National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Natural Resource Condition Assessment 

Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area

Natural Resource Report NPS/UCBN/NRR—2009/106 
ON THE COVER 

Map of Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area located in northeast Washington with insets of pictures of various sites in the 

Park. 
Natural Resource Condition Assessment 

Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area

Natural Resource Report NPS/UCBN/NRR—2009/106 

Jack Bell 

Northwest Management, Inc. 

PO Box 9748 

Moscow, ID 83843 

Dustin Hinson 

AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. 

11810 North Creek Parkway N 

Bothell, WA 98011 

May 2009 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Fort Collins, Colorado
ii 

The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and 

applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management 

of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation 

and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information 

is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, 

and is designed and published in a professional manner. 

Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, current 

natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a 

general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues 

of management applicability. Examples of the diverse array of reports published in this series 

include vital signs monitoring plans; monitoring protocols; "how to" resource management 

papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of 

resource programs or divisions of the Natural Resource Program Center; resource action plans; 

fact sheets; and regularly-published newsletters. 

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations and data in this report are solely 

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the U.S. Department of 

the Interior, NPS. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. 

This report is available from the Natural Resource Publications Management Web site 

(http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM) on the Internet. 

Please cite this publication as: 

Bell, J. and D. Hinson. 2009. Natural resource condition assessment for Lake Roosevelt National 

Recreation Area. Natural Resource Report NPS/UCBN/NRR—2009/106. National Park Service, 

Fort Collins, Colorado. 

NPS D-106, May 2009 
iii 

Contents

Figures............................................................................................................................................. v 

Tables ............................................................................................................................................. ix 

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... xi 

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... xiii 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 

Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................................................... 1 

Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 2 

Park Setting ............................................................................................................................. 2 

Land Cover.............................................................................................................................. 3 

Upland Habitats/Species ......................................................................................................... 6 

Watersheds .............................................................................................................................. 7 

Aquatic Habitats/Species ........................................................................................................ 9 

Climate .................................................................................................................................... 9 

Methods......................................................................................................................................... 11 

GIS and Geodatabases .............................................................................................................. 11 

NPS Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 13 

Wildfire ..................................................................................................................................... 14 

Noxious Weeds ......................................................................................................................... 14 

Upland Assessment ................................................................................................................... 15 

Aquatic Assessments ................................................................................................................ 16 

Lotic Riparian PFC Assessment ........................................................................................... 17 

Lentic Riparian PFC Assessment .......................................................................................... 18 

Upland Assessment Results .......................................................................................................... 21 

GIS and Geodatabase ................................................................................................................ 21 

Site Specific Assessments ......................................................................................................... 21 

Rosenberg Allotment ............................................................................................................. 21 

Green Allotment .................................................................................................................... 25 

Coffman Allotment ................................................................................................................ 26 

Fort Spokane ......................................................................................................................... 28 

Gifford Allotment .................................................................................................................. 30 

Matney Allotment .................................................................................................................. 32 

Henslee Allotment ................................................................................................................. 35 

Aquatic Assessment Results ......................................................................................................... 39 

Day-Use Beach Sites ................................................................................................................. 39 

LARO Beach 1....................................................................................................................... 39 

LARO Beach 2....................................................................................................................... 41 

LARO Beach 3....................................................................................................................... 43 

LARO Beach 4....................................................................................................................... 45 

LARO Beach 5....................................................................................................................... 47 

LARO Beach 6....................................................................................................................... 49 

LARO Beach 7....................................................................................................................... 51 
iv 

LARO Beach 8....................................................................................................................... 53 

LARO Beach 9....................................................................................................................... 55 

LARO Beach 10..................................................................................................................... 57 

Spokane River Arm Sites .......................................................................................................... 59

Spokane Lentic 2 ................................................................................................................... 59 

Spokane Lentic 3 ................................................................................................................... 61 

Spokane Lentic 4 ................................................................................................................... 63 

River Mile Sites ........................................................................................................................ 65 

Columbia Lotic...................................................................................................................... 65 

Columbia Lentic .................................................................................................................... 67 

Kettle Lotic ............................................................................................................................ 69 

Kettle Lentic .......................................................................................................................... 71 

Spokane Lotic ........................................................................................................................ 73 

Spokane Lentic 1 ................................................................................................................... 75 

Special Use Sites ....................................................................................................................... 77 

Ricky Point Lentic ................................................................................................................. 77 

Sherman Creek Lentic ........................................................................................................... 79 

Threats and Stressors .................................................................................................................... 81 

Upland Resources ..................................................................................................................... 81 

Wildfire ................................................................................................................................. 81 

Land Use Changes ................................................................................................................ 84 

Noxious Weeds ...................................................................................................................... 85 

Aquatic Resources .................................................................................................................... 92 

Water level fluctuations ........................................................................................................ 92 

Invasive Riparian Species ..................................................................................................... 93 

Recreational Use ................................................................................................................... 94 

Water Quality ........................................................................................................................ 95 

Fine Sediments ...................................................................................................................... 96 

Climate Change ......................................................................................................................... 96 

Summary and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 99 

Upland Resources ..................................................................................................................... 99 

Aquatic Resources .................................................................................................................. 101 

Data Gaps ................................................................................................................................ 102 

Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................... 103 

Appendix A – List of NRCA Geodatabase Data by Theme ....................................................... 109 

Appendix B – List of Indicators Analyzed to Calculate Landscape Attribute Values. .............. 111 

Appendix C List of Plant Species at NRCA Upland Assessment Points ................................. 113 

Appendix D – Aquatic Site Properly Functioning Condition Checklists ................................... 121 
v 

Figures 

Figure 1. Recreation use (days/year) from 1948 to 2007 at LARO. ............................................... 3

Figure 2. Map NVCS Physiognomic Subclasses in the LARO Project Area. ................................ 5

Figure 3. Map of 6th HUC watersheds in the LARO project area. ................................................ 8

Figure 4. Precipitation zones in the LARO project area. .............................................................. 10

Figure 5. Screen capture of the ArcMap Project file for the LARO project area. ........................ 11

Figure 8. Departure from reference condition of the 3 landscape attributes in the Sandy 9-15PZ 

ecological sites, Rosenberg Allotment West, LARO (background is of plot 4). .......................... 22

Figure 6. NRCA sample points and soils in the Rosenberg Allotment West, LARO. ................. 22

Figure 7. Departure from reference condition of the 3 landscape attributes in the Loamy 9-15PZ 

ecological site, Rosenberg Allotment West, LARO (background is of plot 3). ........................... 22

Figure 9. NRCA sample points and soils in the Rosenberg Allotment East, LARO .................... 23

Figure 10. Departure from reference condition of the 3 landscape attributes in the Sandy 9-15PZ 

ecological sites, Rosenberg Allotment East, LARO (background is of plot 9). ........................... 24

Figure 11. Departure from reference condition of the 3 landscape attributes in the Loamy 9-15PZ 

ecological sites, Rosenberg Allotment East, LARO (background is of plot 7). ........................... 24

Figure 12. Departure from reference condition of the 3 landscape attributes in the Alkali Bottom 

15+PZ ecological sites, Rosenberg Allotment East, LARO (background is of plot 8). ............... 24

Figure 13. Departure from reference condition of the 3 landscape attributes in the Sandy 9-15PZ 

ecological sites, Rosenberg Allotment East, LARO (background is of plot 5). ........................... 24

Figure 14. NRCA sample points and soils in the Green Allotment, LARO. ................................ 25

Figure 15. Departure from reference condition of the 3 landscape attributes in the Loamy 9-15PZ 

ecological sites, Green Allotment - East, LARO (background is of plot 10). .............................. 26

Figure 16. Departure from reference condition of the 3 landscape attributes in the Sandy 9-15PZ 

ecological sites, Green Allotment, LARO (background is of plot 12). ........................................ 26

Figure 18. Departure from reference condition of the 3 landscape attributes in the Sandy 9-15PZ 

ecological sites, Coffman Allotment, LARO (background is of plot 14). .................................... 27

Figure 17. NRCA sample points and soils in the Coffman Allotment, LARO. ........................... 27
vi 

Figure 20. Departure from reference condition of the 3 landscape attributes in the Springdale soil 

series and Ponderosa pine/bluebunch wheatgrass association, Fort Spokane, LARO (background 

is of plot 15). ................................................................................................................................. 29

Figure 19. NRCA sample point and soils in the Fort Spokane Historical site, LARO. ................ 29

Figure 21. NRCA sample points and soils in the Gifford Allotment, LARO. .............................. 31

Figure 23. Departure from reference condition of the 3 landscape attributes in the Cedonia soil 

series and Ponderosa pine/pinegrass association, Gifford Allotment, LARO (background is of 

plot 17). ......................................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 22. Departure from reference condition of the 3 landscape attributes in the Cedonia soil 

series and Ponderosa pine/pinegrass association, Gifford Allotment, LARO (background is of 

plot 16). ......................................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 25. Departure from reference condition of the 3 landscape attributes in the Wet Meadow 

15+PZ ecological site, Matney Allotment, LARO (background is of plot 18). ............................ 33

Figure 24. NRCA sample points and soils in the Matney Allotment, LARO. ............................. 33

Figure 26. Departure from reference condition of the 3 landscape attributes in the Bisbee soil 

series and ponderosa pine/bluebunch wheatgrass association, Matney Allotment, LARO 

(background is of plot 19). ............................................................................................................ 34

Figure 27. Departure from reference condition of the 3 landscape attributes in the Bisbee soil 

series and ponderosa pine/bluebunch wheatgrass association, Matney Allotment, LARO 

(background is of plot 20). ............................................................................................................ 34

Figure 28. NRCA sample point and soils in the Henslee Allotment, LARO. .............................. 36

Figure 29. Departure from reference condition of the 3 landscape attributes in the Bisbee soil 

series and ponderosa pine/bluebunch wheatgrass association, Henslee Allotment, LARO 

(background is plot 21). ................................................................................................................ 37

Figure 31. Photograph of the LARO Beach 1 sample site. ........................................................... 40

Figure 30. Map of LARO Beach 1 sample site. ............................................................................ 40

Figure 33. Photograph of the LARO Beach 2 sample site near the mouth of Hallam Creek. ...... 42

Figure 32. Map of LARO Beach 2 sample site. ............................................................................ 42

Figure 35. Photograph of LARO Beach 3 sample site. ................................................................. 44

Figure 34. Map of LARO Beach 3 sample site. ............................................................................ 44

Figure 37. Photograph of the LARO Beach 4 sample site. ........................................................... 46
vii 

Figure 36. Map of the LARO Beach 4 sample site. ...................................................................... 46

Figure 39. Photograph of the LARO Beach 5 sample site. ........................................................... 48

Figure 38. Map of the LARO Beach 5 sample site. ...................................................................... 48

Figure 41. Photograph of the LARO Beach 6 sample site. ........................................................... 50

Figure 40. Map of the LARO Beach 6 sample site. ...................................................................... 50

Figure 43. Photograph of the LARO Beach 7 sample site. ........................................................... 52

Figure 42. Map of the LARO Beach 7 sample site. ...................................................................... 52

Figure 45. Photograph of the LARO Beach 8 sample site. ........................................................... 54

Figure 44. Map of the LARO Beach 8 sample site. ...................................................................... 54

Figure 47. Photograph of the LARO Beach 9 sample site. ........................................................... 56

Figure 46. Map of the LARO Beach 9 sample site. ...................................................................... 56

Figure 48. Map of the LARO Beach 10 sample site. .................................................................... 58

Figure 49. Photograph of the LARO Beach 10 sample site. ......................................................... 58

Figure 51. Photograph of the LARO Lentic 2 sample site. .......................................................... 60

Figure 50. Map of the LARO Lentic 2 sample site. ...................................................................... 60

Figure 53. Photograph of the LARO Lentic 3 sample site. .......................................................... 62

Figure 52. Map of the LARO Lentic 3 sample site. ...................................................................... 62

Figure 55. Photograph of the LARO Lentic 4 sample site. .......................................................... 64

Figure 54. Map of the LARO Lentic 4 sample site. ...................................................................... 64

Figure 57. Photograph of the LARO Columbia lotic sample site. ................................................ 66

Figure 56. Map of the LARO Columbia lotic sample site. ........................................................... 66

Figure 59. Photograph of the LARO Columbia lentic sample site. .............................................. 68

Figure 58. Map of the LARO Columbia lentic sample site. ......................................................... 68

Figure 61. Photograph of the LARO Kettle lotic sample site. ...................................................... 70

Figure 60. Map of the LARO Kettle lotic sample site. ................................................................. 70
viii 

Figure 63. Photograph of the LARO Kettle lentic sample site. .................................................... 72

Figure 62. Map of the LARO Kettle lentic sample site. ............................................................... 72

Figure 65. Photograph of the LARO Spokane lotic sample site. .................................................. 74

Figure 64. Map of the LARO Spokane lotic sample site. ............................................................. 74

Figure 67. Photograph of the LARO Spokane lentic 1 sample site. ............................................. 76

Figure 66. Map of the LARO Spokane lentic 1 sample site. ........................................................ 76

Figure 69. Photograph of the LARO Ricky Point lentic sample site. ........................................... 78

Figure 68. Map of the LARO Ricky Point lentic sample site. ...................................................... 78

Figure 71. Photograph of the LARO Sherman Creek lentic sample site. ..................................... 80

Figure 70. Map of the LARO Sherman Creek lentic sample site. ................................................ 80

Figure 72. Map of fire regime condition class as a percent departure of vegetation from a 

reference condition. ....................................................................................................................... 83

Figure 74. Map of Hawk Creek Campground, LARO, weed mapping project in 2003. .............. 87

Figure 75. Map of Fort Spokane, LARO, weed mapping project in 2003. .................................. 87

Figure 73. Areas survey for noxious weeds in 2003 at LARO. .................................................... 87

Figure 78. Map of Porcupine Bay, LARO, weed mapping project in 2003. ................................ 88

Figure 76. Areas survey for noxious weeds in 2004 at LARO. .................................................... 88

Figure 77. Map of Evans Campground, LARO, weed mapping project in 2004. ........................ 88

Figure 79. Maps of vegetation plot locations in LARO where St. Johnswort, diffuse knapweed, 

Dalmatian toadflax, and sulfur cinquefoil occurred. .................................................................... 90

Figure 80. Maps of all known locations in LARO where rush skeletonweed and yellow starthistle 

occurred. ........................................................................................................................................ 91

Figure 81. Map of reed canarygrass in LARO. ............................................................................. 94
ix 

Tables 

Table 1. CVNS Physiognomic subclasses within the LARO project area ..................................... 4

Table 2. Weather data for the past 30 years from stations at Coulee Dam and Northport, 

Washington. .................................................................................................................................. 10

Table 3. Status of inventories of species taxa for LARO ............................................................ 13

Table 4. Status of inventories of non-biological data for LARO .................................................. 14

Table 5. Summary of fire ignitions in the LARO analysis area from 1970-2007. ....................... 81

Table 6. Fire Regime Condition Class of existing vegetation within the LARO analysis area. ... 82

Table 7. Demographics for the 5 counties in the LARO project area. .......................................... 84

Table 8. List of noxious and non-native weeds in LARO, wih ‘X’ indicating the source and 

ranking by the state of Washington. ............................................................................................. 86

Table 9. The frequency of occurrence of noxious weeds listed on the LARO plant species list 

found in vegetation plots sampled in 2007. .................................................................................. 89

Table 10. Potential impact from selected threats/stressors to the major resources/processes at 

LARO. ........................................................................................................................................... 99

Table 11 . Matrix of threats/stressors to major resources areas with ratings for potential impacts 

and the knowledge base for estimates in LARO. ........................................................................ 100

Table 12. Summary of PFC Assessments for the 21 aquatic sample sites. ................................ 101

xi 

Executive Summary 

This Natural Resource Condition Assessment (NRCA) report and accompanying geodatabase is 

designed to give the resource managers of Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area (LARO) a 

better understanding of the condition of natural resources within and adjacent to their park. 

Assessment of the natural resources was accomplished by conducting a thorough literature 

review, evaluating existing data, and also collecting new data on areas of the park where 

sufficient, reliable data for an assessment was not available. Aquatic and upland habitats were 

evaluated at pre-identified locations. Selected threats and stressors to LARO’s natural resources 

were evaluated for the entire park. Information gained from this report will form the basis for 

development of actions to reduce and prevent impairment of LARO’s natural resources and 

assist in the development of desired future conditions through park planning processes. 

The study area encompasses thirty-seven 6th level Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds with 

a 5 km buffer. All available geographical information (GIS) were acquired for the study area to 

create a ArcGIS Map Project File and Geodatabase. The geodatabase was used to analyze 

geographical data and also to produce all the maps presented in this report. The location of each 

sampling site is compiled in the Geographic Information System (GIS) geodatabase. Upland 

rangeland condition data is available in an Access database on the enclosed DVD and all aquatic 

properly functioning condition data is included in Appendix B. 

The upland sites selected for site-specific condition status assessments included six grazing 

allotments and one historic site. All of the upland sites were evaluated using a rapid, qualitative 

tool developed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for assessing a moment-in-time 

status of rangeland health. Evaluators rated 17 indicators to assess 3 ecosystem attributes (soil 

and site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity) for a given location (Pyke et. al. 

2002). Overall, the soil stability and hydrologic function attributes were in good condition, rated 

none-slight or slight-none departure from reference conditions. The biotic integrity attribute in 

many sites was in poor condition, rated moderate or in one case moderate-extreme departure. 

The poor condition was attributed to past grazing practices and conversion of forests to pasture 

lands. 

The shoreline riparian areas selected for site-specific condition status assessments included 21 

sites in four park-defined management zones. Sites selected for evaluation were assessed using 

the “proper functioning condition” (PFC) riparian assessment methodology developed by the 

Bureau of Land Management for lotic, flowing water, (Prichard et al. 1998) or lentic, standing 

water, (Prichard et al. 2003). All the aquatic sites sampled were rated “Functional-At-Risk” or 

“Nonfunctional,” 9 and 12 sites, respectively. The poor condition of most sites was attributed to 

one or more of the following threats; water level fluctuations, invasive riparian species, 

recreational use, or fine sediment accumulation. 

We investigated 21 potential threats and/or stressors (6-natural, 15-human-caused) to upland and 

aquatic resources at LARO. Emphasis was placed on wildfire, land use change, and noxious 

weeds because they are directly managed by park staff. The potential for wildfires always exists 

but we found that overall the vegetation conditions in the project area were mainly in a very low 
xii 

to low departure from reference conditions. Land use changes, through the conversion of range 

and forest lands to rural homesites, pose significant threats to the hydrologic and biotic resources 

in the park. This situation is due in large part to the narrow linear shape of the park. Noxious 

weeds pose the greatest threat and stress to the biotic resources of the park. All of the 23 species 

documented on park land will continue to expand if not controlled through active management. 

For the aquatic resources 5 threats and stressors were believed to pose serious problems; water 

level fluctuations, invasive riparian species, recreational use, water pollution, and fine sediments. 

Of these only invasive riparian species and recreational use can be directly managed by the park 

to improve the condition of aquatic resources. The difficulty for park staff in managing for the 

other 3 threats and stressors is the source of the problems lie outside the park and their 

management authority. Reducing the impact from these threats and stressors will require active 

cooperation with local, state, federal, and tribal agencies. 

The stated goal for resource management at LARO is “(T)he natural, cultural, and scenic 

resources of the national recreation area are protected and preserved to ensure that the integrity 

of the environment is not compromised and the quality of the visitor experience is enhanced” 

(NPS 2000). LARO has many future challenges to achieve this goal. Results of this report should 

assist park managers in identifying when, where, and how to improve management practices, 

justify additional resources, and prepare for the changes in the environment that will directly 

impact LARO natural resources. 
xiii 

Acknowledgements 

We wish to begin by thanking Jerald Weaver, Natural Resource Manager at Lake Roosevelt 

National Recreation Area, for his time and courteous help in all stages of the project. Mr. 

Weaver was extremely helpful in navigating field crews to remote and difficult-to-find access 

points on park lands. We owe a great deal of appreciation to our dedicated field staff, including 

Marilyn Nielson, Northwest Management, Inc., and Nicole Neumiller and Gerald Ladd of 

AMEC. Vaiden Bloch, GIS Specialist, with Northwest Management, Inc. was invaluable in 

preparing the Geodatabase and map project files. We would like to thank the many staff at 

Northwest Management, Inc. for their edits and insightful comments on the manuscript, 

especially Diane Corrao, Administrative Manager. Finally, we are very thankful for all the 

support and help from Lisa Garrett, NPS Upper Columbia Basin Network, and Jason Lyon, NPS 

Nez Perce National Historical Park. They had the vision to develop and implement this project 

and the professionalism and dedication to guide it to completion. 

1 

Introduction 

Purpose and Scope 

The mission of the National Park Service is “to conserve unimpaired the natural and cultural 

resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment of this and future 

generations” (National Park Service 1999) To uphold this goal, the Director of the NPS approved 

the Natural Resource Challenge to encourage national parks to focus on the preservation of the 

nation’s natural heritage through science, natural resource inventories, and expanded resource 

monitoring (National Park Service 1999). Through the challenge, 270 parks in the national park 

system were organized into 32 inventory and monitoring networks. 

The Upper Columbia Basin Network (UCBN) consists of nine widely separated NPS units 

located in western Montana, Idaho, eastern Washington, and central Oregon. Parks of the Upper 

Columbia Basin Network include: Big Hole National Battlefield (BIHO), City of Rocks National 

Reserve (CIRO), Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve (CRMO), Hagerman 

Fossil Beds National Monument (HAFO), John Day Fossil Beds National Monument (JODA), 

Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area (LARO), Minidoka Internment National Monument 

(MIIN), Nez Perce National Historical Park (NEPE), and Whitman Mission National Historic 

Site (WHMI). 

As part of the Natural Resource Challenge, the NPS Water Resources Division received an 

increase in funding to assess natural resource conditions in national park units. Management 

oversight and technical support for this effort is provided by the division’s Watershed Condition 

Assessment (WCA) Program. The WCA Program partnered with the Pacific West Region to 

fund and oversee an assessment at each park in the Upper Columbia Basin Network (UCBN). 

This report documents the results of the Natural Resource Condition Assessment (NRCA) 

completed for Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area (LARO). 

Natural resource condition assessments are broad-scope ecological assessments intended to 

develop synthesis “information products” readily usable by park managers for: a) resource 

stewardship planning, and b) reporting to performance measures such as the DOI Strategic Plan’s 

“land health” goals. Three elements are key to making these assessments useful for both 

planning and performance reporting: 

1. Build on data, information, and knowledge already assembled through efforts of the 

NPS I&M Program, other NPS science support programs, and from partner 

collaborators working in and near parks; 

2. Emphasize a strong geospatial component for how the assessment is conducted and in 

the resulting information products; 

3. Provide narrative and/or semi-quantitative descriptions of science-based reference 

conditions for park resources that will assist parks as they work to define Desired Future 

Conditions through park planning processes. These reference conditions will become 

more refined and quantitative over time. 
2 

Information gained from this report will form the basis for development of actions to reduce and 

prevent impairment of park resources through park and partnership efforts. The goals of the 

natural resource condition assessment are to: 

• Determine the state of knowledge concerning overall natural resource condition 

• Identify information gaps and resource threats 

• Assess overall ecosystem health 

• Sets the stage to establish the context for management actions and collaboration 

This report is designed to give park staff a moment-in-time assessment of the natural resources 

of Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area. This report will describe the natural resources of 

the park (both aquatic and upland), determine the state of knowledge on their condition using 

existing data or new data collected at priority sites for this project, identify information gaps, 

draw conclusions or hypotheses on the condition of natural resources (unknown, degraded, 

unimpaired), identify resource threats or potential issues affecting ecosystem health, and 

recommend further studies. 

Study Area 

Park Setting 

Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area (LARO) was established as a unit of the National Park 

Service (NPS) in 1946 by the Secretary of the Interior. With the Secretary’s approval, an 

agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the NPS 

designated the NPS as the manager for the Coulee Dam National Recreation Area. The area 

included Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake, the reservoir formed behind Grand Coulee Dam, and the 

"freeboard" lands that where purchased at and above 1,310’ elevation. Through over 50 years of 

changes, including a name change to Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area in 1997, the NPS 

now manages approximately 47,438 acres of the 81,389 acres of total water surface, associated 

shoreline, and 12,936 acres of the 19,196 acres of total freeboard land. Also, in 1990, two 

adjacent Indian Tribes were included in the Lake Roosevelt Cooperative Management 

Agreement. The Colville Confederated Tribe and the Spokane Tribe of Indians manage the 

remaining water surface and freeboard land. 

The LARO General Management Plan (NPS 2000) defines the 3 major purposes for the 

recreation area: 

• Provide opportunities for diverse, safe, quality, outdoor recreation experiences for the 

public. 

• Preserve, conserve, and protect the integrity of natural, cultural, and scenic resources. 
3 

• Provide opportunities to enhance public appreciation and understanding about the area’s 

significant resources. 

LARO offers a wide variety of recreation opportunities in a diverse natural setting on a 154- 

mile-long lake bordered by 312 miles of publicly owned shoreline. Visitation at the park has 

fluctuated between a high of 1,784,420 (1990) to a low of 1,081,112 (1996) and has averaged 

1,374,797 between 1990 to 2004 (Figure 1). LARO has 5 marinas, 3 with campgrounds, and 

numerous overnight and day-use campgrounds and points of access around the lake. The 

recreation area includes the lower reaches of many rivers and streams including the Spokane and 

Kettle Rivers. 

Land Cover 

Lake Roosevelt contains a large section of the upper Columbia River and a record of continuous 

human occupation dating back more than 9,000 years. It is contained within three distinct 

geologic provinces – the Okanogan Highlands, the Columbia Plateau, and the Kootenay Arc – all 

have been sculpted by Ice Age glaciations and catastrophic floods. 

The vegetation at LARO fits primarily into three broad categories; steppe grasslands, shrubsteppe grasslands and transition forest. Other categories include riparian/wetland, mixed-conifer, 

lithosol areas, rock outcrops, and actively eroded slopes. The southern third of the lake is 

bordered by often moderate to steep slopes with a northerly aspect. The toe of these slopes have 

sedimentary terraces with relatively steep down slope sides. 

Current vegetation maps were not available at the time of this report but are scheduled to be 

complete by 2010. Vegetation data was available from the LANDFIRE Program (USFS and 

USGS 2008). Data was compiled from 2000 Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite imagery and 

classified into the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) Physiognomic Subclasses 

Figure 1. Recreation use (days/year) from 1948 to 2007 at 

LARO. 
4 

(NatureServe 2003). Subclasses are based on predominate leaf phenology for the tree, shrub, and 

dwarf shrub strata and the average height of the herbaceous strata. The data was clipped, 

summarized (Table 1), and mapped (Figure 1) for the LARO project area. 

Table 1. CVNS Physiognomic subclasses within the LARO project area 

NVCS Physiognomic Subclass Acres Percentage

Annual Graminoid/Forb 141,536 9.25%

Deciduous open tree canopy 894 0.06%

Deciduous shrubland 120 0.01%

Evergreen closed tree canopy 167,468 10.95%

Evergreen dwarf-shrubland 11,544 0.75%

Evergreen open tree canopy 588,457 38.46%

Evergreen shrubland 42,230 2.76%

Evergreen sparse tree canopy 492 0.03%

Mixed evergreen-deciduous open tree canopy 39,368 2.57%

Mixed evergreen-deciduous shrubland 3,763 0.25%

No Dominant Lifeform 12,796 0.84%

Non-vegetated 86,642 5.66%

Perennial graminoid grassland 242,230 15.83%

Perennial graminoid steppe 190,324 12.44%

Sparsely vegetated 2,198 0.14%
5 

The common shrubs found in LARO are big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate), rabbitbrush 

(Chrysothamnus spp.), and antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentate). Some soil types support 

Douglas fir (Psuedostuga douglasii) and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) in shaded aspects 

and microsites. The common grasses throughout the whole area, particularly the dry sites include 

bluebunch wheatgrass (Psuedorogeneria spicata), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), sand 

dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus) and needle and thread grass (Stipa comata). 

Figure 2. Map NVCS Physiognomic Subclasses in the LARO Project Area. 
6 

The Northern two-thirds of LARO is either mountain slopes or larger terraces. Both the 

mountain slopes and the large terraces have sedimentary terraces at their toe with relatively steep 

sides. The middle third of LARO is predominantly ponderosa pine forests with associated 

grasses, forbs and shrubs. Common shrubs include antelope bitterbrush, snowberry 

(Symphoricarpos oreophilus), serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), ocean spray (Holodiscus 

discolor), and wild rose (Rosa spp.). 

The upper third of LARO receives more precipitation, which supports a mixed conifer zone with 

Douglas fir and ponderosa pine. Other trees that occur include Western larch (Larix 

occidentalis), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), Western paper birch (Betula papyrifera), and 

grand fir (Abies grandis). The shrub species are similar in the remainder of LARO with the 

addition of buffalo berry (Shepherdia canadensis), snowbrush ceanothus (Ceanothus velutinus), 

and Pinegrass (Calamoagrostis rubescens). The riparian zones, which are most well developed in 

the northern portion of LARO, are dominated by willows (Salix spp.), alder (Alnus spp.), black 

cottonwood Populus balsamifera), water birch (Betula occidentalis), and the occasional western 

red cedar (Thuja plicata). 

Surveys were initiated in 2003 for two Washington state-listed sensitive plant species Nuttall’s 

pussy-toes (Antennaria parvifolia) and Columbia crazyweed (Oxytropis campestris var. 

Columbiana). Listed as sensitive and threatened by the Washington State Department of Natural 

Resources Natural Heritage Program, these species were known to exist at LARO. The only 

known patch of Columbia crazyweed was relocated and mapped. The Nuttall’s pussy-toes survey 

covered 1,487 acres divided into 155 survey zones. Of the zones surveyed, 59 were found to 

contain populations of this species. This plant was more abundant than originally expected. 

Important noxious weeds at LARO include diffuse knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), spotted 

knapweed (C. diffusa), yellow star-thistle (C. solstitialis), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), 

Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria genistifolia ssp. dalmatica), and Canadian thistle (Cirsus 

canadensis). LARO staff conducts noxious weed control activities in cooperation with county 

weed control programs, adjacent landowners, and other affected parties on Lake Roosevelt. In 

addition the narrow linear nature of LARO and the numerous roads running the length of LARO 

provide numerous corridors for dispersal of weed seeds into and out of the area. 

Upland Habitats/Species 

Animals present at LARO are typical for the semi-arid temperate conditions and the resulting 

vegetation in northeastern Washington. Some species, such as deer, can be considered abundant. 

Little information is available regarding rare species present at LARO. Given the linear nature of 

the park, terrestrial habitat for larger wildlife is somewhat limited. Although LARO is too narrow 

to provide all aspects of a large mammal’s range and habitat, it does provide important habitat to 

some charismatic species. 

