrenched and confined streams with cascading reaches. Frequently spaced, deep pools in associated step-pool bed morphology. Moderate relief, colluvial deposition and/or residual soils. Moderate entrenchment and W/D ratio. Narrow, gently sloping valleys. Rapids predominate with occasional pools. Broad valleys with terraces, in association with floodplains, alluvial soils. Slightly entrenched with well-defined meandering channel. Rifflepool bed morphology. Broad valleys with alluvial and colluvial fans. Glacial debris and depositional features. Active lateral adjustment, with abundance of sediment supply. Broad, low-gradient valleys with fine alluvium and/ or lacustrine soils. Anastomosed (multiple channel) geologic control creating fine deposition with wellvegetated bars that are laterally stable with broad wetland floodplains. Broad valley/meadows. Alluvial materials with floodplain. Highly sinuous with stable, well vegetated bans. Riffle-pool morphology with very low width/depth ratio. Page 58 FINAL June 2005

3 Upper Williamson River Watershed Assessment Rosgen Stream Type Comparable OWEB Stream Type(s) General description Entrenchment ratio W/D ratio Sinuosity Slope Landform/soils/features F LC Entrenched meandering riffle/pool channel on low gradients with high width/depth ratio. G MC MM Rosgen, 1996; WPN 1999 Entrenched "gulley" step/pool and low width/depth ratio on moderate gradients. < 1.4 > 12 > 1.4 < 0.02 < 1.4 < 12 > to Entrenched in highly weathered material. Gentle gradients, with a high W/D ratio. Meandering, laterally unstable with high banerosion rates. Riffle-pool morphology. Gulley, step-pool morphology with moderate slopes and low W\D ratio. Narrow valleys, or deeply incised in alluvial or colluvial materials; i.e., fans or deltas. Unstable, with grade control problems and high ban erosion rates. The Rosgen level I approach is based primarily on four factors: the stream entrenchment ratio, which is the ratio of the flood-prone area to the banfull channel width; the banfull channel width to banfull depth ratio; channel sinuosity; and channel gradient or slope. All these parameters, with the exception of the width-depth ratio, can be estimated based on remote sensing data. Channel gradient was estimated using digital elevation model (DEM) data with a pixel resolution of approximately 10 meters (USGS 2004a). Sinuosity was estimated for each stream segment within GIS as the ratio of the valley length 4 to channel length. Entrenchment ratio (ratio of the flood prone area to the banfull channel width) was estimated by this analyst for each segment using digital topographic quadrangle maps (to visualize valley width and channel confinement) and digital ortho photographs (to evaluate human-disturbance to the channel segment, and channel size). A first approximation of channel type was made using gradient and sinuosity alone. As can be seen from Table 4-1, all channels having gradients greater then 10% can be initially classified as type Aa+ channels, and all channels with gradients of 4% to 10% as class A channels. Similarly, channels having gradients of 2% to 4% were initially classified as type B/G channels, indicating that they are either B or G channel types. The remaining low-gradient channels (<2%) will fall within either the C, E, or F types (type D channels are unliely to be found in the assessment area). This last grouping was initially broen out into two groups, based on channel sinuosity. Those channel segments having a sinuosity of 1.5 or greater were initially grouped as type 4 Approximated by calculating the vector distance from the channel segment start point (X1, Y 1 ) to the end point (X 2, Y 2 ). FINAL June 2005 Page 59

4 Watershed Assessment Upper Williamson River E/F channels, indicating that they are either type E or type F, depending on the level of entrenchment and width-to-depth ratios. Similarly, segments having a sinuosity of <1.5 were initially grouped as type C/F channels. These initial classifications were modified based on inspection of the topographic maps and ortho photographs, which resulted in the reclassification of many segments (e.g., many segments initially classified as C/F were subsequently changed to B types). However, because of the limitations of remote sensing and the inability to perform field verification, the channel groupings were not further subdivided. The spatial distribution of Rosgen channel types is shown in Map 4-1 and summarized in Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1. Summary of Rosgen Channel Types in the Upper Williamson River Subbasin RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Type Aa+ Channels: The Aa+ stream types are very steep streams (>10% channel gradient) located exclusively in headwater areas on the periphery of the assessment. Type Aa+ streams occur on the slopes of the Cascade Mountains to the west, and on the flans of Yamsay Mountain and Booth Ridge to the east (Figure 4-1). Transport processes dominate in these reaches, as they are often source areas for downstream deposition. Type Aa+ channels are found primarily within the Upstream of Klamath Marsh watershed (7% of total channel length), as well as in the Northwest of Klamath Marsh (3%) and West of Klamath Marsh watersheds (4%). Type Aa+ channels mae up 4% of the total channel length within the assessment area (Figure 4-1). Page 60 FINAL June 2005

