Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4022

science for a changing world

Prepared in cooperation with the

Washington State Department of Ecology

and the Puyallup Tribe

Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat

Conditions and Stream Temperatures of the Upper White River

Basin, Washington, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian 

Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures of the 

Upper White River Basin, Washington, Using 

Multispectral Imaging Systems

By Robert W. Black and Alan Haggland, U.S. Geological Survey; and Greg Crosby, 

Utah State University

Prepared in cooperation with

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY and the 

PUYALLUP TRIBE

Tacoma, Washington

2003

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4022

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
For additional information write to:

Director, Washington Water Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey

1201 Pacific Avenue – Suite 600

Tacoma, Washington 98402

http://wa.water.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does 

not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Copies of this report can be purchased from:

U.S. Geological Survey

Information Services

Building 810

Box 25286, Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225-0286

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Charles G. Groat, Director
Contents iii

CONTENTS

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 2

Traditional Measurement of Fish Habitat ................................................................................................... 2

Importance of Physical Habitat Water and Temperature to Fish................................................................ 4

Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................................... 6

Description of Study Area.................................................................................................................................... 7

Methods................................................................................................................................................................ 7

Field Measurements .................................................................................................................................... 7

Multispectral Imaging Systems................................................................................................................... 8

Imagery Processing ..................................................................................................................................... 9

Measurement Error Approach..................................................................................................................... 9

Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures ................ 13

Huckleberry Creek ...................................................................................................................................... 13

Lower Greenwater River............................................................................................................................. 24

Upper Greenwater River ............................................................................................................................. 33

Clearwater River ......................................................................................................................................... 41

White River ................................................................................................................................................. 52

West Fork White River ............................................................................................................................... 58

Measurement Error Comparisons ............................................................................................................... 63

Summary and Conclusions................................................................................................................................... 65

References Cited .................................................................................................................................................. 67
iv Figures

FIGURES

Figure 1. Map showing locations of reaches flown using aerial multispectral and thermal 

imaging systems and land use in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999 ................................................................................................................................. 3

Figure 2. Digital imagery showing instream hydraulic and riparian habitat classification methods using 

multispectral imaging in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999 ................... 10

Figure 3. Digital imagery showing thermal characterization of the Lower Greenwater River 

reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999.............................................. 11

Figure 4. Digital imagery showing approach used to generate buffers on either side of the 

stream channel in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999 .............................. 12

Figure 5. Digital imageries showing classifications of instream hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions 

in the Huckleberry Creek measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, 

Washington, September 1999 ............................................................................................................ 15

Figure 6. Digital imagery showing characterization of thermal conditions in the Huckleberry 

Creek measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, 

Washington, September 1999 ............................................................................................................ 17

Figure 7. Graph showing a proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the Huckleberry 

Creek measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999 ................................................................................................................................. 18

Figure 8. Digital imagery showing characterization of instream hydraulic and riparian habitat 

conditions in the entire Huckleberry Creek segment 1 in the Upper White River Basin, 

Washington, September 1999 ............................................................................................................ 20

Figure 9. Digital imagery showing characterization of thermal conditions in the entire 

Huckleberry Creek segment 1 in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999 ................................................................................................................................. 22

Figure 10. Graph showing a proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the entire 

Huckleberry Creek segment 1 in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999 ...... 23

Figure 11. Digital imagery showing characterization of instream hydraulic and riparian habitat 

conditions in the Lower Greenwater River measurement error study reach in the Upper 

White River Basin, Washington, September 1999 ............................................................................ 26

Figure 12. Digital imagery showing characterization of thermal conditions in the Lower Greenwater 

River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999 ................................................................................................................................. 28

Figure 13. Graph showing a proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the Lower 

Greenwater River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, 

Washington, September 1999 ............................................................................................................ 29

Figure 14. Digital imagery showing characterization of instream hydraulic and riparian habitat 

conditions in the entire Lower Greenwater River segments 1 through 3 in the Upper 

White River, Washington, September 1999 ...................................................................................... 30

Figure 15. Digital imagery showing characterization of thermal conditions in the entire Lower 

Greenwater River segments 1 through 3 in the Upper White River, Washington, 

September 1999 ................................................................................................................................. 32

Figure 16. Graph showing a proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the entire 

Lower Greenwater River segments 1 through 3 in the Upper White River Basin, 

Washington, September 1999 ............................................................................................................ 32
Figures v

Figure 17. Digital imagery showing characterization of instream hydraulic and riparian habitat 

conditions in the Upper Greenwater River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River 

Basin, Washington, September 1999................................................................................................. 35

Figure 18. Digital imagery showing characterization of thermal conditions in the Upper Greenwater 

River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999 ................................................................................................................................. 36

Figure 19. Graph showing a proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the Upper 

Greenwater River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, 

Washington, September 1999 ............................................................................................................ 37

Figure 20. Digital imagery showing characterization of hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in 

the entire Upper Greenwater River segments 8 and 9 in the Upper White River Basin, 

Washington, September 1999 ............................................................................................................ 38

Figure 21. Digital imagery showing characterization of thermal conditions in the entire Upper 

Greenwater River segments 8 and 9 in the Upper White River, Washington, September 1999 ....... 39

Figure 22. Graph showing a proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the entire 

Upper Greenwater River segments 8 and 9 in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999 ................................................................................................................................. 40

Figure 23. Digital imagery showing characterization of hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in 

the Clearwater River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, 

Washington, September 1999 ............................................................................................................ 43

Figure 24. Digital imagery showing characterization of thermal conditions in the Clearwater 

River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999 ................................................................................................................................. 45

Figure 25. Graph showing a proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the 

Clearwater River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, 

Washington, September 1999 ............................................................................................................ 46

Figure 26. Digital image showing characterization of hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions 

in the entire Clearwater River reach segments 1 through 4 in the Upper White River 

Basin, Washington, September 1999................................................................................................. 48

Figure 27. Digital image showing characterization of thermal conditions in the entire Clearwater 

River reach segments 1 through 4 in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999 ................................................................................................................................. 50

Figure 28. Graph showing a proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the entire 

Clearwater River reach segments 1 through 4 in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999 ................................................................................................................................. 51

Figure 29. Digital imagery showing characterization of hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the 

White River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999 ................................................................................................................................. 54

Figure 30. Digital imagery showing characterization of thermal conditions in the White River 

measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999..... 55

Figure 31. Graph showing a proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the 

White River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, 

Washington, September 1999 ............................................................................................................ 55

Figure 32. Digital map showing characterization of hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions 

in the entire White River reach segment in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999 ................................................................................................................................. 56

Figure 33. Digital imagery showing characterization of thermal conditions in the entire White 

River segment in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999 ............................... 57

Figure 34. Graph showing a proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the entire 

White River segment in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999 .................... 57
vi Figures

Figure 35. Digital imagery showing characterization of hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions 

in the West Fork of the White River segment in the Upper White River Basin, 

Washington, September 1999 ............................................................................................................ 59

Figure 36. Digital imagery showing characterization of thermal conditions in the entire 

West Fork of the White River segment in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999 ................................................................................................................................. 61

Figure 37. Graph showing a proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the entire 

West Fork of the White River segment in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999 ................................................................................................................................. 62
Tables vii

TABLES

Table 1. River segments evaluated using the multispectral imaging system in the 

Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999 ................................................................. 7

Table 2. Instream hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the Huckleberry Creek

measurement error study reach and the entire creek segment 1 in the Upper White 

River Basin, Washington, September and October 1999 .................................................................. 14

Table 3. Instream hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the Lower Greenwater River 

measurement error study reach and river segments 1, 2, and 3 in the Upper White 

River Basin, Washington, September 1999 ....................................................................................... 25

Table 4. Instream hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the Upper Greenwater River 

measurement error study reach and river segments 8 and 9 in the Upper White River 

Basin, Washington, August and September 1999.............................................................................. 34

Table 5. Instream hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the Clearwater River measurement 

error study reach and river segments 1 through 4 in the Upper White River Basin, 

Washington, September 1999 ............................................................................................................ 42

Table 6. Instream hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the White River measurement 

error study reach and the entire river segment in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999 ................................................................................................................................. 53

Table 7. Instream hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the entire segment of the 

West Fork of the White River in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999 ................................................................................................................................. 58

Table 8. Percentage of differences between field and multispectral data from measurement 

error study reaches and river segments in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

August through October 1999............................................................................................................ 63

Table 9. Summary of field and multispectral data for habitat variables by study reach and 

statistical significance of measurement errors by habitat variable in the Upper White 

River Basin, Washington, August through October 1999 ................................................................. 64

Table 10. Summary of field data for the Huckleberry Creek measurement error study reach 

and the entire creek segment 1 in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

August through October 1999............................................................................................................ 69

Table 11. Summary of field data for the Lower Greenwater River measurement error study 

reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999.............................................. 75

Table 12. Summary of field data for the Upper Greenwater River (ECOLOGY Segments 8 and 9) 

measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, August 1999 .......... 79

Table 13. Summary of field data for the Clearwater River measurement error study reach in the 

Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999 ................................................................. 85

Table 14. Summary of field data for the White River measurement error study reach 

in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999 ....................................................... 89
viii Conversion Factors and Datum

CONVERSION FACTORS AND DATUM

CONVERSION FACTORS

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=1.8 °C+32.

DATUM

Vertical datum: Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum 

of 1929 (NAVD 29).

Horizontal datum: Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 

1927 (NAD 27).

Multiply By To obtain

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft)

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

square kilometer (km2) 247.1 acre

kilometer per hour (km/h) 0.6214 mile per hour (mi/hr)

square meter (m2) 10.76 square foot (ft2)

square kilometer (km2) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)

cubic meter per second (m3/s) 35.31 cubic foot per second (ft3/s)
Abstract 1

Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian 

Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures of the 

Upper White River Basin, Washington, Using 

Multispectral Imaging Systems

By Robert W. Black and Alan Haggland, U.S. Geological Survey; and Greg Crosby, Utah 

State University

ABSTRACT

Instream hydraulic and riparian habitat 

conditions and stream temperatures were 

characterized for selected stream segments in the 

Upper White River Basin, Washington. An aerial 

multispectral imaging system used digital cameras 

to photograph the stream segments across multiple 

wavelengths to characterize fish habitat and 

temperature conditions. All imageries were 

georeferenced. Fish habitat features were 

photographed at a resolution of 0.5 meter and 

temperature imageries were photographed at a 1.0-

meter resolution. The digital multispectral 

imageries were classified using commercially 

available software. Aerial photographs were taken 

on September 21, 1999. Field habitat data were 

collected from August 23 to October 12, 1999, to 

evaluate the measurement accuracy and 

effectiveness of the multispectral imaging in 

determining the extent of the instream habitat 

variables. 

Fish habitat types assessed by this method 

were the abundance of instream hydraulic features 

such as pool and riffle habitats, turbulent and nonturbulent habitats, riparian composition, the 

abundance of large woody debris in the stream and 

riparian zone, and stream temperatures. Factors 

such as the abundance of instream woody debris, 

the location and frequency of pools, and stream 

temperatures generally are known to have a 

significant impact on salmon. Instream woody 

debris creates the habitat complexity necessary to 

maintain a diverse and healthy salmon population. 

The abundance of pools is indicative of a stream's 

ability to support fish and other aquatic organisms. 

Changes in water temperature can affect aquatic 

organisms by altering metabolic rates and oxygen 

requirements, altering their sensitivity to toxic 

materials and affecting their ability to avoid 

predators.

The specific objectives of this project were 

to evaluate the use of an aerial multispectral 

imaging system to accurately identify instream 

hydraulic features and surface-water temperatures 

in the Upper White River Basin, to use the 

multispectral system to help establish baseline 

instream/riparian habitat conditions in the study 

area, and to qualitatively assess the imaging 

system for possible use in other Puget Sound 

rivers.

For the most part, all multispectral imagerybased estimates of total instream riffle and pool 

area were less than field measurements. The 

imagery-based estimates for riffle habitat area 

ranged from 35.5 to 83.3 percent less than field 

measurements. Pool habitat estimates ranged from 

139.3 percent greater than field measurements to 

94.0 percent less than field measurements. 

Multispectral imagery-based estimates of 

turbulent habitat conditions ranged from 

9.3 percent greater than field measurements to 

81.6 percent less than field measurements. 
2 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Multispectral imagery-based estimates of nonturbulent habitat conditions ranged from 27.7 to 

74.1 percent less than field measurements. The 

absolute average percentage of difference between 

field and imagery-based habitat type areas was 

less for the turbulent and non-turbulent habitat 

type categories than for pools and riffles. The 

estimate of woody debris by multispectral imaging 

was substantially different than field 

measurements; percentage of differences ranged 

from +373.1 to -100 percent. Although the total 

area of riffles, pools, and turbulent and nonturbulent habitat types measured in the field were 

all substantially higher than those estimated from 

the multispectral imagery, the percentage of 

composition of each habitat type was not 

substantially different between the imagery-based 

estimates and field measurements. 

INTRODUCTION

An aerial multispectral imaging system was used 

to identify instream hydraulic and riparian habitat 

conditions and stream temperatures in the Upper White 

River Basin, Washington, September 1999 (fig. 1). The 

study was done by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

in cooperation with the Washington State Department 

of Ecology (Ecology) and the Puyallup Tribe. The 

primary purpose of this assessment was to characterize 

habitat and temperature conditions in specific reaches 

of the Upper White River Basin as specified in the 

report "White River Spring Chinook Habitat Guidance: 

A Water Quality Management Approach for the Upper 

White River" (Upper White River Chinook TMDL 

Framework Team, 1998) and the draft monitoring plan 

for the baseline conditions in the drainage basin 

(Adams and Schuett-Hames, 1997). Habitat indicators 

to be assessed by this method were key pieces of large 

woody debris in the stream and riparian zone and the 

abundance of pools and riffles. The information is 

being used to establish baseline conditions in the White 

River drainage basin to help interpret long-term 

monitoring information. Stream temperature imagery 

were taken to improve the understanding of the 

temperature dynamics in the surveyed streams to assist 

drainage basin restoration.

The specific objectives of this project were:

 (1.) Evaluate the use of an aerial multispectral 

imaging system to accurately identify 

instream hydraulic features in the Upper 

White River Basin. 

 (2.) Use an aerial multispectral imaging 

system to help establish baseline 

instream/riparian habitat conditions in the 

Upper White River Basin. 

 (3.) Use an aerial infrared sensing procedure 

to determine stream temperatures of 

selected reaches of the Upper White 

River.

 (4.) Evaluate the imaging system for possible 

use in other Puget Sound rivers.

Traditional Measurement of Fish Habitat

The quality of a stream is critical to the 

reproduction and survival of aquatic organisms such as 

the chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). The 

chinook salmon was listed as threatened in the Puget 

Sound Basin by the National Marine Fisheries Service 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in March 1999. 

Repeated measurement of habitat variables over time 

can characterize a measure of current habitat 

conditions as well as temporal changes in habitat 

conditions. Without long-term habitat measures, 

interpreting habitat in terms of historical conditions 

often can be difficult. Long-term habitat monitoring 

has been lacking in most of the Pacific Northwest river 

systems (Bisson and others, 1992). By the time many 

streams are surveyed, their habitats have already been 

altered by anthropogenic factors. 

Traditionally, most habitat surveys have relied on 

field work in which trained biologists and 

geomorphologists walk a stream of interest measuring 

various physical features. On-the-ground habitat 

monitoring is extremely important for specific 

variables and specific levels of detail, but it is often a 

time-consuming and costly process. The quality of the 

habitat data also can vary depending on sampling 

methods and experience level of personnel. 
Introduction 3

Figure 1. Locations of reaches flown using aerial multispectral and thermal imaging systems and land use in the Upper White River Basin, 

Washington, September 1999. 

410

0

0 5 10 15 KILOMETERS

5 10 MILES

PIERCE

KING

PIERCE

KING

National Forest A. Huckleberry Creek segment - Washington State Department of Ecology (ECOLOGY) stream segment 1.

B. Lower Greenwater River segment - ECOLOGY stream segments 1 through 3.

C. Upper Greenwater River segment - ECOLOGY stream segments 8 through 9.

D. Clearwater River segment - Washington Department of Ecology stream segments 1 through 4.

E. White River segment.

F. West Fork White River segment.

 Reaches flown

 Boundary of Drainage Basin Administrative Unit.

National Wilderness

National Park

Privately owned land

EXPLANATION

 State park

Glacier

LAND USE RIVER REACH SEGMENT

47 ̊

07'

30"

46 ̊

52'

30"

121 ̊45' 121 ̊30'

MIDDLE WHITE

CLEARWATER

WEST FORK WHITE

HUCKLEBERRY

FRYINGPAN

GREENWATER

UPPER WHITE

UPPER WHITE RIVER BASIN

E

D

B

C

A

F

Mount Rainier

R 8 E R 9 E R 10 E R 11 E

T

20

N

T

19

N

T

18

N

T

17

N

T

16

N

Base sources:

Department of Natural Resources

 Major Public Lands of Washington 

 (MPL) and Watershed 

 Administrative Unit (WAU)

 1:24,000, 1:100,000, 1991

 State Plane Coordinate System

 Zone 5626, NAD 27

WASHINGTON

Location of

study area
4 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Aerial photographs have been used to evaluate 

habitat conditions over many miles of stream channels. 

However, determining the quantity and quality of 

available habitat from photographs requires an 

individual to digitize or measure habitat conditions, 

which is time-consuming and costly. In addition, if new 

questions arise after the aerial photographs are 

analyzed, the photographs may have to be re-measured 

or re-digitized to address the new questions or 

objectives.

The benefits of using multispectral imaging to 

characterize instream habitat and riparian conditions 

are numerous (Bartz and others, 1994; Redd and 

others, 1994). The instruments can collect large 

amounts of unbiased georeferenced imagery data in a 

few days. After a few days of processing, the data can 

be used to quantitatively assess the abundance and 

location of habitat features such as pools and riffles. 

The quantitative habitat information as well as the 

multispectral imagery could be incorporated into such 

fisheries management information systems such as the 

Northwest Indian Fish Commission's Salmon and 

Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Program 

(SSHIAP) database. The processed multispectral 

imagery is digitally stored so it can be re-evaluated in 

the future as new imaging processing tools become 

available. Furthermore, comparison of the digital 

multispectral imagery with future imagery facilitate 

evaluating changes in habitat conditions in the Upper 

White River system.

This methodology is relatively new and has not 

been tested widely in river systems of disparate 

physiographic regions. The information generated from 

this process depends upon many of the same factors 

that traditional aerial photography does, such as 

atmospheric humidity, platform stability, and air 

clarity. The multispectral imaging system has been 

used on rivers with very high sediment load, but has not 

been used extensively in glacially fed streams 

(Anderson and others, 1994; and Panja and others, 

1994).

Importance of Physical Habitat Water and 

Temperature to Fish 

The numerous cold water rivers found 

throughout western Washington are home to 

assemblages of migratory and resident fish typical of 

the Pacific Northwest, USA. Within the rivers and 

streams of the Puget Sound Basin of western 

Washington, there are at least 14 families of fish 

represented by over 40 species and subspecies of 

freshwater riverine fish including the salmon and 

anadromous trout (Washington Dept. of Wildlife and 

Bonneville Power Administration, 1992; and Olympic 

National Park Service, 1995). Although the diversity of 

fish species is limited in the Puget Sound Basin (Moyle 

and Herbold, 1987), many unique stocks of migratory 

(anadromous) salmon and trout are found throughout 

the basin. A fish stock refers to "the fish spawning in a 

particular lake or stream(s) at a particular season, 

which to a substantial degree do not interbreed with 

any group spawning in a different place, or in the same 

place during a different season" (Washington State 

Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western 

Washington Treaty Indian Tribes, 1994). 

