March 24, 2011 Miranda Wecker Director, Marine Program University of Washington Olympic Natural Resources Center PO Box 160 Naselle, WA 98638 RE: Shoreline Master Program Amendment Cycle for Clallam County (WRIA 20) Dear Ms. Wecker Wild Salmon Center (WSC) appreciates the opportunity to provide input on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) amendment cycle for Clallam County (WRIA 20) that the University of Washington Olympic Natural Resource Center is facilitating. WSC is an international non-profit conservation organization whose mission is to identify, understand, and protect the most important wild salmon ecosystems of the Pacific Rim. In 2006, WSC established the North American Salmon Stronghold Partnership (NASSP)—a public-private partnership that aims to protect the last remaining healthy river systems where wild salmon are most abundant, biologically diverse, and have the best chance of surviving the long-term impacts of development and climate change. The Quillayute watershed is currently recognized as a salmon stronghold by NASSP and the Quileute Tribe. Scientific analyses conducted by WSC indicate that the Calawah and Bogachiel Rivers (two of four major Quillayute tributaries) produce the most abundant and diverse wild salmon populations across the entire Washington coast (Attachment 1). These populations also provide some of the most viable treaty and non-treaty fisheries in the state and are inextricably linked to the economic health of the City of Forks. A major goal of the Shoreline Management Act (1971) is "to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines." Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provides statutory guidance that “Master programs shall assure no net loss of shoreline ecological function” resulting from agriculture, aquaculture, boating facilities, commercial development, forest practices, industry, in-stream structural uses, mining, recreational development, residential development, transportation and parking, and utilities (WAC 173-26-241).
WSC reviewed http://www.clallam.net/RealEstate/html/onrc_wria_20_maps.htm, a map cabinet located on the county’s website, to develop a series of recommendations for the current SMP amendment cycle. The focus of our comments are on the SMP Environment Designations (WAC 173-26-211), including designations for non-designated shorelines and changes to existing designations (WAC 173-26-201). Designations are recommended with the intent to minimize any loss of shoreline ecological function necessary to support healthy wild salmon and steelhead populations and to promote public safety (EXHIBIT A). Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the current SMP amendment cycle--we understand it may be 20 years until the next amendment cycle. Please direct questions, further inquires and follow up material to Devona Ensmenger at [email protected] and by phone (360) 640-2631. Sincerely,
Devona Ensmenger Washington Program Manager cc Guido Rahr President & Chief Executive Wild Salmon Center
Dr. Jeff Baumgartner Executive Vice President Wild Salmon Center Rich Lincoln Director State of the Salmon
EXHIBIT A Recommendations for SMP Environment Designations in Clallam County (WRIA 20) (WAC 173-26-211) WSC provides the following recommendations only for “natural” and “conservancy” Environment Designations (designations). Within both categories, designations are listed in order of ecological priority based upon WSC analyses. WSC defers “rural,” “suburban,” and “urban” designations to the municipalities and other jurisdictions best equipped to do so--though WSC is poised to evaluate and refute designations as necessary within all five categories. NATURAL
1. Elk Creek a. East line of parcel 132802330040 upstream to west line of parcel number
13281222000
JUSTIFICATION Elk Creek is five miles long, yet produces one-third of total redds in the Calawah river system (Attachment 2—pg 7). The creek valley contains extensive wetlands, spring fed side wall channels, and second growth forested floodplain with isolated old growth characteristics. The valley is prone to landslides and erosion (http://www.clallam.net/Maps/assets/applets/Critarea_p14.pdf). Upland habitat (256 acres) within this proposed designation area was conserved through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board and is currently owned and managed as conservation land by the North Olympic Land Trust.
2. Sitkum River
a. From the confluence of Sitkum River and S. Fork Calawah River upstream to end of SMP jurisdiction (20 cfs/RM 12.7), including Rainbow Creek (to RM 0.6) and S. Fork Sitkum (to RM 2.3)
JUSTIFICATION WSC surveys and analysis indicate that the Sitkum River contains high concentrations and a broad distribution of quality rearing habitat used by 0-age trout, steelhead parr, and cutthroat trout (Attachment 3—pgs 41, 42). The Sitkum River flows through mature ecologically complex forests within the Olympic National Park and USDA Forest Service that largely remain untouched. However, uplands of the Sitkum’s south draining tributaries are largely characterized by clear cuts and younger aged forests. However, all but two of these shorelines fall outside of SMP jurisdiction.
3. Lost Creek a. From the confluence of Lost Creek and S. Fork Calawah River upstream to end of
SMP jurisdiction (20 cfs/RM 2.3)
JUSTIFICATION Lost Creek flows through mature ecologically complex forests within the Olympic National Park and USDA Forest Service that largely remain untouched. WSC surveys and analysis indicate that Lost Creek is a critical low water rearing refugia for coho. (Attachment 3—pg 41)
CONSERVANCY
1. Elk Creek a. From the confluence of Elk Creek and Calawah River upstream to east line of
parcel 132802330040 b. From the east line of parcel 13281222000 upstream to end of SMP jurisdiction
(20 cfs /RM 4)
JUSTIFICATION As described under Natural (1. a.).
2. S. Fork Calawah River a. From the west line of parcel 122806onf001 upstream to the confluence of the S.
Fork Calawah River and Sitkum River, including Hyas Creek (to RM 3.8).
JUSTIFICATION WSC surveys and analysis indicate that the S. Fork Calawah River contains high concentrations and a broad distribution of quality rearing habitat used by 0-age trout, and steelhead parr (Attachment 3—pgs 41, 42).
3. N. Fork Calawah River
a. From the west line of parcel 112915200000 upstream to the end of SMP jurisdiction (20 cfs/RM 20.2), including Pistol Creek (to RM 2.2)
JUSTIFICATION WSC surveys and analysis indicate that the N. Fork Calawah River, just beyond a frequently dry reach (RM 11.5 to RM 18.5), contains a two-mile long concentration of quality rearing habitat used by coho, 0-age trout, and steelhead parr (Attachment 3—pgs 41, 42).
4. Boagachiel River a. From the confluence of Bogachiel River and Calawah River upstream to south line
of parcel 142822310000 b. From south line of parcel 142823110000 upstream to east line of parcel
132834wtr001.
JUSTIFICATION Flood prone (100-year) and critical aquifer recharge area with high gravel recruitment suited to non-permanent use of biological resources. Land ownership is predominantly private timber. Sources: Based on evaluations of land ownership from Clallam County Assessor Parcel maps (http://www.clallam.net/aimsxwebsite/CA_pacs/viewer.htm), maps and aerial photos from Clallam County Shoreline Master Program Update map cabinet (http://www.clallam.net/RealEstate/html/onrc_wria_20_maps.htm), the Clallam County Shoreline Master Program report revised June 16, 1992 (http://www.clallam.net/realestate/assets/applets/SHORELINE_MASTER_PROGRAM.pdf) and Google Earth.
5. Sol Duc River a. From east line of parcel 132929200000 upstream to south line of parcel
132921410105
JUSTIFICATION Most significant and expansive floodway in Clallam County (WRIA 20) and critical aquifer recharge area with high gravel recruitment suited to non-permanent use of biological resources. Land ownership is a mix of private timber and residential. Sources: As described under Conservancy (4. a., b.).
Western Washington Strong Populations
02.10.11 Wild Salmon Center
1 Strong Population
2 Strong Populations
3 Strong Populations
4 + Strong Populations
Ecoregions
Strong Populations determinedusing a Decision Suport Modeland displayed by HUC5 units.
North Olympic40f8 02-1545AElk Creek Acquisition
BACKGROUND
Elk Creek is the major tributary to the mainstem Calawah at RM 9.2, a part of the CalawahRiver Basin which joins the Quillayute River and enters the Pacific Ocean at La Push, W A atthe Quileute Indian Tribe Reservation. As a Class I, Tier I stream, Shoreline of the State, ElkCreek provides approximately five miles of continguous low elevation, low gradient, highquality spawning and rearing habitat for salmonid.
Elk Creek Acquisition Project is aimed at a 1.8 linear mile section of main channel spawningand rearing habitat as well as extensive wetlands, springs and spring fed channels, flood plainsand numerous (many more than are currently mapped) feeder streams that provide year-roundquality habitat for wild Coho, steelhead, cut-throat trout and an occasional Fall Chinook. Itincorporates 220 acres of forested wetlands, steep and unstable hillsides subject to heavyrainfall and run-off during the winter and spring with an average annual rainfall of 120inches/year. (Annual rainfall pattern and slope stability geomorphic features as documented byWRIA 20). The ponds and spring-fed side wall channels are not currently delineated byWDFW, DNR or USGSs maps. (Limiting Factors Data gap -WRIA 20).
This riparian area is a highly productive wildlife corridor that has a naturally reseeded multi-storied canopy of spruce, alder and hemlock with many old snags and sizeable stumps overgrown with rain forest type vegetation of moss and ferns. The valley floor resembles an old-growth type forest with open areas, grassland, and large diameter trees. Elk Creek meandersthrough this valley providing optimal salmonid habitat.
The main channel is in very good condition with large woody debris, refugia and buried logsproviding deep pools alternating with shallow gravel sections used extensively by wild Cohoand steelhead for spawning purposes. Where the channel braids, there are stands of varyingages of alder which provide leaf litter and shade and provide small pools that Coho utilizethroughout the summer. These pools are fed by underground water sources and the temperatureremains constant. Juvenile Coho thrive in these pools until fall water levels reconnect these
pools with the main channel.
PROBLEM STATEMENTII.