There are no known threatened or endangered species identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service present at LARO. The bald eagle was recently delisted as threatened by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and is present in the park. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), a threatened 

species, is not known to exist in the reservoir according to Spokane Indian Tribal fisheries 

biologists but does occur in Columbia River tributaries upstream of the reservoir influence. 
7 

Forty-one species of mammals were confirmed in or adjacent to the recreation area during an 

inventory conducted by NPS in 2003 (McCaffrey et al. 2003). A highlight of the 2003 inventory 

was the discovery of three species of shrews (family Soricidae). This group of cryptic mammals 

is frequently overlooked and distribution is generally not well-known in the Pacific Northwest. 

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Priority Habitats and Species program has 

listed areas at LARO as important winter range for deer, both white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Large diameter ponderosa pine trees provide 

critical nesting and roosting habitat for bald eagles. 

The abundance of water and adjacent areas of riparian and wetland habitats attract an abundance 

of avian species. Lake Roosevelt is within the Pacific Flyway and serves as a resting area during 

migration. One hundred eighty-two species of birds were confirmed in or adjacent to the 

recreation area in 2003, including 2 species, black crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) 

and ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), were documented but not expected to be in LARO 

(McCaffrey et al. 2003). Several species of raptors nest, roost or forage in the area. Among these 

the osprey (Pandion haliaetus) has been identified for monitoring in the UCBN’s monitoring 

plan (Garrett et al. 2007). 

Sixteen species of herpetofauna were confirmed in or adjacent to LARO (McCaffrey et al. 2003). 

The western toad was rediscovered in the southern portion of the recreation area. This species is 

believed to be declining in many parts of its range (Corkran and Thoms 1996). The spotted frog 

(Rana spp.) was absent during spring searches in 2003, and may be extirpated in the Lake 

Roosevelt region due to increasing numbers of introduced game fish and the bullfrog (scientific 

name) (Corkran and Thoms 1996). 

Watersheds 

River and stream drainages are uniquely identified by hydrologic unit codes (HUC). These are 

geographic areas based on surface topography containing a major river or a group of smaller 

rivers. The Pacific Northwest is number 17 of the 21 regions (HUC1) in the United States. The 

second level divides the 21 regions into 222 subregions. Subregions are areas drained by a river 

system, a reach of a river and its tributaries, a closed basin, or a group of streams forming a 

coastal drainage area. The third level subdivides the subregions into 352 basins. There are 2,149 

fourth level drainages, referred to as subbasins. The Lake Roosevelt (17020001), Kettle 

(17020002), Colville (17020003), Sanpoil (17020004), and Lower Spokane (17010307) are 4th

level HUCs in the project area. Additional mapping has been completed subdividing subbasins 

into watersheds, 5th level (10 digits), and subwatersheds, 6th level (12 digits). 

There are 38- 6th level HUC basins in the LARO project area that cover 1,532,075 acres (Figure 

2). Lake Roosevelt makes up 5.3% (81,389 acres) of the project area and LARO’s total land and 

water area comprise 4.4% (66,634 ac). The land base of the park (19,196ac) accounts for only 

1.2% of the project basins and makes up 0.1% of the Upper Columbia River basin. The 

Columbia River, the Kettle River in the northern portion of the LARO, and the Spokane River in 

the southernmost portion of the LARO, dominate the Lake Roosevelt inflow contributing 89, 7, 

and 3% average annual inflows, respectively (Howell et al. 2005). Most of the flows come from 

glacial ice, alpine lakes, and winter snowfall high in the Canadian Rockies. Grand Coulee Dam 
8 

regulates Lake Roosevelt water levels between 1,208 level (minimum pool) and 1,290 feet mean 

sea level (full pool). The reservoir extends a total of 135 miles (217 km) upstream (USGS 2004), 

covers 82,300 acres, and stores approximately 9,562,000 acre-ft of water. When the reservoir 

was initially filled to full pool, over 70,000 acres of land was inundated (Merker 1993). The 

subbasins include 226 tributaries to the Reservoir (excluding the Spokane River, Sanpoil River, 

Colville River, and Kettle River). 

Figure 3. Map of 6th HUC watersheds in the LARO project area. 
9 

Aquatic Habitats/Species 

Water is the major resource that comprises LARO. Lake Roosevelt is designated by the State of 

Washington as a class AA water body. This classification requires the highest-level water quality 

standards. The water quality in Lake Roosevelt is somewhat impaired by both point and nonpoint pollutants. Studies have revealed that generally the water quality in solution is satisfactory 

but much of the sediment being transported into the reservoir tends to be toxic due to high levels 

of heavy metals and organic pollutants. 

Lake Roosevelt and its tributaries support a varied fish community that today is considerably 

different from the native fish community of the early 1900’s. The changes over time were caused 

by the introduction of nonnative species, habitat alterations such as water pollution, damming of 

rivers and reservoir drawdowns. Surveys in the 1990’s have identified up to 30 species of fish in 

LARO. Seven of these species were found in low numbers, with many represented by only one 

individual in one survey out of eight. Biologists believe that these individuals may occasionally 

wash down from reservoirs and lakes upstream or are introduced by unauthorized introductions. 

Of the 30 species detected 10 are not native to the Columbia River. The most abundant species 

include large-scale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus), smallmouth bass (Micropterus 

dolomieui), burbot (Lota lota), walleye (Sander vitreus), kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), 

and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) are also 

considered an important species due to recent studies that have determined that sturgeon 

populations are declining in Lake Roosevelt and the upper Columbia River watershed (Howell 

and McClellan 2006). Although causes of the decline are not identified specifically, species 

surveys showing very few individuals younger than 20 years of age in the population suggests 

that sturgeon recruitment is very low. Cooperative efforts between Canadian and U.S. agencies, 

First Nations, and tribes, including hatchery supplementation programs and 

spawning/recruitment studies, are targeted at reversing the declining trend. 

The Columbia River above Lake Roosevelt has received 95 years of point pollution from a 

lead/zinc smelter (now one of the largest of its kind) located in Canada. Tons of effluent and slag 

have flowed downstream into Lake Roosevelt. In the 1960’s, a pulp mill opened upstream of the 

lake and began to discharge various congeners of dioxins and furans. This material also appeared 

in the environment of Lake Roosevelt. The largest population centers in eastern Washington and 

the Panhandle of Idaho are upstream of Lake Roosevelt in the Spokane River watershed. 

Upstream of these population centers is the Silver Valley Mining District, which operated for 

over 100 years. The impacts of these sources of pollution are not well defined. Current pollutants 

identified in the Spokane River portion of Lake Roosevelt have not been tied to any one known 

pollution source. 

Climate 

The southwestern portion of LARO is in the Columbia Plateau, which is characterized by a semiarid climate and consists primarily of sagebrush steppe vegetation interspersed with agricultural 

lands. The northeastern portion of the recreation area is in the Okanogan Highlands, which 

experiences a cooler and wetter climate and consists primarily of pine forest. Weather data from 

a stations located in the towns of Coulee Dam and Northport are shown in Table 2 (Western 

Regional Climate Center, 2003) Figure 4 shows the gradation in precipitation from south to 

north. 
10 

Table 2. Weather data for the past 30 years from stations at Coulee Dam and Northport, Washington. 

 January July 

Area 

Average 

Precipitation 

Mean 

Temperature 

(F) 

Maximum 

Temperature 

(F) 

Minimum 

Temperature 

(F) 

Mean 

Temperature 

(F) 

Maximum 

Temperature 

(F) 

Minimum 

Temperature 

(F) 

Coulee 

Dam, WA 11" 26° 32° 22° 72° 86° 58° 

Northport, 

WA 20" 25° 32° 21° 69° 86° 51° 

Figure 4. Precipitation zones in the LARO project area. 
11 

Methods 

GIS and Geodatabases 

The majority of data used in this report is Geographical Information System (GIS) data in tabular 

form tied to spatial features, such as points, lines, and/or polygons. GIS software provides 

spatial analysis capabilities such as overlay, buffer, extraction, and modeling. Results can then 

be displayed in map and tabular form. GIS software ARCMap Version 9.3 was used to store, 

edit, and display data. 

A map project file was developed for LARO using ArcMap software and followed the behavioral 

rules for data in a single Microsoft Access database (Figure 5). Many types of geographic 

Figure 5. Screen capture of the ArcMap Project file for the LARO project area. 
12 

datasets can be collected within a map project file, including feature classes, attribute tables, and 

raster data sets. The NPS ArcMap 11”x17” template was used in the LARO map project file. 

A geographically defined project area was created by selecting 6th level hydrologic unit code 

(HUC) watersheds adjacent to Lake Roosevelt. A 2 kilometer buffer was added for mapping 

purposes (2,255,265 ac). General base map layers and aerial photography were developed to the 

full project area extent. Most layers were clipped to the watershed basin extent for analysis and 

summarization of attributes (1,530,063 ac). 

The map project file was populated with GIS data through an extensive search of NPS sources 

and a multitude of local, state, and federal web sites. Data determined to be useful and accurate 

were re-projected into the North American Datum 1983 (NAD83) datum and the Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 11 projection. Metadata was generated for each layer in 

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) compliant format. Metadata describes the source, 

accuracy, data dictionary, projection, datum, and many other details about an individual layer. 

Aerial photography was processed and clipped to the project area using LizardTech GeoExpress 

software and converted into a MG3 (MrSid Generation 3) format file. 

Attribute information on the specific data layers clipped to the watershed basin extent were 

summarized in a spreadsheet based on the various attribute parts, lengths, acreage etc. of the 

various data layers in the map project file. 

All GIS data layers were imported into an ArcGIS File Geodatabase using ArcCatalog ver. 9.3 

(ESRI 2006). Feature Data Sets were created based on theme type. A geodatabase is an ArcMap 

file structure that stores geometry, spatial reference system, attributes datasets, network datasets, 

topologies, and many others features. This GIS format provides a uniform method for storing and 

using GIS data and provides the flexibility to add new information as it becomes available. 

Map layers were organized into categories based on general theme type. Although data was not 

available for each theme type, the category directory is included to incorporate data that may 

become available in the future. The general themes used include: 

• Air Resources 

• Animal 

• Geography 

• Geology 

• Land Process 

• Land Use 

• Plant 

• Stressors 

• Water Resources 

• Climate 

Aerial photography was not included in the geodatabase due to limitation of processing MG3 file 

formats. Aerials are included in a separate directory outside the geodatabase. All the data, project 

file and summary table are included on a DVD disk for distribution with this report. As a by-
13 

product of this search, a Microsoft Access database (included on DVD) was created for websites 

with documented GIS data that could be downloaded in various formats compatible with ESRI’s 

ArcMap software. The database has a custom query form for doing searches on the 3,000+ 

entries that cover 3 states; Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. 

NPS Data Sources 

Additional non-GIS data was acquired from searches on the internet, such as NPS NatureBib 

(https://science1.nature.nps.gov/naturebib), and from direct contact with local and state 

government agencies. LARO is in the Upper Columbia Basin Network (UCBN) established 

under the NPS Inventory and Monitoring Program (NPS 1999). Table 3 is the status of 

inventories of the species taxa groups for LARO. Available data from completed inventories 

were utilized where needed in the report otherwise the data is directly available at the UCBN 

website http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/ucbn/inventory/index.cfm#table. Rare plant 

species inventories, a subset of vascular plant inventories, are in progress while no inventories 

are available for invertebrates and invasive plant species. 

 Table 3. Status of inventories of species taxa for LARO 

 maintained by the UCBN. 

Species Taxa Complete 

Year 

Completed 

In 

Progress 

Not 

Complete 

Mammals √ 2003 

Birds √ 2003 

Amphibians √ 2003 

Reptiles √ 2003 

Fish √ unknown 

Invertebrates √

Vascular Plants √ unknown 

Rare Plants √

Invasive Plants √

Additional non-biological data sets have been identified by the UCBN as important for park 

management (Table 4). Both the biologic and non-biologic inventories were considered as 

baseline information for development of the UCBN vital signs monitoring plan (Garrett et al. 

2007). Three data sets have not been completed by the UCBN however some park sites may 

have data available from other sources. 

The UCBN Monitoring Plan (Garrett et al. 2007) identifies a suite of 14 vital signs chosen for 

monitoring implementation in the UCBN parks over the next 5 years. Vital signs are “a subset of 

physical, chemical, and biological elements and processes of park ecosystems that are selected to 

represent the overall health or condition of park resources, known or hypothesized effects of 

stressors, or elements that have important human values” (NPS-UCBN 

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/). Not all vital signs are monitored at each park. LARO 

has 7 vital signs established for monitoring; surface water dynamics, water chemistry, 
14 

invasive/exotic plants, riparian vegetation, sagebrush-steppe vegetation, osprey, and land cover 

and use (Garrett et al. 2007). 

 Table 4. Status of inventories of non-biological data for LARO 

 maintained by the UCBN. 

Non-Biologic Data 

sets Complete 

Year 

Completed 

In 

Progress 

Not 

Complete 

Air Quality/Emissions √

Ozone Risk √ 2001 

Water Quality √ 1997 

Landcover √ 2005 √

Paleo Resources √ 2005 

Geology √

Soils √

Cultural Landscapes √

Wildfire 

Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Wildfire Ignition Data is a database in a 

GIS compatible format and available at the WDNR GIS web site. The currently available file 

covers wildfire point locations from 1970 through 2007. This data is only for wildfires occurring 

on DNR protected lands or fires DNR has provided suppression support. The data was clipped to 

the LARO project area and summarized by wildfire ignition sources per year and acres burned. 

The Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Departure Index data was used to evaluate the 

condition of vegetation on lands adjacent to LARO. The Departure Index is not directly related 

to the risk of wildfire but is one indicator of the susceptibility of vegetation to burning if ignited. 

The index uses a range from 0 to 100% to depict the amount that current vegetation has departed 

from simulated historical vegetation reference conditions (Hann et al. 2004, Holsinger et al. 

2006). The departure results from changes to species composition, structural stage, and canopy 

closure. The 6th HUC drainage layer was used as the analysis area. 

Noxious Weeds 

Noxious weeds of importance to LARO were identified in Garrett et al. 2007. A complete list of 

Washington’s noxious weeds can be found at http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed_list/weed_list.htm. 

They are classified into 3 categories based on control requirements; Class A (eradicate), Class B 

(contain) and Class C (control). GIS data on noxious weeds was acquired from past 

investigations and placed in the LARO geodatabase under stressors. State and county level 

databases were searched for noxious weed locations and local county weed superintendents were 

contacted for unpublished data. Available data have been summarized on maps and 

recommendations made by species. 
15 

Upland Assessment

Seven grazing allotments were selected for evaluation using an assessment method co‐developed 

by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The 

method is described in the publication “Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health” (Pellant et 

al., 2005). One allotment (Esvelt) could not be legally accessed by land and was dropped from 

the analysis. The other 6 allotments; Rosenberg, Green, Coffman, Gifford, Matney, and Henslee; 

along with the Fort Spokane site were assessed using the BLM rapid assessment for rangeland 

health methodology. 

The rangeland health rapid assessment methodology was designed to provide a preliminary 

evaluation of 3 landscape attributes; soil/site stability, hydrologic function, and integrity of the 

biotic community at the ecological site level. It was developed to assist land managers in 

identifying areas that are potentially at risk of degradation and assist in the selection of sites for 

developing monitoring programs. Definitions of these three closely interrelated attributes are: 

Soil Site Stability: The capacity of the site to limit redistribution and loss of soil resources 

including nutrients and organic matter) by wind and water. 

Hydrologic Function: The capacity of the site to capture, store, and safely release water 

from rainfall, run‐on (inflow), and snowmelt (where relevant), to resist a reduction in this 

capacity, and to recover this capacity following degradation. 

Integrity of the Biotic Community: The capacity of the site to support characteristic 

functional and structural communities in the context of normal variability, to resist loss of 

this function and structure due to disturbance, and to recover following disturbance. 

This technique was developed as a tool for conducting a moment-in-time qualitative assessment 

of rangeland status and as a communication and training tool for assisting land managers and 

other interested people to better understand rangeland ecological processes and their relationship 

to indicators (Pyke at. el. 2002) This method uses soil survey information, ecological site 

descriptions, and appropriate ecological reference areas to qualitatively assess rangeland health. 

As part of the assessment process, 17 indicators relating to these attributes are evaluated and the 

category descriptor or narrative that most closely describes the site is recorded. “Optional 

Indicators” may also be developed to meet local needs. The critical link between observations of 

indicators and determining the degree of departure from the ecological site description and/or 

ecological reference area is part of the interpretation process. 

This technique does not provide for just one rating of rangeland health, but based upon a 

“preponderance of evidence” approach, it provides the departure from the ecological site 

description/ecological reference area(s) for the three attributes: soil site stability, hydrologic 

function, and biologic integrity. There are 5 categories of departure recognized, which include 

“none to slight”, “slight to moderate,” “moderate,” “moderate to extreme,” and “extreme.” 

A slight modification of the methodology was implemented so multiple assessments in each 

ecological site could be combined for analysis. A rating from 1 (none to slight) to 5 (extreme) 

was assigned to each category. For allotments with more than one sample per ecological site, an 

average was calculated for each indicator and then summed for each landscape attribute. There 
16 

are 10 indicators for soil site stability and hydrologic function and 9 for biotic integrity. The 

score for each landscape attribute was the sum of the indicators minus the reference conditions; 

determined to be 10 for soil site stability and hydrologic function and 9 for biotic integrity, based 

on a score of 1 for each indicator per attribute. Percent departure for each attribute was a 

proportion calculated by dividing the score by the maximum departure value; 40 for soil stability 

and hydrologic function and 35 for biotic integrity; and expressed as a percentage. The results 

are displayed graphically as a percent departure from the reference condition. For the narrative 

the percent departure values are converted back into the associated qualitative categories: none to 

slight (<20%), slight to moderate (20-39%), moderate (40-59%), moderate to extreme (60-79%), 

and extreme (>80%). 

An access database was developed for digitally storing site data, comments and the 17 indicator 

values. A GPS point was collected at the center point of each sample site. Sample sites varied 

from 1 to 20 acres in size as noted in the database. Maps were generated for each allotment 

depicting evaluation-sites and other land features. The point data was also placed in the 

geodatabase for future reference. 

Aquatic Assessments 

The primary objective in evaluating LARO riparian and shoreline habitat was to provide the NPS 

with a moment-in-time status point for managing land use within their control. The three main 

objectives were to: 

1. Identify existing riparian and shoreline condition. 

2. Identify the specific threats and stressors impacting riparian/shoreline functions and values 

(e.g., wildlife habitat, water quality improvement, aquatic species protection, etc.). 

3. Recommend solutions to minimize or eliminate threats and stressors to riparian/shoreline 

areas and associated aquatic resources. 

Riparian areas were selected for assessment since the condition of riparian areas often control 

and dictate the quality of aquatic and wildlife resources that depend on these important zones of 

influence. Riparian habitat serves many functions including erosion control, aquatic shading and 

cooling, insect production, shoreline bank stabilization, and providing woody debris. Riparian 

areas are often the most diverse habitat areas within a watershed, containing the greatest resource 

diversity and productivity (Barber 2005). Riparian areas serve as a buffer between aquatic 

habitats and upland activities that potentially affect those habitats. In addition, these areas often 

contain wetlands where water is filtered, retained, and slowly released to surface water 

throughout the year. 

On-site evaluation of aquatic resources at LARO included assessment of 21 shoreline riparian 

sites in four park management zone categories: 

1. Day-Use Beach Sites – Ten (10) sites known to receive significant recreational use by 

boaters throughout the summer months; 
17 

2. Spokane River Arm Sites – Three (3) representative areas along the Spokane River Arm 

of Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area; 

3. River Mile Sites – Six (6) representative reaches of the Columbia, Kettle, and Spokane 

Rivers above and below reservoir impacts (3 lotic assessments and 3 lentic assessments); 

and 

4. Special Use Sites – Ricky Creek and Sherman Creek special use zones that receive 

significant pressure from vacation cabin development and use (2 sites). 

This section outlines the Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) methodology applied at each site 

to evaluate riparian/shoreline condition. Sites selected for evaluation were assessed using the 

“proper functioning condition” (PFC) riparian assessment methodology developed by the Bureau 

of Land Management for lotic, flowing water, sites (Prichard et al. 1998) or lentic, standing 

water, sites (Prichard et al. 2003). All site assessment locations within LARO were 

recommended by National Park Service personnel (Jerald Weaver, personal communication) due 

to their unique understanding of use and potential impacts within LARO. 

Lotic Riparian PFC Assessment 

The lotic PFC method evaluates 17 hydrology, vegetation, and stream geomorphology indicators 

of riparian condition or “health” and subsequently assigns a functionality rating to each site. The 

“proper functioning condition” of a lotic riparian area refers to the stability of the physical 

system, which in turn is dictated by the interaction of geology, soil, water, and vegetation. A 

properly functioning lotic riparian area is in dynamic equilibrium with its streamflow forces and 

channel processes. The channel adjusts in slope and form to handle larger runoff events with 

limited perturbation of channel characteristics and associated riparian plant communities. 

Because of this stability, properly functioning lotic riparian areas can maintain fish and wildlife 

habitat, water quality enhancement, and other important ecosystem functions even after large 

storms. In contrast, nonfunctional systems subjected to the same storm events might exhibit 

excessive erosion and sediment loading, loss of fish habitat, loss of associated wetland habitat, 

and so on. 

Based on assessments of the hydrologic, vegetative, and geomorphology elements of the lotic 

riparian areas, one of the following three functionality ratings was assigned to each site: 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC): Streams and associated riparian areas are functioning 

properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to: 

1. dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflows, thereby reducing erosion and 

improving water quality; 

2. filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; 

3. improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge; 

4. develop root masses that stabilize stream banks against cutting action; 
18 

5. develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide habitat and the water 

depths, durations, temperature regimes, and substrates necessary for fish production, 

waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and 

6. support greater biodiversity. 

Functional‐At Risk: These riparian areas are in functional condition, but an existing soil, water, 

vegetation, or related attribute makes them susceptible to degradation. For example, a stream 

reach may exhibit attributes of a properly functioning riparian system, but it may be poised to 

suffer severe erosion during a large storm due to likely migration of a headcut or increased 

runoff associated with recent urbanization in the watershed. When this rating is assigned to a 

stream reach, its “trend” toward or away from PFC is assessed. 

Nonfunctional: These are riparian areas that clearly are not providing adequate vegetation, 

landform, or large woody debris to dissipate stream energy associated with high flows, and thus 

are not reducing erosion, improving water quality, sustaining desirable channel and riparian 

habitat characteristics, and so on as described in the PFC definition. The absence of certain 

physical attributes such as a floodplain where one should exist is an indicator of nonfunctioning 

conditions. 

Lotic riparian functional condition was assessed on 3 reaches, including one reach on each of the 

Columbia, Kettle, and Spokane Rivers immediately above confluences with the reservoir, pooled 

conditions. Each river reach is discussed in the Aquatic Results section and each assessment is 

supported by a detailed PFC assessment checklist in Appendix B. 

Lentic Riparian PFC Assessment

The lentic PFC method evaluates 20 hydrology, vegetation, and erosion/deposition (soils) 

attributes and processes to assess the condition of riparian wetland areas. For these areas PFC is 

a state of resiliency that will allow a lentic riparian/wetland area to hold together during wind 

and wave action events or overland flow events with a high degree of reliability (Prichard et al 

2003). This resiliency provides opportunities to achieve desired values over time such as 

waterfowl and amphibian habitat, shoreline protection, or wildlife forage. 

Based on assessments of the hydrologic, vegetative, and erosional/depositional elements of the 

riparian/wetland area, one of the following three functionality ratings is assigned to each site: 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC): Lentic riparian/wetland areas are functioning properly 

when adequate vegetation, landform, or debris is present to: 

1. dissipate energies associated with wind action, wave action, and overland flow from 

adjacent sites, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; 

2. filter sediment and aid floodplain development; 

3. improve flood water retention and ground-water recharge; 

4. develop root masses that stabilize islands and shoreline features against cutting action; 
19 

5. restrict water percolation; 

6. develop diverse ponding characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, 

duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, water bird breeding, and other 

uses; and 

7. support greater biodiversity. 

Functional – At Risk: Riparian/wetland areas that are in functional condition, but that have an 

existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute that makes them susceptible to degradation. 

Nonfunctional: Riparian/wetland areas that clearly are not providing adequate vegetation, 

landform, or woody debris/rocky structure to dissipate energies associated with wind action, 

wave action, and overland flow from adjacent sites, and thus are not reducing erosion and 

improving water quality. 

Riparian/wetland functional condition was assessed on 18 lentic sites, including 10 day-use 

beach sites; 3 Spokane River Arm sites; 3 river mile sites downstream of the reservoir influence 

on the Columbia, Kettle, and Spokane Rivers; and 2 special use sites at Ricky and Sherman 

Creeks. Individual LARO lentic assessments are discussed in more detail in the Aquatic Results 

section below and each assessment is supported by a detailed lentic PFC assessment checklists in 

Appendix B. 

21 

Upland Assessment Results 

GIS and Geodatabase 

The LARO Geodatabase was populated with 37 shapefiles and images (Appendix A). These are 

all accessible from the ArcGIS Map Project file located on the DVD included with this report. 

Additional copies are available from the Upper Columbia Basin Network’s website 

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/ucbn/reports/. 

Site Specific Assessments 

Site specific assessments were made in the 6 allotments identified in the methods sections. All 

but the Matney allotment are still actively grazed following approved leases. Grazing in the 

Matney allotment was discontinued in 2007. The following is an evaluation of each allotment 

with maps of sample points and soils, which are the basis for the ratings of the 3 landscape 

attributes. All data collected at the 21 sample points were digitized into a Microsoft Access 

database and a shapefile was generated from GPS locations. The database is included with the 

enclosed DVD and the shapefile is located in the LARO Geodatabase under the Geography 

category called nrca_plots.shp. Appendix A includes a table with all indicator ratings by plot and 

a species list with canopy cover by plot. 

Rosenberg Allotment 

The Rosenberg allotment is located in 2 parcels, labeled West and East on the maps. The west 

parcel is 53 acres with 40 animal unit months (AUM) (Figure 6) and the east parcel is 263 acres 

with 20 AUM. Both allotments are generally steep-sided slopes grading down to Lake Roosevelt. 

Rosenberg Allotment West is dominated by basin big sagebrush with patches of antelope 

bitterbrush distributed throughout the allotment. Soils were Nespelem (49) and Ewall (37) from 

the Lincoln County soil survey and the ecological sites were Loamy 9-15PZ (R008XY102WA) 

and Sandy 9-15PZ (R008XY501WA), respectively. Three points were sampled in the Loamy 9-

15PZ (Figure 7). The soil stability and hydrologic function attributes were rated as none-slight 

departure (15% and 18%, respectively). The biotic integrity attribute was rated slight-moderate 

(23%) due to the presence of invasive plants and the decadence of shrub species. One sample 

was taken in the Sandy 9-15PZ (Figure 8). Soil stability and hydrologic function attributes were 

rated as slight-moderate departure (20% and 25%, respectively). Biotic integrity was rated 

moderate (46%) due to the presence of invasive plants, reduced litter cover, and the decadence of 

shrub species, especially antelope bitterbrush. 
22 

Figure 7. Departure from reference condition 

of the 3 landscape attributes in the Loamy 

9-15PZ ecological site, Rosenberg 

Allotment West, LARO (background is of 

plot 3). 

Figure 6. NRCA sample points and soils in the Rosenberg Allotment West, LARO. 

Figure 8. Departure from reference condition 

of the 3 landscape attributes in the Sandy 9-

15PZ ecological sites, Rosenberg Allotment 

West, LARO (background is of plot 4). 
23 

Rosenberg Allotment East was very similar to Rosenberg Allotment West in topography and 

vegetation (Figure 9). In addition to the soils from Rosenberg West, Nespelem and Ewall, There 

were 2 additional soils, Conconully (27) and Pedigo (53), with ecological sites of Sandy 9-15PZ 

(R008XY501WA) and Alkali Bottom 15+PZ (R009XY401WA), respectively. There were 2 

sample points in the Loamy 9-15PZ and one sample point in each of the other ecological sites. In 

all 4 ecological sites, the soil stability and hydrologic function attributes were less than 20% 

departure from reference condition with a rating of none-slight (Figures 10-13). The biotic 

integrity for the Sandy 9-15PZ and Loamy 9-15PZ varied between 27-31% departure from 

reference condition with a rating of slight-moderate. This rating was due to similar conditions in 

Rosenberg West, with the presence of some invasive species and decadence in the shrub 

component. 

Figure 9. NRCA sample points and soils in the Rosenberg Allotment East, LARO 
24 

Figure 11. Departure from reference 

condition of the 3 landscape attributes in 

the Loamy 9-15PZ ecological sites, 

Rosenberg Allotment East, LARO 

(background is of plot 7). 

The Alkai Bottom 15+PZ site was located in a draw along the southern portion of the allotment 

that had a spring, which supported an unusual collection of vegetation (Figure 12). Patches of 

Wood’s rose were surrounded by a dense patch of alkali cordgrass (Spartina gracilis) and 

Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) along with many non-native species. The biotic integrity had 

a 43% departure from reference conditions and had a rating of moderate. This site may have 

Figure 12. Departure from reference 

condition of the 3 landscape attributes in 

the Alkali Bottom 15+PZ ecological 

sites, Rosenberg Allotment East, LARO 

(background is of plot 8). 

Figure 13. Departure from reference 

condition of the 3 landscape attributes in 

the Sandy 9-15PZ ecological sites, 

Rosenberg Allotment East, LARO 

(background is of plot 5). 

Figure 10. Departure from reference 

condition of the 3 landscape attributes in 

the Sandy 9-15PZ ecological sites, 

Rosenberg Allotment East, LARO 

(background is of plot 9). 
25 

been developed in the past, which would explain the presence of numerous non-native species. 

Impacts from livestock grazing were generally more noticeable on slopes less than 40%. There 

are many trails that parallel the slope in steep areas but impact to the vegetation is minimal. 

Wagner et al. (2005) evaluated the allotment in 2004 and had comparable results. Their rating of 

none-slight for soil stability and hydrologic function are the same and they rated biotic integrity 

as slight-none, which was the same for 2 of the 4 ecological sites in this study. 

Green Allotment 

The Green Allotment lies directly south of the Rosenberg Allotment East (Figure 14). The parcel 

is 121 acres with 15 AUM. The allotment grades from steep dissected slopes in the north to 

gradual slopes and benches. The southeast portion of the allotment grades back into steeper 

slopes. Vegetation is dominated by basin big sagebrush with patches of antelope bitterbrush 

distributed throughout the allotment. Ponderosa pine occurs in the southeast end of the allotment 

on the steeper slopes. 

Soils in the allotment are Ewall (36) and Conconully (27) from the Lincoln County soil survey. 

Ewall was classified as a Sandy 9-15PZ (R008XY501WA) ecological site and Conconully was 

Figure 14. NRCA sample points and soils in the Green Allotment, LARO. 
26 

classed as a Loamy 9-15PZ (R008XY102WA) ecological site. One was sampled in the Loamy 9-

15PZ on the steeper slopes and 2 points were sampled in the Sandy 9-15PZ in the lower gradient 

slopes closer to the lake. 