Historically, the Upper White River Basin had a 

healthy population of spring chinook salmon. In the 

1980s, the number of adults returning to spawn in the 

Upper White River Basin decreased to as low as six 

individuals. The construction of two impassable dams 

in the lower drainage basin, in addition to other natural 

and anthropogenic factors, have impacted the number 

of returning salmon. The Upper White River spring 

chinook are unique in that they return to the river from 

May to mid-September and spawn from mid-August 

through September in the upper part of the drainage 

basin. This differs from fall chinook which generally 

spawn in the lower reaches of mainstem rivers (Busack 

and Shaklee, 1995). Recent hatchery operations 

utilizing returning Upper White River spring chinook 

have helped increase the number of spring chinook in 

this drainage basin (Upper White River Chinook 

TMDL Framework Team, 1998). In March 1999, the 

chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and chum (O. 

keta) salmon, and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 

were listed as threatened in the Puget Sound Basin by 

the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 
Introduction 5

Habitat damage resulting from hydropower 

development, logging, mining, agriculture, and 

urbanization, and potentially over-fishing and 

competitive interactions with hatchery fish represent 

the greatest threats to the chinook salmon as well as 

other species in the Pacific Northwest (Nehlsen and 

others, 1991; and Riddell and Swain, 1991). Changes 

in aquatic habitat can have a direct influence on all 

aquatic communities, including salmon, and the 

evaluation of habitat conditions is required for 

assessing biological integrity. As early as the 1900s, 

scientists recognized the role that stream and river 

habitats played in affecting the health and number of 

fish and other aquatic biota (Steinmann, 1907; 

Shelford, 1911; and Theinemann, 1912). The health of 

salmon in the Pacific Northwest has been directly 

linked to habitat quality (Bisson and others, 1992). 

Aquatic habitats in the Puget Sound Basin have been 

considerably altered by natural and, more recently, 

human activities.

In the nineteenth century, the Federal 

government claimed jurisdiction over navigation and 

proceeded to straighten river and stream channels and 

clear them of large organic debris to allow steamboats, 

log rafts, barges, and other vessels unimpeded passage. 

In addition, many non-navigable streams were cleared 

and straightened to facilitate the transport of timber 

from the headwaters to the lumber mills downstream. 

The clearing and straightening of streams was 

particularly common in the Pacific Northwest. By the 

early 1880s, most timber within 3.2 km (2 mi) of Puget 

Sound had been logged (Buchman, 1936). Loggers and 

engineers cleared streams to improve the movement of 

floated logs and enhance the effectiveness of splash 

dams used to create holding lakes to transport logs 

downstream (Sedell and Duval, 1985). Before a stream 

could be used to transport logs, it had to be "improved" 

(Brown, 1936). Improvements included blasting or 

removing boulders, large rocks, leaning trees, sunken 

logs, or obstructions of any kind. By the 1880s, a part 

of most streams in the Puget Lowlands had been 

"improved" for log transport (Cox, 1974) and by 1900, 

more than 130 companies were involved in river and 

stream improvement operations in the State of 

Washington (Sedell and Duval, 1985). More than 150 

log transporting or splash dams were in existence in 

western Washington by the early 1900s (Sedell and 

Duval, 1985). Splash dams had the potential to 

significantly alter the physical and biological 

conditions of many streams by creating debris-laden 

floods that scoured out channels, thereby reducing 

habitat complexity (Harmon and others, 1986). 

Urbanization also has resulted in habitat 

degradation in western Washington (King County 

Surface Water Management Division, 1993). For 

example, fish habitat in the mainstem of the Cedar 

River (King County, Washington) has been reduced by 

about 56 percent because of water-supply dams, land 

development, levees, bank alterations, and removal of 

large woody debris (King County Surface Water 

Management Division, 1993). Water diversions and 

flood-control activities in the last 80 years changed the 

once-braided channels of the lower mainstem of the 

Cedar River to a single-thread channel (King County 

Surface Water Management Division, 1993). Similar 

effects of urbanization have been observed in many of 

the large lowland rivers, particularly near the mouths of 

rivers (Bortleson and others, 1980). The physical 

changes in these streams correspond to changes in the 

aquatic biota such as fish and aquatic invertebrates 

(Black and Silkey, 1998).

Although habitat plays a critical role in the 

overall quality of streams in the Puget Sound Basin, 

only a limited number of reports have summarized 

existing habitat conditions and data (Ralph and others, 

1991; 1994; and Black and Silkey, 1998) in spite of the 

abundance of habitat data collected by timber 

companies, Federal agencies (U.S. Forest Service, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service), 

State agencies, Indian tribes, county and municipal 

agencies, and universities. A number of efforts are 

underway to organize existing habitat data into 

drainage basin and regional scale summaries and 

evaluations (Schuett-Hames and others, 1994; and 

SSHIAP, 1995). 
6 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Even though an extensive summary of existing 

salmon habitat data in western Washington has not 

been completed, factors such as the abundance of 

instream woody debris, the location and frequency of 

pools, and stream temperatures generally are known to 

have a significant impact on salmon. Instream woody 

debris creates the habitat complexity necessary to 

maintain a diverse and healthy salmon population. 

Woody debris provides cover from predacious fish and 

wildlife as well as velocity refuges for numerous 

aquatic animals. In addition, woody debris can create a 

variety of physical habitat, such as large pools, through 

the deflection of streamflow. 

The abundance of pools is indicative of a 

stream's ability to support fish and other aquatic 

organisms. For many species of fish, pools provide a 

safe and energetically favorable habitat (Fausch, 1984; 

and Wilzbach, 1985). The removal of wood from 

streams, changes in discharge, sedimentation, 

channelization, and other anthropogenic factors can 

decrease the number of pools in a stream. The number 

of pools in many of the forested streams of the Puget 

Sound Basin are well below historic levels (U.S. Forest 

Service, 1993; Black and Silkey, 1998). 

Habitat conditions affect water temperature in a 

stream or river. The quantity and type of instream 

structure, as well as the abundance of shade-producing 

features and vegetation adjacent to a stream, also can 

affect temperature conditions. Changes in water 

temperature can affect aquatic organisms by altering 

metabolic rates and oxygen requirements, altering their 

sensitivity to toxic materials and affecting their ability 

to avoid predators (Reiser and Bjornn, 1979). All 

aquatic organisms have optimal temperature ranges for 

maintaining a healthy existence. For example, the 

optimal temperature range for spring chinook 

migration is between 3.3 and 13.3 oC (Reiser and 

Bjornn, 1979). 

Urbanization, logging, and agricultural activities 

affect water temperatures. For example, increases in 

water temperatures in streams after logging was well 

documented for small drainage basins (less than 1,000 

acres) (Anderson, 1973). Stream temperatures are 

significantly affected if logging extends into the 

riparian zone. The cumulative effects of physical 

disturbances on larger streams (greater than 100 mi2

drainage area) are less clear because the drainage 

basins are disturbed incrementally over a long period of 

time. Riley (1996) reports that the variability in climate 

and hydrology over a 5- to 10- year period may mask 

water temperature trends caused by physical 

disturbances in these larger drainage basins. However, 

the influence of natural environmental factors, such as 

ground-water inflow, also can affect stream 

temperatures. 

Acknowledgments 

This study could not have been completed 

without the assistance of many individuals and 

organizations. This study was funded by the 

Washington State Department of Ecology, the Puyallup 

Tribe, and the U.S. Geological Survey. We are 

especially grateful for the field and technical help 

provided by the U.S. Forest Service, Weyerhaeuser 

Corporation, Tahoma Audubon Society, Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Muckleshoot Tribe, 

and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. We 

are particularly grateful to Dr. Christopher Neale in the 

Department of Biological and Irrigation Engineering at 

Utah State University, Logan, Utah, who helped 

pioneer the methods used for this study. Without his 

input and help, this study would not have been 

possible.
Methods 7

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA

The area evaluated by the multispectral imaging 

system in this study has been identified as the Upper 

White River Basin by the Washington State 

Department of Ecology (Ecology) (Upper White River 

Chinook TMDL Framework Team, 1998). The 

drainage basin extends from the confluence of the 

White and Clearwater Rivers to the headwaters of the 

White River in western Washington State (fig. 1). Six 

unique stream segments throughout the drainage basin 

totaling 24.6 kilometers were selected for this study 

(fig. 1, table 1). 

The location of these stream segments was based 

on the methods outlined in the Timber Fish and 

Wildlife's Ambient Monitoring Program Manual (Pleus 

and others, 1999) and current information on important 

chinook use areas. Ecology located and identified 

specific stream segments for this study. Each study 

segment had a unique name and identification number 

(see tables 10-14, at back of report). The major land 

use in the basin is forestry. The U.S. Forest Service, 

National Park Service, and Weyerhaeuser Company are 

the principal landowners.

METHODS

Field Measurements

Field habitat data were collected from August 23 

to October 12, 1999, by field teams of two to four 

scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Forest 

Service, Weyerhaeuser Company, Ecology, and the 

Northwest Indian Fish Commission. One measurement 

error reach (study reach) was located in each of the six 

study river segments flown except the West Fork White 

River segment. The beginning and ending coordinates 

for each study reach are shown in tables 10-14. All 

field teams used Level 2 or 3 habitat sampling protocol 

(Pleus and Schuett-Hames 1998; Pleus and others, 

1999; and Schuett-Hames and others, 1999). 

Flow conditions in the White River study reach 

prevented the measurement of pool and riffle 

conditions as described in Pleus and Schuett-Hames 

(1998), Pleus and others (1999), and Schuett-Hames 

and others (1999). Instead of characterizing the 

location and abundance of pools and riffles in the 

White River, surface turbulence was measured. These 

measurements included documenting the area of 

habitat types with and without surface turbulence. 

Habitat types with smooth surface flow and no surface 

turbulence were characterized as non-turbulent habitat. 

All other habitat types were characterized as turbulent. 

Habitats with non-turbulent surface waters are 

not necessarily pools as defined in Pleus and others 

(1999). According to Pleus and others (1999), riffles 

represent a broad range of wetted channel conditions. 

Riffles include the classic shallow and low gradient 

area with surface turbulence associated with increased 

flow velocity over gravel and cobble beds. They also 

include deeper areas without surface turbulence such as 

"glides" or "runs." Pools are sections of a stream 

channel where water is impounded within a closed 

topographical depression. These depressions create a 

basin within the stream channel that would hold 

residual water even if there were no streamflow. Pleus 

and others (1999) present a detailed discussion of 

specific criteria that must be satisfied in order to 

classify a geomorphic unit as a pool. All pools were 

identified using these criteria. 

Table 1. River segments evaluated using the multispectral imaging 

system in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999

[Nominal river elevation: The elevation above sea level used to develop the 

flight plans for each river reach segment. m, meter]

River reach segment

(fig. 1)

Nominal 

river 

elevation 

(m)

Quadrangle maps

A Huckleberry Creek 

(segment 1)

671 Sun Top

B Lower Greenwater River 

(segments 1–3)

549 Greenwater, Nagrom

C Upper Greenwater River 

(segments 8–9)

610 Sun Top

D Clearwater River 

(segments 1–4)

427 Bearhead Mountain, 

Cyclone Creek

E White River (segment 1) 427 Cyclone Creek

F West Fork White River 

(segment 1)

702 Clear West Peak
8 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Field measurements of habitat conditions 

collected for comparison with the imagery-derived 

estimates were (1) study reach lengths, (2) percentage 

of and total area of instream habitat types (pools, 

riffles, turbulent, non-turbulent), (3) lengths and widths 

of large woody debris area, (4) composition of riparian 

vegetation, and (5) stream temperature. The area of 

instream woody debris identified in the field was 

calculated from mean diameter, mean length, and total 

number of pieces of wood (tables 10-14). 

Habitat types of interest at all measurement error 

study reaches, except the White River, were pools and 

riffles. Surface turbulence also was measured for some 

study reaches. Conditions in the White River study 

reach were not safe enough to perform some instream 

measurements. Therefore, only visible woody debris in 

the active channel, surface turbulence, and study reach 

length were measured. 

The field data were collected only to evaluate the 

measurement accuracy and effectiveness of the 

multispectral imaging in determining the extent of the 

instream habitat variables identified above. All field 

data are summarized in tables 10-14. 

Vegetation in the riparian zone was field 

characterized at selected points in each of the five study 

reaches. Vegetation and other characteristics in the 

riparian zone were broadly classified as bare soil, 

boulder, conifer trees, deciduous vegetation, grass and 

gravel, roads, shadows, shrub, and large woody debris. 

A paired t-test was used to statistically compare the 

differences between field and multispectral imagery 

data for the instream habitat types and woody debris. A 

limited budget prevented the implementation of a more 

traditional remote sensing accuracy assessment 

(Jensen, 1996).

Multispectral Imaging Systems

Aerial multispectral imaging of instream and 

riparian habitats and stream temperature of the Upper 

White River was done by the Remote Sensing Services 

Laboratory of Utah State University under contract to 

the U.S. Geological Survey. Aerial multispectral 

photographs were taken on September 21, 1999. Each 

river segment was flown twice, once before and once 

after solar noon to optimize sun penetration in the river 

corridor. The low sun angle at the time of year and 

large trees along the river corridor in all stream 

segments did not permit flights to be ideally matched to 

general segment compass orientation (for example, 

southeast to northwest orientations flown early in the 

day, and northwest to southeast orientations flown late 

in the day). 

Imageries were photographed using three Kodak 

model 4.2i digital cameras with a 2024 × 2048 pixel 

frame size along with an Inframetrics Model 760 

thermal scanner with a 640 × 480 pixel frame size. The 

three digital cameras had filters in the green (0.545-

0.555 μm), red (0.665-0.675 μm), and near infrared 

(NIR) (0.790-0.810 μm) wavelengths in order to create 

multispectral imagery that could be used to 

characterize instream hydraulic and riparian habitats. 

The digital cameras had 20 mm lens and were set at 7 

milliseconds exposure with a 60 percent overlap. The 

instrument package also contained a Global 

Positioning System (GPS) for georeferencing the 

multispectral imagery (Neale, 1997). The thermal 

imagery was photographed using a 50-degree Celsius 

water temperature range setting (3 to 53 degrees 

Celsius). The accuracy of the water temperature 

determination was not established and was viewed as 

experimental.

The plane was flown at 3,500 feet above ground 

level at a speed of 110 miles per hour to attain a 0.5-

meter resolution for the multispectral imagery. Thermal 

imagery was taken simultaneously at 1.0-meter 

resolution and recorded on videotape. The digital 

camera imageries were recorded electronically by 

software on the onboard computer. The aerial-based 

multispectral imaging system took under 3 hours to 

photograph the entire study area.
Methods 9

Imagery Processing

The digital imageries were imported into and 

processed with ERDAS Imagine software (ERDAS 

Imagine V8.4, ERDAS, Inc. Atlanta, Georgia). The 

imageries were geometrically corrected for distortion 

due to the curvature of the lens. The three bands were 

then overlayed on one another using a second order 

polynomial that was uniquely created for this flight. 

The multispectral imagery was then corrected for 

vignetting effects (Neale and Crowther, 1994). Digital 

orthophoto imaging was used to rectify the 

multispectral imagery to a base map. The multispectral 

imagery was rectified using a second order polynomial 

rectification technique in ERDAS Imagine software. 

Imagery mosaics were created for each of the six 

segments flown (fig. 2A). The five study reaches where 

field data were collected were clipped out of the entire 

mosaicked imageries as part of the classification 

training and measurement error work. The 

classification training data consisted of vegetation and 

instream hydraulic characteristics positively identified 

in the imagery by USGS scientists for each of the study 

reaches examined in the field. The spectral qualities of 

these positively identified hydraulic features (i.e. pools, 

riffles, large woody debris, etc.) were used as training 

data to collect statistics from each of the three spectral 

bands. These statistics create a "signature" for a given 

vegetation or instream hydraulic category or class that 

is used by the supervised classification routine in 

ERDAS. Once all the training statistics had been 

collected, the statistics for all the classes were tested 

for separability. This determined if classes were 

actually unique or if they overlapped with other classes. 

Classes that were poorly distinguished were 

continually refined using the classification routines in 

ERDAS until a supervised classification of instream 

and riparian habitat was created for all five study 

reaches (fig. 2B). The supervised habitat classification 

"signature" created for the five study reaches was then 

used to classify the remaining instream and riparian 

conditions throughout the six stream segments 

(fig. 2C). 

Thermal imageries corresponding to the 

multispectral imageries were "grabbed" from the 

videotape by first simulating a 60 percent overlap from 

the tape of continuous thermal scanning. The thermal 

imagery was then registered to the multispectral 

imagery. Rectified thermal imageries were then 

mosaicked onto the six stream segments. A 

temperature bar at the bottom of the strip was used to 

provide the relative temperature values. The brightness 

values in the imagery and the temperature code (2.8 to 

52.8 degrees Celsius in one case) have a linear relation. 

This relation was used to assign brightness values to 

relative water temperature values (fig. 3). 

Measurement Error Approach 

After the classified imageries were received from 

the Remote Sensing Services Laboratory and the field 

data compiled, the imagery data were checked for 

measurement error. All classified imageries were first 

checked for correct georeferencing, projection, format, 

and cell size. Some of the thermal index grids in the 

thermal imageries were initially in a floating point 

format and were converted to integer prior to inclusion 

in the value attribute table (VAT). The VAT 

summarized area statistics for relative water 

temperature and instream hydraulic conditions (for 

example, pools and riffles) and riparian vegetation 

conditions (for example, shrub, conifer, roads, etc.) for 

each of the imageries (fig. 2). The information 

contained in the VAT were imported to spreadsheets. 

Next, all classified hydraulic, riparian, and 

relative water temperature conditions representative of 

submerged conditions in all imageries were extracted 

based on the area classified as wet (for example, run, 

riffles, submerged gravel, etc.), gravel, and those areas 

in the lowest 10 percent of the thermal imaging range. 

This procedure identified the extent of the bankfull 

channel in all imageries. Relative water temperature 

imageries were used to help identify the channel 

because extensive tree shadows in the multispectral 

imageries obscured the view of the stream channel.
10 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Figure 2. Instream hydraulic and riparian habitat classification methods using multispectral imaging in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999. 

Boulder

EXPLANATION

INSTREAM HYDRAULIC HABITAT

RIPARIAN HABITAT

Conifer

Deciduous

Grass and gravel

Shadows

Turbulent

Non-turbulent

B. Measurement 

 error study reach 

 clipped out of the 

 multispectral imagery. 

 Habitat conditions were 

 classified in this imagery

 based on field data using

 the methods described 

 in this report.

A. Unclassified multispectral 

 imagery mosaic of the Lower 

 Greenwater River reach.

C. Habitat classified imagery of the

 Lower Greenwater River reach

 based on the spectral properties generated

 from the measurement error study reach (B).
Methods 11

Figure 3. Thermal characterization of the Lower Greenwater River reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

 EXPLANATION

Coldest

Warmest

LAND SURFACE

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURES

B. Lower Greenwater River 

 measurement error study reach 
12 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Figure 4. Approach used to generate buffers on either side of the stream channel in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 

1999. 

By combining the multispectral and thermal imaging data, a center line for the active channel for each of the six flow study reaches could be 

generated and a buffer zone on either side of the imagery could be clipped out of the original multispectral and thermal imageries. 

 EXPLANATION

 BUFFER ZONE SUBSETS

 Wet classes

 Lowest 10 percent thermal range

 Wet plus gravel classes

 200-foot center line buffer

 Streambed center line

47 ̊

09'

15"

47 ̊

09'

10"

47 ̊

09'

05"

121 ̊37'45" 121 ̊37'30"

0

0 50 100 150 200 METERS

200 400 600 800 FEET

Because the thermal imageries captured information in 

the infrared wavelengths, shadows did not obscure the 

location of the stream channel. Using the wet-plusgravel imagery subset and the low-temperature imagery 

subset for each site as an on-screen backdrop, a 

bankfull channel center-line was digitized.

