BLM LIBRARY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management A Five-Year Comprehensive Anadromous Fish Habitat Enhancement Plan for Oregon Coastal Rivers ^ -: <•-*- • t *•**? IS ^» ~ **s -^ S ' > » w Fall Chinook salmon spawning in gravel accumulated naturally by a gabion structure in Tioga Creek. A large spawned-out chinook salmon near one of several completed redds (nests) located just upstream from a gabion structure. Note excellent spawning gravel and large pool below the gabion used both by young fish for rearing and adult fish for resting and hiding. Spawning chinook salmon on a redd located about 60 feet upstream from the gabion shown in the other photo. Note two groups of boulders placed in Tioga Creek. Boulders placed in the middle of the stream create a small pool for resting. The boulders placed along the bank of Tioga Creek prevent erosion around the upper part of the gabion. Cover Photo: John Anderson (on left), Coos Bay District Fishery Biologist, and John Crawford, former Chief of the Wildlife Division, Washington Office, discuss how gabion structures function to improve spawning and rearing habitat in Tioga Creek, tributary to the South Coos River, Coos County, Oregon. An aquatic habitat management plan developed under the authority of the Sikes Act was implemented by a Memorandum of Understanding between Menasha Corporation, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Bureau of Land Management during May 1982 to protect and enhance wild stocks of anadromous fish. To date, the Bureau has constructed 38 gabion structures (like the gabion Anderson and Crawford are standing on) and 7 boulder berms in Tioga Creek and tributaries to increase production of wild fish. A Five-Year Comprehensive Anadromous Fish Habitat :-: Enhancement Plan for Oregon Coastal Rivers Bureau of Land Management Oregon State Office Portland, Oregon May 1985 b° Introduction and Purpose This report was prepared to provide current information concerning opportunities to improve the present productivity of anadromous salmonid habitat (primarily salmon and steelhead) on Bureau lands in coastal rivers of Oregon. Habitat rehabilitation and/or enhancement work is done to increase populations of wild fish, which results in greater numbers of fish available for harvest by recreational and commercial fisheries important to Oregon's coastal economy, communities and populace in general. The proposed habitat projects listed in this report constitute a logical plan for orderly fish habitat development work by identified district priorities over a five-year period. If implemented, these projects would be closely coordinated with similar habitat work of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), U.S. Forest Service and other concerned agencies and organizations to obtain maximum efficiency and benefits. Background The principal management responsibility of the BLM concerning fish production in streams on Bureau lands is to manage habitat to maintain highly-productive conditions for wild populations of fish. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is responsible for managing all fish populations within state waters. A good working relationship exists between the two agencies that was initially fostered by several appropriate memoranda of understanding. Many cooperative endeavors between the two agencies relating to salmon and steelhead management activities have occurred over the past 20 years. Bureau land ownership in western Oregon is basically a "checkerboard" pattern due primarily to the revested 0&C lands (refer to map). Because of this, the Bureau's "sphere of influence" extends to intermingled private and state lands as well as adjacent national forests. For this reason, fish habitat management activities on Bureau lands have also been closely coordinated with the Forest Service, local conservation organizations and private landowners. Numerous cooperative habitat projects to benefit wild fish runs have been completed with other organizations in past years. However, the full benefits possible from some projects on BLM lands were not realized on other "upstream" lands because complementary work on private lands was not accomplished, often due to lack of funds. Money appropriated to the Bureau can be spent only for projects on BLM lands. At present there are 985 miles of anadromous fish habitat on BLM land in coastal streams of Oregon. Fish produced on Bureau lands contribute significantly to ocean and freshwater fisheries, which in turn provide important economic and social benefits to coastal communities. It was estimated, using 1981 values, that the annual net economic value of all fish attributable to BLM lands in western Oregon was approximately $4.5 million (374,100 activity days), of which $2.7 million (111,700 activity days plus the commercial catch) was attributable to anadromous fish produced in streams on BLM lands. The original productivity of most coastal rivers and tributary streams has been reduced substantially due to man's activities and land uses since the I870's. Timber harvesting and associated activities have had the greatest overall adverse impacts on coastal streams. However, agricultural development, channel alterations in lower reaches of rivers by snagging and ditching, road building, mining, and diking, dredging and filling of estuaries have all contributed to reduced productivity of anadromous fish habitat. Historically, there were many fallen, large old-growth trees (trunks or parts) in Oregon's coastal streams that created some of the best