Beaver Creek Structure Monitoring

Transcription

1 Case Study 1 Project Overview Beaver Creek drains 13,451 acres and is a fourth-order tributary to the Applegate River in southwestern Oregon (figure 1). The mean annual precipitation is about 38 inches. The watershed experiences periodic flooding from rain-on-snow events, with the most recent major event occurring in January 1997 (50-year event) and an above-bankfull event in December 2002 (10-year event). The watershed geology comprises volcanics with highly erosive granitic intrusions that contribute large amounts of decomposed coarse sand to Beaver Creek. Beaver Creek is one of the last tributaries of the Applegate River used for spawning and rearing by the federally-threatened southern Oregon, northern California coast population of coho salmon before Applegate Dam blocks upstream passage. Regionally sensitive summer and winter steelhead and coastal cutthroat trout also occur in Beaver Creek, as do reticulate sculpin and, possibly, Pacific lamprey. The Beaver Creek watershed, designated a key watershed for salmonid restoration and protection under the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan, is located in the Applegate Adaptive Management Area. The State of Oregon has proposed that Beaver Creek be designated as Essential Anadromous Fish Habitat, and Beaver Creek is one of only three streams on the Applegate Ranger District where wild coho still occur. Beaver Creek is listed as water quality limited under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for high summer temperatures, sediment, and biological criteria, including simplified macroinvertebrate communities. The primary purpose of the current restoration project was to improve spawning and summer and winter rearing habitats for coho salmon and other salmonids by adding 103 pieces of large woody debris (LWD) to 1.5 miles of Beaver Creek. Because of private property concerns downstream, we tied the LWD to standing trees and to one another with cables to prevent downstream movement. The specific short-term objectives of the restoration project were: l An increase in medium- and large-sized instream wood, from 0 pieces per mile to 75 pieces per mile. l An increase in total pool area by 20 percent. l An increase in entrenchment ratio from 1.0 to 2.0. l A reduction in width-to-depth ratios by 20 percent. l A change in substrate-size class dominance from cobble to gravel. l An increase in macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity by 20 percent. 3 5

2 # # # # # Developing Monitoring Plans Chapter 3 l An increase in coho salmon smolt production by 20 percent (USDA Forest Service 2003) l An increase in coho salmon spawning in the project area. Evaluating the success of this restoration project involves comparing physical and biological parameters in the project reach of Beaver Creek to a control reach (both before and after restoration activities) and determining if the project met its objectives. / 199 Study Area # Oregon California # Grants Pass A pple g a te R iv er / Applegate Ranger District R og ue R iv e r 238 r Falls Project Reach Control Reach B ea ver Creek # / 62 Medford, 5 W # Ashland N S Beaver Creek Watershed E Miles Figure 1. Map of the Beaver Creek watershed, study area, and adjacent region. 3 6

3 Case Study 1 Project Methods, Design, and Monitoring This monitoring design delineated a 0.9 mile project reach (within the 1.5 mile overall project area), which had structures added in 2002 from the confluence of Charley Buck Gulch upstream to a large bedrock falls, and a 0.9 mile control reach that lacked restoration activities from the confluence of Armstrong Gulch upstream to Hanley Gulch (Cederholm et al. 1997). The project reach was located approximately 1-mile downstream from the control reach. Both reaches shared similar geomorphology (that is, they were both located within Reach 2 of a 1998 Forest Service stream survey and classified as Rosgen B-type channels). Evaluating the success of structure placement in Beaver Creek called for both implementation and effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring involved counting project LWD pieces and quantifying their size and position in the stream channel or bankfull area. We initially divided effectiveness monitoring parameters into two categories: physical and biological. Physical measurements compared after restoration were the number of high-quality pools, total pool area, residual-pool depth, side-channel area, substrate-size distribution, width-to-depth ratio, and entrenchment ratio, because these parameters had relatively high signal-tonoise ratios (Scholz and Booth 1998). Types of biological monitoring were macroinvertebrate, and fish population sampling. We used a 100-foot nylon tape with 0.1-foot increments to measure log length and used a logger s tape (D-tape) to calculate (in inches) the diameter of the log at the stream. The presence of cut ends determined whether a log had an artificial or natural origin. We further separated artificially-placed wood according to whether it was placed in or before 2002, and whether cable was present or not. We measured the amount of wood in contact with or overhanging the wetted channel to the nearest 0.1 foot, as well as the linear distance of wood that contacted or intersected the estimated bankfull height plane. If a piece of project wood had no surface in contact with the bankfull area, we noted that piece but did not officially count or use it in subsequent calculations. We placed wood into categories based on a modified Forest Service Level II stream survey protocol, where small equals greater than 12-inch diameter at the stream and at least 25 feet long, medium equals greater than 24-inch diameter at the stream and at least 50 feet long, and large equals greater than 36-inch diameter at the stream and at least 50 feet long. Wood configurations were classified as single (one piece that did not touch any others), multiple (two to three pieces of LWD in contact), or jams (more than three pieces of LWD touching each other). 3 7

