1. science
2. ecology
3. pollution

Calibration of a Habitat Sedimentation Indicator
for Use in Measuring the Effectiveness of
Watershed Restoration Treatments
by
G.A. Larkin and P.A. Slaney
Watershed Restoration Management Report No. 5
1996
Funded by:
Watershed Restoration Program
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks
and Ministry of Forests
The formatting and images in this document may vary slightly from the printed version.
Calibration of a Habitat Sedimentation Indicator
for Use in Measuring the Effectiveness of
Watershed Restoration Treatments
by
G.A. Larkin1 and P.A. Slaney2
1
c/o Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Watershed Restoration Program, 2204 Main
Mall, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4
2
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Watershed Restoration Program, 2204 Main Mall,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4
Watershed Restoration Management Report No. 5
1996
ABSTRACT
Larkin, G.A. and P.A. Slaney. 1996. Calibration of a Habitat Sedimentation Indicator for
Use in Measuring the Effectiveness of Watershed Restoration Treatments. Province of
British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and Ministry of Forests.
Watershed Restoration Management Report No. 5: 14p.
Monitoring changes in stream sedimentation resulting from forest land use is commonly
conducted by intensive sampling of both suspended sediments and the incidence of fines within
natural gravel substrates. An alternate simple indicator of both parameters is the measurement of
the deposition of fines in containers of a standardized mixture of gravel free of fines. Replicate
sets of these ‘sediment deposition traps’ were installed in coastal stream sites that provided a
range of suspended sediment loadings. Deposition of fines as less than medium sands (<1.19
mm), less than fine sands (<0.30 mm) and silts and clays (<0.075 mm) were examined as
functions of mean suspended sediment concentration (as mg‡L-1), and sediment concentration
times duration or ‘dose’ (as mg‡L-1 ‡days). Deposition of fines was highly correlated with both
mean concentration (r2 = 0.66, 0.80, 0.44 for the respective categories of fines) and dose (r2 =
0.68, 0.79, 0.40) after approximately 60 days. Relations were logarithmic indicating that
sediment may accumulate rapidly at low suspended sediment loads but more slowly at larger
loads. The relations were only marginally altered by the incorporation of current velocity.
Despite the considerable natural variability in flow conditions and sediment transport, the
sediment deposition traps were an effective and efficient indicator of sedimentation associated
with chronic surface erosion, and thereby have application to controlled evaluations of the
effectiveness of surface erosion control treatments.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was funded by Forest Renewal BC for the Watershed Restoration Program.
Our appreciation goes to Michael Church for initial guidance and facilitation of the use of the
U.B.C. Department of Geography sediment laboratory. The assistance and expertise of Brian
Klassen and Russell White throughout this project were essential to its success. Photographs are
courtesy of Wendell Koning. The manuscript was reviewed by Chuck Newcombe and Wendell
Koning, and their comments are greatly appreciated.
i
INTRODUCTION
Particle size distributions of bed materials in mountain streams are affected by many
interrelated factors. Climate, soils, parent materials, watershed characteristics and land use
activities all interact to produce various combinations of sediment sizes (Beschta and Jackson
1979). Changes in fluvial processes and sedimentation are influenced by land use practices
including timber harvesting (Scrivener and Brownlee 1980, Swanson et al. 1986, Scrivener and
Brownlee 1989, Chamberlain et al. 1991). Substantial evidence indicates forest harvesting
operations in erodable land forms can affect the volume, rate and timing of sediment movement
into and through a stream. If the amount of fines is increased during high flow periods as a result
of surface erosion from land use activities, stream energy may be used to transport and intrude
the additional sediment load instead of flushing fines from the gravels, as commonly perceived
(Slaney et al. 1977). Thus additional amounts of fines from accelerated surface or hillslope
erosion during high flow events may directly influence gravel quality (Beschta and Jackson 1979,
Hartman and Scrivener 1990). For example, following logging, sand in the stream bed of
Carnation Creek increased 5.7% (Scrivener and Brownlee 1989). Logging and road construction
in Oregon increased annual sediment yield by as much as 5 times, and monthly values by as
much as 10 times (Beschta 1978). Major sources of sediment to streams in watersheds with
forest harvesting include landslides or debris torrents (Everest et al. 1987), surface erosion from
logging roads (Slaney et al. 1977, Beschta 1978) and upstream storage (gravel bars / wedges in
the stream) or erosion of the stream banks (Anderson 1971, Hartman et al. 1987).