5 Upper Williamson River Watershed Assessment Type A Channels: Channel type A is similar to the Aa+ classification, the primary difference being that these channel types are lower gradient (4% to 10%). Consequently, these channel types tend to be located immediately downstream of the type Aa+ channels (Figure 4-1).Type A channels are found within all watersheds, and range from 8% of the total channel length in the Downstream of Klamath Marsh watershed to 34% of the channel length in the Upstream of Klamath Marsh watershed. Type A channels mae up 22% of the channel length in the entire assessment (Figure 4-1). Type B/G Channels: The B/G channel designation indicates that these channels are either Rosgen type B or type G channels, but there is insufficient information available to split the two groupings out. This grouping is often positioned downstream of type A channels, but in the upper Williamson these channels also are widespread in headwater positions within gently sloping terrain (Figure 4-1). Both the B and G channels are moderate in gradient (2% to 4%). Although type B channels are morphologically dominated by hillslope (as opposed to floodplain) processes, they often contain some areas of floodplain development and may be both transport and depositional reaches. Rosgen type G or gullied channels are narrow, entrenched, non-meandering channels that are often downcut within alluvial deposits. Although there are undoubtedly naturally-occurring G channels within the assessment area, it may be reasonable to thin of the B channels as representing functioning channel types, and the G channels as representing the degraded condition. Type B/G channels are the predominant type found within the assessment area (42% of total channel length overall), and range from 24% of the total channel length in the Upstream of Klamath Marsh and Downstream of Klamath Marsh watersheds to 70% of the total length in the Northwest of Klamath Marsh watershed (Figure 4-1). Although many of the B/G channels shown to the northwest of Klamath Marsh (Map 4-1) actually classify as lower-gradient streams, because of their probable entrenchment into the highly porous parent material, it seemed more reasonable to classify these streams as type B/G. Type C/F Channels: The C/F channel designation indicates that these channels are either Rosgen type C or type F channels; however, there is insufficient information available to split the two groupings out. Rosgen type C channels consist of relatively low-gradient streams with well-developed floodplains and are typically highly responsive to sediment and wood inputs. Type F channels are similar in gradient, and may have a similar planform geometry (thus the difficulty in differentiating these from type C channels using remotely-sensed data), but the type F channels are entrenched, have a high width-depth ratio, and may have high ban erosion rates. For this analysis it is reasonable to thin of FINAL June 2005 Page 61

6 Watershed Assessment Upper Williamson River the C channels as representing functioning channel types, and the F channels as representing the degraded condition. Type C/F channels are found within all watersheds (with the exception of the Northwest of Klamath Marsh watershed), and occur primarily below headwater channels along the mainstem of the principal tributaries (Map 1-1). Type C/F channels range from 9% of the total channel length in the West of Klamath Marsh watershed to 39% of the total length in the Downstream of Klamath Marsh watershed (Figure 4-1). Type E/F Channels: The E/F channel designation indicates that these channels are either Rosgen type E or type F channels; however, there is insufficient information available to split the two groupings out. Rosgen type E channels consist of low-gradient, meandering streams with a low width/depth ratio, and often are characteristic of meadow systems. Type F channels are similar in gradient, and may have a similar planform geometry (thus the difficulty in differentiating these from type C channels using remotely-sensed data), but the type F channels are entrenched, have a high width-depth ratio, and may have high ban erosion rates. For this analysis it is reasonable to thin of the E channels as representing functioning channel types, and the F channels as representing the degraded condition. Type E/F channels are found within all watersheds with the exception of the Northwest of Klamath Marsh watershed, and occur primarily within meadow-dominated areas along the mainstem of the principal streams (Map 4-1). Most of these channels occur in areas of intensive agriculture or grazing. Type E/F channels range from 9% of the total channel length in the Klamath Marsh/Jac ee watershed to 20% of the total length in the West of Klamath Marsh watershed (Figure 4-1). Ditched Channels: During the course of the assessment it became apparent that there is a small but significant group of channels that are so highly modified that it would be impossible to place them within any of the Rosgen channel types. These channels occur primarily in the vicinity of Klamath Marsh (Map 4-1), and consist of either natural streams that have been excavated and straightened for drainage, or completely new drainage ditches. These channels are found within all watersheds with the exception of the Northwest of Klamath Marsh watershed, and range from 4% of the total channel length in the Upstream of Klamath Marsh watershed to 14% of the total length in the Downstream of Klamath Marsh watershed, and are 7% of the total stream length in the assessment area overall (Figure 4-1). CONFIDENCE EVALUATION Overall the confidence in the channel typing is low to moderate. The assessment was based exclusively on remotely sensed data (channel gradient from DEM data; valley confinement interpreted from DEMs, ortho photos, and topographical maps; and channel Page 62 FINAL June 2005

