Table of Contents
Project Summary............................................................................................................................ 2
Background .................................................................................................................................... 3
Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Discussion and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 15
References ..................................................................................................................................... 17
Maps ........................................................................................................................................ 18-21
1
Project Summary
Project staff utilized the ODFW Aquatic Inventory protocol to assess habitat in selected small,
medium, and large sized streams in the Upper Nehalem basin. In addition, the project personnel
conducted a snorkeling survey to estimate juvenile salmonid distribution in these streams. The
2005 surveys completed a portion of the Coho freshwater habitat found within the Upper
Nehalem. The remainder of the streams requiring a habitat survey will be completed during the
2006 survey season. Any additional habitat located after the 2006 surveys can be added into the
stream summary binder that accompanies this prioritization summary report. In this way, the
data binders generated serve as a working document that can be updated and compared to
significant changes in stream habitat from either natural or artificial processes.
During the 2005 season we surveyed 84 stream reaches in 38 streams totaling 96.893 kilometers of
habitat.
We identified:

35 stream reaches using our 2005 habitat survey data that we believe should receive the
priority for Large Woody Debris (LWD) placement

12 large stream (> 12m active channel width) reaches using our 2005 habitat survey data
that we believe should be investigated for large wood placement in the secondary
channels

26 stream reaches using our habitat survey data that we believe should receive the
priority for Riparian Enhancement

15 culvert crossings that impede adult and/or juvenile Coho passage

2 concrete dams that impede adult and/or juvenile Coho passage
We developed one large binder that provided detailed habitat survey information on each of the
84 stream reaches.
This project has greatly improved our understanding of where our priorities for habitat
restoration and LWD placement should be.
2
Background
The Nehalem watershed is divided into two sub-basins: Upper Nehalem and Lower Nehalem.
The Upper Nehalem watershed is located in Northwest Oregon and is made up of 555 square
miles, which is 1.85 times larger than the Lower Nehalem Basin. The Lower Nehalem is located
on the Oregon coast and is made up of 300 square miles. The Nehalem River has a Peak
discharge typically during the winter season, between November and February.
During the last 150 years land management practices have drastically affected the rivers that coho
use. Dike building, logging, water diversions, and road construction significantly reduced the
availability of habitat for Coho1. Road culverts and hatchery facilities can be barriers that restrict
use of streams by Coho. The loss of large wood from streams reduced the number of pools and
the amount of winter rearing habitat for Coho.
Winter can produce a harsh environment for juvenile Coho. Heavy rains create violent water
surges that can kill these small fish. The primary defense for the juveniles is to retreat into calmer
off-channel habitat2. The amount of this kind of rearing habitat is a function of stream gradient,
amount of large woody debris, and valley and channel morphology.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) Aquatic Inventory Project developed an
excellent protocol for gathering information about stream habitat. This survey methodology
came into use around 1989. In the last 16 years ODFW has surveyed about 358.02 kilometers of
streams in the Upper Nehalem basin. These surveys were conducted in the summer season, and
left incomplete habitat information for Coho bearing streams within the Upper Nehalem
Watershed.
The Upper Nehalem Watershed Council initiated the 1st year (2005) Habitat Assessment Project
to determine the condition of the habitat in the remainder of the Upper Nehalem freshwater
streams not surveyed. Specifically, the study was designed to determine:
1) Stream reaches most suitable for restoration - stream reaches where LWD placement, riparian
enhancement, and/or artificial barrier replacements will increase off channel habitat and
hence Coho productivity,
2) Current habitat conditions in streams – which stream reaches would have a high potential
for increasing Coho production, but due to current conditions, the habitat has a low
carrying capacity.
1
The Oregon Plan recognizes that availability of off-channel rearing habitat is a limiting factor
for the productivity of Coastal Coho Salmon Stocks.
2
Includes backwaters, alcoves, isolated pools, and significant secondary channels
3
In addition, we wished to produce information that could be used by the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) as part of their Oregon Plan for Salmon Recovery.