Timely protection for this productive salmon stream is being sought. A forest practice clear-cutharvest plan is currently underway with a proposed harvest occurring in Spring 2003. Ourconcern is the areas of Coho utilization have not been adequately documented and potential forharm to rearing and over-wintering habitat is likely. At a minimum, the multiple feederstreams, their branches, and the seeps and springs present in this riparian lowland need to bethoroughly inventoried so that proper protection under Fish and Forest Practice Rules can beapplied when a Forest Practice Application is submitted. Given the steep terrain of the valleywalls and confluence of side channel tributaries, potential harmful sedimentation to the mainchannel spawning gravel is likely during the heavy rainfalls experienced in this watershed.(Limiting Factors Analysis -Habitat -WRIA 20)
Important to understanding the problem of a clear-cut harvest in this productive salmon habitatarea is a clear visualization of the terrain. First, the proposed area of harvest is a narrow strip(1/4 mile wide x 1.25 miles long) section that borders both sides of Elk Creek and includes themany tributaries and wetlands as described above. Secondly, multiple confluent feeder streamsfrom the steep hillsides show evidence of past slides in their channels with the potential forfurther slide. A deep seated slide occurred sometime in the past on the southern ridge whichimpacted Elk Creek and moved its channel migration zone to the north.
Providing adequate buffers to these fish bearing streams, wetlands, correctly assessing thechannel migration zone, and preventing clear-cut on unstable slopes will require an intenselycomplex forest harvest plan. There are no passable roads going into or out of the valley andnew road building or helicopter logging would be required to access the timber on these verysteep hillsides. There is an abandoned road grade that has washed out or slid in several places.All of the original stringer bridges utilized in the 1930's harvest have washed out and are part ofthe large woody debris forming deep pools and refugia. Re-utilization of this stream borderingroad grade would require increasing its width, further road building through wetlands, multiplebridge crossings, multiple culverts and other potential fish impacting measures.
III. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objective of the Elk Creek Acquisition grant proposal is a direct conservation purchasefrom ITT Rayonier. ITT Rayonier has expressed interest in this conservation purchase and hasbeen helpful to the applicant in exploring funding options. This project proposes a directpurchase from Rayonier with a transfer of deed to WDFW for land management and long-termprotection of fish and wildlife habitat. This would remove the risks associated with acommercial timber harvest in this riparian corridor.
The Elk Creek Acquisition project directly addresses WRIA 20 limiting factors analysis for data
gaps including:1. "updating and mapping and typing of all streams and wetlands" (WDFW as contributing
partner will accomplish this)2. "more complete salmon and trout distribution" and "measurements that link fish
production to freshwater conditions" (This will be accomplished by The Wild SalmonCenter using their snorkel and habitat assessments research surveys.)
3. "Floodplain mapping is needed in all basins in WRIA 20," "Assessments are needed tomap the entire channel migration zone / 100 year foodplain throughout WRIA 20. Thiswill help enforce regulations to protect shoreline habitat" (WDFW -partner
contribution)
The Elk Creek Acquisition project also directly addresses limiting factorsRECOMMENDATIONS FOR SALMONID HABITAT RESTORATION ACTION IN WRIA20
12.
3
"Efforts to purchase intact floodplain habitat for conservation should be a high priority""Large wood within the floodplain should not be removed. Increase enforcement ofcurrent regulations is needed.""Maintain and conserve off-channel habitat and associated riparian. More protection isneeded for floodplain habitat""Riparian surrounding wetlands should be protected to insure ground water recharge"4
IV. PROJECT APPROACH
a) Elk Creek Acquisition Project targets a Class I, Tier I waterway in the QuillayuteRiver System and involves 1.8 miles of contiguous freshwater salmon spawning andrearing habitat as well as extensive (unmapped) wetlands, spring-fed side wallchannels and flood plains. It functions primarily as a very productive Cohospawning and rearing habitat as well as providing suitable habitat for steel head anda large number of cut-throat trout. Year-round habitat is provided by the extensiveand diversified wetland areas including large flood plains and side channel streams.
b) Individuals who have provided information and support for this project include:
Frank Geyer, TFW Biologist, Quileute Natural Resources
(multiple site visits, preliminary stream typing, redd counts supervisor,
matching funds)Bill Peach, Forest Manager, m Rayonier, Forks
(information, maps, assistance with understanding conservation acquisitions)
Katie Krueger, Environmental Attorney, Quileute Natural Resources
site visits and photographs, technical questions and information, letter of
support)John McMillian, Salmon Ecologist, Wild Salmon Center
(multiple site visits, data collection, technical information assistance)
Dave King, Fish Habitat Enhancement Biologist, WDFW
(supervisory support, site visits, matching funds partner)
Theresa Powell, Fish Habitat Biologist, North Coastal Field Statoin, WDFW
(site visits, technical information, assistance with maps)
Terra Hegy, Watershed Steward -WRIA 20, WDFW
(site visit, coordinator for technical data information, assistance with habitatresource information and coordination of matching funds)
Jennifer Nixon, NOPLE Salmon Recovery Coordinator
(Invaluable assi~;tance with helping applicant put forth this project proposal.Very helpful in coordinating and understanding the SRFB process. Site Visit)
Dan DaFoe, Area Habitat Biologist, WDFW
(information and resource assistance)
Pat Crane, Clallam County Biologist
(site visits, inforrnation and assistance with completing SRFB application)
Carl Chastain, Pacific Salmon Coalition, Forks
(site visit, information on salmon habitat, SRFB information, restoration
project considerations)
Dick Goin, Local Fisheries Expert
(multiple site visits, presentation at preproposal to NOPLE, habitatinformation, redd count information, SRFB application assistance, coordinatetechnical resource information)
Dave Parks, HydrologiSt/Geologist, DNR
(information regarding DNR review of Forest Practice Applications and WACrules pertaining to wetlands and unstable slopes)
Cathy Lear, C/a//am County Salmon Coordinator
(site visit, habitat information, matching funds information)
Charles Toal, Dept. of Ecology
(information regarding review of Forest Practice Applications)
Paul Kennard, Staff Scientist, Washington Forest Law Center
(information regarding WAC regulations)
Dave Warren, Pacific Forest Trust
(information regarding matching funds)
Rod Fleck, City Attorney and Mayor Nedra Reed, City of Forks
(letter of support- member of WRIA 20)
C/allam County Str,eam-Keepers
(monitoring assistance, donated labor and equipment for matching funds)
C) Elk Creek Acquisition Project plans to monitor long-term protection byits partners contributions.
1) Quileute Natural Resources, Quileute Tribe will continue their redd count surveysfor Coho and Steel head in Elk Creek as it is a significant Coho component of theCalawah River System in Ithe Quileute Usual and Accustomed Area.
2) The Wild Salmon Center will be performing professional fish and habitat surveywork by Salmon Ecologist, John McMillian and Field Biologist, James Starr. They willbe conducting ongoing fish surveys using snorkel diving techniques for both adult andjuvenile salmonids, as well as habitat characteristics surveys and monitoring usingcurrent, scientifically approved methods and protocols. These surveys will take placeduring several seasonal periods to provide a more complete description of the fish useover time. This work will occur in 2002 and 2003.
3) Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife personnel, Theresa Powell, Fish HabitatBiologist, North Coastal Field Station, will complete a thorough inventory of all off-channel habitat in the Elk creek system. This inventory will map and recordundocumented habitat, verify documented habitat, record fish observations and verifyand/or update current water type information
If the Elk Creek Acquisition Project is funded, land title will be transferred to WDFWfor long-term stewardship of this valuable fish and wildlife habitat.
4) Stream Keepers of Clallam County will set up four reach sites on Elk Creek forlong-term monitoring of water quality including macroinvertebrate collection and fecalcoliform counts. Data will be collected four times a year and entered into a data
management inventory system which can be accessed at the Clallam CountyCourthouse.
S) The Dickson Family will donate a conservation easement of their riparian areawhich borders 1000' of mainstem channel as well as a cash donation. It is at thisproperty site where suitable spawning gravel begins to appear in this tributary. It istheir commitment to protect this valuable resource and provide what assistance theyare able in accomplishing the goal of this worthy project.
Site access is easily gained at this property via an abandoned road grade that canbe utilized by all monitoring personnel.
D) Consequences of not conducting this project at this time include a high,almost certain risk of increased sedimentation of Elk Creek and its prime spawninghabitat. On the southern ridge that borders Elk Creek the convergent headwalls of thesteep channeled drainage~s fill with torrents of water at times of high winter rains. Atthe bottom of these drainages an alluvial pattern of debris and piles of alder arepresent. On the hillsides that border these drainages are steep, almost cliff-like bankswith mature stands of hemlock; some with pistol butted trunks. Removal of thesehemlock and their protective canopy could cause mass sheeting, erosion andpotentially even a land-slide that would directly impact Elk Creek. (Naturally occurringdeep seated slides have occurred in the past in this area).
WlRA 20 Limiting Factors Analysis has documented the slope failure of this sub-basindue to its geomorphic features making it "particularly susceptible to such erosion anddegradation." The heavy rain fall (120 inches / yr average) and the occasional rain onsnow occurrences at the ridge tops creates the potential for a cumulative impact ofrun-off from the multiple ,drainages that enter into Elk Creek in the acquisitionproperty .
