Table of Contents

 

Project Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

 

Background………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

 

 

Methods………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

 

 

Results………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10

 

 

Discussion and Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………………… 15

 

 

References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17

 

 

Maps …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18-21

 

Project Summary

 

Project staff utilized the ODFW Aquatic Inventory protocol to assess habitat in selected small, medium, and large sized streams in the Upper Nehalem basin.  In addition, the project personnel conducted a snorkeling survey to estimate juvenile salmonid distribution in these streams.  The 2005 surveys completed a portion of the Coho freshwater habitat found within the Upper Nehalem.  The remainder of the streams requiring a habitat survey will be completed during the 2006 survey season.  Any additional habitat located after the 2006 surveys can be added into the stream summary binder that accompanies this prioritization summary report.  In this way, the data binders generated serve as a working document that can be updated and compared to significant changes in stream habitat from either natural or artificial processes.

During the 2005 season we surveyed 84 stream reaches in 38 streams totaling 96.893 kilometers of habitat.

We identified:

  •  35 stream reaches using our 2005 habitat survey data that we believe should receive the priority for Large Woody Debris (LWD) placement
  • 12 large stream (> 12m active channel width) reaches using our 2005 habitat survey data that we believe should be investigated for large wood placement in the secondary channels
  • 26 stream reaches using our habitat survey data that we believe should receive the priority for Riparian Enhancement
  • 15 culvert crossings that impede adult and/or juvenile Coho passage
  • Ø  2 concrete dams that impede adult and/or juvenile Coho passage

We developed one large binder that provided detailed habitat survey information on each of the 84 stream reaches.

This project has greatly improved our understanding of where our priorities for habitat restoration and LWD placement should be.


Background

The Nehalem watershed is divided into two sub-basins: Upper Nehalem and Lower Nehalem. The Upper Nehalem watershed is located in Northwest Oregon and is made up of 555 square miles, which is 1.85 times larger than the Lower Nehalem Basin.  The Lower Nehalem is located on the Oregon coast and is made up of 300 square miles.  The Nehalem River has a Peak discharge typically during the winter season, between November and February.

During the last 150 years land management practices have drastically affected the rivers that coho use.  Dike building, logging, water diversions, and road construction significantly reduced the availability of habitat for Coho[1].  Road culverts and hatchery facilities can be barriers that restrict use of streams by Coho.  The loss of large wood from streams reduced the number of pools and the amount of winter rearing habitat for Coho.

Winter can produce a harsh environment for juvenile Coho.  Heavy rains create violent water surges that can kill these small fish.  The primary defense for the juveniles is to retreat into calmer off-channel habitat[2].  The amount of this kind of rearing habitat is a function of stream gradient, amount of large woody debris, and valley and channel morphology.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) Aquatic Inventory Project developed an excellent protocol for gathering information about stream habitat.  This survey methodology came into use around 1989.  In the last 16 years ODFW has surveyed about 358.02 kilometers of streams in the Upper Nehalem basin.  These surveys were conducted in the summer season, and left incomplete habitat information for Coho bearing streams within the Upper Nehalem Watershed.

The Upper Nehalem Watershed Council initiated the 1st year (2005) Habitat Assessment Project to determine the condition of the habitat in the remainder of the Upper Nehalem freshwater streams not surveyed.  Specifically, the study was designed to determine:

1)    Stream reaches most suitable for restoration – stream reaches where LWD placement, riparian enhancement, and/or artificial barrier replacements will increase off channel habitat and hence Coho productivity,

2)    Current habitat conditions in streams – which stream reaches would have a high potential for increasing Coho production, but due to current conditions, the habitat has a low carrying capacity.

 

In addition, we wished to produce information that could be used by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) as part of their Oregon Plan for Salmon Recovery.

The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) provided a grant for 3/4 of the cost of the project.  The project leader, the Upper Nehalem Watershed Council (UNWC), and the 4-H natural resource students and their teacher (Peter Walczak) provided volunteer time for the required 1/4 in kind local match.