The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) provided a grant for 3/4 of the cost of the
project. The project leader, the Upper Nehalem Watershed Council (UNWC), and the 4-H
natural resource students and their teacher (Peter Walczak) provided volunteer time for the
required 1/4 in kind local match.
4
Methods
Stream Identification
The report authors used Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers to create maps
showing the locations of streams which:
1) appeared to be low gradient;
2) drained an area of greater than 300 acres
3) had not been surveyed by ODFW in the last 10 years;
We found 186 streams covering more than 494.1 kilometers in the Upper Nehalem Basin. These
streams were potential Coho streams. These were streams where LWD placement might be
expected to improve Coho productivity, but where existing data did not provide enough
information to determine which stream segments were most important. During the 2005 project
season, ninety-seven (97) kilometers were surveyed covering thirty-eight (38) streams. Since
some streams are dropped after a field visit, this left the remainder of streams to be surveyed.
Field Surveys
One, two person survey teams conducted the habitat surveys. The Project Leader, provided
technical assistance, conducted habitat and snorkel surveys, and coordinated survey schedules.
In addition, ODFW staff provided personnel for assistance with data collection and data analysis.
This ensured that the information collected followed similar procedures and methodologies to
the ODFW surveys completed.
Survey teams used the 2004 ODFW Aquatic Inventory 3 protocol and associated data forms. The
project leader and crew had several prior years experience working for ODFW as employees
conducting habitat surveys. When inexperienced watershed council surveyors were hired, the
project leader trained the new surveyors in the same way ODFW trains surveyors each summer
prior to the survey season.
The survey teams conducted their surveys between December 15, 2004 and April 15, 2005. The
habitat survey season was continued an extra two weeks in April. This was due to an above
average spring rainfall period in early April, after one of the driest winter seasons on record.
3
To obtain more specific methods for the habitat surveys conducted refer to Aquatic Inventory
Project: Methods for Streams Habitat Surveys 2004. YBWC and OWEB received assurances
from ODFW research staff that winter habitat surveys produce results as good as, or better
than, those produced by summer surveys.
5
This allowed for winter stream conditions to be recorded during the habitat survey in early April,
which is important for identifying off-channel juvenile rearing areas.
The project leader and field staff obtained landowner permission 4 prior to conducting the
surveys. They started their surveys at the mouth of each stream and continued until the stream
size or gradient precluded stream use by Coho. Where landowner access was denied, the survey
was started at the next tax lot boundary or at the nearest reach change.
The survey team took photos to record field conditions found during the surveys. The photos
focused on the general valley and channel geomorphology and unusual attributes (culverts,
dikes, etc.).
Neah-kah-nie H.S. (4-H Natural resource club) was involved in this project. The students
involved were sophomore, junior, and senior students. These students conducted independent
surveys with the project leader in selected study areas. During the initial session, the project
leader trained the students to use the ODFW Aquatic Inventory survey protocol. They were then
able to apply the knowledge gained in the field to completing the Coal Creek habitat survey. The
work was completed during weekends and holidays where the students actively participated in
conducting habitat surveys on the stream.
The habitat survey crew flagged pools they thought should be snorkeled. They flagged every
fourth pool greater than one meter deep, and all major off-channel habitats. The project staff
conducted snorkel surveys in the flagged pools after the survey crews completed the habitat
surveys. If necessary, they continued the snorkel survey above the flagged area until they found
the end of Coho presence.
The main objective for the snorkel survey was to obtain the upper distribution for juvenile Coho.
The secondary objective was to obtain peak counts within each stream reach identified during a
habitat survey. If rough terrain made a night snorkel survey too difficult, an upper distribution
end of fish use was identified by either daytime snorkel, or visual observations recorded by the
field crew. In these streams, only the significant off-channel habitats and deep pools were
snorkeled. Unfortunately, some streams lacked any pools to snorkel throughout the reach.
The project leader conducted the snorkel surveys at night 5 to obtain the best counts of juvenile
Coho6.7 For quality control, 10% of the snorkel surveys were resurveyed. The East Fork
4
Three stream reaches could not be surveyed because landowner permission could not be
secured.
5
To support the night sampling design a few surveys provided day/night comparisons.
