Big Creek Habitat Assessment Project. January 2007

Transcription

1 Big Creek Habitat Assessment Project Report by Boswell Consultants January 2007 The project was designed to generate: Current freshwater habitat conditions for salmonids Priorities for in-stream habitat improvements, riparian enhancements, and fish passage barriers Evaluations of current watershed activities 12/12/07 1

2 Table of Contents Project Summary... 3 Background... 4 Methods... 6 Results Discussion and Recommendations References Maps... 23, 24, 25 12/12/07 2

3 Project Summary This report reviews the 2005/2006 aquatic habitat survey data collected by ODFW research staff, and identifies potential restoration opportunities for the freshwater habitat within the Big Creek basin. Additionally, detailed reach descriptions were created to identify site specific project opportunities throughout the ODFW survey areas. This information will aid a variety of interest groups in restoration project planning for the Big Creek watershed. Priority areas identified in this report should be enhanced or restored by conducting LWD placements, off-channel habitat improvements, riparian enhancement activities, and/or fish passage barrier replacements. In addition, the 2005/2006 Rapid Bio Assessment summer snorkel surveys, conducted by Bio- Surveys LLC, were reviewed to identify areas where coho were found. Then, we conducted supplemental winter snorkel surveys to revisit the high priority areas and gain a better understanding of juvenile coho winter rearing in significant off-channel habitat areas within the Big Creek basin. This project provides essential data analysis of the recently conducted habitat and snorkel surveys and generates several recommendations to guide future restoration work. The current project design used for this Big Creek Habitat Assessment Project has been successfully applied in several other habitat assessments conducted in other North Coast Oregon watershed basins. From this report, resource planners should have a focused set of action plans for restoring the Big Creek basin. During the 2005/2006 project seasons, ODFW surveyed forty-one (41) stream reaches in seven (7) streams totaling 49.4 kilometers (30.6 miles) of habitat. Habitat surveyors began near the head of tidewater and continued following the primary channel and related secondary channels until stream flow diminished. We have reviewed the completed survey reports provided by ODFW. From our review and analyses, this project has identified: 22 stream reaches totaling kilometers (20.5 miles) of habitat suitable for coho. 16 stream reaches using the ODFW habitat survey data that we believe should receive the priority for off-channel habitat improvements for Large Woody Debris (LWD) placement, and/or alcove development projects 6 stream reaches using the ODFW habitat survey data that we believe should receive the priority for riparian enhancement. 3 artificial fish passage barriers using the ODFW habitat data were identified. Two of these barriers are associated with the ODFW Big Creek Hatchery. 12/12/07 3

4 A current general summary and evaluation for future watershed activities. The 2005/2006 ODFW habitat surveys complete the coho freshwater habitat inventory for the Big Creek basin. This habitat assessment project has greatly improved our understanding of where the priorities for watershed restoration and rehabilitation should be. Background The Big Creek watershed is a tributary to the Lower Columbia River in Northwestern Oregon with a mainstem length of approximately 20.9 kilometers (13 miles), including tidally influenced areas traveling through a Sitka spruce swamp near the town of Knappa. Peak discharge typically occurs during the winter months between November and February. However, high flow events can occur as late as June. The watershed has several salmonid species including coho, fall chinook, chum, winter steelhead, and, searun or residential coastal cutthroat trout. Currently, only unmarked coho, winter steelhead, and coastal cutthroat trout are found above the hatchery. Stocking of hatchery salmonid species appears to be significant over the past century. The ODFW Big Creek Hatchery currently releases hatchery coho, Tule fall Chinook, and winter steelhead into Big Creek downstream of the hatchery. During the last 150 years, land management practices have drastically affected the rivers that coho use. Dike building, logging, water diversions, and road construction significantly reduced the availability of habitat for coho 1. Previous road culverts and hatchery operations became barriers that restrict use of streams by many salmon species. The loss of large wood from streams reduced the number of pools and the amount of winter rearing habitat for coho, which is an important life cycle requirement. Winter can produce a harsh environment for juvenile coho. Heavy rains create violent water surges that can kill these small fish. The primary defense for the juveniles is to retreat into calmer off-channel habitat 2. The amount of this kind of rearing habitat is a function of stream gradient, amount of LWD key pieces, past or current land use, and valley/channel geomorphology. The ODFW Aquatic Inventory Project developed a protocol for gathering information about stream habitat. This survey methodology came into use around However, in the last 13 years no streams were habitat surveyed during the winter months within the Big Creek basin. With several other research projects being conducted in the basin, ODFW wanted information regarding the habitat within the study areas and initiated two winter survey seasons of habitat 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. 12/12/07 4