Large increases in sediment loads delivered to streams can create changes in channel
morphology and substrate composition causing detrimental conditions for fish (Platts et al.
1989). It is generally accepted that high levels of sedimentation result in lowered fish
production; salmonids are particularly susceptible to reductions in streambed particle size in
spawning and rearing habitats. Considerable research has reported on the accumulation of fines
in the bed and its impacts on the survival and fitness of salmonid embryos and fry. Fine particles
deposited in the streambed render redds less permeable (McNeil and Ahnell 1964), impede fry
emergence (Hall and Lantz 1969), and may cause high mortality and poor fry quality at
emergence by reducing oxygen levels in the riffles (Mason 1969). Changes in spawning bed
composition need not be large to affect fry survival; relatively small percentage increases in the
volume of fine sediment may greatly reduce the permeability of stream gravels (Beschta and
Jackson 1979). In Deer Creek, Oregon, an increase in materials smaller than 0.8 mm of only 5%
(from 20 to 25%) caused a 19% decrease in survival to emergence of coho salmon fry (Hall and
Lantz 1969). Furthermore, by eliminating intergravel crevices for juvenile fish and other
organisms (e.g., by infilling of overwintering areas), sedimentation alters habitat and further
decreases fry survival (Beschta and Jackson 1979).
Increased sediment loading also affects other trophic levels. Diminished periphyton
biomass can result from reduced light penetration through suspended material (Phillips 1971).
Effects also reach benthic invertebrate communities as populations of grazers will decline if
conditions adversely affect primary production. Increases in suspended sediments clog feeding
structures of filter feeding insects and reduce feeding efficiency, ultimately resulting in reduced
growth rates, stress or death. Aquatic invertebrates have proven to be at least as sensitive to high
levels of suspended sediments as salmonid fishes, if not more so (Newcombe 1985, Newcombe
and MacDonald 1991).
1
Water quality monitoring as suspended sediments is a common measure or indicator of
total sediment loading but is complicated by extreme variation generated by factors such as
fluctuating flows and diurnal variation due to snowmelt. Temporal records must be continuous,
or must at least incorporate frequent, systematic sampling in order to characterize the true
magnitude and duration of fine sediment incidence in the stream (Church 1996). Such sampling
is labour intensive or requires several sets of expensive automatic samplers, both resulting in
large numbers of samples for laboratory analysis. Water quality at the source of disturbances is
useful but difficult to interpret in terms of responses and impacts downstream, such as sediment
deposition in stream substrates.
Data that relate to recently deposited sediments are useful insofar as they reflect the
sediment load previously in suspension (Newcombe 1996). In-channel measurements of bed
composition have been suggested for rating the reproductive capacity for fish as well as for
monitoring the effects of land use activities (Adams and Beschta 1980). Deposition in a standard
substrate (e.g., spawning gravel) is correlated with suspended load and is potentially easily
measured by the use of standardized deposition containers (Slaney et al. 1977, Lisle 1989, Lisle
and Lewis 1992, Purser and Rhodes 1996). Additional calibration would ensure that such a
surrogate or correlate of sediment loadings could be a useful indicator to monitor effectiveness of
hillslope and streambank erosion control projects. These traps are being tested as an alternative
to conventional methods of determining suspended sediment loads. Since they integrate the
sediment load over time, they offer many advantages over grab or auto sampling for either
suspended sediments or turbidity as indicators of sediment loading. They are also far less labour
intensive and expensive than freeze-core sampling, which has been the prevailing method for in
situ measurement (Slaney et al 1977, Adams and Beschta 1980, Scrivener and Brownlee 1980).