For each of the measurement error study reaches, 

GPS data collected in the field were used to generate a 

vector GIS data set to identify the downstream and 

upstream boundaries. This data set was overlayed on 

the channel center line described above. A 61- to 122- 

meter (200- to 400-foot) buffer on either side of the 

channel center line was then created and used to 'clip' 

the hydraulic, riparian, and relative thermal imageries 

for each of the study reaches (fig. 4). These new 

riparian buffer subsets of the hydraulic and relative 

water temperature imageries were used to tabulate 

aerial-based habitat data for comparison to field-based 

data.
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 13

CHARACTERIZATION OF INSTREAM 

HYDRAULIC AND RIPARIAN HABITAT 

CONDITIONS AND STREAM 

TEMPERATURES 

Huckleberry Creek

Measurement Error Study Reach 

The Huckleberry Creek measurement error study 

reach is 300 meters long and is a small, forest stream 

with a well-developed riparian canopy (fig. 1, river 

reach segment A). Discharge at the time of field 

sampling was 1.25 cubic meters per second.

Instream hydraulic habitat measured in the field 

as either pool or riffle and turbulent or non-turbulent 

was similar to habitat conditions characterized by the 

multispectral imagery. Field data and multispectral 

imagery indicate that the 300-meter long study reach is 

dominated by riffle and turbulent habitat (table 2). 

Riffle habitat measured in the field was 89.8 percent of 

the instream area, and 75.5 percent using the 

multispectral imagery. Turbulent habitat measured in 

the field was 81.2 percent of the instream area, and 

75.5 percent using the multispectral imagery. However, 

the overall areas of pools and riffles and turbulent and 

non-turbulent habitat conditions characterized by 

multispectral imagery were several times less than 

habitat conditions measured in the field. This 

difference in total instream habitat area between the 

field measurements and multispectral imagery was due 

to the extensive canopy cover in the study reach 

(figs. 5A and 5B). The extensive shadows in the 

imagery also compromised the characterization of 

instream habitat (table 2). 

After combining the visually characterized 

instream habitat imagery with the stream imagery as 

defined by the thermal characteristics, the total 

instream area characterized by the multispectral 

imagery (3,449.0 square meters) was much more 

similar to the area measured in the field (3,807.1 square 

meters) (table 2). Field measurement of total reach 

length was within 5.6 meters of total reach length 

estimated using GPS point measures with the 

multispectral imagery (table 2). 

Total area of woody debris measured in the field 

was 378.4 square meters (table 2). Instream wood 

could not be identified using the multispectral imagery. 

Other than shadows, conifers dominated the riparian 

zone (table 2). 

Thermal imaging accurately characterized more 

of the wetted stream channel than multispectral 

imaging because the thermal imagery was less affected 

by the forest canopy shadows adjacent to the stream 

(fig. 6). The relative water temperature scale used in 

figure 6 is a linear scale. The number of temperature 

probes was insufficient to permit calibration of the 

relative water temperatures. However, some patterns of 

water temperature variation can be seen in the thermal 

imagery. 

The thermal imageries were photographed at a 

1-meter resolution. For each square meter of water 

observed during the aerial flight, a relative water 

temperature was recorded. A proportional distribution 

of relative water temperatures for each of the 1-squaremeter blocks in the Huckleberry Creek measurement 

error study reach is shown in figure 7. Most of the 

Huckleberry Creek measurement error study reach was 

composed of colder water. Cool to warmer water was 

more uniformly distributed throughout the remainder 

of the reach. The actual water temperature range could 

not be characterized due to the limited number of 

temperature probes installed during the aerial flight, 

but the water temperature range in the Huckleberry 

Creek measurement error study reach does exhibit a 

pattern typical of a well-shaded cold water mountain 

stream (fig. 7). 
14 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Table 2. Instream hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the Huckleberry Creek measurement error study reach and the entire creek segment 1 in 

the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September and October 1999

[Beginning and end of reach: Latitude and longitude for measurement error study reaches were derived from handheld GPS units while in the field. 

Latitude and longitude for the entire creek study segment were estimated from 1:24,000 scale topographic maps provided by Ecology. Measurement error 

study reach: Habitat field work was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey. Entire Creek study segment 1: Field work was conducted by the U.S. 

Forest Service. Field and flight dates: Field dates were spread out over a number of days. Instream habitat: The total area of instream habitat is the sum of 

either riffles and pools or turbulent and non-turbulent conditions. Total instream area: Total instream area is based on multispectral habitat data and aerial 

based temperature data. Total instream area based on field data can be compared to either total instream area from the multispectral data or to the corrected 

total instream area based on instream habitat and water temperature. For further clarification of this calculation, see the “Methods” section. Abbreviations: 

m2, square meter; m, meter, ft, feet. —, no data]

Segment 1 Segment 1

Reference points 4 through 7 Reference points 0 through 10

Buffer size =61 m (200) ft Buffer size = 61 m (200 ft)

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude

Beginning of reach 47°04'36" 121°35'19" 47°04'46" 121°35'07"

End of reach 47°04'27" 121°35'22" 47°04'09" 121°35'36"

Measurement Error Study Reach Entire Creek study segment 1

Habitat conditions

Field data Multispectral data Field data Multispectral data

Oct. 1999 (early) Sept. 21, 1999 Oct. 1999 (early) Sept. 21, 1999

Square 

meters Percent Square meters Percent Square meters Percent Square meters Percent

Instream

Riffle 3,420.1 89.8 570.0 75.5 11,420.1 93.8 2,964.6 61.9

Pool 387.0 10.2 185.4 24.5 761.2 6.3 1,821.2 38.1

Turbulent 3,092.1 81.2 570.0 75.5 — — — —

Non-turbulent 714.9 18.8 185.4 24.5 — — — —

Riparian

Bare soil — — 0.0 0.0 — — 0.0 0.0

Boulder — — 30.5 0.1 — — 293.9 0.2

Conifer — — 5,940.8 17.0 — — 46,514.3 27.3

Deciduous vegetation — — 2,620.5 7.5 — — 7,013.6 4.1

Grass and gravel — — 3,029.7 8.7 — — 6,140.3 3.6

Roads — — 21.2 0.1 — — 280.6 0.2

Shadows — — 23,354.7 66.7 — — 110,374.5 64.7

Shrub — — 0.0 0.0 — — 0.0 0.0

Wood 378.4 — 0.0 0.0 280.2 — 0.0 0.0

Total instream area (m2) 3,807.1 — 755.5 — 12,181.3 — 4,785.8 —

Total instream area based 

on instream habitat and 

water temperature (m2)

— — 3,449.0 — — — — —

Total reach length (m) 300 — 294.4 — 989.0 — 1,464.0 —
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 15

Figure 5. Classifications of instream hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the Huckleberry Creek measurement error study reach 

in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

Classifications were based on field data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey.

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

A. Instream habitat conditions characterized as either riffle or pool.

 EXPLANATION

 INSTREAM HYDRAULIC HABITAT

 RIPARIAN HABITAT

 Boulder

 Conifer

 Deciduous vegetation

 Grass and gravel

 Roads

 Shadows

 Pool

 Riffle

0

0 50 METERS

100 200 FEET

47 ̊

04'

35"

47 ̊

04'

30"

121 ̊35'15"

A. Instream habitat conditions characterized as either riffle or pool.
16 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Figure 5.—Continued.

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

0

0 50 METERS

100 200 FEET

 RIPARIAN HABITAT

 EXPLANATION

 INSTREAM HYDRAULIC HABITAT

Boulder

Conifer

Deciduous vegetation

Grass and gravel

Roads

Shadows

Non-turbulent

Turbulent

47 ̊

04'

35"

47 ̊

04'

30"

121 ̊35'15"

B. Instream habitat conditions characterized as turbulent 

 or non-turbulent.
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 17

Figure 6. Characterization of thermal conditions in the Huckleberry Creek measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, 

Washington, September 1999. 

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

0

0 50 METERS

100 200 FEET

47 ̊

04'

35"

47 ̊

04'

30"

121 ̊35'15"

 EXPLANATION

Coldest

Warmest

LAND SURFACE

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURES
18 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Figure 7. A proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the Huckleberry Creek measurement error 

study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

0

10

20

30

40

PERCENTAGE OF RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

Colder Water Warmer Water
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 19

Entire Segment

The entire Huckleberry Creek study segment 1 

was characterized using the same multispectral 

imaging approach used for the measurement error 

study reach. Unlike the other study reaches (fig. 1), the 

entire study segment 1 of Huckleberry Creek was field 

sampled by the U.S. Forest Service (see table 10, at 

back of report). Therefore, the field data collected for 

the entire segment were compared with the data from 

the multispectral imaging. 

Riffle habitat dominated the entire length of 

segment 1 of Huckleberry Creek (93.8 percent). The 

multispectral data identified a smaller percentage of 

riffle habitat as well as a much smaller total instream 

area (table 2). This difference can be attributed to the 

extensive canopy cover for this segment (fig. 8). 

Field measurement of total segment length was 

markedly different than total segment length 

characterized by multispectral imagery (table 2). This 

difference is most likely because precise latitude and 

longitude measurements were not available for the 

beginning and end of this segment and were estimated 

from 1:24,000-scale topographic maps provided by 

Ecology. 

Turbulent and non-turbulent habitat conditions 

were not measured by the U.S. Forest Service for the 

entire Huckleberry Creek segment, but the spectral 

properties derived from the USGS measurement error 

study reach were used to characterize turbulent and 

non-turbulent hydraulic habitats in the entire segment 

(fig. 8B). 

Total area of woody debris measured in the field 

for the entire segment was 280.2 square meters 

(table 2). The multispectral imaging approach did not 

identify any instream wood. The difference between 

the amount of wood measured in this segment and the 

smaller Huckleberry Creek measurement error study 

reach within this segment highlight the measurement 

inconsistencies that can occur when two different 

teams measure the same variables (table 2). The U.S. 

Geological Survey conducted the habitat field work for 

the Huckleberry Creek measurement error study reach 

and the U.S. Forest Service conducted the habitat field 

work for the entire Huckleberry Creek study 

segment 1. The cause of these differences is unclear. 

Conifers were the dominant riparian vegetation type in 

the entire Huckleberry Creek segment (table 2). 

However, extensive shadows in the imagery also 

compromised the characterization of instream habitat. 

As shown by the relative thermal imagery and a 

proportional distribution of relative water temperatures, 

the entire Huckleberry Creek segment was dominated 

by colder water (figs. 9 and 10). The entire segment 

had a slightly broader distribution of colder water than 

the measurement error study reach. This could be the 

result of more numerous openings in the canopy cover 

over the length of the entire Huckleberry Creek 

segment.
20 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Figure 8. Characterization of instream hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the 

entire Huckleberry Creek segment 1 in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999. 

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

47 ̊

04'

45"

47 ̊

04'

15"

121 ̊35'30" 121 ̊35'10"

0

0 300 METERS 100 200

500 1000 FEET

 EXPLANATION

 INSTREAM HYDRAULIC HABITAT

 RIPARIAN HABITAT

 Boulder

 Conifer

 Deciduous vegetation

 Grass and gravel

 Roads

 Shadows

 Pool

 Riffle

A. Instream habitat conditions characterized as either riffle or pool.
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 21

Figure 8.—Continued.

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

47 ̊

04'

45"

47 ̊

04'

15"

121 ̊35'30" 121 ̊35'10"

0

0 300 METERS 100 200

500 1000 FEET

B. Instream habitat conditions characterized as either turbulent 

 or non-turbulent.

 RIPARIAN HABITAT

 EXPLANATION

 INSTREAM HYDRAULIC HABITAT

Boulder

Conifer

Deciduous vegetation

Grass and gravel

Roads

Shadows

Non-turbulent

Turbulent
22 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Figure 9. Characterization of thermal conditions in the entire Huckleberry Creek 

segment 1 in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

47 ̊

04'

45"

47 ̊

04'

15"

121 ̊35'30" 121 ̊35'10"

0

0 300 METERS 100 200

500 1000 FEET

 EXPLANATION

Coldest

Warmest

LAND SURFACE

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURES
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 23

Figure 10. A proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the entire Huckleberry Creek segment 1 in the 

Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

0

10

20

30

PERCENTAGE OF RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

Colder Water Warmer Water
24 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Lower Greenwater River

Measurement Error Study Reach

The Greenwater River measurement error study 

reach was 500 meters long and its upstream end 

coincides with the beginning of Ecology's segment 3. 

Segment 3 of the Greenwater River is at the upstream 

end of the lower Greenwater River reach highlighted in 

figure 1 (river reach segment B). Discharge in the 

Greenwater River at the time of field sampling was 

estimated to be 1.3 cubic meters per second and the 

mean bankfull width was 18.5 meters (table 11, at back 

of report). 

Field data and multispectral imagery indicate 

that the 500-meter long study reach is dominated by 

riffle habitat (table 3). Field data indicate that the reach 

is dominated by non-turbulent habitat conditions. 

However, the multispectral imagery indicate that the 

reach is characterized by proportionally similar 

amounts of turbulent and non-turbulent habitat; 

however, the abundance of non-turbulent habitat is 

under-estimated (table 3). Comparing the abundance of 

pools and riffles to non-turbulent and turbulent habitat 

types highlights the specific identification criteria used 

to characterize pools. The results presented in table 3

suggest that a proportion of the area within the riffle 

habitat type might have been classified as "runs" or 

"glides" by other investigators. 

The overall areas of habitat types characterized 

by the multispectral imaging approach was 

substantially less than habitat conditions measured in 

the field. Total instream habitat measured in the field 

was 10,298.2 square meters and 5,235.3 square meters 

using the multispectral imagery. Some of this 

difference is due to canopy cover, but more is caused 

by shadows (figs. 11A and 11B). Extensive shadows in 

the imagery also compromised the characterization of 

instream habitat (table 3). After combining the visually 

characterized instream habitat imagery with the stream 

imagery as defined by the thermal characteristics, the 

total instream area characterized by the multispectral 

imaging approach (11,764.8 square meters) was much 

more similar to the area measured in the field (10,298.2 

square meters) (table 3). Field measurements of total 

reach length were within 23 meters of total reach 

length estimated using GPS point measures with the 

multispectral imagery (table 3).

Total area of woody debris measured in the field 

was 393.7 square meters (table 3). The multispectral 

imaging approach did not identify any woody debris 

(table 3). Conifers dominated the riparian zone, but 

grasses and gravels also made up a substantial portion 

of the riparian zone (figs. 11A and 11B, table 3). 

Areas of warm water throughout the reach were 

characterized by thermal imaging (fig. 12). These areas 

of warm water correspond with areas that lack canopy 

cover and have shallow water. One area of warmer 

water temperature was associated with a recent 

landslide. Although some areas of warmer water 

temperature were observed, these thermal imageries 

are based on water-surface temperatures and may not 

represent conditions throughout the water column. A 

frequency distribution of water temperatures for this 

study reach indicates the predominance of cold surface 

water with a relatively uniform distribution of warmer 

water (fig. 13).
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 25

Table 3. Instream hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the Lower Greenwater River measurement error study reach and river 

segments 1, 2, and 3 in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999

[Measurement error study reach: Habitat field work was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey. Field data: Field dates were spread out 

over a number of days. Instream habitat: The total area of instream habitat is the sum of either riffles and pools or turbulent and nonturbulent conditions. Total instream area: Total instream area is based on multispectral habitat data and aerial based temperature data. Total 

instream area based on field data can be compared to either total instream area from the multi-spectral data or to the corrected total instream 

area based on instream habitat and water temperature. For further clarification of this calculation, see the “Methods” section. Abbreviations: 

ft, feet; m2, square meter; m, meter. —, no data]

Ecology Segment 3

Reference points 0 - 5 Ecology Segments 1 - 3 

Riparian buffer size = 61 m (200 ft) Riparian buffer size = 61 m (200 ft)

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude

Beginning of reach 47°09'12.4" 121°37'51.6" 47°09'31" 121°39'34"

End of reach 47°09'05.7" 121°37'30.2" 47°08'46" 121°37'03"

Measurement Error Study Reach River segments 1 - 3

Habitat conditions

Field data Multispectral data Multispectral data

Sept. 1999 (late) Sept. 21, 1999 Sept. 21, 1999

Square 

meters Percent Square meters Percent Square meters Percent

Instream

Riffle 7,567.8 73.5 4,881.3 91.7 18,993.3 83.4

Pool 2,730.4 26.5 444.0 8.3 3,789.6 16.6

Turbulent 2,267.1 22.0 2,478.4 46.5 8,511.2 37.4

Non-turbulent 8,031.1 78.0 2,846.9 53.5 14,271.6 62.6

Riparian

Bare soil — — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Boulder — — 76.6 0.1 232.7 0.1

Conifer — — 31,531.0 54.1 245,619.3 52.9

Deciduous vegetation — — 4,250.1 7.3 17,579.1 3.8

Grass and gravel — — 7,975.1 13.7 33,705.5 7.3

Roads — — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Shadows — — 14,496.3 24.9 167,235.5 36.0

Shrub — — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wood 393.7 — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

— — — — —

Total instream area (m2) 10,298.2 — 5,325.3 — 22,782.9 —

Total instream area based 

on instream habitat and 

water temperature (m2)

— — 11,764.8 — — —

Total reach length (m) 500.0 — 523.0 — 4,029.1 —
26 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Figure 11. Characterization of instream hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the Lower Greenwater River measurement error study 

reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

47 ̊

09'

15"

47 ̊

09'

10"

47 ̊

09'

05"

121 ̊37'45" 121 ̊37'30"

 EXPLANATION

 INSTREAM HYDRAULIC HABITAT

 RIPARIAN HABITAT

 Boulder

 Conifer

 Deciduous vegetation

 Grass and gravel

 Shadows

 Pool

 Riffle

A. Instream habitat conditions characterized as either riffle or pool.

0

0 50 100 150 200 METERS

200 400 600 800 FEET
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 27

Figure 11.—Continued.

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

 RIPARIAN HABITATS

 EXPLANATION

 INSTREAM HYDRAULIC HABITATS

Boulder

Conifer

Deciduous vegetation

Grass and gravel

Shadows

Non-turbulent

Turbulent

B. Instream habitat conditions characterized as either turbulent or non-turbulent.

47 ̊

09'

15"

47 ̊

09'

10"

47 ̊

09'

05"

121 ̊37'45" 121 ̊37'30"

0

0 50 100 150 200 METERS

200 400 600 800 FEET
28 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Figure 12. Characterization of thermal conditions in the Lower Greenwater River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River 

Basin, Washington, September 1999.

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

47 ̊

09'

15"

47 ̊

09'

10"

47 ̊

09'

05"

121 ̊37'45" 121 ̊37'30"

0

0 50 100 150 200 METERS

200 400 600 800 FEET

 EXPLANATION

Coldest

Warmest

LAND SURFACE

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURES
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 29

Figure 13. A proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the Lower Greenwater River measurement 

error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

0

10

20

30

PERCENTAGE OF RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

Colder Water Warmer Water
30 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Entire Segment

The entire Lower Greenwater River segments 1, 

2, and 3 was characterized using the same multispectral 

imaging approach used for the measurement error 

study reach (fig. 1, table 3). 

As for the study reach, riffle habitat dominated 

the entire length of river segments 1, 2, and 3 

(fig. 14A). The entire Lower Greenwater River 

segments also was dominated by non-turbulent habitat 

types, as observed in the study reach (fig. 14B, table 3). 

Conifers dominated the riparian zone, but shadows 

were extensive (table 3). 

The relative thermal imagery and a proportional 

distribution of relative water temperatures for the entire 

segments 1, 2, and 3 showed a distinctive shift in the 

distribution of water temperature from predominantly 

cold water to warmer water (figs. 15 and 16). Although 

the cause of this shift is not known, it appears as though 

the measurement error study reach may be an area of 

groundwater upwelling while the remainder of 

segments 1, 2, and 3 may not be receiving such groundwater inputs. 

Figure 14. Characterization of instream hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the entire Lower Greenwater River segments 1 through 3 in the Upper 

White River, Washington, September 1999.

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

A. Instream habitat conditions characterized as either riffle or pool.

47 ̊

09'

20"

47 ̊

09'

121 ̊39'05" 121 ̊37'10"

500 1000 1500 METERS

0

0

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 FEET

 EXPLANATION

 INSTREAM HYDRAULIC HABITAT

 RIPARIAN HABITAT

 Boulder

 Conifer

 Deciduous vegetation

 Grass and gravel

 Shadows

 Pool

 Riffle
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 31

Figure 14.—Continued.