4 Developing Monitoring Plans Chapter 3 We based habitat measurement protocol on a modified Forest Service Level II stream survey (USDA Forest Service 1996). For consistency with the 1998 stream survey, we used an older version of the Level II protocol. We also consulted a more detailed Forest Service Level III stream survey prior to summer and winter 1998, and after summer and winter 2003 restoration activities from the beginning of the project reach to the beginning of the control reach. The current study classified habitats as pools, riffles, falls, or side channels. Habitats that had laminar flow, with a very low gradient (less than or equal to 0.5 percent), were classified as pools even if they lacked obvious scour or were shallow. To be counted, all units except plunge pools and falls had to be as long as they were wide and channel-spanning to be counted. High-quality pools were greater than 3 feet (USDA Forest Service 1994b) at the deepest spot, while depth was estimated in pools greater than 4-feet deep. We determined total pool and side-channel areas by summing the area (average width x length) of each pool and side channel respectively in the reach. We calculated residual-pool depth by subtracting the pool tail-crest depth from the maximum pool depth. Residual-pool depth is a useful measurement for comparing pool depths between times of different discharge (Lisle 1987). We used pebble-count transects and ocular estimates to quantify the distribution of substrate sizes. During 2003, we measured pebble-count transects and substrate sizes from the bankfull area with a gravelometer to reduce measuring bias. We made pebble counts in the same habitat units in 2003 as in 1998, although the exact 1998 location is unknown. During ocular estimates, we estimated the proportion of each habitat unit that contained silt and sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, or bedrock-sized substrate to the nearest 5 percent. We calculated width-to-depth ratio by dividing bankfull width by average bankfull depth (Rosgen 1996). We took bankfull and flood-prone measurements at each unit in which a piece of LWD was counted in the project reach, and at every 10th riffle in the control reach. We determined bankfull height by using physical indicators such as scour lines or changes in vegetation or substrate size (USDA Forest Service 1994c). Although high flows in winter 2002 removed some bankfull indicators, bankfull width and depth measurements were, on average, consistent and similar to those observed in We calculated reach entrenchment ratios by dividing a unit s flood-prone width by bankfull width and averaging for the entire reach. 3 8

5 Case Study 1 V* method (Hilton and Lisle 1993) for pool fine-sediment monitoring was conducted at 11 pools, mostly located within the project reach, in summers 2000 and 2003, using standard protocol. Forest Service personnel collected macroinvertebrate samples in Beaver Creek from a site located between the project and control reaches in early fall 1996 and in 1998 to Samples came from erosional-, marginal-, and detritus-habitats using standardized collecting protocol (USDA Forest Service 1998b), and Aquatic Biology Associates (Corvallis, Oregon) identified and enumerated them, and then assigned biological indices and diversity scores. Fish-population sampling involved using Forest Service steelhead (summer and winter run) and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and Forest Service coho escapement estimates in the project reach to estimate annual anadromous salmonid spawning success in 2000 to 2003 (ODFW 1999, 2002). Forest Service surveyors also counted coho parr in pools within the project reach in the summers of 2000 to 2003, determining young-of-the-year seeding densities with daytime single-pass snorkeling methods (Thurow 1994). Because coho-spawner counts were often absent from Beaver Creek, coho escapement estimates for the entire Applegate River subbasin (ODFW 2003) were used to calculate coho stock-recruitment curves (e.g., Ricker 1975) for Beaver Creek. We used chi-square tests for homogeneity of populations to compare proportions of natural and artificial wood length in contact with the stream channel, and changes in pool area and substrate size distributions from 1998 to We used students t-tests to compare residual pool depths between years, and used Mann-Whitney U-tests of medians to compare differences in entrenchment ratios that failed to meet assumptions for normality or sample size. For all hypothesis tests, α = We assumed no observer bias in habitat delineation or measurement between 1998 stream surveys performed by contractors and 2003 surveys conducted by Forest Service personnel. Inspection of the data suggests that some biases may have existed in defining pools. Monitoring Results and Interpretation Implementation monitoring Approximately 4,200 cubic feet of countable wood biomass was added to the project reach in The average size of wood placed in the project area in 2002 was 40.9 feet in length (95 percent CI = 2.1 feet) and 18 inches in diameter (95 percent CI = 1 inch) at the end closest to the stream. Natural wood located in the project reach was, on average, 2 inches larger in diameter and 3 feet shorter than 2002 project wood. Almost 90 percent (60) of the wood pieces added in the project reach in 2002 were classified 3 9