The objective of this study was to determine the utility of sediment deposition traps as a simple
indicator of sedimentation of fish habitat.
METHODS
Calibration of the sediment traps was carried out in the Squamish River watershed in
south coastal British Columbia (Fig. 1). Within this watershed were easily accessible streams
that predictably carried very low to moderate to very high levels of suspended sediments from
glacial sources during snowmelt flows of June, July and August. A detailed discussion of natural
sediment sources in the watershed is available in Brooks (1992).
A total of 6 study sites, located in areas of previous spawning activity or potential
spawning sites, were selected to cover a range of suspended sediment loadings. In mid-June, 20
sediment traps were installed at each site, with lids removed after burying flush with the
streambed. Each sediment trap consisted of a polyethylene bucket (15.6 cm deep, 20.6 cm brim
internal diameter) filled with a mix of 3 sizes of washed gravel (19.05 mm (3/4”), 9.53 mm
(3/8”), 4.76 mm (3/16”)) in proportion to reflect ‘ideal’ spawning gravel composition
(approximately 50%, 30%, 20% by weight respectively) (Clay 1961) (Figs. 2 and 3). Standard
deviation of the weight of gravel in all of the traps used in the study was 9.11%. Average
porosity was determined to be 52.5% (volume of water/volume of water and gravel). Solid
walled containers used to measure sediment infiltration only collect sediment that enters bed
material through the surface interstices and excludes that which is introduced laterally by
intergravel flow. For evaluating the traps as indicators of sediment load, a precise measure of the
actual amount of sedimentation was not essential; rates of sediment infiltration reported should
2
Figure 1.
Location of study sites in the Squamish River watershed.
3
Figure 2.
Sediment traps buried in the streambed at the Brohm site.
Figure 3.
Sediment traps (lids removed for photo) after removal from the streambed.
4
be regarded as minimum measures of true values (Lisle 1989). Sediment traps (lids replaced)
were removed from the sites after approximately 20, 40 and 60 days as flows permitted. Care
was taken to avoid contaminating adjacent traps at each site. Flows hindered trap removal to
such an extent that only two sites (Brohm Creek and Mamquam River) were accessible during
the first removal attempt. None of the sediment traps remained at the Mamquam site and were
assumed removed by children; the site was subsequently abandoned for this study due to its
proximity to a public golf course. The recovered Brohm traps were used to refine methods in the
sediment lab. Flows permitted access to all of the remaining sites, except for Squamish 2 site,
for the second removal. Flows permitted access to the same sites for the final trap removal; the
Squamish 2 site traps were removed a week later when flows subsided. One trap from the
Squamish 2 site could not be found; all others during the study were recovered except for those
indicated previously from the Mamquam site.
The contents of the traps were analyzed to determine sediment deposition over the
deployment period. After removal of the original gravel matrix by wet sieving (sieve apertures
25.4 mm, 9.50 mm, 4.76 mm), the remaining material was settled for a minimum of 12 hours
before decanting and discarding the liquid (losses due to decanting were determined to be
negligible). The remaining solids were then dried (105°F for 24 hours) and further sieved to
determine the weight of each size fraction (sieve apertures 2.36 mm, 1.18 mm, 0.85 mm, 0.30
mm, 0.075 mm). Any macro-organics present were identified during dry sieving (most macroorganics were found at the Brohm site and consisted of needles, bark and twigs).
Depth (cm), current velocity (m3‡s-1), and turbidity (NTU) were measured routinely at
every site (approximately 5 times per week). Water samples of approximately 1 liter were also
taken at roughly 60% depth to obtain an average suspended sediment concentration (Gordon et
al. 1992) and refrigerated for several days until analysis by Standard Methods (APHA 1985). To
limit the influence of diurnal fluctuations due to snow melt, most sampling occurred in the mid to
late afternoon, a time which roughly approximates the daily average flow conditions in the region
(Brian Klassen, Tenderfoot Creek Hatchery, pers. comm. 1996). Suspended sediment
concentrations determined from the 1 L water samples were converted to both a time weighted
mean for the study period (as mg‡L-1) as well as ‘dose’, or concentration times duration (as mg‡
L-1 ‡days), a measure that allows better prediction of effects on aquatic ecosystems (Slaney et al.
