Ecological Condition of Streams in the Coast Range Ecoregion

of Oregon and Washington

**Lillian G. Herger and Gretchen Hayslip**

**2000**

**U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10**

**Office of Environmental Assessment**

**1200 Sixth Avenue**

**Seattle, Washington 98101**

Publication Number: EPA 910-R-00-002

*Suggested Citation:*

Herger, L.G. and G. Hayslip. 2000. Ecological condition of streams in
the Coast Range ecoregion of Oregon and Washington. EPA-910-R-00-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington.

###### Table of Contents

List of Tables [ii](#list-of-tables)

List of Figures [iii](#__RefHeading___Toc476127628)

List of Appendices [iv](#list-of-appendices)

Executive Summary [v](#executive-summary)

Acronyms and Abbreviations [ix](#acronyms-and-abbreviations)

I. Introduction [1](#i.-introduction)

I. A. Conceptual Framework [1](#i.-a.-conceptual-framework)

I.B. Regional EMAP (R-EMAP) Purpose
[2](#i.b.-regional-emap-r-emap-purpose)

II\. Coast Range R-EMAP Project \--Overview
[3](#ii.-coast-range-r-emap-project----overview)

III\. Ecoregion Description [3](#iii.-ecoregion-description)

IV\. Study Design and Methods [5](#iv.-study-design-and-methods)

IV\. A. Site selection/sampling [5](#iv.-a.-site-selectionsampling)

IV\. B. Field and Lab Methods [6](#iv.-b.-field-and-lab-methods)

V. Data Analysis and Interpretative Methods
[7](#v.-data-analysis-and-interpretative-methods)

VI\. Description of Indicators [9](#vi.-description-of-indicators)

VI\. A. General Stream Resources [9](#vi.-a.-general-stream-resources)

VI\. B. Chemical Characteristics [9](#vi.-b.-chemical-characteristics)

VI\. C. Physical Habitat Description
[13](#vi.-c.-physical-habitat-description)

VI\. D. Fish and Amphibian Resources
[29](#vi.-d.-fish-and-amphibian-resources)

VI\. E. Benthic invertebrates [35](#vi.-e.-benthic-invertebrates)

VII\. Relations Between Indicators and Stressors
[38](#vii.-relations-between-indicators-and-stressors)

VIII\. Conclusions [40](#viii.-concluding-statement)

IX\. References [41](#ix.-references)

X. Glossary [47](#x.-glossary)

XI\. Appendices [51](#xi.-appendices)

#   {#section .unnumbered}

# 

# List of Tables

Table 1. Extent of sampling by stream order.
[9](#__RefHeading___Toc474829189)

Table 2. Summary of chemical indicators.
[10](#__RefHeading___Toc474829190)

Table 3. Table of standards for freshwater (Washington State 1992, ODEQ
1998). [11](#__RefHeading___Toc474829191)

Table 4. Percent of streams dominated by 4 major substrate sizes
[16](#__RefHeading___Toc474829192)

Table 5. Mean disturbance index value for all, 1^st^, 2^nd^ and 3rd
order streams for five

disturbance categories. [24](#__RefHeading___Toc474829193)

Table 6. Definition of the five LWD size classes based on piece length
and diameter. [24](#__RefHeading___Toc474829194)

Table 7. Mean LWD quantity (pieces per 100m) by size class in all,
1^st^, 2^nd^ and 3rd

order streams. [26](#__RefHeading___Toc474829195)

Table 8. Frequency of occurrence of vertebrates. [30](#_Ref476709159)

Table 9. Description of benthic macroinvertebrate indicator
[36](#__RefHeading___Toc474829197)

Table 10. Summary statistics for seven macroinvertebrate metrics, Coast
Range

ecoregion, 1994-1995 [37](#__RefHeading___Toc474829198)

Table 11. Examples of expected functional feeding-group ratios for
scrapers and shredders [37](#__RefHeading___Toc474829199)

Table 12. Possible combinations of stressor and indicator relationships.
[39](#__RefHeading___Toc474829200)

# 

# List of Figures

Figure 1. Percent of the total stream km within each of six stream
resource categories. [5](#_Ref474832981)

Figure 2. Sample cumulative distribution function with 90^th^ percentile
confidence intervals. [8](#_Ref474833365)

Figure 3. Relation of percent slope to basin area and stream order.
[14](#__RefHeading___Toc477167076)

Figure 4. Relation of mean thalweg depth to mean wetted width by stream
order. [15](#__RefHeading___Toc477167077)

Figure 5. Percent of stream km within each geomorphic channel type.
[15](#_Ref474834319)

Figure 6. Percent of streams within each stream order category dominated
by three substrate classes [17](#_Ref474834838)

Figure 7. Summary of substrate size by stream order expressed as
geometric mean (log10). [17](#_Ref474834900)

Figure 8. Cumulative distribution function of overall riparian coverage.
[18](#__RefHeading___Toc477167081)

Figure 9. Cumulative distribution function of coniferous riparian canopy
presence. [19](#__RefHeading___Toc477167082)

Figure 10. Cumulative distribution function of deciduous riparain canopy
presence. [19](#__RefHeading___Toc477167083)

Figure 11. Cumulative distribution function of mixed tree canopy
presence. [20](#__RefHeading___Toc477167084)

Figure 12. Cumulative distribution function of bank shade.
[20](#_Ref474835752)

Figure 13. Cumulative distribution function of mid-channel canopy shade.
[21](#__RefHeading___Toc477167086)

Figure 14. Relation of mid-channel shade to stream width.
[21](#__RefHeading___Toc477167087)

Figure 15. Histogram of mean bank and mid-channel riparian shade by
stream order. [22](#__RefHeading___Toc477167088)

Figure 16. Cumulative distribution function of riparian disturbance (all
types). [23](#__RefHeading___Toc477167089)

Figure 17. Percent of overall riparian disturbance attributed to each of
the major disturbance categories.. [23](#_Ref474836732)

Figure 18. Cumulative distribution function of LWD pieces (diameter ≥
10cm). [25](#_Ref474836935)

Figure 19. Cumulative distribution function of medium to very large
sized LWD. [26](#__RefHeading___Toc477167093)

Figure 20. Percent of stream length within each of the four habitat
types. [27](#__RefHeading___Toc477167094)

Figure 21. Comparison of mean percent of stream length within each of
three water type categories by stream order.
[27](#__RefHeading___Toc477167095)

Figure 22. Box plot of percent pool by stream order.
[28](#__RefHeading___Toc477167096)

Figure 23. Box plot of maximum pool depth by stream order.
[28](#__RefHeading___Toc477167097)

Figure 24. Box plot of natural fish cover by stream order.
[29](#__RefHeading___Toc477167098)

Figure 25. Histogram of vertebrate family occurrence.
[31](#__RefHeading___Toc477167099)

Figure 26. Histogram of fish species occurrence.
[31](#__RefHeading___Toc477167100)

Figure 27. Histogram of amphibian species occurrence.
[32](#__RefHeading___Toc477167101)

Figure 28. Percent of vertebrate species within each temperature guild..
[33](#__RefHeading___Toc477167102)

Figure 29. Percent of vertebrate species within each sensitivity guild.
[34](#__RefHeading___Toc477167103)

Figure 30. Percent of vertebrate species within each habitat guild.
[34](#__RefHeading___Toc477167104)

Figure 31. Percent of vertebrate species within each trophic guild.
[35](#__RefHeading___Toc477167105)

Figure 32. Cumulative distribution function of total invertebrate taxa
richness. [37](#__RefHeading___Toc477167106)

Figure 33. Cumulative distribution function of EPT taxa richness.
[38](#_Ref474896286)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc476127628 .anchor}

# List of Appendices

Appendix 1. List of map sites with associated stream identification
number. [52](#__RefHeading___Toc474827170)

Appendix 2. Summary statistics for 11 water chemistry indicators
collected from Coast Range ecoregion REMAP sites.
[53](#__RefHeading___Toc474827171)

Appendix 3. Summary statistics for physical habitat metrics based on
samples collected from Coast Range ecoregion REMAP sites.
[54](#__RefHeading___Toc474827172)

Appendix 4. List of fish and amphibian species identified during
1994-1995 field sampling of Coast Range ecoregion REMAP sites.
[56](#__RefHeading___Toc474827173)

Appendix 5. Species characteristics classification for freshwater fish
species identified at Coast Range ecoregion REMAP sites..
[57](#__RefHeading___Toc474827174)

Appendix 6. Species characteristics classification for amphibian species
identified during 1994-1995 field sampling of Coast Range ecoregion
REMAP sites. [59](#__RefHeading___Toc474827175)

Appendix 7. Summary statistics for vertebrate metrics based on samples
collected from coastal ecoregion sites
[60](#__RefHeading___Toc474827176)

Appendix 8. Summary statistics for seven macroinvertebrate indicators
based on samples collected from riffles of Coast Range ecoregion REMAP
sites.. [62](#__RefHeading___Toc474827177)

Appendix 9. R values of significant correlations (P\<0.05) between
ecological indicators and stressor indicators of Coast Range ecoregion
REMAP sites.. [63](#__RefHeading___Toc474827178)

# 

# 

# Executive Summary

The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) was initiated
by EPA to estimate the current status and trends of the nation\'s
ecological resources and to examine associations between ecological
condition and natural and anthropogenic influences. The long-term goal
of EMAP is to develop methods and procedures for measuring environmental
resources with the purpose of determining condition relative to a set of
environmental or ecological values. Two major features of EMAP are the
use of probability-based sample site selection and the use of ecological
indicators.

The EMAP surveys locate sample reaches with a randomized, systematic
design (Stevens and Olsen 1999) that yields a regional representative
set of sample sites. This design allows one to make statistically valid
interpolations from the sample data to the entire length of stream in a
study area. Within each randomly selected sample site, field data are
collected from a stream reach, 40 wetted channel widths long (minimum
length of 150m). Ecological indicators are objective, well-defined, and
quantifiable surrogates for environmental values. These indicators are
of four main types: water chemistry, physical habitat, vertebrates (fish
and amphibians) community, and macroinvertebrate community data.

The EMAP approach is applicable to projects of smaller geographic scale
and time frames. These regional EMAP (R-EMAP) projects are conducted
through partnerships between EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD), EPA regions, states, and tribes. Co-operators on the Coast Range
Ecoregion REMAP project were Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) and Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). These agencies
conducted the field sampling for the project and have generated reports
on specific sets of indicators for their respective states.

The Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP project focuses on wadeable (1st through
3rd order) streams in the Coast Range ecoregion within EPA Region 10
(Oregon and Washington). The Coast Range ecoregion includes the Pacific
coast mountain range and coastal valleys and terraces. The combination
of maritime weather system and high local topographic relief results in
large differences in local precipitation, which ranges from 55‑125
inches average annual rainfall. The Coast Range ecoregion was once
densely forested, but timber harvest has occurred extensively throughout
the coastal mountains and is an ongoing industry in the ecoregion. Dairy
cattle operations, including forage/grain cultivation and feedlots, are
concentrated in larger valleys and along the coast. Human development is
concentrated on land bordering water, particularly ocean bays.

EPA Region 10 analyzed data collected from 104 sample sites within the
Coast Range ecoregion of Washington and Oregon. The purposes of this
report are: 1) describe the ecological condition of wadeable, 1^st^
through 3^rd^ order streams of the Coast Range Ecoregion, 2) examine the
relationship between the indicators of ecological condition of these
streams and indicators of ecological stressors, and 3) provide the
states of Washington and Oregon with information that can assist in the
development of biological criteria using fish, amphibian, and
macroinvertebrate assemblage information.

The fish and aquatic vertebrate assemblage present in a given reach can
provide an indication of the stream and riparian quality. Extensive life
history information is available for many species, and because many of
these species are high order consumers, they often reflect the responses
of the entire trophic structure to environmental stress. Also, fish
provide a more publicly understandable indicator of environmental
degradation. Fish generally have long life histories and integrate
pollution effects over longer time periods and large spatial scales. In
the Coast Range ecoregion, 95% of the 1^st^ - 3^rd^ order streams,
representing an estimated 23,020 km of streams, held vertebrates (fish
and/or amphibians) and 78% held fish. Streams without fish were mostly
1^st^ order streams (only 1.2% of this length is 2^nd^ order). This is
an expected result as these smaller, and often steeper, streams are the
upward limit of fish distribution. A total of 36 different species were
sampled, representing 10 fish families (24 species) and eight amphibian
families (12 species).

Salmonids were the most broadly distributed vertebrate family in the
region, followed by sculpins. Dicamptodontids (Cope's and Pacific giant
salamanders) were the most common amphibian family. Coastal cutthroat
trout were the most broadly distributed vertebrate species. Although
cutthroat trout inhabit the greatest stream length, the abundance of
other salmonids was higher where they co-occurred with cutthroat trout.
Both coho salmon and steelhead had significantly higher abundance
compared to cutthroat trout in streams where cutthroat trout were
sympatric.

Aquatic macroinvertebrates play important functional roles in lotic
ecosystems and are good indicators of stream quality. They represent a
fundamental link in the food web between organic matter resources (e.g.,
leaf litter, periphyton, detritus) and fishes. Within biogeographical
regions, aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages respond in predictable
ways to changes in stream environmental indicators. The number of
macroinvertebrate taxa present in the Coast Range indicates the overall
condition of streams. The total number of taxa ranges from 5 to 60
species in the Coast Range ecoregion. In an assessment of Oregon Coast
Range streams, Canale (1999) found that streams with less than 30 taxa
were indicative of impaired stream conditions based on analyses
developed from Oregon reference sites. In this study, we found
approximately 30% of stream km had less than 30 taxa.

Stream physical habitat structure includes all those structural
attributes that influence or sustain organisms within the stream.
Habitat assessments generally provide a critical understanding of the
stream's ecological function. Some common physical habitat attributes
are stream size, channel gradient, channel substrate, habitat
complexity, and riparian vegetation. Of the physical habitat indicators
analyzed, the percent sand and fine sediment was most often correlated
to biotic indicators, with an inverse relation to benthic invertebrate
species and sensitive and coldwater vertebrate species. Sand and fine
sediment was the common substrate size (40% of stream km had sand/fine
as the dominant substrate size fraction) in the ecoregion. Although fine
sized sediment occurs naturally in the Coast Range due to the geology,
human disturbance can still influence its quantity. The correlation of
agriculture and road type disturbance to the percent of fine sediment
suggests these riparian indicators may be sensitive to detecting human
disturbance beyond background (natural occurrence).

Physiochemical water quality characteristics affect the ability of
species to persist in a given lotic habitat. Water quality data are
collected to determine the acid‑base status, trophic condition (nutrient
enrichment), and the presence of chemical stressors. Physical data
collected included light penetration (e.g., turbidity, suspended
solids), temperature and ionic strength (e.g., conductivity). Chemical
data collected included concentrations of dissolved gases, major
cations, anions, and nutrients. Temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO)
were frequently correlated with physical and biotic indicators. Stream
temperature was generally inversely correlated with biotic indicators,
however the streams were generally cold. For vertebrates, the direction
of the correlation for DO was typically opposite that of temperature.

The Coast Range R-EMAP project was the first in a series of partnerships
between EPA Region 10, EPA ORD, Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality, and Washington Department of Ecology. Other projects include
assessments of the upper Deschutes and upper Chehalis basins and the
Western Cascades ecoregion. Also, this project laid the foundation for
upcoming Western EMAP project that will begin in 2000 and cover the
entire western United States.

**[Acknowledgments]{.underline}**

This study would not be possible without the field efforts of Oregon
Department of Environment Quality and Washington Department of Ecology.
We especially thank Rick Hafele and Mike Mulvey (ODEQ) and Glenn Merritt
(Ecology). EPA's Office of Research and Development in Corvallis,
Oregon, provided a great deal of support in the preparation of this
report. We thank Alan Herlihy, Bob Hughes (Dynamac), Phil Kaufmann, for
sharing their ideas and for critiquing our approach. Marlys Cappaert
(Dynamac) helped us with database management. Finally, we thank EPA
Region 10 personnel Pat Cirone, Lorraine Edmond, Geoff Poole, and
Kristen Ryding for their suggestions and critical reviews.

## 

# Acronyms and Abbreviations

**CDF** cumulative distribution function

**DLG** digital line graphs

**RF3** River File, Version 3

**Ecology** Washington Department of Ecology

**DO** Dissolved oxygen

**DOC** Dissolved organic carbon

**EPA** Environmental Protection Agency

**EMAP** Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program

**HUC** Hydrologic Unit Code

**LWD** Large woody debris

**NADP** National Atmospheric Deposition Program

**ODEQ** Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

**ORD** EPA's Office of Research and Development

**TP** Total phosphorus

**QA/QC** Quality assurance and quality control

**R-EMAP** Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program

Ecological Condition of Streams in the Coast Range Ecoregion

of Oregon and Washington

###### 

# I. Introduction

**This document will summarize data collected in the Coast Range
ecoregion of Oregon and Washington. The project has been a cooperative
effort between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of
Research and Development (ORD), EPA Region 10, Washington Department of
Ecology, and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.**

## I. A. Conceptual Framework

EMAP (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program) was initiated by
EPA to estimate the current status and trends of the nation\'s
ecological resources and examine associations between ecological
condition and natural and anthropogenic influences. The surface water
component of EMAP is based on the premise that the condition of stream
biota can be addressed by examining biological and ecological indicators
of stress. The long-term goal of EMAP is to develop ecological methods
and procedures that permit the measurement of environmental resources to
determine if they are in an acceptable or unacceptable condition
relative to a set of environmental or ecological values. Two major
features of EMAP are the use of ecological indicators and
probability-based selection of sample sites.

### I. A.1. Overview of EMAP Indicators

The following is a partial list of the indicators used in EMAP to detect
stress in stream ecosystems.

  ------------------- ------------------------------------------------------
  **Indicator**       **Rationale**

  Water chemistry     Water chemistry affects stream biota. Numeric
                      standards are available from which to evaluate some
                      water quality parameters.

  Watershed condition Disturbances related to land use affect stream biota
                      and water quality. These indicators function at the
                      watershed scale.

  Instream physical   Instream and riparian alterations affect stream biota
  habitat and         and water quality. Physical habitat in streams
  riparian condition  includes all those physical attributes that influence
                      organisms within the stream.

  Benthic             Benthic assemblages reflect overall biological
  macroinvertebrate   integrity of the stream and monitoring these
  assemblage          assemblages is useful in assessing the current status
                      of the water body as well as long-term changes
                      (Plafkin et al. 1989). Because benthic assemblages
                      respond to an array of stressors in different ways, it
                      is often possible to determine the type of stress that
                      has affected a assemblage (Klemm et al. 1990).

  Vertebrate          Vertebrates are a meaningful indicator of ecological
  assemblages         integrity, especially to the public. Fish and
                      amphibians occupy the upper levels of the aquatic food
                      web and are both directly and indirectly affected by
                      chemical and physical changes in their environment.
                      Water quality and habitat conditions that negatively
                      affect lower levels of the food web will affect the
                      abundance, species composition, and condition of a
                      given vertebrat assemblage (Karr et al. 1986).
  ------------------- ------------------------------------------------------

### I. A. 2. Overview of EMAP Sample Design

Monitoring, assessments, and control efforts are typically based on
subjectively selected localized stream reaches. Peterson et al. (1998;
1999) compared subjectively selected localized lake data with
probability-based sample selection and showed the results for the same
area to be substantially different. The primary reason for these
differences was lack of regional sample representativeness of
subjectively selected sites. Stream studies have been plagued by the
same problem. A more objective approach is needed to assess stream
quality on a regional scale.

EMAP uses a statistical sampling design that views streams as a
continuous resource. This allows for answering questions in terms of
length of the stream resource in various conditions (Herlihy et al., In
Press) and avoids problems related to using discrete (i.e. site
specific) stream data. Sample sites are randomly selected from a
systematic grid based on 1:100,000 scale landscape maps overlaid (USGS'
digital line graphs) with hydrography (EPA's 'river file 3' data). The
EMAP systematic grid provides uniform spatial coverage, making it
possible to select stream sample locations in proportion to their
occurrence (Overton et al. 1990). This design allows one to make
statistically valid interpolations from the sample data to the entire
length of stream in a study area. Stream order, ecoregion, or other
abiotic factors may be used to classified sample selection in order to
tailor the sample population to the landscape of question.

### I. A. 3. EMAP Objectives 

EMAP has three primary objectives (Thornton et al. 1994):

1\. Estimate the current status, trends and changes in selected
indicators of the condition of the ecological resources with known
confidence.

2\. Estimate the geographical coverage and extent of the nation's
ecological resources with known confidence.

3\. Seek associations among indicators of ecological resource condition
and natural and anthropogenic indicators of stress.