5 surveys to gain information on winter stream habitat. We used the habitat data collected by ODFW to complete the Big Creek Habitat Assessment Project. This project is intended to help the Nicolai-Wickiup Watershed Council (NWWC) and the Columbia River Estuary Study Task Force (CREST) use the detailed information on coho habitat to guide future restoration projects. Surprisingly, the ODFW Big Creek Hatchery had two major fish passage impediments within the basin, but ODFW has been working collectively with CREST to improve the situation during adult runs with a fish shuttle program above the hatchery. Before 1996, no adult salmon or steelhead had been passed above the hatchery due to the concern that it may elevate risks for harmful fish pathogens at the facility. Beginning in 1996, winter steelhead were passed above the hatchery. In 2002, ODFW began passing all unmarked coho and winter steelhead above the hatchery. Nevertheless, NWWC should conduct field visits with ODFW biologists to determine the feasibility of a replacement project, so all aquatic species can pass freely without delay. The CREST watershed coordinator, Todd Cullision, initiated the 2006 Big Creek Habitat Assessment Project with a watershed contractor, Boswell Consultants. The objective was to determine the condition of the habitat in small, medium, large streams in the Big Creek watershed. The project was funded entirely by CREST. Boswell Consultants, NWWC, CREST, and ODFW worked collectively to implement and complete this report. This study was designed to determine: 1) Stream reaches most suitable for restoration or rehabilitation stream reaches where LWD placement, riparian enhancement, and alcove development, will increase off-channel habitat and, hence, coho productivity. In addition, significant artificial barriers were identified to improve fish passage throughout the basin. 2) Current habitat conditions which Big Creek stream reaches would have a high potential for increasing coho production, but due to current conditions, the habitat has a low carrying capacity. 12/12/07 5

6 Methods Stream Identification The project used ODFW habitat survey data layers to create maps showing the locations of streams that had been surveyed. Although we revisited most stream reaches where ODFW surveyed, we focused our attention on reaches that: 1) appeared to be low gradient (less than 5% average gradient); 2) drained an area of greater than 300 acres 3) had been winter habitat surveyed by ODFW in the last 10 years The selection criteria we focused on provided a template for identifying stream areas most suitable for future restoration projects. The low gradient streams (< 5% average gradient) have the highest probability for increasing coho production in response to restoration efforts. We chose the minimum requirement of 300 acres for the targeted streams because this follows most state and federal agencies criteria for streams believed to be large enough to conduct an in-stream restoration project within. The last selection criteria, surveys older than 10 years, was used because ODFW research biologists have deemed that surveys older than ten years may not reflect current habitat conditions. These three criteria we have used help justify suitable restoration project areas are targeted. During the ODFW 2005/2006 project seasons, more than 49.4 kilometers were surveyed covering seven (7) streams in the Big Creek basin, which were potential coho bearing streams. These were stream areas where restoration activities might be expected to improve coho productivity and where existing data provided the habitat information to determine which stream segments were most important. Our analysis narrowed down the target restoration areas to seven (7) streams covering kilometers. Field Surveys The ODFW surveys followed the 2005 ODFW Aquatic Inventory 3 protocol and associated data forms. The survey crews conducted their habitat surveys on Big Creek and significant tributaries between February 2005 and April 15, ODFW first obtained the necessary landowner permission for the survey. The crew started the surveys at the confluence or close to the head of tidewater and continued the survey until the water flow diminished. This led to a percentage of the habitat surveyed by the ODFW crews that traveled beyond habitat suitable for coho. 3 To obtain more specific methods for the habitat surveys conducted refer to Aquatic Inventory Project: Methods for Streams Habitat Surveys /12/07 6

7 Therefore, we narrowed down the total ODFW habitat surveys to stream areas where coho are most likely found. This was accomplished through extensive field visits throughout the basin over a four month period from September 1, 2006 and Jan.1, There were two types of snorkel surveys used in our analyses. The first type of snorkel surveys, were conducted during the summer season by Bio-Surveys LLC. These surveys were conducted between June and September for two consecutive years, 2005 and The surveys followed the Rapid Bio-Assessment methods, where a percentage of pools are sampled over a specific stream reach. Similar snorkel projects have been conducted throughout the mid-coast of Oregon and details of the methods can be obtained on the disk provided with this report. The second type of snorkel surveys, were conducted during December 2006 by Boswell Consultants. These surveys were considered supplemental, and were conducted to investigate the utilization of juvenile coho within significant off-channel habitat areas during the winter rearing season. However, the lack of off-channel habitat areas within the named tributaries forced us to snorkel fast water units in the primary channel for most tributaries. These supplemental winter night snorkel surveys shed knowledge on where juvenile coho are able to over-winter. The combination of the data generated by the two snorkel survey seasons have helped structure the project priorities generated in this report. We took digital photos to record field conditions where the ODFW surveys were completed. The photos focused on the general valley and channel geomorphology and usual or unusual attributes, (varied riparian conditions, general reach representation, in-stream habitat structures, riprap structures, etc.). All digital photos taken while revisiting the ODFW survey areas have been archived on the CD that accompanies the data binder. ODFW also has several photos for most reaches surveyed. The combination of the two photo sets should provide most of the necessary photo documentation for pre-project planning for future restoration work. Data Management The ODFW Aquatic Inventory Project provided habitat survey data and related analysis from the stream reports. ODFW used Access programs 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 summary reports using the ODFW data analysis package. This included a general summary, specific reach descriptions, and information on unusual attributes (LWD project potential, riparian project potential, etc.). 12/12/07 7

