R & E Grant Application Project #: 15 Biennium 15-022 Forest Lake Restoration

Project Information R&E Project $16,921.00 Request: Total Project: $114,577.80 Start Date: 2/1/2015 End Date: 6/30/2017 Organization: Necanicum Watershed Council (Tax ID #: 93-1235402) Fiscal Officer Name: Peggy Coreson Address: PO 474 Seaside, OR 97138 Telephone: 503-717-1458 Telephone 2: 503-939-5210 Email: [email protected]

Applicant Information Name: Melyssa Graeper Address: PO Box 474 Seaside, OR 97138 Telephone: 503-717-1458 Telephone 2: 503-939-5210 Fax: 503-717-1458 Email: [email protected]

Past Recommended or Completed Projects

Number Name Status 11-082 Coho Creek Fish Passage Improvement Project Completed 11-145 Broadway Park Fishing Access Improvement Approved

Project #: 15-022 Last Modified/Revised: 3/16/2015 11:13:39 AM Page 1 of 11 Forest Lake Restoration Location Information

Where is it? The project will occur on private land owned or managed by another party Landowner Information Name: Gary Freeman Address: 85203 HWY 101 #8 Seaside, OR, 97138 Phone: 503-440-6238

Site Description Street Address, nearest intersection, or other descriptive location. 85203 HWY 101, across from Rippet Road, just south of Seaside, OR. Directions to the site from the nearest highway junction. From the junction of Hwy 101 and Hwy 26, head north on Hwy 101. Approximately 1.2 miles from the junction, turn right (east) off 101 onto Greenwood Lane. Project is focused on the north pond, just on the other side of the bridge over the Necanicum River. Following project completion, public anglers will be allowed the following level of access to the project site: Limited access Please describe what leases, easements, agreements are in place to ensure angler access to the project site, and what is the length of each agreement. The project site is located on private property, and fishing in the "lake" is not currently permitted, and fishing in the off-channel following project completion will not be allowed. However, the adjacent Necanicum River supports hatchery and naturally produced Fall Chinook, Coastal ESU Coho, Chum, hatchery and naturally produced winter steelhead, cutthroat trout, and lamprey. The project area is within a reach of the Necanicum that is popular with trout, salmon and steelhead anglers both from the bank (the landowner allows controlled public access to fish on his land) and boats. Other than possible improvements based on greater future abundance, this project will not impact current or future recreational fishing, or inhibit or interfere with navigation for boating on the Necanicum River. Dominant Land Use Type: Rural residential Project Location General Project Location. County: Clatsop Town/City: Seaside ODFW Dist: Tillamook Stream/Lake/Es Forest Lake tuary Name: Sub-basin: 17100201 Tributary of: Necanicum River Specific Project Location. Latitude Longitude Project #: 15-022 Last Modified/Revised: 3/16/2015 11:13:39 AM Page 2 of 11 Forest Lake Restoration 45.9521 -123.9250

Project Summary

Project Summary Please provide a couple sentence summary of the proposal. This project will breach a small section of man-made dike to create off-channel/wetland habitat, and eliminate a large historic coho fry kill site. The project will be restored to pre-lake conditions with native plantings. Overall Project Goals Describe the primary goals or outcomes of the entire project, including elements not requesting funding from R&E. The goal of this project is to restore the historic functionality of the site to a groundwater- sourced, perennially aquatic refuge and reconnect access to and from the restored refuge to the mainstem Necanicum. Primary objectives of R&E funding Please describe the measurable objectives for the R&E portion of the funding request. Restore the historic functionality of the site to a groundwater-sourced, perennially aquatic refuge by removing 3-4 feet of accumulated fine silts, removing invasive plants, and restoring native wetland vegetation throughout. Reconnect access to and from the restored refuge on the north end area by breaching the dike along the mainstem Necanicum. Protect water quality in the north end refuge by closing off a sediment input at a failing culvert. Current Situation/Justification Please describe the current situation and explain why this funding is needed. Historically, the 8-acre Forest Lake Project site was part of the Necanicum River channel, but was diked and mined in the 1950s and ‘60s. It has since become a chronic stranding and kill site for juvenile fish – mainly ESA-listed Coast coho – but also coastal cutthroat and lamprey. During high water, coho fry (in the fall) and parr (in the spring) seeking refuge instinctively enter the off-channel site from the mainstem via the south end of the dike, and many pass to the north end via a 12-inch culvert. When water recedes, thousands of fish are stranded in lethal conditions and die. Recreation and Commercial Benefit This project will provide benefits to: Recreational fisheries Commercial fisheries Explain how this project will contribute to current (and/or potential) fishing opportunities, access, or fisheries management. The Necanicum is a very popular and well-known winter steelhead stream for both hatchery and wild stocks. The estuary supports a local fishery for hatchery and wild Chinook in late summer and within the river after the first fall rains. Some fishing effort is made primarily by fly fishers for

Project #: 15-022 Last Modified/Revised: 3/16/2015 11:13:39 AM Page 3 of 11 Forest Lake Restoration sea-run cutthroat trout from July to late fall. Catch-and-release fishing for ESA-listed wild Coho salmon is also popular during late fall through early December. This project will contribute to recreational and commercial fisheries of Coho salmon (when either harvest is allowable) by eliminating a large historic kill site and increasing native coho production from the Necanicum River. Similarly, recreational steelhead and cutthroat fisheries may also see an increase in natural production by eliminating this kill site. Is this project part of an approved Salmon-Trout Enhancement Program (STEP) activity? No This project has been identified as a priority for: Local/watershed Identify any plan or other document that identifies this priority. Necanicum River Habitat Assessment: identified improving access for salmonids in this reach will create additional significant off-channel habitat ODFW Conservation Strategy: Coast EcoRegion limiting factor - alterations to estuarine and wetland habitats This project is intended to benefit the following species: Coho Chinook Salmon Lamprey Winter Steelhead Cutthroat Trout This project will benefit anglers or fishery by providing: Habitat Enhancements Habitat Enhancements The primary purpose of this project is to improve/increase: In water structure, complexity, and habitat Wetland - restoration or creation Planting or vegetation management

Project Description

Schedule Activity Date RE Funding Finalize design plans with CKI, Carex Consulting, ODFW, and City of Seaside. 11/14 No Necanicum Watershed Council (NWC), Wild North Coast TU (WNCTU), Tualatin Valley TU (TVTU), and local Boy Scout Troop 642 will collect and place coarse woody material (Christmas Trees) to provide 1/15 No intermediate cover for over-wintering salmon fry. WNCTU and the Necanicum Watershed Council (NWC) will continue to secure grant funding sources with organizations such as ODFW, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), and Oregon 3/15 No Wildlife Heritage Foundation, among others. A contractor will be selected and permits will be secured from Army Corp/DSL and Clatsop County, with 4/15-6/15 No help from Carex Consulting. The selected contractor will begin staging materials to build the road to breach dike and excavate materials. Culvert will be filled and sealed, and excavation will begin, creating a system of windrows of mucky alluvial silt allowing them to dry out to facilitate loading and export. This will allow an efficient 6/15 No removal of accumulated silts and non native organics and shorten the time required to excavate the site by several days. In-water work period begins. Contractor will begin exporting excavated sediments, scalpe non-native 7/15-8/15 Yes plant material, and place large wood for cover. The breach point will be armored with boulders.

Project #: 15-022 Last Modified/Revised: 3/16/2015 11:13:39 AM Page 4 of 11 Forest Lake Restoration Dike will be breached by contractor at lowest summer flows to reduce sediment input to river. 8/15-9/15 Yes Revegetation work, including at least 2 volunteer field days with NWC, WNCTU, TVTU, and Clatsop- 11/15-12/15 Yes Nehalem tribe volunteers to collect wildling and plant wilding and potted stock. WNCTU and NWC will close out grants and provide press releases to the media. 1/16 No Summer presence/absence snorkel monitoring with the assistance of the Corvallis "Blueback" (TU 196) 6/16-8/16 No chapter, WNCTU, and NWC volunteers. Permits Permit Secured? Date Expected US Army Corps of Engineers: Removal-Fill Individual Consultation No 8/1/15 Clatsop County: Development Permit Yes 3/12/15 Oregon DSL: Removal-Fill Permit No 5/15/15 Project Design and Description Please describe in detail the methods or approach that will be used to achieve the project objectives. Wetlands functionality and water quality will be restored to the entire 3-acre site by excavating and removing approximately 3-4’ of accumulated fine sediments from the north pond, as well as by mechanically removing invasive reed canarygrass (RCG).

As shown in the included plan view design, the original design goal was to excavate accumulated alluvial silts and non-native invasive RCG from both the north and southern pond as part of this project. After review by ODFW habitat restoration biologists and other project partners, it was decided by consensus to focus only on the removal of alluvial silts and RCG from the northern pond, and to breach the dike allowing full connectivity between the Necanicum River mainstem and the enhanced off-channel wetland complex. A small 12-inch failing culvert connects the northern pond with the southern pond. The southern pond experienced a passive dike breach during the “Great Coastal Gale of 2007”, initiated around an overflow culvert that failed and allowed hydraulic scour to breach the dike and drain the lake. Following that event, the south pond area only inundates during high flow events. The small culvert separating the breached and unbreached ponds will be filled with pit run rock and grouted shut on both ends to prevent juvenile salmonids and lamprey from being drawn to any clear water discharge flowing through the breached pond, thereby reducing the chance of entrainment in the pond reconnected to the Necanicum mainstem via the dike breach.

It was determined to be problematic to excavate in the breached pond area and added significant cost without ecological lift or benefit that would persist over time: heavy siltation has created a mosaic of elevations in which no clear fish passage channel could persist. The original larger goal was part of the design as shown, but the design for the south pond has been dropped and is not part of this application.

Construction sequencing will have an excavator enter the dewatered pond ideally in early July to excavate to the extent possible alluvial silts and RCG thatch, roots and rhizomes into large windrows to facilitate drying and handling for export to the upland disposal site at the adjacent quarry. Spoils will be used for DOGAMI-required remediation. In late August, during the ODFW in-water work window, the windrowed material will be excavated and exported by dump truck from the site. After removing as much silt and organic material as is practical/possible, the site will be left until suspended silts have settled.

Following the pond excavation, a temporary rock road will be constructed along the dike interfacing with the Necanicum River mainstem to provide access for an excavator and dump trucks for the dike breach per the plan view design and cross sections included in this

Project #: 15-022 Last Modified/Revised: 3/16/2015 11:13:39 AM Page 5 of 11 Forest Lake Restoration application. When ODFW biologists and project managers have determined there will be no discharge of turbidity to the Necanicum mainstem, the dike will be breached according to the plan view design attached .The breach is minimal, requiring only +/- a 30-foot wide opening at summer low flow levels.

The breach on the south side will be protected with a combined boulder and willow fascine installation. The north side of the breach will be contoured to the existing slope which is hard basalt rock likely not requiring armoring unless required. This design/construction sequencing allows the removal of extensive RCG monoculture and accumulated silts without any discharge of turbidity to the Necanicum River.

After dike breach, the temporary road will be removed to prepare the remaining dike for planting with native trees and shrubs per the attached plant list in fall and early winter 2015. Geotextile fabric will be laid first to facilitate pit run rock removal. The entire project site will be revegetated with native wetland plants including Sitka spruce, hooker willow, bulrush, scirpus and sparganium.

**NOTE. Plan view design for grading and excavation of the southern pond is not being proposed. Please disregard the cross-section and plan view grading plan on sheet 3 of 6. Dike breach and excavation of invasive RCG and alluvial silts is limited to the northern pond.

As has been demonstrated at Neitzel Farm, Circle Creek Off-Channel Wetland Complex and other projects in the Necanicum using the same principals and techniques, removing accumulated sediments and restoring the elevation of these historic relic channels to original levels and substrates restores the hyproreic (groundwater) inputs to off-channel refuges, providing a perennial supply of cold, clean water percolating up through the substrate. Put simply, with restored hyporeic flow functionality, when the river rises, the off-channel wetland rises, with groundwater input from below. The result is perennially wetted conditions, extremely clear water that juvenile coho are drawn to, and ideal salmonid rearing temperatures year-round (colder in summer and milder in winter).

The approximately 3-acre north end pond site will be reconnected and restored by breaching the dike near its northern end in a carefully calculated and engineered fashion to allow juvenile fish access into and out of the project site when rising water levels wet the connection during migratory periods for coho and other fish. The precise engineered position and angle of the breach point also encourages hydrologic friction on in-flow from the mainstem, which greatly reduces sediment inputs to the refuge area during high flow events.

Water quality in the north end pond will be protected from sediment inputs from the south end during storm events by closing off the failing 12-inch culvert under the road that separates the north and south ends. The revegetation program throughout the project site will dramatically increase year-round water quality as well.

The project will foster and sustain outdoor education and conservation ethic in young and adult observers by providing a “living classroom” demonstrating the critical value of restored wetland areas to dozens of species of flora and fauna. The project location just outside of the city of Seaside and just yards off of the major highway between metropolitan Portland and the coast makes it easily accessible to thousands of students and adults as well.

Project #: 15-022 Last Modified/Revised: 3/16/2015 11:13:39 AM Page 6 of 11 Forest Lake Restoration Local tribal leaders have also expressed strong interest in utilizing the restored Forest Lake site to grow traditional native aquatic plants of great importance traditionally to native people, such as wapato. Engineering Does the project involve capital improvement, engineering, site grading or other construction? Yes Not associated with ODFW Project Management and Maintenance What is the life expectancy of R&E funded construction, structures, equipment, supplies, data or fishery? Once constructed, the project is designed to be self-sustaining, using laminar flow and input from the City of Seaside's reservoir overflow to keep the connection open. Who is responsible for long term management, maintenance, and oversight of the project beyond what is funded by R&E. The Necanicum Watershed Council, with help from the North Coast "Wild" Trout Unlimited Chapter, will assist the landowner in monitoring the project site beyond what is funded by R&E. The landowner strongly supports breaching the dike to eliminate the chronic entrainment and kill site on his property, and has a deep commitment to conservation. Members of the Clatsop- Nehalem Confederated Tribe will monitor and maintain the native plantings on site. Will the project require ongoing maintenance? No Is there a plan to collect baseline data and to conduct monitoring efforts to measure the effectiveness of the project? Yes Baseline fish use data will be collected prior to construction, coinciding with fish salvage efforts. Juvenile fish use/effectiveness data following construction will be collected via snorkel surveys by ODFW-protocol trained volunteers from the Corvallis "Bluebacks" Chapter of Trout Unlimited.

Project Funding

Funding Have you applied for OWEB funding for this project? Yes OWEB application number: 02-14-005 Received an award. R&E money is needed as matching funds. Awaiting a decision from the panel. The small grant has been approved by the Small Grant Team. We are waiting for signatures on the grant agreement from the Grant Program Manager, which should be signed by the end of March, at the latest.