## I.B. Regional EMAP (R-EMAP) Purpose

Using EMAP\'s indicator concepts and statistical design, Regional EMAP
(R-EMAP) applies the EMAP approach to projects of smaller geographic
scale and time frames. R-EMAP is conducted through partnerships between
ORD, EPA Regions, States, tribes and others. The objectives of R-EMAP
are to:

1.  Evaluate and improve EMAP concepts for state and local use.

2.  Assess the applicability of EMAP indicators at differing spatial
    scales.

3\. Demonstrate the utility of EMAP for resolving issues of importance
to EPA Regions and to States.

# II. Coast Range R-EMAP Project \-- Overview

The Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP project focuses on wadeable (1st through
3rd order) streams in the Coast Range Ecoregion within EPA Region 10.
Co-operators on this project were Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ) and Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). These
agencies conducted the field sampling for the project and have generated
reports on specific sets of indicators for their respective States.
Within the framework of EMAP and R-EMAP this project focuses on
synthesizing the data from both states with the following three
objectives:

**1. Describe the ecological condition of wadeable, 1^st^ through 3^rd^
order streams of the Coast Range Ecoregion.**

**2. Examine the relationship between the indicators of ecological
condition of these streams and indicators of ecological stress.**

This document presents the results from the Coast Range Ecoregion R-EMAP
project. It will describe the range in condition of each of the
physical, chemical and biological indicators measured. The relationship
between indicators and stressors will be examined with emphasis on the
relation of human-caused riparian disturbance to indicators.

# III. Ecoregion Description

The Coast Range ecoregion includes the Pacific coast mountain range and
coastal valleys and terraces (**Map 1**)(Omernik 1987). Local relief is
between 1,500 and 2,000 feet, with mountains generally below 4,000 feet.
The combination of maritime weather system and high local topographic
relief results in large differences in local precipitation, which ranges
from 55‑125 inches average annual rainfall. The Coast Range ecoregion
was once densely forested, but timber harvest has occurred extensively
throughout the coastal mountains and is an ongoing industry in the
ecoregion. Dairy cattle operations, including forage/grain cultivation
and feedlots, are concentrated in larger valleys and along the coast.
Human development is concentrated on land bordering water, particularly
ocean bays.

The Coast Range Ecoregion contains many unique terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems ranging from nearly pristine to areas with extensive timber
harvest, agriculture, or urbanization. In the north, the Coast Range
Ecoregion encompasses the lower elevation portions of the Olympic
National Park. This area includes over 60 miles of undeveloped Pacific
coast, (the largest section of wilderness coast in the lower 48 states)
and the largest remaining old growth and temperate rain forests in the
Pacific Northwest. The middle portion of the ecoregion includes areas
with large dairy operations (Tillamook Bay) and coastal tourism
development (northern Oregon coast). The southern extent of the
ecoregion includes the dune areas of the southern Oregon coast (which is
a diverse landscape of unique native plants species, wetlands and
old-growth Sitka spruce forests) as well as large wilderness areas.

![](media/image1.png){width="6.497916666666667in"
height="9.291666666666666in"}

Assessments by state agencies have established that inability of some
rivers and streams in the ecoregion to support beneficial uses results
from altered sediment and flow regimes, degraded physical habitat and
elevated temperature, fecal coliform, and nutrient levels (Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality 1990; Washington Department of
Ecology 1990). Types of land management that affect beneficial uses are
livestock grazing, agriculture, forestry and urbanization.

# IV. Study Design and Methods

## IV. A. Site selection/sampling

Study sites were selected from a sample population of all mapped
(1:100,000 scale) 1st through 3rd order streams in the Coast Range
ecoregion, using EMAP‑Surface Water protocols (Herlihy et. al., In
Press). Stream order was used to define the initial sample population
because it was a convenient and fairly reliable method for insuring that
only wadeable streams would be included. A systematic random sample of
this population allowed for an unbiased estimate of condition in the
population. As 1^st^ order streams were the vast majority of the stream
lengths and a sufficient sample size of higher order (2^nd^ and 3^rd^
order) streams was needed, a variable selection probability was used
that gave a higher probability of selection to higher stream orders. The
end result was an equal sample size for the three stream orders. This
variable selection probability by stream orders is accounted for when
making the regional estimates by using site weighting factors. Each site
was assigned a weight based on the occurrence of its type in the stream
database. First order streams had a larger weighting factor than 2^nd^
or 3^rd^ order streams. Therefore, there was not a one to one relation
of sample sites to the stream miles each site represents.

Of the total sites selected, 30% were deleted from the actual sampling
site population based on reconnaissance findings. Reasons for deletion
were: inaccessibility, denial of access, no channel present,
non-wadeable, or dry channel (Figure 1). A total of 104 sites were
sampled at least once within the ecoregion, 47 in Washington and 57 in
Oregon. The elevation of sampled sites ranged from 5m to 670m. Several
sites occurred outside of the current ecoregion boundary because the
sites were selected in 1994 from the Coast Range ecoregion area defined
in Omernik 1987. Since that time, ecoregion boundaries were refined. The
current Coast Range ecoregion boundary and sample site locations are
shown on Map 1 and site codes are in Appendix 1.

![](media/image2.wmf)

> []{#_Ref474832981 .anchor}

**Figure 1.** Percent of the total stream km within each of six stream
resource categories.

ODEQ and Ecology collected data during summer/fall 1994 and 1995. Within
each sample segment, field measurements were made on the randomly
selected stream reach, 40 wetted channel widths long (minimum length of
150m). Water chemistry, physical habitat, vertebrates (fish and
amphibians), and macroinvertebrate data were collected at each site. The
sampling season was from July to October of each year, corresponding
with the low flow period. A minimum of 10% of the sites was re-sampled
annually, to evaluate index period variability.

## IV. B. Field and Lab Methods

All data were collected with Hayslip et al. 1994 field methods which are
modified from Klem and Lazorchak (1994) (Updated version of these
methods are available in Lazorchak et al. 1998). Refer to this document
for methods as only minimal explanation is provided here. There were
minor differences in the types of data collected between the two states.
Only those data common to both states and collected in the same way are
included in this report. Landscape data common to both states were not
available.

### IV.B. 1.Water chemistry

Oregon DEQ and Washington Ecology used comparable sampling/analysis
protocols and QA/QC procedures for this project. Following methods in
Hayslip et al. (1994), data for 11 water quality parameters were
collected at all sites. Measurements of temperature, pH, and
conductivity, were collected in situ. Water samples were analyzed for
total alkalinity, chloride, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), ammonium,
nitrate, total phosphorous (TP), and sulfate. Dissolved oxygen (DO) was
measured with a meter in Washington and with Winkler titration in
Oregon.

### IV.B. 2.Physical Habitat 

Physical habitat data were collected with a slightly modified version of
the procedures described by Kaufmann and Robison (1998) for the U.S.
EPA's EMAP surveys. The physical habitat metrics used are described in
Kaufmann et al. (1999). The following three types of habitat variables
were measured or estimated:

*continuous parameters*: Thalweg profile (a longitudinal survey of
depth), and presence/absence of fine sediments were collected at either
100 or 150 equally spaced points along the stream reach. A subjective
determination of the geomorphic channel type (e.g. riffle, glide, pool)
was made at each point. Crews also tallied large woody debris along the
reach.

*transect parameters:* Measures/observations of channel wetted width,
depth, substrate size, canopy closure, and fish cover taken at eleven
evenly spaced transects in each reach. Gradient measurements and compass
bearing between each of the 11 stations are collected to calculate reach
gradient and channel sinuosity. This category also includes measures
and/or visual estimates of riparian vegetation structure, human
disturbance, and bank angle, incision and undercut.

*reach parameters*: Channel morphology class for the entire reach was
determined (Montgomery and Buffington 1993) and instantaneous discharge
was measured at one optimally chosen cross‑section.

### IV.B. 3. Vertebrates

The objectives of the vertebrate assemblage assessment were to 1)
collect all except the most rare species in the assemblage and 2)
collect data for estimates of relative abundance of species in the
assemblage. Fish were sampled with one-pass electro-fishing in all
portions of the sample reach. Fish were identified, counted, and
measured and voucher specimens were collected. Amphibians that were
captured were identified and counted only. Although these methods were
not used to estimate absolute abundance, standardized collection
techniques were important for consistent measures of proportionate
abundance of species.

### IV.B. 4. Benthic invertebrates

At each of 11 transects, macroinvertebrates were collected at varying
points along each transect (including margins) with a D‑frame kick net
(500 μm mesh). Site selection employed a systematic spatial sampling
design that minimized bias in positioning the sampling stations. The
samples were composited according to habitat type: depositional (pool)
and erosional (riffle). In this analysis, we will only be presenting the
results of the riffle samples. For each sample, 300 organisms were
identified to the finest practical taxonomic level.

# 

# V. Data Analysis and Interpretative Methods

Data quality objectives and quality assurance procedures followed those
outlined in Chaloud and Peck (1994), Merritt (1994) and Hayslip (1993).
EPA contractor Dan Palmiter entered and compiled the raw data. EPA ORD
office in Corvallis, OR calculated most metrics. Summary statistics and
data analyses were generated with Statistica software (Statsoft Inc.
1995) and S-PLUS (Mathsoft 1998). Data from repeat visits to these
sample sites will be used in future analyses to test for between-year
and within-year variability.

There is some variability in the number of samples for various
indicators. For example, chloride was measured at 84 of the 104 sites.
For these indicators, the cumulative weight of the sites sampled is used
to calculate the percentage of stream for each particular indicator. For
chloride, the percent stream kilometers of a particular chloride level
are reported based on the weighted cumulative stream kilometers of those
84 sample sites rather than the entire 23245 km of the entire sample.
From here on, the valid stream km for a particular indicator will simple
be referred to as 'stream km'.

The primary method for evaluating indicators was cumulative distribution
frequencies (CDFs). CDFs present the complete data population variation
and allow one to estimate the proportion of the population above or
below a particular value (Larsen and Christie 1993). The advantage of
this method is that the complete data for the population is presented
with uncertainty estimates. Because value judgements are not imposed,
different criteria for evaluating the data can be used (Larsen and
Christie 1993). Details of the statistical foundation for EMAP methods
are in Diaz-Ramos et al. (1996).

Confidence intervals are not presented graphically for each of the
indicator estimates. Rather, the range of confidence intervals and other
summary statistics are in appendices of summary statistics for each of
the indicator categories (water chemistry, physical habitat,
vertebrates, and benthic invertebrates. Generally, confidence intervals
were close to the sample values as illustrated by this CDF example of
mid-channel canopy density (Figure 2).

![](media/image3.wmf)

[]{#_Ref474833365 .anchor}

**Figure 2.** Sample cumulative distribution function with 90^th^
percentile confidence intervals.

Beyond describing the ecological condition based on the Coast Range
data, it is possible to apply an interpretation of the acceptable
biological status for management application. The nominal condition (not
degraded by human influence) is the basis for making these comparisons
and for detecting impairment. There are several methods for defining
nominal condition that may be used including:

*Reference conditions* are developed from the analysis of carefully
selected sites that represent the best attainable watershed condition,
habitat structure, water quality and biological parameters (Hughes
1995). The idea being that these 'best sites' approximate pre-settlement
conditions. Sample sites can then be compared to this benchmark to
describe there relative condition. The reference condition can also be
developed from historical data, however historical data, especially for
biological assemblages is almost non-existent for the entire Coast Range
Ecoregion. The characteristics of appropriate reference sites will vary
among ecoregions and for different waterbody types. Currently, a
reference condition has not been defined for the entire Coast Range
Ecoregion of Oregon and Washington

*Quantitative Models*: By plotting biological variables against human
disturbance variables or natural variables, one can predict reference
condition through curve fitting (Hughes 1995). Models of this type have
not been developed for the Coast Range ecoregion. Then site data can be
compared to this curve to determine how far it deviates for the nominal
condition.

*Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs)* is a method of plotting the
environmental data from a population of sites in order to describe the
characteristics of the population. With adequate sample size it is
possible to define sub populations based on the gradient of condition.
The sites at the low end of the range for a given indicator are further
from the nominal condition than sites at the high range. For example
sites that have dissolved oxygen measures \<8mg/l may be considered to
be below the nominal condition. This method requires a large enough data
set to represent the population in question (in this study, 1^st^
through 3^rd^ order streams of the Coast Range Ecoregion).

For this descriptive analysis of the condition of coast range streams,
we will rely on analysis of the CDF's and on comparing these data to
other studies and standards relevant to the coast range ecoregion.

# VI. Description of Indicators

## VI. A. General Stream Resources

An analysis of USGS digital format maps (DLG) and EPA Reach Files,
Version 3 (RF3) yielded 33,270 km of 1-3 order stream in the Coast Range
ecoregion. Drawing random samples from this population resulted in the
characterization of the total stream km in the ecoregion as shown in
Figure 1. Target stream sites (useable sample sites) were drawn (total
of 104 sites) from 70% of the stream length therefore the data analysis
will be useful for applying inferences to 23,245 km of the 38,700 km of
the ecoregion. Of these 104 'target' sample sites 57 were in Oregon
representing 14830 km of stream, and 47 were in Washington representing
the remaining 8420 km of stream length. The other 30% of the sites could
not be sampled due to reasons presented in Figure 1.

Sample selection was classified by stream order, with the number of
samples relatively equally distributed between the three stream orders.
Each 1^st^ order sample represents a proportionately large number of
stream miles due to the far larger 1^st^ order stream length in the
ecoregion (Table 1).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc474829189 .anchor}**Table 1**. Extent of sampling
by stream order, Coast Range ecoregion 1994-95.

  ------------ ---------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  **Order**    **\# of          **km stream length**  **% total stream
               samples**                              length**

  1^st^        35               16323                 70

  2^nd^        31               3781                  16

  3^rd^        38               3141                  14

  **Total:**   **104**          **23245**             **\--**
  ------------ ---------------- --------------------- ---------------------

## 

## 

## VI. B. Chemical Characteristics

Data for 11 water quality variables were collected from over 100 sites
(for most indicators). The rationale for the selection of each indicator
is summarized in Table 2. Summary statistics for all water chemistry
indicators are in Appendix 2. Results were compared to current water
quality standards of Oregon and Washington (Table 3). Often, water
chemistry measurements varied temporally. For example, nutrient levels
varied with stream flow and pH varied diurnally due to solar radiation
and photosynthetic activity. Temperature and DO were especially
temporally variable. Because sites were not continuously sampled and
timing of sampling was not intended to capture the peak concentration of
chemical indicators, data interpretation reflects a single view in time.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc474829190 .anchor}**Table 2.** Summary of chemical
indicators.

+------------+-----------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Indicat  | **Rationale**               | **Responses related to    |
| or/units** |                             | management activities**   |
+------------+-----------------------------+---------------------------+
| Stream     | Biological activity         | Riparian shade reduction  |
| T          |                             |                           |
| emperature | Growth and survival of      | Altered stream morphology |
|            | species                     |                           |
+------------+-----------------------------+---------------------------+
| Dissolved  | Growth and survival of      | Fine sediment inputs      |
| Oxygen     | fish,                       |                           |
| (DO)       |                             | Organic debris loading    |
|            | Sustain sensitive benthic   | (slash and dairy)         |
|            | invertebrates               |                           |
|            |                             | Riparian shade reduction  |
|            | Organic material processing |                           |
|            |                             | Point sources             |
|            |                             | (industrial, municipal    |
|            |                             | waste)                    |
+------------+-----------------------------+---------------------------+
| pH         | Fish production             | Mining discharge          |
|            |                             |                           |
|            | Benthic invertebrate        | Organic debris loading    |
|            | survival                    | (slash)                   |
+------------+-----------------------------+---------------------------+
| Alkalinity | Indicates a waterbody's     |                           |
|            | ability to neutralize pH    |                           |
+------------+-----------------------------+---------------------------+
| Co         | Indicator of dissolved      | Agriculture return flow,  |
| nductivity | ions.                       | industrial inputs, and    |
|            |                             | mining discharge          |
+------------+-----------------------------+---------------------------+
| Total      | Stimulates primary          | Increases due high        |
| p          | production.                 | erosion rates, organic    |
| hosphorous |                             | matter inputs from        |
| (TP)       | Usually the limiting        | recreation, septic tanks  |
|            | nutrient in freshwater      | and livestock.            |
|            | aquatic systems. Delivery   |                           |
|            | to lentic systems can       | Storm water runoff.       |
|            | result in nutrient          |                           |
|            | enrichment that impairs     |                           |
|            | water quality, recreational |                           |
|            | uses. Toxicity to fish is   |                           |
|            | not typically a problem.    |                           |
+------------+-----------------------------+---------------------------+
| Inorganic  | Nitrogen (NO~3~^-^N,        | Forest harvest disrupts   |
| nitrogen   | NH~4~^+^ -N) are important  | nitrogen cycling          |
|            | nutrients for aquatic       | (decreases root uptake    |
| (Nitrate   | plants. But, ionic forms of | and alters moisture       |
| N          | nitrogen,( nitrate and      | regimes).                 |
| O~3~^-^and | ammonium) can limit growth. |                           |
| Ammonium   | Nitrate is essentially      | Fertilization from        |
| NH~4~^+^)  | non-toxic to aquatic biota  | agriculture, livestock    |
|            | (Rand and Petrocelli 1985), | waste, and point sources  |
|            | yet accumulations of        | of sewage disposal.       |
|            | nitrogen can result in      |                           |
|            | nutrient enrichment that    |                           |
|            | can impair beneficial uses. |                           |
+------------+-----------------------------+---------------------------+
| Chloride   | Not generally an            | Industrial output,        |
| (Cl^-^)    | environmental concern, may  | fertilizer use, livestock |
|            | be good surrogate for       | waste, sewage, and use of |
|            | general human disturbance   | road de-icing salts.      |
|            | in watersheds (Herlihy et   |                           |
|            | al. 1998)                   |                           |
+------------+-----------------------------+---------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc474829191 .anchor}**Table 3.** Table of standards
for freshwater (Washington State 1992, ODEQ 1998).

  --------------- -------------------------------------- ---------------------
  **Indicator**   **Standards for Oregon**               **Standard for
                                                         Washington^1^**

  water           ≤ 17.8°C or 12.8° during times of      ≤16°C (AA) and
  temperature     salmon spawning, incubation and        ≤18°(A) waters
                  emergence. Based on seven-day moving   
                  average of daily maximum.              

  Dissolved       ≥11mg/L in waters that support salmon  \>9.5 mg/L (AA) \>8
  oxygen          spawning to fry emergence. ≥8mg/L in   mg/L (A)
                  cold-water aquatic resources waters,   
                  and ≥6.5 mg/L in cool-water aquatic    
                  resources waters.                      

  pH              6.5 to 8.5 (general basin standards    6.5 to 8.5 for A and
                  listed for several basins within the   AA waters
                  Coast Range ecoregion)                 
  --------------- -------------------------------------- ---------------------

^1^Streams within the Washington portion of the sample data are
designated as either Class A or AA which are state beneficial use
classifications (Merritt et al. 1999).

### VI.B. 1. Water temperature

Because stream temperature is temporally variable, dependent on climatic
conditions, a single measurement is of very limited value in
characterizing stream conditions. Therefore, any conclusions of
ecoregion wide summer temperature have limited validity. Temperature
ranged from 7 to 25°C. First and second order streams had lower water
temperatures (7 to 18°C) and 3^rd^ order streams had highest
temperatures recorded and greatest variability of temperatures. Using
the Washington State standard as the threshold for low water quality due
to warm temperatures, most streams are considered cold. At the time of
sampling, two sites were 18°C or warmer, representing 1% of the stream
length.

### VI.B. 2. Dissolved oxygen

Dissolved oxygen (DO) content is related to turbulence and temperature
(and to a lesser degree atmospheric pressure). Decreased DO levels are
associated with inputs of organic matter, loss of substrate interstitial
spaces due to sedimentation, as well as increased temperature and
reduced stream flow (MacDonald et al. 1991). As with temperature,
conclusions must be drawn with caution, as DO is temporally variable and
a single measurement is of questionable value for characterizing stream
condition. In the study sample, DO ranged from 1.1 mg/L to 12.2 mg/L
(mean 8.7 mg/L). The water quality standard of 8mg/L for cold water
resources (Oregon) and Class A waters (Washington) were met in 80% of
stream km at the time of sampling. The highest standard of 11 mg/L was
met by 3% of stream km. These streams had relatively low water
temperatures at the time of sampling as 11 mg/L is approximately 100% DO
saturation between 9-11.5 °C at elevations \<2000 ft (American Public
Health Association 1989). An estimated 14% of the stream km did not meet
the water quality standard of ≥6.5 mg/L at the time of sampling.

  ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
  **DO (mg/L)**             **% stream km**

  \>6.5                     86

  \>8                       80

  \>11                      3
  ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------

### VI.B. 3. pH

At atmospheric pCO2, one would expect rain to have pH of 5.6 due to
carbonic acid. At the National Atmospheric Deposition Program's (NADP)
Alsea site in western Oregon, rainfall pH was 5.3 and sulfate was 5-8
μeq/L (NADP 2000). These values indicate that little 'acid rain' falls
in the Coast Range. The pH of the REMAP study sites ranged from 5.5 to
8.1 with mean 7.1. The water quality standard of 6.5 to 8.5 was met by
86% of stream km. The remaining 14% were below (higher acidity) the
standard.

### VI.B. 4. Indicators associated with pH

#### Alkalinity:

Alkalinity is the capacity of the solutes of water to react with and
neutralize acid. Past studies have found that alkalinity ranges from
0.20 to 0.72 meq/L (200 to 720 μeq /L) in rivers of the Coast Range
ecoregion (Welch et al. 1998). EMAP data reflected this finding with
mean alkalinity 569 μeq/L (range 80 to 1679 μeq/L). Alkalinity is ≤800
μeq/L in 80% of stream km. Although there is no alkalinity standard
because there is no effect on biota, alkalinity it is important because
of the buffering effect on pH. Waters with alkalinity \>200 μeq/L are
considered not sensitive to acid deposition, while an alkalinity of
50-200 μeq/L is a gray area (A. Herlihy, OSU, Pers. Comm. 2000).

#### Specific Conductance:

Specific conductance measures the ion concentration of water and can be
used as a surrogate for total dissolved solids. It is useful for
detecting water quality impairments from mining and agriculture. Because
aquatic biota are considered to be relatively insensitive to
conductivity, there are no known recommended criteria (MacDonald et al.
1991). Although there are no standards, high conductance measurements
give cause for further attention. As is typical in coastal streams
(Welch et al. 1998), conductance was low with 74% of stream km having
conductance of ≤100 μS/cm (96% were ≤200 μS/cm).

### VI.B. 5. Phosphorous 

Because of the phosphorous content, Coast Range streams are considered
naturally oligotrophic and sensitive to nutrient inputs (Welch et al.
1998). The significant outcome of nutrient inputs is increased amounts
of algal growth. Both phosphorous and nitrogen limit photosynthesis in
oligotrophic streams, but in the Coast Range ecoregion, phosphorous is
typically much more limited due to characteristic N:P ratios of 20:1
(Welch et al. 1998). Although there are no state standards, EPA (1986)
recommends \<50 μg/L total phosphorous (TP) for streams that deliver to
lakes. Total phosphorous exceeded 50 μg/L in 25% of stream km.
Differences based on stream order were not observed. In streams that do
not deliver to lentic systems, a standard of 0.10 mg/L (100μg/L) has
been suggested (MacKenthun 1973 as mentioned in MacDonald et al. 1991).
Only 12% of stream km exceeded 100 ug/L TP.

### VI.B. 6. Nitrate

Nitrogen was analyzed as nitrite-nitrate (NO~2~^-^ NO~3~^-^) in
Washington and as nitrate in Oregon. Due to the very minor occurrence of
the nitrite constituent the data of the two states were combined and
referred to as nitrate (A. Herlihy, OSU, Pers. Comm. 1999).

Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate-nitrogen) is the predominant form of
nitrogen in lotic systems (Welch et al. 1998) and is readily assimilated
by plants for growth. This trend was demonstrated in the data as 1^st^
and 2^nd^ order streams had higher mean nitrate (NO~3~^-^ )
concentrations than downstream 3^rd^ order streams, indicating that
nitrogen is taken up by aquatic biota as it is delivered downstream.
There is no national standard for nitrate but concentration of \<0.3
mg/L (\<300 μeq/L) would probably prevent eutrophication (Cline 1973 as
mentioned in MacDonald et al. 1991). All of the estimated stream km had
≤30 μeq/L nitrate.

### VI.B. 7. Chloride 

Chloride (Cl^-^) is present generally at low levels in all natural
waters (Hem 1985) with a worldwide mean in rivers estimated as 7.8 mg/L
(range 1 to 280,000 mg/L). Chloride does not usually negatively affect
biota and is considered a good tracer because it is involved in
relatively few chemical processes relative to other ions (Feth 1981).
Chloride was found to be an indicator of human disturbance in the
Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. (Herlihy et al. 1998). In the Coast
Range data set, chloride was low (84% of stream km \<2 mg/L) in most
streams. Coastal waters can receive significant inputs of chloride due
to atmospheric transfer (1-20 mg/L in coastal rainfall) (Welch et al.
1998). The Alsea National Acid Deposition Project found chloride
concentrations from atmospheric deposition of 1-2 ppm (1-2mg/L).
Although chloride as an indicator of human disturbance is problematic in
coastal areas because of sea salt inputs, the fact that chloride was
\<2mg/L in most streams supports the notion that human inputs at most
sites are low (mostly from atmospheric sources) (A. Herlihy, EPA, Pers.
Comm. 2000).

### 

### VI.B. 8. Sulfate

Quantities of sulfate (SO~4~^2-^) are usually low in Pacific Coast
rivers with reported concentrations of 10 to 30uM (McClain et al. 1998).
Acid deposition is typically low in the western United States with mean
sulfate deposition of 1.2 to 8.2 kg/ha/year (Stolte and Smith 1999, In
Review) and anthropogenic sources of sulfate are currently low in the
Coast Range ecoregion (Welch et al. 1998). As with chloride, there is no
standard or suggested value for sulfate in surface waters. The mean
value for the EMAP data was 85.1 μeq/L with 80% of stream km having
estimated sulfate concentration of \<100 μeq/L.

## VI. C. Physical Habitat Description

Variations in geology, gradient, and basin size form different types of
stream channels. These channel types vary in how they process inputs of
water, sediment and LWD which influences overall form as well as
resilience to natural and human disturbance. In this section, watershed
scale features (stream order, basin size, and gradient) describe the
stream in the context of the overall landscape and provide context for
the relationship of other physical habitat features at smaller spatial
scales. Physical stream characteristics (substrate, LWD, habitat units,
fish cover) and riparian characteristics are also presented. When
possible, characteristics are related to stream order. Summary
statistics for physical habitat data are in Appendix 3.

### 

### VI.C. 1. Watershed scale features

Stream order (Strahler 1957) describes the location of the stream within
a watershed. In the ecoregion, first order streams have a relatively
narrow range of watershed area and have the broadest range of gradient
as both lowland tributaries of larger streams and steeper headwater
streams are present in the Coast Range (Figure 3). Third order streams
have relatively larger watershed area and have the smallest range of
gradients not exceeding 4%. Second order streams are intermediate.

![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.004861111111111in"
height="3.8583333333333334in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167076 .anchor}**Figure 3.** Relation of
percent slope to basin area and stream order.

As with basin area, stream order was related to stream width and depth
(Figure 4). First order streams were narrower and shallower than 3^rd^
order streams and 2^nd^ order were intermediate. Mean thalweg depth for
1^st^, 2^nd^, and 3^rd^ order streams was 16, 37, and 55 cm
respectively, with an overall mean depth of 25 cm estimated for the
Coast Range. Mean wetted stream width by order was 2.3, 5.1, and 11.6 m
with an overall mean for the Coast Range of 4m. Stream width and depth
were also correlated (r=0.71).

Most of the channels of the ecoregion have a pool-riffle channel
(Montgomery and Buffington 1998) (Figure 5). In this channel type, flow
converges and scours on alternating banks resulting in a laterally
oscillating sequence of bars, pools, and riffles. Although the
pool-riffle channel morphology is typical of low gradient, free-flowing
alluvial channels, this channel form also occurred in steeper reaches
with large roughness elements (LWD, rock outcrops or riparian trees)
that force flow and accumulate sediment resulting in a pool-riffle
sequence. The second most common channel type is step-pool (17%). These
channels have channel spanning roughness elements (LWD, large sediment
sizes) that trap sediment, forming pools below these steps. This results
in an alternating pattern of turbulent flow over steps into pools. This
channel type is associated with steeper gradients; coarse bed material
and confined channels (Montgomery and Buffington 1998). The other types
of channel forms, plane bed, cascade and braided, are rare.

![](media/image5.wmf){width="4.509722222222222in"
height="3.484722222222222in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167077 .anchor}**Figure 4.** Relation of mean
thalweg depth to mean wetted width by stream order.

![](media/image10.wmf)

[]{#_Ref474834319 .anchor}

**Figure 5.** Percent of stream km within each geomorphic channel type.

Summary: the wadeable streams of the Coast Range represent a broad range
of basin areas and gradients. Stream order indicates where a channel
lies in relation to the entire channel network and is often related to
channel size and gradient. Characteristics of slope and basin area, as
well as other watershed scale characteristics such as flow, influence
channel morphology in turn influencing habitat forming processes and
ultimately the distribution of species. In order to assess stream
condition it is necessary to acknowledge these relationships, as they
can confound the interpretation of the relationship of human influence
to stream condition. For example, a small low gradient stream may have
naturally abundant fine sediment accumulations due to the lack of stream
power combined with the geology of the area. One influence of human
disturbance is to increase fine sediment accumulations yet it is
difficult to separate these effects without estimates of stream power.

### VI.C. 2. Substrate

Stream substrate size is influenced by geology, transport capacity, and
channel morphological characteristics that influence sediment processes.
The following describes the characteristics of surface substrate
particle size in the ecoregion. Substrate particle size data were
collected at five locations along each of the 11 evenly spaced transects
at each sample site. Data were expanded to reflect the proportion of the
stream channel area.

Looking at the ecoregion-wide data, small gravel or finer sized
substrate (\<16mm diameter) category was the most common substrate size
in the ecoregion averaging 54% of the stream surface substrate across
all stream km. The sand and fines fraction (\<2mm diameter) had a mean
of 42% of the stream substrate across all stream km. Coarse substrate
(\>16mm diameter) was less common with mean 32% of stream km. Other
substrate types (bedrock, hardpan, organics, etc.) formed a limited
portion of the overall substrate.

Within site substrate variability can be characterized with the dominant
substrate particle size. Defining dominance as \>50 % of the surface
substrate in a particular substrate size fraction yields the following
results (Table 4). Overall, relatively common (29%). Bedrock dominated
channels were rare and none of the streams had organic material as the
dominant substrate. Note, many channels did not have a dominant
substrate size class.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc474829192 .anchor}**Table 4.** Percent of streams
dominated by 4 major substrate classes (\>50% of stream substrate).
Values generated from the pebble measurements in sample sites reaches
and expanded to percent of stream km using probability-weighting
factors.

  -------------- ------------------ ---------- --------- ---------- -----------
                                    **% of                          
                                    stream km                       
                                    with                            
                                    dominant                        
                                    particle                        
                                    size**                          

  **Size         **Description**    **All**    **1^st^   **2^nd^    **3^rd^
  category**                                   order**   order**    order**

  \< 2mm         Sand and fines     38         44        34         8

  2-250mm        Gravel/cobble      29         28        27         41

  250-4000       Boulder/bedrock    4          0         16         10

  Other          Wood or detritus   0          0         0          0

                 **Total**          **71**     **72**    **77**     **59**
  -------------- ------------------ ---------- --------- ---------- -----------

Differences in dominant substrate size as well as the degree of
dominance were found between stream orders. The fine substrate class
dominated first and second order streams to a greater extent than third
order streams, while third order streams were more commonly dominated by
the gravel/cobble substrate size (Table 4, Figure 6). Third order
streams had the greatest variety in substrate sizes within reaches,
where substrate categories more rarely expressed dominance. Also, there
was less overall variability in substrate quantity by category among
third order reaches (lower standard deviation). Lower variability of
substrate size in the third order streams is also reflected in the box
plot of geometric mean substrate size by stream order (Figure 7).
Correlations between measure of overall substrate size (geometric
diameter) and measures of stream size (gradient and basin area) were
very weak, possibly because of differences in slope that were not
correlated with stream size.

![](media/image14.wmf)

[]{#_Ref474834838 .anchor}

**Figure 6.** Percent of streams within each stream order category
dominated by three substrate classes (dominance defined as ≥50% stream
surface substrate).

![](media/image15.wmf)

[]{#_Ref474834900 .anchor}

**Figure 7**. Summary of substrate size by stream order expressed as
geometric mean (log10).

### VI.C. 3. Riparian vegetation

Riparian vegetation is important to stream processes for several
reasons: 1) influences channel form through root strength; 2)
contributes roughness elements (LWD) that force pools and form steps; 3)
provides allochthonous inputs of organic matter, and; 4) shades and
insulates the channel which influences both summer and winter water
temperature. Expressed as a proportion of the reach, riparian cover data
were collected for three vegetation heights (canopy \>5m, mid level .5
to 5m, and ground cover). Visual estimates of cover density and general
structural/species vegetation classes (e.g. coniferous, deciduous) of
each layer were recorded. Overall, riparian vegetation was dense. The
proportion of the reaches with riparian vegetation presence (combination
of all three vegetative layers) was approximately 100% for most of
stream km (Figure 8). This was true for each of the three levels of
riparian vegetation considered separately. Because riparian density was
high throughout the ecoregion density did not vary significantly by
stream order.

![](media/image16.wmf){width="4.55in" height="3.245833333333333in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167081 .anchor}**Figure 8.** Cumulative
distribution function of overall riparian coverage (includes
ground-layer, low canopy, high canopy).

Three types of canopy (riparian vegetation \>5m) cover types were
considered, coniferous, deciduous, and mixed coniferous and deciduous
cover. Coniferous riparian canopy was rare, exceeding 10% in only 20% of
stream km with most channels having a deciduous or mixed stand (Figures
9, 10, and 11). Canopy composition did vary significantly by stream
order with first order streams having highest mean proportion of
coniferous canopy and 2^nd^ order streams have highest mean proportion
of deciduous canopy.

Summary: riparian zones are highly vegetated overall and significant
relationships between vegetation and stream order/size were not
detected. The coniferous component of the canopy was relatively minor
overall with most streams having a deciduous or mixed
coniferous/deciduous canopy. There was some variation in canopy cover
species type by stream order.

![](media/image17.wmf){width="4.551388888888889in"
height="3.248611111111111in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167082 .anchor}**Figure 9**. Cumulative
distribution function of coniferous riparian canopy presence.

![](media/image18.wmf){width="4.551388888888889in"
height="3.245833333333333in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167083 .anchor}**Figure 10.** Cumulative
distribution function of deciduous riparain canopy presence.

![](media/image19.wmf){width="4.551388888888889in"
height="3.245833333333333in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167084 .anchor}**Figure 11.** Cumulative
distribution function of mixed (coniferous and deciduous) tree canopy
presence.

Stream shading from riparian canopy is based on the average of
densiometer readings at each of the 11 transects at each sample site.
Separate calculations from the bank and mid channel were made. Overall,
shade was high with mean bank shading of 89% and mean mid-channel shade
of 80% estimated for the ecoregion (Figures 12 and 13).

![](media/image20.wmf){width="4.551388888888889in"
height="3.245833333333333in"}

[]{#_Ref474835752 .anchor}

**Figure 12.** Cumulative distribution function of bank shade.

![](media/image21.wmf){width="4.551388888888889in"
height="3.245833333333333in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167086 .anchor}**Figure 13.** Cumulative
distribution function of mid-channel canopy shade.

As expected, stream shade was related to stream size. The strongest
relationship was between mid channel percent shade and bankfull width
(Figure 14) with mid channel shade decreasing as bankfull width
increases. The relation of shade to stream size was also reflected in
stream order differences with third order streams having lower percent
mid-channel and bank shade (Figure 15).

![](media/image22.wmf)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167087 .anchor}**Figure 14**. Relation of
mid-channel shade to stream width (r= -.62).

![](media/image24.wmf)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167088 .anchor}**Figure 15.** Histogram of mean
bank and mid-channel riparian shade by stream order.

### VI.C. 4. Riparian disturbance indicators

Currently, stress indicator data are available only for human-caused
riparian disturbance. These data were collected by examining the
channel, bank and riparian area on both sides of the stream at each of
the 11 evenly spaced transects and visually estimating the presence and
proximity of disturbance (Hayslip et al. 1994). Eleven different
categories of disturbance were evaluated. Each disturbance category is
assign a value based on its presence and proximity to the stream (1.67,
in channel or on bank; 1.0, within 10m of stream; .67, beyond 10m from
stream; and 0, not present). Data were expanded to calculate a
proximity-weight disturbance index for each reach (Kaufmann et al.
1999). This index combines the extent of disturbance (based on presence
or absence) as well as the proximity of the disturbance to the stream.

Most streams had some level of human-caused riparian disturbance when
including all disturbance categories; with average 1.34 disturbance
index (Figure 16, Table 5). An estimated 16% of stream km had no
riparian disturbance. Of the disturbed sites, logging was the most
common form of riparian disturbance (42%) followed by roads (26%) and
agriculture (both pasture and crops 15%) (Figure 17).

![](media/image25.wmf){width="4.551388888888889in" height="3.49375in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167089 .anchor}**Figure 16.** Cumulative
distribution function of riparian disturbance (all types).

![](media/image28.wmf)

[]{#_Ref474836732 .anchor}

**Figure 17.** Percent of overall riparian disturbance attributed to
each of the major disturbance categories. Percentages based on estimated
stream km with riparian disturbance.

Using the range of riparian disturbance index range of values (0 to
1.67), it was possible to express the level of individual disturbance
categories in terms of low, medium and high (≤0.67,low; 0.67 to 1.0,
medium, and 1.0 to1.67, high). Disturbance was generally low (Table 5).
Mean disturbance index for logging, agriculture (combines both pasture
and crop thus possible score of 2 x 1.67), and roads was \< 0.67 for
each. Significant differences in riparian disturbance between stream
orders were not observed. First order streams had more logging
disturbance than 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ order streams but differences were not
significant (P\>0.05). When all disturbance categories were added the
average for all sites was 1.34 (and ranged from 1.3 to 1.53 for 1^st^
--3^rd^ orders), which indicates a high level of disturbance for the
combined categories).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc474829193 .anchor}**Table 5**. Mean disturbance
index value of 1^st^, 2^nd^ and 3rd order streams for five disturbance
categories.

+-----------------------+----------+---------+-----------+------------+
|                       |          | #       |           |            |
|                       |          | ####### |           |            |
|                       |          | # Strea |           |            |
|                       |          | m order |           |            |
+-----------------------+----------+---------+-----------+------------+
| **Disturbance         | **All**  | **      | **2^nd^** | **3^rd^**  |
| category**            |          | 1^st^** |           |            |
+-----------------------+----------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Logging               | 0.56     | 0.61    | 0.48      | 0.41       |
+-----------------------+----------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Roads                 | 0.35     | 0.36    | 0.31      | 0.33       |
+-----------------------+----------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Agriculture           | 0.20     | 0.16    | 0.33      | 0.26       |
+-----------------------+----------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Buildings             | 0.08     | 0.05    | 0.16      | 0.13       |
+-----------------------+----------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Pavement              | 0.07     | 0.06    | 0.11      | 0.09       |
+-----------------------+----------+---------+-----------+------------+
| **All disturbance     | **1.34** | *       | **1.53**  | **1.34**   |
| combine**             |          | *1.30** |           |            |
+-----------------------+----------+---------+-----------+------------+

### VI.C .5. LWD 

Large woody debris (LWD), as single pieces or in accumulations, alters
flow and traps sediment, thus influencing channel form and related
habitat features. The quantity, type and size of LWD recruited to the
channel from the riparian zone and hillslopes is important to stream
function in channels that are influenced by LWD (typical of 1^st^ -3^rd^
order streams in the Pacific Northwest). Loss of LWD without a
recruitment source can result in long-term alteration of channel form as
well as loss of habitat complexity in the form of pools, overhead cover,
flow velocity variations, and retention and sorting of spawning-sized
gravels. Field data were categorized into five size classes (very small,
small, medium, large, very large) based on the following length/diameter
matrix (Table 6). The following is an overview of LWD quantity (pieces
per 100m) by size class in the ecoregion.

## 

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc474829194 .anchor}**Table 6**. Definition of the
five LWD size classes based on piece length and diameter.

  ----------------- -------------------- ------------------ ------------------
                    **[Length                               
                    (m)]{.underline}**                      

  **Diameter (m)**  **1.5-5**            **\>5-15**         **\>15**

  0.1-0.3           Very small           Small              Medium

  \>0.3-0.6         Small                Medium             Large

  \>0.6-0.8         Small                Large              Large

  \>0.8             Medium               Large              Very large
  ----------------- -------------------- ------------------ ------------------

Mean in-channel LWD of all sizes (≥10cm diameter and ≥ 1.5 m long) was
estimated as 43.4 pieces/100m of stream km (Table 7 and Figure 18).
There was a negative correlation between LWD quantity and stream size,
which was an expected result as LWD retention is higher in smaller
streams where individual pieces can key in to the banks and stream power
is less able to float wood downstream. Another contributing factor may
be that larger streams have historically received more intense logging
pressure due to the location in the more accessible lowlands (Bob
Hughes, Dynamac, Pers. Comm. 1999). Thus, smaller streams may have
retained their input source for a longer period and this LWD is still
evident in the channel. LWD quantity was significantly different between
stream order (1^st^, 48.3; 2^nd^, 36.0; and 3^rd^, 28.4 mean pieces per
100m).