8 USGS topographical map (1: ); detailing the survey attributes (start, end, etc.). Generate an Excel spreadsheet with the habitat survey data to identify restoration priorities. Detailed reach descriptions from revisiting ODFW targeted survey areas Data Analysis Large Wood Placement and/or Off-Channel Habitat Improvement Priorities During the last four years, we have evaluated a number of alternative protocols for establishing priorities for specific watershed restoration and rehabilitation activities in Northwestern Oregon. Ultimately, we have 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 we have used in the past. We chose to give priority for LWD placement activities to streams that: 1) already had coho present 4, 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), or 4) had significant off-channel habitat channels where LWD may increase the frequency of deep complex off-channel pools, and 5) did not currently have adequate large wood (<2.0* Key Pieces per 100m [Keylwd]). *It should be noted that although the current ODFW benchmark habitat elements for desirable Key Large Wood per 100m is greater than 3, we chose to target those stream reaches with less than 2 key pieces as high priority areas. This does not imply that those stream reaches with both less than or greater than 3 key pieces does not potentially need additional LWD placement, but that those reaches with less than 2 key pieces per 100m should be given a high priority for large wood placement restoration activities. In addition to these factors, access to the stream reach will be a significant factor in the choice of sites for large wood placement and/or off-channel enhancement. We developed preliminary judgments about the difficulty of access for industrial equipment from map readings and general field observations, however, poor access was not used to eliminate reaches from the priority lists. 4 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. 12/12/07 8

9 We recognize that with any prioritization lists there are potential disadvantages. For example, in extremely depressed population levels where coho may not be observed, but the stream may still benefit from future restoration work. Additionally, other salmonids species (ie. winter steelhead and coastal cutthroat trout) may need different types of enhancement projects where our prioritiy lists may not identify. Riparian Enhancement Priority We 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. The Big Creek habitat surveys were prioritized by reach and watershed planners are also recommended to use the detailed stream reports to identify specific riparian enhancement projects. 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, and/or 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 potential to increase large wood recruitment by the addition of conifers. These streams may have adequate shade, but were lacking large conifers for the future stream complexity. For the purposes of this analysis, we have employed a generalized priority list on the landscape scale. The authors understand that the riparian data can be revisited again and additional riparian priority lists could be established using a more site specific set of criteria. Priorities for Artificial Barriers Impeding Passage for Adult or Juvenile Coho Salmon The habitat survey data conducted by ODFW identified all culverts that were encountered during the winter habitat surveys. Each culvert identified was evaluated for fish passage using ODFW protocol. There were specific fish passage recommendations recorded by the surveyors. This included the current status of each culvert (length, diameter, gradient, outlet drop, condition, etc.) and what observations led them to determining if the structure was a passage barrier. We used ODFW aquatic inventory benchmarks supplemented with information on stream gradient and fish presence to assess the value of the habitat in stream reaches above culverts. The desirable and undesirable conditions for the stream reaches are given in Table 1. The length of 12/12/07 9

10 suitable habitat for coho was the major driving force behind the culvert replacement priorities. We either recommended culverts to be replaced or not. No ranking order was established within the culverts listed for replacement. This is due to the difficult task watershed coordinators face with the cost benefit analysis details associated with planning a specific replacement project. Table 1 Desirable and Undesirable Stream Conditions for Coho Salmon 5 Habitat Surveys Desirable Undesirable Stream gradient Less than 3 % Greater than 6% Key Large wood/100m Greater than 3 Less than 1 Conifers/100 ft Large Small Percent Pools Greater than 35% Less than 10% Complex pools/km Greater than 2.5 per km Less than 1.0 per km Percent Gravel Greater than 35% Less than 15% gravel Fish presence down stream Yes No Future Watershed Activities To facilitate the implementation process for restoration projects we summarize important watershed activities that we felt should be reviewed. These topics will identify areas where more planning work is needed prior to an on the ground project being conducted. In this section we have reviewed three topics: The Nicolai Wickiup Habitat Assessment Grant, ODFW Big Creek Hatchery barriers Current adult coho transportation process, and the future restoration projects. The Nicolai-Wickiup Habitat Assessment Grant We wanted to help guide future restoration activities of the NWWC and complete our knowledge for current habitat conditions within the entire watershed council boundaries. From this report, we have identified the Big Creek basin as the only basin within the NWWC boundaries as having a completed winter habitat survey. Recognizing gaps in the habitat data, we applied for funding from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) to survey the remaining streams for the NWWC in winter This information will produce several additional lists for future project opportunities and shed knowledge on other current stream processes occurring in nearby basins within the Nicolai Wickiup watershed. We used the identical process as other habitat 5 ODFW Aquatic Inventory Benchmarks. 12/12/07 10