Methods

Stream Identification

The report authors used Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers to create maps showing the locations of streams which:

1)    appeared to be low gradient;

2)    drained an area of greater than 300 acres

3)    had not been surveyed by ODFW in the last 10 years;

We found 186 streams covering more than 494.1 kilometers in the Upper Nehalem Basin.  These streams were potential Coho streams.  These were streams where LWD placement might be expected to improve Coho productivity, but where existing data did not provide enough information to determine which stream segments were most important.  During the 2005 project season, ninety-seven (97) kilometers were surveyed covering thirty-eight (38) streams.  Since some streams are dropped after a field visit, this left the remainder of streams to be surveyed.

Field Surveys

One, two person survey teams conducted the habitat surveys.  The Project Leader, provided technical assistance, conducted habitat and snorkel surveys, and coordinated survey schedules.  In addition, ODFW staff provided personnel for assistance with data collection and data analysis.  This ensured that the information collected followed similar procedures and methodologies to the ODFW surveys completed.

Survey teams used the 2004 ODFW Aquatic Inventory[3] protocol and associated data forms.  The project leader and crew had several prior years experience working for ODFW as employees conducting habitat surveys.  When inexperienced watershed council surveyors were hired, the project leader trained the new surveyors in the same way ODFW trains surveyors each summer prior to the survey season.

The survey teams conducted their surveys between December 15, 2004 and April 15, 2005.  The habitat survey season was continued an extra two weeks in April.  This was due to an above average spring rainfall period in early April, after one of the driest winter seasons on record.  This allowed for winter stream conditions to be recorded during the habitat survey in early April, which is important for identifying off-channel juvenile rearing areas.

The project leader and field staff obtained landowner permission[4] prior to conducting the surveys.  They started their surveys at the mouth of each stream and continued until the stream size or gradient precluded stream use by Coho.  Where landowner access was denied, the survey was started at the next tax lot boundary or at the nearest reach change.

The survey team took photos to record field conditions found during the surveys.  The photos focused on the general valley and channel geomorphology and unusual attributes (culverts, dikes, etc.).

Neah-kah-nie H.S. (4-H Natural resource club) was involved in this project.  The students involved were sophomore, junior, and senior students.  These students conducted independent surveys with the project leader in selected study areas.  During the initial session, the project leader trained the students to use the ODFW Aquatic Inventory survey protocol.  They were then able to apply the knowledge gained in the field to completing the Coal Creek habitat survey.  The work was completed during weekends and holidays where the students actively participated in conducting habitat surveys on the stream.

The habitat survey crew flagged pools they thought should be snorkeled.  They flagged every fourth pool greater than one meter deep, and all major off-channel habitats.  The project staff conducted snorkel surveys in the flagged pools after the survey crews completed the habitat surveys.  If necessary, they continued the snorkel survey above the flagged area until they found the end of Coho presence.

The main objective for the snorkel survey was to obtain the upper distribution for juvenile Coho.  The secondary objective was to obtain peak counts within each stream reach identified during a habitat survey.  If rough terrain made a night snorkel survey too difficult, an upper distribution end of fish use was identified by either daytime snorkel, or visual observations recorded by the field crew.  In these streams, only the significant off-channel habitats and deep pools were snorkeled.  Unfortunately, some streams lacked any pools to snorkel throughout the reach.

The project leader conducted the snorkel surveys at night[5] to obtain the best counts of juvenile Coho[6].[7]   For quality control, 10% of the snorkel surveys were resurveyed.  The East Fork Nehalem Basin was not snorkeled in 2005.  This was due the habitat surveys not being completed until early April and winter juvenile Coho rearing conditions could not be confirmed.  Therefore, the sub basin will be snorkeled during the winter 2006 survey season.  This provided quality assurance that the snorkelers were observing real time winter rearing conditions.

Data management

The ODFW Aquatic Inventory Project provided computer programs for data entry and analysis.   ODFW Access programs were used to generate summary data for each stream reach in the study.  The process included:

  • Data entry for all habitat surveys conducted
  • Calibrate estimated lengths and widths for surveys
  • Generate stream reports summarizing database reports.  This included a general summary, specific reach descriptions, and information on unusual attributes (LWD project potential, riparian project potential, access for industrial equipment)
  • USGS topographical map (1: 24 000); detailing the survey attributes (start, end, riparian transects, culvert crossings, etc.)