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

47 ̊

09'

20"

47 ̊

09'

121 ̊39'05" 121 ̊37'10"

500 1000 1500 METERS

0

0

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 FEET

 RIPARIAN HABITAT

 EXPLANATION

 INSTREAM HYDRAULIC HABITAT

Boulder

Conifer

Deciduous vegetation

Grass and gravel

Shadows

Non-turbulent

Turbulent

B. Instream habitat conditions characterized as either turbulent or non-turbulent.
32 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Figure 16. A proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the entire Lower Greenwater River segments 1 

through 3 in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

0

10

20

30

PERCENTAGE OF RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

Colder Water Warmer Water

Figure 15. Characterization of thermal conditions in the entire Lower Greenwater River segments 1 through 3 in the Upper White River, Washington, 

September 1999.

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

47 ̊

09'

20"

47 ̊

09'

121 ̊39'05" 121 ̊37'10"

500 1000 1500 METERS

0

0

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 FEET

 EXPLANATION

Coldest

Warmest

LAND SURFACE

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURES
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 33

Upper Greenwater River

Measurement Error Study Reach

The Upper Greenwater River measurement error 

study reach is 2,100 meters long and extends from the 

upper end of the Ecology's segment 8 to the end of the 

Ecology's segment 9 in the upstream one-half of the 

Upper Greenwater River study segment (fig. 1, river 

reach segment C). Discharge in the upper Green River 

at the time of field sampling was 1.5 cubic meters per 

second and the mean bankfull width was 21.1 meters 

(table 12, at back of report). 

Field data and multispectral imagery indicate 

that the 2,100-meter long study reach is dominated by 

riffle habitat (table 4). Riffle habitat measured in the 

field was 88.6 percent of the instream area and 84.8 

percent using the multispectral imagery. The 

abundance of pool and riffle habitat conditions were 

substantially under-estimated using the multispectral 

imagery (table 4). 

Total instream habitat measured in the field was 

27,907.6 square meters and 8,391.1 square meters 

using the multispectral imagery. Some of this 

difference is due to canopy cover, but most is likely 

caused by shadows (fig. 17). A portion of the thermal 

imagery for this study reach was unusable, which 

prevented calculation of a total instream area from the 

multispectral and temperature imageries. Conifer 

vegetation cover dominated the riparian habitat, but 

shrubs/small trees also made up a significant portion of 

the riparian habitat (fig. 17, table 4). 

Total area of woody debris measured in the field 

based on instream woody debris was 1,266.2 square 

meters and 5,990.9 square meters using multispectral 

imagery (table 4). The overestimation of woody debris 

generated by the multispectral analysis is most likely 

because of (1) a misclassification of the imagery or (2) 

a classification of large areas of woody debris outside 

of the area examined during the field. Identification of 

woody debris in the field was limited to wood located, 

at least partially, within the active bankfull channel 

(Schuett-Hames and others, 1999). Further GIS 

analysis could be restricted to the active channel, which 

might provide a better estimate of instream wood for 

this study reach. 

Areas of warmer water temperatures throughout 

the reach were characterized by thermal imagery 

(fig. 18). These areas of warmer water correspond with 

areas that lack canopy cover and have shallow water. A 

frequency distribution of water temperatures indicates 

that both cold and warm water were present in this 

reach (fig. 19). 

CHARACTERIZATION OF INSTREAM HYDRAULIC AND RIPARIAN 

HABITAT CONDITIONS AND STREAM TEMPERATURES
34 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Table 4. Instream hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the Upper Greenwater River measurement error study reach 

and river segments 8 and 9 in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, August and September 1999

[Field data: Field dates were spread out over a number of days. Instream habitat: The total area of instream habitat is the sum of 

either riffles and pools or turbulent and non-turbulent conditions. Abbreviations: ft, feet; m2, square meter; m, meter. —, no data]

Ecology Segments 8 and 9

Riparian buffer size = 122 m (400 ft)

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude

Beginning of reach 47°07'23" 121°32'58" 47°07'12" 121°34'21"

End of reach 47°07'30" 121°31'48" 47°07'29" 121°31'54"

Measurement Error Study Reach River segments 8 and 9

Habitat conditions

Field data Multispectral data Multispectral data

Aug. 1999 (late) Sept. 21, 1999 Sept. 21, 1999

Square 

meters Percent Square meters Percent Square meters Percent

Instream

Riffle 24,731.9 88.6 7,117.3 84.8 13,620.6 78.0

Pool 3,175.7 11.4 1,273.8 15.2 3,773.9 22.0

Riparian

Bare soil — — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Boulder — — 949.8 0.3 1,138.2 0.1

Conifer — — 96,905.8 27.6 204,209.4 24.8

Deciduous vegetation — — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Grass and gravel — — 16,546.9 4.3 34,722.7 4.2

Roads — — 568.2 0.2 630.6 0.1

Shadows — — 156,987.6 44.7 407,229.8 49.6

Shrub — — 74,476.1 21.2 163,231.2 19.9

Wood 1,266.2 — 5,990.9 1.7 10,691.3 1.3

Total instream area (m2) 27,907.6 — 8,391.1 — 17,394.5 —

Total reach length (m) 2,100 — 1,554.6 — 3,533.7 —
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 35

Figure 17. Characterization of instream hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the Upper Greenwater River measurement error study reach in the 

Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

Characterization based on field data collected by the U.S. Forest Service. 

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

47 ̊

07'

30"

47 ̊

07'

15"

121 ̊32'45" 121 ̊32'

0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 METERS

500 1000 1500 2000 FEET

Dry wood

Small bush / tree

Roads

 RIPARIAN HABITAT

 Boulder

 Conifer

 Grass and gravel

 Shadows

 Pool

 Riffle

 INSTREAM HYDRAULIC HABITAT

EXPLANATION
36 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Figure 18. Characterization of thermal conditions in the Upper Greenwater River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, 

Washington, September 1999. 

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

47 ̊

07'

30"

47 ̊

07'

15"

121 ̊32'45" 121 ̊32'

 EXPLANATION

Coldest

Warmest

LAND SURFACE

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURES

0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 METERS

500 1000 1500 2000 FEET
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 37

Figure 19. A proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the Upper Greenwater River measurement 

error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

0

10

20

30

PERCENTAGE OF RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

Colder Water Warmer Water
38 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Entire Segment

The entire Upper Greenwater River segments 8 

and 9 were characterized using the same multispectral 

imaging approach used for the measurement error 

study reach (fig. 1, river reach segment C, and table 4). 

As for the study reach, riffle habitat dominated the 

entire length of river segments 8 and 9 (fig. 20).

Conifers dominated the riparian zone, but shrubs also 

were a substantial component (table 4). Shadows 

dominated the imagery and impacted the classification 

results for this imagery. 

As shown by the relative thermal imagery and a 

proportional distribution of relative water temperatures, 

the entire Upper Greenwater segment showed a subtle 

shift from cold to warmer water (figs. 21 and 22). 

Figure 20. Characterization of hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the entire Upper Greenwater River segments 8 and 9 in the Upper White River 

Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

47 ̊

07'

20"

121 ̊34 121 ̊32'

 EXPLANATION

 INSTREAM HYDRAULIC HABITAT

 RIPARIAN HABITAT

 Bare soil

 Conifer

 Grass and gravel

 Roads

 Shadows

 Small shrub / tree

 Dry wood

 Pool

 Riffle

500 1000 1500 METERS

0

0

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 FEET
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 39

Figure 21. Characterization of thermal conditions in the entire Upper Greenwater River segments 8 and 9 in the Upper White River, Washington, 

September 1999. 

A part of the thermal image for this segment could not be generated due to corrupted data. 

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

47 ̊

07'

20"

121 ̊34 121 ̊32'

500 1000 1500 METERS

0

0

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 FEET

 EXPLANATION

LAND SURFACE

Coldest

Warmest

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURES
40 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Figure 22. A proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the entire Upper Greenwater River segments 8 

and 9 in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

0

10

20

30

PERCENTAGE OF RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

Colder Water Warmer Water
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 41

Clearwater River

Measurement Error Study Reach

The Clearwater River study reach was 900 

meters long and started at the beginning of Ecology's 

river reach segment 2. Four Ecology river reach 

segments are contained within the Clearwater River 

reach identified in figure 1; river reach segment 2 is the 

second reach from the downstream end of this reach. 

Discharge in the Clearwater River study reach at the 

time of field sampling was estimated to be 0.4 cubic 

meter per second (table 13, at back of report). 

Field data and multispectral imagery indicate 

that the 900-meter long study reach is dominated by 

riffle and turbulent habitat (figs. 23A and 23B; table 5). 

Although the proportions of habitat conditions 

identified by the field and imaging methods showed the 

same rank-order patterns, the total instream area of 

pools and riffles and turbulent and non-turbulent 

habitat types identified by the multispectral imaging 

approach were substantially less than habitat 

conditions measured in the field. For the study reach, 

the multispectral imaging approach characterized less 

than one-half of the instream habitat area (table 5). 

Most of this difference is due to canopy cover and 

shadows (figs. 23A and 23B). Total instream habitat 

measured in the field was 14,784.0 square meters and 

11,325.8 square meters using the combination of 

multispectral and thermal imagery.

For this study reach, the addition of the thermal 

data did not improve the imagery-based estimate of 

total instream habitat as well as for some of the other 

study reaches. This is likely because the remaining 

instream habitat not observed in either the multispectral 

or thermal imagery was obscured by canopy cover. 

Field measurements of total reach length were 

within 73 meters of total reach length estimated using 

GPS point measures with the multispectral imagery 

(table 5). The increase in linear measurement error as 

compared with other study reaches could have resulted 

from the extensive canopy cover and shadows in this 

reach. The shadows could have affected the proper 

identification of the channel center line from the aerial 

imageries. 

Total area of woody debris measured in the field 

was 349.4 square meters, however, only 163.9 square 

meters of wood was characterized by multispectral 

imagery (table 5; table 13).

Areas of warmer water temperatures throughout 

the reach were characterized by thermal imaging 

(fig. 24). These areas of warmer water correspond with 

areas that lack canopy cover and have shallow water. 

Warmer water accounted for the highest proportion of 

surface waters imaged in the Clearwater study reach 

(fig. 25). 
42 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Table 5. Instream hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the Clearwater River measurement error study reach and river segments 1 

through 4 in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999

[Field data: Field dates were spread out over a number of days. Instream habitat: The total area of instream habitat is the sum of either riffles and 

pools or turbulent and non-turbulent conditions. Total instream area: Total instream area is based on multispectral habitat data and aerial based 

temperature data. Total instream area based on field data can be compared to either total instream area from the multi-spectral data or to the 

corrected total instream area based on instream habitat and water temperature. For further clarification of this calculation, see the “Methods” 

section. Abbreviations: ft, feet; m2, square meter; m, meter. —, no data]

Ecology Segment 2 Ecology Segments 1 - 4

Riparian buffer size = 61 m (200 ft) Riparian buffer size = 61 m (200 ft)

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude

Beginning of reach 47°08'22" 121°49'16" 47°08'47" 121°50'06"

End of reach 47°08'05" 121°48'49" 47°06'23" 121°46'55"

Measurement Error Study Reach River segments 1 - 4

Habitat conditions

Field data Multispectral data Multispectral data

Sept,. 1999 (early) Sept. 21, 1999 Sept. 21, 1999

Square 

meters Percent Square meters Percent Square meters Percent

Instream

Riffle 11,522.4 77.9 6,892.4 78.0 65,943.8 98.9

Pool 3,261.6 22.1 195.1 22.0 719.8 1.1

Turbulent 11,062.9 74.8 4,395.7 62.0 33,561.8 50.3

Non-Turbulent 3,721.2 25.2 2,691.9 38.0 33,101.8 49.7

Riparian

Bare soil — — 4.1 0.0 948.7 0.1

Boulder — — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Conifer — — 45,222.2 40.6 341,812.5 40.4

Deciduous vegetation — — 970.6 0.9 8,322.4 1.0

Grass and gravel — — 11,467.6 10.3 64,943.8 11.2

Roads — — 280.6 0.3 3,839.7 0.5

Shadows — — 35,480.4 31.8 321,619.4 38.1

Shrub — — 17,849.4 16.0 73,208.5 8.7

Wood 394.4 — 163.9 0.1 406.2 0.0

Total instream area (m2) 14,784.0 — 7,087.5 — 66,663.6 —

Total instream area based 

on instream habitat and 

water temperature (m2)

— 11,325.8 — — —

Total reach length (m) 900 — 973 — 7,505.7 —
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 43

Figure 23. Characterization of hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the Clearwater River measurement error study reach in the Upper White 

River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

Field data were collected by Weyerhaeuser Company.

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

0 100 200 300 METERS

0 500 1000 FEET

 EXPLANATION

 INSTREAM HYDRAULIC HABITAT

 RIPARIAN HABITAT

 Bare soil

 Conifer

 Deciduous vegetation

 Grass and gravel

 Roads

 Shadows

 Wood

 Small bush/tree

 Pool

 Riffle

47 ̊

08'

20"

47 ̊

08'

05"

121 ̊49'05" 121 ̊48'50"

A. Instream habitat conditions characterized as either riffle or pool.
44 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Figure 23.—Continued.

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

0 100 200 300 METERS

0 500 1000 FEET

 EXPLANATION

 INSTREAM HYDRAULIC HABITAT

 RIPARIAN HABITAT

 Bare soil

 Conifer

 Deciduous vegetation

 Grass and gravel

 Roads

 Shadows

 Wood

 Small bush/tree

 Pool

 Riffle

B. Instream habitat conditions characterized as either turbulent or non-turbulent.

47 ̊

08'

20"

47 ̊

08'

05"

121 ̊49'05" 121 ̊48'50"
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 45

Figure 24. Characterization of thermal conditions in the Clearwater River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999. 

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

0 100 200 300 METERS

0 500 1000 FEET

 EXPLANATION

Coldest

Warmest

LAND SURFACE

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURES

47 ̊

08'

20"

47 ̊

08'

05"

121 ̊49'05" 121 ̊48'50"
46 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Figure 25. A proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the Clearwater River measurement error 

study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

0

10

20

PERCENTAGE OF RELATIVE 

WATER TEMPERATURE

Colder Water Warmer Water

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

0

10

20

PERCENTAGE OF RELATIVE 

WATER TEMPERATURE

Colder Water Warmer Water
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 47

Entire Segment

The entire Clearwater River segments 1-4 were 

characterized using the same multispectral imaging 

approach used for the measurement error study reach 

(fig. 1, river reach segment D, and table 5). As for the 

study reach, riffle habitat dominated the entire length 

of river segments 1-4 (fig. 26A). Turbulent and nonturbulent habitat conditions for the entire Clearwater 

River segment were about equal. Turbulent habitat was 

50.3 percent of the instream area and non-turbulent was 

49.7 percent (fig. 26B). This contrasts with what was 

observed within the Clearwater River measurement 

error study reach (table 5), where turbulent habitat was 

greater. These differences may be real or maybe the 

result of extensive shadows and canopy cover over the 

stream. For the total Clearwater River segment, 

38.1 percent of the riparian zone was obscured by 

shadows. Conifer vegetation made up the largest 

component of the riparian zone (table 5). 

As shown by the relative thermal imagery and a 

proportional distribution of relative water temperatures, 

areas of colder and warmer water are indicated in this 

reach of the Clearwater River (figs. 27 and 28). The 

proportional distribution indicates that water 

temperatures vary greatly in this stream reach. The 

locations of warmer water in this segment might 

indicate areas in which further temperature monitoring 

might be appropriate with additional work designed to 

identify the causes for any elevated water temperatures.
48 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Figure 26. Characterization of hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the entire Clearwater River reach segments 1 through 4 in the Upper 

White River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

0 500 1000 1500 2000 METERS

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET

A. Instream habitat conditions characterized as either riffle or pool.

 EXPLANATION

 INSTREAM HYDRAULIC HABITAT

 RIPARIAN HABITAT

 Bare soil

 Conifer

 Deciduous vegetation

 Grass and gravel

 Roads

 Shadows

 Wood

 Small bush/tree

 Pool

 Riffle

47 ̊

08'

30"

47 ̊

06'

50"

121 ̊49'20" 121 ̊47'20"
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 49

Figure 26.—Continued.

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

B. Instream habitat conditions characterized as either turbulent or non-turbulent.

0 500 1000 1500 2000 METERS

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET

 EXPLANATION

 INSTREAM HYDRAULIC HABITAT

 RIPARIAN HABITAT

 Bare soil

 Conifer

 Deciduous vegetation

 Grass and gravel

 Roads

 Shadows

 Wood

 Small bush/tree

 Non-turbulent

 Turbulent

47 ̊

08'

30"

47 ̊

06'

50"

121 ̊49'20" 121 ̊47'20"
50 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Figure 27. Characterization of thermal conditions in the entire Clearwater River reach segments 1 through 4 in the Upper White River Basin, 

Washington, September 1999. 

Field data were collected by the Weyerhaeuser Company. 

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

0 500 1000 1500 2000 METERS

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET

 EXPLANATION

Coldest

Warmest

LAND SURFACE

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURES

47 ̊

08'

30"

47 ̊

06'

50"

121 ̊49'20" 121 ̊47'20"
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 51

Figure 28. A proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the entire Clearwater River reach segments 1 

through 4 in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

0

10

20

PERCENTAGE OF RELATIVE 

WATER TEMPERATURE

Colder Water Warmer Water
52 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

White River 

Measurement Error Study Reach

The White River measurement error study reach 

is 700 meters long and was located at the upstream end 

of the White River segment (fig. 1, river reach 

segment E). Unlike the other study reaches, the White 

River is a large non-wadeable river. Therefore, the field 

methods used to describe habitat conditions in the other 

study reaches were not appropriate. Modified methods 

were used to measure the area of turbulent and 

non-turbulent habitat conditions in the study reach, but 

not the area of pools and riffles. Discharge was not 

measured in the study reach due to the inability to wade 

the stream and associated safety issues. 

The study reach is a stream system with a slight 

majority of non-turbulent habitat (fig. 29, table 6). The 

multispectral imagery for the same study reach also 

showed a system with a similar majority of nonturbulent habitat (table 6). As was observed for most of 

the other study reaches, the field survey measured a 

greater total area of instream habitat. 

Total instream area characterized using the 

combination of multispectral and thermal imagery was 

12,369.8 square meters (table 6). For this study reach, 

the addition of the thermal data did not much improve 

the estimate of total instream habitat compared to some 

of the other study reaches. The remaining instream 

habitat not observed by either the multispectral or 

thermal imagery was likely obscured by canopy cover. 

Field measurements of total reach length were within 

10.4 meters of total reach length estimated using GPS 

point measures with the multispectral imagery 

(table 6). 

The multispectral imaging approach did not 

identify any instream woody debris even though 

223.5 square meters (table 6) of woody debris was 

observed and recorded during the field evaluation 

(table 14, at back of report). 

