Juvenile Salmonid Use and Channel Hydraulics in Full-Channel Engineered Log Jam Structures

Jennifer Lee, B.S. Harvey Mudd CollegeKristen Shearer, Wittenberg UniversityJohn Vivio, University of California, San Diego

Advisors: Matt Cox, M.S. Oregon State UniversityDesiree Tullos, Ph.D. Oregon State University

Ecology Informatics Summer Institute 2011

Relating Juvenile Salmonid Use and Channel Hydraulics to Full-Channel Engineered Log Jam StructuresBackgroundSpawning salmonid species in the Northwest use wood in streams for:Obtaining foodCover from predatorsFavorable hydraulic featuresEngineered Log Jams (ELJs) used to supplement natural fish habitat and livelihood in streams, and increase habitat complexity

livelihood -> feeding, spawning, predator avoidanceRelationship between # species and how diverse the environment is

2OverviewHistoryPurpose & ObjectivesQuestionsHypothesesSite DescriptionMaterials & MethodsResults & DiscussionConclusion

HistoryLoggingSince 1800sDecreased quantity of natural wood falling into streamsSplash dams created to transport logged wood to sawmills by raising water levels in streamsWidened channelsScoured away accumulated sediment to expose bedrockEliminated natural log jams to create clear path for logsReduced natural habitatExplain how splash dams worked4

Splash dam at Mill Creek, Oregon, 1905Mill Creek is really close to Fall Creek. 5HistoryRemoval of woody debris for habitat1950s to 60sLarge wood thought to impede fish migration in streamsLater realized to play an important role in fish habitat and livelihoodDevelopment of Engineered Log JamsEndangered Species Act (1973)Replenish lost wood back into streams

Large wood removal: what happened here was that policy makers said that wood that fell into streams during logging was though to impede migration, so remove excess wood. Misinterpreted to mean remove all wood.

Endangered species act: 5 species of salmonids were placed on the endangered species list. Also, may projects included adding wood to streams to comply with EPA requirements. 6PurposeStudy the effect of ELJs on Fish behaviorStream hydraulicsPools and eddiesBathymetry and channel widthProvide information for future plans to install ELJs in streams

7ObjectivesTake velocity measurements of the stream along transectsTake bathymetry data of stream bedsSurvey sites using coordinate measurementsObserve fish placement and behavior during 24-hour snorkel surveysCombine and correlate velocity, bathymetry, and fish placement data

QuestionsHow do streams flow near ELJs?What kind of flow do fish prefer?How do fish use ELJs to their advantage?How do ELJs affect channel morphology in different systems?

system -> set of external variables (temperature, species present, slope, geographical location, etc.)9HypothesesFishPrefer lower flow to expend less energyPrefer covered, deeper channelsUse log jams for shelterStream hydraulicsAdd complexities to flowIncrease mixing of water columnIncrease amount of organic material in the streamChannel MorphologyIncreased bathymetric complexitySmaller particles accumulate near the jams

10Site Description:Quartz Creek

UpstreamDownstream

Quartz Creek site. The red dots are actually the same log, the key piece that spans the width of the stream. This site is on a third-order section of the Quartz Creek, approximately 15km upstream where it joins the McKenzie River. The stream has an average 4% slope and substrate ranged from gravel to boulder. This jam was originally built in 1988, with 20 pieces of wood. Since then, it has accumulated over 300 pieces of woody debris, and changed considerably from the original design due to large flood in the past 2 decades. The pool is 6.7m wide and 11.1m meters long.

(Insert location on state map)11Site Description:Fall Creek

River LeftRiver RightView from upstream of the log jamInclude a map, location in Oregon.

The jam at Fall Creek was built in 2008. The jam is located 17 km upstream of where Fall Creek joins Alsea River, on a third-order section of the stream, or about 4 km upstream of the Oregon Hatchery Research Center. The pool on the River Left side was 25 ft (change to meters) wide and 34 ft long (change to meters). The River Right side was 33 ft wide (change to meters) and about 60 feet long (change to meters).12

River Left from downstream of the log jam River Left from downstream of the log jam on the gravel bar Site Description:Fall CreekInclude a map, location in Oregon.