11 assessments we have completed, to identify the targeted survey areas for the proposed Nicolai Wickiup Habitat Assessment Project. ODFW Big Creek Hatchery Barriers- Current adult coho transportation process The process for passing adult salmon at the ODFW Big Creek hatchery is still relatively new. For decades, there was no passing of adults due to the concern for increase risk of fish pathogens that could greatly reduce the juvenile rearing effectiveness at the facility. In 1996, steelhead were the first salmonid species transported above the hatchery. In 2002, ODFW and CREST initiated the identical passing program to transport unmarked adult coho above the hatchery. We have conducted site visits of the hatchery facility during times where fish were migrating upstream and talked with the ODFW hatchery staff and the CREST director, Robert Warren, to understand the transportation process. Our objective, at the request of the NWWC, was to make recommendations to help streamline the transportation procedures for coho salmon in upcoming years. Future Restoration Projects LWD Placement & Riparian Enhancement We identified priority areas and discussed all previous restoration projects found within the basin and provided general field observations of where we believe the top candidates are to begin restoration implementation. We hope our thoughts here further aide future project planners to begin restoration project work. Results The ODFW habitat survey covered forty-one (41) stream reaches in seven (7) streams totaling 49.4 kilometers (30.6 miles). Our analysis indicated that there are twenty-two (22) stream reaches in seven (7) streams totaling kilometers (20.5 miles) of coho habitat in the Big Creek basin. This detailed habitat information by ODFW and the process of revisiting the surveyed areas by the report authors enabled us to establish restoration priorities for off-channel habitat improvement, riparian enhancement activities, and fish passage barriers. We also evaluated the RBA summer snorkel surveys and conducted supplemental winter night snorkel surveys in 33 habitat units. The combined summer and winter snorkel surveys allowed us to support our identified priority areas as relevant coho bearing streams. 12/12/07 11

12 Priority Areas for Large Wood Placement and/or Off-Channel Habitat Improvement Table 2 lists the ten (16) stream reaches that met our criteria for LWD placement, off-channel habitat improvement, and/or alcove development. Table 2 Stream Reaches Given Priority for Off-Channel Habitat Enhancement 2005/2006 ODFW Winter Surveys Stream Reach # of key pieces Key LWD /100m Gradient Complex Pools /1km Road Access Big Creek Good Big Creek Fair/Good Big Creek Good Big Creek Fair Big Creek Good Big Creek Good Big Creek Good Schoolhouse Cr Fair Pigpen Creek Fair Mud Creek Fair Coon Creek Fair/Good Coon Creek Good Coon Creek Good Coon Creek Fair Coon Creek Good Elk Creek Good Priority Areas for the Big Creek Basin Riparian Enhancement Activities Table 3 illustrates the riparian opportunities located within the Big Creek watershed. There are six (6) stream reaches that met our criteria for riparian enhancement priority during the 2005/2006 winter survey seasons. 12/12/07 12

13 Table 3 Stream Reaches Given Priority for Riparian Enhancement 2005/2006 ODFW Winter Surveys Stream Reach Current Veg Shade Cover Land Use Big Creek 1 Grass/D15 42 Rural Res/2nd Timber Big Creek 2 D3/Shrub 57 Rural Res/Agricultural Mud Creek 1 D3/D15 64 Young Trees/2nd Timber Pigpen Creek 1 Grass/D3 71 2nd Timber Mill Creek 1 Perennial/Grass 50 2nd Timber/Rural Res Elk Creek 1 D30/Grass 63 2nd Timber/Young Trees Priorities for Artificial Barriers Impeding Passage for Adult or Juvenile Coho Salmon The ODFW habitat surveys identified 3 barriers that impede passage for coho. Two were from the ODFW Big Creek Hatchery. The hatchery barriers were significant and impede most juvenile and adult upstream migrations. Severe high flows are currently the only time where adults can pass through the two concrete dams without being transported around by ODFW biologists. The third, which is a channel diversion, is a velocity barrier and restricts natural seasonal migrations of adult and juvenile salmonids. In addition to the three barriers listed here, there are numerous priority areas identified in the detailed reach descriptions where the Big Creek mainline restricts the streams natural interaction within its floodplain. The authors feel some of these sites can be thought of as barriers to winter rearing habitat for juvenile coho. The information on the site specifics can be found in the stream reports accompanying this summary report. Table 4 lists the 3 barriers that block juvenile and adult fish passage on the Big Creek basin. All are considered high priority. The two hatchery barriers are very close to one another and are located at the hatchery facility. The barriers block approximately kilometers of habitat suitable for coho. Most of the current passage of adult coho is from the trap and haul program by ODFW. No juvenile fish shuttle program exists and there is no research information to understand whether these barriers are significantly affecting seasonal migrations for the juvenile salmoinds or any other native aquatic species. 12/12/07 13