1977, Newcombe and MacDonald 1991, Newcombe 1994).
Sample analyses were conducted at the Department of Geography at the University of
British Columbia. Statistical analyses employed the statistical add-in package for Microsoft
Excel version 5.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The 5 sites covered a broad range of suspended sediment loadings. Mean values for
suspended sediment, current velocity, depth and turbidity are provided in Table 1.
The relationship between turbidity and suspended sediment was determined for each of
the 5 study sites; definable relations may enable turbidity to be used as a reasonable estimator of
suspended sediment concentration (Lloyd 1987) and hence save sample collection and analysis
for suspended sediments. Correlation was best in streams with high mean suspended sediment
concentrations (Brohm, r2 = 0.23; Cheakamus 1, r2 = 0.59; Cheakamus 2, r2 = 0.60; Squamish 1,
5
r2 = 0.76; Squamish 2, r2 = 0.69). However, different relationships were defined for each site.
As many investigators have cautioned, relationships between turbidity and suspended sediment
concentration may only be useful for the specific drainages in which they were developed due to
particular sediment characteristics (Lloyd 1987). A unique relationship would have to be
developed for every future study site before turbidity could be used as an estimator of suspended
sediment concentrations.
Table 1.
Mean values (± standard errors) for parameters measured at study sites
over the entire study period.
Site
Suspended
Current Velocity
Sediment (mg‡L-1)
(m3 ‡ s-1)
Brohm Creek
1.66 ± 0.15
0.30 ± 0.04
(N = 37)
(N = 25)
Cheakamus River 1
9.28 ± 1.01
0.28 ± 0.04
(N = 34)
(N = 25)
Cheakamus River 2
10.29 ± 1.38
0.67 ± 0.07
(N = 35)
(N = 25)
Squamish River 1
58.17 ± 6.61
0.54 ± 0.08
(N = 37)
(N = 25)
Squamish River 2
73.40 ± 6.87
0.70 ± 0.07
(N = 41)
(N = 25)
Depth
(cm)
0.22 ± 0.01
(N = 31)
0.33 ± 0.04
(N = 31)
0.40 ± 0.03
(N = 31)
0.42 ± 0.04
(N = 31)
0.67 ± 0.04
(N = 35)
Turbidity
(NTU)
0.57 ± 0.14
(N = 32)
5.45 ± 0.34
(N = 32)
5.74 ± 0.37
(N = 32)
26.72 ± 2.02
(N = 32)
28.59 ± 1.85
(N = 32)
The relationship between suspended load and deposition was determined by plotting
sediment accumulation in the traps (kg‡m-2) against suspended sediment (log scale), as both mean
concentration (mg‡L-1) and dose (mg‡L-1 ‡days) over a duration of approximately 40 days (Figs. 4
and 5) and 60 days (Figs. 6 and 7). Each line on the figures indicates a different particle size
fraction from the traps (less than medium sands as <1.19 mm, less than fine sands as <0.30 mm
and silts and clays as <0.075 mm). Data points and error bars represent the mean and plus or
minus one standard error, respectively.
The relationship between deposition and mean suspended sediment concentration
produces near identical correlations to deposition with dose. All of the r2 values given in Figures
4 through 7 are above the critical value at p = 0.01 (r2 = 0.185 for df = 33, r2 = 0.121 for df = 52),
indicating that the relationships are statistically reliable. Maximum sediment deposition was
substantial (approaching 50 kg‡m-2) compared to a previously study of similar length and with
similar suspended solids dose (Slaney et al. 1977; 25 kg‡m-2). The high correlation of the
logarithmic regressions implies that sediment may accumulate rapidly at low suspended sediment
loads but more slowly at larger loads. The suggestion that accumulation increases at lower rates
as cumulative sediment transport increases has been previously suggested by Lisle (1989) based
on data from Slaney et al. (1977). The regression lines were not parallel in any of Figures 4 to 7
(analysis of covariance; Fig. 4, f = 8.66; Fig. 5, f = 7.70; Fig. 6, f = 53.31; Fig. 7, f = 57.97),
implying that a different relationship applies to each particle size.