The jam at Fall Creek was built in 2008. The jam is located 17 km upstream of where Fall Creek joins Alsea River, on a third-order section of the stream, or about 4 km upstream of the Oregon Hatchery Research Center. The pool on the River Left side was 25 ft (change to meters) wide and 34 ft long (change to meters). The River Right side was 33 ft wide (change to meters) and about 60 feet long (change to meters).13

Total Station and prism reflectorAcoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)Materials & Methods:Total Station and ADCPTo set up a grid on which we can place all of our data spatially, we set up stations with a Nikon Total Station surveyor, series 302. The total station works by shooting a laser at a reflector, which the light bounces off of and returns to the lens, allowing us to collect distance, angle, and height measurements, creating coordinates of Northing, Easting, and Elevation. This sets up a grid on which we can place any item measured. The other equipment we used in data collection was the Teledyne Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler, or ADCP. This device, pictured in the right image, collects velocity data at different depths, tracks the bottom, and collects other data including discharge, stream temperature, and orientation. Connected to a Palm Pilot, the ADCP transmits its data via BlueTooth to the WinRiver program StreamPro, which allowed us to turn all these numbers into a understandable visual representation. We collected data with the ADCP by making several passes with it along the transects previously set up for the Total Station, so we can include the data from the ADCP in a spatially represented way. 14

Materials & Methods:24-hour Fish Snorkel SurveysWe observed fish for these qualities: species, size, orientation, nearest rock number, distance from nearest rock, orientation to nearest rock, distance from bottom, and activity. Kristen would make the observations, stick her head out of the water, and call out the information to Jenn or John, who would record it. The activity almost always fell into one of two categories: feeding or resting. Here is a brief video of fish displaying their feeding behavior. Fish surveys lasted for 24 hours, occurring once every four hours. The snorkeler was in the water for an average of an hour each time. In the image here you can see the orange rocks that we painted and numbered, setting up a grid sort of system by with to be able to place the fish. These fish orientation data were then converted to coordinates on our Total Station survey, and were plotted over other visualization to make conclusions, which we will discuss later. 15

This short clip shows a trout feeding. Note the orange marker rock behind the fish.16

Root WadLogsResults:Bathymetry of Quartz CreekHere is an image of the pool we surveyed at the Quartz Creek Site. Water flows in from the upper right-hand corner and moves downstream to the lower left. As you can see, the deepest area is where the water first enters the pool. This is formed by water plunging through and under the jam structure, carving into the streambed. The water flows around the bend, and shallows out at the lower end of the pool. 17

Gravel BarRiver RightRiver Left

Quartz CreekResults:Bathymetry of Fall CreekLog JamThese images show fall creek bathymetry. Note that the colors represent scale and that the same color does not represent the same depth on both halves. The image on the left represents River Right. This side had an average depth of .42m and a maximum depth of .98m and also had areas (such as the lower segment) that were made up of relatively flat bedrock with little elevation change. The right image, showing the River Left side, is composed primarily of cobble and gravel, and is much shallower than the other side with an average depth of 0.33m and a maximum depth of 0.60m.

Compared to the Quartz Creek site (difficult to do side-by-side with 3 images), there is more complexity displayed here. The Fall Creek site has a wider range of substrates and depths, and the deepest part of the stream is not immediately below the structure, but rather midway down the pool. On the left image, this is caused not by water moving the streambed, but by all the gravel being removed and whats left is the original bedrock, that does not quickly respond to erosion. 18

AveragedBottomResults:Velocity Magnitudes of Quartz CreekNow, lets look at those images together, to see what we conclusions we can draw from them. Circled here are depths: lower-left is a shallow area, the middle oval covers a medium-depth ground, and the right oval covers the deepest area. Looking at the shallow area, we can see that the average velocities are more variable than the bottom. Maybe we can make recommendations saying that in streams less than 1m deep, average velocity is similar to, although more complex than, velocity at the bottom of the stream?Shallow area: bottom does reflect averaged, highest velocity mags, speeds up with decreasing depthMiddle area: lowest velocity mags for both avg and bottom, slows down from turbid water as its turning around the bendDeep area: variable avg velocities, slightly higher bottom velocities, turbid water

19

Root WadLogsResults:Bathymetry and Fish of Quartz CreekHere is an image of bathymetry overlain with fish (red arrows represent fish and their orientation). We can clearly see that there are few fish in the shallow and deep areas. They instead seem to prefer the medium-depth areas. So, now lets look at velocity magnitudes to see if there is anything to be drawn from that (next slide)20

Results:Velocity Magnitudes and Fish of Quartz CreekOn the left side is depth averaged velocity magnitudes overlain with fish and their orientation. The right image shows the variable-depth bottom velocity magnitudes overlain with fish. The circled areas represent the different depths, shallow, medium, and deep. The cutthroat at this site stayed close to the bottom, so the image to look more closely at is the blue one.-Fish rarely found in shallow, fast-flowing areas, nor the deepest, moderately fast-flowing areas-Fish dominate the medium depth, slower areas-Fish avoid turbid areas, since they feed by sight-Fish avoid shallow areas because there wasnt much cover (very open), and would have to spend lots of energy to stay in high-flow areas21