During cold winter conditions Coho are quiet during the day and move about and feed
during the night.
6
6
Nehalem Basin was not snorkeled in 2005. This was due the habitat surveys not being completed
until early April and winter juvenile Coho rearing conditions could not be confirmed. Therefore,
the sub basin will be snorkeled during the winter 2006 survey season. This provided quality
assurance that the snorkelers were observing real time winter rearing conditions.
Data management
The ODFW Aquatic Inventory Project provided computer programs for data entry and analysis.
ODFW Access programs were used to generate summary data for each stream reach in the study.
The process included:

Data entry for all habitat surveys conducted

Calibrate estimated lengths and widths for surveys

Generate stream reports summarizing database reports. This included a general
summary, specific reach descriptions, and information on unusual attributes (LWD
project potential, riparian project potential, access for industrial equipment)

USGS topographical map (1: 24 000); detailing the survey attributes (start, end, riparian
transects, culvert crossings, etc.)
Data analysis
Large wood placement priority
The report authors have developed a simple and basic system for establishing priorities for LWD
placement projects. Ultimately, we opted for an approach that was both easy to understand and
easy to apply. This approach gives us almost the same result as the more complicated equations
from other prioritizations. We chose to give LWD placement priority to streams that:
1) already had Coho present8,
2) were in a valley wide enough that large wood could create off channel habitat (Valley
Width Index [VWI] greater than 3),
3) had a channel width small enough for wood to stay in place after periods of heavy rain.
(Active Channel Width [ACW] less than 12 meters) and
4) did not currently have adequate large wood (<2.0 Key pieces per 100 m [Keylwd])
7
8
He needed two underwater lights: Underwater Kinetics High Pressure xenon lamp with a
medium penetrating beam with a 3.2 in diameter lens and a Browning Submersible High
Pressure xenon lamp with high penetrating beam with a 2.0 in diameter lens.
Coho were considered to be in a stream reach if they are found in a higher reach of the same
stream. Coho were also considered to be in streams that had fish passage barriers if there
were coho below the barrier.
7
In addition to these factors, access to the stream reach will be a significant factor in choice of sites
for wood placement. We developed preliminary judgments about the difficulty of access from
map readings and from surveyor observations.
Finally, larger streams with potential off-channel LWD placement potential were identified using
the 2005 UNWC habitat data. The larger streams identified for LWD placement potential were
based on the same criteria used for smaller streams, except that the active channel was greater
than 12 meters wide.
Riparian Enhancement Priority
The report authors have developed a simple and basic system for establishing priorities for
Riparian Enhancement projects. Ultimately, we opted for an approach that was both easy to
understand and easy to apply. We chose to give Riparian Enhancement priority to streams that:
1) had riparian vegetation dominated by hardwoods, shrubs, or grass.
2) recorded low average shade cover (< 70%).
3) did not have conifers well established within the riparian zone.
4) had current land use practices which could be adjusted to increase shade and/or large
wood recruitment.
Stream reaches with an average shade cover greater than 70%, but lacked conifer establishment in
the riparian areas were identified as stream reaches with hardwood conversion potential. These
streams may have adequate shade, but were lacking the large wood recruitment. The authors
understand that the habitat data can be revisited and additional riparian priority lists could be
established using a different set of criteria.
Artificial Fish Passage Barriers
Once the 2005 habitat surveys were conducted, the project staff completed an inventory of road
stream crossings in the Upper Nehalem Watershed that potentially blocked stream habitat
suitable for salmon. They:
1.
identified 27 culvert crossings that appeared to be on low gradient streams.
2.
visited all road stream crossings to determine if there was a culvert that appeared to
block Coho passage9.
3.
generated preliminary priorities for culvert replacement based on apparent
gradient10 of the reach made accessible, area of land drained, fish presence below the
culvert, and estimated cost of culvert replacement
This survey did not include an analysis of the blockage. All culverts with a drop of over six
inches were considered to have a potential for blocking Coho passage.
10 Map reading at best gives only an approximation of actual field conditions.
9
8
In addition, there was one more type of artificial barrier that we identified after the habitat
survey was completed. There were two concrete dams recorded on Alder Creek. These dams
were adult and juvenile barriers and blocked 1km of valuable fish habitat.