14 Table 4 Artificial Barriers That Block Coho Passage 2005/2006 ODFW Winter Surveys Stream Reach Barrier Artificial/Natural Owner Big Creek 4 Hatchery Artificial ODFW Big Creek 4 Hatchery Artificial ODFW Big Creek 8 Stream Diversion Artificial Hampton Future Watershed Activities The topics addressed in this section focus our attention to several specific actions the NWWC should work collectively with CREST and ODFW to improve their potential for success. The Nicolai-Wickiup Habitat Assessment Grant The process of identifying the remaining non surveyed streams helps to illustrate where our habitat information is limited. If funding is secured additional lists will be generated throughout the entire watershed council boundaries in If funding is not secured at this time, the watershed council members could use the information created for this grant as the stream areas where habitat information may be required to generate additional future restoration planning outside of the Big Creek basin. ODFW Big Creek Hatchery Barriers- Current adult coho transportation process The transporting of adult salmon is successfully allowing wild salmon to reproduce above the hatchery. Our supplemental winter night snorkel surveys found a peak count of coho smolt to be 75 in significant off channel habitat areas above the hatchery. There were several other offchannel areas where we found additional coho smolt above the hatchery. The redd densities were abnormally high in the coho deposition sites. Table 5 lists the juvenile salmonids densities observed during our supplemental snorkel surveys. The information below illustrates that coho are successfully over wintering above the hatchery, but in low numbers. 12/12/07 14

15 Table 5 Winter Night Snorkel Data (above ODFW Big Creek Hatchery) 2006 Boswell Consultants Snorkel Surveys Stream Date Temp Reach UnitType Coho Fry Coho Smolt Trout Big Creek 12/8/ AL Big Creek 12/8/ AL Big Creek 12/8/ AL Big Creek 12/8/ AL Big Creek 12/8/ AL Big Creek 12/8/ AL Big Creek 12/8/ DP Big Creek 12/8/ LP Big Creek 12/8/ LP Big Creek 12/8/ LP Big Creek 12/8/ SP Big Creek 12/8/ LP Big Creek 12/8/ LP Elk Creek 12/8/ BW Big Creek 12/8/ BW Big Creek 12/8/ BW Big Creek 12/8/ LP Pigpen Cr 12/16/ RB Pigpen Cr 12/16/ RB Pigpen Cr 12/16/ BW Mud Creek 12/16/ SP Mud Creek 12/16/ RB Mud Creek 12/16/ BW Mud Creek 12/16/ RB Elk Creek 12/16/ RI Elk Creek 12/16/ RB Coon Creek 12/16/ LP Coon Creek 12/16/ BW Coon Creek 12/16/ RI Coon Creek 12/16/ LP Coon Creek 12/16/ LP Coon Creek 12/16/ LP Coon Creek 12/16/ RI Future Restoration Projects LWD Placement & Riparian Enhancement We found one previously completed LWD placement project within the Big Creek basin. The project is a series of four alcoves near the Big Creek mainline rockpit created within a small unnamed tributary by industrial equipment. In addition, there is a significant road diversion project planned on Hampton Affiliates forest land in reach 8 to allow Big Creek to interact more with the floodplain. 12/12/07 15