The 1 sample taken in the Loamy 9-15PZ ecological site was in excellent condition. Soil 

stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity were all none-slight departure, <3% (Figure 

15). Wagner et al. 2005 rated the allotment the same for the Sandy 9-15PZ ecological site and 

came up with the same departure ratings but did not consider the Loamy 9-15PZ. There were 2 

noxious weeds, Dalmatian toadflax and Russian knapweed, noted at the site however they were 

only located along a gravel road running parallel with the lake. Once away from the road the 

vegetation was dominated by native species. In the Sandy 9-15PZ all 3 attributes; soil stability, 

hydrologic function, and biotic integrity were rated as none-slight departure, 5%, 5%, and 18%, 

respectively (Figure 16). As indicated on the map (Figure 14), there are few home sites near the 

allotment, but it was noted that a camping trailer was parked on private land adjacent to the west 

boundary and south of sample point 12. 

Coffman Allotment 

The Coffman allotment lies directly east of the Keller-Wilbur Ferry station on the south side of 

Lake Roosevelt (Figure 17). The parcel is 43 acres with approximately 10 AUM. The allotment 

is open to the lake and is very flat, 1-2% slopes. An irrigated agricultural field borders the 

allotment on the south and west boundary. Vegetation varies from a rubber rabbit brush 

dominated site with a sand dropseed understory to a highly disturbed site dominated by 

scouringrush horsetail (Equisetum hyemale) and cheatgrass. Several small patches of willow 

(Salix sp.) and black cottonwood occur along the high water line of the lake. 

Figure 16. Departure from reference 

condition of the 3 landscape attributes in 

the Sandy 9-15PZ ecological sites, Green 

Allotment, LARO (background is of plot 

12). 

Figure 15. Departure from reference 

condition of the 3 landscape attributes in 

the Loamy 9-15PZ ecological sites, 

Green Allotment - East, LARO 

(background is of plot 10). 
27 

Figure 18. Departure from reference condition 

of the 3 landscape attributes in the Sandy 9-

15PZ ecological sites, Coffman Allotment, 

LARO (background is of plot 14). 

Figure 17. NRCA sample points and soils in the Coffman Allotment, LARO. 
28 

The entire allotment is mapped as a Ewall (36) soil, from the Lincoln County soil survey. Ewall 

is classified as a Sandy 9-15PZ (R008XY501WA) ecological site. Two points were sampled, one 

in the more native vegetation and the other in the more disturbed site. The soil stability attribute 

was rated none-slight departure (19%), while hydrologic function was rated slight-moderate 

(26%), and biotic integrity was rated moderate departure (46%) (Figure 18). The individual 

ratings for the sample point were very similar (Appendix A). The biotic integrity rating was due 

to the large number of invasive plants, and the poor reproductive capability of the native species. 

Wagner et al. 2005 did not evaluate this allotment. Grazing and other past uses at this site have 

reduced the native component of the vegetation and productivity of the site. As can be noted 

from Figure 16, the allotment is within a quarter mile of a ferry terminal and commercial, 

residential, and recreational developments. These developments will most likely continue to 

grow and place more pressure on the natural resource attributes within the allotment, such as 

increased water runoff and a source for noxious weeds. Agricultural practices, such as 

fertilization and chemical treatments, on the park and adjacent private lands will have potentially 

negative impacts to the natural resources in the allotment. 

Fort Spokane 

Fort Spokane is a historical site located on a flat bench lying south of the confluence of the 

Spokane and Columbia Rivers (Figure 19). The 100 acre site is bisected by Washington State 

Highway 25, with all the historical buildings located to the west and a grass pasture lying to the 

east. The parcel is surrounded on the north and south by mature ponderosa pine forest, a grass 

pasture to the east and the Spokane River Arm of Lake Roosevelt to the west. Vegetation on both 

sides of the highway is a mixture of grass from past seedings and native and non-native species 

naturally seeding in from surrounding areas. 

The soil at the site is mapped as a Springdale (73) gravelly sandy loam from the Lincoln County 

soil survey. This soil is not classified as a rangeland soil and does not have a reference ecological 

site description. The climax vegetation is ponderosa pine forest with a grass understory, 

dominated by needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata) and bluebunch wheatgrass. One sample 

point was taken east of the highway (Figure 20). The site was dominated by Sandberg bluegrass 

with crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), quackgrass (Elymus repens) and cereal rye 

(Secale cereal) which were planted on the site in the past. Several annual bromes have invaded 

the site but accounted for <2% canopy cover. Forbs composed <5% canopy cover due mainly to 

the site being treated with herbicides for weed control on a regular basis. The site is also mowed 

several times a year to control weeds and reduced fire hazard. 

The Fort Spokane site was evaluated for the 3 landscape attributes by using the published soil 

descriptions for the Springdale soil series (Donaldson et al. 2004) and published plant 

composition for the ponderosa pine/bluebunch wheatgrass association (Williams et al. 1996, 

Lillybridge et al. 1995). Soil stability attribute was rated none-slight departure (5%), while 

hydrologic function was also rated none-slight (15%), and biotic integrity was rated moderate 

departure (49%) (Figure 20). 
29 

Figure 19. NRCA sample point and soils in the Fort Spokane Historical site, LARO. 

Figure 20. Departure from reference 

condition of the 3 landscape attributes in 

the Springdale soil series and Ponderosa 

pine/bluebunch wheatgrass association, 

Fort Spokane, LARO (background is of 

plot 15)
30 

The conversion of the forested site to a grass pasture with the exclusion of grazing has not 

negatively impacted the soil stability or hydrologic function attributes. The biotic integrity 

attribute has been greatly changed and would have been rated even higher if departure of soilrelated indicators where rated higher. Even though the pasture is not in a native condition, there 

were few noxious weeds. The site had been recently mowed and many of the plants were cured, 

which most likely reduced our ability to identify any annual weeds. Since the site is managed for 

historical values, the field is in reasonable condition. Mowing may be a questionable practice for 

noxious weed control and can possibly encourage some species of rhizomatous perennial 

noxious weeds, such as rush skeleton weed. Mowing may be used to maintain the cultural 

landscape setting of the site or to reduce the risk of fire. 

Gifford Allotment 

The Gifford allotment lies approximately 1⁄2 mile south of the town of Gifford and north of the 

Cloverleaf Campground (Figure 21). The parcel is 25 acres with 10 AUM. The allotment lies on 

a bench above Lake Roosevelt and is flat, 1-2% slope. State Highway 25 forms the eastern 

boundary of the allotment. The allotment is mainly a grass pasture created by removing the 

native ponderosa pine forest. A 200’-350’ band of ponderosa pine dominated vegetation lies on 

the east and north edge of the grass pasture. 

The soil at the allotment is mapped as a Cedonia (46) silt loam from the Stevens County soil 

survey. This soil is not classified as a rangeland soil and does not have a reference ecological site 

description. The climax vegetation is a ponderosa pine forest with an understory dominated by 

common snowberry and pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens). Two sample points were taken, 

one in the grass pasture and one in the forest vegetation to the east (Figure 21). The grass pasture 

was a mixture of perennial grasses, quackgrass and smooth brome (Bromus inermis), and an 

assortment of annual brome grasses (Bromus tectorum, B. japonicas, and B. mollis). Forbs were 

dominated by sulphur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) a Washington State Class B noxious weed. 

Total canopy cover was approximately 38% grass and 61% forb. Surface cover was 

approximately 40% bare ground and 30% litter cover. 

The forested sample point was dominated by ponderosa pine (62% canopy cover) with an 

understory of common snowberry and quackgrass. Canopy cover of shrubs, grasses, and forbs 

was 8%, 19%, and 3%, respectively. Litter covered approximately 90% of the surface with only 

3% bare ground. 

Each sample site was evaluated for the 3 landscape attributes by using the published soil 

descriptions for the Cedonia soil series (Donaldson et al. 2004) and published plant composition 

for the ponderosa pine/pinegrass association (Williams et al. 1996. Lillybridge et al. 1995). The 

grass pasture soil stability attribute was rated slight-moderate departure (25%), while hydrologic 

function was also rated slight-moderate (38%) but was considerable higher in percent departure 

(Figure 22). The biotic integrity attribute was rated moderate departure (54%) but would have 

been moderate-extreme without low ratings of the compaction and plant mortality indicators 

(Figure 22). 
31 

The forested sample site had a none-slight departure (0%) for soil stability and hydrologic 

function was also rated none-slight (5%) (Figure 23). The biotic integrity attribute just crossed 

into the slight-moderate departure (20%) due to the presence of several non-native and noxious 

weed understory species that have infiltrated from the adjacent grass pasture (Figure 23). 

Figure 21. NRCA sample points and soils in the Gifford Allotment, LARO. 
32 

The conversion of a forested site to a grass pasture with the past grazing regime has negatively 

impacted the soil stability and hydrologic function attributes on the allotment. The more serious 

impact is to the biotic integrity attribute. The allotment is dominated by non-native species (67% 

canopy cover) of which noxious weeds occupy 23% of the canopy cover. 

The site will continue to degrade without revegetation efforts and modifications to the grazing 

practices. If grazing is a goal for management, the allotment could be improved by reseeding to a 

native/non-native grass seed mix with pre and post herbicide treatments. Grazing would have to 

be limited for a 3-5 year period post seeding. If grazing were to be eliminated as the management 

goal, the site could be replanted with ponderosa pine and allowed to recover back to a more 

native condition, as seen in the adjacent forest stand. The Cloverleaf campground is very close 

and there were signs of camping along the northern edge of the allotment. The allotment will 

continue to receive recreational use which will have the potential to spread the existing noxious 

weeds. 

Matney Allotment 

The Matney allotment lies along the north shore of Lake Roosevelt across the lake from the town 

of Marcus (Figure 24). The parcel is 77 acres with 20 AUM. The majority of the allotment lies 

on a bench approximately 100’ above Lake Roosevelt. The western end of the allotment is lower 

in elevation with developed intermittent stream channel flowing through the allotment. Slopes 

vary from 1-20%. 

Figure 22. Departure from reference condition 

of the 3 landscape attributes in the Cedonia 

soil series and Ponderosa pine/pinegrass 

association, Gifford Allotment, LARO 

(background is of plot 16). 

Figure 23. Departure from reference condition 

of the 3 landscape attributes in the Cedonia 

soil series and Ponderosa pine/pinegrass 

association, Gifford Allotment, LARO 

(background is of plot 17). 
33 

 

Figure 24. NRCA sample points and soils in the Matney Allotment, LARO. 

Figure 25. Departure from reference condition 

of the 3 landscape attributes in the Wet 

Meadow 15+PZ ecological site, Matney 

Allotment, LARO (background is of plot 

18)
34 

The soil at the west end of the allotment is a Peone (172) silt loam and is classified as a Wet 

Meadow 15+PZ (R044XY601WA) ecological site. The soils at the other 2 sample sites are 

Bisbee loamy fine sand, and Springdale sandy loam both from the Stevens County soil survey. 

These soils are not classified as a rangeland soil and do not have reference ecological site 

descriptions. The climax vegetation is a ponderosa pine forest with an understory dominated by 

common snowberry and bluebunch wheatgrass. 

The Wet Meadow 15+PZ sample site was dominated by invasive grasses specifically Kentucky 

bluegrass and quackgrass (each with 30% of the canopy cover). All the other grasses and most of 

the forbs were non-native. Six noxious weeds occupied 17% of the canopy cover. The soil 

stability attribute was rated as slight-moderate (30%) departure (Figure 25). The hydrologic 

function attribute was rated moderate (40%) departure, while the biotic integrity attribute was 

rated moderate-extreme (66%) departure. Wagner et al.(2005) rated all the attributes as moderate 

departure. Their recommendation of excluding livestock grazing and active management of 

noxious weeds is supported by this study. Fencing is being installed around the entire allotment 

by LARO staff to exclude livestock based on past recommendations. 

The soils for the other two sample sites are Bisbee (30) loamy fine sand (plot 19) and Springdale 

(225) sandy loam (plot 20). Each sample site was evaluated separately for the 3 landscape 

attributes by using the published soil descriptions (Donaldson et al. 2004) and published plant 

composition for the ponderosa pine/bluebunch wheatgrass association (Williams et al. 1996. 

Lillybridge et al. 1995). Soil stability at both sample sites, plots 19 and 20, was rated none-slight 

departure (13% and 3%, respectively). The hydrologic function was rated slight-moderate (20%) 

for plot 19 and none-slight (5%) departure for plot 20. Biotic integrity was rated slight-moderate 

(37% and 26%, respectively) for both plots (Figures 26 and 27). 

Figure 26. Departure from reference 

condition of the 3 landscape attributes in 

the Bisbee soil series and ponderosa 

pine/bluebunch wheatgrass association, 

Matney Allotment, LARO (background 

is of plot 19). 

Figure 27. Departure from reference condition 

of the 3 landscape attributes in the Bisbee 

soil series and ponderosa pine/bluebunch 

wheatgrass association, Matney Allotment, 

LARO (background is of plot 20). 
35 

Both sample sites had evidence of grazing by livestock but had not received the intensity of use 

found on plot 18. These sites were not as productive however they still maintained a ponderosa 

pine overstory and common snowberry understory. The only noxious weeds found were hoary 

cress and common St. Johnswort. Hoary cress is a perennial rhizomatous species and should be 

monitored and or treated to prevent spreading. These sites were not examined by Wagner et al. 

2005. If grazing is excluded from the entire allotment, then these sites will recover fairly rapidly 

due to the presence of native species and the relatively good condition of the soil integrity and 

hydrologic function attributes. 

Henslee Allotment 

The Henslee Allotment lies along the east side of the Kettle River, approximately 7 miles 

upstream from the mouth. The parcel is 37.5 acres with 36 AUM. The allotment is located on a 

flat bench in an oxbow of the Kettle River (Figure 28) which forms the west and north boundary. 

Kettle River Road forms the eastern boundary of the allotment and the home of the permittee lies 

adjacent to the northeast corner. The allotment was created by removing the native ponderosa 

pine forest and seeding to grasses. The pasture is surrounded by ponderosa pine dominated 

vegetation on the east and north edge of the pasture. 

The dominant grass in the allotment is quackgrass (20% of the canopy cover) and Kentucky 

bluegrass (10% of the canopy cover) with grasses comprising 46% of the cover. Forbs were 

dominated by common St. johnswort (15% canopy cover) and woolly plantain (Plantago 

patagonica) (10% canopy cover) with all forbs comprising 48% of the cover. Noxious weeds 

included; sulphur cinquefoil (Class B), diffuse knapweed (Class C), and common St. johnswort 

(Class C) made up 22% of the total canopy cover. Surface cover was approximately 50% bare 

ground and 30% litter. 

The allotment was evaluated for the 3 landscape attributes by using the published soil 

descriptions for the Bisbee soil series (Donaldson et al. 2004) and published plant composition 

for the ponderosa pine/bluebunch wheatgrass association (Williams et al. 1996. Lillybridge et al. 

1995). The pasture soil stability attribute was rated slight-moderate departure (23%), while 

hydrologic function was also rated slight-moderate (35%) however this attribute was 

considerable higher in percent departure (Figure 29). The biotic integrity attribute was rated 

moderate-extreme departure (63%) due to the domination of invasive species, non-native and 

noxious weeds (54% of the canopy cover). 
36 

Figure 28. NRCA sample point and soils in the Henslee Allotment, LARO. 
37 

 

The pasture in this allotment was not rated by Wagner et al. (2005) but they did comment on the 

poor condition of the pasture while rating the adjacent wetlands. They recommended possible 

changes to the type of livestock use in the pasture from horses and llamas to cattle and /or sheep 

as a way to improve condition. If grazing is a goal for management, the allotment could be 

improved by reseeding to a native/non-native grass seed mix with pre- and post-herbicide 

treatments. Grazing would have to be limited for a 3-5 year period post seeding. If grazing were 

to be eliminated as the management goal, the site could be replanted with ponderosa pine and 

allowed to recover to a more native condition, as seen in the adjacent forest stand. The allotment 

will always be exposed to the activities of the adjacent home site, especially in the control of 

noxious weeds. 

Figure 29. Departure from reference condition 

of the 3 landscape attributes in the Bisbee 

soil series and ponderosa pine/bluebunch 

wheatgrass association, Henslee Allotment, 

LARO (background is plot 21). 

39 

Aquatic Assessment Results 

Day-Use Beach Sites 

Day-use beach sites were selected by NPS personnel as areas receiving significant recreational 

use by boaters and other water-users during the summer. These 10 day-use beach sites were 

assessed using the lentic PFC methodology (Prichard et al 2003). 

LARO Beach 1 

This site, located in a large embayment just north (i.e., upstream) of the City of Kettle Falls, and 

was assessed in July 2008 (Figure 30). A small tributary known as Martin Spring enters the 

embayment just downstream of the assessed reach and receives frequent use by boaters. In 

addition, the site is accessible by vehicle due to the presence of a primitive dirt road accessed 

from Highway 25. 

Due to seasonal drawdowns of Lake Roosevelt water levels, the LARO Beach 1 riparian area 

experiences significant periods of de-saturation. This unnatural phenomenon impacts the ability 

of the riparian area to function at a high level. This site is impacted by land use activities in the 

upland watershed due to its proximity to Highway 25 and frequent human access. The natural 

surface or subsurface flow patterns occurring at LARO Beach 1 are altered by human and animal 

use of the site including hoof action, roads, boating, and camping. On-site riparian vegetation at 

LARO Beach 1 is dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and willow (Salix spp.) 

(Figure 31). There is very little vegetative diversity on-site, with the majority of vegetation 

consisting of facultative herbaceous and shrub/scrub species. The apparent absence of obligate 

plant species indicates that soil saturation is limited by seasonal water level fluctuations. 

The PFC evaluation of LARO Beach 1 resulted in a summary determination of “Functional – At 

Risk” (Appendix B). “Functional – At Risk” lentic riparian/wetland areas are functioning 

properly, but have an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute that makes them susceptible to 

degradation. In this case, human and animal use of the site is preventing typical vegetative 

succession expected at the site. Excessive human and animal use prevents establishment of 

diverse age classes and composition of native vegetation on-site, which has allowed reed 

canarygrass to become firmly established. As a result, the site is trending away from becoming 

properly functioning (“downward”) and will continue trending downward unless the spread of 

reed canarygrass can be controlled and human disturbance minimized. 
40 

Figure 31. Photograph of the LARO Beach 1 sample site. 

Figure 30. Map of LARO Beach 1 sample site.
41 

LARO Beach 2 

Due to seasonal fluctuations in water levels within Lake Roosevelt, the riparian area of the 

LARO Beach 2 site (Figure 32) is frequently de-watered, which results in soil de-saturation, 

which can limit the diversity of hydrophytic vegetation. This site is influenced by humaninduced upland impacts in the watershed, especially due to the presence of Hallam Creek, which 

conveys sediments and nutrients from upstream sources to Lake Roosevelt. This site is also 

impacted by the proximity of Highway 25 and experiences frequent human utilization as a 

mooring location for boats during the summer. 

LARO Beach 2 contains very little vegetative diversity and is dominated by reed canarygrass 

(Figure 33). This is likely due to the quick colonizing tendencies of reed canarygrass along the 

frequently de-watered Lake Roosevelt shoreline. The absence of obligate hydrophytes indicates 

that riparian/wetland soil moisture characteristics are not consistently maintained at this site, 

which is also a direct result of seasonal changes in lake level. 

The PFC evaluation of LARO Beach 2 resulted in a summary determination of “Functional – At 

Risk” (Appendix B). “Functional – At Risk” lentic riparian/wetland areas are functioning 

properly, but have an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute that makes them susceptible to 

degradation. In this case, human use of the site and presence of Hallam Creek, which delivers 

sediment and associated nutrients from upstream sources, is preventing the site from functioning 

at full potential. Excessive water level fluctuation at this site prevents establishment of a diverse 

composition of native vegetation, which has allowed reed canarygrass to dominate the 

hydrophytic vegetation at the site. Although reed canarygrass is an undesirable exotic species, it 

does provide some protection and energy dissipation properties, which results in the “FunctionalAt Risk” determination. Another risk at this site is the sediments and associated nutrients being 

delivered by Hallam Creek. The excessive algal and macrophytic growth at the mouth of the 

stream is the direct result of what is being delivered by the stream from upland sources. As a 

result, the site is trending away from becoming properly functioning (“downward”) and will 

continue trending downward unless reed canarygrass, human disturbance, and delivery of 

nutrients by Hallam Creek can be minimized. 
42 

Figure 33. Photograph of the LARO Beach 2 sample site 

near the mouth of Hallam Creek. 

Figure 32. Map of LARO Beach 2 sample site. 
43 

LARO Beach 3 

Water level fluctuations experienced at Lake Roosevelt is exacerbated at LARO Beach 3 (Figure 

34) since its banks slope very gradually toward the channel. This results in a significant portion 

of the beach area being de-watered, even during summer “full pool” conditions. This site is 

accessible by road and by boat, which increases human-induced impacts. The upland watershed 

is contributing to degradation of LARO Beach 3, especially roadway impacts due to the 

proximity of Highway 25. The natural surface or subsurface flow patterns at this site are altered 

by hoof and foot action, roads, boats, and unnatural water level fluctuations. 

As indicated by the site photo (Figure 35), much of the de-watered riparian area at this site is 

devoid of vegetation. The vegetation that is present lacks age/class and composition diversity and 

is dominated by reed canarygrass. Plant species present on-site, which do not include obligate 

hydrophytes, indicate riparian/wetland soil characteristics are not maintained at this site for 

significant periods of time. On-site vegetation lacks vigor and appears to show signs of 

desiccation due to the fluctuation in the water table. Upland vegetation includes ponderosa pine 

and wild rose. 

Woody vegetation is present on-site but during the time of this assessment it was not in a 

location where it could protect the shoreline from wind and wave energy. 

The PFC evaluation of LARO Beach 3 resulted in a summary determination of “Nonfunctional” 

(Appendix B). “Nonfunctional” lentic riparian/wetland areas are those that clearly are not 

providing adequate vegetation, landform, or woody debris/rocky structure to dissipate energies 

associated with wind action, wave action, and overland flow from adjacent sites, and thus are not 

reducing erosion and improving water quality. In this case, human use and major fluctuations in 

water levels have resulted in a shoreline devoid of vegetation capable of dissipating energy from 

wind and wave action. Any vegetation that is present along the shoreline is comprised almost 

entirely of reed canarygrass. Seasonal water level fluctuation prevents establishment of diverse 

age classes and composition of native vegetation on-site, which has allowed the quickestablishing reed canarygrass to dominate the hydrophytic vegetation at the site. 
44 

Figure 35. Photograph of LARO Beach 3 sample site. 

Figure 34. Map of LARO Beach 3 sample site. 
45 

LARO Beach 4 

Located approximately 3.5 miles downstream of Porcupine Bay Campground on the Spokane 

River Arm of Lake Roosevelt, LARO Beach 4 was assessed in July 2008 (Figure 36). This site is 

located immediately across the reservoir from Orazada Creek. 

Water levels at LARO Beach 4 fluctuate seasonally with the drawdown of Lake Roosevelt. This 

seasonal drawdown of the reservoir causes significant portions of the shoreline to be devoid of 

riparian vegetation and apparently not reaching its potential aerial extent (Figure 37). The natural 

surface or subsurface water table flow patterns are altered at LARO Beach 4 by human 

disturbance (e.g., trampling and clearing vegetation), hoof action, water level fluctuation, and 

boats. 

Riparian vegetation at LARO Beach 4 is dominated by reed canarygrass but also includes 

horsetail and cattail. Small patches of aquatic macrophytes were present within the shallow 

LARO Beach 4 embayment during the July assessment. Upland plant species on-site consisted of 

ponderosa pine, wild rose, and black hawthorn Crataegus douglasii. 

A significant clay layer underlies the LARO Beach 4 site and is a source of erosion by wave 

action. As a result, the small embayment contained substantial suspended sediment during the 

July site visit. 

The PFC evaluation of LARO Beach 4 resulted in a summary determination of “Nonfunctional” 

(Appendix B). “Nonfunctional” lentic riparian/wetland areas are those that clearly are not 

providing adequate vegetation, landform, or woody debris/rocky structure to dissipate energies 

associated with wind action, wave action, and overland flow from adjacent sites, and thus are not 

reducing erosion and improving water quality. In this case, it was apparent that the site receives 

significant wave action and human use by boat resulting in erosion. Excessive human use was 

not only apparent on the beach but was evident by trails and primitive latrines throughout the 

timber immediately surrounding the site. Human use of the site, as well as water level 

fluctuation, has left the beach prone to wave action. Obvious erosion of the on-site clay layer by 

waves was evident during the site visit and the water in the near shore was extremely turbid. 

There was very little diversity of vegetation along the beach and reed canarygrass dominated the 

hydrophytic vegetation at the site. 
46 

Figure 36. Map of the LARO Beach 4 sample site. 

Figure 37. Photograph of the LARO Beach 4 sample site. 
47 

LARO Beach 5 

Located approximately four miles downstream of Porcupine Bay Campground on the Spokane 

River Arm of Lake Roosevelt, LARO Beach 5 was assessed in July 2008 (Figure 38). This site is 

accessible by boat and receives significant day-use by boaters during the summer months. 

The LARO Beach 5 site maintains a sandy beach throughout the year. The riparian area lacks 

sufficient vegetation to be considered at its full potential. The slopes above and adjacent to the 

LARO Beach 5 site show excessive erosion and the natural surface or subsurface flow patterns 

on-site are altered by hoof action, boats, human use, and flow fluctuations within Lake 

Roosevelt. 

During the site assessment, on-site vegetation appeared sparse and was dominated by horsetail. 

Very little age-class and composition diversity of riparian vegetation exists at this site and the 

plants that are present lack vigor and appear stunted. Soil moisture characteristics do not appear 

to be maintained at LARO Beach 5 as indicated by the absence of hydrophytic vegetation. 

The lack of vegetation at this site leaves the sandy shoreline and adjacent bluffs susceptible to 

erosion from wave action. Presence of the on-site beach indicates that this site is a depositional 

area for sediment moving through the reservoir. Lack of a rocky shoreline and large woody 

debris prevents wave energy dissipation, which would allow vegetation establishment. Human 

use of the site also limits shoreline large woody debris and vegetation growth. 

The PFC evaluation of LARO Beach 5 resulted in a summary determination of “Nonfunctional” 

(Appendix B). “Nonfunctional” lentic riparian/wetland areas are those that clearly are not 

providing adequate vegetation, landform, or woody debris/rocky structure to dissipate energies 

associated with wind action, wave action, and overland flow from adjacent sites, and thus are not 

reducing erosion and improving water quality. In this case, it was apparent that the site receives 

significant human use by boat due to the presence of fire pits and other obvious human 

disturbance (Figure 39). On-site human disturbance was also evident by trails and primitive 

latrines throughout the timber immediately surrounding the site. Although some large woody 

debris and vegetation was present on the beach, it is not enough to prevent significant wind and 

wave energy erosion at the site. 
48 

Figure 39. Photograph of the LARO Beach 5 sample site. 

Figure 38. Map of the LARO Beach 5 sample site. 
49 

LARO Beach 6 

Located approximately 1.5 miles from the mouth of Indian Creek, LARO Beach 6 was assessed 

in July 2008 (Figure 40). This site is located in a small inlet that receives significant use by 

boaters along the northern shoreline of the Indian Creek embayment. 

Water level fluctuation in the shallow embayment of LARO Beach 6 is excessive throughout the 

year and dramatically affects the riparian area on-site. The on-site riparian area has not reached 

its full potential due to bare areas along the shoreline. Extensive human use of this site, including 

boat moorage and overnight camping is apparent. Slopes above the LARO Beach 6 site show 

excessive erosion and the narrow strip of vegetation along the shoreline is insufficient to capture 

sediment prior to discharge into the surface water. The natural surface or subsurface flow 

patterns on-site are altered by human trails, hoof action, water level fluctuation, boats, and other 

human uses. 

Riparian vegetation at the LARO Beach 6 site is dominated by reed canarygrass (Figure 41). Onsite vegetation lacks distribution of age-classes and diversity of composition. Soil moisture 

characteristics do not appear to be maintained for extended periods of time due to water level 

fluctuation. The vegetation that does exist at this site is sparsely distributed with numerous bare 

areas devoid of vegetation and susceptible to erosion. 

No ponding or inundation occurs at this site due to the relatively free-draining soils. The 

presence of free-draining soils also results in water table fluctuation with changes in lake levels. 

LARO Beach 6 erosion is occurring at a rate that limits establishment of vegetation and riparian 

area expansion. Although this site is fairly well protected from wave energy, shorelines do not 

contain enough rock and large woody material to adequately dissipate wave energies from 

causing erosion. 

The PFC evaluation of LARO Beach 6 resulted in a summary determination of “Nonfunctional” 

(Appendix B). “Nonfunctional” lentic riparian/wetland areas are those that clearly are not 

providing adequate vegetation, landform, or woody debris/rocky structure to dissipate energies 

associated with wind action, wave action, and overland flow from adjacent sites, and thus are not 

reducing erosion and improving water quality. LARO Beach 6 cannot function properly due to 

the lack of established vegetation, human-induced disturbance of existing shoreline vegetation, 

and water level fluctuation. In addition, woody debris and rocky structures are insufficient to 

dissipate wave energy at the site. 
50 

Figure 41. Photograph of the LARO Beach 6 sample site.

Figure 40. Map of the LARO Beach 6 sample site. 
51 

LARO Beach 7 

Located approximately 0.5 mile from the mouth of Indian Creek, LARO Beach 7 was assessed in 

July 2008 (Figure 42). This site is located along the northern shoreline of the Indian Creek 

embayment and receives significant use by boaters during the summer due to the nearby boat 

launch and relative protection from the wind. 

Fluctuation of water levels at LARO Beach 7 is excessive throughout the year due to seasonal 

releases at Grand Coulee Dam. Because water levels fluctuate seasonally at the site, the shoreline 

is often bare sand and susceptible to wave erosion caused by wind and boat traffic. The existing 

shoreline at the LARO Beach 7 site shows excessive erosion, which is partially the result of 

human use of the site, such as vegetation trampling and creating trails along shoreline (Figure 

43). 

Riparian vegetation at the LARO Beach 7 site is dominated by reed canarygrass with very little 

diversity or age-class distribution of vegetation across the site. Soil moisture characteristics 

within the riparian area are not maintained throughout the year due to water level fluctuations. 

The absence of obligate hydrophytic vegetation is an indicator that saturated soil conditions do 

not persist throughout the year. 

Sediment is removed or eroded from LARO Beach 7 at a faster rate than the riparian area can 

expand. The shoreline consists of a fine clay layer that is being rapidly eroded by wave energy. 

Further exacerbating the impacts is the lack of rocky material or large woody debris to 

adequately dissipate wind and wave event energies and prevent erosion. 

