Search

Search Results

• 341. [Image] River in Common: The Columbia River, the Salmon Ecosystem, and Water Policy; Columbia River, the salmon ecosystem, and water policy

  	206 p. In the Western Water Policy Review Act of 1992, Congress charged the President with reviewing and reporting on federal activities in the west that affect the allocation and use of water resources. ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: River in Common: The Columbia River, the Salmon Ecosystem, and Water Policy; Columbia River, the salmon ecosystem, and water policy 206 p. In the Western Water Policy Review Act of 1992, Congress charged the President with reviewing and reporting on federal activities in the west that affect the allocation and use of water resources. The legislation directed the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission to advise the President, considering many specific facets of western water issues. This report was written on behalf of the Commission. The author, who worked 12 years as a lawyer for the Northwest Power Planning Council, has sought to objectively discuss legal and economic issues about salmon recovery for the Columbia Basin. The study looks out at the basin from a particular point where water policy and salmon policy meet, and asks how water programs, especially federal water programs, are holding up. Title: River in Common: The Columbia River, the Salmon Ecosystem, and Water Policy; Columbia River, the salmon ecosystem, and water policy 206 p. In the Western Water Policy Review Act of 1992, Congress charged the President with reviewing and reporting on federal activities in the west that affect the allocation and use of water resources. The legislation directed the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission to advise the President, considering many specific facets of western water issues. This report was written on behalf of the Commission. The author, who worked 12 years as a lawyer for the Northwest Power Planning Council, has sought to objectively discuss legal and economic issues about salmon recovery for the Columbia Basin. The study looks out at the basin from a particular point where water policy and salmon policy meet, and asks how water programs, especially federal water programs, are holding up. Close

• 342. [Image] River in Common: The Columbia River, the Salmon Ecosystem, and Water Policy; Columbia River, the salmon ecosystem, and water policy

  	206 p. In the Western Water Policy Review Act of 1992, Congress charged the President with reviewing and reporting on federal activities in the west that affect the allocation and use of water resources. ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: River in Common: The Columbia River, the Salmon Ecosystem, and Water Policy; Columbia River, the salmon ecosystem, and water policy 206 p. In the Western Water Policy Review Act of 1992, Congress charged the President with reviewing and reporting on federal activities in the west that affect the allocation and use of water resources. The legislation directed the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission to advise the President, considering many specific facets of western water issues. This report was written on behalf of the Commission. The author, who worked 12 years as a lawyer for the Northwest Power Planning Council, has sought to objectively discuss legal and economic issues about salmon recovery for the Columbia Basin. The study looks out at the basin from a particular point where water policy and salmon policy meet, and asks how water programs, especially federal water programs, are holding up. Title: River in Common: The Columbia River, the Salmon Ecosystem, and Water Policy; Columbia River, the salmon ecosystem, and water policy 206 p. In the Western Water Policy Review Act of 1992, Congress charged the President with reviewing and reporting on federal activities in the west that affect the allocation and use of water resources. The legislation directed the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission to advise the President, considering many specific facets of western water issues. This report was written on behalf of the Commission. The author, who worked 12 years as a lawyer for the Northwest Power Planning Council, has sought to objectively discuss legal and economic issues about salmon recovery for the Columbia Basin. The study looks out at the basin from a particular point where water policy and salmon policy meet, and asks how water programs, especially federal water programs, are holding up. Close

• 343. [Image] River in Common: The Columbia River, the Salmon Ecosystem, and Water Policy; Columbia River, the salmon ecosystem, and water policy