Other Funding Source Type Secured Dollar Value Comments

Project #: 15-022 Last Modified/Revised: 3/16/2015 11:13:39 AM Page 7 of 11 Forest Lake Restoration $1000 For project management/volunteer oversight/grant administration Tualatin Valley Trout Unlimited Cash Secured 1541.20 $541.20 = 24 hours of estimated in-kind volunteer time collecting and planting wildlings 24 hours of estimated in-kind volunteer time collecting Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribes In-Kind Secured 541.20 and planting wildlings 24 hours of estimated in-kind volunteer time collecting Necanicum Watershed Council Volunteers In-Kind Secured 541.20 and planting wildlings Project management/volunteer oversight/grant Jubitz Family Foundation Cash Secured 5000 administration Project permitting, project management, culvert fill, dike OWEB Small Grant Cash Secured 10000 access, pond excavation, native plant material collection, grant management Project was 1 of 3 to be fully funded (out of 36 overall Trout Unlimited Embrace-A-Stream Cash Secured 10000 applications) for this national grant award. Design assistance, fish salvage, on-site project ODFW Tillamook District/Western Oregon In-Kind Secured 2000 management. Match is secured, but program may not Stream Restoration Program Biologist be funded past June 30 per ODFW budget cuts. Teevin & Fisher Rock In-Kind Secured 33712 Donating all tipping/dump fees & rock for project. Donating project design & providing non-profit discount Carex Consulting In-Kind Secured 9280 on professional rate for permitting $1240 in-kind for project design review - secured City of Seaside Other Secured 6240 $5000 cash (DEQ SEP funds - not secured) Donated coarse woody material (Christmas trees) for cover. 150 trees were placed 2/19/15, and will be McKenzie Tree Farm In-Kind Secured 5000 salvaged and reused following construction, with more trees donated after 2015 holiday. 24 hours of estimated in-kind volunteer time collecting Boy Scout Troop 642 In-Kind Secured 500 and placing Christmas trees 24 hours of estimated in-kind volunteer time collecting Wild North Coast Trout Unlimited In-Kind Secured 541.20 and planting wildlings Volunteer time to assist in training and performing Corvallis "Bluebacks" Trout Unlimited In-Kind Secured 500 juvenile salmonid snorkeling monitoring Landowner: Gary Freeman Cash Secured 8000 Design/engineering and permitting Dean Larson In-Kind Secured 4260 Donation of large wood material for habitat complexity Total 97656.80

Project #: 15-022 Last Modified/Revised: 3/16/2015 11:13:39 AM Page 8 of 11 Forest Lake Restoration Budget

Item Unit Number Unit Cost In-kind or non- Funding from R&E Funds Total Costs cash other sources contr butions PROJECT MANAGEMENT Carex Consulting 60 95 1200 4500 0 5700 ODFW 40 50 2000 0 0 2000 Necanicum Watershed Council 60 35 0 2100 0 2100 SUBTOTAL(1) 3200 6600 0 9800 IN-HOUSE PERSONNEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL(2) 0 0 0 0 CONTRACTED SERVICES CKI: engineering (lump sum) 0 8000 0 8000 0 8000 Carex Consulting: project design & 104 95 8080 1800 0 9880 permitting City of Seaside: project design 20 62 1240 0 0 1240 Plug culvert 6 25 0 150 0 150 Build temporary access road: excavation 12 175 0 2100 0 2100 Build temporary access road: trucking (in 10 120 0 1200 0 1200 hours) Build temporary access road: dumping 0 450 450 0 0 450 (estimated lump sum) Dike breach: excavation 20 175 0 0 3500 3500 Dike breach: trucking (in hours) 12 120 0 0 1440 1440 Dike breach: dumping 0 2300 2300 0 0 2300 Pond restoration: excavation 64 175 0 11200 0 11200 Pond restoration: trucking (in days) 12 1000 0 479 11521 12000 Pond restoration: dumping 0 26552 26552 0 0 26552 Native planting: volunteers 96 22.55 2164.8 0 0 2164.8 Native planting: contracted work crew (1 1 1000 0 900 100 1000 week) Post-implementation summer monitoring 0 500 500 0 0 500 SUBTOTAL(3) 41286.8 25829 16561 83676.8 TRAVEL Native plant material collection 1000 0.56 0 560 0 560 SUBTOTAL(4) 0 560 0 560 SUPPLIES/MATERIALS Culvert plug: cement 0 300 0 300 0 300 Culvert plug: pit run (in tons) 15 6 90 0 0 90 Temporary access road: geotech fabric (in 200 1.3 0 260 0 260 feet) Temporary access road: rock 0 600 600 0 0 600 Dike breach: boulders (in tons) 120 31 3720 0 0 3720 Native plant material 0 2500 500 1740 260 2500 Large wood material 0 4260 4260 0 0 4260 Coarse wood material 0 5000 5000 0 0 5000 SUBTOTAL(5) 14170 2300 260 16730 EDUCATION/OUTREACH 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL(6) 0 0 0 0 EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL(7) 0 0 0 0 FISCAL ADMINISTRATION Necanicum Watershed Council 100 35 0 3400 100 3500 2 year status reporting 0 200 0 200 0 200 County Land Use signature & permit 0 111 0 111 0 111 SUBTOTAL(8) 0 3711 100 3811

BUDGET 58656.8 39000 16921 114577.8 TOTAL

Project #: 15-022 Last Modified/Revised: 3/16/2015 11:13:39 AM Page 9 of 11 Forest Lake Restoration Project #: 15-022 Last Modified/Revised: 3/16/2015 11:13:39 AM Page 10 of 11 Forest Lake Restoration Additional Files

Click a link to view that particular file. Engineered Design Plans

IRS Letter

Landowner Letter

Maps

Necanicum River Habitat Assessment

Necanicum River Habitat Assessment Stream Report

ODFW Conservation Strategy: Coast EcoRegion

Project photos

Signature Authorization Page

Project #: 15-022 Last Modified/Revised: 3/16/2015 11:13:39 AM Page 11 of 11 Forest Lake Restoration

Oregon Conservation Strategy, January 2006 opportunities, and tourism is important to local communities. Fishing, chapter. However, land use changes and invasive species are described both commercial and recreational, and fish processing are significant further in this section, considering the Coast Range’s ecoregional components of the economy. People are increasingly moving to the characteristics. In addition to the statewide issues, oil spills, loss of coast to retire, so retirement services are growing in importance to estuarine habitats, and recreational use are of particular concern in this coastal communities. ecoregion.

Conservation Issues and Actions Factor: Land use conversion and urbanization. Some areas of the Coast Range are developing rapidly, especially along the coastline. Overview Steep slopes limit the amount of land available for development Demand for waterfront property is increasing, along with numbers and concentrates it in sensitive areas such as near rivers and estu- of people recreating, relocating and retiring along the coast. Careful aries. Residential development contributes to habitat loss, and can resource planning helps to balance these increasing demands with threaten traditional land uses such as agriculture and commercial maintaining coastal fish, wildlife and habitats. Coordinated, broad-scale forestlands. planning is especially important given the diversity of the Coast Range Approach: Work with community leaders and agency partners to ecoregion, and several efforts are briefly summarized in Appendix II. For encourage planned, efficient growth. Support existing land use example, the Northwest Forest Plan covers much of the region’s forests. regulations to preserve farmland and forestland, open spaces, (See Northwest Forest Plan description in Appendix II a:13). However, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, and natural habitats. the adaptive management component of the Northwest Forest Plan has not been fully implemented. Although many plans currently exist, Factor: Oil spills. Oil spills along the coast can have devastating effects there is a continuing need to consider the unique needs of transitional on coastal habitat, fish and wildlife. Tidal flux can spread oil or zones such as estuaries, and to integrate marine and inland conserva- other hazardous materials around sensitive habitat very quickly, so tion planning. rapid response is essential. Additionally, spills of hazardous materi- als or oil from vehicles traveling on roads along the coast could Much of the ecoregion is publicly owned and managed to balance rec- potentially impact nearby rivers and aquatic species. reation, tourism and conservation. However, ownership in the northern Approach: Ensure rapid response and preparedness for spills of hazard- part of the ecoregion is particularly fragmented. Moreover, steep and ous substances. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s variable terrain has resulted in many towns located near estuaries, in- Marine Oil Spill Prevention Program, and the Pacific States/Brit- creasing the demands on these systems. Restoration of watershed pro- ish Columbia Oil Spill Task Force, work with multiple parties and cesses and functions and restoration of habitat complexity (i.e., woody interested partners to address these concerns and quickly identify debris) to stream and riparian areas, are major concerns throughout the appropriate actions. entire Coast Range ecoregion. Restoring connected flows to headwater streams maintains ecological connections important for many species. Factor: Alterations to estuarine and wetland habitats. Coastal rivers, wetlands and estuaries were altered long ago when side Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Marine Resources Program is channels were diked, marshes drained, and channels deepened. preparing the Oregon Nearshore Strategy to provide a comprehensive, These changes impacted fish and wildlife dependent on estuarine sustainable approach to marine species and habitat management. The habitats. Oregon Nearshore Strategy will address fully marine species, including Approach: Where possible, remove dikes and tide gates to restore saltwater fish, shellfish, and marine mammals, and their habitats. This estuarine habitats. Where tide gates need to be retained, replace Coast Range Ecoregion section addresses anadromous fish, estuaries, older gates with new innovations such as side-hinged and alumi- and terrestrial habitats such as sand dunes. This chapter also addresses num gates that improve fish passage and hydrologic functions. seabird species that nest and/or roost on Oregon coastal terrestrial habitats. Factor: Increasing recreational use. Recreation contributes positively to the Coast Range’s economy and local communities and is man- Ecoregion-level limiting factors and recommended aged carefully in many areas. However, increasing numbers of approaches recreationalists can impact sensitive areas such as shorebird nest- All six of the key conservation issues apply statewide, as do the ap- ing areas and tidepool habitats. There are concerns with off-leash proaches outlined in the Statewide Perspectives and Approaches dogs and uncontrolled off-highway use in some areas.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 137

Oregon Conservation Strategy, January 2006

Approach: Work with local communities to plan recreational use and The Sinkos’ commitment to stewardship also is evident in the way they to increase education and outreach for recreationalists and as- farm their land. In the early 1990s, Myrtle Crest was the first farm in the sociated businesses. Where needed, direct activities to particular Pacific Northwest to be recognized and certified as organic. Today, they seasons or away from sensitive areas. are part of Organic Valley Family of Farms, one of the nation’s leading organic brands and a cooperative of 689 organic dairy, meat, egg and Factor: Invasive species. Non-native plant and animal invasions produce farmers operating in 20 states, including 14 member farms in disrupt native communities, diminish populations of at-risk native Oregon. Fueled by growing consumer demand, organic crop, meat and species, and threaten the economic productivity of resource lands. dairy production is one of the fastest growing agricultural sectors in Approach: Emphasize prevention, risk assessment, early detection the country. In Oregon alone, the number of organic acres certified by and quick control to prevent new invasives from becoming fully Oregon Tilth, a leading third-party certifier of organic farms, has risen established. Prioritize management and control efforts to focus by 39 percent since 2000. on key invasive species in high priority areas, particularly where Strategy Habitats and Species occur. Where needed, use multiple Farms like Myrtle Crest are certified organic because they voluntarily site-appropriate tools (mechanical, chemical and biological) to con- implement “best agricultural practices” approved by the U.S. Depart- trol the most damaging non-native species. Work with partners to ment of Agriculture. These practices, or National Organic Program implement measures to prevent unintentional introduction of non- (NOP) Standards, disallow the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers native species (e.g., implement existing ballast water treatment and genetically modified seed or crops on farms certified as organic. regulations). Provide information to the public about the ecologic In addition, organic farms must maximize soil quality and minimize soil and economic damage that invasives cause. erosion by practicing low-impact tillage or planting cover crops. USDA authorizes third party organizations like Oregon Tilth to issue certifi- Conservation Success Story: Organic Dairy Farm Culti- cates and carry out annual audits of organic operations. vates Conservation Doug and Sharon Sinko believe they have a responsibility to steward The Sinkos have cultivated a path to stewardship by demonstrating the land that supports their livelihood and lifestyle. This philosophy is a sincere and sustained interest in habitat restoration and natural amply visible on the Sinkos’ 360 acre organic dairy farm in Myrtle Point, resource conservation. The stewardship they exhibit also is reflected in Oregon. their farming practices and rewarded by consumers who pay a premium for organic dairy products. After Doug bought the land from his father in the 1970s, he and Sha- ron put their heart and soul into Myrtle Crest farm. They also initiated Deciding Where to Work what would be a multi-year effort to restore severely degraded habitat along the Coquille River, which meanders through their property. Conservation Opportunity Areas Map and Profiles Long before the Sinkos arrived on the scene, the Coquille’s banks were Landowners and land managers throughout Oregon can contribute to rendered unstable following the conversion of surrounding wetlands to conserving fish and wildlife by maintaining, restoring, and improving pastureland by early farmers. This practice altered the hydrology of the habitats. Conservation actions to benefit Strategy Species and Habitats floodplain, contributing to serious bank erosion when the river flooded are important regardless of location. However, focusing investments in its banks. certain priority areas can increase likelihood of long-term success over larger landscapes, improve funding efficiency, and promote cooperative Overcoming initial procedural hurdles to stabilize the bank, the Sinkos efforts across ownership boundaries. Conservation Opportunity Areas have successfully restored 200 acres of wetlands along stretches of the are landscapes where broad fish and wildlife conservation goals would river, which now runs deeper and cooler and supports healthy popula- be best met. Conservation Opportunity Areas were developed to guide tions of salmon. With technical assistance from two local organizations voluntary, non-regulatory actions. This map and the associated data – the South Coast Land Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited – the Sinkos should only be used in ways consistent with these intentions. For more voluntarily enrolled their wetlands in the federally administered Wet- information on how Conservation Opportunity Areas were developed, lands Reserve Program. In return, the Sinkos were compensated for the see Appendix IV, “Methods” (beginning on page a:34). appraised value of the enrolled land.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 139

Oregon Conservation Strategy, January 2006

Conservation Opportunity Area Profiles Key Species: ■ Olive-sided Flycatcher CR-01. Clatsop Plains ■ Coho Salmon Special Features: ■ Fall Chinook Salmon ■ Area contains Gearhart Fen, the largest contiguous wetland ■ Winter Steelhead of its kind remaining on the . The bog features ■ Columbian White-tailed Deer several rare plant communities. ■ The Clatsop beaches provide a concentration point for shore- Identified in other planning efforts: birds (mostly sanderlings) and gulls. ■ Joint Venture Plan ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment

Key Habitats: ■ Coastal Dunes Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Freshwater Wetlands ■ Restore floodplain wetlands, tidal wetlands, and bottomland forests

Key Species: ■ Caspian Tern CR-03. Clatskanie River ■ Shorebirds Special Features: ■ In 2000, OWEB provided funding for the Lower Columbia River

Identified in other planning efforts: Watershed Council and partners to reconnect the Westport ■ Oregon’s Important Bird Areas (Clatsop beaches) Slough to the Clatskanie River, restoring waterflow and fish ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment passage. ■ The Lower Columbia River Watershed Council is working with

Recommended Conservation Actions: private landowners to reduce water temperatures through ■ Maintain existing habitat values streamside planting. ■ Manage public use to minimize disturbance for shorebirds ■ Plan development to maintain key ecological functions and Key Habitats: habitats ■ Aquatic ■ Freshwater Wetlands CR-02. Columbia-Clatskanie area ■ Riparian Special Features: ■ Area encompasses the Julia B. Hanson Refuge for the Colum- Key Species: bian white-tailed deer ■ Chum Salmon ■ Area extends to the Blind Slough Swamp Preserve, the best ■ Coastal Cutthroat Trout example of a Sitka spruce swamp remaining in Oregon ■ Coho Salmon ■ There are ongoing restoration efforts to eradicate invasive plant ■ Fall Chinook Salmon species in the Blind Slough Swamp Preserve ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Ducks Unlimited has been working with a private landowner ■ Columbian White-tailed Deer to restore large blocks of wetlands on a former cottonwood plantation. CR-04. Necanicum Estuary ■ Area is heavily used by migrating and wintering waterfowl. Special Features: ■ Area includes critical habitat for Columbian white-tailed deer. ■ Necanicum estuary is designated as a Conservation estuary ■ The city of Seaside and the North Coast Land Conservancy have

Key Habitats: acquired a network of tidal wetlands along Neawanna Creek ■ Freshwater Wetlands estuary that are designated as a natural history park. ■ Oak Woodlands And Savannas ■ The North Coast Land Conservancy purchased (2004) the 365- ■ Riparian acre Circle Creek Preserve along Necanicum River that includes one of largest blocks of spruce swamp on the Oregon coast

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 143 Ecoregions: Coast Range Ecoregion

Key Habitats: ■ American Fisheries Society Aquatic Diversity Areas (Lewis and ■ Estuary Clarke River portion) ■ Riparian ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment

Key Species: Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Shorebirds ■ Maintain existing habitat values ■ Waterfowl ■ Chum Salmon CR-07. Nehalem River Estuary ■ Coho Salmon Special Features: ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Lower Nehalem Community Trust is acquiring former dairy along lower Alder Creek for habitat restoration and public use. Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Nehalem Meadows area has long been considered a hot spot ■ Oregon’s Important Bird Areas for diversity of migratory birds. ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment (Necanicum ■ Nehalem Bay State Park protects undeveloped north spit. River) ■ Area contains a mineral site used by band-tailed pigeons. ■ Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Restore riparian habitats along Necanicum River Key Habitats: ■ Estuary CR-05. Tillamook Head ■ Freshwater Wetlands Special Features: ■ Area contains . Key Species: ■ Offshore rocks provide important nesting habitat for seabirds. ■ Band-tailed Pigeon ■ Shorebirds Key Habitats: ■ Waterfowl ■ Coastal Dunes ■ Chum Salmon ■ Late Successional Conifer Forests ■ Coho Salmon ■ Winter Steelhead Key Species: ■ Tufted Puffin Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Joint Venture Plan Identified in other planning efforts: ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment (Clatsop Plains-Necanicum River site) Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Restore tidal and freshwater wetlands, riparian habitats along CR-06. Saddle Mountain lower Alder Creek Special Features: ■ Contains Saddle Mountain State Natural Area, the only signifi- CR-08. Tillamook Bay and tributaries cant block of old-growth forest in Clatsop County Special Features: ■ Rare sensitive plants ■ Tillamook County has acquired about 400 acres of diked former tidelands in the river delta area at south end of the bay through Key Habitats: collaborative effort with Tillamook Estuary Partnership, USFWS, ■ Aquatic OWEB, Trust for Public Land, and ODFW. ■ Late Successional Conifer Forests ■ Tillamook Pioneer Museum acquired key 150-acre property at Kilchis Point with extensive tidal marshes, forested wetlands, Key Species: undeveloped shoreline ■ Peregrine Falcon ■ Opportunities to link lowland conservation efforts with upland ■ Identified in other planning efforts: forest management

144 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Conservation Strategy, January 2006

