Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Report Card
Scores and scoring methodology
2015
Prepared by Dr. Simon Costanzo, Dr. Heath Kelsey, and Tracey Saxby
Integration & Application Network
University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
November 2015
Table of Contents
1 Overview.....................................................................................................................3
2 Category: Fish and Wildlife........................................................................................6
2.1 Value: Biodiversity...........................................................................................6
Indicator: Native Fish Diversity
Indicator: Non-native Fish
2.2 Value: Iconic Native Species............................................................................8
Indicator: Juvenile Chinook
Indicator: Bald Eagle
3 Category: Water Quality...........................................................................................10
3.1 Value: Clean Water........................................................................................10
Indicator: Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI)
Indicator: Toxics
Indicator: Temperature
4 Category: Habitat......................................................................................................17
4.1 Value: Healthy Riparian Areas......................................................................17
Indicator: Extent of Floodplain Forest
4.2 In-Stream Habitat..........................................................................................18
Channel Complexity
5 Category: Flows........................................................................................................19
5.1 Value: Flow Regime.......................................................................................19
Indicator: Biological Stream Flow Targets
Indicator: Peak Flows
6 Category: People and the River...............................................................................22
6.1 Value: Fishable...............................................................................................22
Indicator: Tribal Fisheries
Indicator: Fish Consumption Advisories
6.2 Value: Swimmable.........................................................................................24
Indicator: Fecal Bacteria (Escherichia coli)
Indicator: Harmful Algal Blooms
7 Summary of Report Card Scores and Assigned Grades..........................................26
8 Summary Note..........................................................................................................30
Appendix I Proposed indicators that were unable to be included.............................31
Appendix II General description of SLICES...................................................................33
Overview
73 150 km
Table 1-1. Willamette River Report Card indicators, indicator categories, values and scoring system.
Indicators
Native fish
Non-native fish
Juvenile chinook
Bald eagle
Categories
Values
Scoring System
Biodiversity
Fish and Wildlife
Iconic native species
80 to 100%
Clean water
Water Quality
60 to <80%
Temperature
Floodplain forest
Channel complexity
In stream habitat
Flow targets
Peak flows
Tribal fisheries
Fish consumption advisories
Fecal bacteria
Harmful algal blooms
Flow regime
Habitat
40 to <60%
Flow
20 to <40%
Fishable
People and the River
Swimmable
0 to <20%
Saint Helens
Scappoose
Columbia River
Forest Grove
Portland
Hillsboro
Gresham
Tual atin Ri v
er
Beaverton
Lake Oswego
t
Tuala in R
i ver
l River
ort h Y
am hil
Clac ka m
r
ve
as Ri
Wilsonville
Newberg
Oregon City
Estacada
Canby
la
al
ol
iv
er
Ro
ar
in
R iv e
Pu
Ya m h i l l R i ve r
o u th
a
Gr
Oa k o ve F or k Cla ck
Mt Angel
sR
ve
Riv
e
ka m a
C lac
l la
Littl
Salem
a
ol
Dallas
uddin
eP
ve
ddin
Woodburn
r
iv e
R
McMinnville
Monmouth
rt
No
m
tia
an
hS
tle
Lit
River
rth
No
R iv er
m
ntia
Sa
Ri ve
h Rive r
us
en b
eit
Br
Detroit
Santia
rth
mR
No
Albany
ive
Corvallis
ou
Lebanon
Mi d
d
l e Santiam R
iv
er
an
e
Ri v
pooi a
al a
C
th
m
tia
River
m R ive r
South San ti a
Sweet Home
Junction
City
Sm ith Rive
ap
ooia
Riv
e
ve
al
oha
w
er
iv
R
Ri
er
nzie R iv
McKe
Long
Tom iv er
R
Harrisburg
lu
n
Ke
Mc
z ie
R iv
er
Springfield
le
ast F
ork
Lowell
id
M
ill
am
ette Ri
ver
Eugene
or
Co
a
il l
W
me
tt
R
er
iv
Oakridge
Big R
ive
r
0 mi
10 mi
0 km 10 km
20 km
20 mi
30 km
Figure 1-1. The Willamette River and watershed with Lower, Mid, and Upper Willamette River Report Card regions.