![](media/image29.wmf){width="4.551388888888889in"
height="3.245833333333333in"}

[]{#_Ref474836935 .anchor}

**Figure 18.** Cumulative distribution function of LWD pieces (diameter
≥ 10cm).

**Table 7**. Mean LWD quantity (pieces per 100m) by size class in 1^st^,
2^nd^ and 3rd order streams, Coast Range ecoregion 1994-95.

+-----------------+------------+-----------+------------+-------------+
| **Size class**  | ##         |           |            |             |
|                 | ####### St |           |            |             |
|                 | ream order |           |            |             |
+-----------------+------------+-----------+------------+-------------+
|                 | **All      | **1^st^** | **2^nd^**  | **3^rd^**   |
|                 | streams**  |           |            |             |
+-----------------+------------+-----------+------------+-------------+
| Very Small      | 20.3       | 21.4      | 18.9       | 16.2        |
+-----------------+------------+-----------+------------+-------------+
| Small           | 11.2       | 12.7      | 8.9        | 6.5         |
+-----------------+------------+-----------+------------+-------------+
| Medium          | 6.1        | 7.1       | 4.8        | 3.2         |
+-----------------+------------+-----------+------------+-------------+
| Large           | 5.1        | 6.2       | 2.9        | 2.1         |
+-----------------+------------+-----------+------------+-------------+
| Very Large      | 0.7        | 0.9       | 0.4        | 0.3         |
+-----------------+------------+-----------+------------+-------------+
| **All pieces**  | **43.4**   | **48.3**  | **36.0**   | **28.4**    |
+-----------------+------------+-----------+------------+-------------+

Because larger sized LWD pieces have a greater ability to influence
channel form, analyzing the medium and larger sized pieces provides a
different view of the LWD content of the streams. There were fewer
medium and larger sized pieces (mean 11.9 pieces/100m) than the smaller
size class (Table 7 and Figure 19). Differences between stream orders
were significant with first order streams having the greatest abundance
of medium and larger sized LWD (mean 14.2 pieces/100m). For the west
side of the Cascade Mountains, the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) suggests stream channels should have \>80 pieces per mile (5
pieces per 100m) of LWD \>24in (\>60cm) diameter in order to be properly
functioning (NMFS 1996). Generally, streams of the ecoregion met this
criterion as the mean number of pieces in this large and very large size
class averaged 5.8 pieces per 100m across all stream orders. LWD of
these size classes was much more abundant in 1^st^ order streams than in
2^nd^ or 3^rd^ order (Table 7). Overall, NMFS LWD criterion was not met
61% of the stream km. Streams that did not meet the NMFS criterion by
stream order are as follows: 52 % of 1^st^, 77 % of 2^nd^, and 83 % of
3^rd^ order streams. []{#__RefHeading___Toc474829195 .anchor}

![](media/image30.wmf){width="4.551388888888889in"
height="3.245833333333333in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167093 .anchor}**Figure 19.** Cumulative
distribution function of medium to very large sized LWD.

### VI.C. 6. Habitat units

Habitat units are the reach scale classification of habitat based on
physical stream features. Fast water areas (i.e. riffles and cascades)
are those with higher water velocity, surface turbulence and often
shallower water depth in wadeable streams (Bisson et al. 1982). Slow
water areas (i.e. glides and pools) have low water velocity, less
surface turbulence and are the deeper portion of the streams. These
categories are useful for describing the habitat of streams as species
assemblages use these areas differently.

Overall, streams of the ecoregion had a greater proportion of slow water
than fast (Figure 20). Dry/subterranean flow areas and waterfalls were
relatively minor in terms of stream length. Major categories of habitat
unit types (fast and slow water) were poorly correlated with measures of
stream size (e.g. basin area and bankfull width), although significant
differences in proportions of habitat types were observed for stream
orders (analysis of variance, P≤0.05). First order streams had the
greatest proportion of stream length in fast water and in dry condition
(Figure 21). Length of stream in falls was very minor (\< 0.5% stream
length in each stream order). As expected, 1^st^ and 2^nd^ order streams
had a greater percentage of stream length in falls due to the greater
stream gradients.

![](media/image32.wmf)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167094 .anchor}**Figure 20.** Percent of stream
length within each of the four habitat types.

![](media/image37.wmf)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167095 .anchor}**Figure 21.** Comparison of
mean percent of stream length within each of three water type categories
by stream order.

Pool formation and depth is a function of processes that influence bed
form including stream size, substrate type and availability and
quantities of large roughness elements that force pools or accumulate
sediment that form steps. Thus, pool quantity and residual depth are
related to stream power as well as channel complexity. In the Coast
Range, both pool quantity and residual depth were related to stream
size. Pool quantity expressed as percent of stream reach in pool was
inversely correlated with stream width and varied by stream order with a
mean of 27, 40 and 24% for 1^st^, 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ order streams (Figure
22). Pool depth was directly correlated with stream width and varied
consistently by stream order 47.8, 95.8, and 129.1 cm, for 1^st^ --
3^rd^ order streams, respectively (Figure 23).

![](media/image38.wmf)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167096 .anchor}**Figure 22.** Box plot of
percent pool by stream order. Median, 75-25% quartiles, and non-outlier
min-max, shown with inner box, outer box, and bars, respectively.

![](media/image39.wmf)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167097 .anchor}**Figure 23.** Box plot of
maximum pool depth by stream order. Median, 75-25% quartiles, and
non-outlier min-max, shown with inner box, outer box, and bars,
respectively.

### VI.C. 7. Fish cover

Many structural components of streams are used by fish as concealment
from predators and as hydraulic refugia (e.g. bank undercuts, LWD,
boulders). Although this metric is defined by fish use, fish cover is
also indicative of the overall complexity of the channel which is likely
beneficial to other organisms. Using the metric of natural fish cover
(includes overhanging vegetation, undercut banks, LWD, brush, and
boulders), the mean of 0.62 areal cover proportion was estimated for the
ecoregion. Mean cover decreased by stream order (mean .67, .53, and .49
by 1^st^ 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ stream order) and differences were significant
between 1^st^ and 2^nd^ and 1^st^ and 3^rd^ order streams (Figure 24).
Also, the quantity of natural fish cover was inversely correlated to
stream width.

![](media/image40.wmf)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167098 .anchor}**Figure 24.** Box plot of
natural fish cover by stream order. Median, 75-25% quartiles, and
non-outlier min-max, shown with inner box, outer box, and bars,
respectively.

## VI. D. Fish and Amphibian Resources

101 of the 104 sites were sampled for vertebrates (fish and amphibians)
representing an estimated 23020 stream km. Of these, 95% held
vertebrates (fish and/or amphibians) and 78% held fish. Streams where
amphibians were captured but fish were absent occurred in 17% of stream
km. A total of 36 different species were sampled, representing 10 fish
families (24 species) and eight amphibian families (12 species)
(Appendix 4). General frequency statistics are in Table 8.

[]{#_Ref476709159 .anchor}**Table 8.** Frequency of occurrence of
vertebrates, Coast Range ecoregion 1994-95.

  ------------------------ ------------ ----------------- ----------------
  **Statistic**            **\# of      **Total estimated **% of stream
                           Sites**      stream km**       length**

  sites w/fish             89           17982             78

  sites w/o fish           12           5039              22

  sites w/amphibians       58           15159             66

  sites w/o amphibians     43           7861              34

  sites w/amphibians and   10           38549             17
  no fish                                                 

  sites w/no vertebrates   2            1184              5

  total sites sampled      101          23020             100

                                                          

  sites w/non-native       1            65.0              0
  amphibians                                              

  sites w/non-native fish  6            982               4

  sites w/non-natives all  7            1047              5

                                                          

  Sites w/native           70           10483             46
  anadromous sp.                                          
  ------------------------ ------------ ----------------- ----------------

Fish were present at most sample locations (78% stream km). Streams
without fish were mostly 1^st^ order streams (only 1.2% of this length
was 2^nd^ order). This was an expected result as these smaller, and
often steeper, streams are the upward limit of fish distribution.

Non-native species were rare in the ecoregion. Only four non-native
species (3 fish, 1 amphibian) were sampled, occurring in 5% of stream
km. Of these, only brook trout occurred at more than one site. This char
species had the broadest non-native species distribution (3% of
streams).

Salmonids were the most broadly distributed vertebrate family in the
region, followed by cottids Figure 25). Dicamptodontids (Cope's and
Pacific giant salamanders) were the most common amphibian family.
Coastal cutthroat trout were the most broadly distributed vertebrate
species (Figure 26). This cutthroat trout sub-species is distributed on
the West Coast of North America from Northern California to Southeast
Alaska (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). Coastal cutthroat trout use a variety
of habitats, including large and small rivers, very small,
ocean-connected, streams and isolated stream reaches above migration
barriers. Often, coastal cutthroat trout are the only salmonid species
present in high elevation streams (Connelly and Hall 1999). This species
has a variety of life history strategies with anadromous, fluvial and
resident forms as well as intermediates (Trotter 1989). This
life-history variability may be in response to high environmental
variability (pressure) under which the species evolved (Northcote 1997).

![](media/image41.wmf)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167099 .anchor}**Figure 25**. Histogram of
vertebrate family occurrence.

![](media/image42.wmf)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167100 .anchor}**Figure 26.** Histogram of fish
species occurrence.

Although cutthroat trout inhabit the greatest stream length, the
abundance of other salmonids was higher where they co-occurred with
cutthroat. Both coho and steelhead had significantly higher abundance
(based on percent of total fish individuals captured) compared to
cutthroat in streams where cutthroat were sympatric. The abundance and
distribution of coho salmon and steelhead can be difficult to evaluate
due to the frequency of stocking of these two species (e.g. Oregon
put-and-take rainbow fisheries, coho planting in coastal Washington).

The dominant cottid species, reticulate sculpin (Figure 25), are native
to coastal streams of Washington and Oregon north to the Puget Sound
with disjunct distribution in Central and northern California (Lee et
al. 1980).

The rarest native fish species sampled was the sand roller with
distribution in \<1% of the estimated stream miles. Its distribution
within the Coast Range ecoregion is limited to streams within the
Columbia River basin (Lee et al. 1980).

Pacific giant salamanders were the most broadly distributed amphibian,
with presence estimated in over 30% of stream km, followed by
rough-skinned newts (Figure 27). Approximately one third of the
estimated stream km did not have amphibians.

![](media/image43.wmf)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167101 .anchor}**Figure 27**. Histogram of
amphibian species occurrence.

#### Guild description:

The habitat characteristic descriptions of vertebrate species are listed
in Appendix 5 and Appendix 6 and summary statistics for vertebrate
metrics are Appendix 7. Fish classification is based on Zarabon et al.
(1999) and amphibian classification is based on Stebbins 1954 and Bob
Hughes' personal conversations with Deanna Olsen, Robert Storm, Andrew
Blaustein, and Bruce Bury. Amphibians were placed within the context of
the fish classifications as much as possible to generate an overall
compatible vertebrate dataset (Personal comm. Shay Howlin, Oregon State
University, 1999). The following classifications are used to build
indices of biological integrity (IBIs) but they are also useful for
providing an overview of the species within the ecoregion:

1)  Temperature guilds---3 classifications; warm, cool, and cold water
    preference.

2)  Sensitivity guilds\--tolerant, intermediate, and sensitive are
    classifications based on species ability to tolerate pollution and
    disturbance that is human induced.

3)  Habitat guilds---refers to where species typically occur in their
    physical environment. Hiders use more protected habitats, benthic
    species are closely associated with substrate (can be indicative of
    habitat complexity) and water column species are commonly found
    there.

4)  Trophic guilds give insight into the trophic organization of
    vertebrate assemblages based on diet: filter feeders, herbivores,
    invertivores, and invertivore/piscivore.

Most Coast Range vertebrates are cool and coldwater species (Figure 28)
and are sensitive or intermediately sensitive to habitat change (Figure
29). There are substantially more benthic and hider species than water
column species Figure 30) and most species are invertivores or
invertivores/piscivores (Figure 31).

![](media/image44.wmf)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167102 .anchor}**Figure 28**. Percent of
vertebrate species within each temperature guild. (percentages based on
site relative abundance expanded by site weighting factor). Median,
75-25% quartiles, and non-outlier min-max, shown with inner box, outer
box, and bars.

![](media/image45.wmf)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167103 .anchor}**Figure 29.** Percent of
vertebrate species within each sensitivity guild (percentages based on
site relative abundance expanded by site weighting factor). Median,
75-25% quartiles, and non-outlier min-max, shown with inner box, outer
box, and bars.

![](media/image46.wmf)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167104 .anchor}**Figure 30**. Percent of
vertebrate species within each habitat guild, Coast Range ecoregion
(1994-95) (percentages based on site relative abundance expanded by site
weighting factor). Median, 75-25% quartiles, and non-outlier min-max,
shown with inner box, outer box, and bars.

![](media/image47.wmf)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167105 .anchor}**Figure 31**. Percent of
vertebrate species within each trophic guild, Coast Range ecoregion
(1994-95) (percentages based on site relative abundance expanded by site
weighting factor). Median, 75-25% quartiles, and non-outlier min-max,
shown with inner box, outer box, and bars.

## VI. E. Benthic invertebrates

Macroinvertebrates were collected at each of the 11 transects (one D-net
kick per transect). These transect samples were combined into a reach
composite sample based on habitat type of each transect (either riffle
or pool). This approach resulted in uneven sampling effort between sites
(Ecology 1999). Only data collected from riffles were used in this
analysis. Riffle data were available from 93 of the 104 sample reaches
representing 20,l22 stream km. The following seven metrics were
comparable between the two states and were used in the analysis (Table
9).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc474829197 .anchor}**Table 9.** Description of
benthic macroinvertebrate indicator metrics (Source: Resh and Jackson
1993 and Resh 1995).

+-----------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| *         | ###### Description             | **Rationale**          |
| *Metric** |                                |                        |
+-----------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| Taxa      | Overall variety of the         | ^1^Decreases with low  |
| richness  | macroinvertebrate assemblage - | water quality          |
|           | the total number of different  | associated with        |
|           | taxa. Useful measure of        | increasing human       |
|           | diversity or variety of the    | influence. Sensitive   |
|           | assemblage. Sensitive to most  | to most types of human |
|           | types of human disturbance.    | disturbance.           |
+-----------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| EPT taxa  | Number of taxa in the orders   | ^1^In general, these   |
| richness  | Ephemeroptera (mayflies),      | taxa are sensitive to  |
|           | Plecoptera (stoneflies) and    | human disturbance.     |
|           | Trichoptera (caddis flies)     |                        |
+-----------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| I         | Taxa richness of those         | Taxa that are          |
| ntolerant | organisms considered to be     | intolerant to          |
| taxa      | sensitive to perturbation.     | pollution based on     |
| richness  |                                | classification from    |
|           |                                | Wisseman 1996.         |
+-----------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| \% EPT    | Percent of the total sample    |                        |
|           | organisms that is              |                        |
|           | ephemeroptera, plecoptera and  |                        |
|           | trichoptera. A composite       |                        |
|           | measure for identity and       |                        |
|           | dominance.                     |                        |
+-----------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| \%        | Percent of the total sample    | ^1^Presumed higher     |
| C         | organisms that is in the       | pollution tolerance of |
| hironomid | family Chironomidae. A         | this dipteran family   |
|           | composite measure for identity |                        |
|           | and dominance.                 |                        |
+-----------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| \%        | Percent of organisms that      | Scrapers tend to       |
| scrapers  | scrape upon periphyton. A      | increase where algae   |
|           | measure of trophic             | is abundant, typically |
|           | organization based on feeding  | when streams are       |
|           | strategies and guilds.         | enriched or open to    |
|           |                                | sunlight.              |
+-----------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| \%        | Percent of organisms that      | ^1^Shredders are       |
| shredders | shred leaf litter. A measure   | sensitive to toxicants |
|           | of trophic organization based  | and to modifications   |
|           | on feeding strategies and      | of the riparian zone.  |
|           | guilds                         |                        |
+-----------+--------------------------------+------------------------+

^1^ rationale based from Resh and Jackson 1993.

The metric 'taxa richness' gives an overall indication of the
variability of macroinvertebrate communities in the Coast Range (Figure
32). The total number of taxa ranges from 5 to 60 species. These seven
metrics are described in Table 10 and more complete summary statistics
are presented in Appendix 8.

![](media/image48.wmf){width="4.551388888888889in"
height="3.245833333333333in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc477167106 .anchor}**Figure 32**. Cumulative
distribution function of total invertebrate taxa richness.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc474829198 .anchor}**Table 10**. Summary statistics
for seven macroinvertebrate metrics, Coast Range ecoregion, 1994-1995.

  ------------------ ---------- ------------ --------- --------- ----------- ----------
  **Metric**         **Mean**   **Median**   **Min**   **Max**   **Range**   **Std.
                                                                             Dev.**

  Taxa richness      38.3       38.0         5.0       60.0      55.0        11.99

  EPT taxa richness  19.4       17.0         1.0       37.0      36.0        8.42

  Intolerant taxa    8.0        7.0          0.0       22.0      22.0        6.01
  richness                                                                   

  \% Chironomid      29.9       29.3         0.3       86.8      86.5        19.78

  \% EPT             45.3       42.8         1.5       97.5      96.0        23.20

  \% scrapers        15.4       10.5         0.2       95.6      95.4        15.08

  \% shredders       14.2       12.7         0.0       82.4      82.4        11.23
  ------------------ ---------- ------------ --------- --------- ----------- ----------

Although the frequency of shredders and scrapers show a more narrow
range of variability, these values are within those described by Resh
(1995) for the expected ratios of functional feeding groups where a
range of stream size and riparian condition are represented (Table 11).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc474829199 .anchor}**Table 11.** Examples of
expected functional feeding-group ratios for scrapers and shredders from
Resh (1995) based on information from Cummins and Wilzbach (1985).

  --------------- ----------------- ----------------- --------------------
  **Metric**      **Shaded small    **Open, small     **Open, medium
                  streams**         streams**         streams**

  \% shredders    \>25%             \>10%             \<5%

  \% scrapers     \<25%             \>25%             \>25%
  --------------- ----------------- ----------------- --------------------

In an assessment of Oregon Coast Range streams Canale (1999) found
critical levels of total taxa richness and EPT taxa richness of 30 and
18 as indicative of impaired stream condition based on analyses
developed from Oregon reference sites. Comparing these results,
approximately 30% of stream km had \<30 taxa richness (Figure 32) and
approximately 50% had \<18 EPT taxa (Figure 33).

![](media/image49.wmf){width="4.551388888888889in"
height="3.245833333333333in"}

[]{#_Ref474896286 .anchor}

**Figure 33.** Cumulative distribution function of EPT taxa richness.

# VII. Relations Between Indicators and Stressors

Our second objective was to examine relationships between indicators of
stream condition (chemistry, benthics, and vertebrates) and stressor
indicators by posing the following questions:

*What were the consistent indicator/stress relationships among metrics?*

*How strong were these relationships -- could a linear relationship be
detected?*

To examine indicator/stressor relationships simple correlation tests
(Pearson product-moment, P≤ 0.05 significance level) were run on all
combinations of indicators as illustrated by the following matrix (Table
12). Both water chemistry and physical habitat are stressors as well as
indicators of stress, depending on the relationship. Although
correlations do not imply cause/effect relationships they can provide
insight into the ecological processes that may be at work. Significant
correlations are termed weak, moderate, or strong where r\< .50, r\>50
and\<.75, and r\>.75 , respectively.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc474829200 .anchor}**Table 12**. Possible
combinations of stressor and indicator relationships.