■ Important migration stopover for shorebirds and waterfowl CR-09. Portland’s Forest Park ■ Heavy use by wintering waterfowl, including brant. Special Features: ■ Undeveloped Bayocean Spit could provide habitat for western ■ Area includes Forest Park, the largest forested urban park in the snowy plover. . ■ Large remnant spruce swamp habitats on Hoquarton and ■ There have been ongoing habitat protection and restoration, Squeedunk sloughs acquisition, and education projects by Friends of Forest Park. ■ Tillamook Bay supports an important mineral site for band- [www.friendsofforestpark.org] tailed pigeons. ■ Area provides an important wildlife corridor between the Coast Range and Willamette Valley ecoregions. Key Habitats:

■ Estuary Key Habitats: ■ Freshwater Wetlands ■ Aquatic ■ Riparian ■ Late Successional Conifer Forests ■ Riparian Key Species:

■ Peregrine Falcon Key Species: ■ Shorebirds ■ Olive-sided Flycatcher ■ Waterfowl ■ Cutthroat Trout ■ Chum Salmon

■ Coastal Cutthroat Trout Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Coho Salmon ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment ■ Winter Steelhead CR-10. Netarts Bay Identified in other planning efforts: Special Features: ■ American Fisheries Society Aquatic Diversity Areas (N. Fork ■ Wintering site for significant populations of brant Wilson River) ■ Designated Conservation estuary ■ Joint Venture Plan ■ protects the undeveloped south spit ■ Oregon Biodiversity Project Conservation Opportunity Areas

■ Oregon’s Important Bird Areas (Tillamook Bay) Key Habitats: ■ Salmon Anchor Habitat Strategy ■ Estuary ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment

■ The Oregon Plan Core Salmon Areas Key Species: ■ Shorebirds Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Waterfowl ■ Improve water quality ■ Chum Salmon ■ Maintain or enhance in-channel watershed function, connection ■ Coho Salmon to riparian habitat, flow and hydrology ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Maintain or restore riparian habitat and ecological function;

ensure sufficient habitat complexity for wildlife Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Maintain undeveloped character of Bayocean Spit ■ Joint Venture Plan ■ Reconnect cutoff sloughs in lowlands around bay ■ Oregon’s Important Bird Areas ■ Restore tidal wetlands in river delta at south end of Tillamook ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment Bay

Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Manage public use to minimize disturbance of wintering brant

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 145 Ecoregions: Coast Range Ecoregion

CR-11. Sand Lake area Key Habitats: Special Features: ■ Estuary ■ Marine-dominated estuary with little freshwater inflows is one ■ Freshwater Wetlands of Oregon’s least developed estuaries ■ Riparian ■ State Parks purchased Whalen Island, a large, undeveloped ■ Key Species: island with extensive high quality tidal marshes, in 2000. ■ Aleutian Canada Goose ■ Designated Natural Estuary ■ Dusky Canada Goose ■ Area contains some of the most extensive dunes on the north- ■ Chum Salmon ern coast. ■ Coho Salmon ■ Winter Steelhead

Key Habitats: ■ Coastal Dunes Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Freshwater Wetlands ■ Joint Venture Plan ■ Oregon Biodiversity Project Conservation Opportunity Areas

Key Species: ■ Oregon’s Important Bird Areas ■ Shorebirds ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment ■ Waterfowl ■ Chum Salmon Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Coho Salmon ■ Improve water quality ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Maintain short-grass pastures to benefit wintering goose populations

Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Restore tidal wetlands ■ Joint Venture Plan ■ Oregon Biodiversity Project Conservation Opportunity Areas CR-13. Nestucca River Watershed ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment Special Features: ■ Identified by Oregon Plan and American Fisheries Society as an

Recommended Conservation Actions: extremely important area for native salmonids ■ Control key invasive species (European beachgrass) ■ Much of this area designated by as an ■ Plan development to maintain key ecological functions and Adaptive Management Area, focusing on conservation values habitats ■ Restore and maintain tidal marshes and freshwater wetlands on Key Habitats: southern spit (Beltz Marsh) ■ Freshwater Wetlands ■ Late Successional Conifer Forests CR-12. Nestucca Bay ■ Riparian Special Features: ■ Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge protects a major winter- Key Species: ing area for the bulk of the Semidi Island population of the ■ Harlequin Duck Aleutian and Dusky Canada Goose and includes extensive tidal ■ Marbled Murrelet marshes. ■ Northern Spotted Owl ■ There are ongoing projects by USFWS and Ducks Unlimited to ■ Coho Salmon acquire land on the Little Nestucca River to increase goose and ■ Winter Steelhead tidal marsh habitat ■ American Marten ■ Neskowin Marsh Unit of the Nestucca Bay NWR protects a large freshwater coastal wetland that includes bogs and other rare Identified in other planning efforts: plant communities. ■ American Fisheries Society Aquatic Diversity Areas ■ Designated Conservation Estuary ■ Oregon Biodiversity Project Conservation Opportunity Areas

146 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Conservation Strategy, January 2006

■ Siuslaw National Forest High Priority Restoration Areas ■ Manage public access to , Hart Cove to minimize ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment impacts of human disturbance ■ The Oregon Plan Core Salmon Areas CR-15. Siletz Bay Recommended Conservation Actions: Special Features: ■ Improve water quality ■ Many acquisition and restoration projects; partners include US- ■ Maintain or enhance in-channel watershed function, connection FWS, Ducks Unlimited; Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians, to riparian habitat, flow and hydrology US Forest Service ■ Maintain or restore riparian habitat and ecological function; ■ Bay and tidelands are used extensively by shorebirds and wa- ensure sufficient habitat complexity for wildlife terfowl, and support significant salmonid populations [Oregon ■ Manage federal lands to enhance development of late suc- Habitat Joint Venture]. cesional forests ■ Area includes Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge ■ Designated Conservation estuary CR-14. Salmon River Estuary and Cascade Head Special Features: Key Habitats: ■ Recent restoration work by USFS on recent acquisitions on the ■ Estuary Salmon River Estuary ■ Freshwater Wetlands ■ USFS restoration work at Cascade Head Scenic Research Area ■ Riparian ■ Designated Natural estuary ■ Rare plants; native prairie grasses Key Species: ■ Ongoing restoration efforts by the Nature Conservancy ■ California Brown Pelican ■ Camp Westwind owned by YWCA on south side of Salmon ■ Caspian Tern River has effectively protected natural values on 600 acres. ■ Chum Salmon ■ Area is a Western Sandpiper migration stopover. ■ Coastal Cutthroat Trout ■ Coho Salmon Key Habitats: ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Coastal Bluffs And Montane Grasslands ■ Estuary Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Joint Venture Plan Key Species: ■ Oregon’s Important Bird Areas ■ Peregrine Falcon ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment ■ Tufted Puffin ■ Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Western Sandpiper ■ Plan development to maintain key ecological functions and ■ Chum Salmon habitats ■ Coho Salmon ■ Restore tidal wetlands along Drift Creek ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Oregon Silverspot Butterfly CR-16. Drift Creek (Siletz) Special Features: Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Ongoing restoration by USFS to thin forests ■ Enhance meadows to benefit Oregon silverspot butterfly ■ Maintain grasslands on Cascade Head to maintain native prairie Key Habitats: community ■ Aquatic ■ Maintain or enhance in-channel watershed function, connection ■ Late Successional Conifer Forests to riparian habitat, flow and hydrology ■ Maintain or restore riparian habitat and ecological function Key Species: ■ Maintain undeveloped character of Camp Westwind property ■ Marbled Murrelet

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 147 Ecoregions: Coast Range Ecoregion

■ Northern Spotted Owl ■ Chum Salmon ■ Coho Salmon ■ Coho Salmon ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Winter Steelhead

Identified in other planning efforts: Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Siuslaw National Forest High Priority Restoration Areas ■ Joint Venture Plan ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment ■ Oregon’s Important Bird Areas ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Manage public lands to enhance development of late-succes- Recommended Conservation Actions: sional forests ■ Limit disturbance of wintering brant ■ Maintain and restore tidal wetlands CR-17. Luckiamute River Key Habitats: CR-19. Beaver Creek ■ Aquatic Special Features: ■ Riparian ■ Area includes a small estuary within Ona Beach State Park. ■ Provides important habitat for wintering and migrating water- Key Species: fowl and supports native stocks of chinook and coho salmon, ■ Riparian Birds steelhead and sea-run cutthroat trout. [Oregon Habitat Joint ■ Winter Steelhead Venture] ■ Most of Beaver Marsh was purchased by the Wetlands Identified in other planning efforts: Conservancy ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment ■ Restoration work being done by The Wetlands Conservancy, USFWS, Friends of Beaver Creek Marsh, and the US Forest Recommended Conservation Actions: Service ■ Maintain or enhance in-channel watershed function, connection to riparian habitat, flow and hydrology Key Habitats: ■ Maintain or restore riparian habitat and ecological function; ■ Coastal Dunes ensure sufficient habitat complexity for wildlife ■ Freshwater Wetlands ■ Late Successional Conifer Forests CR-18. Yaquina Bay ■ Riparian Special Features: ■ Restoration work currently underway to restore tidal wetlands Key Species: in the estuary; partners include The Wetlands Conservancy, the ■ Waterfowl Central Coast Land Conservancy, OWEB, Pacific States Marine ■ Coastal Cutthroat Trout Fisheries Commission, the Midcoast Watersheds Council, ■ Coho Salmon USFWS ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Important migration stopover for shorebirds and waterfowl, including wintering brant. Identified in other planning efforts: ■ American Fisheries Society Aquatic Diversity Areas Key Habitats: ■ Joint Venture Plan ■ Estuary ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment ■ Recommended Conservation Actions: Key Species: ■ Maintain and restore freshwater wetlands along lower Beaver ■ Shorebirds Creek ■ Waterfowl

148 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Conservation Strategy, January 2006

CR-20. Alsea River Estuary Identified in other planning efforts: Special Features: ■ American Fisheries Society Aquatic Diversity Areas ■ Concentration site for shorebirds and waterfowl including Cas- ■ Siuslaw National Forest High Priority Restoration Areas pian terns and brown pelicans ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment ■ Restoration work being done on Lint Slough (south end of estuary) by partnership between Ducks Unlimited, Midcoast Recommended Conservation Actions: Watersheds Council, OWEB, ODFW, USFWS ■ Maintain or enhance in-channel watershed function, connection ■ MidCoast Watershed Councils and Wetlands Conservancy are to riparian habitat, flow and hydrology developing strategies to implement recommendations of estua- ■ Maintain or restore riparian habitat and ecological function; rine habitat prioritization funded by OWEB. ensure sufficient habitat complexity for wildlife ■ Restore coastal prairie

Key Habitats: ■ Estuary CR-22. Mary’s Peak area Special Features:

Key Species: ■ Highest point in Oregon’s coast range ■ California Brown Pelican ■ Important plant diversity area; over 200 flowering plants have ■ Caspian Tern been identified on the summit [Native Plant Society] ■ Shorebirds ■ Waterfowl Key Habitats: ■ Chum Salmon ■ Coastal Bluffs And Montane Grasslands ■ Coho Salmon ■ Late Successional Conifer Forests ■ Winter Steelhead Key Species:

Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Northern Goshawk ■ Joint Venture Plan ■ Northern Spotted Owl ■ Oregon’s Important Bird Areas ■ Coho Salmon ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment Recommended Conservation Actions:

Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Maintain and enhance meadows, late-successional forests ■ Restore tidal wetlands CR-23. Siuslaw River Area CR-21. Drift Creek (Alsea) area Special Features: Special Features: ■ Significant for aquatic resources ■ Includes ■ One of the highest concentrations of core salmon areas in the state

Key Habitats: ■ Many American Fisheries Society Aquatic Diversity Areas ■ Coastal Bluffs And Montane Grasslands ■ Late Successional Conifer Forests Key Habitats: ■ Riparian ■ Late Successional Conifer Forests ■ Riparian

Key Species: ■ Bald Eagle Key Species: ■ Northern Spotted Owl ■ Marbled Murrelet ■ Chinook Salmon ■ Northern Spotted Owl ■ Coastal Cutthroat Trout ■ Chum Salmon ■ Coho Salmon ■ Coho Salmon ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Winter Steelhead

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 149 Ecoregions: Coast Range Ecoregion

Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Estuary ■ American Fisheries Society Aquatic Diversity Areas ■ Freshwater Wetlands ■ Oregon Biodiversity Project Conservation Opportunity Areas ■ Siuslaw National Forest High Priority Restoration Areas Key Species: ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment ■ Black Oystercatcher ■ The Oregon Plan Core Salmon Areas ■ Western Snowy Plover ■ Coho Salmon Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Maintain or enhance in-channel watershed function, connection to riparian habitat, flow and hydrology Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Maintain or restore riparian habitat and ecological function; ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment ensure sufficient habitat complexity for wildlife ■ Manage young forests on public lands to accelerate develop- Recommended Conservation Actions: ment of late-successional characteristics ■ Remove European beach grass in targeted areas to enhance habitat for western snowy plover CR-24. Heceta Head Special Features: CR-26. Siuslaw River Estuary ■ Offshore rocks and headlands provide nesting sites for seabirds. Special Features: ■ Area encompasses the , a remnant ■ Western Sandpiper migration stopover of the giant spruce/hemlock rainforests, and Rock Creek Wilder- ■ Includes Nature Conservancy’s Cox Island Preserve, large Wet- ness. Both have no roads or trails. lands Reserve Program easement with restored tidal marshes on Duncan Island, US Forest Service wetland, stream and riparian Key Habitats: restoration project at Karnowsky Creek. ■ Aquatic ■ Good potential for additional large-scale restoration of tidal ■ Late Successional Conifer Forests marshes. ■ Riparian ■ Key habitat for high-productivity salmon populations

Key Species: Key Species: ■ Marbled Murrelet ■ Shorebirds ■ Northern Spotted Owl ■ Waterfowl ■ Tufted Puffin ■ Chum Salmon ■ Coastal Cutthroat Trout ■ Coho Salmon ■ Coho Salmon ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Oregon Silverspot Butterfly Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Joint Venture Plan Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Oregon’s Important Bird Areas ■ American Fisheries Society Aquatic Diversity Areas ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment ■ Oregon Biodiversity Project Conservation Opportunity Areas ■ Recommended Conservation Actions: (Alsea-Siuslaw conservation opportunity area) ■ Monitor and control or eliminate spartina at Cox Island ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment (Cummins- ■ Restore tidal marshes Rock Creek) CR-27. Siltcoos/Tahkenitch Basin CR-25. Sutton Lake area Special Features: Key Habitats: ■ Contains a complex of seven different lakes ■ Coastal Dunes ■ Area encompasses 3 important bird areas including the

150 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Conservation Strategy, January 2006

Tahkenitch Creek estuary, the Siltcoos River estuary, and Silt- ■ Northern Spotted Owl coos Lake ■ Coho Salmon ■ Siltcoos Lake hosted 40-89% of Oregon’s coastal winter popu- ■ Winter Steelhead lation of American Coots during 1986-2002 surveys [Important Bird Area website] Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Wintering and migrating area for waterfowl. ■ American Fisheries Society Aquatic Diversity Areas ■ Area contains approximately 19% of the ecoregion’s coastal ■ Siuslaw National Forest High Priority Restoration Areas dunes. ■ The Oregon Plan Core Salmon Areas

Key Habitats: Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Coastal Dunes ■ Consider land exchanges to benefit fish, wildlife, landscape ■ Freshwater Wetlands ecological integrity ■ Oak Woodlands And Savannas CR-29. Umpqua River Estuary Key Species: Special Features: ■ Black Oystercatcher ■ Leeds Island has long been identified as high potential for estu- ■ Waterfowl ary restoration. Dean Creek viewing area also has potential for ■ Western Snowy Plover some restoration of tidal wetlands. ■ Coho Salmon ■ Area is an important shorebird and waterfowl site ■ Winter Steelhead Key Habitats: Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Estuary ■ American Fisheries Society Aquatic Diversity Areas (Siltcoos ■ Freshwater Wetlands River/Lake) ■ Black Oystercatcher ■ Joint Venture Plan ■ Shorebirds ■ Oregon’s Important Bird Areas ■ Waterfowl ■ Siuslaw National Forest High Priority Restoration Areas ■ Western Snowy Plover ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment ■ Coho Salmon ■ Summer Steelhead Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Umpqua Dace ■ Manage growth and development in sensitive shoreline areas ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Remove European beach grass in targeted areas to enhance habitat for western snowy plover Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Joint Venture Plan CR-28. North Fork Smith River ■ Oregon’s Important Bird Areas Special Features: ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment ■ Area contains the Kentucky Falls SIA (see Forest Land Restora- ■ Recommended Conservation Actions: tion Proposal, April 2002) ■ Restore tidal wetlands at Leeds Island, portions of Dean Creek ■ Area contains relatively intact terrestrial and aquatic habitat Elk Viewing Area ■ Willingness by tribes to do watershed and upland restoration work CR-30. Wassen Creek Special Features: Key Habitats: ■ Proposed wilderness area ■ Late Successional Conifer Forests Key Habitats: Key Species: ■ Late Successional Conifer Forests ■ Marbled Murrelet

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 151 Ecoregions: Coast Range Ecoregion

