Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] Olalla/Lookingglass Watershed Assessment and Acton Plan

  Abstract -- The assessment includes information on past conditions, current conditions of stream function, Riparian zones and wetlands, water quality/quantity, fish populations, stakeholder/landowner perspectives, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Olalla/Lookingglass Watershed Assessment and Acton Plan Abstract -- The assessment includes information on past conditions, current conditions of stream function, Riparian zones and wetlands, water quality/quantity, fish populations, stakeholder/landowner perspectives, and an action plan. Title: Olalla/Lookingglass Watershed Assessment and Acton Plan Abstract -- The assessment includes information on past conditions, current conditions of stream function, Riparian zones and wetlands, water quality/quantity, fish populations, stakeholder/landowner perspectives, and an action plan. Close

• 2. [Article] Ecola Creek Watershed Assessment: A Living Document

  Abstract -- The report is the watershed assessment for the Ecola Creek watershed. The report contains information on channel habitat types, hydrology, water use, fisheries, aquatic and riparian habitat, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Ecola Creek Watershed Assessment: A Living Document Abstract -- The report is the watershed assessment for the Ecola Creek watershed. The report contains information on channel habitat types, hydrology, water use, fisheries, aquatic and riparian habitat, sediment sources, and water quality. Title: Ecola Creek Watershed Assessment: A Living Document Abstract -- The report is the watershed assessment for the Ecola Creek watershed. The report contains information on channel habitat types, hydrology, water use, fisheries, aquatic and riparian habitat, sediment sources, and water quality. Close

• 3. [Article] Little Butte Creek Watershed Action Plan

  Abstract -- This document is the Little Butte Creek Watershed Action Plan prepared for the Little Butte Creek Watershed Council and funded by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. The Action Plan is ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Little Butte Creek Watershed Action Plan Abstract -- This document is the Little Butte Creek Watershed Action Plan prepared for the Little Butte Creek Watershed Council and funded by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. The Action Plan is based on information contained in the Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment and additional source documentation. This information has been used to evaluate site-specific and watershed-wide issues affecting salmon and other essential watershed resources. These issues include: protection/conservation, riparian health, sediment sources, fish barriers, fish screens, channel modifications, roads, low stream flows, wetland loss, non-point source nutrient pollution, and additional assessment opportunities. The Action Plan includes recommendations for how to protect, restore, and enhance conditions through the implementation of a watershed health strategy. Title: Little Butte Creek Watershed Action Plan Abstract -- This document is the Little Butte Creek Watershed Action Plan prepared for the Little Butte Creek Watershed Council and funded by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. The Action Plan is based on information contained in the Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment and additional source documentation. This information has been used to evaluate site-specific and watershed-wide issues affecting salmon and other essential watershed resources. These issues include: protection/conservation, riparian health, sediment sources, fish barriers, fish screens, channel modifications, roads, low stream flows, wetland loss, non-point source nutrient pollution, and additional assessment opportunities. The Action Plan includes recommendations for how to protect, restore, and enhance conditions through the implementation of a watershed health strategy. Close

• 4. [Article] Calapooia Watershed Fish Passage Assessment

  Abstract -- Potential fish passage barriers at road-stream crossings were assessed for tributary streams to the Middle Calapooia River Watershed and the Courtney Creek Watershed. Fish passage guidelines ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Calapooia Watershed Fish Passage Assessment Abstract -- Potential fish passage barriers at road-stream crossings were assessed for tributary streams to the Middle Calapooia River Watershed and the Courtney Creek Watershed. Fish passage guidelines developed by ODFW were used to determine whether the culverts were fish passage barriers. The assessment includes information on why fish passage is important, field methods, results, recommendations, and an example field sheet and description. Title: Calapooia Watershed Fish Passage Assessment Abstract -- Potential fish passage barriers at road-stream crossings were assessed for tributary streams to the Middle Calapooia River Watershed and the Courtney Creek Watershed. Fish passage guidelines developed by ODFW were used to determine whether the culverts were fish passage barriers. The assessment includes information on why fish passage is important, field methods, results, recommendations, and an example field sheet and description. Close

• 5. [Article] Rock and Richardson Creek Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- The intent of this assessment is to provide a framework for action based on a review of the many recent studies that have been completed in this area. The Clackamas Basin Atlas, funded by the ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Rock and Richardson Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The intent of this assessment is to provide a framework for action based on a review of the many recent studies that have been completed in this area. The Clackamas Basin Atlas, funded by the Environmental Protection Agency and coordinated by Metro, provides a basin-wide perspective on the entire area. Metro followed up this effort with a landscape study focused on Rock and Richardson Creeks. Pacific Rivers Council and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) have done fish surveys and analyzed the health of aquatic life. During the development of this assessment Clackamas County was in the midst of completing a stormwater management plan for the proposed urban areas. This assessment summarizes the findings of these and several other studies, and provides a context for moving forward with creek protection and restoration. Title: Rock and Richardson Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The intent of this assessment is to provide a framework for action based on a review of the many recent studies that have been completed in this area. The Clackamas Basin Atlas, funded by the Environmental Protection Agency and coordinated by Metro, provides a basin-wide perspective on the entire area. Metro followed up this effort with a landscape study focused on Rock and Richardson Creeks. Pacific Rivers Council and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) have done fish surveys and analyzed the health of aquatic life. During the development of this assessment Clackamas County was in the midst of completing a stormwater management plan for the proposed urban areas. This assessment summarizes the findings of these and several other studies, and provides a context for moving forward with creek protection and restoration. Close

• 6. [Article] Johnson Creek Watershed Action Plan: An Adaptive Approach

  Abstract -- The Johnson Creek Watershed Action Plan contains a Watershed Assessment section which includes information on landscape factors, built environment conditions, flow and hydrology, physical habitat, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Johnson Creek Watershed Action Plan: An Adaptive Approach Abstract -- The Johnson Creek Watershed Action Plan contains a Watershed Assessment section which includes information on landscape factors, built environment conditions, flow and hydrology, physical habitat, water quality, biological communities, problems and opportunities, key limiting factors, and high priority areas and actions. The report also includes information on priority reaches, goals and objectives, criteria development, proposed projects and actions, public involvement and education, and action plan implementation. Title: Johnson Creek Watershed Action Plan: An Adaptive Approach Abstract -- The Johnson Creek Watershed Action Plan contains a Watershed Assessment section which includes information on landscape factors, built environment conditions, flow and hydrology, physical habitat, water quality, biological communities, problems and opportunities, key limiting factors, and high priority areas and actions. The report also includes information on priority reaches, goals and objectives, criteria development, proposed projects and actions, public involvement and education, and action plan implementation. Close

• 7. [Article] Limiting Factors Assessment and Restoration Plan: Olalla Creek Tributary of the Yaquina Estuary

  Abstract -- This document provides watershed restoration actions proposed to enhance the Coho Salmon population within the Olalla Creek subbasin in Lincoln County, Oregon. The report contains information ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Limiting Factors Assessment and Restoration Plan: Olalla Creek Tributary of the Yaquina Estuary Abstract -- This document provides watershed restoration actions proposed to enhance the Coho Salmon population within the Olalla Creek subbasin in Lincoln County, Oregon. The report contains information on the physical setting, current status of Coho, resources used in developing the plan, general questions that guided the assessment, pre-survey mapping/location of habitat subdivisions, secondary branch habitats, critical contributing areas, lowland area, summer and winter habitat assessment, lake habitat, location of other resources, juvenile Coho, evaluation of habitat quality and Coho production, Field Assessment, location of potential migration barriers, potential sites for restoration work, morphology, rank of restoration efforts, riparian corridor, and core area. Title: Limiting Factors Assessment and Restoration Plan: Olalla Creek Tributary of the Yaquina Estuary Abstract -- This document provides watershed restoration actions proposed to enhance the Coho Salmon population within the Olalla Creek subbasin in Lincoln County, Oregon. The report contains information on the physical setting, current status of Coho, resources used in developing the plan, general questions that guided the assessment, pre-survey mapping/location of habitat subdivisions, secondary branch habitats, critical contributing areas, lowland area, summer and winter habitat assessment, lake habitat, location of other resources, juvenile Coho, evaluation of habitat quality and Coho production, Field Assessment, location of potential migration barriers, potential sites for restoration work, morphology, rank of restoration efforts, riparian corridor, and core area. Close

• 8. [Article] Limiting Factors Assessment and Restoration Plan: Rock Creek Tributary to Devil's Lake Lincoln County

  Abstract -- This document provides watershed restoration actions proposed to enhance the Coho Salmon population within the Rock Creek / Devils Lake basin in Lincoln County, Oregon. The report contains ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Limiting Factors Assessment and Restoration Plan: Rock Creek Tributary to Devil's Lake Lincoln County Abstract -- This document provides watershed restoration actions proposed to enhance the Coho Salmon population within the Rock Creek / Devils Lake basin in Lincoln County, Oregon. The report contains information on the physical setting, current status of Coho, resources used in developing the plan, general questions that guided the assessment, pre-survey mapping/location of habitat subdivisons, secondary branch habitats, critical contributing areas, lowland area, summer and winter habitat assessment, lake habitat, location of other resources, juvenile Coho, evaluation of habitat quality and Coho production, Field Assessment, location of potential migration barriers, potential sites for restoration work, morphology, rank of restoration efforts, riparian corridor, and core area. Title: Limiting Factors Assessment and Restoration Plan: Rock Creek Tributary to Devil's Lake Lincoln County Abstract -- This document provides watershed restoration actions proposed to enhance the Coho Salmon population within the Rock Creek / Devils Lake basin in Lincoln County, Oregon. The report contains information on the physical setting, current status of Coho, resources used in developing the plan, general questions that guided the assessment, pre-survey mapping/location of habitat subdivisons, secondary branch habitats, critical contributing areas, lowland area, summer and winter habitat assessment, lake habitat, location of other resources, juvenile Coho, evaluation of habitat quality and Coho production, Field Assessment, location of potential migration barriers, potential sites for restoration work, morphology, rank of restoration efforts, riparian corridor, and core area. Close

• 9. [Article] Limiting Factors Assessment and Restoration Plan NF Beaver Creek Tributary Beaver Cr at Ona Beach

  Abstract -- This document provides watershed restoration actions proposed to enhance the Coho Salmon population within North Fork Beaver Creek in Lincoln County, Oregon. Topics include physical setting, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Limiting Factors Assessment and Restoration Plan NF Beaver Creek Tributary Beaver Cr at Ona Beach Abstract -- This document provides watershed restoration actions proposed to enhance the Coho Salmon population within North Fork Beaver Creek in Lincoln County, Oregon. Topics include physical setting, current status of Coho, resources used in developing the plan, general questions that guide the assessment, pre-survey mapping/location of habitat subdivisions, anchor habitats, secondary branch habitats, critical contributing areas, summer and winter habitat potential, estuarine and freshwater marsh habitat, juvenile Coho, field assessment, evaluation of habitat quality and Coho production, locate migration barriers, and potential sites for restoration work. Additional topics included are a list and rank of the factors currently limiting Coho production, a rank of the list of restoration efforts, an explanation of how the modifications will interact and increase production, assessment questionnaire including morphology and core area discussion and secondary branch sites, critical contributing areas, and lowlands outside the 6th field subbasin. Title: Limiting Factors Assessment and Restoration Plan NF Beaver Creek Tributary Beaver Cr at Ona Beach Abstract -- This document provides watershed restoration actions proposed to enhance the Coho Salmon population within North Fork Beaver Creek in Lincoln County, Oregon. Topics include physical setting, current status of Coho, resources used in developing the plan, general questions that guide the assessment, pre-survey mapping/location of habitat subdivisions, anchor habitats, secondary branch habitats, critical contributing areas, summer and winter habitat potential, estuarine and freshwater marsh habitat, juvenile Coho, field assessment, evaluation of habitat quality and Coho production, locate migration barriers, and potential sites for restoration work. Additional topics included are a list and rank of the factors currently limiting Coho production, a rank of the list of restoration efforts, an explanation of how the modifications will interact and increase production, assessment questionnaire including morphology and core area discussion and secondary branch sites, critical contributing areas, and lowlands outside the 6th field subbasin. Close

• 10. [Article] Middle Fork Willamette River Lower Watersheds Action Plan

  Abstract -- This document begins with a brief overview of the watershed, the activities of the Council, and the development of the Action Plan. A section explaining Action Plan goals and activities follows. ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Middle Fork Willamette River Lower Watersheds Action Plan Abstract -- This document begins with a brief overview of the watershed, the activities of the Council, and the development of the Action Plan. A section explaining Action Plan goals and activities follows. For many people, the most important part of the document will be the tables included in this second section. These tables outline specific activities that the Council, in collaboration with watershed residents and others, have already implemented or will undertake to improve the condition of the watershed. It is here that you will find the who, what, where, and when of actions. If you are interested in finding out more about conditions in the Lower Middle Fork of the Willamette watershed, a detailed assessment of the area is available from the Council. Title: Middle Fork Willamette River Lower Watersheds Action Plan Abstract -- This document begins with a brief overview of the watershed, the activities of the Council, and the development of the Action Plan. A section explaining Action Plan goals and activities follows. For many people, the most important part of the document will be the tables included in this second section. These tables outline specific activities that the Council, in collaboration with watershed residents and others, have already implemented or will undertake to improve the condition of the watershed. It is here that you will find the who, what, where, and when of actions. If you are interested in finding out more about conditions in the Lower Middle Fork of the Willamette watershed, a detailed assessment of the area is available from the Council. Close

• 11. [Article] Lower South Yamhill-Deer Creek Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- The Lower S. Yamhill-Deer Creek watershed assessment was prepared for the Yamhill Basin Council (YBC), watershed residents, and landowners. It contains technical and educational information ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Lower South Yamhill-Deer Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The Lower S. Yamhill-Deer Creek watershed assessment was prepared for the Yamhill Basin Council (YBC), watershed residents, and landowners. It contains technical and educational information about the past and current watershed conditions. The assessment includes the topics of a Watershed Overview, Historical Conditions, Channel Habitat Types, Vegetation, Riparian and Wetland Conditions, Channel Modifications, Sediments, Hydrology and Water Use, Water Quality, Fish Species: Habitat, History and Barriers, Restoration and Enhancement Projects, and a Watershed Conditions Summary. Title: Lower South Yamhill-Deer Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The Lower S. Yamhill-Deer Creek watershed assessment was prepared for the Yamhill Basin Council (YBC), watershed residents, and landowners. It contains technical and educational information about the past and current watershed conditions. The assessment includes the topics of a Watershed Overview, Historical Conditions, Channel Habitat Types, Vegetation, Riparian and Wetland Conditions, Channel Modifications, Sediments, Hydrology and Water Use, Water Quality, Fish Species: Habitat, History and Barriers, Restoration and Enhancement Projects, and a Watershed Conditions Summary. Close

• 12. [Article] Salt Creek Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- The Salt Creek watershed assessment is a publication of the Yamhill Basin Council (YBC) and is a reference tool for landowners, watershed residents, and council members. It contains factual ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Salt Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The Salt Creek watershed assessment is a publication of the Yamhill Basin Council (YBC) and is a reference tool for landowners, watershed residents, and council members. It contains factual and interpretive information about the condition of the watershed, both past and present. The assessment includes the topics of a Watershed Overview, Historical Conditions, Channel Habitat Types, Vegetation, Riparian and Wetland Conditions, Channel Modifications, Sediments, Hydrology and Water Use, Water Quality, Fish Habitat and Barriers, Restoration and Enhancement Projects, and a Watershed Conditions Summary. Title: Salt Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The Salt Creek watershed assessment is a publication of the Yamhill Basin Council (YBC) and is a reference tool for landowners, watershed residents, and council members. It contains factual and interpretive information about the condition of the watershed, both past and present. The assessment includes the topics of a Watershed Overview, Historical Conditions, Channel Habitat Types, Vegetation, Riparian and Wetland Conditions, Channel Modifications, Sediments, Hydrology and Water Use, Water Quality, Fish Habitat and Barriers, Restoration and Enhancement Projects, and a Watershed Conditions Summary. Close

• 13. [Article] Upper South Yamhill River Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- The Upper South Yamhill River watershed assessment is a publication of the Yamhill Basin Council (YBC) and is a reference tool for watershed residents. It contains information gathered from ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Upper South Yamhill River Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The Upper South Yamhill River watershed assessment is a publication of the Yamhill Basin Council (YBC) and is a reference tool for watershed residents. It contains information gathered from many different sources about past and present conditions in the watershed. The assessment also identifies areas where information is lacking. The assessment includes the topics of a Watershed Overview, Historical Conditions, Channel Habitat Types, Vegetation, Riparian and Wetland Conditions, Channel Modifications, Sediments, Hydrology and Water Use, Water Quality, Fish Habitat and Barriers, Restoration and Enhancement Projects, and a Watershed Conditions Summary. Title: Upper South Yamhill River Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The Upper South Yamhill River watershed assessment is a publication of the Yamhill Basin Council (YBC) and is a reference tool for watershed residents. It contains information gathered from many different sources about past and present conditions in the watershed. The assessment also identifies areas where information is lacking. The assessment includes the topics of a Watershed Overview, Historical Conditions, Channel Habitat Types, Vegetation, Riparian and Wetland Conditions, Channel Modifications, Sediments, Hydrology and Water Use, Water Quality, Fish Habitat and Barriers, Restoration and Enhancement Projects, and a Watershed Conditions Summary. Close

• 14. [Article] Slate Creek Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- The analysis was jointly conducted by the Applegate River Watershed Council (ARWC), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Siskiyou National Forest. Accordingly, the assessment method was ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Slate Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The analysis was jointly conducted by the Applegate River Watershed Council (ARWC), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Siskiyou National Forest. Accordingly, the assessment method was designed to fulfill obligations for the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board and the Federal Guide to Watershed Analysis. Issues and key questions, developed by the federal agencies, ARWC, and landowners guide the content of this analysis. Key issues focus the assessment on the principle concerns of the Slate Creek Watershed. This watershed assessment is grouped into three main categories: Cultural and Social environment, Terrestrial environment, and the Aquatic environment. The cultural and social environment examines the historic and current human uses in the watershed. The terrestrial environment focuses on vegetation patterns, wildlife habitat and fire/fuel conditions. Fish habitat conditions, water quality and riparian zone function are discussed in the aquatic environment. Title: Slate Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The analysis was jointly conducted by the Applegate River Watershed Council (ARWC), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Siskiyou National Forest. Accordingly, the assessment method was designed to fulfill obligations for the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board and the Federal Guide to Watershed Analysis. Issues and key questions, developed by the federal agencies, ARWC, and landowners guide the content of this analysis. Key issues focus the assessment on the principle concerns of the Slate Creek Watershed. This watershed assessment is grouped into three main categories: Cultural and Social environment, Terrestrial environment, and the Aquatic environment. The cultural and social environment examines the historic and current human uses in the watershed. The terrestrial environment focuses on vegetation patterns, wildlife habitat and fire/fuel conditions. Fish habitat conditions, water quality and riparian zone function are discussed in the aquatic environment. Close

• 15. [Article] Little Applegate Assessment

  Abstract -- To date, Applegate watershed assessments have focused on 5th field tributary streams that drain more than 50,000 acres. The Little Applegate and Williams Creek Assessments, which are nearing ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Little Applegate Assessment Abstract -- To date, Applegate watershed assessments have focused on 5th field tributary streams that drain more than 50,000 acres. The Little Applegate and Williams Creek Assessments, which are nearing completion or have been completed, examine watersheds of 72,000 and 52,000 acres respectively. The Little Applegate Assessment includes the topics of Environmental History, Channel Habitat, Hydrology, Sediment, Water Quality, Fisheries, Riparian, Upland Vegetation, and Wildlife. Title: Little Applegate Assessment Abstract -- To date, Applegate watershed assessments have focused on 5th field tributary streams that drain more than 50,000 acres. The Little Applegate and Williams Creek Assessments, which are nearing completion or have been completed, examine watersheds of 72,000 and 52,000 acres respectively. The Little Applegate Assessment includes the topics of Environmental History, Channel Habitat, Hydrology, Sediment, Water Quality, Fisheries, Riparian, Upland Vegetation, and Wildlife. Close

• 16. [Article] Limiting Factors Assessment and Restoration Plan for Steer Creek Tributary of Rock Cr Siletz

  Abstract -- This document provides watershed restoration actions proposed to enhance the Coho Salmon population within the Steer Cr. 6th field in Lincoln County, Oregon. This stream is a 4th order contributor ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Limiting Factors Assessment and Restoration Plan for Steer Creek Tributary of Rock Cr Siletz Abstract -- This document provides watershed restoration actions proposed to enhance the Coho Salmon population within the Steer Cr. 6th field in Lincoln County, Oregon. This stream is a 4th order contributor to Rock Creek, which joins the Siletz River near Logsden, Oregon. The stream has been prioritized for restoration by the Midcoast Watershed Council because it appears to provide the best remaining spawning and rearing potential within the Rock Cr. basin. The report contains information on the physical setting, current status of Coho, resources used in developing the plan, general questions that guided the assessment, pre-survey mapping/location of habitat subdivisions, secondary branch habitats, critical contributing areas, lowland area, summer and winter habitat assessment, lake habitat, location of other resources, juvenile Coho, evaluation of habitat quality and Coho production, Field Assessment, location of potential migration barriers, potential sites for restoration work, morphology, rank of restoration efforts, riparian corridor, and core area. Title: Limiting Factors Assessment and Restoration Plan for Steer Creek Tributary of Rock Cr Siletz Abstract -- This document provides watershed restoration actions proposed to enhance the Coho Salmon population within the Steer Cr. 6th field in Lincoln County, Oregon. This stream is a 4th order contributor to Rock Creek, which joins the Siletz River near Logsden, Oregon. The stream has been prioritized for restoration by the Midcoast Watershed Council because it appears to provide the best remaining spawning and rearing potential within the Rock Cr. basin. The report contains information on the physical setting, current status of Coho, resources used in developing the plan, general questions that guided the assessment, pre-survey mapping/location of habitat subdivisions, secondary branch habitats, critical contributing areas, lowland area, summer and winter habitat assessment, lake habitat, location of other resources, juvenile Coho, evaluation of habitat quality and Coho production, Field Assessment, location of potential migration barriers, potential sites for restoration work, morphology, rank of restoration efforts, riparian corridor, and core area. Close

• 17. [Article] Clear and Foster Creek Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- A watershed assessment was completed in the Clear and Foster Creek watersheds to evaluate existing conditions and make recommendations to protect or enhance watershed natural resources. Clear ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Clear and Foster Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- A watershed assessment was completed in the Clear and Foster Creek watersheds to evaluate existing conditions and make recommendations to protect or enhance watershed natural resources. Clear and Foster Creek are tributaries to the Clackamas River below any major dams on the system; consequently these tributaries are positioned favorably to contribute to recovery of important anadromous fish populations. Anadromous fish species in the Clackamas basin include spring and fall chinook, coho salmon, winter steelhead, summer steelhead (non-native), migratory cutthroat trout and lamprey. Clear and Foster Creeks are utilized by fall chinook, winter steelhead and coho salmon. The assessment generally followed the framework described in the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board’s Watershed Assessment Manual (WPN, 1999). The assessment focused on the following components: Channel habitat classification and modification; hydrology and water use; riparian/wetlands; sediment sources; water quality; fisheries; and wildlife and upland vegetation. Generally the approach builds on existing information, and enhances this information with aerial photo interpretation and limited field checking. Additional fieldwork was used to verify channel habitat types and to characterize fish habitat condition. GIS was used as a critical assessment tool and method of displaying results. Title: Clear and Foster Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- A watershed assessment was completed in the Clear and Foster Creek watersheds to evaluate existing conditions and make recommendations to protect or enhance watershed natural resources. Clear and Foster Creek are tributaries to the Clackamas River below any major dams on the system; consequently these tributaries are positioned favorably to contribute to recovery of important anadromous fish populations. Anadromous fish species in the Clackamas basin include spring and fall chinook, coho salmon, winter steelhead, summer steelhead (non-native), migratory cutthroat trout and lamprey. Clear and Foster Creeks are utilized by fall chinook, winter steelhead and coho salmon. The assessment generally followed the framework described in the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board’s Watershed Assessment Manual (WPN, 1999). The assessment focused on the following components: Channel habitat classification and modification; hydrology and water use; riparian/wetlands; sediment sources; water quality; fisheries; and wildlife and upland vegetation. Generally the approach builds on existing information, and enhances this information with aerial photo interpretation and limited field checking. Additional fieldwork was used to verify channel habitat types and to characterize fish habitat condition. GIS was used as a critical assessment tool and method of displaying results. Close

• 18. [Article] Clear and Foster Creek Fish Passage Assessment and Prioritization Project

  Abstract -- The project was initiated by Clackamas River Basin Council (CRBC) to address the fact that the vast majority of information on barriers pertains only to public roads. Although public agencies ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Clear and Foster Creek Fish Passage Assessment and Prioritization Project Abstract -- The project was initiated by Clackamas River Basin Council (CRBC) to address the fact that the vast majority of information on barriers pertains only to public roads. Although public agencies have shown leadership and started to replace culverts (the County and ODFW and US Forest) they were unable to determine whether there were barriers just up stream on private roads or dams. In order to spend public dollars efficiently and to get a sense of biological and cost related priorities, a comprehensive approach, a watershed approach, that included the cooperation of willing private landowners and better information on natural barriers was needed to understand the real priorities for replacement. For this reason, the goal of the basin stakeholders working in partnership with the CRBC was to create a truly comprehensive assessment and prioritization of public and private barriers. Title: Clear and Foster Creek Fish Passage Assessment and Prioritization Project Abstract -- The project was initiated by Clackamas River Basin Council (CRBC) to address the fact that the vast majority of information on barriers pertains only to public roads. Although public agencies have shown leadership and started to replace culverts (the County and ODFW and US Forest) they were unable to determine whether there were barriers just up stream on private roads or dams. In order to spend public dollars efficiently and to get a sense of biological and cost related priorities, a comprehensive approach, a watershed approach, that included the cooperation of willing private landowners and better information on natural barriers was needed to understand the real priorities for replacement. For this reason, the goal of the basin stakeholders working in partnership with the CRBC was to create a truly comprehensive assessment and prioritization of public and private barriers. Close

• 19. [Article] Calapooya Creek Watershed Assessment and Action Plan

  Abstract -- This report contains: the purpose and development of the watershed assessment, watershed description, land use, ownership, and population, past conditions from pre-settlement to current, history ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Calapooya Creek Watershed Assessment and Action Plan Abstract -- This report contains: the purpose and development of the watershed assessment, watershed description, land use, ownership, and population, past conditions from pre-settlement to current, history of the Calapooya Creek Watershed, and historical references. Current conditions include: Stream function, riparian zones and wetlands, water quality/quantity, fish populations, current trends and potential future conditions overview, stakeholder/landowner perspectives, and landowner interviews. The action plan includes: Property ownership and restoration potential, Calapooya Creek Watershed key findings and action recommendations, and specific UBWC enhancement opportunities. Title: Calapooya Creek Watershed Assessment and Action Plan Abstract -- This report contains: the purpose and development of the watershed assessment, watershed description, land use, ownership, and population, past conditions from pre-settlement to current, history of the Calapooya Creek Watershed, and historical references. Current conditions include: Stream function, riparian zones and wetlands, water quality/quantity, fish populations, current trends and potential future conditions overview, stakeholder/landowner perspectives, and landowner interviews. The action plan includes: Property ownership and restoration potential, Calapooya Creek Watershed key findings and action recommendations, and specific UBWC enhancement opportunities. Close