Category
Portland
Metro
Area
Newberg
Number of
native species
in 1km slice
Total number
of native
species in
river reach
Corvallis
Albany
Calculation method
Native fish species richness was calculated as the
number of native species captured in a 1 km slice, as a
ratio of the total number of native species captured in
the respective report card region (Lower, Mid, Upper)
(Figure 2-1). All ratios in a report card region were
averaged and converted into a percentage score for
that reach.
A total of 32 data points (each representing one
slice) from 2011 to 2013 were averaged for the
Lower Willamette River.
A total of 34 data points from 2011 to 2013
were averaged for the Mid Willamette River.
A total of 44 data points from 2011 to 2013
were averaged for the Upper Willamette River.
1 http://ise.uoregon.edu/slices/main.html
0 mi
Eugene
Springfield
10 mi
20 mi
0 km 10 km 20 km 30 km
Result
Lower Willamette River = 34%
Mid Willamette River
= 58%
Indicator
Non-native Fish
Portland
Metro
Area
Newberg
Slice X:
number of
native species
Total fish
species in
1km slice
Average of
all slices for
reach grade
Salem
Corvallis
Albany
Calculation method
The non-native fish indicator was calculated as a
ratio of the total number of native and non-native
species captured in the same 1 km river slice. The ratio
of non-native to native species for all slices in each
region (Lower, Mid, Upper) were averaged and then
converted into a percentage. The greater percentage
of non-native fish species represents a poorer score,
hence values were subtracted from 100% for
reporting purposes (Figure 2-2).
A total of 32 data points (each representing one
slice) from 2011 to 2013 were averaged for the
Lower Willamette River. The average percentage
of non-native fish species found for this report
card region was 22%.
A total of 34 data points from 2011 to 2013
were averaged for the Mid Willamette River. The
average percentage of non-native fish species
found for this report card region was 23%.
A total of 44 data points from 2011 to 2013
were averaged for the Upper Willamette River.
The average percentage of non-native fish
species found for this report card region was
14%.
2 http://ise.uoregon.edu/slices/main.html
0 mi
Eugene
Springfield
10 mi
20 mi
0 km 10 km 20 km 30 km
Result
Lower Willamette River = 78%
Mid Willamette River
= 77%
Calculation method
The score for juvenile Chinook is the percentage
of seine nets cast that captured at least 20
juvenile Chinook.
5 of 181 seines in the Lower Willamette River had
juvenile Chinook occupancy 20 in 2013.
19 of 22 seines in the Mid Willamette River had
juvenile Chinook occupancy 20 in 2013.
24 of 37 seines in the Upper Willamette River had
juvenile Chinook occupancy 20 in 2013.
Result
Lower Willamette River = 3%
Mid Willamette River
= 86%
Indicator
Bald Eagle
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
are an iconic species not only in the
Willamette River system but across the United States.
Bald eagles are listed as a species of least concern by
the Endangered Species Act and their population is
rising throughout the U.S. as well as in the Willamette
River Basin. Bald eagles have almost tripled in numbers
in the southern portion of the Willamette Valley in the
past nine years.
Calculation method
The calculation method was based on the number of
1 km slices (as per the SLICES program) that contained
one or more observations of groups of eagles (eBird
count > 1) in non-winter months (March through
October) in the past five years (Table 2-1). Scores
ranging from 60-100 reflect the number of years of
observations as per Table 2-2.
The equation on the following page was used
to calculate scores per report card region of the
Willamette River.
Result
Lower Willamette River = 76%
Mid Willamette River
= 74%
3 www.ebird.org
Reach Score =
(#slices with 3 obs.* 100) + (#slices with 2 obs.* 80) + (#slices with 1 obs.* 60)
# Slices with observations *100
= 100
Table 2-1. Number of 1 km slices where groups of eagles were observed in non-winter months over past five years
in the Willamette River. Source: ebird.org.
Number of slices
with three years of
observations
10
Assigned score
100
80
60
3 Water Quality
Category
Calculation method
This report card used the three-year average of the
seasonal mean minimum OWQI score (i.e. seasonal
average poorest water quality score) for two seasons:
low flow summer months (June through September),
and higher flow fall, winter, spring (October through
May). Samples were collected from a network of nine
sites (Table 3-3) monitored approximately 18 times
in water years 2012 to 2014 (October 1, 2011 to
September 30, 2014). Averaging three years of OWQI
scores reduces the variability that may be present in
the annual site scores while still providing an overall
assessment of water quality in recent years.
The OWQI score benchmarks (Table 3-1) required
transformation into a range of 0-100% for
compatibility with the report card scoring system as
per the relationship depicted in Figure 3-1.