  	206 p. In the Western Water Policy Review Act of 1992, Congress charged the President with reviewing and reporting on federal activities in the west that affect the allocation and use of water resources. ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: River in Common: The Columbia River, the Salmon Ecosystem, and Water Policy; Columbia River, the salmon ecosystem, and water policy 206 p. In the Western Water Policy Review Act of 1992, Congress charged the President with reviewing and reporting on federal activities in the west that affect the allocation and use of water resources. The legislation directed the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission to advise the President, considering many specific facets of western water issues. This report was written on behalf of the Commission. The author, who worked 12 years as a lawyer for the Northwest Power Planning Council, has sought to objectively discuss legal and economic issues about salmon recovery for the Columbia Basin. The study looks out at the basin from a particular point where water policy and salmon policy meet, and asks how water programs, especially federal water programs, are holding up. Title: River in Common: The Columbia River, the Salmon Ecosystem, and Water Policy; Columbia River, the salmon ecosystem, and water policy 206 p. In the Western Water Policy Review Act of 1992, Congress charged the President with reviewing and reporting on federal activities in the west that affect the allocation and use of water resources. The legislation directed the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission to advise the President, considering many specific facets of western water issues. This report was written on behalf of the Commission. The author, who worked 12 years as a lawyer for the Northwest Power Planning Council, has sought to objectively discuss legal and economic issues about salmon recovery for the Columbia Basin. The study looks out at the basin from a particular point where water policy and salmon policy meet, and asks how water programs, especially federal water programs, are holding up. Close

• 344. [Image] Water Use Strategy, North Jordan, 1978: Summary Report

  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Water Use Strategy, North Jordan, 1978: Summary Report Author: Howard Humphreys & Sons Year: 1978 Title: Water Use Strategy, North Jordan, 1978: Summary Report Author: Howard Humphreys & Sons Year: 1978 Close

• 345. [Article] Oregon Fish Passage Barriers

  Abstract -- The Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) dataset contains barriers to fish passage in Oregon watercourses. Barriers include the following types of natural or artificial structures: ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Oregon Fish Passage Barriers Abstract -- The Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) dataset contains barriers to fish passage in Oregon watercourses. Barriers include the following types of natural or artificial structures: bridges, cascades, culverts, dams, debris jams, fords, natural falls, tide gates, and weirs. The OFPBDS dataset does not include structures which are not associated with in-stream features (such as dikes, levees or berms). Barriers are structures which do, or potentially may, impede fish movement and migration. Barriers can be known to cause complete or partial blockage to fish passage, or they can be completely passable, or they may have an unknown passage status. This dataset complies with version 1.1 of the OFBPDS data standard. New optional attributes have been added to describe fish passage barrier feature modifications, to describe supplementary information (via a comments field) and also to linear reference the barrier features to the National Hydrography Dataset. The OFPBDS dataset now contains over 40,000 barrier features from 19 separate sources including: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Department of Water Resources (OWRD), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Forest Service, Nez Perce Tribe, Benton SWCD, Washington county, Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership and watershed councils representing the Rogue, Umpqua, Siuslaw, Santiam, Calapooia, Clackamas and Scapoose basins. The Data Steward obtained fish passage barrier data from multiple data originators between 2008 and 2015, collaborated with them to develop inclusion / exclusion criteria and dataset specific crosswalks for converting data from its original data structure to the structure of the OFPBDS. The data were then converted into the OFPBDS format and analyzed for duplication with existing OFPBDS barrier features. Where duplicates were identified, depending upon the scenario, one feature was either chosen over the other or in some cases attributes from different sources are combined. Source information is retained for each feature. The data were then loaded into the OFPBDS database. Barrier features were linear referenced (Framework Hydro only which is outside of the standard) and the corresponding optional attribute elements were populated. The data conversion, duplication reconciliation and linear referencing protocols are documented in the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Management Plan. A separate dataset containing fish passage barrier features that have been completely removed or replaced (e.g. dam removals and culvert replacements) is published simultaneously with the OFPBDS dataset. The OFPBDS database is the most comprehensive compilation of fish passage barrier information in Oregon however, it does NOT represent a complete and current record of every fish passage barrier within the state. Efforts to address deficiencies in data currency, completeness and accuracy are ongoing and are often limited by lack of sufficient resources. Attributes (including key attributes such as fish passage status) are often unknown or incomplete. Consistency in attribution also varies among data originators. Field verification of barrier features and their attributes will be an important component to making this dataset current, comprehensive and accurate. Fish passage status is a key attribute. Many barrier features have an unknown passage status. For other features, the passage status may have changed since it was originally documented. Note that this metadata file is best viewed in ArcCatalog. Documentation for the OFPBDS can be found online at http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/EISPD/GEO/docs/bioscience/OregonFishPassageBarrierDataStandardv1dot1.pdf. Title: Oregon Fish Passage Barriers Abstract -- The Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) dataset contains barriers to fish passage in Oregon watercourses. Barriers include the following types of natural or artificial structures: bridges, cascades, culverts, dams, debris jams, fords, natural falls, tide gates, and weirs. The OFPBDS dataset does not include structures which are not associated with in-stream features (such as dikes, levees or berms). Barriers are structures which do, or potentially may, impede fish movement and migration. Barriers can be known to cause complete or partial blockage to fish passage, or they can be completely passable, or they may have an unknown passage status. This dataset complies with version 1.1 of the OFBPDS data standard. New optional attributes have been added to describe fish passage barrier feature modifications, to describe supplementary information (via a comments field) and also to linear reference the barrier features to the National Hydrography Dataset. The OFPBDS dataset now contains over 40,000 barrier features from 19 separate sources including: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Department of Water Resources (OWRD), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Forest Service, Nez Perce Tribe, Benton SWCD, Washington county, Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership and watershed councils representing the Rogue, Umpqua, Siuslaw, Santiam, Calapooia, Clackamas and Scapoose basins. The Data Steward obtained fish passage barrier data from multiple data originators between 2008 and 2015, collaborated with them to develop inclusion / exclusion criteria and dataset specific crosswalks for converting data from its original data structure to the structure of the OFPBDS. The data were then converted into the OFPBDS format and analyzed for duplication with existing OFPBDS barrier features. Where duplicates were identified, depending upon the scenario, one feature was either chosen over the other or in some cases attributes from different sources are combined. Source information is retained for each feature. The data were then loaded into the OFPBDS database. Barrier features were linear referenced (Framework Hydro only which is outside of the standard) and the corresponding optional attribute elements were populated. The data conversion, duplication reconciliation and linear referencing protocols are documented in the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Management Plan. A separate dataset containing fish passage barrier features that have been completely removed or replaced (e.g. dam removals and culvert replacements) is published simultaneously with the OFPBDS dataset. The OFPBDS database is the most comprehensive compilation of fish passage barrier information in Oregon however, it does NOT represent a complete and current record of every fish passage barrier within the state. Efforts to address deficiencies in data currency, completeness and accuracy are ongoing and are often limited by lack of sufficient resources. Attributes (including key attributes such as fish passage status) are often unknown or incomplete. Consistency in attribution also varies among data originators. Field verification of barrier features and their attributes will be an important component to making this dataset current, comprehensive and accurate. Fish passage status is a key attribute. Many barrier features have an unknown passage status. For other features, the passage status may have changed since it was originally documented. Note that this metadata file is best viewed in ArcCatalog. Documentation for the OFPBDS can be found online at http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/EISPD/GEO/docs/bioscience/OregonFishPassageBarrierDataStandardv1dot1.pdf. Close