The overall extensive complexity of the drainages, the large quantity of drainages, thefish presence in these drainages, and the documentation of unstable slopes make theprospect of a forest clear-cut in this area difficult to conceive. While Fish and ForestRegulations and WAC rules would apply to a harvest proposal in this region, concernover the ability of DNR to thoroughly assess and evaluate total impact in this complexwatershed and enforce th,e rules is of concern. WRIA 20 limiting factors address datagaps for this watershed in:cluding mapping of floodplains, updating stream typing, andinventorying and mapping wetlands. This project proposes to address these limitingfactors.
The Elk Creek Acquisition project proposes to acquire this property and therebyremove the risk of irreparable harm to this high quality, productive Coho spawning andrearing habitat by eliminating the potential for inadvertently missed seeps, drainages,
unstable slopes, springs and wall based side channels with fish presence that have notbeen adequately typed. Acquisition of this property would leave protected an areathat provides one-third of all redd counts for the entire Calawah Basin. It wouldprotect the best spawning habitat, the adjacent floodplains (prevent large tree removalin floodplains -WRIA 20 limiting factors), wetlands, and spring-fed side wall channelsthat provide optimal rearing and over-winter habitat for juvenile salmonids.
e.) PROJECT DESIGN ,AND IMPLEMENTATION
A formal timber cruise and land value determination is pending as per Bill Peach,Forest Manager for Rayonier.
A formal appraisal by an independent contractor will be necessary to determine finalvaluation of the acquisition property and is a requirement of the project sponsor (cashcontributor) as outlined in attached letters of support. Consideration of value of treesnot available for harvest in the riparian buffers, the floodplains and the unstable slopeswill be an important factor in determining the property value.
Other approaches and considerations that were given to achieve the project'sobjectives included contacting the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, NatureConservancy f Audubon Society" North Olympic Land Trust, and Pacific Forest Trust fordirect conservation purchase. DNR was contacted and information sent forconsideration in the state Heritage Program. lAC was contacted regarding possiblerecreational site designation and WDFW land management personnel were contactedregarding money available for direct land purchase.
Project Partners: (Please see attached letters of support outlining each partners
participation)The Wild Salmon Center (Applicant)
Quileute Natural Resources
Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Clallam County Stream-Keepers
Sol Duc Medical Clinic -Dr. and Mrs. Richard Dickson
V. TASKS AND TIME SCHEDULE
List and describe the major tasks and time schedule you will use to complete the
project.1) Ongoing connmunication with Bill Peach, Timber Manager for Rayonier
regarding tirnber cruise and land valuation.2) Continue communication with WDFW Land's Management Personnel,
Alice Beals, to coordinate land acquisition with WDFW. Region 6.3) If SRFB grant is awarded, contact John Halberg, Appraiser (360-928-
3341) for independent appraisal. Mr. Halberg works with Jim Vadnais,Timber Cruiser (360-457-9533).
4) Negotiate fair market value with Rayonier.
VI. CONSTRAINTS AND UNCERTAINnES
Constraints:Determining buffer requirements based on up-dated stream typing, mapping offloodplains and wall based channels, and determining location of steep and unstableslopes on maps will be important criteria upon which a formal appraisal can be based.
Uncertainties: How will timber value in these areas be determined and how will itaffect the purchase price'?
VII. STRATEGY
The North Olympic Peninsula is an exceptionally large and diverse region containingapproximately 215 miles of marine shoreline and 90 independent watersheds flowingdirectly into the Pacific Ocean or Straits of Juan de Fuca. The Quillayute Basin is oneof these watersheds and is rated as a -ner 1 because of its high productivity in regardsto salmon habitat and numbers of fish.
Elk Creek, a ller 1 stream, is very deserving of this ranking as its production of reddcounts and importance as a spawning sub-basin have been demonstrated by datacollected from 1996-2000 by WDFW and Quileute Personnel. (please see attachedgraph and data information gathered for Calawah Tributaries) .
The Elk Creek Acquisition project targets the most important spawning habitat in thissub-basin where the combination of the low gradient floodplain habitat, spring-fed wallbased channels and wetlands provide a full suite of spawning and rearing habitat forsalmonids. It is unlike the mouth of Elk Creek which is more confined and the upperreaches of Elk Creek whic:h are more incised. This project proposes to protect "thebest of the best" intact, functioning and productive salmon habitat in this basin. Itaddresses WRIA 20 limiting factors as outlined in the Project Objectives and addressesNOPLE strategy to "protec:t the best" and "main or strengthen the strong stocks".
Protecting the high quality habitat that exist in this acquisition project makes this astraight-forward and worthy project. Preventing the degradation of habitat, asoutlined in the consequence of not conducting this project at this time, makes itparticularly timely as we face overall loss of our salmon stocks.
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
SUMMARY 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
TITLE: Evaluating salmon habitat prioritization metrics: comparing existing data with
newly collected continuous sampling data.
AUTHORS: John McMillan, G. Pess, J. Starr, X.. Augerot, and D. Hockman-Wert
JOURNAL: North American Journal of Fish Management, American Fisheries Society
TOPIC: Prioritizing streams for conservation actions is a primary component of salmon
recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest. Most models prioritize streams based on
metrics characterizing habitat conditions thought to be important to salmonids (e.g., pool
frequency) and metrics quantifying salmonid abundance. While the intent is clear,
models rely heavily on existing data and assumptions about habitat conditions to
prioritize streams for species and life stages that lack information. These assumptions are
rarely validated, which has raised a high level of concern about the ability of existing data
to effectively prioritize habitat for data-poor salmonid species and life stages.
APPROACH: We conducted continuous snorkel and stream habitat surveys during the
summer, and in short reaches during the winter, to characterize stream conditions and
estimate the distribution and relative abundance of juvenile salmonids and coastal
cutthroat trout. Using existing adult redd count data and our newly collected data we
generated five different prioritization metrics, including habitat, adult, juvenile, and
cutthroat trout metrics. Streams were ranked according to the level of their respective
metric to generate different prioritization hierarchies, with the top two sites being
selected as conservation priority areas.
RESULTS: The habitat and adult metrics prioritized different main-stem river sections
than the summer juvenile salmonid metric, although they generally matched the coastal
cutthroat metric. In tributaries, the adult and juvenile salmonid metrics prioritized the
same streams, while the habitat and winter juvenile salmonid metrics did not equally
1
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
prioritize the same streams as the summer juvenile metric. In addition, we were able to
successfully identify ‘hotspots’ in salmonid abundance at the reach scale, something that
was impossible to do with spatially fragmented redd surveys.
IMPLICATIONS: Because of the complex prioritization patterns, each tributary and
main-stem river section was prioritized among the top two streams in at least one metric
hierarchy. These results underscore two important points. First, it can be difficult to
prioritize one place over another when multiple species and life stages are considered.
Thus, conservation actions based on prioritization are only likely to be effective if they
are meshed with efforts to maintain and restore watershed-scale processes. Second,
existing data and habitat assumptions were generally ineffective in prioritizing streams
for juvenile salmonids. This means it is imperative to clearly define conservation
objectives and to match them with an appropriate metric, which may require collecting
new data to fill information gaps. A reliance on mismatched metrics or poorly defined
goals may lead to prioritization efforts that unintentionally mislead decision-makers.
2
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
Evaluating salmon habitat prioritization metrics: comparing existing data with newly
collected continuous sampling data.
John McMillan1, George Pess2, James Starr1, Xan Augerot3, and Dave Hockman-Wert4
1425 SE Bridgeway Ave.
Corvallis, OR 97333
2Northwest Fisheries Science Center
2725 Montlake Blvd East
Seattle, WA 98112
3Pangaea Environmental, LLC
1615 SE Bethel Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
4Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center
3200 SW Jefferson Way
Corvallis, OR 97333
3
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
ABSTRACT 94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114 115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
We evaluated the ability of existing adult salmonid data and assumptions about habitat
conditions to prioritize streams for data-poor salmonid species (coastal cutthroat trout)
and life stages (juvenile coho, steelhead parr, age-0 trout). To estimate the distribution
and relative abundance of juvenile salmonids and coastal cutthroat we conducted
continuous snorkel and stream habitat surveys during the summer across the majority of
the Calawah River watershed, and in short reaches during the winter. We then ranked
tributaries and main-stem river sections according to five different metrics with the top
two in each category being selected as conservation priority areas. In main-stem rivers
the metrics reflecting assumptions about habitat and the metric based on existing adult
data did not match the streams prioritized by the summer juvenile salmonid metric,
although they did often match the coastal cutthroat trout metric. In tributaries, the adult
and summer juvenile salmonid metrics prioritized the same streams, while the habitat,
winter juvenile, and summer juvenile salmonid metrics did not equally prioritize the same
streams. In addition, the location of reach-scale hotspots varied between species
suggesting complementary habitat use by different salmonid species and life stages.
These results indicate that existing data and assumptions about habitat conditions may not
always effectively prioritize streams for data-poor species and life stages and that the
collection of new data maybe necessary to match conservation goals with an appropriate
metric.
4
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
INTRODUCTION 125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
Prioritizing streams for conservation actions is a key component of many salmon
recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest (Roni et al. 2002). The rationale is that certain
streams represent conservation priorities within a watershed because they support a high
level of salmonid abundance and diversity (Fausch et al. 2002; Rosenfeld and Hatfield
2006). Several prioritization models have been developed. They generally prioritize parts
of the stream network (e.g., tributaries, main-stem rivers) based on metrics characterizing
habitat conditions thought to be important to salmonids (e.g., pool frequency, channel
gradient) and metrics quantifying the distribution and abundance of salmonids (e.g.,
Lichatowich et al. 1995; Frissell et al. 2000; May and Peterson 2003). While the intent is
clear, the estimates of salmonid abundance and diversity used to prioritize streams are
often based on existing data. However, existing data is rarely available for all salmonid
species and life stages of concern. Consequently, explicit assumptions are often made
about relationships between habitat and salmonids. The assumptions are rarely validated,
so pressing concerns remain about the ability of existing data to effectively prioritize
habitat for data-poor salmonid species and life stages (Bisson et al. 2001).