Conversions between the OWQI scoring benchmarks
and the 0-100% report card grading system are
shown in Table 3-2. The average OWQI score for
each report card region (Lower, Mid, Upper) was
transformed into the 0-100% report card score using
the conversion equations outlined in Table 3-2. The
three year OWQI site scores, report card grades, and
report card region averages are presented in Table 3-3.
Result
Lower Willamette River = 58%
Mid Willamette River
= 77%
Description
Very good
90-100
Good
85-89
Fair
80-84
Poor
60-79
Very poor
10-59
90
Conversion/
Slope
equation
very
good
80
70
% score
Condition
OWQI
scoring
benchmarks
100
good
60
Very good
90-100
>80-100%
y=2x-100
Good
85-89
>60-80%
y=4x-280
Fair
80-84
>40-60%
y=4x-280
Poor
60-79
>20-40%
y=x-40
20
Very poor
10-59
0-20%
y=0.4x-4
10
50
fair
40
30
poor
very poor
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Willamette Report
Card region
Lower Willamette River
DEQ station
number
Station location
Three-year
average
OWQI score
2012-2014
10332
81
44%
10611
83
53%
10339
Canby Ferry
89
77%
10344
Wheatland Ferry
89
75%
10555
Salem
90
79%
10350
Albany
88
75%
10352
Corvallis
90
80%
10355
Harrisburg
92
84%
10359
Springfield
93
85%
Average
Report
Card score
(%)
58%
77%
81%
Indicator
Toxics
Toxic pollutants have been identified in
surface water, groundwater, sediments
and fish in the Willamette River. These include legacy
and emerging pollutants. Legacy pollutants typically
refer to a group of chemicals now banned from
use (at least in the U.S.), but due to their chemical
persistence, remain in the environment and tend to
accumulate in aquatic organisms. This broad group
includes such familiar pollutants as chlorinated
pesticides like DDT, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
and dioxins and furans.
5 www.lwgportlandharbor.org
www.portlandharborcag.info/node/68
DEQ
Station ID
Site name
Willamette
River
Report Card
Region
10611
Willamette River at
Hawthorne Bridge (Portland)
Lower
10339
Lower
10344
Willamette River at
Wheatland Ferry
Mid
10555
Mid
10350
Willamette River at
Eastbound Hwy 20 bridge
(Albany)
Upper
10352
Upper
10355
Upper
Criterion/Benchmark *
Criterion/
Benchmark source
Data sources **
1.3
Chrysene
1.3
Fluoranthene
14,000
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
1.3
Pyrene
290,000
Atrazine
1,000
Carbaryl
500
Carbofuran
750
Diuron
2,400
Hexazinone
7,000
Imidacloprid
1,050
Metolachlor
1,000
Metribuzin
8,700
Norflurazon
9,700
Oxamyl
27,000
Pentachlorophenol
150
Prometon
98,000
Propiconazole
21,000
Pyraclostrobin
1,500
Simazine
2,240
2,4-D
100
Dicamba
61
Triclopyr
100
Arsenic
2.1
Barium
1,000
Chromium
11
Copper
Iron
1000
Lead
Mercury
0.012
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
0.0000064
0.000031
4,4 DDE
0.000022
4,4 DDT
0.000022
Dieldrin
0.0000053
0.08
DEQ
Station
ID
Site name
Willamette
River
Report Card
Region
10821
Lower
34198
Lower
10833
Lower
26339
Mid
10344
Mid
31731
Mid
10355
Upper
29044
Upper
Calculation method
The toxics indicator is based on both the percentage
of toxic contaminants (combustion by-products,
current use pesticides, PCBs, legacy pesticides and
metals) detected in the Willamette River and the
relative level of toxicity of these contaminants based
upon known criterion or benchmarks (referred to as
the impact value ratio). The impact value ratio is the
highest concentration of each contaminant detected
in a report card reach divided by its respective human
and aquatic health criterion or benchmark value.
Therefore, if the concentration of a contaminant is
greater than its respective criterion or benchmark,
10-50%
(2)
<10%
(1)
>50%
(3)
<0.1
(1)
0.1-0.5 0.5-1.0
(2)
(3)
Impact value ratios
Figure 3-2. Toxics scoring matrix.