16 No previous riparian projects were identified. However, several reaches have excellent current riparian conditions with good large wood recruitment. These healthy riparian conditions found may have been associated with previous land use planning from Hampton Affiliates to create a healthy riparian zone. Discussion and Recommendations There are four (4) maps included in this report. The first map (Appendix A) includes the Coho Habitat areas and non Coho Habitat areas we have designated using the ODFW winter habitat survey information from both the 2005 and 2006 surveys. The second map (Appendix B) lists all recommended reaches in the Big Creek basin for off channel habitat improvements including LWD placement, alcove development, and/or riprap replacement activities. The third map (Appendix C) lists those reaches that received priority for riparian enhancement activities. The fourth map (Appendix D) lists the remaining streams in the Nicolai Wickiup watershed (outside of the Big Creek basin) that lack the detailed winter habitat surveys to guide future restoration work. This fourth map was developed and used by the report authors for the Nicolai Wickiup Habitat Assessment grant submitted to OWEB in fall Large Wood Placement and Off-Channel Habitat Improvement Priorities Our review of the 2005/2006 ODFW winter habitat surveys identified a total of 16 stream reaches totaling 29.2 kilometers ( 18 miles) that have good in stream habitat improvement potential. The second map included in this report illustrates the off channel habitat enhancement priorities (Appendix B). These 16 reaches mentioned are ideal for off channel LWD placement, off channel habitat improvement, and/or alcove development. Specific areas for future restoration work should be in primary and/or secondary channels or in alcoves associated with spring seeps and/or unnamed tributaries. The detailed information on reach specifics can be found in the habitat stream report that accompanies this executive summary report. During the next year, NWWC staff should visit all 16 stream reaches with ODFW biologists and key landowners to determine the feasibility of LWD placement, off channel habitat improvement, and/or alcove development. NWWC should either remove from the list or give lower priority to stream reaches where restoration or rehabilitation activities would threaten existing residential or commercial structures. NWWC should begin discussions with the landowners with the intent of developing grant proposals for LWD placement and alcove development in the priority reaches on their land. 12/12/07 16

17 The project recommends that NWWC form an implementation action plan to develop specific annual goals for habitat restoration within the Watershed Council boundaries. Riparian Enhancement Priorities Our review of the 2005/2006 ODFW winter habitat surveys identified a total of 6 stream reaches totaling kilometers (7.1 miles) that have good riparian enhancement potential. The third map included in this report illustrates riparian priorities for either one of two types of riparian projects acknowledged in this report (Appendix C). The two types include: converting hardwood dominated stands to conifer dominated stands and basic riparian planting in poorly shaded streams. The first type would convert dense hardwood stands to mixed hardwood and conifer stands to help establish conifers in hardwood dominated riparian areas. The objective for the project would be to increase large wood recruitment potential in future years. The second type would conduct conifer planting within riparian areas lacking adequate shade cover. The poor shade cover has usually occurred where the land use is rural residential, agriculture, or industrial forest lands. Both types of riparian improvements recommended here are important for the restoration of the Big Creek basin. The degraded riparian areas identified are all located on freshwater coho bearing streams. The detailed information on reach specifics can be found in the habitat stream report that accompanies this report. During the next year NWWC and ODFW staff should visit the 6 stream reaches with riparian enhancement potential to determine the feasibility for future projects. Priorities for Artificial Barriers Impeding Passage for Adult or Juvenile Coho Salmon The habitat surveys identified three (3) barriers that impede adult and juvenile fish passage. All three barriers have been characterized as high priority. The two hatchery barriers are the further downstream and block kilometers (8.6 miles) of mainstem habitat and kilometers (9.25 miles) of tributary habitat located above the two barriers. The third barrier identified was located in reach 8 of the Big Creek survey and blocks a total kilometers (3.4 miles). We only believe that these barriers partially block wild salmonids including adult coho, winter steelhead, searun and resident coastal cutthroat trout, but completely block other migrating aquatic species (ie. chinook and pacific lamprey). This is due to a trap and haul program that is transporting adult wild unmarked adults above the hatchery during the fall and winter runs. There is no current trap and haul program for other anadromous salmonid species and pacific lamprey. Therefore, we recommend that additional planning be conducted to determine what 12/12/07 17

18 impacts these barriers are having on other migrating species and what opportunities could improve the current condition. During the next year NWWC and ODFW staff should visit the 3 identified barriers and determine what could be accomplished to improve their status. The key landowners needed to be contacted other than ODFW is Bud Henderson at Hampton Affiliates. He should be involved in regards to the third listed barrier because this is owned by Hampton Affiliates. Future Watershed Activities The three topics we have included in this section will hopefully give the watershed council members and other interested parties an idea of where the council could spend their limited time and energy on salmon recovery projects after this report is completed. This is by no means all of the relevant projects the council could exert energy into, but is a good baseline. The Nicolai-Wickiup Habitat Assessment Grant The proposed Nicolai Wickiup Habitat Assessment grant will conduct winter habitat and snorkel surveys that follow the methods outlined by ODFW and other projects conducted by Boswell Consultants. This project will help the NWWC complete their knowledge on coho habitat within their watershed council boundaries. If funding is secured, we plan to survey approximately 40 low gradient streams outside of the Big Creek basin (See appendix D). The information obtained during the winter surveys will be a helpful tool to prioritize specific stream reaches for the entire Nicolai Wickiup watershed. Basically, this project will begin where the Big Creek Habitat Assessment leaves off. To acquire the information on habitat conditions for the rest of the watershed council boundaries and will provide on site field information unavailable through this report or the Nicolai Wickiup Watershed Assessment (August 2000) conducted by E&S, INC. The information will be used to build on an existing Watershed Assessment with on site field data that is consistent with ODFW protocols. The combination of the two assessments will help to more effectively direct future watershed council activities. ODFW Big Creek Hatchery Barriers- Current adult coho transportation process Our site visits to the ODFW Big Creek hatchery during peak adult run times and our winter night snorkel surveys demonstrated that the current shuttle program is successfully allowing adult coho to spawn and reproduce above the hatchery. This accomplishment should be recognized as a significant improvement from years prior to 1998 where no fish had been passed above the hatchery for over 30 years. 12/12/07 18