• 346. [Article] 2000-2002, Effectiveness Monitoring for the Western Oregon Stream Restoration Program

  Abstract -- This report characterizes change in habitat conditions of restoration projects competed by Western Oregon Stream Restoration Program biologists. Typical restoration activities included the ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2000-2002, Effectiveness Monitoring for the Western Oregon Stream Restoration Program Abstract -- This report characterizes change in habitat conditions of restoration projects competed by Western Oregon Stream Restoration Program biologists. Typical restoration activities included the placement of large wood and/or boulders in stream channels, removal of culvert passage barriers, riparian planting, road decommissioning, and streamside fencing. Implementation occurred coast-wide and in the Willamette Valley, with an overall goal of enhancing aquatic habitat for salmonid species. This program works in cooperation with the Oregon Heritage Foundation, Oregon Department of Forestry, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, industrial and private landowners, and watershed councils. Projects that were implemented in 2000 and 2001 were monitored to assess baseline pre-treatment and one-year post-treatment conditions. Additionally, projects that were treated in 1995 were monitored in 1996 to assess one-year post-treatment conditions and in 2001 to assess six-year posttreatment conditions. The objectives of the monitoring program were to describe changes in channel morphology, channel unit composition, and structural complexity in the restoration project areas. Title: 2000-2002, Effectiveness Monitoring for the Western Oregon Stream Restoration Program Abstract -- This report characterizes change in habitat conditions of restoration projects competed by Western Oregon Stream Restoration Program biologists. Typical restoration activities included the placement of large wood and/or boulders in stream channels, removal of culvert passage barriers, riparian planting, road decommissioning, and streamside fencing. Implementation occurred coast-wide and in the Willamette Valley, with an overall goal of enhancing aquatic habitat for salmonid species. This program works in cooperation with the Oregon Heritage Foundation, Oregon Department of Forestry, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, industrial and private landowners, and watershed councils. Projects that were implemented in 2000 and 2001 were monitored to assess baseline pre-treatment and one-year post-treatment conditions. Additionally, projects that were treated in 1995 were monitored in 1996 to assess one-year post-treatment conditions and in 2001 to assess six-year posttreatment conditions. The objectives of the monitoring program were to describe changes in channel morphology, channel unit composition, and structural complexity in the restoration project areas. Close