Data analysis

Large wood placement priority

The report authors have developed a simple and basic system for establishing priorities for LWD placement projects.  Ultimately, we opted for an approach that was both easy to understand and easy to apply.   This approach gives us almost the same result as the more complicated equations from other prioritizations.  We chose to give LWD placement priority to streams that:

1)       already had Coho present[8],

2)       were in a valley wide enough that large wood could create off channel habitat (Valley Width Index [VWI] greater than 3),

3)       had a channel width small enough for wood to stay in place after periods of heavy rain. (Active Channel Width [ACW] less than 12 meters) and

4)       did not currently have adequate large wood (<2.0 Key pieces per 100 m [Keylwd])

In addition to these factors, access to the stream reach will be a significant factor in choice of sites for wood placement.  We developed preliminary judgments about the difficulty of access from map readings and from surveyor observations.

Finally, larger streams with potential off-channel LWD placement potential were identified using the 2005 UNWC habitat data.  The larger streams identified for LWD placement potential were based on the same criteria used for smaller streams, except that the active channel was greater than 12 meters wide.

Riparian Enhancement Priority

The report authors have developed a simple and basic system for establishing priorities for Riparian Enhancement projects.  Ultimately, we opted for an approach that was both easy to understand and easy to apply.  We chose to give Riparian Enhancement priority to streams that:

1)       had riparian vegetation dominated by hardwoods, shrubs, or grass.

2)       recorded low average shade cover (< 70%).

3)       did not have conifers well established within the riparian zone.

4)       had current land use practices which could be adjusted to increase shade and/or large wood recruitment.

Stream reaches with an average shade cover greater than 70%, but lacked conifer establishment in the riparian areas were identified as stream reaches with hardwood conversion potential.  These streams may have adequate shade, but were lacking the large wood recruitment.  The authors understand that the habitat data can be revisited and additional riparian priority lists could be established using a different set of criteria.

 

Artificial Fish Passage Barriers

Once the 2005 habitat surveys were conducted, the project staff completed an inventory of road stream crossings in the Upper Nehalem Watershed that potentially blocked stream habitat suitable for salmon.  They:

  1. identified 27 culvert crossings that appeared to be on low gradient streams.
  2. visited all road stream crossings to determine if there was a culvert that appeared to block Coho passage[9].
  3. generated preliminary priorities for culvert replacement based on apparent gradient[10] of the reach made accessible, area of land drained, fish presence below the culvert, and estimated cost of culvert replacement

In addition, there was one more type of artificial barrier that we identified after the habitat survey was completed.  There were two concrete dams recorded on Alder Creek.  These dams were adult and juvenile barriers and blocked 1km of valuable fish habitat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Results

 

The field staff dropped a number of streams from the survey due to:

  1. the small size of the stream;
  2. natural barriers that blocked any possibility of fish passage; and
  3. lack of permission to access the stream.

In addition, we learned that the GIS layers the authors used overestimated the length of the low gradient sections of survey streams.  This was due to natural gradient barriers, which eliminated some target sites after an initial field visit, or resulted in a shorter than expected habitat survey.  At the completion of the surveys we found that we had surveyed eighty-four (84) stream reaches in thirty-eight (38) streams totaling 96.893 kilometers of habitat.

Snorkel Surveys

The Project staff snorkeled 130 pools.  They found Cutthroat in 98 of these pools, Coho in 126 pools, Steelhead in 74 pools, and Chinook fry in 3 pools.  Unfortunately, there was a lack of deep pools and off-channel habitat throughout the majority of the tributaries with a habitat survey in Upper Nehalem.  This resulted in visual observations from the habitat surveyors (signs of salmon carcasses, fry observed, etc.) for upper fish distribution information in stream reaches with no deep pools or off-channel habitat meriting a snorkel survey.  The observations recorded by the habitat surveyors usually correlated when poor habitat was revisited for a snorkel survey.

