Restoring the West 2014 Comparing Channel Classiﬁcation Frameworks to Better Inform Watershed Management Alan Kasprak1, Nate Hough-Snee1,2, Reid Camp1, Tim Beechie3, Gary Brierley4, Martha L. Jensen1, Joseph M. Wheaton1,2, Hiroo Imaki3, Gary O’Brien1 1 Utah State University, Department of Watershed Sciences, Logan UT 2 Utah State University, Ecology Center, Logan UT 3 NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Science Center, Seattle WA 4 University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Introduction ▶The diversity of channel forms across a basin complicates watershed management Channel Classiﬁcation: ▶Links watershed/local processes to channel form ▶Allows an understanding of watershed characteristics ▶May aid in prioritizing and planning stream restoration Study Setting: Middle Fork John Day River, Oregon ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 0 10 20 30 40 Kilometers $ ! CHaMP Reaches Elevation (m) High: 2479 Low: 639 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! Basin Characteristics ▶Located in northeastern Oregon, USA ▶117 km long, drains 2051 km2 ▶Physiographically-diverse meta-volcanic basin ▶Semi-arid watershed, large climatic and precipitation variability across elevations ▶Threatened native steelhead population ▶Ongoing intensive site-based ﬁsh and geomorphic monitoring, basin-wide channel classiﬁcation eﬀorts Methods: River Styles and Natural Channel Classification The River Styles Framework ▶Developed by Brierley and Fryirs [2005] ▶Hierarchical reach-scale classiﬁcation using watershed- and local-scale variables ▶Number of River Styles is basin-dependent Natural Channel Classiﬁcation ▶Developed by Beechie and Imaki [2014] ▶Predicts pre-disturbance planform ▶Streams < 8 m width using Montgomery and Buﬃngton [1994] Straight Meandering Anabranching Braided Channel Slope 2-Year Discharge Valley Confinement Basin Forest Cover Basin Geology Data Sources Used: Channels < 3 m Classified via Slope: Pool-Riffle S < 0.02 Plane Bed 0.02 < S < 0.03 Step-Pool 0.03 < S < 0.08 Cascade S > 0.08 Valley Setting >90% of channel abuts conﬁning margin Presence/absence extent of ﬂoodplain Planform Instream Geomorphic Units low sinuosity (superimposed meandering outline) Bed Material Texture River Style riﬄes, runs, cascades, steps plunge pools bedrock, steps, riﬄes, cascades riﬄes, runs, plane bed, bars cobble, gravel, sand boulder, cobble, gravel cobble, gravel ocsl. boulder STEEP PERENNIAL HEADWATER (Forced Meander) (Plane Bed Canyon) STEP-CASCADE cascades 2ndry Channel steps, pools bedrock boulder cobble low sinuosity STEEP EPHEMERAL HILLSLOPE CONFINED VALLEY BEDROCK RIVER riﬄes, runs, point bars, rapids cutbanks, anabranch step-pool cascade boulder, cobble, gravel, sand sand, gravel, cobble, boulders Laterally Conﬁned occasional ﬂoodplain pockets ﬂoodplain absent recurring ﬂoodplain straight, slightly sinuous Floodplain Geomorphic Units boulder berms, terraces ﬁne-grained ﬂoodplain, terrrace CONFINED VALLEY W/ FLOODPLAIN POCKETS ENTRENCHED BEDROCK CANYON ﬁne-grained ﬂoodplain, terrrace Structural Elements* Valley Alignment CS woody debris CS and bar-forced woody debris BA woody debris CS and bar-forced woody debris BA woody debris CS = channel spanning BA = Bank Attached Methods: Natural Channel Design and Clustering Note: NCD and Clustering use data from the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (www.champmonitoring.org.) Natural Channel Design ▶Developed by Rosgen [1994] ▶Hierarchical reach-scale classiﬁcation using local variables Statistical Clustering ▶Automated grouping with user-deﬁned input data ▶Number of classes attempts to balance separating reaches with minimal reach overlap -50 0 50 100 -50 0 50 Middle Fork John Day Reaches by Cluster Membership PC 1 (86%) PC 2 (11%) Bankfull Width Profile Gradient D16 D50 D84 Wetted Width Width:Depth Ratio Cluster Membership 1 2 3 4 Predictor Variables Bankfull Width Sinuosity Gradient D16, D50, D84 Width-Depth Ratio Results: River Styles and Natur