9
Results
The field staff dropped a number of streams from the survey due to:
1.
the small size of the stream;
2.
natural barriers that blocked any possibility of fish passage; and
3.
lack of permission to access the stream.
In addition, we learned that the GIS layers the authors used overestimated the length of the low
gradient sections of survey streams. This was due to natural gradient barriers, which eliminated
some target sites after an initial field visit, or resulted in a shorter than expected habitat survey.
At the completion of the surveys we found that we had surveyed eighty-four (84) stream reaches
in thirty-eight (38) streams totaling 96.893 kilometers of habitat.
Snorkel Surveys
The Project staff snorkeled 130 pools. They found Cutthroat in 98 of these pools, Coho in 126
pools, Steelhead in 74 pools, and Chinook fry in 3 pools. Unfortunately, there was a lack of deep
pools and off-channel habitat throughout the majority of the tributaries with a habitat survey in
Upper Nehalem. This resulted in visual observations from the habitat surveyors (signs of salmon
carcasses, fry observed, etc.) for upper fish distribution information in stream reaches with no
deep pools or off-channel habitat meriting a snorkel survey. The observations recorded by the
habitat surveyors usually correlated when poor habitat was revisited for a snorkel survey.
Priority For Large Wood Placement
Table 1 lists the 35 stream reaches that met our criteria for LWD placement priority during the
2005 winter survey season.
10
Table 1
Stream Reaches Given Priority for
Large Wood Placement
Stream
Bear Creek
Beaver Creek (Fishhawk Cem)
Beaver Creek Trib C
Cedar Creek
Dog Creek
Dog Creek Trib A
E.F. Nehalem River Headwaters
Gunners Lake Trib
E.F. Nehalem Trib (Hawkins Cr)
Jim George Creek
Kenusky Creek
Gilmore Creek
Grub Creek
Hamilton Creek
Alder Creek (Humbug Trib)
Big Creek (Humbug Trib)
McClure Creek (Humbug Trib)
East Humbug Creek
East Humbug Creek Trib A
West Humbug Creek
Beaver Creek (West Humbug
Trib)
Destruction Creek (West Humbug
Trib)
West Humbug Creek Trib A
West Humbug Creek Trib B
Little Fishhawk Creek
Slaughters Creek
Reach
1
1
VWI
20
16
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
15
6
3.1
4.1
4.8
5
10.3
10
1
1
1
2
7
3.3
3.3
5.3
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
1
5
6
5.8
4
13
8.3
5.3
18.8
12.8
20
17.5
5.2
3.8
3.4
3.2
5.5
3.9
2
5.9
1
1
1
1
1
4.8
10
6.4
3.9
4.8
ACW KeyLWD Gradient
Landowner Road Access
5.3
0.1
1
Private
Good
7.3
0.2
0.6
Private
Good
Longview
9.1
0.1
0.8
Fibre/Stimson
Fair
6
0.8
0.9
Stimson
Good
6.3
1.4
1.8
Stimson
Fair
6.5
0.5
2.2
Private/Weyco
Good
8.2
1.3
1.6
Private/Weyco
Fair
3.6
0.3
4.1
Longview Fibre
Poor
7.1
0.2
2.2
Private/Stimson
Fair
5.1
0.2
3.2
BLM
Fair
Private/Longvie
10
0.6
2.8
Fibre
Poor
4.1
0.4
2.3
Weyco
Poor
5.8
0.2
1.5
Private/Weyco
Good
8.5
0.2
0.4
Weyco
Good
Longview
6.7
1.2
0.9
Fibre/Weyco
Good
7.5
0.6
2.4
Weyco
Poor
6.3
1.1
0.8
Private/State
Fair
5.6
0
1.2
Private
Good
10.7
1.4
1.7
Private/State
Good
5.1
0
1.8
DOT/Weyco
Fair
6
1.2
3.6
Longview Fibre
Fair
4.6
0.1
0.3
Private
Good
4.8
0.1
0.9
Longview Fibre
Fair
9.3
1.9
2.1
State
Good
7.6
0.9
2.9
State/Weyco
Good
7
0.2
3.6
Weyco
Fair
6.4
0.7
3.7
State
Good
11.5
0.8
2.3
Weyco
Good
6.9
0.6
2.8
Weyco
Poor
Weyco/Longvie
7
0.3
3.4
w Fibre
Fair
Weyco/Longvie
5.6
0.1
5.4
w Fibre
Fair
3.5
0.8
2.6
Weyco
Fair
6.2
1.2
3.6
Weyco
Good
10
0.7
4.5
Weyco
Good
5
1.3
1.4
Private
Fair
Finally, using surveyor notes from UNWC habitat surveys, the authors identified LWD
placement priorities for larger streams (Table 2).