The PFC evaluation of LARO Beach 7 resulted in a summary determination of “Nonfunctional” 

(Appendix B). “Nonfunctional” lentic riparian/wetland areas are those that clearly are not 

providing adequate vegetation, landform, or woody debris/rocky structure to dissipate energies 

associated with wind action, wave action, and overland flow from adjacent sites, and thus are not 

reducing erosion and improving water quality. This site’s nonfunctional determination is largely 

a result of the lack of diverse vegetation, rocky material, and large woody debris capable of 

preventing shoreline erosion. Human use of the site and excessive wave energy caused by boat 

traffic further degrades this site’s potential. 
52 

Figure 43. Photograph of the LARO Beach 7 sample site. 

Figure 42. Map of the LARO Beach 7 sample site. 
53 

LARO Beach 8 

Located approximately six miles upriver from the Keller Wilbur Ferry, LARO Beach 8 was 

assessed in July 2008 (Figure 44). This site is located in the southern shoreline of Lake 

Roosevelt in a small sheltered embayment that receives significant use by boaters. 

During the site assessment, LARO Beach 8 was occupied by a large house boat and a smaller 

day-use boat. The site is significantly de-watered when Lake Roosevelt is seasonally drawn 

down to prepare for spring run-off. The site contains numerous beach areas that are used by 

boaters and campers. Much of the immediate shoreline within the drawdown zone is free of 

vegetation, which leaves it susceptible to erosion (Figure 45). The slopes above the LARO Beach 

8 site are relatively steep and very lightly vegetated. As a result, the slopes show excessive 

erosion from storm runoff. 

Because LARO Beach 8 is in a shallow embayment, it experiences less mixing and is more 

stagnant than the mainstem reservoir. This has led to more macrophytic plant growth along the 

shallow shorelines. In addition to aquatic macrophytes, the site is dominated by reed canarygrass 

in the riparian area and ponderosa pine on the upland slopes. Within the riparian area, there is 

very little diversity of vegetation and distribution of age-classes. Other than the aquatic 

macrophytes in the shallow wetted perimeter, obligate hydrophytic plant species are absent, 

which indicates that water level fluctuations prevent maintenance of a consistent water table 

within the riparian area. LARO Beach 8 has very little protection from rocks or large woody 

material, which leaves the shoreline extremely susceptible to wave-induced erosion. 

The PFC evaluation of LARO Beach 8 resulted in a summary determination of “Nonfunctional” 

(Appendix B). “Nonfunctional” lentic riparian/wetland areas are those that clearly are not 

providing adequate vegetation, landform, or woody debris/rocky structure to dissipate energies 

associated with wind action, wave action, and overland flow from adjacent sites, and thus are not 

reducing erosion and improving water quality. The nonfunctional status of LARO Beach 8 is 

largely due to the lack of vegetative cover, rocky material, and large woody debris capable of 

preventing shoreline erosion. In addition, human use of the site and wave energy caused by boat 

traffic further degrades this site’s potential. 
54 

Figure 45. Photograph of the LARO Beach 8 sample site. 

Figure 44. Map of the LARO Beach 8 sample site. 
55 

LARO Beach 9 

Located approximately five miles upriver from the Keller Wilbur Ferry, LARO Beach 9 was 

assessed in July 2008 (Figure 46). This site is located across Lake Roosevelt from Hell Gate 

Canyon approximately 0.5 miles upriver from the Whitelaw Road community along the southern 

shoreline. 

The LARO Beach 9 riparian/wetland area is affected by water level fluctuations, which result in 

de-watering the shoreline and deepening of the water table. The natural surface or subsurface 

flow patterns at the site are potentially altered by hoof action, roads in the watershed, boat traffic, 

development (i.e., nearby cabin), and human use. Shoreline erosion by wind-induced wave 

action at the LARO Beach 9 site appears excessive and is tempered somewhat by on-site large 

woody debris, ponderosa pine root wads, and herbaceous vegetation (Figure 47). The site 

appears to drain fairly well, which has resulted in a mostly facultative community of plant 

species, including reed canarygrass, horsetails, willows, and sedges. Upland plants at the site 

include ponderosa pine and antelope bitterbrush. The hydrophytic vegetation on-site appears to 

exhibit low vigor due to the seasonal depth of the water table. For example, willows at this site 

contain extensive dead material and sedges/grasses are short and appear stunted. 

The PFC evaluation of LARO Beach 9 resulted in a summary determination of “Functional – At 

Risk” (Appendix B). “Functional – At Risk” lentic riparian/wetland areas are functioning 

properly, but have an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute that makes them susceptible to 

degradation. In this case, LARO Beach 9 hydrology is threatened by the seasonal fluctuation in 

water table depth, which is affecting its ability to maintain hydric soils and hydrophytic 

vegetation. As a result of the hydrology-induced reduction in plant vigor on-site, the site is 

trending away (downward trend) from becoming properly functional. 
56 

Figure 47. Photograph of the LARO Beach 9 sample site. 

Figure 46. Map of the LARO Beach 9 sample site. 
57 

LARO Beach 10 

Located in the Neal Canyon embayment approximately 10 miles upriver from Grand Coulee 

Dam, LARO Beach 10 was assessed in July 2008 (Figure 48). This site is located in a sheltered 

embayment that receives significant pressure from boaters and grazing cattle. 

LARO Beach 10 contains a narrow 5-6 foot green belt riparian area near its high-water mark 

even though seasonal fluctuations in water levels occur from reservoir drawdown (Figure 49). 

The riparian area is narrow due to the steepness of the slope on-site, which quickly elevates away 

from the existing water table. Very few hydrophytic plants were present at this site. Dominant 

vegetation consisted of wild rose and Oregon grape Mahonia aquifolium. 

The Lake Roosevelt tributary that enters at this site was dry during our site evaluation; however, 

it was apparent that the stream is a source of sediment and nutrients to the embayment site. The 

natural surface or subsurface flow patterns at LARO Beach 10 are altered by hoof action (i.e., 

deer and cattle), Grand Coulee Dam, roads within the watershed, boats, and other human 

recreation. The erosion rate at this site appears to be faster than the rate at which the riparian area 

vegetation can become established, which results in sections of the shoreline being devoid of 

vegetation. Not enough rocks or large woody material are present at LARO Beach 10 to 

adequately dissipate wind and wave event energies and reduce erosion. Grazing cattle using this 

site limit the ability of the shoreline to withstand erosional forces by wave action. 

The PFC evaluation of LARO Beach 10 resulted in a summary determination of “Functional – 

At Risk” (Appendix B). “Functional – At Risk” lentic riparian/wetland areas are functioning 

properly, but have an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute that makes them susceptible to 

degradation. This site appeared to be functioning during our site evaluation but is at risk of not 

functioning properly during lake drawdown periods and use of the site by cattle and humans. As 

a result, the site is on a downward trend from being properly functioning. 
58 

Figure 48. Map of the LARO Beach 10 sample site. 

Figure 49. Photograph of the LARO Beach 10 sample site. 
59 

Spokane River Arm Sites 

Spokane River Arm sites were selected by NPS personnel as representative areas along the 

Spokane River Arm of LARO. These 3 sites along the Spokane River Arm of Lake Roosevelt 

were assessed using the lentic PFC methodology (Prichard et al 2003). 

Spokane Lentic 2 

Located approximately 2.5 miles downriver from Mill Canyon on the Spokane River Arm of 

Lake Roosevelt, the Spokane Lentic 2 site was assessed in July 2008 (Figure 50). This site is 

located on the southern shoreline of the Spokane River Arm. 

Reservoir drawdown causes seasonal fluctuations in water level at the Spokane Lentic 2 site. 

Since the site is adjacent to gradually sloping uplands, it appears to maintain contact with the 

groundwater table to a greater extent than other sites. This has resulted in saturated soil 

conditions for longer periods of time, ultimately leading to maintenance of hydrophytic 

vegetation on-site. Dominant Spokane Lentic 2 riparian/wetland vegetation consisted of cattail 

(Typha spp)., willow, reed canarygrass, and sedges (Figure 51). 

Due to the significant drawdown of Lake Roosevelt water levels, there is not adequate vegetative 

cover along the shoreline to dissipate energy during high wind and wave events. This results in 

an unvegetated strip of beach shoreline that is very susceptible to erosion. Erosion is exacerbated 

by the lack of rocky material and large woody debris along the shoreline. 

The PFC evaluation of Spokane Lentic 2 resulted in a summary determination of “Functional – 

At Risk” (Appendix B). “Functional – At Risk” lentic riparian/wetland areas are functioning 

properly, but have an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute that makes them susceptible to 

degradation. The hydrology attribute is at risk at the Spokane Lentic 2 site due to the dramatic 

fluctuation of water levels throughout the year. The assessment team could not determine 

whether this site was tending toward or away from properly functioning since information 

regarding its condition prior to our site visit was not available. For example, it was very difficult 

to determine if cattails and other hydrophytes were encroaching upon the upland habitats (i.e., 

expanding) or if the upland vegetation was encroaching upon the riparian habitat (i.e., shrinking) 

(Figure 51). 
60 

Figure 51. Photograph of the LARO Lentic 2 sample site. 

Figure 50. Map of the LARO Lentic 2 sample site. 
61 

Spokane Lentic 3 

Located on the southern shoreline of the Spokane River Arm of Lake Roosevelt approximately 

halfway between Porcupine Bay Campground and Mill Canyon, the Spokane Lentic 3 site was 

assessed in July 2008 (Figure 52). 

Reservoir drawdown causes significant seasonal changes in water levels at the Spokane Lentic 3 

site. In addition to water level fluctuations, the natural surface or subsurface flow patterns on-site 

are altered by hoof action, roads, and human use (e.g., boating, beach recreation). 

Vegetation within the Spokane Lentic 3 riparian/wetland was dominated by reed canarygrass, 

and cattails (Figure 53). The presence of hydrophytic vegetation along the shoreline indicates 

maintenance of soil moisture characteristics, even with dramatic fluctuations in water level; 

however, there is not adequate vegetative cover along the entire shoreline to dissipate energy 

during high wind and wave events. In addition, Spokane Lentic 3 does not contain an adequate 

supply of large woody debris or rocky material to dissipate wind and wave event energies. 

The PFC evaluation of Spokane Lentic 3 resulted in a summary determination of “Functional – 

At Risk” (Appendix B). “Functional – At Risk” lentic riparian/wetland areas are functioning 

properly, but have an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute that makes them susceptible to 

degradation. The hydrology attribute is at risk at the Spokane Lentic 3 site due to the dramatic 

fluctuation of water levels throughout the year. The assessment team could not determine 

whether this site was tending toward or away from properly functioning since information 

regarding its condition prior to our site visit was not available. For example, it was very difficult 

to determine if cattails and other hydrophytes were encroaching upon the upland habitats (i.e., 

expanding) or if the upland vegetation was encroaching upon the riparian habitat (i.e., shrinking) 

(Figure 53). 
62 

Figure 53. Photograph of the LARO Lentic 3 sample site. 

Figure 52. Map of the LARO Lentic 3 sample site. 
63 

Spokane Lentic 4 

Located approximately two miles downriver from Porcupine Bay Campground on the Spokane 

River Arm of Lake Roosevelt, the Spokane Lentic 4 site was assessed in July 2008 (Figure 54). 

This site was located at the mouth of an unnamed stream. 

Water level fluctuation within the Spokane Lentic 4 site is excessive due to the seasonal 

drawdown of Lake Roosevelt. In addition to water level fluctuations, the natural surface or 

subsurface flow patterns on-site are potentially altered by hoof action, roads within the 

watershed, and human use (e.g., boaters). Water level drawdown at the mouth of the unnamed 

stream is causing the stream to headcut, which exacerbates on-site erosion. 

Riparian vegetation at the Spokane Lentic 4 site lacks diversity and is dominated by reed 

canarygrass (Figure 55). Age/class distribution of riparian vegetation at this site is also limited. 

The presence of reed canarygrass does not necessarily indicate maintenance of soil moisture 

characteristics, which is likely the cause for limited vegetation diversity. There is not adequate 

vegetative cover along the shoreline to dissipate energy during high wind and wave events. In 

addition, rocky material and large woody debris was almost entirely absent at this site, which 

leaves the sandy shorelines susceptible to erosion. 

The PFC evaluation of Spokane Lentic 4 resulted in a summary determination of 

“Nonfunctional” (Appendix B). “Nonfunctional” lentic riparian/wetland areas are those that 

clearly are not providing adequate vegetation, landform, or woody debris/rocky structure to 

dissipate energies associated with wind action, wave action, and overland flow from adjacent 

sites, and are not reducing erosion and improving water quality. The nonfunctional determination 

at this site is largely the result of water level fluctuations, which negatively affects site hydrology 

and vegetation. In addition, human use of the site and minimal amounts of large woody debris 

and rocky material to protect the shoreline lead to nonfunctional conditions. 
64 

Figure 55. Photograph of the LARO Lentic 4 sample site. 

Figure 54. Map of the LARO Lentic 4 sample site. 
65 

River Mile Sites 

River Mile sites were selected by NPS personnel as representative reaches of the Columbia, 

Kettle, and Spokane Rivers above and below reservoir impacts. These 6 River Mile sites were 

assessed using the lentic or lotic PFC methodology (Prichard et al 2003) depending on whether 

they were flowing water (lotic) or standing water (lentic) sites. 

Columbia Lotic 

The left-bank of the Columbia River above reservoir influence was assessed in August 2008 

(Figure 56). This site is located on an inside bend in the river and is encroached upon by a 

railroad grade. The site is characterized by a wide, meandering, steep-sided U-shaped channel. 

The sinuosity, width-depth ratio, and channel gradient are appropriate and in balance with the 

relatively steep-sided, low-gradient valley floor. Due to the bedrock-controlled channel and 

banks this system has little or no potential for a riparian/wetland. To dissipate energy from high 

flows, this channel type and size is largely dependent on channel morphology and roughened 

streambanks and less on vegetated streambanks. This channel is subjected to high flows and 

fairly substantial seasonal fluctuations in water level due to Grand Coulee Dam downstream. 

The plant community at the Columbia River lotic assessment site is mostly comprised of upland 

vegetation due to the bedrock and cobbles that dominate the river bank (Figure 57). On-site 

riparian plant age class distribution and species diversity is moderate to high and consists of 

young deciduous trees, including black cottonwood, alder, and willow, as well as coniferous 

trees dominated by ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. The presence of these native species 

provides adequate canopy coverage on-site and root masses capable of withstanding high 

streamflow events, which protect against erosion of the river bank. In this U-shaped bedrock and 

cobble channel, significant erosion on-site could only occur after major disturbances, such as fire 

or very large floods with sufficient energy to uproot existing vegetation. Therefore, new 

recruitment of willows and cottonwoods is expected to be an infrequent event at this location 

since large flood events are an infrequent occurrence due to the control of water levels by Grand 

Coulee Dam. 

Bedrock and cobbles on the river bank at this Columbia River lotic assessment site are capable of 

protecting the bank from erosion during high stream flow events. The lateral movement of the 

Columbia River channel at this site provides additional dissipation of high flows. The river 

channel is vertically stable due to the ability of high flows to overtop the river bank on the 

outside bend of the channel (opposite of the assessment site). No excessive erosion or deposition 

of sediment is occurring at this site. 

The PFC evaluation of this Columbia River reach just upstream of the reservoir influences 

resulted in a summary determination of “Nonfunctional” (Appendix B). “Nonfunctional” lotic 

riparian/wetland areas are not providing adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to 

dissipate stream energy associated with high flows, and thus are not reducing erosion, improving 

water quality, sustaining desirable channel and riparian habitat characteristics, and so on as 

described in the PFC definition. This site has very little ability to function properly due to the 

constraints placed on it by its steep rock-filled bank and proximity of the railroad grade, which 

are outside the control of LARO park managers. 
66 

Figure 57. Photograph of the LARO Columbia lotic sample site. 

Figure 56. Map of the LARO Columbia lotic sample site. 
67 

Columbia Lentic 

The Columbia River was assessed in August 2008 at a point just downstream of the lowermost 

free-flowing (i.e., riverine) section of the river (Figure 58). This site, known as “Columbia 

Lentic”, receives human disturbance by boaters and those who access the site by road due to the 

close proximity of Highway 25 and a public boat launch. 

The Columbia Lentic site experiences seasonal water level fluctuations due to Lake Roosevelt 

drawdowns, which affect the depth of the water table. In addition, the natural surface or 

subsurface flow patterns at this site are altered by hoof action, nearby roads, development, boats, 

and other human uses. 

Vegetation within the drawdown zone at the Columbia Lentic site is dominated by reed 

canarygrass (Figure 59). Other species present include sedge and horsetail. Willows are present 

within the riparian area upslope of the drawdown zone. Riparian zone vegetation at this site is 

mostly comprised of very young age classes, which is likely due to the fluctuation of water 

levels. Obligate vegetation is not present at the Columbia Lentic site, likely indicating that 

groundwater fluctuates beyond the root zone. 

Rocky material and large woody debris are present at the Columbia Lentic site, but not in 

amounts sufficient to provide protection from shoreline erosion. Use of this site is likely 

increased due to its proximity to a public boat launch. Presence of the boat launch also affects 

sediment transport and boating activity within Lake Roosevelt at the site. Increased boat traffic 

usually results in increased wave-induced shoreline erosion. 

The PFC evaluation of the Columbia Lentic site resulted in a summary determination of 

“Functional-At Risk” (Appendix B). “Functional – At Risk” lentic riparian/wetland areas are 

functioning properly, but have an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute that makes them 

susceptible to degradation. In this case, vegetation at this site is adequate to dissipate wave 

energy; however, since it is dominated by a monoculture of reed canarygrass, it is susceptible to 

degradation. In addition, water level fluctuations dramatically affect the hydrology of the site and 

leave it susceptible to degradation during drawdown periods. The assessment team could not 

determine whether this site was tending toward or away from properly functioning since 

information regarding its condition prior to the site visit was not available. 
68 

Figure 58. Map of the LARO Columbia lentic sample site. 

Figure 59. Photograph of the LARO Columbia lentic sample site. 
69 

Kettle Lotic 

The left-bank of the Kettle River above reservoir influence (free-flowing reach) was assessed in 

August 2008 (Figure 60). This site is located near the community of Barstow just off of Highway 

395. 

The Kettle Lotic site is characterized as having a stable rocky shoreline, young vegetation within 

the riparian area near the river, and mature woody vegetation within the riparian area furthest 

from the river. A tributary enters the Kettle River just upstream of the Kettle Lotic assessment 

reach. This stream flows through a horse pasture before discharging to the river, which increases 

sediment and nutrient inputs. 

The Kettle Lotic site contains a clumpy distribution of vegetation within the high-flow channel 

(Figure 61). This vegetation consists of young reed canarygrass and other upland grasses. Above 

the high-flow channel, the riparian area consists of more diverse age-classes of willow, 

cottonwood, and ponderosa pine. The vegetation at this site is capable of dissipating stream 

energy during higher flows but is not at full potential due to the prevalence of younger age 

classes within the high-flow channel. 

Large woody debris was almost entirely absent from the high-flow channel at the Kettle Lotic 

site in August 2008. The presence of large woody species in the riparian and upland zones above 

the high-flow channel provide a potential source of large woody debris; however, this source is 

likely not adequate for maintenance or recovery of this site. The presence of a stable rocky 

shoreline, consisting of gravels and small cobbles, provides some high flow erosion protection at 

the site. The lateral movement of the Kettle River channel provides additional dissipation of high 

flows. The river channel is vertically stable due to the ability of high flows to overtop the river 

bank. 

The PFC evaluation of the Kettle River Lotic site resulted in a summary determination of 

“Functional – At Risk” (Appendix B). “Functional – At Risk” riparian areas are in functional 

condition, but an existing soil, water, vegetation, or related attribute makes them susceptible to 

degradation. When this rating is assigned to a stream or river reach, then its “trend” toward or 

away from PFC is assessed. In this case, the Kettle River Lotic site appears to trend toward 

properly functioning due to the stable rocky shorelines, channel sinuosity, vegetated floodplain, 

and prevalence of young vegetation within the high-flow channel. 
70 

Figure 61. Photograph of the LARO Kettle lotic sample site. 

Figure 60. Map of the LARO Kettle lotic sample site. 
71 

Kettle Lentic 

The Kettle River was assessed in August 2008 at a point just downstream of the lowermost freeflowing (riverine) section of the river (Figure 62). This site, known as “Kettle Lentic”, is located 

on the left bank of the river approximately one mile upstream of the Kettle River Campground. 

The Kettle Lentic site experiences significant water level fluctuation due to seasonal drawdowns 

from Lake Roosevelt. Water level fluctuations on-site have resulted in a riparian/wetland area 

that has not achieved its full potential. In addition to water level fluctuations, the natural surface 

or subsurface flow patterns at the Kettle Lentic site are potentially altered by hoof action from 

wildlife, roads, a boat launch, boats, and human use. 

There is little diversity of riparian vegetation at the Kettle Lentic site; reed canarygrass 

dominates the on-site riparian/wetland. Obligate hydrophytes are absent from the site, which 

indicates riparian soil moisture (i.e., soil saturation) is not being maintained for significant 

periods of time (Figure 63). Reed canarygrass is providing shoreline protection and some habitat 

function at this site; however, the riparian/wetland area will not function at full potential unless 

vegetative diversity is increased at this site to include native herbaceous plants, woody shrubs, 

and woody trees. 

Very little large woody debris was apparent along the Kettle Lentic shoreline to provide 

protection from erosion; however, the upland area is a potential source of large woody debris to 

the outside edges of the riparian area. 

The PFC evaluation of the Kettle River Lentic site resulted in a summary determination of 

“Functional – At Risk” (Appendix B). “Functional – At Risk” lentic riparian/wetland areas are 

functioning properly, but have an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute that makes them 

susceptible to degradation. This site is currently functioning adequately due to the thorough 

vegetative coverage of shorelines; however, because the vegetation consists almost entirely of 

reed canarygrass, the site is susceptible to further degradation. The site is trending away 

(downward trend) from becoming properly functioning since it appears the reed canarygrass is 

continuing to invade and replace native species. 
72 

Figure 62. Map of the LARO Kettle lentic sample site. 

Figure 63. Photograph of the LARO Kettle lentic sample site. 
73 

Spokane Lotic 

Located just downstream of the Little Falls Dam on the Spokane River, the Spokane River Lotic 

assessment site was evaluated in August 2008 (Figure 64). This site is located upstream of the 

influence of the reservoir. 

This reach is characterized by a narrow, meandering, steep sided V‐shaped channel. The team 

determined that the low sinuosity, low width depth ratio, and moderate channel gradient are 

appropriate to and in balance with the relatively steep valley gradient. Floodplains do not exist at 

this site due to the steep channel, which controls stream energy and direction (Figure 65). Road 

encroachment also affects the stream condition with fill and armament to dissipate energy from 

high flows. This channel type dissipates flood energy largely through channel morphology, 

armament, and herbaceous banks. Exposed bedrock on the channel bottom and lower banks 

provides exceptional vertical stability. This channel is subjected to seasonally high flows due to 

flow control at Little Rock Dam about 0.25 miles upstream. 

Plant diversity is low with young deciduous trees including alder, willow, and ponderosa pine as 

the dominants species in a diverse riparian tree/shrub community. All of these native species 

provide sufficient cover and have root masses capable of withstanding high stream flow events 

(i.e., protection against erosion of stream banks). New recruitment of willows and cottonwoods 

is expected to be an infrequent event in this watershed due to control of water levels from the 

upstream dam. 

The PFC evaluation of this Spokane River reach just upstream of reservoir influences resulted in 

a summary determination of “Nonfunctional” (Appendix B). “Nonfunctional” lotic 

riparian/wetland areas are not providing adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to 

dissipate stream energy associated with high flows, and thus are not reducing erosion, improving 

water quality, sustaining desirable channel and riparian habitat characteristics, and so on as 

described in the PFC definition. This site has very little ability to function properly due to the 

constraints placed on it by its steep rip-rap bank and proximity of Little Falls Dam, which are 

outside the control of LARO park managers. As a result, the river has very little opportunity to 

influence or be influenced by its associated riparian area. 
74 

Figure 65. Photograph of the LARO Spokane lotic sample site. 

Figure 64. Map of the LARO Spokane lotic sample site. 
75 

Spokane Lentic 1 

The Spokane River just downstream of its riverine reaches was assessed in July 2008 (Figure 

66). This site, known as “Spokane Lentic 1”, is located on the left bank of the river near the 

mouth of Mill Creek. 

The Spokane Lentic 1 reach is characterized by a wide, meandering, steep-sided, U‐shaped 

channel. Low sinuosity, low width depth ratio, and moderate channel gradient are appropriate 

and in balance with the relatively steep valley gradient. This site is located at the mouth of Mill 

Creek, a tributary that contributes significant sediment to the site (Figure 67). As a result of the 

sediment deposition, vegetation has become firmly established at this site. Road encroachment to 

the Spokane Lentic 1 site and to the Mill Creek drainage affects the stream condition and surface 

runoff properties of the upland slopes. To dissipate energy from high flows, this channel type 

dissipates flood energy largely through channel morphology, armoring, and herbaceous banks. 

This channel is subjected to high flows and large fluctuations of water level due to the seasonal 

water level changes experienced within Lake Roosevelt and from Little Falls Dam just upstream. 

Spokane Lentic 1 plant diversity is low and includes young deciduous trees consisting of 

mountain alder and willow, as well as ponderosa pine. These native species provide good cover 

for wildlife habitat and have root masses capable of withstanding high stream flow events (i.e., 

protection against erosion of stream banks). 

The PFC evaluation of Spokane Lentic 1 resulted in a summary determination of “Functional – 

At Risk” (Appendix B). “Functional – At Risk” lentic riparian/wetland areas are functioning 

properly, but have an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute that makes them susceptible to 

degradation. This site contains a well vegetated delta as a result of Mill Creek discharge. 

Vegetative cover is currently dissipates wave energies; however, due to the excessive water level 

fluctuations, the hydrology attribute at this site is very susceptible to degradation. The vegetation 

attribute is also susceptible to degradation unless the reed canarygrass monoculture can be 

diversified. The assessment team could not determine whether this site was tending toward or 

away from properly functioning since information regarding its condition prior to our site visit 

was not available. The team is unsure if reed canarygrass densities are increasing or decreasing 

on-site. 
76 

Figure 67. Photograph of the LARO Spokane lentic 1 sample 

site. 

Figure 66. Map of the LARO Spokane lentic 1 sample site. 
77 

Special Use Sites 

Special-Use sites were selected by NPS personnel as areas that receive significant pressure from 

vacation cabin development and use. These 2 Special-Use sites were assessed using the lentic 

PFC methodology (Prichard et al 2003). 

Ricky Point Lentic 

Located near Ricky Point on the eastern shoreline of Lake Roosevelt, the Ricky Point Lentic site 

was assessed in August 2008 (Figure 68). This site contains several vacation cabins and camping 

sites and experiences frequent human use during the summer. 

Water level fluctuation is excessive at the Ricky Point Lentic site due to seasonal withdrawals 

from Lake Roosevelt. Much of this site contains armoring and seawalls due to the encroachment 

of the vacation cabins and the properties to the shoreline (Figure 69). The armoring and seawalls 

act as a barrier to expansion of the riparian area. This site is impacted by conditions in the upland 

watershed, including cabin development, lawns, roads, boat moorage, and human use. As a 

result, the natural surface or subsurface flow patterns on-site are potentially altered by hoof and 

foot action, roads, boats, development, and human use. 

The Ricky Point Lentic site contains very little vegetation within the water level fluctuation 

zone. Estimated vegetative coverage approached 15% throughout the site. What vegetation is 

present is dominated by reed canarygrass, willows, and other small shrub species. Scarcity of 

vegetation leaves the shoreline susceptible to wave-induced erosion. Upland vegetation is mainly 

dominated by ponderosa pine. 

Groundwater fluctuation at the Ricky Point Lentic site appears to be consistent with the reservoir 

water fluctuations. The shoreline is relatively free draining and shows no evidence of ponding, 

even in the man-made bay or wetland. The site does not contain enough rocky material or large 

woody debris to adequately dissipate wind and wave event energies. 

The Ricky Point site also contains a wetland area that was modified and developed with boat 

docks by local cabin owners likely sometime before the 1980s. The wetland area has not been 

used in many years, which has resulted in sediment deposition of the site from wind and wave 

action from storms over the years. 

The PFC evaluation of the Ricky Point Lentic site resulted in a summary determination of 

“Nonfunctional” (Appendix B). “Nonfunctional” lentic riparian/wetland areas are not providing 

adequate vegetation, landform, or woody debris/rocky structure to dissipate energies associated 

with wind action, wave action, and overland flow from adjacent sites, and thus are not reducing 

erosion and improving water quality. The excessive human use and transformation of this site 

has caused the site to be extremely susceptible to erosion. 
78 

Figure 68. Map of the LARO Ricky Point lentic sample site. 

Figure 69. Photograph of the LARO Ricky Point lentic 

sample site. 
79 

Sherman Creek Lentic 

Located just upstream (north) of Sherman Creek, the Sherman Creek Lentic site was assessed in 

August 2008 (Figure 70). This site is located on the right bank, or western shoreline, of Lake 

Roosevelt just off of Highway 20. 

Water level fluctuation is excessive at the Sherman Creek Lentic site due to seasonal 

withdrawals from Lake Roosevelt. Much of this site contains armoring and seawalls due to the 

encroachment of the vacation cabins and other properties to the shoreline (Figure 71). The 

armoring and seawalls act as a barrier to expansion of the riparian area. This site is impacted by 

conditions in the upland watershed, including cabin development, lawns, roads, boat moorage, 

and human use. As a result, the natural surface or subsurface flow patterns on-site are potentially 

altered by hoof and foot action, roads, boats, development, and human use. 

The Sherman Lentic site contains very little vegetation within the water level fluctuation zone. 

Estimated vegetation cover approached 35% throughout the site. What vegetation is present is 

dominated by reed canarygrass, a few willows, and other small shrub species. Scarcity of 

vegetation leaves the shoreline susceptible to wave-induced erosion. Upland vegetation is largely 

dominated by ponderosa pine. 

Groundwater fluctuation at the Sherman Creek Lentic site appears to be consistent with the 

reservoir water fluctuations. The shoreline is relatively free draining and shows no evidence of 

ponding. The site does not contain enough rocky material or large woody debris to adequately 

dissipate wind and wave event energies. Additional sediment is supplied just downstream of this 

site from the mouth of Sherman Creek. 

The PFC evaluation of the Sherman Creek Lentic site resulted in a summary determination of 

“Nonfunctional” (Appendix B). “Nonfunctional” lentic riparian/wetland areas are those that 

clearly are not providing adequate vegetation, landform, or woody debris/rocky structure to 

dissipate energies associated with wind action, wave action, and overland flow from adjacent 

sites are not reducing erosion and improving water quality. The human use and transformation of 

this site (e.g., cabins, lawns, camping, etc.) has caused the site to be extremely susceptible to 

erosion. 
80 

Figure 71. Photograph of the LARO Sherman Creek lentic 

sample site. 