Key Species: Key Species: ■ Northern Spotted Owl ■ Marbled Murrelet ■ Coho Salmon ■ Northern Spotted Owl ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Coho Salmon ■ American Marten ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Red Tree Vole ■ American Marten

Identified in other planning efforts: Identified in other planning efforts: ■ American Fisheries Society Aquatic Diversity Areas ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment ■ Siuslaw National Forest High Priority Restoration Areas (Lower ■ The Oregon Plan Core Salmon Areas Smith River) ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment CR-33. Umpqua River area ■ The Oregon Plan Core Salmon Areas Key Habitats: ■ Late Successional Conifer Forests CR-31. North Bend dunes ■ Oak Woodlands And Savannas Special Features: ■ Includes BLM’s Coos Bay Shorelands Area of Critical Environ- Key Species: mental Concern, key habitat for western snowy plover. ■ Northern Goshawk ■ Area contains 33% of the ecoregion’s coastal dunes. ■ Northern Spotted Owl ■ Area represents a large percentage of the ecoregion’s western ■ Coho Salmon snowy plover habitat. ■ Summer Steelhead ■ Umpqua Dace Key Habitats: ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Coastal Dunes ■ Columbian White-tailed Deer ■ Freshwater Wetlands ■ Northwestern Pond Turtle

Key Species: Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Black Oystercatcher ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment (Umpqua River ■ Western Snowy Plover tributaries site) ■ Coho Salmon ■ Winter Steelhead Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Consider land exchanges to benefit fish, wildlife, and landscape Identified in other planning efforts: ecological integrity ■ Joint Venture Plan ■ Consider the impact of recreational activities (e.g., motorized ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment watercraft; shoreline activities; road usage) on water quality and watershed function Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Maintain deflation plain wetlands in early seral conditions CR-34. Coos Bay area ■ Manage recreational use to limit disturbance to sensitive Special Features: habitats ■ Includes South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve ■ Remove European beach grass in targeted areas to enhance (5,000+ acres), habitat for western snowy plover ■ Rare plant species ■ Important area for wintering and migrating waterfowl, CR-32. Elliot State Forest shorebirds Key Habitats: ■ Late Successional Conifer Forests

152 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Conservation Strategy, January 2006

Key Habitats: ■ Large populations of nesting seabirds at Coquille Point ■ Coastal Bluffs And Montane Grasslands ■ Coquille Valley attracts largest numbers of wintering waterfowl ■ Estuary on the Oregon coast, particularly important for dabbling ducks ■ Freshwater Wetlands ■ Coquille River is one of most productive coastal river systems for coho and other salmon. Key Species: ■ Several properties are enrolled in Wetlands Reserve Program ■ Shorebirds with extensive restored wetlands. ■ Waterfowl ■ Wintering site for waterfowl and migratory stopover for shore- ■ Coho Salmon birds. ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Western Lily Key Habitats: ■ Coastal Bluffs And Montane Grasslands Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Coastal Dunes ■ Joint Venture Plan ■ Estuary ■ Oregon’s Important Bird Areas ■ Freshwater Wetlands ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment Key Species: Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Black Oystercatcher ■ Restore freshwater wetlands ■ Shorebirds ■ Restore tidal wetlands and reconnect tidal sloughs where fea- ■ Waterfowl sible and appropriate ■ Western Snowy Plover ■ Coho Salmon CR-35. North Fork Coquille; Cherry Creek area ■ Winter Steelhead Key Habitats: ■ Aquatic Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Late Successional Conifer Forests ■ Joint Venture Plan

Key Species: Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Northern Goshawk ■ Manage visitor use to minimize impacts of human disturbance ■ Northern Spotted Owl on nesting seabirds on offshore rocks ■ Coho Salmon ■ Restore freshwater wetlands, natural stream channels, riparian ■ Winter Steelhead habitats along tributary streams within the river floodplain ■ Restore tidal wetlands Identified in other planning efforts: ■ American Fisheries Society Aquatic Diversity Areas CR-37. New River area ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment (Cherry Creek Special Features: Area) ■ Long stretch of coastal lowlands with diverse habitats, minimal ■ The Oregon Plan Core Salmon Areas development and limited access ■ Staging area for most of recently delisted Aleutian Canada CR-36. Lower Coquille River goose population Special Features: ■ Important habitat for western snowy plover ■ Includes national wildlife refuges at Coquille Point and Bandon ■ Rare plant species Marsh ■ Heavily used by migrating and wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, ■ Ni-les-tun Unit of Bandon Marsh NWR has potential for restora- and migrating songbirds tion of up to 400 acres of estuarine wetlands. ■ Supports significant production of wild chinook, coho salmon, ■ Bandon Marsh is key stop for migrating shorebirds steelhead

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 153 Ecoregions: Coast Range Ecoregion

■ Bogs support ESA-listed western lily and other at-risk and ■ Restore estuary’s natural hydrograph (avoid breaching of fore- endemic plants dune) ■ Includes BLM’s New River Area of Critical Environmental Con- cern CR-38. area ■ US Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed establishment of New Special Features: River National Wildlife Refuge ■ Includes the Elk and Sixes Rivers, Area, and Cape Blanco State Park Key Habitats: ■ High value for both aquatic and terrestrial diversity ■ Aquatic ■ Rare plant species ■ Coastal Bluffs And Montane Grasslands ■ Key location on coastal corridor for wide variety of migratory ■ Coastal Dunes birds ■ Estuary ■ Several large ranches at the lower end of Elk River have already ■ Freshwater Wetlands undertaken significant conservation measures, including ■ Riparian livestock exclusion from riparian and wetlands area, enrollment in Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, and wetland Key Species: restoration. ■ Aleutian Canada Goose ■ Area contains potential habitat for western snowy plover. ■ Black Oystercatcher ■ Area contains 45% of the ecoregion’s oak woodland habitat. ■ Tufted Puffin ■ Western Snowy Plover Key Habitats: ■ Coho Salmon ■ Coastal Bluffs And Montane Grasslands ■ Fall Chinook Salmon ■ Freshwater Wetlands ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Oak Woodlands And Savannas ■ Western Lily Key Species: Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Marbled Murrelet ■ Joint Venture Plan ■ Northern Goshawk ■ Oregon Biodiversity Project Conservation Opportunity Areas ■ Peregrine Falcon ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment ■ Western Snowy Plover ■ The Oregon Plan Core Salmon Areas ■ Coho Salmon ■ Fall Chinook Salmon Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Limit livestock grazing in seasonal wetlands; manage for diver- ■ Pallid Bat sity of early seral conditions to provide habitat for shorebirds, ■ Western Lily waterfowl ■ Maintain upland pastures in short-grass conditions and accom- Identified in other planning efforts: modate use by staging Aleutian Canada geese ■ American Fisheries Society Aquatic Diversity Areas ■ Minimize human disturbance on beach to benefit western ■ Oregon Biodiversity Project Conservation Opportunity Areas snowy plover ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment ■ Re-establish floodplain forests, shrub swamp along estuary; ■ The Oregon Plan Core Salmon Areas restore and enhance bogs ■ Remove European beachgrass in targeted areas to enhance Recommended Conservation Actions: habitat for western snowy plover ■ Control gorse ■ Restore and maintain riparian areas along estuary and tributary ■ Manage to maintain grasslands streams ■ Plan development to maintain key ecological functions and habitats ■ Restore floodplain wetlands and riparian forests

154 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Conservation Strategy, January 2006

CR-39. Rogue River Estuary Key Habitats: Key Habitats: ■ Coastal Bluffs And Montane Grasslands ■ Coastal Bluffs And Montane Grasslands ■ Riparian ■ Estuary ■ Riparian Key Species: ■ Black Oystercatcher

Key Species: ■ Tufted Puffin ■ Tufted Puffin ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Fall Chinook Salmon ■ Summer Steelhead Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Winter Steelhead ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment

Identified in other planning efforts: Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessment ■ Manage recreation use to minimize impacts of human distur- bance on offshore rocks and intertidal habitats

Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Plan development to maintain key ecological functions and ■ Plan development to maintain key ecological functions and habitats habitats ■ Remove invading conifers to maintain grasslands ■ Restore floodplain habitats and functions CR-42. Chetco River CR-40. Pistol River Estuary Special Features: Special Features: ■ Upper reaches of the Chetco designated as having outstand- ■ Shorebird and waterfowl habitat ing remarkable values for water quality and fish habitat on a ■ Includes Crook Point, part of Oregon Islands NWR and one of national level. most important seabird nesting sites on the West Coast ■ Designated Natural Estuary ■ Designated Natural Estuary ■ Offshore rocks provide nesting habitat for seabirds. Key Habitats: ■ Estuary

Key Habitats: ■ Coastal Bluffs And Montane Grasslands Key Species: ■ Estuary ■ Northern Goshawk ■ Fall Chinook Salmon

Key Species: ■ Winter Steelhead ■ Seabirds ■ Fall Chinook Salmon Identified in other planning efforts: ■ Winter Steelhead ■ The Oregon Plan Core Salmon Areas ■ Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Limit impacts of human disturbance on nesting seabird sites Recommended Conservation Actions: ■ Maintain or enhance in-channel watershed function, connection CR-41. Cape Ferrelo to riparian habitat, flow and hydrology Special Features: ■ Adjacent to Oregon Islands, Whalehead Island, and associated CR-43. Winchuck River Estuary Important Bird Areas Special Features: ■ Important shorebird habitat ■ Ecologically diverse area ■ Designated Natural Estuary

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 155

Table of Contents

Project Summary ...... 2

Background ...... 4

Methods ...... 7

Results ...... 13

Discussion and Recommendations ...... 18

References ...... 24

Maps ...... 25,26,27

5/2006 1 Project Summary

We utilized the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Aquatic Inventory protocol to assess habitat on the Necanicum River mainstem. This 2006 report will review the 2005 habitat survey data collected, and identify potential restoration opportunities for the Necanicum River. These identified priority areas could be protected, restored, or rehabilitated by LWD placement, off-channel enhancement, and/or riparian enhancement activities. The project staff also conducted a snorkeling survey to estimate juvenile salmonid distribution and abundance in these off-channel habitat areas.

In addition, the 2003 habitat survey data that was previously completed for all of the small, medium, and large tributaries within the Necanicum Basin, will be revisited to prioritize riparian enhancement activities, which has been successfully applied in more recent habitat assessments conducted in other North Coast Oregon watershed basins. This will include a general summary and evaluation on the current implementation activities by local, state, and federal natural resource agencies this data was targeted to. Finally, the authors will try to use this report as a means to consolidate the 2003 Necanicum Habitat Assessment Project (tributaries) alongside the more recent 2005/2006 Necanicum River Habitat Assessment Project (mainstem), both of which were conducted by the same research staff, Boswell Consultants. From this 2006 report, resource planners should have a focused set of action plans for restoring the Necanicum River Watershed.

During the 2003 project season, we surveyed seventy-two (72) stream reaches in thirty-nine (39) streams totaling 57.208 kilometers of habitat.

In 2003 we identified:

 35 stream reaches using our 2003 habitat survey data that we believe should receive the priority for Large Woody Debris (LWD) placement.

 6 artificial barriers that impede juvenile coho passage.

We evaluated the effectiveness of 17 LWD placement projects.

We developed two large binders that provided detailed information on each of the 72 stream reaches.

For more information regarding reach specific details for the 2003 habitat report, refer to the Necanicum Habitat Assessment Project, which can be found at either the ODFW Tillamook district office or ODFW Corvallis research lab.

10/31/11 2 During the 2005 season we identified sixteen (16) reaches on the Necanicum River totaling 23.674 kilometers of habitat. This included starting the habitat survey near the head of tidewater and continuing the primary channel and related secondaries until habitat suitable for coho diminished.

In 2005 we identified:

 12 stream reaches using our 2005 habitat survey data that we believe should receive the priority for Large Woody Debris (LWD) placement, alcove development, and/or riprap replacement activities in off-channel habitat areas on the Necanicum River.

 10 stream reaches using our 2005 habitat survey data that we believe should receive the priority for riparian enhancement on the Necanicum River.

 13 stream reaches where Japanese knotweed is significantly altering the off-channel habitat areas.

 22 stream reaches using our 2003 habitat survey data that we believe should receive the priority for riparian enhancement on the tributaries within the Necanicum River Watershed.

 2 culverts using our 2003 habitat data were identified as artificial juvenile fish passage barriers. These two culverts are in addition to the six barriers previously mentioned in the 2003 report.

 A current general summary and evaluation for restoration projects that have been conducted within the Necanicum River Basin, including recommendations for future implementation activities.

The 2003 and 2005 habitat surveys completed the coho freshwater habitat inventory for the Necanicum Watershed, except for a few unnamed tributaries draining less than 300 acres. These two habitat assessment projects have greatly improved our understanding of where our priorities for watershed restoration and rehabilitation should be.

10/31/11 3 Background

The Necanicum River is a coastal river in Northwest Oregon with a mainstem length of 21 miles, including tidally influenced areas traveling through downtown Seaside. The river is located entirely in the Coast Range. Peak discharge typically occurs during the winter between November and February, however, high flow events can occur as late as June. The watershed has several wild salmonid species including: winter steelhead, chinook, coho, chum, searun and resident cutthroat trout. Stocking of hatchery chinook and steelhead smolts occurs from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) N.F. Nehalem hatchery in this basin. Several small private hatcheries have operated over the past century by rearing a variety of salmonid species, but no private hatcheries are currently in operation.

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 became 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 LWD key pieces, past or current land use, and valley/channel geomorphology.

The 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 12 years ODFW habitat surveyed approximately 50 kilometers of streams in the Necanicum Basin. These surveys generally focused on the fish- bearing streams in the watershed. Most of the habitat surveys were conducted during the summer of 1992. The 2003 Necanicum Habitat Assessment project conducted winter habitat surveys in most of the same stream areas where ODFW had surveyed in 1992. However, methods and results for the 2003 winter surveys vary from the ODFW summer 1992 survey results due to the different stream environments found during the winter and summer average flows. Both survey seasons are valuable habitat data sets, and having both winter and summer habitat surveys completed on a specific stream can allow ODFW researchers to further their knowledge on variances between the two distinct seasons.

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. 10/31/11 4 Prior to the beginning of the 2003 project, the Necanicum Watershed Assessment completed an inventory of road stream crossings in the Necanicum Basin. This watershed assessment followed Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) protocol and was conducted by Environmental Chemistry, Inc and completed in March 2002. They found:

1) 259 road stream crossings.

2) Twenty-three (23) out of 259 had been surveyed by ODFW. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the culverts surveyed were considered fish passage barriers.

3) Prioritization for culvert replacement was initially based on the apparent gradient3 of the reach made accessible, the area of land drained, fish presence above and below the culvert, and the estimated cost for culvert replacement.

The 2003 project conducted by Boswell Consultants was intended to help the Necanicum Watershed Council (NWC) use the detailed information on coho habitat collected through the winter habitat surveys to guide future culvert replacement projects. Surprisingly, no major fish barriers were identified within the Necanicum Basin. Most barriers identified in the 2003 study were on small tributaries that partially impeded juvenile fish passage. Nevertheless, the NWC should conduct field visits with local ODFW biologists to determine the feasibility of a replacement project for each barrier identified. Unfortunately, implementation for most of the results from the 2003 study has been slow due to limited budgets for planners, a lack of technical assistance for LWD placement projects, and a lack of experienced fish biologists working directly with the Necanicum Watershed Council.

The North Coast Land Conservancy, lead by Neal Maine, and Doug Ray have completed the majority of the projects carried out within the lower watershed in the last five years. These include riparian plantings, shrub removal, and one alcove development project. However, most projects are located on the Necanicum River mainstem. Circle Creek is the one sub-basin in which a project has been implemented, that overlaps with the 2003 habitat assessment priorities.

The NWC contractor, Boswell Consultants, initiated the 2003 Necanicum Habitat Assessment Project to determine the condition of the habitat in small, medium, large streams in the Necanicum Watershed. The 2003 project was funded by OWEB. They provided 75% of the funds for the project. The project leader (Todd Boswell), the Necanicum Watershed Council (NWC), Clatsop Community College (CCC), Seaside High School students and their teacher, Doug Mitchell, provided volunteer time for the required 25% of in-kind local match for the OWEB grant.

3 Map reading at best gives only an approximation of actual field conditions. 10/31/11 5 Most of the research staff with Boswell Consultants have several years experience working on North Coast ODFW research projects and therefore, the authors wanted to ensure that the information could also be readily available for ODFW staff as part of their ongoing research in the Necanicum Watershed and other North Coast River Basins.

From the results and knowledge obtained from the 2003 project, the authors developed a grant proposal for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS-Oregon Coast Program) to complete a habitat survey on the Necanicum River mainstem. In 2004, a grant was successfully awarded to the NWC. The grant allowed Boswell Consultants to complete the Necanicum River habitat and snorkel survey, conduct data analysis, and summarize reach reports, following ODFW protocol, on this last significant unsurveyed freshwater habitat for salmonids within the watershed. In October 2005, the habitat survey was started for the Necanicum River. This project was also incorporated into a fall 2005 science class at Seaside H.S. aptly called, “The Outdoor Education Class,” where six students, Elliott Hearing, Nick Canary-Fickus, Casey Pappas, Margaret Hinsvark, Eric Bodell, and Amanda Browning, along with their teacher, Doug Mitchell, learned the importance of coho habitat and how it directly relates to the salmon life cycle. This alternative education approach allows students to learn from local research biologists in out-of- classroom settings, while the researchers gained valuable in-kind match from students, teachers, and local citizens.