• 20. [Article] Myrtle Creek Watershed Assessment and Action Plan

  Abstract -- This report contains: the purpose and development of the watershed assessment, watershed description, land use, ownership, and population, past conditions from pre-settlement to current, history ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Myrtle Creek Watershed Assessment and Action Plan Abstract -- This report contains: the purpose and development of the watershed assessment, watershed description, land use, ownership, and population, past conditions from pre-settlement to current, history of the Myrtle Creek Watershed, and historical references. Current conditions include: Stream function, riparian zones and wetlands, water quality/quantity, fish populations, current trends and potential future conditions overview, stakeholder/landowner perspectives, and landowner interviews. The action plan includes: Property ownership and restoration potential, Myrtle Creek Watershed key findings and action recommendations, and specific UBWC enhancement opportunities. Title: Myrtle Creek Watershed Assessment and Action Plan Abstract -- This report contains: the purpose and development of the watershed assessment, watershed description, land use, ownership, and population, past conditions from pre-settlement to current, history of the Myrtle Creek Watershed, and historical references. Current conditions include: Stream function, riparian zones and wetlands, water quality/quantity, fish populations, current trends and potential future conditions overview, stakeholder/landowner perspectives, and landowner interviews. The action plan includes: Property ownership and restoration potential, Myrtle Creek Watershed key findings and action recommendations, and specific UBWC enhancement opportunities. Close

• 21. [Article] Lower Cow Creek Watershed Assessment and Action Plan

  Abstract -- This report contains: the purpose and development of the watershed assessment, watershed description, land use, ownership, and population, past conditions from pre-settlement to current, history ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Lower Cow Creek Watershed Assessment and Action Plan Abstract -- This report contains: the purpose and development of the watershed assessment, watershed description, land use, ownership, and population, past conditions from pre-settlement to current, history of the Lower Cow Creek Watershed, and historical references. Current conditions include: Stream function, riparian zones and wetlands, water quality/quantity, fish populations, current trends and potential future conditions overview, stakeholder/landowner perspectives, and landowner interviews. The action plan includes: Property ownership and restoration potential, Lower Cow Creek Watershed key findings and action recommendations, and specific UBWC enhancement opportunities. Title: Lower Cow Creek Watershed Assessment and Action Plan Abstract -- This report contains: the purpose and development of the watershed assessment, watershed description, land use, ownership, and population, past conditions from pre-settlement to current, history of the Lower Cow Creek Watershed, and historical references. Current conditions include: Stream function, riparian zones and wetlands, water quality/quantity, fish populations, current trends and potential future conditions overview, stakeholder/landowner perspectives, and landowner interviews. The action plan includes: Property ownership and restoration potential, Lower Cow Creek Watershed key findings and action recommendations, and specific UBWC enhancement opportunities. Close

• 22. [Article] West Fork Cow Creek Watershed Assessment and Action Plan

  Abstract -- This report contains: the purpose and development of the watershed assessment, watershed description, land use, ownership, and population, past conditions from pre-settlement to current, history ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: West Fork Cow Creek Watershed Assessment and Action Plan Abstract -- This report contains: the purpose and development of the watershed assessment, watershed description, land use, ownership, and population, past conditions from pre-settlement to current, history of the West Fork Cow Creek Watershed, and historical references. Current conditions include: Stream function, riparian zones and wetlands, water quality/quantity, fish populations, current trends and potential future conditions overview, stakeholder/landowner perspectives, and landowner interviews. The action plan includes: Property ownership and restoration potential, West Fork Cow Creek Watershed key findings and action recommendations, and specific UBWC enhancement opportunities. Title: West Fork Cow Creek Watershed Assessment and Action Plan Abstract -- This report contains: the purpose and development of the watershed assessment, watershed description, land use, ownership, and population, past conditions from pre-settlement to current, history of the West Fork Cow Creek Watershed, and historical references. Current conditions include: Stream function, riparian zones and wetlands, water quality/quantity, fish populations, current trends and potential future conditions overview, stakeholder/landowner perspectives, and landowner interviews. The action plan includes: Property ownership and restoration potential, West Fork Cow Creek Watershed key findings and action recommendations, and specific UBWC enhancement opportunities. Close

• 23. [Article] Upper Cow Creek Watershed Assessment and Action Plan

  Abstract -- This report contains: the purpose and development of the watershed assessment, watershed description, land use, ownership, and population, past conditions from pre-settlement to current, history ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Upper Cow Creek Watershed Assessment and Action Plan Abstract -- This report contains: the purpose and development of the watershed assessment, watershed description, land use, ownership, and population, past conditions from pre-settlement to current, history of the Upper Cow Creek Watershed, and historical references. Current conditions include: Stream function, riparian zones and wetlands, water quality/quantity, fish populations, current trends and potential future conditions overview, stakeholder/landowner perspectives, and landowner interviews. The action plan includes: Property ownership and restoration potential, Upper Cow Creek Watershed key findings and action recommendations, and specific UBWC enhancement opportunities. Title: Upper Cow Creek Watershed Assessment and Action Plan Abstract -- This report contains: the purpose and development of the watershed assessment, watershed description, land use, ownership, and population, past conditions from pre-settlement to current, history of the Upper Cow Creek Watershed, and historical references. Current conditions include: Stream function, riparian zones and wetlands, water quality/quantity, fish populations, current trends and potential future conditions overview, stakeholder/landowner perspectives, and landowner interviews. The action plan includes: Property ownership and restoration potential, Upper Cow Creek Watershed key findings and action recommendations, and specific UBWC enhancement opportunities. Close

• 24. [Article] Willow Creek Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- The Willow Creek Watershed Assessment includes sections on: A watershed overview, historical conditions, channel habitat types, hydrology and water use, riparian, wetlands, water quality, sediment ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Willow Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The Willow Creek Watershed Assessment includes sections on: A watershed overview, historical conditions, channel habitat types, hydrology and water use, riparian, wetlands, water quality, sediment sources, channel modifications, fish and fish habitat, noxious weeds, and forest health. Title: Willow Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The Willow Creek Watershed Assessment includes sections on: A watershed overview, historical conditions, channel habitat types, hydrology and water use, riparian, wetlands, water quality, sediment sources, channel modifications, fish and fish habitat, noxious weeds, and forest health. Close

• 25. [Article] Phillips Creek Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- Watershed Assessments for the Grande Ronde River Subwatersheds are being prepared for the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program. This Watershed Assessment addresses the Phillips Creek Watershed ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Phillips Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- Watershed Assessments for the Grande Ronde River Subwatersheds are being prepared for the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program. This Watershed Assessment addresses the Phillips Creek Watershed located near Elgin, Oregon. Phillips Creek is a relatively small watershed (4th order HUC – Hydrologic Unit Classification) containing about 33 square miles or slightly over 24,000 acres. Phillips Creek empties into the Grande Ronde River in Elgin. It is an intermittent stream in some reaches, but water flows year around in other reaches. In this Assessment the main emphasis is on the nonfederal lands. The USDA Forest Service – Umatilla National Forest recently completed a watershed assessment on the National Forest area that includes Phillips, Cabin, Gordon and Dry Creeks. For more complete information on watershed condition on federal lands, please refer to the Umatilla National Forest’s Phillips-Gordon Ecosystem Analysis (PGEA). This assessment will describe the Phillips Creek watershed and help to identify the stream processes and features that are working well, and those that are not. Information that is already available from state and federal agencies as well as from private sources (including people that live in the area) will be used. Several public meetings were held to obtain information and insights from people that live in the area. The assessment will identify human’s positive and negative influences to the immediate stream environment. The assessment should provide enough information to develop project plans and monitoring plans that will help to protect and improve water quality and fish habitat in Phillips Creek and its tributaries. This assessment includes a description of Phillips Creek Watershed, historical conditions assessment, channel habitat type classification, hydrology and water use, riparian assessment, wetlands assessment, sediment sources assessment, channel modification assessment, water quality assessment, water rights assessment, fish and fish habitat assessment, upland conditions assessment – Forest, upland conditions assessment – Range, developed area assessment, noxious weeds assessment, and a watershed condition evaluation. Title: Phillips Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- Watershed Assessments for the Grande Ronde River Subwatersheds are being prepared for the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program. This Watershed Assessment addresses the Phillips Creek Watershed located near Elgin, Oregon. Phillips Creek is a relatively small watershed (4th order HUC – Hydrologic Unit Classification) containing about 33 square miles or slightly over 24,000 acres. Phillips Creek empties into the Grande Ronde River in Elgin. It is an intermittent stream in some reaches, but water flows year around in other reaches. In this Assessment the main emphasis is on the nonfederal lands. The USDA Forest Service – Umatilla National Forest recently completed a watershed assessment on the National Forest area that includes Phillips, Cabin, Gordon and Dry Creeks. For more complete information on watershed condition on federal lands, please refer to the Umatilla National Forest’s Phillips-Gordon Ecosystem Analysis (PGEA). This assessment will describe the Phillips Creek watershed and help to identify the stream processes and features that are working well, and those that are not. Information that is already available from state and federal agencies as well as from private sources (including people that live in the area) will be used. Several public meetings were held to obtain information and insights from people that live in the area. The assessment will identify human’s positive and negative influences to the immediate stream environment. The assessment should provide enough information to develop project plans and monitoring plans that will help to protect and improve water quality and fish habitat in Phillips Creek and its tributaries. This assessment includes a description of Phillips Creek Watershed, historical conditions assessment, channel habitat type classification, hydrology and water use, riparian assessment, wetlands assessment, sediment sources assessment, channel modification assessment, water quality assessment, water rights assessment, fish and fish habitat assessment, upland conditions assessment – Forest, upland conditions assessment – Range, developed area assessment, noxious weeds assessment, and a watershed condition evaluation. Close

• 26. [Article] Tenmile Lake Nutrient Study, Phase I Progress Report

  Abstract -- A study of Tenmile Lake and its watershed was initiated to better understand the role of the watershed and the lake in generating and processing sediment, phosphorus, and nitrogen. Three primary ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Tenmile Lake Nutrient Study, Phase I Progress Report Abstract -- A study of Tenmile Lake and its watershed was initiated to better understand the role of the watershed and the lake in generating and processing sediment, phosphorus, and nitrogen. Three primary tributary sites were selected (Big, Benson, and Murphy Creeks) for sampling during base flow and storm events. Additional sites were sampled throughout the watershed at a less frequent basis. In addition to sampling for sediment and nutrients, the lake sites were also sampled for phytoplankton and profile conditions. Title: Tenmile Lake Nutrient Study, Phase I Progress Report Abstract -- A study of Tenmile Lake and its watershed was initiated to better understand the role of the watershed and the lake in generating and processing sediment, phosphorus, and nitrogen. Three primary tributary sites were selected (Big, Benson, and Murphy Creeks) for sampling during base flow and storm events. Additional sites were sampled throughout the watershed at a less frequent basis. In addition to sampling for sediment and nutrients, the lake sites were also sampled for phytoplankton and profile conditions. Close

• 27. [Article] Mosier Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- This document provides an assessment of critical watershed health parameters for the Mosier, Rock and Rowena Creek Watersheds. All of these are located in Northwestern Wasco County, Oregon. ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Mosier Watershed Assessment Abstract -- This document provides an assessment of critical watershed health parameters for the Mosier, Rock and Rowena Creek Watersheds. All of these are located in Northwestern Wasco County, Oregon. Mosier and Rock Creeks both have some headwaters in Hood River County. All three enter the Columbia River in or near the City of Mosier, Oregon. The assessment was coordinated by Wasco County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) at the request of the Mosier Watershed Council. The assessment looks not only at the health of perennial streams, but also at the health of major seasonal reaches and upland areas, focusing on water quality and quantity issues, with their effects on aquatic habitat. Upland habitat is also addressed, but wildlife populations are not. The assessment contains sections on: description of the watershed, watershed conditions at the time of settlement, climate, history, channel habitat type classification, hydrology and water use, riparian and wetlands condition, sediment sources, channel modification, water quality, fish and fish habitat, upland habitat, and evaluation. Title: Mosier Watershed Assessment Abstract -- This document provides an assessment of critical watershed health parameters for the Mosier, Rock and Rowena Creek Watersheds. All of these are located in Northwestern Wasco County, Oregon. Mosier and Rock Creeks both have some headwaters in Hood River County. All three enter the Columbia River in or near the City of Mosier, Oregon. The assessment was coordinated by Wasco County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) at the request of the Mosier Watershed Council. The assessment looks not only at the health of perennial streams, but also at the health of major seasonal reaches and upland areas, focusing on water quality and quantity issues, with their effects on aquatic habitat. Upland habitat is also addressed, but wildlife populations are not. The assessment contains sections on: description of the watershed, watershed conditions at the time of settlement, climate, history, channel habitat type classification, hydrology and water use, riparian and wetlands condition, sediment sources, channel modification, water quality, fish and fish habitat, upland habitat, and evaluation. Close

• 28. [Article] Planning for Sustainability of Groundwater Resources in the Mosier Valley, Wasco County, Oregon

  Abstract -- The document is an executive summary on the Planning for Sustainability of Groundwater Resources in the Mosier Valley, of Wasco County, Oregon.

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Planning for Sustainability of Groundwater Resources in the Mosier Valley, Wasco County, Oregon Abstract -- The document is an executive summary on the Planning for Sustainability of Groundwater Resources in the Mosier Valley, of Wasco County, Oregon. Title: Planning for Sustainability of Groundwater Resources in the Mosier Valley, Wasco County, Oregon Abstract -- The document is an executive summary on the Planning for Sustainability of Groundwater Resources in the Mosier Valley, of Wasco County, Oregon. Close

• 29. [Article] Fanno/Tryon Creek Watershed Plan: Draft

  Abstract -- The Fanno and Tryon Creeks Watershed Plan contains sections on: Introduction to the Fanno/Tryon Creek Watershed Plan, Overview-Tryon Creek Watershed, Habitat and Biological Communities-Background ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fanno/Tryon Creek Watershed Plan: Draft Abstract -- The Fanno and Tryon Creeks Watershed Plan contains sections on: Introduction to the Fanno/Tryon Creek Watershed Plan, Overview-Tryon Creek Watershed, Habitat and Biological Communities-Background and Tryon Creek Watershed, Public Involvement, Education, and Stewardship, Related Plans, Policies, and Programs, Water Quality-Tryon Creek Watershed, and Hydrology-Tryon Creek Watershed. Title: Fanno/Tryon Creek Watershed Plan: Draft Abstract -- The Fanno and Tryon Creeks Watershed Plan contains sections on: Introduction to the Fanno/Tryon Creek Watershed Plan, Overview-Tryon Creek Watershed, Habitat and Biological Communities-Background and Tryon Creek Watershed, Public Involvement, Education, and Stewardship, Related Plans, Policies, and Programs, Water Quality-Tryon Creek Watershed, and Hydrology-Tryon Creek Watershed. Close

• 30. [Article] Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- The report contains background information, information on channel habitat type, hydrology and water use, fish and fish habitat, water quality, riparian zone, sediment sources, and channel ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The report contains background information, information on channel habitat type, hydrology and water use, fish and fish habitat, water quality, riparian zone, sediment sources, and channel modification. Title: Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The report contains background information, information on channel habitat type, hydrology and water use, fish and fish habitat, water quality, riparian zone, sediment sources, and channel modification. Close

• 31. [Article] Cascade Creek Watershed Monitoring Project #97-032

  Abstract -- This report, also called "Salmonid Life-Cycle Monitoring Project," estimates the abundance of juvenile and adult salmonids in numerous watersheds during 1998-99 surveys; evaluates marine and ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Cascade Creek Watershed Monitoring Project #97-032 Abstract -- This report, also called "Salmonid Life-Cycle Monitoring Project," estimates the abundance of juvenile and adult salmonids in numerous watersheds during 1998-99 surveys; evaluates marine and freshwater survival rates for juvenile coho; and evaluates the effects of habitat modification on the abundance of juveniles. Title: Cascade Creek Watershed Monitoring Project #97-032 Abstract -- This report, also called "Salmonid Life-Cycle Monitoring Project," estimates the abundance of juvenile and adult salmonids in numerous watersheds during 1998-99 surveys; evaluates marine and freshwater survival rates for juvenile coho; and evaluates the effects of habitat modification on the abundance of juveniles. Close

• 32. [Article] Squaw Creek Monitoring Project #97-211

  Abstract -- The project included watershed education of 400 students; water quality monitoring of water flow, temperature, dissolved oxygen, bacteria, and macro-invertebrates; riparian surveys; fish surveys; ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Squaw Creek Monitoring Project #97-211 Abstract -- The project included watershed education of 400 students; water quality monitoring of water flow, temperature, dissolved oxygen, bacteria, and macro-invertebrates; riparian surveys; fish surveys; and thermal infrared monitoring and color videography in the Squaw Creek sub-basin from 1997 through 2000. Reports on Squaw Creek watershed research, performed by USFS and ODFW during the same time period, are appended. Title: Squaw Creek Monitoring Project #97-211 Abstract -- The project included watershed education of 400 students; water quality monitoring of water flow, temperature, dissolved oxygen, bacteria, and macro-invertebrates; riparian surveys; fish surveys; and thermal infrared monitoring and color videography in the Squaw Creek sub-basin from 1997 through 2000. Reports on Squaw Creek watershed research, performed by USFS and ODFW during the same time period, are appended. Close

• 33. [Article] Pedee Creek Watershed Assessment, Project #201-168

  Abstract -- In August and September of 2001, ODFW staff were contracted to conduct stream habitat and aquatic inventory surveys on Pedee Creek from its confluence with the Luckiamute River upstream to ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Pedee Creek Watershed Assessment, Project #201-168 Abstract -- In August and September of 2001, ODFW staff were contracted to conduct stream habitat and aquatic inventory surveys on Pedee Creek from its confluence with the Luckiamute River upstream to include both north and south forks up to natural barriers. This report includes those reports. Title: Pedee Creek Watershed Assessment, Project #201-168 Abstract -- In August and September of 2001, ODFW staff were contracted to conduct stream habitat and aquatic inventory surveys on Pedee Creek from its confluence with the Luckiamute River upstream to include both north and south forks up to natural barriers. This report includes those reports. Close

• 34. [Article] Big Elk Watershed Analysis

  Abstract -- This watershed analysis describes three domains - the human, the aquatic, and the terrestrial - of the southern one-third of the Yaquina River basin, comprised of Big Elk Creek and Mill Creek, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Big Elk Watershed Analysis Abstract -- This watershed analysis describes three domains - the human, the aquatic, and the terrestrial - of the southern one-third of the Yaquina River basin, comprised of Big Elk Creek and Mill Creek, in the central Coast Range. Watershed characterization, issues, reference conditions, current conditions, trends, and recommendations are given. Title: Big Elk Watershed Analysis Abstract -- This watershed analysis describes three domains - the human, the aquatic, and the terrestrial - of the southern one-third of the Yaquina River basin, comprised of Big Elk Creek and Mill Creek, in the central Coast Range. Watershed characterization, issues, reference conditions, current conditions, trends, and recommendations are given. Close

• 35. [Article] Drift Creek (Alsea) Watershed Analysis

  Abstract -- This analysis of the Drift Creek watershed within the Alsea River basin in the middle Coast Range includes characterization, issues, historic conditions, current conditions, trends, and recommendations ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Drift Creek (Alsea) Watershed Analysis Abstract -- This analysis of the Drift Creek watershed within the Alsea River basin in the middle Coast Range includes characterization, issues, historic conditions, current conditions, trends, and recommendations for three domains - the human, the aquatic, and the terrestrial. Title: Drift Creek (Alsea) Watershed Analysis Abstract -- This analysis of the Drift Creek watershed within the Alsea River basin in the middle Coast Range includes characterization, issues, historic conditions, current conditions, trends, and recommendations for three domains - the human, the aquatic, and the terrestrial. Close

• 36. [Article] Trout Creek Watershed Assessment, Part 1: Findings

  Abstract -- This assessment (part 1 of 2) includes watershed characterization, historical conditions, habitat types, hydrology, water use and quality, riparian areas, sediment sources, channel modifications, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Trout Creek Watershed Assessment, Part 1: Findings Abstract -- This assessment (part 1 of 2) includes watershed characterization, historical conditions, habitat types, hydrology, water use and quality, riparian areas, sediment sources, channel modifications, fisheries, and fish habitat for Trout Creek in the Deschutes River basin. Discussion and recommendations are given for each chapter. Title: Trout Creek Watershed Assessment, Part 1: Findings Abstract -- This assessment (part 1 of 2) includes watershed characterization, historical conditions, habitat types, hydrology, water use and quality, riparian areas, sediment sources, channel modifications, fisheries, and fish habitat for Trout Creek in the Deschutes River basin. Discussion and recommendations are given for each chapter. Close

• 37. [Article] Trout Creek Watershed Assessment, Part 2: Condition Evaluation and Action Opportunities

  Abstract -- This document summarizes "Trout Creek Watershed Assessment: Findings" and evaluates opportunities for voluntary actions to improve watershed conditions. Information from the assessment is used ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Trout Creek Watershed Assessment, Part 2: Condition Evaluation and Action Opportunities Abstract -- This document summarizes "Trout Creek Watershed Assessment: Findings" and evaluates opportunities for voluntary actions to improve watershed conditions. Information from the assessment is used to identify fish habitat and water quality issues for general areas of the watershed. Title: Trout Creek Watershed Assessment, Part 2: Condition Evaluation and Action Opportunities Abstract -- This document summarizes "Trout Creek Watershed Assessment: Findings" and evaluates opportunities for voluntary actions to improve watershed conditions. Information from the assessment is used to identify fish habitat and water quality issues for general areas of the watershed. Close

• 38. [Article] Williams Creek Watershed Action Plan

  Abstract -- This document is the Williams Creek Watershed Action Plan prepared for the Williams Creek Watershed Council and funded by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. The Action Plan is based on ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Williams Creek Watershed Action Plan Abstract -- This document is the Williams Creek Watershed Action Plan prepared for the Williams Creek Watershed Council and funded by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. The Action Plan is based on current information contained in the Williams Creek Watershed Assessment. This information has been used to evaluate site-specific and watershed-wide issues affecting salmon and other essential watershed resources. These issues include: protection/conservation, riparian health, sediment sources, fish barriers, fish screens, channel modifications, roads, low stream flows, wetland loss, non-point source nutrient pollution, and additional assessment opportunities. The Action Plan recommends how to protect, restore, and enhance conditions through the implementation of a watershed health strategy. Title: Williams Creek Watershed Action Plan Abstract -- This document is the Williams Creek Watershed Action Plan prepared for the Williams Creek Watershed Council and funded by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. The Action Plan is based on current information contained in the Williams Creek Watershed Assessment. This information has been used to evaluate site-specific and watershed-wide issues affecting salmon and other essential watershed resources. These issues include: protection/conservation, riparian health, sediment sources, fish barriers, fish screens, channel modifications, roads, low stream flows, wetland loss, non-point source nutrient pollution, and additional assessment opportunities. The Action Plan recommends how to protect, restore, and enhance conditions through the implementation of a watershed health strategy. Close

• 39. [Article] Bear Creek Watershed Assessment, Phase II - Bear Creek Tributary Assessment

  Abstract -- This document assesses 21 tributary sub-basins in the Bear Creek watershed in terms of history, physiography and physical structure, human demographic characteristics, channel morphology, and ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Bear Creek Watershed Assessment, Phase II - Bear Creek Tributary Assessment Abstract -- This document assesses 21 tributary sub-basins in the Bear Creek watershed in terms of history, physiography and physical structure, human demographic characteristics, channel morphology, and riparian habitat. It concludes with a comparison, and technical prioritization, of conditions across sub-basins. Title: Bear Creek Watershed Assessment, Phase II - Bear Creek Tributary Assessment Abstract -- This document assesses 21 tributary sub-basins in the Bear Creek watershed in terms of history, physiography and physical structure, human demographic characteristics, channel morphology, and riparian habitat. It concludes with a comparison, and technical prioritization, of conditions across sub-basins. Close

• 40. [Article] South Coast and Lower Rogue Watersheds - Road Storm-proofing Projects - Monitoring Report 2000-2001

  Abstract -- Road storm-proofing (sediment abatement) projects in the Lobster Creek watershed were monitored within 2 years of installation. Narrative descriptions of each project site and selected photos ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: South Coast and Lower Rogue Watersheds - Road Storm-proofing Projects - Monitoring Report 2000-2001 Abstract -- Road storm-proofing (sediment abatement) projects in the Lobster Creek watershed were monitored within 2 years of installation. Narrative descriptions of each project site and selected photos are presented. Title: South Coast and Lower Rogue Watersheds - Road Storm-proofing Projects - Monitoring Report 2000-2001 Abstract -- Road storm-proofing (sediment abatement) projects in the Lobster Creek watershed were monitored within 2 years of installation. Narrative descriptions of each project site and selected photos are presented. Close

• 41. [Article] Clear & Foster Creeks Snapshot Monitoring Event

  Abstract -- This short report lists the results of a one-day water monitoring effort on Clear and Foster Creeks in the Clackamas River watershed.

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Clear & Foster Creeks Snapshot Monitoring Event Abstract -- This short report lists the results of a one-day water monitoring effort on Clear and Foster Creeks in the Clackamas River watershed. Title: Clear & Foster Creeks Snapshot Monitoring Event Abstract -- This short report lists the results of a one-day water monitoring effort on Clear and Foster Creeks in the Clackamas River watershed. Close

• 42. [Article] End Creek - Rice Fish Habitat and Wetland Restoration Project, OWEB #204-434

  Abstract -- The summer of 2006 culminated in the successful implementation of three consecutive phases of the End Creek Restoration Project located in the northwest Grande Ronde Valley within the Grande ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: End Creek - Rice Fish Habitat and Wetland Restoration Project, OWEB #204-434 Abstract -- The summer of 2006 culminated in the successful implementation of three consecutive phases of the End Creek Restoration Project located in the northwest Grande Ronde Valley within the Grande Ronde Subbasin of eastern Oregon. The End Creek Project complex encompasses approximately 776 acres within three contiguous private land parcels, 1.13 miles of End Creek, 1.06 miles of the South Fork Willow Creek, 0.65 miles of McDonald Creek, and several spring-fed tributaries in the Willow Creek Watershed. This 39 page report details the many aspects of this project and includes photos, figures, and references. Title: End Creek - Rice Fish Habitat and Wetland Restoration Project, OWEB #204-434 Abstract -- The summer of 2006 culminated in the successful implementation of three consecutive phases of the End Creek Restoration Project located in the northwest Grande Ronde Valley within the Grande Ronde Subbasin of eastern Oregon. The End Creek Project complex encompasses approximately 776 acres within three contiguous private land parcels, 1.13 miles of End Creek, 1.06 miles of the South Fork Willow Creek, 0.65 miles of McDonald Creek, and several spring-fed tributaries in the Willow Creek Watershed. This 39 page report details the many aspects of this project and includes photos, figures, and references. Close

• 43. [Article] Deep, Goose and Eagle Creeks Fish Passage Assessment 2005

  Abstract -- This fish passage assessment starts out with background and an explanation of methods, then moves right into results, references, and appendices. Map included in separate file. 45 pp.