The relative thermal imagery and a proportional 

distribution of relative water temperatures, shows a 

very few patches of warm water along the margins of 

the river (figs. 30 and 31). Unlike many of the smaller 

and shallower study reaches, the proportional 

distribution of water temperatures in the White River 

did not exhibit a warm water peak (fig. 31). 
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 53

Table 6. Instream hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the White River measurement error study reach and the entire river segment in 

the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999

[Field data: Field dates were spread out over a number of days. Instream habitat: The total area of instream habitat is the sum of either riffles 

and pools or turbulent and non-turbulent conditions. Total instream area: Total instream area is based on multispectral habitat data and aerial 

based temperature data. Total instream area based on field data can be compared to either total instream area from the multi-spectral data or to the 

corrected total instream area based on instream habitat and water temperature. For further clarification of this calculation, see the “Methods” 

section. Abbreviations: ft, feet; m2, square meter; m, meter. —, no data]

Riparian buffer size = 91.5 m (300 ft) Riparian buffer size = 91.5 m (300 ft

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude

Beginning of reach 47°10'22" 121°47'49" 47°08'47" 121°50'06"

End of reach 47°10'24" 121°47'18" 47°10'02" 121°45'40"

Measurement Error Study Reach Entire river segment

Habitat conditions

Field data Multispectral data Multispectral data

Sept. 1999 (late) Sept. 21, 1999 Sept. 21, 1999

Square 

meters Percent Square meters Percent Squaremeters Percent

Instream

Turbulent 9,058.0 45.4 4,901.7 43.8 63,661.4 30.4

Non-Turbulent 10,869.4 54.6 6,298.9 56.2 146,044.4 69.6

Riparian

Bare soil — — 200.3 0.2 7,148.8 0.8

Boulder — — 1,022.3 0.9 12,903.1 1.4

Conifer — — 30,276.8 26.4 222,896.8 24.4

Deciduous vegetation — — 5,104.3 4.4 54,704.3 6.0

Grass and gravel — — 32,077.2 27.9 169,541.4 18.6

Roads — — 207.0 0.2 3,256.7 0.4

Shadows — — 41,985.2 36.6 400,898.4 44.0

Shrub — — 3,954.9 3.4 40,722.5 4.5

Wood 223.5 — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total instream area (m2) 19,927.4 — 11,200.8 — 209,705.8 —

Total instream area based 

on instream habitat and 

water temperature (m2)

— — 12,369.8 — 279,702.6 —

Total reach length (m) 700 — 689.6 — 8,490 —
54 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Figure 29. Characterization of hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the White River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, 

Washington, September 1999. 

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

Boulder

0

0 100 200 300 METERS

500 1000 FEET

 EXPLANATION

 INSTREAM HYDRAULIC HABITAT

 RIPARIAN HABITAT

 Bare soil

 Conifer

 Deciduous vegetation

 Grass and gravel

 Roads

 Shadows

 Wood

 Shrub

 Pool

 Riffle

47 ̊

10'

25"

121 ̊47'40" 121 ̊47'20"
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 55

Figure 30. Characterization of thermal conditions in the White River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999. 

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

 Coldest

 Warmest

47 ̊

10'

25"

121 ̊47'40" 121 ̊47'20"

0

0 100 200 300 METERS

500 1000 FEET

 EXPLANATION

LAND SURFACE

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURES

Figure 31. A proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the White River measurement error study 

reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

0

10

20

PERCENTAGE OF RELATIVE 

WATER TEMPERATURE

Colder Water Warmer Water
56 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Entire Segment

The entire White River segment was 

characterized using the same multispectral imaging 

approach used for the measurement error study reach 

(fig. 1, river reach segment E, and table 6). Turbulent 

habitat was 30.4 percent of the instream area and nonturbulent was 69.6 percent (fig. 32). For the total White 

River segment, shadows dominated the riparian zone 

followed by conifers, grasses, and gravel (table 6). 

As shown by the relative thermal imagery and a 

proportional distribution of relative water temperatures, 

the distribution for the entire segment did not exhibit 

any warm water peak (figs. 33 and 34). However, the 

entire White River segment did exhibit a shift in 

relative water temperature from colder to intermediate 

temperatures. The reason for this shift is unknown. 

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

47 ̊

10'

20"

47 ̊

09'

10"

121 ̊49'25" 121 ̊46'10"

0 2500 5000 7500 10,000 FEET

0 2000 2500 3000 METERS 500 1000 1500

 EXPLANATION

 INSTREAM HYDRAULIC HABITAT

 Pool

 Riffle

Boulder

 RIPARIAN HABITAT

 Bare soil

 Conifer

 Deciduous vegetation

 Grass and gravel

 Roads

 Shadows

 Shrub

Figure 32. Characterization of hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the entire White River reach segment in the Upper White River Basin, 

Washington, September 1999. 
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 57

Figure 33. Characterization of thermal conditions in the entire White River segment in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999.

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

47 ̊

10'

20"

47 ̊

09'

10"

121 ̊49'25" 121 ̊46'10"

0 2500 5000 7500 10,000 FEET

0 2000 2500 3000 METERS 500 1000 1500

 EXPLANATION

Coldest

Warmest

LAND SURFACE

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURES

Figure 34. A proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the entire White River segment in the Upper 

White River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

0

10

20

30

PERCENTAGE OF RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

Colder Water Warmer Water
58 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

West Fork White River 

Entire Segment

Unlike the other stream segments in this study, a 

study reach was not established in the West Fork of the 

White River due to cost constraints. Multispectral 

information collected from the other study reaches was 

used to train the computerized supervised classification 

approach described in the "Methods" section in order to 

classify the multispectral imagery generated for the 

West Fork of the White River. This approach was 

assumed to be appropriate given how similar the study 

reaches were throughout the basin. The results from the 

classification of multispectral imagery are shown in

table 7. According to the supervised computer 

classification, the West Fork is entirely characterized as 

riffle habitat (fig. 35A, table 7). This is highly unlikely 

and the results of the turbulent and non-turbulent 

classification presented in table 7 and figure 35B may 

be a better representation of habitat condition in this 

segment. Some of the pool habitat types in this segment 

may be small and spatially isolated from one another, 

thus the computer program was unable to identify these 

spatially distinct habitats and merged them into riffle 

habitat types. Further refinement of the supervised 

classification approach through the use of field data for 

this segment might alleviate this shortcoming. In 

addition, the extensive shadows in this imagery also 

could have affected the accurate identification of pools. 

As shown by the relative thermal imagery and a 

proportional distribution of relative water temperatures, 

this segment exhibited two distinct temperature peaks 

at colder and intermediate relative temperatures 

(figs. 36 and 37). A distinct temperature increase 

appeared near mid-segment, but without field 

temperature data, this water temperature increase may 

not reflect actual water temperature conditions; 

however, it does suggest an area for further 

investigation. 

Table 7. Instream hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the entire 

segment of the West Fork of the White River in the Upper White River 

Basin, Washington, September 1999

[Instream habitat: The total area of instream habitat is the sum of either 

riffles and pools or turbulent and non-turbulent conditions. Abbreviations: 

ft, feet; m2, square meter; m, meter. —, no data]

Ecology Segment Cripple Creek

Riparian buffer size = 91.5 m (300 ft)

Latitude Longitude

Beginning of reach 47°03'49" 121°41'15"

End of reach 47°03'09" 121°41'40"

Entire river segment

Habitat conditions

Multispectral data

Sept. 21, 1999

Square 

meters Percent

Instream

Riffle 182,519.6 100.0

Pool 0.0 0.0

Turbulent 160,013.9 87.6

Non-turbulent 22,605.6 12.4

Riparian

Bare soil 9,588.1 3.2

Boulder 708.4 0.2

Conifer 109,217.2 36.3

Deciduous vegetation 1,919.5 0.6

Grass and gravel 52,350.5 17.4

Roads 4,564.3 1.5

Shadows 95,525.0 31.8

Shrub 26,869.7 8.9

Wood 0.0 0.0

Total instream area (m2) 182,619.6 —

Total reach length (m) 2,647.5 —
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 59

Figure 35. Characterization of hydraulic and riparian habitat conditions in the West Fork of the White River 

segment in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

Boulder

 EXPLANATION

 INSTREAM HYDRAULIC HABITAT

 RIPARIAN HABITAT

 Bare soil

 Conifer

 Deciduous vegetation

 Grass and gravel

 Roads

 Shadows

 Shrub

 Pool

 Riffle

47 ̊

04'

20"

47 ̊

03'

20"

121 ̊41'30" 121 ̊40'55"

0 500 1000 METERS

0 1000 2000 3000 FEET

 A. Instream habitat conditions characterized as either riffle or pool.
60 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Figure 35.—Continued.

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

47 ̊

04'

20"

47 ̊

03'

20"

121 ̊41'30" 121 ̊40'55"

0 500 1000 METERS

0 1000 2000 3000 FEET

B. Instream habitat conditions characterized as either turbulent or non-turbulent.

Boulder

 EXPLANATION

 INSTREAM HYDRAULIC HABITAT

 RIPARIAN HABITAT

 Bare soil

 Conifer

 Deciduous vegetation

 Grass and gravel

 Roads

 Shadows

 Shrub

 Non-turbulent

 Turbulent
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 61

Figure 36. Characterization of thermal conditions in the entire West Fork of the White River segment in the 

Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

To view this imagery at a larger scale, select the zoom tool on the Acrobat tool bar and click on page.

 EXPLANATION

Coldest

Warmest

LAND SURFACE

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURES

47 ̊

04'

20"

47 ̊

03'

20"

121 ̊41'30" 121 ̊40'55"

0 500 1000 METERS

0 1000 2000 3000 FEET
62 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Figure 37. A proportional distribution of relative water temperatures in the entire West Fork of the White River segment 

in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999. 

RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

0

10

20

30

PERCENTAGE OF RELATIVE WATER TEMPERATURE

Colder Water Warmer Water
Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitat Conditions and Stream Temperatures 63

Measurement Error Comparisons

For the most part, all multi-spectral imagerybased estimates of total instream riffle and pool area 

were less than field measurements. The imagery-based 

estimates for riffle habitat area ranged from 35.5 to 

83.3 percent less than field measurements. Pool habitat 

estimates ranged from 139.3 percent greater than field 

measurements to 94.0 percent less than field 

measurements (table 8). Multispectral imagery-based 

estimates of turbulent habitat types ranged from 9.3 

percent greater than field measurements to 81.6 percent 

less than field measurements. Multispectral imagerybased estimates for non-turbulent habitat types ranged 

from 27.7 to 74.1 percent less than field measurements 

(table 8). The absolute average percentage of difference 

between field and imagery-based habitat type areas was 

less for the turbulent and non-turbulent habitat type 

categories (table 8). The percentage of difference 

between the total instream areas measured in the field 

and the total instream area measured from the thermal 

imagery ranged from +14.2 to -37.9 percent. The 

percentage of difference between field measured study 

reach length and imagery-based length was small 

(table 8). The estimate of woody debris using the 

multispectral imagery was substantially different than 

field measurements; percentages of differences ranged 

from +373.1 to -100 percent (table 8). 

The total area of riffles, pools, and turbulent and 

non-turbulent habitat conditions measured in the field 

were all significantly higher (p-value < 0.1) than those 

estimated from the multispectral imagery (table 9). 

Numerous shadows covering the stream channel in 

many of the measurement error study reaches 

prevented an accurate estimate of the total area of each 

of the habitat conditions. In contrast to the estimates of 

total area of habitat type, the percentage of composition 

of each habitat type was not significantly different 

between the field and imagery-based estimates 

(table 9). Without imagery unaffected by shadows, it is 

difficult to determine if this lack of significant 

difference is creditable or not. Estimates of reach and 

segment lengths recorded in the field and derived from 

the imagery were not significantly different (table 9). 

The area of total woody debris also was not 

significantly different between the field measurements 

and imagery-based estimates. However, the imagerybased estimate of woody debris for the Upper 

Greenwater measurement error study reach was an 

outlier and has a large influence on the paired t-test 

(table 9). If this pair of observations was removed from 

the statistical test, the difference between the area of 

woody debris measured in the field and estimated from 

the imagery was significantly different. 

Table 8. Percentage of differences between field and multispectral data from measurement error study reaches and river segments in the Upper White 

River Basin, Washington, August through October 1999

[Absolute average percentage of difference: Negative percentage of differences indicate that multispectral measurements for each variable were less than 

those for field data and positive values indicate they were greater. Abbreviations: na, not applicable]

Measurement error study reaches

Total riffle 

area 

(square 

meters)

Total pool 

area 

(square 

miles)

Total 

turbulent 

area 

(square 

miles)

Total nonturbulent 

area 

(square 

miles)

Total 

instream 

area 

(square 

miles)

Study 

reach/

segment 

length 

(meters)

Total 

woody 

debris area 

(square 

meters)

Huckleberry Creek -83.3 -52.1 -81.6 -74.1 -9.4 -1.9 -100.0

Huckleberry Creek (entire segment) -74.0 139.3 na na na 48.0 -100.0

Lower Greenwater River -35.5 -83.7 9.3 -64.6 14.2 4.6 -100.0

Upper Greenwater River -71.2 -59.9 na na na -26.0 373.1

Clearwater Creek -40.2 -94.0 -60.3 -27.7 -23.4 8.1 -53.1

White River na na -45.9 -42.0 -37.9 -1.5 -100.0

Absolute average percentage of difference 60.9 85.8 49.3 52.1 21.2 15.0 137.7
64 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Table 9. Summary of field and multispectral data for habitat variables by study reach and statistical significance of measurement errors by habitat 

variable in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, August through October 1999

[Percentages: Paired t-test statistics in bold type are based on a two tailed test. All other test statistics are a one tailed test. Abbreviations: na, not applicable]

Measurement error 

study reach

Total riffle area 

(square meters)

Percentage of 

riffle area

Total pool area 

(square meters)

Percentage of

pool area

Field data

Multispectral 

data

Field data

Multispectral 

data

Field data

Multispectral 

data

Field data

Multispectral 

data

Huckleberry Creek 3,420.1 570 89.8 75.5 387 185.4 10.2 24.5

Huckleberry Creek (total segment) 11,420.1 2,964.6 93.8 61.9 761.2 1,821.2 6.3 38.1

Lower Greenwater River 7,567.8 4,881.3 73.5 91.7 2,730.4 444 26.5 8.3

Upper Greenwater River 24,731.9 7,117.3 88.6 84.8 3,175.7 1,273.8 11.4 15.2

Clearwater Creek 11,522.4 6,892.4 77.9 78 3,261.6 195.1 22.1 22

White River na na na na na na na na

Paired t-test statistic 0.14

0.05

0.77

0.48

1.71

0.08

0.76

p-value for paired t-test 0.49

Measurement error 

study reach

Total turbulent area 

(square meters)

Percentage of 

turbulent area

Total non-turbulent area

(square meters)

Percentage of 

non-turbulent area

Field data

Multispectral 

data

Field data

Multispectral 

data

Field data

Multispectral 

data

Field data

Multispectral 

data

Huckleberry Creek 3,092.1 570 81.2 75.5 714.9 185.4 18.8 24.5

Huckleberry Creek (total segment) na na na na na na na na

Lower Greenwater River 2,267.1 2,478.4 22 46.5 8,031.1 2,846.9 78 53.5

Upper Greenwater River na na na na na na na na

Clearwater Creek 11,062.9 4,395.7 74.8 62 3,721.2 2,691.9 25.2 38

White River 9,058 4,901.7 45.4 43.8 10,869.4 6,298.9 54.6 56.2

Paired t-test statistic 2.27

0.05

0.13

0.9

2.37

0.05

0.13

p-value for paired t-test 0.9

Measurement error 

study reach

Total instream area 

(square meters)

Study reach/segment 

length (meters)

Total woody debris area

(square meters)

Field data

Multispectral 

data

Field data

Multispectral 

data

Field data

Multispectral 

data

Huckleberry Creek 3,807.1 3,449 300 294.4 378.4 0

Huckleberry Creek (total segment) 12,181.3 na 989 1,464 280.2 0

Lower Greenwater River 10,298.2 11,764.8 500 523 393.7 0

Upper Greenwater River 27,907.6 na 2,100 1,554.6 1,266.2 5,990.9

Clearwater Creek 14,784 11,325.8 900 973 349.4 163.9

White River 19,927.4 12,369.8 700 686.6 223.5 0

Paired t-test statistic 1.25 0.01 0.65, 1709

p-value for paired t-test 0.15 0.99 0.73, 10.00

1Test results after the removal of the Upper Greenwater River data.
Summary and Conclusions 65

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of using multispectral imaging to 

characterize instream hydraulic and riparian habitat 

conditions were evaluated during this study. The 

instruments collected large amounts of unbiased 

georeferenced data in a few hours. After a few days of 

processing, the data were used to quantitatively assess 

the abundance and location of hydraulic and vegetation 

features. During the field component of this project, 

field crews of three to four individuals covered about 

300 meters of stream per day. A field crew would take 

about 80 days at a rate of 300 meters per day to 

characterize 24.6 kilometers. The aerial-based 

multispectral imaging system took under 3 hours to 

photograph the same distance resulting in complete 

georeferenced digital information. The processed 

multispectral imagery was digitally stored so it can be 

evaluated in the future as new imagery processing tools 

become available. Field data were limited to the 

information that was collected at that time. The digital 

multispectral imageries also can be used to evaluate 

future changes in habitat conditions in the Upper White 

River system in an unbiased manner by comparing the 

current imageries with imageries collected in the future 

using similar technologies. The advantage of this type 

of imaging acquisition technology is that the level of 

accuracy of the instruments used is known. The use of 

field crews to collect similar types of information over 

time could be influenced by the individual biases of the 

members of the collection crew. The multispectral 

imageries also could be incorporated into management 

databases such as the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat 

Inventory and Assessment Program (SSHIAP) 

database. 

Although there are theoretical benefits of 

multispectral imaging to characterize instream habitat, 

the results of this study suggest such an approach has a 

number of limitations. The extent of these limitations 

are difficult to fully address given the limited budget of 

this study. A limited budget prevented the 

implementation of a more traditional remote sensing 

accuracy assessment. Nevertheless, a number of 

conclusions can be drawn from this study. 

• The time of year during which such aerial 

evaluations are performed significantly 

influences the outcome. In this study, the low 

sun angle during the month of September 

resulted in extensive shadows throughout all 

studied imageries. These shadows reduced 

visibility of the streams examined and limited 

the ability to accurately quantify instream 

habitat. As was shown in a number of the 

study reaches, shadows were more of 

interference than overhanging vegetative 

cover. When thermal imageries were 

combined with the classified multispectral 

imageries, total instream area was often 

similar to field measurements. By adding the 

area identified by the thermal imaging to that 

of the multispectral imageries, calculations of 

total instream area were within 21 percent of 

field measurements on average as compared 

to 59 percent on average when thermal 

imageries were not used. For those segments 

in which field measurements of instream area 

were substantially greater than the thermal 

and multispectral imagery-based instream 

area, these differences likely were the result 

of extensive overhanging vegetative cover. 

Additional studies will need to be performed 

to determine if such a hypothesis can be 

accepted. 

• The multispectral imaging approach could 

not accurately identify instream woody debris 

even though the resolution of the imagery 

was 0.5 meter or less. Clearly, the extent of 

shadows and overhanging vegetation could 

have had an impact on the capability of using 

multispectral imaging to identify wood. 

However, the supervised classification 

approach used to classify the multispectral 

imageries could be refined to better identify 

large instream wood where it was visible 

from the air. This would require modifying 

the mathematical approaches used in the 

supervised classification approach. Given the 
66 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

extensive shadowing and vegetative cover in 

most of the imageries, the number of 

opportunities to refine the supervised 

classification routine to identify instream 

wood was insufficient. However, further 

refinement of the classification routine will 

never permit the identification of woody 

debris obscured from the sensor by 

overhanging vegetation. Pieces of wood 

smaller than the resolution of each pixel also 

would be difficult to identify with this 

method. 

• Great care needs to be taken when evaluating 

thermal imageries. Thermal imageries 

represent relative stream temperatures and 

may not be representative of conditions 

throughout the water column. In order to 

calibrate the thermal imageries, a number of 

georeferenced temperature probes at the 

surface and deeper in the water column would 

have to be installed during the thermal 

imaging flights. Furthermore, thermal 

imaging of a stream segment with extensive 

areas obscured by vegetative cover and other 

areas with open canopy might produce an 

imagery suggesting that the stream had 

elevated water temperatures throughout when 

in fact only the areas with an open canopy 

had high temperatures. 

• The multispectral imageries were more 

accurate for identifying turbulent and nonturbulent habitat types than for pools and 

riffles. For example, total pool and riffle areas 

determined by the multispectral approach on 

average were within 86 and 61 percent of the 

areas determined in the field. Total turbulent 

and non-turbulent areas determined by the 

multispectral imaging approach were within 

49 and 52 percent of corresponding field data. 

Although these results appear to indicate that 

this approach is more suitable for identifying 

habitat types based on surface turbulence, 

further refinement of the computer supervised 

classification routines might more accurately 

identify pools and riffles. 