Boswell Consultants initiated the 2005 Necanicum Habitat Assessment Project to determine the condition of the physical habitat in the Necanicum River. Specifically, the study was designed to determine:

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

2) Current habitat conditions – which Necanicum River reaches would have a high potential for increasing coho production, but due to current conditions, the habitat has a low carrying capacity.

3) Evaluate current implementation activities – where, what, and when should natural resource planners focus limited time to initiate restoration or rehabilitation projects to help salmon within the Necanicum River Watershed.

10/31/11 6 Methods

Stream Identification

In the 2003 project, we 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 fifty (50) streams covering 70 kilometers in the Necanicum Basin, which were potential coho bearing streams. In addition, these were streams where LWD placement projects 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 2003 project season, more than fifty-seven (57.208) kilometers were surveyed covering thirty-nine (39) streams. Since some streams are dropped after an initial field visit, this completed the coho habitat inventory in small, medium, and large streams within the watershed draining more than 300 acres. The minimum requirement of 300 acres for the targeted streams follows most state and federal agencies criteria for streams believed to be large enough to conduct an in-stream restoration project within.

From the 2003 project results, the authors identified the Necanicum River mainstem as another significant area where off-channel habitat areas are regularly used by salmonids, particularly during the winter season as refuge from the common high flow events. This was an observation acquired during the 2003 project season while the authors were focusing on the tributary habitat surveys. So, in 2004 funds were sought to obtain the necessary information to guide restoration work along the Necanicum River.

Field Surveys

One two-person survey team conducted the habitat basin survey and snorkel surveys during the 2005/2006 project season. In addition, a variety of biologists from ODFW provided technical assistance in habitat surveying, thru several conversations. Additionally, the project leader, Todd Boswell, has over eight years experience conducting ODFW habitat surveys on the North Coast of Oregon, so most feedback from ODFW was regarding current landowner information, previous LWD projects, and potential alcove development sites observed. This ensured that during the habitat survey, relevant areas where ODFW or other natural resource agencies would likely conduct restoration projects were identified in both the 2003 and 2005 projects.

10/31/11 7 The survey team used the 2004 ODFW Aquatic Inventory4 protocol and associated data forms. The multiple years of prior experience of the project staff conducting habitat surveys eliminated the need for training to conduct ODFW habitat surveys.

The survey crew conducted their Necanicum River habitat survey between October 24 and December 7, 2005. The project leader and technician first obtained the necessary landowner permission5 for the survey. This required traveling to the Clatsop County Tax Assessor’s Office to obtain landowner information for the non-navigable sections of the Necanicum River, which basically consists above the Hwy 26 crossing (a.k.a. Black Bridge). No landowner contact was conducted if reasonable terrain allowed the crew to stay on Weyerhaeuser property, which alternates sides along the river for lengthy sections throughout the watershed. The crew started the survey close to the head of tidewater and continued the survey until the stream size or gradient precluded stream use by coho.

The survey team took digital photos to record field conditions found during the surveys. 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, knotweed patches, etc.). All digital photos taken during the survey have been archived on the CD that accompanies the data binder.

Seaside High School students in the Outdoor Education Class assisted on Mondays with the habitat survey crew in selected 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 from the training in the field. They helped survey in all areas along the Necanicum River throughout their semester. The fieldwork was completed every Monday from 8am to 12pm during school hours. This included pre-arranged field trips on all survey days. The bus transportation for the students was donated by Seaside High School with strong support for the class from the Principal, Don Wickersham.

The habitat survey crew at Boswell Consultants identified all major off-channel habitats they thought should be snorkeled, and that were believed to be significant juvenile coho winter rearing areas. The project leader conducted snorkel surveys in all significant off-channel areas greater than 0.6m deep identified during the habitat basin survey.

The project leader and staff set-up and conducted the single pass snorkel surveys in these off- channel areas during a one week period in early April 2006. ODFW staff operating two screw

4 To obtain more specific methods for the habitat surveys conducted refer to Aquatic Inventory Project: Methods for Streams Habitat Surveys 2004. 5 Three stream reaches in the 2003 Habitat Assessment could not be surveyed because landowner permission could not be secured. No denials were issued during the 2005 survey. 10/31/11 8 traps locally were notified, and the low numbers for out migrating coho smolts gave the project staff (Boswell Consultants) confidence that juvenile coho were still in their over-wintering behavior. The above average rainfall and consistent high flows observed in January, February, and March was ideal for this study. It allowed for the authors to observe what stream areas were protected from high flows and above average flooding events. As the snorkeling results illustrate, most of the significant off-channel areas recorded were not protected well enough for juvenile coho to use as an over-winter refuge during high flows.

Data Management

The ODFW Aquatic Inventory Project provided computer software 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, current LWD project effectiveness, etc.).

USGS topographical map (1: 24 000); detailing the survey attributes (start, end, etc.).

Generate an Excel spreadsheet with both the 2003 & 2005 habitat survey data. This spreadsheet has been developed in more recent habitat assessments conducted by Boswell Consultants in other North Coast watersheds, and the authors wanted to incorporate their previous data into this new format created for identifying priorities.

Profile graphs using ODFW data analysis software to illustrate significant physical attributes and characteristics found while surveying the Necanicum River.

Data Analysis

Large Wood Placement Priority During the last four years, the report authors have tried 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:

10/31/11 9 1) already had coho present6,

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.

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. The 2005 Necanicum River survey was prioritized by reach, however, in some reaches the riparian conditions were as variable as the landowners, ranging from good to poor. Planners are recommended to use the detailed stream reports to identify specific landowners requiring a riparian enhancement project. The current prioritization approach applied was developed several years after the 2003 Necanicum Habitat Assessment project was completed. Therefore, the authors wanted to revisit the 2003 habitat data in this report to illustrate the riparian enhancement opportunities that can be found on the Necanicum tributaries. We chose to give riparian enhancement priority to streams that:

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

6 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. 10/31/11 10 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 hardwood conversion potential. These streams may have adequate shade, but were lacking large wood recruitment for the future. The authors understand that the habitat data can be revisited again and additional riparian priority lists could be established using a different set of criteria.

Priorities for Artificial Barriers Impeding Passage for Adult or Juvenile Coho Salmon

The habitat survey crew identified all culverts that were encountered during the winter 2003 habitat surveys. Each culvert identified was evaluated for fish passage using methods similar to those used by ODFW. There were specific fish passage recommendations recorded by the surveyors. This included the current status of each culvert crossing and what observations led them to evaluating a fish friendly culvert or a passage barrier.

We used ODFW aquatic 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.

Table 1 Desirable and Undesirable Conditions for Stream Reaches7 2005 Necanicum Survey

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

7 ODFW Aquatic Inventory Benchmarks. 10/31/11 11 A General Summary and Evaluation for Previously Completed Restoration Projects The report author’s objective for this section is to aid resource planners in understanding what types of restoration activities have been conducted within the Necanicum Watershed and how effective these activities have been at increasing stream complexity and creating a healthy riparian zone, which is contributing shade cover and LWD to the active channel. During the 2003 project season, we attempted to determine the current effectiveness of LWD placement projects already completed within the Necanicum tributaries. The information was intended to allow

ODFW habitat biologists and other resource planners to revisit the sites deemed both effective and ineffective by the 2003 report. Hopefully this would help planners gain additional project planning knowledge of successful and unsuccessful stream restoration projects on the tributaries.

To review the specific details from the 2003 project, please review the completed 2003 report. The results section in this report will only list the total number of restoration projects identified during both 2003 and 2005 habitat survey seasons. The discussion section for this report will give the report author’s point of view of where resource planners should go from here.

10/31/11 12 Results At the completion of the 2005 Necanicum River Habitat Assessment, we found that we had surveyed sixteen (16) stream reaches totaling 23.674 kilometers of habitat. We also had the opportunity to revisit our 2003 habitat data and completion report. This review identified additional riparian enhancement project areas, artificial barrier replacements, and an opportunity to have a retro review of our previous 2003 effort.

Snorkel Surveys The project leader and staff snorkeled 33 off-channel habitat units including alcoves, secondary channels, and backwaters. They found coho smolt over-wintering in 4 out of 12 alcoves, 6 out of 15 secondary channels, and 0 out of 6 backwaters. The absence of coho smolts in the majority of the off-channel areas was believed to be related to the lack of well-sheltered pools and refugia from the winter high flows. Table 2 illustrates the snorkel surveys of the off-channel habitat areas during the 2005 project.

Table 2 Snorkel Counts for Off-Channel Habitat Areas 2005 Necanicum Survey

Reach UNIT UNIT COHO COHO TROUT CHIN VIS NOTES # TYPE FRY PRESMOLT FRY 1 25 AL 0 0 1 0 1 Shuller's Alcove 1 38 AL 0 0 0 0 3 Poor Visibility; Did not snorkel 1 46 LP 100 0 0 0 1 Secondary Pool 1 54 AL 0 0 0 0 3 Don's Pond-Poor Visibility; Did not snorkel 1 69 AL 0 0 0 50 1 Trib fed 2 91 AL 0 0 0 0 1 Powerline crossing; Spring fed 2 93 LP 0 0 0 20 1 Secondary Pool w/boulder stinger and cabled log 2 94 AL 0 0 0 0 2 Beaver Activity 2 98 AL 50 230+ 0 0 1 Doug Ray’s Alcove; Man-made with new house on right 2 76 AL 0 0 0 0 1 Beaver Activity 2 77 AL 0 20 0 0 1 Beaver Activity 4 125 LP 150 0 0 0 1 Secondary Pool; Nice complexity with Debris Jam 4 129 LP 0 0 0 0 1 Secondary Pool; Nice complexity with Debris Jam 4 131 LP 0 0 0 0 1 Secondary Pool; Nice complexity with Debris Jam 6 168 DC 5 0 2 0 1 Tertiary Channel; Long dry channel 6 166 LP 150 1 0 0 1 Secondary Pool; Undercut with bedrock and fines 6 167 LP 8 31 0 0 1 Secondary Pool; Large root wad over pool 6 171 BW 30 0 0 0 1 Debris Jam; At the top of the dry tertiary channel 6 174 AL 0 60 4 0 2 Above Black Bridge; Nice complexity 6 181 LP 80 0 0 0 1 Secondary Pool; Debris Jam 6 182 LP 30 0 0 0 1 Secondary Pool; Cut and cabled log 6 183 LP 20 0 0 0 1 Secondary Pool; No cover in large pool 6 186 AL 180 45 1 0 1 Recent plantings and shrub control from Doug Ray

10/31/11 13 7 200 PD 65 12 1 0 1 Secondary Channel; Shallow depth w/ Debris Jam 7 201 LP 0 25 8 0 1 Secondary Pool; Debris Jam 10 266 AL 0 0 0 0 2 Shallow Depth w/ No Cover; Lots of Roughskin Newts 10 267 PD 35 1 0 0 1 Secondary Channel; Scoured to bedrock with gravel 11 293 BW 5 0 0 0 1 Poor Cover w/ No complexity; 2 sculpins observed 11 294 LP 3 0 0 0 1 Primary Pool w/ Debris Jam 11 295 BW 0 0 0 0 1 Debris Jam; Spring fed; Nice complexity 11 N/A BW 0 0 0 0 1 Poor cover w/ No complexity 11 N/A BW 0 0 0 0 1 Poor cover w/ No Complexity 11 N/A BW 0 0 0 0 1 Poor cover w/ No complexity

Table 2 demonstrates the lack of protected areas for coho smolts to over-winter in the majority of significant off-channel habitat areas recorded during the Necanicum River habitat survey. The newly created alcove by Doug Ray and associates had the most protection from the high winter flows, and thus the highest peak count of coho presmolts. The authors believe most areas snorkeled were impacted more severely by the high flows this winter, and the smolts were involuntarily flushed out earlier than normal. A few alcoves appeared to have adequate protection from the high flows, but lacked either complexity or sufficient juvenile access to utilize the protected rearing areas. Therefore, the results suggest creating additional protected areas and also improving complexity and high flow protection in off-channel areas that currently exist.

Priority Areas For Off-Channel Habitat Restoration or Rehabilitation

Table 3 lists the twelve (12) stream reaches that met our criteria for LWD placement, alcove development, and/or riprap replacement activities during the 2005 habitat survey season.

Table 3 Stream Reaches Given Priority for Off-Channel Habitat Enhancement 2005 Necanicum Survey

Pools # of key KeyLWD/ w/>3 Complex Meters of Meters of Road Reach # pieces 100m Gradient LWD pools/1km primary secondary Access 1 22 0.5 0.6 13 2.3 4,873 857 good 2 6 0.2 0.8 4 1.2 2,453 895 good 6 37 2.2 0.7 14 5.2 1,715 977 fair 7 10 0.7 0.9 5 1.9 1,452 1,144 poor 8 3 0.2 1.4 2 1.3 1,278 273 good 10 4 0.5 1.5 2 1.6 842 405 poor 11 10 1 1.4 6 5.3 955 182 poor 12 2 0.3 0.9 3 3 690 298 good 13 4 0.3 1.7 0 0 1,351 170 fair 14 5 0.3 2.6 4 2.2 1,656 163 fair 10/31/11 14 15 17 0.6 2.1 12 3.9 2,734 356 poor 16 2 0.3 2.8 1 1.5 595 52 good

Priority Areas For Necanicum Riparian Enhancement Activities There are two tables illustrating riparian opportunities located within the Necanicum River Watershed Council boundaries. Table 4 lists areas along the mainstem of the Necanicum River, while table 5 details potential areas on small, medium, and large tributaries.

Table 4 lists the ten (10) stream reaches that met our criteria for riparian enhancement priority during the 2005 project season.

Table 4 Necanicum River Reaches Given Priority for Riparian Enhancement 2005 Necanicum Survey

Shade Reach Cover Current Veg Recommended Action and Comments 1 42 G/M30 Two large Landowners with potential planting areas Landowners on the right need work, and around the power line 2 44 M30/G crossings Potential planting area on the right just above the Johnson Creek 5 62 M30 confluence 6 57 M30 Thin alders surrounding recent conifer plantings near alcove Potential planting areas, but conifers are dominating in some 7 63 M30/M3 areas Good potential planting areas in the second half of reach on the 11 79 M30 left 12 72 M30 Potential planting areas on the left side 13 75 M30/C30 Potential planting areas on the left side 15 78 D15 Poor large wood recruitment, riparian dominated by hardwoods Prior ODFW project/Large area of girdled alders with additional 16 80 D15/M15 planting opportunities

Table 5 lists the twenty-two (22) stream reaches that met our criteria for riparian enhancement priority for the habitat data completed during the 2003 project season. Again, this data was revisited in 2005 by the report authors to illustrate riparian planting opportunities located on the Necanicum tributaries where significant coho habitat was surveyed during the 2003 winter.

10/31/11 15 Table 5 Stream Reaches Given Priority for Riparian Enhancement 2003 NWC Surveys

Stream Reach Current Veg Shade Cover Land Use Alder Creek 1 D30/S 98 ST/MT Beerman Creek 1 G 34 RR Beerman Creek 2 G 82 RR Bergsvik Creek 1 D15/G 86 RR Charlie Creek 1 D15/S 89 RR Circle Creek 3 P 13 LG Klootchie Seg 2 2 D15/M15 96 ST Lindsley Creek 1 D15/S 10 ST Little Humbug Creek 1 D15/S 50 ST Little Humbug Creek 2 D15 59 ST Mail Creek 1 M15/P 86 ST Neawanna Trib 3 1 D15/P 88 ST/WL China Creek 1 D15/G 75 RR Coho Creek 1 D30/C30 72 UR/ST Shangrila Creek 1 D15/P 75 ST/YT S.F. Necanicum River 2 C3 98 ST Brandis Creek 1 D15/S 85 TH/ST Thompson Creek 1 G/S 76 AG/RR Unnamed Trib 2 1 D30/G 90 ST Upper Necanicum 1 D15/G 98 ST Upper Necanicum 2 C15/D15 89 ST Volmer Creek 1 M30/C15 85 YT/RR

Priorities for Artificial Barriers Impeding Passage for Adult or Juvenile Coho Salmon The 2003 Necanicum habitat surveys on the tributaries identified 6 culverts that impede passage for coho. Surprisingly, none of the barriers blocked more than 1 km of coho habitat. Several culvert replacement projects appear to have dealt with the major passage problems in the Necanicum Watershed. However, during the process of revisiting the 2003 habitat data the authors found two additional artificial barriers that may impede juvenile fish passage. Finally, no artificial barriers were identified for juveniles or adults during the 2005 habitat survey.