Figure 70. Map of the LARO Sherman Creek lentic sample site. 
81 

Threats and Stressors 

Threats and stressors are defined as a condition or situation, occurrence, or factor causing a 

negative impact to a natural resource. These can be further divided into naturally occurring or 

human-caused depending on their source. This section reports on 3 upland and 5 aquatic threats 

and stressors. Climate change is treated as a threat to upland and aquatic natural resources. 

Upland Resources 

Upland resource threats at LARO include wildfire, land use change, and noxious weeds. Each 

upland resource threat is described in more detail below as well as discussions of potential 

strategies to address upland resource risks. 

Wildfire 

Wildfire is a threat to the upland resources at LARO from fires igniting on park lands. The 

Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) maintains a database of wildfire 

ignitions. WDNR data for 2008 covers wildfire point locations from 1970 through 2007. The 

data is only for wildfires occurring on WDNR protected lands or fires where WDNR has 

provided suppression support. The data does not represent all fires that may have occurred in the 

project area but is representative of ignition sources and types of fires common to LARO. 

Approximately 18,416 acres burned as a result of 2,069 wildfire ignitions during the analysis 

period (Table 5). Lightning was the major cause of ignitions followed closely by the 

miscellaneous category and debris burning. Comparatively, miscellaneous ignitions resulted in 

the vast majority of acres burned followed by debris burning. An average of 56 fires per year 

were recorded during this 37 year period. 

The “Miscellaneous” category includes ignitions originating from structure fires, burning 

material from aircraft, burning material from auto (other than smoking), burning vehicle, electric 

Cause

Acres 

Burned Percent

Number of 

Ignitions Percent

Arson 464 2.50% 56 2.70%

Children 212 1.10% 130 6.20%

Debris Burning 3545 19.20% 451 21.70%

Lightning 1958 10.60% 651 31.50%

Logging 283 1.50% 31 1.40%

Miscellaneous 11089 60.20% 451 21.80%

Railroad 95 <1% 47 2.30%

Recreation 519 2.80% 200 9.60%

Smoking 250 1.40% 52 2.50%

Total 18416 100% 2069 100%

e 5. Summary of fire ignitions in the LARO analysis area 

from 1970-2007. 
82 

fence, equipment crash, fireworks (other than children), hot ashes, power lines, sparks from auto 

exhaust, sparks from cutting torch or welder, sparks from farm tractors, spontaneous combustion 

(other than sawdust piles), use of fire (other than logging), woodcutting, and an “other” category. 

It should be noted that a high percentage of total acres burned during this period occurred in 

1991 during “Firestorm 91.” During this event 5,915 acres were burned within the LARO 

project area due to one large wind event in October. 

Fire regime condition class was calculated as a percent departure from reference condition into 4 

categories; Very Low (0-25%), Low (26-50%), Moderate (51-75%), and High (76-100%). Over 

half (51.46%) of the LARO project area was rated in the Very Low to Low departure index 

(Table 6). Only 4.43% of the project area is rated as high departure and these are located mainly 

in the southeast portion of the analysis area and south of the Spokane Arm (Figure 72). 

Departure Index % Acres

Very low 0-25% 4.63% 70,854

Low 26-50% 46.83% 716,462

Moderate 51-75% 29.17% 446,292

High 76-100% 4.43% 67,773

e 6. Fire Regime Condition Class of existing 

vegetation within the LARO analysis area. 
83 

Figure 72. Map of fire regime condition class as a percent departure of 

vegetation from a reference condition. 
84 

Land Use Changes 

While conducting the site specific assessments it was very apparent that a major threat to natural 

resource values in LARO comes from changes in land use on adjacent private lands. Many of the 

allotments examined had several homes and/or developments adjacent or within approximately 

.25 miles of the park boundary.. 

Future development may follow past trends in the growth of the area. The project area includes 

the Colville and Spokane Indian Reservations and Douglas, Stevens, Lincoln, Ferry, and 

Okanogan counties. Table 7 is a summary of the population change in the 5 counties from 2000 

to 2006 (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). All 5 counties are growing slower than the state average but 

all have a positive growth rate, especially Douglas and Stevens Counties. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture – Economic Research Service classified all counties into 1 

of 9 Rural-urban Continuum Codes. Rural-urban Continuum Codes form a classification scheme 

that distinguishes metropolitan counties by size and nonmetropolitan counties by degree of 

urbanization and proximity to metro areas with 1-3 being metro areas and 4-9 decreasing in 

rankings of rural areas (Brown et al. 1975). Only Douglas County has a rating of 3 and the other 

4 counties are rated >6 (Table 7). 

Future growth in rural areas such as Lincoln and Stevens Counties are predicted to occur in areas 

outside of existing towns. Figures were not directly available for these counties to examine 

developments adjacent or near the park boundary. Because park lands will not be developed and 

are near Lake Roosevelt, many private land developers will find adjacent lands attractive for 

development into future home sites. Additional homes and other developments, such as roads 

and recreation facilities, increase susceptibility to invasive plants and negatively impact the use 

of park lands by sensitive wildlife species. Future developments could also negatively impact 

surface water flows. Land developments change natural landscape patterns through excavation 

and construction that can concentrate surface water flows and harden surfaces, which prevent 

water infiltration and increases overland flow. Trespass issues may also increase in areas where 

the park boundaries are not well marked. 

Population 

County

Rural-Urban 

Continum 

Code 2000 2006

% 

Change

Persons

/mi2

Building 

Permits 

2006

Building 

Permits/1000 

people Size - mi2

Douglas 3 32,603 35,772 9.7% 17.9 339 0.11 1,820

Ferry 9 7,260 7,560 4.1% 3.3 24 0.32 2,209

Lincoln 8 10,184 10,376 1.9% 4.4 48 0.22 2,311

Okanogan 6 39,564 40,040 1.2% 7.5 269 0.15 5,268

Stevens 6 40,066 42,632 6.4% 16.2 204 0.21 2,478

Washington State 5,894,121 6,395,798 8.5% 88.6 50,033 7.82 66,544

e 7. Demographics for the 5 counties in the LARO project area. 
85 

Noxious Weeds 

Garrett et al. 2007 developed a list of important noxious and non-native plant species based on 

the knowledge of NPS park staff. This report added additional noxious weed species identified 

and mapped by other professionals and our site specific assessments. This report examined past 

inventories, the data collected for the LARO vegetation mapping project conducted in 2007, and 

the field work for this report to assess site specific conditions. 

An intense inventory of noxious and non-native weed species was conducted in 2003 by the 

University of Idaho (Prather 2003). The following year Wright (2004) conducted invasive plant 

inventories on burned sites from the previous year. In 2007, Northwest Management, Inc. 

collected vegetation data on 431 plots throughout the park in conjunction with developing a 

vegetation map (unpublished report). During the site-specific field investigations a complete 

species lists was developed for each plot and the occurrence of noxious weeds was extracted 

from the list. 

Table 8 summarizes the occurrence of noxious and invasive species for each study. Three species 

in Table 8 are not found in the official vascular plant list for LARO 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/ucbn/inventory/index.cfm#table). Longspine sandbur 

(Cenchrus longispinus) was identified as important species to watch by park staff in Garrett et al. 

(2007), jointed goatgrass was found in 2 vegetation plots in 2007, and Kochia (Kochia scoparia) 

was identified in the Green and Gifford allotments during the site specific assessments. 

Prather (2003) documented 181 acres infested with weeds on the 1,233 acres surveyed (Figure 

73). Several species were limited in distribution with a total of less than 2 acres infested and 

would be inexpensive to eliminate. Species with less than two acres include: bighead knapweed 

(C. macrocephala), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), 

houndstongue (Hieracium cynoglossoides), Kochia (Bassia prostrata) and sulphur cinquefoil 

(Potentilla recta). 

Other species had fewer than 30 acres and included spotted knapweed, diffuse knapweed, leafy 

spurge and rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea). Prather 2003 noted that Dalmatian toadflax 

(131 acres) was probably a candidate for biological control due to the large area infested. He also 

recommended special attention should be paid to bighead knapweed, Italian thistle, 

houndstongue and sulphur cinquefoil. Figures 74 and 75 are examples of the noxious weed 

mapping project in the Fort Spokane and Hawk Creek Campground management units (Prather 

2003). 

 
86 

Table 8. List of noxious and non-native weeds in LARO, wih ‘X’ indicating the source and ranking by 

the state of Washington. 

In 2003 and 2004, Wright (2004) conducted inventories for noxious and non-native weed species 

on 7 sites that had previously been treated with prescribed fire (Figure 76). He documented 11 

different species. The study did not list the number of acres infested with weeds or the acres 

surveyed. He concluded that the burned areas were not infested but that roads and powerlines 

were the sources for many of the species found on the surveyed areas. Figures 77 and 78 are 

examples of the noxious weed mapping project in the Fort Spokane and Hawk Creek 

Campground management units. 

Common Name Scientific Name Washington

State

Class

Monitoring

Plan

Inventory

2003

Inventory

2004

Vegetation Plots

2007

NRCA Plots 2008

Russian Knapweed Acroptilon repens B xx x x

Italian thistle Carduus pycnocephalus x

Longspine Sandbur1 Cenchrus longispinus B x

Diffuse Knapweed Centaurea diffusa B xx x x

Spotted Knapweed Centaurea maculosa B xxx

Yellow Starthistle Centaurea solstitialis B x x

Bighead knapweed Centurea macrocephala x

Rush Skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea B xx x x

Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense C xx x x

Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale B xx x x

Leafy Spurge Euphorbia esula B x x

Toadflax Linaria spp. B xxx x x

Sulphur cinquefoil Potentilla recta B xx x x

Russian Thistle Salsola kali x x x

Puncturevine Tribulus Tribulus terrestris B x

Common Mullein Verbascum thapsus x x

Whitetop Cardaria draba C x x

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare C x x

Field bindweed Convuvulus arvensis C x x

Common St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum C xx x

Kochia1 Kochia scoparia B x

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium x

Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica C x

Common Tansy Tanacetum vulgare C x

Canary Reed Grass Phalaris arundinacea C x 1

= Species not found in the current LARO plant Species list.
87 

Figure 75. Map of Fort Spokane, LARO, 

weed mapping project in 2003. 

Figure 73. Areas survey for noxious weeds in 2003 at LARO. 

Figure 74. Map of Hawk Creek Campground, 

LARO, weed mapping project in 2003. 
88 

Figure 78. Map of Porcupine Bay, LARO, 

weed mapping project in 2003. 

Figure 77. Map of Evans Campground, 

LARO, weed mapping project in 2004. 

Figure 76. Areas survey for noxious weeds in 2004 at LARO. 
89 

Table 9 lists the 21 noxious weed species and their state classification found in the LARO 

vascular plant list. Seven species were not found in the vegetation plot data from 2007 and of the 

14 remaining species, 7 species had <2% frequency of occurrence. 

St. Johnswort was the most common noxious weed (22.97%) and is found mainly in the north 

half of LARO (Figure 79). It is an annual that occupies mainly disturbed areas in and around 

conifer dominated plant communities. Diffuse knapweed was the second most common noxious 

weed found in vegetation plots (11.83%). Diffuse knapweed had a similar geographical 

distribution as St. Johnswort and was also found primarily in the north half of LARO (Figure 

79). Dalmatian toadflax is a perennial noxious weed that occurred on 10.21% of the vegetation 

plots. It had a broader geographical distribution being found throughout LARO (Figure 79). 

Sulfur cinquefoil is a perennial noxious weed found in 3.94% of vegetation plots located in the 

northern quarter of LARO (Figure 79).

Common Name Species Name

Washington 

State Noxious 

Class # of plots

Frequency of 

Occurrence

Russian Knapweed Acroptilon repens B 0 0.00%

Diffuse Knapweed Centaurea diffusa B 51 11.83%

Spotted Knapweed Centaurea maculosa B 0 0.00%

Yellow Starthistle Centaurea solstitialis B 1 0.23%

Rush Skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea B 5 1.16%

Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale B 17 3.94%

Leafy Spurge Euphorbia esula B 0 0.00%

Dalmatian Toadflax Linaria dalmatica B 44 10.21%

Canada Thistle Myriophyllum spicatum B 0 0.00%

Sulphur Cinquefoil Potentilla recta B 17 3.94%

Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris B 0 0.00%

Jointed Goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica C 2 0.46%

Hoary Cress Cardaria draba C 4 0.93%

Canadian Thistle Cirsium arvense C 10 2.32%

Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare C 7 1.62%

Field Bindweed Convolvulus arvensis C 7 1.62%

St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum C 99 22.97%

Reed Canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea C 21 4.87%

Curly Leaf Pondweed Potamogeton crispus C 0 0.00%

Common Tansy Tanacetum vulgare C 4 0.93%

Spiny Cocklebur Xanthium spinosum C 0 0.00%

e 9. The frequency of occurrence of noxious weeds listed on the 

LARO plant species list found in vegetation plots sampled in 2007. 
90 

Figure 79. Maps of vegetation plot locations in LARO where St. Johnswort, diffuse knapweed, 

Dalmatian toadflax, and sulfur cinquefoil occurred. 
91 

Of the remaining species from Table 9, the distribution of yellow starthistle and rush 

skeletonweed should be significant to managers. They are both relatively rare compared to other 

species but in other locations in the Northwest they are very invasive and occupy millions of 

acres. Figure 80 is a map of the 2 species with all known locations found by all researchers. Rush 

skeletonweed was found only on the Spokane Arm of LARO while yellow starthistle was only 

found on one vegetation plot just north of Kettle Falls on the east side of the lake. 

Management of all species of noxious weeds is important for good stewardship of natural 

resources. Some species pose greater threats to the natural resources of LARO and are not 

necessarily the most abundant at the present time. The Pacific Northwest Weed Management 

Handbook (Peachey 2008) describes 5 major management options for land managers. Below is a 

summary of the options: 

1. Prevention is the most cost effective method for management of noxious species. 

2. Biological management is the use of other organisms against noxious or invasive weeds. 

3. Cultural management techniques integrate numerous components to minimize the impact 

of noxious weeds. 

4. Mechanical management physically manipulates the noxious weed directly or the ground 

to kill or prevent sprouting. 

Figure 80. Maps of all known locations in LARO where rush skeletonweed and yellow starthistle 

occurred. 
92 

5. Herbicides are chemicals used in many forms, liquid or solids, to directly kill or prevent 

germination of noxious weeds. 

Prevention is the most cost effective management option. All management planning involving 

ground disturbing activities should include a section on revegetation and invasive weed control. 

Most noxious and invasive weed species become initially established on disturbed sites so that 

preventing colonization should always be the goal. Another prevention option is to be actively 

involved with outside organizations focused on weed management. In Washington each county 

has a County Weed Board (CWB) responsible for noxious weed control on private lands in their 

jursidiction. Complete descriptions of all CWB can be found at 

http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/links.htm. Cooperation with adjacent landowners, private and public, is 

the most effective method to prevent and control noxious weeds. To this end, LARO staffs 

participate in the Greater Lake Roosevelt Cooperative Weed Management Area, which has 

members of local, state, federal, tribal, and private organizations. This coordinated effort will 

reduce the cost of noxious weed management and increase the effectiveness of prevention and 

control activities.

Aquatic Resources 

Aquatic resource threats at LARO include water level fluctuations, invasive riparian species, 

recreational use, poor water quality, and excessive fine sediments. Each aquatic resource threat is 

described in more detail below as well as discussions of potential strategies to address aquatic 

resource risks. 

Water level fluctuations 

Due to seasonal inflows from rain and snow and outflows at Grand Coulee Dam, Lake Roosevelt 

can experience greater than 80-foot elevation changes in water level throughout the year. It is 

understood that these fluctuations in water level are outside the control of NPS managers; 

however, understanding the impacts of seasonal water level fluctuations is important to 

adequately manage aquatic resources within this park unit. 

The focus of the aquatic natural resource condition assessment in LARO was shorelines and 

riparian wetland habitats. Fluctuations in water level within wetland habitats have documented 

impacts on invertebrate and amphibian habitat (Sheldon et al 2005). Both groups of wildlife 

exhibit reduced species richness and abundance when wetlands are subject to increased 

fluctuations in water levels. Water level fluctuation impacts to the suitability of wetlands as 

habitat for mammals, fish, and birds have not been documented. Increasing fluctuations in water 

levels also reduce plant richness in wetlands. This was very apparent in the 2008 assessment 

results. At most sites, reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) dominated the riparian wetland 

habitats, which can have negative effects on wildlife diversity, sediment stabilization, and water 

quality. 

Significant amounts of fish habitat within the littoral zone of Lake Roosevelt is reduced due to 

reservoir drawdown. In addition, exposure of spawning habitat can occur due to drawdown. 

Seasonal drawdown can also inhibit access to spawning tributaries by certain Lake Roosevelt 

species. For example, kokanee salmon adults migrating to the base of the waterfall on Hawk 
93 

Creek can be delayed if water level elevations are not 1275-ft above mean sea level (McClellan 

et al 2006). 

Aquatic invertebrate populations with poor abilities to follow receding waters are also affected 

by water level fluctuations. For example, gastropods (i.e., snails) and Gammarus crustaceans are 

often severely reduced by fluctuating water levels, and destruction of aquatic vegetation in the 

drawdown zone reduces populations of benthos by eliminating refuge and food. Gastropods are 

shown to be a very important component of rainbow trout diets in Lake Roosevelt (Scofield et al. 

2007). 

Invasive Riparian Species 

Reed canarygrass dominates the hydrophytic vegetation in the riparian area of most sites 

assessed in LARO during the 2008 field season. In addition, vegetation plots surveyed by 

Northwest Management Inc. in 2007 identified reed canarygrass as a common threat at many 

shoreline sites along Lake Roosevelt (Figure 81). Changes in the plant community from native 

species to monotypic stands of exotic species can be expected to result in changes to all the 

invertebrates and microscopic organisms that are associated with diverse native species. Reed 

canarygrass is a concern because it forms large, single-species stands, with which other native 

species cannot compete. Prevention of new reed canarygrass invasions is the most efficient and 

cost effective method of invasive species management and control. Prevention of reed 

canarygrass can be most efficiently accomplished through maintaining complex native 

herbaceous canopies, since reed canarygrass seed germination is dependent on amounts of light 

penetration to the soil surface. In other words, “shading out” reed canarygrass prior to infestation 

is the most effective means of control. Even after reed canarygrass infestation has occurred, 

artificial hummocks (i.e., mounds of soil and inorganic debris) can be created and planted with 

native shrubs that will help diversify existing vegetation and eventually help shade out stands of 

reed canarygrass. 
94 

Recreational Use 

Recreational use of Lake Roosevelt is widespread, especially by boaters and other water-users 

during the summer months. Most sites assessed during the 2008 study showed some type of 

human use that has affected natural processes within the shoreline and riparian zone. Most 

frequently cited impacts include man-made toilets and potential fecal contamination, garbage 

disposal, vegetation trampling, shoreline trailing, large woody debris removal, and erosional 

bank sloughing. 

One way to minimize human impacts along the shoreline is through the education of water users. 

For example, resource managers could select portions of one or two popular beach sites to use as 

shoreline restoration case studies. These small sections of riparian shoreline could be fenced-off 

from human use and restored through invasive plant removal, native vegetation planting, and 

large woody debris augmentation. Signs could be placed at the site(s) to describe the importance 

Figure 81. Map of reed canarygrass in LARO. 
95 

of shorelines to aquatic species and habitat and also a way for the public to see how the sites are 

being restored. Flyers could then be produced and distributed to boaters at Lake Roosevelt 

marinas and boat launches as a way to encourage wise-use of lake shorelines and riparian areas. 

This is just one way managers could affect use of on-site aquatic resources in a way that educates 

the public without compromising the overall use of the shoreline. 

Water Quality 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is studying hazardous waste contamination in 

the Columbia River from the U.S./Canada border to the Grand Coulee Dam and surrounding 

upland areas. The study is called a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS). Past 

studies by federal, state, and tribal agencies have shown increased levels of hazardous waste 

contamination in Upper Columbia River sediments, including heavy metals such as cadmium, 

copper, lead, mercury and zinc, and other contaminants like dioxins and furans. These previous 

studies identified the primary source of the contamination to be a lead-zinc smelter owned by 

Teck Cominco, a Canadian company with U.S. subsidiaries, on the Columbia River in British 

Columbia just upstream from the international boundary. Since the 1950s, the smelter had 

discharged several hundred tons of furnace slag and effluent per day into the Columbia River. In 

August 1999, the Colville Confederated Tribes petitioned EPA to conduct an assessment of 

environmental contamination in the Upper Columbia River. The petition expressed concerns 

about risks to people’s health and the environment from contamination in the river. In 2001, EPA 

collected samples of river sediment to learn more about the types and amounts of pollution that 

exists. The results showed that contamination is present in the lake and river sediments, and that 

a more detailed investigation is needed to evaluate possible risks to human health and the 

environment. 

A sediment core study was conducted in 1999 to evaluate temporal changes in heavy metal 

content of lower Columbia River sediment following terminated or reduced soluble heavy metal 

loading from the lead-zinc smelter owned by Teck Cominco (Johnson et al 2005). The sediment 

cores were collected from two fine sediment depositional sites (∼600 km downstream) in August 

1999 and were analyzed for total metal content, texture, and age/dating parameters. Once soluble 

metal releases are reduced or terminated, the solute half-time in Columbia River water is months 

versus approximately 20 years for adsorbed metals on surficial (or resuspended) bed sediments. 

The much slower rate of decline for sediment, as compared to the solute phase, is attributed to 

resuspension, transport and redeposition of irreversibly bound metals from upstream sedimentary 

deposits. This implies downstream exposure of benthic or particle-ingesting biota can continue 

for years following source remediation and/or termination of soluble metal releases. 

Fish from Lake Roosevelt were first reported to contain elevated concentrations of contaminants 

in the early 1980’s, with mercury, dioxins and furans, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 

identified as being of most concern to human health (Munn 2000). In the early 1990’s, industrial 

discharges to the Columbia River above the international boundary decreased. Comparison of 

fish tissue contamination levels before and after the apparent decrease showed that the 

concentrations of contaminants in fish that were identified as a potential threat to human health 

have either not changed or has decreased slightly. Additional fish tissue sampling by U.S. EPA is 

ongoing. 
96 

Heavy metals, such as those introduced to Lake Roosevelt by smelter discharge, can be directly 

toxic to invertebrates (Sheldon et al 2005). Metals can also impact invertebrate communities by 

altering the species composition and abundance of algae and aquatic plants upon which 

invertebrates depend for food and shelter. Growth, larval development, and reproduction of 

invertebrates can also be harmed by long-term exposure to sublethal concentrations of trace 

metals. Because invertebrates are an important prey item for fish populations within Lake 

Roosevelt, heavy metals can indirectly affect fish populations. 

Additional sediment and fish tissue contamination studies are being carried out by USGS and can 

be accessed online at http://wa.water.usgs.gov/projects/roosevelt/publications.htm. Additional 

Lake Roosevelt fisheries publications can be accessed online at 

http://www.lrf.org/Links.html#Anchor-STUDIES-48213

Fine Sediments 

Increasing sedimentation will decrease plant richness and tends to favor the more invasive types 

of vegetation that tolerate disturbance (e.g., reed canarygrass). Sediments often adsorb nutrients. 

As a result, nutrient contamination often follows sediment contamination, especially at the 

tributary mouths. This appeared to be the case at many of the 2008 assessment sites located at the 

mouths of streams (e.g. LARO Beach 10, Spokane Lentic 4, etc.). At these sites aquatic 

macrophyte and attached benthic algae densities increased. Excessive algal growth is 

unsustainable, and when the algae blooms die, their decomposition causes the available dissolved 

oxygen to be consumed, which can have dramatic negative effects on fish populations. Impacts 

of increased amounts of sediment on the habitat functions of wetlands have been documented for 

invertebrates, amphibians, and fish. All of these groups generally have reduced species richness 

and abundance when wetlands are subject to increased sedimentation (Sheldon et al 2005). 

Excessive sediment and nutrients at tributary sites throughout Lake Roosevelt are difficult to 

manage since they are most often the influence of land use in the upper watershed outside of the 

control of NPS resource managers. 

Climate Change 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body 

set up by the World Meteorological Organization and by the United Nations Environment 

Program. The IPCC Working Group II focuses on climate change impacts, adaptation, and 

vulnerability. Parry et al. (2007) published a technical summary of their most recent findings. 

Listed below are a few of the notable findings from the report: 

• Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans show that many natural 

systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature 

increases. 

• A global assessment of data since 1970 has shown it is likely that anthropogenic warming 

has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems. 

• Other effects of regional climate changes on natural and human environments are 

emerging, although many are difficult to discern due to adaptation and non-climatic 

drivers. 
97 

• Some large-scale climate events have the potential to cause very large impacts, especially 

after the 21st century. 

• Impacts of climate change will vary regionally but, aggregated and discounted to the 

present, they are very likely to impose net annual costs which will increase over time as 

global temperatures increase. 

• Vulnerability to climate change can be exacerbated by the presence of other stresses. 

• Future vulnerability depends not only on climate change but also on development 

pathway. 

• Many impacts can be avoided, reduced or delayed by mitigation. 

The IPCC Working Group II published reports on many areas of the world. North America was 

addressed by Field et al. (2007) and they documented three observable connections between 

climate change and terrestrial ecosystems. They found changes in seasonal timing of life-cycle 

events and phenology, plant growth or primary production, and biogeographic distribution. They 

also noted that direct impacts on organisms have indirect effects on ecological mechanisms 

(competition, herbivory, disease) and disturbance (wildfire, hurricanes, human activities). 

Plants green-up and flower earlier in the spring and leaf fall occurs later in the fall. Primary 

production has increased in North American forests over the past 10 years (Boisvenue and 

Running, 2006). Nesting and breeding occurs earlier, migration is earlier for migratory species, 

and some species are shifting home ranges to higher elevations or to more northern latitudes. 

A warming climate encourages wildfires through a longer summer period that further reduces 

fuel moisture, promoting easier ignition and faster spread (Running, 2006). Westerling et al. 

(2006) found that in the last three decades the wildfire season in the western U.S. has increased 

by 78 days, and burn durations of fires greater than 1000 hectares in area have increased from 

7.5 to 37.1 days, in response to a spring/summer warming of 0.87°C. 

The Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Oceans (JISAO) is cooperative institute 

between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of 

Washington. JISAO has published a report titled “Impacts of climate variability and change in 

the Pacific Northwest” (Mote et al. 2005). Their modeling predicts warmer, wetter winters, an 

increase of 3.1° F. by 2030 and a 5% increase in precipitation. Precipitation would come more in 

the form of rain with smaller snow packs. 

The predicted climate changes project little change in the annual flow of the Columbia River, but 

seasonal flows will shift markedly toward larger winter and spring flows and smaller summer 

and autumn flows (Hamlet and Lettenmaier, 1999). The changes in flows will likely coincide 

with increased water demand, principally from regional growth, but also induced by climate 

change. Climate change is also projected to impact urban water supplies within the basin. For 

example, a 2°C warming projected for the 2040s would increase demand for water in Portland, 

Oregon by 1.5 billion gallons per year with an additional demand of 5.5 billion gallons per year 

from population growth, while decreasing supply by 1.3 billion gallons per year (Mote et al., 

2003). The 43 sub-basins in the Columbia River basin have their own sub-basin management 
98 

plans for fish and wildlife but none comprehensively addresses reduced summertime flows 

caused by climate change. 

The direct and indirect impact of these predicted changes in climate on natural resources at 

LARO is complex and difficult to manage. Changes could be positive or negative depending on 

the ecosystem processes, communities, and/or species under consideration. From this review we 

recommend that plant and animal communities and/or species of special interest to LARO 

managers should be addressed individually. Where possible, plans could be developed to 

mitigate potential negative impacts to communities and/or species. 
99 

Summary and Recommendations 

Upland Resources 

This report examined 7 site-specific areas in LARO, allotments and a historic site, using a rapid 

resource assessment methodology (Pellant 2005). The results and recommendations for each site 

is found in the results section of this report. General threats/stressors thought to be the most 

important to management of LARO’s natural resources were examined using available 

information. These were land use change, wildfire, and noxious weeds for upland habitats and 

water level fluctuations, invasive riparian species, recreational use, water quality, and fine 

sediments for aquatic habitats. Climate change was considered capable of affecting both habitats. 

Due to the lack of consistent quantitative information on these threats/stressors we had to 

evaluate their impacts in a qualitative manner. Table 10 is an overall estimate of the potential 

impact to the 3 major resource areas; soil, hydrologic, and biotic, in LARO. The actual impact 

from these threats/stressors to any specific site will vary depending on the existing natural 

resource and landscape setting. 

Table 11 is a summary of the potential impacts to LARO natural resources from the 

threats/stressors identified by Garrett et al. (2007). Rankings were based on literature and 

database research and professional judgment of the authors. There is in fact very little 

documented information available to assess possible threats/stressors to LARO natural resources. 

Threats/Stressors Major Resources/Processes

Upland Habitats Soils Hydrologic Biotic

Land use change

Wildfire

Noxious weeds

Aquatic Habitats

Water Level Fluctuation

Invasive Riparian Species

Recreational Use

Water Quality

Fine Sediments

All Habitats

Climate Change

Key to Rating for Threats/Stressors

Potential impact to resource High Moderate Low

e 10. Potential impact from selected threats/stressors to the major 

resources/processes at LARO. 
100 

Table 11 . Matrix of threats/stressors to major resources areas with ratings for potential impacts and 

the knowledge base for estimates in LARO. 

Threats/Stressors Major Resources/Processes

Natural Disturbances Soils Hydrologic Biotic Air

Wildfires 2213

Flooding 3333

Drought 4324

Landslides 2144

Exotic diseases 4424

Climate Change 4234

Human-cause Disturbances

Invasive plants/noxious weeds 2214

Livestock grazing 1114

Fire management practices 3212

NPS management activities 3334

Forest management practices 2114

Visitor use 3213

Landscape/landuse changes 2123

Exotic animals 4413

Hunting 4424

Rural development 3224

Air pollution 3342

Water pollution 4114

Utilities/industry 3222

Air traffic 4433

Heavy metal contamination 2124

Key to Rating for Threats/Stressors

Potential impact to resource High Moderate Low Unknown

Knowledge Base 1 = Good 2 = Fair 3 = Poor 4=Inferential
101 

Aquatic Resources 

This section provides a summary of PFC assessment results of conditions encountered at each 

assessment site. Of the ten day-use beach sites assessed, six sites received a functional rating of 

“Nonfunctional” while the other four sites received ratings of “Functional-At Risk” with a 

downward trend (i.e., moving away from functional) due to significant threats (Table 12). Of the 

3 Spokane River Arm Sites assessed, 2 received “Functional-At Risk” ratings with no apparent 

trend and the other site received a “Nonfunctional” rating. The Columbia, Kettle, and Spokane 

River lentic sites, as well as the Kettle River lotic site, were rated “Functional-At Risk.” The 

Columbia and Spokane River lotic sites were rated “Nonfunctional.” Both the Ricky Point and 

Sherman Creek vacation cabin special use sites received “Nonfunctional” ratings. 