The most appropriate use of this technology and 

methodology is in those streams with limited overhead 

cover, such as in significantly degraded systems and, 

particularly, large rivers. Large rivers present a unique 

challenge to fisheries biologists, hydrologists, and 

geomorphologists. Many of the large rivers are too 

deep or swift to use traditional instream habitat 

sampling approaches. Given that the imageries 

acquired using this approach are georeferenced and 

multispectral in contrast to traditional aerial 

photographs, they might provide an excellent source of 

information for future evaluations of management 

options. The results of this study identified a number of 

limitations of this approach for classifying instream 

habitat and stream temperatures. Further refinement of 

the imaging-data resolution and computer classification 

routines may allow this approach to be viable for 

preliminary classification of instream and riparian 

habitats of western Washington streams.
References Cited 67

REFERENCES CITED

Adams, D., and Schuett-Hames, J., 1997, Draft White River 

spring chinook habitat baseline monitoring plan: Rough 

draft September 1997, Washington Department of 

Ecology, Olympia, 8 p. + app. 

Anderson, H.W., 1973, The effect of clearcutting on stream 

temperatures: A literature review: Forest Land 

Management Center, Department of Natural Resources 

Report 29, Olympia, Washington, 24 p.

Anderson, P.C., Hardy, T.B., and Neale, C.M.U., 1994, 

Application of multispectral videography for the 

delineation of riverine depths and mesoscale hydraulic 

features in Biennial Workshop on Color Aerial 

Photography and Videography for Resource 

Monitoring, 14th, Proceedings: American Society of 

Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, p. 154-163.

Bartz, K.L., Kershner, J.L., Ramsey, R.D., and Neale, 

C.M.U., 1994, Delineating riparian cover types using 

multispectral, airborne videography in Biennial 

Workshop on Color Aerial Photography and 

Videography for Resource Monitoring, 14th, 

Proceedings: American Society of Photogrammetry and 

Remote Sensing, p. 58-67.

Bisson, P.A., Quinn, T.P., Reeves, G.H., and Gregory, S.V., 

1992, Best management practices, cumulative effects, 

and long-term trends in fish abundance in Pacific 

Northwest river systems in R.J. Naiman, ed., Watershed 

Management: Balancing Sustainability and 

Environmental Change: New York, Springer-Verlag, 

p.189-232, 

Black, R.W., and Silkey, Mariabeth, 1998, Water-quality 

assessment of the Puget Sound Basin, Washington –— 

Summary of stream biological data through 1995: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 97-4164, 78 p.

Bortleson, G.C., Chrzastowski, M.J., and Helgerson, A.K., 

1980, Historical changes of shoreline and wetland at 

eleven major deltas in the Puget Sound region, 

Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic 

Investigations Atlas HA-617, 11 sheets.

Brown, N.C., 1936, Logging-transportation: The principles 

and methods of log transportation in the U.S. and 

Canada: New York, John Wiley and Sons, 327 p.

Buchman, I.L., 1936, Lumbering and logging in the Puget 

Sound Region in territorial days: Pacific Northwest 

Quarterly, v. 27, p. 34-53.

Busack, C., and Shaklee, J. (eds.), 1995, Genetic diversity 

units and major ancestral lineages of salmonid fishes in 

Washington: Technical Report RAD 95-02, Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, 

Washington. 

Cox, T.R., 1974, Mills and markets: A history of the Pacific 

Coast lumber industry to 1900: Seattle, Washington, 

University of Washington Press, 396 p.

Fausch, K.D., 1984, Profitable stream positions for 

salmonids: relating specific growth rate to net energy 

gain: Canadian Journal of Zoology, v. 62, p. 441-451. 

Harmon, M.E., Franklin, J.F., Swanson, F.J., Sollins, P., 

Gregory, S.V., Lattin, J.D., Anderson, N.H., Cline, S.P., 

Aumen, N.G., Sedell, J.R., Lienkaemper, G.W., 

Cormack, K., and Cummins, K.W., 1986, Ecology of 

coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems in

Advances in Ecological Research: New York, 

Academic Press, p. 133-302. 

Jensen, J.R., 1996, Introductory digital image processing: A 

remote sensing perspective, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 

318 p.

King County Surface Water Management Division, 1993, 

Cedar River current and future conditions summary 

report: King County Department of Public Works, 

Surface Water Management Division, Seattle, 

Washington, 82 p., appendixes.

Moyle, P.B., and Herbold, B., 1987, Life history patterns and 

community structure in stream fishes of western North 

America: Comparisons with eastern North America and 

Europe in Mathews, W.J., and Heins, D.C., eds., 

Community and evolutionary ecology in North 

American stream fishes: Norman, Oklahoma, 

University of Oklahoma Press, p. 25-32.

Neale, C.M.U., and Crowther, B.G., 1994, An airborne 

multispectral video/radiometer remote sensing system: 

Development and calibration: Remote Sensing of 

Environment, v. 49, p. 187-194.

Neale, C.M.U., 1997, Classification and mapping of riparian 

systems using airborne multispectral videography: 

Restoration Ecology, v. 5, p. 103-112.

Nehlsen, W., Williams, J.E., and Lichatowich, J.A., 1991, 

Pacific salmon at the crossroads: Stocks at risk from 

California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington: Fisheries, 

v. 16, p. 4-21.

Olympic National Park Service, 1995, Provisional Fish list 

for Olympic National Park.

Panja, K.V., Hardy, T.B., and Neale, C.M.U., 1994, 

Comparison of Meso-scale hydraulic features at 

different discharges in a turbid river system using 

multispectral videography: Biennial Workshop on 

Color Aerial Photogrammetry and Videography for 

Resource Monitoring, 14th, Proceedings: American 

Society of Photography and Remote Sensing, 

p. 164-173.

Pleus, A.E., and Schuett-Hames, D., 1998, Method manual 

for the reference point survey: TFW Monitoring 

Program, TFW-AM9-98-002.
68 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Pleus, A.E., Schuett-Hames, D., and Bullchild, L., 1999, 

Method manual for the habitat unit survey: TFW 

Monitoring Program, TFW-AM9-99-003.

Ralph, S.C., Cardoso, T., Poole, G.C., Conquest, L.L., and 

Naiman, R.L., 1991, Status and trends of instream 

habitat in forested lands of Washington: The TimberFish-Wildlife ambient monitoring project, 1989-1991 

Biennial Progress Report: Center for Stream Side 

Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, 

Washington, TFW-AM9-91-002, 58 p.

Ralph, S.C., Poole, G.C., Conquest, L.L., and Naiman, R.J., 

1994, Stream channel morphology and woody debris in 

logged and unlogged basins of western Washington 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries Aquatic Science, v. 51, p. 

37-51.

Redd, T.H., Neale, C.M.U., and Hardy, T.B., 1994, Use of 

airborne multispectral videography for the 

classification and delineation of riparian vegetation: 

Biennial Workshop on Color Aerial Photogrammetry 

and Videography for Resource Monitoring, 14th, 

Proceedings: American Society of Photography and 

Remote Sensing, p. 202-214.

Reiser, D.W., and Bjornn, T.C., 1979, Habitat requirements 

of anadromous salmonids in Meehan, W.R., ed., 

Influence of Forest and Rangeland Management on 

Anadromous Fish Habitat in the Western United States 

and Canada: U.S. Forest Service General Technical 

Report PNW-96, Portland, Oregon.

Riddell, B.E., and Swain, D.P., 1991, Competition between 

hatchery and wild coho salmon (Oncorhynchus

kisutch): Genetic variation for agonistic behavior in 

newly-emerged wild fry: Aquaculture, v. 98, p.161-172.

Riley, P., 1996, Water yield in semiarid environments under 

projected climate change: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo Area Office, 

Provo, Utah, 59 p.

Schuett-Hames, D., Pleus, A., and McDonald, D., 1994, 

TFW ambient monitoring program: 1993-94 Status 

Report, TWF-AM9-94-002, 11 p.

Schuett-Hames, D., Pleus, A.E., Ward, J., Fox, M., Light, J., 

1999, Method manual for the large woody debris 

survey: TFW Monitoring Program, TFW-AM9-99-004.

Sedell, J.R., and Duval, W.S., 1985, Water transportation and 

storage of logs in Meehan, W.R., ed., Influence of forest 

and rangeland management on anadromous fish habitat 

in western North America: Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-186, 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station 1-68.

Shelford, V.E., 1911, Ecological succession, I: Stream fishes 

and the method of physiographic analysis: Biological 

Bulletin of the Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods 

Hole, Massachusetts, v. 21, p. 9-35.

SSHIAP, 1995, Salmon and steelhead habitat inventory and 

assessment project: Wild salmon stock restoration 

initiative: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, 8 p.

Steinmann, P., 1907, Die Tierwelt der Gebirgsbache, Enin 

Faunistisch-biologische Studie: Annales de Biologie 

Lacustre, v. 2 p. 30-150.

Theinemann, A., 1912, Der Bergbach des Sauerland: 

Internationale Revue der gesmten Hydrobiologie 

Supplement 4, 125 p.

Upper White River Chinook TMDL Framework Team, 1998, 

White River spring chinook habitat guidance: A water 

quality management approach for the Upper White 

River: Version 1.0. Washington Department of Ecology, 

No. 98-10. Olympia, Washington, 80 p.

U.S. Forest Service, 1993, A first approximation of 

ecosystem health: National Forest System Lands: 

Pacific Northwest Region, June 1993.

Washington Department of Wildlife and Bonneville Power 

Administration, 1992, Washington rivers information 

system: Resident and anadromous fish data (1:100,000 

scale update), Final Report.

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and 

Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes, 1994, 1992 

Washington State salmon and steelhead stock inventory, 

Appendix One and Appendix two: Olympia, 

Washington, 789 p. 

Wilzbach, M.A., 1985, Relative roles of food abundance and 

cover in determining the habitat distribution of streamdwelling cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki): Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, v. 42, p. 

1668-1672.
Table 10 69

Table 10. Summary of field data for the Huckleberry Creek measurement error study reach and the entire creek segment 1 in the Upper White River Basin, 

Washington, August through October 1999

[Field methods used to generate the field data are based on Pleus and Schuett-Hames (1998); Pleus and others (1999); and Schuett-Hames and others (1999). 

Abbreviations: cm, centimeter; m, meter; m3, cubic meter; m3/s, cubic meter per second; m2, square meter; km, kilometer. <, actual value is less than value 

shown. >, actual value is greater than value shown. —, no data]

Stream Date Segment

Reference 

point 

range

Survey 

length 

(m)

Survey leader Affiliation

Number of 

reference 

points

Discharge

(m3/s)

Study reach 10/01/99 1 4 to 7 300 Allen Pleus Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 4 1.25

Entire Creek 

segment 1

10/12/99 1 0 to 10 989 Stan Zyskowski U.S. Forest Service 11 1.1

Stream

Bankfull width (m) Bankfull depth (m) Mean 

width to 

depth 

ratio

Canopy closure (percent)

Mean Minimum

Maximum

Mean Minimum

Maximum Mean MinimumMaximum

Study reach 18.1 9.9 32.2 0.50 0.20 0.66 36.3 55.2 51.7 58.5

Entire Creek 

segment 1

14.4 2.1 22.8 0.4 0.2 0.5 33.5 50.1 19.0 100

HABITAT UNIT SUMMARY BY SEGMENT

Habitat 

condition

Total 

number

Percentage of 

total 

Total 

surface area 

(m2)

Percentage 

of surface 

area

Habit 

units/km

Habitat 

units/mean 

bankfull 

width

Pools or nonturbulent/kmBankfull 

width/pool

Study reach

Pool 6 27.3 387.0 10.2 73.3 1.2 20.0 3.0

Riffle 16 72.7 3,420.1 89.8

Turbulent 7 31.8 3,092.1 81.2

Non-turbulent 15 68.2 714.9 18.8

Entire Creek segment 1

Pool 15.0 32.6 761.2 6.2 46.5 46.5 15.2 1.0

Riffle 31.0 67.4 11,420.1 93.8

Turbulent – – – –

Non-turbulent – – – –

HABITAT UNIT LOCATION

Primary 

number

Primary 

total length

Secondary 

number

Secondary 

total length

Side 

number

Side total 

length

Study reach

9 305.6 9 75.6 4 59.1

Entire Creek segment 1

25 983.1 11 155.3 9 305.6
70 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Table 10. Summary of field data for the Huckleberry Creek measurement error study reach and the entire creek segment 1 in the Upper White River 

Basin, Washington, August through October 1999—Continued

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO POOL FORMATION (PFF)

Description Total 

number

Percentage 

of units

Number 

identified as 

primary PFF

Percentage 

of primary 

PFF

Areas associated 

with primary PFF

Percentage of pool 

area associated with 

primary PFF

Study reach

Log 1 9.1 – 0 – 0

Other 2 18.2 2 33.3 173.0 51.6

Debris jam 4 36.4 4 66.7 162.1 48.4

Roots or stump 1 9.1 – 0 – 0

Rock or boulder 3 27.3 – 0 – 0

Entire creek segment 1

Other 2 12.5 2 13.3 164.6 21.6

Rootwads 6 37.5 6 40.0 309.6 40.7

Roots or stump 2 12.5 2 13.3 146.7 19.3

Rock or boulder 5 31.3 4 26.7 116.8 15.3

Resistant Bank 1 6.3 1 6.7 23.5 3.1

RESIDUAL POOL DEPTH (RPD)

RPD category 

(m)

Number of 

pools

Percentage 

of total

Surface 

area

(m2)

Percentage 

of surface 

area 

Mean 

residual 

pool depth 

(m)

Maximum 

residual 

pool depth 

(m)

Study reach 1.0 3.6

<=0.249 0 0 0 0

0.250 to 0.4 1 14.3 37.4 8.8

0.41 to 0.7 4 57.1 237.5 56.0

0.71 to 0.9 1 14.3 97.5 23.0

0.91 to 1.2 1 14.3 52.0 12.2

Entire creek segment 1 1 1

<=0.249 0 0 0 0

0.250 to 0.4 5 33.3 221.3 28.1

0.41 to 0.7 8 53.3 387.2 50.9

0.71 to 0.9 1 6.7 49.1 6.6

0.91 to 1.2 1 6.7 103.5 13.6
Table 10 71

Table 10. Summary of field data for the Huckleberry Creek measurement error study reach and the entire creek segment 1 in the Upper White River 

Basin, Washington, August through October 1999—Continued

TOTAL IN-CHANNEL PIECES OF LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (LWD) — Individual and Debris Jam Pieces

Type of instream 

LWD

Number of 

pieces LWD

Percentage 

of total 

pieces

LWD per 

channel 

width

LWD per 

km

Number of 

key LWD 

pieces

Percentage 

of key LWD 

pieces

Key LWD 

pieces per 

channel 

width

Key LWD 

pieces per 

km

Study reach

Rootwads 7 4.4 0.4 23.3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 10-20 cm 51 31.9 2.8 170.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 20-50 cm 90 56.3 5.0 300.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs >50 cm 12 7.5 0.7 40.0 2 16.7 0.1 6.7

Total 160 100.0 8.8 533.3 2 1.3 0.1 6.7

Entire creek segment 1

Rootwads 25 21.2 1.7 25.3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 10-20 cm 20 16.9 1.4 20.2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 20-50 cm 55 46.6 3.8 55.6 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs >50 cm 18 15.3 1.3 18.2 2 11.1 0.1 2.0

Total 118 100 8.2 119.3 2 1.7 0.1 2.0

Type of instream 

LWD

Number of 

pieces LWD

Mean 

diameter 

(cm)

Mean 

length 

(m)

Total 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

volume 

(m3)

Total 

in-channel 

LWD 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

in-channel 

LWD 

volume 

(m3)

In-channel 

vol/channel 

width 

(m3)

In-channel 

vol/km

Study reach

Rootwads 7 68.0 1.0 2.5 0.4 2.2 0.3 0.4 7.3

Logs 10-20 cm 51 14.9 7.9 7.2 0.1 7.0 0.1 2.8 23.4

Logs 20-50 cm 90 37.9 7.0 72.0 0.8 61.2 0.7 5.0 203.9

Logs >50 cm 12 63.0 9.9 37.6 3.1 28.5 2.4 0.7 95.0

Total 160 – – 119.4 0.7 98.9 0.6 8.8 329.5

Entire creek segment 1

Rootwads 25 88.7 1.7 27.9 1.1 17.5 0.7 1.7 17.7

Logs 10-20 cm 20 14.3 6.4 2.1 0.1 1.7 0.1 1.4 1.7

Logs 20-50 cm 55 32.0 7.2 31.3 0.6 26.4 0.5 3.8 26.7

Logs >50 cm 18 59.8 9.2 48.9 2.7 21.1 1.2 1.3 21.3

Total 118 – – 110.1 0.9 66.7 0.6 8.2 67.5
72 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Table 10. Summary of field data for the Huckleberry Creek measurement error study reach and the entire creek segment 1 in the Upper White River 

Basin, Washington, August through October 1999—Continued

DEBRIS JAM SUMMARY

Stream Number of 

debris jams

Debris 

jams per 

kilometer

Logs 

10-20 cm

Logs

20-50 cm

Logs 

>50 cm Rootwads 

Total 

number of 

pieces

Number of 

key pieces

Percentage 

of key 

pieces

Study reach

5 16.7 43 66 6 6 121 2 2.0

Entire creek segment 1

5 0.3 10 20 1 0 31 0 0

INDIVIDUAL IN-CHANNEL LWD PIECE SUMMARY

Type of 

instream LWD

Number of 

pieces LWD

LWD per 

channel 

width

LWD per 

km

Number of 

key LWD 

pieces

Percentage 

of key LWD 

pieces

Key LWD 

pieces per 

channel 

width

Key LWD 

pieces per 

km

Study reach

Rootwads 1 0.1 3.3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 38 2.1 126.7 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 39 2.2 130.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Entire creek segment 1

Rootwads 25 1.7 25.3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 62 4.3 62.7 2 0.0 0.1 2.0

Total 87 6.0 88.0 2 0.0 0.1 2.0

Type of 

instream LWD

Number of 

pieces LWD

LWD per 

channel 

width

LWD per 

km

Number of 

key LWD 

pieces

Percentage 

of key LWD 

pieces

Key LWD 

pieces per 

channel 

width

Key LWD 

pieces per 

km

Study reach

Rootwads 1 0.1 3.3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 10-20 cm 8 0.4 26.7 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 20-50 cm 24 1.3 80.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs >50 cm 6 0.3 20.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Entire creek segment 1

Rootwads 25 1.7 25.3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 10-20 cm 10 0.7 10.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 20-50 cm 35 2.4 35.4 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs >50 cm 17 1.2 17.2 2 0.1 0.1 2.0
Table 10 73

Table 10. Summary of field data for the Huckleberry Creek measurement error study reach and the entire creek segment 1 in the Upper White River 

Basin, Washington, August through October 1999—Continued

INDIVIDUAL IN-CHANNEL LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (LWD) VOLUME SUMMARY

Type of 

instream LWD

Mean 

diameter 

(cm)

Mean 

length 

(m)

Total 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

volume 

(m3)

Total 

in-channel 

LWD 

volume 

(m3

)

Mean 

in-channel 

LWD volume 

(m3)

In-channel 

vol/channel 

width 

(m3

)

In-channel 

vol/km

Study reach

Rootwads 68.0 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 36.3 7.8 39.9 1.0 19.7 0.5 1.1 65.8

Total – – 40.3 1.0 19.7 0.5 1.1 65.8

Entire creek segment 1

Rootwads 88.7 1.7 27.9 1.1 17.5 0.7 0.0 0.7

Logs 36.8 7.6 67.1 1.1 34.1 0.6 2.4 34.5

Total – – 95.0 1.1 51.6 0.6 3.6 52.2

Type of 

instream LWD

Mean 

diameter 

(cm)

Mean 

length 

(m)

Total 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

volume 

(m3)

Total 

in-channel 

LWD 

volume 

(m3

)

Mean 

in-channel 

LWD volume 

(m3)

In-channel 

vol/channel 

width 

(m3

)

In-channel 

vol/km

Study reach

Rootwads 68.0 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 10-20 cm 14.9 7.9 1.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.5

Logs 20-50 cm 37.9 7.0 19.7 0.8 8.8 0.6 0.0 2.0

Logs >50 cm 63.0 9.9 19.0 3.2 9.9 2.5 0.1 8.3

Entire creek segment 1

Rootwads 88.7 1.7 27.9 1.1 17.5 0.7 0.0 0.7

Logs 10-20 cm 14.3 6.4 1.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.1

Logs 20-50 cm 32.0 7.2 19.8 0.6 14.8 0.4 0.0 0.4

Logs >50 cm 59.8 9.2 46.3 2.7 18.5 1.1 0.1 1.1
74 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Table 10. Summary of field data for the Huckleberry Creek measurement error study reach and the entire creek segment 1 in the Upper White River 

Basin, Washington, August through October 1999—Continued

INDIVIDUAL IN-CHANNEL PIECE CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY

Woody type Number 

of pieces

Percentage 

of total

Total 

volume

(m3

)

In-channel 

volume 

(m3)

Percentage 

of volume 

in-channel

Study reach

Conifer 29 72.5 38.3 18.7 48.8

Deciduous 6 15.0 0.9 0.8 85.7

Unknown 5 12.5 1.0 0.3 25.2

Total 40 – 40.3 19.7 49.0

Entire creek segment 1

Conifer 75.0 86.2 90.2 46.9 52.0

Deciduous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Unknown 12.0 13.8 4.8 4.7 98.3

Total 87.0 – 95.0 51.6 54.3

Woody type

Number 

of pieces/

stability 

types

Percentage 

of stable 

pieces

Percentage 

of stable 

pieces due 

to roots 

Percentage 

of stable 

pieces due 

to buried

Percentage 

of stable 

pieces due 

to pinned

Percentage 

of pieces 

forming pools

Study reach

Conifer 23.0 79.3 47.8 26.1 26.1 2.2

Deciduous 6.0 100.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0

Unknown 4.0 80.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0

Total 33.0 82.5 33.3 30.3 36.4 15.2

Entire creek segment 1

Conifer 43.0 57.3 41.9 18.6 39.5 23.2

Deciduous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Unknown 2.0 16.7 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0

Total 45.0 51.7 42.2 20.0 37.8 22.2
Table 11 75

Table 11. Summary of field data for the Lower Greenwater River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 

1999

[Field methods used to generate the field data are based on Pleus and Schuett-Hames (1998); Pleus and others (1999); and Schuett-Hames and others (1999). 