Table 6 lists all 8 culverts that block juvenile coho passage on tributaries to the Necanicum. None are of high priority, but are still blocking at least 200 meters or more of habitat suitable for coho, and may restrict some seasonal juvenile migrations.

10/31/11 16 Table 6 Culverts That Block Coho Passage 2003 NWC Surveys

Stream Reach Barrier Owner Comments Unnamed Tributary #3 1 Culvert (Hwy 26) ODOT Carcasses were observed upstream Wolf Creek 1 Culvert (Hwy 26) ODOT Landowner denied access above culvert Coho Creek 2 Culvert Clatsop County Marginal coho habitat above Klootchie Creek seg. II 1 Culvert Weyco Severe erosion/old culverts left R2 Partial barrier, marginal habitat Alder Creek 1 Culvert (Hwy 26) ODOT upstream Low flow barrier, marginal habitat Brandis Creek 1 Sugarloaf ML Weyco upstream S.F. Necanicum River 3 Concrete dam City of Seaside Fish steps with adults observed above Dam is from an old hatchery rearing Unnamed Tributary #1 1 Concrete dam Private pens

A General Summary and Evaluation for Previously Completed Restoration Projects

Table 7 listed below, briefly describes the total number of LWD placement projects and riparian enhancement activities recorded while habitat surveying during the 2005 mainstem survey and the winter 2003 tributaries. Previously completed restoration projects were only included in table 7 if the habitat surveyors noted recently planted trees (<5yrs), or in-stream cabled and uncabled LWD placements. Most of the projects identified on the Necanicum mainstem were riprap projects, whose primary objective was to prevent bank erosion with cabled logs, but a few appear to have improved complexity. Although, all of the projects identified on the Necanicum tributaries were for habitat improvement and not bank erosion control.

Table 7 Previously Completed Restoration Projects 2003 and 2005 NWC Surveys

# of Rip # of LWD River or Tribs Projects Projects Comments Necanicum (MS) 4 2 Multiple cabled logs, but most are for erosion control Necanicum Tributaries 3 17 Most projects identified were conducted by ODFW

10/31/11 17 Discussion and Recommendations

There are three (3) maps included in this report. The first map (Appendix A) includes habitat survey information from both the 2003 and 2005 survey seasons. The map does not include earlier ODFW surveys. Significant overlap exists between the 2003 NWC surveys and previous

ODFW surveys conducted during the 1992 summer season, however, the information was collected at different times of year. Additionally, the 2003 NWC surveys were conducted after the 1996 flood, where major channel alterations occurred changing stream habitat conditions.

Thus, the authors believe the post-1996 survey data reflects the current habitat conditions, which were used for prioritizing restoration project planning in this report. The second map (Appendix

B) lists all recommended reaches in the Necanicum Watershed for LWD placement, alcove development, and/or riprap replacement activities. The third map (Appendix C) lists those reaches that received priority for riparian enhancement projects.

Large Wood Placement, Alcove Development, and Riprap Replacement Activities The 2003 and 2005 NWC surveys identified a total of 37 stream reaches that have good in-stream habitat project potential. The findings from the 2005 habitat survey focus our concern on 12 river reaches. The reaches identified were located on the mainstem of the Necanicum River. These 12 reaches mentioned are ideal for off-channel LWD placement, alcove development, and/or riprap replacement activities. Specific target areas are in secondary channels and alcoves associated with spring seeps. The authors strongly recommend that resource planners use the detailed habitat stream summaries and reach descriptions to effectively plan any restoration project within the survey areas of 2003 and 2005. This information can be found in the habitat data binder that accompanies this report. Additionally, smaller restoration opportunities may be identified through revisiting the information found in the 2003 and/or 2005 data binders.

During the next year, Watershed Council staff should visit all 12 stream reaches with ODFW biologists and landowners to determine the feasibility of LWD placement, alcove development, and/or riprap replacement activities. The NWC should either remove from the list or give lower priority to stream reaches that are not accessible from roads or where restoration or rehabilitation activities would threaten existing residential or commercial structures.

NWC should begin discussions with the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Weyerhaeuser, and Longview Fibre, with the intent of developing OWEB grant proposals for LWD placement and alcove development in the 2005 priority reaches on their land.

10/31/11 18 It is recommended that NWC review the previously completed 2003 Necanicum Habitat

Assessment Project and form an implementation sub-committee within the Watershed Council to develop specific annual action plan goals for habitat restoration within the Watershed Council boundaries. Riparian Enhancement Priorities The 2003 and 2005 NWC surveys identified a total of 32 stream reaches that have good riparian enhancement potential. The third map included in this report illustrates 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 potential in future years. Secondly, the conifer planting projects would be in riparian areas lacking adequate 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 Necanicum Watershed. The degraded riparian areas identified are all located on freshwater coho bearing streams. Moreover, the lack of large wood recruitment is a significant limiting factor to improving winter rearing habitat for juvenile coho.

During the next year NWC, ODF, and ODFW staff should visit the 32 stream reaches with riparian enhancement potential to determine the feasibility to conduct a project.

Invasive Plant Species A number of noxious non-native weeds were observed during the 2005 Necanicum River habitat survey. Two common weeds encountered during our surveys were Scotch Broom and Japanese knotweed. The most significant of those observed was the overwhelming presence of Japanese,

Himalayan, and/or giant knotweed and/or their hybrids, in the lower thirteen (13) reaches of the survey. Most of the large patches were observed below the HWY 26 crossing (a.k.a. Black Bridge) in reaches 1 through 6, although a few large as well as smaller patches were still recorded up to reach 13. There are a number of areas of the riparian area that are heavily overrun by knotweed, and measures should by implemented soon to eradicate this noxious weed, as it is beginning to choke out a number of smaller trees, as well as dominate and significantly impact off-channel habitat, where it is taking over entire terraces separating the secondary channels from the primary channel.

Knotweed is a very aggressive species that is capable of crowding out all other vegetation. In addition, the plant can create a fire hazard in the dormant season. The species forms dense

10/31/11 19 stands that crowd out all other vegetation, degrading native plant and animal habitat. This perennial plant is difficult to control because it has extremely vigorous rhizomes that form a deep, dense mat. In addition, the plant can resprout from fragments; along streams, plant parts may fall into the water to create new infestations downstream. Knotweed spreads quickly to form dense thickets that exclude native vegetation and greatly alter natural ecosystems. It poses a significant threat to riparian areas, where it can survive severe floods and is able to rapidly colonize scoured shores and islands.

Subsequently, there is an excellent riparian restoration opportunity in removing the invasive, noxious knotweed within the Necanicum Basin, especially due to its problems of the reduction of biodiversity through out-shading native vegetation, the restriction of access to riverbanks for anglers, bank inspection and amenity use, as well as the increased risk of soil erosion and bank instability following removal of established stands in riparian areas.

The NWC should consult with the appropriate natural resources agencies in the near future in order to determine the proper eradication measures for removing knotweed, before additional patches develop, and valuable salmonid habitat is lost. Priorities for Artificial Barriers Impeding Passage for Adult or Juvenile Coho Salmon The NWC 2003 surveys identified six (6) culverts that impede fish passage. In 2005, the previous

2003 habitat data was revisited and two (2) additional barriers were identified. The total number of fish passage barriers is now eight (8). This was accomplished by reviewing data recorded from all of the barriers and specifically how they affect juvenile fish seasonal migrations. None of the eight barriers have been characterized as high priority, due to the limited amount of habitat located above each barrier. However, these barriers are blocking varying amounts of habitat suitable for coho, and should be visited for a potential replacement project.

During the next year ODFW staff should visit all 8 identified barriers and determine what could improve their status. Landowners should be included to address other concerns. Additional culverts should also be investigated in the upper reaches of the tributaries in the watershed, specifically in stream reaches above coho use, but still within cutthroat habitat. ODFW

(Tillamook District) may have readily available information on electro-shocking data with planned timber harvest, which is mandatory under the Forest Practices Act. This will identify any additional culverts that block passage for resident cutthroat trout.

General Summary and Evaluation for Previously Completed Restoration Projects

10/31/11 20 There have been a variety of restoration activities conducted in the Necanicum Basin. There are two major habitat project types that we have identified during our 2003 and 2005 habitat surveys,

LWD placement and riparian enhancement. In addition, one alcove development site was recorded during the 2005 survey.

Past Restoration Projects – LWD Placement First, in-stream habitat projects have tried to restore stream areas where complexity and deep pools are lacking compared to historically predicted levels. The most common factor to this lack of complexity is believed to be from the lack of in-stream large woody debris, which can be attributed to the aggressive commercial logging activities and frequent cutting of large downed woody debris from landowners and drift boaters. Both active timber harvesting and cutting of recently downed key LWD pieces are common throughout Clatsop County and most other

Oregon coastal counties. There are four types of in-stream habitat projects encountered during our surveys on the Necanicum Basin including: LWD cabled placement, LWD non-cabled placement, cabled boulders, and gablons (bolted in LWD). All of these in-stream habitat projects have attempted to increase the frequency of deep pools, off-channel habitat rearing areas, and/or deposit spawning gravel. Some have had limited success due to one or more of the following: the lack of available LWD (>.6cm dbh) for projects, budget planning restrictions, and/or poor site selection.

Past Restoration Projects – Riparian Enhancement Secondly, riparian enhancement projects have attempted to establish and restore native plants as the dominant riparian vegetation. These types of plants include: willow, conifers, and a variety of deciduous trees. Most of the riparian projects previously conducted within the Necanicum

Basin have been in the lower half of the basin, not including replanted areas after a timber harvest operation. Two significant noxious non-native weeds (Scotch-broom and Knotweed) are becoming more common and problematic, but little or no effort has been made to eradicate these invaders. Some may require regional or countywide plans to implement successful eradication.

Future Restoration Projects – LWD Placement & Riparian Enhancement Again, the two major types of stream restoration projects encountered during our 2003 & 2005 surveys were: in-stream LWD placement and riparian enhancement projects. The authors still believe that these projects should be initiated further, despite varying degrees of success.

Primarily the future project areas should be focused on the stream segments identified as high

10/31/11 21 priority in the 2003 and/or 2005 habitat surveys. Additionally, focusing future restoration work in stream areas where previous work has been conducted may further restore habitat conditions.

Pre-project planning should include site visits of all 17 previously completed LWD projects by

NWC and ODFW staff. Future projects should either connect additional habitats to an effective

LWD project or revisit a previously completed project with another prescription of LWD and/or riparian enhancment. The larger stream areas, including the Necancium River mainstem channel has two planning options for successful implementation for in-stream restoration projects. First, conduct LWD placement projects within the secondary channels identified in the 2005 habitat survey. These will require site specific planning to insure adequate access for industrial equipment, effective site selection, and protecting private property from damage. Another type of mainstem river restoration or rehabilitation activity is the development and/or restoration of alcoves in the off-channel habitat areas identified during the 2005 habitat survey. Priority should be given to areas where alcoves already exist, but poor access may be a limiting factor to its usage by juvenile coho as a winter rearing area. Secondary priority should be given to the non-alcove areas mentioned as possible development sites during the 2005 habitat survey. 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 enhancement activities.

Future Seaside High School Participation The Seaside High School Outdoor Education Class was a successful community outreach project involving local students in watershed research within the Necanicum Basin. The class teachers,

Doug Mitchell and Todd Boswell, helped incorporate this learning experience into a class where most students received science credit from the high school. The Principal, Don Wickersham, was very supportive, providing school bus transportation to the survey areas, and helped with student recruitment for the class. The six students, Elliott Hearing, Nick Canary-Fickus, Casey

Pappas, Margaret Hinsvark, Eric Bodell, and Amanda Browning, enjoyed the out-of-classroom learning experience. Doug and Todd, whom also worked together with Seaside High School students on the 2003 Habitat Assessment, felt it was important to develop a more involved learning opportunity for the students, and were able to use the 2005 Habitat Assessment Project as a vehicle for the Outdoor Education Class. The feedback from students was overwhelmingly positive, and all agreed that more such learning opportunities should be available.

Both Doug and Todd concur that such a class should be continued in the future, and should be incorporated into future restoration project proposals within the Necanicum Basin whenever possible. This will provide a great alternative learning experience in salmon recovery efforts for 10/31/11 22 the high school students, which is lacking in many Oregon high schools. Additionally, the new

Astoria High School Applied Science Center could be used as a focal point for more involved student research, allowing kids to work with students from other area schools, as well as incorporate a variety of natural resource issues faced in Northwest Oregon.

Overall Habitat Conditions in the Necanicum Watershed In conclusion, the 2003 and 2005 assessment projects have provided a baseline data set for the current freshwater habitat conditions for coho bearing streams within the Necanicum 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.

The authors have used statewide benchmarks to establish priorities for guiding future restoration work in this report. From this process, we have identified 54% of tributary habitat and 87% of mainstem 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 enhancement activities. Additionally, 35% of tributary habitat and 75% of mainstem habitat has also been identified as high priority areas for riparian enhancement activities. The percentages of surveyed habitat requiring improvement within the Necanicum Basin illustrate the lack of critical stream characteristics needed for a healthy watershed ecosystem. The authors hope this report 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.

10/31/11 23 REFERENCES

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

Japanese Knotweed Alliance. November 1999. (8 May, 2006).

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.

10/31/11 24 Appendix A

10/31/11 25 Appendix B

10/31/11 26 Appendix C

10/31/11 27

Necanicum River Habitat Assessment Stream Report

STREAM: Necanicum River

BASIN: Necanicum River

DATES: October 24 – December 7, 2005

SURVEY CREW: Todd Boswell, Mark McLaughlin

REPORT PREPARED BY: Todd Boswell

GENE CONSERVATION GROUP: 1-NC

UTM COORDINATES: Start –0428396 E & 5090678 N End – 0445023 E & 5085338 N

USGS MAPS: Tillamook Head Quad

GENERAL DESCRIPTION:

The Necanicum River habitat survey begins at the head of tidewater and extends 23,674 meters. Sixteen reaches were designated based on: Land use, valley width, and channel morphology. The dominant habitat and substrate types are summarized below:

Reaches 1-3: In reach 1, riffles (57%) and scour pools (26%) were the dominant habitat types, while gravel (36%), sand (21%), silt/organics (19%), and cobble (19%) were the dominant the substrate types. In reach 2, riffles (72%) and scour pools (19%) dominated the habitat, while gravel (34%), cobble (28%), silt/organics (18%), and sand (16%) were the dominant substrate types. In reach 3, riffles (65%) and scour pools (31%) dominated the habitat, while cobble (40%), gravel (36%), and sand (14%) were the dominant substrate types.

Reaches 4-6: In reach 4, scour pools (54%) and riffles (43%) dominated the habitat, while gravel (39%), cobble (38%), and sand (16%) were the dominant substrate types. In reach 5, riffles (84%) and scour pools (15%) dominated the habitat, while cobble (33%), gravel (29%), and sand (14%) dominated the substrate. In reach 6, riffles (51%) and scour pools (28%) dominated the habitat, while gravel (30%), cobble (25%), and sand (22%) were the dominant substrate types.

1 Reaches 7-11: In reach 7, riffles (64%) and dry secondary channels (25%) dominated the habitat, while gravel (32%), cobble (31%), and sand (21%) were the dominant substrate types. In reach 8, riffles (54%) and scour pools (28%) dominated the habitat, while cobble (43%), gravel (28%), and boulder (14%) were the dominant substrate types. In reach 9, riffles (95%) dominated the habitat, while cobble (39%), gravel (20%), sand (16%), and bedrock (13%) were the dominant substrate types. In reach 10, riffles (60%) and scour pools (30%) dominated the habitat, cobble (34%), gravel (25%), and sand (19%) were the dominant substrate types. In reach 11, riffles (49%), rapids (30%), and scour pools (17%) dominated the habitat, while gravel (38%), cobble (29%), and sand (16%) were the dominant substrate types.

Reaches 12 – 16 In reach 12, riffles (46%) and scour pools (34%) dominated the habitat, while cobble (35%), gravel (34%), and sand (15%) were the dominant substrate types. In reach 13, rapids (54%), riffles (29%), and scour pools (16%) dominated the substrate, while cobble (36%), gravel (28%), and boulder (11%) were the dominant substrate types. In reach 14, rapids (56%) and riffles (38%) dominated the habitat, while gravel (26%), cobble (23%), sand (21%), and silt/organics (16%) were the dominant substrate types. In reach 15, riffles (55%) and rapids (32%) dominated the habitat, while gravel (32%), cobble (27%), and sand (21%) were the dominant substrate types. In reach 16, rapids (66%) and riffles (28%) dominated the habitat, while cobble (31%), gravel (25%), and silt/organics (14%) were the dominant substrate types.

In summary for the entire Necanicum River Basin, the dominant habitat types were 58% riffles, 21% scour pools, and 9% rapids for all 16 reaches combined. The overall substrate types were distributed between gravel (32%), cobble (29%), sand (18%), and silt/organics (12%). The best spawning reaches were: one, two, four, six, seven, nine, ten, eleven, fifteen, and sixteen.

