Final Report

 Final Report

Nehalem Data Synthesis Project: OWEB # 208-922-6488

Purpose

The Oregon Coastal Coho Assessment (Nicholas et al. 2005) determined that the Nehalem River Basin Coho salmon population is not viable, primarily due to a lack of stream complexity necessary for overwintering juveniles.  It is further understood that the summer habitat is limited by poor water quality, specifically temperature, due to depleted riparian conditions. The Upper Nehalem Watershed Council (UNWC) and Lower Nehalem Watershed Council (LNWC) are planning to undertake an intensive outreach campaign to recruit landowners for participation in habitat and riparian restoration projects. This Data Synthesis project was undertaken as a basin wide project, including both of the Nehalem Watershed Councils.

The eventual project goal is to develop and implement habitat restoration projects with willing and informed landowners to address the primary and secondary limiting factors for Coho salmon production in the Nehalem basin. The overall project will consist of three phases; Phase 1: this data synthesis project, Phase 2: an intensive landowner outreach and education project using the products of the data synthesis phase 1, and Phase 3: the development and implementation of habitat and riparian restoration projects with willing landowners resulting from the outreach/education phase 2, consistent with the conservation strategy and principles of the Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan (ODFW, 2007).

The data synthesis project involved the compilation and synthesis of the available data for the watershed, which was analyzed and used to prioritize four sixth field sub basins in the upper river and four in the lower river, and to produce maps and information to be used for the intensive outreach/education in phase 2. A technical advisory committee (TAC) was assembled to assist the councils with the analysis and prioritization process.  In addition to landowner education and outreach, this synthesized data will also be used to assist in identification of possible project reaches within the sixth field basins, and the prioritization of projects. Large scale maps and habitat assessment stream reports of the prioritized sixth field basins will be printed and used to assist in the landowner outreach.

The Data Synthesis project was an extension of the Oregon Coast Coho Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) Watershed Limiting Factors project (Contract # 204-931) under contract with Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), and identifies limiting factors for the coastal Coho population in the Nehalem River Basin at a finer scale of resolution with more data analysis than was feasible under the original Oregon Coast Coho ESU Watershed Limiting Factors project contract.

Background

TheNehalemRiver Basindrains an 850 square mile area of relatively low relief (mean basin elevation ~1,100 feet) along the northernOregoncoast (Figure 1).  The basin is subdivided in to six fifth-field watersheds, and 34 sixth-field subwatersheds.  Ownership within the Basin is 40% Public (primarily Oregon Department of Forestry); 48% private industrial timberlands, and 12% private non-industrial lands.  Of the approximately 650 miles of Coho salmon streams in the Basin 30% of the total length is found on public lands, 40% on private industrial forest lands, and the remaining 30% on private non-industrial forest lands.

Figure 1:NehalemRiver Basin

Since 1996, the Upper Nehalem Watershed Council (UNWC), Lower Nehalem Watershed Council (LNWC),OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have collected biophysical data in the Nehalem watershed.  LNWC collected water quality data from 15 watershed sites in the late 1990s and early 2000s.  In 1999, the Upper and Lower Nehalem Watershed Councils formed a partnership and contracted with Portland State University (PSU) to conduct an OWEB – Nehalem watershed assessment.  The assessment was completed in 2001.  In 2000, UNWC partnered with DEQ to establish a Nehalem watershed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for temperature.  The TMDL was completed in 2003.  In 2005, ODF completed anUpper Nehalemwatershed analysis of state-managed lands.  After completion of the Nehalem watershed assessment in 2001, and until 2006, UNWC continued to collect watershed-wide temperature, turbidity, and macro-invertebrate data.  From 2004 to 2007, LNWC & UNWC contracted with a private consultant to conduct winter habitat and juvenile presence surveys of Coho streams.  Studies of the Nehalem estuary include a Dynamic Estuary Management Information System (DEMIS) assessment completed in 2000, an eelgrass inventory completed in 2002, and OWEB and USFWS-Nehalem estuary assessments completed in 2005.  ODFW continues to conduct numerous watershed-wide salmon habitat, population, spawning, and juvenile presence surveys.

Methods

OWEB and Nehalem Watershed Councils Contract Development

In 2007, the Upper Nehalem Watershed Council coordinator, Maggie Peyton, worked with Miriam Hulst, Oregon Plan Specialist for OWEB, to develop the project’s concept, process, and expectations.

Consultants and Technical Advisory Team

OWEB selected and contracted with the consultants.   The selected consultant team was a joint venture between Watershed Professionals Network (WPN) and Jones & Stokes.  The consulting team members consisted of Steve Bauer and Ed Salminen, WPN; and John Runyon, Jones & Stokes.

A technical advisory team (TAC) was assembled to provide input and guidance throughout the Data Synthesis phase of the project, and to develop broad based support for the Data Synthesis project and the outreach and restoration phases of the project. The team was comprised of as many of the following stakeholders as possible: Oregon State University (OSU), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Columbia Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), Clatsop SWCD, Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and the timber industry.  The TAC meetings were facilitated by Maggie Peyton, Upper Nehalem Watershed Council Coordinator.

The TAC included representatives of most of the major stakeholders in the basin, including the following: Mitch Cummings, USDA-NRCS, York Johnson, DEQ-TEP, Russ Chapman, BLM, Scott Gall, Columbia SWCD, David Ambrose, Clatsop SWCD, Sheila Ault, ODA., Michele Long, ODFW, Phil Simpson, ODFW, Gareth Ferdun, Lower Nehalem WC., Maggie Peyton, Nehalem WC, Robert Emanuel, OSU Extension, Todd Boswell, Lower Nehalem WC, Lindsay and Cara Mico, Demeter Design, David Bailey, Lower Nehalem WC, Sarah Newton, Lower Nehalem WC, and Guillermo Giannico, OSU Extension.

The technical advisory team met three times in 2008: January 30, April 16, and June 19.

Appendix A includes the consultant and TAC contact information.   The TAC meeting notes are contained in Appendix B.

Coffee Klatch Workshop

An all day training workshop, presented by Jon Souder, Executive Director of the Coos Watershed Association (Coos WA), was provided on May 9, 2008 for the Nehalem Watershed and Tillamook Bay Watershed Council Coordinator/Project managers. Mr. Souder outlined the Coffee Klatch, prioritization, and assessment processes used by the Coos WA, and provided training and resource guide materials. The Coos WA Coffee Klatch process will be adapted and used by the councils in the outreach phase (phase 2) of the project.

The Coffee Klatch Workshop notes are contained in Appendix C. Council work plans for the next phase reflecting information gathered from this workshop can be found in Appendix D.

Data Review

During the months of December and January, available data was reviewed and either provided to consultants or they were advised on the web sites for download.

UNWC in house staff gathered macroinvertebrate and turbidity data to provide to DEQ, to summarize and provide to the consultants.  The UNWC Coordinator met with DEQ on several occasions to verify data collection sites and clarify some of the field notes. Unfortunately, the DEQ was unable to complete their work with the turbidity and macroinvertebrate data in time for inclusion in the Data Synthesis phase of the project.  The UNWC plans to include it after the DEQ completes their work with the data in the fall of 2008. The UNWC also plans to build on the Data Synthesis database and GIS layers as new Nehalem watershed and North coast ecosystem data becomes available.

The consultants reviewed the following data sets:

  • All of Todd Boswell’s winter aquatic habitat assessment data:  2004-2007
  • Nehalem Habitat Intrinsic Potential (HIP) determinations: ODFW, 2006
  • ODFW salmon habitat inventories (AQI)  and salmon spawning and juvenile presence surveys, 2001-2007
  • ODFW  “Habitat summary”,  Spawning bed assessment , spawning timing data
  • Coho spawning and survey data – ODFW
  • Chinook spawning habitat survey 1999-2000 -ODFW
  • Chinook spawning survey – ODFW
  • Chum salmon coastal spawning fish survey summary 2007 – ODFW
  • Macroinvertebrate sampling report
  • Nehalem temperature monitoring data (10yrs worth) and all of the Lower Nehalem WQ data (5yrs worth) -DEQ LASAR web site
  • North Coast TMDL’s Nehalem-specific temp data and shade analysis
  • DEQ Forward Looking Infra Red (FLIR) data for the mainstem Nehalem and major tributaries, collected pre-TMDL
  • Nehalem Basin Macroinvertebrate PREDATOR stressor analysis and Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) Macro data
  • Oregon Department of Forestry’s  Upper Nehalem Watershed Assessment/Analysis, and reports used for ODF assessments
  • Nehalem PSU watershed assessment and riparian conditions analysis
  • East Fork Nehalem Watershed Analysis –UNWC
  • Riparian road ratings
  • Nehalem Estuary Assessment, by Laura Brophy of GreenPoint Consulting
  • Updated Nehalem estuary book
  • Limited info on Nehalem Bay Shellfish Areas
  • NRIMP web site for information about barriers, aquatic inventories, water quality

Data Selected for Evaluation

All of the data sets were evaluated by the consultants for data quality and spatial coverage.  Based on consultation with the TAC, the consultants were directed to focus primarily on high quality information that extensively covered the watersheds.   Data sets that met these criteria included the aquatic habitat inventories, Coho distribution, and water temperature data.  The data sets with extensive spatial distribution and quality information were termed Tier I, and these were to be the primary focus of the mapping on prioritization process.  Tier II data did not have extensive coverage in the Nehalem Basin, were of limited or variable data quality or provided background information not directly relevant to restoration priorities but important for outreach (for example land ownership); these data sets were primarily intended to supplement the Tier I data.   Tier II information included the FLIR water temperature data (confined primarily to the mainstem of the river), fecal coliform TMDL areas (confined to the lower watershed).   Table 1 outlines the Tier I, Tier II and background data.