19 From our review, we believe that the current process of transporting adult coho needs to be modified to improve the success of coho reproduction. We recommend three changes to the current procedure. First, reduce the amount of holding time at the hatchery. Second, the drop sites upstream of the hatchery need to have some type of recovery pool for the transported adults. Third, several other aquatic species specifically chinook, searun cutthroat, and pacific lamprey should be included in the transportation process. To improve the current shuttle process, we feel that daily sorting of the hatchery pens by ODFW staff would allow the trap and haul staff to transport the fish in a more timely manner. The procedure of daily sorting of new fish may seem time consuming, but most days this should average approximately one or two hours of effort for two experienced fish handlers. Obviously, peak migrations will take a much longer effort of staff time. However, these peak run times are usually already expected by ODFW management personnel and should not present any unforeseen staff time and/or budget constraints. Once the adults are transported upstream by trap and haul staff, the point of release appears to be performed by several plastic chutes spread out in the upper Big Creek basin. We like the idea of multiple release points to aid in distributing the available spawners, but the authors are concerned about the lack of a recovery area at each drop site once the adults are released. Therefore, we recommend that there be a transition area where the transported fish can recovery and enter the fast water of the river at their own pace. We feel this may reduce the mortality of the transported adults, by recognizing that handled salmon may become stressed and that a recovery period before introducing them back to natural environment is needed. A possible solution to this recommendation would be to change the point of release to the upper hatchery barrier, which has a recovery pool on the upstream side of the ladder. This may provide seeding in all available habitats above the hatchery. However, we strongly believe this will have its limitations during higher flow events that coincide with the fall and winter runs. Finally, we would like to recommend that other aquatic species be incorporated into the shuttle program. This should include all known native species migrating into the hatchery pens including: chinook and pacific lamprey. Local hatchery staff would have a good idea of what type of native species may show up and if this is recommendation is a feasible task. 12/12/07 19

20 Future Restoration Projects LWD Placement & Riparian Enhancement There was one previous in stream restoration project we encountered during the revisiting of the ODFW habitat survey areas. The managing forester for Hampton Affiliates, Bud Henderson, is on the right track with this in stream project by successfully creating additional off channel habitat complexity. This site could even be further enhanced, which would serve as a good example for future off channel habitat improvement projects within the Big Creek basin. Primarily the future project areas should be focused on the stream segments identified as high priority in this report. These will require site specific planning to ensure adequate access for industrial equipment, effective site selection, and protecting private property from damage. The development and/or restoration of alcoves in the off channel habitat areas identified in this report may be critical to improve the juvenile coho survival rates. These areas either have spring fed seeps or have some sort of tributary in a low lying shallow pool, which is believed to have potential for off channel improvement activities. We strongly recommend that the planners desiring a project site to plan future restoration work should read the detailed reach descriptions and work with state agency biologists for site specific planning. The authors, Boswell Consultants are always willing to revisit priority areas with watershed coordinators and other interested parties to help implement work within the recommended areas. No previous riparian enhancement projects were observed in this study. No major infestations of Japanese knotweed were observed in this study. There are many areas where the current riparian condition is in great shape with good large wood recruitment, adequate shade cover, and a diverse mixed over story with a good mix of deciduous and conifer trees. This illustrates that several private landowners have applied forestry practices to maintain a healthy riparian zone. The riparian priority areas mentioned in this report address undesirable conditions we feel should be addressed in upcoming years. Most of the sites for riparian enhancement activities are located below the hatchery on the Big Creek watershed. The recent acquisition of property by a fishing club in lower Big Creek (reach 1) could present an ideal situation for a large riparian planting project. The previous landowner actively managed the riparian area by mowing and cutting thereby reducing shade cover. Locals have mentioned that the current bank vegetation has improved since the fishing club has been established. A large project with conifer plantings could benefit the fish and fishermen. Once a significant amount of restoration projects have been implemented in future years, the NWWC could initiate a similar habitat assessment project to evaluate the effectiveness of the recently completed restoration work. The authors recommend additional winter habitat surveys to evaluate the current condition every 10 years. 12/12/07 20