The survey (Reach 1) began at the confluence with Beerman Creek. The river meanders through a farmland that has a small electric fence, which borders on the right side. The left side of the Necanicum follows closely to Hwy 101. Just above the Hwy 101 bridge crossing, there are two large ponds at the Forest Lake RV Park with no access for juvenile coho. The ponds were not recorded as habitat units during the survey, however, a project improving access for salmonids will create additional significant off-channel habitat within this reach. There are some nice off-channel habitat areas just above Johnson’s rock pit. The reach ends approximately 500m above the private bridge crossing to Donn Bauske’s house.

Reach 2 continues as a low gradient river, but the channel is much more constrained by the terraces that are high and close to the active channel. Most of the right side is comprised of private houses and the left side is dominated by a Weyerhaeuser company tree farm. The reach ends at the Volmer Creek confluence.

2 Reach 3 begins as a low to moderate gradient stretch of river. The first half of the reach has little complexity and there is not much spawning gravel. Similar to reach 2, the right side is comprised of private rural landowners, but the left side is Weyerhaeuser owned. The reach ends at the confluence with Klootchie Creek.

Reach 4 is a short reach, but there is an impressive off-channel habitat area on the left just below the Johnson Creek confluence. Several large debris jams were recorded and a series of braided channels with good complexity, however Japanese Knotweed is taking over the areas below the scour line. The reach ends at the confluence with Johnson Creek.

Reach 5 begins with a long series of riffles with not much spawning gravel. The riparian on the right is dominated with a thin line of alders for the first half, and then improves into a conifer dominated riparian on both sides towards the end of the reach. The reach ends at the confluence with Mail Creek.

Reach 6 starts above Mail Creek and has several long riffles with some pockets of spawning gravel. A long secondary channel on the right side represents the best salmon spawning habitat observed so far, with several spawned out coho carcasses observed. As the river crosses under the Highway 26 bridge (aka Black Bridge) the channel becomes more constrained and the spawning gravel diminishes. The reach ends at the confluence with SF Necanicum River.

Reach 7 starts above the SF Necanicum River confluence. There are several off-channel habitat areas located in this reach and some well established debris jams. Knotweed patches are also significantly impacting some of the secondary off-channel habitat areas. Some of the residential landowners have used cabled logs as riprap to reduce bank erosion towards the top of reach 7. The reach ends at the confluence with Lindsley Creek.

Reach 8 starts above Lindsley Creek and an ODFW spawner survey sign. There is an increase in rural landowners with several types of riprap structures on the left side. Most of the right side is forested timberland with no obvious land use. The reach ends at an unnamed tributary on the left where there is an ODFW spawner survey sign.

Reach 9 is a short reach and starts above the unnamed tributary. The riparian is well shaded and made up of some large conifers. There are less residential houses in this reach, which can be illustrated by the reduction in artificial riprap. There is also an increase in spawning gravel with some of the highest density of chinook spawners observed near the confluence with the NF Necanicum River. The reach ends at the confluence with the NF Necanicum River.

Reach 10 starts above the NF Necanicum river confluence. This reach starts with more good spawning gravel and a high density of chinook spawners, but the gravel is quickly replaced with cobble and boulder reducing the amount of good gravel throughout most of the reach. More riprap was observed in the reach with one area containing a large string

3 of cut and cabled logs reducing erosion at the start. The top of the reach had the only significant off-channel secondary channels, but only shallow water and no pools were located in the secondary. The reach ends at the confluence with Wolf Creek and an ODFW spawner survey sign.

Reach 11 starts above Wolf Creek where the well shaded riparian begins as conifer dominated. However, this is replaced with an alder dominated riparian as the landowners become common in the second half of reach 11. There were several cut and cabled logs for bank stability throughout this reach. In addition, there were several large natural debris jams creating some good complexity in the pools, some nice spawning gravel, and one major secondary channel. The reach ends at the confluence with Little Humbug Creek.

Reach 12 starts above Little Humbug Creek and continues to be riprap influenced by the adjacent landowners. There are various types of riprap structures applied, including an area where several cabled logs appear to be used for an old habitat improvement project (>10yrs). The reach ends at the confluence with Warner Creek just below the private bridge at the Boone’s property.

Reach 13 starts above Warner Creek and continues past Charlie Creek. These two tributaries are so close together that the reach was continued instead of breaking another reach in less than 100m from the start. The reach ends at the confluence with Bergsvik creek.

Reach 14 starts above Bergsvik Creek and immediately enters a diminished riparian zone. The stream passes under the Hwy 53 bridge and past a rock pit on the right. The riparian improves immediately above an unnamed tributary on the right side, which is just past the rock pit. From here, the stream passes by several rural houses and there is some riprap influence from Hwy 26 on the left side. This mostly consists of boulders embedded in the riverbank to protect Hwy 26. Approximately 300m above the bridge crossing with Hwy 26, the reach ends at the confluence with Grindy Creek.

Reach 15 begins above the Grindy Creek confluence. The reach meanders through forest land, which is one of the most remote areas for the entire survey. There are some nice spawning gravel areas, mostly located in the riffles and pool tailouts. Several live adult coho were observed migrating upstream during the time of the habitat survey. The reach ends at the start of a previous ODFW habitat enhancement project (1999), where non- cabled LWD placement logs were first observed in the survey.

Reach 16 begins at the start of the ODFW habitat improvement project. The habitat project continues under a bridge crossing with a Longview Fibre spur road. The habitat project ends approximately 500m above the bridge crossing at a tributary junction. The survey continues another 300m, but as the stream begins to increase in gradient the survey was ended as numerous unnamed spring seeps reduce the water suitable for coho spawning. There is a large clearcut on the left hillside that starts at the end of the habitat survey.

4 REACH DESCRIPTIONS:

REACH 1:

Length – 4,873 meters. The channel is unconstrained with multiple terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 19.5. Land use for the reach is light grazing, with some rural residential. The average unit gradient is 0.6%. The channel characteristics include: primary 4,873m and secondary 857m. Nineteen pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 3.9 deep pools per 1km. There was a small amount of LWD with 22 logs greater or equal to 10m x .6m, which averages to 0.5 key pieces per 100m. The vegetation is based on 6 riparian transects. The vegetation found most frequently in the riparian zone was grass and mixed conifers and deciduous trees ranging from 30 – 50cm dbh.

Reach 1 begins at the Beerman Creek confluence. This is considered to be close to the head of tidewater, but observations during the survey suggests that extreme tides may influence the first few units surveyed. After the stream crosses under Highway 101 there is a large alcove near the Shuller Surfboard factory. This alcove could use some LWD to provide increased complexity and juvenile refuge.

Above Shuller’s property there are two large ponds located on the Forest Lake RV Park property, but both have poor access for juvenile salmonids. From here, the stream meanders past Johnson rock pit with boulder riprap on the right side. At the top of the Johnson’s property there is a nice spring fed alcove, but lacks complexity and LWD.

From the Johnson’s property there are two large dairy farms upstream. The first farm has a well shaded riparian with some nice large spruce trees. However, the secondary channels have a high amount of algae growth reducing the water quality. This is most likely due to the cows, which are free to graze and roam throughout the active channel area. As the stream enters the second farm the well shaded riparian diminishes and becomes dominated by blackberries and alder trees. There is a large, spring fed pond on the left side, which is approximately 200m below a private bridge crossing to Donn Bauske’s property. This alcove has marginal access for juvenile salmonids and could be improved with some inexpensive fish passage steps or baffles. In addition, the right side of the alcove has little to no shade cover and is not fenced off, which allows the livestock present to freely enter the alcove. Therefore, it would be beneficial to inquire into the possibility of constructing a fence around this off-channel habitat in order to help diminish the potential for contamination and erosion of the alcove.

This reach has good LWD project potential with good access for industrial equipment. There is good opportunity for riparian enhancement with grass and sparsely mixed deciduous trees, especially in the lower area below the hwy 101 bridge, the Johnson’s property, and Donn Bauske’s farm. A limiting factor to LWD placement may be the wide active channel (>12m). A project focusing on secondary channel placement would be the most effective strategy in this wide stretch of river, including the three alcoves mentioned and the additional two alcoves located within the reach. A riparian planting

5 project would have positive benefits for salmon habitat within selected areas. In addition, there are a number of areas of the riparian in this reach that are heavily overrun by Japanese Knotweed, and measures should by implemented soon to eradicate this noxious weed as it is beginning to choke out a number of smaller trees, as well as dominate significant off-channel habitat.

REACH 2:

Length – 2,453 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 17.5. Land use for the reach is rural residential and second growth timber, with mixed conifers and deciduous trees. The average unit gradient is 0.8%. The channel characteristics include: primary 2,453m and secondary 895m. Three pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 1.2 deep pools per 100m. There was a small amount of LWD with 6 logs greater or equal to 10m x .6m, which averages to 0.2 key pieces per 100m. The vegetation is based on 4 riparian transects. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were mixed conifers and deciduous 30 – 50cm dbh, with some grass lawns at some of the houses. There were also some smaller trees 15 – 30cm dbh mixed in the riparian.

This reach begins at the change in channel dynamics from unconstrained to a constrained river by high terraces. The right side of the river was dominated by residential houses, with several areas that were comprised with boulder or tire riprap and a few small stingers to prevent bank erosion. There were five alcoves identified in this reach with varying size, depth, and complexity.

The condition of the riparian zone throughout this reach is as variable as the rural residential landowners that occupy them. Most of the opportunities for riparian planting are located on the right side, however, where the Klootchie Mainline and power lines are close or cross the river the left side has several planting opportunities there. In addition, there is a landowner at the end of reach one and into the beginning of reach two whose plantings are being heavily overtaken by blackberries, and another landowner whose plantings are being eroded away and are falling into the secondary channel in the middle of reach two in unit 95. Therefore, it would be beneficial if contact could be made with these landowners to ensure that such trees aren’t lost and to determine if additional plantings are necessary. Moreover, Japanese Knotweed is heavily prevalent throughout much of this reach, and is need of significant attention to eradicate it.

This reach has excellent LWD project potential particularly in the five alcoves and some of the secondary channels recorded. Most of the alcoves lack complexity for juvenile fish refuge from avian predation. Access for industrial equipment is good in most areas. There are several secondary channels with no pools and LWD placement within these areas would increase the frequency of deep complex off-channel pools.

6 REACH 3:

Length – 953 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 15.0. Land use for the reach is second growth timber, with some rural residential areas. The average unit gradient is 0.7%. The channel characteristics include: primary 953m and 152m secondary. There was only one pool greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 1.0 deep pool per 1 km. There was a very small amount of LWD with only 3 logs greater or equal to 10m x .6m, which averages to 0.3 key pieces per 100m. The vegetation is based on 1 riparian transect. The vegetation found most frequently in the riparian zone was deciduous trees ranging 15 – 30cm dbh and a few mixed conifers and deciduous 30 – 50cm dbh.

Reach 3 starts with a long series of cobble-dominated riffles and scour pools with not much spawning habitat. There are sections of the right side where the stream banks have caged cobble used as riprap that appear to be effective at reducing erosion. Only two backwaters were observed in this reach. However, one of the backwaters had been created by a cut and cabled log. This may be an old habitat enhancement project >10yrs ago.

There is fair restoration project potential in this reach. The reach already has decent average shade and good large wood recruitment. So, a planting project is not needed. There is little in-stream LWD, but this may improve as the riparian ages and contributes LWD from the banks. Access for industrial equipment is fair, but LWD placement opportunities are limited due wide active channel (>12m) and the lack of off-channel areas, except for one dry secondary channel and the two backwaters identified. Japanese Knotweed is a significant factor in many units, as there are some large patches growing in a number of areas that need serious attention.

REACH 4:

Length – 528 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 5.0. Land use for the reach is second growth timber, with some rural residential. The average unit gradient is 0.6%. The channel characteristics include: primary 528m and 426m secondary. Four pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 7.6 deep pools per 1 km. There was a good amount of LWD with 17 logs greater or equal to 10m x .6m, which averages to 3.2 key pieces per 100m. The vegetation is based on 1 riparian transect. The vegetation found most frequently in the riparian zone were mixed deciduous and conifers trees ranging from 30 – 50cm dbh, with some smaller trees 15 – 30cm dbh.

This short stream reach is highlighted by a long secondary and tertiary channel area, which is located just below the confluence with Johnson Creek at the end of reach 4. There is a good mix of complexity here, with several large debris jams and off-channel pools good for juvenile winter rearing. Although, there are a few off-channel units that could use an increase in cover and complexity. The only drawback to the habitat in this reach is the Japanese Knotweed, which is taking over the entire terrace separating the

7 secondary channels from the primary channel. The landowner Tom Lewis’s cousin was fishing at the time of the habitat survey. From our brief discussion with Tom Lewis’s cousin, the off-channel area identified appears to be a good candidate for weed control prescriptions. Coordination appears to be the only detail lacking to implement a weed control project here.

There is poor LWD project potential in this reach, but there is good access for industrial equipment. This reach already has a good amount of in-stream LWD and a well- established complex area of off-channel habitat. The riparian also has decent average shade and good LWD recruitment. So, a planting project is not needed. One potential enhancement activity would be to control the knotweed, which is infesting the terraces surrounding the off-channel habitat areas. In addition, there is an opportunity to work with landowners to stop removing or cutting out in-stream LWD, which was recently observed just above the start of the reach.

REACH 5:

Length – 970 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 15.0. Land use for the reach is second growth timber, with some rural residential. The average unit gradient is 1.0%. The channel characteristics include: primary 970m and 168m secondary. Three pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 3.1 deep pools per 1 km. There was a very small amount of LWD with only 1 log greater or equal to 10m x .6m, which averages to 0.1 key pieces per 100m. The vegetation is based on 1 riparian transect. The vegetation found most frequently in the riparian zone were mixed deciduous and conifers 30 – 50cm dbh.

Reach 5 consists of cobble dominated riffles and scour pools and not much spawning habitat. Three backwaters were observed, and none had complexity or cover for juvenile refuge. There was one potential area with a spring seep on the left side that appears to be a good site for alcove development. Towards the middle of the reach there was an obvious change in landownership. The hill slopes become close to the active channel, the riparian improves, and the pools become dominated by bedrock walls with some pockets of spawning gravel observed in the tailouts. However, the large gravel is limited to mostly chinook spawners.

There is poor LWD placement potential in this reach, with fair access for industrial equipment. The lack of off-channel habitat areas and wide active channel (>12m) reduce opportunities for large wood placement. There is limited riparian enhancement potential in this reach. One good potential planting area is located on the right side just above the confluence with Johnson Creek, which is the start of reach 5. This area has a thin line of alders with a large open field behind the alders. There are two or three landowners that could be coordinated with for some planting effort, including one whom is already attempting to establish about ten small conifers (<5 yrs old). However, this effort to establish conifers here could be extended into a much larger riparian enhancement project. The remainder of the reach has a good mix of conifers and deciduous trees on both sides of the river.

8 REACH 6:

Length – 1,715 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 16.0. Land use for the reach is second growth timber. The average unit gradient is 0.7%. The channel characteristics include: primary 1,715m and 997m secondary. Twelve pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 7.0 deep pools per 1 km. There was a moderate amount of LWD with 37 logs greater or equal to 10m x .6m, which averages to 2.2 key pieces per 100m. The vegetation is based on 3 riparian transects. The vegetation found most frequently in the riparian zone was mixed deciduous and conifers trees ranging from 30 – 50cm dbh and a few smaller at 15 – 30cm dbh.

Reach 6 starts as a long cobble dominated riffle with severe bank scour on the left side. There are two nice alcoves on the left side within the first 400m of the reach, but juvenile access for both is limited to high flows. Large knotweed patches are significant in the beginning of this reach, particularly on the right side. There were several large off- channel habitat areas where there was evidence of coho spawning with spawned out carcasses observed. However, most of these secondary channel areas had shallow depth riffles and no pools with complexity or cover for juvenile fish refuge. Immediately after the Hwy 26 crossing (aka Black Bridge) there was a nice complex alcove on the right side with good complexity and cover. From here, the stream is again dominated by a single channel with more cobble dominated riffles. Towards the end of the reach, there was a nice spring fed alcove on the left side, below the Sugarloaf Mainline bridge crossing. A small riparian planting project was observed with new conifer plantings surrounding the alcove site.

There is good restoration project potential in this reach, but access for industrial equipment is only fair. The reach already has good riparian shade and large wood recruitment, but thinning of the alder trees surrounding the new conifer plantings could be used near the alcove/spring seep confluence to increase light for the new plants. In addition, knotweed is beginning to grow on the terrace surrounding the plantings, and measures should be taken to ensure that it does not out compete and choke out the conifer seedlings. An increase in LWD within the secondary channel approximately 300m below the Black Bridge would be the best off-channel habitat improvement project for this reach. The biggest drawback for an LWD project here may be the limited access for industrial equipment.

REACH 7:

Length – 1,452 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 15.0. Land use for the reach is second growth timber, with some rural residential houses. The average unit gradient is 0.9%. The channel characteristics include: primary 1,452m and secondary 1,144m. Seven pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 4.8 deep pools per 1km. There was a small amount of LWD with 10 logs greater or equal to 10m x .6m, which averages to 0.7 key pieces per 100m. The vegetation is based on 1 riparian transect. The vegetation found most

9 frequently in the riparian zone was mixed deciduous and conifers trees ranging from 30 – 50cm dbh, with some smaller trees 15 – 30cm dbh as well.