Abbreviations: cm, centimeter; m, meter; m3, cubic meter; m3/s, cubic meter per second; m2, square meter; km, kilometer. <, actual value is less than value 

shown. >, actual value is greater than value shown. —, no data]

Stream Date Segment

Reference 

point 

range

Survey 

length 

(m)

Survey leader Affiliation

Number 

of 

reference 

points

Discharge

(m3

/s)

Lower 

Greenwater 

River

09-22-99 3 0 to 5 500 Allen Pleus Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 6 1.3e

Stream

Bankfull width (m) Bankfull depth (m) Mean 

width to 

depth 

ratio

Canopy closure (percent)

Mean Minimum

Maximum

Mean Minimum

Maximum Mean MinimumMaximum

Lower 

Greenwater 

River

18.5 9.1 26.6 0.5 0.2 0.9 37.3 22.8 0.0 38.5

HABITAT UNIT SUMMARY BY SEGMENT

Habitat 

condition

Total 

number

Percentage 

of total 

Total 

surface area 

(m2

)

Percentage 

of surface 

area

Habit 

units/km

Habitat 

units/mean 

bankfull 

width

Pools or nonturbulent/kmBankfull 

width/pool

Lower Greenwater River

Pool 11 27.5 2,730.4 26.5 80.0 2.2 22.0 1.7

Riffle 29 72.5 7,567.8 73.5

Turbulent 10 25.0 2,267.1 22.0

Non-turbulent 30 75.0 8,031.1 78.0

HABITAT UNIT LOCATION

Primary 

number

Primary 

total length

Secondary 

number

Secondary 

total length

Side 

number

Side total 

length

Lower Greenwater River

20 516.0 17 570.2 3 159.0
76 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Table 11. Summary of field data for the Lower Greenwater River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 

1999—Continued

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO POOL FORMATION (PFF)

Description Total 

number

Percentage 

of units

Number 

identified as 

primary PFF

Percentage 

of primary 

PFF

Areas associated 

with primary PFF

Percentage of pool 

area associated with 

primary PFF

Lower Greenwater River

Log 2 10.0 1 12.5 76.7 3.8

Rootwads 3 15.0 3 37.5 713.3 34.9

Debris jam 2 10.0 1 12.5 457.1 22.4

Roots or stump 6 30.0 2 25.0 396.9 19.4

Rock or boulder 1 5.0 – 0.0 – 0.0

Channel bedform 4 20.0 – 0.0 – 0.0

Resistant bank 2 10.0 1 12.5 399.1 19.5

RESIDUAL POOL DEPTH (RPD

RPD category 

(m)

Number of 

pools

Percentage 

of total

Surface 

area

(m2)

Percentage 

of surface 

area 

Mean 

residual 

pool depth 

(m)

Maximum 

residual 

pool depth 

(m)

Lower Greenwater River 0.9 1.6

<=0.249 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.250 to 0.4 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.41 to 0.7 3 30.0 440.8 17.9

0.71 to 0.9 3 30.0 479.2 19.4

0.91 to 1.2 4 40.0 1,548.9 62.7

TOTAL IN-CHANNEL PIECES OF LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (LWD) — Individual and Debris Jam Pieces

Type of instream 

LWD

Number of 

pieces LWD

Percentage 

of total 

pieces

LWD per 

channel 

width

LWD per 

km

Number of 

key LWD 

pieces

Percentage 

of key LWD 

pieces

Key LWD 

pieces per 

channel 

width

Key LWD 

pieces per 

km

Lower Greenwater River

Rootwads 16 0.1 0.9 32.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 10-20 cm 43 0.3 2.3 86.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 20-50 cm 78 0.5 4.2 156.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs >50 cm 29 0.2 1.6 58.0 1 0.0 0.1 2.0

Total 166 100 9.0 332.0 1 0.6 0.1 2.0
Table 11 77

Table 11. Summary of field data for the Lower Greenwater River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 

1999—Continued

TOTAL IN-CHANNEL PIECES OF LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (LWD) — Individual and Debris Jam Pieces—Continued

Type of 

instream 

LWD

Number of 

pieces LWD

Mean 

diameter 

(cm)

Mean 

length

(m)

Total 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

volume 

(m3)

Total 

in-channel 

LWD 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

in-channel 

LWD volume 

(m3

)

In-channel 

vol/channel 

width 

(m3

)

In-channel 

vol/km

Lower Greenwater River

Rootwads 16 42.2 1.4 5.7 0.4 3.4 0.2 0.2 6.9

Logs 10-20 cm 43 14.6 4.0 2.3 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.1 4.3

Logs 20-50 cm 78 32.1 5.3 34.2 0.4 27.0 0.4 1.5 54.0

Logs <50 cm 29 72.4 10.8 129.2 4.5 101.3 3.5 5.5 202.5

Total 166 – – 171.3 1.0 133.9 0.8 7.2 267.7

DEBRIS JAM SUMMARY

Stream Number of 

debris jams

Debris 

jams per 

kilometer

Logs 

10-20 cm

Logs

20-50 cm

Logs 

>50 cm Rootwads 

Total 

number of 

pieces

Number of 

key pieces

Percentage 

of key 

pieces

Lower Greenwater River

6 12.0 28 60 22 10 120 1 0.8

INDIVIDUAL IN-CHANNEL LWD PIECE SUMMARY

Type of 

instream LWD

Number of 

pieces LWD

LWD per 

channel 

width

LWD per 

km

Number of 

key LWD 

pieces

Percentage 

of key LWD 

pieces

Key LWD 

pieces per 

channel 

width

Key LWD 

pieces per 

km

Lower Greenwater River

Rootwads 6 0.3 12.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 40 2.2 80.0 1 2.5 0.1 2.0

Total 46 2.5 92.0 1 2.2 0.1 2.0

Type of 

instream LWD

Number of 

pieces LWD

LWD per 

channel 

width

LWD per 

km

Number of 

key LWD 

pieces

Percentage 

of key LWD 

pieces

Key LWD 

pieces per 

channel 

width

Key LWD 

pieces per 

km

Lower Greenwater River

Rootwads 6 0.3 12.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 10-20 cm 15 0.8 30.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 20-50 cm 18 1.0 36.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs >50 cm 7 0.4 14.0 1 100.0 0.1 2.0
78 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Table 11. Summary of field data for the Lower Greenwater River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 

1999—Continued

INDIVIDUAL IN-CHANNEL LWD VOLUME SUMMARY

Type of 

instream LWD

Mean 

diameter 

(cm)

Mean 

length 

(m)

Total 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

volume 

(m3)

Total 

in-channel 

LWD 

volume 

(m3

)

Mean 

in-channel 

LWD volume 

(m3)

In-channel 

vol/channel 

width 

(m3

)

In-channel 

vol/km

Lower Greenwater River

Rootwads 42.2 1.4 3.8 0.6 1.5 0.4 0.1 3.1

Logs 32.0 5.9 42.0 1.0 6.5 0.2 0.4 13.0

Total – – – – – – – –

Type of 

instream LWD

Mean 

diameter 

(cm)

Mean 

length 

(m)

Total 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

volume 

(m3)

Total 

in-channel 

LWD 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

in-channel 

LWD volume 

(m3)

In-channel 

vol/channel 

width 

(m3

)

In-channel 

vol/km

Lower Greenwater River

Rootwads 42.2 1.4 3.8 0.6 1.5 0.4 0.1 3.1

Logs 10-20 cm 14.6 4.0 0.9 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0

Logs 20-50 cm 32.1 5.3 8.3 0.5 1.2 0.1 0.1 2.4

Logs >50 cm 72.4 10.8 32.7 4.7 4.8 1.6 0.3 9.6

INDIVIDUAL IN-CHANNEL PIECE CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY

Woody type Number 

of pieces

Percentage 

of total

Total 

volume 

(m3)

In-channel 

volume (m3)

Percentage 

of volume 

in channel

Lower Greenwater River

Conifer 18 38.3 39.6 5.4 13.6

Deciduous 1 2.1 0.1 0.0 20.0

Unknown 28 59.6 6.1 2.6 42.6

Total 47 – 45.8 8.0 17.5

Woody type

Number 

of pieces/

stability 

types

Percentage 

of stable 

pieces

Percentage 

of stable 

pieces due 

to roots 

Percentage 

of stable 

pieces due 

to buried

Percentage

of stable 

pieces due 

to pinned

Percentage 

of pieces 

forming pools

Lower Greenwater River

Conifer 15 83.3 60.0 0.0 40.0 13.3

Deciduous 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Unknown 18 64.3 16.7 44.4 46.7 22.2

Total 34 72.3 38.2 23.5 38.2 17.6
Table 12 79

Table 12. Summary of field data for the Upper Greenwater River (ECOLOGY Segments 8 and 9) measurement error study reach in the Upper White River 

Basin, Washington, August 1999

[Field methods used to generate the field data are based on Pleus and Schuett-Hames (1998); Pleus and others (1999); and Schuett-Hames and others (1999). 

Abbreviations: cm, centimeter; m, meter; m3, cubic meter; m3/s, cubic meter per second; m2, square meter; km, kilometer. <, actual value is less than value 

shown. >, actual value is greater than value shown. —, no data]

Stream Date Segment Reference 

point range

Survey 

length 

(m)

Survey leader Affiliation

Number 

of 

reference 

points

Discharge

(m3/s)

Discharge 

date

Segment 8 08-23-99 8 15 to 18 400 Tyler Patterson U.S. Forest Service 4 1.5 08-24-99

Segment 9 08-23-99 9 0 to 21 1,700 Tyler Patterson U.S. Forest Service 22 1.5 08-23-99

Stream

Bankfull width (m) Bankfull depth (m) Mean 

width to 

depth 

ratio

Canopy closure (percent)

Mean Minimum

Maximum

Mean Minimum

Maximum

Mean Minimum

Maximum

Segment 8 22.1 18.5 30.0 1.3 0.5 2.0 17.5 49.3 40.0 62.0

Segment 9 20.1 5.0 37.0 1.1 0.3 1.8 19.0 45.4 6.0 100

HABITAT UNIT SUMMARY BY SEGMENT

Habitat 

condition

Total 

number

Percentage of 

total 

Total 

surface area 

(m2)

Percentage 

of surface 

area

Habit 

units/km

Habitat 

units/mean 

bankfull 

width

Pools or nonturbulent/kmBankfull 

width/pool

Upper Greenwater River (Segment 8)

Pool 5 35.7 867.6 20.9 35 0.6 12.5 4.4

Riffle 9 64.3 3,287.5 79.1

Turbulent – – – –

Non-turbulent – – – –

Upper Greenwater River (Segment 9)

Pool 20 33.3 2,308.1 9.7 35.3 3.0 11.8 1.0

Riffle 40 66.7 21,444.5 90.3

Turbulent – – – –

Non-turbulent – – – –

HABITAT UNIT LOCATION

Primary 

number

Primary 

total length

Secondary 

number

Secondary 

total length

Side 

number

Side total 

length

Upper Greenwater River (Segment 8)

12 393.3 1 22.0 0 0.0

Upper Greenwater River (Segment 9)

38 1,830.1 6 120.5 15 394.9
80 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Table 12. Summary of field data for the Upper Greenwater River (ECOLOGY Segments 8 and 9) measurement error study reach in the Upper White River 

Basin, Washington, August 1999 —Continued

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO POOL FORMATION (PFF)

Description Total 

number

Percentage 

of units

Number 

identified as 

primary PFF

Percentage 

of primary 

PFF

Areas associated 

with primary PFF

Percentage of pool 

area associated with 

primary PFF

Upper Green River (Segment 8)

Other 1 14.3 – 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rootwads 1 14.3 1 20.0 102.6 11.8

Debris jam 3 42.9 3 60.0 558.2 64.3

Resistant bank 2 28.6 1 20.0 206.9 23.8

Upper Green River (Segment 9)

Log 3 11.5 3 14.3 319.7 13.8

Other 3 11.5 2 9.5 316.0 13.7

Rootwads 2 7.7 1 4.8 47.2 2.0

Debris jam 3 11.5 3 14.3 204.1 8.8

Roots or stump 1 3.8 1 4.8 47.7 2.1

Rock or boulder 4 15.4 3 14.3 146.4 6.3

Resistant Bank 10 38.5 8 38.1 1,227.1 53.2

RESIDUAL POOL DEPTH (RPD

RPD category 

(m)

Number of 

pools

Percentage 

of total

Surface 

area

(m2)

Percentage 

of surface 

area 

Mean 

residual 

pool depth 

(m)

Maximum 

residual 

pool depth 

(m)

Upper Green River (Segment 8) 0.7 0.9

<=0.249 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.250 to 0.4 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.41 to 0.7 2 40.0 203.8 23.5

0.71 to 0.9 3 60.0 663.8 76.5

0.91 to 1.2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Upper Green River (Segment 8)

<=0.249 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.5

0.250 to 0.4 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.41 to 0.7 10 66.7 1,372.8 59.5

0.71 to 0.9 2 13.3 529.6 22.9

0.91 to 1.2 3 20.0 405.7 17.6
Table 12 81

Table 12. Summary of field data for the Huckleberry Creek measurement error study reach and the entire creek segment 1 in the Upper White River 

Basin, Washington, August 1999 —Continued

TOTAL IN-CHANNEL PIECES OF LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (LWD) — Individual and Debris Jam Pieces

Type of instream 

LWD

Number of 

pieces LWD

Percentage 

of total 

pieces

LWD per 

channel 

width

LWD per 

km

Number of 

key LWD 

pieces

Percentage 

of key LWD 

pieces

Key LWD 

pieces per 

channel 

width

Key LWD 

pieces per 

km

Upper Green River (Segment 8)

Rootwads 14 9.7 0.6 35.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 10-20 cm 63 43.4 2.8 157.5 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 20-50 cm 39 26.9 1.8 97.5 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs >50 cm 29 20.0 1.3 72.5 24 82.8 1.1 60.0

Total 145 100.0 6.6 362.5 24 16.6 1.1 60.0

Upper Green River (Segment 9)

Rootwads 35 12.4 1.7 20.6 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 10-20 cm 86 30.4 4.3 50.6 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 20-50 cm 128 45.2 6.4 75.3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs >50 cm 34 12.0 1.7 20.0 1 2.9 0.1 0.6

Total 283 100.0 14.1 166.5 1 0.3 0.1 0.6

Type of Instream 

LWD

Number of 

pieces LWD

Mean 

diameter 

(cm)

Mean 

length 

(m)

Total 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

volume 

(m3)

Total 

in-channel 

LWD 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

in-channel 

LWD 

volume 

(m3)

In-channel 

vol/channel 

width 

(m3)

In-channel 

vol/km

Upper Green River (Segment 8)

Rootwads 14 72.8 2.0 12.1 0.9 12.1 0.9 0.6 30.3

Logs 10-20 cm 63 15.2 8.0 9.1 0.1 7.0 0.1 2.8 17.4

Logs 20-50 cm 39 28.0 10.3 24.7 0.6 24.1 0.6 1.8 60.3

Logs >50 cm 29 64.0 22.6 213.2 7.4 196.9 6.2 1.3 492.3

Total 145 – – 259.2 1.8 240.1 1.7 6.6 600.3

Upper Green River (Segment 9)

Rootwads 35 78.8 2.0 148.3 2.3 129.1 2.0 6.4 75.9

Logs 10-20 cm 86 14.0 8.4 11.3 0.1 10.4 0.1 0.5 6.1

Logs 20-50 cm 128 32.9 6.6 77.8 0.6 59.5 0.5 3.0 35.0

Logs >50 cm 34 70.2 8.6 2.2 1.1 1.5 0.8 0.1 0.9

Total 283 – – 239.6 0.9 200.4 0.8 10.0 117.9
82 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Table 12. Summary of field data for the Huckleberry Creek measurement error study reach and the entire creek segment 1 in the Upper White River 

Basin, Washington, August 1999 —Continued

DEBRIS JAM SUMMARY

Stream Number of 

debris jams

Debris 

jams per 

kilometer

Logs 

10-20 cm

Logs

20-50 cm

Logs 

>50 cm Rootwads 

Total 

number of 

pieces

Number of 

key pieces

Percentage 

of key 

pieces

Upper Green River (Segment 8)

4 10.0 44 38 27 10 119 23 19.3

Upper Green River (Segment 9)

7 4.1 60 85 28 19 192 1 0.5

INDIVIDUAL IN-CHANNEL LWD PIECE SUMMARY

Type of 

instream LWD

Number of 

pieces LWD

LWD per 

channel 

width

LWD per 

km

Number of 

key LWD 

pieces

Percentage 

of Key LWD 

pieces

Key LWD 

pieces per 

channel 

width

Key LWD 

pieces per 

km

Upper Green River (Segment 8)

Rootwads 4 0.2 10.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 22 1.0 55.0 1 4.5 0.0 2.5

Total 26 1.2 65.0 1 3.8 0.0 2.5

Upper Green River (Segment 9)

Rootwads 16.0 0.8 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 75.0 3.7 44.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 91.0 4.5 53.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Type of 

instream LWD

Number of 

pieces LWD

LWD per 

channel 

width

LWD per 

km

Number of 

key LWD 

pieces

Percentage 

of key LWD 

pieces

Key LWD 

pieces per 

channel 

width

Key LWD 

pieces per 

km

Upper Green River (Segment 8)

Rootwads 4 0.2 10.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 10-20 cm 19 0.9 47.5 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 20-50 cm 1 0.0 2.5 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs >50 cm 2 0.1 5.0 1 100 0.0 2.5

Upper Green River (Segment 9)

Rootwads 16.0 0.8 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 10-20 cm 26.0 1.3 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 20-50 cm 43.0 2.1 25.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs >50 cm 6.0 0.3 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 12 83