Table 1.  Tier I (spatially extensive and robust) and Tier II (spatially limited and lower quality data) that were analyzed to prioritize restoration opportunity areas for the Lower and Upper Nehalem watersheds.   The other datasets (e.g., OWEB habitat restoration project database) provided background information for the prioritization process.   

Data Set

Watershed Council and Data Tier (I or II)

LNWC

UNWC

Coho Distribution

I

I

Coho Intrinsic Habitat Potential

I

I

Large Wood Placement Priorities (aquatic habitat   inventories)

I

I

Riparian Enhancement Priorities (aquatic habitat   inventories)

I

I

Water Temperature Monitoring Sites

I

I

FLIR Continuous Coverage (mainstem areas)

II

II

Landownership (non-industrial/small property owners)

II

II

Priority Fish Passage Barriers

II

II

Fecal Coliform TMDL

II

n/a

Tidal Wetland Restoration Priorities (Brophy)

II

n/a

PSU Riparian Data

-

II

DEQ Macroinvertebrate Data

-

II

OWEB Completed Restoration Projects Database

-

-

SWCD Knotweed Survey and Treatment Areas

-

-


TAC Prioritization

Proposed approaches for prioritization were discussed by the TAC at the 2nd TAC meeting. The TAC recommended using the Tier I data consisting of Coho distribution, Intrinsic Potential, and the ODFW and Boswell Aquatic Habitat Inventories as the highest priority criteria for prioritization, and ranked the supporting data and supplemental information as lower priority.  Ed Salminen took the input provided by the TAC and provided each Council with a power point presentation which showed maps and graphs of Coho distribution, Intrinsic potential (Figure 2), large woody debris (LWD) placement priorities (Figure 3), Riparian restoration priorities (Figure 4), FLIR data (focus on warming reaches), and land ownership, to be used to assist in the council’s prioritization. It was proposed that priority barriers, fecal coliform concentrations identified in the DEQ North Coast Basin TMDL, Tidal wetland restoration priorities, PSU Riparian data, and knotweed data not be used to prioritize the sixth field sub basins in theUpper Nehalem.

 

 

Figure 2:NehalemBasinCoho salmon distribution and intrinsic habitat potential (IP) for the Upper Nehalem Watershed Council (UNWC) and Lower Nehalem Watershed Council (LNWC) areas.

 

The Nehalem basin is comprised of thirty four sixth field hydrologic unit code (HUC) basins, with twelve sixth fields in the lower Nehalem and twenty two sixth fields in the upper Nehalem. There are currently identified 831 total miles of medium (.5-.8) to high (.8-1.0) Coho Intrinsic habitat Potential (IP) stream, 372 miles of that total are high IP (.8 to 1.0) stream.  Approximately 72% of the medium to high IP lies in the upper watershed, with approximately 28% in the lower. The twelve sixth fields in the lower Nehalem have 229.36 miles of medium to high IP stream, with 55% of the lower Nehalem IP stream miles concentrated in four of the twelve sixth field basins. The twenty two sixth fields of the upper Nehalem contain 601.68 miles of medium to high IP stream, of which 304.8 miles are high IP. The good to high IP stream miles in the upper Nehalem are not as concentrated as in the lower river.

Note: A list of the Nehalem sixth field HUC codes and names are in appendix F

 

Figure 3:NehalemBasinlarge woody debris (LWD) placement priority reaches for the Upper Nehalem Watershed Council (UNWC) andLower NehalemWatershed Council (LNWC) areas.  Priority reaches were determined by the following criteria:  Coho presence; unconstrained valley areas; channel widths narrow enough (less than 12 meters) for large wood to stay in place after moderate flood events; and areas that currently are limiting for the presence of large wood (less than 2 large pieces per 100 meters).

 

There are 355.79 total miles of LWD Priority stream reach currently identified in the Nehalem system. Approximately 83 % of the total miles of LWD priority stream reach exist in the upper watershed, with approximately 17 % in the lower. The twelve sixth fields in the lower Nehalem have 59.5 miles of LWD Priority stream reach, with 46.85 stream miles concentrated in four of the twelve sixth field basins. The twenty two sixth fields of the upper Nehalem contain 296.3 miles of LWD Priority stream reach. The 296.3 miles of LWD priority stream reach currently identified in the upper Nehalem are not concentrated in a few sixth field basins as they are in the lower river.

There are still substantial miles of stream reach not yet surveyed in the Nehalem basin.

 

Figure 4:NehalemBasinriparian enhancement priority reaches for the Upper Nehalem Watershed Council (UNWC) andLower NehalemWatershed Council (LNWC) areas. Priority reaches were determined by the following criteria:  riparian vegetation dominated by hardwoods, shrubs or grass; low shade cover (less than 70%); conifers not well established in the riparian area; current land uses allow riparian enhancement.

 

There are approximately 136.33 total miles of Riparian Enhancement Priority stream reach currently identified in the Nehalem system. Approximately 77 % of the Riparian Enhancement Priority stream reach miles lay in the upper watershed, with approximately 23 % in the lower. The twelve sixth fields in the lower Nehalem have 31.99 miles of Riparian Enhancement Priority stream reach, with 21.58 of those stream miles (67% of the lower riparian priority stream miles) concentrated in five of the twelve sixth field basins. The twenty two sixth fields of the upper Nehalem contain 104.3 miles of currently identified Riparian Enhancement Priority stream, which are not as concentrated as in the lower river.

There are still substantial miles of stream reach not yet surveyed in the Nehalem basin.

Watershed Council Prioritization

Based on discussion with the TAC, each watershed council developed criteria based on the information provided (Coho distribution, LWD and riparian restoration priorities, landownership, and etc.) to prioritize four focus sixth field HUCs, comprising two basins in each council area, for the first phase of the outreach effort.   The consultants provided map products and reach descriptions to support the outreach effort in the selected watersheds.

Upper Nehalem Watershed Council Prioritization

The UNWC met May 22nd and reviewed the power point presentation provided by Ed Salminen, showing the Nehalem Basin sixth field sub basin maps and graphs of the following data layers; Coho distribution and intrinsic habitat  potential, Riparian Enhancement and Large Wood placement prioritized reaches (from the Aquatic Habitat inventories), Priority barriers, Oregon DEQ TMDL and FLIR temperature data,  PSU Riparian Stand data, Knotweed survey & treatment data, Land ownership data, and OWEB restoration project inventory data. After viewing and discussing the power point presentation, the council discussed the prioritization of sixth field basins for outreach.

It was visible from the power point presentation, and the reader can see from figures 2, 3, & 4 above (these figures were part of the power point presentation), that all twenty two sixth field sub basins in the upper Nehalem are high priority for habitat and riparian restoration and enhancement, based on the criteria suggested by the TAC and the maps provided by the consultants.  All twenty two basins contain significant stream mileage showing good to high Intrinsic Habitat Potential and current Coho use, all basins show significant mileage in need of large wood.  Most of the sixth field basins need riparian enhancement as shown by the riparian enhancement prioritized reaches.  The upper Nehalem system Coho should benefit from LWD placement (to improve stream complexity) and riparian enhancement activities in any and all of the upper Nehalem sixth field basins. Based on the data presented, the UNWC considers all of the sixth field basins to be high priority for restoration projects.

The private non industrial land ownership tends to be along the mainstem Nehalem and the lower reaches of the tributary streams, with private industrial and public ownership in the upstream, headwater, and upland areas.  Many private (non industrial) landowners in the Nehalem valley are cautious about allowing access to their property; some are resistant to new ideas. It takes time and repeated exposure to ideas and suggestions before many develop the trust required to engage in a project. There are priority stream reaches that will probably not see a restoration project for a generation (or more). People talk with their neighbors and community members, and the UNWC feels that the more landowners that understand the council, its mission, and the habitat issues and restoration possibilities, the sooner many of these landowners will decide to participate in restoration/enhancement opportunities. Also, the more landowner input the council receives, the better prepared the council will be to identify means to address landowner concerns.

Due to the intensive nature of the Coffee Klatch process to be used in the landowner outreach phase of the project, the council decided to use land ownership as a high priority in addition to the recommended data layers (Tier I data consisting of Coho distribution, Intrinsic Potential, and the ODFW and Boswell Aquatic Habitat Inventories), for the prioritization of the initial basins for the first rounds of outreach/education.  The rational was that the coffee klatch outreach effort would provide the most “bang for the (educational) buck” if a large number of landowners were involved in the intensive education outreach process.  As presented by Jon Souder, one of the primary focuses of the Coffee Klatch process is to gain the input of landowners about their concerns and their vision of their watershed. Another major focus of the Coffee Klatch process is to provide education for landowners. The Coos WA also used the landowner input to develop their assessment and the socio-economic aspect of their metrics for project prioritization.