Priority For Large Wood Placement

Table 1 lists the 35 stream reaches that met our criteria for LWD placement priority during the 2005 winter survey season.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1

Stream Reaches Given Priority for

Large Wood Placement

 

 

Stream

Reach

VWI

ACW

KeyLWD

Gradient

Landowner

Road Access

Bear Creek

1

20

5.3

0.1

1

Private

Good

Beaver Creek (Fishhawk Cem)

1

16

7.3

0.2

0.6

Private

Good

2

15

9.1

0.1

0.8

Longview Fibre/Stimson

Fair

4

6

6

0.8

0.9

Stimson

Good

Beaver Creek Trib C

1

3.1

6.3

1.4

1.8

Stimson

Fair

Cedar Creek

1

4.1

6.5

0.5

2.2

Private/Weyco

Good

Dog Creek

1

4.8

8.2

1.3

1.6

Private/Weyco

Fair

Dog Creek Trib A

1

5

3.6

0.3

4.1

Longview Fibre

Poor

E.F. Nehalem River Headwaters

1

10.3

7.1

0.2

2.2

Private/Stimson

Fair

2

10

5.1

0.2

3.2

BLM

Fair

Gunners Lake Trib

1

7

10

0.6

2.8

Private/Longvie Fibre

Poor

E.F. Nehalem Trib (Hawkins Cr)

1

3.3

4.1

0.4

2.3

Weyco

Poor

Jim George Creek

1

3.3

5.8

0.2

1.5

Private/Weyco

Good

Kenusky Creek

2

5.3

8.5

0.2

0.4

Weyco

Good

3

5.8

6.7

1.2

0.9

Longview Fibre/Weyco

Good

4

4

7.5

0.6

2.4

Weyco

Poor

Gilmore Creek

1

13

6.3

1.1

0.8

Private/State

Fair

Grub Creek

1

8.3

5.6

0

1.2

Private

Good

Hamilton Creek

1

5.3

10.7

1.4

1.7

Private/State

Good

Alder Creek (Humbug Trib)

1

18.8

5.1

0

1.8

DOT/Weyco

Fair

Big Creek (Humbug Trib)

1

12.8

6

1.2

3.6

Longview Fibre

Fair

McClure Creek (Humbug Trib)

1

20

4.6

0.1

0.3

Private

Good

2

17.5

4.8

0.1

0.9

Longview Fibre

Fair

East Humbug Creek

3

5.2

9.3

1.9

2.1

State

Good

4

3.8

7.6

0.9

2.9

State/Weyco

Good

5

3.4

7

0.2

3.6

Weyco

Fair

East Humbug Creek Trib A

1

3.2

6.4

0.7

3.7

State

Good

West Humbug Creek

5

5.5

11.5

0.8

2.3

Weyco

Good

6

3.9

6.9

0.6

2.8

Weyco

Poor

Beaver Creek (West Humbug Trib)

2

5.9

7

0.3

3.4

Weyco/Longview Fibre

Fair

Destruction Creek (West Humbug Trib)

1

4.8

5.6

0.1

5.4

Weyco/Longview Fibre

Fair

West Humbug Creek Trib A

1

10

3.5

0.8

2.6

Weyco

Fair

West Humbug Creek Trib B

1

6.4

6.2

1.2

3.6

Weyco

Good

Little Fishhawk Creek

1

3.9

10

0.7

4.5

Weyco

Good

Slaughters Creek

1

4.8

5

1.3

1.4

Private

Fair

 

Finally, using surveyor notes from UNWC habitat surveys, the authors identified LWD placement priorities for larger streams (Table 2).

 

Table 2 lists twelve (12) stream reaches that met our criteria for LWD priority during the 2005 winter survey season.