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Deep, Goose and Eagle Creeks Fish Passage Assessment 2005 Abstract -- This fish passage assessment starts out with background and an explanation of methods, then moves right into results, references, and appendices. Map included in separate file. 45 pp. Title: Deep, Goose and Eagle Creeks Fish Passage Assessment 2005 Abstract -- This fish passage assessment starts out with background and an explanation of methods, then moves right into results, references, and appendices. Map included in separate file. 45 pp. Close

• 44. [Article] Dairy-McKay (Tualatin) Watershed Analysis

  Abstract -- The Tillamook region BLM and Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District teamed up to produce this analysis of the Dairy Creek, McKay Creek subbasins of the Tualatin River. Chapter ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Dairy-McKay (Tualatin) Watershed Analysis Abstract -- The Tillamook region BLM and Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District teamed up to produce this analysis of the Dairy Creek, McKay Creek subbasins of the Tualatin River. Chapter 1 includes physical, biological, and social characterization of the area; Chapter 2 addresses core topics and key questions about aquatic, terrestrial, and social issues; Chapter 3 describes current conditions in the aquatic, terrestrial, and social landscapes; Chapter 4 deliniates reference conditions; Chapter 5 provides a synthesis on aquatic, terrestrial, and social topics; Chapter 6 offers recommendations for management in those three spheres, addressing management on BLM lands separately. Copious tables, figures, maps throughout. Bibliography and appendices. 179 pp. Title: Dairy-McKay (Tualatin) Watershed Analysis Abstract -- The Tillamook region BLM and Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District teamed up to produce this analysis of the Dairy Creek, McKay Creek subbasins of the Tualatin River. Chapter 1 includes physical, biological, and social characterization of the area; Chapter 2 addresses core topics and key questions about aquatic, terrestrial, and social issues; Chapter 3 describes current conditions in the aquatic, terrestrial, and social landscapes; Chapter 4 deliniates reference conditions; Chapter 5 provides a synthesis on aquatic, terrestrial, and social topics; Chapter 6 offers recommendations for management in those three spheres, addressing management on BLM lands separately. Copious tables, figures, maps throughout. Bibliography and appendices. 179 pp. Close

• 45. [Article] Middle Tualatin-Rock Creek Watershed Analysis

  Abstract -- This analysis of the middle Tualatin-Rock Creek basin includes an introduction, characterization, core topics and key questions, current conditions, reference conditions, synthesis, and recommendations. ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Middle Tualatin-Rock Creek Watershed Analysis Abstract -- This analysis of the middle Tualatin-Rock Creek basin includes an introduction, characterization, core topics and key questions, current conditions, reference conditions, synthesis, and recommendations. Bibliography. The appendix contains the aquatic conservation objectives and footnotes. 153 pp. Title: Middle Tualatin-Rock Creek Watershed Analysis Abstract -- This analysis of the middle Tualatin-Rock Creek basin includes an introduction, characterization, core topics and key questions, current conditions, reference conditions, synthesis, and recommendations. Bibliography. The appendix contains the aquatic conservation objectives and footnotes. 153 pp. Close

• 46. [Article] Jordan-Alder Creek (S. Umpqua) Watershed Assessment, 2006

  Abstract -- This assessment identifies current habitat limitations and recommends corrective actions, prioritized by potential benefit to salmonids, in the Jordan-Alder Creek subbasin of the South Umpqua ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Jordan-Alder Creek (S. Umpqua) Watershed Assessment, 2006 Abstract -- This assessment identifies current habitat limitations and recommends corrective actions, prioritized by potential benefit to salmonids, in the Jordan-Alder Creek subbasin of the South Umpqua River near Canyonville. Sections include introduction, past conditions, current conditions, current trends and potential future conditions, action plan, and references. Copious figures, tables, and maps. Appendices include stream habitat survey results and official letters. 123 pp. Title: Jordan-Alder Creek (S. Umpqua) Watershed Assessment, 2006 Abstract -- This assessment identifies current habitat limitations and recommends corrective actions, prioritized by potential benefit to salmonids, in the Jordan-Alder Creek subbasin of the South Umpqua River near Canyonville. Sections include introduction, past conditions, current conditions, current trends and potential future conditions, action plan, and references. Copious figures, tables, and maps. Appendices include stream habitat survey results and official letters. 123 pp. Close

• 47. [Article] Willamette Basin Restoration Priorities: Watershed Summaries, 2005

  Abstract -- The Watershed Restoration Summaries were developed by local watershed councils and other stakeholders to help identify priorities for restoring fish and wildlife habitat and water quality throughout ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Willamette Basin Restoration Priorities: Watershed Summaries, 2005 Abstract -- The Watershed Restoration Summaries were developed by local watershed councils and other stakeholders to help identify priorities for restoring fish and wildlife habitat and water quality throughout the Willamette Basin. These summaries outline aquatic and terrestrial restoration priorities and geographic focus areas within three major themes: 1) Restoration of habitat connectivity (e.g., fish passage and wildlife corridors); 2) Restoration of key watershed processes and functions (e.g., large wood delivery, water flows, sediment transport, and disturbance regimes); and 3) Restoration of aquatic, riparian, wetland, and upland habitats, including addressing habitats for ESA-listed species and areas that impact water quality. Watersheds included: Scappoose Bay, Columbia Slough, Lower Willamette, Johnson, Tryon, Fanno Creeks, Clackamas, Tualatin, Yamhill & Chehalem, Molalla, Pudding, Glenn-Gibson, Greater Salem-Keizer Area, Rickreall, Santiam, Luckiamute, Calapooia, Mary's, Long Tom, McKenzie, Coast Fork Willamette, Middle Fork Willamette, Middle & Upper Willamette. Title: Willamette Basin Restoration Priorities: Watershed Summaries, 2005 Abstract -- The Watershed Restoration Summaries were developed by local watershed councils and other stakeholders to help identify priorities for restoring fish and wildlife habitat and water quality throughout the Willamette Basin. These summaries outline aquatic and terrestrial restoration priorities and geographic focus areas within three major themes: 1) Restoration of habitat connectivity (e.g., fish passage and wildlife corridors); 2) Restoration of key watershed processes and functions (e.g., large wood delivery, water flows, sediment transport, and disturbance regimes); and 3) Restoration of aquatic, riparian, wetland, and upland habitats, including addressing habitats for ESA-listed species and areas that impact water quality. Watersheds included: Scappoose Bay, Columbia Slough, Lower Willamette, Johnson, Tryon, Fanno Creeks, Clackamas, Tualatin, Yamhill & Chehalem, Molalla, Pudding, Glenn-Gibson, Greater Salem-Keizer Area, Rickreall, Santiam, Luckiamute, Calapooia, Mary's, Long Tom, McKenzie, Coast Fork Willamette, Middle Fork Willamette, Middle & Upper Willamette. Close

• 48. [Article] Clear and Foster Creek Fish Passage Assessment and Prioritization Project (Clackamas Watershed) (OWEB #200-086)

  Abstract -- The project was initiated by the Clackamas River Basin Council (CRBC) to address the fact that most information on barriers was on public roads. With tremendous private cooperation, fish passage ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Clear and Foster Creek Fish Passage Assessment and Prioritization Project (Clackamas Watershed) (OWEB #200-086) Abstract -- The project was initiated by the Clackamas River Basin Council (CRBC) to address the fact that most information on barriers was on public roads. With tremendous private cooperation, fish passage information was gathered for all but a handful of artificial barriers known in the Clear and Foster Creek basins during the course of this project. A total of 223 potential artificial barriers were evaluated. In the Clear and Foster Creek Basin there are a total of 159 barriers on fish bearing streams. Of these 159 crossings: 81 had verified fish passage blockage to some degree based on methods described in this report. Of these 81 crossings, 27 had complete blockages and 54 had partial blockages. Of the 81 blockages, 34 are on streams that are thought to have anandromous fish species use. We determined the cost to fix the 81 potential blockages to fish passage. The proposed fixes include bridges, open bottom culverts and slabs, and closed bottom culverts that are embedded to imitate natural streambed conditions. We prioritized crossings using a formula developed specifically for the Clear and Foster basin. Title: Clear and Foster Creek Fish Passage Assessment and Prioritization Project (Clackamas Watershed) (OWEB #200-086) Abstract -- The project was initiated by the Clackamas River Basin Council (CRBC) to address the fact that most information on barriers was on public roads. With tremendous private cooperation, fish passage information was gathered for all but a handful of artificial barriers known in the Clear and Foster Creek basins during the course of this project. A total of 223 potential artificial barriers were evaluated. In the Clear and Foster Creek Basin there are a total of 159 barriers on fish bearing streams. Of these 159 crossings: 81 had verified fish passage blockage to some degree based on methods described in this report. Of these 81 crossings, 27 had complete blockages and 54 had partial blockages. Of the 81 blockages, 34 are on streams that are thought to have anandromous fish species use. We determined the cost to fix the 81 potential blockages to fish passage. The proposed fixes include bridges, open bottom culverts and slabs, and closed bottom culverts that are embedded to imitate natural streambed conditions. We prioritized crossings using a formula developed specifically for the Clear and Foster basin. Close

• 49. [Article] Steelhead Habitat Surveys in Mill Creek Monitoring Project Completion Report (OWEB #205-125)

  Abstract -- This project added to the existing information about steelhead in Mill Creek in the following ways: • Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife completed an instream habitat inventory from the ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Steelhead Habitat Surveys in Mill Creek Monitoring Project Completion Report (OWEB #205-125) Abstract -- This project added to the existing information about steelhead in Mill Creek in the following ways: • Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife completed an instream habitat inventory from the mouth to the forks, up the South Fork to Mill Creek Falls, where anadromy ends, and up the North Fork for the first 7,370 meters. • Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife conducted steelhead redd surveys in the mainstem and South Fork in 2005 and 2006, while the US Forest Service conducted redd surveys in the federally-owned upper reaches of the North Fork. • Wasco County Soil and Water Conservation District installed depth and temperature monitors on the mainstem and North Fork, while relying on the City of The Dalles to monitor flows in the South Fork. Title: Steelhead Habitat Surveys in Mill Creek Monitoring Project Completion Report (OWEB #205-125) Abstract -- This project added to the existing information about steelhead in Mill Creek in the following ways: • Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife completed an instream habitat inventory from the mouth to the forks, up the South Fork to Mill Creek Falls, where anadromy ends, and up the North Fork for the first 7,370 meters. • Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife conducted steelhead redd surveys in the mainstem and South Fork in 2005 and 2006, while the US Forest Service conducted redd surveys in the federally-owned upper reaches of the North Fork. • Wasco County Soil and Water Conservation District installed depth and temperature monitors on the mainstem and North Fork, while relying on the City of The Dalles to monitor flows in the South Fork. Close

• 50. [Article] Dodge Canyon Culvert Replacement Project Completion Report (OWEB #205-162 & #206-284)

  Abstract -- In early 2004, teh Elk Creek Watershed Council identified an undersized steel culvert that was blocking fish passage to more than a mile of salmonid habitat on private land on Dodge Canyon ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Dodge Canyon Culvert Replacement Project Completion Report (OWEB #205-162 & #206-284) Abstract -- In early 2004, teh Elk Creek Watershed Council identified an undersized steel culvert that was blocking fish passage to more than a mile of salmonid habitat on private land on Dodge Canyon Creek. The Council approached the land owner and obtained permission to seek fudning to replace the culvert. Two additional culverts on a side tributary, blocking 1/2 mile of additional habitat, and a partial barrier on Thompson Creek, were also also identified for removal. All culverts were slated for removal at one time by a single contractor in hopes of saving money. Final removal and construction of the culverts was completed on August 28, 2006. The landowner will maintain the culverts for 10 years, with periodic inspection by the Elk River Watershed Council. The Elk Creek Watershed Council will take photos of the projects for at least two years, and ODFW will conduct fish presence and spawning surveys to document fish use for two years. Title: Dodge Canyon Culvert Replacement Project Completion Report (OWEB #205-162 & #206-284) Abstract -- In early 2004, teh Elk Creek Watershed Council identified an undersized steel culvert that was blocking fish passage to more than a mile of salmonid habitat on private land on Dodge Canyon Creek. The Council approached the land owner and obtained permission to seek fudning to replace the culvert. Two additional culverts on a side tributary, blocking 1/2 mile of additional habitat, and a partial barrier on Thompson Creek, were also also identified for removal. All culverts were slated for removal at one time by a single contractor in hopes of saving money. Final removal and construction of the culverts was completed on August 28, 2006. The landowner will maintain the culverts for 10 years, with periodic inspection by the Elk River Watershed Council. The Elk Creek Watershed Council will take photos of the projects for at least two years, and ODFW will conduct fish presence and spawning surveys to document fish use for two years. Close

• 51. [Article] Mahogany Creek Culvert Replacement Project Annual Monitoring Report

  Abstract -- This annual monitoring report covers activities under the Grande Ronde Model Watershed/Bonneville Power Administration contract No. 27255, entitled Mahogany Creek Culvert Replacement Project. ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Mahogany Creek Culvert Replacement Project Annual Monitoring Report Abstract -- This annual monitoring report covers activities under the Grande Ronde Model Watershed/Bonneville Power Administration contract No. 27255, entitled Mahogany Creek Culvert Replacement Project. Prior to the completion of this project, the Mahogany culvert was undersized, had an outlet drop of two feet and was considered a barrier to all life history stages of all aquatic species. The primary project objective was to replace the culvert with a 15 feet wide open-bottom arch that allows passage of all life stages of all aquatic species. The stream channel was reconstructed through the newly installed culvert utilizing stream simulation techniques. This project re-opened 3.5 miles of spawning and rearing habitat for Snake River steelhead, and rearing habitat for Chinook and bull trout, upstream of the structure. This project continues to meet project objectives one year post-implementation. Title: Mahogany Creek Culvert Replacement Project Annual Monitoring Report Abstract -- This annual monitoring report covers activities under the Grande Ronde Model Watershed/Bonneville Power Administration contract No. 27255, entitled Mahogany Creek Culvert Replacement Project. Prior to the completion of this project, the Mahogany culvert was undersized, had an outlet drop of two feet and was considered a barrier to all life history stages of all aquatic species. The primary project objective was to replace the culvert with a 15 feet wide open-bottom arch that allows passage of all life stages of all aquatic species. The stream channel was reconstructed through the newly installed culvert utilizing stream simulation techniques. This project re-opened 3.5 miles of spawning and rearing habitat for Snake River steelhead, and rearing habitat for Chinook and bull trout, upstream of the structure. This project continues to meet project objectives one year post-implementation. Close

• 52. [Article] Indian Creek Aquatic Restoration (OWEB #205-144)

  Abstract -- Like many streams in this area, these creeks have experienced considerable habitat degradation due to past land management practices that removed large wood from the channels. Without the large ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Indian Creek Aquatic Restoration (OWEB #205-144) Abstract -- Like many streams in this area, these creeks have experienced considerable habitat degradation due to past land management practices that removed large wood from the channels. Without the large wood, spawning gravels have washed away leaving a mostly bedrock substrate. The down-cut stream is no longer connected to its former floodplain and fish have little refuge during high flows. Additionally, aquatic insect life, the basic food source for young salmonids, is limited without the diverse habitats formed by complexes of wood and gravel. Goals associated with this restoration proposal include: • Address limitation to anadromous fish production in Indian Creek tributaries o Enhance spawning, rearing, and overwintering habitat for anadromous and resident fish species o Restore storage capacity (water, substrates, and detritus) of the selected streams to levels more closely expected with unaltered systems in the Coast Range. • Establish a connection between past small scale restoration efforts • Maintain a network of organizations, stakeholders, and individuals who will participate in watershed restoration efforts. Widened channel floodplain from newly derived gravel, side channel formation / channel alteration (with more sinuosity), and additional scour pools were observed throughout the structure sites we monitored since the project implementation from high water events. Especially, the amount of gravel that was delivered to the project reaches and the degree to which they were sorted in large concentration directly adjacent to the helicopter structures was far more prominent than what we have observed in previous years from other helicopter projects. Title: Indian Creek Aquatic Restoration (OWEB #205-144) Abstract -- Like many streams in this area, these creeks have experienced considerable habitat degradation due to past land management practices that removed large wood from the channels. Without the large wood, spawning gravels have washed away leaving a mostly bedrock substrate. The down-cut stream is no longer connected to its former floodplain and fish have little refuge during high flows. Additionally, aquatic insect life, the basic food source for young salmonids, is limited without the diverse habitats formed by complexes of wood and gravel. Goals associated with this restoration proposal include: • Address limitation to anadromous fish production in Indian Creek tributaries o Enhance spawning, rearing, and overwintering habitat for anadromous and resident fish species o Restore storage capacity (water, substrates, and detritus) of the selected streams to levels more closely expected with unaltered systems in the Coast Range. • Establish a connection between past small scale restoration efforts • Maintain a network of organizations, stakeholders, and individuals who will participate in watershed restoration efforts. Widened channel floodplain from newly derived gravel, side channel formation / channel alteration (with more sinuosity), and additional scour pools were observed throughout the structure sites we monitored since the project implementation from high water events. Especially, the amount of gravel that was delivered to the project reaches and the degree to which they were sorted in large concentration directly adjacent to the helicopter structures was far more prominent than what we have observed in previous years from other helicopter projects. Close

• 53. [Article] Gales Creek Watershed Assessment Project

  Abstract -- This document is the Gales Creek Watershed Assessment Report prepared for the Tualatin River Watershed Council. This report contains detailed information about the Gales Creek Watershed and ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Gales Creek Watershed Assessment Project Abstract -- This document is the Gales Creek Watershed Assessment Report prepared for the Tualatin River Watershed Council. This report contains detailed information about the Gales Creek Watershed and follows the guidelines described in the 1997 Draft Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board’s Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual. It was written to partially satisfy the watershed assessment action item #1described in the Tualatin River Watershed Council’s Action Plan. This report should be periodically updated, as new information becomes available. Title: Gales Creek Watershed Assessment Project Abstract -- This document is the Gales Creek Watershed Assessment Report prepared for the Tualatin River Watershed Council. This report contains detailed information about the Gales Creek Watershed and follows the guidelines described in the 1997 Draft Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board’s Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual. It was written to partially satisfy the watershed assessment action item #1described in the Tualatin River Watershed Council’s Action Plan. This report should be periodically updated, as new information becomes available. Close

• 54. [Article] Evans Creek Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- The Evans Creek Watershed Council's planning area is an important part of the diverse 3,300,000 acre (5,156 square mile) Rogue River Basin. The approximate 261,760 acre (409 square mile Evans ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Evans Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The Evans Creek Watershed Council's planning area is an important part of the diverse 3,300,000 acre (5,156 square mile) Rogue River Basin. The approximate 261,760 acre (409 square mile Evans Creek Watershed Council's planning area includes lands in Jackson County (approximately 406 square miles) and Josephine County (approximately 3 square miles) of Southwest Oregon. Evans Creek rises from the northern divide separating the Rogue River Basin from the Umpqua Basin and traves in a generally south-southwest direction to its confluence with the Rogue main stem at the City of Rogue River. Title: Evans Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The Evans Creek Watershed Council's planning area is an important part of the diverse 3,300,000 acre (5,156 square mile) Rogue River Basin. The approximate 261,760 acre (409 square mile Evans Creek Watershed Council's planning area includes lands in Jackson County (approximately 406 square miles) and Josephine County (approximately 3 square miles) of Southwest Oregon. Evans Creek rises from the northern divide separating the Rogue River Basin from the Umpqua Basin and traves in a generally south-southwest direction to its confluence with the Rogue main stem at the City of Rogue River. Close

• 55. [Article] Jenny Creek Watershed Assessment & Analysis

  Abstract -- The "Jenny Creek Watershed Assessment and Analysis" follows the direction provided in the "Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Jenny Creek Watershed Assessment & Analysis Abstract -- The "Jenny Creek Watershed Assessment and Analysis" follows the direction provided in the "Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl." It is an information gathering and analytical process, not a decision-making process. This information can be utilized during the National Environmental Policy Act process for any projects that may be planned for this watershed in the future. It provides the basis for project-specific proposals, and determines monitoring and restoration needs for the watershed. Title: Jenny Creek Watershed Assessment & Analysis Abstract -- The "Jenny Creek Watershed Assessment and Analysis" follows the direction provided in the "Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl." It is an information gathering and analytical process, not a decision-making process. This information can be utilized during the National Environmental Policy Act process for any projects that may be planned for this watershed in the future. It provides the basis for project-specific proposals, and determines monitoring and restoration needs for the watershed. Close

• 56. [Article] Lower Pony Creek Watershed Assessment and Potential Action Plan

  Abstract -- The Lower Pony Creek Watershed has been undergoing significant change in recent decades, as the area has transitioned from a forested coastal valley to urban and suburban in character. This ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Lower Pony Creek Watershed Assessment and Potential Action Plan Abstract -- The Lower Pony Creek Watershed has been undergoing significant change in recent decades, as the area has transitioned from a forested coastal valley to urban and suburban in character. This transition has . ~I presented significant issues for the Cities of North Bend and Coos Bay and these issues are the focus of this project. Flooding in the Creek system has become an increasingly regular occurrence in specific areas. Water quality has deteriorated to the point that, in 1998, the Oregon Department of Water Quality listed Pony Creek and Pony Slough as being water quality limited for high bacterial counts. The Creek system supports or has supported salmon runs (now protected under the Endangered Species Act) and is o designated Essential Salmonid Habitat by the Oregon Department of State Lands and the Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife. Citizens and agency staff have come together to better understand the current condition of the Lower Pony Creek, and to chart a course toward an ecologically healthier future for the watershed. Title: Lower Pony Creek Watershed Assessment and Potential Action Plan Abstract -- The Lower Pony Creek Watershed has been undergoing significant change in recent decades, as the area has transitioned from a forested coastal valley to urban and suburban in character. This transition has . ~I presented significant issues for the Cities of North Bend and Coos Bay and these issues are the focus of this project. Flooding in the Creek system has become an increasingly regular occurrence in specific areas. Water quality has deteriorated to the point that, in 1998, the Oregon Department of Water Quality listed Pony Creek and Pony Slough as being water quality limited for high bacterial counts. The Creek system supports or has supported salmon runs (now protected under the Endangered Species Act) and is o designated Essential Salmonid Habitat by the Oregon Department of State Lands and the Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife. Citizens and agency staff have come together to better understand the current condition of the Lower Pony Creek, and to chart a course toward an ecologically healthier future for the watershed. Close

• 57. [Article] Bully Creek Watershed Assessment and Strategy

  Abstract -- This watershed strategy integrates all aspect ofthe subbasin so it views the total system. Historically, natural resource plans have addressed a single problem or only one resource. Coalition ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Bully Creek Watershed Assessment and Strategy Abstract -- This watershed strategy integrates all aspect ofthe subbasin so it views the total system. Historically, natural resource plans have addressed a single problem or only one resource. Coalition members are committed to carrying out this plan, voluntarily, over a period ofdecades. The plan will emphasize "preventive maintenance" instead ofafter-the-fact clean-up. It is the road map to guide private landowners and public-land managers in their efforts to preserve the natural and community resources ofthe Bully Creek subbasin in an economically reasonable manner for all citizens. Implementing the plan will make it possible for public and private land ownerships to achieve improvements ofcontiguous habitats. Title: Bully Creek Watershed Assessment and Strategy Abstract -- This watershed strategy integrates all aspect ofthe subbasin so it views the total system. Historically, natural resource plans have addressed a single problem or only one resource. Coalition members are committed to carrying out this plan, voluntarily, over a period ofdecades. The plan will emphasize "preventive maintenance" instead ofafter-the-fact clean-up. It is the road map to guide private landowners and public-land managers in their efforts to preserve the natural and community resources ofthe Bully Creek subbasin in an economically reasonable manner for all citizens. Implementing the plan will make it possible for public and private land ownerships to achieve improvements ofcontiguous habitats. Close

• 58. [Article] Camp Creek Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- Introduction & Purpose, Historical Narrative, Hyrology & Water Rights, Water Quality, Fisheries, Riparian/Habitat, Upland/Rangeland, Action Plan/Executive, Appendix

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Camp Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- Introduction & Purpose, Historical Narrative, Hyrology & Water Rights, Water Quality, Fisheries, Riparian/Habitat, Upland/Rangeland, Action Plan/Executive, Appendix Title: Camp Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- Introduction & Purpose, Historical Narrative, Hyrology & Water Rights, Water Quality, Fisheries, Riparian/Habitat, Upland/Rangeland, Action Plan/Executive, Appendix Close

• 59. [Article] Emigrant Creek Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- The Emigrant Watershed Project has demonstrated three results: - Rural landowners can assess their own watershed following OWEB's Manual - Involved landowners gain personal commitment to projects ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Emigrant Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The Emigrant Watershed Project has demonstrated three results: - Rural landowners can assess their own watershed following OWEB's Manual - Involved landowners gain personal commitment to projects and tasks in their neighborhood Action Plan - Fire danger and wildlife issues can be folded into private lands watershed work in the uplands Title: Emigrant Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The Emigrant Watershed Project has demonstrated three results: - Rural landowners can assess their own watershed following OWEB's Manual - Involved landowners gain personal commitment to projects and tasks in their neighborhood Action Plan - Fire danger and wildlife issues can be folded into private lands watershed work in the uplands Close

• 60. [Article] Thirtymile Creek Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board's Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual was used as the guideline for this assessment. The manual provides background information on watershed functions ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Thirtymile Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board's Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual was used as the guideline for this assessment. The manual provides background information on watershed functions in Oregon and resources for conducting the assessment. It provides step-by-step instruction for completing each chapter ofthe assessment. Copies of the manual can be downloaded from OWEB's website, http ://www.oweb.state.or.us. The Thirtymile Creek watershed assessment encompasses the entire watershed, with a focus on private lands. Title: Thirtymile Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board's Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual was used as the guideline for this assessment. The manual provides background information on watershed functions in Oregon and resources for conducting the assessment. It provides step-by-step instruction for completing each chapter ofthe assessment. Copies of the manual can be downloaded from OWEB's website, http ://www.oweb.state.or.us. The Thirtymile Creek watershed assessment encompasses the entire watershed, with a focus on private lands. Close

• 61. [Article] Pine Creek Watershed Assessment vol. 1

  Abstract -- The Pine Creek Watershed Assessment consists oftwo volumes: Volume I -Report; Volume 2 Letters of Comment. This is Volume 1 and includes information on the condition of basic resources in the ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Pine Creek Watershed Assessment vol. 1 Abstract -- The Pine Creek Watershed Assessment consists oftwo volumes: Volume I -Report; Volume 2 Letters of Comment. This is Volume 1 and includes information on the condition of basic resources in the watershed and on watershed health issues. The goal ofthe Powder Basin Watershed Council (Council) is to assist local stakeholders in the Pine Creek watershed to develop a watershed action plan from this assessment. Prior to the development ofthat action plan, local stakeholders will be asked to evaluate and prioritize the watershed health issues in this assessment, and to define objectives for additional assessments and watershed improvement needs. Title: Pine Creek Watershed Assessment vol. 1 Abstract -- The Pine Creek Watershed Assessment consists oftwo volumes: Volume I -Report; Volume 2 Letters of Comment. This is Volume 1 and includes information on the condition of basic resources in the watershed and on watershed health issues. The goal ofthe Powder Basin Watershed Council (Council) is to assist local stakeholders in the Pine Creek watershed to develop a watershed action plan from this assessment. Prior to the development ofthat action plan, local stakeholders will be asked to evaluate and prioritize the watershed health issues in this assessment, and to define objectives for additional assessments and watershed improvement needs. Close

• 62. [Article] Ashland Watershed Assessment and Action Plan

  Abstract -- The assessment of the Ashland and Neil Creek watersheds began June 23, 2004 and concluded with this report submitted December 31, 2007. The area studied lies along Interstate 5 about ten miles ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Ashland Watershed Assessment and Action Plan Abstract -- The assessment of the Ashland and Neil Creek watersheds began June 23, 2004 and concluded with this report submitted December 31, 2007. The area studied lies along Interstate 5 about ten miles north of the Oregon-California border as shown on Map 1. This project, one of many being completed across Oregon with funding from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), followed the components and methods outlined in OWEB’s Watershed Assessment Manual (July, 1999) supplemented by a later draft chapter to address Urban Issues. The process identifies voluntary individual and community Action Plans and fish-friendly practices that address priority local issues. The focus of this assessment is to document current and historic conditions; identify social and physical processes within the watershed that affect fish and riparian habitat, water quantity and quality; and current and potential hazards to the urban and rural residential environment. Soil conservation, erosion prevention, and flood protection are important factors in these issues. Most emphasis is on aquatic, hydrologic, and riparian systems. This watershed assessment builds on regional restoration priorities identified previously and provides a framework for the Bear Creek Watershed Council (BCWC) to better identify and prioritize issues affecting this watershed. Recommendations from this assessment help plan, propose and implement watershed restoration and improvement activities. Title: Ashland Watershed Assessment and Action Plan Abstract -- The assessment of the Ashland and Neil Creek watersheds began June 23, 2004 and concluded with this report submitted December 31, 2007. The area studied lies along Interstate 5 about ten miles north of the Oregon-California border as shown on Map 1. This project, one of many being completed across Oregon with funding from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), followed the components and methods outlined in OWEB’s Watershed Assessment Manual (July, 1999) supplemented by a later draft chapter to address Urban Issues. The process identifies voluntary individual and community Action Plans and fish-friendly practices that address priority local issues. The focus of this assessment is to document current and historic conditions; identify social and physical processes within the watershed that affect fish and riparian habitat, water quantity and quality; and current and potential hazards to the urban and rural residential environment. Soil conservation, erosion prevention, and flood protection are important factors in these issues. Most emphasis is on aquatic, hydrologic, and riparian systems. This watershed assessment builds on regional restoration priorities identified previously and provides a framework for the Bear Creek Watershed Council (BCWC) to better identify and prioritize issues affecting this watershed. Recommendations from this assessment help plan, propose and implement watershed restoration and improvement activities. Close