Two basins, Rock Creek (flowing into the Nehalem through the city of Vernonia), and Fishhawk (with a small rural residential community built on the shores of a man made lake created by damming the Fishhawk creek), stand out as the best opportunity to educate the most people, and get the most landowner input through the Coffee Klatch process, in addition to project development potential.

The sixth field sub basins prioritized by the UNWC for the initial intensive outreach have 94.63 miles of medium to high Coho intrinsic potential, 35.84 miles of LWD priority stream, and 12.4 miles of riparian enhancement priority stream.  This represents 15.73% of the UNWC medium to high IP miles, 12% of the UNWC large wood prioritized stream miles, and 11.89% of the UNWC riparian priority stream miles. Both of these prioritized basins were identified as core Coho restoration & Coho brood stock recovery areas under the now Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OPSW).

The UNWC plans to use the products from the data synthesis project, probably using an approach less intensive than the Coffee Klatch process, to develop projects with private (both industrial and non industrial) and public landowners in other priority basins, in addition to those prioritized for the initial phase of the Coffee Klatch process.

Based on the Council’s discussion, the UNWC selected the following 6th – field watersheds for the initial rounds of  phase 2, the landowner outreach effort (Figure 5):  Fishhawk Creek; Lower Rock Creek; Middle rock Creek; and Upper Rock Creek. Although Rock Creek is made up of three sixth fields, the council viewed the Rock Creek basin as a whole for the purpose of outreach/education and restoration opportunity.

Lower Nehalem Watershed Council Prioritization

The Lower Nehalem Watershed Council met on May 8 and reviewed the Power Point presentation.  The Council focused on identifying the sixth fields that showed a largest number of stream miles in need of large wood and/or riparian planting.

Based on the Council’s discussion, the LNWC selected four  6th – fields watersheds that showed the greatest need for large wood and/or riparian planting (Figure 5):  Upper North Fork Nehalem; Middle North Fork Nehalem; Lower North Fork Nehalem; and Foley Creek.

Detailed maps of the 4 sixth field watersheds were reviewed at the Lower Nehalem Watershed Council meeting on July 10 and the council decided its initial focus would be on God’s valley and Foley creek.  These areas contained the greatest number of miles of stream private non-industrial timber land that needed restoration work.

 

Figure 5:  Upper Nehalem Watershed Council (UNWC) and Lower Nehalem Watershed Council (LNWC) priority watersheds for landowner outreach.

 

Data Synthesis Summary and Potential Cost of Restoration: Both Nehalem Councils

The combination of ODFW and Todd Boswell’s habitat surveys of the Nehalem watershed provided a good picture of the needs for large wood and riparian work to enhance habitat for Coho salmon.  The data synthesis completed by Watershed Professional Network shows that the Nehalem watershed has a total of 356 miles of stream (vs.311 miles identified in the Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan) that would benefit from large wood (about 54% of stream miles identified as Coho habitat) and about 136 miles of stream that are in need of improved riparian buffers.

Although the Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan assumes a cost of $25,000/mile for instream habitat restoration, completed large wood projects in the lower Nehalem suggest that it will cost approximately $30,000 per mile of large wood placement.  Using these assumptions, it would cost $8,900,000 to $10,680,000 to complete the entire large wood placement needed in the watershed.  Assuming an average cost of $20,000 per mile for riparian planting it would cost about $2,720,000 to complete all of the riparian planting work needed in the watershed.


The upper Nehalem has five times as many miles of stream in need of large wood as the lower Nehalem (296.3 vs. 59.5) and 3.25 times as many miles in need of riparian enhancement as the lower Nehalem (104.3 vs. 32.0).

A high percentage of stream miles in need of large wood in the upper Nehalem watershed are on Private Industrial Timber land (57%).  The need for large wood in the lower Nehalem is evenly distributed among types of landowners, about 20 miles each on State lands, Private Industrial lands and Private Non-Industrial lands.

Riparian planting needs are highest on Private Industrial land in the upper Nehalem (57.9 miles), while in the lower Nehalem they were highest on State forestland (16.5 miles).

Oregon Watershed Enhancement board records for the Nehalem show 17.4 miles of large wood placement completed in the upper Nehalem and 10.2 miles of large wood placement in the lower.  These same records show about 43 miles of riparian work completed in the upper Nehalem and 18.7 miles of work completed in the lower Nehalem.

The four sixth fields (three in Rock Creek and Fishhawk Creek) chosen by the Upper Nehalem watershed for its outreach focus include 35.8 miles of stream in need of large wood.  This is about 12% of the stream miles needing large wood in the upper Nehalem.  Approximately two thirds (20.52 miles) of the stream miles needing large wood in the prioritized basins are on Private Industrial timberland.  Approximately 4.7 (13%) of the miles are on Private Non-Industrial lands.  Assuming a cost of $25000 to $30,000 per mile for LWD placement, theUpper Nehalemwould need $117,500 to $141,000 to complete the 4.7 miles of large wood placement on Private Non-industrial lands, and $512,500 to $615,600 to complete the 20.5 miles of large wood placement on private industrial timber land.  The area chosen in theUpper Nehalemalso includes 12.4 miles of stream in need of riparian enhancement.  The stream reaches in the UNWC prioritized basins account for 15.73% of the Coho medium to high IP stream miles in the upper Nehalem.

The Lower Nehalem Watershed Council proposes to focus its outreach efforts on the Foley Creek and God’s Valley areas.  The target areas have a total of about 10.1 miles of Private Non-Industrial lands (over half of the total 20 miles of Private Non-Industrial stream miles in the lower Nehalem needing large wood), 2.8 miles of State land and about 2.7 miles on Private Industrial land for a total of 15.6 miles of stream in need of large wood.  This is about 26% of the total miles needing large wood in theLower Nehalem.  Assuming that the Watershed Council was able to get local support for nine of the fifteen miles of stream the total cost would be about $270,000 (@ $30,000/mile).  Assuming that the Lower Nehalem Watershed Council would only need to find 25% match for OWEB funds for six miles on Private Non-Industrial lands the Council would need to find $45,000 in-kind or cash.  The lower Nehalem focus areas also include about four miles of stream in need of riparian enhancement. The stream reaches in the LNWC prioritized basins account for 55.15% of the Coho IP stream miles in the lower Nehalem.

The Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan (2007) (Conservation Plan) shows three time frame and cost scenarios for the habitat improvement work needing to be implemented to achieve the desired status goal (of increasing mileage of complex stream habitat). In scenario 1 (for the Nehalem) the desired status would be achieved in approximately 17 years, by improving 18.3 miles of habitat per year, at an estimated cost per biennium of $915,880. Scenarios 2 and 3 would achieve desired status in 33 years and 50 years, respectively. The subbasins prioritized by the two Nehalem councils have a total of 38.02 miles of stream under private ownership in need of large wood. Assuming the $25,000 average cost assumed in the Conservation Plan, it would cost $950,000 to implement instream enhancement projects on all of the identified privately owned LWD priority stream miles in the UNWC and LNWC sixth field subbasins prioritized for the first round of intensive outreach.

 


Outreach Materials

For each of the prioritized 6th–field watersheds, the consultants provided GIS data and maps.  These maps are intended to provide the primary product for the landowner outreach effort.  For each watershed, the maps display land cover, Coho distribution, large woody debris and riparian restoration priority reaches, and completed restoration projects. An example of the map product is shown in figure 6, on the following page. In addition to this information, insert maps are included to show Coho intrinsic potential; FLIR reaches; average maximum temperature for a 7-day moving average; ownership; and, where applicable, tidal wetland restoration priorities.  Maps for all of the sixth field subbasins in the Nehalem watershed were provided in Portable Document file (pdf) format.

A memo outlining the final products is attached in Appendix E

Figure 6: An example of the 6th–field maps to be used for landowner outreach: LowerNorth Fork Nehalem River.   These maps were provided for the four prioritized watersheds within the Upper Nehalem Watershed Council (UNWC) area and the four prioritized watersheds within theLower Nehalem Watershed Council (LNWC) area.


Next Phase-Landowner Outreach/Education

The final map products from this project will be used in the next phase of the project. The LNWC and the UNWC will each pursue the landowner outreach and project development phases of the project independently.

Upper Nehalem Watershed Council

The UNWC plans to adapt the Coffee Klatch landowner outreach process, as outlined at the May 9, 2008 workshop presented by Jon Souder of the Coos WA. The Coos WA implemented their landowner outreach process simultaneously with their watershed assessment, and the Nehalem Councils have previously completed the Nehalem Watershed assessment, consequently the UNWC will make some minor adjustments to the process. The UNWC plans to start the Coffee Klatch process in Fishhawk Creek, evaluate and fine tune the process before moving on to other priority basins.