  ------------------ ---------------- --------------- --------------------
                     **Stressors**                    

  **Indicators**     Water chemistry  Physical        Riparian disturbance
                                      habitat         

  Water chemistry    \--              X               X

  Physical habitat   \--              \--             X

  Benthic inverts.   X                X               X

  Vertebrates        X                X               X
  ------------------ ---------------- --------------- --------------------

Many significant correlations between indicators were detected yet most
were weak (Appendix 9). Combining correlation results, observations of
scatter plots, and our knowledge of indicators described in the previous
section, we could further refine the stressors of importance. The
following statements summarize the outcome of correlations between
indicators:

-   Most of the statistically significant correlations between water
    chemistry and physical habitat indicators lacked a detectable linear
    relationship (very low r-values). Many chemistry indicators were
    correlated to percent sand/fines. Of these, DO had a moderate
    correlation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Several water chemistry indicators were correlated with agricultural
    riparian disturbance. These correlations vary in a predictable
    direction, being positively correlated with nutrient inputs and
    negatively correlated with DO. Most of these correlations were weak.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   All correlations of physical habitat indicators with riparian
    disturbance were weak. The most consistent relationships were for
    percent sand/fines, which is positively correlated to most of the
    disturbance types. Both logging disturbance and habitat complexity
    indicators are related to stream order.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Vertebrate indicators (metrics of individuals, families, species and
    individuals) were consistently negatively correlated with indicators
    of shade, cover and LWD. These results would be unexpected but for
    the fact that habitat features and fish species were found to vary
    with stream size which tends to mask the actual relationship. All
    correlations were weak

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   All benthic invertebrate metrics assessed (taxa richness, EPT taxa
    and intolerant taxa) are positively correlated with DO. As
    previously mentioned, the benthic indicators had low values
    according to comparisons of Oregon reference condition (50% \<18 EPT
    taxa). The abundance of fine sediment and the correlation of
    invertebrate metrics and % fines support this relationship.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   All benthic invertebrate metrics were inversely correlated with
    increasing fine sediment. EPT taxa had a moderate correlation. EPT
    and intolerant taxa metrics had weak yet consistent correlations
    with road and agricultural riparian disturbance. None were
    correlated to logging riparian disturbance.

#### Summary

Of the physical habitat indicators, percent sand and fine sediment was
most often correlated to biotic indicators, with an inverse relation to
benthic invertebrate and sensitive vertebrate indicators. Sand and fine
sediment are common substrate size (40% of stream km had sand/fine as
the dominant substrate size fraction) in the ecoregion. Although fine
sized sediment occurs naturally in the Coast Range due to the geology,
human disturbance can still influence its quantity. The correlation of
agriculture and road type disturbance to the percent of fine sediment
suggests these riparian indicators may be sensitive to detecting human
disturbance beyond background (natural occurrence).

Chemical stressors of temperature and DO were frequently correlated with
physical and biotic indicators. Overall the streams were cold, with only
1% exceeding water quality standards. Within this range of cold
temperatures, there was an apparent relationship between relatively warm
temperatures and biotic indicators, as indicators of vertebrate
productivity and species diversity were positively correlated to
temperature. Note that these values do not necessarily represent the
warmest summer temperatures as they are based on only one sample.
Continuous data would likely yield different results (Mochan 1998).

Univariate correlations indicate weak yet possibly meaningful
relationships between biota and physical habitat with the strongest
being the inverse relation between benthic invertebrate and fine
sediment quantity. To further explore the relation between benthic
invertebrates and indicators of physical habitat diversity, other
variables (LWD quantity, thalweg variability, and substrate variability)
were added to the regression model. Multiple variables of habitat
diversity did not improve the model beyond the correlation with percent
fine sediment. Improvement was found when variables of stream size
(bankfull and basin area) were included, thus accounting for the
differences in stream order. Because macroinvertebrates are variable
within a reach (e.g. macroinvertebrate community differences between
pools and riffles), habitat indicators that are also variable on a
sub-reach scale are most likely to be related. This is consistent with
our finding that percent fine sediment was consistently correlated with
macroinvertebrate abundance and that other indicators of habitat
diversity did not improve the model.

# VIII. Concluding Statement

This report provides a description of stream condition in the Oregon and
Washington Coast Range ecoregion based on 1994-95 data collected with
EMAP methodology. When more data become available further analyses could
be pursued including: 1) assess ecoregion-wide condition of streams and
rank stressors by comparing stream data to reference condition and 2)
use landscape indicators developed from spatial data (Multi-Resolution
Land Characteristics generated from TM satellite imagery or air photo
analysis) to establish relationship between stream condition and
landscape processes. These types of information will be useful for
defining trends in condition and determining ecological risk to stream
resources.

# IX. References

American Public Health Association. 1989. Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater, 17^th^ edition. Lenore S. Clesceri
et al. Editors. Published jointly by the American Public Health
Association, American Water Works Association and Water Pollution
Control Federation. Baltimore, Maryland.

Bisson, P. A, J., L. Nielson, R. A. Palmason, and L.E. Gore. 1982. A
system of naming habitat types in small streams, with examples of
habitat utilization by salmonids during low stream flow. Pages 62-73
*in* N. B. Armantrout, ed. Acquisition and utilization of aquatic
habitat information. American Fisheries Society, Portland, Oregon.

Canale, G. 1999. BORIS Benthic evaluation of ORegon rIverS. Draft
report. Department of Environmental Quality Laboratory - Biomonitoring
Section. Portland, Oregon.

Chaloud, D.J. and D.V. Peck. 1994. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program ‑ Surface Waters: Integrated Quality Assurance
Project Plan for the Surface Waters Resource Group, 1994 Activities. EPA
600/X‑91/080, Rev. 2.00. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Las Vegas, NV 89193.

Cline, C. 1973. The effects of forest fertilization on the Tahuya River,
Kitsap Peninsula, Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology.
Olympia. 55pp.

Connolly, P.J. and J.D. Hall. 1999. Biomass of coastal cutthroat trout
in unlogged and previously clear-cut basins in the central Coast Range
of Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:890-899.

Cummins, K.W. and M.A. Wilzbach. 1985. Field procedures for analysis of
functional feeding groups of stream macroinvertebrates. Contribution
1611, Appalachian Environmental Laboratory, University of Maryland,
Frostburg, MD.

Diaz-Ramos, S., D.L. Stevens, Jr., and A.R. Olsen. 1996. EMAP Statistics
Methods Manual. EPA/620/R-96/XXX. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health
and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory.

EPA. 1986. Quality criteria for water:1986. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
Washington, D.C.

EPA. 1998. National Water Quality Inventory, 1996 Report to Congress.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA 841-R-97-008.

Feth, L.H. 1981. Chloride in natural continental water---a review. U. S.
Geological Survey. Water Supply Paper 2176. United States Government
printing office, Washington, D.C.

Hayslip, G., D.J. Klemm and J.M. Lazorchak. 1994. 1994 Field Operations
and Methods Manual For Streams in the Coast Range Ecoregion of Oregon
and Washington and the Yakima River Basin of Washington. Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Cincinnati, Ohio.

Hayslip, G. 1993. EPA Region 10 instream biological monitoring handbook
-for wadeable streams in the Pacific Northwest). EPA/910/9-92-013. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington..

Hem, J.D. 1989. Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics
of natural water. 3^rd^ Edition. U.S. Geological Survey. Water Supply
Paper 2254.Washington D.C.

Herlihy, A.T., J.L. Stoddard, and C.B. Johnson. 1998. The relationship
between stream chemistry and watershed land cover data in the
mid-Atlantic region, U.S. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 105:377-386.

Herlihy, A.T., D.P. Larsen, S.G. Paulsen, N.S. Urquhart, and B.J.
Rosenbaum. 2000. Designing a spatially balanced randomized site
selection process for regional stream surveys: the EMAP mid-Atlantic
pilot study. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment pg 95-114.

Hughes, R.M. 1995. Defining acceptable biological states by comparing
with reference conditions. Pages 31-47 *in* W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon
editors Biological assessment and criteria; tools for water resource
planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Fl.

Karr, R J., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, I.J. Schlosser.
1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters a method and its
rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey, Special Publication 5. State
of Illinois, Champaign.

Kaufmann, P.R., P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck.
1999. Quantifying physical habitat in wadeable streams. EPA
620/R-99/003. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.

Kaufmann, P.R. and E.G. Robison. 1998. Physical habitat characterizaton.
Pages 77-118 *In* J.M. Lazorchak, D.J. Klemm and D.V. Peck, eds.,
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program \-- Surface Waters:
Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological Condition of
Wadeable Streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F. Office of Research and Develop.,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Klemm, D. J., P.A. Lewis, F. Fulk, and J.M. Lazorchak. 1990.
Macroinvertebrate field and laboratory methods for evaluating the
biological integrity of surface waters. Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA-600-4-90-030.

Klemm, D.J. and J.M. Lazorchak (editors). 1994. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program 1994 pilot field operations manual for streams.
EPA/620/R-94/004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Larsen, D.P. and S.J. Christie (editors). 1993. EMAP-surface waters 1991
pilot report. EPA/620/R-93/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC. 201pp.

Lazorchak, J.M., D.J. Klemm and D.V. Peck (eds). 1998. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program \-- Surface Waters: Field Operations
and Methods for Measuring the Ecological Condition of Wadeable Streams.
EPA/620/R-94/004F. Office of Research and Develop., U.S. Environmental.
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and
J.R. Stauffer Jr. 1980 - et seq. Atlas of North American freshwater
fishes. Publication #1980-12 North Carolina Biological Survey. North
Carolina State Museum of Natural History.

Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L. C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M.
Storm. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon
Society. Seattle, Washington.

MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring
guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the
Pacific Northwest and Alaska. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, NPS Section. EPA/910/9-91-001. Seattle, WA.

MacKenthun, K.M. 1973. Toward a cleaner environment. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington D.C.

Mathsoft. 1998. S-PLUS 4.5 statistical software. Data Analysis Products
Division, Mathsoft Inc. Seattle, WA.

McClain, M.E., R.E. Bilby, and F.J. Triska. 1998. Nutrient cycles and
responses to disturbance *in* River ecology and Management: lessons from
the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. R. J. Naiman and R. E. Bilby *editors*.
Springer Press, New York.

Merritt, G.D. 1994. Biological Assessment of wadeable Streams in the
Coast Range Ecoregion and the Yakima River Basin: Final Quality
Assurance Project Plan. Washington State Department of Ecology,
Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services, Olympia, WA, 15
pp.

Merritt, G.D., B. Dickes, and J.S. White. 1999. Biological assessment of
small streams in the Coast Range ecoregion and the Yakima River Basin.
Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Assessment
Program. Publication No. 99-302. Olympia, Washington.

Mochan, D. 1998. A preliminary summary of 1998 Oregon Plan and REMAP
temperature data. Oregon DEQ Biomonitoring Section, Oregon DEQ
Laboratories, Portland, OR.

Montgomery, D.F. and J.M. Buffington. 1998. Channel processes,
classification and esponse *in* River ecology and Management: lessons
from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. R. J. Naiman and R. E. Bilby
*editors*. Springer Press, New York.

National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NRSP-3)/National Trends
Network. 2000. ADP Program Office, Illinois State Water Survey, 2204
Griffith Drive, Champaign, IL.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Appendix II *in* Coastal salmon
conservation: working guidance for comprehensive salmon restoration
initiatives on the Pacific Coast. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northwest Region, Protected Resources Division, Portland OR. (contact
Garth Griffin 503‑231‑2005).

Northcote, T.G. 1997. Why sea-run? An exploration into the
migratory/residency spectrum of coastal cutthroat trout. Pages 20-26
*in* J. D. Hall, P. A. Bisson, and R. E. Gresswell, editors. Sea-run
cutthroat trout: biology, management, and future conservation. Oregon
Chapter, American Fisheries Society, Corvallis.

ODEQ. 1990. 1990 Water Quality Status Assessment Report \[305(b)
Report\]. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Portland.

ODEQ. 1998. Listing Criteria for Oregon's 1998 303d List of water
quality limited water bodies. Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality. Portland.

Omernik, J.M. 1987. Aquatic ecoregions of the conterminous United
States---map supplement. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers. 77:118-125.

Overton, W.S., D. White, and D.L. Stevens, Jr. 1990. Design Report for
EMAP, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. EPA 600/3‑91/053.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.

Peterson, S.A., D.P. Larsen, S.G. Paulsen, and N.S. Urquhart. 1998.
Regional lake trophic patterns in the northeastern United States: three
approaches. Environmental Management 22:789-801.

Peterson, S.A., N.S. Urquhart, and E.B. Welch. 1999. Sample
representativeness: a must for reliable regional lake condition
estimates. Environmental Science and Technology. 33:1559-1565.

Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, R.M. Hughes. 1989.
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use In Streams and Rivers: Periphyton,
Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA/444/4-89-001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.

Rand, G.M. and S.R. Petrocelli. 1985. Fundamentals of Aquatic
Toxicology, methods and applications. Hemisphere Publishing Corp. New
York.

Resh V.H. 1995. Freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates and rapid
assessment procedures for water quality monitoring in developing newly
industrialized countries. Pages 167-177 *in* W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon
editors Biological assessment and criteria; tools for water resource
planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Fl.

Resh, V.H. and J.K. Jackson. 1993. Rapid assessment approaches to
biomonitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. Pages 195-223 *in* D. M.
Rosenberg and V. H. Resh editors. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic
macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York.

StatSoft, Inc. 1995. STATISTICA for Windows (Computer program manual).
Tulsa, OK. StatSoft Inc. 2325 East 13^th^ Street, Tulsa, OK 74104.

Stebbins, R.C. 1954. Amphibians and reptiles of western North America.
McGraw Hill. New York.

Stevens, D.L., Jr. and A.R. Olsen. 1999. Spatially restricted surveys
over time for aquatic resources. Journal of Agricultural, Biological and
Environmental Statistics.

Stolte, K.W. and W.D. Smith. In Review. 1998 forest health monitoring
national technical report. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report.

Strahler, A.N. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology.
American Geophysical Union Transactions 38:913-920.

Thornton, K.W, G.E. Saul, and D.E. Hyatt. 1994. Environmental monitoring
and assessment program: assessment framework. EPA/620/R-94/016. Research
Triangle Park, N.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, EMAP Center.

Trotter P.C. 1989. Coastal cutthroat trout: a life history compendium.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118:463-473.

Washington State. 1992. Chapter 173-201 WAC, Water Quality Standards for
surface waters of the State of Washington. Statutory Authority: Chapter
90.48 RCW. 92-24-037 (Order 92-29), 173-201A-010, filed 11/25/92.
Olympia, Washington.

Washington Department of Ecology. 1990. 1990 Statewide Water Quality
Assessment \[305(b) Report\]. Olympia, Washington.

Welch, E.B., J.M. Jacoby, and C.W. May. 1998. Stream quality *in* River
ecology and Management: lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. R.
J. Naiman and R. E. Bilby *editors*. Springer Press, New York.

Wisseman, R. 1996. Benthic Invertebrate Biomonitoring and Bioassessment
in Western Montane Streams. Aquatic Biology Associates, Inc. Corvallis,
OR.

Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington.
University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington.

Zaroban, D.W., M.P. Mulvey, T.R. Maret, R.M. Hughes, and G. D. Merritt.
1999. Classification of species attributes for Pacific Northwest
freshwater fishes. Northwest Science. 73(2) 81-92.

#  

#   {#section-14 .unnumbered}

# X. Glossary

**Abiotic** Non-living characteristic of the environment.

**Accuracy** The closeness of a measured or computed value to its true
value.

**Acidity** A measure of the number of free hydrogen ions (H+) in a
solution that can chemically react with other substances.

**Alkalinity** Measure of the negative ions that are available to react
and neutralize free hydrogen ions. Some of most common of these include
hydroxide (OH), sulfate (SO~4~^2-^), phosphate (PO~4~), bicarbonate
(HCO~3~) and carbonate (CO~3~)

**Allochthonous inputs** Organic matter derived from an external source.

**Anadromous life history** Moving from sea to freshwater for
reproduction.

**Aquatic community** An association of interacting populations of
aquatic organisms in a given waterbody or habitat.

**Assemblage** A phylogentic subset of a biological community (e.g.,
fish assemblage, macroinvertebrate assemblage).

**Best management practices (BMP)** Methods, measures, or practices to
prevent or reduce water pollution, including structural and
nonstructural controls and operation and maintenance procedures.

**Benthic** Pertaining to the bottom (bed) of a water body.

**Bioassay** A toxicity test that uses selected organisms to determine
the acute or chronic effects of a chemical pollutant or whole effluent.

**Biocriteria** See biological criteria.

**Biological assessment** An evaluation of the biological condition of a
waterbody that uses biological surveys and other direct measurements of
resident biota in surface waters.

**Biological criteria** Numeric values or narrative expressions that
describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic assemblages
within a water body that has been assigned a designated aquatic life
use.

**Biological integrity** Characteristic of an aquatic system described
as \"A balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having
species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable
to that of natural habitat of the region\" (Karr and Dudley, 1981)

**Biological monitoring** The use of a biological entity as a detector
and its response as a measure to determine environmental conditions.

**Biological oxygen demand** The amount of oxygen that can be taken up
by nonliving organic matter as it decomposes by aerobic biochemical
action.

**Biological standard** A legally established State rule that includes a
designated biological use (goal) and biological criteria.

**Cobble** Substrate particles 64-256 mm in diameter (also referred to
as rubble).

**Channel** The section of the stream that contains the main flow.

**Channelization** The straightening of a stream; this is generally a
result of human activity.

**Community** The entire biological component of an ecosystem.

**Community component** Any portion of a biological community. The
community component may pertain to the taxonomic group (fish,
invertebrates, algae), the taxonomic category (phylum, order, family,
genus, species), the feeding strategy (herbivore, omnivore, carnivore)
or organizational level (individual, population, community association)
of a biological entity within the aquatic community.

**Confidence interval** An interval defined by two values, called
confidence limits, calculated from sample data with a procedure which
ensures that the unknown true value of the quantity of interest falls
between such calculated values in a specified percentage of samples.

**Designated uses** Types of water uses specified in water quality
standards for each waterbody or segment, whether or not they are being
attained. For example, salmonid spawning, primary contact recreation,
shellfish harvest.

**Dissolved oxygen** Oxygen dissolved in water and available for
organisms to use for respiration.

**Ecological Indicator** Objective, well-defined, and quantifiable
surrogates for environmental values.

**Ecoregion** A relatively homogeneous area defined by similarity of
vegetation, landform, soil, geology, hydrology, and land use. Ecoregions
help define designated use classifications of specific waterbodies.

**Embeddedness** The degree to which boulders, rubble, or gravel in the
stream bed are surrounded by fine sediment.

**Eutrophication** The natural and artificial addition of nutrients to a
waterbody, which may lead to depleted oxygen concentrations.
Eutrophication is a natural process that can be accelerated and
intensified by human activities.

**Functional groups** Groups of organisms that obtain energy in similar
ways.

**Fluvial life history** Migrating between rivers and tributaries.

**Glide** Slow, relatively shallow stream section with little or no
surface turbulence.

**Geomorphic channel types** Various categories of stream channels based
on similarities in channel pattern, bed material mobility, sediment
transport mechanisms, position in the stream network and various
combinations of slope and valley characteristics.

**Gravel** Substrate particles between 2 and 64 mm in diameter.

**Headwaters** The origins of a stream.

**Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)** Used by the U.S. Geological Survey to
reference hydrologic accounting units throughout the United States.

**Impairment** A detrimental effect on the biological integrity of a
waterbody caused by an impact that prevents attainment of the designated
use.

**Impoundment** A body of water contained by a barrier, such as a dam.

**Land uses** Activities that take place on the land, such as
construction, farming, or tree clearing.

**Metric** A descriptive measure; as used in this document, a biological
unit of measurement (e.g. number of taxa, number of juvenile salmonids).

**Macroinvertebrate** Organisms that lack a backbone and can be seen
with the naked eye.

**Nominal condition** Ecological condition indicating absence of
human-caused degradation.

**Non-native species** A species that is not native to a particular
location.

**Nonpoint source pollution** Pollution from sources that cannot be
defined as discrete points, such as runoff from areas of timber harvest,
agriculture and grazing.

**Oligotrophic** Waterbody with low nutrient inputs and low organic
production.

**Outfall** The pipe through which industrial facilities and wastewater
treatment plants discharge their effluent (wastewater) into a waterbody.

**Phosphorous** A nutrient that is essential for plants and animals.

**Phototrophic** type of energy pathway where light is converted to
chemical energy by plant photosynthesis.

**pH** A numerical measure of the concentration of the constituents that
determine water acidity (concentration of H^+^ to HO^-^). Measured on a
scale of 1.0 (acidic) to 14.0 (basic); 7.0 is neutral.

**Pool** Portion of a stream with reduced current velocity, often with
deeper water than surrounding areas, and a smooth surface.

**Population** Ecological: an aggregate of interbreeding individuals of
a biological species within a specified location. Statistical: the total
universe addressed in a sampling effort.

**Precision** The closeness of repeated measurements of the same
quantity.

**Resident life history** All life history stages occur in relatively
localized water body.

**Riffle** An area of the stream with relatively fast currents and
cobble/gravel substrate.

**Riparian area or zone** The area of vegetation located on the bank of
a natural watercourse, such as a stream, where the flows of energy,
matter, and species are most closely related to water dynamics.

**Riprap** Layer of large durable material (usually rocks used) used to
protect a stream bank from erosion.

**Sediment** Fragments of rock, soil, and organic material transported
and deposited in streams by water, wind or other natural phenomena. Can
refer to any size of particles but is often used to indicate only
particles smaller than 6mm.