11
Table 2 lists twelve (12) stream reaches that met our criteria for LWD priority during the 2005
winter survey season.
Table 2
Large Stream Reaches Given Priority for
Large Wood Placement in off-channel areas
Stream
Reach
Coal Creek
1
Humbug Creek
1
3
4
5
6
East Humbug Creek
1
2
West Humbug Creek
1
2
4
Beaver Creek (West Humbug)
1
VWI
6.9
5
14.5
18.6
20
17.5
16.1
8.3
4.1
6.4
6.3
5.8
ACW KeyLWD Gradient
Landowner
Road Access
13.5
0.5
1.6
State
Fair
19.1
0
1.5
Private
Fair
19.6
0.3
0.5
Private
Good
17
0.3
0.6
Private
Good
17.7
0.5
0.5
Private
Good
16.5
0.5
0.5
Private/Longview Fibre
Good
13.4
0.2
1.5
DOT/Weyco
Good
14.5
1.2
1.6
Weyco/State
Good
17.6
0.5
1.4
DOT
Good
14.2
0.2
2
Weyco
Fair
13.2
0.9
1
Weyco
Good
13.5
0.8
2.2
DOT/Weyco
Fair
Riparian Enhancement Priorities
Table 3 lists the 26 stream reaches that met our criteria for Riparian Enhancement priority during
the 2005 winter survey season
Table 3
Riparian Enhancement Priorities
Average
Shade Cover
Stream
Reach Current Veg (% of 180)
Current Land Use
Bear Creek
1
G/D15
48
Urban
Beaver Creek (Fishhawk Cem)
1
G/D15
47
Light Grazing/Second Growth Timber
2
D15/D3
64
Second Growth Timber
3
C3/D30
72
Second Growth Timber
Beaver Creek Trib A
1
M3/D30
45
Second Growth Timber
Beaver Creek Trib C
1
D30/M3
60
Second Growth Timber
Cedar Creek
1
D15/S
76
Second Growth Timber/Rural Residential
Cedar Creek Trib A
1
D15/G
63
Second Growth Timber
Jim George Creek
2
M30/C30
78
Second Growth Timber/Young Trees
Kenusky Creek
1
D30/M15
69
Second Growth Timber
2
D30/M3
67
Second Growth Timber/Young Trees
Gilmore Creek
1
D30/M15
80
Wildlife Refuge
3
D15
85
Second Growth Timber
12
Humbug Creek
1
3
4
5
6
1
1
5
5
6
1
1
2
Alder Creek (Humbug Trib)
McClure Creek (Humbug Trib)
East Humbug Creek
West Humbug Creek
West Humbug Creek Trib B
West Humbug Creek Trib C
Slaughters Creek
M30/D3
M30/G
M30/G
M30/G
M30/D30
M15
G/D15
D15
D15
D15
D15
D15/D30
D30/S
80
66
63
68
68
71
53
100
100
100
83
88
82
Rural Residential/Second Growth Timber
Light Grazing/Rural Residential
Rural Residential/Large Timber
Rural Residential/Large Timber
Rural Residential/Large Timber
Rural Residential
Light Grazing
Second Growth Timber
Second Growth Timber
Second Growth Timber
Second Growth Timber
Second Growth Timber
Second Growth Timber
Artificial Fish Passage Barriers
There are two types of artificial barriers that were identified during the habitat surveys. These included:
culverts and concrete dams. The fifteen (15) culverts listed in table 4 have valuable habitat currently
inaccessible to Coho. The two (2) concrete dams listed in table 5 are both located on Alder Creek.