spawning and rearing areas for young salmon and steelhead. The significance of this naturally occurring large woody material (LWM) to anadromous fish productivity was not fully recognized until recent years. LWM in stream channels provides an instream structure that creates habitat diversity in the form of riffles, pools and cover which are used by fish differently at various stages of their lives (see photo section). Without some larger trees to hold bedload movement and create pools, stream beds of higher gradient streams are subject to severe erosion and scouring. As a result, spawning gravels, food production and rearing areas have been greatly reduced. Winter floods can cause localized accumulations of LWM in the form of debris jams that block upstream migrations of adult anadromous fish. This was a major problem when extensive logging occurred coastwide from the late I940's until the early 1970's and streams were overloaded with logging debris. A substantial amount of money was spent removing logging debris during those years. In some streams "overcleaning" of naturally-occurring LWM occurred and widespread flooding scoured stream channels that eliminated pools and spawning gravels, contributing to the present lack of LWM and reduced capability of many streams to produce large numbers of anadromous fish. The major reasons for reduced productivity of streams have been recognized. There is an increased awareness of fisheries and watershed values, and corrective actions have been taken in many instances to protect fish habitat. Since the mid I970's streams have received more protection due to the 1971 Oregon Forest Practices Act, different land use allocations and revised forest management guidelines of the Forest Service, BLM and Oregon Department of Forestry. Considerable effort has been expended in the last 30 years by appropriate state and federal resource agencies and other organizations to maintain and increase natural production of anadromous fish in coastal rivers. As previously discussed, stream clearance of logging debris to maintain fish production in historic areas was the major activity. Providing fish passage at natural waterfalls by constructing fishways or blasting jump pools was another type of project that was commonly done to obtain production from formerly inaccessible areas. Relatively few instream habitat enhancement projects were done prior to 1970 because log jam removal and fish passage projects were considered highest priority. The Bureau has had an active fish habitat improvement program for the last 15 years. The program has progressed from primarily log/debris jam clearance work and fish passage projects to more instream construction to improve or create spawning and rearing areas. The greatest amount of habitat work was done during FY 1981 when about $350,000 was spent for 34 projects to improve habitat conditions and increase subsequent fish production in 50 miles of coastal streams. Because of this past work, relatively few log jam or small waterfall passage projects remain to be done on Bureau lands. Experience gained since 1970 has resulted in successful instream construction work as verified by monitoring to evaluate the physical and biological results of the projects. Improved habitat conditions have resulted in increased numbers of young and adult fish. Photos to illustrate different types of completed projects are shown in the photo section. A steeppass fishway, conventional step-and-pool fish ladder and a waterfall that was blasted are examples of small fish passage projects. Different types of instream structures such as gabions, log sills and boulder beams are intended to produce desirable spawning and rearing conditions similar to those created naturally by large fallen trees and other LWM. Photos of a large rearing pool blasted in bedrock and a log jam removal project are also included. Present Situation Stream inventories, low catches by coastal fisheries and poor returns of adult spawning coho salmon indicate coastal streams are still producing far below full capability due to various factors limiting production. The ocean fisheries caught an unusually high percentage of coho populations during several years that also effected subsequent production. The adverse effects of "El Nino" on ocean survival of coho salmon for several years are well documented and were another major factor in the low numbers of coho salmon in recent years. To protect these small coho populations, ocean fishing seasons were drastically curtailed during the last two years resulting in severe economic losses to coastal communities. Land use plans of western Oregon districts call for increasing production of wild anadromous fish to help meet demand. Analyses in these plans show positive social and environmental benefits if wild fish production is increased. Improved habitat management through land use allocations and practices and habitat development projects are cost- effective methods for increasing production of wild fish. These methods and identified habitat improvement opportunities are included in current land use plans. In June 1982 the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted a "Comprehensive Plan for Production and Management of Oregon's Anadromous Salmon and Trout, Part 1. General Considerations and Part 2. Coho Salmon Plan." One of the cornerstones of the coho salmon plan is to restore wild coho populations to optimum levels to maintain desired levels of long-term productivity and harvest. Habitat improvement work proposed in this five-year plan would