Several factors may influence whether or not existing data can effectively prioritize
streams for different salmonid species and life stages. For example, adult redd count data
is collected annually to estimate adult escapements in many Pacific Northwest
watersheds, but similar data is rarely available for juveniles. Prioritizing streams for
juveniles based on available redd count data might not be effective because spawning
adults often rely on different habitat than rearing juveniles (Groot and Margolis 1991;
Quinn 2005). Second, favorable habitat conditions and organism abundance are not
always positively correlated (Van Horne 1983; Railsback et al. 2003), so assumptions
about relationships between habitat and salmon could me misleading. For instance, many
prioritization models rely heavily on assumed correlations between habitat characteristics
and salmonid abundance (e.g., pool habitat is positively correlated with juvenile coho
abundance), which may not be effective (Bisson et al. 2001). Lastly, data in many
watersheds is strongly focused on commercial species (e.g., coho, chinook, and steelhead
in the Pacific Northwest), which could mischaracterize the distribution and abundance of
5
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
species such as coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii). Any one factor or
a combination of factors could mislead decision-makers resulting in conservation efforts
that fall short of their intended goals.
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
One way to examine some of the potential limitations is to collect stream habitat and
juvenile salmonid data in a watershed where existing data is only available for spawning
adults. This can be accomplished by continuously sampling a stream network via
snorkeling and stream-walking during the summer months (Hankin and Reeves 1988;
Dolloff et al. 1993). The potential benefits of continuous sampling are two-fold. First, the
estimates of relative abundance obtained for the juveniles could be coupled with the
habitat data and the existing adult data to develop a variety of prioritization hierarchies to
test a series of hypothetical assumptions. Second, the continuous juvenile data also
provides an opportunity to try and refine the scale of resolution for conservation from a
large-scale geomorphic context (e.g., sub-basins, main-stem rivers) to a scale defined
more naturally by fish use (Fausch et al. 2002). For example, studies that have
continuously sampled salmonids were able to identify peaks in salmon abundance or
‘hotspots’ at scales ranging from 100’s to 1000’s of meters (Torgersen et al. 1999;
Gresswell et al. 2006; Torgersen et al. 2006). Successful identification of hotspots would
be valuable for site-scale conservation actions, such as easements and acquisitions, which
can be used to compliment broader watershed-scale strategies focused on restoring
processes (Lucchetti et al. 2005).
In this study we evaluate the ability of several habitat and salmonid metrics to prioritize
tributaries and main-stem river sections in the Calawah River basin, Washington State.
First, we analyzed existing adult redd count data to generate a metric estimating adult
redd abundance. We then continuously sampled stream habitat and salmonids across the
majority of stream kilometers accessible to salmonids to generate metrics reflecting
habitat conditions and the relative abundance and distribution of summer rearing juvenile
salmonids and coastal cutthroat trout. Finally, we conducted snorkel surveys of juvenile
salmonids and coastal cutthroat trout at the reach-scale during the winter to generate a
winter density metric. We combined our data with existing data to determine whether;
6
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
(1) adult redd count metrics and metrics reflecting assumptions about habitat features
prioritized the same areas as the summer juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout
metrics, (2) summer salmonid metrics prioritized the same places as winter salmonid
metrics, (3) hotspots in salmonid abundance were present, and (4) if present, did the
location of hotspots vary between species.
METHOD
Survey sites and existing data
The Calawah River basin (196 km2) is a tributary of the Bogachiel River, which is
located within the Quileute River basin on the west side of the Olympic Peninsula (Figure
1). We delineated the Calawah River stream network into four main-stem river sections
and four tributaries (Frissell et al. 1986) (Table 1). Main-stem river sections were
defined as streams with mean bankfull widths greater than 20 m. Tributaries were defined
as streams that drained discrete hydrological areas and had mean bankfull widths less
than 20 m. The North Fork Calawah River was unique because the stream naturally goes
dry during the summer from river km 13 to river km 25. The wetted stream sections at
either end are very different in size, so we classified the lower section classified as main-
stem river and an upper section as a tributary.
Existing data at the watershed-scale is limited to adult redd counts for commercially
important salmonids, including winter steelhead (O. mykiss), fall coho (O. kisutch), fall
and spring/summer chinook (O. tshawytscha). On the other hand, watershed-scale data
on the distribution and abundance of juvenile salmonids and coastal cutthroat trout (O.
clarkii clarkii) is almost completely lacking. This is an important data gap because
juvenile coho and steelhead (hereafter referred to as ‘juvenile salmonids’), and coastal
cutthroat trout rely heavily on freshwater streams for rearing (Quinn 2005). Knowledge
of their distribution is presumably critical to the conservation of each species. In contrast,
most juvenile chinook in the Calawah River migrate to the ocean during their first
summer. Consequently, our summer snorkel surveys were largely unable to account for
juvenile chinook.
7
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
Habitat and salmonid data 218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
Extent of surveys
We conducted continuous snorkel surveys and stream habitat surveys along
approximately 85% of the stream habitat accessible to salmonids during the summer of
2002 to estimate the relative abundance and distribution of juvenile salmonids and coastal
cutthroat trout (Figure 1). The surveys were repeated in the summer of 2003, but we were
unable to complete a survey of the main-stem Calawah because early fall freshets
reduced the water clarity to an unacceptable level. We did not survey relatively short
sections in uppermost Elk and Lost Creeks because they became too shallow to snorkel
(depth consistently less than 0.2 m; Table 1). The upper South Fork Calawah (above
river km 15.0) was not surveyed because it is permanently protected by Olympic National
Park, and our study was focused on prioritizing unprotected stream habitat.
In total we surveyed 57.1 km of stream that included 460 individual habitat units in the
main-stem river sections during the summer of 2002 compared to 38.4 km and 448
habitat units in 2003. In tributaries we surveyed 13.7 km of stream that included 401
individual habitat units in 2002 compared to 13.9 km and 429 habitat units in 2003. The
summer surveys took 28 days to complete and the two-man crew was able to cover 1 – 4
km of stream per day.
Adult salmonid abundance and distribution
We used existing adult redd counts from 1994-2003 (Unpublished Data, Quileute Indian
Tribe and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) to estimate the relative
abundance of spring/summer chinook, fall chinook, fall coho, and winter steelhead. Redd
counts for each species were conducted once every 10 days in index reaches during their
respective spawning seasons (Egan 1977). Some years did not allow the same survey
frequency because of inclement weather conditions. To reduce variation associated with
survey frequency we used data collected over a ten-year period
Habitat characteristics
8
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
Habitat data collection focused on estimating two metrics that have been found to be
positively correlated with the relative abundance of spawning and rearing salmonids,
including an estimate of pool habitat (Everest et al. 1985; Rosenfeld et al. 2000; Sharma
and Hilborn 2001) and an estimate of the pool-riffle and forced pool-riffle channel types
(Montgomery et al. 1999; Pess et al. 2002; Pess et al. 2003). We defined stream habitat
units as pools or non-pools and measured the wetted length and width at a single transect
in each unit (Hankin and Reeves 1988). Channel type was classified as pool/riffle, forced
pool/riffle, plane bed, cascade, or step-pool at distinct reach breaks according to
Montgomery and Buffington (1997). The metrics allow us to determine if habitat
characteristics are an effective surrogate for prioritize streams for juvenile salmonids.
Juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout abundance and distribution
We used snorkel surveys to estimate the relative abundance of juvenile salmonid and
coastal cutthroat trout during the summer months (Dolloff et al. 1993; Thurow 1994).
The same experienced diver and habitat recorder sampled all survey sites to reduce bias
associated with multiple divers (Hankin and Reeves 1988; Locke 1997). The diver
conducted a single pass in an upstream direction through the thalweg of each habitat unit.
An additional pass was made along each channel margin in the main-stem Calawah
(summing the fish counts) because some wetted channel widths were much wider (20 –
30 m wider) than in other streams. While multiple divers are often used in such large
streams (Thurow 1994), we used a single diver because the greatest wetted widths were
relatively infrequent and they occurred in broad shallow pools where juvenile fish were
tightly focused in small schools or they were absent. Salmonids were classified based on
size (estimated fork length) as juvenile coho, juvenile chinook, juvenile age-0 trout (trout
< 100 mm), juvenile steelhead parr (> 100 mm), and coastal cutthroat trout (> 100 mm).
We also conducted winter (February) snorkel surveys in 2003 and 2004 to capture
potential seasonal differences in relative salmonid densities between tributaries (Bustard
and Narver 1975; Cunjak 1996). The surveys were conducted at night (Roni and Fayram
2000) in shorter reaches (7 – 10 bankfull widths in length) because access was difficult.
9
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
Main-stem river sections were not surveyed in the winter because they were too large to
sample and visibility too poor to sight juvenile fish.
A potential bias in visual estimates of fish abundance is observer error, which is due to
variation from direct over- or under-counting of target species (Hankin and Reeves
1988). The relative level of count precision may vary in relation to fish abundance and
habitat type. To examine the relative precision of diver counts we conducted bounded
counts, or three successive but separate counts of the same habitat unit, in a subset of
pools and non-pools (Hankin 1984). To determine whether the relative variation in fish
counts varied between habitat types (pools and riffles) and increased with fish abundance
we compared the mean abundance to the coefficient of variation (C.V. %) for the
bounded counts. This allowed us to assess the amount of variation in our counts
associated with measurement error, versus the relative differences in fish abundance
between habitat units.