The Coffee Klatch outreach process will involve three landowner meetings designed to introduce the council and its mission, learn about landowners vision and concerns for their basin, educate landowners about the current conditions and potential restoration project possibilities, and develop relationships with landowners resulting in restoration projects.

The UNWC Coffee Klatch Workplan is contained in Appendix D.

Lower Nehalem Watershed Council

TheLower Nehalemwatershed council will have two parallel Coffee Klatch processes.  The first, in God’s Valley, will allow the LNWC to test its materials and hone its procedures in a small-group setting with sympathetic landowners on an abbreviated time-table.   The second process in the Foley Creek sub-basin will adhere more closely to the traditional Coffee Klatch format.  Each of the processes involves 5 tasks which are outlined in Appendix D.

The LNWC Coffee Klatch Workplan is contained in Appendix D.

 


References Nicholas, Jay, Bruce McIntosh, and Ed Bowles.  May 6, 2005.OregonCoastal Coho Assessment, Part 1: Synthesis of the Coastal Coho ESU Assessment.OregonWatershed Enhancement Board and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,Salem,Oregon.

 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 16, 2007.OregonCoastCoho Conservation Plan for the State ofOregon.

 

Romer, J.D, K.J. Anlauf, and K.K. Jones. 2008. Status of Winter Rearing Habitat in Four Coho Population Units, 2007. Monitoring Program Report Number OPSW-ODFW-2008-7,OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife,Salem,OR.

 

Hibbard, Michael and Susan Lurie. January, 2005. Understanding the Community Economic and Social Impacts of Oregon’s Watershed Councils. IPRI Paper 05-001. Institute for Policy Research and Innovation,UniversityofOregon.

 

Coos Watershed Association. Coos Watershed Association Assessment & Restoration Training & Resource Guide. Coos WA,PO Box 5860,Charleston,OR97420. Phone: (541) 888-5922. Website: www.cooswatershed.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A:  Consultant and TAC Contacts

 

Consultants:

John Runyon, Jones & Stokes, 503-248-9507 x300, jrunyon@jsanet.com

Ed Salminen, Watershed Professionals Network, 541-490-6644, salminen@watershednet.com

Steve Bauer, Watershed Professionals Network, 208-376-3263, sbauer@watershednet.com

TAC:

Sheila Ault, OR Department of Ag, 503-986-4707, sault@oda.state.or.us

Gareth Ferdun, Lower Nehalem WC, 503-368-5738, gferdun@nehalemtel.net

Mitch Cummings, USDA-NRCS, 503-842-2848 x107, mitch.cummings@or.usda.gov

Scott Gall, Columbia SWCD, 503-397-4555, scott.gall@or.nacdnet.net

David Ambrose, Clatsop SWCD, 503-325-4571, clatsopswcd@iinet.com

Maggie Peyton, Upper Nehalem WC, 503-429-2401, maggie@nehalem.org

Robert Emanuel, OSU Extension               , 503-842-3433, robert.emanuel@oregonstate.edu

Todd Boswell, Lower Nehalem WC, 503-298-9470, tboswell@nehalemtel.net

Michele Long,    OR Department of Fish and Wildlife, 503-842-2741, michele.l.long@state.or.us

Lindsay and Cara Mico, Demeter Design, 503-368-7195, tech_team@demeterdesign.net

David Bailey, Lower Nehalem WC, 503-717-1458, lnwc@nehalemtel.net

York Johnson, DEQ-TEP, 503-322-2222, johnson.york@deq.state.or.us

Guillermo Giannico, OSU Extension, 541-737-2479, giannico@oregonstate.edu

Russ Chapman, BLM, rchapman@blm.gov

Phil Simpson, ODFW, 503-842-2741

Sarah Newton,Lower NehalemWC, 808 639-8165

Lauren Jacobsen, UNWC, 503- 429-2401

APPENDIX B:  TAC Meeting Notes

 

TAC meeting 1

Products:  Agenda and Meeting Summary

Agenda

Upper Nehalem Watershed Council

Nehalem Data Synthesis Project

Advisory Team Meeting

January 30, 2008

1:30 PM – 3:30 PM

1) Welcome, introductions – Maggie Peyton, Upper Nehalem Watershed Council

2) Project purpose and need – Miriam Hulst, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

3) Discussion of project work plan – John Runyon, Jones & Stokes

General approach

Anticipated methodology

Data compilation

Data synthesis: standardization, ranking and weighting

Mapping

Data sets compiled to date

Anticipated project products

Other items as needed

4) Data discussion

Quality and usefulness of available data

Data gaps

Information for which no formal data sets exist (i.e., institutional knowledge)

Arrangements for sharing established data sets not yet compiled

Other items as needed

5) Preliminary discussion of approaches to weighting and ranking data

6) Schedule next meeting

Minutes/Meeting Summary – TAC Meeting 1

Nehalem Watershed Data Synthesis Meeting

January 30th, Tillamook

Data Criteria:

Direct measure of Habitat Complexity

Data is measured vs. observational

Data is spatially explicit

Data was collected using standard monitoring protocols

Comprehensive coverage

Data Sets (that meet criteria):

Aquatic Habitat Inventory (ODFW & Boswell)

TMDL Data/Summaries

FLIR (water temperature)

Water temperature data (DEQ Database)

White-Board Notes (Ed Salminen Facilitating)

Winter Habitat Complexity/Quality – Potential Metrics:

Off-channel habitat

Fish passage barriers

Pool frequency

Residual pool depth

LWD (numbers, volume, key pieces) in channel

Debris jams

Beaver dams

Substrate

Habitat Intrinsic Potential (HIP)

Flood-prone width

LWD recruitment potential (RIPARIAN)

Water Quality – Potential Metrics:

Temperature

TMDL: Identified problem reaches

7-day maximum temperatures

Shade/riparian condition

Channel width/depth ratio

Priority flow restoration areas

Additional Issues Not Addressed in this Effort:

Summer habitat quality

Change in flood frequency/magnitude

Turbidity

Upland issues

Attendance:

Miriam Hulst, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board , Chris Heider, Watershed Professionals Network,  Steve Bauer, Watershed Professionals Network, Ed Salminen, Watershed Professionals Network, Maggie Peyton, Nehalem WC,  Sheila Ault, ODA, John Runyon, Jones and Stokes, Gareth Ferdun, Lower Nehalem WC, Mitch Cummings, USDA-NRCS, Scott Gall, Columbia SWCD, David Ambrose, Clatsop SWCD, Robert Emanuel, OSU Extension, Todd Boswell, Lower Nehalem WC, Michele Long,  ODFW, Lindsay and Cara Mico, Demeter Design, David Bailey, Lower Nehalem WC, York Johnson, DEQ-TEP, Guillermo Giannico, OSU Extension

TAC meeting 2

Products: Agenda and Meeting Summary

Agenda

Upper Nehalem Watershed Council

Nehalem Data Synthesis Project

Advisory Team Meeting

Wednesday, April 16th, 2008

10:00 AM – 1:00 PM

Welcome, introductions – Maggie Peyton, Upper Nehalem Watershed Council

John Runyon J&S, and Steve Bauer, Ed Salminen of Watershed Professional Network will:

Provide an update on the watershed data sets they have examined (as per criteria)

Propose an approach for evaluating the data sets to provide basin-wide and sub-watershed restoration priorities.

Provide an example of the landowner outreach map sets at the sub-watershed scale (6th-field).

Q&A and open discussion to follow each agenda item.

Schedule next meeting

Minutes/ Meeting Summary – TAC meeting 2

Welcome, introductions – Maggie Peyton, Upper Nehalem Watershed Council

John Runyon J&S & Ed Salminen of Watershed Professional Network provided an update on the watershed data sets they have examined, and which data sets they prioritized. The data sets were broken down into 3 tiers; Tier I Robust data and spatially extensive included Coho distribution and Intrinsic potential, and the ODF and Boswell Aquatic habitat inventories. Tier II, Supporting data (less robust/extensive) included DEQ 303 (d) list for temp & e-coli, FLIR (water temp), PSU riparian/LWD/shade analyses, DEQ macro invertebrate data, ODFW/OWRD flow restoration priorities, and tidal wetland restoration priorities(Greenpoint consulting). Tier III, supplemental data included OWEB completed aquatic/riparian restoration projects, Turbidity data (UNWC/DEQ), and summary hydrograph (flood history, low flows). It was noted that the Turbidity and Macro invertebrate data was not available yet, and the OWEB provided data on completed projects appeared to be out of date or incomplete, as there were very few projects shown on the map. It was also mentioned that reaches with Coho intrinsic potential of 0.5-0.8 should be included in addition to the high potential of 0.8-1.0, as the data on fish presence and use indicates that fish are using those reaches.

There was some discussion of the possibility of identifying future projects/products beyond the scope of this project, including forest cover analysis, wetland/winter refuge connectivity, and natural valley storage, as a product of this project.

The group viewed the preliminary outreach maps and products. The TAC members made some suggestions for improvement to make the maps more user friendly for landowners in the outreach phase.