help achieve management objectives for wild fish in the coho salmon plan and complement policies for all wild salmon and steelhead listed in Oregon Administrative Rules of the ODFW. As previously discussed, considerable work was done in past years to rehabilitate or restore the productivity of coastal streams. The majority of the work was related to upstream fish passage, either at waterfalls, dams or in hundreds of miles of streams that were clogged with logging debris. Although the objectives of this work were accomplished, habitat deterioration has continued to occur in some streams due to some of man's activities and natural events such as floods. At the same time, some habitat conditions in other streams severely damaged in past years have improved, e.g. lower water temperatures due to more stream shading by riparian vegetation and bank stability. However, adequate amounts of important instream habitat components such as rearing pools, cover or spawning gravel are still lacking in many streams. These streams have little chance to recover their former productivity for many years without rehabilitation efforts. Those factors still "limiting" fish production in streams on Bureau lands are shown in Table 1. Also shown are the types of projects that would correct those habitat limitations. The Bureau now has the personnel capability and experience in each district to do the necessary projects, provided a small number of temporary employees are hired to assist in constructing the projects. Many of the projects are labor intensive and would require close supervision to carefully install instream structures that will function properly and create the desired habitat conditions. Most of the larger projects would be accomplished by contracts. Congressional funding was provided to the Bureau in FY 1985 to do survey and design and project planning work in coastal rivers. This work is now being accomplished so that important anadromous fish habitat projects can be completed as soon as funds are provided. Goal and Objectives The goal of the anadromous fish habitat enhancement plan is to provide and enhance the fishery potential of coastal streams in order to further contribute to the economic stability of the coastal communities and to the recreational and commercial fishing industries. In conformance with the O&C Act of August 28, 1937, which requires management of the O&C timber lands for timber production, protecting watersheds, and regulating stream flows and the requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 to manage on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield, the fish production capability of streams will be enhanced to more fully achieve their contribution to the multiple use benefits derived from these lands. The objectives of the five-year plan are to: • Increase habitat productivity in 985 miles of coastal streams on Bureau lands currently utilized by anadromous fish but producing below potential. • Increase the amount of habitat available for producing anadromous fish by completing fish passage projects where feasible. • Develop interagency habitat plans for coastal watersheds on a priority basis as agreed by concerned agencies and major landowners, e.g., use of "Coordinated Resource Management and Planning" (CRMP) process and interagency reports. • Obtain maximum benefits for dollars spent through coordinated and cooperative fish habitat management efforts with other agencies and organizations. Management Approach Productivity of anadromous fish habitat on Bureau lands will be increased by: • Implementing those decisions made in existing land use plans that benefit fish production, e.g, land use allocations, use of measures or practices designed to mitigate adverse effects on fish habitat from other activities and operations and construction of habitat improvement projects. • Cooperating with all other appropriate agencies and organizations at the local level to develop coordinated approaches for managing and improving anadromous fish habitat, i.e., CRMPs, interagency reports. • Completing habitat development projects identified in this report as funds become available over a five-year period. This work would result in a substantial increase in the numbers of anadromous fish produced in existing habitat (158,300 sq. meters plus 24 miles of improved fish passage) as well as 153 miles of now inaccessible habitat above impassable fish barriers. Data Analyses and Habitat Development Opportunities Limiting Factors and Proposed Projects Limiting factors to anadromous fish production in 74 coastal rivers and tributary streams identified from stream inventories are listed in table 1. A lack of adequate spawning and rearing habitats and limited instream structures composed primarily of LWM were the major habitat factors determined to be limiting production. The lack of instream structure is a major cause for poor spawning and rearing conditions in many streams. In addition, 20 streams have total or partial barriers to the upstream migrations of adult salmon and steelhead. The type and number of rehabilitation and enhancement projects to correct habitat problems are also listed in table 1. Rehabilitation generally refers to projects designed to restore productivity, whereas enhancement generally refers to projects that increase productivity above original levels. The end result is greater habitat productivity and increased numbers of fish available to the fisheries. There are a total of 84 projects proposed for the 74 streams shown in table 1. The majority of the proposed