Table 12. Summary of field data for the Huckleberry Creek measurement error study reach and the entire creek segment 1 in the Upper White River 

Basin, Washington, August 1999 —Continued

INDIVIDUAL IN-CHANNEL LWD VOLUME SUMMARY

Type of 

instream LWD

Mean 

diameter 

(cm)

Mean 

length 

(m)

Total 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

volume 

(m3)

Total 

in-channel 

LWD 

volume 

(m3

)

Mean 

in-channel 

LWD volume 

(m3)

In-channel 

vol/channel 

width 

(m3

)

In-channel 

vol/km

Upper Green River (Segment 8)

Rootwads 72.8 2.0 3.8 1.5 3.8 1.5 0.0 2.3

Logs 20.2 9.4 20.8 20.3 1.8 1.8 0.1 4.4

Total – – 24.6 0.9 5.5 0.2 0.2 13.8

Upper Green River (Segment 9)

Rootwads 78.8 2.0 17.8 1.1 15.1 1.2 0.8 8.9

Logs 29.3 7.4 55.1 0.7 18.7 0.3 0.9 11.0

Total – – 72.9 1.8 33.7 1.4 1.7 19.9

Type of 

instream LWD

Mean 

diameter 

(cm)

Mean 

length 

(m)

Total 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

volume 

(m3)

Total 

in-channel 

LWD 

volume 

(m3

)

Mean

in-channel 

LWD volume 

(m3)

In-channel 

vol/channel 

width 

(m3

)

In-channel 

vol/km

Upper Green River (Segment 8)

Rootwads 72.8 2.0 3.8 1.5 3.8 1.5 0.0 2.3

Logs 10-20 cm 15.2 8.0 2.8 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.2

Logs 20-50 cm 28.0 10.3 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs >50 cm 64.0 22.6 17.3 11.6 1.0 0.7 0.0 2.6

Upper Green River (Segment 9)

Rootwads 78.8 2.0 17.8 1.1 15.1 1.2 0.8 8.9

Logs 10-20 cm 14.0 8.4 3.5 0.1 2.6 0.1 0.1 1.5

Logs 20-50 cm 32.9 6.6 29.0 0.7 11.0 0.4 0.5 6.5

Logs >50 cm 70.2 8.6 22.6 3.8 5.1 1.3 0.3 3.0
84 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Table 12. Summary of field data for the Huckleberry Creek measurement error study reach and the entire creek segment 1 in the Upper White River 

Basin, Washington, August 1999 —Continued

Individual In-Channel Piece Characteristics Summary

Woody type Number 

of pieces

Percentage 

of total

Total 

volume 

(m3

)

In-channel 

volume 

(m3)

Percentage 

of volume 

in-channel

Upper Green River (Segment 8)

Conifer 16 61.5 22.4 5.1 22.9

Deciduous 10 38.5 2.1 0.4 17.8

Unknown 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 26 – 24.6 5.5 22.4

Upper Green River (Segment 9)

Conifer 60 65.9 65.0 28.9 44.5

Deciduous 31 34.1 7.9 4.9 61.4

Unknown 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 91 – 72.9 33.8 46.3

Woody type

Number 

of pieces/

stability 

types

Percentage 

of stable 

pieces

Percentage 

of stable 

pieces due 

to roots 

Percentage 

of stable 

pieces due 

to buried

Percentage 

of stable 

pieces due 

to pinned

Percentage 

of pieces 

forming pools

Upper Green River (Segment 8)

Conifer 10 62.5 50.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

Deciduous 7 70.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Unknown 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 17 65.4 70.6 11.8 17.6 23.5

Upper Green River (Segment 9)

Conifer 11.0 18.3 0.0 63.6 36.4 45.4

Deciduous 16.0 51.6 87.5 12.5 0.0 0.0

Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 27.0 29.7 51.8 33.3 14.8 18.5
Table 13 85

Table 13. Summary of field data for the Clearwater River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999

[Field methods used to generate the field data are based on Pleus and Schuett-Hames (1998); Pleus and others (1999); and Schuett-Hames and others (1999). 

Abbreviations: cm, centimeter; m, meter; m3, cubic meter; m3/s, cubic meter per second; m2, square meter; km, kilometer. <, actual value is less than value 

shown. >, actual value is greater than value shown. —, no data]

Stream Date Segment

Reference 

point 

range

Survey 

length 

(m)

Survey leader Affiliation

Number 

of 

reference 

points

Discharge

(m3/s)

Discharge 

date

Clearwater 

River

09-01-99 2 0 to 9 900 Ted Turner Weyerhaeuser 10 0.4 09-24-99

Stream

Bankfull width (m) Bankfull depth (m) Mean 

width to 

depth 

ratio

Canopy closure (percent)

Mean Minimum

Maximum

Mean Minimum

Maximum Mean MinimumMaximum

Clearwater 

River

– – – – – – – 36.1 8.1 99.8

HABITAT UNIT SUMMARY BY SEGMENT

Habitat 

condition

Total 

number

Percentage of 

total 

Total 

surface area 

(m2)

Percentage 

of surface 

area

Habit 

units/km

Habitat 

units/mean 

bankfull 

width

Pools or nonturbulent/kmBankfull 

width/pool

Clearwater River

Pool 7 21.2 3,261.6 22.1 36.7 – 7.8 –

Riffle 26 78.8 11,522.4 77.9

Turbulent 25 75.8 11,062.9 74.8

Non-turbulent 8 24.2 3,721.2 25.2

HABITAT UNIT LOCATION

Primary 

number

Primary 

total length

Secondary 

number

Secondary 

total length

Side 

number

Side total 

length

Clearwater River

30 1,336.5 13 257.1 0 0.0
86 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Table 13. Summary of field data for the Clearwater River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 

1999—Continued

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO POOL FORMATION (PFF)

Description Total 

number

Percentage 

of units

Number 

idenfified as 

primary PFF

Percentage 

of primary 

PFF

Areas associated 

with primary PFF

Percentage of pool 

area associated with 

primary PFF

Clearwater River

Log 3 15.0 3 17.6 524.4 16.1

Rootwads 3 15.0 3 17.6 311.8 9.6

Rock or boulder 14 70.0 11 64.7 2,425.5 74.4

RESIDUAL POOL DEPTH (RPD

RPD category 

(m)

Number of 

pools

Percentage 

of total

Surface 

area

(m2)

Percentage 

of surface 

area 

Mean 

residual 

pool depth 

(m)

Maximum 

residual 

pool depth 

(m)

Clearwater River 0.6 1.8

<=0.249 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.250 to 0.4 5 50.0 1,199.3 55.7

0.41 to 0.7 3 30.0 665.8 30.9

0.71 to 0.9 1 10.0 42.1 2.0

0.91 to 1.2 1 10.0 244.6 11.4

TOTAL IN-CHANNEL PIECES OF LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (LWD) — Individual and Debris Jam Pieces

Type of Instream 

LWD

Number of 

pieces LWD

Percentage 

of total 

pieces

LWD per 

channel 

width

LWD per 

km

Number of 

key LWD 

pieces

Percentage 

of key LWD 

pieces

Key LWD 

pieces per 

channel 

width

Key LWD 

pieces per 

km

Clearwater River

Rootwads 3 3.1 – 3.3 0 0.0 – 0.0

Logs 10-20 cm 31 32.3 – 34.4 0 0.0 – 0.0

Logs 20-50 cm 45 46.9 – 50.0 0 0.0 – 0.0

Logs >50 cm 17 17.7 – 18.9 3 17.6 – 3.3

Total 96 100.0 – 106.7 3 3.1 – 3.3
Table 13 87

Table 13. Summary of field data for the Clearwater River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 

1999—Continued

TOTAL IN-CHANNEL PIECES OF LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (LWD) — Individual and Debris Jam Pieces—Continued

Type of 

instream LWD

Number of 

pieces 

LWD

Mean 

diameter 

(cm)

Mean 

length

(m)

Total 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

volume 

(m3)

Total

in-channel 

LWD pieces

Total 

in-channel 

LWD volume 

(m3)

Mean 

in-channel 

LWD volume 

(m3)

In-channel 

vol/channel 

width (m3)

In-channel 

vol/km

Clearwater River

Rootwads 3 48.0 1.8 1.2 0.4 2.0 0.6 0.3 – 0.3

Logs 10-20 cm 31 14.6 8.4 4.8 0.2 20.0 3.4 0.2 – 0.2

Logs 20-50 cm 45 30.5 10.3 41.5 0.9 29.0 25.9 0.9 – 1.0

Logs >50 cm 17 62.9 15.6 90.0 5.3 12.0 56.4 4.7 – 5.2

Total 96 – – 137.5 1.4 63.0 86.3 1.4 – 6.7

DEBRIS JAM SUMMARY

Stream Number of 

debris jams

Debris 

jams per 

kilometer

Logs 

10-20 cm

Logs

20-50 cm

Logs 

>50 cm Rootwads 

Total 

number of 

pieces

Number of 

key pieces

Percentage 

of key 

pieces

Clearwater River

– – – – – – – – –

INDIVIDUAL IN-CHANNEL LWD PIECE SUMMARY

Type of 

instream LWD

Number of 

pieces LWD

LWD per 

channel 

width

LWD per 

km

Number of 

key LWD 

pieces

Percentage 

of key LWD 

pieces

Key LWD 

pieces per 

channel 

width

Key LWD 

pieces per 

km

Clearwater River

Rootwads 3 – 3.3 0 0.0 – 0.0

Logs 93 – 103.3 3 3.2 – 3.3

Total 96 – 106.7 3 3.0 – 3.3

Type of 

instream LWD

Number of 

pieces LWD

LWD per 

channel 

width

LWD per 

km

Number of 

key LWD 

pieces

Percentage 

of key LWD 

pieces

Key LWD 

pieces per 

channel 

width

Key LWD 

pieces per 

km

Clearwater River

Rootwads 3 – 3.3 0 0.0 – 0.0

Logs 10-20 cm 31 – 34.4 0 0.0 – 0.0

Logs 20-50 cm 45 – 50.0 0 0.0 – 0.0

Logs >50 cm 17 – 18.9 3 17.6 – 3.3
88 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Table 13. Summary of field data for the Clearwater River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 

1999—Continued

INDIVIDUAL IN-CHANNEL LWD VOLUME SUMMARY

Type of 

instream LWD

Mean 

diameter 

(cm)

Mean 

length

(m)

Total 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

volume 

(m3)

Total 

in-channel 

LWD 

volume 

(m3

)

Mean 

in-channel 

LWD volume 

(m3)

In-channel 

vol/channel 

width 

(m3

)

In-channel 

vol/km

Clearwater River

Rootwads 48.0 1.8 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.3 – 0.3

Logs 36.3 37.3 136.3 9.4 85.8 1.1 – 1.2

Total – – 137.5 9.8 86.3 1.4 – 1.5

Type of 

instream LWD

Mean 

diameter 

(cm)

Mean 

length

(m)

Total 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

volume 

(m3)

Total 

in-channel 

LWD 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

in-channel 

LWD volume 

(m3)

In-channel 

vol/channel 

width 

(m3

)

In-channel 

vol/km

Clearwater River

Rootwads 48.0 1.8 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.3 – 0.3

Logs 10-20 cm 14.6 8.4 4.8 0.2 3.4 0.2 – 0.2

Logs 20-50 cm 30.5 10.3 41.5 0.9 25.9 0.9 – 1.0

Logs >50 cm 62.9 15.6 90.0 5.3 56.4 4.7 – 5.2

INDIVIDUAL IN-CHANNEL PIECE CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY

Woody type Number 

of pieces

Percentage 

of total

Total 

volume 

(m3)

In-channel 

volume 

(m3)

Percentage 

of volume 

in-channel

Lower Greenwater River

Conifer – – – – –

Deciduous – – – – –

Unknown – – – – –

Total – – – – –

Woody type

Number 

of pieces/

stability 

types

Percentage 

of stable 

pieces

Percentage 

of stable 

pieces due 

to roots 

Percentage 

of stable 

pieces due 

to buried

Percentage

of stable 

pieces due 

to pinned

Percentage 

of pieces 

forming pools

Clearwater River

Conifer – – – – – –

Deciduous – – – – – –

Unknown – – – – – –

Total – – – – – –
Table 14 89

Table 14. Summary of field data for the White River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999

[Field methods used to generate the field data are based on Pleus and Schuett-Hames (1998); Pleus and others (1999); and Schuett-Hames and others (1999). 

Abbreviations: cm, centimeter; m, meter; m3, cubic meter; m3/s, cubic meter per second; m2, square meter; km, kilometer. <, actual value is less than value 

shown. >, actual value is greater than value shown. —, no data]

Stream Date Segment

Reference 

point 

range

Survey 

length 

(m)

Survey leader Affiliation

Number 

of 

reference 

points

Discharge

(m3/s)

White River 09-28-99 1 0 to 7 700 Robert Black U.S. Geological Survey 8 –

Stream

Bankfull width (m) Bankfull depth (m) Mean 

width to 

depth 

ratio

Canopy closure (percent)

Mean Minimum

Maximum

Mean Minimum

Maximum Mean MinimumMaximum

White River 39.8 21.9 64.0 – – – – – – –

HABITAT UNIT SUMMARY BY SEGMENT

Habitat 

condition

Total 

number

Percentage of 

total 

Total 

surface area 

(m2)

Percentage 

of surface 

area

Habit 

units/km

Habitat 

units/mean 

bankfull 

width

Pools or nonturbulent/kmBankfull 

width/pool

White River

Turbulent 9 22.5 9,058.0 45.5 57.1 1.0 44.3 –

Non-turbulent 31 77.5 10,869.4 54.5

HABITAT UNIT LOCATION

Primary 

number

Primary 

total length

Secondary 

number

Secondary 

total length

Side 

number

Side total 

length

White River

11 699.1 2 130.1 27 929.1

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO POOL FORMATION (PFF)

Description Total 

number

Percentage 

of units

Number 

identified as 

primary PFF

Percentage 

of primary 

PFF

Areas associated 

with primary PFF

Percentage of pool 

area associated with 

primary PFF

White River

– – – – – – –
90 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Table 14. Summary of field data for the White River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999—

Continued

RESIDUAL POOL DEPTH (RPD

RPD category 

(m)

Number of 

pools

Percentage 

of total

Surface 

area

(m2)

Percentage 

of surface 

area 

Mean 

residual 

pool depth 

(m)

Maximum 

residual 

pool depth 

(m)

White River

– – – – – – –

TOTAL IN-CHANNEL PIECES OF LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (LWD) — Individual and Debris Jam Pieces

Type of Instream 

LWD

Number of 

pieces LWD

Percentage 

of total 

pieces

LWD per 

channel 

width

LWD per 

km

Number of 

key LWD 

pieces

Percentage 

of key LWD 

pieces

Key LWD 

pieces per 

channel 

width

Key LWD 

pieces per 

km

White River

Rootwads 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0

Logs 10-20 cm 37 33.0 0.9 52.8 0 0 0.0 0.0

Logs 20-50 cm 60 53.6 1.5 85.7 0 0 0.0 0.0

Logs >50 cm 15 13.4 0.4 21.4 0 0 0.0 0.0

Total 112 100 2.8 160.0 0 0 0.0 0.0

Type of 

Instream LWD

Number of 

pieces 

LWD

Mean 

diameter 

(cm)

Mean 

length 

(m)

Total 

volume 

(m3

)

Mean 

volume 

(m3)

Total

in-channel 

LWD pieces

Mean 

in-channel 

LWD volume 

(m3)

In-channel 

vol/channel 

width 

(m3)

In-channel 

vol/km

White River

Rootwads 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 10-20 cm 37.0 13.2 9.0 4.3 0.1 3.5 0.1 0.1 5.0

Logs 20-50 cm 60.0 27.8 8.7 33.2 0.6 23.7 0.4 0.6 33.9

Logs >50 cm 15.0 59.4 3.9 17.3 1.1 11.5 0.7 0.3 16.4

Total 112.0 – – 54.8 0.5 38.7 0.3 1.0 55.3

DEBRIS JAM SUMMARY

Stream Number of 

debris jams

Debris 

jams per 

kilometer

Logs 

10-20 cm

Logs

20-50 cm

Logs 

>50 cm Rootwads 

Total 

number of 

pieces

Number of 

key pieces

Percentage 

of key 

pieces

White River

7 10.0 21 30 7 0 58 0 0.0
Table 14 91

Table 14. Summary of field data for the White River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, 

September 1999—Continued

INDIVIDUAL IN-CHANNEL LWD PIECE SUMMARY

Type of 

instream LWD

Number of 

pieces LWD

LWD per 

channel 

width

LWD per 

km

Number of 

key LWD 

pieces

Percentage 

of key LWD 

pieces

Key LWD 

pieces per 

channel 

width

Key LWD 

pieces per 

km

White River

Rootwads 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0

Logs 54 1.4 77.1 0 0 0.0 0.0

Total 54 1.4 77.1 0 0 0.0 0.0

Type of 

instream LWD

Number of 

pieces LWD

LWD per 

channel 

width

LWD per 

km

Number of 

key LWD 

pieces

Percentage 

of key LWD 

pieces

Key LWD 

pieces per 

channel 

width

Key LWD 

pieces per 

km

White River

Rootwads 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0

Logs 10-20 cm 16 0.4 22.9 0 0 0.0 0.0

Logs 20-50 cm 30 0.8 42.9 0 0 0.0 0.0

Logs >50 cm 8 0.2 11.4 0 0 0.0 0.0

INDIVIDUAL IN-CHANNEL LWD VOLUME SUMMARY

Type of 

instream LWD

Mean 

diameter 

(cm)

Mean 

length

(m)

Total 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

volume 

(m3)

Total 

in-channel 

LWD 

volume 

(m3

)

Mean 

in-channel 

LWD volume 

(m3)

In-channel 

vol/channel 

width 

(m3)

In-channel 

vol/km

White River

Rootwads 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 33.3 7.2 28.2 0.5 12.3 0.4 0.3 17.6

Total – – 28.2 0.5 12.3 0.4 0.3 17.6

Type of 

instream LWD

Mean 

diameter 

(cm)

Mean 

length 

(m)

Total 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

volume 

(m3)

Total 

in-channel 

LWD 

volume 

(m3)

Mean 

in-channel 

LWD volume 

(m3)

In-channel 

vol/channel 

width 

(m3

)

In-channel 

vol/km

White River

Rootwads 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Logs 10-20 cm 13.2 9.0 1.8 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.0 1.5

Logs 20-50 cm 27.8 8.7 17.1 0.6 7.7 0.5 0.2 11.0

Logs >50 cm 59.4 3.9 9.2 1.2 3.6 1.2 0.1 5.1
92 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems

Table 14. Summary of field data for the White River measurement error study reach in the Upper White River Basin, Washington, September 1999—

Continued

INDIVIDUAL IN-CHANNEL PIECE CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY

Woody type Number 

of pieces

Percentage 

of total

Total 

volume 

(m3

)

In-channel 

volume 

(m3)

Percentage 

of volume 

in-channel

White River

Conifer 21 39.0 18.0 7.4 41.2

Deciduous 17 31.0 3.5 2.0 58.2

Unknown 16 30.0 6.7 2.9 42.6

Total 54 – 28.2 12.3 43.6

Woody type

Number 

of pieces/

stability 

types

Percentage 

of stable 

pieces

Percentage 

of stable 

pieces due 

to roots 

Percentage 

of stable 

pieces due 

to buried

Percentage 

of stable 

pieces due 

to pinned

Percentage 

of pieces 

forming pools

White River

Conifer 17.0 80.9 58.8 0.0 41.2 0

Deciduous 16.0 94.1 68.8 12.5 18.8 0

Unknown 11.0 68.7 18.2 36.3 45.4 0

Total 44.0 81.5 52.3 13.6 34.1 0
Black and others

Printed on recycled paper

WRIR 03-4022 Characterization of Instream Hydraulic and Riparian Habitats and Temperatures, 

Upper White River Basin, WA, Using Multispectral Imaging Systems