**Stream order** A ranking of streams from headwaters to river terminus,
that designates the relative position of a stream or stream segment in a
drainage basin.

**Stream reach** Section of stream between two specific points.

**Stressor** Any physical, chemical, or biological entity that can
induce an adverse response.

**Substrate** The composition of the stream or river bottom ranging from
rocks to mud.

**Sympatric** Co-occurring in the same area.

**Transport capacity** The amount of energy available for the stream to
entrain and transport sediment particles.

**Toxicological indicators** The effects of chemicals on laboratory
organisms.

**Taxon (plural taxa)** A level of classification within a scientific
system that categorizes living organisms based on their physical
characteristics.

**Tolerance** The ability to withstand a particular condition, e.g.,
pollution‑tolerant indicates the ability to live in polluted waters.

**Tributary** A body of water that drains into another, typically
larger, body of water.

**Turbidity** Optical property of water that describes the amount of
light that is refracted. Primarily related to the amount of silt and
clay, turbidity is also influenced by organic particles, compounds and
organisms.

**Water quality criteria** Maximum concentrations of pollutants that are
acceptable, if those waters are to meet water quality standards. Listed
in state water quality standards.

**Water quality standards** Written goals for state waters, established
by each state and approved by EPA. Water quality standards have three
parts: designated uses, water quality criteria and an anti-degradation
policy.

**Watershed** A region or area bounded by ridgelines or other physical
divides and draining ultimately to a particular watercourse or body of
water.

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# XI. Appendices 

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc474827170 .anchor}**Appendix 1**. List of map
sites with associated stream identification number.

+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **  | **S   | **   | ##      | ##     | **Stru | **La   | **Lon  |
| Map | tream | Lat- | ######  | #####  | m-id** | t-dd** | g-dd** |
| \   | -id** | dd** | Long-dd | Map \# |        |        |        |
| #** |       |      |         |        |        |        |        |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 1   | O     | 43   | 123.234 | 66     | WA860S | 48.176 | 1      |
|     | R790S | .921 |         |        |        |        | 24.174 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 2   | O     | 45   | 122.862 | 67     | WA861S | 48.169 | 1      |
|     | R796S | .890 |         |        |        |        | 24.210 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 3   | O     | 45   | 123.830 | 68     | WA863S | 46.747 | 1      |
|     | R798S | .403 |         |        |        |        | 23.615 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 4   | O     | 42   | 123.170 | 69     | OR001S | 45.992 | 1      |
|     | R799S | .943 |         |        |        |        | 22.896 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 5   | O     | 42   | 124.094 | 70     | OR003S | 44.139 | 1      |
|     | R813S | .111 |         |        |        |        | 23.439 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 6   | O     | 42   | 124.066 | 71     | OR005S | 45.296 | 1      |
|     | R814S | .614 |         |        |        |        | 23.377 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 7   | O     | 46   | 123.586 | 72     | OR007S | 45.092 | 1      |
|     | R818S | .151 |         |        |        |        | 23.696 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 8   | O     | 45   | 123.619 | 73     | OR009S | 45.413 | 1      |
|     | R822S | .075 |         |        |        |        | 23.193 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 9   | O     | 45   | 123.621 | 74     | OR011S | 45.998 | 1      |
|     | R823S | .055 |         |        |        |        | 23.277 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 10  | O     | 46   | 123.355 | 75     | OR013S | 45.808 | 1      |
|     | R826S | .009 |         |        |        |        | 23.734 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 11  | O     | 45   | 123.588 | 76     | OR017S | 45.465 | 1      |
|     | R831S | .495 |         |        |        |        | 23.436 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 12  | O     | 45   | 123.793 | 77     | OR019S | 45.302 | 1      |
|     | R832S | .425 |         |        |        |        | 23.546 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 13  | O     | 44   | 123.775 | 78     | OR021S | 45.015 | 1      |
|     | R835S | .635 |         |        |        |        | 23.722 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 14  | O     | 44   | 123.754 | 79     | OR025S | 44.469 | 1      |
|     | R836S | .652 |         |        |        |        | 23.959 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 15  | O     | 44   | 124.059 | 80     | OR027S | 44.455 | 1      |
|     | R838S | .398 |         |        |        |        | 23.964 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 16  | O     | 44   | 123.564 | 81     | OR029S | 44.214 | 1      |
|     | R839S | .387 |         |        |        |        | 24.011 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 17  | O     | 44   | 123.949 | 82     | OR031S | 43.963 | 1      |
|     | R840S | .203 |         |        |        |        | 23.971 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 18  | O     | 43   | 123.229 | 83     | OR033S | 43.981 | 1      |
|     | R841S | .806 |         |        |        |        | 23.430 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 19  | O     | 43   | 123.426 | 84     | OR035S | 43.936 | 1      |
|     | R846S | .784 |         |        |        |        | 23.510 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 20  | O     | 43   | 123.863 | 85     | OR037S | 43.043 | 1      |
|     | R848S | .517 |         |        |        |        | 23.539 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 21  | O     | 43   | 123.211 | 86     | OR039S | 43.934 | 1      |
|     | R850S | .633 |         |        |        |        | 23.814 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 22  | O     | 43   | 123.219 | 87     | OR043S | 43.502 | 1      |
|     | R851S | .627 |         |        |        |        | 23.318 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 23  | O     | 43   | 123.941 | 88     | OR045S | 43.574 | 1      |
|     | R852S | .560 |         |        |        |        | 24.024 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 24  | O     | 43   | 124.164 | 89     | OR047S | 43.333 | 1      |
|     | R853S | .438 |         |        |        |        | 24.071 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 25  | O     | 43   | 123.959 | 90     | OR049S | 43.116 | 1      |
|     | R854S | .555 |         |        |        |        | 24.215 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 26  | O     | 43   | 123.634 | 91     | OR053S | 42.749 | 1      |
|     | R855S | .206 |         |        |        |        | 24.278 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 27  | O     | 43   | 123.892 | 92     | OR055S | 42.719 | 1      |
|     | R856S | .266 |         |        |        |        | 24.275 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 28  | O     | 43   | 123.596 | 93     | OR057S | 42.575 | 1      |
|     | R857S | .258 |         |        |        |        | 24.259 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 29  | O     | 43   | 124.046 | 94     | OR059S | 42.191 | 1      |
|     | R858S | .164 |         |        |        |        | 24.091 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 30  | O     | 43   | 123.803 | 95     | WA001S | 46.267 | 1      |
|     | R859S | .162 |         |        |        |        | 23.850 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 31  | O     | 43   | 123.778 | 96     | WA002S | 48.145 | 1      |
|     | R862S | .147 |         |        |        |        | 24.580 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 32  | W     | 46   | 123.464 | 97     | WA003S | 48.130 | 1      |
|     | A780S | .913 |         |        |        |        | 24.537 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 33  | W     | 48   | 124.360 | 98     | WA004S | 48.030 | 1      |
|     | A788S | .178 |         |        |        |        | 24.534 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 47  | W     | 46   | 123.260 | 99     | WA007S | 47.971 | 1      |
|     | A826S | .289 |         |        |        |        | 24.586 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 48  | W     | 46   | 123.285 | 100    | WA009S | 47.834 | 1      |
|     | A828S | .268 |         |        |        |        | 24.013 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 49  | W     | 46   | 123.403 | 101    | WA011S | 47.358 | 1      |
|     | A831S | .439 |         |        |        |        | 23.967 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 50  | W     | 47   | 124.171 | 102    | WA014S | 46.987 | 1      |
|     | A832S | .933 |         |        |        |        | 23.198 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 51  | W     | 47   | 123.935 | 103    | WA016S | 47.282 | 1      |
|     | A833S | .781 |         |        |        |        | 23.484 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 52  | W     | 47   | 123.646 | 104    | WA017S | 47.266 | 1      |
|     | A835S | .654 |         |        |        |        | 23.476 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 53  | W     | 47   | 123.672 | 105    | WA018S | 47.105 | 1      |
|     | A836S | .643 |         |        |        |        | 23.363 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 54  | W     | 47   | 124.174 | 106    | WA019S | 47.104 | 1      |
|     | A837S | .523 |         |        |        |        | 23.357 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 55  | W     | 47   | 123.815 | 107    | WA022S | 46.710 | 1      |
|     | A838S | .489 |         |        |        |        | 23.475 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 56  | W     | 47   | 124.265 | 108    | WA023S | 46.708 | 1      |
|     | A840S | .350 |         |        |        |        | 23.432 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 57  | W     | 46   | 123.297 | 109    | WA024S | 46.572 | 1      |
|     | A842S | .873 |         |        |        |        | 23.858 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 58  | W     | 46   | 123.320 | 110    | WA025S | 46.611 | 1      |
|     | A843S | .858 |         |        |        |        | 23.487 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 59  | W     | 47   | 123.548 | 111    | WA026S | 46.384 | 1      |
|     | A848S | .018 |         |        |        |        | 23.636 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 60  | W     | 47   | 123.907 | 112    | WA027S | 46.355 | 1      |
|     | A850S | .096 |         |        |        |        | 23.730 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 61  | W     | 46   | 123.711 | 113    | WA028S | 47.452 | 1      |
|     | A851S | .886 |         |        |        |        | 23.432 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 62  | W     | 46   | 123.461 | 114    | WA029S | 47.440 | 1      |
|     | A853S | .770 |         |        |        |        | 23.440 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 63  | W     | 46   | 123.766 | 122    | WA062S | 46.656 | 1      |
|     | A855S | .371 |         |        |        |        | 23.264 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 64  | W     | 47   | 122.989 | 123    | WA065S | 46.651 | 1      |
|     | A856S | .891 |         |        |        |        | 23.845 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 65  | W     | 47   | 123.171 | 131    | WA089S | 47.530 | 1      |
|     | A858S | .683 |         |        |        |        | 24.049 |
+-----+-------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

# 

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc474827171 .anchor}**Appendix 2.** Summary
statistics for 11 water chemistry indicators collected from coastal
ecoregion sites, 1994-1995.

  --------------- ----------- ------- ------------ ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------- ------------- ----------- -------------- -------------- ---------
  **Indicator**   **Units**   **n**   **Weighted   **Mean**   **-95%      **+95%      **Median**   **Minimum**   **Maximum**   **Range**   **Variance**   **Std.Dev.**   **Std.
                                      stream km**             confid.**   confid.**                                                                                      Error**

  Alkalinity      μeq/L       98      22571        564.645    560.674     568.617     479.568      79.528        1678.488      1598.960    92667.780      304.414        2.026

  Chloride        μeq/L       84      20097        165.393    162.069     168.717     115.645      0.846         2820.600      2819.754    57813.475      240.444        1.696
  (Cl^-^)                                                                                                                                                                

  Conductivity    uS/cm       103     23163        90.0       89.4        90.7        74.0         29.0          493.0         464.0       2566.629       50.662         0.333

  Dissolved       mg/L        102     22773        8.74       8.71        8.77        9.60         1.10          12.15         11.05       5.907          2.431          0.016
  oxygen (DO)                                                                                                                                                            

  Dissolved       mg/L        71      16149        2.8        2.7         2.8         1.6          0.5           13.0          12.5        9.416          3.069          0.024
  organic carbon                                                                                                                                                         
  (DOC)                                                                                                                                                                  

  Ammonium        μeq/L       103     23163        6.638      6.337       6.939       1.428        0.714         128.507       127.793     545.925        23.365         0.154
  (NH~4~^+^)                                                                                                                                                             

  Nitrate         μeq/L       103     23163        11.072     10.889      11.256      5.069        0.714         78.532        77.818      202.679        14.237         0.094
  (NO~3~^-^)                                                                                                                                                             

  pH              -log\[H\]   102     22843        7.1        7.1         7.1         7.1          5.5           8.1           2.6         0.212          0.460          0.003

  Total           ug/L        101     22790        65.8       64.2        67.3        20.0         5.0           580.0         575.0       14078.098      118.651        0.786
  phosphorous                                                                                                                                                            

  Sulfate         μeq/L       85      20181        85.147     84.124      86.170      66.624       5.205         472.614       467.409     5497.438       74.145         0.522
  (SO~4~^2-^)                                                                                                                                                            

  Temperature     Celsius     102     22773        12.9       12.9        13.0        12.5         7.3           25.3          18.0        4.603          2.145          0.014
  --------------- ----------- ------- ------------ ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------- ------------- ----------- -------------- -------------- ---------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc474827172 .anchor}**Appendix 3.** Summary
statistics for physical habitat metrics based on samples collected from
coastal ecoregion sites, 1994-1995.

  -------------- ---------------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------------- ------------- ------------ --------- ---------- -------------- ------------- --------
  **CASENAME**   **Indicator**    **Units**   **N**   **MEAN**   **CONFID.**   **CONFID.**   **MEDIAN**   **MIN**   **MAX**    **VARIANCE**   **STD_DEV**   **S.
                                                                                                                                                            E.**

  XSLOPE         Mean Slope       \%          23228   3.76       3.72          3.81          2.39         0.00      22.35      11.787         3.433         0.023

  XDEPTH         Mean thalweg     cm          23228   25.27      24.99         25.56         20.87        0.67      139.81     490.342        22.144        0.145
                 Depth                                                                                                                                      

  XWIDTH         Mean wetted      m           23228   4.02       3.97          4.07          2.25         0.12      23.26      16.457         4.057         0.027
                 Width                                                                                                                                      

  XWD_RAT        Mean width/depth m/m         23228   23.61      23.44         23.77         20.87        6.04      104.14     169.040        13.002        0.085

  AREA_HA        Watershed area   Hectares    23228   1497.52    1458.69       1536.35       197.05       9.24      15957.23   9117486.317    3019.518      19.812

  SINU           Sinuosity        m/m         23228   1.97       1.91          2.02          1.27         0.00      72.39      17.833         4.223         0.028

  PCT_SAFN       Sand/fine        \%          23228   42.08      41.69         42.46         36.36        0.00      100.00     888.054        29.800        0.196
                 substrate                                                                                                                                  

  PCT_SFGF       Fine             \%          23228   54.18      53.83         54.54         56.36        3.85      100.00     753.963        27.458        0.180
                 gravel/smaller                                                                                                                             

  PCT_BIGR       Coarse           \%          23228   32.24      31.87         32.62         25.45        0.00      94.23      832.948        28.861        0.189
                 gravel/larger                                                                                                                              

  PCT_BDRK       Bedrock          \%          23228   1.68       1.61          1.76          0.00         0.00      69.09      35.129         5.927         0.039

  PCT_ORG        Organic matter   \%          23228   5.26       5.17          5.35          1.92         0.00      30.00      47.780         6.912         0.045

  V1W_MSQ        All LWD          m^2^/m^3^   23228   0.68       0.66          0.71          0.19         0.00      9.33       3.203          1.790         0.012

  V4W_MSQ        Lg./xlarge LWD   m^2^/m^3^   23228   0.22       0.21          0.22          0.07         0.00      2.66       0.175          0.418         0.003

  PCT_FA         Falls            \%          23228   0.38       0.37          0.40          0.00         0.00      5.33       0.964          0.982         0.006

  PCT_DRS        Dry/subsurface   \%          23228   7.15       6.89          7.40          0.00         0.00      87.33      398.464        19.962        0.131

  PCT_FAST       Fast water       \%          23228   37.01      36.68         37.35         34.67        0.00      84.56      676.418        26.008        0.171

  PCT_SLOW       Glides/pools     \%          23228   55.75      55.42         56.08         56.00        10.67     100.00     663.352        25.756        0.169

  PCT_F_NO       Fast w/o falls   \%          23228   36.63      36.30         36.96         34.67        0.00      82.55      657.109        25.634        0.168

  PCT_POOL       All pool types   \%          23228   29.02      28.77         29.28         23.00        1.00      96.64      394.860        19.871        0.130

  RPA100R        Residual mean    cm          23228   11.89      11.73         12.05         8.23         0.00      74.12      153.448        12.387        0.081
                 dpth                                                                                                                                       

  RPD75          Res. Depth       #/reach     21250   0.63       0.61          0.64          0.00         0.00      6.00       1.034          1.017         0.007
                 \>75cm                                                                                                                                     

  XAR            Mean stream area m^2^        23228   2.55       2.49          2.62          0.59         0.00      32.94      26.014         5.100         0.033

  MAXDEP         Max. thalweg     cm          23228   66.54      65.84         67.25         58.95        0.00      376.93     3014.644       54.906        0.360
                 depth                                                                                                                                      

  XBKF_W         Mean bankfull    m           23228   6.88       6.80          6.96          5.20         0.84      48.10      37.143         6.095         0.040
                 width                                                                                                                                      

  XINC_H         Mean incision    m           23228   1.23       1.22          1.25          0.99         0.08      5.32       0.912          0.955         0.006
                 height                                                                                                                                     

  XCL            Riparian canopy  cover       23228   0.23       0.23          0.23          0.21         0.00      0.67       0.027          0.164         0.001
                 \>.3m DBH                                                                                                                                  

  XFC_ALL        All fish cover   Sum areal   23228   0.63       0.63          0.64          0.56         0.13      1.48       0.098          0.313         0.002
                 types            prop.                                                                                                                     

  XFC_BIG        Structural fish  Areal prop. 23228   0.31       0.31          0.32          0.28         0.04      0.82       0.041          0.204         0.001
                 cover                                                                                                                                      

  XFC_NAT        Natural fish     Areal prop. 23228   0.62       0.62          0.62          0.55         0.13      1.48       0.098          0.313         0.002
                 cover                                                                                                                                      
  -------------- ---------------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------------- ------------- ------------ --------- ---------- -------------- ------------- --------

**Appendix 3 continued**. Summary statistics for physical habitat
metrics based on samples collected from coastal ecoregion sites,
1994-1995.

  -------------- ------------------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------------- ------------- ------------ --------- --------- -------------- ------------- -------
  **CASENAME**   **Indicator**       **Units**   **N**   **MEAN**   **CONFID.**   **CONFID.**   **MEDIAN**   **MIN**   **MAX**   **VARIANCE**   **STD_DEV**   **S.
                                                                                                                                                              E.**

  XGB            Riparian bare       cover       23228   0.18       0.18          0.18          0.14         0.00      0.73      0.023          0.151         0.001
                 ground                                                                                                                                       

  XC             Riparian canopy     cover       23228   0.41       0.40          0.41          0.33         0.01      0.89      0.061          0.246         0.002

  XG             Riparian ground     cover       23228   0.65       0.65          0.65          0.61         0.13      1.09      0.042          0.204         0.001
                 layer                                                                                                                                        

  XCMW           Canopy and mid      cover       23228   0.74       0.73          0.74          0.79         0.01      1.51      0.145          0.381         0.002
                 woody                                                                                                                                        

  XCMGW          Riparian woody      cover       23228   0.92       0.91          0.93          0.96         0.02      1.81      0.194          0.440         0.003
                 cover                                                                                                                                        

  XPCM           Riparian canopy and Prop. Reach 23228   0.86       0.86          0.86          1.00         0.08      1.00      0.046          0.214         0.001
                 midlayer                                                                                                                                     

  XPCMG          3 layer riparian    Prop. Reach 23228   0.86       0.85          0.86          1.00         0.08      1.00      0.047          0.217         0.001
                 veg.                                                                                                                                         

  PCAN_C         Riparian            Prop. Reach 23228   0.10       0.10          0.10          0.00         0.00      0.92      0.037          0.193         0.001
                 canopy-coniferous                                                                                                                            

  XPCAN          Riparian canopy-all Prop. Reach 23228   0.87       0.86          0.87          1.00         0.08      1.00      0.044          0.211         0.001

  XPMID          Riparian mid layer  Prop. Reach 23228   0.98       0.98          0.98          1.00         0.58      1.00      0.002          0.046         0.000
                 veg.                                                                                                                                         

  PCAN_D         Riparian            Prop. Reach 23228   0.41       0.41          0.42          0.42         0.00      1.00      0.114          0.338         0.002
                 canopy-deciduous                                                                                                                             

  PCAN_M         Riparian            Prop. Reach 23228   0.35       0.35          0.36          0.33         0.00      1.00      0.091          0.302         0.002
                 canopy-mixed                                                                                                                                 

  XCDENBK        Canopy density-bank \%          22434   89.38      89.21         89.55         93.85        28.88     100.00    172.521        13.135        0.088

  XCDENMID       Canopy density mid  \%          23228   79.20      78.92         79.48         88.64        13.37     100.00    464.045        21.542        0.141
                 channel                                                                                                                                      

  W1_HALL        All riparian        Prox. Wt.   23228   1.34       1.32          1.36          1.28         0.00      5.08      1.433          1.197         0.008
                 disturb.            Pres.                                                                                                                    

  W1_HAG         Agric. Riparian     Prox. Wt.   23228   0.20       0.19          0.21          0.00         0.00      2.11      0.215          0.463         0.003
                 dist.               Pres.                                                                                                                    

  W1H_LOG        Logging riparian    Prox. Wt.   23228   0.56       0.56          0.57          0.67         0.00      1.50      0.209          0.457         0.003
                 dist.               Pres.                                                                                                                    

  W1H_ROAD       Road riparian dist. Prox. Wt.   23228   0.35       0.34          0.35          0.33         0.00      1.00      0.105          0.324         0.002
                                     Pres.                                                                                                                    

  W1H_BLDG       Building riparian   Prox. Wt.   23228   0.08       0.07          0.08          0.00         0.00      0.69      0.035          0.186         0.001
                 dist.               Pres.                                                                                                                    

  W1H_PVMT       Pavement riparian   Prox. Wt.   23228   0.07       0.07          0.07          0.00         0.00      0.83      0.035          0.188         0.001
                 dist.               Pres.                                                                                                                    

  W1_HNOAG       Non-ag. Riparian    Prox. Wt.   23228   1.14       1.13          1.15          1.25         0.00      4.03      0.818          0.904         0.006
                 dist.               Pres.                                                                                                                    

  LSUB_DMM       Substrate diameter  Geo. Mean   23228   0.24       0.22          0.26          0.70         -2.45     3.18      2.052          1.432         0.009
                                     dia.                                                                                                                     

  all wood       All LWD             Ave. #/100m 21933   43.42      42.81         44.02         26.67        0.00      213.33    2073.19        45.53         0.31

  v\. small w.   Very small LWD      Ave. #/100m 21933   20.27      19.85         20.69         7.33         0.00      153.33    1005.37        31.71         0.21

  small w.       Small LWD           Ave. #/100m 21933   11.20      11.08         11.32         8.67         0.00      35.72     82.04          9.06          0.06

  med. W.        Medium LWD          Ave. #/100m 21933   6.13       6.06          6.21          4.00         0.00      22.64     30.86          5.56          0.04

  large w.       Large LWD           Ave. #/100m 21933   5.09       5.00          5.18          2.67         0.00      39.37     43.31          6.58          0.04

  v\. large w.   Very large LWD      Ave. #/100m 21933   0.72       0.70          0.73          0.00         0.00      4.37      1.12           1.06          0.01
  -------------- ------------------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------------- ------------- ------------ --------- --------- -------------- ------------- -------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc474827173 .anchor}**Appendix 4**. List of fish and
amphibian species identified during 1994-1995 field sampling of Coast
Range ecoregion REMAP sites. Extent of distribution indicated by percent
of the total stream km represented by the sample.