• 63. [Article] Coho Life Cycle Monitoring in Palouse and Larson Creeks

  Abstract -- The Coho Life Cycle Monitoring project in Palouse and Larson Creeks is a continuation of a long-term monitoring study initiated in 2004 to examne coho salmon survival, production and habitat ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coho Life Cycle Monitoring in Palouse and Larson Creeks Abstract -- The Coho Life Cycle Monitoring project in Palouse and Larson Creeks is a continuation of a long-term monitoring study initiated in 2004 to examne coho salmon survival, production and habitat use in tide gated coastal lowland streams. Tide gates are tidal flood control structures designed to open and close with each tidal cycle to limit tidal influence on upstream agricultural areas. The basic function of tide gates creates a partial barrier to fish passage. Coastal lowland streams are critical for the sustainability of Oregon Coastal coho, but it is unclear how tide gates may affect coho movement, habitat use and survival. Displaced fishers were employed by the Coos Watershed Association with funding from OWEB Grant 208-2098 during fall 2008 through fall 2009 to assist with implementation of the Life Cycle Monitoring project and related sampling efforts in the lowland coastal subbasins. Title: Coho Life Cycle Monitoring in Palouse and Larson Creeks Abstract -- The Coho Life Cycle Monitoring project in Palouse and Larson Creeks is a continuation of a long-term monitoring study initiated in 2004 to examne coho salmon survival, production and habitat use in tide gated coastal lowland streams. Tide gates are tidal flood control structures designed to open and close with each tidal cycle to limit tidal influence on upstream agricultural areas. The basic function of tide gates creates a partial barrier to fish passage. Coastal lowland streams are critical for the sustainability of Oregon Coastal coho, but it is unclear how tide gates may affect coho movement, habitat use and survival. Displaced fishers were employed by the Coos Watershed Association with funding from OWEB Grant 208-2098 during fall 2008 through fall 2009 to assist with implementation of the Life Cycle Monitoring project and related sampling efforts in the lowland coastal subbasins. Close

• 64. [Article] Coos Watershed Tide Gate Replacement Project-Effectiveness Monitoring 2008 - 2010

  Abstract -- Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) Grant 207-238 supported Coos Water-shed Association (CoosWA) efforts to implement the coho salmon Life Cycle Monitoring project in Palouse and Larson ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coos Watershed Tide Gate Replacement Project-Effectiveness Monitoring 2008 - 2010 Abstract -- Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) Grant 207-238 supported Coos Water-shed Association (CoosWA) efforts to implement the coho salmon Life Cycle Monitoring project in Palouse and Larson Creeks and to assist with research efforts led by Oregon State University (OSU) Fisheries researchers to monitor coho passage at the Palouse and Larson tide gates (see Bass 2010). This report summarizes results from the CoosWA Life Cycle Monitoring Project and associated efforts during 2004 through July 2010. Title: Coos Watershed Tide Gate Replacement Project-Effectiveness Monitoring 2008 - 2010 Abstract -- Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) Grant 207-238 supported Coos Water-shed Association (CoosWA) efforts to implement the coho salmon Life Cycle Monitoring project in Palouse and Larson Creeks and to assist with research efforts led by Oregon State University (OSU) Fisheries researchers to monitor coho passage at the Palouse and Larson tide gates (see Bass 2010). This report summarizes results from the CoosWA Life Cycle Monitoring Project and associated efforts during 2004 through July 2010. Close

• 65. [Article] Rock and Lonerock Creeks Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- The 2011 Rock and Lonerock Creeks Watershed Assessment was produced by ABR, Inc got the Gilliam-East John Day Watershed Council and the Gilliam Soil and Water Conservation District. The purpose ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Rock and Lonerock Creeks Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The 2011 Rock and Lonerock Creeks Watershed Assessment was produced by ABR, Inc got the Gilliam-East John Day Watershed Council and the Gilliam Soil and Water Conservation District. The purpose of the document was to give an overview on watershed history, current condition, purpose and scope of the project, Methods used for the assessment, the habitat types within the watershed, hydrology and water use within the watershed, risks to the watershed and proposed changes. In addition it gives a overview on the salmonid species found in the watershed and gives proposed changes to their management. Title: Rock and Lonerock Creeks Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The 2011 Rock and Lonerock Creeks Watershed Assessment was produced by ABR, Inc got the Gilliam-East John Day Watershed Council and the Gilliam Soil and Water Conservation District. The purpose of the document was to give an overview on watershed history, current condition, purpose and scope of the project, Methods used for the assessment, the habitat types within the watershed, hydrology and water use within the watershed, risks to the watershed and proposed changes. In addition it gives a overview on the salmonid species found in the watershed and gives proposed changes to their management. Close

• 66. [Article] Keene Creek Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- The 2005 Keene Creek Watershed Assessment was prepared by friends of the Green Springs project. The document discusses history of the watershed including land use, wildfire risk and a historical ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Keene Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The 2005 Keene Creek Watershed Assessment was prepared by friends of the Green Springs project. The document discusses history of the watershed including land use, wildfire risk and a historical timeline. In addition it discusses assessments of habitat types, sediment, channel modification and current hydrology. Following the assessments it discusses fish and wildlife found in the watershed. The end of the document discusses the action plan to restore or conserve the watershed. Title: Keene Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The 2005 Keene Creek Watershed Assessment was prepared by friends of the Green Springs project. The document discusses history of the watershed including land use, wildfire risk and a historical timeline. In addition it discusses assessments of habitat types, sediment, channel modification and current hydrology. Following the assessments it discusses fish and wildlife found in the watershed. The end of the document discusses the action plan to restore or conserve the watershed. Close

• 67. [Article] Silver Creek Subbasin Assessment

  Abstract -- The Silver Creek Subbasin Assessment was produced by the Harney County Watershed Council. The Silver Creek Subbasin is approximately 1,075,748 acres in Harney County, Oregon. The document intrudction ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Silver Creek Subbasin Assessment Abstract -- The Silver Creek Subbasin Assessment was produced by the Harney County Watershed Council. The Silver Creek Subbasin is approximately 1,075,748 acres in Harney County, Oregon. The document intrudction gives a description, location and land ownership in the Silver Creek Subbasin. This information is important in understandind the present conditions, background and local watershed issues found in the region. The end of the document focuses on a strategy to achieve the goals to solve is the watershed issues found in the basin. The last section of the document discusses reccomendations for management success in the Silver Creek Subbasin. Title: Silver Creek Subbasin Assessment Abstract -- The Silver Creek Subbasin Assessment was produced by the Harney County Watershed Council. The Silver Creek Subbasin is approximately 1,075,748 acres in Harney County, Oregon. The document intrudction gives a description, location and land ownership in the Silver Creek Subbasin. This information is important in understandind the present conditions, background and local watershed issues found in the region. The end of the document focuses on a strategy to achieve the goals to solve is the watershed issues found in the basin. The last section of the document discusses reccomendations for management success in the Silver Creek Subbasin. Close

• 68. [Article] Middle Rogue Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- The Middle Rogue Watershed (MRW) encompasses nearly 607 squarel miles in the northern portion of Josephine County in southern Oregon from the just below Kelsey Creek on the border of Curry ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Middle Rogue Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The Middle Rogue Watershed (MRW) encompasses nearly 607 squarel miles in the northern portion of Josephine County in southern Oregon from the just below Kelsey Creek on the border of Curry and Josephine Counties to just below Evans Creek on the border of Josephine and Jackson Counties, excluding the Illinois and Applegate Watersheds. The area is mountainous and heavily forested with hot and dry summers and mide and wet winters. It is largely rural with one urban center, Grants Pass, and a number of small communities. In this assessment, we have divided the MRW into five subwatersheds: Grave Creek, Galice Creek, Jumpoff Joe Creek, Grants Pass and the Wild and Scenic watersheds. Title: Middle Rogue Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The Middle Rogue Watershed (MRW) encompasses nearly 607 squarel miles in the northern portion of Josephine County in southern Oregon from the just below Kelsey Creek on the border of Curry and Josephine Counties to just below Evans Creek on the border of Josephine and Jackson Counties, excluding the Illinois and Applegate Watersheds. The area is mountainous and heavily forested with hot and dry summers and mide and wet winters. It is largely rural with one urban center, Grants Pass, and a number of small communities. In this assessment, we have divided the MRW into five subwatersheds: Grave Creek, Galice Creek, Jumpoff Joe Creek, Grants Pass and the Wild and Scenic watersheds. Close

• 69. [Article] Lobster Creek Sediment Abatement Assessment of U.S. Forest Service Road-Stream Crossings

  Abstract -- All Forest Service road-stream crossings in the Lobster Creek drainage (Lower Rogue) were re-assessed for failure potential using the Councils' Road Inventory protocol and reprioritized based ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Lobster Creek Sediment Abatement Assessment of U.S. Forest Service Road-Stream Crossings Abstract -- All Forest Service road-stream crossings in the Lobster Creek drainage (Lower Rogue) were re-assessed for failure potential using the Councils' Road Inventory protocol and reprioritized based on the likelihood of failure and quantity of sediment delivered to the stream network; chronic sediment sources were also considered. Title: Lobster Creek Sediment Abatement Assessment of U.S. Forest Service Road-Stream Crossings Abstract -- All Forest Service road-stream crossings in the Lobster Creek drainage (Lower Rogue) were re-assessed for failure potential using the Councils' Road Inventory protocol and reprioritized based on the likelihood of failure and quantity of sediment delivered to the stream network; chronic sediment sources were also considered. Close

• 70. [Article] LCMP - Fish Habitat Restoration in Tenmile Creek

  Abstract -- The Tenmile Watershed Restoration Study was initiated in 1991 to examine the effects of watershed restoration activities in Tenmile Creek (including the addition of large wood into the stream ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: LCMP - Fish Habitat Restoration in Tenmile Creek Abstract -- The Tenmile Watershed Restoration Study was initiated in 1991 to examine the effects of watershed restoration activities in Tenmile Creek (including the addition of large wood into the stream channel) on the production of downstream migrant salmonids, particularly steelhead and cutthroat trout. This study combines a treatment(Tenmile Creek) and control (Cummins Creek) stream approach with a pre- and postproject evaluation. Tenmile Creek and Cummins Creek are both ocean tributary streams on the central Oregon coast. Pre treatment sampling of fish populations and habitat in Tenmile and Cummins creeks began in 1991. Most of the restoration activities in the Tenmile Creek study took place in 1996, and the post-restoration sampling of fish populations and habitat is ongoing in Tenmile Creek and the control stream, Cummins Creek. Title: LCMP - Fish Habitat Restoration in Tenmile Creek Abstract -- The Tenmile Watershed Restoration Study was initiated in 1991 to examine the effects of watershed restoration activities in Tenmile Creek (including the addition of large wood into the stream channel) on the production of downstream migrant salmonids, particularly steelhead and cutthroat trout. This study combines a treatment(Tenmile Creek) and control (Cummins Creek) stream approach with a pre- and postproject evaluation. Tenmile Creek and Cummins Creek are both ocean tributary streams on the central Oregon coast. Pre treatment sampling of fish populations and habitat in Tenmile and Cummins creeks began in 1991. Most of the restoration activities in the Tenmile Creek study took place in 1996, and the post-restoration sampling of fish populations and habitat is ongoing in Tenmile Creek and the control stream, Cummins Creek. Close

• 71. [Image] Annual project history: Klamath Project, Oregon-California, 1957

  	INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL General Description of the Project Location. The Klamath Project is in the Upper Klamath River Basin, east of the Cascade Range. It is located in Klamath County, Oregon, and ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Annual project history: Klamath Project, Oregon-California, 1957 Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation Year: 1957, 2008, 2006 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL General Description of the Project Location. The Klamath Project is in the Upper Klamath River Basin, east of the Cascade Range. It is located in Klamath County, Oregon, and in Modoc and Siskiyou Counties of California. Project headquarters is located at the principal city of Klamath Falls, Oregon, which has a population of about 35>700, including suburbs. Smaller towns on the project in Oregon are Merrill, Malin, and Bonanza. The town of Tulelake, California, was established in 1931 near the center of the Tule Lake Division. Climate. The mean temperature for the wannest month is 630 F. The coldest month has mean temperature of 29? F. Summer nights are cool. The annual rainfall is about 13 inches, of which about 3?-inches fall during the growing season of 90 to 130 days. Topography, soils, and crops. The project area is about ^-,100 feet elevation above sea level. The surface topography is generally smooth and flat for the large areas of lake bottom, and gently sloping on the higher lands. Peat and muck soils are common in the recent lake bottoms. Soils vary from sandy loam to clay on other parts of the project. The principal crops grown are alfalfa, malting and feed barley, potatoes, clover seed, and irrigated pasture and other forage. Stock raising is an important enterprise. Industry and transportation. Farming and lumbering each provide the major portion of the economy of the Basin. Three major railroad lines, one major highway and many secondary highways, and two airlines serve the project area. Plan and purpose. The project serves 211,000 acres. The water supply is provided by two main water courses, Klamath River and Lost River and their tributaries. Besides storing, diverting, and distributing water for irrigation, project facilities have reclaimed by drainage large areas formerly inundated by Lower Klamath and Tule Lakes* Flood waters of Lost River, which terminates in Tule Lake, are diverted to the Klamath River through the Lost River Diversion Channel. This channel is also used to carry irrigation water in the opposite direction in the summertime. Another principal function of the project is water-level control for the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuges. Upper Klamath Lake on the Klamath River is the principal storage reservoir, having an active capacity of 52U,800 acre-feet. It is controlled by Link River Dam constructed, maintained, and operated INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL (Continued) General Description of the Project (Cont.) by The California Oregon Power Company under an agreement with the project whereby irrigation requirements and rights are protected. The Main, Lower Klamath, and Tule Lake Divisions are served from this source, Gerber Reservoir on Miller Creek and Clear Lake Reservoir on Lost River provide flood control for the Tule Lake Division and an irrigation supply for the Langell Valley Division. Their active storage capacities are 9*^300 acre-feet and 513*300 acre-feet, respectively. Federally-financed project works also include the diversion, distribution, and drainage systems for the Main and Tule Lake Divisions; the diversion dam and main canals for the Langell Valley Division; and drainage outlets for the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Divisions. Title: Annual project history: Klamath Project, Oregon-California, 1957 Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation Year: 1957, 2008, 2006 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL General Description of the Project Location. The Klamath Project is in the Upper Klamath River Basin, east of the Cascade Range. It is located in Klamath County, Oregon, and in Modoc and Siskiyou Counties of California. Project headquarters is located at the principal city of Klamath Falls, Oregon, which has a population of about 35>700, including suburbs. Smaller towns on the project in Oregon are Merrill, Malin, and Bonanza. The town of Tulelake, California, was established in 1931 near the center of the Tule Lake Division. Climate. The mean temperature for the wannest month is 630 F. The coldest month has mean temperature of 29? F. Summer nights are cool. The annual rainfall is about 13 inches, of which about 3?-inches fall during the growing season of 90 to 130 days. Topography, soils, and crops. The project area is about ^-,100 feet elevation above sea level. The surface topography is generally smooth and flat for the large areas of lake bottom, and gently sloping on the higher lands. Peat and muck soils are common in the recent lake bottoms. Soils vary from sandy loam to clay on other parts of the project. The principal crops grown are alfalfa, malting and feed barley, potatoes, clover seed, and irrigated pasture and other forage. Stock raising is an important enterprise. Industry and transportation. Farming and lumbering each provide the major portion of the economy of the Basin. Three major railroad lines, one major highway and many secondary highways, and two airlines serve the project area. Plan and purpose. The project serves 211,000 acres. The water supply is provided by two main water courses, Klamath River and Lost River and their tributaries. Besides storing, diverting, and distributing water for irrigation, project facilities have reclaimed by drainage large areas formerly inundated by Lower Klamath and Tule Lakes* Flood waters of Lost River, which terminates in Tule Lake, are diverted to the Klamath River through the Lost River Diversion Channel. This channel is also used to carry irrigation water in the opposite direction in the summertime. Another principal function of the project is water-level control for the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuges. Upper Klamath Lake on the Klamath River is the principal storage reservoir, having an active capacity of 52U,800 acre-feet. It is controlled by Link River Dam constructed, maintained, and operated INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL (Continued) General Description of the Project (Cont.) by The California Oregon Power Company under an agreement with the project whereby irrigation requirements and rights are protected. The Main, Lower Klamath, and Tule Lake Divisions are served from this source, Gerber Reservoir on Miller Creek and Clear Lake Reservoir on Lost River provide flood control for the Tule Lake Division and an irrigation supply for the Langell Valley Division. Their active storage capacities are 9*^300 acre-feet and 513*300 acre-feet, respectively. Federally-financed project works also include the diversion, distribution, and drainage systems for the Main and Tule Lake Divisions; the diversion dam and main canals for the Langell Valley Division; and drainage outlets for the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Divisions. Close

• 72. [Image] A review of the taxonomic status of pines including true firs within the pinus ponderosa forest in the southern portion of Crater Lake National Park, Oregon

  	ill.; Report title; "A report to the Superintendent, Crater Lake National Park, March 1982." - T.p.; Includes bibliographical references (p. 11-16)
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: A review of the taxonomic status of pines including true firs within the pinus ponderosa forest in the southern portion of Crater Lake National Park, Oregon Author: Mastrogiuseppe, R. J. Year: 1982, 2009 ill.; Report title; "A report to the Superintendent, Crater Lake National Park, March 1982." - T.p.; Includes bibliographical references (p. 11-16) Title: A review of the taxonomic status of pines including true firs within the pinus ponderosa forest in the southern portion of Crater Lake National Park, Oregon Author: Mastrogiuseppe, R. J. Year: 1982, 2009 ill.; Report title; "A report to the Superintendent, Crater Lake National Park, March 1982." - T.p.; Includes bibliographical references (p. 11-16) Close

• 73. [Article] Mosby Creek Limiting Factors Analysis and Restoration Plan

  Abstract -- The Mosby Creek Limiting Factors Analysis (Rapid Bio-Assessment) assessed stream conditions for native salmonids and prioritized projects of benefit to spring Chinook, cutthroat trout, rainbow ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Mosby Creek Limiting Factors Analysis and Restoration Plan Abstract -- The Mosby Creek Limiting Factors Analysis (Rapid Bio-Assessment) assessed stream conditions for native salmonids and prioritized projects of benefit to spring Chinook, cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and Pacific lamprey in this high-priority, free-flowing stream in the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed. To gain access to private properties adjacent to the 75 miles of surveyed streams, the applicant conducted landowner outreach and coordinated two years of continuous temperature data collection by volunteers. The contractor conducted a modified limiting factors analysis and a snorkel survey in the Mosby Creek main stem and tributaries up to 6 percent gradient. The resulting study results include a prioritized restoration plan that has been shared with local landowners and restoration partners and used for restoration planning. Title: Mosby Creek Limiting Factors Analysis and Restoration Plan Abstract -- The Mosby Creek Limiting Factors Analysis (Rapid Bio-Assessment) assessed stream conditions for native salmonids and prioritized projects of benefit to spring Chinook, cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and Pacific lamprey in this high-priority, free-flowing stream in the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed. To gain access to private properties adjacent to the 75 miles of surveyed streams, the applicant conducted landowner outreach and coordinated two years of continuous temperature data collection by volunteers. The contractor conducted a modified limiting factors analysis and a snorkel survey in the Mosby Creek main stem and tributaries up to 6 percent gradient. The resulting study results include a prioritized restoration plan that has been shared with local landowners and restoration partners and used for restoration planning. Close

• 74. [Article] Coho Life History in Tide Gated Lowland Coastal Streams

  Abstract -- Coos Watershed Association’s (CoosWA) coho Life Cycle Monitoring Project (LCM) is a continuation of a long-term monitoring study initiated in 2004 to examine coho salmon abundance, survival, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coho Life History in Tide Gated Lowland Coastal Streams Abstract -- Coos Watershed Association’s (CoosWA) coho Life Cycle Monitoring Project (LCM) is a continuation of a long-term monitoring study initiated in 2004 to examine coho salmon abundance, survival, life histories and habitat use in two tide gated coastal lowland streams, Larson and Palouse Creeks. Productive utilization of these remarkable habitat types is critical for the recovery and sustainability of Oregon Coastal coho. Specifically, this project developed, and adapted innovative mark recapture techniques using PIT tags to monitor the coho life cycle, further evaluated over-winter rearing strategies in relation to temporal and spatial habitat use and continued project effectiveness monitoring in these study streams. In addition, coho diet analyses were designed and conducted and will be analyzed in relation to seasonal and diurnal variations in environmental factors in order to assess proximal causes of habitat productivity. Title: Coho Life History in Tide Gated Lowland Coastal Streams Abstract -- Coos Watershed Association’s (CoosWA) coho Life Cycle Monitoring Project (LCM) is a continuation of a long-term monitoring study initiated in 2004 to examine coho salmon abundance, survival, life histories and habitat use in two tide gated coastal lowland streams, Larson and Palouse Creeks. Productive utilization of these remarkable habitat types is critical for the recovery and sustainability of Oregon Coastal coho. Specifically, this project developed, and adapted innovative mark recapture techniques using PIT tags to monitor the coho life cycle, further evaluated over-winter rearing strategies in relation to temporal and spatial habitat use and continued project effectiveness monitoring in these study streams. In addition, coho diet analyses were designed and conducted and will be analyzed in relation to seasonal and diurnal variations in environmental factors in order to assess proximal causes of habitat productivity. Close

• 75. [Article] Mosby Creek Aquatic Inventory

  Abstract -- Twenty-two miles of the Mosby Creek mainstem were surveyed by ODFW Aquatic Inventories Project in the Summer of 2008. This was conducted in partnership between the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Mosby Creek Aquatic Inventory Abstract -- Twenty-two miles of the Mosby Creek mainstem were surveyed by ODFW Aquatic Inventories Project in the Summer of 2008. This was conducted in partnership between the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council, Weyerhaeuser, and ODFW Springfield, with support of Friends of Mosby Creek and BLM. OWEB funded the survey on the lower reaches, Weyerhaeuser matched/funded the inventory on their lands which encompass the upper two-thirds of this free-flowing tributary. Title: Mosby Creek Aquatic Inventory Abstract -- Twenty-two miles of the Mosby Creek mainstem were surveyed by ODFW Aquatic Inventories Project in the Summer of 2008. This was conducted in partnership between the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council, Weyerhaeuser, and ODFW Springfield, with support of Friends of Mosby Creek and BLM. OWEB funded the survey on the lower reaches, Weyerhaeuser matched/funded the inventory on their lands which encompass the upper two-thirds of this free-flowing tributary. Close

• 76. [Article] Bottom and Cedar Creeks Sub-basins Spawning Surveys 2008 and 2009

  Abstract -- ODFW-protocol salmon spawning surveys in the Bottom and Cedar Creeks sub-basins of the S.F. Coos River watershed.

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Bottom and Cedar Creeks Sub-basins Spawning Surveys 2008 and 2009 Abstract -- ODFW-protocol salmon spawning surveys in the Bottom and Cedar Creeks sub-basins of the S.F. Coos River watershed. Title: Bottom and Cedar Creeks Sub-basins Spawning Surveys 2008 and 2009 Abstract -- ODFW-protocol salmon spawning surveys in the Bottom and Cedar Creeks sub-basins of the S.F. Coos River watershed. Close

• 77. [Article] Bottom and Cedar Creeks Sub-basins Aquatic Habitat Inventories

  Abstract -- ODFW-protocol Aquatic Habitat Inventories conducted during the summer, 2008 in the Bottom and Cedar Creeks sub-basins of the S.F. Coos River watershed.