Stream prioritization
Metric evaluation
The goal of our evaluation was to determine if existing adult salmonid and habitat quality
and quantity metrics would prioritize the same streams as the juvenile salmonid and
coastal cutthroat trout metrics. To do this we combined the existing adult redd count data
with our summer (2002) and winter (2003 and 2004) field data to generate five different
metrics (Table 2). Use of 2003 summer data was precluded because data was not
collected in the main-stem Calawah. Each main-stem river section and tributary was
ranked according to their respective metrics under the assumption that streams supporting
a high level of a particular metric represent conservation priorities when compared to
streams supporting lesser levels of the same metric. Under this assumption the top two
main-stem river sections and tributaries, and their contributing watersheds, were
identified as salmon conservation priority areas and mapped in ArcGIS to allow for a
visual comparison of their locations throughout the watershed. To quantify the
comparisons we used the 2002 summer juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout
10
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
metric as a pseudo-control to estimate the relative proportion of the different species that
would be conserved using the adult and habitat metrics.
Juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout hotspots
We used a kernel density estimator in ArcGIS (Silverman 1986) to quantify spatial
variation in fish counts for all summer salmonid species except chinook, which were
rarely observed. The kernel density function estimated a smoothed distribution of the
relative abundance of fish by calculating the number of fish in a specified search radius
(i.e., bandwidth) around each habitat unit. ArcGIS used a quadratic, bounded kernel in
its calculations, which weighted fish more heavily the closer they are to the habitat unit
(de Smith et al. 2007). After the raster was generated, we classified the values using a
“natural breaks (Jenks)” algorithm that identified natural groupings inherent in the data
and created break points that minimized within-class variance and maximized between-
class variance (Jenks and Caspall 1971; de Smith et al. 2007). In our maps, variations in
relative salmonid abundance were described by a warm to cool color scale where red
represented high relative abundance (hotspot areas) and blue represented low relative
abundance. The maps allowed us to determine: 1) if the data revealed hotspots in
salmonid abundance, and 2) if those hotspots varied between species, suggesting either
overlap or segregation.
RESULTS
Habitat metrics
Main-stem rivers
We found minimal differences in the proportion of stream surface area consisting of pool
habitat and pool-riffle channel types among main-stem river sections in the summer of
2002 (Figure 3a and 3b). The highest levels of each metric were found in the main-stem
Calawah and lower N.F. Calawah Rivers. The Sitkum was notable because it did not
contain the pool-riffle channel type and was the only main-stem river to contain the
steeper cascade and step-pool channel types (7%).
Tributaries
11
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
Differences in the habitat metrics among tributaries were larger than the differences
among main-stem rivers (Figure 4a and 4b). For example, we found a relatively large
difference in the proportion of pool habitat between Hyas (54 %) and Lost Creeks (22 %).
A similarly large difference was found in the proportion of the pool-riffle channel types
between Elk (96 %) and Lost Creeks (74 %). Overall, Hyas and Elk Creek supported the
greatest proportion of pool habitat and the highest percent of the two pool-riffle channel
types. However, differences in the channel type metric between second-ranked Hyas
Creek and the third-ranked upper N.F. Calawah were minimal.
Salmonid metrics
Main-stem rivers
The main-stem Calawah and lower N.F. Calawah Rivers supported the greatest relative
abundance of redds from 1994 to 2003, and the Sitkum the least (Figure 3c). Redd
counts were dominated by winter steelhead at all sites, while the greatest relative
abundance of fall coho and fall chinook were counted in the lower N.F. Calawah.
In contrast to the adult metric, the Sitkum River and S.F. Calawah River contained the
greatest relative abundance of juvenile salmonids and coastal cutthroat trout in 2002
(Figure 3d). Juvenile coho were the dominant species at all sites except for the Sitkum
River, which was dominated by age-0 trout and steelhead parr. In fact, the Sitkum
contained 76% of all steelhead parr counted in main-stem river sections and 50% of all
parr counted during the entire summer survey of 2002 (Figure 3e). Coastal cutthroat
trout were most abundant in the main-stem Calawah and Sitkum River.
Annual variation in the relative abundance of juvenile salmonids and coastal cutthroat
trout was similar in the S.F. Calawah (difference of 1,532 fish from 2002 to 2003) and
Sitkum Rivers (difference of 1,459 fish) (Figure 3f). There was a larger annual
difference of 17,821 fish in the lower N.F. Calawah. The difference would have changed
the rankings from 2002 to 2003, although the Sitkum would still have been identified as
an SCPA both years.
12
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
Tributaries 370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
Elk Creek and the upper N.F. Calawah displayed the greatest relative abundance of adult
redds among tributaries (Figure 4c). However, there were only minimal differences
between Hyas, Lost, and upper N.F. Calawah. Coho were the dominant species at all
sites.
The upper N.F. Calawah and Elk Creek also supported the greatest relative abundance of
juvenile salmonids and coastal cutthroat trout during the summer of 2002, although the
differences between the Elk, Hyas, and Lost were negligible (Figure 4d).Juvenile coho
and age-0 trout were the dominant species at all sites. Unlike the main-stem river
sections, patterns in relative abundance were generally similar for each creek in 2002 and
2003 (Figure 4e).
In the winter of 2003 we counted 518 juvenile coho, 200 age-0 trout, 102 steelhead parr,
and 36 coastal cutthroat trout compared to 252 juvenile coho, 183 age-0 trout, 156
steelhead parr, and 87 coastal cutthroat trout in 2004. Lost Creek and the upper N.F.
Calawah had the highest mean density of juvenile salmonids (Figure 4f). Similar to
summer, juvenile coho and age-0 trout were the dominant species.
Bounded counts
We conducted bounded counts in 24 pools and 21 riffles (13 pools/12 riffles in
tributaries, 11 pools, 9 riffles in main-stem river sections during the summer of 2002.
The mean C.V. for all habitat units was 10% (range: 3 – 36%), including 10% for pools
(range: 3 – 36%) and 9% for riffles (range: 4 – 13%) (Figure 3). The relative variation
did not increase with fish abundance. In fact, variation between habitat units was 4 to 5
times greater than the variation between counts, suggesting a relatively consistent level of
precision associated with observer error.
Stream prioritization
Main-stem rivers
13
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
The four metrics prioritized two different combinations of main-stem river sections
(Table 3). Habitat quantity, habitat quality, and adult redd count metrics prioritized the
main-stem Calawah and the lower N.F. Calawah as conservation priority areas (Figures
6a and 6b). Conserving these areas would include 32% of the juvenile salmonids and
59% of the coastal cutthroat trout based on the summer 2002 estimates. In contrast, the
summer juvenile abundance metric prioritized the S.F. Calawah River and Sitkum River
(Figure 6c). These sites would conserve 68% of the relative juvenile salmonid and
coastal cutthroat trout abundance, including the majority of most individual species.
The hypothetical rankings highlight several relevant points. First, each of the main-stem
river sections was prioritized in the top two spots of the hierarchy by at least one metric.
Second, the habitat metrics were too similar to rationalize a choice of one river section
over another. Third, the proportion of coastal cutthroat trout being conserved was
relatively equal under all the different scenarios. Fourth, in contrast with coastal
cutthroat trout, the habitat and adult redd count metrics did not track well with the
summer juvenile salmonid metric. This is especially clear in the Sitkum River, which
was ranked last or near last under the habitat and adult scenarios, but was ranked highly
under the juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout scenario. The comparisons
indicate that habitat metrics and the adult metric effectively prioritized main-stem rivers
for coastal cutthroat trout during the summer, but not for the juvenile salmonids.
Tributaries
Five metrics prioritized three possible combinations of streams at the top of the different
hierarchies. The two habitat metrics prioritized Elk and Hyas Creek as conservation
priority areas (Figure 7a), which would conserve over 50% of the relative juvenile
salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout abundance in tributaries (Table 3). On the other
hand, the adult redd metric and the juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout metric
prioritized Elk Creek and the upper N.F. Calawah (Figures 6b and 6c). This would
conserve the greatest level of juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout abundance.
The winter juvenile salmonid density prioritized Lost Creek and the upper N.F Calawah,
14
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
which would conserve a similar level of fish as the adult and juvenile salmonid scenarios
(Figure 6d).
Similar to the main-stem river sections, each tributary was prioritized in the top two spots
of the hierarchy at least once during the hypothetical prioritization process. The adult
redd count metric and juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout metrics prioritized the
same places, while the habitat metrics prioritized Elk Creek but not the upper N.F.
Calawah. It is also interesting that the adult and juvenile salmonid (summer and winter)
metrics implied very different levels of relative use between Elk Creek and the upper
N.F. The results suggest the existing data effectively prioritized summer juvenile
salmonid and coastal cutthroat rearing habitat, while the habitat metrics were less
effective.
Juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout distribution and hotspots
We found several interesting distribution patterns. First, there was a high level of overlap
between species and all species were found up to the anadromous barriers in the upper
N.F. Calawah River, Hyas Creek, and Lost Creek. Second, juvenile coho, age-0 trout,
and steelhead parr were absent in much of the main-stem Calawah River where their
distribution was restricted to a few plane bed channel reaches with boulders and deeper
riffles (> 0.3 m deep). The Calawah channel type composition was otherwise dominated
by a pool-riffle morphology that included shallow riffles (< 0.3 deep) and long stagnant
pools (200 – 500 m in length) with low levels of cover. Juveniles were rarely observed in
those habitats. Third, the distribution of juvenile steelhead parr was focused in the upper
sections of the watershed compared to other species. For example, they were absent in
most of the lower N.F. Calawah River, a location with a high relative abundance of
steelhead and coho redds, juvenile coho, and age-0 trout. Lastly, coastal cutthroat trout
were distributed more broadly across the watershed than other species because they were
relatively abundant in the main-stem Calawah.
We were able to successfully identify hotspots, or peaks, in the relative abundance of
juvenile salmonids and coastal cutthroat trout at the reach scale. The number and
15
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
location of hotspots varied among species. For example, we identified four hotspots in
juvenile coho abundance, including the lower part of the lower and upper N.F. Calawah
River sites, lower Lost Creek, and the lower S.F. Calawah River a few kilometers above
its confluence with the N.F. Calawah River (Figure 7a). There were also four hotspots
for age-0 trout, including the lower N.F. Calawah River, two different locations in the
Sitkum River, and the lower part of the upper N.F. Calawah River (Figure 7b). In
comparison, the only distinct hotspot for juvenile steelhead was located in the upper part
of the Sitkum River (Figure 7c) and the only hotspot in coastal cutthroat trout abundance
was located in the lower main-stem Calawah River (Figure 7d). The variations in
hotspot locations imply that there is a level of segregation, or complementary habitat
utilization, where different species and life stages rely on slightly different parts of the
stream network during the summer.
DISCUSSION
Stream prioritization
We were interested in evaluating the ability of metrics based on assumptions about
habitat characteristics and existing adult data to prioritize tributaries and main-stem rivers
for juvenile salmonids and coastal cutthroat trout. The habitat and adult metrics
prioritized different main-stem river sections than the summer juvenile salmonid metric,
although they generally matched the coastal cutthroat metric. In tributaries, the adult and
juvenile salmonid metrics prioritized the same streams. However, the habitat and winter
juvenile salmonid metrics did not equally prioritize the same streams as the summer
juvenile metric. Inferences about these results should keep in mind that our data was
limited to a two-year period, which does not account for long-term trends in salmonid
abundance and habitat conditions. Watersheds are dynamic landscapes with changing
habitat conditions (Reeves et al. 1995) and annual variation in salmonid abundance and
distribution can be extensive (Groot and Margolis 1991; Quinn 2005). While we did
observe annual variation, it was only great enough to influence the hierarchical rankings
in one situation. Despite the constrained temporal scope, the results highlight several
limitations associated with using existing adult salmonid data and assumptions about
stream habitat characteristics to prioritize streams for juvenile salmonids.
16
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
We prioritized streams using two habitat metrics characterizing the proportion of pool
habitat and the proportion of pool-riffle channel types. Pools are important rearing
habitats for many juvenile salmonid species (Everest et al. 1985; Bisson et al. 1988;
Bjornn and Reiser 1991; Rosenfeld et al. 2000), and pools occur more frequently in pool-
riffle channel types (Montgomery and Buffington 1997). Previous studies have found
positive correlations between juvenile coho abundance and pool-riffle channel types at
the reach-scale (Pess et al. 2003) and pool habitat at the sub-basin scale (Nickelson et al.
1992a; Sharma and Hilborn 2001). Thus, we reasoned that our habitat metrics might
track well with the summer juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout metric. The
habitat metrics did not track well with the juveniles, but they did prioritize streams that
provided the greatest protection for coastal cutthroat. Consequently, we concluded that
our assumptions about pools and low-gradient channel types were ineffective for
prioritizing summer juvenile stream habitat.
The difference in habitat and juvenile prioritization hierarchies was most notable in the
Sitkum and upper N.F. Calawah Rivers. These sites were prioritized at a low level by
habitat metrics. However, they supported the greatest relative abundance of juvenile
salmonids in their respective stream categories, including the highest levels of age-0 trout
and steelhead parr. While coho tend to prefer pools and low-gradient stream reaches,
age-0 trout and steelhead parr also rely heavily on riffles, cascades, and plunge pools
where cover is provided by boulders and turbulence (Everest et al. 1985; Bisson et al.
1988; Smith et al. 2005). Riffles tend to predominate in plane bed channel morphologies
and cascades and plunge pools in cascade and step-pool channel types (Montgomery and
Buffington 1997). Such geomorphic features were most common in the Sitkum and
upper N.F. Calawah Rivers where age-0 trout and steelhead parr were most abundant.
Accordingly, we may have focused too strongly on pools and future approaches might
improve on our study by incorporating metrics reflecting habitat characteristics more
typically associated with use by age-0 trout and steelhead.
17
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
The adult metrics prioritized the same locations as the summer juvenile metric in
tributaries, but not in the main-stem river sections. This was expected to some degree
because juveniles may have different habitat requirements than adults (Bjornn and Reiser
1991; Groot and Margolis 1991; Quinn 2005). It is possible that the variation in relative
abundance between adults and juveniles in particular streams could be explained by
demographic processes (Angermeier and Schlosser 1995). For example, the relative
abundance of adult steelhead redds and juvenile trout and steelhead parr abundance
contrasted sharply within and between the main-stem Calawah and Sitkum River. One
hypothesis is that main-stem Calawah was a sink, while the Sitkum River was a source.
Age-0 trout and steelhead parr survival might be lower in the main-stem Calawah where
deep riffles, plunge pools, and boulder cover were scarce and higher in the Sitkum where
those habitat features were common. A patchy population model may also provide some
explanation. Juvenile salmonids can undertake extensive movements from their natal
habitat (Cederholm and Scarlett 1981; Peterson 1982; Kahler et al. 2001; Bramblett et al.
2002). Juveniles may simply have emigrated from areas where they were spawned. We
cannot determine if either model or a combination of both models contributed to the
patterns in distribution. Regardless, our results imply that existing redd count data should
be used with caution when prioritizing streams for different life stages.
Inferences about the utility of our winter juvenile salmonid metric are limited because the
sites were not randomly selected and because the reaches were relatively short in length.
Nonetheless, the differences in relative density were important because the metric
prioritized Lost Creek. In the hypothetical prioritization Lost Creek was ranked last or
next to last with all other prioritization metrics. Other studies have shown that juvenile
salmonids may rely on different habitat during the winter compared to summer (Bustard
and Narver 1975; Campbell and Neuner 1985; Cunjak 1996). Our results raise the
hypothesis that winter juvenile metrics may prioritize different areas than summer
juvenile metrics, which could be important if winter habitat is a limiting factor for
juvenile survival. .
Summer salmonid distribution and ‘hotspots’
18
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
We found that the relative abundance of juvenile coho was higher in tributaries during the
summer, while the relative abundance of age-0 trout, steelhead parr, and coastal cutthroat
trout was higher in main-stem river sections. The differences in distribution between
tributaries and main-stem rivers for coho and juvenile trout is largely consistent with
other studies (Bramblett et al. 2002; Pess et al. 2002). Less information is available on
the continuous distribution of juvenile coho, steelhead, and coastal cutthroat trout within
a watershed. Two other studies did continuously survey juvenile coho and steelhead in
sections of different streams in the South Umpqua River basin, Oregon. In one study
juvenile coho were rare in main-stem rivers and abundant in low-elevation tributaries,
whereas juvenile steelhead displayed their highest densities in the upper main-stem rivers
and tributaries (Scarnecchia and Roper 2005). These patterns generally match what we
found, although coho were locally abundant in some of our main-stem rivers. The other
study reported the highest density of steelhead parr in the middle reaches of the
watershed and the highest density of age-0 steelhead in the upper reaches (Roper et al.
1994). Our hotspots suggest just the opposite, with the lone steelhead parr hotspot
occurring in the upper watershed. Despite some differences, there is a common theme:
high levels of distribution overlap between species and spatial segregation of hotspots
suggest there is complementary habitat utilization by different species.
A major benefit of continuous sampling was our ability to successfully identify hotspots
so that conservation stakeholders could potentially refine the resolution of prioritization
from the scale of main-stem river sections and sub-basins to the reach scale (100’s –
1000’s m). This scale could be useful in guiding conservation activities focused on
protecting hotspots, such as land acquisitions and conservation easements. The use of
acquisitions and easements in salmon recovery efforts has grown considerably in recent
years and permanent protection of salmon hotspots may be important (Lucchetti et al.
2005). However, juvenile summer rearing hotspots existed at the reach scale and
represented only a small fraction of the stream network. Such patches will only persist if
the hydrologic and geomorphic processes that generate those features are maintained
within the context of a broader watershed-scale recovery plan (Reeves et al. 1995;
Beechie and Bolton 1999).
19
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
Implications
Stakeholders in salmon recovery efforts are challenged with the task of effectively
prioritizing streams for conservation actions ranging from instream restoration to land
acquisitions (Roni et al. 2002). To prioritize streams scientists and stakeholders often
rely on existing data and assumptions about relationships between salmonids and habitat
(Bisson et al. 2001). We found that existing adult data and our habitat metrics, which
reflected assumptions about salmonid use, did not always effectively prioritize streams
for the juvenile life stage in the Calawah River basin. In addition, there was seasonal
variation in the prioritization of juvenile salmonid streams and at least one hotspot in
juvenile salmonid abundance was documented in each stream. Because of the complex
prioritization patterns, each tributary and main-stem river section was prioritized among
the top two streams in at least one metric hierarchy. These results underscore two
important points. First, it can be difficult to prioritize one place over another when
multiple species and life stages are considered. Thus, conservation actions based on
prioritization are only likely to be effective if they are meshed with efforts to maintain
and restore watershed-scale processes (Beechie and Bolton 1999). Second, existing data
and assumptions about habitat conditions may not necessarily be effective for other life
stages and species. This means it is imperative to clearly define conservation objectives
and to match them with an appropriate metric at the watershed-scale, even if that requires
collecting new data to fill information gaps. A reliance on mismatched metrics or poorly
defined goals may lead to prioritization efforts that unintentionally mislead decision-
makers.