Current velocity measurements were available to attempt to account for some of the
expected variation. Velocity can work either of two ways to affect sediment deposition. Higher
velocities can entrain more material and thus result in the delivery of more sediment. To
6
Cheakamus 2
n=10
Sediment Accumulation (kg . m-2)
35
30
Squamish 1
n=10
Cheakamus 1
n=10
25
< 1.18 mm
20
< 0.30 mm
Brohm
n=5
15
< 0.075 mm
10
5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
-1
Log {Mean Suspended Sediment in mg . L }
Figure 4. Log mean suspended sediment concentration vs sediment accumulation (~40 days).
Error bars = +/- 1 Standard Error
Squamish 1
n=10
Sediment Accumulation (kg . m-2)
35
Cheakamus 2
n=10
30
Cheakamus
1
25
< 1.18 mm
20
< 0.30 mm
< 0.075 mm
Brohm
n=5
15
10
5
0
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
-1
Log {Suspended Solids Dose in mg . L days}
Figure 5. Log Suspended Sediment Dose vs Sediment Accumulation (~40 days)
Error bars = +/- 1 Standard Error
7
Sediment Accumulation ( kg . m-2 )
70
60
Squamish 2
n=19
50
Squamish 1
n=10
40
Cheakamus 2
n=10
30
< 1.18 mm
< 0.30 mm
< 0.075 mm
Cheakamus 1
n=10
20
Brohm
n=5
10
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
-1
Log {Mean Suspended Sediment in mg . L }
Figure 6. Log mean suspended sediment concentration vs sediment accumulation (~60
days) of three sediment size categories. (Error bars = +/- 1 Standard error).
Sediment Accumulation (kg . m-2)
70
60
Squamish 2
n=19
50
Squamish 1
n=10
40
< 1.18 mm
< 0.30 mm
Cheakamus 2
n=10
30
< 0.075 mm
Cheakamus 1
n=10
20
Brohm
n=5
10
0
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Log {Suspended Sediment Dose in mg . L-1. days}
Figure 7. Log Suspended Sediment Dose vs Sediment Accumulation (~60 days)
Error bars = +/- 1 Standard Error
8
70
Sediment Accumulation (kg . m-2)
60
Squamish 2
n=19
50
Squamish 1
n=10
40
Cheakamus 2
n=10
30
< 1.18 mm
< 0.30 mm
Cheakamus 1
n=10
20
< 0.075 mm
Brohm
n=5
10
0
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
-1
3
4
-1
Log {Suspended Sediment Dose (mg . L . days) x Mean Velocity (m . sec )}
Figure 8. Log (Suspended Sediment Dose x Mean Velocity) vs Sediment Accumulation (~60 days)
Error bars = +/- 1 Standard Error
70
Sediment Accumulation (kg . m-2)
60
Squamish 2
n=19
50
Squamish 1
n=10
40
Cheakamus 2
n=10
30
< 1.18 mm
< 0.30 mm
Cheakamus 1
n=10
< 0.075 mm
20
Brohm
n=5
10
0
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
-1
3.6
3
3.8
4
-1
Log {Suspended Sediment Dose (mg . L . days) x Mean Velocity (m . sec )}
Figure 9. Log (Suspended Sediment Dose / Mean Velocity) vs Sediment Accumulation (~60 days)
Error bars = +/- 1 Standard Error
9
investigate this effect, suspended sediment doses (at ~60 days) were multiplied by mean
velocities for their respective sites (Case 1; Fig. 8). Conversely, higher velocities may result in
lower deposition rates because the extra energy holds more material in suspension. Suspended
sediment doses (at ~60 days) were divided by mean velocities for their respective sites to test for
this effect. (Case 2; Fig. 9). In Case 1, correlation increased for the < 1.18 mm particle size
fraction when compared to Figure 7 (r2 from 0.68 to 0.71), but correlations for the smaller < 0.30
mm and < 0.075 mm particle size fractions decreased (r2 from 0.79 to 0.69 and from 0.40 to 0.33
respectively) (Fig. 8). This suggests that more of the < 1.19 mm particle size (less than medium
sands) are entrained and deposited by higher flows, but not the smaller particle sizes. In Case 2,
correlations for the smaller two particle sizes increased when compared to Figure 7 (r2 from 0.40
to 0.47 for < 0.075 mm and from 0.79 to 0.85 for < 0.30 mm) while correlation for the < 1.18 mm
size fraction decreased (r2 from 0.68 to 0.56) (Fig. 9). This also implies that the smaller particles
are likely carried by the flow but with too much energy to settle. The incorporation of velocity as
a covariant did not have a substantial effect on the original relationship established between
sediment deposition and suspended sediment loading.