>1.0
(4)
Indicator
Temperature
Result
Lower Willamette River = 48%
Mid Willamette River
= 83%*
100
80
y = 20x + 140
60
40
20
0
2
Toxics score
Calculation method
Analysis of river temperature and the environmental
implications was based on state temperature
standards for the protection of threatened salmon and
steelhead in the Willamette River. The 7-day average
maximum temperature (7DAM) was calculated for
the summer (June 21, 2014 to September 22, 2014
when water temperatures are the warmest for the
year) and compared to the applicable water quality
standard. The temperature criteria are different for
the three major reaches of the main stem Willamette
River. The standards for each reach depend upon the
life histories of designated fish species at that location
and time of year. The two most downstream stations
in Portland and Newberg are designated as salmon
and steelhead migration corridors with a 20OC
7DAM criterion and the other stations are located in
salmon and trout rearing and migration designated
fish use areas with an 18OC 7DAM criterion. As a
100
90
80
70
y=x
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
= 17%
20
40
60
80
100
Lower
Willamette
River
14211720
Portland
20
21
14197900
Newberg
20
28
14192015
Keizer
18
14174000
Albany
18
12
14166000
Harrisburg
18
31
14158100
Eugene
18
23
Mid
Willamette
River
Upper
Willamette
River
Station
location
Summer
criterion
C 7DAM
Summer
7DAM
meeting
criterion
Willamette
Report Card
region
6 http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_300/oar_340/340_041.html
Report card
region Average
7DAM meeting
criterion
Percent
of 7DAM
meeting
criterion
Report Card
score (%)
21
22%
22%
16
17%
17%
22
23%
23%
4 Habitat
Category
Calculation method
The extent of floodplain forest was calculated as
the area of 2010 floodplain forest within individual
100 m slices (slice numbers 101 22907 from the
Result
Lower Willamette River = 58%
Mid Willamette River
= 55%
7 http://ise.uoregon.edu/slices/main.html
8 Willamette River Basin:Trajectories of environmental and ecological change by The Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium-1st OSU Press ed.p.cm.
9 http://ise.uoregon.edu/slices/data/metadata_s100fm_3.pdf
Result
Calculation method
= 76%
7 http://ise.uoregon.edu/slices/main.html
8 Willamette River Basin:Trajectories of environmental and ecological change by The Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium-1st OSU Press ed.p.cm.
9 http://ise.uoregon.edu/slices/data/metadata_s100fm_3.pdf
5 Flows
Category
Deficit flow
target at Salem
(cubic feet per
second, 7-day
average*)
April 1-15
17,800
15,000
April 16-30
17,800
15,000
May 1-31
15,000
15,000
June 1-15
13,000
11,000
June 16-30
8,700
5,500
13 http://waterdata.usgs.gov/or/nwis/dv?site_no=14191000
14 Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2). Consultation. Biological Opinion & Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act. Essential Fish
Habitat Consultation. Consultation on the Willamette River Basin Flood Control Project. NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service. Northwest Region. NOAA
Fisheries Log Number: FINWRl2000/02117 Date Issued: July 11, 2008.
Indicator
Peak Flows
Calculation method
The biological stream flow indicator is the percentage
of time that the 7-day average stream flow at Salem
in April through June 2013 was at least equal to
the BiOp stream flow target level shown in Table
5-1 Column 2. This percentage was applied to all
report card regions because most of the stream flow
in the lower river is controlled by stream flows at or
upstream of Salem (and the BiOp is only calculated
for Salem).
Result
Lower Willamette River = 58%
Mid Willamette River
= 58%
Number of 7-day
average stream
flows at Salem
stream flow
target
April 1-15
17,800
9/15 days
April 16-30
17,800
13/15 days
May 1-31
15,000
23/31 days
June 1-15
13,000
8/15 days
June 16-30
8,700
0/15 days
Calculation method
The peak flows indicator was calculated for the period
encompassing the 10 most recent years of NRNI
information currently available (19992008). Actual
maximum flow as a percentage of maximum NRNI
flow was calculated for each year, and averaged across
the 10 years (Table 5-3).
As the natural peak flow indicator is meant to be
indicative of flow modifications caused by upstream
dam operations, the Albany score was applied to the
Upper Willamette River and the Salem score to the
Mid and Lower Willamette River report card regions.
Result
Lower Willamette River = 76%
Mid Willamette River
= 76%
15 www.bpa.gov/power/streamflow/default.aspx
16 http://waterdata.usgs.gov/or/nwis/dv?site_no=14191000 and http://waterdata.usgs.gov/or/nwis/dv?site_no=14174000, respectively.
