Monitoring the Effectiveness of Culverts Replaced or Retrofitted
for Fish Passage in the Upper West Fork of Smith River, Oregon
Bruce P. Hansen
Gordon H. Reeves
Aquatic and Land Interactions Program,
PNW Research Station
Corvallis, OR
Summary
All of the culverts in this study passed juvenile coho
salmon and cutthroat at a wide range of flows, suggesting
that the current design criteria for these culverts were
adequate to ensure juvenile fish passage. There appear
to be patterns in the timing, frequency, and magnitude
of upstream and downstream pre-smolt movement. The
upstream movement of both juvenile coho salmon and
cutthroat trout in the West Fork of Smith River was triggered
by the first fall freshets and tapered off through the rest of
the year. Downstream movement was spread throughout
the year. Virtually all of the upstream movement occured
during flows at or below the 2% exceedance level (i.e., 2%
of the flows at the site are greater than this flow), with the
vast majority happening at or below the 10% exceedance.
Determining the timing and magnitude of flows when fish
move could help to refine the design criteria for crossings.
While these findings might be used to justify crossings that
do not match the stream channel dimensions, slope and
substrate (stream simulation), many other factors need to
be considered as crossings are sized and designed. Stream
simulation crossings provide for many more benefits and
functions than just fish passage. Maintenance of stream
channel processes and ecological functions are of equal or
greater importance and should be considered in stream
crossing design.
Introduction
Movement within the stream network is an integral
part of the life-history of many stream fishes (Fausch et
al. 2002; Schrank and Rahel 2004). The length, timing,
and duration of movement vary with species and life-
history stage. Motivation for movement includes response
to changing environmental conditions either seasonally
or from the alteration of existing conditions, and meeting
reproductive needs and age or life-history stage specific
habitat requirements (Kahler and Quinn 1998; Hoffman
and Dunham 2007). Preserving connectivity among
habitats within a watershed is crucial to the persistence of
species dependent on periodic movements (Young 1994;
Fausch et al. 2002).
Barriers, anthropogenic or natural, can have important
ecological effects on fish movement. They may limit access
to food resources, reproductive sites, and seasonal refugia
(Hilderbrand and Kershner 2000). They can also restrict
interactions among populations of a given species, which
may reduce the likelihood of persistence of some populations
(Lacey 1987; Rieman and Dunham 2000; Wofford et
al. 2005). How the influence of individual natural and
anthropogenic barriers differs is not immediately clear.
However, the large number of human-related obstacles
(relative to natural barriers) suggests that they may have
major impacts on fish populations in basins in the Pacific
Northwest and elsewhere.
Culvert passage issues are gaining national and
international focus because they are implicated in the
decline of many fish populations. Agencies responsible for
managing fish or their habitat are increasingly concerned
about the potential impact of culverts on fish movement,
particularly for those fish listed under the Endangered
Species Act. Culverts can impede movement of fish and
other aquatic organisms either at all times or under certain
flow conditions. They may pose a barrier to upstream
movement of organisms by disrupting stream flow in one
or more of the following ways, by creating: (1) a jump
that is impossible to negotiate, or (2) a velocity barrier. A
Methods
single impassable culvert can have effects that extended far
beyond the stream on which it is located (Porto et al. 1999).
Network fragmentation resulting from barrier culverts can
affect the dispersal of individuals, the genetic integrity of
local populations, and community and ecosystem dynamics
throughout the entire watershed (Wofford et al. 2005).
Millions of dollars are being spent in the Pacific Northwest
by the USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
USDA Forest Service to remedy fish passage problems
created by culverts. The agencies have identified a multiple
hundred million-dollar backlog of fish passage projects in
Oregon and Washington (US General Accounting Office
2001). Current designs for fish passage culverts consider
all life-history stages of selected salmon and trout. Until
recently, however, the primary emphasis was on adult fish.
Now there is increased concern about the movement,
particularly upstream, of juveniles. Obviously, conditions
for the movement of juveniles will be quite different from
those of adults. The Government Accounting Office
(GAO) review also found that there was a lack of systematic
monitoring to determine whether replacement culverts are
effective in fish passage.
Land management agencies increasingly recognize and
acknowledge the ecological importance of small streams,
including those that may only flow during wetter times
of the year. Juveniles of many species move from larger
streams to smaller tributary streams seasonally (Kahler and
Quinn 1998; Ebersole et al. 2006). They generally move
into tributaries on increasing flows in the fall and early
winter, and leave on falling flows in the spring. These
streams are often a major part of the stream network, and
they often have culverts in them, particularly in more
heavily managed watersheds.
A literature review by Kahler and Quinn (1998)
identified a number of studies that have shown upstream
movements of juvenile anadromous fish throughout the
year. Juvenile steelhead (Onchorhyncus mykiss), cutthroat
trout (O. clarkii) and coho salmon (O. kisutch), species
of interest in this study, have a generalized upstream
migration pattern into small tributaries from larger rivers
in the late fall and early winter (Kahler and Quinn 1998).
Small streams generally served as crucial productive habitat
for juvenile salmonids (Ebersole et al. 2006).
The specific objectives of this study were to: (1) determine
if recently replaced culverts on selected tributaries of the
West Fork Smith River, Oregon, allow upstream movement
of juvenile anadromous salmonids; and (2) identify water
conditions under which juvenile anadromous salmonids
move through culverts on selected tributaries of the West
Fork Smith River basin.
Study Area
The West Fork Smith River (WFSR) is a perennial
stream draining a 69 km2 watershed in the Umpqua River
basin of the Oregon Coast Range (Figure 1). The WFSR
was chosen for this study for multiple reasons; the Coos
Bay District, BLM had a mix of existing and soon to be
replaced culverts along the valley floor road. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was conducting
a study investigating relationships between landscape
attributes and coho salmon productivity. Additionally,
the WFSR is a life cycle monitoring basin of the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife [ODFW] (Solazzi et al.
2003).
The watershed is covered with a multi-aged forest,
dominated by Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), with
mixed broadleaf and conifer species in the riparian areas,
including red alder (Alnus rubra) and bigleaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum). The WFSR has an elevation range from
60 to 850 m, with an average gradient of 2.5% (ODFW
1997). The underlying geology is Tyee sandstone.
The watershed was splash dammed during a period of
intensive forest management in the late 1800s and early
1900s (S. Klein, EPA, pers com). As a result, in-stream
habitat conditions in the lower portions of the West Fork
Smith River have been relatively simplified through loss of
large wood structure that historically would have provided
points of accumulation of streambed sediments, and
associated hydraulic and morphometric complexity (Reeves
et al. 2002). There is, however, substantial variation in instream physical habitat conditions associated with more
recent accumulations of large wood pieces and sediment in
the channel. In the mainstem reaches, the amount of large
woody debris (LWD) greater than 0.1 m in diameter and
1.5 m in length ranged from 0.0004 to 0.263 m3/m2. In
the tributaries studied, the amount of LWD ranged from
0.015 to 0.052 m3/m2 (J. Ebersole, EPA, unpublished
data).
Fish species present in the West Fork Smith River
include coho salmon, a small introduced run of fall
chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), winter steelhead, both
sea-run and resident cutthroat trout, sculpin (Cottus
spp.), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), Umpqua dace
(R. evermanni), redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus),
largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus), northern
pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), western brook
lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni), and Pacific lamprey (L.
tridentata).
Figure 1. Location of West Fork
Smith River stationary receivers.
allow fish passage (Pat Olmstead, Coos Bay BLM, pers.
comm.). Green crossings are judged most likely to pass
fish at a wide range of flows and all life stages (Clarkin
et al. 2005). Grey crossings are judged to have conditions
that may not be adequate for all species and life stages of
fish to pass the crossing. Red crossings are judged to have
conditions that are assumed not adequate for fish passage.
The Upper West Fork Smith River bridge crossing, where
road 20-9-27 crosses the WFSR (Figure 5), was added to
the study to monitor fish movement in a reach of stream
not affected by a culvert.
Study Culverts
Road crossings at Crane Creek, Moore Creek, Beaver
Creek, and Gold Creek were originally selected for the
study (Figure 1). The Crane Creek culvert was dropped
from the analysis due to excessive antenna down time and
a short period of record. Each was recently replaced, and
had been designed to allow passage of fish over a range
of flows (Table 1, Figures 2-4). They were classified as
Green or Grey using the “Coarse Screen Filter”, a rapid
assessment tool to identify the potential of a culvert to
Table 1.West Fork Smith River culvert specifications.
Crossing
Crane Cr.
Moore Cr.
Beaver Cr.
Gold Cr.
Length Width Height
Year
Coarse
(ft)
(ft)
(ft) Gradient % Stream
Type
(%)
Simulation2 Filter3
[m]
[m]
Installed [m]
open bottom arch 2003
82
13
6.75
<2
100
Green
[25.0] [4.0]
[2.1]
pipe arch
1997
64
11.3
7.25
2
10
Grey
[19.5] [3.4]
[2.2]
open bottom arch 1997
70
16
8.25
2.88
100
Green
[21.3] [4.9]
[2.5]
pipe arch with
1977 60 est. 8 est. 6 est.
2 est
100
Green
baffles1
[18.3] [2.4]
[1.8]
1Backwatered by mainstem weir
2Defined as the degree to which
the crossing matches stream channel dimensions of slope and substrate.
of Coarse Filter codes: Green conditions are assumed adequate for passage of fish at all
life stages. Grey conditions may not be adequate for all species and life stages to pass the crossing.
3Definition
Figure 2. Culvert at Moore Creek, a tributary of the West Fork
Smith River, Oregon.
Figure 4. Culvert at Gold Creek, a tributary of the West Fork
Smith River, Oregon.
Figure 3. Culvert at Beaver Creek, a tributary of the
West Fork Smith River, Oregon.
Figure 5. Upper West Fork Smith River bridge crossing.
The culvert passage study operated Passive Integrated
Transponder (PIT) tag antennas on these streams from
October 2002 to February 2007. Single antenna PIT tag
arrays were installed upstream of road culverts on Moore,
Beaver and Gold Creek. A single antenna was installed in
the mainstem notch weir just below Coon Creek (Figure
1). A multiple antenna array was installed in the upper part
of the West Fork Smith River at the bridge crossing (Figure
5). The tributary antennas detected fish moving up or
downstream through culverts. The Coon notch and UWFS
antennas monitored fish movement in the mainstem WFS
unaffected by culverts. However, the Coon notch antenna
data were not used in this analysis due to a combination of
excessive down time and short period of record.
The low temperature for tributaries ranged from 3.4 to
3.6°C.; high temperatures ranged from 13.7 to 19.2°C.
The mainstem reaches adjacent to the tributaries had
low temperatures ranging from 1.5 to 2.2°C. The high
temperature range, in the mainstem, was 20.3-22.7°C
(EPA, unpublished data).
The stream flow gage on the mainstem West Fork
Smith River was operated by the Douglas County, Oregon
water master and has been in operation for the last
twenty six years. Spot flow measurements are conducted
in the tributaries throughout the year. In September
2003, pressure transducers were installed on each of the
tributaries that have antennas and at additional mainstem
sites. These transducers and spot flow measurements
have enabled EPA to model tributary flow based on the
mainstem gauge. Modeled daily average flows for each
antenna site are available through Water Year 2006. The
tributary flow models for the antenna sites all have an R2
of > 0.96 (J. Wiggington, EPA, unpublished data). In
the mainstem WFSR, summer and early autumn mean
Water Temperature and Flow
EPA installed an extensive network of sensors to monitor
water temperature throughout the basin in 2004-2005.
There were sensors adjacent to all of the antenna sites.
monthly streamflow ranged from 0.41 m3/s in June to
0.13 m3/s in August 2004. Winter (December – March)
mean monthly streamflow ranged from 12.25 to 3.79 m3/
s, with three major events with peak daily streamflow > 30
m3/s from mid December 2003 to late January 2004. The
peak daily average was on 31 December 2006 at 68 m3/s.
The minimum daily average flow was 0.059m3/s on 1-5
October 2003. There is additional variation in streamflow
among tributaries to the mainstem, with surface flow
becoming intermittent in Moore Creek, Crane Creek and
Coon Creek during some summers.
To compare fish movement between sites with different
flow regimes, percent exceedance values (Searcy 1959)
were calculated for each antenna site. Modeled daily
average flows for the 26 years of record were ranked and
percentiles calculated. A 10% exceedance value means
that 10% of the historic flows for that site are greater
than that particular value. While, for example, discharges
could be different for each site on a particular day, percent
exceedance values allow for a relative comparison between
tributaries/antenna sites.
of fish using methods outlined in the PIT tag marking
procedures manual (PIT Tag Steering Committee 1999).
An 11-mm PIT tag was inserted in fish that measured 60100 mm in length. Fish > 100 mm long received a 23mm tag. This generally meant that coho salmon and 0+
cutthroat trout and steelhead received a small tag, while
1+ trout received the larger tag. Juveniles that could not be
identified as cutthroat trout or steelhead were classified as
“trout”. Subsequent captures of these individuals usually
resulted in a specific determination.
From 2002-2006, tagging efforts were focused in
mainstem reaches adjacent to tributary junctions, and
in the tributaries themselves. The EPA study delineated
these reaches to characterize fish that used tributary and
mainstem habitat.
Tracking Movement
PIT-tagged fish were recaptured throughout the winter
and spring using three methods. First, we used day and
night seining (Gries and Letcher 2002) during winter
base flow conditions November through January. Second,
we used wire mesh minnow traps to capture fish within
those same locations during higher winter flow conditions
in January–March. Minnow traps were baited with fresh
steelhead eggs that had been soaked in an iodophore bath
for 30 minutes. Eggs were enclosed in a fine mesh bag and
suspended within each trap.
Fish Tagging and Recovery
This study examined the movement through culverts of
juvenile steelhead, cutthroat trout and coho salmon > 60
mm fork length. Crews from the EPA and USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW) used
minnow traps, hook and line, and beach seines to capture
fish. A total of 26,595 fish were tagged during the course
of the study (Table 2). The majority of the coho salmon
were caught and tagged in August and September of
each year. Steelhead and cutthroat trout tagging began in
August and continued until the first storms of the winter,
usually in November. Fish were anesthetized (MS222),
weighed (g), and measured (forklength) (mm). All fish >
60 mm were given a Passive Integrated Transponder tag
(PIT tag). PIT tags were inserted in the abdominal cavity
Mobile detection
In addition to minnow trap and seine sampling of
experimental reaches, mobile PIT tag scanning was used
fall through spring to determine the location of tagged
fish. Destron-Fearing FS2001 transcievers fitted with 35cm triangle antennas on poles were used to scan for tagged
fish. Teams worked upstream moving the antenna across the
stream channel, much like electrofishing. Tag number and
Table 2. Number of individuals of each species in the West Fork smith River, Oregon that were
tagged during study period.
Year
Species
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Total
Coho
3755
5888
7681
6733
112
24 169
Cutthroat
27
363
295
314
6
1005
Steelhead
29
225
184
104
10
552
9
288
267
305
0
869
3820
6764
8427
7456
128
26 595
Trout*
Total
*Trout are all juveniles that could not be identified as cutthroat or steelhead.
Table 3. Number of full or partial days an antenna was not operational. Percentages are based on 365 days per year.
Data for 2003 were not used for this comparison because there was only a partial data set.
Year
Number of days
antenna off… B
2004 All day
Part of the day
2005 All day
Part of the day
2006 All day
Part of the day
eaver
Gold
Upper West Fork
Upper Moore
6
(1.64%)
20
(5.48%)
76
(20.82%)
133
(36.44%)
71
(19.45%)
20
(5.48%)
2
(0.55%)
5
(1.37%)
4
(1.10%)
2
(0.55%)
3
(0.82%)
42
(11.51%)
5
(1.37%)
7
(1.92%)
3
(0.82%)
9
(2.47%)
NA
0**
NA
81
(22.1%)
NA
2*
NA
(1.3%)
*Some down days may be due to low water flow. **Antenna shut down 6/05/06.
location were recorded for each captured or detected fish.
EPA study reaches and stream reaches adjacent to stationary
antennas were sampled to get a location of PIT tagged fish
(+ 10 m). This location data was used in conjunction with
stationary antenna detections to determine direction of
movement and residency within stream reaches.
4
(1.1%)
to high streamflows, and sub-surface streamflows resulted
in missing data for portions of the year (Table 3). Direction
of movement was determined by pairing antenna detections
with fish locations determined by previous and subsequent
detections and captures.
A rotary screw trap near the mouth of the WFSR operated
from February through June each year. Fish captured at the
smolt trap operated by ODFW were scanned for PIT-tags,
and measured for fork length and weight (Miller 2004,
2005, 2006). These detections provided proof of movement
from the basin for PIT tagged fish and determination of
antenna efficiency during smolt out-migration (Table 4).
The smolt trap captured 7% of the coho salmon, 3% of
the cutthroat trout and 5% of the steelhead tagged in the
basin.
Stationary Antennas
In addition to the active capture and PIT tag detection
described above, stationary PIT-tag monitoring stations
detected movement in and out of tributaries. Antennas
and transceivers were installed immediately upstream of
culverts at Gold, Moore and Beaver Creeks in late October
2002. An antenna at the downstream end of the Moore
Creek crossing and the UWFS multiplexed site were
installed in 2003 (Fig. 1). The PIT tag antennas installed
in 2002 were operational for the first storm of the winter
in early November 2002. Each year, the Moore Creek sites
were discontinued in July, when water went subsurface at
the antenna. They were turned on in the fall as surface flow
resumed. All sites but Moore Creek were discontinued
by the spring of 2006. For the purposes of this study the
detection of a fish at an antenna was considered a successful
movement through a culvert.
Each monitoring station consists of a Destron-Fearing
FS1001 transceiver powered by a deep-cycle battery bank.
Rectangular antennas were positioned in the stream and
bracketed with weir panels to capture most or all of the
streamflow. PIT-tagged fish passing through the antenna
field were recorded (PIT-tag identification number, date,
and time) continuously by a data logger attached to the
transceiver. Computer malfunction, antenna damage due
Table 4. Count of PIT tagged fish captured at the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife smolt trap on the West Fork
Smith River, Oregon, from 2003 to 2006.
Species
Number of PIT tagged
fish captured
Coho salmon
Cutthroat trout
Steelhead
1771
33
26
Total
1830
Antenna Efficiency
Efficiencies of the stationary antennas during the smolt
outmigration period in 2003 were calculated from known
detections of fish captured at the smolt trap and tagged in
the tributaries. Captures of PIT tagged fish at the ODFW
and trout tagged and detected, they were dropped from
further analysis. Efficiencies of antennas ranged from 36100%, depending on species and location. Beaver Creek
had the best overall antenna efficiency. Cutthroat trout
and steelhead had higher detection efficiencies than coho
salmon. Factors that influence antenna efficiency include
antenna location, tuning and down time, stream flow, tag
orientation as the fish passes the antenna and timing of
movement (Table 6).
smolt trap were compared to detections as fish passed
through an antenna. The antenna was 100% efficient when
each fish detected at the ODFW trap was also detected at a
stationary PIT tag antenna.
Another measure of antenna efficiency was calculated
by floating test-tags, “stick fish”, through each antenna
monthly. These measurements were conducted over a wide
range of flows. Average antenna efficiency for operating
sites was 71% for 11-mm tags and 100% for 23-mm tags.
The larger PIT tags have a greater efficiency due to the
larger size of the ferrite core and antenna in each tag.
Movement
Coho Salmon
Antenna Detections
Upstream—The pattern of upstream movement of
juvenile coho salmon in the West Fork of Smith River was
predominately in the fall and early winter (i.e., October
through December) (Figure 6a). In all years, movement
into the tributaries began in September and peaked in
November and December. Movement through the upper
part of the mainstem began slightly earlier, August (Figure
6a).
The vast majority of upstream movement into the
monitored tributaries and the bridge crossing on the Upper
West Fork Smith River occurred at the 10% exceedance level
or less (Figures 7-10, 11a). The highest exceedance flows at
which coho salmon were detected moving upstream were:
UWFS 1.6%, Gold Creek 16 %, Moore Creek 15%, and
Beaver Creek 0.6%. In all locations, fish moved primarily
The sequence of detections for individual fish was the
basis for determining direction of movement. By using
capture data, mobile tracking detections, and subsequent
or previous stationary antenna detections, it is possible to
infer the direction of movement through the culvert. All
four antennas are at or near the tributary junction with the
West Fork Smith River. This allows a characterization of
movement as being into or out of the tributaries.
Results
Between November 2002 and February 2007, the
antennas logged 23,453 detections of 4024 individual
fish (Table 5). Due to the low numbers of steelhead
Table 5. Antenna detections of unique individual fish by location and species in West Fork Smith River, Oregon from
November 2002 to February 2007.
Coho
salmon
Cutthroat
trout
Steelhead
Undetermined
“trout”
Unknown
species
1107
71
41
29
11
1259
563
73
20
18
1
675
Gold
1170
161
59
26
1416
Moore
709
73
20
18
674
3549
378
140
91
Antenna
Beaver
Upper WFS
Total for species
Table 6. Antenna efficiencies
for PIT tagged fish detected
at the West Fork Smith
River, Oregon smolt trap Species
2003- 2006.
Coho salmon
indicates no
records
12
Total for
antenna
4024
Antenna
Beaver
Gold
Moore
Upper West
Fork
Total for
species
88%
37%
69%
63%
53%
Cutthroat trout
100%
50%
Steelhead
100%
75%
Trout
100%
Total for antenna
88%
67%
100%
100%
82%
100%
38%
69%
67%
55%
Figure 6. Movement of juvenile coho salmon in West Fork of
Smith River, Oregon, WY2003-2006.
Figure 7. Movement of coho salmon into Moore Creek, a
tributary of the West Fork of Smith River, Oregon, relative to
flow levels in Water Years 2003-2006. Triangles indicate the date
and flow at which coho salmon were detected passing the antenna
upstream into the tributary. Shaded areas represent periods when
the antenna was down.
on the first rise in flows in the fall; only a relatively small
amount of movement occurred at higher flows.
Downstream—The pattern of downstream movement
of juvenile coho salmon in the West Fork of Smith River
was more variable than the upstream pattern. Downstream
movement occurred over a broader period (Figure 6b) .
There was a late-fall – early-winter pulse similar to the
upstream pattern, peaking in November and December.
There was an additional peak in April and May.
Downstream movement of juvenile coho salmon relative
flow was similar to the upstream pattern. Movement was
predominately at flows at or below the 10% exceedance
levels from the tributaries and in the upper WFSR (Figures
11b, 12-15).
Text continues on page 13.
Figure 8. Movement of coho salmon into Beaver Creek, a
tributary of the West Fork of Smith River, Oregon, relative to
flow levels in Water Years 2003-2006. Triangles indicate the date
and flow at which coho salmon were detected passing the antenna
upstream into the tributary. Shaded areas represent periods when
the antenna was down.
Figure 9. Movement of coho salmon into Gold Creek, a tributary
of the West Fork of Smith River, Oregon, relative to flow levels
in Water Years 2003-2006. Triangles indicate the date and
flow at which coho salmon were detected passing the antenna
upstream into the tributary. Shaded areas represent periods when
the antenna was down.
Figure 10. Movement of coho salmon into Upper West Fork
Smith River, a tributary of the West Fork of Smith River, Oregon,
relative to flow levels in Water Years 2004-2006. Triangles
indicate the date and flow at which coho salmon were detected
passing the antenna upstream beyond the bridge. Shaded areas
represent periods when the antenna was down.
Figure 11. Percent of total coho salmon passed by exceedance
flow level.
10
Figure 12. Movement of coho salmon out of Moore Creek, a
tributary of the West Fork of Smith River, Oregon, relative to
flow levels in Water Years 2003-2006. Triangles indicate the
date and flow at which coho salmon were detected passing the
antenna downstream out of the tributary. Shaded areas represent
periods when the antenna was down.
Figure 13. Movement of coho salmon out of Beaver Creek, a
tributary of the West Fork of Smith River, Oregon, relative to
flow levels in Water Years 2003-2006. Triangles indicate the
date and flow at which coho salmon were detected passing the
antenna downstream out of the tributary. Shaded areas represent
periods when the antenna was down.
11
Figure 14. Movement of coho salmon out of Gold Creek, a
tributary of the West Fork of Smith River, Oregon, relative to
flow levels in Water Years 2003-2006. Triangles indicate the
date and flow at which coho salmon were detected passing the
antenna downstream out of the tributary. Shaded areas represent
periods when the antenna was down.
Figure 15. Movement of coho salmon out of Upper West Fork
Smith River, a tributary of the West Fork of Smith River, Oregon,
relative to flow levels in Water Years 2004-2006. Triangles
indicate the date and flow at which coho salmon were detected
passing the antenna downstream past the bridge. Shaded areas
represent periods when the antenna was down.
12
Continued from page 8.
Cutthroat Trout
Upstream—Upstream movement of juvenile cutthroat
trout in the West Fork of Smith River was predominately
in the fall and early winter (Figure 16a). It peaked sharply
between October and November then declined.
The movement patterns of juvenile cutthroat trout
relative to flow levels were more variable than those of
coho salmon. In the tributaries, the majority of the fish
moved upstream at flows at or below the 10% exceedance
level (Figures 17-20, 21a).
Upstream movement in the mainstem of upper WFSR
was over a wider range of flows. A greater fraction of the
movement was at exceedance levels between 2% and
1% and between 10% and 1% than was observed in the
tributaries (Figure 21a). The highest exceedance flows at
which cutthroat trout were detected moving upstream
were: 1.6% UWFS, Gold Creek 2.1%, Moore Creek
0.2%, and Beaver Creek 3.6%.
Downstream—Like the pattern for coho salmon, the
pattern of downstream movement for cutthroat trout was
more variable than the upstream pattern. There was a latefall – early-winter pulse similar to the upstream pattern,
peaking in November and December (Figure 16b). There
was an additional peak in April and May (Figure 16b).
Similar to the patterns of upstream movement,
downstream movement in the mainstem of upper WFSR
was over a wider range of flows than observed in the
tributaries (Figure 21b). Most fish moved downstream
from the tributaries at lower flows (i.e., <10% exceedance
level) (Figures 21b, 22-25).
Text continues on page 18.
Figure 17. Movement of cutthroat trout into Moore Creek, a
tributary of the West Fork of Smith River, Oregon, relative to
flow levels in Water Years 2003-2006. Triangles indicate the date
and flow at which coho salmon were detected passing the antenna
upstream into the tributary. Shaded areas represent periods when
the antenna was down.
Figure 16. Movement of juvenile cutthroat trout in West Fork of
Smith River, Oregon, WY2003-2006.
13
Figure 18. Movement of cutthroat trout into Beaver Creek, a
tributary of the West Fork of Smith River, Oregon, relative to
flow levels in Water Years 2003-2006. Triangles indicate the date
and flow at which coho salmon were detected passing the antenna
upstream into the tributary. Shaded areas represent periods when
the antenna was down.
Figure 19. Movement of cutthroat trout into Gold Creek, a
tributary of the West Fork of Smith River, Oregon, relative to
flow levels in Water Years 2003-2006. Triangles indicate the date
and flow at which coho salmon were detected passing the antenna
upstream into the tributary. Shaded areas represent periods when
the antenna was down.
14
Figure 20. Movement of cutthroat trout into Upper West
Fork Smith River, a tributary of the West Fork of Smith River,
Oregon, relative to flow levels in Water Years 2004-2006.
Triangles indicate the date and flow at which coho salmon were
detected passing the antenna upstream past the bridge. Shaded
areas represent periods when the antenna was down.
Figure 21. Percent of total cutthroat trout passed by exceedance
flow level.
15
Figure 22. Movement of cutthroat trout out of Moore Creek,
a tributary of the West Fork of Smith River, Oregon, relative
to flow levels in Water Years 2003-2006. Triangles indicate the
date and flow at which coho salmon were detected passing the
antenna downstream out of the tributary. Shaded areas represent
periods when the antenna was down.
Figure 23. Movement of cutthroat trout out of Beaver Creek,
a tributary of the West Fork of Smith River, Oregon, relative
to flow levels in Water Years 2003-2006. Triangles indicate the
date and flow at which coho salmon were detected passing the
antenna downstream out of the tributary. Shaded areas represent
periods when the antenna was down.
16
Figure 24. Movement of cutthroat trout out of Gold Creek, a
tributary of the West Fork of Smith River, Oregon, relative to
flow levels in Water Years 2003-2006. Triangles indicate the
date and flow at which coho salmon were detected passing the
antenna downstream out of the tributary. Shaded areas represent
periods when the antenna was down.
Figure 25. Movement of cutthroat trout out of Upper West Fork
Smith River, a tributary of the West Fork of Smith River, Oregon,
relative to flow levels in Water Years 2004-2006. Triangles
indicate the date and flow at which coho salmon were detected
passing the antenna downstream past the bridge. Shaded areas
represent periods when the antenna was down.
17
Continued from page 13.
Discussion
Juvenile coho salmon and cutthroat trout in the West
Fork of Smith River moved over a range of flows through
the three culverts that were examined in this study. With
less than 100% efficiency at tributary PIT tag antennas,
some tagged fish undoubtedly moved through the antennas
undetected. The actual numbers of fish moving in each
direction would be larger. The 71% average efficiency for
11-mm PIT tags would translate into an additional 29 fish
per hundred detected in the study. With multiple years
of operation, the accumulated operating time covered
all time periods and the vast majority of flows at each
of the antennas. The patterns in timing, frequency and
magnitude of movement would likely be clearer given
greater efficiency at each antenna.
Fish generally did not move upstream at higher flows.
Less than 1% of the fish moved at flows greater than
the 1% exceedance level. The majority of movement for
both species was at flows with exceedance levels below
2%. Of these movements, most were also below the 10%
exceedance level.
Current design standards for culverts vary regionally
within the Forest Service and among agencies across the
United States; most most require passage of juvenile fish
at a wide range of flows (Michael Furniss, pers. comm.).
The ability to generalize results from this study is limited
because of the small number and few types of culverts
examined, and because the studied culverts were located
so close together. Recognizing these limitations, it appears
that requirements for culverts to pass juvenile fish at the
highest flows may not be realistic, since most movement
appears to be at lower flows.
Even if juvenile coho salmon and cutthroat trout can
adequately pass through culverts that are less than a stream
simulation design, other factors should be considered in
culvert design. Substrate and other roughness elements
may influence movement of aquatic organisms through
culverts (Jackson, in press). Wider, large culverts are more
likely to retain these elements because water velocities are
reduced by having the water flow over a larger area rather
than being confined. Larger culverts may be needed to
accommodate the movement of large wood and sediment.
The ability to pass wood reduces the chances of the
culvert plugging and either failing or causing road or slope
failures. Also, maintenance costs are often less and design
life longer for stream simulation crossings that can pass
wood and sediment at higher flows (Clarkin et al. 2005;
Jackson, in press).
Undersized crossings can create localized habitat changes
that affect passage immediately above and below crossings.
Increased velocities in undersized culverts can scour the
substrate directly below a crossing. While the scour pool
may provide deep pool habitat, even the slightest vertical
discontinuity can affect passage (Jackson, in press). A
perch height of 0.15 m was found to block prickly sculpin
(C. asper) distribution in western Washington (LeMoine
2007). Backwatering upstream of an undersized culvert can
result in the accumulation of sediment. This accumulation
can result in a localized steepening of the gradient with
resultant increased flows. In some cases, this aggradation
can result in seasonal subsurface flows, thereby breaking
stream continuity (Jackson, in press).
Other researchers have found that culverts can restrict
movements of fish. Warren and Pardew (1998) reported
that various species of warm-water fish in Arkansas were
unable to move through culverts. They believed that
higher velocities in the culverts were one of the primary
factors limiting movement. Fish moved primarily at lower
flows in this study, which likely was at lower velocities in
the culvert. Juvenile coho salmon and cutthroat trout are
capable of swimming in higher velocities (relative to their
body size) (Furniss et al. 2007). Some of the species studied
by Warren and Pardew (1998) were not well adapted to
swimming in moving water.
The wider range of exceedance flows associated with
cutthroat movement at the mainstem WFS river antenna
site may be attributed to differences in channel cross
section. Stream velocity is a function of discharge and
channel cross section (Kennedy 1984). The wetted width
of the channel at the Upper West Fork Smith river PIT tag
array is approximately twice that of the tributary antenna
sites. Due to this increased width, the velocity associated
with a particular discharge would be less. Fish at the UWFS
site could be moving on higher exceedance flows but still
experiencing velocities similar to tributary fish.
The impetus for movement into and out of the studied
tributaries likely varied between the species. Upstream
movement of juvenile coho salmon was, most likely, to
move into productive over-wintering habitat. Much of
the mainstem of the West Fork of Smith River is scoured
to bedrock and provides little edge or calm water refuge
during high flows (Bill Hudson, Coos Bay BLM, pers.
comm.). Juvenile coho salmon were found to move from
main channels to tributary and off-channel habitats in
other areas (Kralick and Southerwine 1977; Tschaplinski
and Hartman 1983; Nickelson et al. 1992). Those juvenile
coho salmon using tributary habitats were found to have
improved winter growth and survival compared to fish
that overwintered in the mainstem of the West Fork Smith
River (Ebersole et al. 2006).
18
Cutthroat trout likely moved into the tributaries to escape
high flows in the mainstem. Also, they could be seeking
food sources. Cutthroat trout are piscivores and would be
able to prey on juvenile coho salmon. Additionally, they
could feed on eggs and carcasses from coho salmon that
spawned in the tributaries.
There were two peaks of downstream movement of
juvenile coho salmon from tributaries of the West Fork of
Smith River. The spring out-migration occurred before the
peak of smolt movement from the West Fork of Smith River.
These were likely fish that were already smolts or fish that
were nearly ready to move to the marine environment. The
status of the fish that moved in the late-fall to early winter
is less certain. Lang et al. (2006) observed a movement
of coho salmon smolts from streams on the Copper River
Delta, Alaska. Fish leaving the WFSR could have also been
smolts that are part of the life-history complex present
in the population. Operating a smolt trap or doing some
intensive sampling during this time could provide insight
into the reason for this pulse.
The downstream movement of cutthroat trout was
probably strongly influenced by the intermittent nature of
the tributaries studies. They moved on decreasing flows in
the spring, when habitat availability and suitability would
decline. Also, the movement of coho salmon out of the
system could reduce food availability.
Acknowledgements. Joe Moreau of the BLM Oregon
State Office provided encouragement and funding for this
project. Pat Olmsted of Coos Bay BLM was the liaison
between PNW and the BLM. Loretta Ellenberg was
primarily responsible for much of the field work. Others
who assisted with field work included Steve Hendricks,
Sara Lampson, and the Dynamac field crew. Joe Ebersole
Corvallis EPA laboratory was responsible for much of the
fish tagging. Jim Wigington of EPA provided flow data.
Kathryn Ronnenberg of the PNW Research Station did
the graphics, editing, and layout.
References
Clarkin K, Conner A, Furniss MJ, Gubernick R, Love M, Moynan
K, Wilson-Musser S, 2005. National Inventory and assessment
procedure-for identifying barriers to aquatic organism passage
at stream crossings. USDA Forest Service, National Technology
and Development Program, San Dimas, California.