River RightRiver LeftGravel BarResults: Bathymetry and Fish of Fall CreekLog JamGive some fish numbers first (total per side, average depth from bottom by species, size distribution, etc.). Looking at the bathymetry overlain with fish, it is difficult to make conclusions about fish preference for depth. Maybe try to make a visualization that separates fish by size? Could be useful here because of all the smolt help?The (smolt) were typically present in the shallower areas, while the small and medium coho congregated in the deeper regions. Very few smolt in the deeper areas.Also, heres a Coho. 22

River RightRiver LeftGravel BarResults: Bottom Velocity Magnitudes and Fish of Fall CreekLog JamHere we show Fall Creek bottom velocity magnitudes with fish. The area with a white circle over it is all interpolated. Unfortunately, the area on the right has few fish outside of heavily interpolated areas or that we were unable to take any measurements. Of the fish on this side that we can use, they seem to be mostly present in areas of higher velocity. Along the edges, velocity must be slower, so they seem to be there too, although when snorkeling it was quite apparent that the very small (smolt) fish were much more common along the edges of the stream than standard small coho. These small coho were pretty much only in the deeper areas. On the river right side, theres not much to conclude. Also, coho werent quite as close to the bottom as cutthroat at the last site were, so this bottom velocity probably doesnt matter as much. 23

River RightRiver LeftGravel Bar

Quartz CreekLog JamResults: Velocity Magnitudes and Fish of Fall CreekRR: Small and medium fish (coho) hanging out in slower areas, right next to the fast areas. Fish also hanging out in the deeper, slower areas towards the center line. Small ones hang out near the shallower edges. Exposed bedrock, flatter areas in the lower half of RR.RL: Larger fish lingered in the deeper, slower areas. Fish generally avoided fast areas. More bedrock, less flat that RR.Comparison: Quartz has more variable flow in general. Fewer fish at quartz. Fall Creek: RR max velocity = 1.42; RR avg velocity = 0.24m/s; RL max velocity = 2.96 m/s; RL avg velocity = 0.26m/s Accounted for my magnitude in the z direction?Quartz Creek: max velocity = ?

24ConclusionsHow do streams flow near ELJs?Turbidity of waterWhat kind of flow do fish prefer?Slower flow adjacent to fast flowHow do fish use ELJs to their advantage?Increased flow complexityChannel complexityCoverSpawning

1. Turbidity of water, short stretch of stream -> Since fish feed by sight, more turbid water means fish feed more downstream of jam. Fish cannot use cover of jam. Main channel receives more sediment and more food.2. Fish like to dart from slow flow into fast flow to feed, and then dart right back to slow flow to conserve energy. Also, larger fish occupy different positions than smaller fish.3. Increased flow complexity-> increased water column mixing -> food that would normally be stuck or stationary in water is mixed in to higher flowChannel complexity -> fish dont have to compete as much to feed from good positions25ConclusionHow do ELJs compare and contrast in different systems?QuartzKey piece logFlow goes through or under jamCutthroat was dominantFallSmaller pieces of woodFlow splits to go either through and under or around jamCoho was dominant4. Both full channel jams.Quartz had a key piece that spanned entire width of stream, causing accumulation of wood upstream. All flow had to go through or under the accumulation. Gravel bar behind jam was relatively level and wide. Sharper elevation change from upstream to downstream.Fall had smaller pieces of wood, and no key piece. Jam concentrated at River Right. Flow was under the jam for RR. Flow was around the jam for RL. Sharper elevation change in RR, but smoother in RL. Gravel bar upstream was narrower and higher. In fall low flow, the jam interferes with only the RR side, but in winter flows the jam may actually block more of the stream. Geology: Quartz in older rock, more easily broken and eroded into sediments.Fall Creek is a relatively new jam, Quartz has been there for decades and has accumulated wood naturally. Its in a higher energy system (in mountains).Fall Creek temperature is different on either side, left is cooler (we saw more cutthroat on this side) it was shaded and deeperDesign considerations: species present, energy of system. In quartz-type, bottom flows are more important, but in coastal systems, mixing of the water column may be a larger consideration.26Thank you toDesiree TullosMatt CoxChris GabrielliCara WalterDavid HillRoy RiveraKate Meyer

Jorge RamirezDavid Noakes Ryan Couture Joseph ONeil National Science FoundationOregon State UniversityUS Department of Agriculture and Forestry

27

Questions?