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Bottom and Cedar Creeks Sub-basins Aquatic Habitat Inventories Abstract -- ODFW-protocol Aquatic Habitat Inventories conducted during the summer, 2008 in the Bottom and Cedar Creeks sub-basins of the S.F. Coos River watershed. Title: Bottom and Cedar Creeks Sub-basins Aquatic Habitat Inventories Abstract -- ODFW-protocol Aquatic Habitat Inventories conducted during the summer, 2008 in the Bottom and Cedar Creeks sub-basins of the S.F. Coos River watershed. Close

• 78. [Article] Bottom Creek GRAIP Road Surveys

  Abstract -- Shape files containing the data needed to run the U.S. Forest Service Geomorphic Road Assessment and Inventory Protocol for forest roads in the Bottom Creek sub-basin of the S.F. Coos River ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Bottom Creek GRAIP Road Surveys Abstract -- Shape files containing the data needed to run the U.S. Forest Service Geomorphic Road Assessment and Inventory Protocol for forest roads in the Bottom Creek sub-basin of the S.F. Coos River watershed. Title: Bottom Creek GRAIP Road Surveys Abstract -- Shape files containing the data needed to run the U.S. Forest Service Geomorphic Road Assessment and Inventory Protocol for forest roads in the Bottom Creek sub-basin of the S.F. Coos River watershed. Close

• 79. [Article] Pine Hollow - Jackknife Creek Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- The assessment area is located in north-central Oregon within the semi-arid Columbia Plateau and the Lower John Day River Basin. The assessment area occupies the southeastern portion of Sherman ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Pine Hollow - Jackknife Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The assessment area is located in north-central Oregon within the semi-arid Columbia Plateau and the Lower John Day River Basin. The assessment area occupies the southeastern portion of Sherman County and part of the northeastern portion of Wasco County, beginning southeast of the town of Grass Valley and including the towns of Kent and Shaniko. The watershed assessment area is sparsely populated, with an average population density of less than one person per square mile in Sherman County and two per square mile in Wasco County (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). All of the streams within the Pine Hollow – Jackknife Creek watershed assessment area drain into the Lower John Day River, and the river is the eastern border of the assessment area. The 8,000 square mile John Day Basin is the fourth largest basin in the state. The main stem of the John Day River originates in the Blue Mountains southeast of Prairie City, Oregon, and flows generally westward then northward for approximately 284 miles before discharging into the Columbia River at River Mile (RM) 218, just east of the town of Rufus, Oregon. Title: Pine Hollow - Jackknife Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The assessment area is located in north-central Oregon within the semi-arid Columbia Plateau and the Lower John Day River Basin. The assessment area occupies the southeastern portion of Sherman County and part of the northeastern portion of Wasco County, beginning southeast of the town of Grass Valley and including the towns of Kent and Shaniko. The watershed assessment area is sparsely populated, with an average population density of less than one person per square mile in Sherman County and two per square mile in Wasco County (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). All of the streams within the Pine Hollow – Jackknife Creek watershed assessment area drain into the Lower John Day River, and the river is the eastern border of the assessment area. The 8,000 square mile John Day Basin is the fourth largest basin in the state. The main stem of the John Day River originates in the Blue Mountains southeast of Prairie City, Oregon, and flows generally westward then northward for approximately 284 miles before discharging into the Columbia River at River Mile (RM) 218, just east of the town of Rufus, Oregon. Close

• 80. [Article] Bridge Creek Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- Bridge Creek, a tributary of the John Day River, is located in Wheeler County in North Eastern Oregon. The Bridge Creek watershed drains a total of 269 square miles and contains 69 miles of ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Bridge Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- Bridge Creek, a tributary of the John Day River, is located in Wheeler County in North Eastern Oregon. The Bridge Creek watershed drains a total of 269 square miles and contains 69 miles of summer steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) spawning habitat. Wheeler Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) staff surveyed 23.6 miles of the mainstem of Bridge Creek during the summer of 2013. The data from this survey was entered into a spatially referenced geodatabase of the stream channel. The purpose of this reach evaluation is to identify the severity of the limiting factors on a reach by reach basis and create an interactive GIS framework with the purpose of improving the effectiveness of restoration work conducted within the Bridge Creek watershed. Resource Specialists Inc. was commissioned to analyze the data and examine trends within the watershed. The results of the analysis are contained within this report. Steelhead are currently listed as a threatened species. The overall health of the steelhead population in the middle Columbia River along with limiting factors and guidelines for recovery were detailed in "Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead Populations in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment," henceforth referred to as the "Mid-C Recovery Plan." Title: Bridge Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- Bridge Creek, a tributary of the John Day River, is located in Wheeler County in North Eastern Oregon. The Bridge Creek watershed drains a total of 269 square miles and contains 69 miles of summer steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) spawning habitat. Wheeler Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) staff surveyed 23.6 miles of the mainstem of Bridge Creek during the summer of 2013. The data from this survey was entered into a spatially referenced geodatabase of the stream channel. The purpose of this reach evaluation is to identify the severity of the limiting factors on a reach by reach basis and create an interactive GIS framework with the purpose of improving the effectiveness of restoration work conducted within the Bridge Creek watershed. Resource Specialists Inc. was commissioned to analyze the data and examine trends within the watershed. The results of the analysis are contained within this report. Steelhead are currently listed as a threatened species. The overall health of the steelhead population in the middle Columbia River along with limiting factors and guidelines for recovery were detailed in "Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead Populations in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment," henceforth referred to as the "Mid-C Recovery Plan." Close

• 81. [Article] Neacoxie Watershed

  Abstract -- Previously, little information was known about the ecology or the condition of native habitats in the Neacoxie sub-watershed that drains from the city of Warrenton into the north section of ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Neacoxie Watershed Abstract -- Previously, little information was known about the ecology or the condition of native habitats in the Neacoxie sub-watershed that drains from the city of Warrenton into the north section of the Necanicum Estuary in the city of Seaside. In 2002, the Necanicum Watershed Council completed an assessment for the Necanicum River watershed, but with major knowledge gaps for the Neacoxie watershed, which includes the Neacoxie Creek corridor and the Clatsop Plains. In order for the North Coast Land Conservancy (NCLC) and other land managers to develop stewardship priorities and to make informed decisions about land management actions in this region, additional information was required. Together with the Necanicum Watershed Council and the North Coast Watershed Association, NCLC secured funding to conduct habitat inventories of the Neacoxie watershed. The Neacoxie Watershed Assessment summarizes the results of terrestrial plant transects and aquatic plant surveys completed in the summer of 2011 on ten properties owned by the North Coast Land Conservancy (NCLC) in the Neacoxie Creek watershed (please refer to Appendices A & B). Habitat types include stabilized sand dunes dominated by coastal prairie habitat, interdunal wetland swales and lakes, upland Sitka spruce forest, and forested wetlands. Percent composition of each plant community type observed was calculated. Invasive non-native plant species were recorded. Surveys were also conducted for both native and non-native plants in four water bodies owned by NCLC or adjacent to land trust properties. The plant community data that were collected will be used to evaluate baseline ecological conditions in the Neacoxie watershed. Plant communities can be used as indicators of long-term tidal and hydrologic conditions as well as the ecological health of the landscape. Repeated measurements can be used to assess community changes over time and to assess how plant community composition compares to that described for natural conditions. This information will assist the land trust in making science-based stewardship decisions on its properties, and can be used by other landowners to better understand changes occurring in plant communities in similar habitats on their properties as a result of human disturbance (e.g., land development, farming, grazing) and invasion by non-native plants. Title: Neacoxie Watershed Abstract -- Previously, little information was known about the ecology or the condition of native habitats in the Neacoxie sub-watershed that drains from the city of Warrenton into the north section of the Necanicum Estuary in the city of Seaside. In 2002, the Necanicum Watershed Council completed an assessment for the Necanicum River watershed, but with major knowledge gaps for the Neacoxie watershed, which includes the Neacoxie Creek corridor and the Clatsop Plains. In order for the North Coast Land Conservancy (NCLC) and other land managers to develop stewardship priorities and to make informed decisions about land management actions in this region, additional information was required. Together with the Necanicum Watershed Council and the North Coast Watershed Association, NCLC secured funding to conduct habitat inventories of the Neacoxie watershed. The Neacoxie Watershed Assessment summarizes the results of terrestrial plant transects and aquatic plant surveys completed in the summer of 2011 on ten properties owned by the North Coast Land Conservancy (NCLC) in the Neacoxie Creek watershed (please refer to Appendices A & B). Habitat types include stabilized sand dunes dominated by coastal prairie habitat, interdunal wetland swales and lakes, upland Sitka spruce forest, and forested wetlands. Percent composition of each plant community type observed was calculated. Invasive non-native plant species were recorded. Surveys were also conducted for both native and non-native plants in four water bodies owned by NCLC or adjacent to land trust properties. The plant community data that were collected will be used to evaluate baseline ecological conditions in the Neacoxie watershed. Plant communities can be used as indicators of long-term tidal and hydrologic conditions as well as the ecological health of the landscape. Repeated measurements can be used to assess community changes over time and to assess how plant community composition compares to that described for natural conditions. This information will assist the land trust in making science-based stewardship decisions on its properties, and can be used by other landowners to better understand changes occurring in plant communities in similar habitats on their properties as a result of human disturbance (e.g., land development, farming, grazing) and invasion by non-native plants. Close

• 82. [Article] Aquatic Monitoring Program 2002-2003 Report

  Abstract -- The Applegate River Watershed Council (ARWC), a non-profit, 501(c)3 organization located in southern Oregon has been monitoring water quality, temperature, biological and physical aspects in ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Aquatic Monitoring Program 2002-2003 Report Abstract -- The Applegate River Watershed Council (ARWC), a non-profit, 501(c)3 organization located in southern Oregon has been monitoring water quality, temperature, biological and physical aspects in the Applegate since 1997. The data collected by ARWC staff has established baseline conditions and allowed for water quality trend analysis in the 493,000-acre Applegate watershed located in the Rogue River Basin. Topics include Water Quality Monitoring, Water Temperature, Water Chemistry, Stream Flow Monitoring, Biological Monitoring, Little Applegate Stream Habitat And Enhancement Program, Snorkel Surveys, Steelhead Spawning Surveys, Lamprey Study, Physical Monitoring, Slate And Waters Creeks Cross Sections, Sediment And Heat Source Study In The Upper Applegate Watershed, Thompson Creek Habitat Survey, and Monitoring Program Summary. Title: Aquatic Monitoring Program 2002-2003 Report Abstract -- The Applegate River Watershed Council (ARWC), a non-profit, 501(c)3 organization located in southern Oregon has been monitoring water quality, temperature, biological and physical aspects in the Applegate since 1997. The data collected by ARWC staff has established baseline conditions and allowed for water quality trend analysis in the 493,000-acre Applegate watershed located in the Rogue River Basin. Topics include Water Quality Monitoring, Water Temperature, Water Chemistry, Stream Flow Monitoring, Biological Monitoring, Little Applegate Stream Habitat And Enhancement Program, Snorkel Surveys, Steelhead Spawning Surveys, Lamprey Study, Physical Monitoring, Slate And Waters Creeks Cross Sections, Sediment And Heat Source Study In The Upper Applegate Watershed, Thompson Creek Habitat Survey, and Monitoring Program Summary. Close

• 83. [Article] Bakeoven (Deschutes) Watershed Assessment, 2005

  Abstract -- The headwaters of the Bakeoven Watershed are located in the Shaniko area in southern Wasco County, east of the Deschutes River at elevations just above 3,200 feet. Bakeoven Creek flows to the ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Bakeoven (Deschutes) Watershed Assessment, 2005 Abstract -- The headwaters of the Bakeoven Watershed are located in the Shaniko area in southern Wasco County, east of the Deschutes River at elevations just above 3,200 feet. Bakeoven Creek flows to the Deschutes River at Maupin City Park. Chapters include historic conditions, stream channels, fish and fish habitat, hydrology, riparian conditions, wetlands, road network, water quality, wildlife and wildlife habitat, economic impacts of conservation, summary of issues and recommendations, Bakeoven Action Plan, watershed council goals and objectives, glossary, and references. Numerous tables, figures, and maps summarize data collections. 97 pp. Title: Bakeoven (Deschutes) Watershed Assessment, 2005 Abstract -- The headwaters of the Bakeoven Watershed are located in the Shaniko area in southern Wasco County, east of the Deschutes River at elevations just above 3,200 feet. Bakeoven Creek flows to the Deschutes River at Maupin City Park. Chapters include historic conditions, stream channels, fish and fish habitat, hydrology, riparian conditions, wetlands, road network, water quality, wildlife and wildlife habitat, economic impacts of conservation, summary of issues and recommendations, Bakeoven Action Plan, watershed council goals and objectives, glossary, and references. Numerous tables, figures, and maps summarize data collections. 97 pp. Close

• 84. [Article] Draft Methodology Report: For the Clear and Foster Creek (Clackamas Watershed) Fish Passage Assessment and Prioritization Project

  Abstract -- This report explicitly describes the actual methods to be used in the project to allow the Clackamas River Basin Council (CRBC), Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and other concerned parties ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Draft Methodology Report: For the Clear and Foster Creek (Clackamas Watershed) Fish Passage Assessment and Prioritization Project Abstract -- This report explicitly describes the actual methods to be used in the project to allow the Clackamas River Basin Council (CRBC), Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and other concerned parties to comment on the methods before the project gets too far along. This report is divided into the following components: Key Start-up activities, Field protocol, barrier determination - hydraulic analysis, conceptual desings and cost analysis, prioritization, and a timeline for completion. Title: Draft Methodology Report: For the Clear and Foster Creek (Clackamas Watershed) Fish Passage Assessment and Prioritization Project Abstract -- This report explicitly describes the actual methods to be used in the project to allow the Clackamas River Basin Council (CRBC), Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and other concerned parties to comment on the methods before the project gets too far along. This report is divided into the following components: Key Start-up activities, Field protocol, barrier determination - hydraulic analysis, conceptual desings and cost analysis, prioritization, and a timeline for completion. Close

• 85. [Article] OWEB Grant Number 208-2084 Project Completion Report - PUR Monitoring

  Abstract -- While it is assumed that habitat enhancement and fish passage improvements increase fish production, there is little empirical data to support that claim in the Umpqua Basin. The Umpqua District ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: OWEB Grant Number 208-2084 Project Completion Report - PUR Monitoring Abstract -- While it is assumed that habitat enhancement and fish passage improvements increase fish production, there is little empirical data to support that claim in the Umpqua Basin. The Umpqua District has used smolt traps in the past to both establish a baseline record and to attempt to determine any response to habitat enhancement (Brush, Hinkle, and Big Tom Folley Creeks). Brush Creek and Big Tom Folley were originally chosen as monitoring sites since they are similar in characteristics, and Brush was originally the treatment stream for restoration projects while Big Tom Folley was used as the control until later projects occurred. Currently, there are PUR habitat enhancement projects scheduled to take place within the Little Wolf Creek and Wolf Creek basins. In order to gain more insight as to whether restoration efforts improve fish populations and address limiting factors, baseline and post treatment surveys will be needed. Restoration that is planned in Wolf and Little Wolf Creeks in 2008 and 2009 provides a unique opportunity to examine stream and fish responses to log-only and boulder-only instream placements. Pre-treatment data exists on these streams for smolt outmigration, summer habitat, spawning adults, summer seeding, channel cross-sections and temperature. ODFW has been collecting smolt out-migration data at five sites in the Upper Umpqua and Elk Creek watersheds almost continuously for 15 years to monitor yearly trends and to calculate over-winter survival rates of coho and steelhead. This OWEB grant will add to this baseline data and provide funding to continue past monitoring and add new monitoring components. Continuous smolt trap data from Brush, Big Tom Folley, and Hinkle Creeks is important to future efforts to monitor watershed health. Extensive habitat enhancement and fish inventories have been completed within the Hinkle Creek, Brush Creek and Big Tom Folley Creek basins. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Umpqua Watershed District joined with the Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers (PUR) in an effort to continue ongoing juvenile monitoring within the Umpqua Basin. Since little is known about stream-specific limiting factors and fish production response to various habitat restoration treatments such as log or boulder placement, these long term data sets will help to understand the fish response aspect related to or resulting from habitat restoration projects. Title: OWEB Grant Number 208-2084 Project Completion Report - PUR Monitoring Abstract -- While it is assumed that habitat enhancement and fish passage improvements increase fish production, there is little empirical data to support that claim in the Umpqua Basin. The Umpqua District has used smolt traps in the past to both establish a baseline record and to attempt to determine any response to habitat enhancement (Brush, Hinkle, and Big Tom Folley Creeks). Brush Creek and Big Tom Folley were originally chosen as monitoring sites since they are similar in characteristics, and Brush was originally the treatment stream for restoration projects while Big Tom Folley was used as the control until later projects occurred. Currently, there are PUR habitat enhancement projects scheduled to take place within the Little Wolf Creek and Wolf Creek basins. In order to gain more insight as to whether restoration efforts improve fish populations and address limiting factors, baseline and post treatment surveys will be needed. Restoration that is planned in Wolf and Little Wolf Creeks in 2008 and 2009 provides a unique opportunity to examine stream and fish responses to log-only and boulder-only instream placements. Pre-treatment data exists on these streams for smolt outmigration, summer habitat, spawning adults, summer seeding, channel cross-sections and temperature. ODFW has been collecting smolt out-migration data at five sites in the Upper Umpqua and Elk Creek watersheds almost continuously for 15 years to monitor yearly trends and to calculate over-winter survival rates of coho and steelhead. This OWEB grant will add to this baseline data and provide funding to continue past monitoring and add new monitoring components. Continuous smolt trap data from Brush, Big Tom Folley, and Hinkle Creeks is important to future efforts to monitor watershed health. Extensive habitat enhancement and fish inventories have been completed within the Hinkle Creek, Brush Creek and Big Tom Folley Creek basins. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Umpqua Watershed District joined with the Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers (PUR) in an effort to continue ongoing juvenile monitoring within the Umpqua Basin. Since little is known about stream-specific limiting factors and fish production response to various habitat restoration treatments such as log or boulder placement, these long term data sets will help to understand the fish response aspect related to or resulting from habitat restoration projects. Close

• 86. [Article] Habitat Surveys; Butte Creek and Morton Creek, New River Watershed

  Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat surveys for Butte Creek and Morton Creek, New River watershed.

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Habitat Surveys; Butte Creek and Morton Creek, New River Watershed Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat surveys for Butte Creek and Morton Creek, New River watershed. Title: Habitat Surveys; Butte Creek and Morton Creek, New River Watershed Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat surveys for Butte Creek and Morton Creek, New River watershed. Close

• 87. [Article] Euchre Wood PE Report 2013

  Abstract -- Rapid bio-assessment juvenile snorkel surveys were completed in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013 as part of a long term data set on the mainstem of Euchre Creek. The 2005 survey captured pre-implementation ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Euchre Wood PE Report 2013 Abstract -- Rapid bio-assessment juvenile snorkel surveys were completed in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013 as part of a long term data set on the mainstem of Euchre Creek. The 2005 survey captured pre-implementation conditions on a large wood placement project reach. The results of these surveys are summarized in the attached report. Title: Euchre Wood PE Report 2013 Abstract -- Rapid bio-assessment juvenile snorkel surveys were completed in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013 as part of a long term data set on the mainstem of Euchre Creek. The 2005 survey captured pre-implementation conditions on a large wood placement project reach. The results of these surveys are summarized in the attached report. Close

• 88. [Article] Morton Creek AIP Report-2008 & 2012

  Abstract -- In 2009 the Curry Soil and Water Conservation District (District), the South Coast Watershed Council (Council), and their partners, undertook a channel relocation project on lower Morton Creek ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Morton Creek AIP Report-2008 & 2012 Abstract -- In 2009 the Curry Soil and Water Conservation District (District), the South Coast Watershed Council (Council), and their partners, undertook a channel relocation project on lower Morton Creek that replaced 0.5 miles of ditched stream channel with 0.6 miles of newly constructed, designed stream channel. To evaluate the effectiveness of the project the District and Council conducted pre and post stream habitat surveys using the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) protocol. This report is a comparison of the results of those surveys. Title: Morton Creek AIP Report-2008 & 2012 Abstract -- In 2009 the Curry Soil and Water Conservation District (District), the South Coast Watershed Council (Council), and their partners, undertook a channel relocation project on lower Morton Creek that replaced 0.5 miles of ditched stream channel with 0.6 miles of newly constructed, designed stream channel. To evaluate the effectiveness of the project the District and Council conducted pre and post stream habitat surveys using the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) protocol. This report is a comparison of the results of those surveys. Close

• 89. [Article] Butte Creek AIP Report 2008 & 2012

  Abstract -- In 2009 the Curry Soil and Water Conservation District (District), the South Coast Watershed Council (Council), and their partners, undertook a channel relocation project on lower Morton Creek ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Butte Creek AIP Report 2008 & 2012 Abstract -- In 2009 the Curry Soil and Water Conservation District (District), the South Coast Watershed Council (Council), and their partners, undertook a channel relocation project on lower Morton Creek that replaced 0.5 miles of ditched stream channel with 0.6 miles of newly constructed, designed stream channel. To evaluate the effectiveness of the project the District and Council conducted pre and post stream habitat surveys using the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) protocol. This report is a comparison of the results of those surveys. Title: Butte Creek AIP Report 2008 & 2012 Abstract -- In 2009 the Curry Soil and Water Conservation District (District), the South Coast Watershed Council (Council), and their partners, undertook a channel relocation project on lower Morton Creek that replaced 0.5 miles of ditched stream channel with 0.6 miles of newly constructed, designed stream channel. To evaluate the effectiveness of the project the District and Council conducted pre and post stream habitat surveys using the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) protocol. This report is a comparison of the results of those surveys. Close

• 90. [Image] A review of scientific information on issues related to the use and management of water resources in the Pacific Northwest

  	Abstract Everest, Fred H.; Stouder, Deanna J.; Kakoyannis, Christina; Houston, Laurie; Stankey, George; Kline, Jeffery; Alig, Ralph. 2004. A review of scientific information ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: A review of scientific information on issues related to the use and management of water resources in the Pacific Northwest Year: 2004 Abstract Everest, Fred H.; Stouder, Deanna J.; Kakoyannis, Christina; Houston, Laurie; Stankey, George; Kline, Jeffery; Alig, Ralph. 2004. A review of scientific information on issues related to the use and management of water resources in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-595. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 128 p. Fresh water is a valuable and essential commodity in the Pacific Northwest States, specifically Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and one provided abundantly by forested watersheds in the region. The maintenance and growth of industrial, municipal, agricultural, and recreational activities in the region are dependent on adequate and sustainable supplies of fresh water from surface and ground-water sources. Future development, especially in the semiarid intermountain area, depends on the conservation and expansion of the region's water resource. This synthesis reviews the state of our knowledge and condition of water resources in the Pacific Northwest. Keywords: Water distribution, flow regimes, water demand, conflicts, tools, water use. Title: A review of scientific information on issues related to the use and management of water resources in the Pacific Northwest Year: 2004 Abstract Everest, Fred H.; Stouder, Deanna J.; Kakoyannis, Christina; Houston, Laurie; Stankey, George; Kline, Jeffery; Alig, Ralph. 2004. A review of scientific information on issues related to the use and management of water resources in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-595. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 128 p. Fresh water is a valuable and essential commodity in the Pacific Northwest States, specifically Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and one provided abundantly by forested watersheds in the region. The maintenance and growth of industrial, municipal, agricultural, and recreational activities in the region are dependent on adequate and sustainable supplies of fresh water from surface and ground-water sources. Future development, especially in the semiarid intermountain area, depends on the conservation and expansion of the region's water resource. This synthesis reviews the state of our knowledge and condition of water resources in the Pacific Northwest. Keywords: Water distribution, flow regimes, water demand, conflicts, tools, water use. Close

• 91. [Image] The Third Klamath Basin Watershed Restoration and Research Conference

  	Cover title; "March 1999."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Third Klamath Basin Watershed Restoration and Research Conference Year: 1999, 2004 Cover title; "March 1999." Title: The Third Klamath Basin Watershed Restoration and Research Conference Year: 1999, 2004 Cover title; "March 1999." Close

• 92. [Image] Summary of the analysis of the management situation: Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan

  	"December 1990"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Summary of the analysis of the management situation: Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office. Year: 1990, 2005, 2004 "December 1990" Title: Summary of the analysis of the management situation: Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office. Year: 1990, 2005, 2004 "December 1990" Close