An analysis of variance followed by a post hoc test (Tukey HSD) was used to determine
if the amount of sediment deposited in the traps was significantly different between each of the 5
sites (done for the traps removed at ~60 days) (Table 2).
Table 2.
Particle
Size
< 0.075 mm
< 0.30 mm
< 1.18 mm
Average sediment weights from traps (in grams) and amount needed to
statistically differentiate.
Brohm
Creek
17.43
43.21
54.70
Cheakamus Cheakamus
River 1
River 2
81.11
61.69
428.93
271.44
595.59
787.05
Squamish
River 1
218.02
747.31
868.07
Squamish
River 2
102.44
683.91
1572.94
Difference
Needed
7.98
50.92
125.18
In order to differentiate between groups of traps, the average sediment weights of the
groups must be separated by an amount determined by the Tukey test. Any two group means that
are further apart than the value determined are significantly different from each other. Mean
pairs whose difference is less than the calculated value are not significantly different. All but
one pair among all of the groups of traps were statistically different (in bold type). The results
of the analysis indicated that even using only a moderate number of traps at each site (n = 5 to
19), the differences in deposition between the sites were statistically significant.
Recommendations
The sediment traps used in this pilot study were simple, inexpensive and durable. They
were of a useful size; small enough to be easily transported but large enough to contain an
adequate sample and not be dislodged by stream flow. Installation and extraction were rapid and
limited only by flow conditions. Laboratory procedures for determining weights of sediment size
fractions were uncomplicated, but potentially time consuming with large numbers of samples.
Cost per sample was minimized in this study with the use of university laboratory facilities and
staff. However, costs for commercial laboratories to perform the particle size fractionation
would certainly be a large financial consideration. Since the effect of velocity on the
relationships determined was mixed, the considerable effort and expense taken to collect the data
10
may not be worthwhile in further studies. The variability detected in the suspended sediment
load - deposition relationship could be due to numerous factors. At least one of the study sites
had considerable bedload movement (Cheakamus 2). Another site dewatered at least once during
the study period due to manipulations with a dam upstream (Cheakamus 1). Yet despite these
problems, and the large number of processes and uncertainties involved in transport of fine
sediments that are either disregarded or integrated by this method, the sediment traps were able
to produce a simple and sound relationship. They are therefore an attractive alternative to
conventional methods for measuring sediment loading that are often expensive, labor-intensive,
or both.
The traps may facilitate the integration of suspended sediment loads in streams, but they
offer no guidance as to the source of the material. For project monitoring, traps placed
concurrently in a separate and unaffected stream (reference or control site) will be needed to
control for outside effects. Care must be taken with upstream and downstream replicates and
pair sets because the instream work involved in placement and removal can impact the
downstream sites. For the traps to be effective as project monitors, the change in suspended
sediment load due to the influence of the project will have to be substantial enough to be detected
as a statistical difference in sediment deposited. In streams carrying high suspended sediment
loads, the change may need to be quite significant to accommodate the relatively small changes
in deposition with load (as suggested by the fit of logarithmic regressions). Employing a larger
number of traps (i.e., > 10) could help to reduce variability and therefore the value calculated to
differentiate the groups.
