Tom Glass, B.S. Whitman College Sarah Wasssmund, B.S. Humboldt State University Edgar Verdin, B.S. Portland State University Kelsi Lakey, B.S.

Similar documents
Velocity Distributions and Fish Use of Engineered Log Jams

Relating Juvenile Salmonid Use and Channel Hydraulics to Full-Channel Engineered Log Jam Structures.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STREAM CONDITIONS AND HABITAT TYPES IN REACH 4, REACH 5 AND REACH 6.

Channel responses to the removal of Gold Ray and Savage Rapids Dam. Prepared by Desirée Tullos and Cara Water

Geomorphic Importance of Winter Peak Flows and Annual Snowmelt Hydrographs in a Sierra Nevada Boulder-Bedrock River

Tom Ballestero University of New Hampshire. 1 May 2013

Field Trip Number One. By: Pat Dryer. Geography 360

SCOPE OF PRESENTATION STREAM DYNAMICS, CHANNEL RESTORATION PLANS, & SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSES IN RELATION TO RESTORATION PLANS

Fish Passage at Road Crossings

RAILWAYS AND FISH: HOW TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE FISH HABITAT VALUES AT STREAM CROSSINGS THROUGH PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

Gold Ray Dam Removal Monitoring: OSU Summary. Prepared by Desiree Tullos and Cara Walter

Addressing the Impact of Road-Stream Crossing Structures on the Movement of Aquatic Organisms

Upper Mississippi River Basin Environmental Management Program Workshop

Spring Run Spawning Habitat Assessment Sediment Mobility

Case Study 2: Twenty-mile Creek Rock Fords

Stream Restoration and Environmental River Mechanics. Objectives. Pierre Y. Julien. 1. Peligre Dam in Haiti (deforestation)

Assignment 1. Measuring River Characteristics- Vernon Creek. Applied Fluvial Geomorphology Field Techniques EESc 435

Elwha River response to dam removals through four years and a big flood:

Fish Behavior With Respect to Engineered Log Jams: Log Jam Hydraulics Tessa Hanson, Randi Mendes 31 August 2013

Field Methods to Determine/ Verify Bankfull Elevation, XS Area & Discharge

Bishopville Prong Study

3. MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION

State Water Survey Division SURFACE WATER SECTION

Design and Construction

Appendix F Channel Grade Control Structures

Technical Memorandum. To: From: Copies: Date: 10/19/2017. Subject: Project No.: Greg Laird, Courtney Moore. Kevin Pilgrim and Travis Stroth

CR AAO Bridge. Dead River Flood & Natural Channel Design. Mitch Koetje Water Resources Division UP District

Do you think sediment transport is a concern?

ODFW AQUATIC INVENTORY PROJECT OREGON PLAN FOR SALMON & WATERSHEDS STREAM RESTORATION HABITAT REPORT

DREDGING A land manager s guide to the rules

Habitat Assessment. Peggy Compton UW-Extension Water Action Volunteers Program Coordinator

State of the River: Geomorphic Structure. Josh Wyrick, Ph.D. UC Davis

Development and application of demonstration MIKE 21C morphological model for a bend in Mekong River

BZ471, Steam Biology & Ecology Exam

Flood and Stream Restoration

CFD Modeling for Structure Designs in Environmental Impacts Mitigation

A Guide To Interpreting Stream Survey Reports. Scott C. Foster Charles H. Stein Kim K. Jones. Edited by Patricia A. Bowers

River Restoration and Rehabilitation. Pierre Y. Julien

Stream Simulation: A Simple Example

Session C1 - Applying the Stream Functions Pyramid to Geomorphic Assessments and Restoration Design

ODFW AQUATIC INVENTORY PROJECT OREGON PLAN FOR SALMON & WATERSHEDS STREAM RESTORATION HABITAT REPORT

EAGLES NEST AND PIASA ISLANDS

ADDRESSING GEOMORPHIC AND HYDRAULIC CONTROLS IN OFF-CHANNEL HABITAT DESIGN

Channel Morphology in Carnation Creek: 2009 Survey Results

Evaluation of Geomorphic Effects of Removal of Marmot and Little Sandy Dams and Potential Impacts on Anadromous Salmonids

Rapid Geomorphic Assessments: RGA s

ODFW AQUATIC INVENTORY PROJECT RESTORATION MONITORING STREAM HABITAT REPORT. Peggy Kavanagh, Trevan Cornwell TOLEDO SOUTH Coast Range Lora Tennant

ODFW AQUATIC INVENTORY PROJECT STREAM REPORT

Innovative Technologies and Methodologies to Help Solve Complex Problems in Spatial River Studies

River Meandering and Braiding. Pierre Y. Julien. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado

Environmental Value. Low Moderate High

APPENDIX A REACH DECRIPTIONS. Quantico Creek Watershed Assessment April 2011

Appendix E Rosgen Classification

Physical modeling to guide river restoration projects: An Overview

New Approaches to Restoring NH s Rivers Natural Channel Design and Dam Removal

Limitation to qualitative stability indicators. the real world is a continuum, not a dichotomy ~ 100 % 30 % ~ 100 % ~ 40 %

MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF FLUVIAL SEDIMENT DELIVERY, NEKA RIVER, IRAN. S.E. Kermani H. Golmaee M.Z. Ahmadi

Remaining Capacity in Great Lakes Reservoirs

Fine sediment in pools: an index of how sediment is affecting a stream channel

Carmel River Bank Stabilization at Rancho San Carlos Road Project Description and Work Plan March 2018

B-1. Attachment B-1. Evaluation of AdH Model Simplifications in Conowingo Reservoir Sediment Transport Modeling

GENERAL SUMMARY BIG WOOD RIVER GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT BLAINE COUNTY, IDAHO

Results of 12 years of habitat restoration in

Thinking Outside the Box (Culvert) Making difficult decisions for Fish Passage. Dave Stewart Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

River Processes. Learning Objective: Discover how a river erodes, transports and deposits material

PART 2:! FLUVIAL HYDRAULICS" HYDROEUROPE

Why Geomorphology for Fish Passage

Case Study 8. North Fork Nooksack River In-channel Project

Within-event spatially distributed bedload: linking fluvial sediment transport to morphological change

Countermeasure Calculations and Design


Gravel Transport Study Report for Energy Northwest's Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No Lewis County, Washington

Fluvial Processes in River Engineering

Restoration Monitoring on the McKenzie River, Oregon

Strategies for managing sediment in dams. Iwona Conlan Consultant to IKMP, MRCS

GEOL 652. Poudre River Fieldtrip

Stream Geomorphology. Leslie A. Morrissey UVM July 25, 2012

Sediment Transport Mechanism and Grain Size Distributions in Stony Bed Rivers. S.FUKUOKA 1 and K.OSADA 2

May Creek Canyon LWD Stream Restoration Project. Helicopter Placement of LWD in an Urban Stream. By Kathryn Neal, P.E.

STUDY PERFORMANCE REPORT

CAUSES FOR CHANGE IN STREAM-CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY

Name. 4. The diagram below shows a soil profile formed in an area of granite bedrock. Four different soil horizons, A, B, C, and D, are shown.

Avoiding Geohazards in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands by Using Natural Stream Principles

The how, why, and lessons learned

Sediment Resuspension by Dredges: Defining the Issues

Unconventional Wisdom and the Effects of Dams on Downstream Coarse Sediment Supply. Byron Amerson, Jay Stallman, John Wooster, and Derek Booth

Ways To Identify Background Verses Accelerated Erosion

Photo 1: Assen Brothers Splash Dam in 1912, Middle Creek Oregon. Photo courtesy of Coos County Historical Society

Field Indicators of Inlet Controlled Road Stream Crossing Capacity

Dam Removal Analysis Guidelines for Sediment

UPPER KETTLE CREEK FISH HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN TRIBUTARIES ADDENDUM

Beaver Creek Corridor Design and Analysis. By: Alex Previte

Squaw Creek. General Information

A PRIMER ON DAM REMOVALS IN MICHIGAN. Joe Rathbun Michigan Dept. Environmental Quality

Start of Presentation: No notes (Introductory Slide 1) 1) Salmonid Habitat Intrinsic Potential (IP) models are a type of habitat potential

Subcommittee on Sedimentation Draft Sediment Analysis Guidelines for Dam Removal

Stream Entrainment, Erosion, Transportation & Deposition

MEANDER CURVE (MODIFIED FOR ADEED)

Project (Project No. US-CA-62-2) Maintenance Inspection and Reports (Subtask 14.1) Inspection Report No.2

Appendix III-A Descriptions of Channel Habitat Types

Transcription:

Tom Glass, B.S. Whitman College Sarah Wasssmund, B.S. Humboldt State University Edgar Verdin, B.S. Portland State University Kelsi Lakey, B.S. Washington State University

Overview 1. Background 2. History 3. Purpose and Objective 4. Question and Hypotheses 5. Site Descriptions 6. Methods and Instruments 7. Results 8. Discussion and Errors 9. Conclusions 10. Questions

Background Large woody debris increase habitat complexity and are important for Creating Habitat Spawning migrations Predatory cover for adults and juveniles Feeding habits ELJ construction is popular, but limited research has been done on understand their effects on flow and fish behavior

History Logging Effects Since 1800s Decreasing quantity of natural wooding falling into streams Splash damming for log transportation Widened channels Eliminated natural log jams Scoured and washed away gravel and sediments, exposing bedrock Reduced Natural habitat Splash dam at Mill Creek, Oregon, 1905

History Removal of woody debris 1950s to 1980s Wood was thought to prevent passage of salmon spawning migrations Realization of importance of large wood Endangered Species Act (1973) 5 salmonids eventaully placed on endangered list 1980 s, People began to bring wood back into streams Development of Engineered Log Jams (ELJ s)