• 93. [Image] Surveying forest streams for fish use

  	Oregon Department of Forestry Forest Practices Section 2600 State Street Salem, OR 97310 Dl Fish 8 Wildlife Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Division P. O. Box 59 Portland, OR ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Surveying forest streams for fish use Author: Oregon. Forest Practices Section; Oregon. Habitat Conservation Division Year: 1995, 2005, 2004 Oregon Department of Forestry Forest Practices Section 2600 State Street Salem, OR 97310 Dl Fish 8 Wildlife Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Division P. O. Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 Introduction Identifying Oregon streams that contain fish is an important part in carrying out the new Water Protection Rules. These rules aim to protect areas of benefi-cial uses, such as fish. First, however, the beneficial uses present in each forest stream must be correctly identified. At present, a large number of fish- bearing streams are not identified on stream classification maps. To correct this problem, the Oregon Department of Forestry ( ODF) and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ( ODFW) must complete comprehensive surveys to identify fish use on all non- federal forest streams in Oregon. This effort will require at least 3 to 5 years and a significant financial investment. Because many streams are not accurately classified, the new rules also tempo-rarily protect streams that are likely to contain fish. Under the rules, for example, if Stream A flows into a body of water known to contain fish, it is assumed that fish also are using Stream A, up to the point that a natural barrier blocks their way farther upstream ( see OAR 629- 57- 2100: ll( b) B). Once the survey efforts are complete, this interim rule will not be needed. Coordinated efforts by public agencies, landowners, and others to complete fish- presence surveys will assure that important fisheries resources are pro-tected in the most cost- effective way. Landowners or any interested party may collect stream- classification information so that the overall survey can be completed as quickly as possible. Many private forest landowners, in cooperation with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, are now completing inventories of stream habitat conditions on their lands. In the future, these cooperative efforts may also include fish-presence surveys. This publication tells how to complete fish- presence surveys on forested streams. The guidelines cover: How to plan either " operation- specific" or " maximum upstream fish distribution" surveys The proper way to conduct surveys The proper time of year to conduct surveys Minimum efforts required in completing the surveys The legal requirements for completing the surveys How to provide information to Oregon Department of Forestry to update the stream classification maps The stream reclassification process Operation- specif ic surveys Maximum upstream distribution surveys Planning the survey There are two major types of survey: operation- specific surveys, and surveys to find the maximum upstream distribution of fish. Each type requires different planning and is conducted using different approaches. Operation- specific surveys are those to classify a stream only in the particular area of an operation. This kind of survey may not include efforts to determine the maximum upstream extent of fish use. An operation- specific survey takes minimal planning and coordination. However, it may be very inefficient in the long run because future activities in other areas of the stream may require additional surveys. An operation- specilk survey is very simple to complete. It starts at the down-stream end of the operation area and moves upstream either to the end of the operation area or to the end of fish distribution, whichever comes first. If the purpose of the survey is to prove no fish use, the surveyor must be sure to make at least the minimum effort required to find fish ( see the section on " Survey Effort" on page 10). This kind of survey is done on an entire stream reach or on multiple stream reaches rather than on a restricted portion of a stream. Often, all streams within a basin or reach are completely surveyed. In some cases, the surveys encompass entire ownerships or watersheds. The specific locations of planned operations are usually not the main factor in setting up this kind of survey but can help decide which areas to survey first. Surveys to find the maximum upstream extent of fish use may be the most efficient and cost- effective. Surveyors often cover a group of streams in one area at a time; therefore, travel time is minimized because, often, a group of streams can be easily reached by one common forest road. When travel time is less, the time spent actually completing surveys is greater. This kind of survey may require slightly more planning and coordination to assure efficiency and to minimize duplication of effort by adjacent landowners or by other public agencies, but overall this approach is more cost- effective than the operation-specific surveys. Surveying for the maximum upstream distribution of fish may take more plan-ning than an operation- specific survey, but it is still relatively simple. First, look at ODF Stream Classification Maps for the survey area to see the current extent of fish- use streams. Also note which streams are not classified at all. Next, decide where to start the survey. It may help your planning if you know the relationship between watershed basin area and fish use for your area. Contact the local ODFW office to find out whether these relationships have been established for streams in your area. The information predicts where fish use is " likely to end" and so will help you decide where to start your surveys. At this point, you also may want to consider operations that are planned for certain areas and decide to survey those areas first. After choosing a starting area, look at current road maps to find potential starting points for the survey ( see Figure 1). Look for access points ( such as road crossings) near the upper reaches of the stream. When possible, a survey should start near the highest accessible point in the watershed. If road access to the stream is limited, you may want to start the survey near the point at which the stream's classification size changes from " medium" to " small"; often this point is near the end of fish use ( see Figure 2, page 4). At the starting point, first sample upstream. If you find fish, continue the survey upstream until fish use ends. Be sure to continue sampling above the point at which fish use ends ( see " Survey Effort," page 10). If you make all the required efforts but do not find fish, then survey downstream from the original starting point until you find fish. When surveying downstream, it is important to walk on the streambank until you are ready to sample so that the water stays clear. Begin fish survey above road crossing Fish use extends at least this far Figure I . Selecting survey starting points in an area with a road crossing. Additional survey work may be required if the maximum distribution of fish seems to be affected by a road culvert. If the stream above the culvert has no fish, sample the pool immediately below the culvert. If you find fish in this pool or downstream near the culvert, the culvert is a possible barrier to fish passage. Describe the culvert and the stream on the survey form ( page 19). If you do not find fish in the pool below the culvert, continue the survey down-stream until you do see fish. Begin fish survey here \ \\ \ / I Fish use extends at least this far - - k I Figure 2. Selecting survey starting points, based on the stream- size classification, in an area without a road crossing. Surveys to find the maximum upstream distribution of fish may require sampling across several land ownerships. Be certain to get permission from other landowners before beginning the survey. Contacts with other landowners are also important to prevent a duplication of effort, because many landowners and agencies may be conducting fish- presence surveys. When figuring how many surveyors and how much time you'll need to com-plete surveys in your area, you may want to consider the Department of Forestry's experience. We found that sampling a township ( 36 square miles) required approximately 24 person- days in the Coast region, but an area the same size in the Blue Mountains required only 4 person- days. Survey methods The accuracy and reliability of survey results depend greatly on the methods used to conduct the survey. Methods range from simply looking in the stream ( visual observation) to more intensive and effective sampling with a backpack electroshocker. The method you choose depends on the availability of sam-pling equipment, the size of the stream, the flow and clarity of the water, and other factors. It is important to select a sampling method that is best for the type of survey and for the waters being sampled. If the sample method is not appropriate, the results of the survey will not be very useful. For example, just looking at a stream may tell you there are fish in it at that point, but it is not an acceptable way to find the maximum upstream extent of fish use. Surveys to show that fish are not present require more sampling and specialized equipment in order to provide reliable results. Whenever the survey uses methods other than an electroshocker, it's important to thoroughly explain on the survey report form the reasons for using the other methods. This is the simplest method; it involves only walking the stream to look for fish. It is best to wear polarized sunglasses to reduce glare from the water and to survey only when water conditions allow good visibility. It's also best to walk upstream so that you can " sneak up" on fish in pools. Fish often are near the upstream ends of pools waiting for food to drift toward them. Small fish, such as fry, often are in shallow water along the margin of the stream. Be very alert because fish usually will dart into cover when they detect any movement, especially in small headwater streams. It helps to toss bread crumbs, insects, small twigs, or bemes into the stream to entice the fish to leave cover. The visual method is best suited to small streams where pools aren't deep enough to prevent your seeing the fish. This method is also the least damaging to the fish because actual collection is not required. However, the value of survey results can be reduced by many factors such as cloudy water, surface glare on the water, overcast days ( reduced light), fish behavior, and even the surveyor's poor eyesight. For these reasons, this method is not effective for determining the maximum upstream limit of fish distribution, although it can be used to prove fish are in a certain reach of the stream. Snorkeling is a special method of visual observation that can work well in some situations. Snorkeling allows you to see underwater through a diving mask and breathing snorkel. This method can be used in larger waters where electroshockers are less successful, and it has been used to locate fry where other methods failed. Night snorkel surveys are particularly useful for observ-ing bull trout fry. Visual observation Hook and line Backpack electroshocker The hook- and- line method uses a rod and reel and relies on the feeding be-havior of the fish. In small streams, drop a baited hook into the deepest pools, where larger fish often are. Bait can include worms, single eggs, cheese, dry flies, or stream insects such as caddis larvae. Sample pools that have a lot of cover because those tend to support greater numbers of fish. As with the visual observation method, approach the pool cautiously to avoid alerting the fish. To minimize the risk of injuring or killing the fish, always use barbless hooks. The hook- and- line method can be used when conditions are not good for visual sampling; for example, when water is not clear, flow is high, or the day is overcast. This method may be the most effective for sampling some larger or deeper waters where visual and electroshocker methods can be ineffective. These waters include deep beaver ponds and large, steep streams where downstream barriers ( such as falls and very steep sections) keep fish out of the small tributaries. This method has limitations, though, depending on fish behavior and the life stage of the fish that are present. Fish may be reluctant to bite on cold days, or when the water is murky with sediment, or if the fish detect the surveyor's presence. Also, hook- and- line sampling is not effective if only fry are in the stream. This method also depends on the angling skills of the surveyor. As with the visual observation method, hook- and- line sampling may not be the best way to determine the maximum upstream distribution of fish in small streams, but often it can be used to find fish in larger waters. The most effective way to determine the upstream extent of fish is with a backpack electroshocker. Electroshocker sampling requires additional training and experience, though, to be effective and safe. A backpack electroshocker introduces an electric field into the stream that temporarily immobilizes fish. Stunned fish can be observed as they float in the water, or they can be captured in a small hand net for closer observation if necessary. As with other methods, it is best to work in an upstream direction, wear polarized glasses, and to approach the sampling site carefully to avoid alerting the fish. One person nets fish while another person operates the electroshocker. The netter should walk behind or beside the shocker to avoid alerting the fish. The electroshocker can be very effective for sampling in small streams even where brush or instream cover prevents most other sampling methods. In fact, an electroshocker is often most effective in areas with instream cover because fish usually concentrate in these locations. This method works in streams of various sizes but is less effective in larger streams and in deep pools, espe-cially large beaver ponds. Use electroshockers carefully to minimize killing fish. When properly adjusted and used, the electroshocker should stun the fish without killing them. The fish may escape if the current is set too low, but usually the surveyor will still see the fish and so be able to document fish presence. To sample effectively and minimize fish kill, set the electroshocker on the lowest practical voltage output and low- frequency currents ( low pulse rates). Before sampling, use a voltame-ter to test the electroshocker in a stream. If the voltameter is not available, it is a good idea to test the electroshocker in a stream that you know has fish before working in streams whose fish use you do not know. The test will tell you whether the equipment is working and the effects of using different settings. The surveyors' safety must be considered carefully before using this method. Electroshockers can injure or kill humans if not properly used. Surveyors should not use this method without proper training, including CPR training. Surveyors should work in crews of at least two. All surveyors should wear rubber waders and rubber gloves during stream shocking and never use dipnets with metallic handles; the nets should have wood or fiberglass handles. All members of an electroshocking crew should understand the proper operation procedures and potential dangers of this equipment. The effectiveness of electroshocker sampling depends on water conditions and on the skills of the electroshocker operator and the netter. The electroshocker method may not be so useful in high flows or in turbulent or murky water because the surveyors may not see immobilized fish. Another drawback to this method is that the electroshockers may not be widely available and can be expensive. However, with proper training and experience and under suitable survey conditions, this method is the best for accurately determining the maximum upstream extent of fish use. There may be situations where reliable results can be had by using methods not discussed here. For example, headwater beaver ponds may be effectively Other methods sampled by fishing for at least 48 hours with minnow traps baited with salmon eggs or commercial trout bait. Or, seine nets may be effective in beaver ponds or larger waters. If you are thinking about using these or other sampling methods, discuss it first with the departments of Fish and Wildlife and of Forestry. They will decide whether the proposed methods are appropriate and, if so, set the required minimum level of sample effort for the alternate method. A backpack electroshocker is the best way to get reliable information about the upstream extent of fish use or to prove a stream is m e N ( no fish use). Sur- Survey methods: vey data that document the presence of fish through other methods, such as a summary visual observation or hook- and- line, will always be used to classify streams as Type F as far up as the point of observation, even though the exact upstream extent of fish use may not be known. In some cases, methods other than an electroshocker may give reliable information about the maximum upstream distribution of fish. Examples include deep beaver ponds and large, steep streams in which barriers keep fish out of small upstream tributaries. In those cases, reliable results may be better obtained with hook- and- line sampling or with other methods. Whenever the survey is conducted by methods other than an electroshocker, the reasons for choosing the other method must be thor-oughly explained on the survey form. Timing the surveys Survey accuracy depends a lot on the time of year the survey is done and on stream conditions at that time. Since the purpose of the survey is to accurately document the presence or absence of fish, it is critical to do the survey when fish are expected to be using the upper reaches of a stream. This generally is near spawning times or soon after fry emerge, when stream flows are relatively high. A survey done during a low- flow period may not indicate the actual maximum upstream extent of fish use or accurately prove no fish use the stream. Fish may use the upper reaches of a stream for a limited time only, so fish- use surveys must be timed carefully. Surveys done at other than recommended times may not give a complete description of fish use. For example, if fish are found at other than the recommended survey times, the surveyed part of the stream can be classified as fish- bearing, but the maximum upstream extent of fish use may not be known. If fish are not found, that will not necessarily prove that the stream reach does not support fish use. Only if the survey is made at a time when fish are most likely to be there can the absence of fish be a reliable sign that no fish use that portion of the stream. Other factors can affect the reliability of the survey even if it is made at the proper time. Abnormal flows due to drought or extreme runoff could affect the distribution of fish or the sampling efficiency of the surveyor. So, it is best not only to do the sampling within the recommended time period but also when conditions are appropriate. In some cases, survey timing may not have much effect on the reliability of survey results. This could occur when factors other than seasonal flow patterns control the upstream extent of fish distribution. For example, streams that get most of their water from springs may not have seasonal flow variations, including summer flows low enough to control the upstream distribution of fish. Or, conditions other than low flow could be controlling distribution. For example, large, steep streams that have natural barriers such as falls and steep, impassable sections. In such cases, surveys taken outside the recommended time periods may yield reliable data. However, it is important to describe these conditions thoroughly on the survey forms to justify not following the recom-mended timing. See Table 1 for the recommended sampling periods for different regions of the state for normal water- flow years. Periods differ due to variations in stream flow patterns, fish species, and life- history traits of the species in the different areas. Contact the local ODFW office before sampling to find out the best time to survey the stream you are planning to sample. Table 1. General recommended time periods to sample streams, by geographic region, during nomull water- flow years. Please contact your local ODFW ofice before sampling in order to get specific timing recommendations for the stream you will be sampling. REGION of Recommended Georeaion Stream Survey Period WESTERNO REGON All Coast South Coast West Cascades Interior Siskiyou March 1 through May 3 1 EASTERONR EGON All except spring- fed April 1 East Cascades through June 30 Blue Mountains Spring- fed streams* Entire year * Spring- fed streams are streams that get most of their water Born groundwater sources and that have very minor seasonal variations in flow. Stream surveys must be done within certain time periods ( Table 1) if the purpose is to prove the stream does not contain fish or to document the maximum upstream extent of fish use. mming recommendations are based on normal water- flow years and may vary in some years. Contact the local ODFW office before sampling to get specific timing recommendations for the streams to be surveyed. Information gathered at other times of the year may be used to document fish presence but may not be reliable enough to establish upstream fish- use limits or to classify the stream as II) lpe N ( no fish use). Whenever the recommended survey timing is not used, it is important to explain the reasons on the survey form so that the data can be evaluated for reliability. ~ - ~ Survey timing: a summary Survey effort: a summary Survey effort The level of effort used to complete the survey also can affect the reliability of the survey results. If the level of effort or the amount of stream sampled is too little, it may be wrong to conclude that fish are not present. The following guidelines describe the minimum level of survey effort required to assure that the data are reliable. If the purpose of the survey is to show that no fish use the stream, the survey will be considered reliable only if it includes at least 50 yards of stream length md a minimum of six pools, each at least 1 foot deep, immediately upstream of the point at which the non- fish- bearing section begins. ( In some cases, the survey will have to cover much more than 50 yards of stream in order to also include the required six pools.) In addition, the survey must include sampling any beaver dam ponds in the upstream non- fish section. Surveyors are encouraged to exceed the minimum level of effort in order to be even more sure that fish are absent from a stream reach and that the maximum upstream extent of fish use has been found. A survey intended to show the absence of fish must sample at least 50 yards of stream distance and a minimum of six pools, each at least 1 foot deep, imme-diately upstream of the point at which fish use is believed to end. In addition, any beaver ponds upstream must be sampled as part of the survey. The require-ments for the methods used and the timing of the survey also must be met in order to document the absence of fish. Legal requirements In Oregon, the Department of Fish and Wildlife regulates the collection of fish for personal or scientific use. Generally, collection methods prohibited by the general angling regulations, such as electroshockers, traps, or nets, and collec-tions at times of the year when angling is closed will require a Scientific Collection Permit from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Scientific Collection Permits can be issued to agencies, companies, or indi-viduals. Request an application from the Fish Division of the Oregon Depart-ment of Fish and Wildlife, P. O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207; telephone ( 503) 229- 5410, extension 323. Submit the application at least 1 month before you plan to do the survey in order to be sure the permit can be issued in time. The application requests information about the collection method to be used, when and where collection will be made, and a summary of the proposed project. By law, surveyers must keep records of their collection activities and submit them to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Surveys using the visual observation method ( including snorkeling) do not require any licenses or permits because fish are not physically collected. Sampling with the hook- and- line method during open fishing seasons requires only a valid angling license. However, Oregon resident landowners and their immediate families do not need angling licenses to fish on land they own and live on. In either case, the general ahgling regulations for the stream must be followed during hook- and- line sampling unless a Scientific Collection Permit is obtained. Additional restrictions on survey efforts may apply if the stream contains species that the state or federal government lists as sensitive, threatened, or endangered species. Please contact your local ODFW office to find out whether any of these species are likely to be in streams you plan to sample. Reporting survey results Give survey data to the local ODF district office so that district Stream Classi-fication Maps can be updated. On page 19 is a blank survey report form. It asks for information about the location of the stream; the methods, timing, and effort of the survey; the physical character of the stream; observations of fish and wildlife; and the presence of natural or human- created barriers to fish passage. complete one form for each stream reach where fish were ob-served or fish use was found to end. See Figure 3 ( page 12) for descriptions of some fish species common to $ mall, forested streams; these may help to identify fish seen during surveys. Detailed instructions for completing the survey form are on pages 14 through 18. Attach to the Fish Presence Survey Form a copy of the ODF Stream ClassM-cation Map for the surveyed area or, if that is not available, a copy of the 7.5 minute USGS topographic map for the area. Note the following information on the map. ( Examples of completed survey report forms and maps are on pages 21 through 30.) The area of the stream that was actually surveyed ( including the areas without fish) as part of the survey effort. Highlight in yellow the entire stream reach surveyed ( see examples on pages 25,28, and 30). The upper limit of fish use. Note this on the map by drawing a line across the stream and writing the letter F at that point. The name of the surveyor. The date the stream was surveyed. GENUS ONCORHYNCUS - PACIFIC SALMON IOENTIFICATION FEATURES OF JUVENILES Faint parr marks. extend little. if am: below latanl line. Lures SOCKEYE w GENUS ONCORHYNCUS- TROUT IDENTIFICATIOEI FUTURES OF JUVENILES pols in dorsal Teeth on of tongue Maxillary extend past rear margin on throat W - Of eye CUTTHROAT 5 - I 0 parr marks on ridge ahead of dorsal tongue astend & st rear mark on throat Y; V margin of eye STEELHEAD- RAINBOW Few or no spots i n tail Figure 3. Identification characteristics of some juvenile salmon and trout species that may be observed in forested streams. 3. Permission to enter private forest lands should be obtained from all land-owners before the surveys are conducted. 4. Fish- presence surveys should then be made according to the guidelines given in this publication. 5. The required survey information, recorded on the Fish Presence Survey Form and maps, should be given to the local ODF district office. 6. The ODF office will give copies of the completed survey forms and maps to the local office of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 7. The Department of Forestry will review the information, usually in consul-tation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, to determine whether the survey results are reliable. 8. Based on its assessment of data reliability, the Department of Forestry will make appropriate changes to the ODF Stream Classification Maps. 9. All affected landowners will be notified of the proposed stream classifica-tion changes, according to the notification rules ( OAR 629- 57- 2110( 2)). Instructions for completing the survey report form The following information should be reported on the Fish Presence Survey Form. These instructions are in the order that the information appears on the form. Complete one form for each stream reach or branch where fish were observed or fish use was found to end. This may require assigning codes to unnamed tributaries ( for example, " trib. a," " trib. b") so that survey data can be cross- referenced to the survey maps. Please refer to examples on pages 21 through 29. Surveyor Narne( s): The name of the person or persons responsible for con-ducting the survey and reporting the results. AgencyfCompany: The name of the agency or company that employs the surveyor ( if applicable). Landowner: The name of the landowner of the reach surveyed. Mailing Address and Phone: The address and phone number for the person responsible for the survey. Stream: The name of the stream as reported on the USGS or ODF Stream Classification Map for the area. If the stream is unnamed, report the stream as " unnamed" and list the tributary that it flows into (" Tributary to..."). Tributary to: The name of the main stream ( as reported on the USGS or ODF map) that the surveyed stream flows into. This is especially important if the surveyed stream is unnamed. Quad Map: The name of the USGS 7.5 minute topographic map that includes the reach of the stream surveyed. If the surveyed reach covers more than one quad map, report first the name of the map that shows the identified end- point of fish use and then give the other maps' names. Location: A legal description ( township, range, and section to at least the quarter section) of the location where fish use ends. Date Surveyed: The month, day, and year the fish survey was conducted. Survey Method: Check the box for the survey method used. If more than one method was used, check all that apply and note the most often used method in the comments section or in the form's margin. Survey Amount Above End of Fish Use: The length of stream reach that was surveyed immediately upstream of the identified end of fish use. Estimate ( in feet) the length surveyed, and give the number of pools sampled for fish in that section. A survey to prove the absence of fish must sample at least 50 yards of stream and at least six pools immediately upstream of the end of fish use. In addition, any upstream beaver ponds must also be sampled. Flow Level: The flow conditions at the time of the survey. Use the following categories of flow. Low: Ranges from a series of isolated pools to flowing across less than 75 percent of the average bankfull width. Moderate: Surface water is flowing across 75 to 90 percent of the average bankfull width. High: Surface water flowing across more than 90 percent of the average bankfull width. It is not recommended thatfih presence surveys be conducted at high jlows. Weather: The weather during most of the fish survey ( rainy, overcast, partly cloudy, sunny, snowy, etc.). Water Clarity: The water visibility during the survey. Use the following categories of water visibility. Clear: Visibility is good in pools, deep pools, and riffles. Moderate: Visibility is good only in riffles and shallow pools. Turbid: Visibility is poor in both riffles and pools. It is not recommended that fih presence surveys be conducted when water is turbid. Water Temperature ( optional): The temperature of the stream ( in degrees Farenheit) at the time of the survey. Fish observations Report the species and approximate size ranges of fish observed in the sur-veyed reach. Use Figure 3 ( page 12) as a guide to identifying some game fish species commonly found in small, forested streams. Use the following codes and instructions to complete this section. Species: Use the following names or codes to report fish observed during the survey. If you observe a species not listed here, such as Pacific lamprey, use its common name. Name Species Code Coho salmon Co Cutthroat trout Ct Rainbow troutfsteelhead Rb/ St Bull trout BUT Brook trout BT Unknown salmonid UnS Sizes: Report the size range of fish, in inches, by species. For example, the size range of coho observed could be reported as " 1- 4 inches." If you see several sizes of one species ( for example, some cutthroat trout in the " 1- to 2- inch range and others in the " 6- to 8- inch" range), list them separately. Aquatic wildlife The types of aquatic wildlife that may be observed include tailed frogs ( includ-ing juvenile " tadpoles"), Pacific giant salamanders, and Olympic salamanders. Species: Give the common name of the species, if known. If you don't know the species name, at least report observations by a general name such as " salamanders." Number: The number of aquatic wildlife in each species or group observed. Physical stream data Report the physical characteristics of the stream in the vicinity of the end- point of fish use. Report information separately for ( 1) the section immediately at and downstream of the end of fish use, and ( 2) the area upstream of the maximum extent of fish use. Following are specific instructions for collecting this information. Bankfull Channel Width: By eye, estimate the average width ( in feet) of the bankfull channel for the 100- foot sections above and below the end- point of fish use. The bankfull channel is the area that is scoured by water during average high flows. The edge of the bankfull channel can be identified by looking for changes in vegetation, in soils and litter characteristics, or in the shape of the bank. The bank often will abruptly change slope at the bankfull boundary. Vegetation at the boundary often changes from annual vegetation ( such as grasses) to more permanent vegetation such as trees and shrubs. Estimate the width across the channel between the edges of the bankfull level. Current Wetted Width: Visually estimate the average width ( in feet) of the channel that contains flow ( is wetted) at the time of the survey. Report the estimated averages for the 100- foot sections above and below the end of fish use. Channel Gradient: Measure the average stream gradient with a clinometer for the 100- foot sections above and below the end of fish use. me a piece of flagging at eye level on a branch or shrub, walk up or down the stream bank, and then use the clinometer to sight on the flagging while you are standing on the channel bottom. Read and report the percent gradient. ODF Stream Class Size: The stream size (" small," " medium," or " large") from the ODF Stream Classification Maps for the reaches immediately above and downstream of the end of fish use. Natural barriers This information is very important for understanding relationships between the presence of fish and the physical characteristics of the stream. Understanding these relationships can help determine where fish- presence surveys should be concentrated and help predict where fish are likely to occur if survey informa-tion is not yet available. Generally, natural barriers are permanent structures such as falls or vertical drops more than 8 to 10 feet high for salmon or steel-head or 4 feet high for trout. Log jams, drops over logs, beaver dams, or other organic structures generally are only temporary barriers to fish passage, but report them as well. If fish use ends at a natural barrier, such as a waterfall, bedrock chute or cascades, describe the conditions at the site. Include a description of: ( 1) the type of barrier, ( 2) the approximate height ( in feet), ( 3) the percentage of slope, ( 4) the length ( in feet) of the bedrock chute or cascades, and ( 5) any other conditions that may be limiting fish passage. If the potential barrier is a bedrock chute, note whether the bedrock contains pools or rough features ( such as rocks, boulders, or other breaks in the flow), or whether the water flows in an even, shallow pattern over the bedrock. Please note on the survey map the locations of any natural barriers encountered. If you encounter a natural barrier, also be sure to sample above this point because fish often are found above natural barriers. Road- crossing barriers This information also is very important for understanding relationships be-tween the presence of fish and the physical characteristics of the stream. Road-crossing barriers can alter the relationships. If fish use ends at a road- crossing barrier, such as a culvert, describe the conditions at the site. Describe the type of barrier and its measurements at the time of the survey such as ( 1) the diameter of the culvert, in inches, ( 2) the depth ( in inches) of water in the culvert, ( 3) the height ( in feet) of the jump ( drop) below the culvert or structure, ( 4) the depth ( in inches or feet) of the plunge pool below the culvert outfall, ( 5) the gradient or slope of the culvert, given as a percentage as read off a clinometer, ( 6) the length ( in feet) of the culvert, and ( 7) any other factors that could affect fish passage. Please note on the survey map the locations of any road- crossing barriers, even if they are not at the end- point of fish use. As with natural barriers, be sure also to sample above the site because fish often are found above road- crossing barriers. Other comments Any other comments or notations that you think may be pertinent to the fish survey. It helps to describe any notable habitat characteristics, for example " lots of instream wood," " very few pools in the reach," " heavy silt load in the stream." Use the reverse side of the form if necessary. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): Agency: Land Owner: Mailing Address: Phone: Date Surveyed: Stream: Tributary to: Quad Map: Location: T R Sec. Survey Method ( d): 0 Electroshocker 0 h & g 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) Number of Pools Flow Level ( d): 0 Low 17 Moderate High Weather: Water Temperature: Water Clarity ( d): Clear 17 Moderate 17 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): . be Sorveq , 3 Troo+, FI s h G n r u l l , I*? , S.; L. Agency: N/ C I Land Owner: k! 4~ 4f, l T; M ~ C C Mailing address:?.^. sox ~ g~,\ L L I M UF~ A \ ID~ R) jC? suo Phone: BSB- 5555 ate surveyed: A p ( ; i 2 8, ! ?? s I Stream: Un hawed , " Tr I b R!' Tributary to: lr3 F . 21 o k so- ~ r a& QuadMap: D\ A &\ dy Location: T 305 R 5 " L Sec. 30, sw/ sto Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) I 86 ' Number of Pools Flow Level ( d): CI Low cd~ oderate High Weather: S owv Water Temperature: 7 O F I Water Clarity ( V): dclear Moderate I7 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species I Snes 1 Spedes 1 Quant'ity 1 PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. bk If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. prf+ Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): f- 15 L wsz ewd 30 $& abov e f *; rd John50~ m ain\ ifi< ~ r o s s i n OH ~ f r e a ~ 7.% ~ 5t redw g d ~ e n f & ry s t u p abde + he a d 4' & sh use - p & f i a n 10%. 2 1 OREGON FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Fish & Wildlife Stream: ~) nr? euce, d " Tr t b, O " Tributary to: w F & n~ oq CC. Quad Map: old &\ A% Location: T 382 R 5E Sec.' 30, si/ Sw I Survey Method ( 4): ~ lectroshocker 0 Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 2 5' 0 Number of Pools 20 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low d ~ o d e r a t e High Weather: Lw+ Water Temperature: 6 0 F I Water Clarity ( d): dclear Cl Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species 1 Snes I! , Species Quantity If fish use ends at a natural bamer, desc ' be the conditions that prevent u stre m fish assage. Fid - 4s 4+ 2 S ' ~ r t i Lm* r? d\. A dJ @ cater also % 15& 5 ( ho& a. r. rp Q5 W F - buffis @ ere fouu\ d . opstr + ye If fish use ehs) at a roa d. crossmng, descnbe conhlons that may prevent upstream fish passage. Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): w tfw+ were fbU 4 above % z 6 + of (~ la+ erf~ ll above fu 25fcof I sowe years. 22 fail s& i ro fish t@ f& probab/ y vp FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP stream: V A ~ ~ ~ + SC~" T & ~ ributaryto: u. F. 3ehbtja14 Creek Quad Map: old - b a t d ~ Location: T 3 S 5 R 5 E Sec. Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker 0 Anghng 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) a 2 5 Number of Pools 2 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low & oderate 0 High Weather: SvMwv Water Temperature: I Water Clarity ( d): d l e a r 0 Moderate 0 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE - ... . .: : :....: ' ' . . . . . . A , , , .: . . . . , . . , .&& : ! Species ... . ..$ pedes Quantity PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. M/ A If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Stream: West h r k Aobrson Cr eeG Tributary to: Johnrow Cre~ k Quad Map: ( ~ ( 4Ith .\ Ay Location: T 385 R 5 E Sec. 2?,, 5E/ sLJ I Survey Method ( d): dlectroshocker 0 Angling Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 3 00 Number of Pools t% Flow Level ( V): 0 Low d ~ o d e r ae t High Weather: j , y~ I Water Temperature: 60" F= Water Clarity ( d): & ear Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQ- U ATIC WILDLIFE t Spedes Quantity 1 I PHYSICAL STREAM DATA + IH n D CtsL 5h-* If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. N I A If fish use ends t a roqj crossiy, describ~ concl~~ tohnats may prevent upstr am fish passa e. ~ hrvctr ert a no? pQ59 ~ c - r b LOWOJQ 4 u. 4 9 ) drop at * rut-/&. b l d a r p fn qr p aI . 7, slop is 6 70 , and w ( onp 7 % fu~ lv er+ 1s ~ chul~ ledb e replace4 t bi s Svmncr. Other comments ( use reverse s~ de~ fn ecessa ): Lower ~ t r c a - q r d r r & a & e + LC cd en. Sf- rm* bb; M Ieok 30a4, but + k shaln. dry up ;* SOW years. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Mailing Address: ?. c, 3 2 , AJLO ~ L4- T o R 70 00 Phone: b40 - oool Date Surveyed: / Ha v 2 / cj? T I stream: ~ nnclcr- ed , " 7- r; b k " Tributary to: Lobs k c Creek Quad Map: BULL Lrceu Rtdqc Location: T 35 R 2W S ~ C . ~ ~ N € + 4 Survey Method ( d): ~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 300 Number of Pools I 57 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low rd~ oderate High Weather: 7k + lVL * wy Water Temperature: 6 O T-Water Clarity ( d): && ear Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLlFE I , , , ' Species Sies Spedes Quantity If fish use ends, at a natural ba ' er, describe t e conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. The. LZ m c b r u f - ~ V~ L ry 54- p X e u e + he ed$+ t.* use. ~ k rlrcnu, RIIIVC ~ L I : : pain+ I S ~ 4 1 ~ g ~ r L ~ d eo5ve r bai( Lle r S, b+ + his ri- gf obnhi~ n o+ Q b r r r t c r. ' 7 If fish use ends at a road crossing, descn e conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. U P Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): N r 4.0r L r ~ s; Wj J bCqPn 5 u ru . + r + he L) wediunn - sws\ l size chaqc, F, sh U ~ CC ~ wJh c r t a d c c y t r ; b ~ + G~ d . ovt WLQ) ew- ker s LLII+. 26 FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): 30 e Cadd i i , Bob hJvrnP1\ Agency: o ba~ ~ a'ndbwner: Lobsfec C r , ~ , , b c c Mailing Address: 7 D. ' 30K 2 , ~ J L pLet~ t , D R DO Phone: 8 YD- o 00 1 Date Surveyed: m4 I/ 2, i? 7- C I f Stream: / ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ek bS "" ~ c Tributaryto: L o b s t e r Lraek Quad Map: B V ' ~ Cr eek ??, d. ie Location: T 73 R 2 0 Sec. 3Y, ~ I. o AA. J G Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 2 5 0 Number of Pools / D Flow Level ( d): 0 Low d ~ o d e r a t e 0 High Weather: 94, & SU W\ I Water Temperature: 5- 7 " ?= Water Clarity ( d) : Wc1ea. r CI Moderate 0 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE PHYSICAL STREAM DATA Species Sics Spedes If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. Quantity If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. I I Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): ~ h5ctre um WLS " r y ~ Lw iL tL ~ decy f- goo( r. @. la f is/., observe4 , Ty pr N ~ f . r e u ~ z . FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): \ ce < . 3ab Tr cut Agency: u/ k2 Mailing ~ ddress: Z3R Rne St , b k n h( e dr ! OR ? d o 0 Phone: ZB?- 3333 Date Surveyed: stream: ~*- aweA Tributary to: c r & QuadMap: G l e w b ~ ~ e k Location: T \ 4 5 R 6 @ Sec. zS,, ~ 3t .+ S-Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) Number of Pools Q Flow Level ( d): 0 Low & oderate High Weather: C( ea c Water Temperature: 5?