20
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
REFERENCES 615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
Beechie, T., and S. Bolton. 1999. An approach to restoring salmonid habitat-forming
processes in Pacific Northwest watersheds. Fisheries 24 (4), 6-15.
Bisson, P.A., K. Sullivan, and J.L. Nielsen. 1988. Channel hydraulics, habitat use, and
body form of juvenile coho salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout in streams.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117: 262-273.
Bisson, P.A., C.C. Coutant, D. Goodman, R. Gramling, D. Lettenmaier, J. Lichatowich,
E. Loudenslager, W. Liss, L. McDonald, D. Philipp, and B. Riddell. 2001. Model
synthesis report: an analysis of decision support tools used in Columbia River basin
salmon management. Independent Scientific Advisory Board: report 2001 – 1a.
Bjornn, T.C., and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams.
Pages 83-138 in W.R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland
management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special Publication 19.
American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland.
Bramblett, R. G., M. D. Bryant, B. E. Wright, and R.G. White. 2002. Seasonal use of
small tributary and main-stem habitats by juvenile steelhead, coho salmon, and
Dolly Varden in a southeastern Alaska drainage basin. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 131:498–506.
Bustard, D.R., and D.W. Narver. 1975. Aspects of winter ecology of juvenile coho
salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead trout (Salmon gairdneri). Journal of
Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32:667-680.
Cederholm, C. J., and W. J. Scarlett. 1981. Seasonal immigrations of juvenile salmonids
into four small tributaries of the Clearwater River, Washington. Pages 98-110 in E.
L. Brannon and E. O. Salo, (eds.) Proceedings of the first international symposium
21
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
for salmon and trout migratory behavior. University of Washington, School of
Fisheries, Seattle.
Cunjak. R.A. 1996. Winter impacts of selected stream fishes and potential impacts from
land-use activity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53:267-282.
de Smith, M.J., M.F. Goodchild, and P.A. Longley. 2007. Geospatial Analysis: A
comprehensive guide to principles, techniques and software tools. 2nd ed. Troubador
Publishing Ltd, Leicester, United Kingdom: 514 pp.
Dolloff, C. A., D. G. Hankin, and G. H. Reeves. 1993. Basinwide estimation of habitat
and fish populations in streams. U.S. Forest Service, Southeastern Forest
Experiment Station, General Technical Report SE-GTR-83, Asheville, North
Carolina.
Egan, R. 1977. Salmon spawning ground data report, State of Washington Department of
Fisheries progress report. 17:1-346.
Everest, R.H., N.B. Armantrout, S.M. Keller, W.D. Parante, J.R. Sedell., T.E. Nickleson,
J.M. Johnston, and G.N. Haugen. 1985. Salmonids. Pages 199-230 in E. R.
Brown, editor. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western
Oregon and Washington. Publication R6-F&WL-192-1985. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.
Fausch, K.D., Torgersen, C.E., Baxter, C.V., and Li, H.W. 2002. Landscapes to
riverscapes: bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes.
Bioscience 52: 483-496.
Frissell, C. A., W. J. Liss, C. E. Warren, and M. D. Hurley.1986. A hierarchical
framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a catchment
context. Environmental Management 10:199–214.
22
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
Frissell, C. A. 1993. A new strategy for watershed restoration and recovery of pacific
salmon on the Pacific Northwest. Report prepared for The Pacific Rivers Council,
Eugene, Oregon.
Frissell, C. A., P. H. Morrison, S. B. Adams, L. H. Swope, and N. P. Hitt. 2000.
Identifying priority areas for salmon conservation in the Puget Sound Basin. Pacific
Biodiversity Institute Open File Report Number 2000-1.
Gresswell, R.E., C.E. Torgersen, D.S. Bateman, T.J. Guy, S.R. Hendricks, and J.E.B.
Wofford. 2006. A spatially explicit approach for evaluating relationships among
coastal cutthroat trout, habitat, and disturbance in small Oregon streams. American
Fisheries Society Symposium 48: 457 – 471.
Groot, C., and L. Margolis. 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada: 564 pp.
Hankin, D.G., and G.H. Reeves. 1988. Estimating total fish abundance and total habitat
area in small streams based on visual estimation methods. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45: 834-844.
Hankin, D.G. 1984. Multistage sampling designs in fisheries research: applications in
small streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:1575-1591.
Jenks G.F., and F.C. Caspall. 1971. Error on choroplethic maps: Definition,
measurement, reduction. Annals of American Geographers 61: 217-44.
Kahler, T.H., P. Roni, and T.P. Quinn. 2001. Summer movement and growth of juvenile
anadromous salmonids in small western Washington streams. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 1947-1956.
23
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
Lichatowich, J.A., L. Mobrand, L. Lestelle, and T. Vogel. 1995. An approach to the
diagnosis and treatment of depleted Pacific salmon populations in Pacific
Northwest watersheds. Fisheries 20(1):10-18.
Locke A. (1997) Precision of diving and canoe-based visual estimates of Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar) abundance. Fisheries Research 29: 283–287.
Luchetti, G., K.O. Richter, and R.E. Schaefer. 2005. Monitoring of acquisitions and
conservation easements. Pp278 – 311 in Roni, P. (ed.). Monitoring Stream and
Watershed Restoration. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, MD.
May, C., and G. Peterson. 2003. Landscape assessment and conservation prioritization
of freshwater and nearshore salmonid habitat in Kitsap County: Kitsap salmonid
refugia report. Kitsap county, WA.
Montgomery, D.R., E.M. Beamer, G.R. Pess, G.R., and T.P. Quinn. 1999. Channel type
and salmonid spawning distribution and abundance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 56: 377-387.
Montgomery, D.R., and J.M. Buffington. 1997. Channel-reach morphology in mountain
drainage basins. GSA Bulletin, V.109, no. 5: p.596-611. Department of Geological
Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Nickelson, T., J. Rodgers, M.F. Solazzi, and S. Johnson. 1992a. Seasonal changes in
habitat use by juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon coastal
streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 783 – 789.
Pess, G.R., D.R. Montgomery, A.E. Steel, R.E. Bilby, B.E. Feist, and H.M. Greenburg.
2002. Landscape characteristic, land use, and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
abundance, Snohomish River, Wash., U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 59: 613 – 623.
24
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
Pess, G. R., T. J. Beechie, J. E. Williams, D. R. Whithall, J. I. Lange, and J. R. Klochak.
2003. Watershed assessment techniques and the success of aquatic restoration
activities. Pp 185-201 in R. C. Wissmar and P. A. Bisson, (eds.). Strategies for
restoring river ecosystems: sources of variability and uncertainty in natural and
managed systems. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland.
Peterson, N. P. 1982. Immigration of juvenile coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch into
riverine ponds. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39:1308-1310.
Quinn, TP. 2005. The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. University of
Washington Press, Seattle.
Railsback, S.F., H.B. Stauffer, and B.C. Harvey. 2003. What can habitat preference
models tell us? Tests using a virtual trout population. Ecological Applications
13(6): 1580 – 1594.
Redd counts from 1994-2003 (Unpublished Data, Quileute Indian Tribe and Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Reeves, G.H., L.E. Benda, K.M. Burnett, P.A. Bisson, and J.R. Sedell. 1995. A
disturbance-based approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of
evolutionary significant units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest.
American Fisheries Society Symposium 17: 334 – 349.
Roni, P., T. J. Beechie, R. E. Bilby, F. E. Leonetti, M. M. Pollock, and G. R. Pess. 2002.
A Review of Stream Restoration Techniques and a Hierarchical Strategy for
Prioritizing Restoration in Pacific Northwest Watersheds. North American Journal
of Fisheries Management 22:1–20.
25
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
Roni, P., and A. Fayram. 2000. Estimating Winter Salmonid Abundance in Small
Western Washington Streams: A Comparison of Three Techniques. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:683-692.
Roper, B.B., D.L. Scarnecchia, and T.J. La Marr. 1994. Summer distribution of and
habitat use by chinook salmon and steel head within a major basin of the South
Umpqua River, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123: 298 –
308.
Rosenfeld, J. S,, and T. Hatfield. 2006. Information needs for assessing critical habitat
of freshwater fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:683-698
Rosenfeld, J., M. Porter, and E. Parkinson. 2000. Habitat factors affecting the abundance
and distribution of juvenile cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) and coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
57:766774.
Scarnecchia, D.L., and B.B. Roper. 2000. Large-scale, differential summer habitat use
of three anadromous salmonids in a large river basin in Oregon, U.S.A. Fisheries
Management Ecology 7: 197 – 209.
Schlosser, I.J., and P.L. Angermeier. 1995. Spatial variation in demographic processes of
lotic fishes: conceptual models, empirical evidence, and implications for
conservation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:392-401.
Sharma, R., and R. Hilborn. 2001. Empirical relationships between watershed
characteristics and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) smolt abundance in 14
western Washington streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
58: 1453-1463.