 

Table 2

Large Stream Reaches Given Priority for

Large Wood Placement in off-channel areas

 

Stream

Reach

VWI

ACW

KeyLWD

Gradient

Landowner

Road Access

Coal Creek

1

6.9

13.5

0.5

1.6

State

Fair

Humbug Creek

1

5

19.1

0

1.5

Private

Fair

3

14.5

19.6

0.3

0.5

Private

Good

4

18.6

17

0.3

0.6

Private

Good

5

20

17.7

0.5

0.5

Private

Good

6

17.5

16.5

0.5

0.5

Private/Longview Fibre

Good

East Humbug Creek

1

16.1

13.4

0.2

1.5

DOT/Weyco

Good

2

8.3

14.5

1.2

1.6

Weyco/State

Good

West Humbug Creek

1

4.1

17.6

0.5

1.4

DOT

Good

2

6.4

14.2

0.2

2

Weyco

Fair

4

6.3

13.2

0.9

1

Weyco

Good

Beaver Creek (West Humbug)

1

5.8

13.5

0.8

2.2

DOT/Weyco

Fair

 

Riparian Enhancement Priorities

Table 3 lists the 26 stream reaches that met our criteria for Riparian Enhancement priority during the 2005 winter survey season

                                                                                                                                                                               

Table 3

Riparian Enhancement Priorities

 

Stream

Reach

Current Veg

Average Shade Cover (% of 180)

Current Land Use

Bear Creek

1

G/D15

48

Urban

Beaver Creek (Fishhawk Cem)

1

G/D15

47

Light Grazing/Second Growth Timber

2

D15/D3

64

Second Growth Timber

3

C3/D30

72

Second Growth Timber

Beaver Creek Trib A

1

M3/D30

45

Second Growth Timber

Beaver Creek Trib C

1

D30/M3

60

Second Growth Timber

Cedar Creek

1

D15/S

76

Second Growth Timber/Rural Residential

Cedar Creek Trib A

1

D15/G

63

Second Growth Timber

Jim George Creek

2

M30/C30

78

Second Growth Timber/Young Trees

Kenusky Creek

1

D30/M15

69

Second Growth Timber

2

D30/M3

67

Second Growth Timber/Young Trees

Gilmore Creek

1

D30/M15

80

Wildlife Refuge

3

D15

85

Second Growth Timber

Humbug Creek

1

M30/D3

80

Rural Residential/Second Growth Timber

3

M30/G

66

Light Grazing/Rural Residential

4

M30/G

63

Rural Residential/Large Timber

5

M30/G

68

Rural Residential/Large Timber

6

M30/D30

68

Rural Residential/Large Timber

Alder Creek (Humbug Trib)

1

M15

71

Rural Residential

McClure Creek (Humbug Trib)

1

G/D15

53

Light Grazing

East Humbug Creek

5

D15

100

Second Growth Timber

West Humbug Creek

5

D15

100

Second Growth Timber

6

D15

100

Second Growth Timber

West Humbug Creek Trib B

1

D15

83

Second Growth Timber

West Humbug Creek Trib C

1

D15/D30

88

Second Growth Timber

Slaughters Creek

2

D30/S

82

Second Growth Timber

 

Artificial Fish Passage Barriers

There are two types of artificial barriers that were identified during the habitat surveys.  These included: culverts and concrete dams.  The fifteen (15) culverts listed in table 4 have valuable habitat currently inaccessible to Coho.  The two (2) concrete dams listed in table 5 are both located on Alder Creek.

 

Table 4 shows the completed culvert priorities identified during the 2005 Upper Nehalem Habitat Assessment Project.  The 2005 project will allow the UNWC (Upper Nehalem Watershed Council) to use the detailed information on Coho habitat to guide future culvert replacement projects. 

Table 4

Culverts that block Coho passage

 

Culvert

Stream

Comment

Weed Ave Bear Creek Juvenile Velocity Barrier.
Fishhawk Cemetery Rd Beaver Creek Juvenile Velocity Barrier.  No jump pool
Unnamed Logging Road Beaver Creek Trib A Beaver have plugged upstream side.
Decommissioned Road. Beaver Creek Trib A Beavers have plugged upstream side.
Logging Road off of Fishhawk Cemetery Rd Beaver Creek Trib B Juvenile Barrier with .5 meter step
Fishhawk Cemetery Rd Beaver Creek Trib C No jump pool with .7 meter step to bedrock
Cedar Creek Mainline Cedar Creek Jump pool with .4 meter step
Logging Road off of Cedar Creek Mainline Cedar Creek Trib A Jump pool with .45 meter step
Pebble Creek Mainline Elk Creek Jump pool with .6 meter step
Columbia Forest Road E.F. Nehalem Headwaters Poor Jump pool with 1.5 meter step.  Only trout habitat above
Scappoose-Vernonia Hwy E.F. Nehalem Trib     (Hawkins Cr) Juvenile Velocity Barrier.  No step
Decommissioned Road Gilmore Creek Partially washed out
Decommissioned Road McClure Creek Completely washed out
East Humbug Road East Humbug Creek Juvenile Barrier.  Jump pool with .4 meter step
Logging Road off of East Humbug Road East Humbug Creek Trib B Juvenile Barrier.  Jump pool with .3 meter step