 Table 12. Summary of PFC Assessments for the 21 aquatic sample sites. 

Site Functional Rating Trend for Functional –At Risk 

Day use Beach Sites 

LARO Beach 1 Functional –At Risk Downward 

LARO Beach 2 Functional –At Risk Downward 

LARO Beach 3 Non-Functional 

LARO Beach 4 Non-Functional 

LARO Beach 5 Non-Functional 

LARO Beach 6 Non-Functional 

LARO Beach 7 Non-Functional 

LARO Beach 8 Non-Functional 

LARO Beach 9 Functional –At Risk Downward 

LARO Beach 10 Functional –At Risk Downward 

 

Spokane River Arm Sites 

Spokane Lentic 2 Functional – At Risk Not Apparent 

Spokane Lentic 3 Functional – At Risk Not Apparent 

Spokane Lentic 4 Non-Functional 

 

River Mile Sites 

Columbia Lotic Non-Functional 

Columbia Lentic Non-Functional 

Kettle Lotic Functional – At Risk Upward 

Kettle Lentic Functional – At Risk Downward 

Spokane Lotic Non-Functional 

Spokane Lentic 1 Functional – At Risk Not Apparent 

 

Special Use Sites 

Rickey Point Lentic Non-Functional 

Sherman Creek Lentic Non-Functional 
102 

Data Gaps 

Many types of information were not available for this report. We have summarized below 

important data that would improve natural resource management by LARO staff. We did not 

estimate cost or indicate agency responsibility due to the extensive nature of the data. This 

hopefully will provide guidance to LARO staff on future data collection efforts within and 

outside the park. 

1. Accurate and standardized land cover/use mapping for the project area that meets 

National Map Accuracy Standards (+ 40’) and is repeatable over time. This information 

is very important for any watershed modeling of water quality attributes and other 

resource values. 

2. Land ownership maps in digital format, like county parcel maps, with information on 

owner name and address and any records on what has been developed on the parcel. This 

information could allow LARO staff to be proactive in monitoring land development 

adjacent to the park in a cost efficient and timely manner. 

3. Noxious weed maps in digital format on adjacent private and public lands within the 

project boundary. Currently no county, state, federal, or other organization collect and 

map noxious weed locations in the LARO project area. Managers would be more aware 

of possible new invaders and could develop better management strategies for existing 

species with this information. 
103 

Literature Cited 

Anglin, Donald, Darren Gallion, Marshall Barrows, Coutney Newlon, and Ryan Koch. 2008. 

Current Status of Bull Trout Abundance, Connectivity, and Habitat Conditions in the 

Walla Walla Basin. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Barber, Mike. 2005. Walla Walla Watershed WRIA 32 Level 1 Assessment. Economic and 

Engineering Services, Inc. 

Bates, B.C., Z. W. Kundzeqicz, S. Wu and J. P. Palutikof, Eds. 2008. Climate Change and 

Water. Technical paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC 

Secretariat.Geneva. 210 pp. 

Biggam, P., J. Wagner, M. Martin, and B. Bobowski. 2005. Trip Report for Travel to Lake 

Roosevelt National Recreation Area June 22-24, 2004. Technical report prepared for 

National Park Service. February 28, 2005. 52 pp. 

Bonneville Power Administration. 2004. Walla Walla Subbasin Plan. Northwest Power Planning 

Council. Portland, Oregon. 

Bonneville Power Administration. 2004. Intermountain Province Subbasin Plan. Northwest 

 Power Planning Council. Portland, Oregon. 

Boisvenue, C. and S.W. Running, 2006: Impacts of climate change on natural forest productivity 

- evidence since the middle of the 20th century. Global Change Biololgy, 12, 862-882. 

Brown, David L., Fred K. Hines, and John M. Zimmer. 1975. Social and Economic 

Characteristics of the Population in Metro and Nonmetro Counties. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, 

M. Reid, K. Schulz, K. Snow, and J. Teague. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United 

States: A Working Classification of U.S. Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, 

Virginia 

Corkran, C. and C. Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. 

Lone Pine Publishing, Renton, Washington. 

Donaldson, Norman C., Joseph T. DeFrancesco, and Don W. Barron. 2004. Soil Survey of 

Stevens County, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource 

Conservation Service. 283 pp. 

Environmental Systems Research Institute. 2006. ArcGIS 9, Using ArcGIS Desktop. 

Environmental Systems Research Institute 
104 

EVS Environmental Consultants. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Study of the Greater Lake 

Washington and Green-Duwamish River Watersheds: Year 2002 Data Analysis. Prepared 

for King County Water and Land Resources Division. 61 pp. 

Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch,, M. Brklacich, D.L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running and 

M.J. Scott. 2007. North America. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and 

Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, 

P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 

617-652. 

Fore, L.S., J.R. Karr, and R.W. Wisseman. 1996. Assessing invertebrate responses to human 

activities: evaluating alternative approaches. Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society 15: 212-231. 

Garrett, L. K., T. J. Rodhouse, G. H. Dicus, C. C. Caudill, and M. R. Shardlow. 2007. Upper 

Columbia Basin Network vital signs monitoring plan. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/UCBN/NRR—2007/002. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Hamlet, A. and D. Lettenmaier. 1999. Effects of climate change on hydrology and water 

resources in the Columbia River Basin. Journal of American Water Resources 

Association, 35, 1597-1623. 

Hann, W.; Shlisky, A.; Havlina, D.; Schon, K.; Barrett, S.; DeMeo, T.; Pohl, K.; Menakis, J.; 

Hamilton, D.; Jones, J.; Levesque, M.; Frame, C. 2004. Interagency Fire Regime 

Condition Class Guidebook. Last update October 2007: Version 1.3. Online. 

Hayslip, Gretchen, editor. 2007. Methods for the collection and analysis of benthic 

macroinvertebrate assemblages in wadeable streams of the Pacific Northwest. Pacific 

Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership, Cook, Washington. 

Holsinger, L, R.E. Keane, B. Steele, M. Reeves, and S.D. Pratt. 2006. Using historical 

simulations of vegetation to assess departure of current vegetation conditions across large 

landscapes. Pp. 315-366 in: Rollins, M.G. and C.K. Frame, tech. eds. 2006. The 

LANDFIRE Prototype Project: nationally consistent and locally relevant geospatial data 

for wildland fire management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-175. Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Howell, Matthew, Jason McLellan, "Lake Roosevelt White Sturgeon Recovery Project", 2004- 

2005 Annual Report, Project No. 199502700, 113 electronic pages, (BPA Report 

DOE/BP-00022571-1). 

Johnson, V.G., R.E. Peterson, and K.B. Olsen. 2005. Heavy Metal Transport and Behavior in 

 the Lower Columbia River, USA. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 110: 271-

289. 
105 

Karr, J.R. and D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspectives on water quality goals. Environmental 

Management. 5: 55-68. 

Lillybridge, Terry R., Bernard L. Kovalichik, Clinton K. Williams, and Bradley G. Smith. 1995. 

Field Guide for Forested Plant Associations of the Wenatchee National Forest. General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-359. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 343 pp. 

Mahoney, Brian, Craig Contor, Stacy Schumacher, and Jesse Schwartz. 2007. Fluvial Movement 

of Radio Tagged Adult Bull Trout in the Walla Walla River, northeastern Oregon - Draft. 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife. 

Mahoney, Brian, Michael Lambert, Preston Bronson, Travis Olsen, and Jesse Schwartz. 2007. 

Walla Walla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project. Confederated 

Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and Walla Walla Community College, 

Prepared for US Department of Energy. 

McCaffrey, M. T. Rodhouse, and L. Garrett. 2003. 2003 Vertebrate Inventory Lake Roosevelt 

National Recreation Area. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 61 pp. 

McClellan, H.J., A.T. Scholz, and R. LeCaire. 2006. Hatchery kokanee investigation in Lake 

Roosevelt, 2005. Annual Report Submitted to Spokane Tribe of Indians. BPA Project 

Number 1994-043-00. 51 pp. 

McLellan, Holly, Allan Scholz, Richard LeCaire, Chuck Lee. 2006. Lake Roosevelt Fisheries 

Evaluation Program; Contributions to Fisheries Management in Eastern Washington 

State, Number 12. Bonneville Power Administration Report DOE/BP-00024144-1. 

Morley, Sarah Ann. 2000. Effects of urbanization on the biological integrity of Puget Sound 

lowland streams: Restoration with a biological focus. Thesis in fulfillment of Master of 

Science degree. University of Washington School of Fisheries. 

Mote, P. W., E. A. Parson, A. F. Hamlet, W. S. Keeton, D. Lettenmaier, N. Mantua, E. L. Miles, 

D. W. Peterson, D. L. Peterson, R. Slaughter, and A. K. Snover. 2003. Preparing for 

climatic change: the water, salmon, and forests of the Pacific Northwest. Climate Change, 

61, 45-88. 

Mote, P.W., E.P. Salathé, V. Dulière, and E. Jump. 2008c. Scenarios of Future Climate Change 

for the Pacific Northwest. Report prepared by the Climate Impacts Group, Center for 

Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, 

University of Washington, Seattle. 

Munn, M.D. 2000. Contaminant trends in sport fish from Lake Roosevelt and upper Columbia 

River, Washington, 1994 – 1998. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 00-4024. 13 pp. 
106 

National Park Service (NPS). 1999. Natural resource challenge: the National Park Service’s 

action plan for preserving natural resources. US Department of the Interior National Park 

Service, Washington D.C. Online (http://www.nature.nps.gov/challengedoc.html). 

National Park Service (NPS). 2000. Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area – General 

Management Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, CO. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2003. Live Stock Management Plan and Environmental 

Assessment, Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, Washington, US Department of 

the Interior NPS. 

Pacific Groundwater Group. 1995. Initial Watershed Assessment Water Resources Inventory 

Area 22 Walla Walla River Watershed. Open-File Technical Report 95-11. Walla Walla 

Watershed Initial Assessment, Draft 1995, WR-95-159. 

Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof and Co-authors. 2007. Technical Summary. Climate 

Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II 

to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 23-78. 

Peachey, Ed. 2008. Pacific Northwest Weed Management Handbook. Oregon State University. 

Online. (http://weeds.ippc.orst.edu/pnw/weeds). Accessed 1 January 2009. 

Pellant, M., Patrick Shaver, David A. Pyke, and Jeffrey E. Herrick. 2005. Interpreting Indicators 

of Rangeland Health. Technical Reference 1734-6. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado. 122 pp. 

Prather, T. 2003. Lake Roosevelt Invasive Plant Inventory. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 

7 pp. 

Prichard, D., J. Anderson, C. Correll, J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, R. Krapf, S. Leonard, B. Mitchell, 

and J. Staats. 1998. Riparian Area Management: A User Guide to Assessing Proper 

Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. TR 1737-15. Bureau 

of Land Management, BLM/RS/ST-98/001+1737, National Applied Resource Sciences 

Center, Denver, CO. 136 pp. 

Pyke, D. A., J. E. Herrick, P. Shaver, and M. Pellant. 2002. Rangeland health attributes and 

indicators for qualitative assessment. Journal of Range Management. 55:584-297. 

Rollins, Matthew G.; Frame, Christine K., tech. eds. 2006. The LANDFIRE Prototype Project: 

nationally consistent and locally relevant geospatial data for wildland fire management. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-175. Fort Collins: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 416 p. 

Running, S.W., 2006: Is global warming causing more larger wildfires? Science, 313, 927-928. 
107 

Scofield, B., C. Lee, D. Pavlik-Kunkel, and K. Fields. 2007. Lake Roosevelt Fisheries 

Evaluation Program. 2005 Annual Report prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, 

Bonneville Power Administration by Spokane Tribe of Indians, Wellpinit, WA. 195 pp. 

Sears, Sheryl, “Lake Roosevelt Rainbow Trout Habitat/Passage Improvement Project”, 

Bonneville Power Administration, Project NO. 199001800, 2006 Annual Report. 

Seaber, Paul R., F. Paul Kapinos, and George L. Knapp. 1987. Hydrologic Unit Maps. U.S. 

 Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2294. 

Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. 

Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. 

Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia, WA. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2007, State and County QuickFacts. Online. 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. Accessed 1 December 2008. 

U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Geological Survey. 2008. LANDFIRE National Data Products. 

 Online. http://www.landfire.gov/products_national.php. Accessed 1 December 2008. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2005. Water Resources Data. Online. 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wdr/2005/wdr-id-05-1/pdf/ID05v114.pdf. Accessed 1 December 

2008. 

Wagner, Joel, Pete Biggam, Michael Martin, and Ben Bobowski. 2005. An Assessment of 

Riparian and Upland Conditions on Grazing Allotments at Lake Roosevelt National 

Recreation Area, Washington. Natural Resource General Technical Report 

NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2005/329. National Park Service. 50 pp. 

Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, and T. W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier 

spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science, 313, 940-943. 

Western Regional Climate Center. 2003. Washington Climate Summaries. Desert Research 

Institute, Reno, Nevada. Online, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmwa.html. 

Accessed 1 December 2008. 

Williams, Clinton K., Brian F. Kelley, Bradley G. Smith, and Terry Lillybridge. 1996. Forested 

Plant Associations of the Colville National Forest. General Technical Report PNW-GTR360. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

405 p. 

Wissmar, Robert C.; Smith, Jeanette E.; McIntosh, Bruce A.; Li, Hiram W.; Reeves, Gordon H.; 

Sedell, James R. 1994. Ecological health of river basins in forested regions of eastern 

Washington and Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-326. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 65 p. 

(Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health 
108 

assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: 

assessment.) 

Wright, Gerald. 2004. Final Report: Initial Noxious Weed Surveys at LARO. University of Idaho 

 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 4 pp. 
109 

Appendix A – List of NRCA Geodatabase Data by Theme 

Theme Layer Name

Air Resources

Animal

Bull Trout Distribution laro_sp1498_BullTrout_lcc

Geography

Grazing Areas 2003 Grazing_03_proposed_all

Basins (6th HUC) laro_basins

Cities laro_cities

Counties laro_basins

Highways laro_highway

Roads LARO_Transportation

Project Boundary laro_nrca_proj

Park Boundary laro_parkbndy

Sections laro_PLSS

Lake Roosevelt Mile Markers usgsmile

Lake Roosevelt 5-mile Marker usgsmile_5

Geology

Soils-County Surveys Soils_colville_rez

Soils_douglas_co

Soils_grant_co

Soils_lincoln_co

Soils_n_ferry_co

Soils_stevens_co

Geology laro_geology_MUID

Slope failure/potential areas slides2

Land Slides lsi

Liquifaction Susceptibility laro_Liquefaction

Hazard Zones laro_Haz_Zone

Land _Process

Landuse

Beach Cleanup Sites 2008 Beach_Cleanup

Vacation Cabin Sites Vacation Cabin Sites
110 

 

Theme Layer Name

Stressors

Past fires Past_Fires

DNR Fires 1970-2007 wa_fstats

Weed points 03 laro_weeds03.pts

Weed Point 04 laro_weeds04.pts

Weed lines 04 laro_weeds04.lin

weed polygons 03 laro_weeds03_poly

Water Resources

NRCA Aquatic Sample Sites sites_of_spokane_arm

Original Columbia River Channel origriv

Riverine Areas Riverine_Areas

Bathymetric Data, Lake Roosevelt fdr1290

Streams Water_Course

Lakes Water_Bodies

Water (303d listed) Water_303d_2004_polys

Precipitation precipitation

Raster Data

Fire Regime Condition Class Departure laro_frcc_dep

Existing Vegetation laro_evt
111 

Appendix B – List of Indicators Analyzed to Calculate 

Landscape Attribute Values. 

Plot 

No. Allotment

Ecological 

Reference Code Soil Name 1. Rills

2. 

Waterflow

3. 

Pedestal 4. Bare

5. 

Gullies

6. 

Wind

7. 

Litter

8. Soil 

Surface

9. Soil 

Degredatio

n

1 Rosenberg W. R008XY102WA

49-Nespelem silt 

loam N-S M M M N-S N-S S-M M S-M

2 Rosenberg W. R008XY102WA 48-Nespelem N-S M S-M S-M N-S N-S S-M M S-M

3 Rosenberg W. R008XY102WA 48-Nespelem N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S

4 Rosenberg W. R008XY501WA 37-Ewall N-S S-M S-M S-M N-S N-S S-M M M

5 Rosenberg E. R008XY501WA 37-Ewall N-S S-M N-S M N-S N-S S-M S-M S-M

6 Rosenberg E. R008XY102WA 48-Nespelem N-S S-M N-S S-M N-S N-S N-S S-M S-M

7 Rosenberg E. R008XY102WA 48-Nespelem N-S S-M N-S M N-S N-S M M M

8 Rosenberg E. R009XY401WA 53-Pedigo N-S S-M N-S S-M N-S N-S N-S S-M N-S

9 Rosenberg E. R008XY501WA 27-Conconully N-S S-M N-S S-M N-S N-S S-M S-M S-M

10 Green R008XY501WA 27-Conconully N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S

11 Green R008XY501WA 36-Ewall N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S

12 Green R008XY501WA 36-Ewall N-S S-M N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S S-M S-M

13 Coffman R008XY501WA 36-Ewall N-S M S-M S-M N-S N-S S-M M S-M

14 Coffman R008XY501WA 36-Ewall N-S M N-S S-M N-S N-S S-M M S-M

15 Fort Spokane R008XY803WA

73-Springdale 

gravelly sandy 

loam N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S S-M S-M

16 Gifford

46-Cedonia silt 

loam N-S M N-S M N-S N-S S-M M-E M

17 Gifford

46-Cedonia silt 

loam 5-15 N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S

18 Matney R044XY601WA 172-Peone N-S M N-S M-E N-S N-S S-M M-E M-E

19 Matney

49-Cedonia silt 

loam 30-65 N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S

20 Matney

30-Bisbee loamy 

fine sand 0-15 N-S S-M N-S S-M N-S N-S N-S M S-M

21 Matney

225-Springdale 

sandy loam 0-15 N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S S-M

22 Hensley

30-Bisbee loamy 

fine sand 0-15 N-S M N-S M N-S N-S S-M M M
112 

Appendix B (continued). List of Indicators Analyzed to Calculate Landscape Attribute Metrics. 

Plot 

No. Allotment

Ecological 

Reference Code Soil Name

10. Plant 

Canopy 

Cover

11. 

Compaction

12. 

Function 

Structure

13. Plant 

Mortality

14. Litter 

Amount

15. 

Annual 

Production

16. 

Invasive 

Species

17. 

Reproduction

1 Rosenberg W. R008XY102WA

49-Nespelem silt 

loam S-M N-S M E-T M M S-M M

2 Rosenberg W. R008XY102WA 48-Nespelem S-M N-S N-S M S-M S-M S-M S-M

3 Rosenberg W. R008XY102WA 48-Nespelem N-S N-S N-S S-M N-S N-S S-M N-S

4 Rosenberg W. R008XY501WA 37-Ewall S-M N-S M M-E M M M M

5 Rosenberg E. R008XY501WA 37-Ewall S-M N-S M S-M S-M M M M

6 Rosenberg E. R008XY102WA 48-Nespelem S-M N-S S-M S-M S-M S-M M S-M

7 Rosenberg E. R008XY102WA 48-Nespelem S-M N-S M M-E M M-E M M

8 Rosenberg E. R009XY401WA 53-Pedigo S-M S-M M-E M S-M M M-E M-E

9 Rosenberg E. R008XY501WA 27-Conconully M N-S S-M M S-M M M M

10 Green R008XY501WA 27-Conconully N-S N-S N-S S-M N-S N-S S-M N-S

11 Green R008XY501WA 36-Ewall N-S S-M N-S N-S N-S N-S M M

12 Green R008XY501WA 36-Ewall N-S N-S S-M M N-S S-M S-M S-M

13 Coffman R008XY501WA 36-Ewall M N-S M-E S-M M M-E M-E M

14 Coffman R008XY501WA 36-Ewall M N-S M-E S-M M M M-E M-E

15 Fort Spokane R008XY803WA

73-Springdale 

gravelly sandy 

loam S-M N-S M-E N-S S-M S-M M S-M

16 Gifford

46-Cedonia silt 

loam M N-S M-E N-S M M M-E M

17 Gifford

46-Cedonia silt 

loam 5-15 S-M N-S N-S S-M S-M S-M S-M S-M

18 Matney R044XY601WA 172-Peone M N-S M-E N-S M-E M-E M-E M-E

19 Matney

49-Cedonia silt 

loam 30-65 N-S N-S N-S S-M N-S N-S N-S N-S

20 Matney

30-Bisbee loamy 

fine sand 0-15 M N-S M S-M S-M M M-E M

21 Matney

225-Springdale 

sandy loam 0-15 N-S N-S M N-S S-M M M M

22 Hensley

30-Bisbee loamy 

fine sand 0-15 M-E N-S M-E N-S M-E M-E M-E M-E
113 

Appendix C List of Plant Species at NRCA Upland 

Assessment Points 

 Aerial Cover by Plot

Species Name

Growth 

Form

NonNative Noxious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Betula occidentalis tree

Pinus ponderosa tree 2

Pseudotsuga menziesii tree

Pyrus communis tree X 1

Pyrus malus tree X 2

Thuja plicata tree

Acer glabrum shrub 5

Alnus incana shrub

Amelanchier alnifolia shrub 2 1 10

Artemisia tridentata ssp. triden shrub 15 15 10 15 1 15 1

Artemisia tripartita shrub 5 5 5

Chrysothamnus nauseosus shrub 15 5 5 20 5 2

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus shrub 5 1 2 10 2

Crataegus columbiana shrub 60

Holodiscus discolor shrub

Leptodactylon pungens shrub 152

Mahonia aquifolium shrub 5

Philadelphus lewisii shrub 2

Prunus virginiana shrub 2 1

Purshia tridentata shrub 25 10 25 25 35 20

Ribes cereum shrub 1

Rosa canina shrub

Rosa woodsii shrub 2 20 10

Salvia dorrii shrub 10 5

Symphoricarpos albus shrub 5 1

Tetradymia canescens shrub 1 2

Agropyron cristatum grass X

Agropyron spicatum grass 10 10 30

Agrostis stolonifera grass X 20

Aira caryophyllea grass X 2

Aristida longiseta grass 1

Bromus inermis grass

Bromus japonicus grass X 20 50 30 5 20 2 10

Bromus mollis grass X

Bromus tectorum grass X 5 10 5 30 15 10 40 20 10 10

Carex praegracilis grass 5

Carex sp. grass 5
114 

List of Plant Species at NRCA Upland Assessment Points (continued). 

Aerial Cover by Plot

Species Name

Growth

Form

NonNative Noxious 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Betula occidentalis tree 40

Pinus ponderosa tree 1 60 60 10 1

Pseudotsuga menziesii tree 10 10

Pyrus communis tree X

Pyrus malus tree X 2

Thuja plicata tree 20

Acer glabrum shrub 10

Alnus incana shrub 10

Amelanchier alnifolia shrub 1 5

Artemisia tridentata ssp. triden shrub

Artemisia tripartita shrub 10

Chrysothamnus nauseosus shrub 15 50

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus shrub 5 1

Crataegus columbiana shrub 1

Holodiscus discolor shrub 1 10

Leptodactylon pungens shrub 2

Mahonia aquifolium shrub 20 5

Philadelphus lewisii shrub

Prunus virginiana shrub

Purshia tridentata shrub 25 1

Ribes cereum shrub

Rosa canina shrub 1

Rosa woodsii shrub 1 2

Salvia dorrii shrub

Symphoricarpos albus shrub 1 5 1 30 10 2

Tetradymia canescens shrub

Agropyron cristatum grass X 15 15 10

Agropyron spicatum grass

Agrostis stolonifera grass X 10

Aira caryophyllea grass X

Aristida longiseta grass 2

Bromus inermis grass 2 5

Bromus japonicus grass X 20 1 10 5 2 5

Bromus mollis grass X 2

Bromus tectorum grass X 30 30 30 1 2 10 1 5

Carex praegracilis grass

Carex sp. grass
115 

List of Plant Species at NRCA Upland Assessment Points (continued). 

 Aerial Cover by Plot

Species Name

Growth

Form

NonNative Noxious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Dactylis glomerata grass X

Elymus canadensis grass

Elymus repens grass X 2

Festuca idahoensis grass 3 3 30 10 5

Hordeum jubatum grass 10 2

Juncus balticus grass 2

Juncus orthophyllus grass 2

Koeleria macrantha grass 1

Leymus cinereus grass 1 5

Panicum scribnerianum grass

Phleum pratense grass X

Poa bulbosa grass X 5 20 1

Poa pratensis grass X 20 20

Poa secunda grass 2 2 5 10 4 5 10 10

Poa sp. grass

Secale cereale grass X

Spartina gracilis grass 40

Sporobolus cryptandrus grass 1 20

Stipa comata grass 5 10 10 30 5 5 2

Stipa occidentalis grass

Conyza canadensis forb 

Achillea millefolium forb 0.5 1 2 2 5 1

Adenocaulon bicolor forb

Amsinckia lycopsoides forb

Arctium minus forb X 1

Artemisia dracunculus forb 2

Astragalus purshii forb 5

Balsamorhiza sagittata forb 1111

Brodiaea douglasii forb 1 1

Cardaria draba forb X X

Centaurea diffusa forb X X 2 2

Chenopodium album forb X 2

Chondrilla juncea forb X X

Cirsium arvense forb X X 2 1

Cirsium edule forb X

Cirsium undulatum forb 1

Cirsium vulgare forb X X 2

Clematis ligusticifolia forb 15 5

Convuvulus arvensis forb X X 2
116 

List of Plant Species at NRCA Upland Assessment Points (continued). 

Aerial Cover by Plot

Species Name

Growth

Form

NonNative Noxious 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Dactylis glomerata grass X 2511

Elymus canadensis grass 1 1

Elymus repens grass X 10 5 25 10 30 10 20

Festuca idahoensis grass 1

Hordeum jubatum grass

Juncus balticus grass

Juncus orthophyllus grass

Koeleria macrantha grass

Leymus cinereus grass

Panicum scribnerianum grass 5 3

Phleum pratense grass X 5

Poa bulbosa grass X 5 10 15 10 5 30 5

Poa pratensis grass X 2 30 10 10

Poa secunda grass 10 70

Poa sp. grass 5

Secale cereale grass X 5

Spartina gracilis grass

Sporobolus cryptandrus grass 2 20 1 2

Stipa comata grass 30

Stipa occidentalis grass 2 10 20

Conyza canadensis forb 1 3 3

Achillea millefolium forb 21 113 22

Adenocaulon bicolor forb 2

Amsinckia lycopsoides forb 1

Arctium minus forb X

Artemisia dracunculus forb

Astragalus purshii forb

Balsamorhiza sagittata forb

Brodiaea douglasii forb

Cardaria draba forb X X 3 2

Centaurea diffusa forb X X 1 2 3 2 5

Chenopodium album forb X

Chondrilla juncea forb X X 1

Cirsium arvense forb X X 3

Cirsium edule forb X 2

Cirsium undulatum forb

Cirsium vulgare forb X X 3

Clematis ligusticifolia forb

Convuvulus arvensis forb X X
117 

List of Plant Species at NRCA Upland Assessment Points (continued). 

 Aerial Cover by Plot

Species Name

Growth 

Form

NonNative Noxious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Cynoglossum officinale forb X X

Disporum trachycarpum forb

Equisetum hyemale forb 2 2 15

Erigeron sp. forb 2 1 1

Eriogonum compositum forb 5

Eriogonum niveum forb 2 1 20 15 5 1

Eriogonum sphaerocephalum forb 5 2 2 5

Erodium cicutarium forb X

Helianthus annuus forb 1

Heuchera cylindrica forb 2 1

Hypericum perforatum forb X X

Kochia scoparia forb X X 1

Lactuca serriola forb X 1 1 2

Lepidium perfoliatum forb X 2 2

Linaria dalmatica forb X X 2 1

Lomatium triternatum forb 5

Lupinus leucophyllus forb 5 1

Lupinus sericeus forb 0.5 2 1

Lupinus sp. forb 2

Melilotus alba forb X 5

Melilotus officinalis forb X

Oenothera strigosa forb 1

Opuntia polyacantha forb 2 5

Osmorhiza berteroi forb

Phacelia sp. forb

Plantago lanceolata forb X 1

Plantago patagonica forb

Polygonum aviculare forb X

Polygonum douglasii forb

Potentilla recta forb X X

Pteridium aquilinum forb

Rumex crispus forb X 1 1

Salsola kali forb X 6

Sisymbrium altissimum forb X 2 2

Smilacina racemosa forb

Solidago sp. forb 1

Taraxacum officinale forb X

Tragopogon dubius forb X 1 1

Trifolium dubium forb X

Trifolium repens forb X 1
118 

List of Plant Species at NRCA Upland Assessment Points (continued). 

 Aerial Cover by Plot

Species Name

Growth

Form

NonNative Noxious 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Cynoglossum officinale forb X X 3 2

Disporum trachycarpum forb 1

Equisetum hyemale forb 50

Erigeron sp. forb 1 1

Eriogonum compositum forb

Eriogonum niveum forb 2

Eriogonum sphaerocephalum forb

Erodium cicutarium forb X 1 1 1 1

Helianthus annuus forb

Heuchera cylindrica forb

Hypericum perforatum forb X X 1 3 10 3 15

Kochia scoparia forb X X 1 2

Lactuca serriola forb X 1 2 2 2 1 1 1

Lepidium perfoliatum forb X

Linaria dalmatica forb X X 5

Lomatium triternatum forb

Lupinus leucophyllus forb 2

Lupinus sericeus forb 5

Lupinus sp. forb 2

Melilotus alba forb X

Melilotus officinalis forb X 1 1

Oenothera strigosa forb

Opuntia polyacantha forb 1

Osmorhiza berteroi forb 1

Phacelia sp. forb 1 2

Plantago lanceolata forb X

Plantago patagonica forb 1 10

Polygonum aviculare forb X 1

Polygonum douglasii forb 1 2 1

Potentilla recta forb X X 20 2 2

Pteridium aquilinum forb 1

Rumex crispus forb X 1

Salsola kali forb X 2 5

Sisymbrium altissimum forb X 1 1 5 3 2 5

Smilacina racemosa forb 2

Solidago sp. forb

Taraxacum officinale forb X 3

Tragopogon dubius forb X 1112 111

Trifolium dubium forb X 3

Trifolium repens forb X 1
119 

List of Plant Species at NRCA Upland Assessment Points (continued). 

 Aerial Cover by Plot

Species Name

Growth 

Form

NonNative Noxious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Urtica dioica forb 1

Verbascum thapsus forb X X 3 2 2

Verbena bracteata forb

Vicia americana forb
120 

List of Plant Species at NRCA Upland Assessment Points (continued). 