6 Developing Monitoring Plans Chapter 3 as small under Pacific Northwest Region (R-6) stream survey guidelines, and none were classified as large. The frequency of medium wood in the project reach increased by 300 percent to 8 per mile from 1998 to Almost 46 percent of the 2002 project wood (22 pieces) was observed in single configurations, while 46 percent (22) was in multiple configurations and 8 percent (4) in jams. On average, 9 percent of 2002 project-wood length (4 feet) was in contact with the wetted channel, 22 percent (9.7 feet) was in contact with the bankfull area, and 26 percent (11 feet) was suspended over the wetted channel. Natural wood pieces had, on average, a greater proportion of their length in contact with or overhanging the wetted and bankfull channels (figure 2). Project wood added in 2002 covered about 30 percent of the wetted width and 50 percent of the stream s bankfull width, while natural wood covered a significantly greater proportion of the wetted width (P < 0.05) (figure 2) Natural Artificial % in contact with wetted channel % in contact with bankfull width % overhanging wetted channel Figure 2. Mean proportions of countable 2002 project (N = 67) and Natural (N = 9) wood length located in the project reach that were in contact with or overhung the bankfull or wetted channels. * = significant difference in proportions (df = 2; x 2 = 7.9; P < 0.05). In 2003 the total number of artificial wood pieces officially counted in the project reach increased 78 percent since 1998 (36 pieces to 64), for a frequency of 71 pieces per mile. In the project reach, the frequency of all LWD in 2003 (80 pieces per mile) was twice the frequency of all LWD counted in Because 48 of the 64 artificial pieces counted in 2003 were installed in 2002, 20 pieces left the project reach or bankfull area between 1998 and We did not include 28 percent of all 2002 project wood installed within the project reach (19 pieces) in official 2003 counts, because pieces were either suspended outside the bankfull area (13), too 3 10

7 Case Study 1 small in diameter (3), or too short in length (3). The change in the total abundance of LWD in the control reach between 1998 (2) and 2003 (3) was neglible. The control reach had 2 LWD pieces in 0.9 miles. Effectiveness Monitoring Physical Parameters Total pool area increased by 26 percent in the project reach and by 10 percent in the control reach between 1998 and 2003 (figure 3), however, reach differences between years were not statistically significant (df = 2; x 2 control = 0.04, x 2 project = 0.15; P > 0.5). Likewise, the number of pools counted increased in both reaches in 2003, although total pool volume stayed nearly constant (figure 4). This difference suggests that although new pools may have been created in both reaches, other previously existing pools filled in with sediment. In support of this theory, we observed that mean residual pool depth was significantly shallower in 2003 in both the control and project reaches (tcontrol = -4.37, tproject = -7.36; P < ). The number of high-quality pools greater than 3-feet deep stayed constant (5) in the project reach and decreased by 50 percent (from 8 to 4) in the control reach. Proportion of pool area Control Reach Project Figure 3. Reach proportion of pools by area surveyed in control and project reaches. No change in mean-entrenchment ratios of either the control or project reach occurred between 1998 and 2003 (figure 5), and both reaches remained highly entrenched. Although differences between years were insignificant (Mann-Whitney U; P > 0.2), bankfull-width-to-averagebankfull-depth ratios increased on average by over 30 percent in both reaches in 2003 (figure 6), thereby corroborating the observation that pools in both reaches have aggraded since The proportion of offchannel habitat in the form of side channels decreased in both reaches in 2003, including a loss of 110 feet in the project reach (figure 7). This side channel had no water in 2003, due to a sediment plug at the inlet, and was therefore not counted as a distinct habitat unit under survey protocol. 3 11