* F Water Clarity ( d): lW2ear 0 Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species Sizes Spedes Quantity PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. U P If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. Title: Surveying forest streams for fish use Author: Oregon. Forest Practices Section; Oregon. Habitat Conservation Division Year: 1995, 2005, 2004 Oregon Department of Forestry Forest Practices Section 2600 State Street Salem, OR 97310 Dl Fish 8 Wildlife Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Division P. O. Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 Introduction Identifying Oregon streams that contain fish is an important part in carrying out the new Water Protection Rules. These rules aim to protect areas of benefi-cial uses, such as fish. First, however, the beneficial uses present in each forest stream must be correctly identified. At present, a large number of fish- bearing streams are not identified on stream classification maps. To correct this problem, the Oregon Department of Forestry ( ODF) and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ( ODFW) must complete comprehensive surveys to identify fish use on all non- federal forest streams in Oregon. This effort will require at least 3 to 5 years and a significant financial investment. Because many streams are not accurately classified, the new rules also tempo-rarily protect streams that are likely to contain fish. Under the rules, for example, if Stream A flows into a body of water known to contain fish, it is assumed that fish also are using Stream A, up to the point that a natural barrier blocks their way farther upstream ( see OAR 629- 57- 2100: ll( b) B). Once the survey efforts are complete, this interim rule will not be needed. Coordinated efforts by public agencies, landowners, and others to complete fish- presence surveys will assure that important fisheries resources are pro-tected in the most cost- effective way. Landowners or any interested party may collect stream- classification information so that the overall survey can be completed as quickly as possible. Many private forest landowners, in cooperation with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, are now completing inventories of stream habitat conditions on their lands. In the future, these cooperative efforts may also include fish-presence surveys. This publication tells how to complete fish- presence surveys on forested streams. The guidelines cover: How to plan either " operation- specific" or " maximum upstream fish distribution" surveys The proper way to conduct surveys The proper time of year to conduct surveys Minimum efforts required in completing the surveys The legal requirements for completing the surveys How to provide information to Oregon Department of Forestry to update the stream classification maps The stream reclassification process Operation- specif ic surveys Maximum upstream distribution surveys Planning the survey There are two major types of survey: operation- specific surveys, and surveys to find the maximum upstream distribution of fish. Each type requires different planning and is conducted using different approaches. Operation- specific surveys are those to classify a stream only in the particular area of an operation. This kind of survey may not include efforts to determine the maximum upstream extent of fish use. An operation- specific survey takes minimal planning and coordination. However, it may be very inefficient in the long run because future activities in other areas of the stream may require additional surveys. An operation- specilk survey is very simple to complete. It starts at the down-stream end of the operation area and moves upstream either to the end of the operation area or to the end of fish distribution, whichever comes first. If the purpose of the survey is to prove no fish use, the surveyor must be sure to make at least the minimum effort required to find fish ( see the section on " Survey Effort" on page 10). This kind of survey is done on an entire stream reach or on multiple stream reaches rather than on a restricted portion of a stream. Often, all streams within a basin or reach are completely surveyed. In some cases, the surveys encompass entire ownerships or watersheds. The specific locations of planned operations are usually not the main factor in setting up this kind of survey but can help decide which areas to survey first. Surveys to find the maximum upstream extent of fish use may be the most efficient and cost- effective. Surveyors often cover a group of streams in one area at a time; therefore, travel time is minimized because, often, a group of streams can be easily reached by one common forest road. When travel time is less, the time spent actually completing surveys is greater. This kind of survey may require slightly more planning and coordination to assure efficiency and to minimize duplication of effort by adjacent landowners or by other public agencies, but overall this approach is more cost- effective than the operation-specific surveys. Surveying for the maximum upstream distribution of fish may take more plan-ning than an operation- specific survey, but it is still relatively simple. First, look at ODF Stream Classification Maps for the survey area to see the current extent of fish- use streams. Also note which streams are not classified at all. Next, decide where to start the survey. It may help your planning if you know the relationship between watershed basin area and fish use for your area. Contact the local ODFW office to find out whether these relationships have been established for streams in your area. The information predicts where fish use is " likely to end" and so will help you decide where to start your surveys. At this point, you also may want to consider operations that are planned for certain areas and decide to survey those areas first. After choosing a starting area, look at current road maps to find potential starting points for the survey ( see Figure 1). Look for access points ( such as road crossings) near the upper reaches of the stream. When possible, a survey should start near the highest accessible point in the watershed. If road access to the stream is limited, you may want to start the survey near the point at which the stream's classification size changes from " medium" to " small"; often this point is near the end of fish use ( see Figure 2, page 4). At the starting point, first sample upstream. If you find fish, continue the survey upstream until fish use ends. Be sure to continue sampling above the point at which fish use ends ( see " Survey Effort," page 10). If you make all the required efforts but do not find fish, then survey downstream from the original starting point until you find fish. When surveying downstream, it is important to walk on the streambank until you are ready to sample so that the water stays clear. Begin fish survey above road crossing Fish use extends at least this far Figure I . Selecting survey starting points in an area with a road crossing. Additional survey work may be required if the maximum distribution of fish seems to be affected by a road culvert. If the stream above the culvert has no fish, sample the pool immediately below the culvert. If you find fish in this pool or downstream near the culvert, the culvert is a possible barrier to fish passage. Describe the culvert and the stream on the survey form ( page 19). If you do not find fish in the pool below the culvert, continue the survey down-stream until you do see fish. Begin fish survey here \ \\ \ / I Fish use extends at least this far - - k I Figure 2. Selecting survey starting points, based on the stream- size classification, in an area without a road crossing. Surveys to find the maximum upstream distribution of fish may require sampling across several land ownerships. Be certain to get permission from other landowners before beginning the survey. Contacts with other landowners are also important to prevent a duplication of effort, because many landowners and agencies may be conducting fish- presence surveys. When figuring how many surveyors and how much time you'll need to com-plete surveys in your area, you may want to consider the Department of Forestry's experience. We found that sampling a township ( 36 square miles) required approximately 24 person- days in the Coast region, but an area the same size in the Blue Mountains required only 4 person- days. Survey methods The accuracy and reliability of survey results depend greatly on the methods used to conduct the survey. Methods range from simply looking in the stream ( visual observation) to more intensive and effective sampling with a backpack electroshocker. The method you choose depends on the availability of sam-pling equipment, the size of the stream, the flow and clarity of the water, and other factors. It is important to select a sampling method that is best for the type of survey and for the waters being sampled. If the sample method is not appropriate, the results of the survey will not be very useful. For example, just looking at a stream may tell you there are fish in it at that point, but it is not an acceptable way to find the maximum upstream extent of fish use. Surveys to show that fish are not present require more sampling and specialized equipment in order to provide reliable results. Whenever the survey uses methods other than an electroshocker, it's important to thoroughly explain on the survey report form the reasons for using the other methods. This is the simplest method; it involves only walking the stream to look for fish. It is best to wear polarized sunglasses to reduce glare from the water and to survey only when water conditions allow good visibility. It's also best to walk upstream so that you can " sneak up" on fish in pools. Fish often are near the upstream ends of pools waiting for food to drift toward them. Small fish, such as fry, often are in shallow water along the margin of the stream. Be very alert because fish usually will dart into cover when they detect any movement, especially in small headwater streams. It helps to toss bread crumbs, insects, small twigs, or bemes into the stream to entice the fish to leave cover. The visual method is best suited to small streams where pools aren't deep enough to prevent your seeing the fish. This method is also the least damaging to the fish because actual collection is not required. However, the value of survey results can be reduced by many factors such as cloudy water, surface glare on the water, overcast days ( reduced light), fish behavior, and even the surveyor's poor eyesight. For these reasons, this method is not effective for determining the maximum upstream limit of fish distribution, although it can be used to prove fish are in a certain reach of the stream. Snorkeling is a special method of visual observation that can work well in some situations. Snorkeling allows you to see underwater through a diving mask and breathing snorkel. This method can be used in larger waters where electroshockers are less successful, and it has been used to locate fry where other methods failed. Night snorkel surveys are particularly useful for observ-ing bull trout fry. Visual observation Hook and line Backpack electroshocker The hook- and- line method uses a rod and reel and relies on the feeding be-havior of the fish. In small streams, drop a baited hook into the deepest pools, where larger fish often are. Bait can include worms, single eggs, cheese, dry flies, or stream insects such as caddis larvae. Sample pools that have a lot of cover because those tend to support greater numbers of fish. As with the visual observation method, approach the pool cautiously to avoid alerting the fish. To minimize the risk of injuring or killing the fish, always use barbless hooks. The hook- and- line method can be used when conditions are not good for visual sampling; for example, when water is not clear, flow is high, or the day is overcast. This method may be the most effective for sampling some larger or deeper waters where visual and electroshocker methods can be ineffective. These waters include deep beaver ponds and large, steep streams where downstream barriers ( such as falls and very steep sections) keep fish out of the small tributaries. This method has limitations, though, depending on fish behavior and the life stage of the fish that are present. Fish may be reluctant to bite on cold days, or when the water is murky with sediment, or if the fish detect the surveyor's presence. Also, hook- and- line sampling is not effective if only fry are in the stream. This method also depends on the angling skills of the surveyor. As with the visual observation method, hook- and- line sampling may not be the best way to determine the maximum upstream distribution of fish in small streams, but often it can be used to find fish in larger waters. The most effective way to determine the upstream extent of fish is with a backpack electroshocker. Electroshocker sampling requires additional training and experience, though, to be effective and safe. A backpack electroshocker introduces an electric field into the stream that temporarily immobilizes fish. Stunned fish can be observed as they float in the water, or they can be captured in a small hand net for closer observation if necessary. As with other methods, it is best to work in an upstream direction, wear polarized glasses, and to approach the sampling site carefully to avoid alerting the fish. One person nets fish while another person operates the electroshocker. The netter should walk behind or beside the shocker to avoid alerting the fish. The electroshocker can be very effective for sampling in small streams even where brush or instream cover prevents most other sampling methods. In fact, an electroshocker is often most effective in areas with instream cover because fish usually concentrate in these locations. This method works in streams of various sizes but is less effective in larger streams and in deep pools, espe-cially large beaver ponds. Use electroshockers carefully to minimize killing fish. When properly adjusted and used, the electroshocker should stun the fish without killing them. The fish may escape if the current is set too low, but usually the surveyor will still see the fish and so be able to document fish presence. To sample effectively and minimize fish kill, set the electroshocker on the lowest practical voltage output and low- frequency currents ( low pulse rates). Before sampling, use a voltame-ter to test the electroshocker in a stream. If the voltameter is not available, it is a good idea to test the electroshocker in a stream that you know has fish before working in streams whose fish use you do not know. The test will tell you whether the equipment is working and the effects of using different settings. The surveyors' safety must be considered carefully before using this method. Electroshockers can injure or kill humans if not properly used. Surveyors should not use this method without proper training, including CPR training. Surveyors should work in crews of at least two. All surveyors should wear rubber waders and rubber gloves during stream shocking and never use dipnets with metallic handles; the nets should have wood or fiberglass handles. All members of an electroshocking crew should understand the proper operation procedures and potential dangers of this equipment. The effectiveness of electroshocker sampling depends on water conditions and on the skills of the electroshocker operator and the netter. The electroshocker method may not be so useful in high flows or in turbulent or murky water because the surveyors may not see immobilized fish. Another drawback to this method is that the electroshockers may not be widely available and can be expensive. However, with proper training and experience and under suitable survey conditions, this method is the best for accurately determining the maximum upstream extent of fish use. There may be situations where reliable results can be had by using methods not discussed here. For example, headwater beaver ponds may be effectively Other methods sampled by fishing for at least 48 hours with minnow traps baited with salmon eggs or commercial trout bait. Or, seine nets may be effective in beaver ponds or larger waters. If you are thinking about using these or other sampling methods, discuss it first with the departments of Fish and Wildlife and of Forestry. They will decide whether the proposed methods are appropriate and, if so, set the required minimum level of sample effort for the alternate method. A backpack electroshocker is the best way to get reliable information about the upstream extent of fish use or to prove a stream is m e N ( no fish use). Sur- Survey methods: vey data that document the presence of fish through other methods, such as a summary visual observation or hook- and- line, will always be used to classify streams as Type F as far up as the point of observation, even though the exact upstream extent of fish use may not be known. In some cases, methods other than an electroshocker may give reliable information about the maximum upstream distribution of fish. Examples include deep beaver ponds and large, steep streams in which barriers keep fish out of small upstream tributaries. In those cases, reliable results may be better obtained with hook- and- line sampling or with other methods. Whenever the survey is conducted by methods other than an electroshocker, the reasons for choosing the other method must be thor-oughly explained on the survey form. Timing the surveys Survey accuracy depends a lot on the time of year the survey is done and on stream conditions at that time. Since the purpose of the survey is to accurately document the presence or absence of fish, it is critical to do the survey when fish are expected to be using the upper reaches of a stream. This generally is near spawning times or soon after fry emerge, when stream flows are relatively high. A survey done during a low- flow period may not indicate the actual maximum upstream extent of fish use or accurately prove no fish use the stream. Fish may use the upper reaches of a stream for a limited time only, so fish- use surveys must be timed carefully. Surveys done at other than recommended times may not give a complete description of fish use. For example, if fish are found at other than the recommended survey times, the surveyed part of the stream can be classified as fish- bearing, but the maximum upstream extent of fish use may not be known. If fish are not found, that will not necessarily prove that the stream reach does not support fish use. Only if the survey is made at a time when fish are most likely to be there can the absence of fish be a reliable sign that no fish use that portion of the stream. Other factors can affect the reliability of the survey even if it is made at the proper time. Abnormal flows due to drought or extreme runoff could affect the distribution of fish or the sampling efficiency of the surveyor. So, it is best not only to do the sampling within the recommended time period but also when conditions are appropriate. In some cases, survey timing may not have much effect on the reliability of survey results. This could occur when factors other than seasonal flow patterns control the upstream extent of fish distribution. For example, streams that get most of their water from springs may not have seasonal flow variations, including summer flows low enough to control the upstream distribution of fish. Or, conditions other than low flow could be controlling distribution. For example, large, steep streams that have natural barriers such as falls and steep, impassable sections. In such cases, surveys taken outside the recommended time periods may yield reliable data. However, it is important to describe these conditions thoroughly on the survey forms to justify not following the recom-mended timing. See Table 1 for the recommended sampling periods for different regions of the state for normal water- flow years. Periods differ due to variations in stream flow patterns, fish species, and life- history traits of the species in the different areas. Contact the local ODFW office before sampling to find out the best time to survey the stream you are planning to sample. Table 1. General recommended time periods to sample streams, by geographic region, during nomull water- flow years. Please contact your local ODFW ofice before sampling in order to get specific timing recommendations for the stream you will be sampling. REGION of Recommended Georeaion Stream Survey Period WESTERNO REGON All Coast South Coast West Cascades Interior Siskiyou March 1 through May 3 1 EASTERONR EGON All except spring- fed April 1 East Cascades through June 30 Blue Mountains Spring- fed streams* Entire year * Spring- fed streams are streams that get most of their water Born groundwater sources and that have very minor seasonal variations in flow. Stream surveys must be done within certain time periods ( Table 1) if the purpose is to prove the stream does not contain fish or to document the maximum upstream extent of fish use. mming recommendations are based on normal water- flow years and may vary in some years. Contact the local ODFW office before sampling to get specific timing recommendations for the streams to be surveyed. Information gathered at other times of the year may be used to document fish presence but may not be reliable enough to establish upstream fish- use limits or to classify the stream as II) lpe N ( no fish use). Whenever the recommended survey timing is not used, it is important to explain the reasons on the survey form so that the data can be evaluated for reliability. ~ - ~ Survey timing: a summary Survey effort: a summary Survey effort The level of effort used to complete the survey also can affect the reliability of the survey results. If the level of effort or the amount of stream sampled is too little, it may be wrong to conclude that fish are not present. The following guidelines describe the minimum level of survey effort required to assure that the data are reliable. If the purpose of the survey is to show that no fish use the stream, the survey will be considered reliable only if it includes at least 50 yards of stream length md a minimum of six pools, each at least 1 foot deep, immediately upstream of the point at which the non- fish- bearing section begins. ( In some cases, the survey will have to cover much more than 50 yards of stream in order to also include the required six pools.) In addition, the survey must include sampling any beaver dam ponds in the upstream non- fish section. Surveyors are encouraged to exceed the minimum level of effort in order to be even more sure that fish are absent from a stream reach and that the maximum upstream extent of fish use has been found. A survey intended to show the absence of fish must sample at least 50 yards of stream distance and a minimum of six pools, each at least 1 foot deep, imme-diately upstream of the point at which fish use is believed to end. In addition, any beaver ponds upstream must be sampled as part of the survey. The require-ments for the methods used and the timing of the survey also must be met in order to document the absence of fish. Legal requirements In Oregon, the Department of Fish and Wildlife regulates the collection of fish for personal or scientific use. Generally, collection methods prohibited by the general angling regulations, such as electroshockers, traps, or nets, and collec-tions at times of the year when angling is closed will require a Scientific Collection Permit from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Scientific Collection Permits can be issued to agencies, companies, or indi-viduals. Request an application from the Fish Division of the Oregon Depart-ment of Fish and Wildlife, P. O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207; telephone ( 503) 229- 5410, extension 323. Submit the application at least 1 month before you plan to do the survey in order to be sure the permit can be issued in time. The application requests information about the collection method to be used, when and where collection will be made, and a summary of the proposed project. By law, surveyers must keep records of their collection activities and submit them to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Surveys using the visual observation method ( including snorkeling) do not require any licenses or permits because fish are not physically collected. Sampling with the hook- and- line method during open fishing seasons requires only a valid angling license. However, Oregon resident landowners and their immediate families do not need angling licenses to fish on land they own and live on. In either case, the general ahgling regulations for the stream must be followed during hook- and- line sampling unless a Scientific Collection Permit is obtained. Additional restrictions on survey efforts may apply if the stream contains species that the state or federal government lists as sensitive, threatened, or endangered species. Please contact your local ODFW office to find out whether any of these species are likely to be in streams you plan to sample. Reporting survey results Give survey data to the local ODF district office so that district Stream Classi-fication Maps can be updated. On page 19 is a blank survey report form. It asks for information about the location of the stream; the methods, timing, and effort of the survey; the physical character of the stream; observations of fish and wildlife; and the presence of natural or human- created barriers to fish passage. complete one form for each stream reach where fish were ob-served or fish use was found to end. See Figure 3 ( page 12) for descriptions of some fish species common to $ mall, forested streams; these may help to identify fish seen during surveys. Detailed instructions for completing the survey form are on pages 14 through 18. Attach to the Fish Presence Survey Form a copy of the ODF Stream ClassM-cation Map for the surveyed area or, if that is not available, a copy of the 7.5 minute USGS topographic map for the area. Note the following information on the map. ( Examples of completed survey report forms and maps are on pages 21 through 30.) The area of the stream that was actually surveyed ( including the areas without fish) as part of the survey effort. Highlight in yellow the entire stream reach surveyed ( see examples on pages 25,28, and 30). The upper limit of fish use. Note this on the map by drawing a line across the stream and writing the letter F at that point. The name of the surveyor. The date the stream was surveyed. GENUS ONCORHYNCUS - PACIFIC SALMON IOENTIFICATION FEATURES OF JUVENILES Faint parr marks. extend little. if am: below latanl line. Lures SOCKEYE w GENUS ONCORHYNCUS- TROUT IDENTIFICATIOEI FUTURES OF JUVENILES pols in dorsal Teeth on of tongue Maxillary extend past rear margin on throat W - Of eye CUTTHROAT 5 - I 0 parr marks on ridge ahead of dorsal tongue astend & st rear mark on throat Y; V margin of eye STEELHEAD- RAINBOW Few or no spots i n tail Figure 3. Identification characteristics of some juvenile salmon and trout species that may be observed in forested streams. 3. Permission to enter private forest lands should be obtained from all land-owners before the surveys are conducted. 4. Fish- presence surveys should then be made according to the guidelines given in this publication. 5. The required survey information, recorded on the Fish Presence Survey Form and maps, should be given to the local ODF district office. 6. The ODF office will give copies of the completed survey forms and maps to the local office of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 7. The Department of Forestry will review the information, usually in consul-tation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, to determine whether the survey results are reliable. 8. Based on its assessment of data reliability, the Department of Forestry will make appropriate changes to the ODF Stream Classification Maps. 9. All affected landowners will be notified of the proposed stream classifica-tion changes, according to the notification rules ( OAR 629- 57- 2110( 2)). Instructions for completing the survey report form The following information should be reported on the Fish Presence Survey Form. These instructions are in the order that the information appears on the form. Complete one form for each stream reach or branch where fish were observed or fish use was found to end. This may require assigning codes to unnamed tributaries ( for example, " trib. a," " trib. b") so that survey data can be cross- referenced to the survey maps. Please refer to examples on pages 21 through 29. Surveyor Narne( s): The name of the person or persons responsible for con-ducting the survey and reporting the results. AgencyfCompany: The name of the agency or company that employs the surveyor ( if applicable). Landowner: The name of the landowner of the reach surveyed. Mailing Address and Phone: The address and phone number for the person responsible for the survey. Stream: The name of the stream as reported on the USGS or ODF Stream Classification Map for the area. If the stream is unnamed, report the stream as " unnamed" and list the tributary that it flows into (" Tributary to..."). Tributary to: The name of the main stream ( as reported on the USGS or ODF map) that the surveyed stream flows into. This is especially important if the surveyed stream is unnamed. Quad Map: The name of the USGS 7.5 minute topographic map that includes the reach of the stream surveyed. If the surveyed reach covers more than one quad map, report first the name of the map that shows the identified end- point of fish use and then give the other maps' names. Location: A legal description ( township, range, and section to at least the quarter section) of the location where fish use ends. Date Surveyed: The month, day, and year the fish survey was conducted. Survey Method: Check the box for the survey method used. If more than one method was used, check all that apply and note the most often used method in the comments section or in the form's margin. Survey Amount Above End of Fish Use: The length of stream reach that was surveyed immediately upstream of the identified end of fish use. Estimate ( in feet) the length surveyed, and give the number of pools sampled for fish in that section. A survey to prove the absence of fish must sample at least 50 yards of stream and at least six pools immediately upstream of the end of fish use. In addition, any upstream beaver ponds must also be sampled. Flow Level: The flow conditions at the time of the survey. Use the following categories of flow. Low: Ranges from a series of isolated pools to flowing across less than 75 percent of the average bankfull width. Moderate: Surface water is flowing across 75 to 90 percent of the average bankfull width. High: Surface water flowing across more than 90 percent of the average bankfull width. It is not recommended thatfih presence surveys be conducted at high jlows. Weather: The weather during most of the fish survey ( rainy, overcast, partly cloudy, sunny, snowy, etc.). Water Clarity: The water visibility during the survey. Use the following categories of water visibility. Clear: Visibility is good in pools, deep pools, and riffles. Moderate: Visibility is good only in riffles and shallow pools. Turbid: Visibility is poor in both riffles and pools. It is not recommended that fih presence surveys be conducted when water is turbid. Water Temperature ( optional): The temperature of the stream ( in degrees Farenheit) at the time of the survey. Fish observations Report the species and approximate size ranges of fish observed in the sur-veyed reach. Use Figure 3 ( page 12) as a guide to identifying some game fish species commonly found in small, forested streams. Use the following codes and instructions to complete this section. Species: Use the following names or codes to report fish observed during the survey. If you observe a species not listed here, such as Pacific lamprey, use its common name. Name Species Code Coho salmon Co Cutthroat trout Ct Rainbow troutfsteelhead Rb/ St Bull trout BUT Brook trout BT Unknown salmonid UnS Sizes: Report the size range of fish, in inches, by species. For example, the size range of coho observed could be reported as " 1- 4 inches." If you see several sizes of one species ( for example, some cutthroat trout in the " 1- to 2- inch range and others in the " 6- to 8- inch" range), list them separately. Aquatic wildlife The types of aquatic wildlife that may be observed include tailed frogs ( includ-ing juvenile " tadpoles"), Pacific giant salamanders, and Olympic salamanders. Species: Give the common name of the species, if known. If you don't know the species name, at least report observations by a general name such as " salamanders." Number: The number of aquatic wildlife in each species or group observed. Physical stream data Report the physical characteristics of the stream in the vicinity of the end- point of fish use. Report information separately for ( 1) the section immediately at and downstream of the end of fish use, and ( 2) the area upstream of the maximum extent of fish use. Following are specific instructions for collecting this information. Bankfull Channel Width: By eye, estimate the average width ( in feet) of the bankfull channel for the 100- foot sections above and below the end- point of fish use. The bankfull channel is the area that is scoured by water during average high flows. The edge of the bankfull channel can be identified by looking for changes in vegetation, in soils and litter characteristics, or in the shape of the bank. The bank often will abruptly change slope at the bankfull boundary. Vegetation at the boundary often changes from annual vegetation ( such as grasses) to more permanent vegetation such as trees and shrubs. Estimate the width across the channel between the edges of the bankfull level. Current Wetted Width: Visually estimate the average width ( in feet) of the channel that contains flow ( is wetted) at the time of the survey. Report the estimated averages for the 100- foot sections above and below the end of fish use. Channel Gradient: Measure the average stream gradient with a clinometer for the 100- foot sections above and below the end of fish use. me a piece of flagging at eye level on a branch or shrub, walk up or down the stream bank, and then use the clinometer to sight on the flagging while you are standing on the channel bottom. Read and report the percent gradient. ODF Stream Class Size: The stream size (" small," " medium," or " large") from the ODF Stream Classification Maps for the reaches immediately above and downstream of the end of fish use. Natural barriers This information is very important for understanding relationships between the presence of fish and the physical characteristics of the stream. Understanding these relationships can help determine where fish- presence surveys should be concentrated and help predict where fish are likely to occur if survey informa-tion is not yet available. Generally, natural barriers are permanent structures such as falls or vertical drops more than 8 to 10 feet high for salmon or steel-head or 4 feet high for trout. Log jams, drops over logs, beaver dams, or other organic structures generally are only temporary barriers to fish passage, but report them as well. If fish use ends at a natural barrier, such as a waterfall, bedrock chute or cascades, describe the conditions at the site. Include a description of: ( 1) the type of barrier, ( 2) the approximate height ( in feet), ( 3) the percentage of slope, ( 4) the length ( in feet) of the bedrock chute or cascades, and ( 5) any other conditions that may be limiting fish passage. If the potential barrier is a bedrock chute, note whether the bedrock contains pools or rough features ( such as rocks, boulders, or other breaks in the flow), or whether the water flows in an even, shallow pattern over the bedrock. Please note on the survey map the locations of any natural barriers encountered. If you encounter a natural barrier, also be sure to sample above this point because fish often are found above natural barriers. Road- crossing barriers This information also is very important for understanding relationships be-tween the presence of fish and the physical characteristics of the stream. Road-crossing barriers can alter the relationships. If fish use ends at a road- crossing barrier, such as a culvert, describe the conditions at the site. Describe the type of barrier and its measurements at the time of the survey such as ( 1) the diameter of the culvert, in inches, ( 2) the depth ( in inches) of water in the culvert, ( 3) the height ( in feet) of the jump ( drop) below the culvert or structure, ( 4) the depth ( in inches or feet) of the plunge pool below the culvert outfall, ( 5) the gradient or slope of the culvert, given as a percentage as read off a clinometer, ( 6) the length ( in feet) of the culvert, and ( 7) any other factors that could affect fish passage. Please note on the survey map the locations of any road- crossing barriers, even if they are not at the end- point of fish use. As with natural barriers, be sure also to sample above the site because fish often are found above road- crossing barriers. Other comments Any other comments or notations that you think may be pertinent to the fish survey. It helps to describe any notable habitat characteristics, for example " lots of instream wood," " very few pools in the reach," " heavy silt load in the stream." Use the reverse side of the form if necessary. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): Agency: Land Owner: Mailing Address: Phone: Date Surveyed: Stream: Tributary to: Quad Map: Location: T R Sec. Survey Method ( d): 0 Electroshocker 0 h & g 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) Number of Pools Flow Level ( d): 0 Low 17 Moderate High Weather: Water Temperature: Water Clarity ( d): Clear 17 Moderate 17 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): . be Sorveq , 3 Troo+, FI s h G n r u l l , I*? , S.; L. Agency: N/ C I Land Owner: k! 4~ 4f, l T; M ~ C C Mailing address:?.^. sox ~ g~,\ L L I M UF~ A \ ID~ R) jC? suo Phone: BSB- 5555 ate surveyed: A p ( ; i 2 8, ! ?? s I Stream: Un hawed , " Tr I b R!' Tributary to: lr3 F . 21 o k so- ~ r a& QuadMap: D\ A &\ dy Location: T 305 R 5 " L Sec. 30, sw/ sto Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) I 86 ' Number of Pools Flow Level ( d): CI Low cd~ oderate High Weather: S owv Water Temperature: 7 O F I Water Clarity ( V): dclear Moderate I7 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species I Snes 1 Spedes 1 Quant'ity 1 PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. bk If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. prf+ Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): f- 15 L wsz ewd 30 $& abov e f *; rd John50~ m ain\ ifi< ~ r o s s i n OH ~ f r e a ~ 7.% ~ 5t redw g d ~ e n f & ry s t u p abde + he a d 4' & sh use - p & f i a n 10%. 2 1 OREGON FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Fish & Wildlife Stream: ~) nr? euce, d " Tr t b, O " Tributary to: w F & n~ oq CC. Quad Map: old &\ A% Location: T 382 R 5E Sec.' 30, si/ Sw I Survey Method ( 4): ~ lectroshocker 0 Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 2 5' 0 Number of Pools 20 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low d ~ o d e r a t e High Weather: Lw+ Water Temperature: 6 0 F I Water Clarity ( d): dclear Cl Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species 1 Snes I! , Species Quantity If fish use ends at a natural bamer, desc ' be the conditions that prevent u stre m fish assage. Fid - 4s 4+ 2 S ' ~ r t i Lm* r? d\. A dJ @ cater also % 15& 5 ( ho& a. r. rp Q5 W F - buffis @ ere fouu\ d . opstr + ye If fish use ehs) at a roa d. crossmng, descnbe conhlons that may prevent upstream fish passage. Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): w tfw+ were fbU 4 above % z 6 + of (~ la+ erf~ ll above fu 25fcof I sowe years. 22 fail s& i ro fish t@ f& probab/ y vp FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP stream: V A ~ ~ ~ + SC~" T & ~ ributaryto: u. F. 3ehbtja14 Creek Quad Map: old - b a t d ~ Location: T 3 S 5 R 5 E Sec. Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker 0 Anghng 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) a 2 5 Number of Pools 2 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low & oderate 0 High Weather: SvMwv Water Temperature: I Water Clarity ( d): d l e a r 0 Moderate 0 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE - ... . .: : :....: ' ' . . . . . . A , , , .: . . . . , . . , .&& : ! Species ... . ..$ pedes Quantity PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. M/ A If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Stream: West h r k Aobrson Cr eeG Tributary to: Johnrow Cre~ k Quad Map: ( ~ ( 4Ith .\ Ay Location: T 385 R 5 E Sec. 2?,, 5E/ sLJ I Survey Method ( d): dlectroshocker 0 Angling Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 3 00 Number of Pools t% Flow Level ( V): 0 Low d ~ o d e r ae t High Weather: j , y~ I Water Temperature: 60" F= Water Clarity ( d): & ear Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQ- U ATIC WILDLIFE t Spedes Quantity 1 I PHYSICAL STREAM DATA + IH n D CtsL 5h-* If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. N I A If fish use ends t a roqj crossiy, describ~ concl~~ tohnats may prevent upstr am fish passa e. ~ hrvctr ert a no? pQ59 ~ c - r b LOWOJQ 4 u. 4 9 ) drop at * rut-/&. b l d a r p fn qr p aI . 7, slop is 6 70 , and w ( onp 7 % fu~ lv er+ 1s ~ chul~ ledb e replace4 t bi s Svmncr. Other comments ( use reverse s~ de~ fn ecessa ): Lower ~ t r c a - q r d r r & a & e + LC cd en. Sf- rm* bb; M Ieok 30a4, but + k shaln. dry up ;* SOW years. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Mailing Address: ?. c, 3 2 , AJLO ~ L4- T o R 70 00 Phone: b40 - oool Date Surveyed: / Ha v 2 / cj? T I stream: ~ nnclcr- ed , " 7- r; b k " Tributary to: Lobs k c Creek Quad Map: BULL Lrceu Rtdqc Location: T 35 R 2W S ~ C . ~ ~ N € + 4 Survey Method ( d): ~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 300 Number of Pools I 57 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low rd~ oderate High Weather: 7k + lVL * wy Water Temperature: 6 O T-Water Clarity ( d): && ear Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLlFE I , , , ' Species Sies Spedes Quantity If fish use ends, at a natural ba ' er, describe t e conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. The. LZ m c b r u f - ~ V~ L ry 54- p X e u e + he ed$+ t.* use. ~ k rlrcnu, RIIIVC ~ L I : : pain+ I S ~ 4 1 ~ g ~ r L ~ d eo5ve r bai( Lle r S, b+ + his ri- gf obnhi~ n o+ Q b r r r t c r. ' 7 If fish use ends at a road crossing, descn e conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. U P Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): N r 4.0r L r ~ s; Wj J bCqPn 5 u ru . + r + he L) wediunn - sws\ l size chaqc, F, sh U ~ CC ~ wJh c r t a d c c y t r ; b ~ + G~ d . ovt WLQ) ew- ker s LLII+. 26 FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): 30 e Cadd i i , Bob hJvrnP1\ Agency: o ba~ ~ a'ndbwner: Lobsfec C r , ~ , , b c c Mailing Address: 7 D. ' 30K 2 , ~ J L pLet~ t , D R DO Phone: 8 YD- o 00 1 Date Surveyed: m4 I/ 2, i? 7- C I f Stream: / ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ek bS "" ~ c Tributaryto: L o b s t e r Lraek Quad Map: B V ' ~ Cr eek ??, d. ie Location: T 73 R 2 0 Sec. 3Y, ~ I. o AA. J G Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 2 5 0 Number of Pools / D Flow Level ( d): 0 Low d ~ o d e r a t e 0 High Weather: 94, & SU W\ I Water Temperature: 5- 7 " ?= Water Clarity ( d) : Wc1ea. r CI Moderate 0 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE PHYSICAL STREAM DATA Species Sics Spedes If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. Quantity If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. I I Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): ~ h5ctre um WLS " r y ~ Lw iL tL ~ decy f- goo( r. @. la f is/., observe4 , Ty pr N ~ f . r e u ~ z . FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): \ ce < . 3ab Tr cut Agency: u/ k2 Mailing ~ ddress: Z3R Rne St , b k n h( e dr ! OR ? d o 0 Phone: ZB?- 3333 Date Surveyed: stream: ~*- aweA Tributary to: c r & QuadMap: G l e w b ~ ~ e k Location: T \ 4 5 R 6 @ Sec. zS,, ~ 3t .+ S-Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) Number of Pools Q Flow Level ( d): 0 Low & oderate High Weather: C( ea c Water Temperature: 5?* F Water Clarity ( d): lW2ear 0 Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species Sizes Spedes Quantity PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. U P If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. Close