An important question that remains is for what duration should the traps be deployed.
Almost half of all the traps removed at ~40 days had slightly more sediment in the 3 size
fractions than those from the same sites removed at ~60 days. This may indicate that the traps
reach an equilibrium amount of deposited material after which little change takes place. The
traps should definitely be in situ to record the suspended sediment load when the greatest
difference from before to after will be seen. Exact timing of loading events is unknown, and
therefore groups of traps (i.e., 10 or more) deployed at appropriate intervals throughout the study
period may be the safest approach.
By using a form of these prototype traps and similar sampling procedures, it should be
possible to make reliable comparisons between ‘control’ and ‘treated’ sites, before and after
hillslope and/or streambank restoration. The information gained would allow qualitative and
quantitative estimates as to the success of erosion control projects. Such estimates may allow for
benefit analyses of the project’s improvement on water quality and fish habitat, particularly if
combined with other measures or indicators (e.g., sediment sources, fish abundance or standing
crop). The use of ‘sediment traps’ as monitors of changes in suspended sediment loadings
should be broadly applicable to sites where chronic surface erosion (fine lacustrine deposits)
from roads, skid trails and landings are the primary sources of sediments, such as is common in
the central interior of British Columbia.
11
REFERENCES
Adams, J.N., and R.L. Beschta. 1980. Gravel bed composition in Oregon coastal streams.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 1514-1521.
American Public Health Association (APHA). 1985. Standard methods for the examination of
water and wastewater, 16th edition. APHA, American Water Works Association and Water
Pollution Control Federation.
Anderson, H.W. 1971. Relative contributions of sediment from source areas, and transport
processes. Pages 55-63 in Proceedings of a symposium - forest land uses and stream
environment, October 19-21, 1970, Oregon State University, Oregon.
Beschta, R.L. 1978. Long-term patterns of sediment production following road construction and
logging in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research 14: 1011-1016.
Beschta, R.L., and W.L. Jackson. 1979. The intrusion of fine sediments into a stable gravel bed.
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 36: 204-210.
Brooks, G.R. 1992. Aspects of post-glacial sediment supply and its control upon the morphology
of the Squamish River, southwestern British Columbia. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Geography,
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.
Chamberlain, T.W., R.D. Harr, and F.H. Everest. 1991. Timber harvesting, silviculture, and
watershed processes. Chapter 6 in W.R. Meehan [ed.] Influences of forest and rangeland
management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special
Publication 19, Bethesda, Maryland.
Church, M. 1996. Fine sediments in small streams in coastal British Columbia: a review of
research progress. M.Sc. Thesis. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.
In prep.
Clay, C.H. 1961. Design of fishways and other fish facilities. Department of Fisheries and
Oceans of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 301 p.
Everest, F.H, R.L. Beschta, J.C. Scrivener, K.V. Koshi, J.R. Sedell, and C.J. Cederholm. 1987.
Fine sediment and salmonid production: a paradox. Chapter 4 in E.O. Salo and T.W Cundy [eds.]
Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. University of Washington, Institute of
Forest Resources Contribution No. 57, Seattle, Washington.
Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream hydrology: an introduction for
ecologists. John Wiley and Sons, Toronto, Ontario. 526 p.
Hall, J.D., and R.L. Lantz. 1969. Effects of logging on the habitat of coho salmon and cutthroat
trout in coastal streams. Pages 355-375 in T.G. Northcote [ed.] Symposium on salmon and trout
in streams. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries, Institute of Fisheries, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.
12
Hartman, G.D., and J.C. Scrivener. 1990. Impacts of forestry practices on a coastal stream
ecosystem, Carnation Creek, British Columbia. Department of Fisheries and Oceans,
Contribution No. 150 to the Carnation Creek Watershed Project, Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 223.
