Effectiveness Monitoring Report for the Western Oregon Stream Restoration Program, 1999-2008 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2010-6

Identification Information

Citation

Originator: Tippery, S., K. Jones, K. Anlauf, C. Stein, and M. Strickland

Publish Date: July 2010

Online Link: None

BPA Project #:

Contact Information

Agency: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Name: Cedric Cooney

Job Position: Natural Resources Data and Systems Manager

Telephone: 503-947-6094

E-Mail Address: cedric.x.cooney@odfw.oregon.gov

Description

Abstract: State and federal agencies have invested millions of dollars to restore streams and watersheds in the Pacific Northwest over the past two decades. In Oregon alone, over 500 million dollars has been spent on completed projects from 1995 to 2007 (Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board 2009). Restoration practitioners have distributed the investment among watershed scale activities such as road repair, dam removal, and upland management, and stream scale activities such as passage, instream complexity, and riparian plantings. The Western Oregon Stream Restoration Program (WOSRP) was established to work in cooperation with private and corporate landowners to restore stream habitat for juvenile and adult salmonids. In addition to the WOSRP, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) funds restoration projects with local watershed councils, who commonly partner with state and federal agencies. Eight WOSRP restoration biologists in Tillamook, Newport, Charleston, Gold Beach, Roseburg, Clackamas, and Salem select sites and implement projects consistent with the criteria described in Thom et al (2001). A monitoring component is integrated in the program, with surveys coordinated and reported by a biologist in Corvallis. The goal of the monitoring program is to assess the long term effectiveness of instream restoration projects implemented by WOSRP, and to evaluate progress towards salmon conservation and recovery goals in Oregon’s coastal basins. The WOSRP restoration sites are distributed throughout the Willamette, Lower Columbia, and coastal drainage's. Restoration treatments added large wood and/or boulders, improved fish passage, planted trees in riparian areas, or were a combination of the three. Large wood was placed in complex jams at intervals throughout the stream to increase stream roughness and complexity. Boulders were sometimes used in conjunction with wood jams to provide stability to the structures, and prevent large wood from moving downstream and posing a hazard to culverts and bridges. Bedrock dominated streams were often treated with boulders to collect gravel and cobble, intended to aggrade the streambed. In the future, large wood may be added to these streams. Fish passage projects opened previously inaccessible habitat to juvenile and/or adult salmonids while riparian plantings and fencing were designed to improve riparian vegetation and bank structure. The project length varied from site to site. Fish passage sites were quite short, but provided access to kilometers of fish habitat, and large wood sites were up to several kilometers in length. Large wood and boulder placement projects have become commonplace in the Pacific Northwest to restore complex stream habitat for juvenile coho and other salmonids (Katz et al. 2007, Roni et al. 2008). Detailed assessments have been published for individual projects or experiments (e.g. Moore and Gregory, 1988, Nickelson et al. 1992, Cederholm et al.1997). More extensive evaluations have used a post treatment design (Hicks et al 1991, Roni and Quinn 2001), but none have used a pre- and post treatment design. In this paper we evaluate habitat changes at 103 restoration projects in western Oregon from pre-treatment to one year post treatment to 6 years following treatment. Projects commonly treated 0.5 – 1 km of stream, but some extended up to 6 km. The projects we evaluated in this paper were treated with large logs, usually arranged in jams, and were not cabled or driven into banks or bottom. As of 2008, the OWEB and WOSRP projects have treated approximately 750 km of stream with large wood (Figure 1), 120 km with boulders, and over 4,000 km of stream have been made accessible by replacing and/or removing culverts. Each year, OWEB receives 210 grant applications for restoration projects. These projects generally adhere to a similar selection process and design, so the results of this study can be expected to apply more broadly within the Pacific Northwest. Roni et al (2008), in a synthesis paper, summarized many of the potential physical benefits of restoration; these include pool depth and frequency, habitat complexity, woody debris, and sediment retention and quality of spawning gravel. Some projects in deeply incised channels have reduced the incision and increased bed elevation. Evaluations of biological responses have been confounded by natural variability of populations, duration of study, or length of stream examined. For example, determination of success based on spawning ground counts is problematic because of variation in ocean survival. However, longer duration and watershed scale studies have shown positive responses of juvenile and adult salmon (Johnson et al 2005). Burnett et al. (2008) conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles to examine the effects of large wood placement on salmonid abundance, growth, or survival, or on overall stream habitat complexity. Few publications were both relevant and met the rigorous standards outlined in their review. Although the review supported short term improvements in habitat complexity, the relationship to salmonid productivity was less definitive. Notable exceptions included Johnson et al. (2005) cited above, and Solazzi et al. (2000). An alternative approach to directly assessing biological response is to model potential changes in abundance or productivity. The Habitat Limiting Factors Model (Reeves et al. 1989, Nickelson et al.1992a, Nickelson 1998) was developed to quantify the carrying capacity of coastal streams for juvenile coho during the summer and winter. Use of this model is appropriate because most of the instream restoration projects in western Oregon were intended to improve habitat for juvenile coho. In this paper, we evaluated the physical response directly, and quantified the potential response of juvenile coho salmon by application of the Habitat Limiting Factors Model. Project effectiveness monitoring requires linking the restoration treatment to improved physical conditions for and biological response of salmon (Katz et al. 2007) and defining desired outcomes (Rumps et al. 2007). Because the WOSRP projects were designed to improve ecological and hydrologic stream function specifically for salmonids, we evaluated 1) retention of wood structures, 2) natural recruitment of additional wood, 3) increase in pool number, area, and depth, 4) retention of gravels and sorting of finer substrates, and 5) increase in channel complexity – secondary channels and off-channel habitats. Biological evaluation was based on estimates of the potential carrying capacity for juvenile coho during the overwinter life stage. The primary objectives of this evaluation are to test for these changes one year following treatment and 6 years following treatment. Secondarily, we evaluated the response of the projects by geographic location and position along the stream network. Previous WOSRP monitoring reports (e.g. Jacobsen and Jones 2003, Jacobsen et al. 2007) have focused on conditions one year following treatment, with relatively few sites assessed 2-3 years following restoration. Since 2003, the restoration projects have increased in complexity – more and larger pieces and jams, and treated more kilometers of stream length per site. The WOSRP program has provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the effects of restoration projects over longer times and broader geographic scales than previously feasible. We have been surveying the restoration sites in both summer and winter to monitor changes in stream habitat and evaluate the success of treatments, such as the placement of wood and/or boulders and fish passage. Surveys are logistically easier to manage in the summer, but surveys conducted during the winter provide a more timely and accurate assessment of over-winter rearing potential for juvenile coho. Because we have paired surveys, we are able to assess the added value of revisits across seasons. We test the hypothesis that habitat characteristics at the restoration sites do not change from summer to winter. The findings permit us to modify the survey program if the information is duplicative, and use the resources in another fashion.

Purpose:

Time Period of Content:

Geographic Extent: Oregon coastal basins, Willamette and Lower Columbia basins

Status: Final

Use Constraints:

Format: PDF File

Data Quality Information

Lineage-Source:

Data Information

No data information was supplied.

Entity and Attribute Information

Attributes Description:

Is a physical copy maintained for reference at Headquarters? No