 

Table 5 shows the two concrete dams on Alder Creek with a fish passage problem identified during the 2005 Upper Nehalem Habitat Assessment Project.  The 2005 project will allow the UNWC (Upper Nehalem Watershed Council) to use the detailed information on Coho habitat to guide future fish passage projects.

Table 5

Concrete Dams that block fish passage

Stream

Reach

Barrier

Artificial/Natural

Comments

Alder Creek

1

Concrete Dams

Artificial

No Adult or Juvenile passage
Alder Creek

1

Concrete Dams

Artificial

No Adult or juvenile passage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion and Recommendations

Large Wood Placement

The findings from this study focus our concern on 47 stream reaches.  There are 35 stream reaches identified in small and medium sized streams and 12 stream reaches identified for potential off-channel LWD placement in larger streams (>12m ACW).

There are two maps included for LWD priorities.  The first map (Appendix A) lists recommended large wood placement sites for small streams within the Upper Nehalem Watershed.  This includes habitat survey information from the 2005 UNWC project season.  The second map (Appendix B) lists large wood placement sites within side channels on larger streams from UNWC habitat surveys.  In addition, both maps identify areas not recommended for large wood placement.

During the next year Watershed Council staff should visit all 47 stream reaches with ODFW biologists and landowners to determine the feasibility of LWD placement.  The Watershed Council should either remove from the list or give lower priority to stream reaches that are not accessible from roads or where large wood placement would threaten existing structures.  Consequently, stream reaches where artificial barriers are blocking access should not receive an LWD project until downstream barriers are improved.

UNWC should begin discussions with the Oregon Department of Forestry, Weyerhaeuser, and other small landowners with the intent of developing OWEB grant proposals for LWD placement in priority stream segments on their land.  The completion of the 2006 Upper Nehalem surveys will survey approximately 180 kilometers of additional habitat.  These survey areas will identify more LWD placement priorities.  In addition, all previous ODFW surveys will be prioritized using the same criteria used for the watershed council surveys completed.

Riparian Enhancement Priorities

The 2005 UNWC surveys identified 26 stream reaches that have good riparian enhancement potential.  There was one map included for Riparian priorities with two types of riparian projects identified (Appendix C).  These included: hardwood conversion and conifer planting.  Hardwood conversion projects would help establish conifers in hardwood dominated riparian areas.  The objective for the potential project would be to increase large wood recruitment in future years.  Secondly, the conifer planting projects would be in riparian areas lacking shade cover.  The poor shade cover has usually occurred where the land use is from rural residential, agriculture, or urban.  Both types of riparian improvements recommended here, are important for the restoration of the Upper Nehalem Watershed.  The degraded riparian areas identified are all located on freshwater Coho bearing streams.  The lack of large wood recruitment is a significant limiting factor to improving winter rearing habitat for juvenile Coho.

During the next year UNWC, Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), and ODFW staff should visit the thirty-four (34) stream reaches with riparian enhancement potential to determine the feasibility to conduct a project.

Artificial Fish Passage Barriers

The 2005 UNWC surveys identified fifteen (15) culverts that are at least a partial fish passage barrier.  The culverts vary on the amount of available habitat above the barrier, however, all have some valuable habitat which is currently inaccessible to Coho.  Impassable culverts at the end of the habitat surveys were not included in table 4, because the habitat above the culvert was not suitable for Coho. The 2005 UNWC surveys identified two (2) concrete dams that are at least a partial fish passage barrier.  Both are located on Alder creek and block access to an additional 1,000 meters of habitat suitable for Coho.