21 Interpreting the Habitat surveys and Snorkel surveys We had some challenges while prioritizing the habitat data using our established criteria. The challenges we encountered for this study was the habitat and snorkel data had already been conducted by ODFW crews for the habitat data and Steve Trask crews for the summer snorkel data. To increase our confidence in the data, we conducted detailed field visits throughout the Big Creek basin. From our site visits we are confident that the data collected is a useful dataset, but there were several areas of concern. Therefore, we created this section to address our concerns on the previously collected data. The habitat data we used for this report was collected by two different survey crews from ODFW and we believe that some of the information collected may not represent the current conditions. Therefore, there were six reaches included in the priority areas that did not meet our criteria for high priority areas. These were Mud Cr reach 1, Pigpen reach 1, Coon Cr reaches 1 and 4, Elk Cr reach 1, and Big Cr reach 9. These six reaches exceeded LWD key piece per 100m benchmark and therefore did not meet the criteria we have designated for high priority areas for off channel habitat improvement. However, our site visits suggest that these six may also have excellent potential project areas, but due to conflicting habitat survey data are not deemed as priority areas. We (the authors) feel the reaches may have been overestimated by the habitat surveyors to reflect more LWD key pieces than actually exists. Therefore, we have included these six reaches as high priority areas based on our observations in the field. A second concern we want to mention for the habitat surveys were the reach designations used. For these discrepancies, we feel it is important to mention the six reaches here, because they have met all other criteria we have designated for high priority areas for off channel habitat improvement. Resurveying the six mentioned reaches will eliminate both of our concerns. The summer snorkel data by Bio Surveys LLC provided us with an overview of the areas where juvenile coho are currently found during the summer months. We had less difficulty understanding the snorkel data collected. The snorkel surveys gave us a good snapshot of where the juvenile coho are found during the summer season. However, we did not believe the summer snorkel surveys provided enough information on the winter rearing habitats. For this study, we were more concerned with the off channel habitat areas, which is the limiting factor for Lower Columbia River Coho. Therefore, we conducted supplemental winter snorkel surveys to gain information on where the juvenile coho were found in the winter. This would help us prioritize the areas we felt needed off channel habitat improvement projects. 12/12/07 21

22 Surprisingly, peak counts for juvenile coho were much higher during our winter snorkel surveys above the hatchery than Steve Trask s summer snorkel data. We have no definite explanation for these differences. ODFW should determine what would cause this seasonal fluctuation of juvenile snorkel counts as part of their ongoing research in the Big Creek basin. Topics to investigate for this question would be: invertebrate populations, water temperatures, water qualities, avian predation, and/or out migrations of juvenile slamonids. Overall Habitat Conditions in the Big Creek Watershed This project has provided a baseline data set with specific stream reach priorities on the current freshwater habitat conditions for coho bearing streams within the Big Creek basin. This information provides an essential tool to guide future restoration work by a variety of interest groups including: city councils, watershed and other non profit groups, state and federal agencies, and private landowners. All of which have a vested stake in local salmon recovery efforts. We have used Oregon statewide benchmarks to establish priorities for guiding future restoration work in this report. From this process, we have identified 73% of mainstem habitat and 48% of tributary habitat as falling below the desirable benchmarks for in stream complexity and were, therefore, deemed as high priority areas for LWD placement and/or off channel habitat improvement activities. Additionally, 24% of mainstem habitat and 48% of tributary habitat has also been identified as high priority areas for riparian enhancement activities. The percentages of surveyed habitat requiring improvement within the Big Creek basin illustrate the lack of complex stream habitat characteristics needed for a healthy watershed ecosystem. Unfortunately, the majority of coastal streams located in southwestern Washington and northwestern Oregon have similar in stream habitat conditions, but far more riparian area deficiencies. From our experience, we feel the Big Creek riparian areas exceed most other riparian areas in northwestern Oregon. This strongly supports the idea that the potential for success is high in increasing coho smolt production in response to future off channel habitat improvement projects within the Big Creek watershed. In conclusion, the authors hope this summary report and related products from the Big Creek Habitat Assessment project will provide an overview of the landscape and will allow planners to focus their restoration activities in the areas with the greatest potential for recovery. 12/12/07 22

23 REFERENCES Lichatowich, J Salmon Without Rivers. Island Press. Japanese Knotweed Alliance. November < bioscience.org/html/japanese_ knotweed_alliance.htm> (8 May, 2006). Montgomery, D. R Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers. University of Washington Press. Moore, K. M. S., K. K. Jones and J. M. Dambacher Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys. Orgeon Department of Fish and Wildlife Information report 97-4, Portland, OR Riggers, B., White, J Operational Plan for Chinook Stock Indicator Project. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Newport OR. Rowe, M. and J.Spangler Mid-Coast Salmonid Habitat Restoration Project Monitoring Update. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Newport OR. Thom, B.A 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 North Coast Project: Project Monitoring and Evaluation. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 12/12/07 23

24 12/12/07 24

25 12/12/07 25

26 12/12/07 26

27 12/12/07 27