project work involves construction of instream structures (2,956) and pools (169) mostly in medium to small tributary streams where most of the coho salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing occurs. The use of different types of instream structures is intended to "restructure" key sections of streams by imitating large fallen trees and other LWM that creates desired spawning and rearing conditions, i.e., gravel riffles and deep pools. Large permanent pools blasted in bedrock provide needed rearing areas where this type of habitat is a limiting factor. Thirty- one off channel developments would be completed in side channels where the right conditions occur to produce large numbers of young fish. Three types of fish passage projects are planned; 18 log jams, 9 dam or road culverts and 10 waterfalls. The log jam and dam/culvert projects are all relatively small but require some work to provide fish passage. Two of the waterfall passage projects are major efforts that require engineering feasibility and design studies. These are Lake Creek Falls which would open 100 miles to anadromous fish above Triangle Lake and South Fork Alsea River Falls which would make about 13 miles accessible to anadromous fish. Table 1. Limiting Factors and Proposed Rehabilitation and Enhancement Projects for Anadromous Fish in Oregon Coastal Rivers Limiting Factors District Major River Project Site County Species' Sedimen- tation Rearing Habitat Spawning Habitat Passage Riparian Degra- dation Channel Degra- Limited dation Structure Salem Nestucca Trask Siletz Alsea Drift Creek Eugene Siuslaw Umpqua Coos Bay Coquille Smith Umpqua Chetco Totals Upper Nestucca R Lower Nestucca R Upper Elk Creek Lower Elk Creek Bear Creek Testament Creek Tucca Creek Ginger Creek Fan Creek East Creek East Beaver Creek Cruiser Creek Elkhorn Creek Boulder Creek Seeley Creek Mill Creek Crooked Creek Cove Creek Skunk Creek Schoolhouse Creek Tillamook Tillamook Tillamook Tillamook Tillamook Tillamook Tillamook Tillamook Tillamook Tillamook Tillamook Yamhill Yamhill Polk Benton Benton Benton Benton Benton Benton Smith Alsea Roseburg Smith_ Medford Rogue Lower Lobster Creek Upper Lobster Creek "J" Line Creek E Fk. Lobster Creek Little Lobster Creek Briar Creek S .F. Alsea River S.F Alsea River3 S.F. Alsea River3 Fowler Creek Smith Creek Greenleaf Creek Greenleaf Creek Nelson Creek Fish Creek Lake Creek Falls Lake Creek (dam)3 Upper Lake Creek3 Saleratus Creek Saleratus Creek Pittenger Creek Gall Creek Gall Creek Oat Creek Grenshaw Creek Wolf Creek Whittaker Creek Esmond Creek (#1) Esmond Creek (#2) Leopold Creek Haight Creek North Sister Creek North Sister Creek S F Alsea River3 U Smith R & 4 Tribs Lane Lane Lane Lane Benton Benton Benton Benton Benton Polk Polk Lane Lane Lane Lane CH.CO.ST.CTT CH.CO.ST.CTT CH.CO.ST.CTT CH.CO.ST.CTT CH.CO.ST.CTT CO.ST.CTT CO, ST CO.ST.CTT CO.ST.CTT CH.CO.ST.CTT CO.ST.CTT CO.ST CH.CO.ST.CTT ST.CTT CO.ST.CTT CO.ST.CTT CO, ST.CTT CO.ST.CTT CO.ST.CTT CO.ST.CTT CO CO.ST.CTT CO.ST.CTT CO.ST.CTT CH.CO.ST CO.ST.CTT CH.CO.ST.CTT CH.CO.ST CO.ST CO.ST.CTT CO.ST.CTT CH.CO.ST CH.CO.ST.CTT CO.ST.CTT CH.CO.ST.CTT Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane CH.CO CH.CO CH.CO CH.CO CO.ST Butte Creek Pickett Creek West Evans Creek East Evans Creek Hog Creek N F Deer Creek Elliot Creek Althouse Creek Sucker Creek Bull Run Creek Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane/ Benton Douglas Josephine Josephine Jackson Jackson Josephine Josephine Josephine Josephine Josephine Douglas CO.ST CO.ST CH.CO CH.CO CH.CO CH.CO CH.ST CH.CO CH.CO CH.CO ST.CTT ST.CTT ST.CTT ST.CTT ST ST.CTT ST.CTT CH.CO.ST CO.ST CO.ST CO.ST CO.ST.CTT CO.ST CH.ST CO.ST ST ST CO.ST CO.ST ST ST CO.ST Panther Creek Douglas CO.ST Skull Creek Douglas CO.ST Rattlesnake Creek Douglas CO.ST E Fk Elk Valley Creek Douglas CO, ST Quines Creek Douglas CO, ST Whitehorse Creek N.F. Coquille River Steel Creek Moon Creek Alder Creek Upper N F. Coquille R Frenchie Creek Camas Creek Weekly Creek Crane Creek Johnson Creek Paradise Creek Lutsinger Creek N F Chetco River Douglas Coos Coos Coos Coos CO.ST CH.CO.ST.CTT CO.ST.CTT CO.ST.CTT CO.ST Coos Coos Coos Coos Douglas CO.ST.CTT CO.ST.CTT CO.ST CO.ST.CTT CO.ST.CTT Douglas Douglas Douglas Curry CO.ST.CTT CO.ST.CTT CO.ST.CTT ST.CTT 'Key CH - Chinook. CO • Coho. ST ■ Steelhead, CTT ■ Sea Run Cutthroat Trout 2lnstream structures include gabions, log sills, boulder berms, and loose trees thai either fully or partially span the channel "Protects to be done only it ten passage is provided first at downstream tails Type and Number of Rehabilitation and Enhancement Projects Pool Bank Gravel Feasibility Riparian Instream* Dam/Culvert Waterfall Log Jam Construc- Off Channel Stabiliza- Restora- Study Revegetation Structure Passage Passage Passage tion Development tion tion (ho.) (acres) (no.) (no.) (no.) (no.) (no) (no.) (ft ) (no) 4 55 16 4 8 78 2 52 3 3 3 58 7 4 J 55 8 3 24 1 1 10 12 3 58 4 41 3 4 30 100 10 20 20 10 10 10 20 3 67 2 20 30 50 600 30 1 8 20 10 20 1 12 48 8 30_ 3 160 1 1 8 300 20 3 1 1 2 8 30 160 50 2 3 32 2 64 25 1 32 18 67 26 1 12 24 1 1 125 8 11 6 224 49 28 13 34 17 15 26 40 3 1 10 2.640 34 1 6 14 60 23 49 2 74 1 11 35 14 11 1 30 1 25 15 2 34 12 105 50 150 1 32 2.956 9 10 18 169 31 3.560 Estimated Costs and Benefits District fishery biologists submitted the information compiled in table 2 that summarizes estimated costs and benefits for each proposed project. Construction and maintenance costs were based on experience with similar projects since 1970. The amount of habitat to benefit