26
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
Silverman, B. W. 1986. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Chapman and
Hall, New York.
Smith, D.L., and E.L. Brannon. 2005. Response of juvenile rainbow trout to turbulence
produced by prismatoidal shapes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
134: 741 – 753.
Thurow, R.F. 1994. Underwater Methods for Study of Salmonids in the Intermountain
West. United States Forest Service. General Technical Report INT-GTR-307.
Torgersen, C. E., C. V. Baxter, H. W. Li, and B. A. McIntosh. 2006. Landscape
influences on longitudinal patterns of river fishes: spatially continuous analysis of
fish–habitat relationships. Pp 473–492 in R. M. Hughes, L. Wang, and P.W.
Seelbach, (eds.). Landscape influences on stream habitats and biological
assemblages.American Fisheries Society, Symposium 48, Bethesda, Maryland.
Van Horne, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. Journal of
Wildlife Management 47(4): 893 – 901.
27
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
TABLES 830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
Table 1. Description of main-stem river survey sites and tributary streams, including total
length of stream (km) accessible to anadromous salmonids, total stream length surveyed
during the 2002 summer, drainage area (km2), mean gradient (%) with range, mean
bankfull width (BFW) with range, and mean bankfull depth (BFD) with range. NA- not
applicable because drainage area is part of a larger discrete basin.
Stream Length (km)
Drainage Area (km2)
Gradient (%)
Mean BFW (m)
Mean BFD (m)
Stream Survey
Main-stem rivers
Calawah 18.3 18.3 NA 1.6 (1.2 – 4.2)
54.5 (29.0 – 95.0)
2.5 (1.2 – 5.4)
S.F. Calawah 24.8 9.9 120 1.5 (1.1 –
1.9) 40.9 (19.5 -
69.4) 2.4 (1.3 –
4.8)
Lower N.F. Calawah
13.0 13.0 NA 1.3 (0.7 – 2.1)
27.6 (14.1 – 55.1)
1.6 (0.6 – 5.2)
Sitkum 15.9 15.9 68 1.8 (0.3 – 15.0)
21.8 (9.2 – 53.2)
2.2 (0.6 – 6.7)
Tributaries
Elk Creek 6.4 4.9 14.5 1.3 (0.6 – 6.0)
14.2 (6.7 – 21.2)
1.5 (0.9 – 2.8)
Hyas Creek 3.0 3.0 20.1 1.8 (1.0 –
11.0) 14.1 (6.8 -
23.4) 2.3 (0.5 –
8.2)
Lost Creek 3.5 2.9 14.5 2.8 (0.7 – 14.5)
13.5 (8.2 – 28.5)
1.3 (0.6 – 3.2)
Upper N.F. Calawah 2.9 2.9 NA 1.9 (0.8 –
6.5) 19.2 (11.9 –
51.3) 1.6 (0.9 –
2.8)
28
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
838 Table 2. Description of habitat and salmonid metrics used to prioritize critical habitat.
Metric Description
Habitat Quality The total proportion (%) of the wetted surface area (m2) of stream during summer months consisting of pool habitat.
Habitat Quantity The total proportion (%) of the stream surface area (m2) during summer consisting of pool-riffle and forced pool-riffle channel types.
Relative adult redd abundance Sum of estimated redd abundance for spring/summer chinook, fall chinook, coho, and winter steelhead from 1994 – 2003.
Relative summer juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout abundance
Cumulative relative abundance of salmonids (juvenile coho, juvenile unidentifiable age-0 trout, juvenile steelhead, and coastal cutthroat) for each survey site during 2002 summer.
Mean winter salmonid density Annual mean winter density of salmonids (m2, same species as above) for each survey site for 2003 and 2004.
839
840
29
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
Table 3. The proportion of the relative summer juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat
trout abundance that would be conserved using the habitat quantity (HQT), habitat
quality (HQL), relative adult redd abundance (AD), summer relative juvenile salmonid
and coastal cutthroat trout abundance (SJ), and the winter juvenile salmonid density (WJ)
metrics in main-stem river sections and tributaries in the Calawah River Basin (based on
2002 summer juvenile data). WJ metric only available for tributaries. Grey highlighted
cells indicate metrics that would conserve the greatest proportion of salmonids.
Sites Type Coho 0-age Trout Chinook Stlhd. Cutthrt. Total
Mainstem river sections
Calawah & Lower N.F. Calawah
HQT, HQL, AD
39% 27% 1% 4% 59% 32%
S.F. Calawah and Sitkum
SJ 0.61 0.73 0.99 0.96 0.41 0.68
Tributaries
Elk & Hyas HQT, HQL 45% 43% 100% 53% 60% 45%
Elk & Upper N.F. Calawah
AD, SJ 56% 56% 100% 68% 54% 56%
Upper N.F. Calawah & Lost
WJ 55% 61% 0% 46% 41% 55%
849
850
851
30
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
FIGURES 852
853
854
855
Figure 1. Map of the Calawah River Basin, Washington State, including the stream
lengths surveyed during the summer months.
856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872
31
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
873
874
875
Figure 2. The coefficient of variation (C.V. %) v. the number of fish for bounded counts
conducted during summer and winter of 2002/2003. Black filled diamonds denote pools
and hollow rectangles denote non-pools.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 50 100 150 200 250Maximum number of fish during a count
C.V
. (%
)
876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894
32
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
Figure 3. (a) The proportion of the stream surface (m2) area existing in (b) pool habitat
and (b) each channel type, (c) adult salmonid redd abundance from 1994 – 2003, (d) 2002
and (e) 2003 summer juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout abundance, and (f)
2002 juvenile steelhead parr abundance in each main-stem river section. In (b) black
denotes pool riffle, grey denotes forced pool riffle, white denotes plane-bed, slashed
denotes cascade, and stippled denotes step-pool. In (c) black denotes fall coho, slashed
denotes fall chinook, white denotes s/s chinook, and grey denotes winter steelhead. In (d)
and (e), black denotes coho, white denotes trout, grey denotes steelhead parr/rainbow
trout, hollow rectangles denote cutthroat, and stippled denotes chinook.
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904 a.
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
Calawah S.F. Calawah L. N.F. Calawah Sitkum
Prop
ortio
n (%
) of s
urfa
ce a
rea
905 906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
33
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
914 b.
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Calawah S.F. Calawah L. N.F. Calawah Sitkum
Prop
ortio
n (%
) of s
urfa
ce a
rea
915 916 c.
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
Calawah S.F. Calawah L. N.F. Calawah Sitkum
Num
ber o
f red
ds
917 918
919
920
34
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
921 d.
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Calawah S.F. Calawah L. N.F. Calawah Sitkum
Num
ber o
f juv
enile
s
922 923 e.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Calawah S.F. Calawah L. N.F. Calawah Sitkum
Num
ber o
f juv
enile
s
924 925
926
927
35
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
928 f.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Calawah S.F. Calawah L. N.F. Calawah Sitkum
Num
ber o
f juv
enile
s
929 930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
36
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
Figure 4. (a) The proportion of the stream surface (m2) area existing in (a) pool habitat
and (b) each channel type (m2), (c) adult salmonid redd abundance from 1994 – 2003, (d)
2002 and (e) 2003 summer juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout abundance, and
(f) mean winter juvenile salmonid density (m2) with standard error bar in each tributary.
In (b) black denotes pool riffle, grey denotes forced pool riffle, white denotes plane-bed,
slashed denotes cascade, and stippled denotes step-pool. In (c) black denotes fall coho,
slashed denotes fall chinook, white denotes s/s chinook, and grey denotes winter
steelhead. In (d) and (e), black denotes coho, white denotes trout, grey denotes steelhead
parr/rainbow trout, hollow rectangles denote cutthroat, and stippled denotes chinook.
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955 a.
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
Elk Ck. Hyas Ck. Lost Ck. U. N.F.Calawah
Prop
ortio
n (%
) of s
urfa
ce a
rea .
956 957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
37
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
965 b.
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Elk Ck. Hyas Ck. Lost Ck. U. N.F.Calawah
Prop
ortio
n (%
) of s
urfa
ce a
rea .
966 967 c.
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
Elk Creek Hyas Creek Lost Creek U. N.F. Calawah
Num
ber o
f red
ds
968 969
970
38
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
971 d.
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
Elk Creek Hyas Creek Lost Creek U. N.F. Calawah
Num
ber o
f juv
enile
s
972 973 e.
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
Elk Creek Hyas Creek Lost Creek U. N.F. Calawah
Num
ber o
f juv
enile
s
974 975
976
977
978
39
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
979 f.
Elk Ck. Hyas Ck. Lost Ck. U. N.F. Calawah0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
980 981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
40
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
994
995
996
997
Figure 5. Spatial distribution and hotspots for (a.) juvenile coho, (b.) 0-age trout, (c.)
steelhead parr, and (d.) coastal cutthroat for the summer of 2002. The relative abundance
of trout was estimated using a kernel density function.
a.
998 999 b.
1000 1001
41
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
1002 c.
1003 1004 d.
1005 1006
1007
1008
1009
42
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
Figure 6. Location of top two salmon SCPA’s for main-stem river section and tributary
habitat areas identified by using hypothetical prioritization scenarios, including (a) the
habitat quality and quantity metric, (b) the adult redd abundance metric, (c) the summer
juvenile and coastal cutthroat metric, and (d) the winter juvenile density metric.
a.
1015 1016 b.
1017 1018
1019
43
Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT
44
1020 c.
1021 1022
1023
d.
1024