Reach 7 is marked by a diminished riparian and an increase in knotweed. Spawning gravel is present in some areas. However, there is an obvious increase in larger substrates such as boulder and cobble on the primary channel. There were a good amount off-channel habitat areas observed, but most lacked depth and no pools with complexity or cover for juvenile fish refuge. The banks were choked with alders, salmonberry, and knotweed (in some areas), while other above areas had a good mix of deciduous and conifer trees.

There is good restoration project potential in this reach, but access for industrial equipment is very limited. The riparian areas could use some additional conifers, and knotweed was a significant dominant vegetation on the banks. There are some long off- channel habitat areas where LWD is needed. An increase in LWD within these off- channel areas would hopefully increase the amount of deep off channel pools in this reach. The biggest drawback for a project may be the limited access for industrial equipment. A project to eradicate the Japanese Knotweed is another much needed riparian enhancement priority.

REACH 8:

Length – 1,278 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 12.5. Land use for the reach is rural residential, with second growth timber. The average unit gradient is 1.4%. The channel characteristics include: primary 1,278m and secondary 273m. Five pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 3.9 deep pools per 1km. There was a small amount of LWD with only 3 logs greater or equal to 10m x .6m, which averages to 0.2 key pieces per 100m. The vegetation is based on 2 riparian transects. The vegetation found most frequently in the riparian zone was mixed deciduous and conifer trees ranging 30 – 50cm dbh, with some mixed trees 15 – 30cm dbh as well.

Reach 8 has an increase in rural landowners, and each landowner has effectively used riprap to constrain the river and reduce the channel’s interaction within its floodplain. Most of the landowners on the left side have tried various types of riprap structures to control bank erosion including: cabled logs, concrete blocks, boulder riprap, and old tires in the bank. All these types of riprap have had varied degrees of success. These methods of bank stability have reduced the amount of off-channel habitat area to less than 300m throughout the entire reach. There was one backwater with a large debris jam recorded with good complexity and cover, about mid way through the reach and appears to provide good refuge for juvenile salmonids. However, all other three backwaters observed had no complexity or cover. This reach is the last reach where significant patches of knotweed was observed, although there were smaller amounts recorded by the surveyors into reach thirteen.

10 There is fair LWD project potential in this reach and access for industrial equipment is good if access is obtained from the adjacent landowners. The reach has good riparian shade and large wood recruitment. So, a planting project is not necessary, but could be improved on a few of the landowner’s riverbanks, especially the properties located on the left side. The best opportunities for restoration work in this reach would be to redesign some of the various riprap structures to allow for more interaction within the floodplain, and help increase off-channel habitat potential. This may be accomplished in conjunction with a riparian planting project.

REACH 9:

Length – 629 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 15.0. Land use for the reach is second growth timber. The average unit gradient is 2.0%. The channel characteristics include: primary 629m and secondary 56m. No pools were greater than 1 meter deep. There were no logs greater or equal to 10m x .6m. The vegetation is based on 1 riparian transect. The vegetation found most frequently in the riparian zone was mixed deciduous and conifers 30 – 50cm dbh, with some smaller mixed trees 15 – 30cm dbh.

Reach 9 is dominated by riffles with pockets of good spawning gravel. This reach is fairly short, but there were a high number of chinook spawners near the confluence with the NF Necanicum. The high spawning activity near the end of the reach was the biggest highlight identified. The dominant single channel with high terraces on both sides of the river eliminated off-channel habitat opportunities throughout the entire reach.

There is poor LWD project potential in this reach and access for industrial equipment is also poor. The LWD placement opportunities are limited due wide active channel (>12m) and lack of potential off-channel development areas. This reach has good riparian shade and large wood recruitment, so a planting project is not necessary.

REACH 10:

Length – 842 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 11.0. Land use for the reach is second growth timber, with some rural residential houses on the left side. The average unit gradient is 1.5%. The channel characteristics include: primary 842m and secondary 405m. Six pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 7.1 deep pools per 1km. There was a small amount of LWD with 4 logs greater or equal to 10m x .6m, which averages to 0.5 key pieces per 100m. The vegetation is based on 1 riparian transect. The vegetation found most frequently in the riparian zone was mixed deciduous and conifers 15 – 30cm dbh, with mixed trees 30 – 50cm dbh as well.

Reach 10 is a moderate gradient stretch of river, but the first 200m had good spawning gravel for chinook. The remainder of the riffles observed were made up of mostly large gravel, cobble, and boulder, with only small pockets of gravel adequate for spawning. There were also several deep pools made up of cobble, and bedrock. There was a limited

11 amount of stream complexity in this reach. Only two small off-channel habitat areas were recorded. One area was just above the NF Necanicum confluence and the second area identified was just below the end of the reach. Both may have LWD placement potential, but access may be the biggest drawback and limitability for restoration work.

There is fair LWD project potential in this reach, but access for industrial equipment is poor. Besides the two recorded off-channel habitat areas, there were three additional spring seeps on the right where potential alcoves may be developed. The first is located just below the first trib junction on the right above the NF Necanicum confluence, where there is a nice spring seep. The second is just above the private bridge crossing on the right, while the third is just below the Wolf Creek confluence on the left side. The reach has good riparian shade and good large wood recruitment. Therefore, a planting project is not necessary.

REACH 11:

Length – 955 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 12.5. Land use for the reach is second growth timber, with some larger conifer trees (>30cm), and some rural residential as well. The average unit gradient is 1.4%. The channel characteristics include: primary 955m and secondary 182m. Six pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 6.3 deep pools per 1km. There was a small amount of LWD with 10 logs greater or equal to 10m x .6m, which averages to 1.0 key piece per 100m. The vegetation is based on 1 riparian transect. The vegetation found most frequently in the riparian zone was mixed deciduous and conifers 30 – 50cm dbh.

Reach 11 starts as an excellent stretch of river with a well-shaded riparian, good large wood recruitment, excellent gravel for chinook spawning, including several large debris jams. There are some nice pools on the primary channel that are deep and slow moving with good complexity and cover for juvenile fish refuge. Landowners upstream of reach 11 have stated that this property, which is privately owned by one landowner, has been recently subdivided into three lots where rural houses may be built on the left side of the river. Local natural resource agencies should review any plans to develop and build homes within this reach to ensure this productive habitat is conserved. As the quality habitat including good large wood recruitment quickly diminishes, increased rural residential houses were observed throughout the second half of the reach.

There is fair LWD project potential in this reach, but poor access for industrial equipment. There are two sites identified for potential alcove development. Both are immediately after the habitat begins to diminish midway through the reach. One is located on the left near the confluence with an unnamed tributary. The second potential alcove site is located on the right just above the first potential site. The riparian has good shade cover and large wood recruitment in the first half, but the second half could use some conifer planting effort, particularly on the left side where houses become more common. Therefore, a planting project could be planned on the left side within the upper half of this reach.

12 REACH 12:

Length – 690 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 13.5. Land use for the reach is second growth timber with some rural residential. The average unit gradient is 0.9%. The channel characteristics include: primary 690m and secondary 298m. Five pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 7.2 deep pools per 1km. There was a small amount of LWD with 2 logs greater or equal to 10m x .6m, which averages to 0.3 key pieces per 100m. The vegetation is based on 1 riparian transect. The vegetation found most frequently in the riparian zone was mixed deciduous and conifers 30 – 50cm dbh.

Reach 12 starts with several large riprap projects, with most bank stability structures made of boulders. There was also several large cut and cabled logs in this reach, which appear to be for bank stability and habitat improvement. Most of the cabled logs have created small pools, but no major off-channel pool development was observed. There were two large conifers in unit 310, which appear to be falling into the stream soon. These should be utilized for a habitat project instead of being cut out as they fall, which has been a common practice on the Necanicum basin in past years. In particular, there is a puddled secondary channel on the right side near the beginning of the reach, which is just below two large leaning spruce trees. These two leaning conifer trees are an excellent opportunity for LWD recruitment in the secondary channel immediately downstream. Immediate project planning should be implemented to secure the potential in-stream LWD logs for off-channel habitat development. Moreover, there is a good site for potential alcove development just above the falling spruce tree, where a spring seep is located.

There is good LWD project potential in this reach, with good access for industrial equipment as long as access is coordinated with the adjacent landowners. The riparian has good shade cover, but large wood recruitment could be improved on the left side where the rural residential houses are common. So, a planting project could be planned on the left side at these selected sites.

REACH 13:

Length – 1,351 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 15.0. Land use for the reach is second growth timber, with some rural residential. The average unit gradient is 1.7%. The channel characteristics include: primary 1,351m and secondary 170m. Four pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 3.0 deep pools per 1km. There was a small amount of LWD with 4 logs greater or equal to 10m x .6m, which averages to 0.3 key pieces per 100m. The vegetation is based on 2 riparian transects. The vegetation found most frequently in the riparian zone was mixed deciduous and conifers 30 – 50cm dbh, with some areas rich in conifers 30 – 50cm dbh.

Reach 13 starts as well shaded riparian with good mix of conifer and deciduous trees. In addition, there is a planting project in the last part of the reach on the right side. The

13 recent conifer plantings have been flagged to better identify the young conifers. However, the tall alders (15 –30cm dbh) surrounding the newly planted conifers appear to be providing too much shade for adequate conifer establishment. It is recommended that some of the alders be cut and/or girdled to reduce the shade cover to the newly planted conifers. This over-story prescription to the alders will require additional under- story maintenance for shrub control in the future summer seasons, due to the increased sunlight onto the forest floor.

There is fair LWD project potential in this reach, but only fair access for industrial equipment. The confluence of Charlie Creek would be a good site for an LWD placement project. ODFW is currently planning a mitigation project upstream of Hwy 26 at Phil’s (owns Boreland Electric Company) and additional plans to incorporate the mouth of Charlie Creek into a LWD placement project would help improve this stream area. There are currently no deep complex pools in the lower sections of Charlie Creek (see Necanicum Habitat Assessment, Boswell Consultants 2003).

Secondly, there is one secondary channel in the middle of this reach that contains no LWD or significant deep off-channel pools. Consequently, LWD placement within this secondary channel may help create some deep, complex pools. The riparian has good shade cover, including an area in the middle part of the reach with some nice 50 – 90cm dbh conifers on the right side of the river, but large wood recruitment could be improved on the left side where the rural houses are common. Therefore, a planting project could be planned on the left side of this reach.

This was the last reach where knotweed was observed in this survey, the final patch being recorded in units 325 and 326 on the left about 300m above the start of the reach. Despite not having observed any knotweed in reaches fourteen through sixteen, when eradication measures are taken in the future, it would be wise to revisit these last three reaches to ensure that no new patches have been established as a potential seeding source to the lower reaches of the river.

REACH 14:

Length – 1,656 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 14.0. Land use for the reach is rural residential, with some areas of second growth timber. The average unit gradient is 2.6%. The channel characteristics include: primary 1,656m and secondary 163m. Two pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 1.2 deep pools per 1km. There was a small amount of LWD with 5 logs greater or equal to 10m x .6m, which averages to 0.3 key pieces per 100m. The vegetation is based on 2 riparian transects. The vegetation found most frequently in the riparian zone was mixed deciduous and conifers 15 – 30cm dbh, with some areas rich in conifers 30 – 50cm dbh.

Reach 14 starts just above a nice deep pool created from the confluence with Bergsvik Creek. Upstream from Bergsvik Creek the riparian quickly diminishes. This is due to an old rock quarry on the right and the Hamlet General Store on the left where blackberries

14 and cut alders dominate the riparian zone. As the river passes by an unnamed tributary the riparian improves to mostly conifer-dominated trees. There is good LWD potential along this section of river as well.

There are several areas where Highway 26 nears the river and boulder riprap has turned the stream into a rapid with only shallow pools. One spring seep may have potential off- channel juvenile fish rearing, however, an impassable road culvert under Hwy 26 eliminates fish passage opportunities. In addition, there is a good potential LWD project site above this spring seep. A private bridge crossing to Allen Weber’s property is marked by a nice riparian with good LWD recruitment. The stream continues past Allen’s property with predominately riffles scoured down to the bedrock. This area could use some LWD to trap gravel for chinook and coho spawning. This continues until the Hwy 26 bridge crossing, where the river turns into mostly rapids with cobble and boulders dominating the substrate. These rapids dominate the remaining 300m of this reach.

There is good LWD project potential in this reach, as little off-channel habitat and only one secondary channel was observed. However, there is only fair access for industrial equipment. There are several areas throughout the reach where scoured to bedrock conditions are observed. If LWD was added to these areas, there may be an increase in gravel deposition to the substrate. The riparian has good shade cover and LWD recruitment, so a planting project is not necessary.

REACH 15:

Length – 2,734 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 5.0. Land use for the reach is second growth timber. The average unit gradient is 2.1%. The channel characteristics include: primary 2,734m and secondary 356m. Eight pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 2.9 deep pools per 1km. There was a small amount of LWD with 17 logs greater or equal to 10m x .6m, which averages to 0.6 key pieces per 100m. The vegetation is based on 3 riparian transects. The vegetation found most frequently in the riparian zone was mixed deciduous trees ranging from 15 – 30cm dbh, with the first 300m comprised of conifers 30 – 50cm dbh.

Reach 15 starts above Grindy Creek and travels through a short segment of Oregon State Park land with a nice riparian. This area has two old cabled logs (gablons) that were intended to create pools, but the short logs (<6m long) have washed out by erosion from the bank and no pools were created. The stream enters into Weyerhaeuser property where there is a marked increase in alders dominating the riparian area. The stream continues to meander with little complexity, deep pools, and off-channel habitat areas. However, there are some good gravel areas for coho spawning. The reach was ended due to a 1999 ODFW habitat project that carries through the remainder of the survey.

There is good LWD project potential in this reach, but poor access for industrial equipment. There are several areas throughout the reach where scoured to bedrock

15 conditions are observed. If LWD was added to these areas, there may be an increase in gravel and off-channel habitat areas. Currently, no major off-channel habitat areas were recorded and this may be a direct cause of the lack of in-stream LWD and large wood recruitment in the riparian zone. There is a good alcove potential site in unit 399 about 1000 meters above the confluence of Grindy Creek. In addition, of the small amount of off-channel habitat observed, there was one nice, large, trib fed alcove on the left. However, it lacked large wood and there was beaver activity present as well. The riparian has good shade cover, but poor LWD recruitment. As a result, a planting project is necessary. This could be best accomplished if a project to thin alders was coordinated with a planting project. This appears necessary to re-establish conifers to this alder dominated riparian zone.

Despite the lack of in-stream LWD present in this reach, there was a good amount of viable spawning gravel observed in a number of areas of the river, and numerous adult coho were observed spawning in these stretches during the time the survey was conducted.

REACH 16:

Length – 595 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 3.0. Land use for the reach is second growth timber, with an ODFW habitat improvement project dominating the reach. The average unit gradient is 2.8%. The channel characteristics include: primary 595m and secondary 52m. No pools were greater than 1 meter deep. There was a small amount of LWD with 2 logs greater or equal to 10m x .6m, which averages to 0.3 key pieces per 100m. The vegetation is based on 1 riparian transect. The vegetation found most frequently in the riparian zone was deciduous ranging from 15 – 30cm dbh, with a number of 30 – 50cm dbh deciduous trees as well.

Reach 16 starts at the beginning of the ODFW habitat improvement project, which was conducted in the summer of 1999. The project has several characteristics including: girlded alder trees, conifer plantings, and several habitat logs placed throughout the riparian. There is a spring seep on the right at the start of the reach. Recent beaver activity has turned the spring seep into a nice off-channel habitat area. This is the first good off-channel juvenile rearing area in over the last 2,000 meters of the survey. The stream continues for approximately 500m until the habitat project ends at a tributary junction and ODFW survey signs. The survey was continued for another 200m with only marginal habitat suitable for coho. The survey ended as the gradient increases and habitat reduces further, which is mostly attributed to the increase in gradient and lack of flow from the last tributaries on the left, in addition to a number of spring seeps that remove water from the river.

There is good LWD project potential in this reach and good access for industrial equipment. There are several areas throughout the reach where scoured to bedrock conditions are still observed even after a habitat project was conducted in 1999.

16 Currently, only one major off-channel habitat area was created from the previous habitat project and beavers helped with that one. Several of the habitat logs have broken in several pieces from high water events. This is most likely due to the narrow diameter of most logs placed during the habitat project (<.4cm dbh). In addition, all of the conifers planted have not grown to adequate size due to a lack of follow up maintenance, increasing predation by elk, and shrub growth throughout the areas where girdled alders have increased the light to the understory. Fortunately, some wild spruce trees have been released from the girdled tree activity and appear to be establishing in limited areas near the bridge crossing. More riparian planting should be conducted within the project area to re-establish conifers to the riparian zone, which is lacking large wood recruitment for reaches 15 and 16.

17