Table 4 shows the completed culvert priorities identified during the 2005 Upper Nehalem Habitat
Assessment Project. The 2005 project will allow the UNWC (Upper Nehalem Watershed Council) to use
the detailed information on Coho habitat to guide future culvert replacement projects.
Table 4
Culverts that block Coho passage
Culvert
Stream
Comment
Weed Ave
Bear Creek
Juvenile Velocity Barrier.
Fishhawk Cemetery Rd
Beaver Creek
Juvenile Velocity Barrier.
No jump pool
Unnamed Logging Road
Beaver Creek Trib A
Beaver have plugged
upstream side.
Decommissioned Road.
Beaver Creek Trib A
Beavers have plugged
upstream side.
Logging Road off of
Fishhawk Cemetery Rd
Beaver Creek Trib B
Juvenile Barrier with .5
meter step
Fishhawk Cemetery Rd
Beaver Creek Trib C
No jump pool with .7 meter
step to bedrock
Cedar Creek Mainline
Cedar Creek
Jump pool with .4 meter
step
Logging Road off of Cedar
Creek Mainline
Cedar Creek Trib A
Jump pool with .45 meter
step
13
Pebble Creek Mainline
Elk Creek
Jump pool with .6 meter
step
Columbia Forest Road
E.F. Nehalem Headwaters
Poor Jump pool with 1.5
meter step. Only trout
habitat above
Scappoose-Vernonia Hwy
E.F. Nehalem Trib
(Hawkins Cr)
Juvenile Velocity Barrier.
No step
Decommissioned Road
Gilmore Creek
Partially washed out
Decommissioned Road
McClure Creek
Completely washed out
East Humbug Road
East Humbug Creek
Juvenile Barrier. Jump pool
with .4 meter step
Logging Road off of East
Humbug Road
East Humbug Creek Trib B
Juvenile Barrier. Jump pool
with .3 meter step
Table 5 shows the two concrete dams on Alder Creek with a fish passage problem identified
during the 2005 Upper Nehalem Habitat Assessment Project. The 2005 project will allow the
UNWC (Upper Nehalem Watershed Council) to use the detailed information on Coho habitat to
guide future fish passage projects.
Table 5
Concrete Dams that block fish passage
Stream
Reach
Barrier
Artificial/Natural
Alder Creek
1
Concrete Dams
Artificial
Alder Creek
1
Concrete Dams
Artificial
Comments
No Adult or Juvenile
passage
No Adult or juvenile
passage
14
Discussion and Recommendations
Large Wood Placement
The findings from this study focus our concern on 47 stream reaches. There are 35 stream reaches
identified in small and medium sized streams and 12 stream reaches identified for potential offchannel LWD placement in larger streams (>12m ACW).
There are two maps included for LWD priorities. The first map (Appendix A) lists recommended
large wood placement sites for small streams within the Upper Nehalem Watershed. This
includes habitat survey information from the 2005 UNWC project season. The second map
(Appendix B) lists large wood placement sites within side channels on larger streams from
UNWC habitat surveys. In addition, both maps identify areas not recommended for large wood
placement.
During the next year Watershed Council staff should visit all 47 stream reaches with ODFW
biologists and landowners to determine the feasibility of LWD placement. The Watershed
Council should either remove from the list or give lower priority to stream reaches that are not
accessible from roads or where large wood placement would threaten existing structures.
Consequently, stream reaches where artificial barriers are blocking access should not receive an
LWD project until downstream barriers are improved.
UNWC should begin discussions with the Oregon Department of Forestry, Weyerhaeuser, and
other small landowners with the intent of developing OWEB grant proposals for LWD placement
in priority stream segments on their land. The completion of the 2006 Upper Nehalem surveys
will survey approximately 180 kilometers of additional habitat. These survey areas will identify
more LWD placement priorities. In addition, all previous ODFW surveys will be prioritized
using the same criteria used for the watershed council surveys completed.