Aerial Cover by Plot

Species Name

Growth 

Form

NonNative Noxious 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Urtica dioica forb

Verbascum thapsus forb X X 5 3 2

Verbena bracteata forb 3

Vicia americana forb 10 1 5 10 30
121 

Appendix D – Aquatic Site Properly Functioning Condition 

Checklists 
122 

Lentic Standard Checklist – LARO Beach 1

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: _LARO National Recreation Area_____________________

Date: _7/31/2008_Segment/Reach ID: LARO Beach 1_______Acres: _______________ 

ID Team Observers: _Hinson, Neumiller________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

X 1) Riparian/wetland area is saturated at or near the surface or 

inundated in “relatively frequent” events 

 X 2) Fluctuation of water levels is not excessive 

X 3) Riparian/wetland area is enlarging or has achieved potential extent 

 X 4) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

X 5) Water quality is sufficient to support riparian/wetland plants 

 X 6) Natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are not altered by 

disturbance (i.e., hoof action, dams, dikes, trails, roads, rills, gullies, 

drilling activities) 

X 7) Structure accommodates safe passage of flows (e.g., no headcut 

affecting dam or spillway) 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

X 8) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

 X 9) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

 X 10) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil 

moisture characteristics 

X 11) Vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that 

have root masses capable of withstanding wind events, wave flow 

events, or overland flows (e.g., storm events, snowmelt) 

X 12) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

X 13) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

shoreline/soil surface and dissipate energy during high wind and wave 

events or overland flows 

X 14) Frost or abnormal hydrologic heaving is not present 

 X 15) Favorable microsite condition (i.e., woody material, water 

temperature, etc.) is maintained by adjacent site characteristics 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 16) Accumulation of chemicals affecting plant productivity/composition is 

not apparent 

X 17) Saturation of soils (i.e., ponding, flooding frequency, and duration) is 

sufficient to compose and maintain hydric soils 

X 18) Underlying geologic structure/soil material/permafrost is capable of 

restricting water percolation 

X 19) Riparian/wetland is in balance with the water and sediment being 

supplied by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 

X 20) Islands and shoreline characteristics (i.e., rocks, coarse and/or large 

woody material) are adequate to dissipate wind and wave event energies
123 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

2. Water level fluctuation is excessive depending on Lake Roosevelt Reservoir levels 

4. Roads above banks 

6. The natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are potentially altered by hoof action, dams, 

roads, boats and beaches 

9. Little diversity of vegetation, site dominated by reed canarygrass 

10. It is difficult to determine due to the dominate presence of reed canarygrass and other fac-wet 

species. Obligate species do not dominate, this is why we indicated a no for this question. 

17. Frequent lowering of the water table and water level does not keep the soils saturated for 

long periods of time 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk __X__ Downward __X___ 

Nonfunctional _____ Not Apparent _____ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

1. Little large woody debris, However upland may be a source 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___ De-watering ___ Mining activities _X_ Watershed condition 

___ Dredging _X_ Road encroachment _X_ Land ownership 

_X_ Other (specify) Excessive fluctuation of water level, and human disturbances
124 

Lentic Standard Checklist – LARO Beach 2

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: _LARO National Recreation Area_____________________

Date: _7/31/2008_Segment/Reach ID: LARO Beach 2_______Acres: _______________ 

ID Team Observers: _Hinson, Neumiller________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

X 1) Riparian/wetland area is saturated at or near the surface or inundated in 

“relatively frequent” events 

 X 2) Fluctuation of water levels is not excessive 

X 3) Riparian/wetland area is enlarging or has achieved potential extent 

 X 4) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

X 5) Water quality is sufficient to support riparian/wetland plants 

 X 6) Natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are not altered by disturbance 

(i.e., hoof action, dams, dikes, trails, roads, rills, gullies, drilling activities) 

X 7) Structure accommodates safe passage of flows (e.g., no headcut 

affecting dam or spillway) 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

X 8) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

 X 9) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

 X 10) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil moisture 

characteristics 

X 11) Vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have 

root masses capable of withstanding wind events, wave flow events, or 

overland flows (e.g., storm events, snowmelt) 

X 12) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

X 13) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

shoreline/soil surface and dissipate energy during high wind and wave 

events or overland flows 

X 14) Frost or abnormal hydrologic heaving is not present 

 X 15) Favorable microsite condition (i.e., woody material, water temperature, 

etc.) is maintained by adjacent site characteristics 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 16) Accumulation of chemicals affecting plant productivity/composition is not 

apparent 

X 17) Saturation of soils (i.e., ponding, flooding frequency, and duration) is 

sufficient to compose and maintain hydric soils 

X 18) Underlying geologic structure/soil material/permafrost is capable of 

restricting water percolation 

X 19) Riparian/wetland is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied 

by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 

X 20) Islands and shoreline characteristics (i.e., rocks, coarse and/or large 

woody material) are adequate to dissipate wind and wave event energies 
125 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

2. Water level fluctuation is excessive depending on Lake Roosevelt Reservoir levels 

4. Roads above banks, development, boat moorage, nearby stream tributary upstream from site 

brings an influx of sediment and nutrients 

6. The natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are potentially altered by hoof action, dams, 

roads, boats and beaches 

9. Little diversity of vegetation, site dominated by reed canarygrass 

10. It is difficult to determine due to the dominate presence of reed canarygrass and other fac-wet 

species. Obligate species do not dominate, this is why we indicated a no for this question. 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk __X__ Downward __X__

Nonfunctional _____ Not Apparent _____ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

2. Little large woody debris, However upland may be a source 

3. Good rocky shoreline, well drained 

4. No vegetation diversity – reed canarygrass dominates 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___ De-watering ___ Mining activities _X_ Watershed condition 

___ Dredging _X_ Road encroachment _X_ Land ownership 

_X_ Other (specify) Excessive fluctuation of water level, and human disturbances
126 

Lentic Standard Checklist – LARO Beach 3

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: _LARO National Recreation Area_____________________

Date: _7/31/2008_Segment/Reach ID: LARO Beach 3_______Acres: _______________ 

ID Team Observers: _Hinson, Neumiller________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

X 1) Riparian/wetland area is saturated at or near the surface or inundated in 

“relatively frequent” events 

 X 2) Fluctuation of water levels is not excessive 

 X 3) Riparian/wetland area is enlarging or has achieved potential extent 

 X 4) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

X 5) Water quality is sufficient to support riparian/wetland plants 

 X 6) Natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are not altered by disturbance 

(i.e., hoof action, dams, dikes, trails, roads, rills, gullies, drilling activities) 

X 7) Structure accommodates safe passage of flows (e.g., no headcut 

affecting dam or spillway) 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

 X 8) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

 X 9) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

 X 10) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil moisture 

characteristics 

X 11) Vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have 

root masses capable of withstanding wind events, wave flow events, or 

overland flows (e.g., storm events, snowmelt) 

 X 12) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

 X 13) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

shoreline/soil surface and dissipate energy during high wind and wave 

events or overland flows 

X 14) Frost or abnormal hydrologic heaving is not present 

 X 15) Favorable microsite condition (i.e., woody material, water temperature, 

etc.) is maintained by adjacent site characteristics 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 16) Accumulation of chemicals affecting plant productivity/composition is not 

apparent 

X 17) Saturation of soils (i.e., ponding, flooding frequency, and duration) is 

sufficient to compose and maintain hydric soils 

X 18) Underlying geologic structure/soil material/permafrost is capable of 

restricting water percolation 

X 19) Riparian/wetland is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied 

by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 

X 20) Islands and shoreline characteristics (i.e., rocks, coarse and/or large 

woody material) are adequate to dissipate wind and wave event energies 
127 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

2. Water level fluctuation is excessive depending on Lake Roosevelt Reservoir levels 

3. Riparian area has not reached potential extent due to areas devoid of vegetation 

4. Roads above banks, development, boat moorage, nearby stream tributary upstream from site 

brings an influx of sediment and nutrients 

6. The natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are potentially altered by hoof action, dams, 

roads, boats and beaches 

8. Diverse age class distribution of vegetation not apparent 

9. Little diversity of vegetation, site dominated by reed canarygrass 

10. It is difficult to determine due to the dominate presence of reed canarygrass and other fac-wet 

species. Obligate species do not dominate, this is why we indicated a no for this question. 

12. Vegetation not showing high vigor likely due to fluctuation of water table, malnourishment 

13. Vegetation is patchy, shoreline is mostly bare. 

17. Soil saturation, i.e. ponding, is not sufficient to maintain hydric soils likely due to the 

frequent water level fluctuation and water table is too low for long periods of time have soil 

saturation 

19. Site appears to have more sediment supplied to the site at a faster rate than the riparian area 

can expand and be in balance with its surroundings 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk _____ Downward _____ 

Nonfunctional __X__ Not Apparent _____ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

5. Good supply of large woody debris further up shoreline; upland may be a source 

6. Good rocky shoreline, well drained 

7. Road encroachment and access a major factor; road very close to riparian shoreline 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___ De-watering ___ Mining activities _X_ Watershed condition 

___ Dredging _X_ Road encroachment _X_ Land ownership 

_X_ Other (specify) Excessive fluctuation of water level, and human disturbances
128 

Lentic Standard Checklist – LARO Beach 4

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: _LARO National Recreation Area_____________________

Date: _7/29/2008_Segment/Reach ID: LARO Beach 4_______Acres: _______________ 

ID Team Observers: _Hinson, Neumiller________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

X 1) Riparian/wetland area is saturated at or near the surface or inundated in 

“relatively frequent” events 

 X 2) Fluctuation of water levels is not excessive 

 X 3) Riparian/wetland area is enlarging or has achieved potential extent 

X 4) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

X 5) Water quality is sufficient to support riparian/wetland plants 

 X 6) Natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are not altered by disturbance 

(i.e., hoof action, dams, dikes, trails, roads, rills, gullies, drilling activities) 

X 7) Structure accommodates safe passage of flows (e.g., no headcut 

affecting dam or spillway) 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

 X 8) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

X 9) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

 X 10) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil moisture 

characteristics 

X 11) Vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have 

root masses capable of withstanding wind events, wave flow events, or 

overland flows (e.g., storm events, snowmelt) 

X 12) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

 X 13) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

shoreline/soil surface and dissipate energy during high wind and wave 

events or overland flows 

X 14) Frost or abnormal hydrologic heaving is not present 

 X 15) Favorable microsite condition (i.e., woody material, water temperature, 

etc.) is maintained by adjacent site characteristics 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 16) Accumulation of chemicals affecting plant productivity/composition is not 

apparent 

X 17) Saturation of soils (i.e., ponding, flooding frequency, and duration) is 

sufficient to compose and maintain hydric soils 

X 18) Underlying geologic structure/soil material/permafrost is capable of 

restricting water percolation 

X 19) Riparian/wetland is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied 

by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 

X 20) Islands and shoreline characteristics (i.e., rocks, coarse and/or large 

woody material) are adequate to dissipate wind and wave event energies 
129 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

2. Water level fluctuation is excessive depending on Lake Roosevelt Reservoir levels 

3. Riparian area has not reached potential extent due to bare areas 

4. Roads above banks, development, boat moorage, nearby stream tributary upstream from site 

brings an influx of sediment and nutrients 

6. The natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are potentially altered by hoof action, dams, 

roads, boats and beaches 

8. Diverse age class distribution of vegetation not apparent, reed canarygrass dominates 

9. Site dominated in central area of the site by reed canarygrass, outskirts show other invasive 

species however distributed across the site 

10. It is difficult to determine due to the dominate presence of reed canarygrass and other fac-wet 

species. Obligate species do not dominate, this is why we indicated a no for this question. 

13. Vegetation is patchy, shoreline is mostly bare. 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk _____ Downward _____ 

Nonfunctional __X__ Not Apparent _____ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

1. Site experiences heavy wave action, water at shoreline suspended sediment 

2. Bluff upstream from site is undercut from wave action 

3. Tributary upstream shows excessive erosion at mouth and may highly contribute to 

sediment loading of the site 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___ De-watering ___ Mining activities ___ Watershed condition 

___ Dredging ___ Road encroachment ___ Land ownership 

_X_ Other (specify) Excessive fluctuation of water level, and human disturbances
130 

Lentic Standard Checklist – LARO Beach 5 

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: _LARO National Recreation Area_____________________

Date: _7/29/2008_Segment/Reach ID: LARO Beach 5_______Acres: _______________ 

ID Team Observers: _Hinson, Neumiller________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

 X 1) Riparian/wetland area is saturated at or near the surface or inundated in 

“relatively frequent” events 

 X 2) Fluctuation of water levels is not excessive 

 X 3) Riparian/wetland area is enlarging or has achieved potential extent 

 X 4) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

X 5) Water quality is sufficient to support riparian/wetland plants 

 X 6) Natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are not altered by disturbance 

(i.e., hoof action, dams, dikes, trails, roads, rills, gullies, drilling activities) 

X 7) Structure accommodates safe passage of flows (e.g., no headcut 

affecting dam or spillway) 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

X 8) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

 X 9) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

 X 10) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil moisture 

characteristics 

 X 11) Vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have 

root masses capable of withstanding wind events, wave flow events, or 

overland flows (e.g., storm events, snowmelt) 

 X 12) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

 X 13) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

shoreline/soil surface and dissipate energy during high wind and wave 

events or overland flows 

X 14) Frost or abnormal hydrologic heaving is not present 

 X 15) Favorable microsite condition (i.e., woody material, water temperature, 

etc.) is maintained by adjacent site characteristics 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 16) Accumulation of chemicals affecting plant productivity/composition is not 

apparent 

X 17) Saturation of soils (i.e., ponding, flooding frequency, and duration) is 

sufficient to compose and maintain hydric soils 

X 18) Underlying geologic structure/soil material/permafrost is capable of 

restricting water percolation 

X 19) Riparian/wetland is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied 

by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 

X 20) Islands and shoreline characteristics (i.e., rocks, coarse and/or large 

woody material) are adequate to dissipate wind and wave event energies 
131 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

2. Water level fluctuation is excessive depending on Lake Roosevelt Reservoir levels 

3. Riparian area has not reached potential extent due to bare areas 

4. Roads above banks, development, boat moorage, nearby stream tributary upstream from site 

brings an influx of sediment and nutrients. Slopes above site show excessive erosion 

6. The natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are potentially altered by hoof action, dams, 

roads, boats and beaches 

9. Site dominated by horsetail. Little diversity across the site. 

10. With the vegetation dominated by horsetail, the soil moisture characteristics do not appear to 

be maintained. Obligate species do not dominate, this is why we indicated a no for this question. 

13. Vegetation is patchy, shoreline is mostly bare. 

17. No hydric soils at the site 

18. Site appears to be deeply free draining, water table fluctuates easily with fluctuation of lake 

level 

19. Site appears to have more sediment supplied to the site at a faster rate than the riparian area 

can expand and be in balance with its surroundings 

20. Not enough rocks or large woody material to adequately dissipate wind and wave event 

energies 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk _____ Downward _____ 

Nonfunctional __X__ Not Apparent _____ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

4. Site experiences heavy wave action, water at shoreline suspended sediment 

5. Bluff above site from show signs of ongoing erosion 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___ De-watering ___ Mining activities ___ Watershed condition 

___ Dredging ___ Road encroachment ___ Land ownership 

_X_ Other (specify) Excessive fluctuation of water level, and human disturbances
132 

Lentic Standard Checklist – LARO Beach 6

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: _LARO National Recreation Area_____________________

Date: _7/29/2008_Segment/Reach ID: LARO Beach 6_______Acres: _______________ 

ID Team Observers: _Hinson, Neumiller________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

X 1) Riparian/wetland area is saturated at or near the surface or inundated in 

“relatively frequent” events 

 X 2) Fluctuation of water levels is not excessive 

 X 3) Riparian/wetland area is enlarging or has achieved potential extent 

 X 4) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

X 5) Water quality is sufficient to support riparian/wetland plants 

 X 6) Natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are not altered by disturbance 

(i.e., hoof action, dams, dikes, trails, roads, rills, gullies, drilling activities) 

X 7) Structure accommodates safe passage of flows (e.g., no headcut 

affecting dam or spillway) 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

X 8) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

 X 9) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

 X 10) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil moisture 

characteristics 

X 11) Vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have 

root masses capable of withstanding wind events, wave flow events, or 

overland flows (e.g., storm events, snowmelt) 

X 12) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

 X 13) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

shoreline/soil surface and dissipate energy during high wind and wave 

events or overland flows 

X 14) Frost or abnormal hydrologic heaving is not present 

 X 15) Favorable microsite condition (i.e., woody material, water temperature, 

etc.) is maintained by adjacent site characteristics 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 16) Accumulation of chemicals affecting plant productivity/composition is not 

apparent 

X 17) Saturation of soils (i.e., ponding, flooding frequency, and duration) is 

sufficient to compose and maintain hydric soils 

X 18) Underlying geologic structure/soil material/permafrost is capable of 

restricting water percolation 

X 19) Riparian/wetland is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied 

by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 

X 20) Islands and shoreline characteristics (i.e., rocks, coarse and/or large 

woody material) are adequate to dissipate wind and wave event energies 
133 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

2. Water level fluctuation is excessive depending on Lake Roosevelt Reservoir levels 

3. Riparian area has not reached potential extent due to bare areas and along shoreline 

4. Roads above banks, development, boat moorage. Slopes above site show excessive erosion 

6. The natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are potentially altered by hoof action, dams, 

roads, boats and beaches 

9. Site dominated by reed canarygrass, little to no diversity across the site. 

10. With the vegetation dominated by reed canarygrass and other fac-wet invasive species, the 

soil moisture characteristics do not appear to be maintained. Obligate species do not dominate, 

this is why we indicated a no for this question. 

13. Vegetation is patchy, shoreline is mostly bare. This large spacing allows for shoreline 

erosion. 

17. No ponding at the site due to the relatively free draining soils at the site. The water table 

drops sufficiently when the reservoir water level is lowered seasonally. 

18. Site appears to be free draining, water table fluctuates easily with fluctuation of lake level 

19. Site appears to have more sediment removed/eroded from the site at a faster rate than the 

riparian area can expand and protect the shoreline, and be in balance with its surroundings 

20. Not enough rocks or large woody material to adequately dissipate wind and wave event 

energies 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk _____ Downward _____ 

Nonfunctional __X__ Not Apparent _____ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

6. Site experiences heavy wave action 

7. Slopes above site from show signs of ongoing erosion 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___ De-watering ___ Mining activities ___ Watershed condition 

___ Dredging ___ Road encroachment ___ Land ownership 

_X_ Other (specify) Excessive fluctuation of water level, and human disturbances
134 

Lentic Standard Checklist – LARO Beach 7

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: _LARO National Recreation Area_____________________

Date: _7/29/2008_Segment/Reach ID: LARO Beach 7_______Acres: _______________ 

ID Team Observers: _Hinson, Neumiller________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

X 1) Riparian/wetland area is saturated at or near the surface or inundated in 

“relatively frequent” events 

 X 2) Fluctuation of water levels is not excessive 

X 3) Riparian/wetland area is enlarging or has achieved potential extent 

 X 4) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

X 5) Water quality is sufficient to support riparian/wetland plants 

 X 6) Natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are not altered by disturbance 

(i.e., hoof action, dams, dikes, trails, roads, rills, gullies, drilling activities) 

X 7) Structure accommodates safe passage of flows (e.g., no headcut 

affecting dam or spillway) 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

 X 8) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

 X 9) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

 X 10) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil moisture 

characteristics 

X 11) Vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have 

root masses capable of withstanding wind events, wave flow events, or 

overland flows (e.g., storm events, snowmelt) 

X 12) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

 X 13) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

shoreline/soil surface and dissipate energy during high wind and wave 

events or overland flows 

X 14) Frost or abnormal hydrologic heaving is not present 

 X 15) Favorable microsite condition (i.e., woody material, water temperature, 

etc.) is maintained by adjacent site characteristics 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 16) Accumulation of chemicals affecting plant productivity/composition is not 

apparent 

X 17) Saturation of soils (i.e., ponding, flooding frequency, and duration) is 

sufficient to compose and maintain hydric soils 

X 18) Underlying geologic structure/soil material/permafrost is capable of 

restricting water percolation 

X 19) Riparian/wetland is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied 

by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 

X 20) Islands and shoreline characteristics (i.e., rocks, coarse and/or large 

woody material) are adequate to dissipate wind and wave event energies 
135 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

2. Water level fluctuation is excessive depending on Lake Roosevelt Reservoir levels 

3. Riparian area has not reached potential extent due to bare areas and along shoreline, the slope 

of the shoreline prevents wetland vegetation from expanding to these steeper areas 

4. Slopes, Roads above banks, development, boat moorage. Slopes above site show excessive 

erosion 

6. The natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are potentially altered by hoof action, dams, 

roads, boats and beaches 

8. Little age-class distribution across the site vegetation dominated by reed canarygrass 

9. Site dominated by reed canarygrass, little to no diversity across the site. 

10. With the vegetation dominated by reed canarygrass and other fac-wet invasive species, the 

soil moisture characteristics do not appear to be maintained. Obligate species do not dominate, 

this is why we indicated a no for this question. 

13. Vegetation is patchy, shoreline is mostly bare. This large spacing allows for shoreline 

erosion. 

19. Site appears to have more sediment removed/eroded from the site at a faster rate than the 

riparian area can expand and protect the shoreline, and be in balance with its surroundings 

20. Not enough rocks or large woody material to adequately dissipate wind and wave event 

energies 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk _____ Downward _____ 

Nonfunctional __X__ Not Apparent _____ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

8. Site experiences heavy wave action 

9. Slopes along shoreline at the site show signs of ongoing erosion 

10. The site is underlain by hardpan/clay which maintains soils moisture characteristics 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___ De-watering ___ Mining activities ___ Watershed condition 

___ Dredging ___ Road encroachment ___ Land ownership 

_X_ Other (specify) Excessive fluctuation of water level, and human disturbances
136 

Lentic Standard Checklist – LARO Beach 8

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: _LARO National Recreation Area_____________________

Date: _7/29/2008_Segment/Reach ID: LARO Beach 8_______Acres: _______________ 

ID Team Observers: _Hinson, Neumiller________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

X 1) Riparian/wetland area is saturated at or near the surface or inundated in 

“relatively frequent” events 

 X 2) Fluctuation of water levels is not excessive 

 X 3) Riparian/wetland area is enlarging or has achieved potential extent 

 X 4) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

 X 5) Water quality is sufficient to support riparian/wetland plants 

 X 6) Natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are not altered by disturbance 

(i.e., hoof action, dams, dikes, trails, roads, rills, gullies, drilling activities) 

X 7) Structure accommodates safe passage of flows (e.g., no headcut 

affecting dam or spillway) 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

 X 8) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

 X 9) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

 X 10) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil moisture 

characteristics 

X 11) Vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have 

root masses capable of withstanding wind events, wave flow events, or 

overland flows (e.g., storm events, snowmelt) 

 X 12) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

 X 13) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

shoreline/soil surface and dissipate energy during high wind and wave 

events or overland flows 

X 14) Frost or abnormal hydrologic heaving is not present 

 X 15) Favorable microsite condition (i.e., woody material, water temperature, 

etc.) is maintained by adjacent site characteristics 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 16) Accumulation of chemicals affecting plant productivity/composition is not 

apparent 

X 17) Saturation of soils (i.e., ponding, flooding frequency, and duration) is 

sufficient to compose and maintain hydric soils 

 X 18) Underlying geologic structure/soil material/permafrost is capable of 

restricting water percolation 

X 19) Riparian/wetland is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied 

by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 

X 20) Islands and shoreline characteristics (i.e., rocks, coarse and/or large 

woody material) are adequate to dissipate wind and wave event energies 
137 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

2. Water level fluctuation is excessive depending on Lake Roosevelt Reservoir levels 

3. Riparian area has not reached potential extent due to bare areas and along shoreline, the slope 

of the shoreline prevents wetland vegetation from expanding to these steeper areas 

4. Slopes, Roads above banks, boat moorage. Slopes above site show excessive erosion with 

minor erosion on-site with gullies from storm runoff 

5. The site is in a natural bay which is stagnant water 

6. The natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are potentially altered by hoof action, dams, 

roads, boats and beaches 

8. Little age-class distribution across the site vegetation dominated by reed canarygrass 

9. Site dominated by reed canarygrass, little to no diversity across the site. 

10. With the vegetation dominated by reed canarygrass and other fac-wet invasive species, the 

soil moisture characteristics do not appear to be maintained. Obligate species do not dominate, 

this is why we indicated a no for this question. 

12. Vegetation in water are wilting showing low vigor 

13. Vegetation is patchy, shoreline is mostly bare. This large spacing allows for shoreline 

erosion. 

17. Soil appears relatively free draining, no evidence of ponding after flooding. Frequent rising 

and lowering of water table causes little maintenance of hydric soils 

20. Not enough rocks or large woody material to adequately dissipate wind and wave event 

energies 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk _____ Downward _____ 

Nonfunctional __X__ Not Apparent _____ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

11. Slopes along shoreline at the site show signs of ongoing erosion 

12. The site is underlain by relatively free draining soils which doesn’t allow ponding for 

additional habitat for a quiet water environment 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___ De-watering ___ Mining activities ___ Watershed condition 

___ Dredging ___ Road encroachment ___ Land ownership 

_X_ Other (specify) Excessive fluctuation of water level, and human disturbances
138 

Lentic Standard Checklist – LARO Beach 9

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: _LARO National Recreation Area_____________________

Date: _7/29/2008_Segment/Reach ID: LARO Beach 9_______Acres: _______________ 

ID Team Observers: _Hinson, Neumiller________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

X 1) Riparian/wetland area is saturated at or near the surface or inundated in 

“relatively frequent” events 

X 2) Fluctuation of water levels is not excessive 

X 3) Riparian/wetland area is enlarging or has achieved potential extent 

X 4) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

X 5) Water quality is sufficient to support riparian/wetland plants 

 X 6) Natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are not altered by disturbance 

(i.e., hoof action, dams, dikes, trails, roads, rills, gullies, drilling activities) 

X 7) Structure accommodates safe passage of flows (e.g., no headcut 

affecting dam or spillway) 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

X 8) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

X 9) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

X 10) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil moisture 

characteristics 

X 11) Vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have 

root masses capable of withstanding wind events, wave flow events, or 

overland flows (e.g., storm events, snowmelt) 

 X 12) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

X 13) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

shoreline/soil surface and dissipate energy during high wind and wave 

events or overland flows 

X 14) Frost or abnormal hydrologic heaving is not present 

 X 15) Favorable microsite condition (i.e., woody material, water temperature, 

etc.) is maintained by adjacent site characteristics 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 16) Accumulation of chemicals affecting plant productivity/composition is not 

apparent 

X 17) Saturation of soils (i.e., ponding, flooding frequency, and duration) is 

sufficient to compose and maintain hydric soils 

X 18) Underlying geologic structure/soil material/permafrost is capable of 

restricting water percolation 

X 19) Riparian/wetland is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied 

by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 

X 20) Islands and shoreline characteristics (i.e., rocks, coarse and/or large 

woody material) are adequate to dissipate wind and wave event energies 
139 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

2. Water level fluctuation is excessive depending on Lake Roosevelt Reservoir levels 

6. The natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are potentially altered by hoof action, dams, 

roads, boats and beaches 

10. With the vegetation dominated by reed canarygrass and other fac-wet invasive species, the 

soil moisture characteristics do not appear to be maintained. Obligate species do not dominate, 

this is why we indicated a no for this question. 