Table 5-3. Actual annual maximum flow, as a ratio of the annual maximum NRNI flow, averaged for 10 years (19992008) at Salem and Albany.
Year
Annual
Annual
maximum flow
maximum
(cfs)
NRNI flow (cfs)
Ratio
(Actual:NRNI)
Annual
maximum flow
(cfs)
Annual
maximum
NRNI flow
(cfs)
Ratio
(Actual:NRNI)
1999
122,000
151,730
0.80
71,200
87,383
0.81
2000
89,300
109,188
0.82
59,800
80,984
0.74
2001
85,800
109,196
0.79
49,700
65,787
0.76
2002
86,100
96,344
0.89
52,900
58,327
0.91
2003
92,300
137,246
0.67
58,900
93,900
0.63
2004
86,500
126,279
0.68
45,000
67,237
0.67
2005
118,000
188,705
0.63
66,000
120,284
0.55
2006
139,000
228,451
0.61
85,200
147,006
0.58
2007
89,500
116,043
0.77
59,600
76,832
0.78
2008
83,900
94,507
0.89
51,700
56,844
0.91
Average (score)
0.76 (76%)
0.73 (73%)
Category
Result
Lower Willamette River = 67%
Indicator
Tribal Fisheries
Calculation method
The tribal fisheries indicator is based on whether the
wild harvest fisheries were allowed in each report card
reach of the river in the latest year (2014). Scores were
assigned as follows:
Harvest (non-adipose fin-clipped)
allowed all year
Wild harvest (non-adipose finclipped) seasonally restricted
Hatchery harvest (adipose finclipped) allowed all year
Hatchery harvest (adipose finclipped) seasonally restricted
No harvest allowed
No harvest exists due to lack of
natural suitable habitat
= 60%
= 100%
= 80%
= 60%
= 40%
= 0%
= NA
Steelhead
Chinook
Average
Lower
Willamette
River
80%
60%
60%
67%
Mid
Willamette
River
NA
60%
60%
60%
Upper
Willamette
River
NA
60%
60%
60%
Indicator
Fish Consumption
Advisories
Industrial contaminants such as Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury (Hg) are present in
many of the rivers and ecosystems of the Pacific
Northwest. These contaminants are harmful to
humans when ingested and often make their way into
human diets through the consumption of resident fish
caught in contaminated rivers. The Oregon Health
Authority has published advisories for maximum fish
consumption throughout the Willamette River Basin,
advising humans to restrict their consumption of
certain resident species of fish such as carp, bass and
catfish.
6.
Calculation method
The fish consumption advisory scores for resident
fish species were based on: i) if an advisory was
present for the Willamette River, and ii) if the advisory
recommended a number of meals per month for nonvulnerable human populations by OHA.
The Willamette River, as of January 31, 2015, had two
OHA advisories relevant to the report card region, as
outlined in Table 6-2. These included an advisory for
mercury (Hg) in resident fish for the entire reporting
region; and an advisory for polychlorinated biphenyls,
dioxins, and/or certain pesticides (referenced as PCBs)
Result
Lower Willamette River = 3%
Mid Willamette River
= 13%
Table 6-2. Fish consumption advisories in the Willamette River and guidelines on the maximum number of meals
per month19.
Meals per month
Vulnerable
population*
Non-vulnerable
population
Waterbody
PCBs
Hg
*Vulnerable population includes children under age 6, women of childbearing age and people with thyroid or immune system problems.
Table 6-3. Fish consumption advisories, guidelines for the maximum number of meals per month, and the scores
used in report card calculations.
Meals per month
guideline (most
stringent)
Percentage of days
in one month
PCB and Hg
3.3%
3%
Hg
13.3%
13%
Hg
13.3%
13%
Willamette River
Report Card Region
Fish consumption
advisories
19 http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironments/Recreation/FishConsumption/Pages/fishadvisories.aspx#willamette
Mid Willamette
River
Upper Willamette
River
10332
10611
Portland, Hawthorne
Bridge
10339
Canby Ferry
10555
Wheatland Ferry
10344
Salem
10350
Albany
10352
Corvallis
10355
Harrisburg
10359
Springfield
Calculation method
The fecal bacteria indicator score is the percent of
E. coli samples that meet Oregons criterion for safe
water contact recreation, specifically 406 E. coli per
100 milliliters single sample20.