The group discussed priorities for selection of sub basins to target for outreach and restoration projects, and determined that the Councils should have input into the prioritization and selection of the sub basins, to be brought back to the next TAC meeting. John/Ed will provide summary prioritization metrics per sub basin prior to each council meeting in May. It was decided to set the third TAC meeting after both the UNWC and LNWC had their council meetings to discuss the prioritization and approach for evaluating the data sets to provide basin-wide and sub-watershed restoration priorities. June 4 was tentatively scheduled.

An example of the landowner outreach map sets at the sub-watershed scale (6th-field) (Beneke/Walker basin) was provided for each council.

Attendance:

Members present: John Runyon, Jones and Stokes, Ed Salminen, Watershed Professionals Network, Gareth Ferdun, Lower Nehalem WC, Mitch Cummings, USDA-NRCS, Scott Gall, Columbia SWCD, Maggie Peyton, Nehalem WC, Lauren Jacobsen, UNWC, Todd Boswell, Lower Nehalem WC, Michele Long, OR Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lindsay and Cara Mico, Demeter Design, Russ Chapman               , BLM.


TAC meeting 3

Products: Agenda and meeting minutes

Agenda

Upper Nehalem Watershed Council

Nehalem Data Synthesis Project

Advisory Team Meeting Agenda

Thursday June 19th, 2008

10:00 AM – 1:00 PM

Welcome and introductions –

Review previous meeting summary

York Johnson, DEQ: discussion of Nehalem Turbidity and Macro Invertebrate data

Ed Salminen WPN – Power Point Presentation:

Discussion of Council prioritization and identification of 6th field sub basins most likely to produce high quality restoration projects through intensive Coho/ landowner outreach process

Propose an approach for evaluating the data sets to provide basin-wide and sub-watershed restoration priorities

Identification and discussion of additional uses for project products

Develop strategies for the incorporation of additional data

Discussion and evaluation of overall process and methodology

Any Other

Q&A and open discussion to follow each agenda item.

Minutes/ Meeting Summary – TAC Meeting 3

Meeting began at 10:00 am. Maggie Peyton welcomed the group and self introductions were made – (for attendance please see attached sheet).

The group reviewed and approved the previous meeting summary prepared by the UNWC.

York Johnson from the DEQ was unable to attend to lead the discussion of Nehalem Turbidity and Macro Invertebrate data. Maggie gave a brief summary, to let the group know that the DEQ was still working with the turbidity data collected over the years by the UNWC. There have been over 3,000 samples collected over 153 sites between the late 90’s and the present. The collection of this data has never been funded as a project. The funding has been from a small amount tacked onto the DEQ 319 grant each year for monitoring. The turbidity and macro invertebrate data was collected using the DEQ’s protocol with support from DEQ and the Xerces Society.

Ed Salminen of WPN gave a Power Point Presentation showing the different data layers he has been working on. He explained that the LNWC preferred the basins be broken into 7th fields for the prioritized basins, so Ed said the whole watershed would be broken down into 7th fields for the maps and reports for the final products. The UNWC and LNWC agreed that would be more useful, because of the size and complexity of some of the 6th field basins. The group discussed the data layers, asked questions and made suggestions to make the final products most useful for the outreach phase. There was discussion and clarification of the delta T data. It was decided that the delta T data was too technical and possibly misleading for outreach, and that the 7 day moving average temperature displayed as actual temperature would be more useful for this process, so that it is clear where the streams are cool or too warm. Also, the data layers that used stream miles/square mile would be more useful if they were shown as the actual miles of stream. There needs to be a descriptor for the I.P. ranges.

The discussions about the power point/data layers overlapped with the discussions about prioritization.  There was some discussion about OWEB’s expectations and future plans for funding. Maggie explained that she would be talking with OWEB to clarify what their expectations are and what the plans were for funding the next phase. Michele Long commented that the final goal would be to develop projects on the ground. There was a suggestion to create a set of goals to address the limiting factors.

There was discussion of Council prioritization and identification of 6th field sub basins most likely to produce high quality restoration projects through intensive Coho/ landowner outreach process. The LNWC had picked two basins, comprised of 4 sixth fields, as priorities for outreach using the LWD and riparian restoration priority data layers. North Fork Nehalem (three sixth fields) and Foley Creek were the priority basins for the LNWC. The Upper used population (private non industrial land ownership), intrinsic potential, the LWD & riparian priority data, and Coho distribution to prioritize two basins for outreach. Rock Creek (also comprised of three sixth fields) and Fishhawk Creek (Fishhawk dam creek) were the priority basins for outreach for the UNWC. It was a priority of the Upper to reach a large number of landowners for the intensive outreach/education aspect of the project. It was explained that the data layer showing landownership by percentage of land was not particularly useful for this process, as the percentage of land owned in a basin does not truly reflect the numbers of landowners who can be reached through outreach. Squaw creek was given as an example: of the upper Nehalem sub-watersheds, it shows ~33% private non industrial ownership, which is in reality three landowners.  The Rock creek and Fishhawk sub-basins show a much lower percentage private non industrial ownership, but have a significant number of private landowners that could be reached through the next phase of the project.  There was some discussion about gaining the mailing info for the landowners within the prioritized basins. The TEP has the info for the Lower, and the Upper will need the Clatsop & Columbia tax map info.

The group looked at a sample map, with most of the data layers shown as small inset maps around the edges of the larger map. The survey reaches were shown on the base map, and there was an example of the written habitat assessment report done by Todd Boswell. Gareth commented that he would like to see the LWD priority reaches, riparian priority reaches, projects completed, and Coho distribution on the base maps. There was discussion about the maps and what layers would be best on the base maps. The group considered that there needs to be not too many things overlapping on one map, for clarity. It was decided that Gareth’s suggestion would work fine, that the base maps would show the LWD priority reaches, riparian priority reaches, projects completed, and Coho distribution as different color/width (for ease of identification) on the base maps, with the other data layers shown as insets around the perimeter. The maps will still show the survey reaches, as the sample maps do. The maps will be provided in Arc View and as paper maps for the prioritized basins. The group agreed that this would be clear and easily understood. Ed commented that he would be gone on vacation from the 10th of July to the 22nd of July. The power point is available on the web page. The final products will be delivered to the LNWC prior to Ed’s vacation, and to the UNWC before the end of August. Ed and John will be available for technical assistance for the final reporting.

There was discussion revolving around the outreach process and the development of a power point presentation that was user friendly and complimentary to the outreach map products.  OSU – Robert Emanuel offered to assist councils with the development of the power point and outreach presentation.  A council facilitation workshop with OSU is tentatively scheduled to take place in August prior to the initiation of the outreach process.

Identification and discussion of additional uses for project products was discussed briefly: id of data gaps, prioritization for projects and priorities for anchor/conservation areas.

Develop strategies for the incorporation of additional data: The final products will include the mapping etc. in arc-view, and additional data can be added as another layer.

Discussion and evaluation of overall process and methodology: the group agreed that the process and methodology was good. Michele Long would like the tech team to continue to be available to the councils throughout the next phases of the project.

Gareth wondered if there should have been a map layer for the e-coli data, and Michele Long explained that e-coli was considered more a human health issue than a limiting factor for Coho. Lauren suggested that the landowners might bring e-coli up as a concern about their stream during the coffee klatch process when the landowners share their concerns in the first meeting.

Meeting adjourned ~ 12:15, with some participants lingering awhile to continue discussion.

Attendance:

John Runyon, Jones & Stokes, Ed Salminen, Watershed Professionals Network, Gareth Ferdun, Lower Nehalem WC, Robert Emanuel, OSU Extension, Scott Gall, Columbia SWCD, Maggie Peyton, Nehalem WC, Lauren Jacobsen, UNWC, Sarah Newton, Lower Nehalem WC, Michele Long, OR Department of Fish and Wildlife, Phil Simpson, ODFW, Russ Chapman, BLM.


APPENDIX C:  Coffee Klatch Workshop Notes

Coffee Klatch Workshop

Products: Agenda and minutes

Agenda

NorthCoastWatershed Councils Watershed Assessment and Restoration Prioritization Training, May 9, 2008

AGENDA

9:00 – 9:15 AM  Introductions and arrangements.

9:15 – 10:00 AM                Conceptual model of the CoosWA’s assessment and restoration prioritization process (PowerPoint).

10:00 – 10:30 AM              The sequence of coffee klatches and their components (PowerPoint).

10:30 – 10:45 AM              Break

10:45 – 11:00 AM              First Coffee Klatch: Council Introduction & Landowner visioning (PowerPoint).

11:00 – 11:30 AM              Creation of Council Introduction and Practice Presentation (Participants).

11:30 – 12:00 Noon          Introduction to the Restoration Prioritization Process (PowerPoint).

12:00 – 1:00 PM                Lunch

A

Second Coffee Klatch: Slide Show and Restoration ProjectTours(PowerPoint).

1:30 – 2:00 PM                   Third Coffee Klatch: Sharing Assessment Results and Scoring Potential Restoration Projects (PowerPoint).

2:00 – 2:30 PM                  Final Scoring and Development of Restoration Action Plans (PowerPoint).