7 Upper Williamson River Watershed Assessment modifications interpreted from ortho photos) with no field-verification. Additional material from several USFS watershed analyses was incorporated as a chec to the initial channel type assignments. Significant data gaps remain which must be filled before a meaningful prioritization of channel restoration can be completed. Implementation of the recommendations would result in a high confidence in the subsequent assessment. RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the results and nown data gaps, the following recommendations are made: 1. Refine understanding of channel conditions. As discussed in the Methods section, the channel typing performed for this assessment was based exclusively on remotely sensed parameters, specifically, channel gradient and valley confinement. Additional information on channel entrenchment, channel substrate is required to refine our understanding of the existing channel types, extent of habitat degradation, and possible restoration opportunities. Conditions that entrench channels and limit access to the floodplain may affect the water storage capacity of the river system, which in turn can affect seasonal peaflows and annual baseflows (Dunsmoor pers. comm. 2004). There is a concern that these floodplain functions have been impaired, but the extent to which this has occurred is unnown. It is recommended that an assessment of stream channel conditions on private lands occur. The focus should be the low-gradient type C/F, E/F, and Ditched channels (Map 4-1). 2. Identify locations of, and feasibility of removing, channel modifications. This analysis should evaluate the feasibility of removing or modifying existing levies, berms, dies etc. that impede the natural meander pattern. This evaluation can be incorporated into the channel survey needs identified above. RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES This section provides restoration opportunities that have been made evident during the channel habitat typing investigation. 1. Protect channels that currently provide proper functioning condition. Those channels that are currently in a proper functioning condition should be protected from future degradation. Given the current data gaps on channel conditions (described above) it is not possible to identify all channel reaches that are in proper functioning condition. However, as a first approximation, those channels that currently have good riparian vegetation should be considered as the primary candidates for protection (see Chapter 6, Riparian Assessment). 2. Prevent future infrastructural encroachment on channels; remove existing impacts. In many portions of the assessment area roads (and former railroad grades) impact the natural function of stream channels by occupying a portion of the naturally occurring floodplain. For example, there is a concern that roadways lie Military FINAL June 2005 Page 63

8 Watershed Assessment Upper Williamson River ossing and Silver Lae Highway may limit floodplain function and connectivity by restricting surface flow. Where possible, these impacts should be mitigated, and future impacts should be prevented. Priority for removal should be given to low-gradient unconfined channels (i.e., C/F, E/F channels; Map 4-1). 3. Restore floodplain connections and natural channel form in low-gradient unconfined reaches. In many of the mainstem and larger tributaries (i.e., C/F, E/F channels; Map 4-1), channel downcutting, direct disturbance from livestoc, and degradation of riparian vegetation has combined to change the physical attributes of the stream, resulting in aquatic habitat degradation. Many streams have liely widened and become shallower, with a loss of pool habitat. In other streams, particularly smaller channels, streams have downcut and become isolated from their floodplains. Through a combination of grazing management, control of sediment inputs, and riparian recovery, the geomorphic processes that create channel conditions will begin to improve aquatic habitat. With respect to riparian recovery, fencing to control livestoc access to the stream channel has proven to be one of the most successful land management activities. Improvements in channel and habitat conditions will liely be most effective in the lowgradient unconfined reaches (i.e., C/F, E/F channels; Map 4-1). An excellent example of a type F channel in the subbasin that, with proper enhancement, could function more lie a type E channel is the Williamson River near Rocy Ford. Channel entrenchment and widening are restricting the ability for the river to access the adjacent floodplain (Photos 8-4, 8-5, 8-7). This channel is viewed by some experts as a serious impairment to river function and performance along this section of the river. It is an important candidate for study and enhancement within this portion of the upper Williamson (Dunsmoor pers. comm. 2004). Other similar opportunities for channel/floodplain enhancement would be identified through the proposed stream channel conditions study. Page 64 FINAL June 2005

9 Upper Williamson River Watershed Assessment LIST OF MAPS Map 4-1. Rosgen Level I Channel Types FINAL June 2005 Page 65

10 This page left blan intentionally.

11 De er Miller Lae ee rc ree ree Jac C Mi ll e S in C re e od e e e e Co tto nw o to l lo n Di os e e B ee Jac sh Mar D eel r C y ee R o c Jacson C re e ear Ho y ho le C r P ot ee tc re e Ir vi ng ee e S and C re v er on Ri llia ele r As n pe ee Dee p R iver he ms W e w D ra S c e ll o e tt ee S co Will i a m s o n K lam a th ater Lae e e ee Big S prin g s M i qu ee Dr a Wi Sand E ast w Yo s Te lepho n e re e sc H yst ac e e a Hog C re e Wi ll ia m so er n R iv 1:280, Miles Upper Williamson River Watershed Assessment Map 4-1: Rosgen Level 1 Channel Types Legend Rosgen type: Aa+ A B/G C/F E/F Ditched Marsh 5th-field watershed boundary Sources: Channel types Streams Roads Waterbodies Watersheds -Salminen -The Nature Conservancy (24) -USFS (Winema NF) -BLM (Laeview Dist) -REO/DEA (REO HUCs, modified by DEA) August 13, 2004 n:/gis/bef0001/arcmap/williamson_report/map4_1_channel_type.mxd