from the work was based on stream inventories (for passage projects - miles) and evaluation of past projects by monitoring to determine habitat changes (for instream construction - square meters). It would require an estimated $2.6 million over a five-year period in nearly equal increments to complete the 84 habitat projects listed in table 2. Subsequent maintenance costs are estimated at about $281,000 for a 25-year period. Over 177 miles of new habitat would be made available for anadromous fish production, and a considerable amount of badly needed high quality spawning and rearing areas would be created for fish production on public lands. An estimated 53,200 additional adult fish — 33,400 salmon, 16,300 steelhead and 3,500 sea-run cutthroat trout — would be produced annually, of which about 29,500 would be caught if fisheries return to pre-1983 conditions. About 12,300 of these fish would be caught in various sport fisheries and over 17,200 fish (126,000 pounds) would be caught in the ocean commercial troll fishery. Benefit/cost ratios were determined for each project as described in the appendix. The overall B/C ratio for all projects is 3.0. Two projects have B/C ratios less than 1.0. These projects are included in the plan because the Bureau is committed to correcting fish passage problems created by road culverts. Proposed Implementation District personnel prioritized projects for implementation by major coastal river basin (table 3). The major river basins are shown in a north- south listing and projects are listed by priority for each basin. Only construction costs are shown, as maintenance generally would not be required until well after the five-year construction period. Some of the bigger projects .would be done over several years because all of the work in a district during some years could probably not be accomplished unless some projects are done in phases as shown in Table 3, e.g., Upper Lake Creek phases 1, 2 and 3 and West Evans Creek phases 1, 2, 3, and 4. Some rescheduling or modification of individual projects may occur if it is subsequently determined that (1) there are irreconcilable conflicts between a proposed project and other resource management programs, e.g. mining, archeology and endangered/threatened or sensitive species, or (2) projects can be coordinated with work on adjacent lands to obtain greater benefits. Summary The Bureau of Land Management can assist in rejuvenating wild populations of salmon and anadromous trout in Oregon's coastal rivers, particularly depressed runs of coho salmon. Bureau personnel have the expertise and experience to construct effective habitat development projects. Projects listed in this report were identified as priority work that would produce substantial numbers of wild fish and result in significant benefits to coastal fisheries and communities. The five-year implementation period is a logical plan which could be accomplished with relatively little additional temporary personnel. Table 2 Estimated Costs and Benefits for Proposed Anadromous Fish Habitat Projects in Oregon Coastal Stream Annual Fish Production Costs(S) Habitat Benefitted Chinook Coho Steelhead S.RCutthroat District Project Site Salem Upper Nestucca River Lower Nestucca River Upper Elk Creek Lower Elk Creek Bear Creek Testament Creek Tucca Creek Ginger Creek Fan Creek East Creek East Beaver Creek Cruiser Creek Elkhorn Creek Boulder Creek Seeley Creek Mill Creek Crooked Creek Cove Creek Skunk Creek Schoolhouse Creek Lower Lobster Creek Upper Lobster Creek 'J' Line Creek E.F. Lobster Creek Little Lobster Creek Briar Creek S.F. Alsea River S F Alsear River S F Alsea River Fowler Creek Smith Creek Salem District Totals Eugene Greenleaf Creek Greenleaf Creek Nelson Creek Fish Creek Lake Creek Falls Lake Creek (Dam) Upper Lake Creek Saleratus Creek Saleratus Creek Pittenger Creek Gall Creek Gall Creek Oat Creek Grenshaw Creek Wolt Creek Whittaker Creek Esmond Creek #1 Esmond Creek #2 Leopold Creek Haight Creek North Sister Creek North Sister Creek S.F Alsea River Eugene District Totals Roseburg Up Smith R & Tnbs Roseburg District Totals Medford Butte Creek Pickett Creek West Evans Creek East Evans Creek Hog Creek rj F Deer Creek Elliot Creek Althouse Creek Sucker Creek Bull Run Creek Panther Creek Skull Creek Rattlesnake Creek E Fk Elk Valley Creek Oumes Creek Whitehorse Creek B/C Const. Maint. Sq. Meters Miles Total Catch Total Catch Total Catch Total Catch Ratio 35.300 49.500 34.650 39,450 43.950 13.750 3,000 5,800 7.500 40,300 30.850 7,200 21.000 3.000 4,200 4,200 3.000 3.000 3.000 3,200 7,200 30,000 6,000 9,000 16,800 5,400 32.500 2,400 18.000 3,000 4,200 5.900 8,000 5,500 6.200 5.800 2,500 300 1,000 1,200 6,200 4,500 3,000 10,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2.000 3,000 5.900 2,000 3,000 5,000 3.000 1,000 800 2,000 1,000 2,000 17.500 65,000 2.000 32.500 250,000 2.000 300,000 20.500 3,000 10,000 7,500 32.500 57.000 62.500 125.000 83,000 88.500 52.500 43.000 24,000 7,000 700 3,600 4,800 800 3,000 12,500 2,000 30,000 2,000 100 3,000 5,200 3,200 6,400 2 600 3,200 2,700 2,600 1.200 2.400 1.289.800 87.700 137500 12.500 1.984 3.330 1.545 1.933 1.254 263 112 187 1.400 1.215 490 326 263 526 526 263 263 263 163 1.200 1.360 326 1.020 680 163 210 232 263 526 128 88 798 535 454 304 560 375 557 373 98 66 1,012 678 405 271 7.3 70 112 794 693 534 621 578 349 103 112 154 404 447 289 722 216 140 140 140 140 140 236 534 217 325 280 140 628 56 280 72 140 595 520 401 466 433 249 67 90 110 303 336 217 541 162 105 91 91 91 91 153 401 162 244 182 91 408 40 180 54 105 