2:30 – 3:00 PM                   Final Questions and Discussion (Participants)*

3:00 PM                                Adjourn

* There will be time for questions and discussion within each topic area.

Minutes

9:00 AM:  Introductions were made, and arrangements were made for lunch.

Jon Souder of Coos Watershed Assoc. gave power point presentations on the conceptual model of the Coos WA’s assessment and restoration prioritization process, the sequence of coffee klatches and their components, and First Coffee Klatch: Council introduction & landowner visioning. The participants worked briefly on the creation of Council introduction and gave a brief practice presentation.

Jon gave another power point on Introduction to the Restoration Prioritization Process.

The group broke into smaller groups for lunch, and reconvened afterwards to view another power point presentation by Jon Souder on the Second Coffee Klatch: Slide Show and Restoration Project Tours, followed by the Third Coffee Klatch: Sharing Assessment Results and Scoring Potential Restoration Projects. The final presentation was on the Final Scoring and Development of Restoration Action Plans.

3:00 PM Adjourn


Appendix C:  Council Prioritization Meetings

 

Upper Nehalem Watershed Council

Council Meeting

Thursday, May 22, 2008

7:00-9:30pm Mist/Birkenfeld Fire Station – Hwy 202

Minutes:

7:00 – Regular Meeting Convened, with Welcome and Introductions. In attendance were: Maggie Peyton, UNWC Coordinator, Lauren Jacobsen, John Ilg representing CSWCD (Clatsop) and Marie Ilg, Marsha Lopez representing ODOT, Marci Denison representing Pacific Rainforest Wildlife Guardians, Miriam Hulst representing OWEB, Dennis Nelson, UNWC chair, Troy Horton representingFishhawkLake, and Jasen McCoy representing ODF.

Executive Director Maggie Peyton updated the council on current projects. Two RFP’s have been advertised, the Bear Creek culvert/fish passage project and the Jewell Meadows Wildlife Area large wood project. Maggie discussed briefly some of the difficulties encountered in these projects which have delayed their implementation. Maggie also provided updates on the Justice Streambank erosion and habitat project, explained some of the difficulties we are encountering due to the increased erosion from December’s flooding/high water. A portion of the project now will be in an ODOT right of way. We are working with ODOT to get clearance to go ahead with the project, and with WOEC because it appears that the bank has eroded to a point where two power poles may need to be moved. The council is hoping to put the Justice project out to bid within the next week.  Update was also provided on the Elk Creek projects, with some discussion of the difficulties encountered due to a NW Natural gas line and change of land ownership on one of the Elk Creek project sites.

At about 7:45, Lauren, with Maggie’s assistance, provided a brief overview of the current Data Synthesis, Landowner Outreach and Education project, followed by a power point presentation that had been provided by Ed Salminen of Watershed Professional Network. Maggie pointed out that the PSU riparian stand assessment was not included in the riparian layer, and that we will also use that data to help identify reaches in need of riparian restoration. It was also noted that the graphs would be easier to use if the basin names were included, and the knotweed map needed to show survey, location/presence, and treatment locations separately to be useful. The barriers map would be better if there were distinctions between total barrier, juvenile barrier, etc.

The council discussed how to prioritize sub basins for the next phase of the project, the outreach/education aspect of this project. The consensus of the participants was that due to the nature of the outreach process, it made sense to give highest priority to those basins with the highest private landownership, also looking at intrinsic potential, Coho presence, and the prioritized reaches for large wood (habitat complexity) and riparian enhancement. Discussion ensued about the Rock Creek basin and the Fishhawk basin being the two that had the most private landownership, and have significant amount of restoration and project potential based on the prioritized reaches for riparian enhancement and large wood. Other basins discussed were the Jewell Fishhawk basin, Beneke/Walkerbasin andNorthrupCreekBasin. It was the consensus that the reaches identified as priorities within those basins are either predominantly ODF &/or private industrial timber ownership, projects and restoration efforts are currently underway on the ODFW land at JMWA, ODF has been implementing projects on their land, and that the intensive out reach program would be better directed at the Rock Creek and Fishhawk (Lake) basins. The consensus of the group was to let Maggie and Lauren work on selection of the third basin, based on private landownership as a high priority, and then prioritizing by the project potential based on Coho presence, intrinsic potential, and the identified priority reaches for large wood and riparian restoration.

9:30 – Meeting Adjourned.


Lower Nehalem Watershed Council

 

DRAFT Meeting Minutes

Lower Nehalem Watershed Council

Regular Council Meeting

July 10, 2008

Attendees:  Gareth Ferdun, Sarah Newton, Shirley Kalkhoven, Georgenne Ferdun, Erich Miller, Jim Johnson, Bonnie Johnson, Richard Johnson, Jay Holland

Meeting convened 7:10pm

Minutes from 6/12/08 Meeting Approved

Introductions and announcements: Jay introduced Erich Miller, candidate for the first part of the Coffee Klatch outreach project.

Gareth Ferdun “Finding Focus – Data Synthesis Results- Where do we go now? – Part II”

Gareth gave a presentation detailing the results of the data synthesis project.  He presented details on the emergence of four sixth fields, from which to choose our priority area.  These sixth fields were selected based on need for large wood placement, riparian planting, and fish passage improvements.  The four sixth fields included Lower North Fork Nehalem, Middle North Fork Nehalem, Upper North Fork Nehalem, and Foley Creek.  Gareth noted that in the Coos Bay Coffee Klatch process, they focused on seventh fields instead of sixth fields.  Once the LNWC decides on what sixth or seventh fields to focus on, the next step will be to develop meeting agendas, develop outreach materials (presentations and handouts), identify the landowners in those areas, identify locations for gatherings, and invite landowners via mail or phone.

Council Business –

Coffee Klatch

The council looked at data and maps relating to the four sixth fields selected through the data synthesis process.  Based on the need for large wood and riparian enhancement, as well as the number of private landowners to involve, the council reached consensus that the focus sixth field for the Coffee Klatch project would be Foley Creek (sixth field), and Gods Valley (seventh field) would be addressed as well.  Some targeted outreach may also occur in other high priority areas that have only one or two landowners.

The council also reached consensus to hire Erich Miller for the first segment of the outreach project, which will include compiling a list of landowners with contact information, and developing outreach materials.  Georgenne has a list of landowners for the Lower Nehalem Community Trust, Jay can provide a list forGodsValley, and so a list for Foley Creek needs to be generated.  The Coffee Klatch outreach process will be a series of three meetings.  The first meeting will be an introductory/ informational meeting, the second will be a tour of previously completed projects to show examples, and the third meeting will generate ideas from the landowners for potential projects.  These meetings will likely take place in January and February.  Grant proposals will be submitted for priority projects in the October 2009 cycle.  There was some discussion of conducting some meetings in October, in order to be able to submit project proposals for the April 2009 OWEB deadline.

The first step will be to develop a work plan and submit to OWEB.

Financial Report –

Shirley has submitted a draw request for God’s Valley IV, but not Lost Creek because she still had to work out some permitting issues for that.  OWEB is currently moving offices, so response time is slow.

Coordinator Report

Sarah announced that Tillamook Estuaries Partnership, Oregon Sea Grant Extension, and TNC are sponsoring a new program to get community volunteers involved in early detection and mapping of invasive species in TillamookCounty.  There will be an all day, intensive volunteer training for this program on August 1st from 9:30 AM– 3:30 PM at the Oregon Dept. of Forestry, Tillamook District office conference room.  Sarah will send an announcement out to council members to see if anyone is interested in participating.

August meeting/ September potluck – The August meeting will probably be a joint meeting with LNCT, with Doug Duer presenting.  The September potluck is on.

Cougar Valley – Shirley reported that three mayors met with the director of Parks and Recreation and Representative Betsy Johnson regarding the Cougar Valley State Parks proposal.  They agreed to a five year moratorium on any further actions toward developing a State Park, with the exception of some road work, replacing gates, and perhaps some environmental education activities withNeahkahnieHigh School.

Botts Marsh – The Trust for Public Lands has the option to buy Botts Marsh, and it looks like that is going to happen.

Letter of Separation – Jay drafted a letter to OWEB addressing the criteria required for LNWC to apply for solo funding.  He sent it out to the steering committee, and will forward on to Tom Shafer for his comments before submitting to OWEB.

Nursery – Based on Kurt Heckeroth’s suggestion, and LNWC’s current capacity, LNWC will hold off on constructing a nursery on the LNCT site, and revisit the idea next year.  For the time being, the LNWC will participate in the Camp Tillamook Nursery by providing volunteer and staff hours, and continue to obtain plant materials from the BLM led Native Plant Cooperative.

Meeting adjourned 9pm.

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D:  Coffee Klatch Process Work Plans

 

Proposed Upper Nehalem Watershed Council Coffee Klatch Process Work Plan

Project Location:  Upper Nehalem Watershed

Timeline:  January – October 2009

Total budget:  $13,203.00

BACKGROUND

The Coastal Coho Assessment determined that the Nehalem Coho population is non-viable.  It is critically important to devote outreach and restoration funding to sub-basins and stream reaches that have the greatest potential for increasing Coho survival and production.  Watershed councils and natural resource agencies along theNorthOregonCoasthave realized that many of the high intrinsic potential areas are located in low lying agricultural or rural residential lands.  These landowners have traditionally been more challenging to work with due to their concerns about the impact of restoration activities on their lands.