8 Developing Monitoring Plans Chapter 3 Pool Volume ( ft 3 * 1000 ) volume 2003 volume 1998 number 2003 number Number of Pools Control Project 0 Reach Figure 4. Total pool volume (residual pool depth x corrected pool area) expressed in cubic feet and number of pools counted in project and control reaches of Beaver Creek. Entrenchment Ratio Control Project Figure 5. Calculated mean entrenchment ratio from project and control reaches in Beaver Creek. 3 12

9 Case Study 1 Width: depth ratio Control Reach Project Figure 6. Bankfull-width-to-average-bankfull-depth mean ratios from 1998 and 2003 Beaver Creek surveys. (Error bars represent one standard deviation.) Proportion of side channel area Control Reach Project Figure 7. Reach proportion of side channels by area surveyed in control and project reaches. Ocular substrate abundance estimates showed no significant difference (x 2 = 0.1; df = 4; P > 0.75) in substrate size distributions in either the project reach or control reach between 1998 and 2003 surveys (figure 8). Pool sediment surveys (V*) found no meaningful difference between the average pool volume filled by sediment in 2000 (mean = 37 percent, s = 14 percent) and 2003 (mean = 38 percent, s = 19 percent). 3 13

10 Developing Monitoring Plans Chapter 3 Control Reach 35% Percent of total area 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Silt and Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock Percent of total area 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Project Reach Silt and Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock Figure 8. Substrate size distribution of Beaver Creek control and project reaches by proportion of surveyed area Effectiveness Monitoring Biological Three years of macroinvertebrate monitoring conducted before 2002 project implementation found that Beaver Creek had moderate biological integrity indices, with its erosional or riffle habitats producing the lowest scores (ABA 1998, 1999, 2000). Erosional habitats also had a very low richness of intolerant taxa, a low richness of EPT (Ephemeroptera- Plecoptera-Trichoptera) taxa, and a static forecasted trendline predicting no change in the mean value (58.1) of erosional scores unless changes in water quality or habitat quality occurred (Schroeder 2002). Researchers calculated a stock-recruitment curve, using a limited data set of 3 years and found that project structures had no positive effect on coho parr densities relative to spawner escapement, based on the position of 2003 parr densities below the best-fit line (figure 9). However, high 3 14

11 Case Study 1 winter flows in 2002 might have naturally decreased parr densities in 2003, independently of structure effects, by scouring redds. In addition, 2003 parr densities in pools might have decreased because the removal of a diversion dam in fall 2002 increased coho habitat availability and use in Beaver Creek by over 0.3 miles. Beaver Creek parr density ( #/yd 2 ) y = e x 2001 R 2 = ODFW escapement estimate for Applegate River subbasin Figure 9. Spawner-recruitment curve for Beaver Creek coho salmon calculated using ODFW Applegate River sub-basin escapement estimates from spawner surveys and FS parr density estimates in Beaver Creek from snorkel censuses. (The 2003 data point was calculated after the 2002 restoration activities.) In summary, short-term monitoring found that this restoration project has been largely unsuccessful in meeting its goals (table 1). While many of the goals may have been overly optimistic, especially within a short time frame altering the project design may have made achieving other goals possible. For example, few pieces of project wood were classified as medium or large, because the wood was either too short or too small in diameter. Future restoration projects could remedy this problem by modifying goals (i.e., small wood instead of medium or large) or by placing pieces of wood only above a certain size. Future monitoring will determine if longer-term (3-5 years) goals are met, and results should influence future project designs. 3 15

12 Developing Monitoring Plans Chapter 3 Table 1: Summary of short-term restoration goals, monitoring status, and results. Goal Monitoring % Change Goal Complete Observed Attained Increase in M and L wood from 0 to 75 pieces/mile Yes +8 No Increase in pool area by 20% Yes + 26 Yes Increase in entrenchment ratio by 1.0 Yes 0 No Reduction in width-to-depth ratios by 20% Yes + 30 No Change in substrate size from cobble to gravel Yes 0 No Increase in macroinvertebrate metrics by 20% No N/A?? Increase in coho salmon smolt production by 20% No N/A?? Project Monitoring Partnerships and Costs Monitoring partners for this project are Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, which conducts coho spawning surveys in the project reach, and the Applegate River Watershed Council, which conducts water quality (temperature and macroinvertebrate) and fine sediment (V*) monitoring in Beaver Creek. Table 2 shows estimated annual costs of project monitoring. Table 2. Project Monitoring Costs Monitoring component People Days Cost ($) Spawning surveys ,000 Parr density surveys Macroinvertebrate monitoring 1 2 1,000 Temperature monitoring V* surveys Habitat surveys (conducted every 2-3 years) 2 4 1,000 Data analysis and report writing ,600 Total 7,