440 384 592 344 278 80 163 36 43 464 208 160 400 80 120 120 80 80 80 296 80 240 160 80 210 64 160 80 80 154 243 134 266 207 202 120 248 114 118 39 35 73 9 12 16 22 162 188 73 158 56 140 26 40 40 26 26 26 26 98 9 26 2 79 4 53 26 2 69 178 21 53 26 2 26 2 14 4,500 200 1,500 20,000 2,000 1,500 1,700 2,000 6,000 6,050 4,400 2,800 6,500 720 750 60.620 17,500 137,500 12.500 17,500 5,600 12,800 118,800 19,600 10,400 22.400 8.700 19.500 32 500 21500 24 800 29,000 32 925 14.100 30.300 62.550 800 1 100 13.500 2.800 1300 3,400 1.500 1.500 2.500 4,000 1.000 3.400 6000 2,300 4,900 7400 Medtord District Totals 465,475 57,400 200 1,070 11,350 868 211 1,326 405 1,475 4,900 655 200 1,085 975 705 1,570 2234 29.229 25 40 189 127 60 100 20 121 100 500 375 2.000 18 50 38 500 500 375 2,000 3 1 2.5 35 2 10 20 15 30 20 20 15 600 450 378 189 416 278 60 40 132 56 1.5 55 80 60 20 100 150 300 260 300 144 156 170 79 60 30 100 45 250 74 400 15 10 90 90 1,488 1.000 370 200 1,400 1,000 59 45 75 120 200 44 15 74 111 222 192 222 108 117 128 59 44 22 75 50 15 40 50 160 160 200 200 128 96 104 48 40 30 40 3 20 24 50 300 60 300 15 15 5 12 15 200 48 100 48 100 60 200 66 42 32 100 34 100 16 12 9 12 152 3,055 2.111 6.810 4,974 4,356 1.323 1.070 684 506 375 112 36 6 12 664 506 375 112 36 50 15 16 19 5 74 50 5.311 3.895 4.651 1.398 61 6 3 67 59 49 80 63 61 30 10 52 47 20 8 4 35 6 34 47 45 0 34 1 91 2 137 1 59 1 11 2 1 95 1 101 1 101 1 101 490,350 98,800 22,286 8.3 4,194 2,812 9.624 6,979 5.682 1.980 1.716 439 86 2.8 43 67 97 69 52 5 144 3.7 8.3 73 3.7 17 22 18 26 428 17 1 1 71 0.7 35 1 1 13 1 1 15 1 1 12 10 15 11 20 168 76 206 47 35 32 10 22 88 34 28 838 620 565 170 18 176 52 19 59 27 19 295 219 197 59 34 89 66 60 18 26 184 56 22 331 84 19 526 390 373 112 64 193 142 168 51 24 737 546 637 190 76 771 571 514 155 59 245 182 164 49 44 548 405 367 110 46 1022 719 736 221 43 rf* ^0 riS&St* ***** Table 2 Estimated Costs and Benefits for Proposed Anadromous Fish Habitat Projects in Oregon Coastal Stream (continued) Annual Fish Production District Project Site Coos Bay N.F. Coquille River Steel Creek Moon Creek Alder Creek Upper N.F. Coquille River Frenchie Creek Camas Creek Weekly Creek Crane Creek Johnson Creek Paradise Creek Lutzinger Creek N.F. Chetco River Coos Bay District Totals Grand Totals Costs(S) Habitat Benefitted Chinook Coho Steelhead S.RCutthroat B/C Const. Maint. Sq. Meters Miles Total Catch Total Catch Total Catch Total Catch Ratio 56,000 8,540 6,000 400 6,600 32,800 12,600 7,400 15,840 15,000 45,000 17,000 10.000 3,500 1,400 1,100 800 2,000 2,500 500 3,400 1,500 5,000 2,500 500 5,529 1,429 789 1,858 5,463 2,104 3.249 4.900 3.344 0.25 1.5 1 1,985 1,191 141 92 50 26 376 115 90 112 98 328 164 69 37 17 248 74 76 67 84 74 246 123 40 10 5 60 100 40 68 120 200 100 28 12 3 2 18 30 12 20 6 50 30 25 36 100 60 70 30 65 49 3.6 2.3 15.5 5.8 0.9 2.6 34 1.7 2.6 1.8 2.4 400 100 400 50 6.7 233.180 24,700 28,665 11.75 1,985 1,191 1,690 1,208 1,238 355 750 110 2,616,305 281,100 158,300 177.05 9,308 6,164 24,119 17,562 16,302 5,168 3,572 761 3.0 Table 3 Estimated Construction Costs and Benefits for Proposed Anadromous Fish Habitat Projects by Major River Basin Annual Fish Production Habitat Benefitted Chinook Coho Steelheac I S.RCutthroat Const. Costs Sq. River Basin and Project Site Meters Miles Total Catch Total Catch Total Catch Total Catch Trask Cruiser Creek $7,200 490 289 217 160 56 2 1 Elkhorn Creek $21,000 326 1.012 678 722 541 400 140 5 2 Total $28,200 816 0 1,012 678 1.011 758 560 196 7 3 Nestucca Upper Nestucca River $35,300 1.984 128 88 794 595 440 154 243 61 Lower Elk Creek $39,450 1,933 560 375 621 466 344 120 248 63 Tucca Creek $3,000 1 103 67 163 73 Lower Nestucca River $49,500 3.330 798 535 693 520 384 134 266 67 Upper Elk Creek $34,650 1,545 454 304 534 401 592 207 202 49 Bear Creek $43,950 1,254 557 373 578 433 278 114 118 30 Fan Creek $7,500 187 154 110 43 12 22 6 Testament Creek $13,750 263 349 249 80 39 35 10 Ginger Creek $5,800 112 112 90 36 9 16 4 East Beaver Creek $30,850 1,215 447 336 208 73 158 40 East Creek $40,300 1,400 98 66 404 303 464 162 188 47 Total S304.050 13,223 1 2,595 1,741 4,789 3,570 3,032 1.097 1.496 377 Siletz Boulder Creek $3,000 263 80 26 2 1 Fowler Creek $3,000 263 72 54 80 26 2 1 Smith Creek $4,200 526 140 105 80 26 2 1 Total $10,200 1,052 0 0 0 212 159 240 78 6 3 Alsea Little Lobster Creek $16,800 680 405 271 280 182 160 53 Briar Creek $5,400 163 140 91 80 26 2 1 S F Alsea River $32,500 7.3 70 47 628 408 210 69 178 43 Lower Lobster Creek $7,200 1,200 236 153 Upper Lobster Creek $30,000 1.360 534 401 296 98 9 3 'J' Line Creek $6,000 326 217 162 80 26 2 1 E.F. Lobster Creek $9,000 1,020 325 244 240 79 4 2 Seeley Creek $4,200 526 216 162 120 40 2 1 Mill Creek $4,200 526 140 105 120 40 2 1 Crooked Creek $3,000 263 140 91 80 26 2 1 Cove Creek $3,000 263 140 91 80 26 2 1 Skunk Creek $3,000 263 140 91 80 26 2 1 Schoolhouse Creek $3,200 163 140 91 80 26 2 1 S F Alsea River $18,000 232 280 180 160 53 S F. Alsea River $3,600 55 100 75 40 12 S.F. Alsea River $2,400 210 112 75 56 40 64 21 Total $151,500 7,195 12.8 587 393 3,712 2,567 1,890 621 207 56 Siuslaw Greenleaf Creek $17,500 14 34 25 60 45 250 75 Greenleaf Creek $65,000 4,500 60 40 100 74 400 120 200 40 Nelson Creek 52.000 200 20 15 10 3 20 4 Fish Creek $32,500 1.500 189 127 121 90 90 24 50 10 Gall Creek $7,500 25 100 74 40 12 Gall Creek $32,500 1,500 20 15 150 111 50 15 200 40 Grenshaw Creek $62,500 2,000 2 20 15 260 192 160 48 100 20 Lake Creek Falls $250,000 100 500 375 2000 1.488 1.000 300 Lake Creek (Dam) $2,500 18 50 38 500 370 200 60 Saleratus