The Coffee Klatch process is designed to begin to build positive working relationships with landowners by working together with landowners to identify limiting factors, possible restoration activities, and the social acceptability of the restoration practices.

The Nehalem Watershed Councils are in the process of completing a Data Synthesis Project which is a watershed-wide GIS/evaluational tool that helps identify limiting factors, priority stream reaches, and develop restoration and outreach priorities. Information such as Aquatic Habitat Inventory (AQI) data, ODFW fish habitat assessments and spawning surveys, DEQ and UNWC temperature and water quality data, Coho Intrinsic Habitat Potential (IP) data, and watershed reports, analyses, and assessments have been evaluated to provide priorities for outreach and for restoration project areas.  The information is integrated in a manner that accounts for differences in attributes such as collection techniques and spatial scales.  The integrated information is presented in GIS maps and a spreadsheet-style matrix, from which restoration and outreach priorities are developed.  The UNWC hopes to conduct a Nehalem River Limiting Factors Analysis (LFA) with reach prescriptions for theUpperNehalemRiverand all its tributaries, based on field surveys. Rapid Bio Assessment (RBA) will begin in theUpper Nehalemand its tributaries in 2009. A pilot Rapid Bio Assessment project has been completed in the East Fork Nehalem, and a LFA pilot project will be done in 2009 on the East Fork Nehalem. The LFA process will also include intensive landowner outreach and education to get permission to access private property for surveyors to walk the streams. The UNWC expects to have reach-by-reach prescriptions of restoration priorities to address limiting factors on theNehalemRiverand its tributaries once the LFA is fully complete.

The Data Synthesis Project has provided the UNWC with priority basins and map products for landowner outreach and has also confirmed that projects already completed by the Council are located in basins which are high priorities for restoration.  With information from the Data Synthesis Project, the UNWC has chosen to focus on Fishhawk Creek and Rock Creek for the initial rounds of the Coffee Klatch process.  The first round of the Coffee Klatch process will involve Fishhawk Creek. Once the UNWC has implemented the Coffee Klatch process, it will be evaluated and modified as deemed necessary for its use in outreach in the other priority basins in the upper Nehalem.

The goal of this project is to begin to educate landowners about the need for restoration projects and to develop the relationships needed to implement restoration activities that are acceptable to landowners on their property.

GENERAL APPROACH TO THIS PROJECT

This project is based on the coffee klatch model developed by the Coos Watershed Association.  The Coffee Klatch sequence is made up of three meetings:

Meeting 1:  Introduction and Vision

  • Who are we?  Why assess: Overview of current      local  watershed and Coho science,      restoration/enhancement needs of the Sub-Basin
  • Landowners’ Vision for      the Sub-Basin
  • Prioritized List of Landowner      Concerns

Meeting 2:  Restoration Projects Tour

  • Knowledge of Restoration      Projects
  • Comfort and Interest in      Restoration Projects

Meeting 3:  Restoration Feasibility

  • Share Assessment Results,      review concerns and identify  ways      to resolve concerns
  • Evaluate Restoration      Project Acceptability, identify potential project sites

The successful implementation of UNWC restoration projects is dependent upon the acceptance and willingness of landowners to become involved.  Lower reaches of the tributaries of theNehalemRiverhave a high proportion of private landowners managing agricultural lands and rural residential properties.  Watershed outreach and participation of the local community are essential to successful restoration of the lower privately owned tributary reaches.

Landowners will be engaged through a three-part series of ‘Coffee Klatch’ neighborhood meetings held in the identified area. These multi-faceted meetings serve as an outreach mechanism to cultivate support of the UNWC’s overall goals, engage landowners in the assessment, prioritization and restoration process, and to improve knowledge of watershed dynamic functions and local sub-basin conditions. These meetings will also provide the UNWC with a better understanding of landowner concerns and goals.

To foster a less formal meeting atmosphere more conducive to positive, neighborly interaction, the Coffee Klatches will be held in someone’s home within the sub-basin as often as possible. Mailing lists will be compiled from digital tax lot ownership layers, and edited to include owners residing within the state ofOregonand owning parcels along the prioritized stream.  All landowners with stream frontage will be invited, but the focus will be primarily on properties of one acre or more in size. Invitation letters will be mailed with a stamped return postcard included, on which landowners may register a number of people to attend the Coffee Klatch, decline attending at this time, or express disinterest.

The purpose of the first Coffee Klatch meeting will be to introduce the UNWC, present current data summaries and the large scale maps from the data synthesis project, and inquire about landowners top watershed concerns and values. This input from landowners will later be incorporated into the socio-economic feasibility evaluation within the restoration prioritization process. Input will be collected on survey forms.  First (after a round of introductions and explanation of the process), meeting attendees will be asked as a group to list what they value most about the sub-basin  area in which they live or manage land.  Landowners will also be asked what they would like to see happening there in the next 10 to 20 years.  Responses to these questions will be recorded on a large, visible flip chart. These lists, along with meeting notes, will be used to describe local watershed values and issues.  Collection of landowner concerns information will be done in a more anonymous way.  Landowners will be given a survey sheet on which they list their top three watershed-related concerns for the watershed area, and then for their own and adjacent property. The survey will also ask attendees to list their top three land management goals, and provide space for additional comments. Responses regarding landowner concerns will later be used to develop issue concerns.  ‘Concerns’ data will be later referenced during the UNWC process of prioritizing potential actions.

The second Coffee Klatch meeting will focus on increasing landowner understanding of restoration actions. This component consists of a slideshow presentation briefly describing approximately 3-5 types of restoration projects and then conducting a bussed tour of local project sites. Projects implemented by the UNWC will be referenced as much as possible for photos, success stories and site visits. It is assumed that the outreach activity will help to inform landowner input regarding potential restoration actions requested in the subsequent, third Coffee Klatch.

The focus of the third Coffee Klatch is to present draft summarized results from the landowner input received in the first meeting, and to conduct a ‘ground-check’ of UNWC’s portrayal of landowner concerns using another, more structured survey. The survey will ask specific questions and request specific answers regarding potential restoration actions.  The survey will be given to Coffee Klatch attendees and a UNWC presenter will go through the questionnaire showing sample photos of action types and provide descriptions of what each action may entail. Landowners answer, in multiple choice format, the same three questions for each restoration action.  These survey results will be used by the council in moving forward with projects by identifying those which are acceptable to landowners and those which are not. UNWC staff will be available to talk with landowners about possible projects on their property.

ACTIVITIES, DELIVERABLES, AND SCHEDULE

This project consists of ten tasks completed over eight months.  The landowner meetings will most likely be held in the late winter/early spring of 2009.  The UNWC will wait until this time to hold the meetings as the Council does not want to hold meetings during the holiday seasons.

Task 1:  Compile Landowner information from Columbia and Clatsop County Tax Assessor Information

Deliverables:  Excel spreadsheet (or Access database) with tax lot and contact information for targeted landowners. Ability to create mailing labels for invitations.

Schedule:  Month 1

Task 2:  Contact and meet with potential landowner hosts for three meetings.

Deliverables:  Identify and confirm coffee klatch meeting locations preferably in landowner homes within the prioritized basin.

Schedule:  Months 1 – 3

Task 3:  Create, assemble and mail Coffee Klatch Invitations

Invitations will include a letter inviting the landowner to participate in the project; a stamped reply postcard to be mailed by the recipient indicating interest in the project; and informational materials about the UNWC.

Deliverables:  Invitation packets produced and mailed.

Schedule:  Months 1 – 3

Task 4:  Prepare for Meeting 1

Develop power point presentation introducing the UNWC, its mission and accomplishments, the coffee klatch process, and an overview of the current conditions using the data synthesis products (maps and reach descriptions).  Prepare informational handouts and landowner survey materials.

Deliverables:  Meeting materials

Schedule:  Month 1-2

Task 5:  Hold Meeting 1 and follow up with survey data and collected information

Deliverables:  Hold meeting, collect survey results, compile meeting notes, and enter and analyze landowner survey information.  Begin to develop an idea of what projects might be possible and prioritized based on landowner feedback and prioritized restoration needs as identified in the data synthesis project.

Schedule:  Month 2

Task 6:  Prepare for second coffee klatch meeting – the project tour

Deliverables:  Send out invitation for second meeting.  Confirm meeting location, decide on project tour sites, arrange transportation to sites, and create power point presentation and other meeting materials such as project information sheets.

Schedule:  Months 2-3

Task 7:  Hold Meeting 2 and Project Tour

Deliverables:  Hold meeting and project tour, compile meeting notes.

Schedule:  Month 3

Task 8:  Prepare for third and final coffee klatch meeting

Deliverables:  Review council and landowner priorities and create matrix highlighting shared priorities and landowner and council priorities.  Confirm meeting location, send out invitations, and prepare presentation and other meeting materials, including final evaluation and landowner survey and information regarding potential upcoming projects.