12. Willows have extensive dead material (low water table) and grasses are short and stumpy 

17. Soil appears relatively free draining, no evidence of ponding after flooding. Frequent rising 

and lowering of water table causes little maintenance of hydric soils 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk __X__ Downward _X__

Nonfunctional _____ Not Apparent _____ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

13. Slopes along shoreline at the site show signs of ongoing erosion 

14. The site is underlain by relatively free draining soils which doesn’t allow ponding for 

additional habitat for a quiet water environment 

15. Downward trend due to lack of vigor, high fluctuation of water table 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___ De-watering ___ Mining activities ___ Watershed condition 

___ Dredging ___ Road encroachment _X_ Land ownership 

_X_ Other (specify) Excessive fluctuation of water level, and human disturbances
140 

Lentic Standard Checklist – LARO Beach 10

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: _LARO National Recreation Area_____________________

Date: _7/29/2008_Segment/Reach ID: LARO Beach 10_______Acres: _______________ 

ID Team Observers: _Hinson, Neumiller________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

X 1) Riparian/wetland area is saturated at or near the surface or inundated in 

“relatively frequent” events 

X 2) Fluctuation of water levels is not excessive 

X 3) Riparian/wetland area is enlarging or has achieved potential extent 

 X 4) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

X 5) Water quality is sufficient to support riparian/wetland plants 

 X 6) Natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are not altered by disturbance 

(i.e., hoof action, dams, dikes, trails, roads, rills, gullies, drilling activities) 

X 7) Structure accommodates safe passage of flows (e.g., no headcut 

affecting dam or spillway) 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

X 8) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

X 9) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

X 10) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil moisture 

characteristics 

X 11) Vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have 

root masses capable of withstanding wind events, wave flow events, or 

overland flows (e.g., storm events, snowmelt) 

X 12) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

X 13) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

shoreline/soil surface and dissipate energy during high wind and wave 

events or overland flows 

X 14) Frost or abnormal hydrologic heaving is not present 

 X 15) Favorable microsite condition (i.e., woody material, water temperature, 

etc.) is maintained by adjacent site characteristics 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 16) Accumulation of chemicals affecting plant productivity/composition is not 

apparent 

X 17) Saturation of soils (i.e., ponding, flooding frequency, and duration) is 

sufficient to compose and maintain hydric soils 

X 18) Underlying geologic structure/soil material/permafrost is capable of 

restricting water percolation 

X 19) Riparian/wetland is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied 

by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 

X 20) Islands and shoreline characteristics (i.e., rocks, coarse and/or large 

woody material) are adequate to dissipate wind and wave event energies 
141 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

2. 5-6 foot green belt maintains groundwater level fluctuations at the site and do not appear to 

affect the longevity of this area during Lake Roosevelt Reservoir drawdown 

3. Riparian areas potential is limited by nearby slope 

4. Near by tributary upstream of site is feeding sediment and nutrients to site. 

6. The natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are potentially altered by hoof action, dams, 

roads, boats and beaches 

19. Site appears to have more sediment being supplied from the site at a faster rate than the 

riparian area can expand and protect the shoreline, and be in balance with its surroundings 

20. Not enough rocks or large woody material to adequately dissipate wind and wave event 

energies 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk __X__ Downward _X__

Nonfunctional _____ Not Apparent ____ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

16. Slopes along shoreline at the site limit the expansion of the riparian area 

17. Nearby tributary supplying excess sediment to site 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___ De-watering ___ Mining activities _X_ Watershed condition 

___ Dredging ___ Road encroachment _X_ Land ownership 

_X_ Other (specify) Excessive fluctuation of water level, and human disturbances
142 

Lentic Standard Checklist – Spokane Lentic 2

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: _LARO National Recreation Area________________

Date: _7/30/2008_Segment/Reach ID: _Spokane Lentic 2____Acres: _______________ 

ID Team Observers: _Hinson, Neumiller________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

X 1) Riparian/wetland area is saturated at or near the surface or inundated in 

“relatively frequent” events 

 X 2) Fluctuation of water levels is not excessive 

X 3) Riparian/wetland area is enlarging or has achieved potential extent 

X 4) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

X 5) Water quality is sufficient to support riparian/wetland plants 

 X 6) Natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are not altered by disturbance 

(i.e., hoof action, dams, dikes, trails, roads, rills, gullies, drilling activities) 

X 7) Structure accommodates safe passage of flows (e.g., no headcut 

affecting dam or spillway) 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

X 8) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

X 9) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

X 10) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil moisture 

characteristics 

X 11) Vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have 

root masses capable of withstanding wind events, wave flow events, or 

overland flows (e.g., storm events, snowmelt) 

X 12) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

 X 13) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

shoreline/soil surface and dissipate energy during high wind and wave 

events or overland flows 

X 14) Frost or abnormal hydrologic heaving is not present 

 X 15) Favorable microsite condition (i.e., woody material, water temperature, 

etc.) is maintained by adjacent site characteristics 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 16) Accumulation of chemicals affecting plant productivity/composition is not 

apparent 

X 17) Saturation of soils (i.e., ponding, flooding frequency, and duration) is 

sufficient to compose and maintain hydric soils 

X 18) Underlying geologic structure/soil material/permafrost is capable of 

restricting water percolation 

X 19) Riparian/wetland is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied 

by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 

X 20) Islands and shoreline characteristics (i.e., rocks, coarse and/or large 

woody material) are adequate to dissipate wind and wave event energies 
143 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

6. The natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are potentially altered by hoof action, dams, 

roads, and boats 

13. There is not adequate vegetative cover along the shoreline to dissipate energy during high 

wind and wave events, much of the beaches are bare 

17. Difficult to determine, however it seems like the vegetation is dominated by hydric soil 

conditions 

20. No adequate large woody debris present to dissipate wind and wave event energies. 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk __X__ Downward _____ 

Nonfunctional _____ Not Apparent _X___ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

1. It is difficult to determine if cattails are spreading to upland areas or if upland vegetation are 

encroaching on the riparian habitat 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___ De-watering ___ Mining activities ___ Watershed condition 

___ Dredging ___ Road encroachment _X_ Land ownership 

_X_ Other (specify) Excessive fluctuation of water level, and human disturbances
144 

Lentic Standard Checklist – Spokane Lentic 3

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: _LARO National Recreation Area_________________

Date: _7/30/2008_Segment/Reach ID: _Spokane Lentic 3____Acres: _______________ 

ID Team Observers: _Hinson, Neumiller________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

X 1) Riparian/wetland area is saturated at or near the surface or inundated in 

“relatively frequent” events 

 X 2) Fluctuation of water levels is not excessive 

X 3) Riparian/wetland area is enlarging or has achieved potential extent 

X 4) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

X 5) Water quality is sufficient to support riparian/wetland plants 

 X 6) Natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are not altered by disturbance 

(i.e., hoof action, dams, dikes, trails, roads, rills, gullies, drilling activities) 

X 7) Structure accommodates safe passage of flows (e.g., no headcut 

affecting dam or spillway) 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

X 8) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

X 9) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

X 10) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil moisture 

characteristics 

X 11) Vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have 

root masses capable of withstanding wind events, wave flow events, or 

overland flows (e.g., storm events, snowmelt) 

X 12) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

 X 13) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

shoreline/soil surface and dissipate energy during high wind and wave 

events or overland flows 

X 14) Frost or abnormal hydrologic heaving is not present 

 X 15) Favorable microsite condition (i.e., woody material, water temperature, 

etc.) is maintained by adjacent site characteristics 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 16) Accumulation of chemicals affecting plant productivity/composition is not 

apparent 

X 17) Saturation of soils (i.e., ponding, flooding frequency, and duration) is 

sufficient to compose and maintain hydric soils 

X 18) Underlying geologic structure/soil material/permafrost is capable of 

restricting water percolation 

X 19) Riparian/wetland is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied 

by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 

X 20) Islands and shoreline characteristics (i.e., rocks, coarse and/or large 

woody material) are adequate to dissipate wind and wave event energies 
145 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

6. The natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are potentially altered by hoof action, dams, 

roads, and boats 

10. Cattails present which indicate maintenance of soil moisture characteristics. 

13. There is not adequate vegetative cover along the shoreline to dissipate energy during high 

wind and wave events, large spaces between vegetation groupings, portions of site good but may 

not handle high flow events if the rest of the site disappears 

20. No adequate large woody debris present to dissipate wind and wave event energies. 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk __X__ Downward _____ 

Nonfunctional _____ Not Apparent _X___ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

1. It is difficult to determine if cattails are spreading to upland areas or if upland vegetation 

are encroaching on the riparian habitat 

2. Subsurface soil consists of silt and clay 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___ De-watering ___ Mining activities ___ Watershed condition 

___ Dredging ___ Road encroachment ___ Land ownership 

_X_ Other (specify) Excessive fluctuation of water level, and human disturbances
146 

Lentic Standard Checklist – Spokane Lentic 4

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: _LARO National Recreation Area____________________

Date: _7/30/2008_Segment/Reach ID: _Spokane Lentic 4____Acres: _______________ 

ID Team Observers: _Hinson, Neumiller________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

X 1) Riparian/wetland area is saturated at or near the surface or inundated in 

“relatively frequent” events 

 X 2) Fluctuation of water levels is not excessive 

 X 3) Riparian/wetland area is enlarging or has achieved potential extent 

X 4) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

X 5) Water quality is sufficient to support riparian/wetland plants 

 X 6) Natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are not altered by disturbance 

(i.e., hoof action, dams, dikes, trails, roads, rills, gullies, drilling activities) 

X 7) Structure accommodates safe passage of flows (e.g., no headcut 

affecting dam or spillway) 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

X 8) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

 X 9) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

 X 10) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil moisture 

characteristics 

X 11) Vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have 

root masses capable of withstanding wind events, wave flow events, or 

overland flows (e.g., storm events, snowmelt) 

X 12) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

 X 13) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

shoreline/soil surface and dissipate energy during high wind and wave 

events or overland flows 

X 14) Frost or abnormal hydrologic heaving is not present 

 X 15) Favorable microsite condition (i.e., woody material, water temperature, 

etc.) is maintained by adjacent site characteristics 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 16) Accumulation of chemicals affecting plant productivity/composition is not 

apparent 

X 17) Saturation of soils (i.e., ponding, flooding frequency, and duration) is 

sufficient to compose and maintain hydric soils 

X 18) Underlying geologic structure/soil material/permafrost is capable of 

restricting water percolation 

X 19) Riparian/wetland is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied 

by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 

X 20) Islands and shoreline characteristics (i.e., rocks, coarse and/or large 

woody material) are adequate to dissipate wind and wave event energies 
147 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

2. Water level fluctuation is excessive due to Lake Roosevelt Reservoir controlled levels and 

outflow. 

3. Riparian area has room for expansion 

6. The natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are potentially altered by hoof action, dams, 

roads, and boats 

7. Though not impacting safe passage of flows, the bay appears to be head-cutting 

9. There is little diversity of riparian vegetation. The dominant species is reed canarygrass 

10. Reed canarygrass does not indicate maintenance of soil moisture characteristics. 

13. There is not adequate vegetative cover along the shoreline to dissipate energy during high 

wind and wave events, much of the shoreline beaches are bare 

20. No adequate large woody debris present to dissipate wind and wave event energies. 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk _____ Downward _____ 

Nonfunctional __X_ Not Apparent ____ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

3. Stagnant water in bay, poor visibility 

4. Room for improvement with high potential to add species diversity 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___ De-watering ___ Mining activities ___ Watershed condition 

___ Dredging ___ Road encroachment ___ Land ownership 

_X_ Other (specify) Excessive fluctuation of water level, and human disturbances
148 

Lotic Standard Checklist – Columbia Lotic 

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: LARO National Recreation Area______________________

Date: 8/12/2008 Segment/Reach ID: Columbia Lotic________________Acres: ___________ 

ID Team Observers: Ladd, Neumiller______________________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

 X 1) Floodplain above bankfull is inundated in “relatively frequent” events 

 X 2) Where beaver dams are present they are active and stable 

X 3) Sinuosity, width/depth ratio, and gradient are in balance with the 

landscape setting (i.e., landform, geology, and bioclimatic region) 

X 4) Riparian/wetland area is widening or has achieved potential extent 

X 5) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

X 6) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

X 7) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

 X 8) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil 

moisture characteristics 

X 9) Streambank vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant 

communities that have root masses capable of withstanding high 

streamflow events 

 X 10) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

 X 11) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

banks and dissipate energy during high flows 

 X 12) Plant communities are an adequate source of coarse and/or large 

woody material (for maintenance/recovery) 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 13) Floodplain and channel characteristics (i.e., rocks, overflow 

channels, coarse and/or large woody material) are adequate to dissipate 

energy 

 X 14) Point bars are revegetating with riparian/wetland vegetation 

X 15) Lateral stream movement is associated with natural sinuosity 

X 16) System is vertically stable 

X 17) Stream is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied by 

the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 
149 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

1. No indication of floodplain connection due to bedrock and cobble banks. 

8. Vegetation is absent in places due to cobbles and mostly dominated by upland species. 

This is due to bedrock and cobble-boulder lined banks. 

10. Many plants rooted in very rocky substrate and do not appear vigorous. 

11. Vegetation sparse along stream banks, protective cover not adequate to dissipate high 

energy events. 

12. No large woody debris present on banks. Upland woody debris potential source but up 

slope from riparian area. 

14. Point bars are unstable and highly erosive with minimal vegetation coverage. Vegetation 

present will not withstand high flow events therefore revegetation is not occurring. 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition ___ __ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk _____ Downward _____ 

Nonfunctional __X__ Not Apparent _____ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

1. Limiting factors outside of management control have altered this system (i.e., railroad) and 

there are no options available to management to improve this system. 

2. Steep bedrock site. 

3. Railroad and road encroachment limits riparian potential. 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

_X_Flow regulations ___ Mining activities _X_ Upstream channel conditions 

_ X _ Channelization _X_ Road encroachment ___ Oil field water discharge 

___ Augmented flows _X__ Other (specify)_Agriculture, forestry (Logging), railroad
150 

Lentic Standard Checklist – Columbia Lentic

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: _LARO National Recreation Area_________________

Date: _8/12/2008_Segment/Reach ID: _Columbia Lentic ____Acres: _______________ 

ID Team Observers: _Ladd, Neumiller________________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

X 1) Riparian/wetland area is saturated at or near the surface or inundated in 

“relatively frequent” events 

 X 2) Fluctuation of water levels is not excessive 

X 3) Riparian/wetland area is enlarging or has achieved potential extent 

X 4) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

X 5) Water quality is sufficient to support riparian/wetland plants 

 X 6) Natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are not altered by disturbance 

(i.e., hoof action, dams, dikes, trails, roads, rills, gullies, drilling activities) 

X 7) Structure accommodates safe passage of flows (e.g., no headcut 

affecting dam or spillway) 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

 X 8) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

X 9) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

X 10) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil moisture 

characteristics 

X 11) Vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have 

root masses capable of withstanding wind events, wave flow events, or 

overland flows (e.g., storm events, snowmelt) 

 X 12) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

X 13) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

shoreline/soil surface and dissipate energy during high wind and wave 

events or overland flows 

X 14) Frost or abnormal hydrologic heaving is not present 

 X 15) Favorable microsite condition (i.e., woody material, water temperature, 

etc.) is maintained by adjacent site characteristics 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 16) Accumulation of chemicals affecting plant productivity/composition is not 

apparent 

X 17) Saturation of soils (i.e., ponding, flooding frequency, and duration) is 

sufficient to compose and maintain hydric soils 

X 18) Underlying geologic structure/soil material/permafrost is capable of 

restricting water percolation 

X 19) Riparian/wetland is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied 

by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 

X 20) Islands and shoreline characteristics (i.e., rocks, coarse and/or large 

woody material) are adequate to dissipate wind and wave event energies 
151 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

2. Water level fluctuation is excessive due to Lake Roosevelt Reservoir controlled levels and 

outflow 

6. The natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are potentially altered by hoof action, dams, 

roads, development, and boats 

8. Little age class distribution of vegetation, most very young likely due to the fluctuation of 

water level, underwater part of the year and exposed other part of the year. No signs of dying 

species, however dominated reed canarygrass 

10. Obligate vegetation not present, likely indicating that the groundwater fluctuates and is too 

dry for soil moisture maintenance for part of the year 

12. Small near-shore plants are dying, areas of shoreline brown, signs of fluctuating watertable 

20. No adequate large woody debris present to dissipate wind and wave event energies. 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk _____ Downward _____ 

Nonfunctional __X__ Not Apparent ____ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

1. Site is near public boat launch which impacts sediment transport and activity at the site. 

2. Site is dominated by reed canarygrass, little large woody debris 

3. vegetation consists of small shrubs 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___ De-watering ___ Mining activities ___ Watershed condition 

___ Dredging _X_ Road encroachment _X_ Land ownership 

_X_ Other (specify) Excessive fluctuation of water level, and human disturbances
152 

Lotic Standard Checklist – Kettle Lotic

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: LARO National Recreation Area_______________________

Date: 8/13/2008 Segment/Reach ID: Kettle Lotic___ ____________Acres: _______________ 

ID Team Observers: Ladd, Neumiller______________________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

X 1) Floodplain above bankfull is inundated in “relatively frequent” events 

 X 2) Where beaver dams are present they are active and stable 

X 3) Sinuosity, width/depth ratio, and gradient are in balance with the 

landscape setting (i.e., landform, geology, and bioclimatic region) 

 X 4) Riparian/wetland area is widening or has achieved potential extent 

 X 5) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

 X 6) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

X 7) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

X 8) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil 

moisture characteristics 

X 9) Streambank vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant 

communities that have root masses capable of withstanding high 

streamflow events 

X 10) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

 X 11) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

banks and dissipate energy during high flows 

 X 12) Plant communities are an adequate source of coarse and/or large 

woody material (for maintenance/recovery) 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 13) Floodplain and channel characteristics (i.e., rocks, overflow 

channels, coarse and/or large woody material) are adequate to dissipate 

energy 

X 14) Point bars are revegetating with riparian/wetland vegetation 

X 15) Lateral stream movement is associated with natural sinuosity 

X 16) System is vertically stable 

X 17) Stream is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied by 

the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 
153 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

4. Riparian area has not reached its potential extent, there are many bare areas and 

vegetation is young 

5. A nearby tributary, flowing through a horse pasture, up stream is feeding sediment into 

the site. 

6. Little age-class distribution on banks in riparian zone, very young. 

11. Vegetative cover is patchy and clumped. Likely not enough to dissipate high flow events. 

12. No large woody debris present on banks. Upland woody debris potential source but up 

slope from riparian area. 

 Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward __X___ 

Functional – At Risk __X__ Downward _____ 

Nonfunctional _____ Not Apparent _____ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

1. Areas of vegetation are patchy, clumping in groups. May have a chance to fill out, high flow 

events seem common. 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___Flow regulations ___ Mining activities ___ Upstream channel conditions 

__ Channelization _X_ Road encroachment ___ Oil field water discharge 

___ Augmented flows _X__ Other (specify)_Agriculture, forestry (Logging) railroad
154 

Lentic Standard Checklist – Kettle Lentic

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: _LARO National Recreation Area_________________

Date: _8/13/2008_Segment/Reach ID: _Kettle Lentic_______Acres: _________________ 

ID Team Observers: _Ladd, Neumiller_________________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

X 1) Riparian/wetland area is saturated at or near the surface or inundated in 

“relatively frequent” events 

 X 2) Fluctuation of water levels is not excessive 

 X 3) Riparian/wetland area is enlarging or has achieved potential extent 

X 4) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

X 5) Water quality is sufficient to support riparian/wetland plants 

 X 6) Natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are not altered by disturbance 

(i.e., hoof action, dams, dikes, trails, roads, rills, gullies, drilling activities) 

X 7) Structure accommodates safe passage of flows (e.g., no headcut 

affecting dam or spillway) 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

X 8) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

 X 9) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

 X 10) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil moisture 

characteristics 

X 11) Vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have 

root masses capable of withstanding wind events, wave flow events, or 

overland flows (e.g., storm events, snowmelt) 

X 12) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

X 13) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

shoreline/soil surface and dissipate energy during high wind and wave 

events or overland flows 

X 14) Frost or abnormal hydrologic heaving is not present 

 X 15) Favorable microsite condition (i.e., woody material, water temperature, 

etc.) is maintained by adjacent site characteristics 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 16) Accumulation of chemicals affecting plant productivity/composition is not 

apparent 

X 17) Saturation of soils (i.e., ponding, flooding frequency, and duration) is 

sufficient to compose and maintain hydric soils 

X 18) Underlying geologic structure/soil material/permafrost is capable of 

restricting water percolation 

X 19) Riparian/wetland is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied 

by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 

X 20) Islands and shoreline characteristics (i.e., rocks, coarse and/or large 

woody material) are adequate to dissipate wind and wave event energies 
155 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

2. Water level fluctuation is excessive depending on Lake Roosevelt Reservoir levels 

3. The riparian area is enlarging because of the water level fluctuation, however it appears to 

have reached is potential extent because where the water level fluctuates there is brown 

vegetation which does not thrive under water for part of the year and comeback when the water 

level is lower. 

6. The natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are potentially altered by hoof action, dams, 

roads, boats and beaches 

9. There is little diversity of riparian vegetation. The dominant species is reed canarygrass 

10. There is not a dominate presence of vegetation that indicates maintenance of riparian soil 

moisture characteristics. 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk __X__ Downward __X _

Nonfunctional _____ Not Apparent __ __

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

8. Little large woody debris, however upland is a potential source 

9. Unable to determine whether riparian area is expanding or degrading due to the dominate 

vegetation consisting of reed canarygrass 

10. Reed canarygrass is providing function but the riparian area will never function as it can 

unless vegetation diversity is increased at this site 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___ De-watering ___ Mining activities ___ Watershed condition 

___ Dredging _X_ Road encroachment _X_ Land ownership 

_X_ Other (specify) Excessive fluctuation of water level, and human disturbances
156 

Lotic Standard Checklist – Spokane Lotic

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: _LARO National Recreation Area____________________

Date: _8/11/08_Segment/Reach ID: _Spokane Lotic____________Acres: _______________ 

ID Team Observers: __Ladd, Neumiller__________________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

 X 1) Floodplain above bankfull is inundated in “relatively frequent” events 

 X 2) Where beaver dams are present they are active and stable 

 X 3) Sinuosity, width/depth ratio, and gradient are in balance with the 

landscape setting (i.e., landform, geology, and bioclimatic region) 

 X 4) Riparian/wetland area is widening or has achieved potential extent 

 X 5) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

 X 6) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

 X 7) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation for 

maintenance/recovery) 

 X 8) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil 

moisture characteristics 

 X 9) Streambank vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant 

communities that have root masses capable of withstanding high 

streamflow events 

 X 10) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

 X 11) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

banks and dissipate energy during high flows 

 X 12) Plant communities are an adequate source of coarse and/or large 

woody material (for maintenance/recovery) 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

 X 13) Floodplain and channel characteristics (i.e., rocks, overflow 

channels, coarse and/or large woody material) are adequate to dissipate 

energy 

 X 14) Point bars are revegetating with riparian/wetland vegetation 

 X 15) Lateral stream movement is associated with natural sinuosity 

 X 16) System is vertically stable 

 X 17) Stream is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied by 

the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 
157 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

1. Dam just upstream limits typical flow fluctuations 

5. Roads and houses present as well as dam just upstream 

6. Young willows and grasses present but not much mature vegetation 

7. Limited vegetation diversity 

11. Mostly young plants with many bare areas susceptible to high flows 

12. Few mature woody vegetation capable of providing source of LWD 

13. No floodplain present due to steep V channel; rip rap will help dissipate energy but is not 

adequate alone 

15. Natural landform limits sinuosity 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk _____ Downward _____ 

Nonfunctional __X__ Not Apparent _____ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

1. Presence of dam just upstream alters typical flows and is outside of the managers control 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

__X_Flow regulations ___ Mining activities _X_ Upstream channel conditions 

__X_ Channelization __X_ Road encroachment ___ Oil field water discharge 

___ Augmented flows _X__Other (specify)_rip-rap shoreline; human development
158 

Lentic Standard Checklist – Spokane Lentic 1

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: _LARO National Recreation Area________________

Date: _7/30/2008_Segment/Reach ID: _Spokane Lentic 1____Acres: _______________ 

ID Team Observers: _Hinson, Neumiller______________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

X 1) Riparian/wetland area is saturated at or near the surface or inundated in 

“relatively frequent” events 

 X 2) Fluctuation of water levels is not excessive 

X 3) Riparian/wetland area is enlarging or has achieved potential extent 

 X 4) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

X 5) Water quality is sufficient to support riparian/wetland plants 

 X 6) Natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are not altered by disturbance 

(i.e., hoof action, dams, dikes, trails, roads, rills, gullies, drilling activities) 

X 7) Structure accommodates safe passage of flows (e.g., no headcut 

affecting dam or spillway) 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

X 8) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

X 9) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

X 10) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil moisture 

characteristics 

X 11) Vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have 

root masses capable of withstanding wind events, wave flow events, or 

overland flows (e.g., storm events, snowmelt) 

X 12) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

X 13) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

shoreline/soil surface and dissipate energy during high wind and wave 

events or overland flows 

X 14) Frost or abnormal hydrologic heaving is not present 

 X 15) Favorable microsite condition (i.e., woody material, water temperature, 

etc.) is maintained by adjacent site characteristics 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 16) Accumulation of chemicals affecting plant productivity/composition is not 

apparent 

X 17) Saturation of soils (i.e., ponding, flooding frequency, and duration) is 

sufficient to compose and maintain hydric soils 

X 18) Underlying geologic structure/soil material/permafrost is capable of 

restricting water percolation 

X 19) Riparian/wetland is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied 

by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 

X 20) Islands and shoreline characteristics (i.e., rocks, coarse and/or large 

woody material) are adequate to dissipate wind and wave event energies 
159 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

2. Water level fluctuation is excessive due to Lake Roosevelt Reservoir controlled levels and 

outflow. 

4. Near by tributary is transporting a log of fines and nutrients causing some algal mag 

development 

6. The natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are potentially altered by hoof action, dams, 

roads, development, and boats 

16. There is apparent nutrient loading causing the increasing algae growth 

19. Excessive deposition of sediment from the nearby tributary is occurring as well as excessive 

erosion due at mouth of tributary 

20. No adequate large woody debris present to dissipate wind and wave event energies. 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk __X__ Downward _____ 

Nonfunctional ____ Not Apparent __X__ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

5. This site is impacted greatly by the influx of sediment from the nearby tributary as well 

as by the increasing nearby development 

6. May be signs of downward trend in the future 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___ De-watering ___ Mining activities _X_ Watershed condition 

___ Dredging _X_ Road encroachment _X_ Land ownership 

_X_ Other (specify) Excessive fluctuation of water level, and human disturbances
160 

Lentic Standard Checklist – Ricky Point Lentic

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: _LARO National Recreation Area_____________________

Date: _8/14/2008_Segment/Reach ID: Ricky Point Lentic _____Acres: _______________ 

ID Team Observers: _Ladd, Neumiller____________________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

X 1) Riparian/wetland area is saturated at or near the surface or inundated in 

“relatively frequent” events 

 X 2) Fluctuation of water levels is not excessive 

 X 3) Riparian/wetland area is enlarging or has achieved potential extent 

 X 4) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

X 5) Water quality is sufficient to support riparian/wetland plants 

 X 6) Natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are not altered by disturbance 

(i.e., hoof action, dams, dikes, trails, roads, rills, gullies, drilling activities) 

 X 7) Structure accommodates safe passage of flows (e.g., no headcut 

affecting dam or spillway) 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

X 8) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

 X 9) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

X 10) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil moisture 

characteristics 

 X 11) Vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have 

root masses capable of withstanding wind events, wave flow events, or 

overland flows (e.g., storm events, snowmelt) 

 X 12) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

 X 13) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

shoreline/soil surface and dissipate energy during high wind and wave 

events or overland flows 

X 14) Frost or abnormal hydrologic heaving is not present 

 X 15) Favorable microsite condition (i.e., woody material, water temperature, 

etc.) is maintained by adjacent site characteristics 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 16) Accumulation of chemicals affecting plant productivity/composition is not 

apparent 

X 17) Saturation of soils (i.e., ponding, flooding frequency, and duration) is 

sufficient to compose and maintain hydric soils 

X 18) Underlying geologic structure/soil material/permafrost is capable of 

restricting water percolation 

X 19) Riparian/wetland is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied 

by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 

X 20) Islands and shoreline characteristics (i.e., rocks, coarse and/or large 

woody material) are adequate to dissipate wind and wave event energies 
161 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

2. Water level fluctuation is excessive depending on Lake Roosevelt Reservoir levels 

3. Riparian area has not reached potential extent due to bare areas and along shoreline, the slope 

and seawall prevents wetland vegetation from expanding to these steeper areas 

4. Slopes, Roads above banks, development, boat moorage. 

6. The natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are potentially altered by hoof action, dams, 

roads, boats and beaches 

7. fluctuation of water level creates dam at spill way from historical dredged bay area. Also 

deposition of long shore drift and wave action on the point is blocking access of water into some 

riparian zones. 

9. Site dominated by a small shrub species and reed canarygrass, little to no diversity across the 

site. 

11) Vegetation along shoreline is sparse and does not include root masses capable of 

withstanding excessive wave action and overland flows. 

12. Vegetation is sparse and not showing much life and expansion. Willows seem to show high 

vigor, however very sparse and clumped in communities 

13. Vegetation is patchy, shoreline is mostly bare. This large spacing allows for shoreline 

erosion, approximately 15% coverage across shoreline. 

17. Groundwater fluctuation appears to be consistent with the reservoir water fluctuations. 

Shoreline relatively free draining, no evidence of ponding even in man-made bay. However 

moisture characteristics appear to be maintained within the bay area. 

19. Site appears to have more sediment being supplied from the site at a faster rate than the 

riparian area can expand and protect the shoreline, and be in balance with its surroundings 

20. Not enough rocks or large woody material to adequately dissipate wind and wave event 

energies 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk _____ Downward ____ 

Nonfunctional __X__ Not Apparent _____ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

18. High amount of sediment supplied to the site by fluctuation of water level and wave 

action. Area in-land where the community had a man-made bay for boat moorage, not 

used since mid-1980’s, had completely been filled with sediment. We were informed that 

the filling has been natural. 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___ De-watering ___ Mining activities ___ Watershed condition 

___ Dredging _X_ Road encroachment _X_ Land ownership 

_X_ Other (specify) Excessive fluctuation of water level, and human disturbances
162 

Lentic Standard Checklist – Sherman Creek Lentic

Name of Riparian/wetland Area: _LARO National Recreation Area_____________________

Date: _8/14/2008_Segment/Reach ID: _Sherman Creek Lentic _____Acres: _______________ 

ID Team Observers: _Ladd, Neumiller______________________________________________

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

X 1) Riparian/wetland area is saturated at or near the surface or inundated in 

“relatively frequent” events 

 X 2) Fluctuation of water levels is not excessive 

 X 3) Riparian/wetland area is enlarging or has achieved potential extent 

 X 4) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian/wetland degradation 

X 5) Water quality is sufficient to support riparian/wetland plants 

 X 6) Natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are not altered by disturbance 

(i.e., hoof action, dams, dikes, trails, roads, rills, gullies, drilling activities) 

X 7) Structure accommodates safe passage of flows (e.g., no headcut 

affecting dam or spillway) 

Yes No N/A VEGETATION 

 X 8) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian/wetland vegetation 

(recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

 X 9) There is diverse composition of riparian/wetland vegetation (for 

maintenance/recovery) 

 X 10) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian/wetland soil moisture 

characteristics 

 X 11) Vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have 

root masses capable of withstanding wind events, wave flow events, or 

overland flows (e.g., storm events, snowmelt) 

 X 12) Riparian/wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

 X 13) Adequate riparian/wetland vegetative cover is present to protect 

shoreline/soil surface and dissipate energy during high wind and wave 

events or overland flows 

X 14) Frost or abnormal hydrologic heaving is not present 

 X 15) Favorable microsite condition (i.e., woody material, water temperature, 

etc.) is maintained by adjacent site characteristics 

Yes No N/A EROSION/DEPOSITION 

X 16) Accumulation of chemicals affecting plant productivity/composition is not 

apparent 

X 17) Saturation of soils (i.e., ponding, flooding frequency, and duration) is 

sufficient to compose and maintain hydric soils 

X 18) Underlying geologic structure/soil material/permafrost is capable of 

restricting water percolation 

X 19) Riparian/wetland is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied 

by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition) 

X 20) Islands and shoreline characteristics (i.e., rocks, coarse and/or large 

woody material) are adequate to dissipate wind and wave event energies 
163 

Remarks (numbers correspond to checklist items) 

2. Water level fluctuation is excessive depending on Lake Roosevelt Reservoir levels 

3. Riparian area has not reached potential extent due to bare areas and along shoreline, the slope 

of the shoreline prevents wetland vegetation from expanding to these steeper areas 

4. Slopes, Roads above banks, development, boat moorage. Slopes above site show excessive 

erosion 

6. The natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are potentially altered by hoof action, dams, 

roads, boats and beaches 

8. Little age-class distribution across the site, young and small 

9. Site dominated by a small shrub species and reed canarygrass, little to no diversity across the 

site. 

10. With the vegetation dominated by reed canarygrass and other fac-wet invasive species, the 

soil moisture characteristics do not appear to be maintained. Obligate species do not dominate, 

this is why we indicated a no for this question. 

11. Vegetation dominated by sparse communities of obligate and fac-wet species. Large amount 

of bare areas along shoreline. 

12. Vegetation is sparse and not showing much life and expansion. Vegetation is small and in 

some areas wilting and brown. 

13. Vegetation is patchy, shoreline is mostly bare. This large spacing allows for shoreline 

erosion, only covering approximately 35% of the site. 

19. Site appears to have more sediment being supplied from the site at a faster rate than the 

riparian area can expand and protect the shoreline, and be in balance with its surroundings 

20. Not enough rocks or large woody material to adequately dissipate wind and wave event 

energies 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: Trend for Functional – At Risk: 

Proper Functioning Condition _____ Upward _____ 

Functional – At Risk _____ Downward ____ 

Nonfunctional __X__ Not Apparent _____ 

Unknown _____ 

Additional notes: 

19. Slopes along shoreline at the site limit the expansion of the riparian area 

20. Nearby tributary supplying excess sediment to site 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

Yes __X__ 

No _____ 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___ De-watering ___ Mining activities ___ Watershed condition 

___ Dredging _X_ Road encroachment _X_ Land ownership 

_X_ Other (specify) Excessive fluctuation of water level, and human disturbances

The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 

affiliated Island Communities 

NPS D-106, May 2009
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

www.nature.nps.gov 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM