AN ABSTRACT OF THE REPORT OF
Anuradha Gupta for the degree of Master of Science in Marine Resource Management,
presented on 27 November 2000. Title: A Protocol for Reconstructing Historical
Wetland Landscapes in Oregon Estuaries.
Oregon's estuarine wetland landscapes have been changed, especially since the
nineteenth century, by diking, dredging, fills, and other alterations. These alterations
have removed wetlands from the estuaries, and with them, have removed wetland
functions. Currently, efforts are being made to restore estuarine wetlands. The first step in
selecting a site for wetland restoration is to determine the location of a former estuarine
wetland. However, there is no standard set of data or methods that is used when making
this determination. Past studies have used a variety of data types and a variety of methods
to reconstruct historical wetland landscapes. This variety has led to inconsistencies in
sites selected for restoration and precludes estuary-to-estuary comparisons. This project
established protocols that will standardize historical wetland reconstructions conducted in
Oregon's 22 estuaries. To do so, it inventoried 22 data types according to a set of criteria
established for this project. Inventoried data were then scored. Based on the scores, three
protocols were constructed. The first protocol, called the Best Available Data protocol,
outlines 10 types of information that are necessary when reconstructing a historical
landscape and prioritizes the order in which data types should be used. The next two
protocols are State Standardization protocols. One protocol is based on the current or
potential availability of GIS data; the other is based on current availability of data. Each
protocol is accompanied by a set of data recommendations.
2
A PROTOCOL FOR RECONSTRUCTING HISTORICAL
WETLAND LANDSCAPES IN OREGON ESTUARIES
by Anuradha Gupta
A RESEARCH REPORT
submitted to
Marine Resource Management
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
Fall 2000
in partial fulfillment
of the requirement for the
degree of
Master of Science
Commencement 2001
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION Research Problem BACKGROUND Values of Wetlands and Wetland Restoration Wetland Restoration Success State Support for Restoration
Selection of Restoration Sites Past Studies Past Studies: Yaquina Bay Past Studies: Columbia River Estuary Past Studies: Tillamook Bay A Perspective on Historical Geography METHODS Objective 1: Establishing Criteria Objective 2: Inventorying Oregon's Data Objective 3: Establishing Best Available Data Protocol Objective 4: Establishing State Standardization Protocols Objective 5: Data Recommendations RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Objective 1: Establishing Criteria Objective 2: Inventory Objectives 3 and 5 (Best Available Data Protocol and Data Recommendations)
Objectives 4 and 5 State Standardization Protocols and Data Recommendations
7
12
15
15
19
21
25
27
32
40
44
47
49
50
51
52
55
56
56
56
75
113
119
122
124
127
CONCLUSIONS FUTURE RESEARCH REFERENCES FIGURES
Figure 1. Warrenton, OR Figure 2. Estuary habitat Figure 3. Map of OR Coast Figure 4. Sites from Jones and Stokes (1988) Figure 5. Sites from Brophy (1999) Figure 6. NWI map Figure 7. Shalowitz (1964) key to Coast Survey Figure 8. Benner Tillamook map 7
18
23
34
35
37
43
45
TABLES
29
37
54
Table 1. Past studies Table 2. Summary of past studies Table 3. Information for reconstruction 4
Table 4. Ranking criteria Table 5. Rankings for all data Table 6. Rankings for all data and all estuaries Table 7. Rankings for all data, numerical Table 8. Rankings for all data and all estuaries, numerical Table 9. Rankings for Best Available Data protocol Table 10. Ordered data types for Best Available Data protocol Table 11. Best Available Data Protocol 59
77
79
86
89
115
115
117
Appendices
Al. Coast Survey Ala. Coast Survey information A2. GLO maps Ala GLO map information A3. Benner map A4. Historic soil survey M. Paper soil survey Asa. Paper soil survey information
A6. Digitized soils A7. Historic topographic maps A7a. 15 minute topographic map names Alb. Historic topographic maps information, 15-min quad names A8. USGS topographic quads A8a. USGS topos information, 7.5-min quad names, NWI digitization A9. Digitized topographical info
A10. 1939 photos AlOa. 1939 photos information
All. Aerial photographs Al2a. DLCD 1986 photographs Al2b. Columbia River CIR photographs A13. DOQs A14. Remotely sensed data (not including aerial photographs) A15. Historic written accounts A15a. Historic written accounts information A16. EPB A17. Inventory of Filled Lands A18. Local Wetland Inventories A18a. Local Wetland Inventories information A19. National Wetland Inventories A19a. National Wetland Inventories information A20. Essential salmon habitat maps A21. Field observations A22. Interviews B. Key to abbreviations in tables C. Slides from accompanying presentation D. Head-of-Tide information 131
133
136
138
139
141
143
145
146
148
150
151
152
154
156
159
161
162
164
166
168
170
172
174
176
178
180
182
184
186
187
189
191
193
194
201
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project owes its integrity and existence to my graduate advisors, who donated time
and energy to ensure that the final product had both strength and utility. My full
gratitude goes to Dr. James Good, MRM Program, COAS; Dr. Ralph Garono, Earth
Design Consultants, Inc. and MRM Program; Dr. Ronald Doel, History and Geosciences
Departments; and Dr. Dawn Wright, Geosciences Department and MRM Program.
This project depended on the kindness of strangers. Access to files, data advice, and free
Xerox copies, among other things, were provided by staff, librarians, and archivists at the
Oregon Division of State Lands Office, the Oregon Historical Archives, the Oregon State
University Map Collection, the State of Oregon Archives, the State Service Center for
GIS, and the University of Oregon Map and Aerial Photograph Library. Thanks also to
Mary Kentula for being the sole respondent to my survey, as well as to other professionals
who allowed me to pick their brains.
On a personal note, I would like to thank my parents, Murli and Elsie Gupta, and Jennifer
Burke, for their support, encouragement, and guidance.
6
This project did not choose an official definitions of wetlands, of which there are many.
This project is more concerned with the location of land that could have been wetland,
and considered estuarine wetlands to be any vegetated land within an estuary subject to
any regular (daily, monthly, or at any interval such that the land is influenced by) tidal
inundation. Wetland form has been altered by the removal or reduction in size of
wetlands, wetland type has been changed by a shift in dominant vegetation, tidal regime,
or salinity regime, and wetland function has been changed by the removal of processes
most commonly associated with wetlands. This project considered wetland functions of
importance to be processes affecting water quality, creating fish and wildlife habitat, and
producing food. Many of these alterations have come out of an envisioned short-term
economic need and have been done with little knowledge or concern of the long-term or
ongoing environmental effects of the alterations.
This pattern of aquatic alteration shifted somewhat in the late twentieth century,
when citizens of the United States, among other countries, began to realize that the shortterm economic benefits gained from aquatic system alterations, such as the addition of
farmland, did not balance their long-term environmental consequences and costs, most
notably recognized through a loss of function, such as a loss of salmon habitat. Thus
began the environmental consciousness of the nation, which was eloquently described
and further influenced by Rachel Carson's 1962 book, The Silent Spring. This book
showcased damages done to the environment through the use of pesticides, and was
pivotal in showing Americans that they were connected economically, socially, and
ecologically to the environment, and that damages to the environment thus hurt the
national self-consciousness. Damages to the environment have had specific repercussions
8
in Oregon, as illustrated by the current decline in salmon populations. Several past
studies have linked anthropogenic developments resulting in the loss or alteration of
aquatic habitat, including estuarine wetlands, to decreases in adult and juvenile salmon
populations (Lichatowich, 1999; Taylor, 1999). Current projects being undertaken by the
Oregon Department of Fisheries, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and other
partners are further illustrating the links between salmon, aquatic environments
(including estuarine wetlands), and alterations to the landscape.
Since 1962, efforts have been made to protect aquatic systems, including
wetlands. In 1980, the Clean Water Act, Section 404 was amended to give wetland
regulatory authority to the Environmental Protection Agency and the US Army Corps of
Engineers. President George Bush, during his 1988 presidential campaign, placed an even
greater focus on wetland loss. He advocated the "no-net-loss" policy for the United States,
which led to the current regulations concerning wetland removal. Under these
regulations, any permitted destruction of existing wetlands (after all alternatives to
destruction have been exhausted) must be balanced by one of the following: wetland
enhancement, restoration, or creation. This project focuses on restoration of wetlands
that were at one time estuarine in nature. For this project, estuarine restoration is the
return of a formerly estuarine area to the current estuary. Wetland restoration is thus the
return of a formerly estuarine wetland (which is now either freshwater wetland or upland)
to the estuary, thus subjecting the land to estuarine processes such as tidal inundation.
While restoration is a much larger topic, ranging from social actions such as the purchase
of land to physical actions such as the removal of dikes, this project only concerns itself
with the restoration of formerly estuarine wetlands to the estuary. This project does not
9
address wetland creation, which is a process by which land that has never been wetland is
flooded or otherwise manipulated so as to create wetland. This project does not address
enhancement, which is the process by which existing wetlands are improved in either
form or function; however, as this project is focused on estuarine wetlands, it does
consider currently functioning freshwater wetlands that were once estuarine wetlands to
have restoration potential. The Water, Science, and Technology Board of the National
Research Council continues to emphasize the importance of aquatic restoration,
including wetland restoration. The Board writes (NRC, 1992):
"In the broadest terms, aquatic restoration must be a high priority in the national
restoration agenda: such an agenda must provide for restoration of as much of
the damaged aquatic resource base as possible, if not to its predisturbance
condition then to a superior ecological condition that far surpasses the degraded
one, so that valuable ecosystem services will not be lost." (pp. 35)
The Board writes about wetlands:
"Wetlands play an active part in hydrologic functions, water quality
improvement, and food chain support functions that serve human needs. Because
of their importance in flood-peak reduction, shoreline stabilization, ground water
recharge, sediment accretion, nutrient removal, toxic material removal, and
support of commercially important fish, shellfish, ducks, and geese, wetlands
have received special protection under federal and state laws....
... Restoring damaged wetlands should be a high priority, now that wetlands are
recognized as valuable environmental and socioeconomic systems." (pp. 269-
270)
This project will examine the data and methods used to determine the location of
formerly estuarine wetlands. The Board stated that restoration should be conducted so as
to return systems to a predisturbance condition. It writes: "To set goals for the functional
values of wetlands, we must understand how each type of natural wetland performs (i.e.,
10
in support of food chains, hydrologic function, and water quality improvement). Success
could then be measured by the degree to which those functions are achieved." It is
important to note that the phrase "predisturbance condition" has various meanings.
Disturbances can be caused by humans, animals, or natural events, and thus the
definition of predisturbance conditions varies based on the needs of the user. In the case
of wetland restoration, predisturbance condition refers to the condition before human
contact, and is further defined by the types and time periods of that contact. For instance,
human contact on the Oregon Coast has been present for thousands of years through
Native American use. Narrowing down the predisturbance condition to times predating
the arrival of Native Americans is beyond the scope of most wetland restoration projects.
Furthermore, some scholars maintain that the lifestyle of Native Americans was in
harmony with the environment, leading to little change due to their presence (Cronon,
1983). Instead, predisturbance condition is considered to be the environment before the
arrival of European and American settlers, whose way of life altered the landscape to a
much larger degree. For the purposes of this paper, predisturbance condition is
considered to be the landscape prior to the mid-1800s, which is prior to most European
and American alterations.
In light of the Oregon salmon problem, restoration success could be considered as
the availability and use of vegetated flats by salmon, rather than simply the acreage of
flooded land available. There is a difference between restoring wetland form and restoring
wetland function. Wetland processes, such as plant growth and sedimentation, may
occur, but if they do not occur in such a way that they perform defined functions such as
providing habitat, food, or water purification, the Water, Science, and Technology Board
11
states that restoration has not occurred. It writes that "merely recreating a form without
the functions, or the functions in an artificial configuration bearing little resemblance to
natural form, does not constitute restoration. The objective is to emulate a natural, selfregulating system that is integrated ecologically with the landscape in which it occurs (pp.
17-18)." This paper is well aware that to fully understand a wetland landscape, it must
survey both wetlands and the watersheds in which they are located. However, this paper
chose to narrow this expansive topic down to the wetland level, with the understanding
that it is only by adding on additional levels (catchments, smaller watersheds, larger
watersheds) that a truly landscape view can be assembled. This is addressed further in
the Future Research section of this paper. For the purposes of this project, wetland type
is considered to be a broad term, related to whether a wetland is saline or freshwater;
wetland form refers to the physical characteristics of the wetland, such as the type of
vegetation present or its elevation; and wetland function refers to processes that occur in
the wetland, such as food production or water purification. These are discussed further in
the Background section.
Research Problem
The first step in determining the predisturbance condition of a former wetland is
to determine the precise location of that wetland. After this step, in which land is
identified as former wetland, further steps can be taken to identify the type and functions
of the former wetland. Taking these identification steps first, before conducting any other
physical or social restoration steps, will keep the restoration process efficient and
streamlined. Thus, wetland restoration necessitates a need for historical information
12
about the conditions of the wetland before it was disturbed; and requires that a
reconstruction of the former conditions be performed in order to understand where
former estuarine wetlands were once located, what their type was, and what functions
they performed. There are a variety of types of data used to create such reconstructions;
however, there is little consensus on which data are more appropriate than others. Past
studies show that a variety of data and a variety of methods have been used to reconstruct
the location of former wetlands. This variation in data and methodology has led to
inconsistencies from study to study and from estuary to estuary as to where former
wetlands have truly existed. These inconsistencies raise questions about which data types
and methodologies should be used to accurately assess historical wetland extent. These
inconsistencies make it difficult for restoration projects to be prioritized within and among
estuaries.
Given the lack of standardization in the realm of wetland restoration site
selection, this project's primary goal was to suggest a protocol to be used in reconstructing
historical wetland landscapes. A protocol in this context is defined as a process for using
the best available information for assessing the historical extent, type, and functions of
estuarine wetlands. This project will develop two types of protocols, one based on the use
of the best available data per estuary, and one based on the concept of state
standardization.
This project reviews relevant data and then develops protocols based on those
data. This project is organized in a standard format with introduction, background,
methods, results and discussion, conclusions, and future research sections. This section,
the introduction, outlines the research problem and states the project goal. The
13
background section discusses several aspects of wetlands and wetland restoration and
includes a literature review of former studies that illustrate the research problem. The
methods section states the objectives that were developed in order to fulfill the project
goal, and then describes the methods for each objective. The results and discussion
section is organized so that results for each objective are presented separately. The
protocols developed to fulfill the project goal are included in the results and discussion
section. The conclusions section expands on data recommendations made in the results
and discussion section, and discusses the utility of the developed protocols. The future
research section discusses data gaps and research needs that were beyond the scope of this
project. This project did not collect or develop any new data, but instead assessed existing
data. Appendix A includes the original assessment sheets. Results from these assessment
sheets are tabulated and presented in the results and discussion section, but the tables in
appendix A are presented for verification and clarification purposes, as they are this
project's equivalent of original data. Appendix B is a key to abbreviations used in tables.
Appendix C contains slides from a presentation accompanying this paper; these slides
contain many graphics and visuals that were not included in the body of this paper.
Appendix D contains sheets from the Oregon Division of State Lands Office that may be
used to determine the location of head of tides.
This project falls within the realm of a growing sentiment that wetland restoration
methods need to be standardized. A New York program emphasizing the use of a GISbased system to select sites for restoration, for example, was based on the premise that
"restoration activities go ahead without appropriate planning, unsupported by the local
knowledge base, and are essentially independent activities without the organization
14
backing of a higher-level framework with regional or landscape-oriented goals"
(Niedowski, 1998). Several scientists and studies have called for standards in the way that
wetlands are assessed, for example a USGS study assigns values to wetlands based on their
specific functions, thus prioritizing them for further study and restoration (Novitzki et al.,
1997). This paper takes several steps back from these other studies and looks at a
beginning step: how do we determine the location of former wetlands, which must be
done before any other steps to restoration can occur? For instance, why did the New York
project select a GIS-based process? Such a selection must be based on a close
understanding of available data, but no such information on the data that supports such a
decision is found in the available literature. This project is unique in that it seems to be
the only one which goes so far back into the process and looks at the data behind why
decisions are made. However, because other scientists and agencies are aware of the need
for standardization, this project fits in well with a broader state and national framework.
BACKGROUND
Values of Wetlands
Mitsch and Gosselink (1993) write that "the term value imposes an
anthropocentric orientation on a discussion of wetlands...in ordinary parlance, the word
connotes something worthy, desirable, or useful to humans." Wetlands may benefit
humans directly, such as by purifying water, or indirectly, by providing habitat to fish and
wildlife. In both cases, the function is desirable to humans and thus has a value. Even if
there is no impact on humans, wetlands still have value, for they are part of a broader
ecological framework. In addition to providing specific functions, wetlands, like any
15
environment, are important in maintaining biological diversity, sustainability, and
stability. However, one of the easiest ways to understand why wetlands are valued by
humans is to understand the functions they perform, which fall into the general range of
improving water quality, providing fish and wildlife habitat, and providing food.
Wetlands are valued because they improve water quality. Rapidly growing wetland
plants remove excess nutrients and organic matter in both water runoff and soils (Mitsch
and Gosselink, 1993) by transforming them into plant matter or detritus or by slowing
their release into the estuary. Rapid sedimentation in wetlands (Rey et al., 1994) also
removes pollutants such as nutrients and metals. Sedimentation is influenced by wetland
vegetation, which slows down water moving through the wetland, allowing sediments to
deposit. This process of slowing water movement also aids flood mitigation, another
valued wetland function (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). A variety of anaerobic and
aerobic processes involving plant growth and microbial activity transform elements. Some
excess nitrogen may be removed from the sediments and water column by denitrification
(Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). Other elements are simply buried by continual
sedimentation. This removal process is aided by the presence of benthic organisms (both
macro- and microorganisms) that ingest and transform organic matter and minerals in
bottom sediments. The process of sedimentation is not continual, and can lead to shortterm or long-term loss of wetland soils as episodes of resuspension occur based on the
strength of tidal flows (Mehta et al., 1982). However, through processes of plants and
organisms, a wetland can remove excess nutrients, minerals, and chemicals, thereby
serving as a water purifier.
16
Wetlands provide important habitat functions (Figure 2). Habitat is defined as
"the place or type of site where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives and grows
(Websters, 1981)." Habitat is both a physical shelter, but also an area that provides
functions that allow animals to grow. Tall wetland grasses and deeply dissected tidal
channels provide shelters for fish, which use the shelter to rest, hide, or eat (Cortright et
al., 1987). Use of the habitat space varies over time and by species, but is available for the
normal living patterns of those species. Chum salmon, for instance, first occupy tidal
creeks and sloughs close to the freshwater source. Over the course of three weeks they
will spread out and occupy all parts of the wetland between the main estuary channel and
incoming freshwater creeks, congregating in tidal channels during low tide and spreading
out over the surface during high tide (Healey, 1982). Chinook salmon first use the more
brackishwater wetland surfaces and then move into the more saline fringes of wetland in
the lower estuary (Healey, 1982). Another habitat function is one that allows juvenile
anadromous fish to grow. Good and Sawyer (1998) write that estuarine wetlands are
important nursery areas for those fish juveniles. As these juveniles move to the ocean
from freshwater hatching places they use the brackish areas of the estuary as acclimation
areas. During their time in the estuary, the fish develop mechanisms to regulate the
amount of salt in their body fluids, making them better adapted to the part of their life
cycle spent in the ocean (Schultz, 1990). In addition, wetlands provide food, which is
another function of the habitat that allows animal species to grow normally.
17
Wetlands are important food producing areas. Wetland grasses are rapid
producers, and as the grasses break apart physically and are decomposed, they produce
detritus, providing the basis for estuarine food chains (Ewing and Seebacher, 1997). Day
et al. (1989) define detritus as all nonliving organic matter, including both dissolved and
particulate organic matter, with its associated microbial community, which transforms
and releases carbon, nutrients, and minerals into digestible forms. Detritus is a link
between the wetland plant community and its animal community by providing a large and
continual source of food. While detritus is important in providing food, it also influences
water quality. For instance, detritus plays an important role in nutrient cycling as it
transfers carbon and other nutrients from plants to the substrate, to the animal
community, or to the sea (where it can be considered a loss).
Wetland Restoration Success
It is important to recognize that some of the restoration efforts in Oregon have
been successful in restoring partial wetland form and function. Restoration efforts have
consisted of both passive restoration, in which time and natural estuarine processes
restore wetlands, and active restoration, in which human manipulation of the land and
wetland features are used in conjunction with time and natural processes; both occur
after dike or tide gate removal. Perhaps the best success story of passive restoration is that
of the Salmon River estuary. This estuary experienced a variety of land use developments
during the twentieth century, all of which required separation of wetlands from the tidal
channels through dikes. Other changes included dredging, draining, compaction (from
19
grazing use), and road and building development. In 1978, a multi-part passive restoration
of the estuary began (Frenkel and Morlan, 1990). As part of the restoration, 17-year old
dikes were first breached; 10 years later the dikes were removed. The site had subsided
approximately 30-40 centimeters (1-1.3 feet). Despite the subsidence and the presence of
dikes, in 1988 they found that sites were restoring to native wetland vegetation
(restoration of form) and processes (restoration of function). Frenkel and Morlan (1990)
found that the site became a low brackish marsh with Lyngby's sedge taking between 5
and 10 years to invade, depending on location. The sedge community was stabilized
between 10 and 20 years after breaching. Tidal creeks narrowed and deepened naturally,
but took about 20 years before they resembled natural creeks, and tidal circulation and
sedimentation regimes were in place. These changes all indicated a restoration of wetland
form. Morlan (1992), using the definition that restoration success is based on function
rather than reinstatement of pre-settlement conditions, wrote that a 1988 project
"suggests that the diked pasture has been successfully restored to a functioning salt marsh
system." Wetland functions were observed as plant communities consisting of native
Pacific Northwest plants were producing and exporting high amounts of biomass, and
birds, mammals, and juvenile fish (including salmon) were observed using the marsh
surfaces and tidal creeks, indicating the creation of habitat and the restoration of wetland
functions.
Depending on the specifications of the restoration site and the needs of the
restorers, active restoration may be necessary. The Winchester Tidelands restoration
project, within the Coos Bay South Slough, is an example of active restoration that is
showing partial success. Active restoration efforts include manipulation of elevation and
20
planting, among other actions (Rumrill and Cornu, 1995). Marsh elevations were raised
from fill soil recovered from the removed dike; fill was placed on the wetland in volumes
calculated to raise the site to desired elevations. The elevations were graded to form low,
middle, and high marshes. Tidal channels were then constructed. Planting was done
between two and three years after dike removal (Rumrill and Cornu, 1995). Preliminary
data show that the site appears to be successful, and that it is developing into high,
middle, and low marsh (Cornu, 2000).
These two examples show that restoration efforts can be successful. Restoration
efforts may have varied results, ranging from fully to partially to not successful, but the
achieved restoration of wetland form and function appears to be worth the cost of
restoration.
State Support for Restoration
Over the past 150 years, estuarine wetland losses in Oregon have reached
staggering numbers. Good (1999) has estimated that the state of Oregon has lost about
68% of its original wetland acreage in 22 principal estuaries (Figure 3). Many estuaries
have lost a larger percentage; the Coquille estuary has lost wetlands totaling 517 acres, or
85% of its original acreage. Much of this wetland loss is due to diking, although some
areas have been filled or ditched.
In the past 20 years, Oregon has been faced with a growing environmental
consciousness. In the past decade, that consciousness has been met with economic reality
in the form of the salmon crisis. One of the ways in which the state is combating the
salmon crisis is through wetland restoration, as outlined in the The Oregon Plan for
21
salmon and watersheds (CSRI, 1997). Fortunately, wetland restoration in estuaries is
feasible, especially for areas that were diked in the past. In many instances, restoration
simply consists of dike breaching or removal, restoring tidal flow.
22
The amount of funds being allocated to wetland restoration is increasing, indicating
that restoration holds a high value to federal, state, and local agencies and communities.
In December 1999, the US Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it would contribute
$12 million to 25 wetland conservation and restoration projects in 2000 through its
National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant program (Levin, 1999). These funds are
given in conjunction with additional funds provided by state and private partners. Of
Oregon's 17 largest estuaries, three (Coos, Coquille, and Tillamook) are slated to receive
funds (Levin, 1999):
Coos-Coquille Estuarine Wetland Restoration: The Governor's Watershed
Enhancement Board, with the assistance of the Coos Watershed Association, the
Coquille Watershed Association, the South Slough National Estuarine Research
Reserve and Ducks Unlimited, will conserve 570 acres in the Coos- Coquille Basin
through acquisitions, easements and restoration.
Federal:
State:
Partners:
$820,000
$360,000
$140,000
Tillamook Bay Wetlands Protection and Restoration Project: The Governor's Watershed
Enhancement Board, in cooperation with the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, the Oregon Wetlands Joint Venture and Ducks Unlimited, will restore and
protect 300 acres of estuarine,intertidal, and palustrine wetlands. Restoration will
include breaching existing dikes to restore tidal hydrology, removing non-native
species, and installing new tide gates to improve fish passage facilities.
Federal:
State:
Partners:
$750,000
$275,000
$130,000
Nearly 2.5 million dollars were allocated for three wetland systems in Oregon, and
this is only part of one of the many restoration programs in the state.
24
Selection of Restoration Sites
Wetland restoration is often part of a wider rehabilitation plan for an estuary
region. Estuary rehabilitation includes many steps, only one of which is the selection of
restoration sites. Good (1999) outlined a five-step plan for estuary-wide rehabilitation:
Step 1.
Step 2.
Step 3.
Step 4.
Step 5.
Assess the historical and current condition of the estuary.
Set restoration and enhancement goals.
Identify potential restoration, enhancement, management, and education
projects
and priorities.
Screen potential projects for constraints and feasibility.
Synthesize planning results, write an action plan, and begin work.
The selection of restoration sites comes directly out of Step 1, during which the past,
current, and potential future conditions of the estuary are described and assessed. One of
the primary elements in this first step is to analyze presettlement conditions. It is this step
that is the focus of this project. This project will analyze different methods of assessing
presettlement conditions as they are used for restoration site selection.
There are a variety of data types used to prioritize wetland restoration actions.
They vary temporally, spatially, physically, and historically. Data may cover different
timeframes. For instance, some data may be direct observations of conditions during a
specific survey in 1870, whereas other data may be composites of observations averaged
from 1960 to 1962. Data may also change over time, such as the size of a city or the
length of a road; but can still be measured at discrete points. Certain data are spatially
oriented, or referenced to a geographic location on the globe. Spatial data may be
represented as notes contained within historical records that can be used in context to
other information, as lists of data connected to written locations, or as graphical
25
representations of data in reference to their location on a map. Concerning maps, DeMers
(1997) writes about the spatial elements that make up maps by saying "spatial data in the
real world can be thought of as occurring as four easily identifiable types: points, lines,
areas, and surfaces. Collectively, these four can represent most of the tangible natural and
human phenomena that we encounter on an everyday basis." Maps conform to set
systems about the representation of location; these systems determine a reference point
from where measurements of latitude, longitude, and elevation are based. Spatial data
have limitations based on their scale and resolution; these influence accuracy. For
instance, a map may represent a road as a line without being able to precisely and
accurately place both sides of the road in their exact global position. Despite data quality
limitations, spatial data in particular have been of great use in prioritizing wetland
restoration, because maps aid in making landscape comparisons by showing such things as
the location of wetlands, streams, houses, and a whole host of other variables.
Data types may vary physically. For instance, some data may consist of handdrawn maps, whereas other may consist of typed books full of lists of data. A relatively
new physical form of data has been the introduction of digital data, whereby written data
are converted to computer language and are available for rapid computerized analyses.
Finally, data may vary in history. Data may be a primary source, consisting of
observations or measurements. Other data may have a more complicated history. For
instance, some data contain layers of interpretation, making them secondary data.
Stewart and Kamins (1993) define secondary information as "sources of data and other
information collected by others and archived in some form." Secondary analysis, then, is
the "further analysis of information which has already been obtained." They point out
26
that secondary analysis uses data for reasons that are quite often very different from the
reasons for which the data were originally collected. In addition, this secondary analysis, if
basing itself upon the primary analysis, may compound errors in either the data or the
primary analysis. In either case, both the primary and secondary analyses contain
interpretation, which contains inherent biases, accuracy limitations, and errors associated
with the person making the interpretation. Sometimes this interpretation is well
documented and the original primary data are easily traceable and discernable within the
secondary data type. Other types of secondary data are not as well documented. Stewart
and Kamins (1993) write that secondary data can be misleading if not evaluated carefully
and if the user does not maintain a healthy skepticism. Data that contains layers of
interpretation, if well documented, can still serve a valuable purpose and provide
important information. Examples of primary information, consisting of direct
measurements and observations, are such things as aerial photographs and surveyed
elevations. An example of a secondary source of information is a soils map, which is made
from discrete field observations put together with elevation information and extrapolated
to larger areas based on existing maps and aerial photographs. Finally, all data types have
inherent accuracy and error.
Past Studies
A review of past studies has shown that the sources and types of data, and the
methodology used to reconstruct historical conditions, have varied from study to study.
Studies have focused on various estuaries, with no single one covering all of Oregon's
estuaries. Thus, the variation in data and methodology illustrates a potential problem in
27
making estuary-to-estuary comparisons and restoration prioritizations. Table 1 is a list of
studies available for examination in this project. The studies were examined to determine:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Whether data types and methodologies were documented,
What data types were used,
The rationale for using those data types, and
The methodology used to determine the location of former wetland.
28
In constructing Table 1, various restoration projects and scientific studies were
consulted. All data projected in the past studies were included in Table 1, regardless of
whether the data were primary data, secondary data, or used for verification purposes.
Many data types were secondary data, consisting of various layers of multiple forms of
data. This was evident with the National Wetland Inventory maps, which were created
from aerial photographs, soils, field observations, and topographic elevation data. Even
though sources for the NWI maps may have been known, the NWI maps were treated as
a single source of secondary data with inherent human interpretation. Several types of
data used in other studies were included as secondary data: EPB maps, floodplain maps,
US Coast Survey maps, and other data are considered original, but secondary, data.
In answering the three questions of interest on Table 1, this project determined
whether studies gave any detail as to the data used in the project. If the study related the
sources or dates of the data it used, then the answer to "Document data?" was "yes." If
the study simply listed in general terms the type of data used, the answer was "no." If the
study explained how the data were used, the answer to "Document methodology?" was
"yes." For instance, Jones and Stokes explained that they used NWI maps as a base layer,
and then updated the base layer with aerial photographs. If the data were simply listed
without any indication of the methodology, order, or preference of use, the answer was
"no." If the study listed some reason, such as accuracy or availability, for choosing one
data type over another the answer to "Describe rationale?" was "yes." If there was no
indication as to why a certain data type was used, the answer was "no."
Table 1 shows that there is no standard set of data used to reconstruct historical
wetland landscapes. Data types vary from study to study based on the rationale of the
30
sections will showcase the results of four studies conducted in the Yaquina, Columbia,
and Tillamook estuaries.
Past Studies: Yaquina Bay
The research problem arises out of the fact that multiple studies in a single estuary
can lead to varied results. Two studies of Yaquina Bay illustrate this point. A 1988 study
by Jones and Stokes identified former estuarine wetlands. The objectives were to identify
areas that were once estuarine wetlands that had been diked (either completely, or with a
bridge or culvert); were over five acres in size; and were suitable for reconstruction. A
map showing selection restoration sites from Jones and Stokes (1988) is presented in
Figure 4. A 1999 project by Brophy also selected restoration sites in the same area,
although the criteria for selection varied. Brophy (1999) was interested in all formerly
estuarine areas, including those that had been diked, filled, ditched, drained, or otherwise
altered. Unlike the Jones and Stokes (1988) study, Brophy also included sites less than
five acres in size. Figure 5 is based on a map in Brophy (1999), but shows the changes
that result from using the same site selection criteria of Jones and Stokes. This map only
includes those sites that are over five acres in size and that are only altered by some sort of
diking (including bridges and culverts). What is immediately observable is that the maps
highlight different areas for restoration. Part of this problem is due to the varying criteria.
It is important to note that both maps are of a section of the estuary that is below the
head of tide. The head of tide for Yaquina bay is located in Yaquina River Mile 18, which
is east of Toledo, Oregon and of the map boundary. All areas of the map experience tidal
saltwater inundation, and are thus estuarine.
32
Even with similar selection criteria, the results of the selection process in the two
studies differ. The reason for this discrepancy must instead be related to the selected
methodologies. The methodology of each project differed, as each scientist used a
different set of data. Jones and Stokes (1988) used existing information in their site
selection process. The data they used consisted of personal knowledge from state and
local government agency staff, National Wetland Inventory maps, US Army Corps of
Engineers aerial photographs, and available historical data. While Jones and Stokes
indicate that they referred to historical data where available, they did not reference it.
Their reference list lacks any primary sources for historical data, but instead include past
projects concerning historical change. Of those historical projects, none covered the
Oregon estuaries included in Jones and Stokes' project. Therefore, this project assumes
that Jones and Stokes did not use any historical data for their selection of Oregon
restoration sites.
33
In their analytical method, Jones and Stokes used the National Wetland
Inventory maps as their base layer. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) system
creates maps showing the location of aquatic habitats. NWI maps (Figure 6), created by
the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), classify aquatic habitats according to a
classification system developed by Cowardin et al. (1979). According to the system,
wetland types are classified based on flooding and salinity regimes, substrate type,
vegetation, and morphological characteristics. The system includes classifications for fully
and partially drained and ditched wetlands, farmed wetlands, and diked or impounded
wetlands. NWI maps are created through a process of photo and soil interpretation and
field checking (NRC, 2000). Aerial photos used to create NWI maps are taken as part of
a US Geological Survey (USGS) photography program. Before 1988, the NWI maps
utilized black-and-white and color-infrared National High Altitude Photography (NHAP)
program 1:58,000 - 1:80,000 aerial photographs. After 1988, NWI maps utilized a
combination of NHAP photos and National Aerial Photography Program (NAPP)
1:40,000 photographs (USGS, 2000). Soil interpretation for the NWI maps is done using
Soil Conservation Service (now the National Resource Conservation Service) Soil
Surveys. These soil surveys are based on interpretation of a variety of aerial photographs
in conjunction with field checking. Further, both the NWI maps and the soil surveys
utilize USGS topographic quad sheets, which are created from the interpretation of a
variety of aerial photographs, containing elevation contours of the land.
36
It is evident from the description of the NWI maps that Jones and Stokes' base
layer depends on the interpretation of aerial photographs that are the original data
source. As part of their analytical method, Jones and Stokes used the NWI maps to
identify areas that had been diked. They then used 1986 US Army Corps aerial
photographs to examine and update the base layer. Photos were used in two ways: 1) to
determine the current land use and status of diked wetland so as to determine restoration
potential; and 2) to locate areas which were diked but no longer classified as wetland on
the NWI maps. These areas showed signs of old slough channels or meanderings,
indicating former tidal influence despite the non-wetland NWI classification.
Brophy (1999) used a different set of data and methods to select her restoration
sites for Yaquina Bay. Her data sets included current and historic aerial photographs,
established maps including NWI and USGS topographic maps, field observations, private
interviews, ownership records, and scientific projects. Jones and Stokes used an NWI map
as a base layer; Brophy used maps from The Oregon Estuary Plan Book (Cortright et al.,
1987) as a base layer. The Oregon Estuary Plan Book (EPB) was published by the Oregon
State Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) as a comprehensive
management planning tool for Oregon's 17 largest estuaries. The maps included in the
book show the locations of various types of estuarine habitat, including the location of
dikes, ditches, fill or other alterations. In addition, the maps show zoning and
management designations for each area. On EPB maps, habitats are classified according
to a modified version of the Cowardin et al. (1979) system (Bottom et al., 1979), and
include similar designations for fully and partially drained and ditched wetlands, farmed
wetlands, and diked or impounded wetlands. The maps in the EPB were created in 1972
38
and 1973, with the major data source being USGS NHAP photos from pre-1972. The
maps for some estuaries were then updated in 1978 and 1979 by the Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) as part of the DLCD estuary inventory project. The map
for Yaquina Bay, however, was not updated using this information (ODFW, 1979b). This
project assumes that the EPB map of Yaquina Bay is based solely on USGS NHAP aerial
photographs. To prepare the estuary inventories for other estuaries, ODFW used aerial
photography, published studies, and some field investigations to prepare maps of estuarine
habitats. Published studies and field observations included the following sorts of data:
tidal extent; vegetation; substrate type; water depth; salinity, temperature, and oxygen
measurements; benthic flora and fauna; full- and part-time wildlife species residence; and
spawning areas (ODFW, 1979a). These data types vary from estuary to estuary based on
the types and numbers of pre-existing projects. The inventory project includes a section
saying that locations of dikes and tide gates are poorly surveyed (ODFW, 1979a).
In Brophy's (1999) study of Yaquina Bay, the base map was an EPB map. The EPB
maps were based on USGS aerial photography. Brophy then supplemented the EPB maps
with a series of historic photographs. Photos for Yaquina Bay dated from 1939, 1945,
1952, 1959, 1972, 1976, and 1997. Using the photos, Brophy identified current and
former tidal wetland sites that were not on the EPB maps. Photos were used to identify
visible alterations such as ditching, diking, or tide gates, or to locate vegetation changes
associated with alterations. Brophy then supplemented this information with field
observations of dikes, vegetation, tidal channels, or current land use. Brophy also lists
NWI maps, USGS topographic maps, scientific projects, historic documents, public
records (such as tax lot and ownership patterns), and interviews with local residents as
39
data used in the project. NWI maps were used to determine head of tide, USGS
topographic maps were used to determine site locations, and scientific projects were used
to locate areas of salmonid spawning or presence. Brophy also includes an SCS soil survey
in her reference list, but does not include it among her list of data or analytical methods.
Jones and Stokes (1988) and Brophy (1999) use a variety of data sources. Jones
and Stokes used NWI maps and current aerial photographs as their primary data. Brophy
used EPB maps, current and historic aerial photographs, and field observations as her
primary data. The differences seen between Figures 4 and 5 can be explained by this
variation in data and methodology. It is clear that the choice of data and methodology
has a profound influence on the designation of the historical extent of a wetland. This
relates directly to the research problem. Which set of data and methodology results in the
most accurate assessment of historical wetland extent? What are the qualities of those
data that make them more or less accurate than others?
Past Studies: Columbia River Estuary
A 1983 project by Thomas entitled Changes in Columbia River Estuary Habitat
Types over the Past Century is one of the few studies of historical habitat extent in the
Columbia River. The study utilized a variety of data, some differing from those used in the
Yaquina Bay examples. Some of the objectives of the Thomas (1983) study were to
"identify estuary habitats, resources, functions and processes which have been diminished
or lost in the past," and to "identify restoration, creation or enhancement actions or
projects to offset past and anticipated adverse effects (Thomas, 1983)." Thomas
compared information about the estuary from a time pre-dating "most human impacts" to
40
information about current and recent estuarine conditions. Thomas attempted to
separate anthropogenic changes from natural changes. He writes that "an attempt is made
to distinguish between a natural estuarine 'aging' process (in which shoaling is the
primary factor) and changes that have resulted from human intervention. Diking and fills
that create artificial uplands remove area directly from the estuary."
Thomas (1983) did document his data and methodologies in a chapter entitled
"Methods and Materials." Thomas even writes about the limitations of historical
information, as he writes "generally, the detail and reliability of historical information
would be inversely proportional to the time elapsed since it originated." Thomas wrote
that his data sources for historical information were found in the archives of a number of
institutions including the CREST map collection and library, the Clatsop County
Historical Museum, the Columbia River Maritime Museum, the Oregon Historical
Society, and the Army Corps of Engineers map collections and libraries. In addition,
Thomas utilized his personal base of ecological knowledge as a data source. He chose US
Coast Survey (now the US Geodetic Survey) charts that were drawn from 1868-1873
survey data as his best available representation of the undeveloped estuary (Figure 7). He
chose these maps over early 1841 Wilkes maps based on his belief of the reliability of the
graphic representation of the floodplain. He writes that "the soundings shown on the US
Coast Survey charts are more complete than those of Wilkes, and the floodplain and
upland vegetation are depicted graphically with symbols that suggest great attention to
detail. These were the first charts to include the whole floodplain." The charts included
bathymetric contour lines, the location of the Mean Lower Low Water line, the location
of the floodplain line, and five vegetation types: unvegetated flats and subtidal areas,
41
vegetated wetlands, grassland, deciduous trees and shrubs, and coniferous trees. The
Coast Survey charts were verified using three methods. First, available old photographs
dating from 1908 and 1911, as well as undated but possible early photos, were used to
compare existing vegetation with Coast Survey symbols. These photographs were used
both to verify the accuracy of recorded vegetation and the cartographic accuracy of the
maps. The second verification method used elevation surveys of areas that had subsided.
Thomas writes that tidal swamps are observed at higher elevations than tidal marshes.
Despite subsidence of diked areas due to soil shrinkage and compaction, he writes that
the relative elevation difference remained. Elevation surveys were done in 1976 as part of
floodplain insurance mapping. The third method used 1977 color aerial photographs,
which were noted for the location of remaining tidal channels. Thomas found that tidal
channels on current aerial photographs matched up with those mapped as part of the
Coast Survey. In addition, Thomas consulted projects from the original 1868-1873 survey
teams, and concluded that "their work on the lower Columbia River was carried out
meticulously." Thomas then concluded that the Coast Surveys were mapped both
thoroughly and accurately, and thus were suitable as a historical reconstruction of the
estuary.
Thomas (1983) then analyzed change in the estuary by creating a map of present
conditions. This map was created using a 1958 NOAA bathymetric survey, USGS
topographic maps, and 1977-1978 color aerial photographs. Unlike Jones and Stokes
(1988) and Brophy (1999), Therefore, Thomas's primary data were the US Coast Survey
charts.
42
Past Studies: Tillamook Bay
This study, entitled An Environmental History of the Tillamook Bay Estuary and
Watershed, (Coulton et al., 1996) used a type of data that had been so far untapped. The
authors used 1856 and 1857 General Land Office Public Lands Survey System (PLSS)
original survey notes to create the project. The surveys were conducted by the General
Land Office (GLO) under the direction of the US Department of the Interior (Green,
2000). Surveys followed two grids: a 6-mile by 6-mile grid, which yielded a Township
map, and a 1-mile by 1-mile grid within each township that yielded section notes. In
addition, Benner used Donation Land Claim notes. Donation Land Claim surveys would
sometimes depart from the section lines, depending on the location of the claim
boundary. Benner (in Coulton et al., 1996) writes that notes from both the PLSS and
Donation Claim surveys were used in the study as major sources; other historical
documents were consulted. Benner created a map of the conditions in Tillamook Bay
(Figure 8) using these notes. Information gleaned from the surveys included the location
of bay and riverbanks, marshes and swamps, and floodplain edges. These notes also
provided vegetation data. As an example, the surveyors wrote: "Soil 1" rate. Land broken
with tide fissures. Timber 1" rate Spruce, Crab, Hemlock, Cedar, Maple and Alder."
Benner used this type of information to classify the area as a tidally influenced forest.
Surveys recorded significant changes along the survey line, such as changes from forest to
prairie, or river crossings. Surveyors also summarized the vegetation and land features at
the end of each surveyed mile. In many cases, interpretation was necessary. For example,
Benner writes "when alders were used as bearing trees, the suggestion is that there were
many alder in the area. When there were not trees available, the surveyor planted a
44
Benner (in Coulton et al., 1996) documented her methodology. She extracted
useful data from the handwritten notes and placed these on map-type data sheets. As the
data were collected and synthesized, it was compared to USGS topographic maps, 1964
hydric soils data, and 1978 floodplain insurance maps. Benner also used 1939 aerial
photographs and road, trail, and Native American village locations from GLO 1873-1892
survey notes; in addition she used direct field observations. The secondary data sources
such as the topographic maps, soils, and village locations were used to verify the GLO
survey locations of water boundaries and vegetation types. The surveys were conducted at
a scale of one square mile, while Benner's map is for continuous areas. Benner used the
discrete point information extricated from the various data sources and then extrapolated
to connect those points into a continuous map. However, the statistics associated with
such extrapolation are not included within the study.
The data sources used by Benner were not clearly indicated, but one can assume
that they consisted of standard libraries and map collections. Survey notes, if not available
in libraries, may be obtained from the Oregon office of the Bureau of Land Management.
One question that Coulton et al., (1996) did not address was the rationale behind using
the General Land Office notes. They do write that "in this study, a significant effort was
made to supplement existing historic information by compiling additional historic spatial
and statistical summaries for the region." While this explains why they included GLO
notes, it does not explain why they chose to use that data type over aerial photographs
and Coast Survey charts used in other studies.
46
One of the end results of the Coulton et al. (1996) study is that it created a
secondary type of data. The map shown in Figure 8 is a map of former estuarine wetlands.
This secondary data will be used later in this study as an example of the types of data that
are available for the purposes of determining the location of former estuarine wetlands.
See Objective 2: Inventory in the Results and Discussion section for further discussion.
A Perspective on Historical Geography
This project falls within the range of a series of disciplines, ranging from history to
geography to biology to natural resource planning. The mixing of historical and scientific
methods is a field that has not been well explored, but which is expanding in part to the
growing realization that historical records have something to offer scientists. Russell
(1997) describes three major categories of historical records: written records, traces left
on the landscape, and sedimentary records. She writes that "each kind of record provides
a unique type of information, each with its own spatial and temporal scale." There are
challenges to using historical information to determine the precise location of natural
resources. Primary data sources that are recorded by humans are heavily influenced by the
biases of the person making the record. Cronon (1983), in his environmental history of
New England in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, writes that:
"The descriptions of travelers and early naturalists, for instance, provide
observations of what New England looked like in the early days of European
settlement, and how it had changed by the end of the eighteenth century ... But
to use them properly requires that we evaluate each traveler's skills as a naturalist,
something for which there is often only the evidence of in his or her writings.
Moreover, we can only guess at how ideological commitments such as Thoreau's
or Rush's colored the ways they saw the landscape. How much did William
Wood's evident wish to promote the Massachusetts's Bay Colony lead him to
idealize its environment?"
47
These types of biases are present in the types of historical information available in
Oregon. For instance, General Land Office maps, which are assessed as part of this study,
sometimes classified surveyed land as good farmland. Current data, which are largely
acquired by machine or processed according to highly developed and standardized
methods, has erased much of this bias. However, it is inherent in historical data, and
influences both the methods and results of any reconstruction of historical landscapes.
One of the methods to combat this bias is to use a variety of data types when
reconstructing a historical landscape (Good, 1983).
Another factor influencing the outcome of an interdisciplinary project is the
interplay between the different types of infrastructure that have been established to aid
the separate disciplines. Documents catalogued by historians follow cataloguing
conventions that have a human perspective. For instance, data may be catalogued
according to section or township lines (such as a set of 1939 Aerial photographs) or by
county. The difficulty associated with this type of cataloguing is that it does not adhere to
the nature of natural resources, which do not restrict themselves to political lines. The
difficulty exists in the other direction as well. Data catalogued by natural resource
managers may cross borders or exist at scales that do not fulfill planning or budgeting
needs. Watershed maps of the Salmon River estuary, for instance, fall into both
Tillamook and Lincoln Counties. Such maps would only partially fill the needs of a
county that was required to conduct work within its borders to develop resource
management practices compatible with political lines. These concerns extend beyond the
state, for the Oregon salmon problem is just one part of a larger Pacific Northwest
48
problem, and an even larger concern for National resources. The Oregon state boundary,
for example, falls within the larger Columbia River watershed boundary, illustrating the
problems that arise when artificial boundaries must combat with natural boundaries.
While the difficulties are real, they are not insurmountable. Bias can be removed and
maps can be joined together, showing that in the end, the space between the natural
resource and history disciplines can have great value. This project, while focusing on
Oregon, uses methods that can be repeated for any state, making the space between the
natural resource, history, political, and economic disciplines even smaller.
METHODS
Five objectives were developed to outline a step-by-step process in achieving the
project goal of developing a protocol for use in reconstructing a former estuarine wetland
landscape. These objectives were to:
1. Establish a set of criteria for use in inventorying and assessing Oregon's data,
2. Inventory major data types,
3. Establish a protocol based on the best available data for selected themes,
4. Establish a set of protocols to be used for state standardization, and
5. Establish data recommendations per data type and per estuary.
Specific methods were then developed and followed in order to fulfill the objectives and
subsequently achieve the project goal. The following sections outline the methods used to
fulfill each objective.
49
Objective 1: Establishing Criteria
The literature review and an Internet search revealed no pre-existing set of
criteria that would have been applicable to this study. Thus, a set of criteria by which data
were ranked high, medium, or low was established for use in this project. The criteria
were broken down into subsections addressing different characteristics of the data. One
subsection contained criteria for the data's geographic coverage. A second subsection
contained criteria categorized by data theme (or content). The themes selected for the
criteria matched those of the Mid Coast Watershed Council Rock Creek Assessment
(Garono, 2000). The assessment included the following themes: Biological, Economic,
Environmental quality, Geomorphology, Hydrology, Infrastructure, and Land cover. A
third subsection contained criteria based on utility and applicability. A fourth subsection
contained criteria based on data quality. Data rankings for quality of primary and
secondary data were based on Stewart and Kamins (1993), who outlined a list of
information that is necessary in order to minimize errors associated with data use. This
information includes knowing: 1) the purpose of the study, 2) the people/groups
responsible for collecting the data, 3) what information was collected, and whether it is all
available, 4) when the data were collected, 5) how the data were obtained, and 6) the
data's consistency within its own dataset and among other similar data. For most criteria
the rationale for the high, medium, and low rankings were based on common principles or
on foundations established on previous research.
50
Objective 2: Inventorying Oregon's Data
The inventory was not able to be all-inclusive. The amount of data in Oregon is
staggering, and therefore, the data chosen for inventory was the same data types as those
used in previous studies and listed in Table 1. Additional data types that were
encountered throughout the process were included in the inventory.
This project used a variety of data sources for collection of data. It used online
data banks to download digital photos and GIS data layers. It used historical archives and
libraries to collect maps, data lists, and written projects. This project assessed any type of
pertinent data from all disciplines, ranging form natural, social, and economic data. Data
were collected and housed, if possible, at Oregon State University. Data were then ranked
according to the set of criteria developed to satisfy objective 1. A 1989 publication by the
Division of State Lands Engineering Section (DSL, 1989) showing head-of-tides was used
in conjunction with the criteria. This publication lacks a map for the Columbia River, but
the head-of-tide for the Columbia River is widely known to the Bonneville Dam.
Data rankings were then converted to numerical values, with high = 3, medium
= 2, low = 1, and not applicable = 0. Data were then scored based on the numerical
values. Scores were weighted based on three factors:
1) Date. Data from the mid-1800s was not scored for development or infrastructure,
whereas data from later dates were;
2) Digitization. Data that was not available digitally was not scored for the quality of
the digitization, whereas data that were available digitally were scored for the
additional criteria of quality; and
3) Secondary versus primary data. Secondary data was scored based on the quality of
both the primary and secondary data, whereas primary data was scored based on
its own quality alone.
51
Raw scores were adjusted based on the total amount of points possible and then adjusted
for comparison into percents. Scoring was done for each subsection of the criteria
(geographic coverage, condition, ease-of-use/accessibility, and quality) as well as for the
data type as a whole; in addition, this same process was used for each data type according
to its availability per estuary.
Objective 3: Establishing Best Available Data Protocol
The Best Available Data protocol was based on the premise that the best available
data should be used to determine the location of former wetlands, despite variation in
coverage or ease-of-use. This project, based on a subjective evaluation of possible data
themes, selected the following information as highly important when determining the
location of former estuarine wetlands: 1) precise location of the head-of-tide; 2) presence
of a base map; 3) existing vegetation; 4) historic vegetation; 5) elevation; 6) hydric soil;
7) mean tidal range; 8) salinity range at a given spot; 9) channels; and 10) dikes and/or
tide gates (Table 3). Knowledge of these elements was determined to be most important
in reconstructing a former wetland landscape. Data types were then ranked as high,
medium, or low based on what information was represented in the data. The criteria
developed to fulfill objective 1 did not rank data based on whether they precisely located
the head-of-tide or on whether the data could serve as a base map; therefore only
elements from 3) to 10) were ranked. Head-of-tide and base map were instead discussed
based on results of the inventory. Several of the elements were ranked as part of the
inventory, thus the rankings for those were used directly. For those elements not included
in the criteria, new rankings were determined.
52
Data receiving a low ranking were eliminated from consideration for the protocol.
Data types were then ranked based on the order of use. All data receiving a high ranking
received the lowest order-of-use numbers, followed by those receiving a medium ranking.
Assignment of order-of-use numbers was based on the general score, which took into
account all aspects of the data (its geographic coverage, conditions shown, ease-of-use,
and quality). Data receiving a high ranking were numbered in order of the highest to
lowest score, followed by those receiving a medium ranking. The following example
illustrates the method: Data A and B received high rankings and had scores of 72 and 51,
respectively. Data C and D received medium rankings, and scores of 32 and 81,
respectively. The data types receiving a high ranking received the first order-of-use
numbers, and Data A, with the highest score, received a 1. Data B, next highest score for
data types receiving a high ranking, received a 2. Data D, with the highest score of those
data types receiving a medium ranking, received a 3, and Data C, with the lower score of
those ranked medium, received a 4. The resulting numbers indicate the order in which
the data should be used to determine the location of former wetlands.
53
Objective 4: Establishing State Standardization Protocols
These protocols for wetland reconstruction are based on the need for statewide
standardization. Past studies used a variety of methods, each of which was best for the
estuary, time, and situation at hand. There is no one method that is right or wrong.
Different methods may have different levels of accuracy, but different methods address
different needs and limitations.
This project itself faced limitations in construction of the protocols. It did not
have access to all the data that exists in Oregon due to cost, accessibility, and use issues.
Further, this project attempted to consult experts in the field of wetland restoration, but
the attempt was unsuccessful. Twelve experts were given the list of ranking criteria
(Table 4) and asked to rank the criteria based on importance. The objective was to
obtain expert advice on what criteria were most important: for instance, were soils more
important than vegetation? Was fish usage more important than scale? Of the twelve
experts consulted, only one response was received. This project instead created protocols
based on geographic coverage and ease-of-use, rather than on criteria of importance. Two
protocols were constructed: a GIS-based protocol and a protocol based on existing data
coverage.
State Standardization Protocol 1: GIS-based Protocol (GIS)
The first step was to include only those data that received a high or medium
ranking for digitization. The second step was to narrow data types down by geographical
coverage. Only those data receiving a medium or high ranking for number of estuaries
were included. One goal of this protocol was for it to have high utility; therefore, the next
55
step was to include those data with a high or medium weighted score for ease-of-use.
Following the 70% rule established in the ranking criteria, only those with a weighted
score of 70 or higher were included. All data were assessed for quality.
State Standardization Protocol 2: Geographic Coverage Protocol
A second protocol selected data for use using geographical coverage as a deciding
factor. The first step was selecting data with a high rank for number of estuaries covered.
The next step was to restrict the data to those types that included coverage to the head of
tide.
Objective 5: Data Recommendations
Data recommendations were established for each protocol based on data that was
incomplete or missing. Data recommendations were specific to each estuary.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Objective 1: Establishing Criteria
Table 4 is the list of criteria that were developed to rank Oregon estuarine data.
The criteria contain several categories that assess the way the data is organized and its
content. The criteria first categorize data based on their geographic coverage, or the
actual amount of ground covered in the data. The criteria then categorize data by theme,
which separates data by content. Criteria in Table 4 are categorized by the following
themes: Biological, Economic, Environmental quality, Geomorphology, Hydrology,
Infrastructure, and Land cover (Garono, 2000). The criteria then categorize data by their
56
utility and applicability. Table 4 includes a section on ease-of-use, which ranks data on its
accessibility, cost, and manipulation/assessment requirements. Finally, the criteria
categorize data based on the data quality. Several factors influence data quality,
including knowledge of the data history, knowledge of data scale, and knowledge of
errors. Knowledge of data history can yield information about the data quality, such as
whether it is primary data (data that have been collected and are available for use, but
have not been analyzed, manipulated, or changed) or secondary data (data that are
created from or based upon the interpretation, analysis, or mixture of various primary and
secondary data types). In addition, criteria on scale (which includes information on
accuracy) are also included. This scheme separates data based on its originality and
purity, or its known errors; other factors which influence the data history include whether
the data and the methods used to collect or analyze the data have been documented.
Data used in prioritizing restoration sites varies based on the needs of the
restoration. Data from all categories is useful, but data from each category has its
limitations. For example, Spatial data, which includes data points linked to specific
locations on a landscape map, has been particularly helpful in prioritizing restoration sites,
but oftentimes is lacking in geographic coverage or is not easy to use. All four categories
were included in the criteria because of their collective and singular importance when
assessing data.
Many of the rationale for rankings were subjective, and based on the author's
vision of high quality data. Some of the rankings are based on other resources, in
particular Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin
et al., 1979). Criteria were divided into several types. Coverage criteria assessed the
57
geographic area covered by the data. Historical condition criteria examined specific
elements that are used to define a wetland to define a change to a wetland. Historical
data were categorized using themes developed for the MCWC CD (Garono, 2000). Easeof-use criteria examined the accessibility and cost of data.
58
..0
..0
0
- ..00”
5
-8
g. 5
0
A0
g
2
.5
t
0
Au
u
g'
. :-..'
.5
t
8
8
.4a'
71;
-0u
3
i
8
0
s
c,
0
2.
5
, ,
0
0
'I' 7.1 . R.
ED 0
'-. C,g .,
,5. d z
2
0
E
r
6)
":1
"00
cu
",5
u
.5
8
2
0
5
4.,.
2
,., c,
Bw
8 ,, "s V.
.
1
5
o
0V
.--n
to .r ,,
'''
2 4 t.
0
5 -0
7.7, 70 .9.'
5 5
F/ 0 a
x . - -0
u " g.
t g E0
.r
-12
'5
...0
A
"
r
0
u
r,
'' r, „,
4FS.
,,,
v ,,-,N
,h 0
L 11.2
on ,.....
tel Z
v, 'id
4 ,9,
g 8 t ,4) 8 ;4 8 .-
E2 -5)
5
° I'
.
g
° ii
s
o
co
- .
. 9
i ,,
° '
e9 "4.5,
-4
u
7, 4,
52
; 70
2
0-)
.
.
'g
0
0
:8
g
,I,
,:u
5
5
,
,:t:,,
r
E -9
2 `3
sol -8
;:4 =
713
0
g
4
-8
0,
-2
0
5
0
u
E-.
S
vs
A
^0
'
0
,,y.
u
v,
cd
g
-5
§
e,v
. 0u,'
5
5
,
t.,.
4'
"2
.?;
.':..,
73
-0
a
4'
71-)
t31
.,
a.
a
8
71-j
-0`'
0
,2,
AU
8
"2
7)
0
0
A0
7.1
0
I,
0
0
AU
0
0
&
+2
"6:1›.
v
°w
0U
v0
'Crl
2 -0
.., 0
tt
v r0
v
i
6-.>-.
1
45›..
.2
-
g. ,
a .,
7,.
. v,
-
8
up
S.n
''
A
La:
&
,-2
0,.,
"0
,,
"G
4-A c4
0 '6
84-2
2; `1
. 73 . 0.
- 5e
•0
.-e0
OW
0 0
.-i, .,,.
'5
0 '-4
a) ".
cr)
B
.
§ §
&
ti
p
'I'" o o
2, a a
,- ,-.
0
E 41
2
.1., E
0
v,
..Y `6
-,,z _
-5 -e-d
t
nu-n
.-0,..,
^0
CS
2.
°
2vs
YO
^0
-.A.'
•''.
'1',
P.,
u
0
§
t
0
,-
,-
,-
'-
0
0' 8
0
0
-.2
. &
7; 47'
t) t
^6 o,
0 1.)
b. n
:..
0
4.
.
§
-o
cd'
-0
G
-6-1 ,-.-,
a, w
..- 2 5 ()
'8
V' g 1
n
c4 *g .3 4
Oz
u ,Y1 2d g_ E 8
-5 "a' ,` 0 s' -2. ,
'w >)- ro%-i.
vi t ''' o.
to E
55,,,t, 71 8
5 r, ..a 6.
8 ,a. 'i) '*')., 8 4
,..) 0 .-
-0 v 0 - a; .,,,,do./sv
u ,.. .,.. v,
=C4.'0
..
,,,, -00
"R ,, g -0 ,.- 0
4
°)
,, -2
L) *0
2 2
g.' ...4: 41
wg
v co " w v ° -0
1
8, 12, E 5- ,,9
,i -0 n g 2 2 - 0 . -t' .'~- 2 8 ;.8 8
0
',. ,'
e
P
8
o
a
-,,.
..=„ a4
0
V
E
,',3 R.
.=,d, •z
,,,,,1.° 3
z
el2 a.,
v .
6)0°
u
„z
& 4
w
i
-0
.
zi Et,
f 3 ,.,‘ -E
.5 v §
.5
<4
rii0
"0
8
..0
.
w
`1-j
'a
E
a,
0
0
,L3'
8 .z
-,,,
,ou
6 .:9..
-o"e,
4-'
P
A
o
a
I, g
c'cd .fs
'i) `0' . 4
i a . 0 • .=.
2
X.
•g.
.2
r '4 r-.1
<4
- a) -
E
" 0
.8
C21
-5 . 9. C.)
E
0
'''
4
0
•28
3
uu
'DE `g
,`,3 -0
4 0
c..) 41
'-r
5.5
-o
g t'e
Q.
43 g
-°,› 1
g 3 tq' R.
I) z 0.
' co,'5.1.
"0
n
'5
4.
-9. 2. .4 .;- ;:izi
p ,T
Ng0
0"5v-0°
`'a' .)
g .9.
id
g 2 1
.2
‘2,..2 '2. .5
a
t,
a
t
-0
`'0
.5
1
0
a)
27 ,5,
r.
a)t,
0
t'D
,
U,
rel,docLoR0
4, ,-,0
4.J 0 0
0.
vs g
tr
4 ...MJ " "Tj
-8 "0
4'0 .e7,1' .5 4 > 4.,
--.
' ...' ec t' .n ',1 -g g
FE .0
-0 -o -o `'E "0 w 5
,e, 45
- 5 ,c.,
0 0..
,-,
4 ,J -0 2 8 , _2
5
It.
al •a E 4 2 c,
C A A 4'
.... _ -0°) A -,i''
7. ) , c
.8
0. ;..,', ..-15
. - • "0
.. - 0
0
. 0
0 3 0
0
7-0
-8
t'
4 :ow-.
rn
t1.1
6.)
'5'
"V
a,
tr, 2 4.?
8 8
- ,i9 4'j
e, 41
.5
.. -'6'
z
i'z' -6'
c) .5
h
1
t
0
<4
.-„,
4 0
2 -0
on
5
!
'''.
0
4,3
' on
"0
v
t
o
0
rl -`,..., . 5.
u
5
.._,
c̀,1 "a c' .ca, f!,
-2 0 _
,,
,.0 0,
-,-.;
u
4. E. E
00•
- .'-5.0.
-0
';."8
&
-1
0 ---.t'
-0 m o
-0
g
''w
Fl E T.w
3
:1-2. 17 g ,-.,
, :.;• 0
,,
-2..2p, 0 ;
.'g E g 6
8 7 . . "g v.
. t
.ti
'
_. -, g- 6
-o 0el ,.....c,s 0el
6 ci 11)
,.....
0
. N 0
c-.
g z..., , g
° e. '79 g
., - 0 .o
2 u.. 0 . .
,4 . ar . ",5
--00,)
-0 0. 5i
. .5 .o so r,
. 5 ,..2, 1.,' 1 cog 4'
47, 4 :44
-5
:-, -0
o.,
,, Y
u
7°
1 E
u 75 >°-3. -°rj -t - -1,1
,;>,
n-.1-.
.
0
‘...
0 -5 "0v
°
..`0'0
-E
03
.
4g3
.
2 8 -5,
..0. 8
2 `4
2
. 8
M [1 0
SI 'T:'
Un
0^
-
0 0
,-, E
8 8.
c-,
8 t,
2
(5
77;,
-2
''); 8
›-. u)
° .. 4
8
ED
2
V
"0
C21
tl
,--7d
,-.0
0
2
-t,,,
u
-0
,)-,0
0
-,1
,e, u
8
.... 7..;
ms
2 0
el "o
8
,
2
g
T
71
,... 0-o
u
0 1.-1.
0
6)
"0
U'
0
t
2
'j
-5
u
-5
2
0
.,.,
00
o
,
18
g 6-,
-0
2
6)
8
2
2
.
75
tg'
-a
-7,
5
-0
C21
E
0o
4
°
:0*0
.
I
8'
>•.
5
0
cs,
t
v2
11 ,°:3
. U
'E
-c-d 7,.
r ,.
,,, 1
..,;) :F.
z -2
°C) i
15
0
5
"00
-5
u
.5
2
0
2 Z Z
-5
I-. 0
° A
c
..d. n•
4 '
5 -1.)
5 8
6, 0-
2
°03 0
0
0
"5,
0
vs ‘I)4
-F,
2.,
4'
.70j
0
e.)
8
5
,..2'
R.
5
-,i-J0
0
CU
"061
11'4
2
2
5
, .2
,1
75
2
>, '79 8 8
8 5 .1.? 5
'0 t)
, ,..2
c:--.
2
8
t'
,,,
10",,
0
u
.
0
g
2 . _,-, o
(r)".5 T.) Z
id$_. to •
0
-.0
t
..1 . ,
to
t)1'
-5.0
,s2
.9
M
74
• Z
O
0
5 c0.,
t.'
,:t.-1 I'
??. 7.1
-2,' 1
1 cr
0.5 %) U sil
, ‘,3
,
.-1!
,.9.
22 g oRE,
-a.
o, 8 E 8 8
r1 ^0 "a' 0 8 atic,.'
,;.;
, -,)
El
8
.2 o; 2 2 2 °"'
`,(3
8 " t 5
'5, g ! F. 2
'c,'3 u 1 8 8 z3
2 CI a) 4
c'73
ct3
U
.4 2,
8 >.' '''• - 0
-÷"
.5
5
3
ig 44 e
4<1 .
.4-4 s.
-i g
cr ,co
t ° -6
X LC1
8E ---.o' -2 '11 t2:0 n'''
g ,2 c‘,„7,. v.
• 2
C,;
e',571-
cl . E
0 ,-,
cC
0
•-8a)
o „;
a E ,„
.` 5 73.
08
0 . ,,,1'
ao„l -`0') 8
0 "0
2
.5 .0
,̀'''s' : cs
g §8
-o0 o,,7 - _
w k.-.o
0.3
.".
a+
-
8
V
"
-5,.
z
__,
To4
>
<
g
.i.'3 ,-:
0 8
.B. -,-.„
0 4.4
r, -0C
-,O, 0
= 2.i
2E
8
90
-.0U
0 k-c
-3 ,, el
3 ,..--a l'
,I,,) g
c a_sig,9
,4_,
>
..,.W
Z'
2
- 0 6 c.1 u g..,,
E 4 4 rc I 'el cl co
.2
° .2 .2 .0 .5
,o . <7;7:,-o-ouccs
° .5 .5 ° ° F, -5
6
1
°° 1)
v F-' '''
at
5 °5)
7.,.-4 2
„
0.
7
'4'
l-, C.D '8.4
8 8
st
''
9..et,..-E. `3g
,t3 72 F., 9, - t---,i
4a, 9,
,:; -2 ,-5 itz).
..4) -...i :4.) ,..1,,:; ,,,
§'.:2 .
.: e
.
8
9
c1
A
g
To'
89
<
To.
.0
sc
20
..-,a1.
g.
V
W
V
.-t
7,,
4 )
.- o
...
a
.-5 4d)8o- -,c,
,,,. §)
to a,
° t
_9. -°8 25
"E ol
.0
o
0.,
,,0,
8
tr
25
1
0
.2
-',5.
.ij
‹
73
o 4"4
,.• o
tcy8.!.-.., (Aocr-0
5 ."1.
Zi v
t
,_2 79
,5 ,,E
-0 ol
d-g
;-,
,,
o
8.2
,,ie',.
(.51"g
a---.....
,:r5
.Eo
0
V,c
I-C-i
d
.;.
4.'
.
U2'
2
4.,
8
U
8
-U
,. .Y.
0
2
,,...
"0
-c-'...
.5
t
o
Z
4 c0
I ,.
<0
..., 7o1.
g
_ 0
...,
0.,
•'''''
5o
`g 2
0
co rci
.'
,2 t,
!o''
2E
M. a .0
b„. c,
,-,
fzi
14
•,- 3', ) 4c:o
:ED.0'3 oE
-c,
2 t• 2
›...
0 :3 "2'
8
s-, "8
0 ,. ,
-0 '-'
C.) .5
.g .2,
",,,
:g;
2a
7.1 8
it E
al 2
g'
0
0
>.aca
,,,,t,
6'
"3
-ri
5.
,a
0
.
-0
t
.8C
0
.g
:.%
0
v,s
,-2
-v
cd
8V
2
''...
-0
"..5,
x..,-. >,
-.
5 0
71'
C
4
I .4w
00
oA
8
.k:"
41-3 ,:,-
al ,
at
-
_A
Iv' "
0
.5 0
s.
..2= .. c;.co
e0, 7,01
"8 o
E <3
.,..,8 ,-F2 .E.
.4 sed
2
o E.2 t'...,Q
go2..,)
0g3
---... -0a)
.4 -0
'', u
"Ft. Zu
0
C.)g3
---- -ou
.4 -0
`)-. 1-3
al z
0
¢ g
,.... .
¢ g
7o-0
.11
8,
..d -F'
1
0
4.„-,4
4, E ',7 . a
I 74 5 . g,
..4>,'-,-.0 8co 04
.,)
,..,
co e(
2 ,-.)
0,0,„
urn 6 ,`Z.'
< `•-•
..0 -0 co
o
,̀2 .,..,'. 0 ,
.--. 0 CD ccf
8' 0 5:-; -2
8 0 c,8- 8
La, ,..0 - I:..,) 0
,i 8 -5
o -..
n 8 ad 0
,:4 -..., r..,....0
,....,
^..g. 4
'5,,, a,
g 8
,_,
›.- ,:a
Ew•-n-,o .-.;
8
e
Q 0. V)
•< o°1.4, co
8
'4-12 '.
,9
- c.
-, 0
0 ,?.,
4_,
o o ,-.18, -.0
`2
...._
o
<-4co
,,N ;,5, r,•
,2-1 --, 4.. ,-.2
o _7.4
5
0
= . 0.4
,4,
E
"F: ''
<
2
t .s.,
"o
2 = EU
= 24
<
w
.<, (-5
'
2
.2
cl
Z
.
t4_,..,
.
2,_.
E
0
co 'Fzs' .-.c.m,.,.
,e,
>-,
-0 ^CS
a.d,, 0Eci
8 •..
'20 <,. .
a_,
-0
t
o
= ,,
,,.;0,0
›-,`6).-'4
.4.
0
- 5)
o
0
ca
'0
-5°
•,1', g
s.. 9
± ,_'
o
0
- 0
.
E
0
-,
t
,2
,1
(1)
_
4,<7;
(..7
8
.ad
73
4
'15
-5
U
-,7.., ...)
,..,
U
< ,7ctl.-- t."...0
V) .---
a
H
.
4
,21 8
,.4.<
8,
+.-
2
8
a)
''''''
,-..1
0
0
•
•0
,.
gm
os
.
;
.9
.?
0
12.
..-•
,
o __:,
e 4;
O. 4
"71
8 0 .
`'-'
11,-0., 5 t
-8 .5 ,V,-.2,
0...0
,.. 48 ._
.p.,
10 o
-0 <
,,,,
t' O .4
. ., •-•-) 0 >4.3 ,-:-.-- 2 2
,54 0 .1"d4
o .5 z ou
8, I `8' ' '..
o .4 w cz'
" >- ° 8
-V):4 cYs6. 41 tO'
,....,
i
t24.'
--0
2 8`"
...
,v, ,..ai
,..,
.5- 1.,
4,' 0.
cn8
:.. ,..o v
°co
rd 7,
'171 0
co v
c'-i
.- t
'05 9s
a. o
0-, o .
v .t3-2
,
? e,
<3.
cii
.:,
.7t,1 . ° 0
. •,-,-3 .2 . 2
11
c9
8
0
2 ....
'50 '7,'
Is.)
as
-0
85
,i.,
0
8
5
4..D- 2,,
'-•-n
>
<
o 53
1-0% g.
0 .t u -0
-2
o
!I-5
li,
i
-
Z
'g
t0
0
0
.,.,
E
8
2 ..?,
2 2
.2. os . ,...
-z 8 .o
o
o
0
•
-
'''
.s.0
•
A
. 0
w
-5 a., .0 _ 0 E..) •,
`" 8
6' ,..to. 8 a. o
•`-' -,0•
'8, , , -!.24-. '8
• "2'
E ,_,
co 8,....a.
cr.
0..8
0.80.8
E t
E V
,o2 .t. 4 7, 2 t
t). 'g
88
-03 o g g .-o
ca 2o‘1.1'
0; t.n
,.7 C.)
0 .§'
c
> -0
.s, -o
. s ..-0 -ca <,_ 8 -,-,,,
:z 2
„, 2
2- , .0
-.8 .„T., .,-.
fi 4.g'
i g
c`5:
E.I 0 ',9z- Ll
2
2w
•,;,' `'" . 4) r, ! •%,' 5'.
o, 2a
u -° .'--.. .0 2 •4;
a4
g
'-.
-0
4 . ----' .4 . -•"` *5
v
o, 8
,o 8 0. ,.
= ,= - z-o. 2" -& Fr '"
v
rl .5..- tr.,.' o% .5- a f:4U2 2- co> (2- 2 u..`u -2
3 A,
,..8
V ^
n-,..,1.)
E ra
u
0
0
o „2
Eo
o
.2
.' ,c. ,
o
o
',°cd
.
c,
.1i
6' _
. ,
-2 ,
.0 X
V k."
4 .0
.2
0Cr,y.,,,
.2
--. 8 .,
•a
t
Z 1.0
0 ,..,
cr, ,
aS 0
0
al °
"
1.) •-,
88
88
so' 7.,
s-'
,-s 2.;
-0 u
44Ig
..L4)
,,,,,
C9 A
c6,..2
'4 2
. rA 1 co o
o
2
w2
2
s.., •,-„'
co „,
. 2
„,
MI CI)
o0
0
c
-`2
, 4a
:,,c5-a.
ca g
I) 8
-c, `g
6' )
21.. .1'
.5
Z.' '4'
. Lj 2
5
5 `1.3
° 6'
cr ,--.
cr 5=
v
az,›
c,,-c:2 1
0.5
a' .5
,c4 5
8
U
''<L, ,
Td.
•.0
....
a
7
710
o
.c:,
5
-oco
0
E
.0
a.,
---*
2
z",
-ci
,E
0 .
'6q
cd
ti ' 4
8.
`4
..-
-5
.
8 : Ez
so!
2
o
.,
,.E z
0 .
1
5
t -'4
,.es i .r9
$:-.
0., .o
-
A
2.
'"
g
-,„ .1
g
5
0
..
'1:1
0
t
WU
-,
cd
4.d
4,
"0
5
Es
,,,L) .0>,
.a) -,,
,,
.,^_;
"-.
cTS
c
(-21
a
g
o
0
._.
i'
4
o
8
o
,.....
0
08
2
0
4."
o
4
...g -u
Fs
6 :2
d0 .
6'
5
›-
o
6'
''' 'F'›-3 cl 8
cj
r.-:-i
o .- 0 a-s
u ---ca
8
a '''
8 a -n
f,
›-
0
V),-- 7, w
l
cr)
1
o4
Fs'
al
8)
A
1
,-,..
`a)
2
...,1
0
a.
u
A
V
.5
›.
0
-t.
CI t. ,_.d
j-D'
cu "
>y
E
a)
o
E+
F',
g
A
4.2
as
-0
4
2 8
4 4
''•
el
8
0..
.
eel
2
'0
a
es
5
.Z
ro
5
•Z
OL, 0..,
,..2
(..D
g
g
8
8
aS
,...,
.2
o o6,
a) V
,..2 ,.2--i
-2'
'1-.)
--
0
t
.,,-,
cd
,e,
V
0:i
CI
0
.2 0
1
45
o
-5
-.=
V)
`cf3
..
5
2
z
-—
..6
1)
41
0
•,,
(2'
U
2
4'2
.H 5
0 ,.,
>
e
0
0
a.,
g 1
cd
4 -.
.2
-o
0 ,,
5 ,.,
ad
.-
e: A
y •ci
a. -7,
5
0
E §81
is,c,,o.,
0)
6)
CY 0
e' • 1.'
^-7E'Opal
2
L el
2
2
0 ....,
E 78
7-1
ai "6 6U
5,
-Z0 g
•cs
i
8
a0
°;., 8
cp
214- ‘-4
0 ci,d - --- <----1
o , ,:.
bo — 0
o
.E,
5 V.
4' P.
t •
2 4
*
-"'.)
°
,'' 8
.--.
8cd
,1
5
2) 74
F) :6'
0 -O 6..., .... -0
il
o as
8-
-5 •-o o ';,' 0
1)
t.
-st , 1 ,41_-1-...... `.„_ 7.,..
5 5_
.".
-8 15., V '-' "'d io B V.
3 t.,.., 0 8
-. 6 . .
.4
V
,..o
-0 ‘-•
0 0
0 .7:i
.2
O
-5 ,-:,
g g -0 .,.. f'
u
.. ,ce: t z 0 ..,i f.o.,c: -,- fb,) 71.)
f.d,
421 -8
E- =
U.
LO
7,
8
;-• .5u
8
2 2 wn '-'
o'
6" 5 --...
cd
. c.)
.._;'
I
`.'
'6i) 1
-0
a 1 '5 ,.; "I
cl
cli
,;'
2
5 ;,...80 5
0 .z 0 0 u .
e '.. 'LI -5
I;
U • ,,, -0 ,,14
U 0 g
,n
-Fd '''' - 5 -1-...2.
1 -0 ,0'
,E
o , o
'6'
>-. ‘, V) Cd C) ,-.
t,
4., E
§
.e,G. -z -5, - ..6
-. Si 8 0
"3
.. "C$
CL' ,
E, 0 79
8
o --s.'
a -c3 o 6-
o _2 2 -o
'- '' 8-. 2 ,y
0 • 8 .6
8 bs" ...'
aa 8
CI ›. "I" ,..2
' 7 ›.
2
-x
74
-0 .o0
...,0
b .0 cyl „
,L,
c.
r ad
° -° 7,1 Li
,,, o o o
f>
CY 2
a'
ad
0
. .-0
f.5 -E
,
''
zd,
g
m
m
'CI
,-,
a'
d
‘...
ed
d •^-.
.”. <,:i
2 0 -8
.2ca. °g
g 0 -a'0 or
ü
, ,.w v
2 2 o V
s=, •
,., w ›.
.
6, 0
0
o ael
0
,.., ,-.-,
.17> 0 •
<,d Ft
0., ---—0
cd
-
4
7p., g -8
.0
t "cj -0
' 4-1
0
.
E.-
•--.
s- 5
.2 .h.
.- •••5 - u
2
t-
5
,
c9 -5
",
'-'
"'z'
..,
g
-,,
ad
'RI
^ ,z,
el,
,... ., .5
ctl
at
t Td E t' ''M -o8 -o8
4 ,q- 1 1',
c,- . of
R 4
-0
,,s
sis
2 -o 'et -o
,s
u
.4
-i
0
0
_5
c'')..
2 I::
.3
A :4 ,.;,
cri .5 ',f3 -0 a,
-o
'18 c=4)
;
0
'..--0
2
.,,,
g
5
si 4 0 g
E T-. ' -2
•••cf
v I,,, 5 m
,,..,., '. a 'f,
.
W 0 -W t•-• •-o co o P.
'-''
g
P.t. ,n 0 ,,
-5 •---n .2 cU,
. 0 5 .-.
8 7s.,
<7, ;
E x 44
-77,1
0.,„
,.0.
w 6,
0 o is .4
0
8
0
z
0
z
ce o
o
15. •_
„,
.„
.
E t 8 '-— .4 < .5
8
5
61
.1). [..i., %,?.,
e; 0 .,., q
0 0 0-
.5,
„
...Y..
‘--
t
v
CD
.1, '•••••
,,4 .,) b -,
,-,1
6., ,-Nt
V
8 "- 5
'C
,..,
a
o
- 2 u
8
2
......
Cl.t;
z
'5 2 ',..
„ 0 o
'7
".-. o
,C,), ' ';)
Et
05
o
.6,5-_,
a._2
- 2,V rs
...
,`-' ..'.
c,13,
g
.:1,
E-
od o
w
,o o
'
0
u
‘..
,.., 0
ON 41
.5
.
-a-s ,... E t
,. ,,, ,s2
-i 8
4.,
cd
.-„,
4.)
E0
—e5'>)v,
,.w2
5'
0
8 5 ,;,s
,y, E ›.
u 8 -°3
'•,i
ziR -1
2 g
.2
9
ee
cs
-0 0
0 .52
cl g
.5 85
t' '',,..,
":4
2
8
"r:
o
- 0
,_.1_", ._
w
0
,s-.
g
3U -aQ
c> •-..
< 0, t-,0 ,g 0
ul .0 8
,.
.
0
G. .
CO
id
-5
8
°-;
- 05
p, . 2
-0 fa, 5
E- g41
E
± IL; 8 'no 4'2
A i.'' rt .'A 1
-o
cD -0
6 6 "-'
,-,
t 4j.
2
Ofs
'-''o —
"Eal 2
w ,2".
—
8 4 . ,-4-
E
o
'-'
,
z `48 . r. ..,),
i..,)
o <,,
„, -0 ,ti
0 -r,
a:,
5
.5 's
8 5,
8 ,_,., "E
7'
l
Tf) 2
t
8
•2
-5'
0
„,.71 0
, .4
°.ci ,,
a.i a) as
'2 —
o. gu
8
g
a
›,-,,-.,,
5
0
<,1 (11
,-,
X z
0
af ."-,
CZ 5 ,-
0
.
a)
:"< -1-i
.,- u
2
G....
;-)g. 2
1
8
&
7:1
,'
??.
0
6.7
0..s .
001 „.,,
,....
z.:,,=,[2..8
.z
- _5
8 -8
-8 -0
= ;_o
,..,.. cd
0
.,,,,
Z
72
`°...Z 7-3
• u
`0,'
E.
o ,̀,?,C; 7, 41
E
4
0 _Id
M
cl U
-0
r'i
5
8
w
- 0 4
0 ,.2 ,r1
8 0 ^i
,,-, ,4 `91 ,tap
'''
(`)E'6,,
ad
.7' ..si "
)
8
0
-6
.7,
Cd
o
-er
-0d
2
°
.< .4
---4" 48
g
P
2-2 u o -lo .?-1 o
8 .f.
.. 4,. ,-6.
R
1 'i
.',o. ,,E.
›-.
,,,,. , 6-9.
o
z o.
u ....
(>
L,
__,
o
el
8-
l
2 "2
5 V8 ,2,
.
a. 8 8
.0
(d t'oso v a)
0 (i) . -. ... ,o o (1) ci)
at
8
-o
cd
a
8
ad
(J0
al
51
2
-73
8
-o
as
-o
.-o
m
t.
cl
-o
•77
O
2
,F3
VD
U
0
tn
(/)
cd
0
Ad
(r)
LI
il tc.1
ed
as
-c, -o
-8
cd
tt
•-o -O
0 0
8 8
1.1 0-+
Cf) C/D
no
m
0
8
,..,
VD
Quality criteria examined the error, accuracy, and history of the data. The
following paragraphs outline rationale used to develop the criteria and the rankings.
Geographic Coverage:
Number of estuaries Oregon contains 17 major estuaries, and 5 minor (22 total)
estuaries. A high rank is given to any data that covers 17 or more
estuaries; part of this project strives to create a standardized
methodology for all of Oregon's estuaries, thus high coverage is
necessary. A medium rank is given to data that covers 70% of the
major estuaries (12), and low is to those that cover less than 70%
(less than 12). The value of 70% was chosen based on the typical
value of "satisfactory" or "C" on a 100 point scale.
Perimeter covered
This criteria judges data based on its coverage of an estuary's
border, which is where tidally influenced wetlands are generally
found (this does not include eelgrass beds, which may not be
located on the perimeter, but which are also not a focus of this
project). Therefore, a high rank was given to data that was largely
continuous in coverage; specifically, if data covered between 90%
(equivalent to an "excellent" or "A" on a 100 point scale) and
100% of the estuary. A medium rank for was data with only
satisfactory coverage (between 70% and 90%) and a low rank was
for data that covered the perimeter in patches, or did not cover the
perimeter of the entire estuary (less than 70%).
Area covered
This refers to the surface area of an individual estuary. The
rankings were selected using the same rationale as for "Perimeter
covered."
Portions covered
This refers to individual features of the surface area. Tidal wetlands
are found throughout an estuary, and can be associated with any
tributary that is capable of flooding. This includes the main
channel and all smaller sloughs, creeks, and channels in the
63
estuary. If data covered all features of the estuary, including the
main channel, all sloughs, freshwater creeks, tidal channels, and
other tributaries coming into the estuary, it received a high rank. If
the data covered only the main channel, it received a low rank.
Any coverage that ranged between covering parts of features
received a medium rank.
To head of tide?
Tidally influenced wetlands can be found to the head of tide. In
between the mouth and estuary are saline, brackishwater, and
freshwater wetlands. Data covering all channels, sloughs, creeks,
channels and tributaries to their respective head of tides received a
high rank, as this data would show the location of all potential
wetlands. Data which did not cover any channels, sloughs, creeks,
channels, and tributaries to the head of tide received a low rank, as
that data excluded portions of the estuary with potential wetlands.
The reference for head of tide were those sites observed as head of
tide in a 1989 publication by the Division of State Lands
Engineering Section (DSL, 1989). The publication includes
observations for sloughs, tributaries, some small creeks, and the
main channel or river for all estuaries but the Columbia River. The
observations were made between 1973 and 1988, with the bulk in
1979 and 1984. The head-of-tide for the Columbia River is the
Bonneville Dam.
There is a valid argument that the head of tide has changed
between the mid-1800s and today. Sea level rise combined with
land rise and subsidence have changed the location of many head
of tide sites. In addition, the definition of sea level has changed
between 1900 and today, raising concerns about the use of
historical documents. The change in definition should be
accounted for when historical maps are being used. However, this
64
project chose to utilize the 1989 publication of current head of
tides for one important reason. This project is designed to serve as
a management tool by aiding with the process of restoration site
selection. It is true that former wetland sites are the most easily
restored; however, restoration must be done in its current context.
In the current context, it is only the current head of tide that will
affect the success of a restoration project. Former wetlands that are
beyond the current head of tide (if it has receded) may be restored,
but they (by definition) cannot be restored to tidal wetlands
without tidal flooding. As this paper focuses solely on estuarine
wetlands, former wetlands that have no chance of being estuarine
in nature are beyond its scope.
Historical Conditions/Current conditions
Data were ranked based on what it showed about historical conditions. Often, data
showed current conditions, but these current conditions allowed inference about
historical conditions. This project ranked data twice, once based on what inferences it
allowed about historical wetlands, and once based on what it showed about current
wetlands.
Vegetation
Vegetation is a good indicator of the presence of a wetland. Only
specialized plants are capable of withstanding saltwater inundation
or continual flooding by fresh- or saltwater. Therefore, data that
specifically described historical vegetation, or which alluded to
historical vegetation by describing current vegetation, received a
high rank. The minimum description was established as Cowardin
et al.'s (1979) classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats, in
which vegetation is described as emergent wetland, scrub-shrub
wetland, or forested wetland. Cowardin et al. is a widely accepted
classification system used by private scientists and the US
65
government alike (such as in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987)). Data
showing presence of vegetation, without giving any additional
information, received a medium rank.
Substrate
Substrate is a good indicator of habitat for both vegetation and
animals. The type of substrate present determines whether wetland
formation can occur. The rationale for the ranking is similar to that
of vegetation, except that Cowardin et al. (1979) classifies
substrate as rock bottom, consolidated bottom, aquatic bed, reef,
streambed, rocky shore, unconsolidated shore or bottom, or
wetland.
Soils
Hydric soils are those soils that formed under conditions of
saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing
season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (with
modifications; USDA-NRCS, 1998).The USDA-NRCS (1998)
writes that "soils in which the hydrology has been artificially
modified are hydric if the soil, in an unaltered state, was hydric."
Higdon and Moore (1997) write that many hydric soils can retain
hydric features even after decades of continuous drainage; thus
they can be used to determine the presence of former wetlands.
The USDA-NRCS (1998) writes that "in some instances of
disturbance the vegetation has been destroyed or removed;
therefore, soils are the only on-site indicators of pre disturbance
hydrology and the only feasible means of identifying wetlands."
Higdon and Moore (1997) point out that mapping of wetlands with
hydric soils must be done with care, as many areas that are mapped
as hydric may include non-hydric inclusions. They are influenced
by the scale of the mapping. Data showing the presence of hydric
soils with no non-hydric inclusions received a high ranking. In
addition, data showing the presence of continually undrained or
66
saturated soil received a high ranking (Cowardin et al., 1979)
based on their use in delineating current wetlands. Data that
included hydric soil designations, but which also designated nonhydric inclusions as hydric received a medium ranking due to the
introduced uncertainty.
Elevation
Elevation above sea level is important in determining where
flooding can occur, and thus determining where wetlands can
occur. Tides in various Oregon estuaries range from two to twenty
feet (mean lower low water; Frenkel and Eilers, 1976), depending
on location and time of year; this does not include storm tides.
Thus, Data were ranked on the elements of elevation showed,
based on a range of 20 feet. Data that showed elevation changes in
2-feet intervals, or with greater detail, received a high rank. A 2foot interval was chosen because it could show a least 10 elevation
changes in a 20-foot change. Data with contours showing elevation
changes between 2 and 10 feet received a medium, because the
numbers of changes could be as low as one. Data with elevation
contours of 10 feet or greater was given a low ranking because such
data could ignore tidal range and elevation changes.
Water depth
Data showing depth of water could help determine where historical
flooding occurred. Water depth may include freshwater stream
depth, depth in tidal channels, main channel depth, rain or tidal
inundation. Water depth in measured units based on a known
vertical datum was given a high rank. Data that indicated that
water was present, but which did not give any more information,
received a medium rank. The notation of water, without indication
of time of year or length of saturation does not indicate tidal
flooding itself.
Tide levels
This refers to measurable tidal inundation. Rationale for ranks is
the same as for water depth.
67
Freshwater input
Freshwater input on the fringes of wetlands is important in
establishing habitat complexity. The amount of freshwater input
from the main channel also determines what areas experience tidal
influence, and determines where the head of tide will be. Data that
shows all freshwater streams received a high rank; data with
additional information on streamflow received a high rank. Data
showing the location of only some freshwater input received a
medium rank.
Channels
Tide channels are important features of wetlands. The flooding tide
will cover the wetland surface, however, the ebbing tide is generally
restricted to tidal channels, which feature fast flowing water. Tidal
channels can often remain as remnants of former wetlands, despite
years of compaction or other typical uses. As such, any data
showing tidal channels received a high rank. Mitchell (1982) found
that channel measurements in an undisturbed site in the Salmon
River estuary were about 1.2 meters in width and around 1 meter
in depth. Remnant channels in diked and farmed wetlands were
about 3.6 meters in width and 0.5 meters in depth. Deep and
narrow tidal channels are characteristic of undisturbed estuarine
wetlands, particularly if the width-to-depth ratio is about 1 or less.
In general, these tidal channels are also highly sinuous. Thus, data
showing tidal channels of about 1 meter in width, or with a widthto-depth of about 1 received a high rank. Data showing what
appeared to be tidal channels, but which cannot be verified
because of varying width-to-depth ratios, received a medium.
Channel width
Determining the width or the width-to-depth ratio is important in
determining whether tidal channels are indicative of a wetland.
Therefore, data with precise measurements received a high
ranking; data with general references to width such as "narrow" or
"wide" received a medium ranking.
68
Channel depth
Determining the depth or the width-to-depth ratio is important in
determining whether tidal channels are indicative of a wetland.
Therefore, data with precise measurements received a high
ranking; data with general references to width such as "shallow" or
"deep" received a medium ranking.
Channel sinuosity
In natural situations, water channels evolve through processes of
deposition and erosion. This leads to highly sinuous channels, and
channel sinuosity is greater with decreasing width. Therefore, data
showing channels with high sinuosity indicate the presence of
narrow channels, which are characteristic of wetlands. Data
showing sinuosity at the individual meter level received a high
ranking, as it encompassed even the narrowest channels. Data
showing only high-level complexity received a medium or low
ranking; this data is not individually indicative of the presence of a
wetland.
Floodplains/ways
FEMA (2000) defines a flood as "a general and temporary
condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land
areas from overflow of inland or tidal waters or from the unusual
and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any
source." Based on the definition alone, FEMA floodplain and
floodway maps, showing the plains and boundaries of 100 and 500
year storm events, are not generally used to map wetlands. Higdon
and Moore (1997) write than these maps may be used to "identify
dominant water sources and transport vectors for specific wetlands
located near rivers. They also might be used to identify wetlands
that, if they store floodwater, are likely to have greater value
because they help protect downstream properties that otherwise are
likely to be flooded." Data showing floodplains or floodways with
detail as to the boundary and type of storm event received a high
69
ranking. Data which indicated the presence of floods without
additional size or data information received a medium ranking.
Estuary type
There are four major types of estuaries: salt wedge, bar built,
partially mixed and weakly stratified. The type of estuary influences
where the locations of freshwater and saltwater occur, and
determines levels of brackishwater influence. Data that indicates
estuary type received a high rank, those that did not received a low
rank.
Shows dikes?
The presence of dikes in current data indicates that areas have
been cut off from tidal flooding. These areas are most often former
wetlands. Thus, data showing all dikes received a high rank.
Dike condition
Knowing the dike condition does little to establish the presence of
former wetlands, but does provide information that is valuable for
restoration; therefore, it is included in this list.
Tide gates
The presence of tide gates in current data indicates that areas have
been cut off from tidal flooding. The rationale is the same as for
"shows dikes?"
Fills
Areas that have been filled may appear to be upland on maps, but
are former wetlands. Data showing areas of fill and included fill
permitting data, size of fill and other information was given a high
rank. Such data is useful in determining the elevation of the filled
land, the exact borders of the filled land, and may include
information on the type of vegetation and substrate that existed
before the fill. Data that showed areas that were filled (all or some)
would still yield valuable information concerning areas they may
have been former wetlands.
Dredged areas
Areas that have been dredged may include former wetlands that
were dredged to improve drainage. The rationale for the rankings is
the same as for fills.
70
Development
Knowing about development can yield valuable clues as to
surrounding environment. Data that shows either historical or
current development and classified it by type received a high rank.
Data that indicated that the land was developed without adding
specific information as to type received a medium rank.
Land Use
Knowing about land use can yield valuable clues as to the
surrounding environment. The rationale for ranking is the same as
for development.
Fish Usage
Knowing about fish actions and presence can yield information
about wetland presence. Fish use wetlands during specific parts of
their life cycle, thus data showing fish presence with specific age or
species data received a high ranking. Data without specific species,
age, residence time, etc. data received a medium ranking. Specific
knowledge of threatened and endangered fish species may also aid
in prioritization of restoration actions.
Animal Usage.
Knowing about animal usage can yield information about wetland
presence. Knowledge of threatened and endangered species, in
particular, may aid in both reconstructing former wetland
landscapes and in prioritizing restoration actions. The rationale for
ranking is the same as for fish usage.
Ownership
Knowing the ownership pattern does little to establish the presence
of former wetlands, but does provide information that is valuable
for restoration strategies; therefore, it is included in this list.
Water quality Knowing the water quality does little to establish the presence of
former wetlands, but does provide information that is valuable for
restoration; therefore, it is included in this list.
Ease of Use/Accessibility
Availability
The availability of data will determine whether data can be used for
all estuaries and influences the creation of a protocol. Data that is
71
available in libraries or on the Internet received a high ranking.
Data that was held in private collections, requiring some
investment of time or money to access the data received a medium.
Cost to use The price ranges for cost were based on a subjective value based on
the author's budgetary constraints. A high rank was given to data
that cost $100 or less to use; data whose total cost of use was $500
or less received a medium ranking.
Cost to create
The price ranges for cost were based on a subjective value based on
the author's budgetary constraints. A high rank was given to data
that cost $100 or less to create; data whose total cost of creation
was $500 or less received a medium ranking. If the costs to create
were unknown, an estimate of cost was made.
Analysis/ to use
The rankings were based on the author's subjective knowledge of
training. Data that could be used immediately received a high
ranking. Data that required specialized training or investment,
beyond budgetary restrictions of this study, received a medium or
low ranking.
Analysis/ to create
The rankings were based on the author's subjective knowledge of
training. If the data required training that would consist of an
introductory course — or a few days to a few weeks — received a
high ranking. A medium rank went to data that required
intermediate training — a few weeks to a few months.
Digitized?
Data that is available for use in a GIS allowing easy access,
manipulation, and analysis received a high ranking. Data that can
be digitized or is partially digitized received a medium ranking.
72
Includes metadata? Digital data must include documentation as to its creation and
original source. This information is found in metadata, for which
there are national standards. These standards must descriptions for
the following categories (US Department of the Interior, 1997):
Identification Information
Citation
Description
Time Period of Content
Status
Spatial Domain
Keywords
Access Constraints
Use Constraints
Point of Contact
Native Data Set
Data Quality Information
Logical Consistency
Completeness Project
Lineage
Spatial Data Organization Information
Direct Spatial Reference Method
Point and Vector Object Information
Spatial Reference Information
Horizontal Coordinate System Definition
Entity and Attribute Information
Detailed Description
Overview Description
Distribution Information
Distributor
Distribution Liability
Metadata Reference Information
Metadata Date
Metadata Contact
Metadata Standard Name
Metadata Standard Version
Metadata Access Constraints
Metadata Use Constraints
73
Projection/GIS
Data that is free of known GIS problems, such as having a
projection that varies from the state standard, received a high
ranking. Data that could be fixed, based on this author's
intermediate knowledge of GIS, received a medium ranking.
Quality
Rankings for data quality were done for primary and secondary data. Secondary data is
based on the analysis, manipulation, or combination of various forms of primary data. The
quality of secondary data is thus influenced both by the analysis of the primary data, and
by the quality of the primary data itself.
Scale
According to the National Map Accuracy Standards, horizontal
accuracy must meet certain requirements in order to be a certain
scale: "For maps on publication scales larger than 1:20,000, not
more than 10 percent of the points tested shall be in error by more
than 1/30th inch, measured on the publication scale; for maps on
publication scales of 1:20,000 or smaller, 1/50 th inch" (US Bureau
of the Budget, 1947). The accuracy requirements are lessened for
data with a scale of less detail than 1:20,000. Thus, a medium rank
was given to data that only required accuracy of 1/30 th of an inch.
The distinction between medium and low ranks was based on the
100-foot accuracy mark; this was a subjective choice.
Horizontal resolution Data with a resolution of two feet or greater was given a rank. The
rationale is the same as for elevation.
Vertical resolution
Data showing vertical resolution can describe areas that are
flooded. Thus, data showing vertical resolution of two feet were
given a high rank. The rationale is the same as for elevation.
Consistency in scale
Data that is consistent in scale contains, by definition, the same
accuracy throughout the data. Therefore, data that is all of the
same scale received a high ranking. Data of mixed known scales,
74
allowing for calculations of accuracy in specific areas, received a
medium ranking.
Date
Data that was directly from the mid-1800s needed no inference to
determine historical wetland presence, thus it received a high rank.
History of data
Data collection is influenced by the reasons behind its collection
and by the people who collected it. Data is often collected
according to standard methodologies, and cannot be interpreted
without knowledge of the data history. Thus, data with a
documented history received a high ranking. Data that is only
partially documented received a lower ranking.
Units described
Data is only useful if the units in which it was collected is known.
Thus, data with known units received a high ranking.
Original data traced Secondary data that includes a detailed history, and whose primary
data can be traced, can then have detailed accuracy assessments
made. Secondary data whose primary data cannot be traced or is
unknown cannot be verified for accuracy. Data that contained
traceable primary data for all parts of the secondary data received a
high rank.
Quality of original
Secondary data with primary data that has known accuracy can
then be assessed for its own accuracy. Data with primary data with
a known quality received a high ranking.
Objective 2: Inventory
Twenty-two types of data were included in the inventory and recorded according
to the developed criteria. Table 5 shows the results of this data ranking. Data were also
ranked according to estuary coverage, availability, and quality. Table 6 shows the results
of the inventory for these criteria per estuary. Tables Al to A22 in the appendix show
each data type ranked separately. For ease of analysis, entries in Tables 5 and 6 were
75
turned into numerical values: High was assigned a value of 3, Medium a value of 2, Low a
value of 1, and n/a a value of 0. Numerical values were tallied and scored based on
presence or lack digitization, date of data, and status as primary or secondary data. Tables
7 and 8 show the results of the numerical translation for all data types and all estuaries,
respectively. Appendix B contains a key to abbreviations used in the tables.
76
..W
0m
10
iz
z 1
2 4
0
i
..
1-4
al
5`i
a -1 -.1 -.1
.--1 ..-1 a
-1
-1
i 1
zzzzz
.--1
z -1
.--) .-
zzzz
xa
X
=
1
-g
.-1
—1
A
4
A
`) 1
4
-1
.--1
- ,t i
__I
--g
._
x
.-
z .-.) x
x
,,
,-
,- ,-, z
x
._
--g
-ic i
.-.1 -) ,_
.__I
._.)
....)
8
°
-1 x x
.--1
,-
4
1
t 4
4
6cn 1g
cn 1
in
0
P., g
cn .-4
cn
4
-I0
%
1
4
1
c,)
0 4
n-.1
x ._.1
1
1.A 4-
'-g
.-1
=
.--1
.-1
.-1
.-1 X X
,-1
-a
.-J -4
.-1 ,-1
X
X
.-
a --) a -1 x
a
ca
-6
.
'C
U
zi
4
--g
.--)
–1
.-4
X Z
XX
X
X X
-_) -_1
.--1 ,-
,--1
.--1 .--1
s
X Z
i
(5
a-
u
-4.8=-, .9,0 -.c0-,
2 vo)
,2 0.3 ›,
75 r24, ,.
2
2
-
Z-2.
t2
8--
g
'÷'"
g
t.'
.1L1i
. )8
'T''
."
(:),
>-'
m
2
4 ''';'
,q' c' ,:,'
'0a P.,, P.6,.
04 0, 0,
4
w
...
X X
s
-_i -.1
,--1 X X X
.__, •__, __, x ._ __,
x --) --1 x x
0 0
t—
CD
.„ .„ -o E,„ -O0
'73 '73 'd 4 t-3
3 4 :''
X X .-4
,-) --) ,--1 X
-1 --1 x x .- x
x
0
2..),
= -.I .__)
-1 a
aaa--)a-1
e, _, --!, -5g,
—1
z s __, ,. s = .__
__ __ __1
-1 .-1 -1
1 -1 -g
4
X X
--) --)
z -1
z
=
.-.1 . . a -1 -1
-,
=
,-.
--1 .--) 1 i
= a a -g --g
x
X .--1
.-4
= s
X
.-.1 X X .-1
x.--1
a
i
s __,
n-.1 .--1 .-4 X
z -)
X
x--1
X ,-1 X X X
-1
,_.
z --1 -1 z z
x.-1
s
X
–a -1 -1
X
s
.
----a
x
x
-c,. --g
.2
20 20
5 5
0 0
.2 .2
0 -I:i
2
.-1
,_
--1
--
,
0 4
4
X
-) .-- .--1
a 1
z
z
,..)
acl
0
5,
—1
.-1
.-1 .-1
a
,..
.<
g,-.
,--1 .- -.1 -4 -1 --1
.--1
- 7,,1
(5
,..o
t'd
-1,,,-,'
,5
2.
2
6 &
2
..
79,,
-74
0
'a
z0
-o
t
t
o
'4-,2
I.
2
"17'
,.
'2
<,„)
-a'
04
o
.4
',:
-a'
'1%,)'
•4
÷0'
5
,Y, x
-1 x
-ov
0
g
-0,o ...04.3
.1:1. ,9
— o
-,-., '
,,,1
8 V
cii 'S 4
0 2 Aa
t- ,ri . 0
'''
.o
,2
5 °.,,
,,-
6 '0.
o
n`)
8w
'7d
7
d
a 6.'
-
8
c
d
-0
7.,
..n
-o
`
0,'
4'
2 A
'.
n al Lo, v v.,
el at 0 al
."'
m e73 cl 0 co
a '-' - VI
2 5 5 ,'I 4 -o 4 4 -0 -o -o -0 -o -0
ro ,,q'
,,q- ,q.
r cq
-1`;' -g "8 4 cq'
"S "a "a "2 "a "a "a 'a "a na
,q' c
c:, -0a a0 a0 *0a8388888888
a) u a.) w v a., a, v a.) co
P, 0, 0, 0, V) V) V) (!) Cf) C/D V) V) V) Cf)
Coast Survey
US Coast Survey charts were one of the few pieces of data that dated from the
mid-1850s to about 1890, and consisted of a series of maps including hydrographic
surveys, topographic surveys, and compilation maps. Coast surveys were viewed at the
Oregon Historical Society in Portland, Oregon. A similar collection is available at the
University of Oregon Map Library, and examples are available on the Internet. All
estuaries were covered, however, few were covered to the head of tide. Wetlands were
clearly visible on the maps, despite the lack of a key. Keys, which are not located on the
maps themselves, have been developed from original survey directions by Shalowitz
(1964), and are available for cross-reference. There were no examples of forested
wetlands that were visible. Channels were also visible, and drawn with high detail, again
showing the location of wetlands. Boundaries were drawn with detail. Use of these maps is
somewhat difficult, as the maps are large and unwieldy, and are many in number. There
were over 55 maps for the 22 estuaries. Some maps are available on the Internet, but
these are few in number. The majority of maps are available only from the NOAA
National Ocean Survey Office or through select libraries. The combination of their size
and location makes these maps difficult to use, despite the clear delineation of wetlands.
The scale of most maps was 1:10,000, although some were 1:20,000 and 1:40,000. Most
maps drawn for military purposes, such as these by the Army Corps of Engineers, look at
the land—in particular natural features such as water and topographic features as well as
human construction—closely. Russell (1997) writes that "natural features on these maps,
such as streams and hills, often correspond closely with what is there today, so the details
are spatially comparable over time. Once the contemporary map-making conventions of
95
the time are clear [which can be achieved through use of Shalowitz (1964)[, many details
can be interpreted."
Coast surveys included both primary data—those maps drawn during the first visit
to the estuary—and secondary data—consisting of compilations made over a series of
years using field checks, topographic surveys, and hydrographic surveys. As the maps date
directly from the mid-1800s, they can be used directly to determine the location of former
wetlands through detection of grass marks, hatching, and channel marks. The maps have
full coverage to the head of tide for the Netarts, Pistol, Sand Lake, and Winchuk
estuaries. There is medium coverage, with most coverage of the bay proper, for the
Chetco, Columbia, Coos, Nestucca, and Tillamook estuaries. Table Al includes the
rankings for this type of data, and Table Ala shows the maps that exist per estuary.
Ranking tables include comments on the type of vegetation covered, the extent of
coverage, the primary data sources, etc.
Government Land Office Maps'
The Government Land Office (GLO) was responsible for surveying township
boundaries in one-mile square section-line grids throughout the western US. The GLO
was one of the first offices to catalogue resources in the area, preparing extensive notes
and some maps as its surveyors traversed their grids. For this project, the GLO MAPS
were a small collection of maps available at the Oregon State Archives in Salem, Oregon.
It is important to notice that this paper treated the Government Land Office (GLO) MAPS and the
Government Land Office SURVEYS as two different entities. The MAPS were a select set of maps
viewed at the Oregon State Archives. The SURVEYS, which include handwritten notes and maps, were
not actually assessed as part of this study; instead the BENNER maps were used as an imperfect surrogate
for the SURVEYS, which require large amounts of time and funds to use.
96
The maps themselves are poor in quality due to age and reproduction problems, and
cover only eight estuaries (Chetco, Columbia, Nestucca, Netarts, Pistol, Sand Lake,
Sixes, and Tillamook estuaries). Wetlands were visible from grassy areas drawn next to
estuary borders. However, the GLO maps covered few estuaries. As the maps date directly
from the mid-1800s, they are used directly to determine the location of former wetlands
through detection of grass marks, hatching, and channel marks. However, the maps show
evidence of the inherent bias of the mapmaker, as some areas were classified as good
farmland. There is inherent difficulty in using historical records such as the US Coast
Surveys and Government Land Office maps. Russell (1997) writes that they only
"represent a small portion of reality, seen through necessarily biased eyes. They cannot,
therefore be used as direct statements of reality in the past but must be interpreted with
awareness of potential bias." GLO maps, in particular, are few in number and low in
quality, however, and do not lend themselves to accurate and efficient detection of
wetlands. This project does not recommend the use of GLO maps for detection of former
wetlands. Tables A2 and Ala show the rankings and availability of this data per estuary.
Benner Maps (surrogate for GLO survey notes)2
Government Land Office notes were far more extensive than that the
Government Land Office maps, as the notes were made for each square mile of the
2
Iti ss i mportant to notice that this paper treated the Government Land Office (GLO) MAPS and the
Government Land Office SURVEYS as two different entities. The MAPS were a select set of maps
viewed at the Oregon State Archives. The SURVEYS, which include handwritten notes and maps, were
not actually assessed as part of this study; instead the BENNER maps were used as an imperfect surrogate
for the SURVEYS, which require large amounts of time and funds to use.
97
survey. Because these notes are so extensive, they are exceedingly difficult to use, for
they require a large commitment of time and resources in order to assemble, collect, and
interpret the data held within them. Because of the commitment required to use these
notes, this paper did not use them directly. Instead, it used a surrogate.
As discussed in the Background, Past Studies section, the Coulton et al. (1996)
study used GLO survey notes in addition to other data to create another secondary piece
of data showing the location of former wetlands. This data, consisting of a map of the
Tillamook Bay and a similar map of the Coquille River estuary, as referred to as the
Benner maps. These secondary data, and all the processes inherent in their creation, is
available for those wishing to reconstruct the location of former wetlands. While this
study would have liked to have examine the notes directly, it instead chose to use the
Benner maps as examples of what type of information could be extracted from the notes.
Therefore, this project ranked the Benner maps separately as surrogates for the GLO
Notes. This project is aware of the fact that it is giving the Benner maps double duty: not
only are they presented as an end product of a historical reconstruction, but they are also
presented as a beginning step, or piece of data, that can be used to perform a historical
reconstruction. This dichotomy arises out of the fact that extensive review of the GLO
notes was not possible. The Benner maps are therefore used in this project as a secondary
piece of data, with the understanding that the processes and interpretation behind their
creation may not be perfect. Thus, an understanding of their scale, accuracy, and error as
well as their content allow these maps to be used as any other secondary data is used in a
study. Therefore, these maps were assessed according to the criteria, with the historical
98
reconstruction report in which they were contained providing much of the condition,
quality, and data history information needed to accurately rank the maps.
The maps distinguish between types of wetlands, and allow for coverage up to the
head of tide. Small channels were not visible. One of the disadvantages to this type of
map is the effort used to make it. Each map required two years of data collection and
analysis, with associated costs. There were a series of current and past data used to make
these maps, but as the primary data dated from the mid-1800s, these maps can be
considered direct reflections of the wetland status in the mid-1800s. Therefore they can
be used to directly determine the location of former wetlands. Table A3 shows the
rankings for this data.
Historic Soil Surveys
The earliest soil surveys date from the early to mid-1900s. Early surveys covered
few estuaries but showed the location of hydric soils, wetlands, and other features on the
landscape. Coverage was for few estuaries. Historical Soil Surveys consist of one large map
per survey (which was the size of a county), making the maps rather easy to use. A book
describing the soils accompanies each survey. However, there was little to no information
regarding the creation of the maps and the scale was 1:62,500, making the quality of the
maps unknown. Soil surveys are used to determine the presence of former wetlands based
on the premise that hydric soils, which are soils that are created under the presence of
continual saturation, retain many of their features despite changes to the landscape such
as diking, filling, ditching, or draining over time. Soil surveys are not used alone to
determine the presence of wetlands, as hydric soils exist beyond tidal influence. They may
99
be used with elevation or other wetland data to infer the location of former wetlands.
Historic surveys show the location of hydric soils more precisely as fewer changes had
been enacted to the landscape. However, due to the low coverage of estuaries, this project
does not recommend their use for detection of wetlands as part of a statewide inventory.
For discrete use in Columbia, Coos, Coquille, Elk, Necanicum, and Sixes estuaries they
are recommended for use. Tables A4 and A4a show the rankings and coverage for this
data.
Paper Soil Surveys
Soil surveys created under the Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural
Resource Conservation Service; NRCS) have been used to determine the presence of
former wetlands. Soil surveys are used to determine the presence of former wetlands based
on the premise that hydric soils, which are soils that are created under the presence of
continual saturation, retain many of their features despite changes to the landscape such
as diking, filling, ditching, or draining over time. Soil surveys are conducted using
standard methods and are of high detail (1:20,000). A soil survey for Douglas County is
not available in paper form. Some soil surveys have also been digitized, and were ranked
separately. Soil surveys are not used alone to determine the presence of wetlands, as
hydric soils exist beyond tidal influence. They may be used with elevation, head-of-tide,
or other wetland data to infer the location of former wetlands. Soil surveys are patchy for
the Tillamook and Nehalem estuaries, and do not exist for the Umpqua estuary. Tables
A5 and A5a show the rankings and coverage for this data.
100
Digitized Soil Surveys
Digitized soil surveys are made separately from paper soil surveys using a collection
of aerial photographs and field checks. They are not simply digitized versions of paper soil
surveys, but instead are made from new data, perhaps explaining why they are only slowly
becoming available. The scale is 1:24,000. They are available for use in a GIS and are free
via the Internet. These digitized soil surveys show only soils, but do include hydric soils,
and accompanying NRCS tables describe soil characteristics. Use of this data is free and
the surveys exist for some estuaries, but lack coverage of Tillamook County, which
includes the Nehalem, Netarts, Sand Lake, Nestucca, and part of the Tillamook and
Salmon estuaries. Part of the Tillamook Bay (the Kilchis River watershed) was digitized
by the NRCS as part of the Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project (TBNEP, 1998), and
the southern half of the Salmon River was digitized with those for Lincoln County. Soil
surveys are used to determine the presence of former wetlands based on the premise that
hydric soils--those that are created under the presence of continual saturation--retain
many of their features despite changes to the landscape such as diking, filling, ditching, or
draining over time. Soil surveys are not used alone to determine the presence of estuarine
wetlands, as hydric soils exist beyond tidal influence. They may be used with elevation or
other wetland data to infer the location of former estuarine wetlands. Table A6 shows the
rankings for this data.
Historic Topographic Maps
Historic topographic maps, made either by the USGS or US Army Corps of
Engineers, are much like current maps and show elevation contours. Historic maps were
101
available at the Oregon State University map library and the University of Oregon Map
Library. They are 1:62,500, 15-minute quad sheets and because they date from the late
1890s to the mid 1950s are only available in historical collections. The maps are available
for all estuaries, and exist for entire estuaries, but the collections vary per library. The
OSU library does not have a full collection. The maps indicated the presence of wetlands,
flood zones, and dikes, and were created according to a standard protocol of surveying,
and after the 1930s, surveying and aerial photographs. Elevation contours were generally
50 feet across, however, contours for the Columbia River were largely 20 and 25 feet. As
the minimum contour line for most maps is 50 feet, there is a large amount of variability
in placement of former wetlands on these maps. They cannot be used for their elevation
information alone. However, the maps do indicate the location of wetlands at the time of
the map was made, and these wetlands may be used to infer the location of former
estuarine wetlands. Table A7 shows the rankings for this data, Table Ala shows the
names of the 15-minute quads that are necessary to have full coverage of each estuary,
and Table A7b shows the maps that are available at OSU.
Current Topographic Maps
Current USGS topographic maps are used in most previous studies and show
elevation contours of 20 or 40 feet. Maps for most estuaries show a 20 foot contour, but
there are some gaps with certain estuaries showing only 40 foot contours. Certain maps
for the Columbia River showed a contour of 10 feet above sea level, with most maps
showing a 20 foot contour. These maps exist for all estuaries to the head of tide and are
widely available. They are cumbersome to use, as each map is a large paper map. Current
102
maps (which were created from photos taken between 1975 and 1981 photos) are
1:24,000 7.5-minute quad sheets. Topographic maps exist for all estuaries to the head of
tide, and are recommended for use. They cannot be used alone, as the presence of land
below a 20 foot contour line does not immediately indicate the presence of an estuarine
wetland. However, use in conjunction with soil or vegetation data allows the location of
former wetlands to be inferred. Nearly every estuary had one or more maps lacking a 20foot contour line, raising variability in the placement of former wetlands. A8 shows the
rankings for this data and Table A8a shows the 7.5-minute quad sheets that are necessary
to have full coverage for each estuary. Quad sheets were examined to determine contour
lines. Many maps had contour lines of 40 feet, but included a supplementary contour line
of 20 feet above sea level. Maps for the Columbia River were randomly selected and
queried. Maps for the Necanicum River were in a Polyconic projection, which differed
from the traditional Lambert conformal conic projection of all other estuaries.
Digitized Elevation Data
The most common form of digitized elevation data is the Digital Elevation Model
(DEM). DEMs are rasterized elevation layers with pixels equal to 10 meters by 10 meters
(approximately 30 x 30 feet) and containing a discrete elevation value. DEMs are made
to be used with a GIS, but require specialized graphical extensions. However, they can be
used to determine contours, and these contours can be made to be smaller than 30 feet
based on the type of sampling chosen. The accuracy can only be within 30 feet, however.
DEMs contain elevation information only, are available for all estuaries to the head of
tide, and can largely be obtained for low costs. DEMs exist for all estuaries to the head of
103
tide, and are recommended for use. They cannot be used alone, as the presence of land
below a 30 foot contour line does not immediately indicate the presence of a wetland.
However, using in conjunction with other soil or vegetation data, they may be used to
infer the location of former wetlands. Table A9 shows the rankings for this data.
1939 Aerial Photographs
Historical aerial photographs were the second most widely used data in previous
studies. The earliest set taken for the Oregon Coast was taken by the Army Corps of
Engineers in 1939. These photos are available for all but the Winchuk estuaries, but do
not go to the head of tide for most estuaries. As the scale is 1:10,500, they show high
detail, and wetlands are clearly visible from the presence of vegetation, channels, and
surrounding features. Dikes are also visible. Using the photos is difficult. They are housed
at the University of Oregon Map Library, and the set consists of over 11,000 photos for
the entire coast. Piecing together the photographs requires an investment of time and
training. Due to the fact that the photos date from 1939 (which is after alterations to the
land had taken place), lack full coverage of each estuary, are black and white (yielding
little saturation and vegetation information), and are difficult to use, they are not
recommended for use. There are efforts underway, such as the Oregon Coast
Clearinghouse Project, which are organizing spatial data. While these historical photos
do not fall under its categories just yet, it is possible that photos, if catalogued in such a
way as to reveal natural elements in addition to social and political elements, could hold
more utility for natural resource manager. Table A10 shows the rankings for this data,
and Table A 10a shows the coverage and aerial photograph numbers per estuary.
104
Current Aerial Photographs
Aerial photographs were the most commonly used set of data for historical
analyses of estuarine wetlands. The number and types of aerial photographs that are
available is staggering, with coverage of all estuaries to the head of tide existing in many
sets. However, photos are largely in private collections, and different sets must be pieced
together to create an entire picture of the coast. Current aerial photographs are valuable
for determining the locations of current wetlands and dikes, and for assessing ground
saturation, sediment, hydrology, and vegetation characteristics. However, the use of aerial
photographs requires a large investment of time, training, and funds. Used as stereopairs,
aerial photographs may also yield elevation information. Despite the difficulties associated
with their use, aerial photographs can be used in conjunction with other data to infer the
location of former wetlands. Highly detailed color or infrared photos are recommended
for use. Table All shows the ranking for a generalized set of aerial photographs, and
tables Al2a and Al2b shows the rankings for a set of color and infrared photos that were
the basis of the generalized ranking.
Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles (DOQ)
Digitized forms of aerial photographs (digital orthophotophotos) are available for
the entire coast. These are created according to a standard protocol through which
distortion is removed and features are georeferenced to their true position on the earth.
These photos may be used for the same purposes as aerial photographs; however, they
contain no elevation data. DOQs are limited in scale to 1:40,000. Obtaining these files
does require a large investment of funds, training, and computer equipment.
105
Nevertheless, they contain the same characteristics as current aerial photographs and are
recommended for use in determining the location of former wetlands. DOQs are also
useful in situating the user to real locations on the landscape, making the use of other
data easier and more efficient; they are also recommended for use as base maps. Table
A13 shows the rankings for this data.
Remotely Sensed Data (not including aerial photographs)
Remotely sensed data contain a wide range of data types, from high altitude
photographs to thermal scans of the earth surface to elevation readings, and can be
acquired by both satellite and airplane. They can cover all estuaries to the head of tide.
However, remotely sensed data are difficult to use, requiring resampling, manipulation,
and analysis to use. Because there are so many types available, the costs and coverage
vary. These are digital forms of data. While this project did not have the resources to
utilize and test remotely sensed data, there are published studies indicating that it is a
valuable data type for reconstructing historical wetland landscapes. Remotely sensed data
allow both a large-scale view and a small-scale view of the landscape. Garono et al.
(2000) write that "data collected with airborne or space-borne sensors offer a 'bird's eye'
perspective that can highlight the spatial relationship between estuarine features and
permit accurate measurement of their extent." In addition, the same data can be resolved
to a 1.5 meter spatial resolution, as it was in Garono et al. remotely sensed data are not
only valuable for their resolving capability, but they are also able to classify vegetation
types. Analysis of Compact Airborne Spectrographic Imager (CASI) images revealed four
vegetation classes, eelgrass beds, high marsh, low marsh, and diked (pasture) vegetation
106
in a study of the Hood Canal, Washington (Garono et al., 2000). A variety of spectral
settings allowing, including detection abilities of radiation that is not in the human eye
visual range, allow for greater detail. By classifying vegetation types, remotely sensed data
can be used to determine the functions of both current and former wetlands. There are
limitations to remotely sensed data, most notably the difficulty associated with
georeferencing images and the costs associated with acquiring and manipulating the data.
Because digital sensors integrate reflected radiation from all parts of a plant, Table A14
shows the rankings for this data.
Historical written accounts
Like Coast Surveys and GLO surveys, historical written accounts are a piece of
data dating directly from the mid-1800s. Written accounts, however, are not available as
maps, but are largely diaries and ship logs from early explorers. The accounts that are
available for Oregon yield a patchwork of data that must be heavily interpreted to yield
wetland information. Accounts include a large amount of bias from those who made the
record, and are further biased by those analyzing the record. Features noted in accounts
are very difficult to georeference. Due to the small coverage, bias, and lack of
georeferencing, written accounts are not recommended for use. Historical written
accounts could be of more use to natural resource managers if conventional methods of
cataloguing were expanded to include topics of interest to scientists and other
professionals. Many written accounts are catalogued according to the timeframe in which
they written, or to the voyage the recorded, or to the Native Americans they
encountered. Archivists and librarians, once aware of the need for further cataloguing to
107
include natural variables, could give historical written accounts much more utility. Table
A15 shows the ranking for this data, and Table A15a includes excerpts about various
estuaries from accounts in Oregon.
Estuary Plan Book
The Oregon Estuary Plan Book (EPB) (Cortright et al., 1987) has also been widely
used to determine the location of former wetlands. The book contains detailed maps for
17 of Oregon's estuaries, although all but the Necanicum and Netarts estuaries lack
coverage to the head of tide. Current vegetation and substrate are described in detail, and
the location of fills and dikes are noted. There are no references to elevation, although
areas that are flooded are recorded. Despite their detailed scale (1:12,000), the maps do
not show channels. This may be due to the scale of the original data, which were smallscale aerial photographs (1:58,000 to 1:80,000). Creation of the maps, including
supplementary data, is well-documented. These maps are available in digital format via
the Internet. EPB maps, which included detailed vegetation, substrate, diking, and fill
data, can be used in conjunction with elevation, soil, and vegetation data to infer the
location of former wetlands with the bay proper for each estuary. As the maps include
detailed information, and because the files are digitized and accessible, these files are
recommended for use. Table A16 shows the rankings for this data.
Inventory of Filled Lands in Oregon Estuaries
An inventory of filled lands as recorded by the Division of State Lands includes
coverage for 15 estuaries, but the coverage is patchy. The maps record the location of fill
108
and include information on whether that fill was placed on tidelands or submerged lands.
The scale of the maps is high, indicating high boundary detail. Tide levels are also
recorded. These maps may be used in conjunction with wetland maps and elevation data
to infer the location of former wetlands, but they will yield little information due to their
patchy coverage. However, they are recommended for use, as they are one of two data
types with detailed information on fills. Table A17 shows the rankings for this data.
Local Wetland Inventories
Local Wetland Inventories (LWI) are highly detailed maps of wetlands within
select city boundaries. Few of the cities surveyed fell within estuarine regions, and thus
LWI maps covered few estuaries, were patchy, and did not go to the head of tide. Where
the maps did exist, they were of high scale (1:1200 to 1:4800), and showed wetland
boundaries clearly. Creation followed a set protocol and is detailed for each survey in the
accompanying literature. Maps did not show much detail on precise vegetation types or
channels. These maps are not recommended for use due to their lack of estuarine
coverage; they are, however, a detailed example of wetland mapping and may yield clues
for future data development (see Data Recommendations). Table A18 shows the rankings
for this data, and Tables A18a shows the coverage per estuary of those city maps that
have been created.
National Wetland Inventories
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps were widely used in previous studies.
The maps show the location of current estuarine, palustrine, lacustrine, marine, and
109
riverine wetlands. They delineate vegetation and substrate types according to a high
amount of detail, and include information on soil for those areas that are not vegetated or
upland. The maps also show the location of many dikes and fills, but lack information on
channels. NWI maps are available in local and university libraries, and are being digitized.
They are large 7.5-minute and 15-minute quad sheets, so they can be difficult to use.
Most maps are available at a scale of 1:24,000 but some are only at a scale of 1:62,500,
leading to some gaps in coverage. These gaps are located in the Alsea and Tillamook
estuaries, and equal one and two square miles, respectively. NWI maps are used to infer
the location of former estuarine wetlands in two major ways. One way uses dike
classification codes that separate estuarine and palustrine wetlands to determine that
palustrine wetlands may been formerly estuarine. In a second method, land classified as
upland on the NWI map is compared with soil, vegetation, and elevation data to infer
that the upland is former wetland. Both methods require the use of other sources of data.
As NWI maps are one of the few data sources that address wetlands directly, and because
they are widely available, drawn with medium detail, and characterized according to a
highly standard protocol (Cowardin et al., 1979) they are recommended for use. NWI
maps are being digitized by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Digitization is only partially
available for Oregon, and there are large gaps. Table A19 shows the rankings for this
data, Table A19a shows the coverage and scale of maps per estuary, and Table A8a
contains the names of the 1:100,000 quad sheet for NWI maps and indicates which
estuaries have been digitized. NWI maps are digitized by 1:100,000 quad sheets.
110
Essential Salmon Habitat Maps
The Division of State Lands, in conjunction with the Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife, has created maps showing the location of salmon-bearing streams and
estuaries. The maps show very little detail, as they are at a scale greater than 1:100,000,
but are one of the only pieces of data that show the location of salmon habitat and
potential use. Presence of salmon habitat may be used to infer the location of former
wetlands, which may have been historically used by salmon. However, this introduces a
high amount of error, as salmon use of estuaries (both in the present and past) is not fully
understood and is the subject of several studies. These maps are not recommended for
use. Table A20 shows the rankings for this data.
Field Observations
Field observations vary widely, but are also used widely. Field checks are used to
verify existing data and to determine new data. Field checks, which lead to a precise
understanding of the characteristic of a piece of land due to personal observation, can be
very highly detailed. However, the process of conducting field checks is cumbersome, and
therefore coverage off all estuaries to the head of tide is nearly impossible at a detailed
scale. Under ideal conditions, field checks could be used to determine the precise
vegetation, elevation, soil, channel, and other characteristics of every wetland in Oregon.
However, this is not a realistic goal given the high costs associated with this. Therefore,
field checks cannot be used as a primary data source in inferring the location of former
wetlands. However, field checks can be valuable in verifying data that is used. Table A21
shows a ranking for a generalized field check.
111
Interviews
Interviews vary widely and reveal a varied range of data. Interviews are used to
uncover information that is often not present in other data forms. However, the process
of conducting interviews is costly, lengthy, and cumbersome, and the results of the
interviews may be fraught with compounded errors and human bias. Interviews may yield
information on tidal height, tide gate presence, dike conditions, etc., but the amount of
effort necessary to collect and interpret interview data makes them unrealistic. They are
not recommended for use. Existing interviews, which may be available from previous
projects, may be available for certain areas (although none were encountered during this
project). However, determining the utility of these interviews is difficult due to
conventional cataloguing. As discussed with historical aerial photographs and historical
written accounts, existing interviews could hold more utility if both natural resouce
managers and traditional archiving processes uncovered environmental information.
Table A22 shows the rankings for a generalized interview.
There were several data types that were left out of the inventory due to problems
with collection. The most important type of data that was not included in the inventory
were FEMA Floodplain Maps, which were not available online or at the libraries
consulted during this project. They are available for purchase. These maps clearly show
areas of 100- and 500-year storms, and examples on the Internet show large areas in the
estuary region that are classified as floodplain. It was also clear, however, that these maps
could not be used alone, but would need to be used in conjunction with vegetation, soil,
elevation, and other data to infer the location of former wetlands. As this data type was
112
unavailable for inventory, it was not included in the process by which the protocol was
created. Other data types that were not included in the inventory were cannery and
hatchery locations, historic ownership patterns, and Army Corps of Engineers records.
These records were scattered, hard to access, and difficult to use.
There were distinct differences in the types of themes represented in the data.
Some themes were represented in nearly every data type, while some were lacking. Those
themes that were found in the majority of data types were: freshwater input,
development, land use, and vegetation. Those themes that were found in a moderate
number of data types were: substrate, soil, water depth, tide levels, channels, channel
complexity, floodplains, and dikes. Those themes that were lacking much representation
in the data were: elevation, channel width and depth, estuary type, dike condition, tide
gates, fills, dredged areas, fish usage, animal usage, ownership, and water quality. These
differences arise partially out of the data types this project chose to survey, and partially
out of serious gaps in data coverage. Those themes that are lacking good representation,
such as animal usage, ownership, or water quality, may play a vital role in the
prioritization of restoration sites.
Objectives 3 and 5: Best Available Data Protocol and Data Recommendations
Data types were ranked for the eight information types based on the criteria
presented in Table 4. The only new criterion that was developed was for salinity range.
Data types were ranked high if they distinguished between freshwater (< 5 ppt),
brackishwater (5-15 ppt), estuarine water (15-30 ppt), or marine water (> 30 ppt);
113
medium if they distinguished between fresh and saline water; and low if they showed no
salinity information. Table 9 contains the results of this data ranking.
114
Table 10 contains numbers indicating the order-of-use for each data type based
on the element that is desired. For each type of information, there is a data type that best
represents that information. If that best data is not available, this protocol suggests the
order in which other data types should be used to obtain the most accurate results. The
first step is to use a map that shows the head-of-tide. There is only one map of which this
project is aware that shows the head-of-tide directly: a 1989 Division of State Lands
Engineering Section (DSL, 1989) head-of-tide map, which was used as part of the
evaluation criteria and thus not ranked separately. The first step in any restoration effort
is to determine the greatest potential extent of estuarine wetlands, and that is determined
by the location of the head-of-tide on each tributary or slough. The second step is to
select a base map that shows the entire area being assessed; that map should represent the
landscape accurately and be easy to use when determining the actual geographic location
of features of the land.
Once head-of-tides have been determined and base map have been selected, the
next step is to use data to determine the information needed to reconstruct a historical
landscape. Information about existing vegetation, former vegetation, elevation, hydric
soils, tidal range, salinity range, channels and dikes must be known before an accurate
reconstruction of the landscape can be made. The inventory presented in this project
showed that many data types show this information. This best available protocol outlines
the order in which data types should be used to determine the information needed. Table
11 shows the data types that should be used first, and if not available, what data should
be used second, etc. The orders of data use are:
116
Channels
Dikes/tide gates
1) Field observations should be used first, followed by 2) paper soil
surveys, 3) US Coast Survey maps, 4) 1939 photos, 5) interviews,
6) Benner maps, 7) EPB maps and DOQs (no specific order
determined), 8) remotely sensed data, 9) aerial photographs, and
10) historic soil surveys.
1) Field checks should be employed first, followed by 2) USGS
paper topographic maps, 3) EPB maps and DOQs (no specific
order determined), 4) paper soil surveys, 5) remotely sensed data
and NWI maps (no specific order determined), 6) 1939 photos, 7)
DEMs, 8) aerial photographs, and 9) historic topographic maps,
historic soil surveys, and interviews (no specific order determined).
Data Recommendations
The first recommendation is for the state of Oregon to invest in accurate and upto-date head-of-tide maps; extra attention should be paid to the Columbia River, for
which no head-of-tide map exists. Without these maps, however, the protocol described
above can be used to determine the location of some head-of-tides. Elevation data is
lacking. No data type received a high or medium rank for elevation because no data type
showed contours of 10 feet or less. Creation of data showing contours of two feet or less is
highly recommended, followed by data showing contours of 20 feet or less. This is a
statewide recommendation. Few to none of the data assessed as part of this project
specifically represented tidal range or salinity range. Maps showing the location of average
tidal heights should be created or compiled from existing hydrology reports. The data
assessed as part of this project did not address the location of dikes directly, although past
studies have determined their location. The data recommendation is to create maps
showing dikes through either data collection or by compiling the results of past studies.
This protocol can be used by any individual determining the location of former
estuarine wetlands, regardless of data availability. This protocol suggests the best possible
data to use for determining an element; however, should the highest scored data be
118
unavailable, other data sources are suggested. This allows for the reconstruction of
wetland landscapes even without full data availability. One of the strengths of this
protocol is that it allows for some information about wetland type and function, as well as
form. For instance, information on former vegetation helps describe the former wetland
type and function (based on estimates of detrital production).
It is important to recognize that information types containing many themes must
be assessed in order to achieve an accurate picture of the historic landscape. Data types
cannot be relied upon alone to determine past conditions, but, as Russell (1997) writes,
"all evidence must be corroborated before it can be more than a tantalizing suggestion of
conditions in the past." All protocols developed here advocate the use of a variety of data
showing a variety of themes.
This protocol advocates use of the best available data per study area. This means
that the type of data used from estuary to estuary will vary. Objective 4, discussed in the
next section, advocates the use of a protocol for statewide standardization.
Objectives 4 and 5: State Standardization Protocol and Data Recommendations
Protocol 1: GIS-Based Protocol
The first step was to include only that data that received a high or medium
ranking for digitization. This narrowed the data types to the Benner maps, soil GIS data,
DEMs, DOQs, Remotely sensed data, EPB maps, Filled Land inventories, NWI maps, and
field checks. The second criteria was coverage. Only those data receiving a medium or
high ranking for number of estuaries were included. This narrowed the data types to Soil
GIS, DEMs, DOQs, Remotely sensed data, EPB maps, Filled Land Records, NWI maps,
119
and Field Observations. All data were assessed for quality, and the range was found to be
from 59 to 75. 75 was the highest realistic score, therefore, data with a score equal to 70%
of the highest score (75% of 75 = 53) was acceptable for use, leaving the eight applicable
types. It was clear from the inventory that no current data could be used alone to infer
the location of former wetlands, but instead must be used in conjunction with other sets
of data. The set of data narrowed by the scoring yielded a set showing diverse attributes:
soil, elevation, vegetation, wetlands, and dikes/fills.
The GIS-based protocol thus calls for the use of eight data types: Soil GIS, DEMs,
DOQs, Remotely sensed data, EPB maps, Filled Land Records, NWI maps, and Field
Observations. The protocol also assumes that a map showing the head of tide, such as the
Division of State Lands map (DSL, 1989), is being used to determine the location of the
head-of-tide.
Data Recommendations
The irony of the GIS-based Protocol is that it requires GIS data to already be in
existence. However, these four digitized forms of data have some data gaps that need to
be filled before the GIS-based Protocol can be used for each estuary. Soil surveys need to
be digitized for Lincoln Country. Extra attention should be paid to the areas of Tillamook
county that include the following estuaries: Nehalem, Nestucca, Netarts, Salmon, Sand
Lake, and Tillamook. DEMs are available for all estuaries. Remotely sensed data in some
form are available for all estuaries, but new images may need to be acquired and analyzed
in order to achieve the resolution necessary. EPB maps are available for all estuaries;
however, they do not cover each estuary to the head of tide. For full coverage, EPB maps
should be updated to include the head of tide for all but the Necanicum estuary. Partial
120
coverage for the five missing estuaries: Depoe, Elk, Pistol, Sixes, and Winchuk would also
improve the utility of the data. NWI maps are not available in digital form for all
estuaries. Extra effort in digitization should be paid to the following estuaries: Alsea,
Columbia, Nehalem, Nestucca, Salmon, Siletz, Siuslaw, Tillamook, Umpqua, and
Yaquina. These estuaries are partially digitized. The data is available on the Internet.
Filled land maps, while existing for all estuaries, are extremely patchy, and need to be
extended to full estuary coverage to the head-of-tide, and would then need to be
digitized. These maps, which consist of discrete lines, could be digitized with a moderate
amount of effort. Field observations either need to be taken or compiled and then
digitized.
Protocol 2: Extent-of-Coverage Protocol
A second protocol was constructed based on extent of coverage of estuary areas as
the principal criterion for data use. The first step was selecting data with a high rank for
number of estuaries covered. Data types that ranked high were Coast Surveys, paper soil
surveys, historic topographic maps, USGS paper topographic maps, DEMs, aerial
photographs, DOQs, Remotely sensed data, EPB maps, paper NWI maps, and field
observations. The next step was to restrict the data to those types that included coverage
to the head of tide. The remaining data types were: USGS Paper Topographic maps,
DEMs, Aerial Photographs, DOQs, Remotely sensed data, and Field checks. These six
data types yield a variety of information including elevation, vegetation, and dikes and
fills.
121
Data Recommendations
A protocol based on coverage is restricted by the data gaps in Oregon's data. For
instance, surveying Douglas county soils, or digitizing Tillamook county soils, would have
introduced another data type into the protocol. Expanding the coverage of the EPB maps
to the head of tide would do the same, as would filling in small gaps in coverage on the
paper NWI maps. As such, this protocol is restricted to elevation, vegetation, and
interpreted fill data.
Any protocol that relies on quality, coverage, and conditions will use a variety of
data. However, full-coverage data of any particular type do not exist for all estuaries, and
therefore it is difficult to implement any but the Extent-of-Coverage protocol. There are
still large amounts of variability with use of any data. Even those data with high quality
scores depend on the interpretation and experience of those who created and use them.
These protocols cannot serve as the only method of determining former wetlands.
Instead, they offer coastal standardization.
A variety of data sources must be utilized in order to access the data necessary to
reconstruct historical conditions of estuarine wetlands. This project relied on the Oregon
State University library, the University of Oregon Map library, the Oregon Historical
Society, the State of Oregon Archives, the Division of State Lands Office, the Internet,
and a wealth of existing studies and other pre-purchased maps.
CONCLUSIONS
The amount of data available for reconstructing historical wetland landscapes is
staggering. However, as determined by the inventory, there are serious gaps in several of
122
the data types. These gaps are known, and can be filled with determined efforts by state
authorities. Major data recommendations are to:
1) Update head-of-tide maps. In addition, create a head-of-tide map for the
Columbia River estuary and its tributaries.
2) Update and expand the EPB maps to the head-of-tide.
3) Map elevation to contours of 2 feet or better, if possible, or to 10 feet, at most.
4) Fill NWI map gaps in the Alsea and Tillamook estuaries, and finish digitization.
5) Fill soil survey gaps of the Umpqua, Tillamook and Nehalem estuaries.
6) Create maps of the tidal ranges.
7) Create maps of salinity ranges.
8) Use GLO notes to create maps equivalent to the Benner maps for all estuaries.
9) Obtain a set of current, large-scale aerial photographs that are centrally located
and available for use at little to no cost.
The three protocols presented by this project each have benefits and limitations.
The Best Available Data protocol can be tailored to the data availability in a specific
region being assessed while still yielding the most accurate results possible. In addition,
this protocol yields some information about the type and functions of the former wetland.
Information on vegetation, channels, tidal flow, and salinity regime yield a myriad of
information about the wetland type and about the water quality, habitat, and food
production functions it performed. The limitation of this protocol is that it does not erase
the uncertainty that exists from study to study and from estuary to estuary. In addition, it
does not describe former wetland type and function with certainty. The GIS-based and
Extent-of-Coverage protocols can be used to obtain standardized methods throughout the
state, allowing for prioritization of restoration projects. These protocols have serious
drawbacks, however, as they are hindered by data gaps. In addition, these protocols can
be used to determine the former location of a wetland, but give little information about its
type and functions. Selection of a protocol will depend on the desired outcomes and the
amount of investment that the user is willing to make.
123
FUTURE RESEARCH
This project suggests four courses of future action that will aid Oregon as it begins
the long process of replacing lost wetlands. The first step is to apply the protocols. By
using these protocols restoration site selection studies can be standardized according to
overall state needs, or they can contain the best available data.
The second recommended research action is for interested state agencies to
undertake a thorough inventory of all data in Oregon. This study was resource-limited,
and thus restricted itself to available data that could be collected and analyzed at no cost.
The inventory is not complete, as the amount of data in Oregon is overwhelming. The
types of data that must be surveyed fall into both historical and scientific realms. While
data typically used in wetland assessments, such as maps of natural features, data that falls
into the realm of historians should also be assessed. This data may have been heretofore
neglected, but yet hold valuable information. For instance, none of the studies included in
this report referred to any Native American traditional ecological knowledge. Stewart
(1977) writes about an Indian family who had set up their annual fish camp on a remote
part of the Fraser River in British Columbia:
For generations their families had been coming, the husbands standing
on the end of a rocky point jutting into the river, sweeping his net
downstream with the current ....
This fish were few and far between ... because there were fewer fish
going up the river now. Not in the old days, he told me, when there were
lots of fish and no government regulations. ...
We ran into similar complaints about the diminishing salmon runs
much farther down the river, near Yale, where for countless generations the
people have come to their hereditary fishing grounds on the Fraser River.
Evidence from an archeological site on the other side of the river dates it
124
occupation back to 9,000 years ago, and in all probability the people then
were down at the river for the very same purpose: the catching of salmon."
Cronon (1983) writes that New England Indians sought to obtain food wherever it
was seasonally most concentrated, indicating that Native Americans had "an
intimate understanding of the habits and ecology." Putting together layers
historical information about natural resources together with our current
understanding of the status of those resources can reveal landscapes that were
never before imaged.
The third action is to collect or develop new data and data types to fill data gaps.
New aerial photographs, high quality soil surveys, determined mapping of tidal channels,
small contour elevation studies, and precise locating of dikes and fills are all actions that
are necessary before the location of former wetlands can be know with any precision. The
quality of data collected should be high. There are standards at place within the state. For
instance, the Division of State Lands operates a local wetland inventory program that
requires intensive field checks and mapping procedures in the creation of its highly
detailed maps. Maps must be accepted according to these standards before they can be
used to locate wetlands. With these standards in place, other interested state agencies
could enact a project mapping former wetlands. One of the state's greatest weaknesses, as
discussed in the early part of this project, is that it does not know the location of its
former wetlands. The state, when distributing funds for restoration, should require that
the methods used to determine restoration sites are standardized for each estuary. This
will provide equality in estuarine coverage and will allow for standardization as the state
decides which areas will receive restoration funding over others.
125
The fourth course of actions requires expanding the scope of historical
reconstructions to the watershed level. This project looked at land within discrete parcels
by focusing on individual wetlands connected directly to the estuary. However, aquatic
systems are connected to both water bodies and the land feeding those water bodies. To
gain a full understanding of the role of historical wetlands, a study at an even larger
landscape perspective than this project (which remained within an estuarine landscape)
should be conducted. This study should be conducted at the watershed perspective so
that estuarine processes are considered as just one part of the many watershed processes
affecting both the historical and current landscape.
By increasing and enhancing the data available for studies, and by expanding the
scope of research to include larger landscapes, the state will finally be able to understand
its own natural environment and will be better able to properly manage its finite, but
precious, collection of estuarine resources.
126
REFERENCES
Benner, P.A. and J.R. Sedell. 1997. "Upper Willamette River Landscape: A Historical Perspective." In:
Laenen, A., and D.A. Dunnette (eds.), River Quality: Dynamics and Restoration. CRC Press: Boca
Raton, Florida. pp. 23-47.
Boit, John, 1791. Remarks on the Ship Columbia's voyage from Boston, (on a Voyage, round the Globe). In:
Frederic W. Howay (Editor), Voyages of the "Columbia" to the Northwest Coast 1787. 1790 and 17901793, 1941. Da Capo Press, New York, NY, pp. 363-431.
Bottom, Daniel L., Becky Kreag, Frank Ratti, Cyndi Roye, and Rick Starr. 1979 Habitat classification and
inventory methods for the management of Oregon estuaries. Final report: estuary inventory project. Habitat
Classification and Inventory Methods for the Management of Oregon Estuaries. Volume 1. Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife: Portland, Oregon
Boule, Marc and Kenneth Bierly. 1987. History of Estuarine Wetland Development and Alteration: What
have we wrought? Northwest Environmental Journal. 3:1 43-61.
Broome, Stephen W. 1989. "Creation and Restoration of Tidal Wetlands of the Southeastern United
States." In: Kusler, J., and M. Kentula (eds.), Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science.
Volume 1: Regional Reviews. US EPA: Corvallis, Oregon. pp. 37-72.
Brophy, L. 1999. Final Report: Yaquina and Alsea River Basins Estuarine Wetland Site Prioritization Project.
OWEB # 98-093. Midcoast Watersheds Council: Newport, OR.
Carson, Rachel. 1994 (1962). Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin: Boston, Massachusetts, 368 pp.
Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (CSRI). The Oregon Plan: Restoring an Oregon legacy through
cooperative efforts. Available on the Internet: http://www.oregon-plan.org/final.html. Accessed March
23, 2001.
Cornu, Craig (South Slough Watershed). March 6, 2000. Personal communication.
Cortright, R., J. Weber, and R. Bailey. 1987. Oregon Estuary Plan Book. Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development: Salem, OR.
Coulton, Kevin, and Philip Williams, with assistance from Patricia Benner. 1996. And Environmental History
of the Tillamook Bay Estuary and Watershed. Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project: Garibaldi, Oregon.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater
habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Dept. of the Interior: Washington, D.C.
Cox, Ross, 1811. A Six Year's Residence on the Banks of The Columbia River, &c. In: Edgar I. Stewart and
Jane R. Stewart (Editors), The Columbia River, 1957. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman,
Oklahoma, 398 pp.
Cronon, William. 1983. Changes in the land: Indians, colonists, and the ecology of New England . Hill and
Wang: New York. 241 pp.
Day, J.W., C.A.S. Hall, A. Yanez-Arancibia, and R.R. Christian. 1989. Microbial ecology and organic
detritus in estuaries. In: J.W. Day, C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia (Editors),
Estuarine Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York. PP. 257-308.
DeMers, Michael N. 1997. Spatial Analysis: The Foundation of Modern Geography. In: Fundamentals of
Geographic Information Sytsems. John Wiley & Sons: New York. Chapter 2, pp. 21-49.
Dykaar, Bruce, and P.J. Wigington. 2000. Floodplain formation and cottonwood colonization patterns on
the Willamette River, Oregon, USA. Environmental Management 25:87-104.
Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report No.
Y-81-1. Department of the Army: Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Evans, Cathleen C. 1998. History of Washington State's Marine Fish Management Areas. Technical report
#MRD 97-04. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Olympia, Washington.
Ewing, K., and L. Seebacher. 1997. Restoration of Coastal Estuarine Habitats Within Previously Diked Wetlands
in the South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve (Charleston, Oregon). Technical Report No. SOS
1-97.
FEMA, 2000. Introduction to the National Flood Insurance Program. Internet. Available on the Internet:
http://www.fema.gov/nfip/intnfip.htm.. Accessed August 14, 2000.
Franchere, Gabriel, 1967. Adventure at Astoria, 1810-1814. Hoyt C. Franchere (Translator and editor).
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, 190 pp.
127
Frenkel, R.E. and H.P. Eilers, 1976. Tidal datums and characteristics of the upper limits of coastal marshes in
selected Oregon estuaries. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 93 pp.
Frenkel, R.E. and J.C. Morlan. 1990. Restoration of the Salmon River Salt Marshes: Retrospect and Prospect,
Final Report to the USEPA. Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR.
Garono, Ralph J. 2000. A review of the MCWC CD-Rom Version 4.0: Use Recommendations. Earth
Design Consultants, Inc.: Corvallis, Oregon.
Garono, Ralph J., Charles A. Simenstad, and Robert R. Robinson. 2000. Using high spatial resolution
hyperspectral imagery to describe eelgrass (Zostera marinara) landscape structure in Hood Canal, WA.
In: Proceedings of the 17111 International Conference of the The Coastal Society. The Coastal Society:
Portland, Oregon.
Good, J., and C. Sawyer. 1998. Recommendations for a Nonregulatory Wetland Restoration Program for Oregon,
prepared for the Oregon Division of State Lands and the US Environmental Protection Agency, Region X.
Oregon Sea Grant, Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR.
Good, J.W. 1999. Estuarine Science, Management, and Restoration. In: Watershed Stewardship: A Learning
Guide. pp.II-10.1 - 11-10.61. Oregon State Extension Service: Corvallis, OR.
Good, James W. 1983. A Perspective on Historical Geography. Department of Geography, Oregon State
University: Corvallis, Oregon.
Green, Deb. S. March 23, 2000. "US Public Land Survey System Documentation." US Fish and Wildlife
Service. http://www.fws.gov/data/gisconv/plss.html. Accessed June 4, 2000.
Haswell, Robert, 1787. A Voyage Round the World. In: Frederic W. Howay (Editor), Voyages of the
"Columbia" to the Northwest Coast 1787-1790 and 1790-1793, 1941. Da Capo Press, New York, NY, pp.
1-107.
Haswell, Robert, 1792. A Voyage on Discoveries in the Ship Columbia Rediviva. In: Frederic W. Howay
(Editor), Voyages of the "Columbia" to the Northwest Coast 1787-1790 and 1790-1793, 1941. Da Capo
Press, New York, NY, pp. 293-359
Healey, M.C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific Salmon in Estuaries: The Life Support System. In: V.S. Kennedy
(Editor), Estuarine Comparisons. Academic Press: New York. pp. 315-341.
Higdon, J. and J. Moore, 1997. Model Wetland Protection Ordinance. Georgia Department of Community
Affairs. Available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/region4wet/wetpro.html. Accessed August 22,
2000.
Hines, Rev. Gustavus, 1851 (published 1973). Oregon: Its History, Condition and Prospects. Arno Press: New
York, NY, 437 pp.
Howison, Neil M., 1846 (published 1967). Oregon, A Report. Ye Galleon Press: Fairfield Washington. 40 pp.
Johannessen, Carl, William Davenport, Artimus Millet, and Steven McWilliams. 1971. The Vegetation of
the Willamette Valley. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 61:286-302.
Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 1988. Restoration Potential of Diked Estuarine Wetland in Washington and
Oregon: Phase I: Inventory of Candidate Sites. US EPA, Water Division, Wetlands Section: Seattle,
Washington. EPA Contract No. 68-02-4381.
Levin, Rachel F. December 6, 1999. "US Fish And Wildlife Service Awards $12 Million For Wetland
Restoration Projects." Fish and Wildlife Service. http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/Documents/fws991206.html. Accessed May 27, 2000.
Lewin, John. 1978. Floodplain Geomorphology. Progress in Physical Geography. 2:408-437.
Lichatowich, Jim. 1999. Salmon Without Rivers: A history of the Pacific salmon crisis. Island Press:
Washington, D.C.
Mehta, A.J., Parchure, T.M., Dixit, J.G., and Ariathurai, R., 1982. Resuspension potential of deposited
cohesive sediment beds. In Kennedy, V. (Editor). Estuarine Comparisons. Academic Press: New York,
NY.
Mitchell, D.L., 1982. Salt marsh reestablishment following dike breaching in the Salmon River Estuary, Oregon.
Ph.D. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 171 pp.
Mitsch, W. and J. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, Second Edition. Van Nostran Reinhold Co. Inc.: New York. pp.
507-540.
Morlan, Janet C. 1992. Ecological status and dynamics of a salt marsh restoration in the salmon river estuary,
Oregon. M.S. thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 126 pp.
128
Niedowski, Nancy. November 1998. "New York State Coastal Management Program Initiates Pilot
Project." Coastlines (National Estuary Program Newsletter). Environmental Protection Agency.
Available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/fall98/n y coast.html.
Accessed March 23, 2001.
Novitski, R.P., Smith, R.D., and Fretwell, J.D. 1997. Wetland Functions, Values and Assessment. National
Water Summary on Wetland Resources, United State Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2425.
Available on the Internet: http://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/wsp2425/functions.html. Accessed March 23,
2001.
NRC. 2000. "National Wetland Inventory Metadata." Availabel on the Internet:
http://www.nrc.state.ne.us/databank/metadata/nwi_doc.html. Accessed May 29, 2000.
National Research Council (NRC). 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology and Public
Policy. Water, Science, and Technology Board, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and
Resources, National Research Council. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 1979a. Habitat Classification and Inventory Methods for
the Management of Oregon Estuaries. Estuary Inventory Report. Volume 1. ODFW: Portland, Oregon.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 1979b. Habitat Classification and Inventory Methods for
the Management of Oregon Estuaries. Estuary Inventory Report. Volume 2. ODFW: Portland, Oregon.
Rey, J.R., D.B. Carlson, and P.D. O'Bryan. 1994. The management of Florida's (USA) saltmarsh
impoundments for mosquito control and natural resource enhancement. In: Mitsch, W. (Editor) Global
wetlands: old world and new, pp. 805-814. Elsevier: Amsterdam.
Rohse, Mitch. 1987. Land-Use Planning in Oregon. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.
Rumrill, S. and C. Cornu. 1995. South Slough Coastal Watershed Restoration: A Case Study in Integrated
Ecosystem Restoration. Restoration and Management Notes: 13: 53-57.
Russell, Emily. 1997. People and the Land Through Time: Linking Ecology and History. Yale University Press:
New Haven, Connecticut. 306 pp.
Schultz, S.T. 1990. Estuaries, Chapter 4, pp. 147-222. The Northwest Coast: A Natural History Timber Press:
Portland, Oregon.
Shalowitz, Aaron Lewis. 1964. Shore and sea boundaries, with special reference to the interpretation and use of
Coast and Geodetic Survey data. US Department of Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Survey:
Washington, D.C.
Simenstad, Charles, Blake Feist, Janet Morlan and Philip Williams. 1999. Assessment of Potential DikeBreach Restoration of Estuarine Wetlands in Tillamook Bay, Oregon. Tillamook Bay Estuary Project.
(Unpublished).
Simenstad, Charles, and Blake Feist. 1996. Restoration Potential of Diked Estuarine Wetlands: Inferring Fate
and Recovery Rate of Historically-Breached Sites. US EPA: Seattle, Washington.
Simenstad, Charles, David Jay, C. David McIntire, Willa Nehlsen, Christopher Sherwood, and Lawrence
Small. 1984. The Dynamics of the Columbia River Estuarine Ecosystem: Volume 1. Columbia River Estuary
Data Development Program, Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST): Astoria, Oregon.
State of Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL), Engineering Section. March 1989. Heads of Tide for
Coastal Streams in Oregon.
Stewart, David W., and Michael A. Kamins. 1993. Secondary Research: Information Sources and Methods.
Sage Publications: London. 158 pp.
Stewart, Hilary. 1977. Indian Fishing: Early Methods on the Northwest Coast. Douglas & McIntyre:
Vancouver, Canada.
Taylor, Joseph E., III 1999. Making Salmon: And Environmental History of the Northwest Fisheries Crisis.
University of Washington Press: Seattle, Washington.
Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project (TBNEP), 1998. Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project GIS data
layers Inventory List. Available on the Internet.
http://www.co.tillamook.or.us/countygovernment/Estuary/tbnep/old_maps/active.html. Accessed
October 29, 2000.
Thomas, Duncan. 1983. Changes in Columbia River Estuary Habitat Types Over the Past Century. Columbia
River Estuary Data Development Program, Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST):
Astoria, Oregon.
129
US Bureau of the Budget. 1947. United States National Map Accuracy Standards. Available via the USGS
National Mapping Program Standards:National Map Accuracy Standards website:
http ://rockvweb.cr.usgs.gov/public/nmpstds/nmas.html. Accessed July 30, 2000.
USDA-NRCS Soil Survey Division, 1998. Hydric Soil Technical Notes. Available on the Internet.
http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/hydric/hstn.html. Accessed August 22, 2000.
US Department of the Interior, 1997. Standards for the Preparation of Digital Geospatial Metadata.
Available via the USGS National Mapping Program Standards: Metadata website:
fittp://rockyweb.cr.usgs.,,ov/nmpstds/metastds.html. Accessed August 30, 2000.
USGS. 2000. National Aerial Photography Program (NAPP) and National High Altitude Photography
(NHAP) Examples. http://edc.usgs.govinapp/napp_examples.html. US Geological Survey. Accessed
June 3, 2000.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. 1981. G & C Merriam Company: Springfield, Massachusetts.
White, Jacques, Tom Dean, Zach Schwartz, and Chris Tanner. 1998. "Site Selection for Estuarine Habitat
Restoration: A model criteria." People for Puget Sound: Seattle, Washington. (Unpublished).
130
Table Ala. 15 minute topographic maps names
Estuary
1:62,000 Topo map - Oregon side
Alsea
Tidewater
Alsea
Waldport
Chetco
Cape Ferrelo
Chetco
Mt Emily
Columbia
Astoria
Columbia
Bonneville Dam
Columbia
Bridal Veil
Columbia
Camas
Columbia
Cathlamet
Columbia
Clatskanie
Columbia
Hillsboro
Columbia
Portland
Columbia
St Helens
Columbia
Svensen
Coos
Coos Bay
Coos
Empire
Coquille
Bandon
Coquille
Coquille
Depoe
Cape Foulweather
Elk
Cape Blanco
Necanicum
Astoria
Necanicum
Cannon Beach
Nehalem
Nehalem
Nestucca
Hebo
Netarts
Tillamook
Pistol
Gold Beach
Rogue
Gold Beach
Salmon
Hebo
Sand Lake
Tillamook
Siletz Bay
Cape Foulweather
Siletz Bay
Euchre Mountain
Siuslaw
Heceta Head
Siuslaw
Mapleton
Siuslaw
Siltcoos Lake
Sixes
Cape Blanco
Tillamook
Nehalem
Tillamook
Tillamook
Umpqua
Goodwin Peak
Umpqua
Reedsport
Umpqua
Scottsburg
Umpqua
Siltcoos Lake
Winchuk
Mt Emily
Yaquina
Toledo
Yaquina
Yaquina
150
Appendix B. Key to abbreviations in tables
Data Types
39P
1939 aerial photographs
BEN
Benner maps
CAP
Current aerial photographs
CSM
US Coast Survey Maps
DEM
Digital Elevation Models (Digitized elevation data)
DOQ
Digital orthophoto quadrangles
EPB
Estuary Plan Book maps
ESH
Essential salmon habitat maps
FLR
Filled land records
FO
Field observations
GLO
General Land Office maps
HSS
Historic soil surveys
HTM
Historic topographic Maps
HWA
Historic written accounts
INT
Interviews
LWI
Local Wetland Inventories
NWI
National Wetland Inventory
PSS
Paper soil surveys
PTM
USGS paper topographic maps
RSD
Remotely Sensed Data
SGS
Soil GIS
Estuaries
ALS
Alsea
CHE
Chetco
COL
Columbia
COO
Coos
DEP
Depoe
ELK
Elk
NEC
Necanicum
NEH
Nehalem
NES
Nestucca
NET
Netarts
PIS
Pistol
ROG
Rogue
SAL
Salmon
SAN
Sand Lake
SIL
Siletz
SIU
Siuslaw
SIX
Sixes
TIL
Tillamook
UMP Umpqua
WIN
Winchuk
YAQ
Yaquina
Ranks
H
M
L
n/a
High
Medium
Low
Not applicable
193
Appendix D
TIDEWATER DEADLINE LOCATIONS IN COASTAL AND
LOWER COLUIZIA RIVER STREAMS
Section II
ALSEA RIVER (Lincoln) - Paulsons Swinging Bridge located about
Taylor Landing Bridge.
5 miles above
BEAR CREEK (Clatsop) - Highway 30 bridge.
BEAVER CREEK (Clatsop) - three-tenths mile upstream . of the first bridge on
old Highway 30. T7N-R4W-See. 3.
BIG CREEK (Clatsop) - five-tenths mile below lowermost bridge on old Highway
30 in T8N-R7W-Sec. 18.
BIG CREEK (Lane) - Highway 101 bridge.
BIG ELK CREEK (Lincoln) - first concrete bridge on Harlan Road about 2-1/2
miles from Elk City.
CAPE CREEK (Lane) - Highway 101 bridge.
CHETCO RIVER (Curry) - Tide Rock, approximately 1.5 miles above the Highway 101
bridge. T41S-R137-Sec. 33.
CLACKAMAS RIVER (Clackamas) - Highway
99 East bridge crossing.
CLATSKANIE RIVER (Columbia) - four-tenths mile upstream of the first county
road bridge above Highway 30 in T7N-R4W-Sec. 16.
COOS BAY TRIBUTARIES (Coos) KENTUCK SLOUGH (Creek) - the tidegate at road crossing near mouth of
slough.
LARSON SLOUGH (Creek) - the tidegate at road crossing near mouth of
slough.
NORTH SLOUGH (Creek) - the tidegate at U. S. Highway 101 crossing.
PALOUSE SLOUGH (Creek) - the tidegate near mouth of slough.
COOS RIVER SOUTH FORK (Coos) - the old hatchery bride site
Dellwood. This is also the salmon angling deadline.
.5 mile above
COQUILLE RIVER (Coos) - Reeds Ford, located approximately 1 mile above the
Arago Road Bridge in Myrtle Point, This is below the junction of the
Middle and South Forks of the Coquille River.
201
COQUILLE RIVER NORTH FORK (Coos) - Coopers Bridge, located approximately
3.5 miles above the mouth of the North Fork of the Coquille River. •
CUMMINS CREEK (Lane) - Highway 101 bridge.
DEAN CREEK (Douglas) - tributary to Umpqua, head of tide, .8 mile from
Highway 38 bridge near second house north side of stream, past first
bridge.
DRIFT CREEK (Lincoln) - Siletz Bay - red covered bridge located about 2 miles.
above Highway 101.
DRIFT CREEK (Lincoln) - Alsea River - lower end of Lyndon Ranch about 5-1/2
miles above mouth. One mile upstream from Mays Bridge.
ELK CREEK (Clatsop) - confluence of the North and West Forks, 1.3 miles
southeast of Cannon Beach.
ELK RIVER (Curry) - head of tide located at the power-line substation,
approximately three-fourths mile upstream from mouth of river.
GNAT CREEK (Clatsop) - confluence of Rock Creek, approximately 2 miles
below Highway 30 bridge.
KILCHIS RIVER (Tillamook) - 150 yards upstream from old Highway 101 bridge.
The old highway bridge is .3 mile east of the new 101 Highway.
KLASKANINE RIVER (Columbia) - confluence of the North and South Forks near
Olney.
LEWIS & CLARK RIVER (Clatsop) - five-tenths mile above Stavebolt Creek in
T7N-R9W-Sec. 30.
LITTLE NESTUCCA RIVER (Tillamook) - confluence of Fall Creek,
Meda Loop Bridge.
.8 mile above
MIAMI RIVER (Tillamook) - 0.4 mile east on Miami River Road from Highway 101.
MILL CREEK (Douglas) - tributary to Umpqua, approximately head of tide at
posted power pole 1.4 miles upstream from Highway 38 bridge.
MILLICOMA. RIVER (Coos) - East and West Forks - the junction of the East and
West Forks of the Millicorna River at Allegany. This point is approximately 1 mile below the head of tidewater on each stream but is the
upper deadline for all salmon angling.
MILTON CREEK (Columbia) - bridge on Old Portland Road 1/4 mile south of
St. Helens in R1W-T4N-Sec. 9.
NECANICUM RIVER (Clatsop) - 200 yards above Williamson Creek in
T6W-R1OW-Sec. 33.
202
1 1_
(
NEHALIal RIVER (Tillamook) - Eck Creek approximately 1/4 mile above Roy Creek
Park.
NEHALEM RIVER NORTH FORK (Tillamook) - Henderson Creek in T3N-R9W-Scc. 6.
NESKOW1N CREEK (Tillamook) - .2 mile south of the town of Neskowin.
NESTUCCA RIVER (Tillamook) - at Cloverdale Bridge.
ROGUE RIVER (Curry) - the power line crossing at the U. S. Plywood Mill
approximately 4.5 miles above the Highway 101 bridge. T36S-R1417-Sec. 16.
SALMON RIVER (Lincoln) - old Highway 101 bridge near Otis junction.
SAND CREEK (Tillamook) - .3 mile west of the town of Sandlake on Galloway Road.
SANDY RIVER (Multnomah) - Highway 30 bridge crossing.
SCAPPOOSE CREEK (Columbia) - bridge on West Lane Road 1/4 mile east of
Highway 30. R2W-T4N-Sec. 36.
SCHOLFIELD CREEK (Douglas) - tributary to Umpqua,
at railroad trestle.
3
miles from Highway 38
SCHOONER CREEK (Lincoln) - Siletz Bay, near concrete bridge located about
2 miles above Highway 101. This bridge is at the Drift Creek cut-over
road.
SILETZ RIVER (Lincoln) - mouth of Cedar Creek located near road 15 miles
from Kernville.
SILTCOOS RIVER (Lane) - International Paper Company Dam. West of Highway 101
in T19S-R12W-Sec. 33.
SIUSLAW RIVER (Lane) - Farnham public boat landing 2 miles above Mapleton.
T17S-R1OW-Sec. 34.
SIUSLAW RIVER NORTH FORK (Lane) - the first or lower of two bridges at the
"Portage." Center of T18S-R11W-Sec. 8.
SIXES RIVER (Curry) - head of tide located at the westerly edge of Squaw
Bluff, frequently referred to as "Orchard Hole," approximately 1 mile
upstream from mouth of river.
SMITH RIVER NORTH FORK (Douglas) - approximately head of tide, 3.4 miles
upstream from bridge on main Smith River Road, or .3 mile upstream
from old schoolhouse near Dunn residence.
SMITH RIVER (Douglas) - approximately head of tide at "head of tidewater"
sign, one mile above Spencer Creek. Present angling regulation has
Spencer Creek as tidewater dead)ine,
203
TAIIKENITCH CREEK (Douglas) - site indefinite and no good landmarks. It
would be better to ignore but if this not possible then a point about
.75 mile below International Paper Company Dam suitable. Site is in.
T20S-R12W-Sec. 20.
TENMILE CREEK (Lane) - Highway 101 bridge.
TIDE CREEK (Columbia) - Highway 30 bridge.
TILLAMOOK RIVER (Tillamook) - Tillamook River Bridge on Bewley Creek Road
.1 mile west of Highway 101.
TRASK RIVER (Tillamook) - new Highway 101 bridge crossing.
UMPQUA RIVER (Douglas) - approximately head of tide, lower end of rock
island approximately 1.4 miles above Scottsburg Highway bridge. Present
angling regulation has Scottsburg Highway bridge as tidewater deadline.
WHISKEY CREEK (Tillamook) - 100 feet above culvert on Highway 131 or Cape
Lookout Road.
WILLAMETTE RIVER (Clackamas) - Willamette Falls at Oregon City.
WILSON RIVER (Tillamook) - at the
east of Highway 101.
Southern Pacific Railroad bridge .6 mile
YACHATS RIVER (Lincoln) - 300 yards above public boat launch located 1 mile
east of Yachats.
YAQUINA RIVER (Lincoln) - first concrete bridge above Elk City about 2 miles
above town.
•
YOUNGS RIVER (Clatsop) - approximately 250 yards above the first county road
bridge below Youngs River Falls in T7N-R9W-Sec. 22.
204
TO:
The Files
FROM:
Ron Frost
DATE: October 1, 1979
SUBJECT: Columbia River and Tributaries-Navigability
In determining the State's ownership of tributaries of the Columbia River
the listing of the navigable length of waterways established by the Corps
of Engineers is used. Those streams that are below Bonneville Dam are
effected by tidal action.
Waterway
Name
Big Creek Slough
Bradbury Slough
John Slough
Calander Slough
Carr Slough
Clatskanie River (including
Beaver Slough)
Clifton Channel
Driscoll Slough
Goble Channel
Goble Creek
Government Island Channel
John Day River
Knappa Slough
Big Creek
Blind Slough
Grizzly Slough
Warren Slough
Lewis & Clark River
Barret Slough
Green Slough
Jefferson Slough
Multnomah Channel
Oregon Slough
Prairie Channel
Rinearson Slough
Sandy River
Skipanon Channel
South Slough or Burnside Ch.
Svenson Slough
Bear Creek
Walker Island Channel
Wallace Slough
Westport Slough
Navigable length in miles
Major River
Tributary
Tributary of Tributary
1.5
3.0
0. 1
1.5
0.3
5.0
9.0
0.2
3.0
0.2
8.0
3.0
2.0
0.5
2.5
0.4
1.7
8.0
0.1
0.2
0.5
21.0
6.0
10.0
2.0
2.0 (From COE listing)
2.6
3.0
2.0
0.7
4.0
3.0
4.5
205
Files
October 1, 1979
Page 2
Waterway Name
Navigable length in miles
Major River
Tributary
Youngs River
Binder Slough
Klatskanie River
Walluski River
Totals
Tributary of Tributary
8.3
0.4
2.0
3.0
108.1
11.7
0.4
The Oregon Blue Book notes that the Oregon coast line is 429 miles long.
The State's ownership of the Pacific Ocean extends seaward three nautical
miles. A nautical mile is equivalent to 6,080 feet. These facts provide
the necessary information to determine the extent of Oregon's proprietorship
of the ocean.
429 miles x 5,280 feet/mile = 2,265,120 feet
3 nautical miles x 6,076 feet/nautical mile = 18,228 feet
Area = 2,265,120 feet x 18,228 feet = 4.128860736 (10)
= 4.128860736 (10) = 947,856 Acres
43560 feet2/
Acres
n
206
Section III
COLUMBIA
RIVER BAR LOCATIGUS (Mouth to Bonneville) -
BRADWOOD - turn off Fff.ghway 30 5 miles vest of Westport. Proceed to old
Bradwood Mill site (about 2 miles).
WAUNA - 2 miles downstream from Westport. This beach is only accessible
by boat as Crown. Zellerbach is not permitting access.
WESTPORT & GREEK - ThL'se beaches are only accessible by boat as landowners
do not permit pudic access. They may be reached by launching at
Westport boat la:,:ding. Greek Beach is located on the west side of
the mouth of Westport Slough and Westport Beach is located upstream
(east) from the ry_pouth of the slough.
JONES - turn off Highw;ay 30 at Woodson (3 miles east of Westport) towards
the Columbia. Ti-orn right across bridge and proceed to where a dike
road turns to thae left; proceed on this road to the Columbia. Jones
Beach is located:• upstream (east) about 1/2 mile from this point.
SEINING GROUNDS - this beacT is only‘accessible by boat. Launch at
Clatskanie Ramp (just test of Clatskanie) and proceed to the mouth
Clatskanie (about':; 2-1/2 miles). Beach is located upstream 2 miles
from the mouth o-if the Clatskanie.
DIBBLEE'S - turn off EHighway 30 on to Longview Bridge highway (just west
of Rainier), them turn just before going over bridge at small
grocery store. ?Proceed on this road and go under bridge (west) for
about 2 miles. Beach is located over the dike at point where road
makes a 90-dgrea turn to the left.
LONGVIEW BRIDGE - Pro.lr_s eed the same as with Dibblee's, only park under
Longview Bridge- Beach is located just downstream from bridge.
RAINIER BEACHES - They are as one proceeds upstream - Red Mill (1/4 mile
east of Rainier), Cottonwood (1 mile east of Rainier), Lower
Lindbergh (1 - 1/a miles east of Rainier), and U pper Lindbergh (2 miles
east of Rainier);,
PRESCOTT - turn off Eighway- 30 six miles southeast of Rainier at the
Prescott Juncti(rn. Beach is located downstream from the town of
Prescott for abalr-It 1-1,12 miles.
GOBLE - Located adjacent to Highway 30 just downstream from Goble.
This is a ∎.difficr.ilt beach to find. It is located between
Columbia City a.rr;-_1 St. Eielens. It may be reached from St. Helens
by crossing private property. May best be reached by boat.
.BROWNLOW -
207
SAUVIE ISLAND BEACHES - The Sauvie Island beaches may be reached by
following Reeder Road across the island, to reach the east side
along the Columbia. Beginning at the north end of Reeder Road
(point :here pavement ends) and proceeding upstream, the beaches
include: Walton Beach (just north of eastside checking station),
Willow Bar Beach (-;bout 1/2 mile south of eastside checking station),
Marshall Beach and Reeder Beach (just south of Willow Bar).
INTERSTATE BRIDGE - This beach is located about 1/4 mile upstream from
the Interstate Bridge at Portland. Parking is available just east
of the bridge.
BLUE LAKE - may be reached by taking Marine Drive and traveling to point
where Marine Drive is opposite Blue Lake. Beach is just over dike.
It is opposite the upstream end of McGuire Island.
WARRENDALE - Take Interstate 80 to Dodson exit (near Bonneville) and
follow signs to Warrendale. Beach is opposite Warrendale and
downstream from the mouth of McCord Creek about 1/4 mile.
McCORD CREEK - same area as Warrendale Beach. The beach is located at
the mouth of McCord Creek.
TANNER CRREK - Take Bonneville exit off Interstate 80 freeway. Proceed
to parking area just north of fish hatchery. Beach is located
1/4 mile west of parking lot at the mouth of Tanner Creek.
BRADFORD ISLAND - Take Bonneville Dam exit off Interstate 8o freeway.
Proceed on road to dam, then turn left after crossing the generators
at the dam. Fishing area includes the west tip of the island on
both sides (watch deadline closures).
208