Result
Lower Willamette River = 90%
Mid Willamette River
= 100%
Report
Card
score
Lower Willamette
River
90%
90%
Mid Willamette
River
100%
100%
Upper Willamette
River
100%
100%
Indicator
Harmful Algal
Blooms
Algae are microscopic organisms that grow naturally
in oceans and freshwaters. Under certain conditions,
some algae can grow into a large visible mass called
a bloom. Not all algal blooms are harmful, but some
species of cyanobacteria can produce toxins that can
cause serious illness or death in pets, livestock and
wildlife. These toxins can also make people sick and in
sensitive individuals also cause a rash or irritation.
20 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Division 041-Chapter 45-Water Quality Standards. Effective July 2nd, 2007. Specifically OAR 340-041-0009.
21 http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironments/Recreation/HarmfulAlgaeBlooms/Pages/index.aspx.
Calculation method
The harmful algal bloom indicator score is the percent
of days per year with no OHA harmful algal bloom
advisories posted.
Result
No HAB recreational advisories were issued in the
Middle or Upper regions of the Willamette River. One
advisory was issued in the Lower Willamette River
region in the Portland metropolitan area between Ross
Island and Sauvie Island. It lasted from September 16
until October 2, 2014.
Lower Willamette River = 96%
Mid Willamette River
= 100%
Report
Card
score
Lower Willamette
River
96%
96%
Mid Willamette
River
100%
100%
Upper Willamette
River
100%
100%
Value
Habitat
80
Juvenile Chinook
51
Bald eagle
79
72
Toxics
72
Temperature
21
Floodplain forest
59
59
In stream habitat
Channel complexity
78
78
Flow targets
58
Peak flows
75
Tribal fisheries
62
Fish consumption
advisories
10
Fecal bacteria
97
99
Clean water
Flow regime
Fishable
People and the River
Swimmable
BITA
T
HA
H
AL ARM
GA F
L UL
BL
OO
M
S
Indicator Value
score
score
(%)
(%)
Non-native fish
FL
OO
DP
FO LAI
RE N
ST
FLOW
53
Water Quality
Indicator
CHANNEL
COMPLEXITY
IA
ER
CT
BA
L
A
FEC
Native fish
Biodiversity
NO
N-N
ATI
V
FIS E
H
B-
SHERIES
TRIBAL FI
NATIVE
FISH
W
AT
FISH
CONSUMPT
ION
ADVISORI
ES
ILE
EN OK
V
O
JU HIN
C
LE
AG
DE
BAL
ETS
TARG
FLOW
W
IL
IFE
DL
FISH
&
WA
TE
R
IND QUA
EX LIT
Y
ER
IV
ER
P E O PL E & T H
ER
S
XIC
TO
TY
ALI
U
Q
E
RATUR
TEMPE
PEA
KF
LOW
S
Summary of Report
Card scores and
assigned grades
Category
score (%)
Overalll
Score
(%)
Overall
grade
66
66
65
55
67
55
69
67
36
67
98
65
B-
NO
N-N
ATI
V
FIS E
H
LE
AG
DE
BAL
C+
SHERIES
TRIBAL FI
CHANNEL
COMPLEXITY
IA
ER
CT
BA
L
A
FEC
PEA
KF
LOW
S
ER
ETS
TARG
FLOW
RIV
FL
OO
DP
FO LAI
RE N
ST
BITA
T
FISH
CONSUMPT
ION
ADVISORI
ES
H
AL ARM
GA F
L UL
BL
OO
M
S
LE
NI K
VE OO
JU HIN
C
HA
W
AT
W
IL
IFE
DL
S
XIC
TO
ER
FISH
&
WA
TE
R
IND QUA
EX LIT
Y
E
P E O PL E & T H
TY
ALI
U
Q
E
RATUR
TEMPE
NATIVE
FISH
FLOW
Category
Value
Indicator
Indicator
score
(%)
Native Fish
34
Non-native Fish
78
Juvenile Chinook
Bald Eagle
76
58
Toxics
48
Temperature
22
Floodplain Forest
58
In stream habitat
Channel Complexity
N/A
Flow Targets
58
Peak Flows
76
Tribal Fisheries
67
Fecal Bacteria
90
96
Biodiversity
Fish and Wildlife
Iconic native species
Water Quality
Habitat
Clean water
Flow regime