Ebersole JL, Wiggington PJ, Baker JP, Cairns MA, Church MR,
Hansen BP, Miller BA, Compton JA. 2006. Juvenile coho salmon
growth and survival across stream network seasonal habitats.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:1681-1697.
Fausch KD, Torgerson CE, Baxter CV, Li HW. 2002. Landscapes
to riverscapes: bridging the gap between research and conservation
of stream fishes. BioScience 52: 483-498.
Furniss M, Love M, Firor S, Moynan K, Llanos A, Guntle J,
Gubernick R. 2007. FishXing, version 3.0: Software and learning
system for fish passage through culverts. USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
Gries G, Letcher BH. 2002. A night seining technique for
sampling juvenile Atlantic salmon in streams. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 22:595–601.
Hoffman R, Dunham J. 2007. Fish Movement Ecology in High
Gradient Headwater Streams: Its Relevance to Fish Passage
Restoration Through Stream Culvert Barriers. U.S. Geological
Survey, OFR 2007-1140, p. 40.
Hilderbrand RH, Kershner JL. 2000. Conserving inland
cutthroat trout in small streams: how much is enough? North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 20: 513-520.
Jackson S. (in press) Ecological considerations for crossing design.
in Bates KK, Cenderelli D, Gubernick R, Jackson S, Johansen
K (eds.) Stream simulation for passage of all aquatic organisms
at road-stream crossings: An ecological approach. USDA Forest
Service, National Technology and Development Program, San
Dimas, California.
Kahler TH, Quinn TP. 1998. Juvenile and resident salmonid
movement and passage through culverts. Research Project
T9903, Washington Transportation Commission. Seattle, WA.
Kennedy EJ. 1984. Discharge ratings at gaging stations.
Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, Book 3, Chapter
A10, U.S. Geological Survey, Alexandria, VA
Kralick NJ, Sowerwine JE. 1977. The role of two northern
California intermittent streams in the life history of anadromous
salmonids. MS thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.
Lacey RC. 1987. Loss of genetic diversity for managed
populations: interacting effects of drift, mutation, immigration,
selection, and population subdivision. Conservation Biology 1:
143-158.
Lang DW, Reeves GH, Hall JD, Wipfli MS. 2006. The influence
of fall-spawning coho salmon (Oncorhyncus kisutch) on growth
and production of juvenile coho salmon rearing in beaver ponds
on the Copper River Delta, Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 63:917-930.
LeMoine M. 2007. Barriers to upstream migration of prickly
sculpin Cottus asper and coastrange sculpin Cottus aleuticus.
MS thesis, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA.
82p.
Miller BA. 2003, 2004, 2005, Annual report to Coos Bay BLM,
West Fork Smith River Smolt trapping. Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis, OR.
19
Nickelson TE, Solazzi MF, Johnson SL, Rodgers JD. 1992.
Seasonal changes in habitat use by juvenile coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon coastal streams. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 783-789.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1997. ODFW Aquatic
Inventories Project Stream Habitat Distribution Coverages.
Natural Production Section. Corvallis.
PIT Tag Steering Committee. 1999. PIT tag marking procedures
manual, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, version
2.0. Portland, Oregon.
Porto LM, McLaughlin RL, Noakes DLG. 1999. Low-head
barrier dams restrict the movements of fishes in two Lake Ontario
streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:
1028-1036.
Reeves GH, Burnett KM, Gregory SV. 2002. Fish and aquatic
ecosystems of the Oregon Coast Range. Pages in 68-98 Hobbs
SD, Hayes JP, Johnson RL, et al., (eds.) Forest and Stream
Management in the Oregon Coast Range. Oregon State
University Press, Corvallis.
Searcy JC. 1959. Flow duration curves. United States Geological
Survey, Washington D.C., Water Supply Paper 1542 A.
Solazzi MF, Nicholson TE, Miller B, Dalton T, Leader KA.
2003. Salmonid Life-Cycle Monitoring Project 2002. Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Monitoring Program Report
Number OPSW-ODFW 2003-2. Portland, Oregon.
Tschapilinski PJ, Hartman GF, 1983. Winter distribution of
coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) before and after logging in
Carnation Creek, British Columbia, and some implications for
overwinter survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 40: 452-461.
United States General Accounting Office. 2001. Restoring fish
passage through culverts on Forest Service and BLM lands in
Oregon and Washington could take decades. GAO-Report02-136. US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC.
XXXXp.
Warren ML Jr, Pardew MG. 1998. Road crossings as barriers
to small-stream fish movement. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 127: 637-644.
Rieman BE, Dunham JB. 2000. Metapopulations and salmonids:
a synthesis of life history patterns and empirical observations.
Ecology of Freshwater Fishes 9: 51-64.
Wofford JEB, Gresswell RE, Banks MA. 2005. Influence of
barriers to movement on within-watershed genetic variation of
coastal cutthroat trout. Ecological Applications 15: 628-637.
Schrank AJ, Rahel FR. 2004. Movement patterns in inland
trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah): management and conservation
implications. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
61: 1528-1537.
*Young MK 1994. Mobility of brown trout in south-central
Wyoming streams. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72:20782083.
20