Riparian Enhancement Priorities
The 2005 UNWC surveys identified 26 stream reaches that have good riparian enhancement
potential. There was one map included for Riparian priorities with two types of riparian projects
identified (Appendix C). These included: hardwood conversion and conifer planting.
Hardwood conversion projects would help establish conifers in hardwood dominated riparian
areas. The objective for the potential project would be to increase large wood recruitment in
future years. Secondly, the conifer planting projects would be in riparian areas lacking shade
cover. The poor shade cover has usually occurred where the land use is from rural residential,
agriculture, or urban. Both types of riparian improvements recommended here, are important
for the restoration of the Upper Nehalem Watershed. The degraded riparian areas identified are
15
all located on freshwater Coho bearing streams. The lack of large wood recruitment is a
significant limiting factor to improving winter rearing habitat for juvenile Coho.
During the next year UNWC, Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), and ODFW staff should
visit the thirty-four (34) stream reaches with riparian enhancement potential to determine the
feasibility to conduct a project.
Artificial Fish Passage Barriers
The 2005 UNWC surveys identified fifteen (15) culverts that are at least a partial fish passage
barrier. The culverts vary on the amount of available habitat above the barrier, however, all have
some valuable habitat which is currently inaccessible to Coho. Impassable culverts at the end of
the habitat surveys were not included in table 4, because the habitat above the culvert was not
suitable for Coho. The 2005 UNWC surveys identified two (2) concrete dams that are at least a
partial fish passage barrier. Both are located on Alder creek and block access to an additional
1,000 meters of habitat suitable for Coho.
During the next year UNWC and ODFW staff should visit the fifteen (15) culverts and two (2)
concrete dams to determine the feasibility to conduct a project. There is one map included for
artificial barriers for the 2005 surveys (Appendix D).
2006 Target Streams
The 2005 Upper Nehalem Habitat Assessment identified those streams, which have never been
surveyed by either the Upper Nehalem Watershed Council or ODFW. During the 2005 project,
38 streams were surveyed totaling 96.893 kilometers of Coho habitat. There are approximately 91
streams remaining that have no habitat survey completed. These are the streams where we will
focus our efforts during the 2006 project season. Our effort will be 2.5 times greater in 2006,
therefore, we plan to complete all remaining streams. There is one map included which
prioritizes those streams that remain to be surveyed (Appendix E).
In addition to completing the 91 unsurveyed streams, the authors will work with ODFW Aquatic
Inventory staff to develop restoration priorities for the previously completed ODFW habitat
surveys using the same criteria applied in this report. However, the authors and ODFW research
staff are concerned that the previously completed ODFW habitat surveys may not be used to
accurately identify restoration areas to increase winter rearing habitat for juvenile Coho. This is
due to the fact that the ODFW surveys were conducted during the summer survey season and
about half of the surveys were conducted greater than 10 years ago, further reducing the data
reflecting the current habitat conditions. Nevertheless, effort will be made to incorporate all
completed ODFW habitat surveys into the 2006 final report, and recommendations will be made
to determine the usefulness of the ODFW summer survey data.
16
REFERENCES
Lichatowich, J. 1999. Salmon Without Rivers. Island Press.
Montgomery, D. R. 2003. Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers. University of Washington Press.
Moore, K. M. S., K. K. Jones and J. M. Dambacher. 1997. Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys.
Orgeon Department of Fish and Wildlife Information report 97-4, Portland, OR
Riggers, B., White, J. 2001. Operational Plan for Chinook Stock Indicator Project. Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Newport OR.
Rowe, M. and J.Spangler. 1998. Mid-Coast Salmonid Habitat Restoration Project Monitoring
Update. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Newport OR.
Thom, B.A. 1997. The Effects of Woody Debris Additions on the Physical Habitat of Salmonids:
A Case Study on the Northern Oregon Coast. University of Washington Master’s thesis. 90pp
Thom, B. A. and K. M. S. Moore. 1995. North Coast Project: Project Monitoring and Evaluation.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
17
Appendix A
18
Appendix B
19
Appendix C
20
Appendix D
21
Appendix E
22