Study Purpose Gain an understanding of how different ELJ structures effect Stream Hydraulics (Velocity & Turbulence) Pool and Channel velocities and turbulence Bathymetry Fish Behavior To contribute information on how to better construct engineered log jams for fish use, modifying channel hydraulics, and stabilizing stream banks

Objectives Survey study sites for future laboratory model rec-constructions and 3-dimensional mapping Take bathymetry measurements of stream beds Observe Fish Focal Points (FFP s) and orientation (10am to 3:30pm) Take velocity measurements throughout stream; specifically near FFP s Combine bathymetry measurements, fish data, and velocity measurements to determine placement and fish velocity preferences Sediment sampling for characterization of roughness

Questions How do ELJ s affect stream flow? How do ELJ s influence bathymetry? What flow velocities do fish prefer? How do ELJ s influence fish behavior?

Hypotheses of ELJ s affects Stream Hydraulics Increase flow complexity Increase water mixing Channel Morphology Increase organic and sediment deposition near jams Fish Behavior Use log Jams as shelter/cover Prefer slower flow conditions with easy access to fast flow for feeding

Site Locations Canal Creek, Full Channel Jam Crooked Creek, Meander Jam

Site Descprition Crooked Creek 6 Logs embedded into the bank Root wads at stream center 1 Submerged log spanning under others 4 Separate pools created Main channel section River left gravel bar Natural Log Jam

Site Description 7 Key logs River left is a sand bar Flow mainly constricted when crossing logs 3&4 Lots of silt and sand deposition upstream and river-left downstream Canal Creek

Methods and Instruments Total Station with Reflector Rod Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)

Methods and Instruments Tom and Sarah s eyes & brains for snorkeling. Measuring utensils, rocks, and sticks

Results Bathymetry of Crooked Creek

Results Bathymetry of Canal Creek

Canal Creek Velocity Contour Maps

Canal Creek Velocity Contour Maps

Results, Crooked Ck. Fish Velocity Utilization

Number of Fish n=34 Number of Fish n=34 Results, Crooked Ck. Fish Velocity Utilization Horizontal Stream Demographics Max Velocity: 74.29 cm/s Mean Velocity: 33.55 cm/s Minimum Velocity: 5.16 cm/s Vertical Stream Demographics Max Velocity: 23.40 cm/s Mean Velocity: 0.04 cm/s Minimum Velocity: -22.60 cm/s 6 10 5 8 4 6 3 2 4 1 2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Horizontal Magnitude Velocity Values in Centimeters Per Second 0-30 -25-20 -15-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Veritcal Velocity Values in Centimeters Per Second 30

Percent of Total Velocity Values n=5395 Fish velocity preferences versus total measured velocities at Crooked Creek 12 Fish Focal Point Velocities Total Measureable Velocities 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 30 60 90 120 Total Velocity Magnitude (cm/s) 150 180

Results, Canal Ck. Fish Velocity Utilization

Number of Fish n=139 Number of Fish n=140 Number of Fish n=34 Number of Fish n=34 6 Results, Canal Ck. 5 Velocity Utilization 4 3 Horizontal 2 Stream Demographics Max Velocity: 200.70 cm/s 1 Mean Velocity: 34.12 cm/s 0 Minimum Velocity: 1.73 cm/s 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 65 70 75 Horizontal Magnitude Velocity Values in Centimeters Per Second 40 35 40 45 50 55 60 10 8 6 4 2 0-30 50 Vertical Stream Demographics Max Velocity: 71.60 cm/s Mean Velocity: -0.13 cm/s Minimum Velocity: -38.50 cm/s -25-20 -15-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Veritcal Velocity Values in Centimeters Per Second 30 30 40 30 20 20 10 10 0-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Horizontal Magnitude Velocity Values in Centimeters Per Second 0-40 -30-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Vertical Velocity Values in Centimeters Per Second 80

Percent of Total Velocity Values n=43638 Fish velocity preferences versus total measured velocities at Canal Creek 8 7 Fish Focal Point Velocities Total Measurable Velocities 6 5 4 3 2 1 0-45 -30-15 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 Total Velocity Magnitude (cm/s) 120 135 150

Sources of Error ADCP bottom track was often lost Manual translating and rotating transect points necessary Possible errors in translations or rotation values Nearest velocity vector and orientation to fish could be off by a few degrees. Velocity histograms assume FFP s are associated with surrounding water velocity vectors Velocity vector and FFP sometimes separated by about 1 meter Pyramid structure of beam data collection makes deeper bins less accurate than upper measurements

Conclusion How do ELJ s affect stream flow? Create Pools of low flow Creates hydraulic complexity How do ELJ s influence bathymetry? Areas of sediments deposition Areas of scouring What flow velocities do fish prefer? Vertical velocities near zero Horizontal magnitude velocity near 34cm/s How do ELJ s influence fish behavior? Fish utilize flow fields created by ELJ s

Thank You to Cara Walter Matthew Cox Desiree Tullos Julia Jones Tom Dietterich Jorge Ramirez For Your Contributions

Questions?