Creek $20,500 2,000 10 7 80 59 45 15 Saleratus Creek $3,000 3 60 44 50 15 Woll Creek $125,000 6,000 600 450 300 222 200 60 200 40 -Up Lake Cr i $50,000 3,333 83 62 333 233 166 50 Pittenger Creek $10,000 1 20 15 15 5 Oat Creek $57,000 1,700 35 30 20 300 222 160 48 100 20 Whittaker Creek $83,000 6.050 378 189 200 66 -Up Lake Cr 2 $50,000 3333 83 63 333 233 167 50 Esmond Creek -1 $88 500 4,400 416 278 144 108 128 42 Esmond Creek -2 $52,500 2,800 60 40 156 117 96 32 100 16 Leopold Cree' $43,000 6,500 1 132 89 170 128 104 34 100 16 -Up LakeCr 3 $200,000 13.334 334 250 1,334 934 667 200 Haight Creek $24,000 720 56 3.055 28 2,111 79 6.620 59 48 16 Total $1,278,500 59.870 145 4.833 4.246 1.290 1.070 206 Smith -S Fork & Tribs $27 500 3,500 137 101 75 22 7 1 -U.S.R & deghom 527 500 3,500 137 102 75 23 8 2 Johnson Creek $15,000 3249 98 74 120 36 100 16 North Sister Creek $7,000 750 60 44 40 12 North Sister Creek •700 15 30 22 30 9 Table 3 Estimated Construction Costs and Benefits for Proposed Anadromous Fish Habitat Projects by Major River Basin (continued) Annual Fish Production River Basin and Project Site Total Umpqua -Skull Cr 1 — Rattlesnake Cr 1 — Quines Creek 1 Lutzinger Creek -Whitehorse Cr 1 — Bull Run Cr 1 E. Fk. Elk Valley Cr. Paradise Creek Panther Creek — Oumes Creek 2 -Bull Run Cr.2 -Skull Cr.2 -Rattlesnake Cr.2 -Whitehorse Cr.2 Const. Costs Habitat Benefitted Chinook Coho Steelhead Sq. Meters Miles Total Catch Total Catch Total Catch $176,040 23,603 1.5 $22,900 $16,900 $15,150 $17,000 $51,900 $10,750 $14,100 $45,000 $24,800 $15,150 $10,750 $6,100 $16,025 $10,650 890 505 785 3.344 1,855 330 705 4,900 200 785 325 195 470 379 1.6 1.9 0.75 0.75 984 582 396 274 164 848 263 245 328 193 274 263 155 375 174 730 431 293 203 123 597 195 182 246 142 202 195 115 278 122 633 503 264 184 100 611 186 164 200 168 183 187 134 250 125 189 150 80 55 30 183 56 49 60 51 55 56 40 75 38 S.RCutthroat Total Catch -U.S.R. & Halfway $27,500 3,500 137 101 75 23 7 1 —Up. Smith River $27,500 3,500 136 101 75 22 7 1 Crane Creek $15,840 2,104 112 84 68 20 25 4 -U.S.R. & Summit $27,500 3.500 137 101 75 22 7 1 161 70 26 Total Coquille Moon Creek Frenchie Creek N.F. Coquille River Camas Creek Upper N.F. Coquille R Weekly Creek Alder Creek Steel Creek $277,175 15,668 $6,000 $32,800 $56,000 $12,600 $6,600 $7,400 $400 $8,540 789 5.529 5,463 1,858 1,429 1.5 1 0.25 1,985 1,191 4,534 50 98 141 115 376 90 26 92 3,324 37 74 93 76 248 67 17 69 3,259 40 60 11 100 5 40 10 84 978 135 1 50 3 6 30 26 0 8 0 1 5 Total Rogue N F. Deer Creek Elhot Creek Pickett Creek -W. Evans Cr. 1 East Evans Creek Hog Creek -W. Evans Cr. 2 Althouse Creek Sucker Creek Butte Creek -W Evans Cr 3 -W Evans Cr 4 $130,340 15,068 2.75 $22,400 $8,700 $12,800 $28,050 $19,600 $10,400 $34,750 $19,500 $32,500 $5,600 $32,150 $23,850 1,326 405 1,070 2,679 868 211 3,360 1,475 4,900 200 3,030 2,281 1,985 74 1,191 295 89 198 248 47 224 168 681 219 66 146 35 165 125 350 197 60 88 133 176 59 167 184 331 32 151 114 109 59 18 34 40 52 27 50 56 84 10 46 34 90 Total Chetco N.F Chetco River $250,300 21,805 $10,000 74 50 1,269 940 1,692 400 510 100 0 400 0 50 Grand Total $2,616,305 158,300 177.05 9,308 6,164 24,119 17,562 16,302 5,168 3,572 761 10 Appendix Methods used to calculate fish production and catch and B/C Ratios For instream habitat projects, annual production of adult coho, steelhead and sea-run cutthroat trout was estimated by first determining how much rearing habitat would be improved and calculating the increase in young fish produced from available research studies and monitoring data. Then, survival estimates and average sport and commercial catch rates provided by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) were used to calculate total adult fish produced and catch. In some cases where the amount of spawning habitat was also a limiting factor, the number of fish expected to subsequently return and use spawning habitat created by the project were also used in the analysis, i.e., (No. redds) x (No. eggs per redd) x (percent survival to adults) = (total adults produced or catch and escapement). For Chinook salmon, survival data from the ODFW were used with the number of expected redds or spawning females for the project (based on monitoring of past BLM projects) to calculate adults produced. Catch was determined by applying average sport and commercial harvest rates for the fisheries to the total number of Chinook produced. A different method was used to calculate the numbers of adults produced and caught from fish passage projects. Long-term average fish-per-mile escapement values were multiplied by the miles of new spawning habitat that would become available by the project to obtain the expected spawning population. The number of females and subsequent egg potential were then calculated. Appropriate survival and harvest rates were then used to calculate the adults produced and catch. Benefit/cost ratios were determined for each project in the State Office by a microcomputer program developed by the State Office economist. The ODFW provided current information needed for the analysis, i.e., ex-vessel price paid per pound to commercial fishermen, dressed weight of commercially caught fish, harvest rates and activity days per fish for different sport fisheries by species, and value per activity day (net willingness to pay) for different fisheries by species. The full ex-vessel value was used for the commercial catch to be representative of marginal additions to the catch of existing fishermen. Other studies have used 90 percent of ex-vessel price for periods