• 347. [Article] Curry Watersheds Partnerships 2014 Spawning Surveys

  Abstract -- The Curry Watersheds Partnership (Curry SWCD and South Coast and Lower Rogue watershed councils) conducted salmon spawning surveys on 14 stream reaches in the winter of 2014-15. The surveys ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Curry Watersheds Partnerships 2014 Spawning Surveys Abstract -- The Curry Watersheds Partnership (Curry SWCD and South Coast and Lower Rogue watershed councils) conducted salmon spawning surveys on 14 stream reaches in the winter of 2014-15. The surveys took place on small streams that have been the focus of past and/or planned restoration projects, primarily aimed at coho. These surveys are not typically covered by ODFW, and prior to the spawning season the Curry Watersheds Partnership coordinated with ODFW to ensure there was no duplication of effort. Title: Curry Watersheds Partnerships 2014 Spawning Surveys Abstract -- The Curry Watersheds Partnership (Curry SWCD and South Coast and Lower Rogue watershed councils) conducted salmon spawning surveys on 14 stream reaches in the winter of 2014-15. The surveys took place on small streams that have been the focus of past and/or planned restoration projects, primarily aimed at coho. These surveys are not typically covered by ODFW, and prior to the spawning season the Curry Watersheds Partnership coordinated with ODFW to ensure there was no duplication of effort. Close

• 348. [Article] Oregon Coast Coho Habitat Assessment 1998-2003 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2005-5

  Abstract -- In November 2003, the State of Oregon began a comprehensive review of coho and their habitat in NOAA Fisheries’ Oregon Coastal Coho Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU). The purpose of the review ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Oregon Coast Coho Habitat Assessment 1998-2003 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2005-5 Abstract -- In November 2003, the State of Oregon began a comprehensive review of coho and their habitat in NOAA Fisheries’ Oregon Coastal Coho Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU). The purpose of the review is threefold: 1) provide an analysis of the current status and trend in coho populations, their habitat, and related threats; 2) provide NOAA Fisheries with information it requires to determine whether formalized conservation efforts within the ESU justify not listing coho under the Endangered Species Act as outlined in their Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts; and 3) provide information to state agencies, watershed councils, and others participating in the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OPSW) so they may assess the success of their OPSW programs and modify them where necessary to better achieve their objectives (i.e. adaptive management). This report describes the current status and trend of instream physical habitat for coho in the ESU as well as summarizes and evaluates instream habitat restoration activities conducted from 1997-2003. Title: Oregon Coast Coho Habitat Assessment 1998-2003 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2005-5 Abstract -- In November 2003, the State of Oregon began a comprehensive review of coho and their habitat in NOAA Fisheries’ Oregon Coastal Coho Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU). The purpose of the review is threefold: 1) provide an analysis of the current status and trend in coho populations, their habitat, and related threats; 2) provide NOAA Fisheries with information it requires to determine whether formalized conservation efforts within the ESU justify not listing coho under the Endangered Species Act as outlined in their Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts; and 3) provide information to state agencies, watershed councils, and others participating in the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OPSW) so they may assess the success of their OPSW programs and modify them where necessary to better achieve their objectives (i.e. adaptive management). This report describes the current status and trend of instream physical habitat for coho in the ESU as well as summarizes and evaluates instream habitat restoration activities conducted from 1997-2003. Close

• 349. [Article] Effectiveness Monitoring Report for the Western Oregon Stream Restoration Program, 1999-2008 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2010-6

  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 ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Effectiveness Monitoring Report for the Western Oregon Stream Restoration Program, 1999-2008 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2010-6 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. Title: Effectiveness Monitoring Report for the Western Oregon Stream Restoration Program, 1999-2008 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2010-6 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. Close