13 Lessons Learned Case Study 1 For Further Information The lead contact for continued project monitoring is Ian Reid, fisheries biologist, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Ashland and Applegate Ranger Districts, 645 Washington Street, Ashland, OR 97520, (541) , ireid@fs.fed.us 1. One year after the placement of restoration structures a quantitative, critical analysis of aquatic habitats at the reach scale in Beaver Creek found no significant changes in stream geomorphology and the subsequent quality of aquatic habitat. The most substantial changes in geomorphology after high flows in 2002 were a 26-percent increase in pool area in the project reach (compared to a 10-percent increase in the control reach), and a virtually unchanged substrate size distribution in the project reach (compared to a doubling of bedrock from 15 percent to 30 percent in the control reach). While project wood may have helped to prevent further degradation in the project reach, the increase in pool area seems relatively unimportant to coho overwintering. The reason is that the significant decrease in residual pool depth in both reaches suggests that pools are filling with sediment and will not provide substantial high-flow refuge for juvenile coho salmon. Another explanation is that the decrease in residual pool depth was related to surveyors in 2003 defining shallow habitat units with laminar flow as pools that were grouped with riffles in V* data showed that pools contained sediment levels after high flows in 2003 are similar to those levels observed in Possible explanations for the lack of physical effects observed include the following: relatively short time period, movement of wood during high flows out of the active channel related to inadequate project design, dilution of physical differences by inclusion of areas within the project reach that were not enhanced in statistical analyses, and intrinsically low stream potential. However, that the short time period is entirely responsible for the lack of substantial differences in geomorphology and aquatic habitat is unlikely, because of the high flows of December Furthermore, the goals and benchmarks outlined in the restoration proposal were short-term goals to be met within 2-5 years. This presumably accounted for at least one bankfull discharge period, which was attained in December Movement of cabled wood within the project reach may have reduced the efficacy of producing desired changes in habitat parameters. Specifically, it is likely that most of the structures, which were cabled to anchor trees, pivoted on these very trees during high flows, left the wetted and bankfull channels, and were deposited on floodplains or hill slopes above the bankfull channels. Part of the structure placement objective was to reduce the amount of the wood in contact with the wetted channel 3 17

14 Developing Monitoring Plans Chapter 3 (generally less that 33 percent of the wetted width in contact with project wood) because of concerns with downstream private property. The low amount of project wood initially in contact with the stream channel, coupled with its cabling to anchor trees, could have led to the significantly lower proportion of project wood as opposed to natural wood in contact with the wetted channel in That project wood was smaller in diameter than natural wood may have also influenced the movement of project wood out of the wetted channel during high flows. 4. Structures may have changed geomorphology and improved habitat for coho salmon and other aquatic species at the site-scale, and these changes may have been diluted by averaging measurements over the reach scale (0.9 miles). This would result in a type II statistical error, where the null hypothesis (no difference in habitat after structures were placed) should have been but failed to be rejected. Since the goal of the restoration project was to improve habitat over 1.5 miles of stream, changes should be have been detectable and quantifiable at the reach scale. However, the lack of detectable short-term changes in habitat suggests that increasing LWD densities above current restoration levels (~66 per mile) may be appropriate in this system to produce quicker responses. 5. Due to its high sediment budget and degraded, colluvial channel (bound by hill slopes), Beaver Creek may have a low intrinsic potential for producing coho salmon. Few areas exist along the project reach for establishing side channels or other off-channel habitats that coho salmon use for rearing. Unless sediment sources are addressed, true habitat restoration in Beaver Creek will likely be compromised. To date, the biological monitoring showed little positive response from fish populations to restoration projects. Long-term biological monitoring, therefore, is necessary for separating natural, stochastic fluctuations in population size from responses caused by changes in aquatic habitat. Furthermore, coho smolt density may be a better measurement of restoration success than coho parr density, because smolt density estimates overwintering success. 6. Future monitoring plans, contingent upon receiving funding, include an analysis of Wolman pebble count transects conducted in 1998 and 2003 and 2003 temperature data; comparisons of existing 1998 and 2003 Forest Service Level III stream survey data measured by the same contractor (thereby eliminating potential observer bias); springtime snorkel censuses to estimate parr-to-smolt production and overwintering survival; continuing coho and steelhead spawner surveys, summer parr censuses, and summer water temperature monitoring. Collection of macroinvertebrates in 2004 is also proposed for four locations: within the project reach, at the historic reference site upstream of the project reach, and at two other locations within the Beaver Creek watershed. 3 18