Fishable
People and the River
Swimmable
Value
score
(%)
56
48
39
43
58
67
43
58
67
35
64
93
56
C+
NO
N-N
ATI
V
FIS E
H
LE
AG
DE
L
A
B
SHERIES
TRIBAL FI
CHANNEL
COMPLEXITY
IA
ER
CT
BA
L
A
FEC
PEA
KF
LOW
S
ER
ETS
TARG
FLOW
RIV
FL
OO
DP
FO LAI
RE N
ST
BITA
T
FISH
CONSUMPT
ION
ADVISORI
ES
H
AL ARM
GA F
L UL
BL
OO
M
S
ILE
EN OK
V
O
JU HIN
C
HA
W
AT
W
IL
IFE
DL
S
XIC
TO
ER
FISH
&
WA
TE
R
IND QUA
EX LIT
Y
E
P E O PL E & T H
TY
ALI
U
Q
E
RATUR
TEMPE
NATIVE
FISH
FLOW
Category
Value
Indicator
Indicator
score
(%)
Native Fish
58
Non-native Fish
77
Juvenile Chinook
86
Bald Eagle
74
77
Toxics
83
Temperature
17
Floodplain Forest
55
55
In stream habitat
Channel Complexity
76
76
Flow Targets
58
Peak Flows
76
Tribal Fisheries
60
13
Fecal Bacteria
100
100
Biodiversity
Fish and Wildlife
Iconic native species
Water Quality
Habitat
Clean water
Flow regime
Fishable
People and the River
Swimmable
Value
score
(%)
68
74
80
59
67
59
66
67
37
68
100
67
NO
N-N
ATI
V
FIS E
H
FISH
&
WA
TE
R
IND QUA
EX LIT
Y
ILE
EN OK
V
O
JU HIN
C
LE
AG
DE
L
A
B
IA
TER
AC
B
AL
FEC
PEA
KF
LOW
S
ETS
TARG
FLOW
FL
OO
DP
FO LAI
RE N
ST
BITA
T
SHERIES
TRIBAL FI
CHANNEL
COMPLEXITY
HA
FISH
CONSUMPT
ION
ADVISORI
ES
H
AL ARM
GA F
L UL
BL
OO
M
S
W
IL
IFE
DL
E
RATUR
TEMPE
TY
ALI
U
Q
S
XIC
TO
ER
ER
IV
ER
P E O PL E & T H
W
AT
NATIVE
FISH
FLOW
Category
Value
Indicator
Indicator
score
(%)
Native Fish
66
Non-native Fish
86
Juvenile Chinook
65
Bald Eagle
86
81
Toxics
87
Temperature
23
Floodplain Forest
64
64
In stream habitat
Channel Complexity
80
80
Flow Targets
58
Peak Flows
73
Tribal Fisheries
60
13
Fecal Bacteria
100
100
Biodiversity
Fish and Wildlife
Iconic native species
Water Quality
Habitat
Clean water
Flow regime
Fishable
People and the River
Swimmable
Value
score
(%)
76
76
75
64
66
64
72
66
37
68
100
69
Summary note
Appendix I
Category
Value
Biodiversity
Organisms at risk
Fish and
Wildlife
Iconic
species
status
Habitat
Potential
indicator
Healthy
riparian
areas
Western pond
turtle
Area of 2 yr
inundated
floodplain
Indicator description
22 http://orbic.pdx.edu/rte-defs.html
23 http://ise.uoregon.edu/slices/main.html
24 Willamette River Basin:Trajectories of environmental and ecological change by The Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium-1st OSU Press ed.p.cm.
Category
Hydrology
and Flow
People and
the River
Value
Potential
indicator
River
dynamism
Aerial extent of
bare gravel bars
OR Streambank
hardening
Protecting
and
restoring
lands
Acreage of
protected and
restored lands
on floodplain
compared with
2050 Conservation
Scenario targets
Tourism
and
recreation
# boating days
Park use days
Indicator description
25 http://ise.uoregon.edu/slices/main.html
26 Willamette River Basin: Trajectories of environmental and ecological change by The Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium-1st OSU Press ed.p.cm.
Appendix II
show where different conservation and developmentrelated land uses might occur on the landscape under
these varying assumptions. Overlaying the SLICES
framework on the scenario maps allows quantification
of desired endpoints for different indicators, and
was used to generate report card targets for channel
complexity and floodplain forests.