Schedule:  Months 3-4

Task 9:  Hold third coffee klatch meeting

Deliverable:  Hold meeting, discuss findings of landowner surveys, hand out and ask landowners to complete the final evaluations/surveys.  Identify ways to address landowner concerns. Talk with landowners about possible projects on their properties.

Schedule:  Month 4

Task 10:  Meet with individual landowners to continue coffee klatch process by discussing individual projects and developing project proposals.

Deliverables:UpperNehalemRiver   BasinRestoration Project Applications

Schedule:  Months 4-10

 

 

 

 

Budget for the Upper Nehalem   Watershed Council Coffee Klatch Process   – Fishhawk Creek
  A B C D  E  F
Itemize projected costs under each   of the following categories: Unit Number (e.g.,   # of hours) Unit Cost     (e.g.,   hourly rate) In-kind Match Cash Match Funds  OWEB Funds  Total Costs    (add columns C, D, E)
 
PROJECT MANAGEMENT.  Includes staff or contractors   who coordinate project implementation. Line items should identify who will be   responsible for project management and their affiliation.
Project Manager – Council   Coordinator 180 hours $30/hour  $ 5,400.00  $ 5,400.00
Subtotal (1)      $ 5,400.00
IN-HOUSE PERSONNEL.  Includes only applicant   employee costs and the portion of their time devoted to this project.
Outreach Support (Assistant) 110 hours $20/hour  $ 2,200.00  $ 2,200.00
Subtotal (2)      $ 2,200.00
CONTRACTED SERVICES.  Labor, supplies, and materials to   be provided by non-staff for project implementation.
Project Tour – Transportation  $ 600.00  $ 600.00
John Souder &/or OSU- Project   assistance  $1,600.00  $ 1,600.00
Subtotal (3)      $ 2,200.00
TRAVEL.  Mileage, per diem, lodging, etc.   Must use current State of Oregon   rate.
Mileage 518 miles $0.585  $ 303.00  $ 303.00
Subtotal (4)      $ 303.00
SUPPLIES/MATERIALS.  Refers to items that typically are “used up”   during the project.  Costs to OWEB must   be directly related to the technical assistance.  Group similar supplies and materials on the   same line.
Meeting materials  $ 900.00  $ 900.00
Subtotal (5)      $ 900.00
PRODUCTION.  Design, video production,   printing, direct mail, film developing, etc.
Subtotal (6)    
EQUIPMENT.  Refers to items with a useful life   of generally 2 years or more. List only equipment costing $250 or more per   unit.
Laptop computer (w/software)  $ 1,000.00  $ 1,000.00
Subtotal (7)      $ 1,000.00
PROJECT SUBTOTAL [Add all   subtotals (1-7) from above]  $ 12,003.00
FISCAL ADMINISTRATION.  Not to exceed 10% of Subtotal   of OWEB Funds.  Costs associated   with accounting; auditing (fiscal management); contract management (complying   with the terms and conditions of the grant agreement); and fiscal reporting   expenses for the OWEB project, including final report expenses (e.g.,   film developing) for the grant.
UNWC Fiscal Administration      $ 1200.00  $ 1200.00
     
Fiscal Administration Subtotal (8)      $ 1200.00
BUDGET TOTAL [Add Project Subtotal
and line (8)
 
     $13,203.00

 


 

Proposed Lower Nehalem Watershed Council Coffee Klatch Process Work Plan

God’s Valley Activity, Deliverables & Schedule:

Task 1.  Provide project management, coordination, and oversight

  • Frequently apprise the LNWC Coordinator and Council of project      progress.  The goal of close      communication is to ensure that the Council understands and supports the      project methodologies and outcomes.       To this end, the Coffee Klatch Coordinator will communicate      regularly by e-mail with the LNWC Coordinator, with the Chair of the      Council and with relevant council members and give regular presentations      at monthly council meetings.

Task 2.  Identify hosts for neighborhood meetings; and contact landowners

  • Contact all God’s valley      landowners by phone to determine availability for landowner meeting by      August 15, 2008.
  • Identify site and date      for God’s Valley landowner meeting by August 15, 2009

Task 3.  Develop Materials

  • Develop power point      presentation and handouts describing the need for large wood placement in      God’s Valley creek by September 1, 2008

Task 4.  Hold Meetings

  • Convene meeting of God’s      valley landowners, Watershed Council, OSU extension and ODFW staff by      September 15 2008 to review 1) need for large wood in God’s Valley Creek      and 2) sample OWEB large wood grant proposals.

Task 5.  Identify landowners interested in possible restoration projects.  Complete project design.  Prepare grant proposals for potential projects. 

  • Identify best sites for      large wood placement and preferred source of 25% OWEB match funding for      God’s Valley by October 15 2008.
  • Complete large wood      placement design(s) for God’s Valley by February 1, 2009
  • Submit OWEB grant      application for God’s Valley by April 20, 2009

 

 

 

Foley Creek Activities, Deliverables & Schedule

Task 1.  Provide project management, coordination, and oversight

  • Frequently apprise the LNWC Coordinator and Council of project      progress.  The goal of close      communication is to ensure that the Council understands and supports the      project methodologies and outcomes.       To this end, the Coffee Klatch Coordinator will communicate      regularly by e-mail with the LNWC Coordinator, with the Chair of the      Council and with relevant council members and give regular presentations      at monthly council meetings.

Task 2.  Compile landowner contact data base; identify hosts for neighborhood meetings; and contact landowners

  • Identify all landowners      having land adjacent to Foley and East Foley Creeks by Oct 15, 2008
  • Establish dates and      locations for three Foley Creek landowner meetings by November 1,      2008.
  • Send invitations with      addressed return envelopes to Foley Creek landowners during the last week      of December.  Make follow-up phone      calls in early January 2009.

Task 3.  Develop Materials

  • Develop a power point      presentation and handouts describing theLower       Nehalemwatershed council, its’ accomplishments and an      overview of Coho and watershed science for Foley creek by Sept 1, 2008.
  • Create landowner survey      for Foley Creek by November 1, 2008 as a secondary source of landowner      sentiment for a more complete initial attitudinal baseline measure to be      given to all landowners at the end of the first meeting.
  • Develop power point      presentation explaining specific large wood and riparian planting methods      and describing successful projects for Foley Creek by January 31, 2009.
  • Create final landowner      survey as an assessment tool for the Coffee Klatch process as implemented      in the Foley Creek sub-basin.

Task 4.  Hold Meetings

  • Convene meeting of Foley      Creek landowners, Watershed Council, OSU extension, Tillamook Estuaries      Partnership and ODFW staff in late January to review need for large wood      and riparian plantings along Foley and East Foley Creeks.  As part of this meeting conduct a Force      Field Analysis of factors supporting and resisting projects in the Foley      Creek area, identify strategies for reducing resistance and identify ways      of reaching important landowners not in attendance.
  • Convene second meeting      of Foley creek landowners in February 2009 for a short PowerPoint      presentation to visit the large wood project at the head of Foley Creek      and a nearby riparian planting.
  • Convene a third meeting      of landowners in March 2009 to 1) review concerns and potentially ways of      addressing those concerns during implementation 2) identify potential      large wood placement and riparian planting sites and 3) review sample      large wood and riparian planting grant proposals.

Task 5.  Identify landowners interested in possible restoration projects.  Complete project design.  Prepare grant proposals for potential projects. 

  • Identify interested Foley Creek landowners and potential projects by      March 2009.
  • Complete large wood      placement and riparian planting design(s) for Foley Creek by July 1, 2009.
  • Identify source for 25%      OWEB match for Foley Creek projects by July 1, 2009.
  • Complete draft grant      proposals for Foley Creek by Sept 15 2009.


Appendix E:  Memo describing Final Products – following pages

 

 

Appendix F:  Nehalem Sixth Field Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC)

 

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC 6 code): Name

171002020101: Lousignont Creek

171002020102:WolfCreek

171002020103: Clear Creek

171002020104: Upper Rock Creek

171002020105: Middle Rock Creek

171002020106: Lower Rock Creek

171002020107: Pebble Creek

171002020108:EastForkNehalemRiver

171002020109: Coon Creek

171002020201: Crooked Creek

171002020202: Deer Creek

171002020203: Lundgren Creek

171002020204: Fishhawk Creek

171002020205:CalvinCreek

171002020206: Deep Creek

171002020207: Northrup Creek

171002020301: Squaw Creek

171002020302: Beneke Creek

171002020303: Little Fishhawk Creek

171002020304: Buster Creek

171002020305: Cow Creek

171002020306: Humbug Creek

171002020307: Cronin Creek

171002020401:UpperSalmonberryRiver

171002020402:North   ForkSalmonberryRiver

171002020403:LowerSalmonberryRiver

171002020501:UpperNorth ForkNehalemRiver

171002020502:MiddleNorth ForkNehalemRiver

171002020503:LowerNorth ForkNehalemRiver

171002020601: Lost Creek

171002020602: Cook Creek

171002020603: Foley Creek

171002020604: Anderson Creek

171002020605:NehalemBay