15 Case Study 1 References Cited Aquatic Biology Associates Rogue River National Forest benthic macroinvertebrate biomonitoring report. Available from USDA Forest Service, Ashland Ranger District, 645 Washington Street, Ashland, OR Aquatic Biology Associates Rogue River National Forest benthic macroinvertebrate biomonitoring report. Available from USDA Forest Service, Ashland Ranger District, 645 Washington Street, Ashland, OR Aquatic Biology Associates Rogue River National Forest benthic macroinvertebrate biomonitoring report. Available from USDA Forest Service, Ashland Ranger District, 645 Washington Street, Ashland, OR Cederholm, C.J.; Bilby, R.E.; Bisson, P.A.; [and others] Response of juvenile coho salmon and steelhead to placement of large woody debris in a coastal Washington stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17: Hankin, D.G.; Reeves, G.H Estimating total fish abundance and total habitat area in small streams based on visual estimation methods. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 45: Hilton, S.; Lisle, T.E Measuring the fractions of pool volume filled with fine sediment. Research Note. PSW-RN-414. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 11p. Lisle, T.E Using residual depths to monitor pool depths independently of discharge. Research Note. PSE-394. Arcata, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Evaluation of spawning ground surveys for indexing the abundance of adult winter steelhead in Oregon coastal basins. Available from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis Research Lab, Hwy. 34, Corvallis, OR Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal salmon spawning survey procedures manual. Available from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis Research Lab, Hwy. 34, Corvallis, OR Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon plan monitoring report. Available from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis Research Lab, Hwy. 34, Corvallis, OR Ricker, W.E Computation and interpretation of biological statistics for fish populations. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 191:382. Rosgen, D.L Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology: Pagosa Springs, CO. Paginated by chapter. 3 19

16 Developing Monitoring Plans Chapter 3 Scholz, J.G.; Booth, D.B Monitoring urban streams: strategies and protocols for humid-region lowland systems. Available from the Center for Water and Watershed Studies, University of Washington, 21 Winkenwerder Hall, Box , Seattle, WA Schroeder, P.C Benthic invertebrate biomonitoring trend analysis ( ), Oregon, Rogue River National Forest, Siskiyou Zone. Available from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashland Ranger District, 645 Washington Street, Ashland, OR Thurow, R.F Underwater methods for the study of salmonids in the intermountain West. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR INT-GTR-307. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994a. Beaver and Palmer Creeks Watershed Analysis. Available from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashland Ranger District, 645 Washington Street, Ashland, OR U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994b. Section 7 fish habitat monitoring protocol for the upper Columbia basin. Available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Aquatic Ecosystem Monitoring Center, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Utah State University, Logan, UT U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994c. A guide to field identification of bankfull stage in the Western United States. Video. Available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Center, Stream Systems Technology Center, Fort Collins, CO U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region stream inventory handbook Level I and II Version 9.6. Available from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashland Ranger District, 645 Washington Street, Ashland, OR U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998a. Rogue River National Forest stream and riparian flood analysis report, 1997 New Year s Day flood effects. Available from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashland Ranger District, 645 Washington Street, Ashland, OR U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998b. Larval macroinvertebrate collecting protocol. Available from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashland Ranger District, 645 Washington Street, Ashland, OR U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Beaver Creek Level II stream survey. Available from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashland Ranger District, 645 Washington Street, Ashland, OR U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Beaver and Palmer Creeks helicopter wood fish habitat enhancement. Available from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashland Ranger District, 645 Washington Street, Ashland, OR