• 94. [Image] Upper Klamath Lake Basin nutrient-loading study: assessment of historic flows in the Williamson and Sprague Rivers

  	"The goal of the project is to quantitatively describe the nature and extent of the ground-water flow systems in the basin."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Upper Klamath Lake Basin nutrient-loading study: assessment of historic flows in the Williamson and Sprague Rivers Author: Risley, John C. Year: 1999, 2005, 2004 "The goal of the project is to quantitatively describe the nature and extent of the ground-water flow systems in the basin." Title: Upper Klamath Lake Basin nutrient-loading study: assessment of historic flows in the Williamson and Sprague Rivers Author: Risley, John C. Year: 1999, 2005, 2004 "The goal of the project is to quantitatively describe the nature and extent of the ground-water flow systems in the basin." Close

• 95. [Image] Programmatic environmental assessment for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office Projects, 2000-2010

  	Programmatic Environmental Assessment Summary This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for restoration actions undertaken by the US Fish ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Programmatic environmental assessment for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office Projects, 2000-2010 Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office. Year: 2000, 2005, 2004 Programmatic Environmental Assessment Summary This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for restoration actions undertaken by the US Fish & Wildlife Service's Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office (ERO) in Klamath Falls, Oregon. These restoration activities are needed due to the large-scale loss of wetland and riparian habitat and degraded water quality. The purpose of these restoration efforts is the improvement of conditions of the watershed with specific regard to habitat and water quality, resulting in, among other benefits, improved conditions for the endangered fish species (bull trout and Lost River and shortnose sucker) populations of the basin. The geographic scope of this EA is defined as the upper Klamath River basin, including the entire watershed from Irongate Dam upstream to the headwaters. This EA is intended to provide NEPA compliance for restoration projects conducted between the years 2000 and 2010. The ERO was established in 1993 to sponsor and assist with a variety of restoration activities in the Klamath Basin. The ERO funds and provides technical assistance to restoration projects involving private landholders, concerned groups, and other state, federal, and tribal agencies. Four alternatives are presented in this EA. The proposed alternative (Alternative 1) consists of a comprehensive program of ecosystem restoration, promoting projects in both riparian areas and in upland habitats. This would continue the current program in effect since 1994. NEPA compliance would primarily be carried out via a single, programmatic document saving time and funds. The Fish & Wildlife Service proposes to fund and administer the following projects types: Riparian Projects: (fencing for livestock management; native plant establishment & diversification; non-native plant removal/control; erosion control; contour re-establishment; impoundment removal; wildlife habitat improvements) Wetland Projects: (fencing; wetland restoration and enhancement; wildlife habitat improvements) Upland or Road Projects: (road abandonment, decommissioning, & obliteration; road drainage improvements and storm proofing, re-establishment of historic contours; silvicultural treatments; native plant establishment/diversification; non-native plant removal/control; fencing; landslide treatments; culvert/stream crossing upgrades; erosion control; wildlife habitat improvements). In-stream Projects: (habitat complexity and diversity improvements; hydrologic regime improvements; coarse woody debris supplementation; natural or artificial barrier removal, modification &/or creation; fish screens installation). Alternative 2 would concentrate restoration efforts only on riparian, instream, and wetland areas. Road projects would be conducted only within the riparian corridor, as defined. NEPA compliance would also be conducted programmatically. Alternative 3 would cease all restoration activities conducted and funded by the ERO in the Klamath Basin. This alternative would serve as a benchmark against which the effects of the restoration alternatives discussed above can be compared. Alternative 4, the "No Action" alternative, would continue current management policies with regard to NEPA compliance, providing compliance on a project by project basis requiring independent analysis for each project. The affected environment of the region is described in detail. The environment has been changed significantly since the 1890's due to logging, agriculture and urban development. An extensive system of dams, canals, and drainage structures has resulted in the conversion of approximately 80% of pre-settlement wetlands to agricultural uses. Riparian corridors have been similarly impacted, and upland forests regions have been affected by logging, road construction and other factors. These changes have contributed to problems with the water quality in the region, contributing to the listing of several fish species as threatened or endangered; loss of habitat has affected a large number of other species as well. The environmental effects of each alternative is analyzed. Some short term negative impacts could occur as a result of the projects authorized by both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, but these would be strongly offset by the expected beneficial results to water quality and habitat conditions. Alternative 1 would be expected to have a greater overall effect on the environment than Alternative 2, since many of the underlying factors with which restoration efforts are concerned originate in upland conditions (i.e. sedimentation and hydrologic functionality). Alternative 3 would result in conditions remaining much as they are currently, although other programs and organizations are making efforts at restoration activities. The environmental impacts of individual projects anticipated under Alternative 4 would be generally the same as for similar projects under Alternative 1. The primary difference between the two alternatives would be the higher efficiency and improved cumulative analysis resulting from a programmatic approach as proposed in Alternative 1. Public participation in the NEPA process has been, and will continue to be, solicited and welcomed. Compliance with state and federal laws and regulations such as the Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act, as well as guidelines for contaminant surveys, will be carried out as detailed. While these projects are expected to play an important role in the restoration of the region, none of these alternatives are expected to have a significant impact when compared with the loss of wetland, riparian and upland habitats over the past century, impacts which do occur would be of a cumulatively beneficial nature. Other restoration efforts are being carried out in the area by other governmental and private groups, and it is expected that these combined efforts will achieve important beneficial results for the ecosystem. Title: Programmatic environmental assessment for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office Projects, 2000-2010 Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office. Year: 2000, 2005, 2004 Programmatic Environmental Assessment Summary This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for restoration actions undertaken by the US Fish & Wildlife Service's Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office (ERO) in Klamath Falls, Oregon. These restoration activities are needed due to the large-scale loss of wetland and riparian habitat and degraded water quality. The purpose of these restoration efforts is the improvement of conditions of the watershed with specific regard to habitat and water quality, resulting in, among other benefits, improved conditions for the endangered fish species (bull trout and Lost River and shortnose sucker) populations of the basin. The geographic scope of this EA is defined as the upper Klamath River basin, including the entire watershed from Irongate Dam upstream to the headwaters. This EA is intended to provide NEPA compliance for restoration projects conducted between the years 2000 and 2010. The ERO was established in 1993 to sponsor and assist with a variety of restoration activities in the Klamath Basin. The ERO funds and provides technical assistance to restoration projects involving private landholders, concerned groups, and other state, federal, and tribal agencies. Four alternatives are presented in this EA. The proposed alternative (Alternative 1) consists of a comprehensive program of ecosystem restoration, promoting projects in both riparian areas and in upland habitats. This would continue the current program in effect since 1994. NEPA compliance would primarily be carried out via a single, programmatic document saving time and funds. The Fish & Wildlife Service proposes to fund and administer the following projects types: Riparian Projects: (fencing for livestock management; native plant establishment & diversification; non-native plant removal/control; erosion control; contour re-establishment; impoundment removal; wildlife habitat improvements) Wetland Projects: (fencing; wetland restoration and enhancement; wildlife habitat improvements) Upland or Road Projects: (road abandonment, decommissioning, & obliteration; road drainage improvements and storm proofing, re-establishment of historic contours; silvicultural treatments; native plant establishment/diversification; non-native plant removal/control; fencing; landslide treatments; culvert/stream crossing upgrades; erosion control; wildlife habitat improvements). In-stream Projects: (habitat complexity and diversity improvements; hydrologic regime improvements; coarse woody debris supplementation; natural or artificial barrier removal, modification &/or creation; fish screens installation). Alternative 2 would concentrate restoration efforts only on riparian, instream, and wetland areas. Road projects would be conducted only within the riparian corridor, as defined. NEPA compliance would also be conducted programmatically. Alternative 3 would cease all restoration activities conducted and funded by the ERO in the Klamath Basin. This alternative would serve as a benchmark against which the effects of the restoration alternatives discussed above can be compared. Alternative 4, the "No Action" alternative, would continue current management policies with regard to NEPA compliance, providing compliance on a project by project basis requiring independent analysis for each project. The affected environment of the region is described in detail. The environment has been changed significantly since the 1890's due to logging, agriculture and urban development. An extensive system of dams, canals, and drainage structures has resulted in the conversion of approximately 80% of pre-settlement wetlands to agricultural uses. Riparian corridors have been similarly impacted, and upland forests regions have been affected by logging, road construction and other factors. These changes have contributed to problems with the water quality in the region, contributing to the listing of several fish species as threatened or endangered; loss of habitat has affected a large number of other species as well. The environmental effects of each alternative is analyzed. Some short term negative impacts could occur as a result of the projects authorized by both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, but these would be strongly offset by the expected beneficial results to water quality and habitat conditions. Alternative 1 would be expected to have a greater overall effect on the environment than Alternative 2, since many of the underlying factors with which restoration efforts are concerned originate in upland conditions (i.e. sedimentation and hydrologic functionality). Alternative 3 would result in conditions remaining much as they are currently, although other programs and organizations are making efforts at restoration activities. The environmental impacts of individual projects anticipated under Alternative 4 would be generally the same as for similar projects under Alternative 1. The primary difference between the two alternatives would be the higher efficiency and improved cumulative analysis resulting from a programmatic approach as proposed in Alternative 1. Public participation in the NEPA process has been, and will continue to be, solicited and welcomed. Compliance with state and federal laws and regulations such as the Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act, as well as guidelines for contaminant surveys, will be carried out as detailed. While these projects are expected to play an important role in the restoration of the region, none of these alternatives are expected to have a significant impact when compared with the loss of wetland, riparian and upland habitats over the past century, impacts which do occur would be of a cumulatively beneficial nature. Other restoration efforts are being carried out in the area by other governmental and private groups, and it is expected that these combined efforts will achieve important beneficial results for the ecosystem. Close

• 96. [Image] Klamath River fish die-off, September 2002 : causative factors of mortality

  	Executive Summary This report provides information describing the biological, hydrological, meteorological, and water quality conditions associated with the die-off of an estimated 34,056 fish in the Klamath ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath River fish die-off, September 2002 : causative factors of mortality Author: Guillen, George Year: 2003, 2005, 2004 Executive Summary This report provides information describing the biological, hydrological, meteorological, and water quality conditions associated with the die-off of an estimated 34,056 fish in the Klamath River, California in September 2002. The proximate cause of death was heavy infections of two fish pathogens, Ich and columnaris. However, given that these ubiquitous pathogens are normally found in the Klamath River, additional factors must have played a role for them to have become lethal. It is our conclusion based on multiple lines of evidence that the fish die-off in the lower Klamath River in 2002 was a result of a combination of factors that began with an early peak in the return of a large run of fall Chinook salmon. Low river discharges apparently did not provide suitable attraction flows for migrating adult salmon, resulting in large numbers of fish congregating in the warm waters of the lower River. The high density offish, low discharges, warm water temperatures, and possible extended residence time of salmon created optimal conditions for parasite proliferation and precipitated an epizootic of Ich and columnaris. Based on a review of available literature and historical records, this was the largest known pre-spawning adult salmonid die-off recorded for the Klamath River and possibly the Pacific coast. Title: Klamath River fish die-off, September 2002 : causative factors of mortality Author: Guillen, George Year: 2003, 2005, 2004 Executive Summary This report provides information describing the biological, hydrological, meteorological, and water quality conditions associated with the die-off of an estimated 34,056 fish in the Klamath River, California in September 2002. The proximate cause of death was heavy infections of two fish pathogens, Ich and columnaris. However, given that these ubiquitous pathogens are normally found in the Klamath River, additional factors must have played a role for them to have become lethal. It is our conclusion based on multiple lines of evidence that the fish die-off in the lower Klamath River in 2002 was a result of a combination of factors that began with an early peak in the return of a large run of fall Chinook salmon. Low river discharges apparently did not provide suitable attraction flows for migrating adult salmon, resulting in large numbers of fish congregating in the warm waters of the lower River. The high density offish, low discharges, warm water temperatures, and possible extended residence time of salmon created optimal conditions for parasite proliferation and precipitated an epizootic of Ich and columnaris. Based on a review of available literature and historical records, this was the largest known pre-spawning adult salmonid die-off recorded for the Klamath River and possibly the Pacific coast. Close

• 97. [Image] Undepleted natural flow of the upper Klamath River : natural inflow to, natural losses from, and natural outfall of Upper Klamath Lake to the Link River and of Lower Klamath Lake to the Klamath River at Keno

  	A monthly natural flow history was determined for the 1949 to 2000 period at the Keno gage of the Upper Klamath River basin in south-central Oregon. Included within the evaluation is an assessment of natural ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Undepleted natural flow of the upper Klamath River : natural inflow to, natural losses from, and natural outfall of Upper Klamath Lake to the Link River and of Lower Klamath Lake to the Klamath River at Keno Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation. Denver Office. Technical Service Center Year: 2005, 2004 A monthly natural flow history was determined for the 1949 to 2000 period at the Keno gage of the Upper Klamath River basin in south-central Oregon. Included within the evaluation is an assessment of natural flows for the same period at the outfall of Upper Klamath Lake, which forms the head of the Link River at Klamath Falls, Oregon. Flow past the Link River gage is tributary to the Klamath River above Lower Klamath Lake. These natural flows were determined using standard and accepted methods. Records used in developing this analysis were derived from stream-gaging records and from climatic records for stations within and adjacent to the study area. Information was also obtained from published maps and reports, and file documents of the Klamath Area Office. Currently, received comments are being addressed and evaluation of elements related to these comments is in progress. The objective of this report is to provide a representative estimate of the monthly natural flow of the Upper Klamath River. Such an estimate is of the natural flow that would typically have occurred without the water-resources developments in the Upper Klamath Basin. A water-budget assessment was used in the determination of the natural flows. The assessment includes results from an evaluation of present-day irrigation depletions, and losses from reclaimed marshland, that have changed the natural inflow to, and resulting natural outfall from, Upper Klamath Lake. Also evaluated were losses to the natural inflow that would have been incurred due to pre-development marshland and evaporation associated with Upper Klamath Lake. The natural outfall from the lake comprised the natural flow of the Link River at Klamath Falls and also the consequent natural inflow to Lower Klamath Lake. Therefore, a similar evaluation was also completed for Lower Klamath Lake to estimate the natural flow of the Klamath River at Keno. The water-budget assessment was designed to simulate each lake as a natural water body within a stream-connected two-lake system. Much of the assessment was completed using Excel. Title: Undepleted natural flow of the upper Klamath River : natural inflow to, natural losses from, and natural outfall of Upper Klamath Lake to the Link River and of Lower Klamath Lake to the Klamath River at Keno Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation. Denver Office. Technical Service Center Year: 2005, 2004 A monthly natural flow history was determined for the 1949 to 2000 period at the Keno gage of the Upper Klamath River basin in south-central Oregon. Included within the evaluation is an assessment of natural flows for the same period at the outfall of Upper Klamath Lake, which forms the head of the Link River at Klamath Falls, Oregon. Flow past the Link River gage is tributary to the Klamath River above Lower Klamath Lake. These natural flows were determined using standard and accepted methods. Records used in developing this analysis were derived from stream-gaging records and from climatic records for stations within and adjacent to the study area. Information was also obtained from published maps and reports, and file documents of the Klamath Area Office. Currently, received comments are being addressed and evaluation of elements related to these comments is in progress. The objective of this report is to provide a representative estimate of the monthly natural flow of the Upper Klamath River. Such an estimate is of the natural flow that would typically have occurred without the water-resources developments in the Upper Klamath Basin. A water-budget assessment was used in the determination of the natural flows. The assessment includes results from an evaluation of present-day irrigation depletions, and losses from reclaimed marshland, that have changed the natural inflow to, and resulting natural outfall from, Upper Klamath Lake. Also evaluated were losses to the natural inflow that would have been incurred due to pre-development marshland and evaporation associated with Upper Klamath Lake. The natural outfall from the lake comprised the natural flow of the Link River at Klamath Falls and also the consequent natural inflow to Lower Klamath Lake. Therefore, a similar evaluation was also completed for Lower Klamath Lake to estimate the natural flow of the Klamath River at Keno. The water-budget assessment was designed to simulate each lake as a natural water body within a stream-connected two-lake system. Much of the assessment was completed using Excel. Close

• 98. [Image] Williamson River delta restoration project : environmental assessment

  	"May 2000"; From cover: Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2316 South 6th Street, Suite C, Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601. In Partnership with The Nature Conservancy, ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Williamson River delta restoration project : environmental assessment Year: 2000, 2005 "May 2000"; From cover: Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2316 South 6th Street, Suite C, Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601. In Partnership with The Nature Conservancy, 821 SE 14th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97214 and US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Tribes, PacifiCorp, Cell Tech International; Includes bibliographic references (p. 60-66) Title: Williamson River delta restoration project : environmental assessment Year: 2000, 2005 "May 2000"; From cover: Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2316 South 6th Street, Suite C, Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601. In Partnership with The Nature Conservancy, 821 SE 14th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97214 and US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Tribes, PacifiCorp, Cell Tech International; Includes bibliographic references (p. 60-66) Close

• 99. [Image] Draft upper Williamson River Watershed assessment

  	"Prepared for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Foundation, and the Upper Williamson River Catchment Group, in cooperation with the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group, and the Klamath Watershed Council."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Draft upper Williamson River Watershed assessment Author: David Evans and Associates, Inc. Year: 2004, 2005 "Prepared for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Foundation, and the Upper Williamson River Catchment Group, in cooperation with the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group, and the Klamath Watershed Council." Title: Draft upper Williamson River Watershed assessment Author: David Evans and Associates, Inc. Year: 2004, 2005 "Prepared for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Foundation, and the Upper Williamson River Catchment Group, in cooperation with the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group, and the Klamath Watershed Council." Close

• 100. [Image] Western water supply : hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, to receive testimony regarding water supply issues in the arid West, March 9, 2004

  	CONTENTS STATEMENTS Page American Farm Bureau Federation 26963 Bell, Craig, Executive Director, Western States Water Council 26945 Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico 2691 Gaibler, Floyd, ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Western water supply : hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, to receive testimony regarding water supply issues in the arid West, March 9, 2004 Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Year: 2004, 2005 CONTENTS STATEMENTS Page American Farm Bureau Federation 26963 Bell, Craig, Executive Director, Western States Water Council 26945 Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico 2691 Gaibler, Floyd, Deputy Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, Department of Agriculture 26932 Grisoli, Brigadier General William T., Commander, Northwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 26918 Hall, Tex G., President, National Congress of American Indians, and Chair man, Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation 26950 Raley, Bennett, Assistant Secretary, Department of the Interior 2695 Uccellini, Dr. Louis, Director, National Centers for Environmental Prediction, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 26926 APPENDIX Responses to additional questions 2620 67 Title: Western water supply : hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, to receive testimony regarding water supply issues in the arid West, March 9, 2004 Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Year: 2004, 2005 CONTENTS STATEMENTS Page American Farm Bureau Federation 26963 Bell, Craig, Executive Director, Western States Water Council 26945 Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico 2691 Gaibler, Floyd, Deputy Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, Department of Agriculture 26932 Grisoli, Brigadier General William T., Commander, Northwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 26918 Hall, Tex G., President, National Congress of American Indians, and Chair man, Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation 26950 Raley, Bennett, Assistant Secretary, Department of the Interior 2695 Uccellini, Dr. Louis, Director, National Centers for Environmental Prediction, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 26926 APPENDIX Responses to additional questions 2620 67 Close