of underemployment and 50 percent for periods of full employment of commercial fishing fleets. An 8.375 percent discount rate and a 25-year project life were used in the analysis, although some passage and construction projects will last much longer, e.g., bedrock pool construction, log jam passage. A one-time maintenance cost was programmed for the twelfth year of most projects, based on the fact that most projects are types of instream construction that experience has shown will require some maintenance at about that time. Some fishways often require annual maintenance, but this is difficult to determine until the project has been functional for several years. The one-time maintenance cost was therefore also used for most fish passage projects. Two types of benefit/cost program analyses were used; one for instream construction and the other for fish passage projects. For instream construction projects, it was assumed that spawning escapements would be adequate to provide sufficient numbers of young fish to occupy the newly created rearing habitat so that full credit was given to adult production during their first cycle of return but delayed an appropriate number of years based on maturity by species. For fish passage projects, the same general procedure was used except full credit for adult production was not given until the second cycle of return. It was assumed that full production in streams above barriers would not occur immediately because sufficient spawners would probably not be available to fully seed new production areas. For this reason, only one-half of expected adult production was used during the first cycle of return. 11 Large Woody Material (LWM) in Streams East Creek (Nestucca River) - natural occurring LWM provides instream structure that creates deep pools and cover for fish. Merle Marshall, now Area Manager, Salem District, and Dave Luman, now retired BLM Wildlife Biologist, discuss the importance of riparian vegetation to the productivity of streams. West Fork (Smith River) - loose accumulations of LWM create excellent rearing areas and cover for young fish and cover for adults before spawning. The large log will eventually settle into the streambed and create an upstream spawning riffle and downstream pool. 12 Fish Passage Projects Vincent Creek (Smith River) • a small Alaska type steeppass fishway installed in a tributary stream to provide fish passage through a road culvert. East Fork Evans Creek (Rogue River) - a small, conventional concrete step-and-pool fishway constructed at a low irrigation dam to provide anadromous fish easy access to upstream spawning areas at all streamflows. 13 Little Wolf Creek Falls (Umpqua River) (before blasting) - this 14-foot waterfall was a total obstruction to the upstream migration of all anadromous fish. Little Wolf Creek Falls (after blasting) - this project made 4 1/2 miles of excellent spawning and rearing area accessible for anadromous fish production. Nine small concrete fish weirs were subsequently built in the blasted channel to provide easy fish passage at all flows. 14 Fan Creek (Nestucca River) - a single "log sill" installed to provide a jump pool and easy fish passage through a road culvert. Instream Construction Projects Pickett Creek (Rogue River) - a "log sill" spawning structure with spawning gravel added upstream that is utilized by both Chinook salmon and steelhead trout. 15 \v >«fi - >ny r >» - v ♦ East Fork of Lobster Creek (Alsea River) - Photo of Gabion site taken before construction during early spring and decreasing stream flows. ^^r^^^-^m^ East flow Fork of Lobster Creek - Photo taken after construction of two standard "V" wire rock gabions during summer low period. Note natural accretion of spawning gravel riffles and pools created by gabions. 16 West Fork (Smith River) - Example of a "diagonal" gabion that has worked well on both straight reaches and bends if properly placed. West Fork (Smith River) - Example of a "Y" gabion that has been effective on straight stream reaches. 17 West Fork (Smith River) - A "V" boulder berm designed to create both spawning and rearing habitat. Although the boulders were loosely placed, there has been a heavy accumulation of spawning gravel. West Fork (Smith River) - An example of a "diagonal" boulder berm. 18 Moore Creek (West Fork, Smith River) • A cedar-board drop structure installed to create spawning and rearing habitat in a streambed composed primarily of bedrock. Note accretion of spawning gravel and experimental "digger log" device cabled to alders below structure to maintain pool habitat. Vincent Creek (Smith River) - a large rearing pool blasted in bedrock streambed to create rearing habitat for anadromous fish. Photo taken at low summer flow. 19 Log Jam Passage Project - Rock Creek tributary (North Umpqua River) - A log and debris jam caused by winter flooding before removal. Rock Creek Tributary (after removal) - This type of project work will continue to be done after major floods or debris avalanches when necessary to maintain access for anadromous fish to production areas and/or protect property investments. Some LWM will be left in stream channels during future log jam passage projects to enhance fish production. 20 6° a a ■ H O 1 NJ -• 1 to r o a i a^ > > 03 I ZH r 1 00 w m s 30 ^J a SO DM H- JD OJ^ 3 Hi tnai 3 |— C/3 o 3 3 O O ^ ° H*tf } * (D JD l } fD xx o o 50 t ^ en 50 O >r • >fc> « < >-J M ^ Is • 1 50 ; Cfl c 2 3 3 »— •-• VO" *"? ~ 1 W TO o X) X) o * m -n BLM Library D-553A, Building 50 Denver Federal Center p- 0. Box 25047 Denver, CO 80£?5-p p 1 ^