Hartman, G.D., J.C. Scrivener, L.B. Holtby, and L. Powell. 1987. Some effects of different
streamside treatments on physical conditions and fish population processes in Carnation Creek, a
coastal rain forest stream in British Columbia. Chapter 12 in E.O. Salo and T.W Cundy [eds.]
Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. University of Washington, Institute of
Forest Resources Contribution No. 57, Seattle, Washington.
Lisle, T.E. 1989. Sediment transport and resulting deposition in spawning gravels, North Coastal
California. Water Resources Research 25: 1303-1319.
Lisle, T.E., and J. Lewis. 1992. Effects of sediment transport on survival of salmonid embryos in
a natural stream: a simulation approach. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:
2337-2344.
Lloyd, D.S. 1987. Turbidity as a water quality standard for salmonid habitats in Alaska. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 7: 34-45.
McNeil, W.J., and W.H. Ahnell. 1964. Success of pink salmon spawning relative to size of
spawning bed materials. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Special
Scientific Report - Fisheries, No. 469.
Mason, J.C. 1969. Hypoxial stress prior to emergence and competition among coho salmon fry.
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 26: 63-91.
Newcombe, C.P. 1996. Channel sediment pollution: a provisional fisheries field guide for
assessment of risk and impact. Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Lands
and Parks, Habitat Protection Branch, Victoria, British Columbia.
Newcombe, C.P. 1994. Suspended sediment in aquatic ecosystems: ill effects as a function of
concentration and duration of exposure. Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks, Habitat Protection Branch, Victoria, British Columbia.
Newcombe, C.P. 1985. Harmful effects of suspended sediments to trout, salmon and other
organisms in aquatic ecosystems, as a function of increasing concentration and duration of
exposure: annotations and bibliography. Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks, Fisheries Branch, Victoria, British Columbia. 44 p.
Newcombe, C.P. and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic
ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11: 72-82.
Phillips, R.W. 1971. Effects of sediment on the gravel environment and fish production. Pages
64-74 in Proceedings of a symposium - forest land uses and stream environment. October 19-21,
1970, Oregon State University, Oregon.
13
Platts, W.S., R.J. Torquemada, M.L. McHenry, and C.K. Graham. 1989. Changes in salmon
spawning and rearing habitat from increased delivery of fine sediment to the South Fork Salmon
River, Idaho. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118: 274-283.
Purser, M.D., and J.J. Rhodes. 1996. Overwinter sedimentation of clean gravels in simulated
redds in the Grande Ronde River, Oregon, USA: implications for the survival of endangered
spring chinook salmon. Abstract from Forest-Fish Conference 1996, Land management practices
affecting aquatic ecosystems. May 1-4, 1996, Calgary, Alberta.
Scrivener, J.C., and M.J. Brownlee. 1989. Effects of forest harvesting on spawning gravel and
incubation survival of chum (Oncorhynchus keta) and coho salmon (O. kisutch) in Carnation
Creek, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46: 681-696 .
Scrivener, J.C., and M.J. Brownlee. 1980. A preliminary analysis of Carnation Creek gravel
quality data, 1973-1980. Reprinted from Proceedings from the conference “Salmon - spawning
gravel: a renewable resource in the Pacific Northwest?”. October 6-7, 1980, Seattle, Washington.
Slaney, P.A., T.G. Halsey, and A.F. Tautz. 1977. Effects of forest harvesting practices on
spawning habitat of stream salmonids in the Centennial Creek watershed, British Columbia.
Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, Fisheries Management
Report No. 73:45 p.
Swanson, F.J., J.E. Benda, S.H. Duncan, G.E. Grant, W.F. Megahan, L.M. Reid, and R.R.
Ziemer. 1986. Mass failures and other processes of sediment production in Pacific Northwest
forest landscapes. Chapter 2 in 0E.O. Salo and T.W Cundy [eds.] Streamside management:
forestry and fishery interactions University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources
Contribution No. 57, Seattle, Washington.
14