+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| **       | **      | *     | **Common name**        | **% | * | *   |
| Family** | Genus** | *Spec |                        | str | * | *to |
|          |         | ies** |                        | eam | s | tal |
|          |         |       |                        | k   | i | w   |
|          |         |       |                        | m** | t | t** |
|          |         |       |                        |     | e |     |
|          |         |       |                        |     | s |     |
|          |         |       |                        |     | * |     |
|          |         |       |                        |     | * |     |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| **       |         |       |                        |     |   |     |
| Fishes** |         |       |                        |     |   |     |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Cato     | Cat     | ma    | LARGESCALE SUCKER      | 5.4 | 6 | 123 |
| stomidae | ostomus | croch |                        |     |   | 2.4 |
|          |         | eilus |                        |     |   |     |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Centr    | Lepomis | m     | BLUEGILL               | 0.9 | 1 | 19  |
| archidae |         | acroc |                        |     |   | 8.4 |
|          |         | hirus |                        |     |   |     |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Centr    | Lepomis | gib   | PUMPKINSEED            | 0.9 | 1 | 19  |
| archidae |         | bosus |                        |     |   | 8.4 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Cottidae | Cottus  | perp  | RETICULATE SCULPIN     | 4   | 4 | 933 |
|          |         | lexus |                        | 0.6 | 8 | 8.1 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Cottidae | Cottus  | gu    | RIFFLE SCULPIN         | 1   | 2 | 381 |
|          |         | losus |                        | 6.6 | 0 | 4.3 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Cottidae | Cottus  | rho   | TORRENT SCULPIN        | 9.3 | 2 | 214 |
|          |         | theus |                        |     | 4 | 9.9 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Cottidae | Cottus  | asper | PRICKLY SCULPIN        | 7.8 | 1 | 179 |
|          |         |       |                        |     | 2 | 5.6 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Cottidae | Cottus  | aleu  | COASTRANGE SCULPIN     | 6.3 | 1 | 144 |
|          |         | ticus |                        |     | 2 | 2.5 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Cottidae | Cottus  | con   | SHORTHEAD SCULPIN      | 3.9 | 5 | 90  |
|          |         | fusus |                        |     |   | 9.0 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Cottidae |         |       | unidentified cottid    | 1.4 | 1 | 32  |
|          |         |       |                        |     |   | 0.5 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Cy       | Rhin    | os    | SPECKLED DACE          | 7.8 | 1 | 179 |
| prinidae | ichthys | culus |                        |     | 7 | 7.6 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Cy       | Richar  | balt  | REDSIDE SHINER         | 7.6 | 1 | 174 |
| prinidae | dsonius | eatus |                        |     | 2 | 4.5 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Cy       | Ptycho  | o     | NORTHERN PIKEMINNOW    | 2.6 | 3 | 58  |
| prinidae | cheilus | regon |                        |     |   | 7.3 |
|          |         | ensis |                        |     |   |     |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Cy       | Rhin    | catar | LONGNOSE DACE          | 1.1 | 4 | 26  |
| prinidae | ichthys | actae |                        |     |   | 0.0 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Gaster   | Gaste   | acul  | THREESPINE STICKLEBACK | 5.7 | 9 | 131 |
| osteidae | rosteus | eatus |                        |     |   | 7.3 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Per      | Pe      | tr    | SAND ROLLER            | 0.3 | 1 | 6   |
| copsidae | rcopsis | ansmo |                        |     |   | 5.0 |
|          |         | ntana |                        |     |   |     |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Petromy  | L       | tride | PACIFIC LAMPREY        | 2   | 4 | 546 |
| zontidae | ampetra | ntata |                        | 3.7 | 5 | 3.2 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Petromy  | L       | r     | WESTERN BROOK LAMPREY  | 3.7 | 6 | 85  |
| zontidae | ampetra | ichar |                        |     |   | 4.3 |
|          |         | dsoni |                        |     |   |     |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Petromy  |         |       | Unidentified lamprey   | 5.1 | 3 | 117 |
| zontidae |         |       |                        |     |   | 0.1 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Sa       | Oncor   | c     | CUTTHROAT TROUT        | 5   | 6 | 1   |
| lmonidae | hynchus | larki |                        | 5.6 | 0 | 278 |
|          |         |       |                        |     |   | 8.9 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Sa       | Oncor   | ki    | COHO SALMON            | 3   | 4 | 708 |
| lmonidae | hynchus | sutch |                        | 0.8 | 7 | 7.9 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Sa       | Oncor   | m     | RAINBOW TROUT          | 2   | 5 | 662 |
| lmonidae | hynchus | ykiss |                        | 8.8 | 4 | 9.5 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Sa       | Sal     | fonti | BROOK TROUT            | 2.5 | 4 | 58  |
| lmonidae | velinus | nalis |                        |     |   | 5.0 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Sa       | Sal     | c     | BULL TROUT             | 1.6 | 2 | 37  |
| lmonidae | velinus | onflu |                        |     |   | 3.9 |
|          |         | entus |                        |     |   |     |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Sa       | Oncor   | t     | CHINOOK SALMON         | 1.1 | 4 | 26  |
| lmonidae | hynchus | shawy |                        |     |   | 0.0 |
|          |         | tscha |                        |     |   |     |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Umbridae | N       | h     | OLYMPIC MUDMINNOW      | 1.7 | 2 | 40  |
|          | ovumbra | ubbsi |                        |     |   | 0.6 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| ####     |         |       |                        |     |   |     |
| ##### Am |         |       |                        |     |   |     |
| phibians |         |       |                        |     |   |     |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Ambyst   | Am      | gr    | NORTHWESTERN           | 0.3 | 1 | 8   |
| omatidae | bystoma | acile | SALAMANDER             |     |   | 0.1 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| B        | Bufo    | b     | WESTERN TOAD           | 1.7 | 1 | 39  |
| ufonidae |         | oreas |                        |     |   | 0.0 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Dicampto | Dica    | teneb | PACIFIC GIANT          | 3   | 2 | 695 |
| dontidae | mptodon | rosus | SALAMANDER             | 0.2 | 4 | 9.2 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Dicampto | Dica    | copei | COPE\'S GIANT          | 1   | 8 | 284 |
| dontidae | mptodon |       | SALAMANDER             | 2.3 |   | 2.0 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Hylidae  | Pse     | re    | PACIFIC TREE FROG      | 1.1 | 2 | 24  |
|          | udacris | gilla |                        |     |   | 3.7 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Leiope   | A       | truei | TAILED FROG            | 1   | 1 | 359 |
| lmatidae | scaphus |       |                        | 5.6 | 6 | 2.4 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Ranidae  | Rana    | a     | RED-LEGGED FROG        | 1   | 1 | 440 |
|          |         | urora |                        | 9.1 | 8 | 1.4 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Ranidae  | Rana    | b     | FOOTHILL YELLOW-LEGGED | 1.1 | 2 | 26  |
|          |         | oylii | FROG                   |     |   | 4.6 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Ranidae  | Rana    | cates | BULLFROG               | 0.3 | 1 | 6   |
|          |         | biana |                        |     |   | 5.0 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Rhyacotr | Rhyac   | olym  | OLYMPIC TORRENT        | 3.1 | 2 | 71  |
| itonidae | otriton | picus | SALAMANDER             |     |   | 0.5 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Rhyacotr | Rhyac   | k     | COLUMBIA TORRENT       | 1.4 | 1 | 32  |
| itonidae | otriton | ezeri | SALAMANDER             |     |   | 0.5 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
| Salam    | Taricha | gran  | ROUGH-SKINNED NEWT     | 2   | 1 | 475 |
| andridae |         | ulosa |                        | 0.7 | 7 | 5.1 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+
|          |         |       | no vertebrates         | 5.1 | 2 | 118 |
|          |         |       | captured               |     |   | 3.7 |
+----------+---------+-------+------------------------+-----+---+-----+

# 

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc474827174 .anchor}**Appendix 5.** Species
characteristics classification for freshwater fish species identified at
Coast Range ecoregion REMAP sites. Results from all sampling included
(includes repeat visit results, 1994-1996 data). Classification based on
Zaroban et al. (1999).

+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| **   |   |       | **Common   | *      | ##   | *     | **T  | **Fee  |
| Fami |   |       | Name**     | *Origi | #### | *Habi | empe | ding** |
| ly/S |   |       |            | n^1^** | ## T | tat** | ratu |        |
| peci |   |       |            |        | oler |       | re** |        |
| es** |   |       |            |        | ance |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| #### |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| ###  |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| Cato |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| stom |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| idae |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| Ca   |   |       | largescale | OR, WA | tole | be    | cool | om     |
| tost |   |       | sucker     |        | rant | nthic |      | nivore |
| omus |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| macr |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| oche |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| ilus |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
|      |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| #    |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| #### |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| ## C |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| entr |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| arch |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| idae |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| Lep  |   |       | bluegill   | Non-   | tole | water | warm | inve   |
| omis |   |       |            | native | rant | c     |      | rt/pis |
| mac  |   |       |            |        |      | olumn |      | civore |
| roch |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| irus |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| Lep  |   |       | p          | Non-   | tole | water | cool | inve   |
| omis |   |       | umpkinseed | native | rant | c     |      | rt/pis |
| gibb |   |       |            |        |      | olumn |      | civore |
| osus |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
|      |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| #### |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| ###  |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| Cott |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| idae |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| Co   |   |       | coastrange | OR, WA | inte | be    | cool | inver  |
| ttus |   |       | sculpin    |        | rmed | nthic |      | tivore |
| a    |   |       |            |        | iate |       |      |        |
| leut |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| icus |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| Co   |   |       | prickly    | OR, WA | inte | be    | cool | inve   |
| ttus |   |       | sculpin    |        | rmed | nthic |      | rt/pis |
| a    |   |       |            |        | iate |       |      | civore |
| sper |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| Co   |   |       | reticulate | OR, WA | inte | be    | cool | inver  |
| ttus |   |       | sculpin    |        | rmed | nthic |      | tivore |
| p    |   |       |            |        | iate |       |      |        |
| erpl |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| exus |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| Co   |   |       | riffle     | OR, WA | inte | be    | cool | inver  |
| ttus |   |       | sculpin    |        | rmed | nthic |      | tivore |
| gul  |   |       |            |        | iate |       |      |        |
| osus |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| Co   |   |       | shorthead  | OR, WA | s    | be    | cold | inver  |
| ttus |   |       | sculpin    |        | ensi | nthic |      | tivore |
| conf |   |       |            |        | tive |       |      |        |
| usus |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| Co   |   |       | torrent    | OR, WA | inte | be    | cold | inve   |
| ttus |   |       | sculpin    |        | rmed | nthic |      | rt/pis |
| rhot |   |       |            |        | iate |       |      | civore |
| heus |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
|      |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| ##   |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| #### |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| # Cy |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| prin |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| idae |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| P    |   |       | northern   | OR, WA | tole | water | cool | inve   |
| tych |   |       | pikeminnow |        | rant | c     |      | rt/pis |
| oche |   |       |            |        |      | olumn |      | civore |
| ilus |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| ore  |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| gone |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| nsis |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| Rhi  |   |       | longnose   | OR, WA | inte | be    | cool | inver  |
| nich |   |       | dace       |        | rmed | nthic |      | tivore |
| thys |   |       |            |        | iate |       |      |        |
| ca   |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| tara |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| ctae |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| Rhi  |   |       | speckled   | OR, WA | inte | be    | cool | inver  |
| nich |   |       | dace       |        | rmed | nthic |      | tivore |
| thys |   |       |            |        | iate |       |      |        |
| osc  |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| ulus |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| R    |   |       | redside    | OR, WA | inte | water | cool | inver  |
| icha |   |       | shiner     |        | rmed | c     |      | tivore |
| rdso |   |       |            |        | iate | olumn |      |        |
| nius |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| b    |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| alte |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| atus |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
|      |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| ##   |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| #### |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| # Ga |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| ster |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| oste |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| idae |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+
| Gast |   |       | threespine | OR, WA | tole | hider | cool | inver  |
| eros |   |       | s          |        | rant |       |      | tivore |
| teus |   |       | tickleback |        |      |       |      |        |
| a    |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| cule |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
| atus |   |       |            |        |      |       |      |        |
+------+---+-------+------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+

OR = native to Oregon, WA = native to Washington (does not imply
occurrence in both states).

**Appendix 5 continued.** Species characteristics classification for
freshwater fish species identified during 1994-1995 field sampling of
Coast Range ecoregion REMAP sites. Results from all sampling included
(includes repeat visit results, 1994-1996 data).Classification based on
Zaroban et al. (1999).

+---------------+------------+------+------+-------+-------+---------+---+
| **Fam         | **Common   | **   | *    | *     | **Tem | **Fe    |   |
| ily/Species** | name**     | Orig | *Tol | *Habi | perat | eding** |   |
|               |            | in** | eran | tat** | ure** |         |   |
|               |            |      | ce** |       |       |         |   |
+---------------+------------+------+------+-------+-------+---------+---+
| ######        |            |      |      |       |       |         |   |
| # Percopsidae |            |      |      |       |       |         |   |
+---------------+------------+------+------+-------+-------+---------+---+
| Percopsis     | sand       | OR,  | inte | hider | cool  | inve    |   |
| transmontana  | roller     | WA   | rmed |       |       | rtivore |   |
|               |            |      | iate |       |       |         |   |
+---------------+------------+------+------+-------+-------+---------+---+
|               |            |      |      |       |       |         |   |
+---------------+------------+------+------+-------+-------+---------+---+
| **Petr        |            |      |      |       |       |         |   |
| omyzontidae** |            |      |      |       |       |         |   |
+---------------+------------+------+------+-------+-------+---------+---+
| Lampetra      | Pacific    | OR,  | inte | hider | cool  | filter  |   |
| tridentata    | lamprey    | WA   | rmed |       |       | feeder  |   |
|               |            |      | iate |       |       |         |   |
+---------------+------------+------+------+-------+-------+---------+---+
| Lampetra      | western    | OR,  | inte | hider | cool  | filter  |   |
| richardsoni   | brook      | WA   | rmed |       |       | feeder  |   |
|               | lamprey    |      | iate |       |       |         |   |
+---------------+------------+------+------+-------+-------+---------+---+
|               |            |      |      |       |       |         |   |
+---------------+------------+------+------+-------+-------+---------+---+
| #####         |            |      |      |       |       |         |   |
| ## Salmonidae |            |      |      |       |       |         |   |
+---------------+------------+------+------+-------+-------+---------+---+
| Oncorhynchus  | chinook    | OR,  | s    | water | cold  | inve    |   |
| tshawytscha   | salmon     | WA   | ensi | c     |       | rtivore |   |
|               |            |      | tive | olumn |       |         |   |
+---------------+------------+------+------+-------+-------+---------+---+
| Oncorhynchus  | coho       | OR,  | s    | water | cold  | inve    |   |
| kisutch       | salmon     | WA   | ensi | c     |       | rtivore |   |
|               |            |      | tive | olumn |       |         |   |
+---------------+------------+------+------+-------+-------+---------+---+
| Oncorhynchus  | cutthroat  | OR,  | s    | water | cold  | in      |   |
| clarki        | trout      | WA   | ensi | c     |       | vert/pi |   |
|               |            |      | tive | olumn |       | scivore |   |
+---------------+------------+------+------+-------+-------+---------+---+
| Oncorhynchus  | rainbow    | OR,  | s    | hider | cold  | in      |   |
| mykiss        | trout      | WA   | ensi |       |       | vert/pi |   |
|               |            |      | tive |       |       | scivore |   |
+---------------+------------+------+------+-------+-------+---------+---+
| Salvelinus    | brook      | No   | s    | hider | cold  | in      |   |
| fontinalis    | trout      | n-na | ensi |       |       | vert/pi |   |
|               |            | tive | tive |       |       | scivore |   |
+---------------+------------+------+------+-------+-------+---------+---+
| Salvelinus    | bull trout | OR,  | s    | hider | cold  | in      |   |
| confluentus   |            | WA   | ensi |       |       | vert/pi |   |
|               |            |      | tive |       |       | scivore |   |
+---------------+------------+------+------+-------+-------+---------+---+
|               |            |      |      |       |       |         |   |
+---------------+------------+------+------+-------+-------+---------+---+
| ###           |            |      |      |       |       |         |   |
| #### Umbridae |            |      |      |       |       |         |   |
+---------------+------------+------+------+-------+-------+---------+---+
| Novumbra      | Olympic    | WA   | tole | hider | warm  | inve    |   |
| hubbsi        | mudminnow  |      | rant |       |       | rtivore |   |
+---------------+------------+------+------+-------+-------+---------+---+

Non-native = non-native, exotic, or introduced species. OR = native to
Oregon, WA = native to Washington (does not imply occurarence in both
states).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc474827175 .anchor}**Appendix 6.** Species
characteristics classification for amphibian species identified during
1994-1995 field sampling of Coast Range ecoregion REMAP sites. Results
from all sampling included (includes repeat visit results, 1994-1996
data). Classification based Stebbins 1954 and Bob Hughes personal
conversations with Deanna Olsen, Robert Storm, Andrew Blaustein, and
Bruce Bury.

  ---------------------- -------------- ------------- ------------ --------------- --------------- ----------------- ------------------
  **Common name**        **Genus**      **Species**   **Origin**   **tolerance**   **habitat**     **temperature**   **Feeding**

  **Ambystomatidae**                                                                                                 

  northwestern           Ambystoma      gracile       native       tolerant        lentic          none              invert/carnivore
  salamander                                                                                                         

  **Leiopelmatidae**                                                                                                 

  tailed frog            Ascaphus       truei         native       sensitive       benthic/hider   cold              invert/carnivore

  **Bufonidae**                                                                                                      

  western toad           Bufo           boreas        native       sensitive       lentic          none              invert/carnivore

  **Dicamptodontidae**                                                                                               

  Cope\'s giant          Dicamptodon    copei         native       intolerant      hider           cold              invert/carnivore
  salamander                                                                                                         

  Pacific giant          Dicamptodon    tenebrosus    native       intolerant      benthic/hider   cold              invert/carnivore
  salamander                                                                                                         

  **Hylidae**                                                                                                        

  Pacific tree frog      Pseudacris     regilla       native       tolerant        lentic          none              invert/carnivore

  **Ranidae**                                                                                                        

  red-legged frog        Rana           aurora        native       intolerant      edge            none              invert/carnivore

  foothill yellow-legged Rana           boylii        native       intolerant      benthic/hider   cool              invert/carnivore
  frog                                                                                                               

  bullfrog               Rana           catesbiana    non-native   tolerant        lentic          warm              invert/carnivore

  **Salamandridae**                                                                                                  

  rough-skinned newt     Taricha        granulosa     native       tolerant        edge            none              invert/carnivore

  **Rhyacotritonidae**                                                                                               

  \*Columbia torrent     Rhyacotriton   kezeri        native       intolerant      benthic/hider   cold              invert/carnivore
  salamander                                                                                                         

  \*Olympic torrent      Rhyacotriton   olympicus     native       intolerant      benthic/hider   cold              invert/carnivore
  salamander                                                                                                         
  ---------------------- -------------- ------------- ------------ --------------- --------------- ----------------- ------------------

\*based on interpretation of amphibian descriptions in Leonard et al.
1993.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc474827176 .anchor}

**Appendix 7**. Summary statistics for vertebrate metrics based on
samples collected from coastal ecoregion sites, 1994-1995.