During the next year UNWC and ODFW staff should visit the fifteen (15) culverts and two (2) concrete dams to determine the feasibility to conduct a project.  There is one map included for artificial barriers for the 2005 surveys (Appendix D).

2006 Target Streams

The 2005 Upper Nehalem Habitat Assessment identified those streams, which have never been surveyed by either the Upper Nehalem Watershed Council or ODFW.  During the 2005 project, 38 streams were surveyed totaling 96.893 kilometers of Coho habitat.  There are approximately 91 streams remaining that have no habitat survey completed.  These are the streams where we will focus our efforts during the 2006 project season.  Our effort will be 2.5 times greater in 2006, therefore, we plan to complete all remaining streams.  There is one map included which prioritizes those streams that remain to be surveyed (Appendix E).

In addition to completing the 91 unsurveyed streams, the authors will work with ODFW Aquatic Inventory staff to develop restoration priorities for the previously completed ODFW habitat surveys using the same criteria applied in this report.  However, the authors and ODFW research staff are concerned that the previously completed ODFW habitat surveys may not be used to accurately identify restoration areas to increase winter rearing habitat for juvenile Coho.  This is due to the fact that the ODFW surveys were conducted during the summer survey season and about half of the surveys were conducted greater than 10 years ago, further reducing the data reflecting the current habitat conditions.  Nevertheless, effort will be made to incorporate all completed ODFW habitat surveys into the 2006 final report, and recommendations will be made to determine the usefulness of the ODFW summer survey data.

REFERENCES

Lichatowich, J. 1999.  Salmon Without Rivers.  Island Press.

 

Montgomery, D. R. 2003.  Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers.  University of Washington Press.

 

Moore, K. M. S., K. K. Jones and J. M. Dambacher. 1997.  Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys. Orgeon Department of Fish and Wildlife Information report 97-4, Portland, OR

 

Riggers, B., White, J.  2001.  Operational Plan for Chinook Stock Indicator Project.  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Newport OR.

 

Rowe, M. and J.Spangler.  1998.  Mid-Coast Salmonid Habitat Restoration Project Monitoring Update. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Newport OR.

 

Thom, B.A. 1997.  The Effects of Woody Debris Additions on the Physical Habitat of Salmonids: A Case Study on the Northern Oregon Coast.  University of Washington Master’s thesis.  90pp

 

Thom, B. A. and K. M. S. Moore. 1995.  North Coast Project: Project Monitoring and Evaluation.  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

 

 

Appendix A

 

 

Appendix B

 

 

 

Appendix C

 

Appendix D

Appendix E

 


[1]       The Oregon Plan recognizes that availability of off-channel rearing habitat is a limiting factor for the productivity of Coastal Coho Salmon Stocks.

[2]       Includes backwaters, alcoves, isolated pools, and significant secondary channels

[3]       To obtain more specific methods for the habitat surveys conducted refer to Aquatic Inventory Project: Methods for Streams Habitat Surveys 2004.  YBWC and OWEB received assurances from ODFW research staff that winter habitat surveys produce results as good as, or better than, those produced by summer surveys.

[4]       Three stream reaches could not be surveyed because landowner permission could not be secured.

[5]       To support the night sampling design a few surveys provided day/night comparisons.

[6]       During cold winter conditions Coho are quiet during the day and move about and feed during the night.

[7]       He needed two underwater lights: Underwater Kinetics High Pressure xenon lamp with a medium penetrating beam with a 3.2 in diameter lens and a Browning Submersible High Pressure xenon lamp with high penetrating beam with a 2.0 in diameter lens.

[8]       Coho were considered to be in a stream reach if they are found in a higher reach of the same stream.  Coho were also considered to be in streams that had fish passage barriers if there were coho below the barrier.

[9]       This survey did not include an analysis of the blockage.  All culverts with a drop of over six inches were considered to have a potential for blocking Coho passage.

[10]    Map reading at best gives only an approximation of actual field conditions.