  ----------------------- -------- ------- --------- --------- -------- ------ -------- -------- --------- ------- ------
  Metric                  Stream   Mean    Confid.   Confid.   Median   Min.   Max.     Range    Var.      Std.    S.E.
                          km                                                                               Dev.    

  \# benthic species      23003    1.41    1.40      1.43      1.00     0.00   6.00     6.00     1.19      1.09    0.01

  \% benthic individuals  23003    39.95   39.51     40.38     35.63    0.00   100.00   100.00   1125.53   33.55   0.22

  \% benthic species      23003    33.50   33.21     33.78     33.33    0.00   100.00   100.00   479.47    21.90   0.14

  \# water column species 23003    0.45    0.45      0.46      0.00     0.00   3.00     3.00     0.45      0.67    0.00

  \% water column         23003    10.62   10.37     10.88     0.00     0.00   82.50    82.50    396.86    19.92   0.13
  individuals                                                                                                      

  \% water column species 23003    9.92    9.73      10.11     0.00     0.00   50.00    50.00    221.11    14.87   0.10

  \# hider species        23003    1.93    1.91      1.94      2.00     0.00   5.00     5.00     1.34      1.16    0.01

  \% hider individuals    23003    44.28   43.82     44.75     37.61    0.00   100.00   100.00   1280.68   35.79   0.24

  \% hider species        23003    51.43   51.10     51.77     50.00    0.00   100.00   100.00   659.13    25.67   0.17

  \# warmwater species    23003    0.09    0.08      0.09      0.00     0.00   2.00     2.00     0.11      0.33    0.00

  \% warmwater            23003    1.00    0.93      1.06      0.00     0.00   30.68    30.68    24.76     4.98    0.03
  individuals                                                                                                      

  \% warmwater species    23003    1.59    1.51      1.67      0.00     0.00   50.00    50.00    40.60     6.37    0.04

  \# cool water species   23003    1.76    1.74      1.78      1.00     0.00   7.00     7.00     2.55      1.60    0.01

  \% cool water           23003    37.76   37.31     38.21     33.33    0.00   100.00   100.00   1214.68   34.85   0.23
  individuals                                                                                                      

  \% cool water species   23003    40.95   40.57     41.33     40.00    0.00   100.00   100.00   860.65    29.34   0.19

  \# cold water species   23003    1.92    1.90      1.94      2.00     0.00   5.00     5.00     1.68      1.29    0.01

  \% cold water           23003    56.09   55.62     56.57     61.95    0.00   100.00   100.00   1342.06   36.63   0.24
  individuals                                                                                                      

  \% cold water species   23003    52.32   51.92     52.71     50.00    0.00   100.00   100.00   951.45    30.85   0.20

  \# filter feeder        23003    0.33    0.32      0.33      0.00     0.00   2.00     2.00     0.23      0.47    0.00
  species                                                                                                          

  \% filter feeder        23003    1.72    1.67      1.78      0.00     0.00   44.50    44.50    18.18     4.26    0.03
  individuals                                                                                                      

  \% filter feeder        23003    6.00    5.88      6.12      0.00     0.00   33.33    33.33    88.44     9.40    0.06
  species                                                                                                          

  \# herbivore species    23003    0.16    0.15      0.16      0.00     0.00   1.00     1.00     0.13      0.36    0.00

  \% herbivore            23003    3.30    3.11      3.49      0.00     0.00   96.49    96.49    213.23    14.60   0.10
  individuals                                                                                                      

  \% herbivore species    23003    4.46    4.31      4.60      0.00     0.00   50.00    50.00    129.80    11.39   0.08

  \# omnivore species     23003    0.05    0.05      0.06      0.00     0.00   1.00     1.00     0.05      0.23    0.00

  \% omnivore individuals 23003    1.21    1.13      1.29      0.00     0.00   33.33    33.33    37.21     6.10    0.04

  \% omnivore species     23003    1.97    1.85      2.09      0.00     0.00   50.00    50.00    85.87     9.27    0.06

  \# invertivore species  23003    1.91    1.89      1.93      1.00     0.00   7.00     7.00     2.53      1.59    0.01

  \% invertivore          23003    50.99   50.52     51.46     62.39    0.00   100.00   100.00   1317.10   36.29   0.24
  individuals                                                                                                      

  \% invertivore species  23003    44.41   44.06     44.76     50.00    0.00   100.00   100.00   728.74    27.00   0.18

  \#                      23003    1.34    1.33      1.35      1.00     0.00   4.00     4.00     0.78      0.88    0.01
  invertivore/piscivore                                                                                            
  species                                                                                                          

  \%                      23003    37.59   37.13     38.06     27.03    0.00   100.00   100.00   1291.90   35.94   0.24
  invertivore/piscivore                                                                                            
  individuals                                                                                                      
  ----------------------- -------- ------- --------- --------- -------- ------ -------- -------- --------- ------- ------

**Appendix 7 continued**. Summary statistics for vertebrate metrics
based on samples collected from coastal ecoregion sites, 1994-1995.

  ----------------------- -------- -------- --------- --------- -------- ------ -------- -------- ---------- -------- ------
  Metric                  Stream   Mean     Confid.   Confid.   Median   Min.   Max.     Range    Var.       Std.     S.E.
                          km                                                                                 Dev.     

  \%                      23003    37.47    37.12     37.83     33.33    0.00   100.00   100.00   760.69     27.58    0.18
  invertivore/piscivore                                                                                               
  species                                                                                                             

  \# piscivore species    23003    0.02     0.01      0.02      0.00     0.00   1.00     1.00     0.02       0.13     0.00

  \% piscivore indivduals 23003    0.04     0.03      0.04      0.00     0.00   2.63     2.63     0.10       0.31     0.00

  \% piscivore species    23003    0.54     0.49      0.59      0.00     0.00   33.33    33.33    17.72      4.21     0.03

  \# tolerant species     23003    0.39     0.39      0.40      0.00     0.00   4.00     4.00     0.41       0.64     0.00

  \% tolerant individuals 23003    6.73     6.48      6.97      0.00     0.00   100.00   100.00   360.00     18.97    0.13

  \% tolerant species     23003    10.90    10.65     11.15     0.00     0.00   100.00   100.00   375.69     19.38    0.13

  \# sensitive species    23003    1.78     1.77      1.80      2.00     0.00   6.00     6.00     1.75       1.32     0.01

  \% sensitive            23003    45.72    45.26     46.18     50.00    0.00   100.00   100.00   1247.83    35.32    0.23
  individuals                                                                                                         

  \% sensitive species    23003    43.02    42.66     43.37     50.00    0.00   100.00   100.00   751.27     27.41    0.18

  \# intermediate species 23003    1.55     1.54      1.57      1.00     0.00   6.00     6.00     1.57       1.25     0.01

  \% intermediate         23003    42.40    41.94     42.86     40.00    0.00   100.00   100.00   1268.38    35.61    0.23
  individuals                                                                                                         

  \% intermediate species 23003    40.94    40.57     41.30     33.33    0.00   100.00   100.00   785.59     28.03    0.18

  \# alien species        23003    0.05     0.04      0.05      0.00     0.00   1.00     1.00     0.04       0.21     0.00

  \% alien individuals    23003    0.27     0.25      0.29      0.00     0.00   16.67    16.67    3.07       1.75     0.01

  \% alien species        23003    1.10     1.03      1.18      0.00     0.00   50.00    50.00    34.11      5.84     0.04

  \# fish families        23003    1.94     1.92      1.96      2.00     0.00   6.00     6.00     1.97       1.40     0.01

  \# native fish species  23003    2.68     2.65      2.71      2.00     0.00   10.00    10.00    5.25       2.29     0.02

  \# native fish families 23003    1.92     1.90      1.94      2.00     0.00   6.00     6.00     1.92       1.38     0.01

  \# native amphibian     23003    1.07     1.05      1.08      1.00     0.00   4.00     4.00     0.95       0.97     0.01
  species                                                                                                             

  \# native amphibian     23003    1.07     1.05      1.08      1.00     0.00   4.00     4.00     0.95       0.97     0.01
  families                                                                                                            

  \# native vertebrate    23003    3.75     3.72      3.78      3.00     0.00   11.00    11.00    5.35       2.31     0.02
  species                                                                                                             

  \# native vertebrate    23003    2.99     2.97      3.01      3.00     0.00   7.00     7.00     2.47       1.57     0.01
  families                                                                                                            

  \# native anadromous    23003    0.84     0.83      0.86      0.00     0.00   4.00     4.00     1.17       1.08     0.01
  species                                                                                                             

  \# vertebrate           23003    107.64   106.03    109.24    40.00    0.00   555.00   555.00   15424.47   124.20   0.82
  individuals                                                                                                         

  \# vertebrate species   23003    3.80     3.77      3.83      3.00     0.00   11.00    11.00    5.46       2.34     0.02

  \# fish species         23003    2.73     2.70      2.76      2.00     0.00   10.00    10.00    5.42       2.33     0.02
  ----------------------- -------- -------- --------- --------- -------- ------ -------- -------- ---------- -------- ------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc474827177 .anchor}**Appendix 8.** Summary
statistics for seven macroinvertebrate indicators based on samples
collected from riffles of 93 coastal ecoregion sites, 1994-1995.

  ------------ -------- ------ --------- --------- -------- ------ ------ ------- ---------- ---------- ------ ---------- ----------
  METRIC       Stream   MEAN   CONFID.   CONFID.   MEDIAN   MIN.   MAX.   RANGE   VARIANCE   STD.DEV.   S.E.   SKEWNESS   KURTOSIS
               km                                                                                                         

  Taxa         20122    38.3   38.18     38.51     38.0     5.0    60.0   55.0    143.78     11.99      0.08   0.00       -0.59
  richness                                                                                                                

  EPT taxa     20122    19.4   19.32     19.55     17.0     1.0    37.0   36.0    70.97      8.42       0.06   0.12       -0.68
  richness                                                                                                                

  Intolerant   20122    8.0    7.87      8.04      7.0      0.0    22.0   22.0    36.15      6.01       0.04   0.71       -0.45
  taxa                                                                                                                    
  richness                                                                                                                

  \%           20122    29.9   29.64     30.18     29.3     0.3    86.8   86.5    391.22     19.78      0.14   0.48       -0.66
  Chironomid                                                                                                              

  \% EPT       20122    45.3   45.02     45.66     42.8     1.5    97.5   96.0    538.20     23.20      0.16   0.27       -0.84

  \% scrapers  20122    15.4   15.20     15.61     10.5     0.2    95.6   95.4    227.45     15.08      0.11   1.82       4.14

  \% shredders 20122    14.2   14.09     14.40     12.7     0.0    82.4   82.4    126.14     11.23      0.08   1.12       3.02
  ------------ -------- ------ --------- --------- -------- ------ ------ ------- ---------- ---------- ------ ---------- ----------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc474827178 .anchor}**Appendix 9**. R values of
significant correlations (P\<0.05) between ecological indicators and
stressor indicators. Data were not weighted. Riparian vegetation =
canopy and mid level vegetation, shade = mid stream shade, and LWD =med
and large sized (\>10cm).

**Water chemistry indicators and physical habitat stressor indicators:**

  ---------------- ------------ ----------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------- ---------
                   **Riparian   **Shade**   **% sand  **LWD**   **%       **Max.    **Width/   **Mean
                   veg.**                   and                 pools**   pool      depth      depth**
                                            fines**                       depth**   ratio**    

  **Alkalinity**                                                                               

  **Cl^-^**                                                                                    

  **DO**           +.334                    -.543               -.343               +.302      +.278

  **NH~4~^+^**                              +.266                         -.225                

  **NO~3~^-^**                                                  -.268     -.273                

  **PH**           +.258                    -.283               -.368                          

  **SO~4~^2-^**                             -.229                                   +.248      

  Temp.                         -.294                 -.258                                    

  **TP**                                    +.326                                              
  ---------------- ------------ ----------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------- ---------

### 

**Water chemistry indicators and riparian disturbance:**

  -------------------- --------------- ------------- ----------- ------------------
                       **All           **Logging**   **Roads**   **Agricultural**
                       disturbance**                             

  **Alkalinity**                                                 +.311

  **Cl^-^**                                                      +.408

  **DO**               -.320                         -.231       -.509

  **NH~4~^+^**         +.304                         +.270       +.541

  **NO~3~^-^**                                                   

  **pH**                               -.362                     

  **SO~4~^2-^**                                                  

  **Temperature**                      -.288                     

  **TP**               +.306                         +.376       +.407
  -------------------- --------------- ------------- ----------- ------------------

**Physical habitat indicators and riparian disturbance:**

+-------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------------+
|                   | **All      | ######   | *        | #########    |
|                   | dis        |  Logging | *Roads** | Agricultural |
|                   | turbance** |          |          |              |
+-------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------------+
| **Riparian veg.** | -.237      |          |          | -.391        |
+-------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------------+
| **Shade**         |            | +.289    |          |              |
+-------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------------+
| **Fish cover**    |            |          |          |              |
+-------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------------+
| **% sand and      | +.469      |          | +.391    | +.406        |
| fines**           |            |          |          |              |
+-------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------------+
| **LWD**           |            | +.200    | +.208    |              |
+-------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------------+
| **% pools**       |            | +.238    |          |              |
+-------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------------+
| **Max. pool       |            | -.211    |          |              |
| depth**           |            |          |          |              |
+-------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------------+

**Appendix 9 continued**. R values of significant correlations (P\<0.05)
between ecological indicators and stressor indicators. Data were not
weighted. Riparian vegetation = canopy and mid level vegetation, shade =
mid stream shade, and LWD =med and large sized (\>10cm).

**Vertebrate indicators and water chemistry indicators:**

  -------------------- --------- ----------- -------- -------------- -------- -------- --------------- ----------
                       **Alk**   **Cl^-^**   **DO**   **NH~4~^+^**   **PH**   **TP**   **SO~4~^2-^**   **Temp**

  **\# native fish               +.323                                                 -.231           +.413
  families**                                                                                           

  **\# native fish                                                                                     +.355
  species**                                                                                            

  **\# fish species**                                                                  -.229           +.347

  **\# hider species**                                               +.266                             +.227

  **\# vertebrate                                                                                      +.352
  species**                                                                                            

  **\# sensitive                                                                                       
  species**                                                                                            

  **\# water column    +.338     +.256                                                                 +.462
  species**                                                                                            

  **\# omnivorous                            -.424    +.954                                            
  individ.**                                                                                           

  **Percent alien                                                                                      
  individ.**                                                                                           
  -------------------- --------- ----------- -------- -------------- -------- -------- --------------- ----------

**Vertebrate indicators and physical habitat:**

+------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-----+-------+------+
|                  | **Rip | #   | **%   | *   | **% | *     | *    |
|                  | arian | ### | sand  | *LW | p   | *Max. | *Cov |
|                  | v     | ### | and   | D** | ool | pool  | er** |
|                  | eg.** | ##  | fi    |     | s** | de    |      |
|                  |       | Sha | nes** |     |     | pth** |      |
|                  |       | de  |       |     |     |       |      |
+------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-----+-------+------+
| **\# native fish |       | -.  |       | -.  |     | +.220 | -    |
| families**       |       | 268 |       | 236 |     |       | .247 |
+------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-----+-------+------+
| **\# native fish |       | -.  |       | -.  | -.  | +.220 | -    |
| species**        |       | 271 |       | 262 | 204 |       | .303 |
+------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-----+-------+------+
| **\# fish        |       | -.  |       | -.  | -.  | +.224 | -    |
| species**        |       | 272 |       | 258 | 199 |       | .292 |
+------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-----+-------+------+
| **\# hider       |       | -.  |       |     | -.  | +.286 |      |
| species**        |       | 215 |       |     | 198 |       |      |
+------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-----+-------+------+
| **\# vertebrate  |       | -.  |       |     | -.  | +.240 | -    |
| species**        |       | 275 |       |     | 202 |       | .258 |
+------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-----+-------+------+
| **\# sensitive   |       |     | -.336 | -.  | -.  | +.254 | -    |
| species**        |       |     |       | 240 | 205 |       | .361 |
+------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-----+-------+------+
| **\# water       |       |     |       |     |     |       |      |
| column species** |       |     |       |     |     |       |      |
+------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-----+-------+------+
| **\# omnivorous  |       |     | +.204 |     |     |       |      |
| individ.**       |       |     |       |     |     |       |      |
+------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-----+-------+------+
| **Percent alien  |       |     |       |     |     |       |      |
| individ.**       |       |     |       |     |     |       |      |
+------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-----+-------+------+

**Vertebrate indicators and riparian disturbance:**

  ------------------------ --------------- ------------- ----------- ------------------
                           **All           **Logging**   **Roads**   **Agricultural**
                           disturbance**                             

  **\# native fish         +.302                         +.222       +.391
  families**                                                         

  **\# native fish         +.233                                     +.295
  species**                                                          

  **\# fish species**      +.247                                     +.299

  **\# hider species**                                               

  **\# vertebrate                                                    +.245
  species**                                                          

  **\# sensitive species**                                           

  **\# water column        +.305                         +.272       +.410
  species**                                                          

  **\# omnivorous          +.286                         +.256       +.453
  individ.**                                                         

  **Percent alien                                                    
  individ.**                                                         
  ------------------------ --------------- ------------- ----------- ------------------

**Appendix 9 continued**. R values of significant correlations (P\<0.05)
between ecological indicators and stressor indicators. Data were not
weighted. Riparian vegetation = canopy and mid level vegetation, shade =
mid stream shade, and LWD =med and large sized (\>10cm).

**Benthic invertebrate indicators and water chemistry:**

+----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-------+
|                | *   | **C | **D | **N | **P | **T | *    | **T   |
|                | *Al | l^- | O** | H~4 | H** | P** | *SO~ | emp** |
|                | k** | ^** |     | ~** |     |     | 4~^2 |       |
|                |     |     |     |     |     |     | -^** |       |
+----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-------+
| ######         |     |     | +.  |     | +.  |     |      |       |
|  Taxa richness |     |     | 476 |     | 458 |     |      |       |
+----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-------+
| **EPT taxa**   |     |     | +.  |     | +.  |     |      |       |
|                |     |     | 607 |     | 264 |     |      |       |
+----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-------+
| **Intolerant   | +.  |     | +.  |     |     |     | +    | -.514 |
| taxa**         | 238 |     | 332 |     |     |     | .347 |       |
+----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-------+

**Bethic invertebrate indicators and physical habitat:**

+-------------+-------+--------+-------+------+-----+--------+------+
|             | **Rip | *      | **%   | **L  | **% | **Max. | *    |
|             | arian | *Shade | sand  | WD** | p   | pool   | *Cov |
|             | v     | (mid   | and   |      | ool | d      | er** |
|             | eg.** | str    | fi    |      | s** | epth** |      |
|             |       | eam)** | nes** |      |     |        |      |
+-------------+-------+--------+-------+------+-----+--------+------+
| ###### Ta   | +.273 |        | -.383 |      |     |        |      |
| xa richness |       |        |       |      |     |        |      |
+-------------+-------+--------+-------+------+-----+--------+------+
| **EPT       | -.247 |        | -.624 |      |     |        |      |
| taxa**      |       |        |       |      |     |        |      |
+-------------+-------+--------+-------+------+-----+--------+------+
| *           |       | +.211  | -.420 |      |     |        |      |
| *Intolerant |       |        |       |      |     |        |      |
| taxa**      |       |        |       |      |     |        |      |
+-------------+-------+--------+-------+------+-----+--------+------+

**Benthic invertebrate indicators and riparian disturbance:**

  ----------------- --------------- ------------- ----------- ------------------
                    **All           **Logging**   **Roads**   **Agricultural**
                    disturbance**                             

  **Total taxa**                                              

  **EPT taxa**      -.362                         -.330       -.407

  **Intolerant      -.373                         -.444       -.421
  taxa**                                                      
  ----------------- --------------- ------------- ----------- ------------------